Category: City of Paris Texas

 

FOUR EXISTING FACTS in Paris, Texas:

One, a planned Internet-delivery service doesn’t need a government franchise

Two, every government door welcomes a monopoly or conglomerates making significant campaign contributions

Three, government takes care of government

Four, the Paris Texas Chamber a few years ago reported that the City of Paris had approximately $600,000 on hand from an Internet-fee, and wanted to spend the money on a public cable-sponsored channel and a public information officer. (Public meaning government.) The Paris Texas Chamber flatly stated that these were two terrible ideas.

We, now, repeat it.

(Note: Basically, the fee [1% of annual receipts] was authorized by the state [as a buy-off of local city control over local franchising] in exchange for the state taking control of all licensing of or permission for [franchising] telecommunication firms to do business in Texas.)

A government idea is like a flea on a dog: Its not turning the dog loose.

The last city manager of Paris, Texas – who left with more then what he had when he applied for the job and the city has less – sold a majority of the city council members some really dumb ideas: Including hiring two assistant city managers (to do what he asked to be hired to do), when Paris was losing in-city population; getting rid of employees by switching trash pickup to a private firm; refusing restoration of three or four key  downtown historical buildings (to show how smart he was); to employing a “Public Information Officer” – who probably is a nice guy who means well. But Paris doesn’t need someone selling more government.

Now, the City of Paris has over $865,200 in the cable-fee account, which can only be spent on equipment. And as it is a government rule, the equipment is communications-related stuff. 

As we repeatedly note, government takes care of government.

So, outside the basic four existing facts, legislators – the state cupcakes and the dangerous socialists getting rich in Nutland, D. C – come up with “public information channels” – which franchised cable providers must make available to local communities when requested.

These are actually PEG (Public, Educational and Government) Channels. They use the ‘fee” (tax money) collected by “forced compliance” from the cable subscribers, to sell local yokels more government. Examples being: pleas for what every department of government sees as needed; a 24-hour bulletin board offering various content about glorious things; professionally produced ‘free videos’ – some of which costs millions of tax-dollars to make – about services, future projects, and wonderful ‘progressive’ individuals; commercials and editorials about the magnificent things local, state and national governmental units are doing; professionally filmed canned debates about how to destroy the constitution or best serve some ‘special’ deserving group; snake oil sermons on how grateful us poor creatures who are not members of government must be to a benevolent government that provides us everything; and lots of science-fiction on the wonderful world of Paris, Texas.

As we recommended years ago, the funds should be used to create a wireless internet network with no-costs access within the city limits. Use the funds for a worthwhile purpose. The state claims that a local community cannot do it, but it can be done – and is being done. A community may not have the state’s permission to charge for access, but that, too, is being done. 

Regardless of any four existing facts, all the gravy doesn’t belong to the big cities or to the 8 cable Internet providers in Texas.

Paris needs to be creating opportunities for all citizens, not promoting more government, which needs limiting.

And it would be a home run for the downtown area.

 

return to     Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce

 

                                                                                                        links:  Private-Public Partnerships

                                                                                                                         The Objective Reality

                                                                                                                                Snake Oil

                                                                                                                              Incentivizing

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 the city was previously 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 a 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, it dumps a $20-million- plus debt on taxpayers, which council members will then give to 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 a rotten steak. 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 (the information came from their homework). The hearing was simply a CYA thing.

  •  As presented, this proposed “Improvement District” has a total land area of 59.62 acres; roughly, the $20-million is an incurred $335,457 per acre cost just for improvements (?). Or a $100,000 lot cost for each of the proposed 200 homes
  • 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 –

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. In which case, it denies those units their right of taxation, and it is not fair to those who have to pay higher taxes when rates increase outside the protected district.

But isn’t adding $20-million (plus interest on top of the property tax) pricing the project out of the market? It’s going to take a long time to pay off $20-million in addition to the taxes. And a $100,000 average lot costs could mean the interest costs may be added on for years.

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

For instance, will taxpayers outside the district’s boundaries pay for “other property” that consists of building street or highway access to the project?

Treating that action as a normal city public street costs is unethical, if not illegal. Using public money for a private purpose is (a direct subsidy for the developer) frowned on by most courts.

The Paris Texas Chamber hopes, regardless what the city claims, that taxpayers understand that repayment of all city-related debt (plus the interest) is guaranteed by the City of Paris, and if results do not materialize or the economy fails, the taxpayers will be “obligated” to pay it​?

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

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

 

 

 

 According to a circulating report (one of many) ON the city of paris verses Alarid . . . .

. . . . the apparent stoppage of work on the downtown properties owned by David Alarid is the fault of the City of Paris, Texas, as – either thru’ deliberate ignorance or stupidity – the city is still riding its high horse.

A poor animal that should have died of old age 30-years ago.

Seems the city recently “red tagged” the First National Bank building. But before any restoration effort started, the city reportedly said a red tag did not exist. (A building is normally red-tagged because it doesn’t have a permit or has structural issues or violates building codes.)

The Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce is told that a person cannot legally enter a building that has been red-tagged, unless they have a special permit.

So, here we are today: The city has red-tagged the bank building (and other properties) in order to cut-off utilities to Alarid’s residence. A sneaky and odious harassment.

The report is that while Alarid was in Austin for extended specialized medical care, he missed paying electric bills mailed to his residence. So the provider switched power off for non-payment.

After Alarid’s return to Paris, the bill was paid. The company saying the energy would be on the next day. Then they called, saying that they could not turn power back on, as the city reported the building was in violation of city codes, and stating it would not approve the meter, unless it was removed from the interior of the building (where it has been for years), and re-attached outside the building.

Local Political Fluff

All this, according to Alarid, is just another excuse to prevent restoration of his property.

It does seem to rank as another harassment. Without electricity, he’s limited on what can be done. All he can do is sit on the sidewalk: The one the 2012 Paris City Council approved repairing – stop its draining of rainwater into the bank’s basement area and damaging the structure – years before Alarid purchased the building. Now, the city has blocked access to the sidewalk and allows it to continue to do more damage, as the water continues to pour in — 

In 2012, twelve years ago the city admitted its responsibility for the sidewalk, but now claims it’s Alarid’s responsibility – and has blocked his access to his property, which means he cannot even pump the water out — ?

Currently, the city

  • wants the electric meter moved from the basement to the facade of the building ( which seems to violate state and federal historical regulations, which prohibit anything that cause the facade to be different than historically accurate).

  • It states the meter is not safe in the basement, and that Oncor does not want it there in case of a need to turn the power off. But Alarid points out that Oncor does not care and turns the power on and off on the roof of the building.

But cutting off utilities at Alarid’s residence is just a tie-in to his other still-to-be-restored properties, which amounts to an estimated 141,000 square feet (an estimated 83,500 in Rodgers-Wade, 52,500 in the FNB; and 5,400 in the Varner building). By claiming “code violations” the city will not allow utilities to these properties.

Does anyone at the City of Paris consider that when doing re-modeling or construction, code is only a factor when the work is fully completed? Only then can it be determined as upgraded or acceptable? Using ‘code’ as an excuse to prevent bringing things up to code is not how things are accomplished in the real world.

Putting the cart in front of the horse is not the best way to get results . . .

The Paris Chamber doesn’t care if Alarid is an aggressive, arrogant, dumb as part of a smart horse, one of the nicest guys on earth or crazy as some of your relatives. Its his money being spent for improvements. Not the taxpayers. Not the city’s.

His money.

These on-going years of the city demands of  “meeting code” and demanding permits and other mickey mouse jumping thru hoops, and later changing demands, revoking permits and requiring new ones … simply is wrong.

Its also bone-deep stupid; especially, when you’re giving money and other incentives to others to build low-income slums.

You don’t brag about doing the best for the community when you stop someone from spending their own money to improve over 140,000 square feet of downtown buildings.

And no one asks, “Why would Alarid want to destroy the value of his own property?”

BOTTOM LINE

It seems the city is demanding that Alarid “…must comply with all zoning ordinances.”  But, no, what the City of Paris is saying is, “YOU do what we tell you to do!”  And if those demands fail state and national historical restoration standards, “that’s your problem.”  Its political nonsense gone mad (not angry, crazy).  Some of the city’s reported previous demands have been outside any existing ordinances.

And all ordinances are not enforced equally. Period.  Surely, the city realizes that not all ordinances are enforced? Consider:

  • grass and weeds are growing far taller – some of which have not been cut for 4-years or more – on properties all over Paris, including around utility poles, street signs, right-of-ways, and some city-owner properties in violation of ordinances

  • Autos and other vehicles are parked in front yards and on or in non-designated parking areas in violation of ordinances

  • City planned and approved street intersections that do not meet ordinance requirements

  • Commercial businesses in zoned residential areas (without ordinance required permits or without approved zoning changes)

  • Single-family homes permitted and constructed in retail and commercially zoned areas

  • Historical District (homes and buildings) city permitted that do not meet national historical accuracy

  • Buildings, commercial and residential, that fail regulations and codes on health, fire, litter and junk.

As exemption after exemption are permitted on other ordinances and zoning, if this all goes to court, how can the city justify its demands?

What kind of stupidity tells a property owner that he or she cannot spend their own money to improve their own property, when the city is spending millions of taxpayer dollars to try and improve the property for others in the same downtown area? 

But, is putting zigs-and-zags in downtown streets improvements?

It certainly does not improve traffic safety.

The city wasted more than a decade trying to improve the Grand Theater, a downtown historical-designated building, but failed to do so after spending over a half-million dollars ear-marked for that purpose, and has recently handed it over to another group to try and accomplish it.

IF the city can’t improve its own historical property, how can it demand the right to tell others how to do it. . . ?

The City of Paris can talk about “must comply” all it wants but, as a servant (supposedly) for the public, it cannot selectively enforce a demand that does not meet the test of “equal treatment.” Or demand others to foul-up as much as the city has in improving its own properties.

To be correct, government can do anything it wants to – until someone says, “NO!” (And means it.)

The way things are going, it’s likely to end up being the City of Paris vs Alarid, and whatever happens will cost taxpayers more money to pay for the stupidity.

Surely, adults, regardless of personalities, can find common ground to do what is best for Paris?

IF not, why not?

 

                       Return to   Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce