This example of Dallas County government run amok first appeared in December 2006, some six months after the E-911 addressing implementation County wide from which the addressing of my homestead of 30 years did not appear. I requested an address. For the next 11 months of receiving lies, stonewalling and inaction from Keith Heenan, then Dallas County E-911 Service Board's Coordinator and Bob Ockerman, then Dallas County's Board of Supervisors appointee to the Dallas County E-911 Service and its Chair, as to why my request for an address was denied, my request was finally placed on the E-911 Board's agenda for \their October 11, 2007 meeting. Fourteen days prior to that meeting I mailed to each person of the 21-member E-911 Board, the following memorandum and and a complete copy of each of the 11 Exhibits, titles listed below.
The memorandum is a summary of the first year, 2006/ 2007.
TO: Dallas County E-911 Service Board
From: Carl Hays Telephone 993-4140
Re: E-911 marker for 24002 260th St.
September 26, 2007
Keith Heenan and Bob Ockerman have taken it upon themselves to refuse to place an accurate E-911 marker at our property at 24002 260th St., our homestead. Apparently for the first time ever, an individual’s request for a marker is being referred to the E-911 Service Board at large. It is to come before your October meeting.
I believe that it is incumbent upon the E-911 Service Board to restore its own credibility and to avoid further undue expense by directing Keith Heenan to accurately post the [26000 O Lane] marker and to instruct Todd Noah to correctly enter and exclusively identify my address in the “Dallas County E-911 Official Map” database.
Further, I believe that it is unlawful for the Board to continue to refuse to erect this marker and record the map data accurately.
In December 2006, unbeknownst to me and quite unpredictably, from your 2006 unsigned letter (see Exhibit 1), at a neighbor’s telephone request and with no notice to anyone, Keith Heenan personally erected an erroneous E-911 marker (23998) at our homestead at 24002 260th St. My contact with Keith Heenan then revealed some incredible and inconsistent rationale for his error (see Aid to Memory, December 15, 2006, Exhibit 2, and Hays/Heenan letter December 26, 2006, Exhibit 3).
By April 2007 I had heard nothing from Mr. Heenan so I contacted him again and received an even more twisted response (see Aid to Memory, April 10, 2007, Exhibit 4).
By July 2007, still having had no response from Heenan, I contacted Mr. Ockerman only to hear even more astounding revelations (see Aid to Memory, July 18, 2007, Exhibit 5).
Eventually, my property at 23998 260th St. was correctly addressed. At the same time, however, where my[26000 O Lane St. sign is required, a sign for 25998 O Avenue, an address that leads to no residence and has no entrance to the county road, appeared exactly where the 23998 260th sign had originally, erroneously been. With some effort I was able to discover that O Avenue record in the “E-911 Official Map” database had also been revised.
Still, 24002 260th street, the entrance to our homestead remains unmarked (see Plat For Ethel Hays dated August 8, 1981, Exhibit 7, Access Permit To Secondary Road dated May 18,1985, Exhibit 8 and Geodallas map of 24002 260th St., Exhibit 9)! Ockerman and Heenan are steadfast in their refusal to mark it. That is the issue before you!
Their error is in marking 25998 O Avenue for the next parcel and, by contrast, refusing to correctly mark the directly adjacent spot in the road at my request, the property owner.
On the one hand, Keith Heenan solely at his personal, sole initiative, with no direction from the E-911 Board, on the basis of one telephone request , marked a Section 9 address, next parcel, where there is no residence and no access permit to a county road.
On the other hand, despite my repeated and documented requests, Heenan and Ockerman have provided only bogus excuses for refusing to mark the exact same spot in the road, [26000 O Lane], the entrance to our homestead, and instead deferred to you, the E-911 Board.
Page 2
Heenan and Ockerman have come up with a list of incredible excuses, both for having marked for the neighboring parcel and for refusing to mark our homestead. For examples:
1. “Markers are available to whoever requests them, by telephone or otherwise.” Unequivocally not so!
2. “A marked address must provide access to emergency vehicles.” Unequivocally not so!
3. “There are too many signs there already.” This is an insult to our first responders! The E-911 addressing scheme provides 500 addresses per mile on each side of the road. The two miles of O Circle now have a total of six markers. There are multiple-sign positions posted throughout the County!
4. “You are required to show your parcel plats and access permits.” There is no precedent for this, certainly not for 25998 O Avenue! Nevertheless, I have done so and they are attached (see Hays/Ockerman August 22, 2007, Exhibit 6, and Exhibits 7, 8 and 9).
5. “I heard that you are suing the County over the Sheriff’s errors in the rock caper at that address.” This is hearsay of a rumor that, true or not, can lawfully have zero connection, other than blatant personal prejudice, to a refusal to post an E-911 address marker.
6. “Well I’m opposed to it and Keith Heenan is opposed to it.” The question is not Ockerman's willy-nilly opinion nor Heenan's. The question is lawfully equitable application of the E-911 addressing regulations, set out in the Dallas County Code, and, of course the tax dollars you pay every month as a surcharge on your electic bill.
7. “Well, this has to be approved by the entire E-911 Board.” There is no precedent for this. Clearly, the posting of 23996 260th St. and 25998 O Avenue did not come before the entire E-911 Board.
8. “I’m not going to spend time talking with you, I have other things to do.” --Keith Heenan
An unacceptable face for County government.
9. “The signs are in the public right of way. You have no say.” --Keith Heenan Really?
Our Access Permit To Secondary Road from our homestead, 24002 260th St. (see Exhibit 8) locates the sole access to the half of our property that lies up to 3/8 mile east of the crossing of Carl’s Branch, the North/ South creek traversing Section 16. We have had one instance of an injured poacher to be evacuated there. We have had two fire Department calls. The Sheriff’s Department has been called to that address at least 15 times, five within the past eight months.
It is under this access and road that our utility lines are buried.
Depending on the wind-drift direction, this access is also our sole deep-snow emergency entrance/exit, which in March 2007 constituted a period of six consecutive days.
Further, I have liability for the emergency accesses to all of my property in Section 16 and for the safety of my family, my tenants, my employees, my invitees and myself. From the time your E-911 signage program was enacted both my insurer and I have a liability stake in your signs.
The E-911 Board is liable for any failure of the signage to accurately guide emergency vehicles. I do not plan to assume liability for your refusal of a $4.25 sign. If you fail in E-911 signage this liability metastasizes to you.
Thank you.
--S--
Carl H. Hays
Table of Exhibits
1. E-911 Service Board 2006 unsigned letter to Dallas County postal addressees
2. Aid to Memory, Telephone conversation with Keith Heenan December 15, 2006
3. Carl Hays/ Keith Heenan letter dated December 26, 2006
4. Aid to memory, telephone conversation with Keith Heenan April 10, 2007
5. Aid to Memory, telephone conversation with Bob Ockerman dated July 18, 2007
6. Hays/ Ockerman transmittal letter dated August 22, 2007
7. Platt For homestead dated August 8, 1981.
8. Access Permit To Secondary Road dated May 5, 1985
9. Geodallas Map of our homestead, 24002 260th St.
10. Hays/ Leonard letter dated August 14, 2007
11. Hays Reisetter letter dated September 19, 2007
|
