Tag: 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 

 

talking, not doing . . .



Paris talks about improving Paris.  Paris talks about the need to improve and beautify. Paris talks about substandard homes with unpaid taxes, and talks about what to do with them. Paris prefers talking, not doing. 


Talking is a poor substitute for doing. 


Behind all that Happy Talk, however, improvement is taking money – from some who can barely make economic ends meet – and giving it to others who are doing well economically, but who can help make the givers seem like they have a sound mind. 


Most local builders are chased out of the city limits with inane regulations, which have created residential and business growth in most Lamar County’s smaller communities. In turn, the City of Paris uses public tax-dollars to pay for land, water and sewer services, streets, curbs and gutters, even administration, and “other development incentives” to guarantee a profit to outside firms – some who take their profit back home with them, and some who leave us holding an empty bag of promises.


Ordinances are local laws designed to hold those without brown noses to the grindstone, while allowing those with brown noses to practice “how to circumvent the law without accountability.” 


Those with brown noses, for some reason, don’t like to be reminded of it.


Talking, and not doing demonstrates that Paris is at war with itself, as many weed-infested neighborhoods are breeding grounds for blight and decay – 


But Paris doesn’t want to talk about that . . . 


While talking, not doing, about keeping Paris beautiful, the grass and weeds keep onna’ growing. Not all weeds are flowers, but they are appreciated by all the local blooming idiots and passersby.


We use to tiptoe through the tulips. . . now we just waddle through the weeds.


                                                


Inside the city limits, there are five and six year old weeds in key places; i.e; on privately and city owned properties, along the right-of-way of state and U. S. Highways, and city streets.


Some are so old and large they are monuments to Mother Nature.


Those who believe that man can control climate should visit Paris, Texas; a city that proves weeds cannot be controlled (at least, inside the city limits). If weeds cannot be controlled, forget about the world’s climate.




As someone said, “Paris is a victory garden  —  too bad the weeds won.”


We’re lucky that so many weeds are covered with litter. 


Littering, evidently, is a hobby for most folks in Paris, as, like the weeds, litter is all over town. All kinds of litter.




Drive around the Loop or around town and it’s likely the Florida firm that came up with the high-dollar logo proclaiming “Paris Texas – where Texans reach higher” was thinking that was how we stacked our litter or it was the only way to climb out of it. 


While talking, not doing, we’re actually building a dump ground that 24,900 bewitched, bothered, bewildered and befuddled people call home. 


Well, I’ve been all over this world 


down to the Gulf of Mexico,


but I ain’t never seen a dump heap


calling itself a city before . . .


                                                                                         ( – apologies to Dr. John and his Cabbage Head song…)


The Paris Texas Chamber has urged Paris to invest in people for years. It’s actually the best – and least expensive – way to do community development: Build it and they will come.


So why will we not invest in ways to help people help Paris?


return to   Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce


                                        link:


                                          Incentivizing


                                          Four Existing Facts


                                           The Objective Reality









		

	




			

	

		
	

	


		


					








A Public Hearing To Give-Away $20-million            




On September 9, 2024, at 5:30 pm, in the City Council Chamber, the City of Paris, Texas, held a public hearing on a $20-Million Give-Away. Entering 2025, transparency is still lacking – even with a new ‘public information officer’.




 Anyway, it was on the same project on which a groundbreaking was celebrated by city planners on March 24, 2004, which, at that time, the city was prepared to offer “community development incentives” of $7-million.


Many of us have failed to realize that inflation was increasing that fast . . .


Prior to 1987, Texas cities were not allowed to give incentives to solicit businesses, industry, or other endeavors. Then the same foolish voters, who previously in 1981, approved local Appraisal Districts to establish an excuse and protective barrier for local taxing units, allowed cities to use public taxes for private purposes. (FYI side note: The state budget in 1977 was $24 billion; today, the current budget is $321.7 billion from all revenue sources.)


So now, the City is setting the stage to do a $20-million give-away to subsidize development of private property – “to create the Forestbrook Public Improvement District No. 1.” 


Behind all the diligently researched (supposedly) and carefully crafted words to build a blinding mountain of sizzle, it dumps a $20-million- plus debt on taxpayers, which council members will then give to or spend for the private limited liability company, Lone Star Planned Developments, LLC. 


Now, the city doesn’t say it like this, of course; it relies on the sizzle to sell rotten meat. For instance, the hearing was to “accept public comments” and “discuss” the creation of a public improvement district for 200-homes, which the city already intended to approve (or there would not have been the March 2004 celebration). The hearing was simply a CYA thing. 


    

  • As presented, this “Improvement District” has a total land area of 200-acres – roughly, a $100,000 per acre or lot cost just for improvements for each of the proposed 200 homes. But more sizzle comes from the promise of new city streets, a new park, a new elementary school, and other goodies – a smell designed to attract particular birds, a kettle when they are flying, a committee when they are resting, and a wake when they are feeding
    • 

  • Improvements include design and construction, landscaping, streets, drainage, off-street parking, water and sewer lines and services, etc., including other off-site projects that would be a benefit to the property
    • 

  • Acquisition, by purchase or otherwise, of real property 
    • 

  • Payment of expenses incurred in the establishment, administration, and operation of the District
    • 

  • Payment of financing associated with financing public improvement projects
    

    • 

  • The city says this district “would include property owned” by the limited liability company, but has not disclosed if there is or isn’t any current indebtedness. Nor, if there is, the amount
    • 

  • “The city shall levy assessment on each parcel within the District in a manner that results in imposing equal shares of the costs on property similarly benefited” (but who determines ‘equal’ and ‘similarly’ – you know, like east and west?)
    • 



There’s more, most of it Happy Double Talk: “The city is not obligated to provide any funds to finance the authorized improvements, except for assessments levied on real property within the District.” 


“Except” – that’s government splitting a hair for you: Who guarantees the $20 million used for the development?


And will the promise of new city streets, a new park, and a new elementary school (for which school district?) require design, development, construction, administrative, operational, and other additional costs?


Where’s transparency?  


Council Members are, in fact, public servants. As such, they owe a fiduciary duty to the public they serve; a concept that underlie most if not all ethic laws. As fiduciary trustees they are obligated to act diligently in the best interest of the citizens. 


As trustees of the citizens of Paris, city council members are elected to oversee and manage the property and debt of the citizens, as well as the day-to-day events. But as the citizen’s trustees, council members cannot sell or giveaway the property of the citizens without the citizen’s permission. The fact is – without approval by the citizens – using some questionable loophole council members have dumped or is dumping another $20-million of debt on the citizens.  


The only money that government has is that which it takes from the citizens.




















Trustees can be replaced, but debt must be paid.




The $20 million goes for planning and design, land acquisition and development, the related cost, and  administration,  plus  acquisition of other properties.  So, what costs remain?




The assessments are on top of property taxes, and are calculated according to the size of the parcel, tract or lot, while property taxes are assessed on appraised value. Unlike the property tax, however, assessments made by an Improvement District expire once paid in full.


If taxes are frozen within the district, as usual in such projects, it means that schools and other taxing units cannot increase taxes on the property, including the City of Paris. It denies those units their right of taxation; plus, it’s not fair to those who have to subsidize the district when higher tax rates and city service fees increase outside the protected district.


Or, is there a worm in the woodwork somewhere . . . ?  


For instance, exactly how much equity money have the “district” promoters invested in their own project?  10%?  15%?  20%? Nothing?  Will taxpayers outside the district’s boundaries pay for “acquisition of other property” that consists of access to the project or expanding utilities needed to serve the development?












Treating such street and service costs as normal public costs is unethical, if not illegal. Using public money for a private purpose (a direct subsidy for the developer) is not viewed favorably by most courts.




The Paris Texas Chamber hopes, regardless what some may say, that the taxpayers understand that repayment of all city-related debt (plus the interest) is guaranteed by the taxpayers, and if results do not materialize for whatever reason(s), the taxpayers are “obligated” to pay it​? 


What does Paris need most? Spending $20-million on a gamble or investing in people and rebuilding neighborhoods?


We’re subsidizing a limited liability company with nothing to lose but a dream –


Since the 1980s, Paris has done a lot of dumb things but, evidently, as our new brand warns, we keep reaching higher . . .


                                       return to    Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce


Links:


AMENITIES VS ESSENTIAL


Residential Renewal or Stupidity