Category: Equal Economic Opportunity

The right to improve your life economically –

                        Private-Public Partnerships

1930s – 1940s: The Seeds of Change

  • Great Depression: Economic hardships led to federal initiatives aimed at job creation and infrastructure development, laying groundwork for using public funds to stimulate private investment.
  • Federal Programs: Initiatives like the Works Progress Administration (WPA; a governmental entity) are given as examples of how government spending can support private businesses.

1950s – 1960s: Formalization

  • Urban Renewal Programs: Using returning servicemen from WWII, enacted in the late 1940s and 1950s, these programs allowed for the use of public funds to pay for clearing blighted areas, and facilitating private development.
  • Federal Housing Act (1961): Introduced funding for urban renewal, further excusing the using of public tax dollars for private investments.

1970s: Expansion into Economic Development

  • Economic Development Administration (EDA): Established in 1965, as democrat socialism really bloomed, it helped to fund local development efforts through public-private partnerships.
  • Tax Increment Financing (TIF): Gained traction in multiple states following the trend during the 1970s, allowing local governments to claim re-capture of public tax dollars from future increased tax revenues from new private development, a program with limited success and a large number of mixed reviews.
Legislative Changes in Texas and Beyond

1980s: Legislative Framework

  • Texas Economic Development Act (1981): Established a blueprint for local economic development programs, permitting cities to use public funds as incentives for private businesses.

1990s: Widespread Adoption

  • Enterprise Zone Programs: Formulated by the U. S. Department of Commerce, these initiatives were to encouraged investment in economically distressed areas by private firms through financial incentives funded by public tax dollars, including guarantees back by the taxpayers to banks that would make loans to local government-approved developers.

Overall, the movement towards using public tax money for private endeavors evolved over decades, influenced by claims of economic needs and the acceptance by voters of democratic socialism for the growth of federal programs sold as fostering growth and revitalization in communities.

So, the question becomes, “Have such programs, based on costs or money spent, been successful at reducing poverty or homelessness or rebuilding inner-city areas?”

And the answer, of course, is that, despite using trillions of dollars of public funds to support private ventures, these programs have failed with greater numbers of blighted intercity areas, more poverty, more homelessness, and an even greater cost in inflation.

Assessment of Effectiveness

Positive Outcomes for democratic socialism:

  1. Job Creation: Many programs report job creation as a direct outcome, which can have a ripple effect in reducing poverty levels. Supporters claim that increased employment opportunities lead to better living standards. Currently, government is the nation’s largest employer.
  2. Investment in Infrastructure: Public funding has led to some improved infrastructure in a few in-city areas, which is claimed to enhance the appeal for businesses and residents alike, and it certainly increases the value for the owners of the improved property.
  3. Revitalization of Blighted Areas: Some cities have seen physical improvements, including the renovation of housing and commercial spaces, but still have the same problems, plus a higher tax rate.

Mixed or Negative Outcomes

  1. Limited Impact on Poverty: Many studies indicate that while jobs may be created, they often do not pay enough to significantly lift individuals out of poverty. The quality of jobs created is crucial. And not all the jobs are filled with workers from the sponsoring community, and some are filled by local workers simply changing their old job for a new one.
  2. Displacement Risks: Gentrification sometimes does follow revitalization efforts; lower-income residents are displaced as property values rise, and it has seemingly increased homelessness in large cities.
  3. Inequitable Distribution of Benefits: Benefits flow more to the property developers and the businesses than to the communities intended to be uplifted, leaving original residents (those who have paid the taxes for years) with minimal gains.

Evidence and Studies

  • Reports from Research Institutions: Various studies on enterprise zones and similar programs show mixed results, often indicating that while jobs are created, the long-term impacts on poverty and homelessness are less clear; pointing to the trillions of dollars wasted on the War on Poverty..
  • National Studies: Research has found that economic development programs frequently succeed in attracting businesses, but offered incentives are only a consideration after market and location and do not significantly alleviate poverty or homelessness on their own.

Conclusion

While some public-private funding programs have produced some positive results in certain urban areas, their overall effectiveness in significantly reducing poverty and homelessness or rebuilding of communities is limited and context-specific. Sustainable change usually requires comprehensive approaches that integrate economic development with social services and community engagement.

There are growing concerns about public-private partnerships and the negative impacts of using public tax money to fund private endeavors that primarily benefit select individuals or businesses.

A key report by the Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce regarding Private-Public Partnerships make these main points:

Key Concerns:

Mis-allocation of Public Funds

  • Public resources are sometimes used to support private projects that do not provide widespread benefits, leading to questions about accountability and fairness.

Favoritism in Selection

  • The risk of favoritism occurs, where certain businesses or individuals receive preferential treatment over others, creating inequities in economic opportunities.

Limited Community Benefits

  • Many times, the promised benefits, such as job creation and economic growth, may not materialize for the broader community, exacerbating disparities.

Erosion of Trust

  • Such practices can erode public trust in governmental institutions, as citizens become disillusioned with how their tax dollars are used.

Call for Accountability

  • The Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce continuously emphasize the need for transparency and rigorous evaluation of the actual impacts of these partnerships to ensure that public funds are used effectively for community benefit.

For the complete analysis, you can visit this link to read more about these critical perspectives on public-private partnerships. If you need further insights or a discussion on these issues, the Paris Texas Chamber has other website postings on economics and government, as well as local politics.

return to The Paris Texas Chamber

 

Links:

  City of Paris and it’s local partners

 Local Government 

 

-sooner or later, the city of paris, texas will have to invest in people-

In 2008, and again in 2011, the Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce recommended that the City of Paris, which owns a number of houses on which taxes have not been paid for years (and hundreds of other substandard houses on which sizable tax bills exist that the city will also likely end up owning), take the lead on fixing the the problem by investing in people. The city, being an existing legal entity will have to play an enabling role sooner or later.

To this end (now, 16-wasted years later), 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 family or individual lives in the house for the seven years and satisfies all the agreed upon improvements, the city deeds the house to the individual (or assigns it to a bank that may be financing additional improvements).

True, not all the folks hopping on an urban homestead program will follow thru…and the program administrator will have to reclaim the property.  But many will follow thru, improving their lives (and the City of Paris).  Investing in people means that any homes that are returned can be offered to others who will complete the terms of the homestead agreement.     

investing in people means There will never be enough Homes.

 

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 large parts of Paris is inexcusable!

Sure, we understand why some want to deny incentives for a large neighborhood improvement effort; especially, in an Enterprise or “Opportunity” Zone, even if such action violates warranties that have to be made in the Contract Agreement for Zone approval. We find such actions wrong, ethically repulsive, and don’t agree with it, but, considering all 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! 

THAT we do not understand . . . !

Investing in people is actually community development, so why wouldn’t we invest in ways to help people?

Talk about creating opportunities – 

The Paris Chamber’s recommendations are on record, so the Paris leadership cannot plead ignorance. 

Done right, its a program that can actually pay for itself.

Since 2008, the money the city has wasted (and is wasting) on know-little consultants would have paid 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 to invest in its people? 

                                                               return to                   The Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce

Links:

       These Little Town Blues . . .

        A Public Information (BS) Officer

A private-public partnership is the epitome` of democratic socialism. It’s a fancy Excuse for the illogical use of public money for a private purpose.

Private-Public Partnerships are the fertilizer that grows government control. And when government’s tentacles are spread throughout every department, agencies and office, when it becomes an accepted — even when hated — national way of life,  there’s nothing democratic about it: Its just socialism-in-the-raw.

YOUR energy, your labor, talent, ideas, imagination; your private money; your ability to improve economic opportunities for your family; and your personal freedom is taken to be given to a private entity for its private purpose.  Behind all the rose-colored glasses, the half-truths, selected facts, and the deliberate lies — all the Happy Talk — democratic socialism is the path to a socialistic totalitarian government. 

How much of what is yours are they entitled to?  And if a little bit of it won’t hurt you, neither will cancer. (Until its too late.)

A small scale example is the planned development in Paris, Texas, by the partnership of Dallas-based Javelin Investment Group and the Paris Housing Authority.

Council members approved an eight-acre site for a multi-story 60-unit apartment for Section 8 families and private-pay clients by the group and the housing authority. By using this as an excuse, in its desire to show “progress”, the council also approved granting commercial and residential tax abatement on the 19-acre block owned by the private investors.

Go down to City Hall and declare your intention not to pay your property taxes for seven or ten years.

Javelin is in the business to make money.

The city is forcing taxpayers to give it to them.

The Paris Texas Chamber realizes that the nation is well on its way to socialism, but what brain freeze dreamed this nonsense up?

Why will the city provide private developers opportunities it will not allow taxpayers who have paid the bills for years? Instead, over just the last two years, it increase the budget over 7-percent (roughly $5 million), dumping the responsibility for it on in-city residents.

There’s nothing fair or balanced – or even intelligent – about what Paris is doing; its merely a scheme to benefit the few by stiffing the majority; and cover the resulting manure pit with Happy Talk.

Socialist Eugene V. Debs made a great-sounding speech in Girard, Kansas, in 1908, which became his public platform: “When we are in partnership and have stopped clutching each other’s throats, when we have stopped enslaving each other, we will stand together, hands clasped, and be friends. We will be comrades, we will be brothers, and we will begin the march to the grandest civilization the human race has ever known.”

Dream on, brother, dream on!!! But someone must make decisions. Debs never could agree on who that someone should be … he ran for president five times.

In his first race, in 1900, Debs was the candidate of the Social Democratic Party, which led to the formation of the Socialist Party. In 1920, as its candidate, he received almost one million votes, 6% of the total.

In 2020, slightly over 50% of American voters case ballots to increase the role of government.

 

Since 1900, millions of people who, voluntarily or non-voluntarily, entered a promised “democratic socialism” partnership have been killed by their government. The dead surpassed 30-million in China; 6-million plus in Germany; an estimated 12 to 15 million in Russia. Cambodia killed killed half its citizens. Other countries have slaughter hundreds of hundred thousands. And millions of people today live in human misery and enslavement under the same generic dream – the “democratic socialism” – of Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, and Indo-China and Mid-East nations, and others, that seek control of resources and the means of production.

And there’s no accountability . . .

There’s not even an apology.

In recent years, both major parties have gradually endorsed many of the ideas Debs advocated. Its why the nation is absolutely divided – and $34-trillion in debt.

So what does this have to do with Paris Texas?

Suckers always believe that government can manage or guarantee happiness. But if we can’t do it for ourselves, how can those in government do it for us?

What Paris is doing reflects a wide range of misinterpretations of sound community and economic development, and a serious lack of a common knowledge of socialism’s devious and complicated evolution, and how it operates in practice across the political spectrum.

Those encouraging socialism are mentally-ill people who should never be in leadership positions.

Government favoritism – democratic socialism – is wrong, whether in Paris or Austin Texas, or Nutland DC.

Or, any nation. 

                                                               return to  

                                                                            Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce

 

Links:

         Private Enterprise System

         Figures Don’t Lie, but . . .