newsflash....legal and ethical are not always the same thing and both can be a far cry from "right/fair."
Then why would the BBC say it was unaware of his relationship to Rafter D?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?
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.EliteElectric said:When you are not legally obligated to put it out for bid it literally cannot be below board. The is no obligation to do soCharpie 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.
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.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 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.doubledog said: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.EliteElectric said:When you are not legally obligated to put it out for bid it literally cannot be below board. The is no obligation to do soCharpie 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.
You tell me... Did the BBC succeed in their obligations?
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.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.
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.
https://www.bryantx.gov/city-secretarys-office/boards-commissions-and-committees/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.
So, in your world the city should give up the ag exemption? Or should they charge extra for a grazing lease?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
Justacitizen said:https://www.bryantx.gov/city-secretarys-office/boards-commissions-and-committees/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.
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 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.
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 said:
I begging you to read and engage the brain just a little bit.
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 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.
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.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.
Translation- "Let them eat cake"!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.
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
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.
Thanks for pointing this out. The BBC knows what they're doing and they know maintaining the ag exemption is best practice.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.
This is an excellent point.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.
Deflection, deflection, deflection......techno-ag said:Thanks for pointing this out. The BBC knows what they're doing and they know maintaining the ag exemption is best practice.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.
This... Ag exemption, $1 leases to all etc...GSS said:Deflection, deflection, deflection......techno-ag said:Thanks for pointing this out. The BBC knows what they're doing and they know maintaining the ag exemption is best practice.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.
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.doubledog said:This... Ag exemption, $1 leases to all etc...GSS said:Deflection, deflection, deflection......techno-ag said:Thanks for pointing this out. The BBC knows what they're doing and they know maintaining the ag exemption is best practice.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.
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?