DART Should Copy UPS

In The Washington Post's most excellent "Wonkblog," Brad Plumer explains "why most Americans can't take mass transit to work." In short, it's because that, "Even though millions of people live near transit stops, and even though millions of jobs are near transit stops, those systems don't line up."

Eric Nicholson gives his take on this news as it pertains to Dallas, in Unfair Park.

My own take is this: it's time for DART to re-invent mass transit. After the jump, the brilliant idea that came to me while waiting for the bus.

You Can't Spell Golf Fund Without F-U-N

The Richardson City Council received a presentation from city staff on the financial status of the municipal Sherrill Park Golf Course. Despite increased greens fees this year and an almost 10% increase in revenues compared to this time last year, the city still anticipates needing to transfer $105,000 into the city's Golf Fund to cover expenses. Most of this is due to a recent change in interpretation of the law by the state comptroller requiring the city to pay sales tax on greens fees, which the city had not been collecting before March of this year.

After the jump, why golf can be such a frustrating game.

Chasing Squirrels Again in Richardson

The City of Richardson held an open house this week to begin public discussion of the future of Main Street and the Central Expressway Corridor. This is likely to be the most consequential subject that this city council takes up in its two year term. So, what is everyone blogging about (and by "everyone," I of course mean "me")? Why, it's the upcoming referendum to vote on whether our ceremonial mayor is directly elected or not. Really.

After the jump, chasing squirrels again in Richardson.

Richardson Echoes

In case you're late to the party, let me catch you up. Richardson citizens face a referendum in November in which they'll be asked whether to change Richardson's city charter to make the office of mayor directly elected by the voters.

OK, I know it doesn't sound like much of a party. No fun here. Still, some are cackling about it like they somehow got into the good stuff. At least those people should find something to amuse them here.

Previously, I wondered, if direct election of the mayor is such an obviously fair and democratic way to do it, why in the world did Richardson's voters not set it up like that way back in 1956 when they adopted the current system? I started searching to find out what I could about that long ago decision, to find out if there might be any faint echoes of it still reverberating today that might inform the choice about to be thrust upon us in this year's November election.

I didn't find the answer to why Richardson made the choice they did in 1956, but I did discover that the City of Dallas, in 1949, switched from a system remarkably like Richardson's today to a system of direct election for mayor. I also found a back story that suggested that contentious council government after Dallas made the change would have justified Richardson's decision not to follow Dallas, but I didn't find any hard evidence that was behind Richardson's decision. For whatever reason, Richardson rejected Dallas's decision.

After the jump, the results of a little more digging.

1949: Charter Change for Dallas

History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

Source: Mark Twain.

Recently, I asserted that "There are pros and cons to any system of government. The [Richardson] charter commission in 1956 must have spent hours and hours considering all of them, before the voters approved a council-manager form of government with limited duties and responsibilities for the mayor and the current method of choosing that mayor."

I said "must have spent" instead of "for sure did spend" because, frankly, I didn't know. I did no research on how much time Richardson's founding fathers spent deliberating over Richardson's original city charter. But "hours and hours" seemed like a reasonable assumption, so that's what I said.

It didn't take long for a reader to challenge me (sort of). He asserted, "Richardson pretty much copied the Dallas charter all those years ago, with some minor changes that were Richardson specific." Whether or not it was intended, that could be taken to imply that Richardson's city fathers didn't break a sweat agonizing over options and details. Someone gaveled the first charter commission meeting to order, someone else pulled out a parchment containing the Dallas city charter, took his big black fountain pen and crossed out the word Dallas and wrote in Richardson, and then said, let's say we call it a day and all go out for a beer. Except I don't know how far they'd have to go in those days for a beer. Pretty far, I reckon. Chicago, maybe. So maybe they just went out for a sarsaparilla. That's another thing I didn't research.

After the jump, back on topic.