[ScrtAccess]

Heres a copy of an email received back from the city manager:

Don't believe everything you read in the paper. I have copied a reply that I have sent earlier because I have received so many responses.





I too was very upset with the article. My wife said it made me sound evil and I agree. I can only say that when you have the power as a reporter to cut and paste words you can make people say anything. I did say Mrs. Hodge was stupid for acting as her own attorney, but it was in a totally different context. The reporter forgot to say that we have had numerous discussions with Mrs. Hodge and how we begged her to get professional advice. The reporter forgot to mention that the Hodges are planning on moving and have been looking for a “country estate” for two years. The reporter forgot to mention that Wintergreen Road will expand and the road will be 12 feet from their front door. The Hodges will then have the ability to sue us for rendering their property unusable.





The reporter said she did not understand condemnation and I explained the process to her. That is how she came up with the “they don’t have the option to say no” quote. I was speaking in general terms in an explanation of the process. When property is condemned, the owner does not have the right to say no. That is all I was saying. I did say it was stupid to turn down $653,000 on a piece of property that was bought for $110,000 only ten years ago. I did say it was stupid to hold onto property that will only diminish in value when it is blocked off from the surrounding development. Would you want to live on a piece of property with a four lane road 12 feet from your front door? The back and side yard will be a busy parking lot. Mrs. Hodge is simply playing a game and thinks she can force the City to pay $2 million dollars for her property.





I am embarrassed about the article and the way it makes Duncanville look. It is my fault that I spoke frankly with a reporter that had been very trustworthy in the past. The reporter took some very isolated quotes out of a 15 minute conversation. She described Mrs. Hodge in the most disparaging terms and called her a weepy stupid woman. I was obviously set up and it is my fault for not sensing what was happening.





Thank you for your correspondence and I hope you understand that this issue is much more complicated than the paper would lead you to believe.







Kent Cagle

[tdadams]

Mr. Cagle's explanation is good to hear. It presents another side of the story. However, no amount of sophistry or context changes the fact that the property owner doesn't want to sell and the state is going to take their property anyway to turn it over to a commercial owner. That is against the law. Period. End of story.

Mr. Cagle is right that the property value will go down. He's right that they're stupid to turn down $653,000. He's right that maybe they were looking to sell anyway.

That all makes for a persuasive argument, sure enough, but not a bit of it matters. It's the homeowner's decision to make.

[al_c]

The reporter said she did not understand condemnation and I explained the process to her. That is how she came up with the “they don’t have the option to say no” quote.

Typical for Dallas Morning News reporters.

[spodefly]

VERY Important info. Thanks for that follow up. Seems that anyone anywhere is potentially a victim of reporters reporting less than the whole story.

[Timesink]

See post 69 for a classic example of a newspaper journalist blatantly twisting a story to fit her own political agenda.

This is the Mainstream Media Shenanigans ping list. Please freepmail me to be added or dropped.
Please note this is a medium- to high-volume list.
Please feel free to ping me if you come across a thread you would think worthy of this ping list. I can't catch them all!

[Hostage]

Thanks for presenting the other side.

Mr. Cagle seems to think that condemning property is warranted because the road will be widened to within 12 feet of the Hodge home.

Then Mr. Cagle states that Mrs. Hodge is playing a game, that she wants more money for her property.

My first impression is that it is Mrs. Hodge's decision whether she wants to stay on her property given its nearness to a 4-lane road and given its future landlocked description to surrounding development.

If Mr. Cagle had said that the land would be used for National Guard Training or a Homeland Security Satellite Ground Tracking Station, then yes, the Government has the right to propose that her property be condemned.

But Mr. Cagle is saying that Mrs. Hodge is in the pathway of commercial development. If Mrs. Hodge has the fortitude and support to take this all the way through the courst, she will win. A good attorney might accept her case on contingency, thinking that the eventual sale value would be higher. It would send a strong message to the Mr. Cagle's of this world.