Lauren Drewes Daniels
Audio By Carbonatix
It was after a lawsuit and two attempts at breaking the City Council’s quorum on Wednesday evening that council member Adam Bazaldua finally conceded, “I know I’m going to take an L today.”
Bazaldua, one of six council members staunchly opposed to plans to move Dallas’ municipal government out of the I.M. Pei-designed building on Marilla Street, had tried everything in the lead-up to Wednesday evening’s vote. The item that passed despite his efforts rejects a proposal to fund repairs to the facility, which needs a billion-dollar facelift.
Three members of the coalition, Bazaldua, Paula Blackmon and Cara Mendelsohn, filed a lawsuit on Monday alleging that city leaders hadn’t been properly transparent with the public regarding the matter. Mendelsohn ultimately removed her name from the petition, but a judge ruled in the council members’ favor and blocked the matter from being discussed or voted on at the horseshoe.
During Wednesday’s meeting, quorum, the number of council members required to run affairs, was at times tenuous, and the group took advantage by fleeing the chamber to force a pause on proceedings. When it became apparent that nothing would stop the vote from going through, the minority pleaded with the horseshoe to pass amendments on amendments, none of which were ultimately successful.
“I think it’s pretty clear where there are nine in support of what is going to be done,” Bazaldua said after offering an amendment that would require the city manager to brief the council on the environmental impacts should City Hall be demolished. “[More information] is all that I’m asking for.”
Wednesday’s special-called meeting agenda was intended to be two-fold: in one vote, council members would discuss plans to repair the building and decide yay or nay. In the next agenda item, they’d direct the city manager to pursue the real estate deals needed to move. While a judge blocked the vote on the latter half of that decision, the council members who likely would have voted in favor of redevelopment (and who did vote against the repairs) found a workaround.
The group moved to direct the city manager to explore options for the sale of City Hall and costs associated with leasing or purchasing a new space, and to bring those options back to the council by Aug. 26, citing a March resolution passed on this matter as the basis for the motion. (City attorneys seemed to think this workaround is above board, but we’ll soon see if it pisses off the Dallas County judge whose rug got yanked.)
“[The motion] is intended to do what many speakers … have asked for, which is to get us a full picture of the numbers, including the leasing options,” said Council member Chad West, who introduced the plan. He added that directing the city manager to further pursue redevelopment will be the only way to “have a true side-by-side comparison” of the costs of staying versus leaving the building.
For those who have been keeping up with this process, it is clear that last night’s meeting was a die cast against the building. But it was also one of the first times we’ve been able to see exactly where each official stands on the matter. While it has always appeared to be a nine-to-six split, City Council can be like “Survivor”: you can talk about alliance loyalty until you’re blue in the face, but until the votes are cast, lines drawn in the sand can easily be washed away.
Wednesday showed that, as it stands, the “Save City Hall” group of Council members could hope to pick up at most one more vote. On two occasions, Jaime Resendez broke ranks and voted alongside the staunch six in favor of amendments that would require environmental impact surveys. When the possibility of those studies failed, he returned to the majority vote.
Some Council members stated that the numbers briefed during Wednesday’s repair plan were total nonstarters. In one proposal, voters would be asked to approve $770 million in debt for the project; in the non-bond issuance plan, four out of every 10 non-uniformed city positions would have to be eliminated, while all departments would face a 20% funding reduction to scrounge up the money.
But other council members continued what has become a common refrain in this issue: they didn’t believe the numbers. Council member Paul Ridley criticized the plan for “exaggerating” costs by introducing “replacements, not repairs.”
“My first six years on council, this wasn’t briefed, not even once, and suddenly it’s a crisis,” said Cara Mendelsohn. “Mayor, respectfully, the people up the tollway don’t have knives out for us. They’re laughing at us.”
