Tag: City of Paris

One of the reasons why the Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce distrusts so many government bureaucrats (not workers, bureaucrats):

After years of community and economic wrong-doing by several large and small Texas’ cities, legislators gave them a sly wink that a ‘safe haven” now exist in the Chapter 380 law for any of their past, on-going or currently contemplated sins. Under the new Chapter 380 Program, anything legal or semi-legal can be economic development.

It is such a bad law that state legislators declined to determine specifically which incentives, when offered singularly or in combination, constitute a “program … to promote state or local economic development.”

There are no rules governing community and economic development anymore, except for civil injury or death.

Economic development is now anything a city council says that it is – Whether an incentive is requested or not, it gives a city control over all development efforts.

Government takes care of government; government grows government.

Taxpayers have raised such a ruckus over wasted tax-dollars that lawmakers had to do something to bail-out their brethren.

Therefore, 380 agreements serve to only memorialize economic development projects that cities create. It gives a city council the rights of management and control over anything that it designates as a 380 project, thereby setting aside the Constitutional rights of private property ownership.

If government can control it, it – or their friends or supporters or the bureaucrat administrators – can reap the rewards while you pay the taxes, which government also puts into its pockets . . . IF someone can control and manage your property, in ways that they determine, what good is your ownership of it?

Logic is not a government strong point.

The Chapter 380 law requires that a “claw-back” or “recapture” provision be in every 380-agreement. It’s a way for cities to claim that taxpayers can get the total cost of incentives and grant or loan money back – IF their economic development partner does not meet or deliver on the agreed performance.

Cities and economic development corporations now have an excuse: A guarantee that no incentive will be wasted – as every and all are recoverable.

Whoopee!

The cockroach in the coffee is that cities have always been free to have “claw back” provisions from failed goals set forth under agreement terms. Its why we’ve had agreements and contracts since 1215 (the Magna Carta signing). But moving on:

The problem for taxpayers – who pay for all incentives – is that under Section 380.001(b), the governing body may: (1) administer a 380 program by the use of municipal personnel; (2) contract with the federal government, the state, a political subdivision of the state, a nonprofit organization, or any other entity for the administration of a program.

That is a cronyism loophole large enough for the 138,600,000 supporters of “democratic socialism” to do the Boot Scootin’ Boogie in . . . (That’s the left-leaning 42% that polls are reporting of the nation’s 330-million population, if you’re wondering.)

Recently, over a cup of coffee, one of our Paris Chamber’s supporters observed that “government has replaced the Mafia as the nation’s organized crime system.” He added, “All it is anymore is a legalized system for plunder.”

He said it was his fault because he “didn’t vote for Goldwater.”

Half of those present were not even born in 1964. One of the eldest said, “Its like I’m living in a society with Alzheimer’s.“

Anyway:  Chapter 380 is to protect government, while taking care of government’s friends and insiders.

It certainly is not about achieving results, as not all projects are “economic development programs.”

An improvement or a restoration of a building, allowing new instant slums in a neighborhood, some guy cleaning up junk in his yard, some crew selling “pot” on the streets, some gal painting her navel at the Culbertson Fountain, anything that can be claimed to have a potential for “community development” or to improve Paris’ appearance, can now become “economic” in the eyes of the city or when used by the PEDC (when they want it to be).

A 380 designation gives the city total administrative control and management of an entire project – which are the basic rights of private property ownership. And don’t be fooled: Control and management far exceeds any government right of ‘reasonable’ regulation.

Paris is now trying to treat community development as a need for a Chapter 380 economic development agreement; even if no loan or grant or incentive has been made by the city.

Forget any understanding of what, why, and how a project should be done.

return to          –          Paris Texas Chamber

Links:

     The Big Myth

     Affordable Housing

    The Good Stuff, right?

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.