Tag: City of Paris

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022, the City of Paris council members voted to demand rental properties in the historical districts to pay “registration” fees. On all rental properties? Even above ground-floor apartments and condos being recommended as a way to have more people living in the downtown area?   

The city grants – gives – taxpayer’s dollars to downtown owners who will improve the appearance of their buildings, but charges regulation, restrictions and fees for others to improve their property. Why?

Think about the thinking: Creating more regulations, restrictions, and fees on rental properties is the way to (a) create more affordable housing and to improve Paris; or (b) hope higher rents will keep the (wink) undesirable “low income” folks out of the neighborhood?

Will increasing rental fees win the war against blight, decay, and rot in the area’s older neighborhoods?

Let’s face it: Large areas of Paris are a disgrace; ugly to the eye and an insult to humanity. Especially, when the city allowed the property to decline to a point where it needs repairs.

We’re not against equally applied standards – or fines – to prevent litter, junk in front yards, weeds, maintenance neglect, etc., but restrictions, regulations and fees to tell owners what they must do?

“…com’on, man!”

Three short weeks before, the Paris Texas Chamber had suggested the city be prohibited, by ordinance or Charter change, from adopting or enforcing regulations that requires an owner of a vacant residential or commercial property to obtain a permit to do repairs to their property, (a) if it is necessary to protect public safety; or (b) to prevent further damage to the building.

So the city’’s guiding hands did the very opposite of what needs doing.

The city has planners and other sellers of services who find regulations, restrictions and fees successful ways to use the taxpayer’s money. Somehow, those ways seem to benefit them, seldom the community. Everyone knows the examples:

  • Incentives to builders for 5 little-bitty $200,000 affordable homes (1150 to 1250 sq. ft.); a million dollar guarantee

  • Approving really tiny (750 to 800 sq. ft.) homes in established older neighborhoods or in retail and commercially zoned areas

  • giving incentives to apartment complex purchasers or builders; and

  • Using an estimated $7-million to build a street for a residential development with a small retail or commercial area thrown into the mix.

None of those things, nada, are doing anything to improve the older existing, ignored for years, city discriminated against neighborhoods.

But $7 to $8 million, not counting the other incentives, used wisely, could – the catch here, of course, is being “used wisely”.

Millions of dollars to builders and a few wealthy corporations, but Paris will not purchase in bulk-at-a-discount building fix-up, paint-up, and clean-up materials to provide families willing to use sweat equity to repair or improve their home in an older neighborhood?

Why not?

As the Paris Chamber previously stated: There are only two reasons to penalize the improvement of property: Greed for fees or stupidity.

Paris does both, often at the same time, and calls it progress.

 

                       return to  Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce

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.

Jointly, currently, the City of Paris, the Paris Economic Development Corporation (PEDC), and the Lamar County Chamber of Commerce are paying a Florida firm (Florida?) to develop a Branding/Identity – a common new tagline – which they can use to try and sell a perception of the three being one united group.

As all three have lived off the taxpayers, like parasites over the last 30 to 50-years, when have they not been united?

Yes, even the Lamar County Chamber, supposedly, a “voluntary” organization, has had their hand in the local Occupancy Tax till, which is generating over $700,000 annually.

Voters have forgotten or don’t care that for years, the city leased the Depot building on Bonham Street to the Lamar County Chamber for one lousy dollar, annually. Then, after the chamber moved out, the PEDC still gave the bunch around $60,000 of the taxpayer’s money annually for “office space” – or some such silly excuse. It was an insider’s game at the taxpayer’s expense. All three organizations knew full well what they were doing and were okay with it – until the Paris Chamber exposed the unethical (and possibly an illegal action) that was going on.

After we pulled the plug, the three closed the funneling of tax dollars (in that manner) down, while griping about the Paris Chamber, which is the second best thing they do well.

Let’s face it: The three already walk and talk in-step. They seldom fuss, only brag about who has the power. They never dissent about issues, only power. And if that ain’t loving one another, then God didn’t make little green apples and it don’t rain in Indianapolis…

Branding, in the final analysis, only promotes or sells an identity. What they want to change is not how they do things, but the perception that people have of them.

But if you’re going to brand something, shouldn’t the first objective be that it is legitimate, functional, compelling, attractive, and different?

For years, they’ve believed their process is more important than Paris’ progress, and what we see them doing is just another process to make themselves look good.

For a decade the Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce has repeatedly said that Paris needs to restructure its community and economic development organizations, and given our reasons for the restructuring need: Property owners and tax-payers need a program that sells people on Paris, not on the existing organizations or on a series of some annual one-time event being held in Paris.

Branding failures are the state or condition of not meeting the intended objective or the expectations of people. It can also be viewed as a failure of the product.

The three organizations are only trying to brand a hope that people in the local marketplace will see them as hot stuff, the saviors of Paris.

But behind the perception they’re hoping for is a reality that these three have ridden Paris downhill for the last 50-years. Fix that, and the perception will fix itself.