Plane update

148,823 Views | 1154 Replies | Last: 4 mo ago by maroon barchetta
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
newsflash....legal and ethical are not always the same thing and both can be a far cry from "right/fair."
skeetboy3
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
techno-ag said:

The BBC meetings are closed. The mayor could well have stated any of your hypotheticals to the board. He really has no obligation to satisfy your curiosity on the matter.

Now, stay with me for a moment. What if the mayor did not tell Dorn to put his cows in that field? What if Dorn decided to do that on his own? What if the mayor didn't even know?
Then why would the BBC say it was unaware of his relationship to Rafter D?
Jsimonds58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Man the mayors supports REALLY can't grasp the difference between something being LEGAL and something being ETHICAL. That's really concerning given that is more than likely the mayor's stance as well.

doubledog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
EliteElectric said:

Charpie said:

I honestly don't care who has one either. What I do care about is if the $1 lease was done above board.

Ethics matter.
When you are not legally obligated to put it out for bid it literally cannot be below board. The is no obligation to do so
The obligation of the BBC is to be good stewards of the public funds and to give the appearance of a fair and just system.

You tell me... Did the BBC succeed in their obligations?
src94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I want to know who got paid $12+ mil for land that's now worth <$6 mil and who got the sales commission? That doesn't sound like being good stewards of tax money.
src94
EliteElectric
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jsimonds58 said:

Man the mayors supports REALLY can't grasp the difference between something being LEGAL and something being ETHICAL. That's really concerning given that is more than likely the mayor's stance as well.


I used to play a lot of competitive golf, I once hit a tee ball behind a scorers tent in Vegas during a sectional. The rules state I get relief from the TIO. By all that's right I should have been in a terrible bind, and had it not been for the TIO being there due to the tourney, I would have been in deep trouble, but the rules were all that mattered, and I followed them. I bet my opponents didn't necessarily feel like it was "fair" but the rules are the rules.

"Ethical" and "fair" are very, very subjective. You feel it was unethical to not put this out to public bid. You have made that clear and in 3 years if you are a Bryan resident you will have the opportunity to vote against him. I have stated my opinion, that I don't really care about the particulars of the lease, it just really doesn't move the needle for me. I understand and respect the opinions of those who feel differently, I simply don't see it the same way.
iisanaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Do the mayor/city council members/committee members/etc take an oath of office or sign anything that requires them to act legally/morally/ethically? I did a quick search and couldn't find anything. I didn't know what it would be called other than "oath of office" which didn't turn up anything.
EliteElectric
How long do you want to ignore this user?
doubledog said:

EliteElectric said:

Charpie said:

I honestly don't care who has one either. What I do care about is if the $1 lease was done above board.

Ethics matter.
When you are not legally obligated to put it out for bid it literally cannot be below board. The is no obligation to do so
The obligation of the BBC is to be good stewards of the public funds and to give the appearance of a fair and just system.

You tell me... Did the BBC succeed in their obligations?
I don't know if "give the appearance of a fair and just system" is actually their obligation, but they most definitely have been good stewards of the public funds.
Another Doug
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jsimonds58 said:

Man the mayors supports REALLY can't grasp the difference between something being LEGAL and something being ETHICAL. That's really concerning given that is more than likely the mayor's stance as well.
Let's also throw incompetance and a disregard for accountability in there too. Dude had a $250,000 deal based on a cow not hooking up with a random bull, and proceeds to let that exact thing happen and then blame someone else in an effort to shakedown an insurance company . That is your mayor.
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
All this talk about whether a dollar grazing lease is ethical. Here are some comments on the matter from the other thread very relevant to the issue.

Old May Banker said:

While this is anecdotal, I have have 4 or 5 places within city limits that I allow cattle and hay production on and charge zero. They're small places and "rented" to folks I know and have a relationship with, with the understanding they have 30 days to move if I sell the property. It works good for me (and them) and I think those arrangements happen more often than people think.


Urban Ag said:

I had a $1 lease to my uncle for a couple of years, to keep my Ag exemption. That scenario is fairly common and nothing wrong with it.


Burdizzo said:

BBC leasing this land is not unusual. Having them lease it for $1 to maintain AG exemption is also not unusual.


Simply put, most people here are unfamiliar with grazing leases and ag exemption. There is nothing unethical about it at all, despite all protestation to the contrary.
Justacitizen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
iisanaggie said:

Do the mayor/city council members/committee members/etc take an oath of office or sign anything that requires them to act legally/morally/ethically? I did a quick search and couldn't find anything. I didn't know what it would be called other than "oath of office" which didn't turn up anything.
https://www.bryantx.gov/city-secretarys-office/boards-commissions-and-committees/
Charpie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The difference is that they are private citizens. I don't care what they do with their land. I do care what the city does with their land because I am a tax payer.

Talk about goalpost moving
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Charpie said:

The difference is that they are private citizens. I don't care what they do with their land. I do care what the city does with their land because I am a tax payer.

Talk about goalpost moving
So, in your world the city should give up the ag exemption? Or should they charge extra for a grazing lease?
Jsimonds58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The bbc is tax exempt. Please stop with this stupid excuse we've done that song and dance at least 10 times alone in this thread. They do NOT pay taxes on the land therefore the ag exemption is useless, there is also a roll back of 5 years after sale so if they sell to someone to develop the land it also doesn't matter there. If they sell to someone just to ranch that is a massive misuse of public funds then because the BBC massively overpaid for ranch land if they are just going to turn around and flip it back to another rancher who won't pay that inflated price.
iisanaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Justacitizen said:

iisanaggie said:

Do the mayor/city council members/committee members/etc take an oath of office or sign anything that requires them to act legally/morally/ethically? I did a quick search and couldn't find anything. I didn't know what it would be called other than "oath of office" which didn't turn up anything.
https://www.bryantx.gov/city-secretarys-office/boards-commissions-and-committees/


Thanks!
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jsimonds58 said:

The bbc is tax exempt. Please stop with this stupid excuse we've done that song and dance at least 10 times alone in this thread. They do NOT pay taxes on the land therefore the ag exemption is useless, there is also a roll back of 5 years after sale so if they sell to someone to develop the land it also doesn't matter there. If they sell to someone just to ranch that is a massive misuse of public funds then because the BBC massively overpaid for ranch land if they are just going to turn around and flip it back to another rancher who won't pay that inflated price.
Yes the BBC is tax exempt. But they still want to maintain the ag exemption for the future owner. What you seem to not understand is the BBC does not intend to own this land forever. It will be sold to somebody else at some point. Go back and read where people have stated repeatedly that maintaining ag exemption on a property is a good thing and common practice.
Jsimonds58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I literally addressed that in the post you quoted…….
AggiePhil
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://www.kbtx.com/2023/03/23/plane-removed-off-land-pending-faa-investigation/?fbclid=IwAR2KFk62NrvAT5_9il2h6HNEMdmCA6iAaHgmZCi0FXMOPimOM-joxzE11MA#lfloasfzb4xze9yaoe
Jsimonds58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
[You have already been warned and banned for being rude or insulting on this board. Posters will be respectful when posting on this board or they will continue to get longer bans if they ignore these warnings. -Staff]
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jsimonds58 said:

I begging you to read and engage the brain just a little bit.
Your assertion about selling to another rancher made no sense, so I didn't address it. In my opinion it's obvious this land was bought because of its proximity to the bio corridor and will be developed accordingly. Even so, the desire to maintain the ag exemption until the sale to a developer is common practice and not unethical at all.
Jsimonds58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I addressed that too, and you are ignoring it. There is a 5 year roll back on those taxes so if it's bought to be developed the ag exemption is useless. Again stop being willfully obtuse
dallasiteinsa02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Actually if they don't pay property taxes it may be best to let the exception lapse. Then there wouldn't be a roll back for the new owner. I have paid a ton of rollback taxes but never on land purchased from a tax exempt entity. That has to be really rare but someone should confirm.
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dallasiteinsa02 said:

Actually if they don't pay property taxes it may be best to let the exception lapse. Then there wouldn't be a roll back for the new owner. I have paid a ton of rollback taxes but never on land purchased from a tax exempt entity. That has to be really rare but someone should confirm.
Good info. It's still standard practice to maintain the exemption. A developer might not want to develop all the property at once and thus maintain the exemption for themselves.
dallasiteinsa02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They lowered it to two years. If you are developing decently quick, it actually works out better to pay them all at once. You end up jacking up the value on the land that you then get to pay rollback taxes on. We have to do the math all the time and it usually is easier to pay them at the start.
doubledog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
techno-ag said:


Urban Ag said:

I had a $1 lease to my uncle for a couple of years, to keep my Ag exemption. That scenario is fairly common and nothing wrong with it.


Burdizzo said:

BBC leasing this land is not unusual. Having them lease it for $1 to maintain AG exemption is also not unusual.


Simply put, most people here are unfamiliar with grazing leases and ag exemption. There is nothing unethical about it at all, despite all protestation to the contrary.
1. Again (again again again) it is not the dollar amount. It is that the lease was awarded to a "known and trusted" individual, without vetting other potential lessees.

2. A private owner can do what ever they want with their land, including leasing it out for $1/year. A public institution is accountable to the taxpayer.



TequilaMockingbird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
techno-ag said:

The BBC meetings are closed. The mayor could well have stated any of your hypotheticals to the board. He really has no obligation to satisfy your curiosity on the matter.

Translation- "Let them eat cake"!
Koko Chingo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The BBC is not supposed to sell to someone who will have an ag exemption. The are supposed to avoid that. It is so they can sell it to a developer who will generate more taxes, and also zoned in a way that fits whatever plan they are after. For example an industrial park, apartments, retail, etc.

The BBC also owns the empty grass lots in downtown Bryan. They just won't sell it to anyone. It must generate taxes and revenue plus whatever other criterion they have.

This is the difference with ag exemption and why the ag exemption doesn't apply here versus a piece of privately owned land. The purpose of the BBC is increased and intentional development. That is their non-profit mission in which they are charged with increasing the tax rolls in an intentional way for the city

I do not see how an ag exemption for the next owner applies here
davido
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jsimonds58 said:

I addressed that too, and you are ignoring it. There is a 5 year roll back on those taxes so if it's bought to be developed the ag exemption is useless. Again stop being willfully obtuse


This was covered before also. With a property that large it's possible that the buyer would phase in their development and continue to still use parts of the ag exemption for years later. Talk about willfully obtuse. You continue to grandstand and toss out personal attacks while ignoring things that have already been mentioned.

While we're talking values, it's worth mentioning that tax values usually trail sales values. Sometimes by a sizable percentage. In residential properties they usually have some ballpark ratio, but that's not the case with commercial. Especially speculative land areas. If the right company wanted that spot, then BBC would probably give them the land. It would be a drop in the bucket compared to what they're going to improve it with. Much like COB did with donating 200 acres to Texas A&M to entice the HSC to that location.

In that case, you'd think the ag exemption wouldn't matter at all, but with private sector companies it's usually a bid against other areas. For bio, it's been the research triangle area. All of the money counts. To the extent that it's possible, the city and county might even waive the back charge as part
Of the incentive package.

Having the ag exemption leaves multiple different levers to pull depending on how and when it will be used. It's almost as if they've actually talked to companies before about moving here to find out what they'd like to see. If you think BBC is wrong in their thinking, maybe you should to apply for BBC and show everyone the error of their ways.
BiochemAg97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jsimonds58 said:

The bbc is tax exempt. Please stop with this stupid excuse we've done that song and dance at least 10 times alone in this thread. They do NOT pay taxes on the land therefore the ag exemption is useless, there is also a roll back of 5 years after sale so if they sell to someone to develop the land it also doesn't matter there. If they sell to someone just to ranch that is a massive misuse of public funds then because the BBC massively overpaid for ranch land if they are just going to turn around and flip it back to another rancher who won't pay that inflated price.


Now 3 year rollback. Just another example of state government cutting property taxes - for the benefit of developers that take ag land and turn it into construction.

Also, if the BBC maintains the ag exemption, the the developer will have to pay the rollback taxes. If they drop the ag exemption then the BBC takes on the rollback taxes, but since they are exempt, the rollback taxes just disappear. All the entities that receive the rollback taxes will benefit if the ag exemption is maintained until a developer purchases the land.
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
davido said:

Having the ag exemption leaves multiple different levers to pull depending on how and when it will be used. It's almost as if they've actually talked to companies before about moving here to find out what they'd like to see. If you think BBC is wrong in their thinking, maybe you should to apply for BBC and show everyone the error of their ways.
Thanks for pointing this out. The BBC knows what they're doing and they know maintaining the ag exemption is best practice.
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BiochemAg97 said:

Jsimonds58 said:

The bbc is tax exempt. Please stop with this stupid excuse we've done that song and dance at least 10 times alone in this thread. They do NOT pay taxes on the land therefore the ag exemption is useless, there is also a roll back of 5 years after sale so if they sell to someone to develop the land it also doesn't matter there. If they sell to someone just to ranch that is a massive misuse of public funds then because the BBC massively overpaid for ranch land if they are just going to turn around and flip it back to another rancher who won't pay that inflated price.


Now 3 year rollback. Just another example of state government cutting property taxes - for the benefit of developers that take ag land and turn it into construction.

Also, if the BBC maintains the ag exemption, the the developer will have to pay the rollback taxes. If they drop the ag exemption then the BBC takes on the rollback taxes, but since they are exempt, the rollback taxes just disappear. All the entities that receive the rollback taxes will benefit if the ag exemption is maintained until a developer purchases the land.
This is an excellent point.
GSS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
techno-ag said:

davido said:

Having the ag exemption leaves multiple different levers to pull depending on how and when it will be used. It's almost as if they've actually talked to companies before about moving here to find out what they'd like to see. If you think BBC is wrong in their thinking, maybe you should to apply for BBC and show everyone the error of their ways.
Thanks for pointing this out. The BBC knows what they're doing and they know maintaining the ag exemption is best practice.
Deflection, deflection, deflection......
doubledog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GSS said:

techno-ag said:

davido said:

Having the ag exemption leaves multiple different levers to pull depending on how and when it will be used. It's almost as if they've actually talked to companies before about moving here to find out what they'd like to see. If you think BBC is wrong in their thinking, maybe you should to apply for BBC and show everyone the error of their ways.
Thanks for pointing this out. The BBC knows what they're doing and they know maintaining the ag exemption is best practice.
Deflection, deflection, deflection......
This... Ag exemption, $1 leases to all etc...

Has anyone noticed that Techno nor any of the COB,BBC,Mayor,Dorn supporters will answer this question?

Does anyone (on this board) believe that awarding this $1/year lease to a "known and trusted" individual, without vetting other qualified lessees is above board and without suspicion?
maroon barchetta
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We all notice.
GSS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
doubledog said:

GSS said:

techno-ag said:

davido said:

Having the ag exemption leaves multiple different levers to pull depending on how and when it will be used. It's almost as if they've actually talked to companies before about moving here to find out what they'd like to see. If you think BBC is wrong in their thinking, maybe you should to apply for BBC and show everyone the error of their ways.
Thanks for pointing this out. The BBC knows what they're doing and they know maintaining the ag exemption is best practice.
Deflection, deflection, deflection......
This... Ag exemption, $1 leases to all etc...

Has anyone noticed that Techno nor any of the COB,BBC,Mayor,Dorn supporters will answer this question?

Does anyone (on this board) believe that awarding this $1/year lease to a "known and trusted" individual, without vetting other qualified lessees is above board and without suspicion?
When your mindset actually prompts one to post this nonsense, just yesterday... "What if the mayor did not tell Dorn to put his cows in that field? What if Dorn decided to do that on his own? What if the mayor didn't even know?" the followups will be just as lame.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.