The Kyle Report
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
Fogley fails first smell test
When then City Council candidate Damon Fogley filed his first campaign financial report he listed $475 in contributions from employees of Lockwood, Andrews, and Newman, Inc., of San Antonio. Last night, in just his second session as a council member he voted with the majority to pay Lockwood, Andrews, and Newman, Inc., of San Antonio $75,198 in taxpayer funds for additional engineering and other services in connection with the Go forth Road Project. Nothing whatsoever illegal in his actions, but ethically speaking he really should have recused himself.
Mayor Pro Tem David Wilson: All hat, no cattle
If you want to know the problems facing Kyle as well as why so few of the city’s residents participate in the electoral process, here it is in an allegorical nutshell. Stand around Mayor Pro Tem David Wilson for any length of time and he will regale you with how much he supports veterans. If there’s a flag ceremony, he’s going to be there front and center. If it has to do with pinning medals on servicemen, he’s going to fight his way to the front of the line. But if it comes down to significantly supporting veterans in such a way that it would put Wilson on the wrong side of the development interests that control all city functions, Wilson will immediately hoist the white flag and capitulate to the development camp. Yeah, sure, he will support veterans up to a point, but he is not willing to fight on behalf of their interests, especially if those interests are opposed by developers.
The same is true of the elderly. When the city’s PID process first reared its ugly head, Wilson said during council deliberations "I don’t want this to be an issue that people are afraid they are not going to be able to live in a community because they have a flat income stream and maybe are afraid that this is going to be added on top of them. I just want to assure people that is not the case." But when push comes to shove, Wilson is going to make sure that is exactly the case. Why? Because the development community insists on it and when the development community insists, the elderly are going to need to seek another champion.
Take last night’s City Council meeting, for example. I know she’s only been on the council for two meetings, but newcomer Daphne Tenorio is quickly developing into a leader to pay attention to and also someone willing to give former Mayor Pro Temp Diane Hervol some much needed cover. The two of them are rapidly displaying signs that they are going to be pillars supporting the interests of everyday Kyle residents against the entrenched developer establishment. Tenorio self-financed her election campaign so she is not beholden to anyone except the general population. Hervol was elected before I arrived in Kyle, but regardless, she is displaying some backbone.
Last night, as expected, the city passed its city/developer friendly, but anti-new-homeowner PID policy. However, before that happened Hervol supported Tenorio’s motions that would, on the surface lend some support to disabled veterans and those aged 65 and older, by exempting those who fall into those two categories from PID assessments.
Wilson was beside himself and the result was that he uttered a statement so completely outlandish, it rivaled Donald Trump’s diatribe against Mexican immigrants, if not in its bigotry, at least in its utter stupidity.
"Let’s say they are all disabled veterans (that move into a subdivision) they are not going to take care of the obligation that you have set up," Wilson said.
It’s hard to know where to begin with a statement like that. First of all, he proves his absolute dismissal of the best interests of disabled vets when those interests could be viewed as detrimental to the entrenched development community. Second, the notion that all the homes in an entire subdivision would be purchased by disabled vets is only slightly less probable than the notion that all the homes in an entire subdivision would be purchased by zombies. And finally Wilson is insisting these disabled vets, who have already fulfilled an obligation to their country that we should reward, fulfill a yet another, this time financial, obligation they had no part in formulating.
The guy whose company’s income depends on the city’s passage of this policy volunteered there was nothing "in the statutes" that allowed for these kinds of exemptions, but when pressed by Hervol he was forced to admit there was nothing "in the statutes" that prohibited them, either. Frank Garcia, who’s acting in the role of the city attorney, said "I have not researched whether they would be illegal (but) I don’t think there’s anything that prohibits them or permits them. But if they are allowed, it may defeat the purpose of the PID policy." Which would, of course, benefit future Kyle homeowners but force the city to provide basic city services to these homeowners, which the city is trying desperately to avoid providing strictly from taxes.
Finally Mayor Todd Webster said "Look, we have to develop a functional PID policy" although neither he nor anyone else promoting this policy has ever explained why.
Council member Damon Fogley doubled down on the insult to veterans by saying such an amendment would discriminate against veterans like him who are not disabled. But, of course, since he’s in bed with the development community as well, instead of siding with those veterans and moving they also be included in the exemption, he simply threw all veterans under the bus. It really was a shameful display.
Council member Shane Arrabie feigned cluelessness by saying such an exemption would force the exemptions to be in place "before we know who actually comes into the district." The policy, of course, would be in place, but not the individual exemptions. I going to give Arrabie the benefit of the doubt, however; I think he’s smart enough to know this, he just needed to say something in public to reassure the controlling interests he was firmly on their side.
As expected, the vote was 5-2 against Tenorio and Hervol and then 5-2 to pass the policy.
The same is true of the elderly. When the city’s PID process first reared its ugly head, Wilson said during council deliberations "I don’t want this to be an issue that people are afraid they are not going to be able to live in a community because they have a flat income stream and maybe are afraid that this is going to be added on top of them. I just want to assure people that is not the case." But when push comes to shove, Wilson is going to make sure that is exactly the case. Why? Because the development community insists on it and when the development community insists, the elderly are going to need to seek another champion.
Take last night’s City Council meeting, for example. I know she’s only been on the council for two meetings, but newcomer Daphne Tenorio is quickly developing into a leader to pay attention to and also someone willing to give former Mayor Pro Temp Diane Hervol some much needed cover. The two of them are rapidly displaying signs that they are going to be pillars supporting the interests of everyday Kyle residents against the entrenched developer establishment. Tenorio self-financed her election campaign so she is not beholden to anyone except the general population. Hervol was elected before I arrived in Kyle, but regardless, she is displaying some backbone.
Last night, as expected, the city passed its city/developer friendly, but anti-new-homeowner PID policy. However, before that happened Hervol supported Tenorio’s motions that would, on the surface lend some support to disabled veterans and those aged 65 and older, by exempting those who fall into those two categories from PID assessments.
Wilson was beside himself and the result was that he uttered a statement so completely outlandish, it rivaled Donald Trump’s diatribe against Mexican immigrants, if not in its bigotry, at least in its utter stupidity.
"Let’s say they are all disabled veterans (that move into a subdivision) they are not going to take care of the obligation that you have set up," Wilson said.
It’s hard to know where to begin with a statement like that. First of all, he proves his absolute dismissal of the best interests of disabled vets when those interests could be viewed as detrimental to the entrenched development community. Second, the notion that all the homes in an entire subdivision would be purchased by disabled vets is only slightly less probable than the notion that all the homes in an entire subdivision would be purchased by zombies. And finally Wilson is insisting these disabled vets, who have already fulfilled an obligation to their country that we should reward, fulfill a yet another, this time financial, obligation they had no part in formulating.
The guy whose company’s income depends on the city’s passage of this policy volunteered there was nothing "in the statutes" that allowed for these kinds of exemptions, but when pressed by Hervol he was forced to admit there was nothing "in the statutes" that prohibited them, either. Frank Garcia, who’s acting in the role of the city attorney, said "I have not researched whether they would be illegal (but) I don’t think there’s anything that prohibits them or permits them. But if they are allowed, it may defeat the purpose of the PID policy." Which would, of course, benefit future Kyle homeowners but force the city to provide basic city services to these homeowners, which the city is trying desperately to avoid providing strictly from taxes.
Finally Mayor Todd Webster said "Look, we have to develop a functional PID policy" although neither he nor anyone else promoting this policy has ever explained why.
Council member Damon Fogley doubled down on the insult to veterans by saying such an amendment would discriminate against veterans like him who are not disabled. But, of course, since he’s in bed with the development community as well, instead of siding with those veterans and moving they also be included in the exemption, he simply threw all veterans under the bus. It really was a shameful display.
Council member Shane Arrabie feigned cluelessness by saying such an exemption would force the exemptions to be in place "before we know who actually comes into the district." The policy, of course, would be in place, but not the individual exemptions. I going to give Arrabie the benefit of the doubt, however; I think he’s smart enough to know this, he just needed to say something in public to reassure the controlling interests he was firmly on their side.
As expected, the vote was 5-2 against Tenorio and Hervol and then 5-2 to pass the policy.
Council discusses downtown parking
The City Council listened to a presentation last night that proposed reducing the number of downtown parking spaces by replacing perpendicular parking with angled parking on that section of North Burleson between Center and Miller streets as well as that block between Center and Lockhart streets. The reduction would be significant, from 23 to 18 spaces between Center and Miller and from 17 to just nine between Center and Lockhart.
Mayor Todd Webster expressed concern that there weren’t enough spaces to handle those who come to special events downtown, but City Manager Scott Sellers countered by saying the empty spaces that exist when there are no special events sends a poor message.
"Typically parking is not an issue until there is an event or something where, no matter how many parking spaces you put in, you’re going to exceed capacity," Sellers said. "Granted, we would love to have our parking spaces full as a sign of a robust downtown, a thriving downtown. That’s one argument. The idea that all the parking spaces are full is a sign of a vibrant economy. More open spaces during the day or evening is a sign to the contrary.
"Typically, when you’re doing wider sidewalks like this, you’re giving up something," he continued. "Walkable traffic equals sales downtown instead of driveable traffic. So if someone can park somewhere the key is having wider sidewalks so they’re actually walking into the business, which is helping the downtown."
The mayor wasn’t convinced, however, and asked the consultants to work with city engineer Leon Barba to come up with an alternative plan.
Mayor Todd Webster expressed concern that there weren’t enough spaces to handle those who come to special events downtown, but City Manager Scott Sellers countered by saying the empty spaces that exist when there are no special events sends a poor message.
"Typically parking is not an issue until there is an event or something where, no matter how many parking spaces you put in, you’re going to exceed capacity," Sellers said. "Granted, we would love to have our parking spaces full as a sign of a robust downtown, a thriving downtown. That’s one argument. The idea that all the parking spaces are full is a sign of a vibrant economy. More open spaces during the day or evening is a sign to the contrary.
"Typically, when you’re doing wider sidewalks like this, you’re giving up something," he continued. "Walkable traffic equals sales downtown instead of driveable traffic. So if someone can park somewhere the key is having wider sidewalks so they’re actually walking into the business, which is helping the downtown."
The mayor wasn’t convinced, however, and asked the consultants to work with city engineer Leon Barba to come up with an alternative plan.
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Board of Adjustments never gets it, but ultimately gets it right
Neal Meinzer stepped right off the pages of a George Orwell novel into last night’s Board of Adjustments meeting. Meinzer and his family have owned property at 505 Old Highway 81 South for around 30 years now and they have been using that property for industrial uses. Exactly what is not important, but what they were doing was absolutely kosher because the property was zoned Heavy Industrial. In 2003, the City passed an ordinance completely revamping its zoning designations, although that ordinance (and this is the important part of this story) never repealed the previous zoning ordinance. The 2003 ordinance did not include a Heavy Industrial zoning. That meant that a property could never be zoned Heavy Industrial again within the city limits, but, because the old ordinance wasn’t repealed, those properties already zoned Heavy Industrial could keep that designation.
The matter before the board last night was an attempt by the city, using a loophole in the law, to claim Meinzer’s property did not conform to current zoning ordinances and permanently shutter his business there. Meinzer was fighting to retain it and to give you the punch line right away, the board ultimately and unanimously sided with Meinzer, although the members did so for all the wrong reasons.
According to Meinzer, TxDOT began construction on I35 access roads in the summer of 2012 and, as part of the construction process, erected concrete barriers that made ready access to his property virtually impossible. Although, he claimed, he had many prospective "tenants" who wanted to use the facility as it was intended to be used, they shied away simply because it was so dang difficult to get in and out of it. As a result, the property sat vacant. That’s when the City swooped in, claiming that if a facility located on a property zoned in a manner that no longer exists is vacant for more than 180 days, it becomes "non-conforming," and the City has the right to get rid of it.
As Lila Knight told the board during the Citizen Comments section of the meeting before it even took up the item, the city is selectively enforcing the ordinance. She pointed out that a number of homes located in the Old Town, Spring Branch, Trails, Prairie on the Creek, Steeplechase and South Lake neighborhoods are zoned R-1, a single family residence zoning that also no longer exists since the passage of the 2003 ordinance. I’d be willing to bet that at one moment in time in the last dozen years at least one home went up for sale in one of those neighborhoods and remained on the market for six months or so and during that time sat vacant. I’m also willing to bet the City never even checked into that fact let alone tried to declare it non-conforming. Why? Because, as Ms. Knight, told the board, the new ordinance states "The general public, the city council and the planning and zoning commission are directed to take note that nonconformities in the use and development of land and buildings are to be avoided, or eliminated where now existing, whenever and wherever possible, except: (1) When necessary to preserve property rights established prior to the date the ordinance from which this chapter is derived become effective as to the property in question; and (2) When necessary to promote the general welfare and to protect the character of the surrounding property."
Homes in R-1 areas will not be declared nonconforming because of the second exception and Meinzer’s property should also be spared because of the first one.
All this appeared to go right over the heads of the members of the Board of Adjustments. Board member Matt Janysek correctly pointed out that every single zoning map the city has published since 2003 shows Meinzer’s property is zoned Heavy Industrial and it’s the maps, not the ordinances, that should be the determining factor, even though, in his words, the maps haven’t been corrected to reflect the new zoning. The fallacy in Janysek’s argument is that maps are NOT wrong, so they don’t need to be corrected. They accurately reflect what each property is zoned. It bears repeating that because the zoning designations that existed in Kyle at the turn of the last century were not eliminated by the 2003 ordinance, properties that were zoned Heavy Industrial and R-1 then are still shown on the map to be zoned that way today.
Board member Terri Thompson was concerned that Meinzer was never notified in 2003 that his zoning was about to change. But, again, it wasn’t going to change, so there was no need for a notification.
But, like I said, the board ultimately got it right and sided with Meinzer, although they seemed to be voting more out of conscience than out of reason. But as long as they did the right thing, who’s to quibble why they did it.
As for Meinzer, he may have entered the meeting by way of Orwell, but an obviously delighted Meinzer left by way of Shakespeare.
The matter before the board last night was an attempt by the city, using a loophole in the law, to claim Meinzer’s property did not conform to current zoning ordinances and permanently shutter his business there. Meinzer was fighting to retain it and to give you the punch line right away, the board ultimately and unanimously sided with Meinzer, although the members did so for all the wrong reasons.
According to Meinzer, TxDOT began construction on I35 access roads in the summer of 2012 and, as part of the construction process, erected concrete barriers that made ready access to his property virtually impossible. Although, he claimed, he had many prospective "tenants" who wanted to use the facility as it was intended to be used, they shied away simply because it was so dang difficult to get in and out of it. As a result, the property sat vacant. That’s when the City swooped in, claiming that if a facility located on a property zoned in a manner that no longer exists is vacant for more than 180 days, it becomes "non-conforming," and the City has the right to get rid of it.
As Lila Knight told the board during the Citizen Comments section of the meeting before it even took up the item, the city is selectively enforcing the ordinance. She pointed out that a number of homes located in the Old Town, Spring Branch, Trails, Prairie on the Creek, Steeplechase and South Lake neighborhoods are zoned R-1, a single family residence zoning that also no longer exists since the passage of the 2003 ordinance. I’d be willing to bet that at one moment in time in the last dozen years at least one home went up for sale in one of those neighborhoods and remained on the market for six months or so and during that time sat vacant. I’m also willing to bet the City never even checked into that fact let alone tried to declare it non-conforming. Why? Because, as Ms. Knight, told the board, the new ordinance states "The general public, the city council and the planning and zoning commission are directed to take note that nonconformities in the use and development of land and buildings are to be avoided, or eliminated where now existing, whenever and wherever possible, except: (1) When necessary to preserve property rights established prior to the date the ordinance from which this chapter is derived become effective as to the property in question; and (2) When necessary to promote the general welfare and to protect the character of the surrounding property."
Homes in R-1 areas will not be declared nonconforming because of the second exception and Meinzer’s property should also be spared because of the first one.
All this appeared to go right over the heads of the members of the Board of Adjustments. Board member Matt Janysek correctly pointed out that every single zoning map the city has published since 2003 shows Meinzer’s property is zoned Heavy Industrial and it’s the maps, not the ordinances, that should be the determining factor, even though, in his words, the maps haven’t been corrected to reflect the new zoning. The fallacy in Janysek’s argument is that maps are NOT wrong, so they don’t need to be corrected. They accurately reflect what each property is zoned. It bears repeating that because the zoning designations that existed in Kyle at the turn of the last century were not eliminated by the 2003 ordinance, properties that were zoned Heavy Industrial and R-1 then are still shown on the map to be zoned that way today.
Board member Terri Thompson was concerned that Meinzer was never notified in 2003 that his zoning was about to change. But, again, it wasn’t going to change, so there was no need for a notification.
But, like I said, the board ultimately got it right and sided with Meinzer, although they seemed to be voting more out of conscience than out of reason. But as long as they did the right thing, who’s to quibble why they did it.
As for Meinzer, he may have entered the meeting by way of Orwell, but an obviously delighted Meinzer left by way of Shakespeare.
Saturday, July 4, 2015
And the blind shall lead us
Many of those attending Wednesday’s informational meeting concerning PIDs were from the Bunton Creek subdivision, an area that, shall we say, has not had the best experience with a PID. They kept questioning the presenter at the meeting, a representative from a company called Development Planning Financial Group (DPFG), about the validity of PIDs. The rep kept repeating that, in general, PIDs are the greatest thing since the conception of Levittown, but that he didn’t know enough about the situation in Bunton Creek to speak knowledgeably on that particular PID.
Tuesday’s City Council agenda includes an item to make DPFG the manager and the administrator of the Bunton Creek PID. Go figure.
Tuesday’s City Council agenda includes an item to make DPFG the manager and the administrator of the Bunton Creek PID. Go figure.
Friday, July 3, 2015
Additional reasons why the Kyle’s PID policy is morally and ethically corrupt
In addition to what I discussed below, there are a couple of additional things to note about Kyle’s use of PIDs.
They are discriminatory. They create two distinct and separate classes of citizens: those who have pay for basic city services through the payment of property taxes and those who pay for those exact same services through property taxes and additional assessments dumped on them on top of those taxes.
It’s an example of the city abandoning the concept of providing basic city services. It’s exactly the same thing as two newlyweds choosing to have a large family and deciding it will provide food and shelter to their first two children, but all the rest of them will have to pay extra for them.
Under this same idea, the city could decide to abolish its police force and instead turn over all criminal investigative functions to the county and hire private security guards for routine patrol functions and then charge residents an assessment to pay for the security guards. Would you stand for that? If not, then how can you accept these PIDs?
They are discriminatory. They create two distinct and separate classes of citizens: those who have pay for basic city services through the payment of property taxes and those who pay for those exact same services through property taxes and additional assessments dumped on them on top of those taxes.
It’s an example of the city abandoning the concept of providing basic city services. It’s exactly the same thing as two newlyweds choosing to have a large family and deciding it will provide food and shelter to their first two children, but all the rest of them will have to pay extra for them.
Under this same idea, the city could decide to abolish its police force and instead turn over all criminal investigative functions to the county and hire private security guards for routine patrol functions and then charge residents an assessment to pay for the security guards. Would you stand for that? If not, then how can you accept these PIDs?
Kyle’s PID policy: legally OK but morally and ethically corrupt
I’ve mellowed over the years. I really have. When I first began covering and writing about politics and various governmental entities a little more than 50 years ago, I reacted with absolute outrage at the very hint of government corruption or unethical behavior by political figures. I was livid in the mid to late 1960s after President Lyndon Johnson, who campaigned in 1964 on the platform of "We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10,000 miles away to fight in no Asian war," began ramping up American involvement in Vietnam. I was practically apoplectic during the mid-1970s when I was part of UPI’s Watergate coverage team.
But later, when I taught college journalism courses at SMU and other universities, I was able to use Vietnam and Watergate as defining moments in political/journalistic history. The lesson Vietnam and Watergate taught us was that political leaders lie. And subsequent history has not only reinforced this fact, but also shown us they are for sale to the highest bidder and individual citizens not only don’t have a prayer of being the highest bidder, they are not even going to be allowed into the auction.
I’m not saying political leaders, whether at the national or the local level, are bad people. For the most part, I have enjoyed my interactions with politicians on a personal level, often times gaining the most enjoyment with those whose political philosophies are completely different from my own. They are, for the most part, good people. But they say and do bad things.
I’m not saying anything revelatory here. Why do all cities, including Kyle, have some form of an Ethics Commission? Because it is assumed those running the place are going to act unethically at same point. Of course, the members of these commissions are always appointed by the mayor and/or city council members which renders them pratically powerless against top leaders. Why does the legislature every session propose ethics reforms? Because it sounds good to a public that knows its leaders are corrupt. And why are these reforms never passed? I think you can figure that one out for yourself.
These days when I see morally and ethical corruption in the political arena, my reaction has become more benign than it once was. Sometimes I will react with a somewhat detached amusement, like when some senator or representative denies the overwhelming facts of climate change. They are not saying climate change doesn’t exist because they have scientific proof supporting their argument. They are saying it because they are being paid huge sums of money by oil companies to say that. Their speeches on climate change are written either by oil company executives or oil company lobbyists. That’s why arguing facts with these clowns is futile because facts don’t even dent the outer layers of their arguments.
Sometimes I react with sadness such as the time a couple of years ago when a Dallas city council person I not only respected, but wrote speeches for and who offered me the position of media liaison for his proposed mayoral campaign, was indicted on federal bribery charges. He was not railroaded. He did a bad thing — several bad things, in fact — and is now doing time in a federal correctional facility because of it.
Sometimes I react with plain old disgust, like I did when the City of Kyle came up with its PID policy. Part of it is because it reinforced my original perceptions about the city which I formed right after I moved here eight months ago — the city is controlled by developers and individual homeowners and neighborhoods don’t have a voice. In this auction for control of the city, the developers were the highest bidders.
I lived and worked in Dallas for 40 years before I moved here and when I first moved to Dallas the developers were in control there as well. But the city underwent a radical change and now homeowners and neighborhood groups battle with the city’s entrenched and powerful business interests for control. The business community usually wins when it comes to environmental issues, but don’t mess with homeowners when it comes to issues involving their homes or their neighborhoods. But, in an interestint development, the average citizen may be winning a bitter fight against the entrenched business community and stopping the construction of a toll road through a magnificent park along the Trinity River.
At the same time, city government in Dallas, unlike Kyle, realizes and owns up to its responsibility of providing basic services to its residents. Not only that, the city has adopted a completely transparent method of adopting its annual budget — using a method called "Budgeting for Outcomes"— which acts a scorecard for how well the city is providing those services. Dallas city government embraces the notion that the money its citizens pay in taxes should be used to provide such basic services as public safety and basic infrastructure.
Kyle, on the other hand, has abandoned all notions of that same kind of responsibility. You want water lines to and from your home, the city government tells new residents, you gotta pay extra for it in addition to paying the same taxes as everyone else.
The way new residents have to pay extra for these basic services they should receive simply by paying property and sales taxes is through something called a PID. PID stands for Public Improvement District. However, as defined by the city of Kyle it is neither public, an improvement or a district.
I must admit this about the folks running this city. They don’t hide their unethical behavior. They highlight it in neon and then sew it on their chest like it was some sort of perverted merit badge. Let me give you an example. On Wednesday evening the city "hosted" an open house which, according to the city’s web site, was intended "to provide information regarding how Public Improvement Districts (PIDs) work." But who did the city use to provide this information? An outfit called Development Planning Financial Group (DPFG) whose income derives solely from the creation of PIDs and which stands to make a boatload of dough once the city implements its PID policy. That’s like someone hosting a seminar on "The Current Political Situation in Kyle" and it turns out to be a fund-raiser and a campaign appearance by one particular city council candidate. Not in the least illegal, but highly immoral and unethical behavior.
How unethical and corrupt was this "informational" meeting? At one point, the DPFG representative (whose name I failed to capture) presenting this highly biased information said "If you walk away from here tonight with only one slide that you remember, this is the one I want you to focus on. How will a PID – a new PID proposed for a new development – affect the existing residents and existing neighborhoods? The answer is there is no impact whatsoever. No negative impact. No positive impact. Anyone who lives within the city of Kyle who does not live within the PID will have ... no impact whatsoever."
That is a lie. And that’s what makes the city’s PID policy morally and ethically corrupt. Its foundation is a lie. Those who live outside the PID will enjoy a positive impact, a likely increase in city services unfairly and unwittingly subsidized by those living inside the PID. Here’s how. As these PID communities proliferate and grow the property values within them will increase. That means those living within the PIDs pay increasingly more in property taxes. Now do you think for one minute the city will act ethically and morally and restrict the use of that increased income on services for people living within the PID?. Of course not. (Although in cities that do act ethically and morally, it’s this increase in the amount of property taxes incurred by those living in the new subdivisions that used to pay for their infrastructure needs, not a PID.) That money will be used to provide additional services to the city as a whole. Those living outside the PID get the benefits from those inside who have to pay twice for the same services.
What was interesting about this presentation was not so much the untruths spoken by the DPFG representatives, but by the fact he withheld a lot of information to keep from presenting the whole truth. For example, at one point he said a PID "is a way to keep the existing residents having to pay for the things that are not a direct benefit to them." That’s true, but what he failed to say was that city’s already had tools at their disposal to do exactly the same thing. They are called Impact Fees, defined as "a fee that is imposed by a local government within the United States on a new or proposed development project to pay for all or a portion of the costs of providing public services to the new development." These fees were developed to help cities, like Kyle, dealing with unbridled growth to help manage that growth. Sometimes, they worked too well. They stopped growth completely and that’s why cities that are not morally and ethically corrupt developed better ways to manage growth. Kyle has impact fees, but impact fees are paid by the developers up front, who then add them on to the cost of the new homes they develop. But what if there as a way that neither the city nor the developer had to pay what they rightfully should? Because, like I said earlier, government is for sale to the highest bidder, developers pushed through legislation allowing for these PIDs. (To remind you once again how proudly Kyle leaders publicly display their ethically corrupt merit pages, recall that one developer, during the first public city council meeting on the city’s proposed policy, thanked the city for allowing him and other developers to prepare that policy.)
But there’s more. The money homeowners have to pay in addition to their property taxes doesn’t just go to pay for the infrastructure they received. In this municipal version of the old shell game, the unsuspecting homeowner also has to pay an ongoing fee to DPFG or whichever company the city uses to "administer" the PID, which is nothing more than a concept to begin with. Or as the DPFG representative put it "Another thing to remember is that all the administrative requirements of the PID can and should be outsourced to professional management firms. And that is a requirement under the proposed policy – the daily activities of all PIDs in the city of Kyle will be managed by outside professionals. The PID will pay for that." In other words, he is saying, these homeowners will be paying my salary. Starting to get the picture of how unsavory this whole business is?
Later he said "The city is not at risk. The city has no legal or moral obligation to pay any of the debt involved in these bonds. Our firm has been involved in these types of financing for over 20 years and we have never seen a city have to write a check." Translated to non-bureaucratic, regular human being language this means the developer is protected, the city is protected, the PID administrators are protected. The only one not protected — the person being hung out to dry here — is the homeowner who can have his house foreclosed upon. And that homeowner is the only one of this unholy quartet that had absolutely no voice, none whatsoever, in the formation of the PID. The only voices heard in the original proposition were the terrible threesome of developer, city, and the PID administrators.
"When the (PID) bonds are sold the money is placed in trust with a trustee," the rep said. "When the developer incurs an expense, they submit a draw to the city. The city reviews those expenses to make sure they are qualified (i.e., the developer has, for instance, successfully hidden the cost of his PID petition within the water line expenses) and the city approves the payment of those expenses out of the trustee account." But then he added "The developer can’t just say ‘give me my money’. It doesn’t work that way."
Wrong. As he himself just admitted in the words that opened the previous paragraph that’s exactly the way it works. I’m going to put at zero the over/under on how many times the city will reject a developer’s request for PID money.
I also got a silent laugh out of the fact that when asked how many other states used PIDs to finance new subdivisions, he named seven — Arizona, Nevada, California, North Carolina, New Mexico, Utah, and South Carolina (California, however, did away with PIDs several years ago) — which means, of course, that 43 states don’t think they are a good idea. Of course, he’s not going to say that.
When asked a similar question, what other cities around this area, use PIDs, he named Lago Vista, Leander and Manor. What do all those cities have in common with Kyle? They are smaller communties in the shadow of a fast growing metropolitan area and desperately want to cash in on that growth at the lowest possible cost, especially if the only person at a financial risk is the person who doesn’t live there yet.. They want rooftops. That’s all. "If we build it, they will come." And the unethical part of all this is they don’t care if these new residents have a decent quality of life once they are living in these cities because, they figure, once they buy the house, they are residential prisoners of the city.
Not only that, the city forced the prisoners to pay for the construction of the prison.
But later, when I taught college journalism courses at SMU and other universities, I was able to use Vietnam and Watergate as defining moments in political/journalistic history. The lesson Vietnam and Watergate taught us was that political leaders lie. And subsequent history has not only reinforced this fact, but also shown us they are for sale to the highest bidder and individual citizens not only don’t have a prayer of being the highest bidder, they are not even going to be allowed into the auction.
I’m not saying political leaders, whether at the national or the local level, are bad people. For the most part, I have enjoyed my interactions with politicians on a personal level, often times gaining the most enjoyment with those whose political philosophies are completely different from my own. They are, for the most part, good people. But they say and do bad things.
I’m not saying anything revelatory here. Why do all cities, including Kyle, have some form of an Ethics Commission? Because it is assumed those running the place are going to act unethically at same point. Of course, the members of these commissions are always appointed by the mayor and/or city council members which renders them pratically powerless against top leaders. Why does the legislature every session propose ethics reforms? Because it sounds good to a public that knows its leaders are corrupt. And why are these reforms never passed? I think you can figure that one out for yourself.
These days when I see morally and ethical corruption in the political arena, my reaction has become more benign than it once was. Sometimes I will react with a somewhat detached amusement, like when some senator or representative denies the overwhelming facts of climate change. They are not saying climate change doesn’t exist because they have scientific proof supporting their argument. They are saying it because they are being paid huge sums of money by oil companies to say that. Their speeches on climate change are written either by oil company executives or oil company lobbyists. That’s why arguing facts with these clowns is futile because facts don’t even dent the outer layers of their arguments.
Sometimes I react with sadness such as the time a couple of years ago when a Dallas city council person I not only respected, but wrote speeches for and who offered me the position of media liaison for his proposed mayoral campaign, was indicted on federal bribery charges. He was not railroaded. He did a bad thing — several bad things, in fact — and is now doing time in a federal correctional facility because of it.
Sometimes I react with plain old disgust, like I did when the City of Kyle came up with its PID policy. Part of it is because it reinforced my original perceptions about the city which I formed right after I moved here eight months ago — the city is controlled by developers and individual homeowners and neighborhoods don’t have a voice. In this auction for control of the city, the developers were the highest bidders.
I lived and worked in Dallas for 40 years before I moved here and when I first moved to Dallas the developers were in control there as well. But the city underwent a radical change and now homeowners and neighborhood groups battle with the city’s entrenched and powerful business interests for control. The business community usually wins when it comes to environmental issues, but don’t mess with homeowners when it comes to issues involving their homes or their neighborhoods. But, in an interestint development, the average citizen may be winning a bitter fight against the entrenched business community and stopping the construction of a toll road through a magnificent park along the Trinity River.
At the same time, city government in Dallas, unlike Kyle, realizes and owns up to its responsibility of providing basic services to its residents. Not only that, the city has adopted a completely transparent method of adopting its annual budget — using a method called "Budgeting for Outcomes"— which acts a scorecard for how well the city is providing those services. Dallas city government embraces the notion that the money its citizens pay in taxes should be used to provide such basic services as public safety and basic infrastructure.
Kyle, on the other hand, has abandoned all notions of that same kind of responsibility. You want water lines to and from your home, the city government tells new residents, you gotta pay extra for it in addition to paying the same taxes as everyone else.
The way new residents have to pay extra for these basic services they should receive simply by paying property and sales taxes is through something called a PID. PID stands for Public Improvement District. However, as defined by the city of Kyle it is neither public, an improvement or a district.
I must admit this about the folks running this city. They don’t hide their unethical behavior. They highlight it in neon and then sew it on their chest like it was some sort of perverted merit badge. Let me give you an example. On Wednesday evening the city "hosted" an open house which, according to the city’s web site, was intended "to provide information regarding how Public Improvement Districts (PIDs) work." But who did the city use to provide this information? An outfit called Development Planning Financial Group (DPFG) whose income derives solely from the creation of PIDs and which stands to make a boatload of dough once the city implements its PID policy. That’s like someone hosting a seminar on "The Current Political Situation in Kyle" and it turns out to be a fund-raiser and a campaign appearance by one particular city council candidate. Not in the least illegal, but highly immoral and unethical behavior.
How unethical and corrupt was this "informational" meeting? At one point, the DPFG representative (whose name I failed to capture) presenting this highly biased information said "If you walk away from here tonight with only one slide that you remember, this is the one I want you to focus on. How will a PID – a new PID proposed for a new development – affect the existing residents and existing neighborhoods? The answer is there is no impact whatsoever. No negative impact. No positive impact. Anyone who lives within the city of Kyle who does not live within the PID will have ... no impact whatsoever."
That is a lie. And that’s what makes the city’s PID policy morally and ethically corrupt. Its foundation is a lie. Those who live outside the PID will enjoy a positive impact, a likely increase in city services unfairly and unwittingly subsidized by those living inside the PID. Here’s how. As these PID communities proliferate and grow the property values within them will increase. That means those living within the PIDs pay increasingly more in property taxes. Now do you think for one minute the city will act ethically and morally and restrict the use of that increased income on services for people living within the PID?. Of course not. (Although in cities that do act ethically and morally, it’s this increase in the amount of property taxes incurred by those living in the new subdivisions that used to pay for their infrastructure needs, not a PID.) That money will be used to provide additional services to the city as a whole. Those living outside the PID get the benefits from those inside who have to pay twice for the same services.
What was interesting about this presentation was not so much the untruths spoken by the DPFG representatives, but by the fact he withheld a lot of information to keep from presenting the whole truth. For example, at one point he said a PID "is a way to keep the existing residents having to pay for the things that are not a direct benefit to them." That’s true, but what he failed to say was that city’s already had tools at their disposal to do exactly the same thing. They are called Impact Fees, defined as "a fee that is imposed by a local government within the United States on a new or proposed development project to pay for all or a portion of the costs of providing public services to the new development." These fees were developed to help cities, like Kyle, dealing with unbridled growth to help manage that growth. Sometimes, they worked too well. They stopped growth completely and that’s why cities that are not morally and ethically corrupt developed better ways to manage growth. Kyle has impact fees, but impact fees are paid by the developers up front, who then add them on to the cost of the new homes they develop. But what if there as a way that neither the city nor the developer had to pay what they rightfully should? Because, like I said earlier, government is for sale to the highest bidder, developers pushed through legislation allowing for these PIDs. (To remind you once again how proudly Kyle leaders publicly display their ethically corrupt merit pages, recall that one developer, during the first public city council meeting on the city’s proposed policy, thanked the city for allowing him and other developers to prepare that policy.)
But there’s more. The money homeowners have to pay in addition to their property taxes doesn’t just go to pay for the infrastructure they received. In this municipal version of the old shell game, the unsuspecting homeowner also has to pay an ongoing fee to DPFG or whichever company the city uses to "administer" the PID, which is nothing more than a concept to begin with. Or as the DPFG representative put it "Another thing to remember is that all the administrative requirements of the PID can and should be outsourced to professional management firms. And that is a requirement under the proposed policy – the daily activities of all PIDs in the city of Kyle will be managed by outside professionals. The PID will pay for that." In other words, he is saying, these homeowners will be paying my salary. Starting to get the picture of how unsavory this whole business is?
Later he said "The city is not at risk. The city has no legal or moral obligation to pay any of the debt involved in these bonds. Our firm has been involved in these types of financing for over 20 years and we have never seen a city have to write a check." Translated to non-bureaucratic, regular human being language this means the developer is protected, the city is protected, the PID administrators are protected. The only one not protected — the person being hung out to dry here — is the homeowner who can have his house foreclosed upon. And that homeowner is the only one of this unholy quartet that had absolutely no voice, none whatsoever, in the formation of the PID. The only voices heard in the original proposition were the terrible threesome of developer, city, and the PID administrators.
"When the (PID) bonds are sold the money is placed in trust with a trustee," the rep said. "When the developer incurs an expense, they submit a draw to the city. The city reviews those expenses to make sure they are qualified (i.e., the developer has, for instance, successfully hidden the cost of his PID petition within the water line expenses) and the city approves the payment of those expenses out of the trustee account." But then he added "The developer can’t just say ‘give me my money’. It doesn’t work that way."
Wrong. As he himself just admitted in the words that opened the previous paragraph that’s exactly the way it works. I’m going to put at zero the over/under on how many times the city will reject a developer’s request for PID money.
I also got a silent laugh out of the fact that when asked how many other states used PIDs to finance new subdivisions, he named seven — Arizona, Nevada, California, North Carolina, New Mexico, Utah, and South Carolina (California, however, did away with PIDs several years ago) — which means, of course, that 43 states don’t think they are a good idea. Of course, he’s not going to say that.
When asked a similar question, what other cities around this area, use PIDs, he named Lago Vista, Leander and Manor. What do all those cities have in common with Kyle? They are smaller communties in the shadow of a fast growing metropolitan area and desperately want to cash in on that growth at the lowest possible cost, especially if the only person at a financial risk is the person who doesn’t live there yet.. They want rooftops. That’s all. "If we build it, they will come." And the unethical part of all this is they don’t care if these new residents have a decent quality of life once they are living in these cities because, they figure, once they buy the house, they are residential prisoners of the city.
Not only that, the city forced the prisoners to pay for the construction of the prison.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)