Friday, January 8, 2010

Not, but good enough...

Mark is pimp'n Bill's virtual new digs. I have rats. Who am I to judge anyone?


  1. phunny, phunny. william bill is us and we. just because "slagel sezs" and we should believe? wee willy is even more officially a kool-aide drinker.
    the phunniest part is wee willy complains about anonymous comments ALL the time. so what does he do? he will not even put up his name or picture and pretends he has other involved.
    poor wee wee willy. wee wee brained willy.

  2. The "rumors" he is talking about? Ummmm...he misrepresents them. He does a very careful version of the "rumor," so it seems like he knows what he's talking about. I would call him a douchebag, but I made a New Year's resolution not to call him a douchebag, so I won't call him a douchebag.

  3. @ anon 12:06 ... What are you not going to call wee wee willy? I missed it the first time around.

  4. Look, no matter how hard you try, you are not going to get me to call Wild Bill a douchebag. I won't do it. I won't call Will Bill a douchebag. Calling Wild Bill a douchebag is offensive, and I swore I wouldn't call him a douchebag on this blog.

  5. Ok anon, I get it. You are not going to call him a douche bag. But, what would you call a person who claims to bust rumors with suppositions? Other than an …………….

  6. For my own understanding, which of the rumorcheck article[s] should I eyeball to get the best view of the refutation-by-supposition thing?

    I don't know the issues well enough to see where Bill's being disingenuous. Help a brother out.

  7. Bloggermouse:

    Take a look at his inventions and suppositions on the City's purchase of lots on Arapaho. Listen to the video. Then here are the facts.

    The FACTS are:

    1. The City was asked if they employed a real estate appraiser for the 40,41 and 42 lot purchases. Hiring an appraiser would have given the City a professional opinion as to the value of those lots. The answer was NO.

    2. The City was asked how valuations were determined. The City replied "the valuations were determined by DCAD figures."
    (Lot 42, $20,000 and Lots 40 and 41, $35,000)

    3. City used DCAD valuations choosing to make their purchase price @ $495,000 about ten times the city's valuations

    4. Mr. McCalpin only supposes what the Church paid for the properties, what the Church intended for the properties or what expenses the Church had.

    5. The Texas Bank indicated the loan to the Church for the lots was $105,000 - but FOUR TIMES the DCAD value

    6. Was there ever a request to the City for a building permit on the Bahais site? Not to anyone's knowledge.

    Bottom line: So the City didn't buy the three lots on the basis of a professional appraser's opinion; they paid 10 times the amount of the DACAD value which is the ONLY valuation they looked at, and they could have comdemned the three lots by eminent domain.

    So much for Mr. McCalpin's City and Cooksey assisted failed premise statements.

  8. Typo in #5 above. The church paid more than twice what DCAD listed the properties for and the city paod more than 4 times almost 5 times what the church mortgage was.

  9. Please explain how, under current state law, the city could take the lots by eminent domain.


  10. Most of the so-called rumors are misrepresentations...Wild Bill changes the "rumor" to come up with a "story." For example, the Ronnie Glanton salary issue...we (and Wild Bill) don't know for sure how much he actually makes. The city has refused to do an audit, and has NEVER required Glanton to turn over financial statements, P & L, etc. And, Wild Bill misses at least some of the revenue flowing to Glanton from other parts of the contract.

    If he didn't have all those kids who need to drive around in a city provided car, I would start a rumor that Bill Keffler is gay, because Glanton really seems to enjoy having intercourse with him. *ahem*

  11. In Texas, recently, eminent domain was changed and is restricted to the purpose of public use and excludes taking from one private party and giving to another private party. If the city intend to make a green space, that would be public use and eminent domain would be aa good way for the city to get the property. We do not know what the city wants to do with the land, they have never said. The only reason I have heard straight from the slag was get rid of the "ugly" looks of those house and the front yards and that those do not represent what the city wants for an image. They were embarrassed by the looks of the properties and couldn't have out of towners meet at city hall because the houses were so ugly. So now I ask, as someone else pointed out, which was better visually? What was there, front yards and houses? Or the ass end of the houses on the next street to the north?

  12. Didn't look bad before, although some of the houses were not well tended. Looks better now.

  13. I agree that church's intentions and expenses bit was probably a WAG.

    Maybe the city considered ED but decided it would be cheaper to pay whatever the church was asking at the time.

    Digression - I've heard more chatter about church-owned residences in the last 6mos than in my entire life up to now. I guess I never thought about it before.

    bahai: the houses mentioned above
    the mosque: nearby houses on SV?
    Dallas Budhhist: apollo

  14. Not but a couple of years ago the Bahai people were wanting to put up a sign on their vacant (no houses) land across the street from the library. They were intimidated by the zoning department to the point that they baulked on the follow through. They didn't need a permit, but were lead to believe that there would be trouble if they went forward with the sign.

    It is somehow not surprising that they sold out to real estate speculators using public resources without public approval.

    There is no record of the City Council ever passing a resolution to acquire the properties they decided to purchase from behind closed doors.

    Is land speculation without resolution, ordinance or public approval permissible?