8 August 28 - september 3, 2025 dallasobserver.com DALLAS OBSERVER Classified | MusiC | dish | Culture | unfair Park | Contents for a reading, but it did pass the Committee on Transportation, causing panic at the headquarters in Dallas. As the DART Killer Bill progressed through the legislative process, DART started looking for new ways to save money while also appeasing some of the dissatisfied member cities. They created their new gen- eral mobility program (GMP), which in- cludes the largest service cuts in history. The board of directors will cast a final vote on the GMP on Aug. 26. The GMP “redistribute[s] 5% of the agency’s annual sales tax revenue among seven member cities for a period of two years.” ▼ DEVELOPMENT COOLING DOWN, BUILDING UP AFTER FAILED MEDIATION, NEIGHBORS DROP PEPPER SQUARE DEVELOPMENT LAWSUIT. BY EMMA RUBY A coalition of Far North Dallas neigh- bors has dropped a lawsuit against the city of Dallas and local devel- oper Henry S. Miller Companies. They say that a new development law passed in the state Legislature in June became a “nuclear bomb” to their legal resistance to the planned redevelopment of the Pepper Square shopping center. Matt Bach, leader of the Save Pepper Square Neighborhood Association, which filed the lawsuit, said the decision to volun- tarily “non-suit” the case came after a failed attempt at court mediation between the par- ties. The Pepper Square redevelopment case was passed by the Dallas City Council in a vote of 10-4 in March, clearing the way for an old shopping center to be revamped into around 870 housing units, much to the ire of some residents. The subsequent lawsuit, which was filed in April, accused the city of spot zoning, an illegal practice in which a land use deemed inconsistent or incompatible with the sur- rounding area is granted to a small zone, generally to the benefit of a single property owner. While Pepper Square’s “Community Mixed-Use” designation was consistent with two adjoining tracts of land, neighbors argued that nearby residential neighbor- hoods should have made the parcel ineligi- ble for dense housing development. All of that went out the window, though, this past June, when Senate Bill 840 was passed into law. The law will allow commer- cially zoned areas to be turned into mixed- use and multi-family developments by right. “That kind of cut the legs out from under our legal efforts,” Bach told the Observer. “It blew everything else out of the water. We’re hoping [SB 840] might be challenged, but so far, that hasn’t happened.” The city of Dallas and Henry S. Miller Companies could not be immediately reached for comment. According to the neighborhood alliance, there was a short-lived court mediation be- tween neighbors and Henry S. Miller Com- panies over the summer in which neighbors presented an alternative design concept that would “bridge perspectives of the neighbor- hood and the developer.” Bach said that while the mediation was President and CEO Greg Miller’s first time seeing the designs, Bach was disappointed that the developer was not more receptive to the plans, which included 650 residential units. In deciding not to pursue further litiga- tion, the neighborhood association said it hopes to rebuild a working relationship with the developer. While Monday’s decision may finally mark a close to one of Dallas’ most conten- tious development cases in years, Bach said the legacy of community involvement that the project inspired will continue. “It’s more than just a silver lining; it’s sort of the victory. We’ve shown that neighbor- hoods, when they band together, have much more clout than what was previously imag- ined,” Bach said. “It’s a case study of what a neighborhood can do when they come to- gether and fight as a single entity.” ▼ ABORTION PENALIZED CARE TEXAS OB-GYNS FEAR $100,000 CIVIL SUITS IF NEW BILL PASSES. BY ALYSSA FIELDS T he 89th Legislative Second Special Session began on Aug. 15, and before the end of their first day at work, Re- publican lawmakers advanced a bill that would further diminish the limited repro- ductive healthcare available in Texas. The Senate Committee on State Affairs, which is comprised of 10 Republicans and one Dem- ocrat, cleared Senate Bill 7, which would al- low private citizens to sue manufacturers and distributors of abortion-inducing drugs. The bill, which will be read on the Senate floor in the coming weeks, would be civilly enforced, imposing a minimum $100,000 fee in statutory damages per violation. Any person, with the exception of government officials, can sue an entity, including physi- cians, involved in the manufacturing, distri- bution, transportation, delivery, prescription, provision, or possession of an abortion-inducing drug. “The intent is to be a very strong and un- equivocal statement to those who would ship these pills into Texas that, don’t do that,” Sen. Bryan Hughes, the main author of the bill, said when an identical version of the bill made it through the Senate during the regular session. “This is a strong state- ment about these pills and their harm to lit- tle babies and to women. It’s strong.” The bill allows for incredibly limited ex- ceptions for medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies and the removal of an already deceased fetus in the case of a miscarriage. But critics say there are frequent and neces- sary medical uses for the most commonly used abortion-inducing drugs, mifepristone and misoprostol, beyond what the bill out- lines, and that the bill could place a target on Texas doctors performing standard proce- dures with the drugs. “With the potential passage of SB 7, hesi- tation is absolutely reintroduced with the management of obstetric emergencies and the day-to-day management of miscarriage, and day-to-day gynecologic care,” said Dr. Deborah Fuller in an email. Dr. Fuller has been a practicing OB-GYN who has been practicing in Dallas since 1988. “...The hesi- tation is there as I would be limited in my use of these medications I call upon weekly… This puts us back in an environment of fear and confusion, and could also lead to poten- tial harm for the patient.” The fear of lawsuits introduces a contra- diction between a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath to provide the best care possible and legal limitations. “Our Hippocratic Oath is to provide, to the utmost of our ability, ethical and profes- sional care for all patients under all circum- stances. In Texas, we are aware that those providing obstetrical care (emergency room providers, obstetrical providers, and family medicine providers) have to walk a tight- rope with our Hippocratic Oath, knowing SB 8 and SB 4 exist, which eliminate any pregnancy termination… With the passage of SB 7, if I have any hint that I have any limi- tations of these medications, I have to think about the safety of performing various pro- cedures without the safety of misoprostol.” Legal Complexities The bill is seemingly written to target out-of-state distributors and manufacturers of abortion-inducing drugs. Shipping abortion-inducing drugs into Texas, as well as prescribing the medi- cation over a telehealth consultation, has been illegal in Texas for two years. However, shield laws, usually in liberal states, provide legal protections to providers and manufac- turers who prescribe and ship the pills to women who cannot get them within their own state borders. SB 7 applies only to private citizens and does not give the state any power, according to Texas Policy Research, a nonprofit policy institute that endorsed the bill. Thus, it can- not be as easily challenged in court. “The bill makes it clear that the state is not enforcing the law directly, which may be a legal strategy to avoid judicial review un- der federal constitutional protections,” reads the Texas Policy Research bill analysis. Amy Bresnen and her husband Steve have been lobbyists in Austin for decades, and have worked diligently on abortion-re- lated legislation for several sessions. The Bresnens explain that SB 7 allows private citizens to claim that an aborted fetus is a “wrongful death” in order to meet the injury requirements for civil court. Adobe Stock Pepper Square in Dallas is going to look much different, regardless of what some neighbors hoped for. Unfair Park from p6 Michael Barera, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons The proposed changes would have increased a paratransit ride from $3.50 to $6, one way.
