Government not a developer
Re: “Now you see them, now you don’t — With Dallas City Hall’s future in question, a look at 20 examples of architectural destruction,” by Mark Lamster, Jan. 11 Arts & Life story.
During his time in Dallas, Mark Lamster has added tremendously to the conversation around space and culture. His writing is smart and sharp. His recent piece downtown misses the mark though. He warns of people profiting from development culminating toward the end of the piece.
I share his fear of cookie-cutter apartments — in Old East Dallas, we have those, but the thesis here is wrong. He thinks the government should not delegate development to corporate developers — the only way I can read this is that the government should be in the business of developing commercial real estate.
The government should regulate what all can be built, but they do not build themselves. They partner, in some cases, with private industry, but the city of Dallas does not decide who does what with private land.
Opinion
I want the same thing as Lamster wants — a connected, vibrant and walkable downtown, but the language of this piece is dangerous. It believes the state knows better than the individual.
Lamster, like many Dallasites, is a transplant and thus might not appreciate the history of our city, but we exist for one major reason: It is a positive place for commerce.
AT&T is leaving Dallas because they can make more profit in Plano. Our paper should have a healthy critique of developers, but not run them off. This anti-capitalistic take should be deeply criticized. I encourage him to go sit with any developer to see just how hard it is to profit.
Gunnar Rawlings, Dallas
Be the voice for nonviolence
This month, we recognize and honor the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I believe his words and actions are no less relevant today than they were over 50 years ago.
More than just his words, but in particular, his actions. I will never be the orator that he was, but I can be a similar active, participating force, an agent for change, a contributor to peace and nonviolence.
In voicing his commitment to nonviolence, he said, “If I am the last, lone voice speaking for nonviolence, that I will do.”
And so the relevant question for each of us today is, am I willing to be the last, lone voice speaking for nonviolence? Am I willing to express my deep desire for peace? Am I willing to do whatever it takes to never give up hope, never give up the message, never submit to apathy and never to say “Oh, let them take care of it?”
Leonard Ellis, Arlington
Address runaway verdicts
Re: “Texas is losing its edge as insurance costs rise — Legislature should continue to set the standard for lawsuit reform, not trail it,” by Ryan Patrick, Thursday Opinion.
This op-ed is correct that Texas was once the gold standard when it came to common-sense legal reform. However, a surge of abusive lawsuits and runaway court verdicts is threatening our reputation as a job-friendly state.
Unfortunately, Texas is now home to some of the nation’s largest nuclear verdicts — court awards exceeding $10 million. Between 2009 and 2023, Texas saw 207 nuclear verdicts totaling more than $45 billion. In 2023, six of the top 10 verdicts in the country were handed down in Texas, totaling over $200 million.
In 2025, Texas courts delivered some of the largest verdicts in state history, including $831 million in San Antonio and $640 million in Harris County.
Driven by questionable legal practices, nuclear verdicts are a significant cause for concern. And they have landed Texas a spot on the 2025-26 Judicial Hellholes Watch List — a dire warning that Texas’ record of business excellence is under attack.
Texas’ economic strength and future prosperity hinge on ensuring its courts are focused on justice, not greed. Lawmakers must address the root causes of these runaway verdicts.
Roger B. Borgelt, Austin
Find sanity on immigration
Re: “Federal courts must curb anti-immigrants push — Where are the checks and balances on the Trump administration’s unconstitutional practices?” by Paul Hunker, Jan. 12 Opinion.
I appreciate Hunker’s opinion piece on the Trump administration’s immigration practices and enforcement. It clearly summarizes all the ways the extremely restrictive immigration policies are cruel and unconstitutional, how they lack due process and ignore the rights of citizens.
These policies are the complete opposite of the Biden administration’s permissive immigration policies. Wouldn’t it be great if we could find some sanity and middle ground on immigration? However, I am pessimistic because of the polarization in the country, in the Congress and encouraged by the Trump administration.
Richard Bach, Garland
One side or both is lying
While almost universally accepted and probably true, the statement “there are two sides to every story” warps some when it comes to current American politics. Those sides, theirs and ours, his and hers, we and they, become suspect even in the face of indisputable facts and verifiable statistics.
Regrettably, in the political arena today, it means that one side, or both, are lying. Watching the news unfold becomes a struggle with emotional restraint and diminishes our noble goal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have no solutions to offer and truly wish it were not so.
Ted M. Moore, Dallas/Preston Hollow