Numerous sources report that thousands of Chinese immigrated to the United States between 1849 and 1882, as indentured laborers to work on building the Transcontinental Railroad. The vast majority came from peasant families in southeastern China and were signed to contracts that ran up to five years for relatively low wages (compared with their white counterparts).

Among the items the Chinese railroad workers brought with them to the States were various medicines — including snake oil. Made from the oil of the Chinese water snake, which is rich in the omega-3 acids that help reduce inflammation, snake oil in its original form really was effective, especially when used to treat arthritis and bursitis. The workers would rub the oil, used for centuries in China, on their joints after a long hard day at work.

The story goes that the Chinese workers began sharing the oil with American counterparts, who marveled at the effects.

As word of the healing powers of Chinese snake  oil grew, many Americans wondered how they could make their own snake oil here in the United States. Because there were no Chinese water snakes handy in the American West, many healers began using rattlesnakes to make their own versions of snake oil.

By the latter half of the 19th Century, which saw a dramatic rise in the popularity of “patent medicines” – tonics which promised to cure a wide variety of ailments including chronic pain, headaches, “female complaints” and kidney trouble.

In time, all of these false “cures” began to be referred to as snake oil.

The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 sought to clamp down on the sale of patent medicines.

After seizing a shipment of Texan Clark Stanley’s Snake Oil in 1917, federal investigators found that it primarily contained mineral oil, a fatty oil believed to be beef fat, red pepper and turpentine. That’s right — Stanley’s Snake Oil did not contain a drop of actual snake oil, and hundreds of consumers discovered they had been had.

It was probably around then that snake oil became symbolic of fraud.

The first written usage of the phrase appeared in Stephen Vincent Benet’s epic 1927 poem John Brown’s Body, when the poet refers to “Crooked creatures of a thousand dubious trades … sellers of snake-oil balm and lucky rings.”

About 30 years later, playwright Eugene O’Neill referred to snake oil in his 1956 play The Iceman Cometh, when a character suggested that a rival was “standing on a street corner in hell right now, making suckers of the damned, telling them there’s nothing like snake oil for a bad burn.”

Paris has been sold stuff that would make a snake oil promoter blush. Its been a conspiracy of organizations claiming to be in charge of community and economic development. They used a local news media reluctantly repeating “the news” – even when known as questionable (but fear a loss of advertising income from not toeing the line) – or those who happily report stupidity they believe in . . .

And by voters who never had a voice for a better choice.

Til now.

Questions:

Where is the “core area” of the City of Paris?

When is illegal legal? And,

What is the total cost to the taxpayers for all the current incentives given to a few favored endeavors? (There’s always a cost, as nothing is free.)

The city says it “is incentivizing reinvestment in the core area of the city…”

But . . . where is “the core…”?

Surely, it’s not the Towne Center Shopping Center where the city is giving” questionable incentives –incentivizing possibly even illegal retail sales tax rebates – to four retail businesses (that replace four businesses that closed); plus, tax abatement to the shopping center owner.

But what “low income” or “disadvantaged area” of Paris qualifies those four firms or the owner of the shopping center for incentives? (click for what qualifies)?

When did Texas’ Retail Sales Tax become a Special District tax? Isn’t the retail sales tax a public tax, which can only be used for public purposes? (When a tax law is only a mask to exact funds from the public when its true intent is to give undue benefit and advantage to a private enterprise, it will not satisfy the requirement of public purpose. Click to read more from Yale Law Journal.)

The city is subsidizing – incentivitizing – a few home builders and apartment developers; the city says, “At least four”.

WHY?

We’re “incentivizing” industry – even giving cash!

WHY?

We’re building a $7-million street for a private developer.

WHY

Taxpayers are subsidizing a motel on North Main Street.

WHY?

Government gets a bit too big for its britches when citizens elect too many to offices who allow administrative employees to tell them what to do – instead of overseeing the actions and the decisions of key employees who usually are seeking to build a portfolio to a better job.

A bureaucrat, a manager or an administrator in an organizations that has lost its way, are only role players. To keep their job, they must be a collaborative contributor to the overall concept of the organization. They are required to not only assume the values of the organization, but its personality as well.

Too often, those we elect end up listening to and carrying out recommendations of staff bureaucrats.

No act performed by a citizen, while in the city limits of Paris, Texas, shall be without a charge from the city. The rule is, “Everything costs.” There are no exceptions  –  unless it’s an incentive or an abatement given to one of the chosen few.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to know the total cost to taxpayers of all the incentives that our hired guns – looking for success stories – recommended, and were blindly approved by those we have elected?

 

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022, the City of Paris council members voted to demand rental properties in the historical districts to pay “registration” fees. On all rental properties? Even above ground-floor apartments and condos being recommended as a way to have more people living in the downtown area?   

The city grants – gives – taxpayer’s dollars to downtown owners who will improve the appearance of their buildings, but charges regulation, restrictions and fees for others to improve their property. Why?

Think about the thinking: Creating more regulations, restrictions, and fees on rental properties is the way to (a) create more affordable housing and to improve Paris; or (b) hope higher rents will keep the (wink) undesirable “low income” folks out of the neighborhood?

Will increasing rental fees win the war against blight, decay, and rot in the area’s older neighborhoods?

Let’s face it: Large areas of Paris are a disgrace; ugly to the eye and an insult to humanity. Especially, when the city allowed the property to decline to a point where it needs repairs.

We’re not against equally applied standards – or fines – to prevent litter, junk in front yards, weeds, maintenance neglect, etc., but restrictions, regulations and fees to tell owners what they must do?

“…com’on, man!”

Three short weeks before, the Paris Texas Chamber had suggested the city be prohibited, by ordinance or Charter change, from adopting or enforcing regulations that requires an owner of a vacant residential or commercial property to obtain a permit to do repairs to their property, (a) if it is necessary to protect public safety; or (b) to prevent further damage to the building.

So the city’’s guiding hands did the very opposite of what needs doing.

The city has planners and other sellers of services who find regulations, restrictions and fees successful ways to use the taxpayer’s money. Somehow, those ways seem to benefit them, seldom the community. Everyone knows the examples:

  • Incentives to builders for 5 little-bitty $200,000 affordable homes (1150 to 1250 sq. ft.); a million dollar guarantee

  • Approving really tiny (750 to 800 sq. ft.) homes in established older neighborhoods or in retail and commercially zoned areas

  • giving incentives to apartment complex purchasers or builders; and

  • Using an estimated $7-million to build a street for a residential development with a small retail or commercial area thrown into the mix.

None of those things, nada, are doing anything to improve the older existing, ignored for years, city discriminated against neighborhoods.

But $7 to $8 million, not counting the other incentives, used wisely, could – the catch here, of course, is being “used wisely”.

Millions of dollars to builders and a few wealthy corporations, but Paris will not purchase in bulk-at-a-discount building fix-up, paint-up, and clean-up materials to provide families willing to use sweat equity to repair or improve their home in an older neighborhood?

Why not?

As the Paris Chamber previously stated: There are only two reasons to penalize the improvement of property: Greed for fees or stupidity.

Paris does both, often at the same time, and calls it progress.

 

                       return to  Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce