One depressing city council meeting

It’s really saddening to see just how shamelessly the Kyle City Council acted and reacted tonight when it came to discussing its proposed policy on Public Improvement Districts in the city. I don’t know which is the more depressing thought – that our council is nothing more than pawns to be moved around a chess board at the whim of developers or that they just sat there and allowed an attorney to lie to their faces without a single person on that council challenging his blatant falsehoods.

Here’s the bottom line: Following a public comment session in which the only persons who spoke in favor of the city’s proposed PID policy were a pair of developers and a bond attorney, all of whom stand to make a lot of money off this policy at the expense of Kyle homeowners, the council approved the policy 6-1 (Mayor Pro Tem Diane Hervol cast the one sane vote).

Now, to be fair, I can see the council’s point of view here. They’re up on that dias thinking "Why should I care about those homeowners? They never come to any of our council meetings and object to how we’re sticking it to them. They don’t even take the time to vote. These poor sheep need people like us to tell them how fortunate they are to fall victim to robber barons. In fact, they’re lucky to have us. Without us they’d be wasting their money on frivolities, like their children’s education, family vacations and the like."

But it gets worse. It was revealed during the course of the public comments that the city enlisted these fat-cat money-gouging developers to help draft the propose policy. That’s like asking a pedophile to help write your child protection ordinances. The fix was in from the get-go.

I got the business cards from the three individuals who spoke in favor of the policy just to prove I’m not making any of this up. The three were Adam Moore, planning and development manager for Walton Development and Management; Tony Spano, project manager for Plum Creek Development Partners, Ltd. (who spilled the beans about being one of the developers who helped draft the proposal); and Steven C. Metcalfe, an attorney (and possibly a partner) with Metcalfe Wolff Stuart & Williams, LLP, who proved once again that there is truth in the adage: "How do you know when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving."

This man had the unmitigated gall to stand before the council and say "Let me point out something related to an earlier statement that PIDs made more sense to fund improvements in an existing neighborhood. Well, I tell ya, practically that doesn’t make sense because I don’t know of one that’s ever been done that way ... technically, it’s not even possible." Hate to tell you, Metcalfe, but not only are they done that way, not only is it possible, as anyone can see from reading this presentation to the Dallas City Council, that’s the ONLY way PIDs are allowed in the City of Dallas. And to stand there and tell the council otherwise is unpardonable. But, then, I guess you have to expect that from someone who is going to rake in some pretty nice billable hours as well as hefty commissions from gouging Kyle homeowners.

But this is the same guy who told the council: "Once a homeowner has bought his house and that homestead is in place, the assessment is set. It never changes. If it’s $1,000 per month, it’s going to be $1,000 a month going forward."

$1,000 a month??? What planet did this guy drop in from? That’s possibly a sum greater than the actual monthly mortgage payment for most Kyle homeowners. And he just throws that sum out there like "Why, every homeowner should just be tickled pink to buy a home in a subdivision where he or she has to pay an extra $1,000 a month for something they probably didn’t want and have no intention of ever using."

But I’m not sure the council members were even listening at that point. It’s obvious they have been purchased by and must react to the demands of the development community. Those are the folks with the money and we all know that money, not principles, is what drives politics these days.

I also learned why the new proposed ordinances governing boards, commissions and committees require committee members to be registered voters, but do not have that requirement for members of boards and commissions. I first posed the question to Mayor Todd Webster who just decided the best way to handle the inquiry was to ignore it. Not a good response for a mayor. So I asked the city attorney, thinking he might have actually drafted the ordinance. Foolish me. So then I asked City Manager Scott Sellers and it turns out the reason is there are certain individuals who are currently serving as members of city boards and commissions who are not registered voters and the city didn’t want to throw them off those boards/commissions by requiring them to do their civic duty. So there’s that.