Tag: Texas

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

To please silly people, The first Texas Right-To-Farm Act (RTF) was passed in 1981.

Legislators proposed the act “to reduce the state’s loss of agricultural resources.”   Silly people believed it was needed. 

Since then, the number of operators in the state has grown by 27 percent, while the number of acres in farmland has dropped by 8 percent (largely due to the growing number of wind and solar fields, lakes, and the expanding population centers).

Basically, it was sold as a way to protect certain agricultural operations from nuisance suits when they impact a neighboring property, such as through noise or pollution. (Texas defines nuisance as actions that cause (1) physical harm to a property; (2) physical harm to persons on their property by assaulting their senses or other personal injury; or (3) emotional harm to persons from the deprivation of the enjoyment of their property through fear, apprehension, or loss of peace of mind.)

“Loss of mind” is not mentioned.

 

The 1981 Act…

…supposedly was centered on protecting certain types of operations from such lawsuits if they are engaged in soil cultivation, crop production, floriculture, fviticulture, horticulture, silviculture, wildlife management, raising or keeping livestock or poultry, or other agricultural land set aside in compliance with governmental conservation program. (That was the kicker.)

It was, voters were told, a way of providing agricultural operations broad immunity and limit a neighbors’ ability to sue by protecting an operation from nuisance suits (if it has lawfully existed for one year). It also was to “protect” agricultural improvements that are not prohibited by law at time of construction or restricts the flow of water, light, or air onto other land.

The law required that agricultural operations adhere to federal, state, and local laws in order to receive protection from nuisance suits. (More kickers!)

Additionally, the law required facilities to comply with local governmental regulations that protect the health and safety of residents. (Keep adding those kickers!!)

In practice, it’s obvious that (1) the 1981 Act demonstrates that “the right to farm” took away the owner’s basic right to control and manage their farm or ranch land, and (2) that government takes care of government.*

Isn’t it amazing that legislation often achieves exactly what it is designed to avoid?

 

42-Years later, on November 7, 2023 …

...Texas voters approved HJR 126, changing the landowner’s right to farm and / or ranch to a “privilege” – whereby, the state’s governmental units allow a landowner to “engage” in farming or ranching. By voter approval, the amendment allows the state to create future administrative agencies to control and manage farm, ranch and other agricultural endeavors – operating on some currently-unknown “generally accepted” practices – to “assure public health and public safety” unknown issues based on yet unknown rules and regulations. (Nothing in it, but kickers!!!)

The Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce warned property owners not to approve this horrendous legislation, as it opened the doors to more government control and management of private property.

We were ignored.

But if your neighbor can control and manage your property, what good is your ownership of it? You get to pay the taxes and the costs of maintenance, but they reap the the benefits of ownership – if any remains after the next 42-years . . .

We won’t be around then; however, if you are one of those who voted to approve the change, and are, remember you were warned ––

We’re supposed to be a nation of limited government based on self-responsibility with accountability for wrong-doing. But today, Texas, and the nation, are in a mess because too many silly people want the government to take care of them. They see themselves as a victim or being incapable of taking care of themselves.

Silly people take a great deal of pride in being stupid; believing everything that government tells them, while ignoring the fact they cannot name three problems that government has solved over the last three-quarters of a century, while creating the mess we’re in . . .

Please, stop being one of the silly people voting for silly people.

 

* 20-years later, the Texas Legislature created the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (in 2001);  while supposedly eliminating the Natural Resources Department. In 2019, the Athens, Texas Daily Review newspaper, followed the TCEQ’s charge and investigation into Sanderson Farms as being in violation of nuisance statutes due to odors, noise, emissions, and runoff. In October 2020, the paper reported that a court ordered Sanderson Farms to pay plaintiffs $6 million in damages from nuisances related to its sixteen poultry barns. This despite the 1981 Right To Farm Act, which was sold to “protect from lawsuits in regard to such nuisances.” (In reality, the 1981 Act, like HJR 126, encourages government’s growth, which adds additional burdens to farming and ranching.)

 

                        return to   

Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce

In the world-famous Red River Valley, Paris Texas is an economic sinkhole – and that’s being kind. Thousands of historically-obsolete houses and other buildings – unpainted clapboard, weathered, streaked with age; termite-havens with patchy, wild grasses and a variety of weed-greenery outlining vehicles parked in front yards, and not in clearly defined parking areas, in block after block of narrow, grubby chuck-holed strips of streets – are plain clues to its status as a failed community.

In its core, Paris looks older than its age, rickety and ugly, with a few amenities of polish and glitter.

Another fact is that those in Paris who try and speak the truth are condemned as “mean people”.

Its dangerous to dissent on what the leadership claims – or decides to do or not do. There is a dark heart that can be detected beneath the denials and the claims of progress.

Consider our friends at the visitors and convention council or whatever it or they may call it, who say, publicly, and with a straight face, “Welcome to Paris, a city graced by dozens of beautiful old homes and unique public architecture, creating a charming backdrop for a thriving economy and a contemporary lifestyle.”

Considering the handicaps they work under (some of their own making), they do a very good job of filling visitor spaces for events they sponsor, if not for Paris. They likely see their job as selling Paris, regardless of what they’re saying:

  • Do they actually believe that a few dozens of “beautiful old homes” negate the thousands of ugly old homes?
  • What town is bragging about not having any “unique public architecture”?
  • Three decades of in-city declining population is a “thriving economy”?
  • a “contemporary lifestyle” in a small city that will not consider pursuing a modern public WiFi or MiFi system to benefit all citizens, but will give some real estate developer millions in cash and incentives to build instant slums?

The Paris Texas Chamber is merely using the visitor’s group to point out that, as a community, we can only fool ourselves for so long before being forced to face reality.

Industry will not save us; neither will more subsidized retailers, apartments or residential subdivisions, or outside consultants long on promises but short on results.

A few amenities of polish and glitter only draws attention to the unpainted and falling down.

Community leadership created an economic sinkhole that eats whatever make-up we slap on it. Only by accepting reality can Paris change the future.

We’re burying diamonds in expensive, but cancerous, trash.

Return to the Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce