Unfair Park from p6 Aside from this, the company said its software is designed to be legally compliant. “It focuses on the internal supply and de- mand dynamics at a particular property and does not consider or have any visibility into availability (supply) at competing properties,” the company said. “Revenue management is commonly used across many industries, and innovations in this area have been to the mu- tual benefit of both consumers and vendors.” The company said the ProPublica article took details out of context, like the mention that RealPage discourages landlords from negotiating prices with tenants. RealPage claims the article ignores “the big reason why many housing providers prefer bot- tom-line pricing,” adding that “negotiating rent opens up the possibility of providing different renters with different pricing for the same housing unit, which can put hous- ing providers squarely in violation of fed- eral Fair Housing laws.” ▼ POLITICS I TED CRUZ ONCE CALLED THE CAPITOL RIOT A ‘VIOLENT TERRORIST ATTACK.’ BY PATRICK STRICKLAND DEEPEST APOLOGIES t might be an awful lot to ask of U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, but the Texas Republican has an issue with consistency. When Cruz appeared on Mark Levin’s Fox News program late last month to promote his new book, Justice Corrupted: How the Left Weaponized Our Legal System, he returned to a subject over which he’d already been amply roasted: the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. Asked about the Capitol riot, Cruz claimed that anyone who described the events as an “insurrection” was parroting “complete political garbage.” “Anyone who uses that word is engaged in partisan spin,” he added. Later, he said, the Biden administration and the Department of Justice have “used the violent acts of a few to smear the tens of thousands of peaceful protesters who were in Washington on Jan. 6,” as well as the “tens of millions of conservatives and Trump vot- ers across this country.” Funny enough, Cruz has taken a different tack in the past — say, in the immediate wake of the Capitol riot. The day after the inci- dent, the senator said former President Donald Trump’s rhetoric was “irresponsi- ble” and “reckless.” He went on to dub the riot “a terrorist at- tack” and insisted that “every one of those violent criminals who attacked the Capitol should be fully prosecuted.” Down the road, ahead of the one-year anniversary, Cruz called the Capitol a “vio- lent terrorist attack on the Capitol, where we saw the men and women of law enforce- ment demonstrate incredible courage, in- credible bravery [and] risk their lives to defend the men and women who serve in this Capitol.” Then came the about-face, of course. On 8 the anniversary, Fox News host Tucker Carl- son blasted Cruz for the “terrorist” com- ments a day earlier, a line of criticism that prompted the senator to come onto Carl- son’s show and apologize. As Carlson grilled him, Cruz expressed regret for his “sloppy phrasing.” He said, “What I was referring to are the limited num- ber of people who engaged in violent attacks against police officers,” he said. (Up until that point, Cruz hadn’t made that distinction.) “I wasn’t saying that thousands of peace- ful protesters supporting Donald Trump are somehow terrorists,” he said. “I wasn’t saying the millions of patriots across the country supporting President Trump are terrorists.” Cutting off Cruz’s long-winded, circular explanation, Carlson said, “I guess I just don’t believe you.” Cruz conceded that his comments were “frankly dumb.” As far as the implicit suggestion that the phrase “terrorist attack” is a somehow less powerful condemnation than describing those events as an “insurrection,” Cruz might have some convincing to do. (In fact, many Republicans called the incident an in- surrection at the time.) In any case, Cruz’s flip-flop on the Capi- tol riot mirrors his U-turn on Trump. Dur- ing the 2016 Republican presidential primary, Trump called Cruz’s wife ugly and suggested his father played a role in the as- sassination of President John F. Kennedy. At the time, Cruz said, “This man is a pathological liar, he doesn’t know the differ- ence between truth and lies … in a pattern that is straight out of a psychology textbook, he accuses everyone of lying.” But when Cruz appeared on The View last week, he tried to explain away his 2016 com- ments. Once Cruz lost that primary, he said, he had a “responsibility” to his constituents. ▼ VOTING ‘RACIAL DISPARITIES’ D VOTING DATA FROM MARCH PRIMARIES SHOWS CONSEQUENCES OF ELECTION LEGISLATION. BY PATRICK STRICKLAND uring the 2021 session, the Texas Leg- islature passed a slew of laws aimed at restricting where and how people can cast their votes, many of which prompted crit- icism from watchdogs and advocacy groups. Now, the D.C.-based Brennan Center for Justice says data the nonprofit group ob- were even starker. “SB-1 related rejection rates were more than a third higher for Black and Latino voters than for white vot- ers and more than 60 percent higher for Asian voters than for white voters,” the Brennan Center noted. Texas is one of several Republican-led states around the country that passed what the Brennan Center describes as “anti-voter legislation” following the November 2020 elections. In the wake of that vote, many Republi- cans nationwide backed former President Donald Trump’s claims that the election had been rigged in Joe Biden’s favor. Between Jan. 1 and Dec. 7, 2021, lawmak- ers had filed more than 440 bills in 49 states that effectively curtail access to the ballot box. Meanwhile, at least 19 states had suc- cessfully enacted 34 restrictive new voting laws following Biden’s electoral victory over Trump. Rose Clouston, the Texas Democratic Gage Skidmore Sen.Ted Cruz is no longer calling the Capitol riot an insurrection. tained shows widespread racial disparities in which mail-in voting applications and ballots were rejected. In September 2021, Texas Gov. Greg Ab- bott signed into law Senate Bill 1, broad leg- islation that severely limited local control of elections and allowed the state to further tighten its grasp on how Texans can vote. Upon signing the bill, Abbott insisted the new law “ensures trust and confidence in our elections system — and most importantly, it makes it easier to vote and harder to cheat.” Contacted by the Observer, Abbott’s of- fice didn’t respond to request for comment on the Brennan Center’s analysis of the data. But in a press release at the time, Ab- bott argued that “safe and secure elections are critical to the foundation of our state.” One provision in SB 1 restricted the con- ditions under which voters could send in their ballots by mail or apply for mail-in bal- lots. It also barred voting advocacy groups from sending out “unsolicited” applications for mail-in ballots. According to the Brennan Center’s analy- sis of data obtained through a public records request, SB 1 led to “extremely high levels” of absentee voter applications and mail-in ballots being rejected during the March pri- mary elections. The Brennan Center said the data was incomplete because many counties had failed to report rejected applications. Still, the watchdog explained, “Nearly 12,000 people who requested mail ballots had their applications rejected. About one- third of those people ended up voting in person, and two-thirds did not vote at all.” Voters of color, the advocacy group ob- served, had their applications and ballots “rejected for S.B.1–related reasons at higher rates than those of white voters.” Asian Americans had their ballots rejected at the highest rate, according to the data, with Latino and Black voters not far behind. Addi- tionally, voters of color were far likelier than white voters to never even receive a mail bal- lot due to the higher rates of rejection. For overall rejections of mail-in ballots and applications combined, the numbers Party’s director of voter protection, said by email, “SB-1 was a racist law when it was written — we told Republicans at the time that it was a racist law, and now this law has, of course, had racist consequences.” Clouston added, “Tragically, it’s hard to think this isn’t Republicans getting exactly what they wanted.” ▼ CITY HALL STILL ON STANDBY F DESPITE DALLAS’ PROMISES, MANY ARE STILL WAITING FOR BUILDING PERMITS. BY JACOB VAUGHN or more than two years now, people in Dallas have experienced lengthy delays in obtaining building permits. From large houses to simple plumbing work, you’ll likely have to wait longer than you should be- fore Dallas gives you the green light. The issue heated up this summer when the mayor and some on City Council cited delays as one of many reasons they wanted to fire City Manager T.C. Broadnax. De- pending on whom you ask, however, the sit- uation hasn’t improved much. The initial drama blew over when Broad- nax and Mayor Eric Johnson agreed to put the firing talk aside and work on getting the city back on track. Broadnax laid out a 100- day plan to get some of this work done. “This plan will help us move forward through the end of the fiscal year to tackle many of the high-priority focus areas of the City Council,” Broadnax said in a July 19 memo. The plan listed development services as its top priority. Broadnax’s 100 days are now running out, and there hasn’t been much progress on the permitting delays, according to builders. Phil Crone, executive director of the Dal- las Builders Association, said he has a love- hate relationship with the city’s Development Services Department right now. He admitted the city has made many improvements in the department and speaks fondly of its new director, Andrew Espinoza. Then, he looks at the wait times builders still face to receive all their required permits. “For all the new things that they’re rolling out and the enthusiasm to take on this prob- lem, the most important aspect of it >> p10 NOVEMBER 3–9, 2022 DALLAS OBSERVER CLASSIFIED | MUSIC | DISH | CULTURE | UNFAIR PARK | CONTENTS dallasobserver.com
