Blog Archives - ROWLETT RAMBLINGS

New Landmark Title

8/31/2015

I have it on good authority that soon a familiar landmark will get a new name.

After returning from Alaska and renaming Mt. McKinley to Mt. Denali, President Obama will stop over in Chicago.

Since Chicago, and its eight million people, is the largest city on Lake Michigan, and deserving of recognition for this fact, it is felt some honorarium is in order. And, it is felt appropriate that one of Chicago's own and best known personages should represent the people of Chicago in this endeavor.

Therefore, after the trip to Alaska and the short stop over in Chicago, forever thereafter Lake Michigan will now be known as Lake Obama.

Its in the spirit of things.

Another critic

8/31/2015

Thru a friend that I have in Wylie, I have been told that the owner of the new Dairy Queen in Rowlett is not real happy with Form Base Codes. He won't say anything because of fear of retaliation, which is probably smart, but the above could easily be an understatement........The Rowlett Dairy Queen owner apparently owns the Dairy Queen in Wylie. I understand they're very nice people.

I don't know the details, but looking at the building, I can see some "ingredients" that probably added considerably to the cost.

Yea!!! Rowlett......Go!! Rowlett........Any more good news and we won't be able to get developers in Rowlett unless we give them 50 years of tax breaks........oh, we've already done that. I wonder what we'll have to do to get "top shelf" developers to Rowlett.....100 years of tax breaks?

Whoops......wait a minute. Bay View IS "top shelf." I don't know what concessions were granted for Bay View. Now I'm more worried about Rowlett "officialdom" designing it, too. I don't need "officialdom" looking out after my interests. If the developer, Kent Donahue, looks after his own interests, I will do just fine. Donahue is an experienced developer attempting to make a profit. You don't attract buyers and tenants by developing junk. It's okay for the city to oversee certain traditional capital improvements, but they should leave their maniacal obsession with Form Base Codes on the back burner. The old Robertson Park area isn't exactly inner city Philadelphia.

A word about FBC (control)

8/29/2015

I have just read a Facebook post from the mayor that the new Dairy Queen is soon to open.    In that post, the mayor is once again touting the incredible good things coming this way because of the city government's experience of designing buildings (Form Base Codes). I presume the city mandated how they wanted the building to look, irrespective of any architect's petty input.   Did the city's design include traffic patterns in the building, or any other design features? We are told that only the best materials are used. Is there anyone on staff that knows a good brick from a bad brick. There are differences. The new building doesn't look like any other Dairy Queens I have seen. Is this the Rowlett version? If I Goggle Dairy Queen, I don't see any buildings that look like ours. If the design works, everybody is happy. Just exactly what did the Planning Department impose on the owners with the use of FBC? Is there less glass? Is the roof lower? Is the color as directed? What makes it better? Apparently, there is no hard and fast rule. All the Dairy Queens look different in recent times. What if the design doesn't work. Is the City of Rowlett liable? There are very good lawyers looking into the liablility issues of city imposed designs when and if Form Base Codes fail. But.....I guess our city has looked into all that. What in the hell do Dairy Queen, owners, and architects know, anyway? Only your government knows.

Will someone just tell me what the hell Form Base Codes did for Rowlett's Dairy Queen?   How did it benefit Rowlett citizens? We are told FBC assures quality materials. So what? If one doesn't use sound construction practices, quality materials will fail. FBC has nothing to do with quality construction. I get tired of being lied to. Do we have to get the city's permission to buy a Blizzard or be awarded a time slot when we can go to Dairy Queen?

We just barely missed a dictatorship a while back, however some of the previous city manager's remnants are alive and well. They still populate much of City Hall. But.......they're not selfish. All they want is control over your life and property. Soon, under the water conservation rules, you will be notified when you can take a shower, and what time of day. It's all for your own good. Oh, maybe there will be a little rule about what days you can drive, or maybe some fees for the air you breathe, but that is only for the greater good. No big deal.

I keep conjuring up this nettlesome little image about the blind leading the blind. Or, with a more sinister view, how about the words "population control?" Certainly, everything is well intentioned, right?

You decide.
********************************
Perhaps the above is a little "over the top," but it serves to point out that ultimately the citizens of Rowlett are responsible for planning their own destiny. You must engage. You can not pass the responsibility of government to others. You must make your thoughts known. We have a representative democracy. We vote for leaders. It is your responsibility to know what your leaders are doing. If, in your opinion, they are doing wrong, vote them out. However, if you find one you really like, and you want to keep them, they still have to play by the rules........and that is to follow the rules.

There are a lot of smart people in Rowlett. We need to hear from them. When pandered to, don't fall for it. Keep your eyes and ears open. When something is forced on you, demand explanations. On the other hand, when you are convinced someone is genuinely fond of, and working for, the benefit of the citizens of Rowlett, then give them your support.

Ultimately, you run this town, not "officialdom." An overused cliché is that "you get the government you deserve."   I couldn't have said it better.

Catchin' a little heat

8/23/2015

I have received two emails complaining that I am "picking on" the mayor, Todd Gottel. Let's do this one more once. Below are three of the exact phrases I used in the past two blog posts.

"Todd is well liked and has done a pretty good job."
and
"Personally, I don't know anyone "out there" that is better suited to serve as Rowlett's mayor, at this time."
and
"Todd works hard at mayor and his heart seems to be in the right place. Hell, he even gives away puppies, which I completely endorse."

It would seem to me that if Todd really wants to help this community, he could create a school that teaches some of his groupies how to read.

Oops........now I'm going to get some more email.

A little review

8/21/2015

Below is a partial "re-post" of an article I posted in May. I want to draw attention to the language in the Rowlett Charter. These are the rules and laws whereby we run and manage the City of Rowlett. The language below pertains to definition of Terms. Rowlett's term limits are that no elected official can serve more than two successive terms of office. It is presumed that they could lay out for one term, then run again. However, the language below pertains to the definition of a "term" when one elected official leaves office before the "term" is completed. That could become important in the upcoming election.

Our current Mayor is Todd Gottel. Todd is well liked and has done a pretty good job. Todd and I don't agree on everything. I have differences of opinion with many others. That's okay. It makes for good discussions. I do not consider ALL of City Council and staff as experts in real estate development, including Todd. This seems to irritate our mayor. Actually, I don't expect the mayor, council, and staff to be experts in real estate development. However, I do expect them to properly vet and investigate proposed real estate deals before them. Go get an expert.......and don't get an expert that has something to gain by their recommendations!! But.....that's another story.

Judging from Facebook chatter, it would appear Todd is running for office again. This could be a problem.

Personally, I don't know anyone "out there" that is better suited to serve as Rowlett's mayor, at this time. There are probably other good candidates, but they are not surfacing. Todd works hard at mayor and his heart seems to be in the right place. Hell, he even gives away puppies, which I completely endorse. However, the issue isn't so much whether Todd is qualified for the job. The voters would decide that. The issue is the abandonment of Rowlett's body of rules called The Home Rule Charter. These rules are how Rowlett governs the city, and answers to the State of Texas.

I can find nothing in the Charter that says some rules don't count. There is no small print that I can find that says it's okay to ignore certain rules. If you follow the logic which implies rules are ignored as needed to its conclusion, then its okay not to follow ANY rules. At that point, we have chaos. There are no rules. I truly believe the State of Texas is not going to buy into that logic.

The real issue isn't whether Todd would be a good mayor. The real issue is whether we are following the Term Limits rules of the charter, or not. If we aren't bound by the rules, there are a whole bunch of changes I would like to make.

One other parting issue. If a Charter Review Committee is convened to "correct" something, it should not "correct" something that would benefit existing office holders. It should be for future office holders. To ignore this only puts a meeting between lawful and chaos. "Officialdom" could change the charter at will to satisfy any sitting official's needs. That is a pure subterfuge.

I think Todd has served two terms, therefore, ineligible to run for mayor in the next election. I have been told by two sources that the City Attorney has advised Todd that he is eligible. I disagree.........and I like the City Attorney, too.

Please read the partial re-print of my earlier blog post below. The language referenced comes straight out of Rowlett's Charter.
________________________________
Reprinted from Blog Post dated May 19, 2015.

"You need to put your thinking cap on. I have a brain tease for you. Below is language from the Rowlett Charter defining a "term" when one is elected to serve in office.

"After an individual vacates an office, if fifty percent (50%) or less remains of the individual's term, the term shall be considered a full term for reasons of calculating term limits."

Read the above carefully. Again. It is a very poorly written passage. However, it means something important. You need to use logic to determine what it means.

Here's the way I read it. If someone vacates an office (resigns), and he/she served over 50% of the time of their term......then, the time he/she served constitutes a full term. Therefore, the remaining time served by his/her replacement would not be considered a full term. It doesn't seem possible to have two people with both serving full terms within the same time frame. It is reasonable to assume that the new occupant, if serving less than 50% remaining in the term, would be as in the Charter example above and would not be serving a full term.

So, what happened when John Harper resigned as mayor? He resigned after serving one year of a three year term. Therefore, he served 33% of his term, and his time in office would not be considered a full term. It is reasonable to conclude that Harper's replacement, serving 67% of the term, did in fact, by definition above, serve a "full term."

Some will say the replacement's term is not addressed by the charter. That is technically correct, but that is an error of omission. Sensible people can deduce that somebody had to serve a term. The taxpayer was certainly paying a salary to someone for serving.

The definition contained in the Charter clearly defines that Harper did not serve a full term when only serving 33% of the term. Logic tells me that the replacement, Todd Gottel, fulfilled a full term by serving 67% of the term. To say that neither Harper or Gottel served a term is simply stupid."

A little more background

8/20/2015

In 2005, the US Supreme Court held in favor of a lower Connecticut court which found that a local city government could create a "public" (city owned) development company. The purpose of the "public" development company was to aid the pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, in building a new facility in a urban redevelopment area. Pfizer wanted a nearby residential development to house their officers and employees, however did not want to build the development themselves. There were some homeowners in the area that did not want to sell their homes. It was reported that the homeowners were not holding out for more money, but just did not want to sell their homes. The city stepped in and condemned their properties, took title to their properties, and leased the land to a developer friendly to the city for $1.00 a year for 99 years. The developer then went on to develop the land in accordance with the city's design wishes.

The hue and cry went up all over the USA about the violation of citizen's property rights. In the previous post, Marc Scribner wrote about this event. A city in Conneticut had just taken property from American citizens by eliminating the Constitutional protections of the "Takings Clause."

Scribner writes: ." This ruling, many scholars fear, has essentially rendered the Takings Clause meaningless in terms of its ability to actually protect individual property owners from unnecessary and unjust seizures. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor went as far to write in her dissent that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision was "to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby to effectively delete the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause."

Of course, this ruling opened the flood gates of other government infringements of individual property rights. One of those "blossoming" endeavors was referred to as "Form Based Codes." Form Based Codes are pretty much the child of something called New Urbanism. What is New Urbanism? Click on the link below for the principles of New Urbanism.

http://www.newurbanism.org/newurbanism/principles.html

Please note......nearly all the principles are based on opinion.......not facts. Many are blatantly opinionated. You will find a perfect platform for Form Base Codes in the principles of New Urbanism. In fact, Form Base Code is the child of New Urbanism.

Now, let me be clear. I am not against New Urbanism and Form Base Codes. In fact, I am a supporter, when applied judiciously and appropriately.

There are places for both. New Urbanism began as a series of studies to more efficiently and effectively redesign urban areas that had fallen into decay. Many intercity areas of most large American cities had their depressed areas and moves were afoot to make them much more livable, safer, and comfortable. Some excellent thoughts and ideas came out of these studies. Some of these ideas are at work today and some excellent urban renewal projects are benefiting from this early work.

But, alas, the government found a new way to interfere. Private enterprise came up with New Urbanism and Form Base Codes.....and government said, "Wow!! Look what we can do!!" Enter the government and their penchant for screwing up a good thing.

Now, instead of using the principles of New Urbanism and Form Base Codes for declining urban areas, government is deciding we ought to use them for cow pastures. One of the principles listed on the above link is the principle of achieving higher density of living units from the land. Smaller lots mathematically gets, say 6 units per acre instead of three. Therefore FBC almost always has smaller lots. Everybody jumps for joy at the higher density and presumably more tax revenue. Oops!!! Form Base Codes also requires larger park space. So, by the time the developer complies with the park space under FBC, the density is the same per acre as the typical subdivision.

All looks good to a citizen that likes urban living, but what about kids wanting a larger yard to play, say bad mitton. Well, there's a park a block away. Also, a senior citizen with back problems can't get to any substantial land without a motorized vehicle. So, now you have developed a perfectly good cow pasture into a development that is ill suited to bad mitten and senior citizens with back problems.

Once the government gets the bit in their mouth, they absolutely take control with a minimum of reflection. Their attitude seems to be if two aspirin tablets cure a headache, just think what 100 will do........probably cure cancer. So, do you now have an image of Rowlett's "officialdom" running up and down the halls of City Hall with the Form Base Codes clutched in their hands saying, "The world is perfect!! The world is perfect!!" It has happened. Form Base Codes are as good as the people administering it. Nothing more.

People, people, people.........once again, one size doesn't fit all. I will support anybody, ANYBODY, in "officialdom" that puts their head in gear before they put their mouth in gear.

A little background

8/18/2015

Below is the author of the article inserted into the previous post. Think he might know what he's talking about? I will soon compare his article to comments I have made earlier.
______________________________________________________

Marc Scribner, Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Marc Scribner joined the Competitive Enterprise Institute as a research fellow in 2008, where he focuses on transportation, land use, and telecommunications policy issues. These include infrastructure investment and operations, transportation safety and security, risk and regulation, privatization and public finance, urban redevelopment and property rights, and emerging transportation technologies such as automated road vehicles and unmanned aircraft systems. He frequently advises policy makers on these matters at the federal, state, and local levels.

He has appeared on Fox Business and also written for numerous publications, including USA Today, the Washington Post, Forbes, and National Review. His work has been cited by The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Congressional Quarterly, POLITICO, CNN, Bloomberg, BBC, C-SPAN, and other print, television, and radio outlets.

Prior to joining CEI, Scribner worked in the Congress department at Federal News Service. He received his undergraduate degree in Economics and Philosophy from George Washington University.

Take a little time for this

8/14/2015

Below is an article that addresses much of what I have been writing about. It is pertinent to matters before City Council now. In addition, private property rights are contained within the discussion. Private property rights can be mangled. People.......one size does not fit all........in spite of what you're told.

Form Base Codes are more complicated than you think.
(Scroll down to the 6th paragraph to start if you wish to save time.)
_________________________
The Dangerous Minds of Urban PlannersMarc Scribner • August 12, 2010

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo v. New London decision, significant attention has been paid to the way government interacts in the property development realm. The case centered on a comprehensive redevelopment plan meant to augment pharmaceutical giant Pfizer’s new research and development campus (Pfizer announced construction in 1998 and decided to close the facility in 2009). The city devised a plan, financed in part by $15 million in bonds, which included financing for the Fort Trumbull State Park and a mixed-use development adjacent to the Pfizer campus. City planners estimated that the project would create 1,000 jobs and bring in new tax revenue.

After several homeowners refused to sell, the city of New London, Connecticut, initiated eminent domain condemnations through a public development corporation set up to complete the plan. The private developer of the mixed-use property was to receive a 99-year lease at $1 annually in exchange for developing the property in a manner consistent with the city’s plan.

The U.S. Supreme Court—in an unfortunate 5-4 decision—upheld the Supreme Court of Connecticut’s ruling. The lower court found that projected increased tax revenues and job creation resulting from potential economic development satisfied the requirements of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which restricts private property condemnations by government only when the land is taken for "public use" and that the owner is given "just compensation." This ruling, many scholars fear, has essentially rendered the Takings Clause meaningless in terms of its ability to actually protect individual property owners from unnecessary and unjust seizures. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor went as far to write in her dissent that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision was "to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby to effectively delete the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause."

Fundamentally, property development is an area where government has very little positive to contribute. Government cannot accurately forecast future economic conditions, as the New London-Pfizer situation demonstrates, and public officials have far less expertise in real estate development than private sector investors. Moreover, land-use restrictions such as zoning distort the real estate markets and are often used to justify public-sector involvement in real estate, as the private sector isn’t capable of fighting city hall—or so the story goes.

A recent study on New York City rezoning found that upzoned areas (those where zoning restrictions were eased to allow more types of development) were predominately populated by lower-income minorities outside of "high growth areas." While upzoning will have beneficial effects on the neighborhood and the city as a whole, eliminating burdensome land-use restrictions such as zoning altogether should be preferred. Removing these restrictions would also neutralize the red-tape cutting argument for more government involvement in real estate development.

Real estate development policy nationwide has also become more beholden to ideological planners. The so-called "smart growth" and "New Urbanism" movements, which aim to promote "sustainable" and "livable" urban development, have begun to dominate urban development policy discussions across the country. These ideological movements have also received support from government bureaus such as the Environmental Protection Agency. Proponents desire to limit "suburban sprawl" and attempt to create denser developments closer to the urban cores, supported by expensive public "livability" projects and transit systems. A new method of promoting and enforcing this ideology is the form-based code.

Form-based codes, which have become quite popular as zoning alternatives in the southeastern United States, go far beyond the government invasiveness of Euclidian zoning regulation. Unlike traditional zoning, form-based codes specify regulatory compliance and land-use requirements that go beyond broad separation of uses restrictions. While they are touted as an improvement over zoning, form-based codes are in reality considerably worse. Public-sector meddling (and the resulting distortions) is increased across the board, which includes new requirements on green space (e.g., shade trees on private property and public parks), accessibility to public transit, and construction guidelines. In essence, form-based codes further undermine the spontaneous order that largely characterized the real estate market prior to the Euclid v. Ambler Reality decision by greatly enhancing the ability of central planners to dictate the terms of development.

Government in recent years has grown more interested in "aiding" the private sector in real estate development through public-private partnerships. The justifications generally given are that markets alone can’t bring about redevelopment—although, if true, policy makers rarely try to understand why that is the case (perhaps consumers don't want them in the first place?)—and the existing public institutions are inadequate or counterproductive. Most often, this entails either a comprehensive redevelopment plan as was seen in Kelo or the development of large single-purpose structures such as stadiums and indoor shopping malls.

Unfortunately, these are merely symptoms of the disease: the command-and-control urban planning mindset. Planners presumably get the same rush that the political class feels when it "democratically" exercises its authority over the unwashed masses, and have convinced themselves (and much of the rationally ignorant public) that they produce significant social returns. This is not the case. In reality, they are merely misdirecting taxpayer dollars and private investment into development projects that no one desires enough to privately provide—another example of the road to Hell being paved (a bit more literally in this case) with good intentions.

A little comparison

8/11/2015

I read with interest an article in the Dallas Morning News the other morning.   It was an article about Dallas' new requirements placed on developers. It was creating some problems for the developers, and there was some discussion about Dallas developers moving to the "burbs." On the surface, and to a lay person, the changes didn't seem too onerous, or so demanding.   However, Dallas "officialdom" doesn't understand the development business too well. Neither does Rowlett.

What "officialdoms" fail to realize is that developers have to think many, many, months ahead of themselves. They have to think much further out than home builders. A home builder can adjust fairly quickly when market conditions change, or new codes are introduced into any city's regimen.   Land developers, on the other hand, have to think thru their entire land investment on any given project. It can take years to fully develop a large land project. Before a land developer signs a contract to purchase, hundreds of thousands of dollars could be spent of preliminary zoning, market studies, and cost analysis. This is all done without benefit of zoning approval. Denial of zoning can crater all the plans and investment. In fact, this happened twice in two subdivisions I have written about in this blog. Those two tracts are still sitting.......contributing nothing to Rowlett's well being. They, collectively, should be adding $600K a week to Rowlett's tax base at this time. They are just languishing in the heat.

Once committed to purchase developable land, it is very hard for the developer  to change the marketing concept. ALL CHANGES must be acceptable to the marketplace.   That's what developers do for a living. They read markets and take risk in supplying home lot product for those markets. Developers specialize in reading those markets.

"Officialdoms" don't specialize in reading markets. In fact, I doubt many can spell it. They wouldn't know an absorption rate chart if it hit them across the nose. They wouldn't know what backed up the chart, nor the validity of the back up data. That is not their job. Their job is to impose rules and regulations that may, or may not, aid in the development success of the project. If "officialdom" ever comes up with a good idea, you can bet the developers will jump on it because it contributes to the success of their business. Contrary to that, our new Form Base Codes require a certain number of 800 square foot dwellings mixed in with substantially larger units. Quite a debate is resulting from discussions about this on the new proposed Dexham Road subdivision. I feel Rowlett has made some serious mistakes in these endeavors.  I feel the absence of the Trammel Crows, the Lincoln Properties, and the Roger Stauback Companies are all indicative of the mistakes. Our "big" land developers are all people I had never heard of before........and I'm in the business......all over the DFW market. I think Rowlett's reputation precedes itself.

Now, Dallas is making a sharp turn without giving the developers time to adjust. They are imposing new rules and regulations while developers are still in the process of working thru their standing land inventory. That is how stupid "officialdoms" can get. They have no concept of good business practices. They think all their ideas are good for their city. They think things they learn in seminars are what's right. They are wrong. At best, new information and ideas help, when combined with the business savvy of a developer. The developer wants success, too.

At least, Dallas is an urban market. Rowlett isn't. What works in Dallas may not be what's best for Rowlett.......although you are led to believe that one size fits all.

We aren't exactly creative around here. However, we have comfort in knowing we have Form Base Codes (including provisions for 800 sq. ft. units) and that solves all the problems. Ain't America great, or what!!

.

Tha's what I'm talking about.

8/7/2015

Yesterday, the Mayor, Mr. Todd, posted a Facebook comment. It only created additional questions to me. It is indicative of what I have been writing about......poor investigative skills and poor communicative skills. It's not just the mayor, its the whole Rowlett City Hall culture.

Now, before any of you think I'm taking a shot at the mayor, please be advised, I AM NOT!! I consider the mayor a friend. What I am about to write I have told the mayor and other high ranking members of Rowlett "officialdom." I am not taking a shot at the mayor. Be assured there is plenty of similar blame to pass around other members of Rowlett leadership. In fact, I place much of the blame I am referencing here on staff. I blame council for not vetting the information supplied by staff.

Let's take a look at the words. You know, those things that presumably convey information.

Below is the first quote from the Mayor's post:

"The good news is the developer has agreed to form-based code zoning (very high quality development) standards and is committed to a first class development."

Once again, you are told Form Base Codes solves all problems. This is a consistent theme that comes out of City Hall. It says that because of FBC, you are assured a quality project. That is pure poppycock. There is nothing about FBC that assures anything. Form Base Code is land usage and optics. You can purchase the very best lumber or other building materials available in the world......but if you can't protect wood from the elements, it will decay. It will fall apart. Workmanship is far more important than the quality of materials. If there is poor management on the site, the project will deteriorate. There are many, many, issues involved in successful real estate development and management. To imply that Form Base Code solves these issues is just clearly misinforming the public and oversimplifying the issues. Rowlett staff and leadership hooray and praise the Form Base Code, when they have only swallowed someone's hook, line, and sinker. Don't take my word for it. Simply Google "Form Base Code critisizms."

Another quote from the mayors Facebook post is:

"The improvements will be funded mainly by the developer and tax revenues generated from that property."

Of course, the operative word in that phrase is "mainly." My question is, "Who pays for improvements that are not solely the responsibility of the developer?" How much, if any, is Rowlett giving to the developer? Is there a horse trade here that only selected people know about?

I want to go on record as being completely "for" the development of Bayside. I am supportive of the developer. I know there may be some tradeoffs.........but I want to know what they are. I want to assure myself it isn't going to take 71 years to get back our investment........like it will on The Villages of Rowlett. I trust the developer and I want to support him as much as I can, but I'm not totally comfortable with "officialdom's" ability to represent Rowlett fairly. I don't want to beat up the developer with Form Base Codes, then give him 50 years of free money to kiss and make up. In this kind of market and on that quality of land, such ridiculous "give-aways" are not needed.

Our current leadership does not suggest that they are good with this sort of thing, let alone telling us about it.