New Braunfels Herald Zeitung (Newspaper) - June 14, 1985, New Braunfels, Texas
Royko says rowdy soccer fans deserve billycubs
Dave Kramer. General Manager Hobart Johnson, Editor
MailbagIs City Council ducking referendum issue?
I sent this letter to City Council members Tieken, Rushing, and Espinoza.
“You say that you think the Utilities’ bond proposal ought to be decided by public referendum. Since you have not previously displayed any great affection for citizen participation in Council’s decisions, I
naturally am suspicious of your doing so
You have not felt the need to consult a public referendum on the city’s annual budget, despite its being several times larger than the annual debt service of this proposal. And you showed a singular disdain for citizen participation in your recent sign ordinance decision. So, why have you suddenly become enthralled with the referendum?
It occurs to me that you may be
maneuvering to embarrass the Utilities’
management without directly seeming to do so, or that you do not wish to take rep-sonsibility for offending part of your political base.
Well, life is full of hard choices. When I recently became a father, I accepted the condition that along with the joy of cuddling an infant comes the responsibility of changing diapers. Similarly for you, along with the thrill, prestige and authority of being a City Council member comes the responsibility to wield that authority.
So I urge you, do not duck this issue. The decision to accept or deny the Utilities’ bond proposal is yours to make. State your case plainly and vote “for or against.’’
Sincerely, Davis JacksonP£fZ commissioners had minds made up
At last Tuesday’s Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Mr. L. Swift of San Marcos asked the Commission to rezone 5.5 acres he owned at the entrance of Oak Grove subdivision from a residential district to a commercial district. Concerning that request, Tom Casteel, John Dierksen, John Svoboda and Joe Hartigan, said in effect to the citizens at the meeting, we hear you, but we don’t care about your concerns for your neighborhood or your homes; we don’t care about the opinion of the New Braunfels City Council; and we don’t care about preserving the natural beauty of the Hill Country — we support the right of the developer from San Marcos to come in and put up miniwarehouses and a convenience store next to your home. That’s progress and we have to prepare for it.
They ignored the pleas of parents concerned with the safety of their children in the subdivision; they ignored the pleas of residents whose life savings are invested in their homes; they ignored the pleas of landowners whose families had owned land in that area for generations and who had endured hardships unknown today, just to hold onto the land for their children. No one spoke in favor of the zoning change except the developer.
John Dierksen, in explaining why he voted on a subsequent agenda item to rezone a piece of property on Highway 46 South from R-2 to C-3, said, “this area has lost its
residential use over the years.” It is no wonder, when he and other members of the Commission spot rezone an area anytime a developer comes in and asks for a change. What’s next? Academy Street? California? What is the point of zoning if it is not to insure the preservation of neighborhoods and areas of similar use?
The citizens in this area, as well as other areas of the community, made their feelings known to their elected representatives. The City Council listened and voted unanimously several weeks ago to keep EM 306 residential. Now these four appointed officials, who are not elected, have said wait a minute, we know what is best for New Braunfels and FM 306. These officials have in effect thumbed their noses at the City Council and put the interests of an outside developer before the interests of their community and their neighbors.
The bottom line was that these members did not wish to see Mr. Swift lose any money on the deal...it wasn’t fair. What about the homeowners? Does the Commission wish to extend the same protection to the homeowners in the subdivision that they won’t lose any money on their homes when Mr. Swift puts up warehouses and a convenience store next to them? Mr. Swift deserves no guarantees on his business ventures. Risk goes with the making of money.
Most of the arguments in favor of rezoning were just smoke. They had no real substance. One of the most ridiculous was that dividing Mr. Swift’s property into ten residential lots would create more trattic
hazards on EM 306 than if the property was zoned commercial. On any given weekend, there are literally thousands of cars speeding along EM 306 on their way to and from Canyon I.ake. To open up this area to commercialization would cause this traffic to become congested and dangerous as the cars stop and turn into the commercial establishments. Ten new homes in the subdivision whose residents would be pulling out onto EM 306 would not cause anywhere near the congestion that commercial establishments would. It was evident to all of those there that these four men had already made up their mind before the meeting and they didn’t care at all about the homeowners’ interests or their safety.
The people of this area are not opposed to growth and progress for the city of New Braunfels. What we oppose is the wanton destruction of residential areas and the natural beauty of EM 306 for the sake of a few individuals whose only motive is to make a fast buck. EM 306 has been zoned a commercial district from 1-35 up to the MKT Railroad. These is more than enough room for Mr. Swift to build in that area that was set aside for commercial development.
I urge every citizen in this community who is interested in protecting EM 306 from exploitation and destruction to come to the City Council Meeting that will consider this rezoning change and voice their opinion. If the Commission succeeds in rezoning EM 306 for the sake of progress, how long will it be
before they bring progress to your neighborhood?
Sincerely, Barry AllisonRemember the good ones, Pasadena teenager says
On my way home to New Braunfels from Houston (I was traveling alone), I hit a metal blade in the road on Interstate IO between Katy and Sealy and ripped my front tire to pieces.
I was able to pull off onto the shoulder but could not see a service station in either direction. Within five minutes, a jeep containing two boys and two girls had stopped to help. They were also on their way to New Braunfels (they were from Pasadena).
Within 20 minutes, they had changed my tire and proceeded to follow me to the nearest service station to put air in my spare tire and check the air pressure in my remaining three tires.
I tried to give them $20 (told them it would at least help pay for their tube rental). They flatly refused.
When I told them I would really feel better if they would accept the money as a token of my appreciation, one of the boys smiled and said, “Next time you hear about all the rotten things teenagers are doing these days, just remember there are still some of us good ones around.”
What could have been a very traumatic, not to mention dangerous, situation turned into an enlightening experience!
Grateful in New Braunfels Terry Krone
Next time, bop them on head
We’re now hearing all sorts of sociological theories as to why the English soccer fans killed a few dozen rival Italian fans at the championship game in Belgium.
You can take your pick.
— The English class system deprives them of a sense of identity and self-worth, so they compensate for this loss toy smacking some soccer fans from Italy on the head with lead pipes.
— The English economic system makes them poor and without prospects, so they express their fiscal frustration by going after some Italian soccer fan with a razor.
— The decline of England as a world military power has left them feeling less masculine and strong, so they vent their suppressed warlike feelings by smashing an Italian soccer fan in the face with a chain.
— liverpool is a bleak, depressing place to live, with its declining industries and gray skies and air. So they try to brighten their gloomy spirits by trampling some Italian soccer fans to death.
Oh, we could go on and on, the theories are so abundant. We can even create a few of our own, which will sound easily as persuasive as the more popular ones.
How about this: fish and chips or bangers and mash are not nearly as tasty as fettucini carbonara, so the English fans express their culinary disappointments by knocking a wall down on Italian soccer fans.
Or this: Italian men are reputed to be more romantically inclined than Englishmen. So, the English fans proclaim their sexual frustrations by smashing an Italian fan on the head with a bottle.
All these theories are interesting and they give sociologists and shrinks a chance to be quoted in the papers. And there might even be a tiny chance that there’s some truth in them.
But I have my own theory. It’s short and simple. It goes Uke this: A drunken bum is a drunken bum.
Every Friday and Saturday night in this and any other booze-consuming society, you will have a certain number of drunken bums hitting each other with bottles, chairs, fists, or whatever else is handy.
Now, when they do this individually in a bar or on the street, nobody says that the drunken bum was provoked by economic conditions, his social standing, his feelings of nationaUsm or any other nonsense.
The cop says he is a drunken bum and lays a billyclub across his brow. His wife says he’s a drunken bum. The judge says he is a drunken bum. And if you asked the drunken bum why he did it, he’d probably say: “cause I’m a drunken bum.” It is unanimous.
When you have several thousand drunken bun — as there were in the soccer stadium — nothing has changed except the numbers. And the danger. One drunken bum can be a nuisance. Thousands of them are a menace.
Regardless of the numbers, though, the solution is still the same. A billyclub across the brow, or the equivalent.
And that’s where it all went wrong in the soccer stadium. As the bloody scene was described by a reporter from The Wall Street Journal, who was sitting right there, the Belgian cops did almost nothing. If anything, they looked frightened, cowardly.
It s possible that there weren’t enough cops, and those who were there weren’t prepared. Whatever the reason, they failed.
Had there been enough cops, prepared and where they belonged, there probably wouldn’t have been a riot and all those deaths. And if the English fans had chosen to riot, then the dead would have been among those who deserved that fate — the rioters.
The fact is, once a mob sets out to maim or kill innocent people, there’s not a thing wrong with the police maiming or killing them to protect the potential victims.
If some maniac with a knife Ukes off after a patsy on a city street, and is shot by a cop, the cop gets a pat on the back.
How is that any different than a mob of homicidal types going into a bloody frenzy in a stadium?
If anything should have been learned in Belgium, it’s that sports fans who set out to destroy or hurt of kill, have no more right to do that than a creep with a knife on a dark street. And they should be treated as what they are
— dangerous criminals.
A few years ago, during the last inning of the Wold Series in Philadelphia, something unusual happened. Cops with guard dogs suddenly filed out on the field and took up positions facing the sUnds.
The message was clear and simple. You paid to come to the ballpark to see a game, to cheer and have a good time. Fine. But, you don’t have the right to mob the field, menace the players, and tear up somebody else’s property. So stay in the sUnds where you belong.
Oh, the wailing that was heard that night by the civil UberUrians and the sports page pundits. A pall had been cast on the great American game. The fans had been insulted. Vicious dogs had been pitted against sports fans. The dreaded police sUte had arrived.
Overlooked in all the handwringing was the satisfying fact that not one drunken bum — or ten thousand of them
— rushed the field that day.
Too bad the Belgian cops don’t follow American baseball.
What went wrong with Iran policy?
WASHINGTON (AP) — More than six years after the shah of Iran was swept from the Peacock throne in a frenzy of Moslem fundamentalism, it is still impossible to be certain what went wrong with U.S. policy in Tehran or if the Carter administration could have helped arrange a different outcome.
Gary Sick, who was the Iran specialist at the National Security Council at the time, says the United States should have shopped around for a strong, capable leader in the Persian Gulf country and done everything possible to try to persuade the shah to put him in a position of power.
Placed between the people and the throne, the new leader would have had the duty of carrying out reforms and preventing disorder with a measure of firmness “to make
people think before Laking to the streets.”
Sick is convinced there were candidates with the credibility and legitimacy to fill such a role.
But the former White House aide admits his judgment is partly based on hindsight. He is not sure the strategy would have worked, considering the shah’s aversion to rivals, the distractions of the feverish and simultaneous U.S. effort to broker a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel and the “unprecedented edict” of the Nixon administration. Arranged largely by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the edict had given the shah guaranteed access to billions of dollars of the most sophisticated nonnuclear technology in the U.S. arsenal.
“Whether one liked it or not, Iran was the regional tail wagging the superpower dog,” Sick writes in “All Fall Down; America’s Tragic Encounter With Iran.”
The book, a dramatic day-by-day account of how the Carter administration tried to cope with the political hurricane that flattened Iran, and then the taking of American hostages and failed rescue operation, illustrates how American diplomacy operates best within an expected framework — and not so well when events abroad take mercurial turns.
Sick and Henry Brecht, who was in charge of the Iran desk at the State Department, recommended independently of each other that the United States back the convening of a 6- to 8-man committee of Iranian “notables” to work out a solution as power slipped from the shah’s grasp. Former Undersecretary of State George Ball floated a similar idea to William Sullivan, the U.S. ambassador in Tehran.
But Sullivan was reporting to Washington that the shah appeared to be resolute. The State Department sent word through the ambassador that the United States wanted the shah to remain in Tehran and oversee the formation of a new Cabinet. The fires of revolution were not banked.
Discussing his conclusions in an interview, Sick said, "I really don’t think we had much power to shape the outcome — to tell the shah to do this or do that.”
Mostly, Sick concludes, the shah’s own inability to function brought about his downfall. He was struggling with cancer and trying to put down a revolution in a hurry so he could turn the throne over to his son, possibly by 1980. ‘‘He was exhausted,” Sick said, “and out of ideas.”
FRANKIE1 HELLUVA SHOW'LOVED IT‘ YOU STILL 607 THE COPEN PIPES, mCJO NOS!PA1
THANK YOU, PON IAPPRE GATE THAT s.
FRANKIE, I VV AHT YOU TO HEET SOME FRJENPS OF MINE
I CANI DON. TVE OOT TO OO SEE ABOUT GETTIN6 THIS BROAD FIRED FROM THE ^ CASINO.
FRANKIE. SIT MADE6UYST DOUIN. SHOU) TOURE AIRSOME RESPECT. MURDERERS?
tm sirr/N'uj/TH mow1 no
MADE OUTS KIDDING?
HEE, HEE! 14/HAT J TELL YOU? SAME SKINNY KID WITH STARS IN HIS EYES'
LET ME 60 CET A PHOTOGRAPHERI