Author: parischamber

A Public Hearing To Give-Away $20-million            

On September 9, 2024, at 5:30 pm, in the City Council Chamber, the City of Paris, Texas, held a public hearing on a $20-Million Give-Away. Entering 2025, transparency is still lacking – even with a new ‘public information officer’.

Anyway, it was on the same project on which a groundbreaking was celebrated by city planners on March 24, 2004, which, at that time, the city was prepared to offer “community development incentives” of $7-million.

Many of us have failed to realize that inflation was increasing that fast . . .

Prior to 1987, Texas cities were not allowed to give incentives to solicit businesses, industry, or other endeavors. Then the same foolish voters, who previously in 1981, approved local Appraisal Districts to establish an excuse and protective barrier for local taxing units, allowed cities to use public taxes for private purposes. (FYI side note: The state budget in 1977 was $24 billion; today, the current budget is $321.7 billion from all revenue sources.)

So now, the City is setting the stage to do a $20-million give-away to subsidize development of private property – “to create the Forestbrook Public Improvement District No. 1.”

Behind all the diligently researched (supposedly) and carefully crafted words to build a blinding mountain of sizzle, it dumps a $20-million- plus debt on taxpayers, which council members will then give to or spend for the private limited liability company, Lone Star Planned Developments, LLC.

Now, the city doesn’t say it like this, of course; it relies on the sizzle to sell rotten meat. For instance, the hearing was to “accept public comments” and “discuss” the creation of a public improvement district for 200-homes, which the city already intended to approve (or there would not have been the March 2004 celebration). The hearing was simply a CYA thing.

  • As presented, this “Improvement District” has a total land area of 200-acres – roughly, a $100,000 per acre or lot cost just for improvements for each of the proposed 200 homes. But more sizzle comes from the promise of new city streets, a new park, a new elementary school, and other goodies – a smell designed to attract particular birds, a kettle when they are flying, a committee when they are resting, and a wake when they are feeding
  • Improvements include design and construction, landscaping, streets, drainage, off-street parking, water and sewer lines and services, etc., including other off-site projects that would be a benefit to the property
  • Acquisition, by purchase or otherwise, of real property
  • Payment of expenses incurred in the establishment, administration, and operation of the District
  • Payment of financing associated with financing public improvement projects
  • The city says this district “would include property owned” by the limited liability company, but has not disclosed if there is or isn’t any current indebtedness. Nor, if there is, the amount
  • “The city shall levy assessment on each parcel within the District in a manner that results in imposing equal shares of the costs on property similarly benefited” (but who determines ‘equal’ and ‘similarly’ – you know, like east and west?)

There’s more, most of it Happy Double Talk: “The city is not obligated to provide any funds to finance the authorized improvements, except for assessments levied on real property within the District.”

“Except” – that’s government splitting a hair for you: Who guarantees the $20 million used for the development?

And will the promise of new city streets, a new park, and a new elementary school (for which school district?) require design, development, construction, administrative, operational, and other additional costs?

Where’s transparency? 

Council Members are, in fact, public servants. As such, they owe a fiduciary duty to the public they serve; a concept that underlie most if not all ethic laws. As fiduciary trustees they are obligated to act diligently in the best interest of the citizens.

As trustees of the citizens of Paris, city council members are elected to oversee and manage the property and debt of the citizens, as well as the day-to-day events. But as the citizen’s trustees, council members cannot sell or giveaway the property of the citizens without the citizen’s permission. The fact is – without approval by the citizens – using some questionable loophole council members have dumped or is dumping another $20-million of debt on the citizens. 

The only money that government has is that which it takes from the citizens.

Trustees can be replaced, but debt must be paid.

The $20 million goes for planning and design, land acquisition and development, the related cost, and  administration,  plus  acquisition of other properties.  So, what costs remain?

The assessments are on top of property taxes, and are calculated according to the size of the parcel, tract or lot, while property taxes are assessed on appraised value. Unlike the property tax, however, assessments made by an Improvement District expire once paid in full.

If taxes are frozen within the district, as usual in such projects, it means that schools and other taxing units cannot increase taxes on the property, including the City of Paris. It denies those units their right of taxation; plus, it’s not fair to those who have to subsidize the district when higher tax rates and city service fees increase outside the protected district.

Or, is there a worm in the woodwork somewhere . . . ? 

For instance, exactly how much equity money have the “district” promoters invested in their own project?  10%?  15%?  20%? Nothing?  Will taxpayers outside the district’s boundaries pay for “acquisition of other property” that consists of access to the project or expanding utilities needed to serve the development?

Treating such street and service costs as normal public costs is unethical, if not illegal. Using public money for a private purpose (a direct subsidy for the developer) is not viewed favorably by most courts.

The Paris Texas Chamber hopes, regardless what some may say, that the taxpayers understand that repayment of all city-related debt (plus the interest) is guaranteed by the taxpayers, and if results do not materialize for whatever reason(s), the taxpayers are “obligated” to pay it​?

What does Paris need most? Spending $20-million on a gamble or investing in people and rebuilding neighborhoods?

We’re subsidizing a limited liability company with nothing to lose but a dream –

Since the 1980s, Paris has done a lot of dumb things but, evidently, as our new brand warns, we keep reaching higher . . .

                                       return to    Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce

Links:

AMENITIES VS ESSENTIAL

Residential Renewal or Stupidity

(with an apology to Woody Herman)

Most all personal “interpretations” are subjective, not objective.

The Goosey-Gander directive is ignored by most marketing people and politicians. They make decisions based on the false belief that they know what people want and / or will do. But they do not abide by “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” Their personal interpretations are subjective, not objective.

The Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce believes that individuals determine what they like, want or will do. It’s why they drive marketing people and politicians crazy, which, in most cases, is no big deal; it being a very short drive.

Like other laws, city codes and ordinances are needed, but only if they can be carried out on a fair, equal, and objective basis.  But when open to “personal interpretation” they will never be fair or equal or objective.

And there’s very little that is fair or equal about what Paris does, nor how it does it. 

We zone areas, and then permit exemptions – for a good supporter or one who has a little influence. (Its only politics, you know . . .)

We create ordinances for the beautification and improvement of Paris, but don’t enforce them – or only “selectively” enforce them (favorite weeds can last for years undisturbed and some of the numerous substandard buildings (some owned by slum-landlords) can feed termites for decades).

The city restricts what you can do with or to your property but not what the city can do with or to theirs (try making the right turn off Bonham Street onto 7th Street SW, or compare city street paving standards verses those for private developers).

The Historical District requires “restoration” of buildings … mere “improvements” are not allowed. Then say that “restoration” can include central heat and air, concrete driveways, double-and-tripled glazed windows, electric opening garage-doors, various kinds of weather-proofing, insulation, musical doorbells, burglar alarms, and a hosts of other digital things and improvements that did not exist when most of those buildings in the district were constructed,

And the list goes on . . . 

Only 43,000 air conditioning systems were in national use in 1947.

The first residential unit was installed in 1914 and needed a room of its own: it was seven feet high, six feet wide and 20 feet long. One of these early units carried a price tag of $10,000 to $50,000, which translates to $120,000 to $600,000 at today’s rate of exchange.

Too many times, we’re killing improvement.

Trying to meet “restoration” requirements, instead of improvement, the Lamar County Courthouse’s recurring windows and/or roof leaks costs taxpayers a truck load of bushel baskets full of money.

The City of Paris spent nearly an estimated $500,000 on trying to restore the Grand Theater a decade ago, according to reports (or the money reported ear-marked for that purpose was diverted to some other use). Now, it seems some folks have lost their ever-loving minds and want to spend an additional $4-million or so on “restoring” it – while ignoring the fact that when the Grand was originally constructed it didn’t have air conditioning . . .

Logic seems to be missing: Restoring it to what point in time? The 1930s? 1940S? Or to original status? Air conditioning didn’t get into wide use until after WWII.

    Four million dollars would go a long way to clean-up, fix-up, and paint-up Paris.

We create Reinvestment Zones for areas that do not come close to being eligible; give cash and tax abatement as incentives. Some to those who do not quality for incentives; cash to subsidize those who need subsidizing the least; and we make up the rules as we go along. And if a rule or regulation is in our way, we ignore it or change it.

And, no: The Paris Chamber doesn’t want to hear excuses about “tough situations” or excuses about “difficult choices” or excuses about “walking a tightrope” and excuses about “exceptions” to a code or ordinance.

We want to hear what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Anything else is wrong.              

 

For over a decade, the Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce recommended a vision vs  a brand.

We’ve known, and repeatedly put in writing, that “Paris needs a vision, a theme, and the protocols to make it a highly desired destination for a large, identified segment of the market.”

What the city, the local edc, the visitor’s and convention group, and what used to be the Lamar County Chamber of Commerce came up with is a brand that gives a new meaning to “Happy Days Are Here Again.”

Thankfully, the Paris Texas Chamber was not invited to the party where the decision to blow $85,000 of the taxpayer’s money on a “brand” bragging about how Texans in Paris reach high.

Based on arrest records, its likely smoking a peculiar weed or guzzling bottled moonshine or bonded and branded alcohol.

We would have asked if they really wanted to make Paris a desired destination for that large, identified segment of the market?

Currently, there’s already too much competition within it – as well as over consumption. In every B-movie, a crook with a gun tells those being robbed, “Reach higher.”

Now, the co-conspirators are wasting more dollars pasting this brand on all kinds of stationery, vehicles, signs, ads, etc., all paid for by mingling – on an equal basis – public and private funds or lying about it.

Sure, without a doubt, this “brand” has some sort of wobbly vision, and a theme that encourages some people to do strange things, like getting arrested for peeing in public.

Of course, it might be a little less objectionable if it didn’t make so many who participate think they can sing.

It’s not, however, the kind of vision or theme we had in mind – as standing out doesn’t always mean standing up.

When you’re lying in the gutter “reach higher” also means to try and climb the curb.

Paris may soon be known as the wrath of grapes or where the dawn comes up like thunder.

If we live up to the brand, Paris will be a place where you can start out fit as a fiddle and end up tight as a drum.

When the Paris Texas Chamber talks about a vision for Paris, it’s a way to build the kind of town where you and others (we) want to live.

The theme is a designed and designated focus on an established central objective. The vision and theme must have the imperative protocols that structure the necessary goals (steps) on how the objective will be achieved.  It must be defined and realistic, with worthwhile means to pay for achieving that objective.

Our community and economic development organization are good at promoting events that publicize and promotes the event (but not Paris: Paris is just a place where the Sphecidae or Crabronidae are having a meeting). But the vision is limited.

A mish-mash of events will not likely build the kind of community you want to live in – a town where others would want to live.

 

return to:    Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce

Link:

      Public-Private Partnerships

     Investing in People‘

     The Objective