By Jim Schutze
By Rachel Watts
By Lauren Drewes Daniels
By Anna Merlan
By Lee Escobedo
By Eric Nicholson
In response to Jim Schutze's column "Sexy Town," I have to say that he may have spent copious time trying to phrase his thoughts in "sexy" prose, but the thrust is accurate: Without the place to "decompress" [in] an urban area, there is no real draw to live in such an environment. My vocation has required me to travel for the last 10 years, and if I have observed anything, it is that quality of life is largely determined by the presence of trees, grass and undeveloped swaths of parkland. Whether or not people accept or embrace the reality that gainful employment requires close proximity to urban environments, we are predisposed to desire a sky above our heads and nature close at hand.
Unfortunately, there are those who are more than happy to provide an abundance of concrete bunkers for us to eke out our bleak existences in, that they may fund their not-too-distant perpetual summer vacations with Dallas City Council bucks regardless of the lasting impact to this place we call home. It is time to refuse this "sub-prime" interpretation of the future, one perpetually foisted on the endangered middle class of Dallas. Rise up, and send the carpetbaggers packing. Besides, if they were self-respecting "carpetbaggers," wouldn't they eventually leave?
Matt McShane, Dallas
Jim is absolutely right on almost all points in "Sexy Town." An open creek would not only look great in East Dallas, but it would actually be cool—as in lowering the area temperature.
The density in Oak Lawn is overwhelming to me, even though I lived near The Mansion for almost 30 years. There are only so many $500-a-month millionaires to frequent all those high-dollar shops and eateries.
As I mature (age), I'm less interested in style versus convenience. Give me a store I can drive up to and load my stuff. That's what I want.
And I totally agree with his description of '50s crap! I'm sick of this "mid-century architecture" baloney. The stuff built in the '50s was just plain ugly. My house was built in 1957. It was built well, and I love it, but it's not architecturally significant.
So, Jim is back on track and thinking clear.
Sharon Boyd, Dallas
God Votes "No"
I can appreciate what Pastor [Freddy] Haynes is trying to do in the community. It's apparent that any time a black person gains prominence, their right to speak the truth tends to dwindle. The fact is, white people have grown tired of hearing about how terribly they've treated black people over the years. If we as blacks still weren't receiving forms of that same treatment, it would be less difficult to move on. There is no way I'll forget about it. That would be the biggest slap in the face to my parents and grandparents and all my ancestors who fought for me to have a fair chance to succeed.
My problem with Pastor Haynes and a lot of other preachers is that they seem to have their own brands of doctrine. The Bible is God's word, PERIOD!! Sure, there are differences in terminology with a black church, but God's word is true. All of these different doctrines—prosperity, health and wealth, black empowerment—there is no Scripture to support [them]. Black people would have a fit if we found out a predominantly white church was preaching white empowerment. They very well may be preaching it, but they won't call it that. The black church is calling it black empowerment.
I feel it was God's will for Haynes not to be the national president of the NAACP. He says he wouldn't have left his church, but his church would've suffered had he taken on the enormous task of being NAACP president. He would have compromised his calling because of the politics involved with that position. I admire Pastor Haynes' courage to say what needs to be said as it pertains to race. Someone with a visible platform has to do it. If people like Haynes and Jeremiah Wright don't call a duck a duck, then we as black people are poised to have a repeat performance of the 1940s and '50s.