SMU Gets Approval For Signs, Signs They’ve — Oops — Already Installed
SMU is a strange entity. It’s a freestanding, independent organization, but still needs University Park approval for most things.
With that, SMU came before the UP City Council Tuesday night to ask for approval for a series of signs dotting the campus. During the pre-meeting presentation, though, a few councilmembers recognized something: some of these signs already existed.
“I guess it’s better to ask for forgiveness than permission,” said Councilmember Dawn Moore.
During the main session, UP Mayor Dick Davis asked SMU attorney Paul Ward a fairly straight-forward question: “What if we said no?”
After a few chuckles, Ward responded.
“There would be some deconstruction, and much conversation at the university for the legal department to come before the construction department,” he said.
No need. Councilmembers approved the signs.
20 comments to "SMU Gets Approval For Signs, Signs They've — Oops — Already Installed"
Half laugh, half knowing nod.
Z, I know that in careful reading of your post you are NOT saying that being here first is a good excuse, you’re just explaining the mindset of our so-called public officials. But it’s important to stress that that mindset is quite detrimental and is based on an irrelevant fact.
All that said, I don’t think that is the mindset of the Council. I’ve heard them use that as an excuse, but they have also made it clear before that they sometimes take orders from “important people”, all of whom seem to be quite loyal to SMU.
if they’re their signs,
in the middle of their campus,
why do they need a permit?
oh, i know, they need the permit
so that they have to pay the fee
(tax) to the city.
What we WERE commenting on was the fact that it really doesn’t matter what they do because they always get whatever the want, whether it is good for the community or not. That’s certainly an opinion, but it is one based on experience, and it appears to me that I’m not the only one sharing that experience. It is true that that particular concept (SMU seemingly controlling things) is 100% perception, but the concept of them being a bad neighbor is absolutely not just perception.
When I talk about neighbor, I don’t mean just a member of the community. I don’t know where Rico lives, but if he is directly adjacent to the SMU campus, he would know what rotten neighbors they are, and I should probably use a stronger word. They don’t care two cents about how they affect those that are their actual neighbors, and they take that attitude with an arrogant swagger that makes things even worse.
And does no one recognize the economic value that SMU brings to UP through thousands of students paying rent, shopping, and eating in UP? You’re welcome. And if it wasn’t for the university students, all those crappy, old apartments in UP wouldn’t be worth nearly as much as they are. You’re welcome for the property values, too.
Just because you’re rich doesn’t mean you get everything you want. If you don’t want to be bothered, UPDad, move to a farm in west Texas.
@UPdad is right. They are not a good neighbor. If they maintained and upgraded their existing property, that’s one thing. But SMU is intent on slow expansion and takeover of part of the residential character of University Park.
After meetings in the 90s with SMU’s lawyers and planners, we saw the handwriting and moved west, although not to a farm.
SMU is not a good neighbor. I wish the city council and P&Z would, for once, just say no.
I like having SMU local, but don’t pretend that UP actually needs SMU for anything.
That is simply coincidence.
Really.
Sure
Leave a Reply