Updated   03/23/05 04:07:44 PM

Video best view in Windows Media - Free Download Click Here

Navigation Bar to Direct Links 

February 16, 2005
Siskel's Questions Were Not Answered
a column by Kerry West

Let’s review the questions Maury Siskel asked and Mr. Sapp’s responses to them:

1. Maury's first question asked for the “repeated proof” Mr. Sapp cited that would show 
“ethical breaches and violations of the sign ordinances never took place.” Now Mr. Sapp 
declines to provide this proof and says he’s “innocent until proven guilty”. 

Perhaps this will help him. Mr. Sapp’s Political Action Committee, NRH Citizens for Tax Fairness, deployed several political signs opposing the Senior and Disabled Tax Freeze in August and September 2004.

NRH Code Enforcement sent him a “notice of violation” letter which informed him that his signs were not in compliance with the city’s sign ordinance. A political sign, according to the NRH Sign Ordinance 2374 that existed at the time, is defined in Section 6, subsection A and F as follows:

6a. A political sign is a sign that contains primarily a 
political message, has an effective area of 36 square feet 
or less, is no more than eight feet in height, is not 
illuminated, and has no moving elements.

6f. Signs with primarily political messages which do not 
meet the definition of (a) above shall not be allowed unless 
within a residential zoning district with a permit, subject 
to other sign requirements.

Some or all of the signs were deployed on commercially zoned property. But wait, there’s more. The fact that Mr. Sapp’s political signs did not conform to the ordinance was stated explicitly in the violation letter. It was also acknowledged by other members of city management and even the city attorney, George Staples. Therefore, the signs should have been prohibited per section 6f of the sign ordinance as well as section 4j which follows: 

4j. Any other sign not specifically allowed by this Ordinance is prohibited.

However, Mr. Sapp was granted peculiar leniency with regard to enforcement of the ordinance and was allowed to deploy them as “portable” signs. A rose by any other name is still a rose, isn't it? Are we to believe that the content of the message changes above a certain size? One might conclude that such leniency was granted in this case because Mr. Sapp’s message was one that some city officials and a majority of Council members wanted to be delivered. The city simply was not to be deterred by its own ordinance. Even after receiving such gracious treatment from city officials, Mr. Sapp failed to 
comply with the terms of the permits that were issued by leaving the signs deployed after the expiration of the permit. He received warning letters from code enforcement requesting their removal. 

Contrast this manner of enforcement to that of city officials during the May 2004 City Council Elections. They went about the city with a tape measure checking the distance between the curb and the tiny (by comparison) signs of opposition candidates apparently looking for opportunities to remove those that were mere inches out of compliance with the same sign ordinance (see item 3 below). Seems like quite a difference to me. Do you see any disparity Mr. Sapp?

One final note: The sign ordinance was just revised, on Jan. 21, 2005, to specifically allow the type of signs Mr. Sapp used in his efforts to defeat the tax freeze. Coincidence?

2. Mr. Sapp says that the only reason small businesses are leaving NRH is to relocate to the NE Mall area. Maury asked Mr. Sapp if he thought that all business owners in NRH receive fair and uniform treatment. He chose not to respond to this query for understandable reasons. I can answer the question for him – they don’t. Simply talk to some of the small business owners in our city, particularly those along the Grapevine Highway and Bedford-Euless Road. Anyone interested in making a serious inquiry into this subject can contact me by email for more information. I will contact affected business owners for their permission before making their names public. They already have enough exposure to city enforcement officers as it is. 

3. Mr. Sapp’s favorite pastime seems to be calling Ron West a liar in a variety of ways. For the record, I am Ron West's oldest son (and to save you the trouble Mr. Sapp, a "disciple"), a fact that I am proud of. Ron does not need anyone to answer for him but we're dealing with Maury Siskel's questions so let's continue. Maury asked Mr. Sapp if Ron West lied when he claimed that his small signs opposing a city bond election in 
February 2003 were picked up by the city days before the bond election. Mr. Sapp again chose not to respond. The signs were, in fact, picked up en masse the day before the election and the event received tepid coverage by the Fort Worth Star Telegram1. Is this representative of the city Mr. Sapp is so proud of? Does Mr. Sapp approve of such tactics? Some of his friends at the city obviously do.

4. Maury stated that he was unaware of Mr. Sapp's support for higher, homestead tax exemptions for Seniors and disabled citizens in lieu of a tax freeze. I was aware that Mr. Sapp was on record as supposedly favoring an increased exemption versus the freeze. However, his primary goal was defeating the freeze, not increasing exemptions. Had his campaign to defeat the freeze been successful, I have little doubt that the city 
would have viewed it as a referendum supporting the status quo and no increases in exemptions, or any other tax abatements for that matter, would have been forthcoming. There’s more that could be said here but the freeze, as an issue, is settled so I will refrain.

5. Maury challenged Mr. Sapp to produce evidence in support of his claim that Ron West offers constant repetition of falsehood, misstatements and the like. Mr. Sapp did not respond. 

6. Maury asked Mr. Sapp for specific details regarding his claim that “Last year in public forums, I appealed for civil discourse in NRH politics”. Mr. Sapp’s practice of “civil discourse” is well documented here at LNO and elsewhere. He chose again not to respond to the question. Is any response from him on this topic really necessary?

7. Mr. Sapp accused Ron West of criticizing city efforts “to create a more attractive business zone”. The definition and details of such plans would weigh heavily upon whether it deserves support from anyone. Mr. Sapp did not elaborate on his point and I am unaware of any statements from Ron West criticizing any real improvements in our city. Maury asked Mr. Sapp for specifics. He ignored the question.

8. Mr. Sapp takes a dim view of those who dare question city leadership and characterizes questioners as “negative” or having a “vision” that is wrong for our city. This is a baseless charge so I won’t entertain it here. However, when Maury asked Mr. Sapp for his vision for the city, apart from the obvious dispatching of Ron West and his so-called disciples, he simply defers the question to some unspecified future event(s). 
OK, Mr. Sapp. We’ll eagerly await the details of your “vision”.

Mr. Sapp decried what he characterized as "numerous taxpayer funded 'freedom of information' witch hunts" but failed to mention his own time consuming, public information request(s). Public Information requests are required in a city with a closed government. If information was freely available to citizens, as it should be, no PIA (Public Information Act) requests would be necessary. The law exists for a reason. Perhaps the 
future article he promised will provide details of his own activities as well as those he deems to be witch hunts. Many of the documents referenced in this article were obtained via a PIA request, to Mr. Sapp's chagrin I am sure. Perhaps Mr. Sapp could suggest an alternative method of obtaining such information. Since he is a participant in the very thing he condemns, I will not expect an answer to this question from him either.

Mr. Sapp often apologizes to you, the reader, for the actions or words of those other than himself. I am unclear as to why he thinks this is appropriate or why he thinks his own words and actions do not merit apologies. Nevertheless, I will only apologize for the length of this column. I felt the length was necessary in order to deal within the realm of specifics and avoid the swamp of “constant unsubstantiated allegations“ that Mr. Sapp bemoans yet which he deals in almost exclusively. 

Mr. Sapp, if you choose to respond to this article, please be specific and substantiate your charges. Substantive discourse is worthy of the effort. Baseless accusations and character assaults do not merit my time or that of the reader and will be duly ignored..


Bibliography

1 "City Eyes Stricter Policy on Signs" by Josh Shaffer, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Feb. 5, 2003
"Perception is Everything in Government" by Dave Lieber, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Feb. 7, 

Please tell our advertisers you saw them on LNO!!
Email Here with Your Advertising Inquiry
60,000 Unique Monthly Visitors
New Internet Video Commercials

Get a month of advertising 24/7 for what a single small newspaper ad costs!

IS NOW ON THE AIR,
CLICK HERE TO
GO TO THAT SECTION.
Advertise with video click below:
LOCAL NEWS ONLY.COM

Colleyville Lions $1,000 Scholarships.  High School Seniors Apply Here.