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.
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.
RSS Feed
