Letters to the Editor — Dallas mayor, Prop U, DART, abortion care, political parties

Dallas mayor invisible

Re: “Mayor Eric Johnson Let Dallas Down — We needed his leadership; we got an op-ed,” Sunday editorial.

I just finished reading your editorial concerning Mayor Eric Johnson. I agree wholeheartedly with this opinion. Johnson shows he has no concern for Dallas and its residents. He seems completely preoccupied with his next political move and position.

He has been invisible on so many issues involving the city. I was initially so excited about the prospect of Johnson and voted for him. Huge regret on my and my relatives’ decision to support him.

He did not step up and speak up about these propositions. He actually hasn’t spoken up much about Dallas. He speaks about national issues. Good riddance!

Becky Autrey, Dallas

I voted for Proposition U

Your pages state that the passage of Proposition U is the result of poor leadership from Mayor Eric Johnson or an uninformed electorate. I disagree. I voted for Proposition U. I researched this issue in advance, read your coverage on the propositions and gave ample thought and reflection to my voting decision. I was not tricked or uninformed.

I have lived in Dallas for eight years and for the entirety of that time, the Dallas Police Department has struggled to be fully staffed, the Dallas Police and Fire Pension Fund has been underfunded, and politicians and city officials have pledged to do better. Yet here we are.

While violent crime statistics may show improvements, the reality is Dallas citizens do not feel safe. I know that the requirements of Proposition U will put enormous strain on the city, the city may fall short and the requirements of Proposition U may be unrealistic, but we have to start somewhere.

The vote for Proposition U is a statement by citizens that among the many vital functions that our city government must perform, keeping its citizens safe (and feeling safe) is paramount to all others rather than the result of an uninformed and gullible electorate.

Douglas MacMahon, Dallas/Bluffview

Addison paid plenty to DART

Re: “Suburbs miscalculate DART expenses — Cities get more for their money than they think,” by Patrick Kennedy, Sunday Opinion.

I see at least two things wrong with Kennedy’s column. If you go back nearly 40 years ago when Addison started paying into the contributions for DART, all they received in their decades and hundreds of millions of dollars or perhaps more, and amid myriad complaints was bus service from Preston Road to Marsh Lane along Belt Line Road.

The mayor of Addison and many members of the City Council expressed disgust over the lack of better service and delay of the Silver line. Had it been started earlier, the costs would not have been anywhere near a billion dollars and not anywhere near the $2 billion that appears to be the final figure with many cost-saving “benefits” to the service removed by DART.

The other is that Kennedy is one board of directors member among the 15 members who easily spend millions of DART dollars, and what do they get in return?

Better service to Addison would have created more restaurants and entertainment, especially for conventions, and more tax revenue for DART. Hindsight is 20/20.

Kenneth D. McLintock, Dallas

Doctor sets record straight

Re: “Lifesaving care for women in Texas is perfectly legal — Scaremongering about state abortion ban isn’t helping patients — or doctors,” by Sudheer Jayaprabhu, Sunday Opinion.

I was so glad to read this column on the legality of lifesaving care for women in Texas. Despite the lies in many political ads, pregnant women do legally receive treatment in problem pregnancies.

Two members of my family did — one after having a miscarriage and the other in the early delivery of a child after a health scare.

Thank you, doctor, for setting the record straight.

Julia Davis, Plano

Parties seal their fates

Re: “Here’s what makes America great — Rather than throw up your hands, marvel that our founders created a system that still works,” by Abby McCloskey, Nov. 3 Sunday Opinion.

As I read McCloskey’s opinion piece, a recurring thought came back to me. We just went through a big election and now there is relief that it is over and hope that maybe things will be better.

But then reality will set in and we’ll discover the winners are not interested in making things better, just in pushing their agenda as far and as fast as they can. Doesn’t seem to matter which side wins, the result is the same.

So we swing back and forth, left then right and back again over and over. Neither side ever realizes that most of the populace doesn’t want to push that far or that fast.

People are willing to move but in smaller increments with time to digest if the changes make things better or worse. Then they will decide how to move the next time. But the parties keep pushing too far and the voters rebel again.

The parties seal their own fates.

James C. Nolen, Terrell

Narrow election identity

McCloskey states that the prevailing identity of this election is that of traditional values, faith, marriage and family, and nationalism. If that was the case, the people wouldn’t have voted for Donald Trump. The only portion of the described identity that aligns with him is that of nationalism.

Victor Kaplan, Plano

Waiting on lottery suit

Re: “Lotto scheme games system,” by Dave Lieber, Sunday Metro column.

Regarding this column on lotto schemes, Attorney General Ken Paxton, do your job. Sue someone, anyone.

Peter Lehmann, Euless

We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here. If you have problems with the form, you can submit via email at letters@dallasnews.com