Brawl Breaks out at Police Station Over Hookah

At the end of a five hour meeting held at the Richardson Police Department, the Richardson City Council voted 6-1 to approve a special use permit for smoking for the "Another Time & Place" restaurant. I applaud the City Council for where they ended up in the vote, but how the Council got to "yes" was embarrassing. The pre-bout betting line was anything but a sure thing. In the end, the lopsided vote belied the jabs and uppercuts that preceded it during the Council deliberations on the matter. Brawl is an overstatement in comparison with, say, a Dallas City Council meeting, but it was a dustup by Richardson standards, where Council Members usually show deference to one another and votes are often unanimous.

---

I won't quote from the applicant, but he sounded pissed. He went on a rant against the City for giving him reason to buy property in Richardson and apply for a permit to open a smoking establishment, only to be turned down in June by an unreasonable and inequitable City Council. I presumed he anticipated a "no" vote again and wanted to get his own licks in while he had a chance. Regardless, I wouldn't have recommended his tactics, as I thought they were more likely to cost him support rather than gain it. But he ended up getting his approval, so what do I know? Who would have guessed?

Let's dispose of the process questions first. This was the third vote the Council took for the same restaurant (after two votes by the City Plan Commission, which approved it both times). In May, the council voted 4-3 to approve an application, then when the ordinance to codify the vote came back before Council, it was denied 4-3.

Bob Dubey pulled the vote from the consent agenda in June. This week he said, "I'll own that." He defended the unusual action, claiming that it's an established practice for contested votes, going back to when Steve Mitchell was mayor. Mayor Voelker parried Dubey's cross with, "When Mr. Mitchell made the decision...he personally wanted to still be able to vote against something that he voted against [in the original vote], instead of having it just go on the broad consent agenda, which everyone then just votes [yes] on." Voelker then got in a jab at Joe Corcoran, the Council Member who is most responsible for this embarrassing rematch, having flip-flopped on his May vote in the June revote, sending the application down for the count and requiring the landowner to make a new and revised application. Voelker said, "So it's become normal process on split votes to take things above the line. So that if you did vote against something, you could vote against it again. Where the problem is, Joe, is you've put in jeopardy the sanctity of a public hearing. And this is what you've heard from people. When do we stop talking about this? Tonight? Twice, we voted to close a public hearing. That's what you voted on. We didn't vote to say yeah, we're gonna stop the public hearing and, hey, let's have a few more discussions. And then when we do vote to codify this, I'll change my vote."

All this was a distraction from what should have been the straightforward business at hand tonight. Should the application for a special use permit for a smoking establishment be approved or not?

Bob Dubey was the lone "no" vote this time. He was defensive. "I'm not upset about the unfounded verbal attacks," he said, obviously upset, "because I know they are only tactics to try to keep us from addressing in my opinion, the true issues and the important facts surrounding this special use request." What are the important facts? Dubey claimed that "a majority of the Richardson citizens are opposed to this." He may be right, but the only evidence he offered is a vague statement about people who "have contacted many of us on this council." Did Dubey make any effort to contact constituents himself? "I did not reach out to a single citizen," he said. I can attest to this in my own personal case. Dubey has never reached out to me for input on any issue, so I'm not included in his unscientific polling. I don't claim to be in the majority on this. I don't know anyone can make that claim with any certitude. Because of that, I don't see that as a particularly compelling reason for voting one way or another. One reason we have a representative form of government is to remove the onus on everyone needing to study each law themselves, providing a check on those who would seek to carry a vote by raising public passions among an inadequately informed electorate. Maybe Dubey himself didn't "drum up a petition," as he says he didn't, but using that terminology implies that he understands that it's at least conceivable that such a petition could have been "drummed up" and might not be a true reflection of the popular will of an informed electorate.

My bigger problem with Dubey's philosophy of legislating is that he acts like his job as Council Member is to act like a judge, staying out of matters until it's time for him to vote. Arefin Shamsul and Ken Hutchenrider seem to share Dubey's understanding of a democratic representative's role in government. Arefin admitted to not even answering an email from the applicant because the matter was before the Council. So what? And Hutchenrider went out of his way to emphasize to the applicant that, "you and I have never had a conversation outside of City Council. Is that correct? We've never met. We've never had a conversation wherever. Okay, I just wanted that on the record." If I were a Council Member, I would want to hide the fact had I never had a conversation with a small businessman seeking to invest in the city I represent. I wouldn't go out of my way to get it on the record. I much prefer Mayor Voelker's style of representing Richardson, actively recruiting small business. He said, "Having a place that is inclusive, on race, your ethnic background, your country of origin, that's something I would be proud of. And that is why I reached out to Shon, after seeing him win these awards, after going to his establishment in Plano and saying I'd like to have one of those here."

Okay, back to Dubey. What reasons other than his assessment of the popular will did Dubey give for his "no" vote? Alluding to the cultural attraction of hookah, Dubey said, "My question is 'Why does the culture need to come to Richardson, Texas?'" That's a singularly bad look for Dubey, for any City Council that might share Dubey's thinking, and for the City of Richardson as a whole. Dubey alluded to the small share of revenues the applicant expected to make from hookah smoking, "I don't understand why a restaurant believes that 15% is gonna make or break their business." Someone who spent his career in education and now serves on City Council presuming to tell a small business owner how much profit he needs to be successful in business is another really bad look for Richardson.

Ken Hutchenrider voted "no" last time. Although he talked at the time about many different issues he had with the concept, in a comment on "The Wheel", he made it clear that "This is why I voted against this establishment not for the reason you listed for me. I am not in favor of any smoking where harmful effects on people can occur." So, you'd think he'd be a "no" again. You'd be wrong.

Arefin Shamsul voted "no" last time. This time he was unfocused and verbose. Even though the only thing before council was a request for a special use permit for a smoking establishment, Arefin talked about everything from alcohol to halal meat, to tobacco-free hookah, and finally to bollards between the parking and the patio. From his comments, it was impossible for me to discern what were the principles by which he would decide his vote. Because he voted "no" before, I assumed that would be his vote again, especially as he said, "I think nothing has really changed since our last conversation." As it turned out, I would be wrong.

Janet DePuy voted "yes" last time. This time, she said, "You've made some drastic reductions in the original proposal. My biggest concern is, do you think this will fit your business model and will you be successful with these changes?" So, it looked like she would be a "yes" again. It was clear she wanted this small businessman to be successful.

Jennifer Justice voted "yes" last time. This time, she said, "I fail to see how this is different than what the council has approved in the past...When we approved Afrah, we described it as a good citizen and a real Mediterranean experience. That's what it sounds like I've heard tonight this establishment would be." So, it looked like she would be a "yes" again.

Joe Corcoran voted "yes" in May and "no" in June, the deciding vote each time but in opposite directions. What little he said this week sounded like he was a "no" again. "Like many of those who spoke said, it just isn't in my opinion in a good location for this business. I do believe that downtown might be, or I say downtown at the core might be a better spot. I frequent Jasmine's quite often. I frequent hookah bars and representing that area, more often than I think most of my colleagues probably do. So anyway, that's my rationale. And that's my thought." If you read that as a "no," you'd be wrong.

When the vote came, Bob Dubey made a motion to deny. His motion failed for lack of a second. Then Janet DuPuy moved to approve the application. The vote in favor was 6-1. Three Council Members changed their June votes. Those three Council Members voted in a way that I would not have predicted based on what they said before...before Mayor Voelker spoke. After he spoke, there was a rash of compromises offered. Limiting the smoking patio to patrons over 21. Putting up a sign saying that hookah contains tobacco (that is, if the hookah product the restaurant ends up offering does indeed contain tobacco). And putting bollards between a parking stall and the patio (I won't even bother trying to explain what that was all about). Rightly or wrongly, I credit Voelker for spurring this last minute dealmaking and ultimate 6-1 vote in favor.

For the record, here's what Mayor Paul Voelker had to say. It's long, but I thought it important to capture it all.

Okay, so let me talk. How did I meet Shon? Let's say five or six years ago, I was invited by the Dallas Telegraph. This is the Russian and Ukrainian paper for the Metroplex to come give awards for international business success and I met this gentleman who received an award for reaching out to communities around the world and supplying them with a way to celebrate and express their culture. And that's how I met him. Why was I invited to the Dallas Telegraph international awards as the mayor of Richardson? In the early '70s, when the USSR decided it was okay to let Russian and Ukrainian Jews leave the country, they tried to come to Dallas. Dallas wasn't very accepting. Remember, we had this little thing with Kennedy. So what did they do? They came north across Spring Valley to live in Richardson. When I went to this awards banquet, it was really interesting. I had several older, young, youngish Jewish women in their 80s come up and hug me, say "You're my mayor. It's the first place I lived in the United States of America was Richardson, Texas."

So when I went to actually see Shon's establishment and talk to many, many people, I saw that support he gave for the multicultural in multiple countries that make up the fabric of what our city is. We stated earlier that we didn't need a committee to talk about Richardson being a diverse and inclusive city. Well, I thought we did and I formed one, and I'm proud of forming that. Some of the members have actually spoke tonight in the context of this case, because while we are a diverse and I believe an inclusive city, I question quite candidly some of the decisions that are made here tonight. I'm putting it out there. You've got to sleep with your vote.

I do believe this could be catalytic for that neighborhood. I do believe that we have to rethink the way a neighborhood looks. What is that density level? What is that amenity level? How does that happen? How can we as a council and a community see that change happen? Embrace it and support it. So when you can walk from your house to a restaurant and if you don't want to smoke hookah set in the other patio, go inside. It's not that big of a deal. I get the health concerns. Both of my parents were three and four pack a day smokers I am sure secondhand smoke that will affect me the rest of my life having grown up in that, but it is a choice. It's an addiction. But it is a choice that people make and when you choose to go to a restaurant or not based upon those types of things that are happening, that is your choice.

Now we talk about being a business friendly council. I question that now. I seriously do. We have the Small Business Association? Oh, my God, there isn't a better example of a small businessman than this. And if we can't support him in his efforts, what's the point of bragging about being business friendly? Do all we care about is multibillion dollar corporations putting plants and sites in our city? It takes more than that to create a cultural environment that is the neighborhoods that people want to live in. So having a place that is inclusive on race, your ethnic background, your country of origin, that's something I would be proud of. And that is why I reached out to Shon, after seeing him win these awards after going to his establishment in Plano and saying I'd like to have one of those here. And I get his logic of I don't want to rent again, because we showed him some places and he wanted to buy an establishment that he would own and guess what, he did? He's invested already in this city. And to take it to the level now where the only thing that you can say no to him again about is a patio where you can have hookah that's next to another patio that you can't, that has a restaurant inside that you don't have any smoking. Seriously.

[Process talk omitted because the gist of it was covered above.]

I don't care how you vote. But candidly, if Shon gets fed up with us and sells the building to somebody that wants to put a bar there, knock yourself out, Shon, but I'll tell you this, and this council should know. We've had several cases come in front of us, land use cases where the neighborhoods kept saying no, not in my back yard, not in my back yard. And then what happened? Finally, somebody said, you know what, I know what my rights are on that property. I don't need to come in front of Council. I'll just do what I can do by right. And that's what you're setting yourself up to one more time. And we've done it several times in this council.

So you know, we've talked about planned developments and permits and they can be called back. We've never done one of those that you could argue, well, that that proves that if they get this PD then they don't have to worry, right? They do. But if you do the PDs right, if you do the permitting properly, it will not come back to council, for us to say, hold it, let's bring this back up. Something went wrong. And we've never done that. And we've never had anyone change their vote, just to codify something. So I wanted to clarify what our process is. And I don't think it's working. Because that's not what it was intended for. It was intended to make sure you could communicate to your public that I voted against that or I voted for that, but it really was never intended to change your vote. Because what you did was you took the public hearing out of the public and changed the dynamics of how we do business, my opinion.

Source: City of Richardson