Tag: Lamar County

A CONSPIRACY REQUIRES EVERYTHING BUT A BACKBONE.


A conspiracy allows the participants to slide up sideways to something they know they shouldn’t be doing.

Some things the Paris Texas Chamber know, but we never claim to know everything.  There is a whale of a difference in the two. And we do know that a conspiracy requires everything but a backbone.

And we do know when infringement on our name is evident (as seen above). 

We realize, as do others, that on  another front,  more then one someone approved the name, design, and decision to deliberately use a Paris Lamar County Chamber of Commerce logo for the Lamar County Chamber of Commerce webpage, stationery, advertising, etc.

We’ve known it since it first started in 2016. It’s amusing, in a pitiful sort of way. But what does it say about the membership of what-used-to-be-the Lamar County Chamber?

Ever since 1922, the year socialist author Sinclair Lewis’ book, Babbit became a national best-seller, “booster clubs”, chambers of commerce, and other such community organizations, have had to fight a bad reputation.

Like most things public, some do deserve a bad reputation; most don’t.

They good ones work to bring their communities together. They are responsible, honest and dependable organizations with their own self-defined objective for the community they serve. They know their role: They establish goals to try and meet their objective.

They succeed when they are not trying to be both fish and fowl, but only the sizzle on the steak they’re cooking.

Those community and economic organizations, wiggling like an earthworm trying to escape the hook, claim they are the first rose of spring, the needed rain on summer’s hottest days, the painter of fall colors, the designers of the winning snowflake of winter, trying to be everything, while promising they are the only way to salvation, are the ones with questionable identities. 

            They are the Walter Mitty’s of community organizations.

. . . .  a conspiracy can be identified as a continuation of social traditions that work to the advantage of certain groups and to the disadvantage of certain other groups. If the intent of a conspiracy exists for the purpose of perpetuating the advantage, then there is a conspiracy even if the details are never agreed to aloud by all the participants.

It’s why a conspiracy doesn’t require a backbone.

Name infringement, of course, is a “no-no!” Not only is it unethical, but illegal in some cases.

Throw in the “conspiracy theory” and it is fairly decisive that a conspiracy has – and is – actually producing political events that those engaged in the conspiracy cannot begin to reasonable claim are false.

                                                          return to Paris-Lamar County Chamber of Commerce  (tsk-tsk-tsk!)

 

(with an apology to Woody Herman)

Most all personal “interpretations” are subjective, not objective.

The Goosey-Gander directive is ignored by most marketing people and politicians. They make decisions based on the false belief that they know what people want and / or will do. But they do not abide by “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” Their personal interpretations are subjective, not objective.

The Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce believes that individuals determine what they like, want or will do. It’s why they drive marketing people and politicians crazy, which, in most cases, is no big deal; it being a very short drive.

Like other laws, city codes and ordinances are needed, but only if they can be carried out on a fair, equal, and objective basis.  But when open to “personal interpretation” they will never be fair or equal or objective.

And there’s very little that is fair or equal about what Paris does, nor how it does it. 

We zone areas, and then permit exemptions – for a good supporter or one who has a little influence. (Its only politics, you know . . .)

We create ordinances for the beautification and improvement of Paris, but don’t enforce them – or only “selectively” enforce them (favorite weeds can last for years undisturbed and some of the numerous substandard buildings (some owned by slum-landlords) can feed termites for decades).

The city restricts what you can do with or to your property but not what the city can do with or to theirs (try making the right turn off Bonham Street onto 7th Street SW, or compare city street paving standards verses those for private developers).

The Historical District requires “restoration” of buildings … mere “improvements” are not allowed. Then say that “restoration” can include central heat and air, concrete driveways, double-and-tripled glazed windows, electric opening garage-doors, various kinds of weather-proofing, insulation, musical doorbells, burglar alarms, and a hosts of other digital things and improvements that did not exist when most of those buildings in the district were constructed,

And the list goes on . . . 

Only 43,000 air conditioning systems were in national use in 1947.

The first residential unit was installed in 1914 and needed a room of its own: it was seven feet high, six feet wide and 20 feet long. One of these early units carried a price tag of $10,000 to $50,000, which translates to $120,000 to $600,000 at today’s rate of exchange.

Too many times, we’re killing improvement.

Trying to meet “restoration” requirements, instead of improvement, the Lamar County Courthouse’s recurring windows and/or roof leaks costs taxpayers a truck load of bushel baskets full of money.

The City of Paris spent nearly an estimated $500,000 on trying to restore the Grand Theater a decade ago, according to reports (or the money reported ear-marked for that purpose was diverted to some other use). Now, it seems some folks have lost their ever-loving minds and want to spend an additional $4-million or so on “restoring” it – while ignoring the fact that when the Grand was originally constructed it didn’t have air conditioning . . .

Logic seems to be missing: Restoring it to what point in time? The 1930s? 1940S? Or to original status? Air conditioning didn’t get into wide use until after WWII.

    Four million dollars would go a long way to clean-up, fix-up, and paint-up Paris.

We create Reinvestment Zones for areas that do not come close to being eligible; give cash and tax abatement as incentives. Some to those who do not quality for incentives; cash to subsidize those who need subsidizing the least; and we make up the rules as we go along. And if a rule or regulation is in our way, we ignore it or change it.

And, no: The Paris Chamber doesn’t want to hear excuses about “tough situations” or excuses about “difficult choices” or excuses about “walking a tightrope” and excuses about “exceptions” to a code or ordinance.

We want to hear what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Anything else is wrong.              

 

Only in Paris Texas can Robin Hood be perverted into a public purpose.

The Supreme Court of the United States declared in Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wallace 655, that while it was not easy to decide what was a public purpose, and that the court was justified in interposing only when the case was clear, affirmed in most positive terms an inherent and essential general rule as to what the court recognized as a public purpose was recognized by the court in these words:

“In deciding whether, in the given of cash, the subject for which the taxes are assessed falls upon the one side or the other of this line, they must be governed mainly by the course and usage of the government, the objects for which taxes have been customarily and by long course of legislation levied, what objects or purposes have been considered necessary to the support and for the proper use of the government, whether State or municipal. Whatever lawfully pertains to this and is sanctioned by time and the acquiescence of the people may well be held to belong to the public use, and proper for the maintenance of good government, though this may not be the only criterion of rightful taxation.”

But it was said that, in the case at bar, no line could be drawn in favor of the manufacturer, which would not open the coffers of the public treasury to the opportunities of two-thirds of the business men of the city or town.

 

So is giving cash JUSTIFIABLE?

        “. . . legislative determination is not conclusive and is subject to judicial review.”

When it comes to government and corporations, most claims of acquiescence and compliance are symptoms of emotional insanity.

The PEDC, the City of Paris, and Lamar County – all governmental units – gave a 10-year tax abatement to a Limited Liability Corporation that has purchased the former Earth Grains, Sara Lee, J, Skinner building.

The PEDC proudly made sounds about a total investment $3.5 and $5.5 million over the next three to five years by the company, and an initial creation of 100 jobs – with a promised minimum of an annual $50,000 salary. The PEDC said that part of the incentives was “cash for jobs.”

That – and the abatement – was all the information released. Possibly, because the cash promised “for jobs” will come from some Paris families making much less then $50,000 a year.

Is that a “public purpose” in Paris?

Robbing the poor to give to the rich is more like insanity.

What is the time limit for the “initial creation” of the promised 100 jobs? Is it the same amount of time allowed for the 400 to 500 jobs promised by J. Skinner?

We get all the Happy Talk assumptions about industrial money-hunters coming to Paris, but we never hear or see a report about the industries that left Paris. But the lack of transparency in both instances are problems. (Shouldn’t a report on how much “cash money” taxpayers lost on J. Skinner be public, as well as all the incentives in all agreements? If not, how do taxpayers know the net gain to the community?)

Is the sin of commission greater than the sin of omission?

While the Paris Texas Chamber appreciates job creation and new investments – especially those that help hold the line on property taxes – we realize that what the Supreme Court of the United States declared in Loan Association v. Topeka, about the giving of cash, is correct, “…no line could be drawn in favor of the manufacturer, which would not open the coffers of the public treasury to the opportunities of two-thirds of the business men of the city or town.”

The PEDC is taking the widow’s mite to give to $50,000 wage-earners –

We can’t even get Robin Hood right . . . !