 |
Source: Hermansen Land Development, Inc. |
After the jump, what the city plans to do with the property.
In yesterday's post, I questioned whether this $2.2 million purchase received adequate discussion. In fact, I couldn't recall any such discussion. It turns out, I was half right. Going back through the city council meeting minutes, I found this consent agenda item from the council's June 25, 2012, meeting:
According to the meeting minutes, consent agenda items "ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL" and receive "NO SEPARATE DISCUSSIONS." I would have thought that spending $2.2 million is not "routine" and is deserving of at least some discussion. It's not that I necessarily oppose the expense, but I do question the process.Resolution No. 12-13, authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Assignment of Contracts with Hermansen Land Development, Inc. regarding the purchase of approximately 3.0144 acres of land and approximately 0.339 acres of land out of the Lavinia McCommas Survey, Abstract No. 927, City of Richardson, Dallas County, Texas, commonly known as 750 S. Central Expressway and 758 S. Central Expressway, respectively; authorizing negotiation and execution of other agreements and documents and other actions necessary to purchase said properties.
Source: City of Richardson.
The purchase is now water under the bridge. But the consent agenda item also suggests that the city already has definite plans for its newly owned (soon to be) vacant lot. Namely, "an Assignment of Contracts with Hermansen Land Development, Inc." While before I was concerned only with the process used to push this redevelopment activity forward, now I'm concerned with the substance as well.
Go to Hermansen's website and you'll find a slick presentation of something called Richardson Restaurant Park. That graphic above is an artist's rendering of Hermansen's ideas for that (soon to be) vacant lot. Take a good look at it. Hermansen envisions marketing pad sites to restaurants like T.G.I. Friday's, Texas Roadhouse and Cantina Laredo. Hermansen also envisions bulldozing the businesses along Floyd Road for a parking lot. (See here for what I think about building more parking lots.)
Two years ago, the city held a series of meetings to gather stakeholders' inputs on the aims of redevelopment of the West Spring Valley Corridor, which includes the land in question here. Stakeholders were polled on many different redevelopment ideas for the neighborhood (using keypad polling "clickers" that city staffers seemed inordinately smitten with). What rated highest with the stakeholders were the pretty pictures of sidewalk cafes and strolling shoppers.
Now, two long years later, in the first significant step in the long journey of redevelopment, what do we get instead? A restaurant row of T.G.I. Friday's. It's nothing like the vision the stakeholders had. It's already outdated before the groundbreaking ceremony even takes place. It's like southwest Richardson is being updated from the 1950s to the 1980s. It does nothing to enhance the livability of the surrounding neighborhood. After the city insists on changes to that drawing above and puts more landscape buffering between the neighborhood and that parking lot, the disconnect will be even more stark. Walkability? Forget about it.
In their zeal to bulldoze that eyesore of a Continental Inn, the city is showing a stunning lack of vision for the kind of sustainable, livable development that could and should replace it. It's all so disappointing, it could drive a man to drink. Thank God, there's Friday's.
33 comments:
Thanks, Mark,
Well written and you did a nice job of kind of exposing the under belly of city politics without stepping on anyone’s toes. From a strictly legal standpoint, the City did nothing wrong. On the other hand (more appropriately-- slight of hand), the City did a great job of masking their true agenda to the homeowners and the property owners. Of course I take it personally because I am a property owner and don’t even get a vote, yet the property owners pay the lion’s portion of the bill. That used to be called taxation without representation. It is now called progress.
All those smoke and mirror public input meetings with the property owners and the homeowners were nothing more than a ploy for the City to ‘CTA’ on their objectives: “We had many meetings with everyone, and with the help of their input, here is what we came up with, yada, yada “. Tough questions like my question of, “What will be the traffic impact to the area,” were dismissed quickly with “We don’t know”. It seems strange that the research company (from Colorado) hired to come up with the overall plan knew the colors of the shingles on the roof, but had clue as to the traffic impact.
And those “choices” we were given as to the overall look of the Corridor—the homes and the businesses: Great presentation, like shopping in a Neiman Marcus Catalog. The main problem was that these were not really choices, but rather selling points—kind of like false campaign promises. (Most of can relate to that!). The current plans for the Continental Inn property consists of 4 large restaurants—no shops or park or walkway or boutique, and one giant parking lot with lots of traffic. Those cute outdoor cafes were moved to the ‘pipe dream department’.
I watched the audience smile with joy as the presentation of the various renderings with styles of housing were displayed. As I recall, there were as many as 10 choices, and we all got to pick our personal favorites. The problem was the correct answer was “none of the above”. I asked a simple question,” If a family lives in a $150,000 house right now, and that house is replaced with the $300,000 house you have showed us, who comes up with the additional $150,000—not to mention the property tax also doubling?” That question was also artfully swept under the table.
Let me be perfectly clear (heard that one before?): The absolute best thing for the City would be to scrape down everything in the corridor and replace it with new homes and businesses, and make everything shiny and new, while making lots of money in tax revenue. Do not be concerned about the current businesses (some as long as 30+ years), who will be displaced or even go out of business. I understand that the homeowners (the voters) would like all that done with someone else’s money. (a page from the Democrat’s playbook). But factor this into the equation: All the new houses will not be occupied by the people currently living there. Add to that, the fact that the City has taken your money (2.2 Million so far,-plus the additional funds for demolition and asbestos removal) to go into the development business.
And the timing---all this in the worst economic time since the Depression: unsustainable debt, foreclosures, double digit unemployment, foreign wars, cities going broke, and Europe on the verge of financial collapse. And one of the highest crime areas in the metroplex is walking distance away. And, if I am not mistaken, none of the Councilmen who made this decision on how to best spend your money actually live in the corridor.
For those people living in the area now who still think this is a good deal for them, you might be interested in some land I have in Florida.
It faces the water—when you are looking up!
Allan Garonzik—Commercial Property owner
Thanks, Mark,
Well written and you did a nice job of kind of exposing the under belly of city politics without stepping on anyone’s toes. From a strictly legal standpoint, the City did nothing wrong. On the other hand (more appropriately-- slight of hand), the City did a great job of masking their true agenda to the homeowners and the property owners. Of course I take it personally because I am a property owner and don’t even get a vote, yet the property owners pay the lion’s portion of the bill. That used to be called taxation without representation. It is now called progress.
All those smoke and mirror public input meetings with the property owners and the homeowners were nothing more than a ploy for the City to ‘CTA’ on their objectives: “We had many meetings with everyone, and with the help of their input, here is what we came up with, yada, yada “. Tough questions like my question of, “What will be the traffic impact to the area,” were dismissed quickly with “We don’t know”. It seems strange that the research company (from Colorado) hired to come up with the overall plan knew the colors of the shingles on the roof, but had clue as to the traffic impact.
And those “choices” we were given as to the overall look of the Corridor—the homes and the businesses: Great presentation, like shopping in a Neiman Marcus Catalog. The main problem was that these were not really choices, but rather selling points—kind of like false campaign promises. (Most of can relate to that!). The current plans for the Continental Inn property consists of 4 large restaurants—no shops or park or walkway or boutique, and one giant parking lot with lots of traffic. Those cute outdoor cafes were moved to the ‘pipe dream department’.
I watched the audience smile with joy as the presentation of the various renderings with styles of housing were displayed. As I recall, there were as many as 10 choices, and we all got to pick our personal favorites. The problem was the correct answer was “none of the above”. I asked a simple question,” If a family lives in a $150,000 house right now, and that house is replaced with the $300,000 house you have showed us, who comes up with the additional $150,000—not to mention the property tax also doubling?” That question was also artfully swept under the table.
Let me be perfectly clear (heard that one before?): The absolute best thing for the City would be to scrape down everything in the corridor and replace it with new homes and businesses, and make everything shiny and new, while making lots of money in tax revenue. Do not be concerned about the current businesses (some as long as 30+ years), who will be displaced or even go out of business. I understand that the homeowners (the voters) would like all that done with someone else’s money. (a page from the Democrat’s playbook). But factor this into the equation: All the new houses will not be occupied by the people currently living there. Add to that, the fact that the City has taken your money (2.2 Million so far,-plus the additional funds for demolition and asbestos removal) to go into the development business.
And the timing---all this in the worst economic time since the Depression: unsustainable debt, foreclosures, double digit unemployment, foreign wars, cities going broke, and Europe on the verge of financial collapse. And one of the highest crime areas in the metroplex is walking distance away. And, if I am not mistaken, none of the Councilmen who made this decision on how to best spend your money actually live in the corridor.
For those people living in the area now who still think this is a good deal for them, you might be interested in some land I have in Florida.
It faces the water—when you are looking up!
Allan Garonzik—Commercial Property owner
Thanks, Mark,
Well written and you did a nice job of kind of exposing the under belly of city politics without stepping on anyone’s toes. From a strictly legal standpoint, the City did nothing wrong. On the other hand (more appropriately-- slight of hand), the City did a great job of masking their true agenda to the homeowners and the property owners. Of course I take it personally because I am a property owner and don’t even get a vote, yet the property owners pay the lion’s portion of the bill. That used to be called taxation without representation. It is now called progress.
All those smoke and mirror public input meetings with the property owners and the homeowners were nothing more than a ploy for the City to ‘CTA’ on their objectives: “We had many meetings with everyone, and with the help of their input, here is what we came up with, yada, yada “. Tough questions like my question of, “What will be the traffic impact to the area,” were dismissed quickly with “We don’t know”. It seems strange that the research company (from Colorado) hired to come up with the overall plan knew the colors of the shingles on the roof, but had clue as to the traffic impact.
And those “choices” we were given as to the overall look of the Corridor—the homes and the businesses: Great presentation, like shopping in a Neiman Marcus Catalog. The main problem was that these were not really choices, but rather selling points—kind of like false campaign promises. (Most of can relate to that!). The current plans for the Continental Inn property consists of 4 large restaurants—no shops or park or walkway or boutique, and one giant parking lot with lots of traffic. Those cute outdoor cafes were moved to the ‘pipe dream department’.
I watched the audience smile with joy as the presentation of the various renderings with styles of housing were displayed. As I recall, there were as many as 10 choices, and we all got to pick our personal favorites. The problem was the correct answer was “none of the above”. I asked a simple question,” If a family lives in a $150,000 house right now, and that house is replaced with the $300,000 house you have showed us, who comes up with the additional $150,000—not to mention the property tax also doubling?” That question was also artfully swept under the table.
Let me be perfectly clear (heard that one before?): The absolute best thing for the City would be to scrape down everything in the corridor and replace it with new homes and businesses, and make everything shiny and new, while making lots of money in tax revenue. Do not be concerned about the current businesses (some as long as 30+ years), who will be displaced or even go out of business. I understand that the homeowners (the voters) would like all that done with someone else’s money. (a page from the Democrat’s playbook). But factor this into the equation: All the new houses will not be occupied by the people currently living there. Add to that, the fact that the City has taken your money (2.2 Million so far,-plus the additional funds for demolition and asbestos removal) to go into the development business.
And the timing---all this in the worst economic time since the Depression: unsustainable debt, foreclosures, double digit unemployment, foreign wars, cities going broke, and Europe on the verge of financial collapse. And one of the highest crime areas in the metroplex is walking distance away. And, if I am not mistaken, none of the Councilmen who made this decision on how to best spend your money actually live in the corridor.
For those people living in the area now who still think this is a good deal for them, you might be interested in some land I have in Florida.
It faces the water—when you are looking up!
Allan Garonzik—Commercial Property owner
Allan Garonzik-Commercial Property owner; welcome to Richardson politics. These public venture tactics are not any kind of new formula. Resolution #3712 was a masterpiece. We couldn't get law enforcement officials to pursue that slight of hand. Pete Smith, our representative city attorney, also happens to be contracted by the Dallas County Appraisal District. Instead of the DCAD public information officer, Smith took on the responsibility when a request for the valuation process was made. Formal complaints were filed with both the Dallas County District Attorney and the Texas Attorney General. There was no formal response to either. Months after the incident, Bill Keffler announced that the property in question had been removed from the deal as the Council quickly authorized payments of more than $1 million to the developers of EastSide for an undisclosed reason. The property was recently wrapped up in another sweetheart deal, and is now the new gymnastics center.
Allan Garonzik-Commercial Property owner; welcome to Richardson politics. These public venture tactics are not any kind of new formula. Resolution #3712 was a masterpiece. We couldn't get law enforcement officials to pursue that slight of hand. Pete Smith, our representative city attorney, also happens to be contracted by the Dallas County Appraisal District. Instead of the DCAD public information officer, Smith took on the responsibility when a request for the valuation process was made. Formal complaints were filed with both the Dallas County District Attorney and the Texas Attorney General. There was no formal response to either. Months after the incident, Bill Keffler announced that the property in question had been removed from the deal as the Council quickly authorized payments of more than $1 million to the developers of EastSide for an undisclosed reason. The property was recently wrapped up in another sweetheart deal, and is now the new gymnastics center.
While I do not agree with Mr. Garonzik's assessment of these items as being "(a page from the Democrat’s playbook)" - given it was G.O.P.Congress and President that passed unfunded bills for Senior drug coverage, unfunded two wars, and signed idiotic agreements to "not raise taxes, no matter what" (also known as the Grover Norquist buddy club), I do understand his frustration with the city council taking actions that, while legal don't really sound ethical.
I would think if the city council has time to sit in session and hear the finer points of pothole repair, they could also find time to ensure these types of transactions are transparent to the community. Perhaps nothing done here was wrong; we'll never know. This is exactly the type of action that fuels the conspiracy theorist's and damages the council's credibility. Frankly, it disappoints me.
I must start this post with the observation that I have not been following the corridor studies closely. This is despite the fact that I was a charter member of the Winnetka Heights Neighborhood Association, which covered the largest residential historic district (and redevelopment zone) in Dallas at the time.
However, some of the statements above puzzle me.
First, I can't tell if the Continental Inn is in the West Spring Valley Corridor or the Central Corridor. Slide 6 at https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.cor.net/modules/showdocument.aspx%3Fdocumentid%3D3440&sa=U&ei=XWkkUJztDcjY2gXJl4C4Dg&ved=0CAoQFjAC&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNH8rmy-780gsQ-Nz5y2hhmxrmxuwQ
suggests that it is in the Central Corridor, while slide 10 suggests that it's in the West Spring Valley Corridor.
Well, I guess my next point is the same in either case...the City has various open houses (was the open house referred to, the Spring Valley Open House or the Central/Main Street Open House?) describing what the corridor might be...but what the corridor might be is greatly dependent on the amount of space you have.
When I hear of boutiques and pedestrian space and "sidewalk cafes", I think of a 2-dimensional space, that is, streets that run both horizontally and vertically. As you know, I've lived in Rome and know what urban spaces can look like.
But when I think of a space lining a major road - particularly a major highway like Central - I just don't think that sidewalk cafes and pedestrian spaces are going to work. It is not realistic to expect people to sit outside - facing the noise and heat machine that is Central.
Indeed, look at slides 8 & 9 on the link above. Slide 8 talks about the Main Street area, a two-dimensional, low-rise area. Slide 8 says "Possible mixed use, pedestrian oriented district (commercial, office, and residential uses)" and "Limited building height to enhance the pedestrian character of the district".
But slide 9, which refers to the Central Corridor (where the Continental Inn logically is), says "Freeway-oriented commercial corridor", and
"• New and/or renovated office space
• Upgraded retail centers
• Additional hospitality uses
(restaurant, hotel, entertainment)"
You see? When you develop property without much depth along a major thoroughfare, you don't expect the same pedestrian-friendly development as you could in a two-dimensional, more neighborhood space like the Main Street area.
So I have a concern that the expectation that that triangle of land along Central should have been developed into a series of pedestrian-friendly boutiques ala Addison Circle wouldn't have been very realistic. Since I did not attend the recent Open House on Central/Main Street, I can't say for sure, but I would be surprised if anyone seriously suggested that we put pedestrian-friendly spaces along a major noisemaker like Central. Unless, of course, we take Mark's prior suggestions and plow Central under, which idea, frankly, has some merit ;-)
Bill
As for Mr. Garonzik's other comments, they puzzle me as well.
First, he complains about taxation without representation, because he is a commercial property owner in Richardson but lives elsewhere (Argyle?) so has no vote. Surely, no one forced him to live in Argyle or wherever while owning property in Richardson, right? Out-of-town property owners understand that this is part of the process, not something to protest ala the American Revolution.
I assume that this statement is rooted in frustration and is not a serious complaint.
He also expresses concern that if you replace $150k houses with $300k houses, then the people living in the $150k houses won't be able to remain. Yeah, that's a problem. But the fact is that if you want to improve a neighborhood, you are going to price some people out of the market...or to put it another way, if you don't price some people out of the market, you haven't changed anything.
In the Winnetka Heights Historic District, I guarantee you we priced some people out of the area...but look at the change. In the 1970s, the district was a mishmash of perverted zoning, turn of the last century houses made into multi-family apartments, cars parked in front yards, and inappropriate commercial uses in a residential neighborhood. After the PD was put into place in 1980, many of the original single family houses were converted from chopped-up apartments back into single-family homes, the property values rose, crime dropped, and an older Dallas neighborhood that had the largest collection of Prairie Victorian houses around (1910-1920) was successfully recovered. And, yes, a number of people living in semi-slum houses chose to leave...but what is the choice? Perpetuate the problem? Aren't we trying to solve the problem?
As for the timing...well, when would be a better time? Wait for an economic recovery? In that case, the smart money would have already moved out halfway to Oklahoma. I think Richardson was very smart to have its bond election in 2010 in anticipation of recovery rather than waiting, and I think that Richardson is smart here to take the opportunity - first the Alamo Grillhouse up at Belt Line and Central, now the four sites at Central and Floyd - this development will not escape the notice of developers who see that we as a City put our money where our mouths are...
As for the last comment that no Council member lives in the district involved, well, if you talking about the Central Corridor, yeah, I'd guess that almost no one at all lives in that Corridor, but if you're talking about the West Spring Valley Corridor, Councilman Steve Mitchell lives "spitting-distance" from this, just across Blue Lake. I am sure that he would not have supported this had he thought that it would have adversely affected his neighborhood or the greater Spring Valley space.
In short, I am puzzled by many of the complaints, and I suspect that there is some other motive behind the complaints...please feel free to clarify as appropriate...
Bill
Have a look at page 61 of this presentation from November 15, 2010. Excerpt:
"Catalyst Concept 2: Continental Inn Site
"The future vision for this collection of properties includes a new mixed-use environment on the full block. Building faces could be established on James Drive, Floyd Road and US 75, giving the development a distinct, unified architectural character on all visible frontages. The land use mix of the new development could include ground floor retail and office with residential uses above. A key component to the new development might be a boutique hotel oriented towards US 75 to take advantage of its highway visibility. A new intersection configuration at Floyd Road would improve traffic circulation to the site, and provide one of several opportunities to establish pocket parks within the overall Study Area."
And the truth comes from one more source. Though I have a minor objection to the methodology of running this thru the consent agenda when Townsend just complained on how much it could cost to put the direct election of the Mayor on the ballot. The TOMA requires a discussion. You cannot just come out of executive session and vote on something without explanation. My source is the AG and Freedom of Information Foundation.
Let's save the pennies and spend the dollars
CDH
Where in the charter does it disclose parameters for land acquisition?
Confidential to "Sassy Texan": Commenting rules require that commenters identify themselves. Aliases and initials are not good enough.
Hmpf, looks like someone changed their minds...but this does raise a question for me...the document that you pointed out from 2010 states:
"Catalyst Site 2 is bounded by James Drive, Floyd Road and US 75. The site is adjacent to commercial development to the north and St. Paul Catholic Church on the west. This 5.87-acre site includes 10 parcels, the Continental Inn site being the keystone of any future redevelopment."
The Hermansen Land website that you found also shows the same area: James to Floyd to Central.
But the consent agenda item from June 25th says the following:
"RESOLUTION NO. 12-13, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACTS WITH HERMANSEN LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF APPROXIMATELY 3.0144 ACRES OF LAND AND APPROXIMATELY 0.339 ACRES OF LAND OUT OF THE LAVINIA MCCOMMAS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 927, CITY OF RICHARDSON,
City Council Agenda, June 25, 2012 2
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 750 S. CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY AND 758 S. CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY, RESPECTIVELY"
So the City bought only 3.3534 acres of the 5.87 acre tract, or, to put it another way, they bought only 2 of the 10 parcels in that area.
What about the rest of the parcels? Are the other owners already in on the deal, or were they not willing to sell? Was this the cause for the change of plans, to get something there that was better than the Continental Inn, even if it wasn't the original plan?
Mark, instead of us guessing, why don't you call one of the Council members and just ask?
Bill
Bill, your questions are good ones. I don't know the answers. I try to resist "guessing." Your questions are now out there. If any council members care to provide answers, they have numerous channels to do so.
The processes of these meetings is called the Delphi Technique.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zpA1althjo&feature=player_embedded
Here is how someone is "led" to the outcome.
Cheri Duncan-Hubert
I feel a certain level of clarification of my position relating to the Spring Valley Corridor project might be in order. I would like to start with the criticism of being an outsider living in Argyle, Texas, and implication that perhaps my voice should not have much weight in these matters of local politics.
I am a native Texas, and except for my time in the Military and graduate school in New Orleans, I have lived in and around Dallas for 68 years. In fact, my father moved here along with his sisters over nine decades ago to help our cousin Stanley Marcus and his sister with their department store in downtown Dallas. Secondly, I have owned a building and ran my business in Richardson for over 30 years.
As far as community ties, I was the founder and president of my homeowners association (Richardson School District). My wife was a seven term RISD PTA president. I did volunteer work for 22 years with the Leukemia Society, and I am on the scholarship board of two Universities in the metroplex, and a member of the Military Hall of Honor and a Distinguished Alumni of one of these universities. So Mr. McCalpin’s remarks of, ”no one forced him to live in Argyle or whatever while owning property in Richardson” then following with “out of town property owners understand that this is part of the process”, seems not only shallow but is categorically not true. I do not understand at all that being a property tax payer makes me exempt from the process. Furthermore, it does reek of taxation without representation. Yes, I have paid Richardson taxes for 40 years, worked in Richardson for half my life, sent my kids to Richardson schools, yet have never lived in Richardson or had a vote in Richardson, so yes, that is the very definition of taxation without representation. These comments do, indeed stem from frustration, but I do, in fact consider them a serious complaint.
Equally valid is my analogy that the homeowner living in a $150,000 house will not be the same homeowner living in a $300,000 house, but more importantly, the “sales job” of the consulting company completely obliterated that fact as they showed and sold all the beautiful pictures of “picture yourself in this luxury home.” Perhaps a more honest approach, to use Mr. McCalpin’s words, would have been, “Thanks everyone for coming to this meeting on the Corridor. We want you to take a look as some proposed housing that you will not be able to afford because we are going to “price you out of the market”, in the name of change and progress.
I do want to thank Mr. McCalpin for helping me make my last point of no councilman living in the effected area. Kind of like our Congressmen voting on a health care plan in which they exempt themselves. Yes, Councilman Mitchell gets to look at all the new homes across Blue Lake, spit in the lake, and watch his property grow in value while not being effected by the homes being scraped away. He has no skin in the game, yet stands to profit from watching his asset grow with no cash outlay.
So I will finish with a part of my original comment: The absolute best thing for the City would be to scrape everything in the corridor and replace it with new homes and businesses. The collateral damage of that plan will be: The current businesses will suffer and many will go out of business. The current homeowners will suffer with higher property taxes, and unless their lot (with their house gone) is worth in excess of $150,000, they will also be losers. The commercial property owners will be pressured to sell, and the citizens will be spending millions with absolutely no guarantee that the City has done the best thing with their money. Myself and at least two other property owners do not plan to sell, and the taxpayer’s money has already been spent with no guarantee of fruition of this project. It won’t be the first or last time the government has spent your money without a guaranteed course of action.
Allan Garonzik
I feel a certain level of clarification of my position relating to the Spring Valley Corridor project might be in order. I would like to start with the criticism of being an outsider living in Argyle, Texas, and implication that perhaps my voice should not have much weight in these matters of local politics.
I am a native Texas, and except for my time in the Military and graduate school in New Orleans, I have lived in and around Dallas for 68 years. In fact, my father moved here along with his sisters over nine decades ago to help our cousin Stanley Marcus and his sister with their department store in downtown Dallas. Secondly, I have owned a building and ran my business in Richardson for over 30 years.
As far as community ties, I was the founder and president of my homeowners association (Richardson School District). My wife was a seven term RISD PTA president. I did volunteer work for 22 years with the Leukemia Society, and I am on the scholarship board of two Universities in the metroplex, and a member of the Military Hall of Honor and a Distinguished Alumni of one of these universities. So Mr. McCalpin’s remarks of, ”no one forced him to live in Argyle or whatever while owning property in Richardson” then following with “out of town property owners understand that this is part of the process”, seems not only shallow but is categorically not true. I do not understand at all that being a property tax payer makes me exempt from the process. Furthermore, it does reek of taxation without representation. Yes, I have paid Richardson taxes for 40 years, worked in Richardson for half my life, sent my kids to Richardson schools, yet have never lived in Richardson or had a vote in Richardson, so yes, that is the very definition of taxation without representation. These comments do, indeed stem from frustration, but I do, in fact consider them a serious complaint.
Equally valid is my analogy that the homeowner living in a $150,000 house will not be the same homeowner living in a $300,000 house, but more importantly, the “sales job” of the consulting company completely obliterated that fact as they showed and sold all the beautiful pictures of “picture yourself in this luxury home.” Perhaps a more honest approach, to use Mr. McCalpin’s words, would have been, “Thanks everyone for coming to this meeting on the Corridor. We want you to take a look as some proposed housing that you will not be able to afford because we are going to “price you out of the market”, in the name of change and progress.
I do want to thank Mr. McCalpin for helping me make my last point of no councilman living in the effected area. Kind of like our Congressmen voting on a health care plan in which they exempt themselves. Yes, Councilman Mitchell gets to look at all the new homes across Blue Lake, spit in the lake, and watch his property grow in value while not being effected by the homes being scraped away. He has no skin in the game, yet stands to profit from watching his asset grow with no cash outlay.
So I will finish with a part of my original comment: The absolute best thing for the City would be to scrape everything in the corridor and replace it with new homes and businesses. The collateral damage of that plan will be: The current businesses will suffer and many will go out of business. The current homeowners will suffer with higher property taxes, and unless their lot (with their house gone) is worth in excess of $150,000, they will also be losers. The commercial property owners will be pressured to sell, and the citizens will be spending millions with absolutely no guarantee that the City has done the best thing with their money. Myself and at least two other property owners do not plan to sell, and the taxpayer’s money has already been spent with no guarantee of fruition of this project. It won’t be the first or last time the government has spent your money without a guaranteed course of action.
Allan Garonzik
I feel a certain level of clarification of my position relating to the Spring Valley Corridor project might be in order. I would like to start with the criticism of being an outsider living in Argyle, Texas, and implication that perhaps my voice should not have much weight in these matters of local politics.
I am a native Texas, and except for my time in the Military and graduate school in New Orleans, I have lived in and around Dallas for 68 years. In fact, my father moved here along with his sisters over nine decades ago to help our cousin Stanley Marcus and his sister with their department store in downtown Dallas. Secondly, I have owned a building and ran my business in Richardson for over 30 years.
As far as community ties, I was the founder and president of my homeowners association (Richardson School District). My wife was a seven term RISD PTA president. I did volunteer work for 22 years with the Leukemia Society, and I am on the scholarship board of two Universities in the metroplex, and a member of the Military Hall of Honor and a Distinguished Alumni of one of these universities. So Mr. McCalpin’s remarks of, ”no one forced him to live in Argyle or whatever while owning property in Richardson” then following with “out of town property owners understand that this is part of the process”, seems not only shallow but is categorically not true. I do not understand at all that being a property tax payer makes me exempt from the process. Furthermore, it does reek of taxation without representation. Yes, I have paid Richardson taxes for 40 years, worked in Richardson for half my life, sent my kids to Richardson schools, yet have never lived in Richardson or had a vote in Richardson, so yes, that is the very definition of taxation without representation. These comments do, indeed stem from frustration, but I do, in fact consider them a serious complaint.
Equally valid is my analogy that the homeowner living in a $150,000 house will not be the same homeowner living in a $300,000 house, but more importantly, the “sales job” of the consulting company completely obliterated that fact as they showed and sold all the beautiful pictures of “picture yourself in this luxury home.” Perhaps a more honest approach, to use Mr. McCalpin’s words, would have been, “Thanks everyone for coming to this meeting on the Corridor. We want you to take a look as some proposed housing that you will not be able to afford because we are going to “price you out of the market”, in the name of change and progress.
I do want to thank Mr. McCalpin for helping me make my last point of no councilman living in the effected area. Kind of like our Congressmen voting on a health care plan in which they exempt themselves. Yes, Councilman Mitchell gets to look at all the new homes across Blue Lake, spit in the lake, and watch his property grow in value while not being effected by the homes being scraped away. He has no skin in the game, yet stands to profit from watching his asset grow with no cash outlay.
So I will finish with a part of my original comment: The absolute best thing for the City would be to scrape everything in the corridor and replace it with new homes and businesses. The collateral damage of that plan will be: The current businesses will suffer and many will go out of business. The current homeowners will suffer with higher property taxes, and unless their lot (with their house gone) is worth in excess of $150,000, they will also be losers. The commercial property owners will be pressured to sell, and the citizens will be spending millions with absolutely no guarantee that the City has done the best thing with their money. Myself and at least two other property owners do not plan to sell, and the taxpayer’s money has already been spent with no guarantee of fruition of this project. It won’t be the first or last time the government has spent your money without a guaranteed course of action.
Allan Garonzik
I feel a certain level of clarification of my position relating to the Spring Valley Corridor project might be in order. I would like to start with the criticism of being an outsider living in Argyle, Texas, and implication that perhaps my voice should not have much weight in these matters of local politics.
I am a native Texas, and except for my time in the Military and graduate school in New Orleans, I have lived in and around Dallas for 68 years. In fact, my father moved here along with his sisters over nine decades ago to help our cousin Stanley Marcus and his sister with their department store in downtown Dallas. Secondly, I have owned a building and ran my business in Richardson for over 30 years.
As far as community ties, I was the founder and president of my homeowners association (Richardson School District). My wife was a seven term RISD PTA president. I did volunteer work for 22 years with the Leukemia Society, and I am on the scholarship board of two Universities in the metroplex, and a member of the Military Hall of Honor and a Distinguished Alumni of one of these universities. So Mr. McCalpin’s remarks of, ”no one forced him to live in Argyle or whatever while owning property in Richardson” then following with “out of town property owners understand that this is part of the process”, seems not only shallow but is categorically not true. I do not understand at all that being a property tax payer makes me exempt from the process. Furthermore, it does reek of taxation without representation. Yes, I have paid Richardson taxes for 40 years, worked in Richardson for half my life, sent my kids to Richardson schools, yet have never lived in Richardson or had a vote in Richardson, so yes, that is the very definition of taxation without representation. These comments do, indeed stem from frustration, but I do, in fact consider them a serious complaint.
Equally valid is my analogy that the homeowner living in a $150,000 house will not be the same homeowner living in a $300,000 house, but more importantly, the “sales job” of the consulting company completely obliterated that fact as they showed and sold all the beautiful pictures of “picture yourself in this luxury home.” Perhaps a more honest approach, to use Mr. McCalpin’s words, would have been, “Thanks everyone for coming to this meeting on the Corridor. We want you to take a look as some proposed housing that you will not be able to afford because we are going to “price you out of the market”, in the name of change and progress.
I do want to thank Mr. McCalpin for helping me make my last point of no councilman living in the effected area. Kind of like our Congressmen voting on a health care plan in which they exempt themselves. Yes, Councilman Mitchell gets to look at all the new homes across Blue Lake, spit in the lake, and watch his property grow in value while not being effected by the homes being scraped away. He has no skin in the game, yet stands to profit from watching his asset grow with no cash outlay.
So I will finish with a part of my original comment: The absolute best thing for the City would be to scrape everything in the corridor and replace it with new homes and businesses. The collateral damage of that plan will be: The current businesses will suffer and many will go out of business. The current homeowners will suffer with higher property taxes, and unless their lot (with their house gone) is worth in excess of $150,000, they will also be losers. The commercial property owners will be pressured to sell, and the citizens will be spending millions with absolutely no guarantee that the City has done the best thing with their money. Myself and at least two other property owners do not plan to sell, and the taxpayer’s money has already been spent with no guarantee of fruition of this project. It won’t be the first or last time the government has spent your money without a guaranteed course of action.
Allan Garonzik
Allan Garonzik, move to Richardson and run for mayor, or at least a council seat. We need some people with good sense to offset some of those who don't have good sense.
David Chenoweth
Dave,
Thanks for the kind words, and I apologize for the length of my comments, as well as veering off task because of emotion and frustration. Having been a victim of government abuse and unbridled power at all levels, I see the direction this entire revitalization project is headed. I have, from the beginning, contended that the project will be good for the City in the long term. But the lack of transparency, the hidden agenda, and the underhanded salesmanship to the naïve homeowners just dips my hat in the creek. And their misdirected president has unknowingly aided in the deception process.
The upside is a nicer and more modern city with a higher tax base—I get it. The down side is: the folks who pay the price are the loyal current homeowners, current business owners, and the commercial property owners who will be forced out. The traffic impact is off the chart—by definition, the density will increase. The boutiques with their $700 shoes will come and go every few months—if the original and public meeting plan was actually used. Instead, under the current plan, the parks and walkways and shops and sidewalk cafés are scratched. Now the plan calls for 4 high volume but unexciting big box restaurants. Again, good for the tax base, but at what price? Anyone who thinks increased traffic and pollution is good for a community is simply not the sharpest crayon in the box.
The issue of crime in the neighborhood has also been artfully avoided. Inasmuch as the corridor is across the street from one of the highest crime centers in the metroplex, I visualize the new “Target Rich” environment will actually bring more crime. How much will the taxpayers spend on the additional police? Consider cities across the nation which are simply not been able to afford police protection at all. And Mr. McCalpin says “when would be a better time?” The short answer is: hopefully after November!
I understand and appreciate Mr. McCalpin’s comments. He, like many, will benefit from the nicer more modern corridor, yet he will not lose his house: “Yeah, that's a problem. But the fact is that if you want to improve a neighborhood, you are going to price some people out of the market...or to put it another way, if you don't price some people out of the market, you haven't changed anything.” So to be a bit more factual, simply take his statement and substitute the words “someone else” for the word “you”, and see how it reads. Or to borrow Margaret Thatcher’s philosophy: "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money.
Sure is easy for people who have no dog in the hunt to make decisions for the others, and it still surprises me that some folks are so shallow and naïve to fall for such obvious tactics.
By the way, I moved NEAR Argyle--which is not actually in any town, in order to avoid such issues as found in most cities. I will keep my building in Richardson as long as possible because of my loyal tenants. The developer can’t go forward until he acquires everything in the triangle, and I personally know of three holdouts. So the millions in taxpayers’ money already spent is simply an out of pocket expense.
One more thing, the current policy of having the Jesse James Gang select the mayor rather than a majority vote by the citizens has probably slipped by most of the voters.
“We thought, because we had power, we had wisdom” Steven Vincent Benet
Allan
Mr. Garonzik, please understand that I was not "criticizing" you about living in, er, near, Argyle...as I said, I was just puzzled that you felt the right to have voting power in a city in which you don't live.
I don't know that non-resident property owners have ever been allowed the vote; even the 1876 State Constitution that allowed cities to restrict votes on debt issues to only property owners, still required that the property owners be residents.
So while it would be a separate discussion on whether non-residents should be allowed to vote under certain circumstances, I was just expressing surprise that you were so frustrated with a system that has been in place for so long...
As for my statement being "categorically not true", the only part that you could argue was not true was that I assumed that all out-of-town property owners understood that residency is required for voting. Indeed, I imagine that even you understand this - you just don't like it...but you not liking the current system doesn't make my statement untrue.
Mr. Garonzik has also thrown in a number of vague references which are so amorphous as to make a reply impossible:
- "Having been a victim of government abuse and unbridled power at all levels"
- "But the lack of transparency, the hidden agenda, and the underhanded salesmanship to the naïve homeowners just dips my hat in the creek."
- "And their misdirected president has unknowingly aided in the deception process."
- "Sure is easy for people who have no dog in the hunt to make decisions for the others, and it still surprises me that some folks are so shallow and naïve to fall for such obvious tactics."
I could make all sorts of vague responses, but that wouldn't advance the conversation any. I would prefer that if you have something to say, that you say it, complete with details, dates, times, and names. Otherwise, your statements are akin to those at certain websites that specialize in lurid accusations but are woefully short on facts. As I don't know you, I can't say that your statements are short on the facts...but unfortunately, I haven't seen any facts yet, just vague statements that tend to poison the conversation...
Indeed, your last statement is proof of this: "the current policy of having the Jesse James Gang select the mayor rather than a majority vote by the citizens has probably slipped by most of the voters."
Calling the Council a gang of criminals with no evidence of wrongdoing nor even any specific accusations doesn't help...the sad thing is that you could be making some points worthy of discussion here, such as the impact of urban renewal on existing property owners, but once you start adding sly, negative, and somewhat slanderous statements, you turn off a lot of people who might otherwise be inclined to join the discussion...
Bill
Bill,
You started the dialogue insulting Allan G as well as Alan N, so why the surprise on Mr Garonzik's response to you? Or Mr North's, for that matter.
And wasn't it you who wrote: ..."there is far more to this story than I have even now relayed here, but since some of.....
it will indeed be highly critical of certain people
.....in this City, I have declined to give it here, given Mark's desire to keep the conversation civilized."
Then you go on to state the real trash you conjured up is on your page. There is no having any kind of civil dialogue with you.
Many people have know for a long time about the abuses in Richardson and one more person has come forward knowing the truth.
Thank you, Allan Garonzik!
Cheri Duncan-Hubert
Bill,
You started the dialogue insulting Allan G as well as Alan N, so why the surprise on Mr Garonzik's response to you? Or Mr North's, for that matter.
And wasn't it you who wrote: ..."there is far more to this story than I have even now relayed here, but since some of.....
it will indeed be highly critical of certain people
.....in this City, I have declined to give it here, given Mark's desire to keep the conversation civilized."
Then you go on to state the real trash you conjured up is on your page. There is no having any kind of civil dialogue with you.
Many people have know for a long time about the abuses in Richardson and one more person has come forward knowing the truth.
Thank you, Allan Garonzik!
Cheri Duncan-Hubert
OK, Bill I suppose I was not specific enough, let me try again:
First, I do understand that non-residents do not have a vote, but what I actually said was about INPUT in the discussion, ”the IMPLICATION was that perhaps my voice DID NOT have much weight in these matters of local politics”. I would compare that to the fact that the majority of the United States citizens did not want Obamacare, yet it was bestowed on us anyway by the people who know what is best for us rather than what we really want. So as it relates to my comments about a PIG IN A POKE sales job by the city, who most likely made up their mind as to the path they were going to take long before there were any public meetings held. So, specifically being part of the process that is categorically untrue is the INPUT from property owners.
This documentation should appear in the recordings and minutes of several of the meetings held at the City Hall meeting place: Several SPECIFIC things come to mind: I asked about traffic impact. That question was ignored. I asked about who was going to pay for the improvements? (given that all the money the City has comes from the taxpayers). I asked about the increased property taxes, …also blown off and ignored. I asked about crime in the area—again ignored. Mark is pretty good at looking up this type off documentation. It is all on public record and should be specific enough to address your concerns about vagueness. Try not to confuse VOTING RIGHTS, which I don’t have, with INPUT, which I was supposed to have but didn’t get. And is the center of my frustration.
You also criticized my VAGUE REFERENCES to Government abuse. Allow me to try to eliminate some of that vagueness as well:
1. I had a truck leasing agency for about 13 years at my property, a Certificate of Occupancy, no citations from the City, all taxes paid. I got a notice from the City that I had 24 hours to remove my trucks. However, with $200 I could apply for a variance (to something that had been legal for 13 years). Variance denied, $25,000 of income eliminated.
2. Years later I got a notice and a summons because certain plants were not in compliance with the landscape plan—the same landscape that had been on my property for 25 years. By the way, of the 8 trees on my side of Floyd Rd. from Central to James, 5 were on my property. The City wanted me to plant shrubs that were not even in compliance with THEIR city code of height restriction. Four trips from Argyle to Richardson including two to court to resolve that issue.
3. A portion of my property in Argyle, located in a flood plane, after 5 years with minimal tax increase, jumped up 474% in one year. You seem to be up to speed on the Texas Constitution, but do you know your alternatives to the Appraisal District’s assessment if the Appraisal Review Board doesn’t side in your favor? Yep, sue the County—go against lawyers who’s salary is paid by you.
That is some of my reasons for saying: “Having been a victim of government abuse and unbridled power at all levels". I could go on, but I hope you get my point, and that clears up some of my vagueness.
Allan
Part II
Bill,
I notice you didn’t respond to Cheri Duncan-Hubert’s remarks about the Delphi-Technique. This goes right to the heart of my comment on “Lack of transparency, hidden agenda and underhanded salesmanship. So allow me to clear up some more vagueness and save you the time to look up exactly what she is talking about:
“The Delphi-Technique is designed to preserve the illusion that there is "…lay, or community, participation (in the decision-making process), while lay citizens were, in fact, being squeezed out." The Delphi Technique is the method being used to squeeze citizens out of the process, effecting a left-wing take, and lead to a predetermined outcome.”
Anyone with an IQ greater than Broccoli could see the MO of the City and the Consulting Company to use this technique. To be less vague, and more specific, we were given a choice of 1 to 10 on how we envisioned the look of the buildings, homes, shops, walkways, and shops. ANY choice offered accomplished their mission, yet the choice of “none of the above” was not offered. Is that specific enough?
What I mean by “skin in the game” or “dog in the hunt” refers to the councilmen who DO NOT LIVE IN THE AFFECTED AREA, DO NOT HAVE BUSINESSES THERE , DO NOT OWN PROPERTY THERE, but are making life altering decisions for those of us who do. I will apologize and admit that my choice of words referring to the councilmen was a poor choice. I’m sure they were just deciding what they think is best for the city. At the same time, they completely ignored those of us most financially impacted, and completely sold the current homeowners living there a bottle of snake oil. And, I think the Mayor should be decided by the citizens
By the way, you might revisit the State Constitution of 1876 as to, in fact, who gets to vote on debt issues. I think you will find that representatives get to vote rather than “only property owners “ as you reported.
I hope I cleared up some of the vagueness and amorphous.
Allan
Bill,
You started the dialogue insulting Allan G as well as Alan N, so why the surprise on Mr Garonzik's response to you? Or Mr North's, for that matter.
And wasn't it you who wrote: ..."there is far more to this story than I have even now relayed here, but since some of.....
it will indeed be highly critical of certain people
.....in this City, I have declined to give it here, given Mark's desire to keep the conversation civilized."
Then you go on to state the real trash you conjured up is on your page. There is no having any kind of civil dialogue with you.
Many people have know for a long time about the abuses in Richardson and one more person has come forward knowing the truth.
Thank you, Allan Garonzik!
Cheri Duncan-Hubert
Allan, thank you for clarifying the vagueness...now someone has sufficient information to investigate if they so choose. It won't make you feel any better, but I have my own issues with a flood plain. As my lot has two creeks, of course, part of the lot is in a flood plain...but the FEMA map drawn in 2011 was quite sloppy, and on part of my lot, they stopped measuring (you can see the line where they did this, and they just marked a blob upstream of this as zone "A" (high risk - without any regard to the actual elevations which they admitted that they did not do. Worse, someone issued conflicting elevations on my lot, in which my house was rated "X" (low risk) AND "A" (high risk). Every year I had to justify why I should be paying the lower rate (for zone X) for flood insurance. One year, a bank sent me some FEMA-based data that clearly showed my foundation in the 1% flood plain, while a location 30 feet away that was 5 1/2 feet lower in elevation was not in the flood plain.
But who can you sue? FEMA? No, I am awaiting the approval of the latest map - 1 year late now - where shows the elevations on my lot correctly...sigh, the worst thing is that the City wrote a letter for me showing the true elevation of my finished floor, which would have placed me clearly out of the flood plain - but FEMA won't accept the City's word...they wanted me to spend hundreds of dollars for a certificate that would have shown the exact same thing that the City found in 1995 when they did their own elevations (my house was randomly one of the houses done in a study of my creek).
OK, enough of that...Lord willing, FEMA will finally get its act together and approve the new map.
Oh, on the "that representatives get to vote rather than “only property owners “", actually, I was referred to Article VI, Section 3 of the 1876 which said that in terms of municipalities, that they could limit voters on debt issues to only residents who were property owners. This stayed in the Constitution (by mistake after a while) until 1997 when it was removed as part of a bill that deleted obsolete language. See http://www.rumorcheck.org/DirectElectionofMayor.html if you're interested - the original language is there.
Bill
"but what I actually said was about INPUT in the discussion"
Well, nearly the very first thing that you said above was:
"Of course I take it personally because I am a property owner and don’t even get a vote",
so it's not surprising that I took your statements to mean that you wanted voting rights as opposed to just input. If that's not what you really wanted to say, that's OK, but please understand the source of my confusion about where you were coming from.
As I noted in the beginning, I did not attend either the Spring Valley meeting nor the Main Street meeting, so I can't speak one way or the other on those meetings. You say that you asked questions and were ignored, and I have to take such statements at face value, not having any evidence to the contrary.
The references to the Delphi Technique (which is the same as the "Delphi Method", I assume?) does make a leap in logic. To assume that the "Delphi Technique" is being used to manipulate the outcome is a leap for which you have no direct proof, only your feeling that because you were ignored, then the deck must have been stacked against you.
Actually, I have always thought that the statement "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you" is fundamentally true, so I don't take this leap in logic as evidence that you're wrong about the conspiracy of the facilitators to determine the outcome...the fact is that I have no facts on the case and you haven't presented any positive evidence that you (or Cheri) are right, so the whole thing is still up in the air to an independent observer. This is the problem with the Delphi Method, it depends on trust in the integrity of the facilitator - without that, you won't trust the outcome.
I don't know what to say further on this subject - you have an a priori belief that the system is rigged, and I have no proof to the contrary...all I can say is that I founded RumorCheck.org because of all the rumors and accusations and gossip that were swirling around Richardson, and not to my surprise, nearly all of them have proven to be false. Indeed, this is the reason I did not bother to respond to Cheri - she has been the source of several statements about the City that turned out to be false. The problem is that she won't admit it, even after she has been proven without a doubt to be wrong. Blogmaster Mark knows personally of one such case, so I have no need to pursue this.
You have shown yourself to be willing to clarify your statements, and I appreciate that. You have shown that you have something behind what you say, and I appreciate that. Let's hope that such a civil conversation can continue. The fact is that without eminent domain - which the City has largely forsworn the use of - the City must get the consent of property owners in enabling improvements. Therefore, having open conversations with the property owners is critical, which means that the City has a problem when individuals like you already assume that the deal is rigged...I hope that the conversation can continue...and no, I don't mean via the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis...the German philosophers lost the soccer game to the Greek philosophers in that Monty Python skit for a good reason...and if you don't know what I mean, well, nevermind ;-)
Bill
"but the FEMA map drawn in 2011 was quite sloppy"
My mistake, I meant 2001...I have been screwed up ever since we entered the 21st Century...
Bill
OK, Bill, I see common ground here—you recognize first hand just what the government can do to YOU. There is nothing more frightening to me than a bureaucrat with a badge. I start with the cynical primes that Government at any level does more harm than good, and continue with the notion that the larger the government, the worse the problem will be. The level of corruption, inefficiency, waste, and cost will go up proportionally with the size of the bureaucracy. It starts with a favor or a free dinner or ticket to a ball game and escalates from that point. I believe, and my experience bears this out-- that power absolutely corrupts. This can be at the lowest level of the president of a homeowner’s association, and elevate up to the President of the United States. Of course there are exceptions all along the way, but this is the norm.
That is why I do everything I possibly can to avoid dealing with power brokers. So it is extremely frustrating when decisions are made for me without my input or voice—especially when it affects me and those I care about.
I have said all along that the revitalization of Richardson, or any city for that matter is a good thing. However I still contend that the City’s method to try to mask their real agenda with the “Community Input” was nothing more than an expensive cover up for what they had previously decided in a smoke filled room. The only wiggle room I have for my hypothesis is that perhaps there was no smoke according to City Ordinances.
Was there no way the developer could be footing the bill for buying and tearing down the Continental Inn? Why should this be a taxpayer expense for a private enterprise? It was right out of a page from the Jerry Jones Book on “How to Sell $14 Nachos at Taxpayer’s Expense”.Could the City have used that same $2.5+ million of taxpayer’s money for something else—say reducing the high crime? What we have is going to be a pile of dirt, paid for by the taxpayers with no development in sight unless the developer is able to acquire at least three pieces of property whose owners not only do not want to sell, but whose tenants have lengthy leases. Spending your way out of poverty makes little sense to me. Look no further than the debt our country has amassed in the last three years, and look at the jobs, the housing, the economy, and all the programs that these trillions have bought for us.
Anyway, I’m glad we are on the same page on certain issues, but we are volumes away on the role that government should play in running our lives.
Allan
And the truth keeps coming from Mr Garonzik!
Cheri Duncan-Hubert
"Top Georgia GOP Lawmakers Host Briefing on Secret Obama Mind-Control Plot." Yep, it involves the nefarious Delphi Method.
Post a Comment