Is Garland one city or eight? Should an ordinance be observed differently in various sections of the city?

 
When I ran for Council about two and a half years ago, my first goal was to "Unite the Districts" and to work for the good of the city. Here's what I said:
 

 
Unite the Districts
We must foster an attitude and policy on the council that we work for the good of all of Garland. We currently have several on the council that have tried to create their own Chicago-style wards, trying to dictate everything that goes on in their districts, demanding to pre-approve new businesses and other development. Such attitudes stifle new development and ideas but also open the door to corruption.
 

 
Every district does better if all do well.
 
As I said then and still believe, when each district acts on its own, as though Garland were eight cities instead of one, we all lose. Even as District 1 does well, we can do our best if the city does well, has a positive image, if we treat residents, businesses, and investors fairly.
 
It's really just common sense, right?
 
When we have eight cities, how are the rules different in each? That was the heart of my comparison to Chicago-style wards. Maybe you want to open a business. There have been Council members here in Garland that thought you needed to check with them first. If you didn't, they might find something objectionable about your zoning case, yet in any other district your business would have been welcomed. Some Council members put weight on existing businesses and residents by pressuring inspectors to take a harassing, zero-tolerance line to the point of being absurd. Often these Council members gave themselves away by their syntax: "my" district, "my" police officers, "my" inspectors, "my" staff members. The peak was when Council members decided that "my" time in office superseded the City Charter.
 
There is another side that is not as noticeable. What rules are staff members to follow? If they are "supposed" to enforce some ordinances laxly in one section of the city and with extra exuberance in another, how can they respect their work and how can citizens know what to expect? It would be akin to the situation where speeders are allowed five miles-per-hour over in one section but might receive a ticket in another section at a mile under.
 
I don't know if conditions have ever deteriorated that we had eight cities instead of one, but I remember times that there were at least four.
 
I feel that following the shakeup and complete turn-around the Council experienced after the Let Us Vote! lawsuit and the Council that resulted when the court ordered an election, we were as close to being one city as any time that I've lived here. I think it's still true today but we may have some slippage. Being one city has made a difference. I've mentioned that our staff has increased their level of professionalism and, in my opinion, competence. It took Council members getting out of the way and doing their job of being a Council, which is to decide policy, and not trying to micromanage. We have definitely been a better city for it.
 
However, we are always subject to falling into multiple cities at any moment. Council members, staff members, and citizens must constantly be watching for such slides and be ever ready to wave the flag to rally the troops should we notice any slippage.
 
If conditions change or new solutions are needed in a section of the city, new approaches can be tried but such practices must maintain uniform adherence to our ordinances and changes must be approved by the whole Council, not arbitrarily by fiat.
 
Demand good government.