This time Schutze blames the wrong party

I always enjoy reading Jim Schutze's columns in the Dallas Observer. In fact, I enjoy reading them almost as much as I enjoy interacting with Schutze in those all-too-rare occasions when we are in the same zip code or when I used to receive his jocular e-mails during my tenure with the City of Dallas. I especially enjoyed his "final solution" for the homeless problem in last week's edition and his raking of council member Dave Neumann for the manner in which he handled homelessness in Oak Cliff the week before.

In the current edition, Schutze's spins the tragic story of Josh Terry, who sank over 100 large into a rehabilitation project in the Kings Highway Conservation District of Oak Cliff, only to have the rug pulled out from under him when the city suddenly revoked all the permits it had previously granted him. Schutze lays all the blame for this on the city, even  going so  far  as to suggest that's reason enough not to allow the city to  enact a property tax increase.

Here's the problem's with Schutze's argument: Even he admits the city's actions were prompted by a call from a city council  member (I'm bettingn it was Newmann). Whether Schutze realizes this or not (and I really think  he does), the city council run the city. City staff members refer to city council members as "our bosses." As in any organization, including I would presume, the Dallas Observer, if the boss says "This is the way it's going to be," it is followed by the boss saying "Those who agree with me signify by saying 'Aye.' Those who disagree say 'I resign'."

Schutze had this interesting paragraph near the beginning of his story:

"The property happens to be in Council District 3, the realm of one David Neumann. Councilman Neumann wouldn't respond to my calls or e-mails about this, as he never does, so I can't say with certainty he's the one who called. I do know he is following this case closely."

The real villain here is the council member who ordered the project squashed. The real story here was to explose this council member and find out why he or she victimized Terry. But since Schutze apparently was stonewalled in his effort to do just that and, presumably, because he needed a column for this week's edition, he went off in a different, but wrong-headed, direction. He compounded the problem by following up the paragraph cited above by writing: "But it almost doesn't make any difference who called."

Yes,  it very definitely does make a difference. And I, for one, would like that person and his/her motives exposed. Now, that's the story. And not to suggest we should close rec centers, libraries and lay off hundreds of employees because one city council member screwed over a constituent.