NEW OR RECENT POST

Whatever it is we do in Paris Texas, we don’t do it straight on.

We kinda’ slide up to it, sorta’ sideways; sorta’ like a stray mongrel begging for something to eat or, at least, a kind word. If a misguided soul pats us on the head, we start slobbering and running around in little circles and wagging out tails while barking with hopeful joy that they (or someone) will kill our fleas and ticks. Or see if there is something around that might be alright to eat. 

We always seem to be starved for baloney.

The problem is that we’re not Old Yellow or Lassie or even Rin-Tin-Tin. And we sure aren’t as smart as Goofy.

We’re so dog-gone pitiful we’ll give cash as an incentive to pat us on the head. Evidently, we don’t believe we deserve to be loved – or appreciated.

Together, we could make life better.

But we’re begging for kindness from those who we should be barking and growling at for why we’re looking for kindness.

Consider that the Three Mustyrears are paying a Florida firm to come up with a “brand” they can use to “market Paris”.

According to a firm spokesman, “What we’ve learned is that communities generally become more competitive and see improvement in their overall reputation when all the main sectors of the community are aligned around a common strategy, a common DNA and a compass that says,’ “This is where we’re going; this is what we stand for”’ and went on to say that the Three Mustyrears are, ‘“collaborating so that you’re swimming in the same direction.”’

Amazing.

They don’t know what Paris is swimming in … but water full of it still runs downhill.

For a decade, the Paris Chamber has repeatedly said, “Paris needs a vision, a theme, and the protocols to make it a highly desired destination for a large, identified segment of the market.”

And now, the Three Mustyrears are wasting $85,000 of the taxpayer’s money to hear the same thing in slightly different words.

The difference is that the Paris Texas Chamber has known what is needed and what would work for Paris for years; the firm from Florida doesn’t have an idea now; nor, will they have a workable idea when they collect the rest of their money.

But that’s okay.  We’re not one of the “the main sectors of the community – “

It’s one of our bragging points.

The Paris, Texas ‘Comprehensive Plan’ is a little goofy.

Consider pages 13 & 14, SECTION 5: THE ROLE OF URBAN DESIGN IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

On page 14, dealing with Public Art, (Item 16) states: Public art is an urban design element, and opportunities should be evaluated to place public art in areas that will enhance the aesthetic quality and reinforce the unique identity of each community.

(The italics are inserted by the Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce. Generally, it has been accepted by rational minds that privately donated art is usually art; publicly funded art is usually an eyesore or propaganda, as government acts as a censor of what “art” is or isn’t acceptable.)

The Section ends with: “The application of these urban design elements through the comprehensive planning program can aid the aesthetic quality of each community. Again, since the comprehensive plan is implemented over time, these design elements should be applied as part of individual zoning, subdivision, and site plan review approvals, as feasible.”

(Two “each community(s)” in one short section is likely a boiler-plate recommendation dreamed up by a committee of government planners. Otherwise, wouldn’t it just say, “Paris” or City of Paris – ?)

Government cookies, baked for the good of government, is not how policy that is good for Paris should be determined. Chowing down on such cookies may or may not be good or bad, but Paris is not the cook.

As the policy is not attributed to an outside source, it’s either carelessness or just being lazy, but moving on:

 

 

Page 17 – SECTION 7: DOWNTOWN PARIS

Item 1. Introduction. (States):

Paris has an important historic downtown, which continues to serve as a focal point for the citizens within the city and the region. The Paris downtown is filled with social, cultural, economic, and architectural amenities and potentials. Currently city staff, in conjunction with citizens and business input, Lamar County Historical Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, Main Street Advisory Board, Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council are strongly committed to the preservation, enhancement, and upgrading of the many variables and elements that comprise Paris’ downtown.

So encouraging historic preservation is a goal. If not, why include it?

Accuracy, however, is demanded of restoration in the historical districts, which includes the downtown area. But doesn’t apply to the downtown area.  (Don’t ask; we don’t understand it, either.)

Recently, valuable historically accurate art works, privately donated to citizens, were removed from display at the public library by the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and the Library Director, saying they were an “unsuitable history” of Paris; thereby, claiming that history does not exist – except the way they want it – regardless of existing policies demanding historical accuracy.

A little goofy goes a long way.  Sadly. –

Paris Texas’ neighborhoods are under attack. Blight and decay are waging war, and the City of Paris is losing it. In desperation, the city changes ordinances, policies and focus, concerning substandard and obsolete housing and vacant commercial properties, because, in general, as a community, we do not know what to do.

So, we do dumb things.

One is being really good at creating barriers of regulations, making it difficult for owners to repair, improve, or sell their property.

The city has an obligation of reasonable and equal applications for all taxpayers and home owners; therefore, it’s time to repair and upgrade ordinances:

  • – First, prohibit the city from adopting or enforcing an order, ordinance, or other regulation that requires an owner of a vacant building to obtain a permit to conduct repairs to the building if the repairs are necessary to: (a) protect public safety; or (b) prevent further damage to the building; (2) prohibit the city from requesting state officials to exempt the city from this prohibition by an executive order issued under the Texas Disaster Act; (3) provide that an owner of a vacant building who is required to obtain a permit in violation of this prohibition may: (a) bring an action against the city that violated this ordinance for damages incurred due to the violation; and (b) recover reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs if the owner prevails in the action; and (4) waives governmental immunity of the city to suit and from liability to the extent of liability created by this prohibition.
  • – Next, prohibit the city from adopting or enforcing an order, ordinance, or other regulation that requires an owner of a vacant building, when repairing damage to the building, to improve the building to a condition that is better than would have been legally acceptable before the damage occurred, including by requiring conformance to updated building code standards; (2) prohibit the city from requesting state officials to exempt the city from this prohibition by an executive order issued under the Texas Disaster Act; (3) provide that an owner of a vacant building who is required to improve the building in violation of this prohibition may: (a) bring an action against the city for violation of this ordinance for damages incurred due to the violation; and (b) recover reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs if the owner prevails in the action; and (4) waive governmental immunity of the city to suit and from liability to the extent of liability created by this prohibition.

These changes, of course, will not solve all the problems of older neighborhoods, but it’s a start on holding our own, at least.

It certainly beats forcing taxpayers to subsidize $200,000 homes – and calling the foolishness “affordable housing’.

But, WHY deny the right of a property owner to repair their private property? Especially, when the city allowed the property to decline to a point where it needs repairs?

There are only two reasons to penalize the improvement of property: Greed for fees or stupidity.