{"id":368513,"date":"2025-11-10T05:34:18","date_gmt":"2025-11-10T05:34:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/368513\/"},"modified":"2025-11-10T05:34:18","modified_gmt":"2025-11-10T05:34:18","slug":"a-year-ago-dallas-voters-stripped-the-city-of-its-immunity-how-was-it-impacted","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/368513\/","title":{"rendered":"A year ago, Dallas voters stripped the city of its immunity. How was it impacted?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the year since voters approved Proposition S<\/a> \u2014 stripping Dallas of its governmental immunity if it violates the charter, city ordinance or state law \u2014 just one lawsuit filed against it cites the new measure. <\/p>\n

The effort was driven by Dallas Hero, a nonprofit that introduced two other propositions that are widely viewed as disruptive to the way the government conducts its business. <\/p>\n

Former and current elected officials banded together and urged voters<\/a> to consider the unintended consequences before approving the proposition. After its passage, the city released a statement<\/a> that responding to and defending resulting lawsuits would \u201crequire substantial legal and financial resources.\u201d <\/p>\n

However, according to the city attorney\u2019s office, Dallas has only been party to one lawsuit that directly cites the proposition. <\/p>\n

Political Points<\/p>\n

Get the latest politics news from North Texas and beyond.<\/p>\n

By signing up, you agree to our\u00a0Terms of Service<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Privacy Policy.<\/a><\/p>\n

Impact of Prop S<\/p>\n

The full-scale impact of the proposition is hard to map. <\/p>\n

Earlier this year, state Sen. Nathan Johnson, D-Dallas, filed a bill that would have guaranteed governmental immunity at the state level, overridden Proposition S and prevented \u201copening the floodgates to frivolous lawsuits.\u201d <\/p>\n

The bill didn\u2019t go far. <\/p>\n

The proposition gives residents a tool to compel the city to adhere to local or state laws. To do so, they must give the city a 60-day legal notice that clearly outlines a violation of a statute. <\/p>\n

Though Dallas is currently dealing with a single lawsuit, more 60-day notices have been issued. <\/p>\n

Dallas Hero has sent two notices flagging the city\u2019s noncompliance with another charter proposition<\/a> that mandates the city have a police force of 4,000 officers, as well as a state law that targets homelessness and bans unauthorized camping<\/a>. <\/p>\n

There have also been instances where residents have used the potential impacts of the proposition to forewarn the city about things that could invite litigation. <\/p>\n

In December last year, a group of over 100 residents banded together and urged Tony Shidid, the former chair of the City Plan Commission, to step down<\/a>, citing rules in the city\u2019s charter that set term limits for board members and commissioners. <\/p>\n

Shidid, who was first appointed in 2013, had been the commission\u2019s chair since 2019. It was not until September this year that Shidid stepped down, nearly two years past the end of his term. <\/p>\n

As for the one lawsuit that directly cites Proposition S, North Dallas residents Alevtina Sarno and Joseph Sarno filed the suit after a nearby church built a basketball court near their backyard. They are alleging the city did not follow its permitting and zoning rules. <\/p>\n

The homeowners said the church failed to obtain proper permits before starting construction of the court and violated permitting and zoning laws. They said city officials did not consider noise regulations and the potential impact of the basketball court on adjacent residential properties before approving the construction. <\/p>\n

The Sarnos filed their lawsuit before the proposition passed in November last year. They later amended their petition to say the liability from the alleged violations was enough to waive the city\u2019s immunity. <\/p>\n

The city argued the Sarnos had \u201cfailed to plead facts that would support a valid constitutional claim sufficient to waive governmental immunity.\u201d Dallas said the proceedings at the board of adjustment provided enough detail to justify the city\u2019s actions. City attorneys also said the Sarnos failed to file a required 60-day notice prior to filing a claim. <\/p>\n

On Sept. 24, records show the court sided with the city in part and dismissed the Sarnos\u2019 claims that cited Proposition S. Other claims, including the Sarnos\u2019 appeal over the board of adjustment\u2019s decision, still needed to be decided. A nonjury trial is set for March 3, 2026, though the Sarnos appealed the judge\u2019s September order in the Fifth Court of Appeals. <\/p>\n

Lawsuits stemming from Prop S have no takers<\/p>\n

For some, the proposition\u2019s mission may not align with its effectiveness. <\/p>\n

Hal Barker and his brother Ted Barker, two longtime Dallas residents and advocates for improved conditions in and around White Rock Lake, sent a 60-day notice<\/a> to the city earlier this year.<\/p>\n

City officials, they said, were not notifying residents about the times officials were spraying herbicides and other chemicals, often in areas frequented by children, to tackle invasive plant species at the lake. Hal Barker said officials had initially not disclosed the types of chemicals they were using and residents were generally frustrated by the lack of clear answers. <\/p>\n

When the pair sent in a notice, the city responded that it was in compliance with all rules and regulations. <\/p>\n

\u201cThe whole concept was that you would give the city notice of an issue and give them 60 days to fix it, and I think that was more of a utopian theory because under no circumstances will they fix something unless they go to court,\u201d Barker said. <\/p>\n

Barker said he didn\u2019t anticipate many lawsuits, as it would be hard to find an attorney willing to fight this type of case. An attorney would cost him $20,000, and Barker\u2019s had experience with lawsuits. He\u2019s successfully fought and won a better part of six to seven litigations. In all of them, he fought in court on his own behalf without a lawyer. <\/p>\n

Taking the matter to court would require repeated trips to court for hearings, depositions, and interrogatories. If city officials don\u2019t answer the interrogatories, then there would be motions to compel them. \u201cSo what I\u2019m saying is, basically, unless you\u2019re rich, you will get nowhere,\u201d Barker said, adding that for an average person, it\u2019s unlikely a legal notice would ever evolve and get to court. <\/p>\n

But Barker says the proposition isn\u2019t a complete failure. It\u2019s a start.<\/p>\n

\u201cSomewhere along the line, somebody\u2019s going to come up with something that\u2019s substantive enough to get an attorney,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"In the year since voters approved Proposition S \u2014 stripping Dallas of its governmental immunity if it violates…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":368514,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5135],"tags":[5229,1596,14840,14841,80,358,3187,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":{"0":"post-368513","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-dallas","8":"tag-america","9":"tag-dallas","10":"tag-dallas-city-council","11":"tag-dallas-city-hall","12":"tag-politics","13":"tag-texas","14":"tag-tx","15":"tag-united-states","16":"tag-united-states-of-america","17":"tag-unitedstates","18":"tag-unitedstatesofamerica","19":"tag-us","20":"tag-usa"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115523778145345224","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/368513","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=368513"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/368513\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/368514"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=368513"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=368513"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=368513"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}