Category: paris texas chamber of commerce

         
Recently, the Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce posted “The Objective” on our website;  explaining that our purpose was simply to be a voice in the community for those who, otherwise, would have no voice.

 To lend weight to our point, we asked: “Where else will you see, read or hear anything that dissents from or even question what citizens are told that relates  to a City of Paris program?”

What we didn’t know then, that we know now, is that “hear” is a really big word – in more ways than one.

Now, we are well aware that we were wrong in saying “hear” : There’s a lot of griping going on about how complaining doesn’t do a bit of good.

We apologize . . .

We should have simply expressed disappointment over the lack of Dissidence – 

Taxpayers would be better served by dissidence, as expressing opposition to is much better than hearing about wasting money. Dissidence is needed.

So, please, show some mercy! 

Other examples of needed dissidence is on allowing weeds to grow, and allowing most areas inside the city limits to be used as a dump ground. If nothing else, cut the weeds and stop the littering.

Even “”artificial intelligence” might agree –-–


But it is seeming that the human programmers of AI have a personal opinion or bias that may or may not agree, as it seems to accept that even plunder is a right of government. But plunder is taking by force the assets of others, whether its by law or at the point of a gun.  All of which make one question (or should) the intelligence of the creators, developers, and programmers of Artificial Intelligence. Some of the answers it provides dumb or even intelligent questions need questioning.

Dissidence is always a needed quality when facts are hard to find or mugged so badly that they are unrecognizable without questions.

 

How can we, in good consciousness, call Paris “a good city” or a “good place to live,” when too many policies and programs benefit some citizens, but not all? When the same policies and programs that are used as weapons against some citizens become favors granted to others? When public tax money (collected from all citizens) is given to a private endeavor or used to fund some socialist “public-private partnership”? And when and how did it occur that all data and information about some important endeavor or project be ignored and words be carefully crafted so that supporters can play “Whack-a-Mole” with any fact that might raise its intelligent head?

Dissidence requires questions. Without it, the idea may or may not have merit or value, and it certainly has no need for transparency.  IF so, it certainly does not need public tax money.

Ideas are not the enemy.

The lack of dissidence, not questioning every idea, is . . . (whether it is about control of litter or government plunder).

Actually, the verdict on Paris is in: Weeds and litter are everywhere; ordinances and policies are selectively enforced or ignored or in conflict with other laws or lawful policies; too many of our neighborhoods are full of blight, decay, rot, and historical obsolescence; there are more rental properties than single-family home ownership; and more empty houses and vacant business-buildings than ever.

IF we really wanted to make Paris beautiful, we’d be taking down utility poles instead of putting them up and butchering trees.

Paris had the potential to be a good city and a good place to live. Once upon a time, Paris was the largest city in a 100-mile circle of NE Texas and SE Oklahoma; the North Star of Texas. But that was, as the song says, “Once Upon a Time, So Very Long Ago … “

Lamar County population is growing; the population inside the city limits of Paris, isn’t – and years of not questioning the ideas have made this the reality.

The lack of dissidence is the reason why.

                                                                        return to the Paris Texas Chamber  

 

                        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 

 

Typically, a master planned community (mpc). . .

 . . . . is on a large plot of land where a developer offers an array of amenities, including golf courses, restaurants, shops, miles of hiking trails, parks, community events, and more;  just about everything you need within a community. The Forestbrook Estates – a City of Paris local partner – claims to be a MPC.

Whether or not it is, as claimed, a mpc, the smell of the selling sizzle covers up the fact that local taxpayers, who have paid the bills for years, are now on the hook for an estimated $20 million to cover the developer’s cost.

Why?

 

There’s no guarantee it will pay . . . .

. . . and $20 million is over one-third of the current city budget. IF its such a good deal, why do the developers need the Paris taxpayers to guarantee them a profit?

The major draw of a master planned community is that you can walk from your home to the gym, shoot a round of golf, grab a drink at the clubhouse, play at the park, take your kids to school, all available for residents and are kept up-to-date by funds collected by a homeowners association (HOA). 

IF there’s no HOA, will taxpayers – who seems to be stuck paying for everything else – be stuck with maintaining the streets, hauling off trash, repairing water and sewer leaks, and other such day-by-day expenses? And surprising us all by getting rid of litter?

The reported first phase of the nearly 200-acres of the Forestbrook development will consist of 87 of the 471 residential lots. This doesn’t seem to leave much room for playgrounds, schools, gyms, golf, clubhouses, parks, and all the promised related retail and commercial development; plus, the rights-of-way for utilities and streets, drainage, etc. 

The Paris Texas Chamber doesn’t know if a HOA is in the plans, nor do we have the least idea about what the proposed development will actually offer or who are the developers. We do know, however, that the endeavor itself is not as important as the centuries-old concept for selling democratic socialism – a private-public partnership, which is an insult to to the American Idea of self-responsibility and the need for accountability of one’s personal actions.

 

Private-public partnerships are not how you limit government.

IF the City of Paris cannot or will not guarantee every citizens’ debt, why is it guaranteeing the debt of a selected few based on Happy Talk promises and the only collateral being the taxpayer’s guarantee?

Where does the city, and government in general, get the right to pick and choose economic winners?

Its so much the key question that we don’t even understand those individuals who believe that robbing Pete to pay Paul is a good idea – unless they’re Paul.

Do banks even make development loans anymore? If not, why not? IF they can’t make community development loans, why are they needed?  (Community development is economic development, and consumer loans only get people deeper into personal debt.) So, what purpose do banks now fill – other than paying a little bit of interest on CDs in order to loan the  money at a higher interest rate to some government-guaranteed “too big to fail” Big Business? 

Isn’t government basically guaranteeing the success of banks?

Why are taxpayers forced to guarantee some developer’s debt?

 

Forced compliance is destroying the 13th Amendment of the Constitution . . . .

. . . . and the bad decisions keep coming: As the Paris Chamber warned years ago, thanks to idiots in the Texas legislature, anything can now be economic development. 

The City of Paris has extended its partnership with Palma Holdings, LLC; subsidizing “a residential 5 in 5 Housing Infill Development program” that the city calls economic development. Basically, its low-income single-family instant-slum housing offered at an estimated $200,000 sales price. Five or more have been built with no reported sales, but ten more were recently approved for construction.

Unfortunately, a $200,000 home is not affordable for most low-income families, but as taxpayer subsidized Section 8 housing, it can become a long-time profit center for a private developer. 

It all makes some wonder about sanity.