After hearing a number of concerns over the last year from various sources related to the gun range on Pleasant Valley Rd, I asked the Council to review those concerns. My initial request was to direct it to the Board of Adjustment where politics would be much less a factor; however, Mayor Jones, based on input from other Council members, assigned the review to the new Public Safety Committee, of which he had just made me chairman.

The committee had its first meeting today and the first item for discussion was the range. I had sent a number of items to staff to review and report on. Representatives from various departments were at today's meeting.

Reports from the departments demonstrated that there were no apparent violations to any city ordinances. The number of reports over the last few years to the Police Department did not reflect negatively on the operation or safety of the range. The Health Department reported there was no lead concern. Their monitoring tests showed lead content in the creek that runs next to the range about 100 times below the level of concern. As to noise, their measurements indicate the range does not violate state or city ordinances (the city being more restrictive than the state). The Planning Department reported that the range would not be allowed under current zoning but that it was a legal, non-conforming use because it was there when the land was annexed to the city. And finally, the city attorney relayed information on state laws that offer additional protection to gun ranges.

Based on the reports from the staff, the committee will recommend to the Council that there is no basis for continued review.

It was a simple process and a simple review. I can confidently report to those that raised concerns that they need not fear.

SH-190 will run parallel to the range, well to the north. The range sits between the old creek course and the dredged course, in the middle of the floodway where any new development would not be allowed. Sources: GarlandGIS.com; FEMA; and USGS

What wasn't simple were attacks against my motives by numerous Garland residents. Appreciatively, the feedback I received from District 1 residents was in the form of questions and discussion, not accusations.

After the Council meeting when the item was assigned to committee, I heard from people all over the state asking that we not close the gun range. I sent each a message explaining that we were looking at reported concerns but I didn't foresee any action to close the range. They understood. I talked to the president of a large gun club and afterwards he sent a kind message to their members suggesting allowing the process to work.

Many Garland residents were less rational.

I was accused of being in bed with developers who wanted to get the land cheap so they could develop it. Never mind that the range is in the floodway and basically can't be developed.

I was accused of trying to get the land for SH-190. Never mind that it's not in the path of 190 and the state would condemn it if they needed it.

Mayor Jones and I were accused of backroom deals. Okaaaay, then how is it that everything the Council did was always public?

The committee met today at 3:30 p.m. so we were accused of trying to meet without public review. Committee meetings are for the members and the staff to meet to discuss items. The public is always welcome but the meetings aren't hearings where testimony will be taken. Today's meeting was at a time that staff could be there without having to work overtime and immediately before another meeting that I had to attend.

At the end of the meeting, the three items being considered by the committee will be reported to the Council as not needing further action. The committee system allows a portion of the Council to review and develop items so the whole Council doesn't have to wade through everything.

I think the system works very well and was glad when Mayor Day reinstituted the committees at the beginning of his term in 2002. The committees allow more detailed consideration of an issue than the whole Council could ever afford to give. Something might be "chewed over" in committee for six months before it is brought to the Council, if it ever is. The Council as a whole sometimes would give such an item six minutes. I think it's simple: careful, considered review or hasty, half-baked review?

I mention these irrational conspiracies (and there were more) because those that want to have a positive influence on their city government, at least through me, gain credibility by asking questions and forming opinions based on fact. I am content to work with people like that all day long even if they don't agree with me. However, for those that prefer to construct conspiracies and don't bother to do any fact checking before swearing their conjectures are real, I will give only the consideration they've earned: nothing. The rest of us are too busy and have work too important to waste time trying to untangle their ramblings.

The process of open government is incredibly important to me and I have fought constantly for it, whether at the Plan Commission, or in court, or at the Council. Those that wish to subvert the process for their own goals are trying to deny the rest of us our rights under an open government. That process may not always be exactly what I would like but I will defend it, or I will work to openly revise it, but I won't work to subvert it.

One item that was reported by staff could gain improper traction if reported inaccurately. The city attorney reported that replacement of the Pleasant Valley Rd bridge would require elevating the roadway and bridge out of the floodplain. That is accurate. Raising the roadway would probably require taking a significant portion of the parking area for the range. While this is a likely scenario, it is not one we should expect to see for a long time. There are no plans or monies to replace the bridge (although it definitely needs it). Pleasant Valley Rd should be widened in about 2010 but there are no funds for a new bridge.

[Return to Website]

3 comments

Comments:

Comment from: Ann [Visitor]

Thanks Doug - just keep repeating to yourself Peyton Place lives on...

09/26/07 @ 04:42

Comment from: Randall Dunning [Visitor]

Now Doug, take care that you do not do what you are complaining about by imputing stupidity or bad motives to those who questioned driving force behind the gun range brouhaha. When recommendations and proposals do not appear to make sense, people will imagine the worst. That is just human nature. Twice, I too felt the sting of such unwarranted and unsupported accusations ( Primrose and the town-homes north of Naaman School.) That comes with the territory and calming folks down is part of the job description.

Having said that let me say this: Examining our recent history shows that ulterior motives can and do at times exist. To avoid future rancor, you might just ask staff for the information you requested before setting up a possibility, real or perceived, that there is a move afoot to do something irrevocable. I suspect the same information about the range could have been obtained through the councilman's prerogative to request information without raising the prospect of throwing the gun range into the teeth of the BOA process where, according to the City Attorney, there was a real possibility of shutting down the range. I would suggest that only if staff refused to bring forth the information due to workload or other considerations would it have been necessary to make an agenda item out of the request for information.

The take away from this episode, IMHO, is this: Consider using a flyswatter rather than a hammer when the flyswatter is sufficient to get the job done unless you wish to invite questions about the motives and/or sanity behind choice of the hammer.

Now, as for committee meetings being early or mid afternoon affairs, that was not the way things worked the last 5 years. A great commitment to open government will manifest itself, again IMHO, in efforts to schedule meetings of great public concern at times of greatest public convenience. Having to change meeting rooms due to the number of people attending (so I was told) would suggest this was an issue of greater than normal public concern.

09/27/07 @ 09:50

Comment from: Douglas [Member] · http://www.douglasathas.net

Randy, your points are well-taken. I certainly could easily have chosen a route that might not have involved any confrontation or angst. I did not because I would have been substituting my own judgments behind the scenes on issues that could have proven to be very significant. If the situation had proven to be just the opposite, that the police had notice of serious safety violations or any of the other issues that could have proven to be much worse than they really were, then we would suddenly be springing a behind-the-scenes councilman-orchestrated probe onto the range. Contrary to some of the accusations, I chose to stay out of the process to the degree that I was allowed, to try and keep it from beng a political football, and to keep everything in public even if the sausage-making was nauseating at times. Sure, I knew I'd take some shots. That's okay and I'm not complaining about it. I use the occasion to illustrate that jumping to conclusions doesn't make the assumptions correct and has the potential to negate a valid opinion if backed by conjecture or falsehoods. Just because the national political scene is rife with political discord and mudslinging doesn't mean we have to play by the same rules. Call it naive or call it principled, everyone is welcome to call it whatever they want.

09/27/07 @ 12:08

Comments are closed for this post.