If the city follows the City Attorney's Office recommendations, Dallas residents may no longer be able to petition to shut down businesses found to be harmful to the community.
Activists and neighborhood leaders have warned that the city could disenfranchise residents in a process known as write-off. Currently, residents or city council members can petition to allow evidence to be submitted to determine whether a business is causing enough negative impacts to warrant closure.
In the past, write-offs have affected, for example, car washes where attempts to curb drug crime have repeatedly failed, or small auto repair shops that have sat in place for years as city planners pursue new urban plans. Closure is now possible. In effect, it was forced to disappear.
The new state law adds protections, including financial relief for business owners in the event of a write-off. City officials are working to amend the ordinance to bring Dallas into compliance with the new law. However, state law does not limit residents' right to petition to begin the write-off process. Some say the city attorney's plan to strip residents of their right to file write-off claims goes too far.
No one knows of any cases in which residents have actually petitioned. In many cases, residents work with their city council members or directly with city staff to initiate write-offs. But activists want to preserve the right to petition in case leaders fail.
“People should have the right to challenge what happens with write-offs,” said Raul Reyes, an activist and leader of West Dallas 1. My city council members have the right to submit it if they don't want it. ”
The City Attorney's Office says the change could save the city millions of dollars.
“If the Board of Adjustment orders the closure of a nonconforming business, that decision could cost taxpayers millions of dollars and could result in a loss of public safety, street repair, or other city priorities. This will result in less funding for essential items, such as the statement.
City Attorney Tammy Palomino did not respond to a request for comment.
Amortization begins when the Board of Adjustment receives a petition filed by a resident or city council member. The lawsuit will require several hearings during which evidence will be presented to determine whether the site is causing enough negative impacts to warrant its closure. The City Council will make the final decision.
If the recommended change to the city ordinance passes, the city will no longer accept petitions from residents.
“The proposed ordinance amendment being considered by the City Planning Advisory Committee would leave it up to the City Council to make decisions by taxpayers to request that the City Council cease use of nonconforming uses where appropriate,” said Jenna Carpenter, City Communications Director. he writes.
A Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee meeting will be held Tuesday, where members appointed by the City Planning Commission will hear recommendations from the city attorney's office and residents' opinions on the ordinance.
After considering the proposed amendment, the commission may recommend the proposed amendment to the City Planning Commission. The amendment will then be placed on the agenda for a public hearing and, if approved, sent to City Council.
Since 2019, at least five lawsuits have been filed with the Board of Adjustment to review nonconforming land uses, and all petitions were initiated by the City Council, according to Board of Adjustment meeting records.
“I don't know of any place that limits the ability of residents to petition the government for anything,” said Ali Bargil, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit that provides free legal services nationwide. Told. “There are First Amendment implications when the government deprives people of the right to seek certain remedies from the government.”
Bargil was part of a team representing Hinga Mbogo and his small car repair shop on Ross Avenue, which was rezoned in 2005 after city council approved new zoning for the area. It was closed in 2016 through a write-off process after the business was found to be non-conforming.
Jim Schermbeck, a local activist and director of the environmental grassroots organization Downwinders at Risk, called the city attorney's proposal undemocratic. He pointed out that it's not every day that residents come forward asking for write-offs to close their businesses.
“The new law does not prohibit individuals from filing their own write-off applications. It was the city attorney's office that went out of its way to take away rights that Dallas residents already had. It was free. It was unnecessary. ,” Schermbeck said.
State Sen. Tan Parker, who authored SB929, said in a statement that the bill is a common-sense bill that simply requires landlords to be compensated if cities force them to close their businesses.
Some strongly support the new law, like Dale Davenport, who owned Jim's Car Wash when the city closed it in 2019. The city targeted the car wash on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard after multiple reports of robberies, drug sales and prostitution. .
The city of Davenport took steps to reduce crime, including installing more security cameras, but the city ultimately closed the location. Mr Davenport claims he was unfairly targeted.
“We need to implement this new law and protect small business owners,” he said. “City of Dallas, they can't be trusted and they can't be given too much power.”
But some feel the change to not allow resident petitions could have a bigger impact on some minorities than others.
“What are we doing, Dallas? Who is most likely to use this tool?” said Janie Cisneros, leader of Singleton United/Unidos, a neighborhood group in west Dallas. He says this. “Probably a minority community.”
Why do residents fight?
Cisneros has been active through community work with GAF's “Gotta Go” or “GAF Vete Ya.” The campaign is an effort to remove asphalt shingle manufacturer GAF from its West Dallas plant on Singleton Avenue and stop harmful sulfur dioxide and particulate matter emissions. Affects nearby areas.
These neighbors, along with District 6 City Councilman Omar Narváez, have been participating in discussions about working together to address contamination concerns and minimize harm to residents' health. Narvaez said at a City Hall event in July 2022 that while write-offs are being considered as a means to close GAF, it should be a last resort.
A few weeks later, negotiations ended when GAF announced it would close in July 2029. Neighboring residents hope for GAF's early withdrawal.
On Oct. 3, Cisneros attempted to submit a request for GAF write-off, but was told the Board of Adjustment would not accept the request due to new state law. She had wanted to do so several months ago, but she was advised to wait as negotiations were ongoing.
Although GAF plans to close, it said it has no intention of withdrawing its zoning application that would prevent the area from being used as an industrial zone in the future. Narvaez said in an interview that he can't do anything about the zoning lawsuit or amendment at this time because it's stuck in the commission and the ongoing process.
Once the lawsuit makes it through the process, it will be up to the City Council to vote on it.
Cisneros and Downwinders at Risk hired consulting firm Bva Group to analyze how much it would cost the city to close GAF through write-offs. According to this study, the cost will be between $36 million and $45 million over two to three and a half years.
The city attorney's office did not respond to requests for information about how much the city has paid in past write-off lawsuits brought by council members and residents.
Cisneros and Downwinders at Risk leaders argue that it is dangerous to leave the process to council members alone.
“What happens if our city council members don't stand up for their communities? Then we have no way to fight,” Cisneros said.
District 11 City Councilor Janie Schultz said the City Council would not vote in favor of any amendment that would restrict residents' rights.
“People should have the right to apply for something, object to something, and do whatever they want on their land through our application process,” Schultz said. “I don’t think it’s necessary for a city council member to check someone’s boxes individually.”
Activists are questioning why no one is enforcing the current law, as the coordinating committee will not accept applications until the ordinance changes are finalized.
“When the law changes, there has to be some process to ensure that individuals can comply until the law is changed, and I think the city is falling short in that regard,” Sharmek said. ” he said.
©2023 Dallas Morning News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
