Tag: City of Paris

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.

The good stuff is free from chemicals, harmful organisms and weed seeds. At least, that’s what we’re told. The good stuff is the plants and produce that are grown without the use of artificial pesticides, herbicides; and organic livestock for our meat, eggs, and dairy are raised on only organic feed – free from hormones, steroids, and antibiotics.

In short, the commonplace definition for anything labeled “organic” in a grocery store is free of man-made chemicals.

Most of the stuff that Paris citizens are told is also organic –

Currently, we’re told to celebrate the fact that the City of Paris is giving “incentives” to four businesses and, especially, the owner of the Towne Center Shopping Center.

The owner gets a 5-year, 50% property tax abatement (worth $167,500-or so). Then, a 50% reduction of the 2.5% local sales tax for 3-years go to the four stores, which is another $300,000 (rough guess).

Then, the city claimed all this would add around $70,000 of new income for the city. But wouldn’t that be losing income, as an anticipated one-half of the sales tax goes to each store? Or even a percentage of replacement income, as these outlets only fill spaces vacated when four stores previously closed?

If we had given those stores the same incentives, would they still be here?

If this new policy works, why not try and be as generous to every business in Paris? Think how much “new income” that would generate–

But how long can you continue to rob Peter to pay Paul? Taxpayers with inquiring minds or no minds at all want to know . . .

Since July 1989, the following has been the policy of the City of Paris:

  • (1) a spokesman for what used to be the Lamar County Chamber of Commerce was quoted in the Paris News as saying that no incentives would be available for retail businesses
  • (2) A Director of the PEDC stated to the head of real estate development department of a large retail outlet chain that no incentives are available for retail.
  • (3) City of Paris officials told the top 3 officers of a $1.5 billion firm that was interested in building a shopping center on the west side of Paris that no local incentives are available (and businesses don’t do well on the west side of Paris).

The city can talk about how it can make money by giving away money, but the Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce knows manure when we we hear it. The same goes for the ridiculous claims that the state’s Chapter 380 Program could add to the city’s tax base and increase revenues.

The only thing for sure is that somebody wins and somebody loses . . .

Under this new policy, local retail businesses are force to subsidize the new retail businesses. It’s a way to finance competition for those forced to pay full taxes. Or, a really stupid way of penalizing them.

Organic fertilizer is also called “organic manure” as it is made from animal waste or animal and plant residues. Examples are livestock and poultry manure, guano, finely pulverized fish, dried and powdered blood, ground bone, crushed shells, phosphate rock, and wood.

In terms of nutrients, a radish or a tomato or an ear of corn or a potato doesn’t know the difference between conventional or organic fertilizers.

So a lot of folks are willing to pay a higher price for manure-based food, which is no big deal: Citizens of Paris are paying to be fed the basic ingredient.

For years, Affordable Housing . . . .

. . . .was the subject the City of Paris, Texas, the Paris Economic Development Corporation (PEDC), and What Used to be the Lamar County Chamber of Commerce, bragged about the low costs of living in Paris. But what they refused to acknowledge was that “the low costs’ came in housing – substandard and historically-obsolete housing, which the Paris Texas Chamber repeatedly warned was not an asset.

Now, it’s a hot topic by people who don’t have a worthwhile idea of what to do about it any more than a week-long drunk Bessiebug.

Less than half the homes in Paris are owner occupied. 3,000 Properties are on tax-delinquent lists. The city is holding title to over 600 properties, and can’t maintain them. It could have three times as many, but doesn’t know what to do with the ones they already own. Adding to the problem, too many landlords have been and are excused from any attempts to maintain their properties. Or in some instances, prevented from making improvements (the FNB Building comes to mind).

Now, insanity is raging through the local taxing units: The local leadership has approved a “5 by 5 Program” (offering incentives to build five or seven $200,000 affordable homes of 1250 to 1350 square feet, which does not include lot cost, as the taxing units are giving title to the citizen’s public property for one dollar).

How can we know the right thing to do, if we can’t honestly face the fact that “affordable housing” is feel good politically-correct crap to make low-income housing sound better.

But it is what it is ––

Who, in their right mind, would think that subsidizing a $200,000 home is affordable housing for those with low incomes?

 

IF there is accountability for the failure that surely is coming, who is responsible?

Some are advocating for affordable apartments – “places that average workers can afford and be safe and comfortable in . . .” Trouble is, apartments may help a developer’s cash flow, but it doesn’t do much to help low income workers improve their lives economically.

We hate the term, the condescending attitude conveyed in the insult, of average worker. The average worker holds society together, keeps it running, delivering goods and services. If they never get to Heaven, it’s not because they ain’t tried . . .

Its government that keeps messing things up, trying to prove it’s worth: In 1975, the maximum FHA would finance a single-family home was around $71,000. This year, 2022, the loan limit is $970,800.

The U. S. national debt was $5.6 trillion in September 2000. Beginning this fiscal year (September 2023), debt had increased to $32-trillion. It’s government doing what government does best. Now, the debt is over $30 trillion, thanks to our elected leaders in Nutland, D. C.

And no matter how much it lies, mentally-deficient voters think we need more of it?

Does Paris need bare-bone quarters built for “average workers” or a way to convert the bulk of substandard properties inside the city limits to improved single-family homes?

Do we want to subsidize an apartment builder or help low income families improve their lives? Sure. The Paris Chamber recognizes the need for a wide range of available rental properties, as some of us – for a variety of reason – don’t want the responsibility of home ownership. But we also know that building equity in home ownership is a way of creating assets.

You cannot improve your life without ownership of private property, the rights to which are guaranteed in our nation’s Constitution.

Ownership of private property is how you climb out of poverty.

Subsidizing some builder only gets you another day older and deeper in debt ––

 

                           return to  Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce