Candidates Forum

8,463 Views | 65 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by techno-ag
cslifer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just because they aren't getting a cash payment doesn't mean the development isn't being subsidized. If I build a neighborhood that ends up maxing out the capacity of the sewer plant, and then others pay for the upgrade on the sewer plant, how can you NOT call that a subsidy?
isitjustme
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cslifer said:

Just because they aren't getting a cash payment doesn't mean the development isn't being subsidized. If I build a neighborhood that ends up maxing out the capacity of the sewer plant, and then others pay for the upgrade on the sewer plant, how can you NOT call that a subsidy?
It's a subsidy only if the taxpayers not getting the benefit from the upgraded sewer plant are the only ones paying for it. But in cities and other levels of govt, all of the taxpayers, fee payers, enterprise fund payers, etc pay for all of the upgrades. The homeowners in the new neighborhood that maxes out the sewer plant capacity will still be paying property and other taxes, which helps pay for the upgrades.

Today's taxpayers pay for today and tomorrow just as yesterday's taxpayers paid for yesterday and today. The important thing is to not totally ignore services for the existing residents and only provide good stuff to the coming residents. Need to provide good services and upgrades to both.
UmustBKidding
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I do have a question. Since all this infrastructure cost so much how do you justify annexing areas like Wellborn where the residents want nothing to do with CS. Then city goes and B*tches that it cost so much to provide services to it.
I was at a P&Z meeting concerning the comprehensive plan amendment for the property south of Greens Prairie (Margraves etc) It was the typical CS P&Z meeting, danm the torpedoes we need more rooftops (real estate commissions) at any costs. Water & wastewater told them if they made the whole area high density residential that it would require ~30M upgrade of sewer line because of a bottle neck in the 6 & 40 area. But if they limited half the area to medium and half to high density they could avoid the construction. Response, water & waste can just figure out how to deal with it, it all must be high density. Of course they already had figured out how to deal with it, spend 30+M$. All high density sailed through the committee and rubber stamped by the council. With the rocket scientist resident at city hall can you see why I have a problem giving them another knob to turn to fund their boondoggles.
Oogway
How long do you want to ignore this user?
southerner said:

The delivery of utilities and roadways to land within the city limits should hardly be called a "subsidy". This is a word that the anti-growth segment uses to frame its case.

I don't particularly agree that either of the two candidates are "anti-growth." Both have discussed that growth is and will be continuing. They just differ upon how they would try and manage and pay for it.
Bunk Moreland
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oogway said:

southerner said:

The delivery of utilities and roadways to land within the city limits should hardly be called a "subsidy". This is a word that the anti-growth segment uses to frame its case.

I don't particularly agree that either of the two candidates are "anti-growth." Both have discussed that growth is and will be continuing. They just differ upon how they would try and manage and pay for it.

Agree. I'm pro growth. I'm also willing to pay for that through my taxes if the money is spent correctly (very difficult to get out of my generally libertarian mouth).

What I don't like is a city council stacked with people who will let all the big developers and their friends get exactly what they want at the expense of neighborhoods and areas of town by stacking way too much all on top of them without the proper infrastructure in place.
UmustBKidding
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I can handle growth but not for the sake of trying to fund prior stupid moves. Unlike the teachings of the Texas Municipal League (which COCS totally subscribes to) You cannot annex or even grow residential to get out debt. At a P&Z meeting I attended a member went off on a diatribe against a citizen about how it would be horrible for anyone to buy land in the county to build a homestead instead of within the city. They should annex the world if anyone was thinking about building a subdivision or even a home. Where do they get these people. I built explicit remove myself from the circus that the COCS is, only to be assimilated by the Borg twenty years later. So now I spend time trying to warn people that repeating bad history is not a smart thing to undertake. I think they say this is the definition of insanity.
CS Iron 25
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Crompton was part of the problem years ago as he and his cohorts did nothing to prepare, plan or even day dream about future needs and growth. Never again will I vote for him. (Sadly, Rektorik isn't exactly a shining star either)

The other issue that needs to be addressed and isn't is TAMU. They are just as build happy as COCS with residential developments. Yet we pay for their fire services and receive $0 in compensation. They build Park West with 5000 beds on campus and COCS has to somehow plan for traffic with $0 extra. Now they are building an outdoor concert venue and brookshire brothers, not to mention how the city bent over to pay for Kyle Field. Oh. I also forgot how little to no revenue comes from Century Square.
George Costanza
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So not charging fees or taxes is now subsidizing? Alice, we truly have entered Wonderland ....
DogCompany74
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Subsidy (noun): a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking,



Hell Bent Canine -All or None
Brian Alg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lol. The way the pro-impact fee folks are framing things, the IRS under Eisenhower was giving folks in the top tax bracket a 10% income subsidy.
Brian Alg

Brazos Coalition for Responsible Government
Drilltime
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It costs the city $21k to provide services to the average house. State law allows every city to recover all of this for a reason. That law is very specific about how this is calculated so that it includes only items that exist due to the developers project, and nothing more. Just need to clarify that. Nobody but the specific developer benefits. Shared services such as fire stations are not included in the State's formula for allowed impact fees.

The subsidy is simply the government interfering in the residential market. If you feel there's some particular reason to provide a public subsidy to a private businesses, please consider Readfields Meats . At least everyone eats.

We have $300Min unfunded capital liabilities we cannot currently pay for, and it is all tied to growth. "Unfunded" means more taxes (e.g., payment on bonds). We can be generous with developers if growth is very slow, but we just can't be that generous when there's so much growth at one time and we're about to be smacked by liabilities they are creating. This is only going to get worse and we need to turn this train around now. If you don't believe new growth should pay for itself, what do you believe? "New growth should NOT pay for itself (?)"
crbongos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hummm. Growth didn't pay for itself when your house was built. But it's ok for development (future homeowners) to pay for it nowsince you already own your home. Does that seem fair???
CRBongo
Brian Alg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
$21k over how many years?
What kinds of costs are these?

Installation of infrastructure and roads? (Some people say this is done by the builder. Others say this is done by the city. I do not know. But it seems this is the only expense peculiar to new construction.)

Is it putting in/maintaining/replacing roads to connect to the city, fire stations, equipment for police and fire, etc.? Isn't that what taxes are for?

Is it supposed to be the capital expenses associated with the plant capacity and whatnot associated with delivery of utilities (building/maintaining/replacing)? If yes, aren't those going to be baked into the future utility rates already? I mean rates for current folks are what they are because of the costs (including those capital costs) associated with provision. What is different here?
Brian Alg

Brazos Coalition for Responsible Government
RafterAg223
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Crompton's idiocy when it came to purchasing Chimney Hill should disqualify him immediately. He swore up and down the city was getting a steal when they bought it from Leonard Ross because it was "assessed" for more than the purchase price. His behavior recently at the local republican event was insulting and he should have been embarrassed by it. Crompton is a fool. I will not vote for him and I will make sure I influence as many people as I can to keep him off this council. Maloney is enough. We don't need another one.
Oogway
How long do you want to ignore this user?
crbongos said:

Hummm. Growth didn't pay for itself when your house was built. But it's ok for development (future homeowners) to pay for it nowsince you already own your home. Does that seem fair???
Without speaking for Drilltime, I got the impression that (s)he was speaking of sustained moderate growth. When CS/Bryan were smaller and the growth was steady, the build rate was slow enough that older stock remained in the market as viable and infrastructure was able to be sustained. Since 2000, CS population has increased (I'm rounding to the thousands) from 68,000 to 116,000. The renovation of Kyle Field has brought a lot of $$ into the community on game days, but through sales and HOT $$ much of that actually pays off.

For the SFR and apartments (multifamily), however, the $$ goes to the development company and when the growth outpaces the tax $$ coming in, the cost to maintain an ever increasing ever expanding infrastructure creates the debt load the city carries today. Don't get me wrong, I think poor choices with respect to spending are legion with the city budget, but I don't think the impact fees are the devil, either.
BCS-Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RafterAg223 said:

Crompton's idiocy when it came to purchasing Chimney Hill should disqualify him immediately. He swore up and down the city was getting a steal when they bought it from Leonard Ross because it was "assessed" for more than the purchase price. His behavior recently at the local republican event was insulting and he should have been embarrassed by it. Crompton is a fool. I will not vote for him and I will make sure I influence as many people as I can to keep him off this council. Maloney is enough. We don't need another one.


What was his embarrassing behavior?
RafterAg223
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BCS-Ag said:

RafterAg223 said:

Crompton's idiocy when it came to purchasing Chimney Hill should disqualify him immediately. He swore up and down the city was getting a steal when they bought it from Leonard Ross because it was "assessed" for more than the purchase price. His behavior recently at the local republican event was insulting and he should have been embarrassed by it. Crompton is a fool. I will not vote for him and I will make sure I influence as many people as I can to keep him off this council. Maloney is enough. We don't need another one.


What was his embarrassing behavior?


There's video out there of his cute little song he sang. The man seems unhinged.
Joe Schillaci 48
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Talk about nightmares:

Lorence Bravenac
Gary Halter
Larry Ringer
Lynn McIhaney
Ben White



No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional sports advice.
BCS-Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RafterAg223 said:

BCS-Ag said:

RafterAg223 said:

Crompton's idiocy when it came to purchasing Chimney Hill should disqualify him immediately. He swore up and down the city was getting a steal when they bought it from Leonard Ross because it was "assessed" for more than the purchase price. His behavior recently at the local republican event was insulting and he should have been embarrassed by it. Crompton is a fool. I will not vote for him and I will make sure I influence as many people as I can to keep him off this council. Maloney is enough. We don't need another one.


What was his embarrassing behavior?


There's video out there of his cute little song he sang. The man seems unhinged.
???He sang a song at the candidate forum? That is hard to believe.
EcoZapp.AC&Air.Purifiers
How long do you want to ignore this user?
- Just to make any aware- EcoZapp didn't put any yard signs out front for any political person - We fly our own Flag as neither one asked us for their opinions.. (I think. )

Our Awesome 18 Foot 'Pirate looking flag' Was however made possible due to not being allow any yard signs from current official power- for whatever that is worth.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
southerner said:

The delivery of utilities and roadways to land within the city limits should hardly be called a "subsidy". This is a word that the anti-growth segment uses to frame its case.

If the city annexes property and zones it anything other than 'rural', the owner of that property should have the reasonable expectation that the city will provide them with the services typically needed to meet the entitled use.

Rational people can disagree on the need for impact fees or even the policy of rezoning property entirely, but to say that developers are getting a "subsidy" is inaccurate.


Another perspective. If I live on the same piece of property and it IS rural, I have to bear the burden of installing the utility infrastructure required to run my ag operation. The I'm not subisdized by taxpayers.
isitjustme
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cavscout96 said:

southerner said:

The delivery of utilities and roadways to land within the city limits should hardly be called a "subsidy". This is a word that the anti-growth segment uses to frame its case.

If the city annexes property and zones it anything other than 'rural', the owner of that property should have the reasonable expectation that the city will provide them with the services typically needed to meet the entitled use.

Rational people can disagree on the need for impact fees or even the policy of rezoning property entirely, but to say that developers are getting a "subsidy" is inaccurate.


Another perspective. If I live on the same piece of property and it IS rural, I have to bear the burden of installing the utility infrastructure required to run my ag operation. The I'm not sure subisdized by taxpayers.
Except for your property tax ag exemption as well as fuel tax and selected sales tax exemptions. I don't begrudge you those exemptions - they make more sense than the senior tax freeze. But every time someone gets any kind of exemption, it increases the burden on everyone else and, at least on this board, creates a subsidy paid by other taxpayers.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
agrab86 said:

cavscout96 said:

southerner said:

The delivery of utilities and roadways to land within the city limits should hardly be called a "subsidy". This is a word that the anti-growth segment uses to frame its case.

If the city annexes property and zones it anything other than 'rural', the owner of that property should have the reasonable expectation that the city will provide them with the services typically needed to meet the entitled use.

Rational people can disagree on the need for impact fees or even the policy of rezoning property entirely, but to say that developers are getting a "subsidy" is inaccurate.


Another perspective. If I live on the same piece of property and it IS rural, I have to bear the burden of installing the utility infrastructure required to run my ag operation. The I'm not sure subisdized by taxpayers.
Except for your property tax ag exemption as well as fuel tax and selected sales tax exemptions. I don't begrudge you those exemptions - they make more sense than the senior tax freeze. But every time someone gets any kind of exemption, it increases the burden on everyone else and, at least on this board, creates a subsidy paid by other taxpayers.
first, you've pulled a bait and switch. You are talking about exemption from sales tax as opposed to receiving millions of dollars in infrastructure construction. Apples and lawn mowers comparison.

second, sales tax exemptions on feed and fuel are minuscule in comparison to the actual construction costs that are incurred during development.

lastly, ag valuation, as it relates to property taxes, is not an exemption, it's a reclassification of land use and value. Tax rate remains unchanged.

I agree that parts of an ag operation are exempt from sales taxes, but no one is providing me something at no cost to me and paid for by my fellow tax payers thus allowing me to pocket truckloads of cash while creating increasing infrastructure burdens on the taxing entity.
isitjustme
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I did not pull a bait and switch. The point is that many classes of people and property get some sort of benefit, so not everyone is treated the same. I get one $7,500 property tax exemption for property taxes and it lowers my taxes just a little. That's all I get, but someone or group or taxpayers get to pay more as a result.

I know people who bail hay on expensive pieces of land so they can maintain their ag use tax exemption, an exemption that lowers the assessed value from more than $500,000 to less than $10,000 - that is a huge reduction in taxes that's got to be made up from somewhere.

I'm sure there are other taxpayers in this area that do the same thing - and more power to you/them. You like your exemptions/benefits b/c they are yours, but I guarantee you that there are many others who would love to enjoy similar benefits.

I don't have a horse in this impact fee fight. I don't develop property and I live in Bryan where we use a lot of TIRZ arrangements to help take care of some of this. I do know that developers don't pay any of these fees, they are passed along to the new homeowner regardless of how high they are. Once the new development is in, higher valued property/improvements start yielding higher and higher property tax payments by the new owner, who also spend more at stores/restaurants, resulting in more sales taxes paid.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
agrab86 said:

I did not pull a bait and switch. The point is that many classes of people and property get some sort of benefit, so not everyone is treated the same. I get one $7,500 property tax exemption for property taxes and it lowers my taxes just a little. That's all I get, but someone or group or taxpayers get to pay more as a result.

I know people who bail hay on expensive pieces of land so they can maintain their ag use tax exemption, an exemption that lowers the assessed value from more than $500,000 to less than $10,000 - that is a huge reduction in taxes that's got to be made up from somewhere.

I'm sure there are other taxpayers in this area that do the same thing - and more power to you/them. You like your exemptions/benefits b/c they are yours, but I guarantee you that there are many others who would love to enjoy similar benefits.

I don't have a horse in this impact fee fight. I don't develop property and I live in Bryan where we use a lot of TIRZ arrangements to help take care of some of this. I do know that developers don't pay any of these fees, they are passed along to the new homeowner regardless of how high they are. Once the new development is in, higher valued property/improvements start yielding higher and higher property tax payments by the new owner, who also spend more at stores/restaurants, resulting in more sales taxes paid.

Quote:

but someone or group or taxpayers get to pay more as a result.
unless gov't lived within it's means and stopped subsidizing development

Quote:

that is a huge reduction in taxes that's got to be made up from somewhere.
see above..... plus...not and exemption......

Quote:

there are many others who would love to enjoy similar benefits.
apparently not or there would be more farming and ranching. Unlike RE development, there are no multi-million dollar investments by a taxing authority to enable my operation....

----------------------------------------

If you subscribe to the thought that land always transitions to its highest and best use, then let it do so on the developers dime, not the taxpayers' If the maxim is true, it will play out. No need to subsidize.

pbain422
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RafterAg223 said:

Crompton's idiocy when it came to purchasing Chimney Hill should disqualify him immediately. He swore up and down the city was getting a steal when they bought it from Leonard Ross because it was "assessed" for more than the purchase price. His behavior recently at the local republican event was insulting and he should have been embarrassed by it. Crompton is a fool. I will not vote for him and I will make sure I influence as many people as I can to keep him off this council. Maloney is enough. We don't need another one.
This land was purchased in 2008 when the housing market was very low and somehow the city still managed to lose $2 million when they sold it, but people will still follow his lead when it comes to development because he talks the "neighborhood" talk that moves voters, especially the voters in an off-year election.

Not a bad thing that A&M professors want to have an impact around here, but we need some that are qualified to be discussing development and budgets, like from urban development or Mays. Instead we get bored administrators and the parks and rec guy.
Drilltime
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Crompton was not on Council when this was sold. As I've posted on other forums, there's an honest question as whether it was bought high or sold low by different leadership. Two residential lots on Bush just sold for around $ 1.6M per acre. Chimney Hill is over 6 acres of what must be some of the most prized commercial real estate in the city.

According to KBTX the $ 2.1M may be a bit of fake news to start with. During the six years the city owned the property it collected $ 1.8M in rentals. That offsets much of the loss everyone us talking about. This discussion seems like a red Herring, particularly for a city with leadership that has to decide how to spend about $ 375M of our tax dollars every year.
EliteElectric
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So earlier Patrick Giamalva was standing outside the Brazos Center yelling at Andrew Nelson and behaving in a manner unbecoming anyone I would like to see elected. Totally classless move. I will spare you the content of his tirade because it is not PG.

He did something similar to me at Texas Reds, basically called me everything but a son of god. The guy is unhinged like his mentor Southerland.
halibut sinclair
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't see why anyone would even consider voting for that nut. Plus, Pena didn't do squat last time he was on Council except vote along with Southerland and Saenz. Don't know much about Sedrick Gilbert, but don't see why the incumbent should be replaced. I also think Southerland is becoming a bit unhinged (more than usual, some might say). I voted today for Nelson to continue the good work he's doing.
pbain422
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Drilltime said:

Crompton was not on Council when this was sold. As I've posted on other forums, there's an honest question as whether it was bought high or sold low by different leadership. Two residential lots on Bush just sold for around $ 1.6M per acre. Chimney Hill is over 6 acres of what must be some of the most prized commercial real estate in the city.

According to KBTX the $ 2.1M may be a bit of fake news to start with. During the six years the city owned the property it collected $ 1.8M in rentals. That offsets much of the loss everyone us talking about. This discussion seems like a red Herring, particularly for a city with leadership that has to decide how to spend about $ 375M of our tax dollars every year.
He was on the council when they massively overpaid for it. What is fake news is considering rent an offset from loss in value (except it didn't actually lose value from 2008-2011, that's absurd). No investor would ever consider that a win. That is a huge loss to have to use rental income to offset loss in value. Yes, that was Kelly Templin's poor excuse for the massive failure, but nobody bought it. If somebody cannot spend $9.5m wisely, how do we expect him to do better with $350m? Not a red herring in my opinion at all, but who am I but just one voter that happens to be one of the many recent "newcomers" that he wants to live in a smaller home...
EliteElectric
How long do you want to ignore this user?
halibut sinclair said:

I don't see why anyone would even consider voting for that nut. Plus, Pena didn't do squat last time he was on Council except vote along with Southerland and Saenz. Don't know much about Sedrick Gilbert, but don't see why the incumbent should be replaced. I also think Southerland is becoming a bit unhinged (more than usual, some might say). I voted today for Nelson to continue the good work he's doing.
Looks like citizens of Bryan realized what a jerkoff he is and made a wise choice. I was at Andrew's party last night and was relieved to see that the whole Southerlanders got run ruled. Andrew is a good man who has done good work in his time as mayor.
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
EliteElectric said:

halibut sinclair said:

I don't see why anyone would even consider voting for that nut. Plus, Pena didn't do squat last time he was on Council except vote along with Southerland and Saenz. Don't know much about Sedrick Gilbert, but don't see why the incumbent should be replaced. I also think Southerland is becoming a bit unhinged (more than usual, some might say). I voted today for Nelson to continue the good work he's doing.
Looks like citizens of Bryan realized what a jerkoff he is and made a wise choice. I was at Andrew's party last night and was relieved to see that the whole Southerlanders got run ruled. Andrew is a good man who has done good work in his time as mayor.
Great news for the city of Bryan.
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.