WHEN RIGHT IS WRONG

Posted June 26, 2005

By Glenda Minor

By now most everyone has heard of the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling allowing your local government to take your property whenever it deems it appropriate. At first I was so stunned that this group of five people in dark robes that I so admire would do this, that I didn't know what to say. I am including a link here to the ruling.

I would suggest that everyone read the dissenting view. Four of the justices are still deserving of our respect, saying what needed to be said in ways I would never be able to. I will not be able to express as well as Sandra Day O'Connor the horror of this decision, but I have a few important points that need to be made.

Those points seem so simple, but apparently they are too simple for the greedy to understand -- or, in all probablility, they don't want to.

There is a big difference between what is legal and what is moral. Apparently, the City of Arlington can now legally steal the property of those in the way of the new Dallas Cowboys stadium. But this does not in any way make it a moral thing to do. We all raise our kids from the time they are infants with this very basic sense of justice. I can only wonder where our city council's mamas and daddies were when they should have been teaching this.

O.K. Carter of the Star-Telegram said most would agree with Justice O'Connor's assertion that, "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Carter went on to say, "Few would argue that this is true, although many would argue that it is nevertheless necessary."

I cannot say the following strongly enough: It is this same morality that kept slavery in place in the South for so many years. Most white Southerners at the time believed in slavery not out of hate for the blacks they held as slaves. They justified the horrific institution as economically necessary to the survival of the South. It did not matter if it was an economic necessity; it was one of the most wrong things done in the history of this country.

Mayor Cluck and the rest of our city council will not be using eminent domain on those they regard as their equals. While they aren't endorsing slavery, they do endorse taking what you want if you are more powerful and richer than those you think you are better than. When the stadium campaign began, they put all their money and power into convincing us that we are all better than those living in these "blighted" neighborhoods, and therefore have the right to take them. I am not calling our mayor or any of those behind the stadium racist, since this is not about race at all (althought certain races will be affected more ). But I can't help but wonder what side of the coin these cowards would have been on in 1860, during one of the most difficult times in our history. I wonder what slippery slope we are now on with this ruling.

Carter and state Representative Toby Goodman are critical of the "holdouts" who want far more money than the city has said their property is worth. They seem to have missed the point. Residential property means far more to most people than the amount of money an appraiser says it it worth on paper. In addition to the sentimental value and pride that only the owner can put a price on, to some, owning a home is the only power they will ever hold.

This is supposed to be a free-market society. Not anymore, at least not for the people that those who have something the rich and powerful want. Nobody will take away Jerry Jones' power to bargain, but our representatives have taken that power from the very people they were elected to represent.

Sure, the people whose homes will be taken can buy more property. But they can't replace the memories, or their right to bargain, or the trauma of having been forced to sell. Any property any of us own will never completely be ours now.

Carter quoted Councilman Joe Bruner as saying that cities can "stop holding their breath and proceed cautiously," and that he believes in eminent domain as a "last resort." Bruner must be reveling in his power over the little people right now. Maybe using it as a "last resort" will make all of the city council members feel better about themselves. But if you believe in eminent domain as a last resort, you have already used it.

I implore the council to do what is morally right and admirable, not just what it can legally get away with. Do something your grandchildren can be proud of. I am not optimistic this will happen. There are so few truly admirable people in history. Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal," but he held slaves. If Jefferson could only write about doing what was right, I can't even imagine that our city council will take the much less difficult step of not allowing stolen property to be given to a billionaire.

A great lady passed away last week. I never talked to her about religion or how to best attain world peace. But nevertheless, I know she was a great lady who will live on in everyone that knew her.

I will remember her for teaching me to shoot watermelon seeds and showing me how to short-sheet a bed. My kids will remember her for blowing bubbles through a straw into a glass of water at her kitchen table with them. They were very impressed since this is something they aren't allowed to do at home.

I will remember her stories. She told me of a visitor who came to her home the night before a footwashing service when she was a little girl. She sneaked into his room and put soot from the fireplace into his socks so his feet would be filthy at the church service the next day.

She loved her roses. I loved to visit her backyard and the beautiful, sweet smelling flowers she worked so hard at.

She knew how to strike a perfect balance between mischievous humor in life and beauty. It is that perfect balance of dignity and laughter that gives us strength in the hard times. She passed that sense of humor down to so many people. She made the saying "take time to stop and smell the roses" come to life for those same people. It is through those people for many generations to come that she will continue to make the world a better place.

This wonderful lady was my grandmother - Mama Ing.

Posted February 24, 2005

By Glenda Minor

WAL-MART'S TOP 15

Posted February 11, 2005

By Glenda Minor

With the announcement of the Oscars right around the corner and all the hullaballoo surrounding the possibility of a Super Wal-mart coming to Southwest Arlington, the Wal-mart in Mansfield, Texas has recommended several movies for your children's enjoyment. I'm sure this list will sway everyone in Arlington to support a new Wal-mart and the wonderful influence it will have on the surrounding community. Without further ado, the movies (and their ratings), in no particular order, are:

Marked for Death (R)

Lethal Weapon 2 (R)

Lone Wolf McQuade (PG)

The Last Boy Scout (R)

Original Sin (R)

Above The Law (R)

Death Wish 2 (R)

Death Wish 4 (R)

Barney's Great Adventure (G)

Assassination Tango (with deleted scenes) (R)

Assassins (R)

My Friend Flicka (NR)

Rob Roy (R)

Best Little Whorehouse In Texas (R)

RoboCop (R)

These are some of the DVD's appearing on a display marked with the words "Kids Cube" in an aisle near the electronics department at the Wal-mart on Walnut Creek Drive. When I first happened upon the display I assumed it was a mistake that management would want to correct quickly. I reported it to a passing employee and proceeded to the checkout line. The employee came to me in line and said he had reported it to "Manager Jim," but Manager Jim didn't believe him. I returned around 24 hours later, and the display remained. I reported it to another employee, who notified the electronics department. A week later, the display was still there. Not wanting to get sued, I have included pictures of the display. Click on the above picture to see bigger pictures of two sides of the display.

This display might seem like such a simple innocuous thing, but it certainly begs a question. Is Wal-mart too big to be a good neighbor? Don't get me wrong. I obviously shop at Wal-mart or I wouldn't have known about the display. But if one wanted to move into my backyard I would have a major case of nimby too. I wish I could stop shopping there, but the soymilk prices are terrific and I have three hungry children to feed. But it is only common sense that I don't want my three hungry children watching R-rated movies. I wouldn't think Wal-mart executives would suggest that I buy most of the above movies for my kids, either. But they are actually doing exactly that.

Wal-mart will agree to all kinds of good neighborly practices to gain entrance to a neighborhood. But will they be able to keep them up if they can't control a simple DVD display? The DVD display is a sign of a general sloppiness. The city will not be able to spell out every detail that will make Wal-mart be a good neighbor. It will, at some point, have to rely on Wal-mart's common sense. I'm not sure this large machine called Wal-mart has any.

Any large store will generate a lot of traffic that will disturb a peaceful neighborhood, and we all want to live in a peaceful neighborhood. We want the atmosphere of the country but the convenience of the city. We all want classy neighborhoods, but places with low prices to shop. Therein is a very difficult balancing act for any city.

Most neighborhoods aren't going to want any large store in their backyard. But few stores will bring the gasps that a Wal-mart will. If Wal-mart wants to lessen the decibel level of the gasps, it should start with the smaller details, like the kids' DVD display.

PUFF THE EVIL DRAGON

Posted January 18, 2004

By Glenda Minor

Help! My family is being stalked by an ugly man with a large, rancid-smelling cigar. He lurks in the shadows outside our house, sending my children fleeing into our home for protection. We keep our windows closed tightly for protection and live every day in anticipation of him leaving for work. At that time, we bound outside and frolic freely, knowing that our feeling of safety is only temporary. We live in terror that our air conditioning will break on a 110-degree summer day, forcing us to open our windows to him. We know that if he invades on one of those days, he will never leave us again.

Okay, I might be embellishing the story a wee bit. But this has proven to be anything but a wee problem for my family.

Let me explain. The ugly man with the big cigar is my neighbor. He has decided to be a manly man and to prove it, he has taken to smoking a cigar. His habit has become more frequent, and with the postage-stamp sized lots here in Arlington, Texas, we have had to take up his nasty habit with him.

The smell is so rancid and strong that we cannot be outside while he is smoking. We cannot have our windows open or the smell will enter our house, and quite possibly will never leave. I have never liked being around cigarette smokers. But this is like having 100 or more of them standing on your property line. Even when he is on his back porch, the smell almost knocks us down in our yard. We all end up with stuffy noses and sore throats that last for days. Even with our windows closed, the smell gets into our house. We wouldn't dare open them, which we would love to be able to do.

My husband tried to talk to the man. He said his wife (a smoker) won't let him smoke the cigars inside, so he HAS to go outside. It seems that every time my children try to play outside when he is home, he very quickly appears with his big nasty stick. We've seen him peeking around the corner into our backyard. He seems to like to smoke in the corner of his yard, only a few feet from my children's swing set, watching them. They are very quickly chased inside.

The city of Arlington has a nuisance ordinance that covers "burning in the open: hair, leather, rags or other substances emitting an offensive, unhealthful or annoying smell, smoke or odor." It seems pretty obvious to me that this is "offensive, unhealthful and annoying." But at this point, we have not been successful in getting the the city to prosecute. It seems that they look at cigars as a special case. If he was burning hair, that would be a big no-no that would get him a big fine. I have never known the U.S. Surgeon General to issue a warning about secondary smoke from burning hair.

But the city that won't let him burn his cigar within 20 feet of the entrance to their buildings doesn't have a problem with him burning them on the property line, only a few feet from my house. Our ordinances seem to protect us from everything but this. City Councilwoman Sheri Capehart told my husband this will be looked at as a property rights issue. In other words, it's his property so he can do what he wants. If this is the case, why do we have nuisance ordinances at all?

But this is more than just a nuisance. Study after study has shown that secondary smoke is a health issue. A recent study showed that it can lower the IQ of children. Our city needs to deal with this. We don't have to be exposed to it in restaurants in town, and should have the same freedom from it on our own property. It just isn't safe to leave citizens to deal with contentious situations like this on their own.

My family has had a very difficult time dealing with this. We want to be good neighbors. Most of our neighbors are considerate people. I stress to my children to be quiet when playing outside (no bicycle horns), since I know that one of my neighbors works at night and sleeps during the day. I would hope that if any of my neighbors had a problem with us, they would tell me and we would do our best to rectify it. This man with the big cigar and his wife live by different rules. This "manly" man is controlled by a stick-shaped pacifier that he can't get through the day without. He doesn't care if the neighborhood children are repulsed by him for it. He doesn't care if people hate to see him coming because of it. Simply put, he is an addict.

I really don't care if he smokes. My family and I just shouldn't be forced to do it with him. If he stood outside and did it with a plastic bag tied tightly over his head, that would be fair.

I want to teach my children to do the right thing, and to have the right attitude toward him. I believe that this stubborn stone has been put here for a reason, and my children are watching and learning from how I react to it, which at times has been much less than admirable. So I have turned to the Bible. But the Bible says to love thy neighbor as thyself. That really doesn't work for me. If I woke up one morning addicted to his nasty sticks, I would stab myself in the heart with my knitting needles. The government has rules about knitting needles and neighbors, so I can't do that to him. But I (and my kids) will pray for him daily. That helps keep my attitude under control.

The other day my daughter told me that he has a cough unlike any she has ever had or heard. She asked me, "If he falls over in his front yard, will you call someone to help him?" I told her, "Of course, sweetie, eventually, after the flies and stench start to get to me."

I'm still not sure I would call anyone. If they saved him, he would just get up and start terrorizing my family with his addictions again. I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth. I would be glad the problem was solved. But instead of my children learning from me, I think maybe I can learn more from them. She is actually concerned about this man.

This is no way to live. We can only be outside when we know he isn't home. His wife is always home. We stay inside on evenings and weekends. My kids play outside on weekdays. But within minutes of going outside their front blinds go up. These blinds don't ever seem to be open at other times. It is no fun knowing you are being watched. We will probably end up moving to get away from them and will keep our fingers crossed that we have better luck with neighbors next time. But for now, we will water our pampas grass well and Puff the Evil Dragon will stay on my bad list.

FOOLED AGAIN!

Posted January 7, 2005

By Glenda Minor

Well, Dang! Our best chance yet for a new mayor of Arlington wasn't really pregnant after all! (more) I still like her. Her little hoax sounds like something I might do one day. But most voters frown on those kinds of lies coming out before the election. When I say "those kinds of lies" I mean the blatant, obvious kinds. I can only hope the voters will muster up some anger in May against the kind of politician that likes to pretend he is one of the little people and then takes their money to give to a rich man. It is up to some fine person to come forward and give me someone to vote for Arlington Mayor.

Speaking of the mayor's race, I have an elderly cat I am crazy about except that it recently cost me $200 to get him "unstopped" by the vet. Being a do-it-yourself kind of person, I did a little research and found www.catenema.com . It didn't help me with my cat but it is wonderfully funny!

I finally have an archive system set up which should make writing and running this website much easier from now on.

FRANCES HARRIS FOR MAYOR

Posted November 23, 2004

By Glenda Minor

Some things are just meant to be. They are a natural fit. When I heard 59-year-old great-grandmother Frances Harris was pregnant with twins, I knew Arlington had solved its leadership problems. The more you think about this, the more I'm sure you will agree with me. more

LAST RESIDENT LEAVES ARLINGTON

Posted June 24, 2025

By: Madeline Upp

The last resident of Arlington has finally left the city. Lifelong resident Lionel Sutter packed his bags and loaded a U-Haul to leave behind the last residential home in Arlington to make way for an upscale version of Kentucky Fried Chicken. "The Mayor has been trying to get rid of me for years," Mr. Sutter said. "I am too old and tired to fight him anymore."

After the Supreme Court okayed the free use of eminent domain in 2005 by local governments, Mayor Quack began a push to turn Arlington into the first residentless city. The push began with replacing lower-income houses with upscale shopping centers and restaurants. Finally, the Mayor pushed through an amendment to the Arlington charter allowing the City Council to rule from another city. He then used eminent domain on himself and his houses to build an office park.

"I am thrilled that Mr. Sutter finally came to his senses," Mayor Quack said. "The residentless city idea has been a huge success. We have a huge tax base and no pesky residents to have to spend it on."

The City replaced the pools and libraries years ago with bookstores and fitness centers. Mayor Quack has been able to attract many Fortune 500 companies to the city by touting the city's low crime rate. "Our crime rate has plummeted," Mayor Quack bragged. "We no longer have a problem with residential burglaries or domestic violence at all! Those cheap houses were a fire hazard and just ugly"

With no residents, the city was also able to close all the schools and dramatically lower property taxes. "People were such a problem for the city. I finally got them all to understand that I am in charge and what my rights are. I am doing this for the good of Arlington. Arlington has prospered. That is the bottom line and the most important thing" Mayor Quack said. "We have to worry about so few city services, which has reduced the the need for police, fire and other city department employees."

But not everyone is thrilled with the decisions that Mayor Quack has made. The Mayors of Fort Worth, Dallas and Mansfield have complained heavily for years to no avail. Longtime Dallas Mayor, Laura Miller said, "I thought the real ultimate purpose of a city was the people. Although we are glad to have the people of Arlington here, it has been difficult to accomodate them."

Legal experts have said that in light of Mayor Quack's decisions, it is probably time for a reexamination of eminent domain by the Supreme Court. Legal expert Lila Marin said the Justices had probably not thought of this scenario when making their decision in 2005.

By Madeline Upp

Americans are never without a new diet fad and 2005 is proving no different. With the popularity of the Atkins Lo Carb diet waning, it is being replaced with the Cracker Jack diet. The Cracker Jack diet has been around for 87 years but is now finding it's way into the bathrooms of mainstream America. more