In Our Dreams: City Council Rejects Fair Park Plan, Tells Foundation to Fill in the Blanks

In 1948, the Chicago Daily Tribune printed what it thought was a slam-dunk headline trumpeting the defeat of Harry Truman in his presidential reelection.  Instead we have an enduring, cautionary tale of events not unfolding as everyone expected. This story’s headline is my “Dewey Defeats Truman” dream … because we all know, regardless of valid concerns and common sense, the Dallas City Council WILL approve Walt Humann’s plan for Fair Park when it meets in the coming weeks. It’s a foregone conclusion.

It’s how government works.

After all, let’s look at the Aug. 4 all-day session at the Parks Board meeting. Two weeks prior to the vote, five board members walked out after Parks Board president Max Wells announced he was limiting discussion on the proposal (apparently at Walt Humann’s behest).  Flash forward to last Friday’s vote and those same five board members voted “no” with those board members who had no problem being muzzled voting “yes” to the incomplete, Swiss cheese of a plan.

Let’s not forget the evening before the vote when WFAA reported on a letter from Humann to Wells in which Humann dictates how Wells should get the board to sit down, shut-up and vote “yes” to the plan. Never mind the weeks and months of negative press about the plan’s flaws reported by every major news outlet in the city.

Not one of the “yes” Parks board members viewed these criticisms and revelations as anything more than water off this duck’s back of a plan.

To me this says that the eight hours of public testimony prior to the vote was simply the pound of window dressing flesh Humann and the Parks Board had to endure to allow their unstoppable train to pass.

And make no mistake, it’s unstoppable. Just as Plan Commission members are almost always in lockstep with their City Council member, so I suspect are Parks Board members.  After all, their fates are linked by politics and their districts.

Humann’s Letter to Wells

Barely a blip on the Parks Board conscience, the letter should be understood on a deeper level.

First, when the letter was revealed, Humann fudged, telling WFAA “I don’t remember writing that letter.” Wells echoed, “I don’t remember the exact discussion, but we didn’t get far enough to where I really considered it.  I think that was a meeting I missed.” And yet the meetings referenced followed the letter’s script. Ahh, the memory lapse of convenience.

But to me, the most damning were the last sentences, “I will try to hand this letter to you at 5:30 church service if you and Martha are attending.  I will call you Sunday.”

If Humann was comfy enough to send Wells a step-by-step guide on how the Parks president should run a meeting for his benefit titled, “Process for bringing the Fair Park Texas Foundation proposal to a successful conclusion,” what was said outside the letter? Clearly these gentlemen socialized, is it that much of a stretch to imagine their conversations were even more pointed?

The letter contained five points:

1. July 21 working session would include only a table of acceptable “open items,” not the full management agreement. (Cliff Notes light?)
2. Wells would steer the conversation to the table of acceptable topics and Humann would “insure that there are many ‘open items’ where the Foundation would verbally agree without further discussion. To show a willingness to compromise” (Wells limits discussion and Humann guarantees crocodile compromises to items planted to give the appearance of concession? Seriously?)
3. Wells would ask the Park staff to meet with the Fair Park Texas Foundation (by July 23) to finalize the Management Agreement. (Would that be the agreement they’d not been privy to just days earlier? Would that be the Fair Park Texas Foundation whose board hasn’t even met yet?)
4. “The finalized agreement would be sent with an Agenda well in advance of the regularly scheduled meeting of the Park Board on August 4^th.” (“Well in advance” equaled less than 11 days to review 157 pages. Although to be fair, there are A LOT of blank pages.)
5. The finalized management agreement would be voted on at the August 4^th

Outside the unplanned walkout, this is pretty much what happened, foretold by Humann on July 9, nearly a month before the Aug. 4 meeting.

Humann’s “Finalized Agreement”

Clearly we have very different definitions for a “final agreement” but I’d think one telltale sign of not being “final” would be the word “DRAFT” watermarked across each page. Another red flag might be the extensive use of strikethroughs and red lettering throughout the document. If you count, just 12 original words remain in this paragraph.

As you can see in the heavily edited paragraph above, the Foundation (not the city) still has to noodle on the metrics that will judge this Foundation a success or failure … AFTER the Parks board approved it … AFTER the City Council will approve it.

As you also see, they have until April 30, 2017, to even “identify the performance objectives” and then another eight months to put the systems in place to even begin collecting data that will only be presented for comparison by April 30, 2019!  Had the measurement criteria been decided BEFORE approvals, we’d have a comparison A YEAR SOONER … 2017 is essentially a wasted year.

But by all means, here’s a $20 million-a-year allowance and a pot of bond money … we’ll give ya a jingle in 31 months to see what’s goin’. <insert air kisses>

Contract Termination

On the upside, as written in the Aug. 4 “final” DRAFT, if the city doesn’t fork over all the cash in annual fees and bond issues, the Foundation can terminate the contract. In earlier versions, the City also had the ability to terminate the contract when funding was not forthcoming, but the City seemingly lost that power.

But if we can count on anything, we can count on future councils borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Unfortunately, the Fair Park Texas Foundation doesn’t have to terminate the contract, they can decide to go lean and wait, but ultimately their only remedy for a deadbeat city is to terminate the contract. They can’t sue the city to force performance for example.  So there’s that.

Will my “Dewey” defeat “Truman” this time?  Not a chance.

While we wait for this foregone conclusion, I’m looking for board members to help me spitball a plan to end homelessness and stray dogs in Dallas. That’s got to be worth a few million, right?  Skill using “DRAFT” watermarks is critical.

Remember:  High-rises, HOAs and renovation are my beat. But I also appreciate modern and historical architecture balanced against the YIMBY movement.  If you’re interested in hosting a Candysdirt.com Staff Meeting event, I’m your guy. In 2016, my writing was recognized with Bronze and Silver awards from the National Association of Real Estate Editors.  Have a story to tell or a marriage proposal to make?  Shoot me an email [email protected].