Category: Government and Free Choice

It’s your choice

Most of the things that we brag about in Paris Texas are amenities, not essentials.

The difference is important.

Most of the more recent things Paris brags about, such as the Eiffel Tower replica, the Red River Valley Veterans Memorial, the Maxey House, the Lamar County Historical Museum, The Valley of the Caddo Museum, and others, are the result of private efforts; started and carried out to completion by private individuals – while the city has wasted about 13-years and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to restore the Grand Theater (which, if it ever gets fully restored, may be an amenity).

Even the Civic Center and both prized and re-purposed Depots are the results of large contributions from private funds.

All these things are amenities.

And, yes, they are worthwhile, and they contribute to the community.  Oh, sure, the city and other organizations in Paris supported the efforts (the city and the PEDC even giving, when they shouldn’t, tax dollars). But those efforts were started from scratch, led and supported by individuals who achieved the worthwhile results –

Of course, amenities are nice, but they’re not essential.

You can have a house full of amenities, modern or antique, but they are not part of the necessity for basic shelter.  Others may not like or appreciate your rooms of stuff, amenities, but you don’t expect or demand others to pay for them.

Local churches are considered community amenities, so if some of the local Baptists need a new church, should community tax dollars pay for it?

Government supposedly is to provide for what is essential, not for amenities.

We vote to impose taxes on ourselves because infrastructure is essential to a community. In return, this creates an obligation on, and a responsibility for, the community to provide those things that are essential, such as police and fire protection, maintaining streets and traffic flows, providing water and sewer, trash collection and disposal, etc., and developing ordinances and zoning to help provide for an orderly, cohesive community; those things which benefit all the citizens.

Amenities are not used by all citizens.  As an example, not everyone goes to a Baptist Church, despite us Baptists thinking everyone should…(that’s a gentle bit of humor for those of other denominations. You know, like “where you find four Baptists, you’ll find a fifth.”)  Anyway….

….volunteer organizations, such as chambers of commerce, came into being to develop amenities of the community (and to be an independent business voice for a community); not to be parasites sucking up non-voluntary tax dollars.

If a project is worthwhile people will voluntarily fund it; if it isn’t, they won’t.

This is why good and sound and varied leadership is important.  As long as folks voluntarily use their money to pay for what they want, it’s not a big deal, which is not true when forced to pay for someone else’s pride and joy. 

Subsidizing amenities – giving tax-dollars to a favored few – deliberately and knowingly picking and choosing winners and losers – are things a city (or any government) should not do.  There is no fair or equal way to spend tax dollars on amenities. The Goosey-Gander principle will not work because of personal opinions. Neither will robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Paris didn’t get behind the economic eight ball because city government did its job: Over the years, city government let things slide – from neglecting certain areas and aging streets and increased traffic flows to letting favored landlords neglect property to allowing zoning changes that drained away the downtown business district. Plus, the city started giveaway programs of everyone’s tax dollars to a special few. In short, most of what is currently wrong in Paris is because the city didn’t do its’ job –

Paris forgot that the basic job of government is to take care of the essentials.

IF a government can’t take care of what is the government’s business, how can it take care of what isn’t the government’s business?

Today, instead of doing those things – and only those things that are essential – that are their obligations and responsibilities, our local problems are compounded by the City of Paris acting as an “expert” in the development and the funding of community and economic amenities.

But when was the City of Paris endowed with Emperor status?

Since the New Frontier and the Great Society programs of the early 60’s, government advocates have promised that their economic programs would eliminate poverty. They’ve spent trillions of tax-dollars trying to do it. But according to the government’s own statistics, there are more poor people today and fewer equal opportunities for economic advancement.  All those dollars and all those efforts only succeeded in creating wealth for fewer and fewer folks.

Government not only has lost the war on poverty, but also the war on drugs; it can’t even protect our border. So, it should be evident that government isn’t always the answer.

Over the years, our trust in government has slowly eroded away.

To the Paris Chamber, it seems the city (like government everywhere) tries to do too many things which are not in their job description.  And as long as the city will do or fund those things which should be the responsibility of others, they will let the city do it.

And they’ll never fuss when the city does something wrong, especially if the city is also giving them other people’s tax money. Most importantly, how can the taxpayers trust the city, when the city is giving their tax dollars to a select few?

The question citizens need to ask:  If we can’t trust our local government, how can we trust our state and national legislative bodies?

We should remember that while common-sense is a hoped for amenity, it isn’t a qualifying essential to serve on a board or for holding public office or even to manage the affairs of an organization.

“In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self-defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder — is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?” ― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

                                                               return to     Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce

Residential Renewal or Stupidity?

14-Years ago, in 2008, Paris (Texas) City Council members were talking residential renewal or stupidity; talking about creating a “residential tax abatement” for new housing and/or new residential improvements, but had never said where. What the council was talking about doing meant that Enterprise Zones (later later called Redevelopment or “Opportunity” Zones) would require approval before an abatement could legally be given.

Even back then, the Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce knew that a Paris Imperative existed to forget about the intent of a law and, instead, figure out how it can be used to not do the right thing. Despite that knowledge, we urged the City of Paris to start an urban homestead program in the Enterprise Zone, which state law allowed.  Instead of giving tax relief to areas that don’t qualify and encouraging abandonment of some intercity areas and neighborhoods, we suggested that Paris do the right thing: Use the existing Enterprise Zone as a test program – to see if it does or doesn’t work.

If the test program works, then consider creating zones all over Paris – or ask the Paris Chamber how to do community development.

We also said that following the history on how things are normally done, is it likely – until the Paris Matrix can figure out how far out north or east this can be done – a decision on where will never be made.  And none were, except to forget the effort . . .

WHY, we wondered, back in 2008, will Paris not create opportunities for individuals to use their sweat equity in exchange for the opportunity to own their own homes under an urban renewal program? Not all older couples are that interested in cooling, heating, cleaning, and maintaining 3,000 to 5,000 square feet of floor space. Not when they can fix up and add a few special touches to create an modern, smaller luxury home for less money than it would take to build a new one. And many young couples, starting a life together, have the energy and know-how to improve a starter home and use what they would pay as rent to do it, given an opportunity to acquire one.

Even in 2008, we knew the residential imperative should be to get homes improved and back on the tax rolls; not subsidizing developers to build for-profit homes and income rental properties.

Some citizens (and council members) argued that an urban renewal program wouldn’t work in Paris. How they knew this, as one had (and has) never been tried in Paris, is beyond our understanding (then and now)…

Of course, it could be they didn’t want it tried in the Enterprise Zone, in the “west side”. For instance, some wanted it tried in areas that didn’t quality for tax abatement. But they were successful in getting the distressed area designation spread to over most of the town.

Today, over half of the land area inside the Paris city limits is in a designated “distressed area” – and the leadership calls it progress.

Since 1996, over the last 26 or 27-odd years (in Paris, they’re all odd), millions of tax dollars have been spent on consultant fees and for big salaries to solve our problems. Most of it has been – and is – wasted on people who talk a good game and report well, but can’t produce; and Paris has continued to deteriorate.

Now, all Paris is doing is giving property tax abatement to developers who know how to sell sugar to those who love sweet talk, but don’t know crap about actual community development.

So far, we see very little indication that the right thing is being or will be done in the right way.

But the Paris Chamber doesn’t have a thing to do with the way things are done . . . or how Paris looks.

Regretfully.

Or Thankfully.

 

 2nd Posting (2009): Investing in People 

The City of Paris owns or could/should own a lot of houses on which taxes have not been paid for years.  And there are numerous vacant, substandard houses on which huge tax bills are owed that the city will likely end up owning, also. 

Why not fix the problem by investing in people?

So now, the Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce is going to try it once more:  A city that owns housing in an Enterprise Zone can establish an urban homestead program, through which the city sells a house it owns to a private citizen for an amount not to exceed $100.

The individual buying the property must agree to live in the house for at least seven years and to renovate or remodel the residence to meet the level of maintenance stated in a written agreement between the individual and the city.  After the individual lives in the house for the seven years and satisfies the agreed upon improvements, the city deeds the house to the individual (or assigns it to a bank that may be financing the improvements for the individual).

True, not all the folks hopping on an urban homestead program will follow thru…and the city or program administrator will have to reclaim the property.  But many will follow thru, improving their lives (and the City of Paris). 

Any homes that are returned can be offered to others who will complete the terms of the homestead agreement. There will never be enough homes . . .

Last year,in 2008, the Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce has tried to point city officials to the fact that there are many individuals with the energy and strength of character who could and would use their sweat equity for an opportunity to own their own home under such a program. 

Yes, we understand that many local movers and shakers, who have no more idea of community and economic development than Oak Wilt fungus, see the Paris Chamber as an irritant to their schemes or beliefs; but they should know that business is business and a good idea is a good idea – no matter where it comes from. 

Paris talks about improving Paris.  Paris talks about the need to improve and beautify. Paris talks about substandard homes with unpaid taxes, and talks about what to do with them. But not utilizing available programs to improve a large part of Paris because it is on the west or – as many of the more ignorant state it – the wrong side of town is inexcusable! 

Sure, we understand why some want to deny incentives for businesses and new home construction in the Enterprise Zone, even if such action violates warranties that had to be made in the Contract to get the Zone approved. We find such actions wrong, ethically repulsive, and don’t agree with it, but, considering the parties involved, we understand it. 

But to deny younger couples or retirees and others who have the energy and/or resources to own their homes – while eliminating eyesores – and improving Paris – is mind-boggling!  And that we don’t understand.

Why wouldn’t we invest in our people? 

Talk about creating opportunities – 

The Paris Chamber’s recommendations are on record, and the City has a considerable payroll for key employees to keep up with such programs, so they cannot plead ignorance. 

The money the city has wasted (and is wasting) on know-little consultants would have more than paid for the Paris Chamber’s recommendations for improving residential areas all over Paris, through which clean-up, fix-up, paint-up materials would be exchanged for “sweat equity” labor and. . .  Oh, well.

How much longer can Paris afford to wait? 

                                                                                                     return to  The Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce

All local government is ideology

At its core, ideology is identity . . .

Too often, local governments – those we elect – end up listening to and carrying out  recommendations of staff bureaucrats, which raises some interesting observations:

For decades we’ve been “educated” to believe that local elections are not partisan, so no party affiliations are disclosed, as party labels might sway voters.

So the potential for local government officials to sway elections in their party’s favor seems obvious.

Special interest groups that put government interests ahead of taxpayers have long held sway over local elections. They want them to be officially declared nonpartisan – because party labels will sway voters.

Any faux outrage over partisanship entering local government elections is hilariously hypocritical.

Some of the indignation comes from those who routinely accuse others of being partisan because of their policy beliefs, their ideology. But they insist that their positions are not partisan.

Partisanship may most often be associated with party identity but, at its very core, it’s ideology

We all have an ideology – a collection of beliefs and ideas – but some people criticize someone with whom they disagree as an “ideologue ’… just as they apply a negative connotation to ‘partisan’ while extolling their own partisan ideology by claiming that they ‘just follow the science/experts.’

But cooperation between elected officials belonging to different parties is more likely to assure more transparency and better government.

The absence of party labels confuses voters; a voter who must choose from among a group of candidates whom he or she knows nothing about will have no meaningful basis in casting a ballot.

Today, local government is political.

Affable, cheerful, sincere, political-partisans that we elect are given the authority and responsibility to spend our dollars wisely, to make decisions that benefit each citizen equally, and to assure that our schools are teaching the values of limited government and equal economic opportunity in a society that requires personal accountability.

Unfortunately, those we elected have failed us for decades.We have allowed their political identity to hide behind a ‘nonpartisan’ facade.

They’ve listen to and allowed the “good government” professionals – the city managers, school administrators and the political opportunistic – those who benefit personally and professionally – to lead the process of setting the policies and making key decisions they want . . .

The reason we elect so many of the partisans is because they’re nice people; they mean well. Some just fail to understand, however, that the first part of their job is to ride herd on those whom we pay to carry out the policies to meet goals that benefit all of the community.

Too many of these seats are conceded to those who are part of the crowd who believe government is good and there should be more of it. It’s why Texas has the second-highest local debt nationally, and the 4th highest property tax rates in the nation.

Governmental staffs and the professional educationalists want these problems ignored.

When its for “the children” and “community” or “economic” development, there is no end that these partisans see to the use of taxpayer’s money.

When most of us think of government, we think of civil government with its various laws and controls.But local government is, like all government, ideology.

But in the most basic of terms, there are essentially two kinds of government – internal and external. Internal government or self-government is the most important and always shapes the nature of external government.

Self-government comes from the heart and the conscience, one’s character, motives, affections, and convictions of life. Self-government affects everything in a person’s life – the way one relates to his fellowman – his speech – his aspirations – his conduct – his hopes – his future.

Every sphere of civil local government is a reflection of this internal sphere.

Shouldn’t we ask ourselves why government keeps expanding?

In fact, the more self-government the people possess, the less external forms of government are actually needed.

No government can be good – or just – unless its citizenry and rulers have learned to govern themselves.

Paris Texas seems to fear what kind of town it needs to be . . .

return to the Paris Texas Chamber