• Rowlett over coffee
  • About Ron
  • Contact
  • Poll
  • Notes
ROWLETT RAMBLINGS

What's in a number?

9/11/2016

0 Comments

 
Last Tuesday evening an apartment project failed to be approved by City Council.   However, Councilman Rick Sheffield spoke in favor of approving the project.  He also made the motion to Council that the project be approved.  The motion failed because of lack of a seconding motion by any other Council member.  

In Rick's appeal to approve the project, he rebutted my objection that the tax "formula" submitted for Council's approval did not generate enough tax revenue to "pay it's way."  In other words, the cost to the city of having the project exceeded the annual revenue generated by the  project.  Therefore, the Rowlett tax payer was subsidizing the proposed project.  I have nothing against the developer making money........as long as taxpayers make a little, also. 

In Rick's rebuttal, he mentioned and justified a number I have often heard being emitted from "officialdom's" mouths.   This number is a value that a house in Rowlett must have, when multiplied by the current tax rate, to provide sufficient tax revenue to "pay their way."  Rick referenced this number the other night when he said there was nothing wrong with subsidizing the proposed apartment project, because, he stated, that the city approved subdivisions "all the time" whose house values do not provide the necessary tax revenue to "pay their way."  I've heard the number mentioned several times by different officials.  It varies slightly each time, but always exceeds $300K.  A number of $325K is probably a good average.

Folks, I don't believe that number.  I never have.  I have never understood how it was conceived.   I have always thought that the number was thought up by someone who never really had enough to do, and really didn't know what they were talking about, anyway. I think its an example of a "numbers freak" playing games with arithmetic, and not knowing the full scope of his assignment.   I think it's a classic example of "B. S." 

I have never heard anyone from "officialdom" mention the source of the number.  Where did it come from?  Who "calculated" this number and presented it as fact?  Where's the proof that the number is valid?  Rowlett's "officialdom" seems to think its valid.  They use it periodically as part of their facts vault........as evidenced by Rick's use of it.  Anyone......please send me the source of the number and I'll research it.

So, for discussion purposes, let's use the $325K home value as a baseline value to ask a couple of questions.  

If it costs the city more to service a $200K home than what a taxpayer pays in taxes, where does the extra money come from to pay the balance of the costs?    The city can't print their own money.  The funding MUST come from the all the taxpayers, including homes worth over $325K and homes under $200K.     Do you charge a higher rate on taxpayers that have more expensive homes?  No, you can't do that.  That's illegal.    Do  arbitrarily add $125K to the value of a  $200K house to get the tax bill up to where they "carry their load?"  No, that's illegal, too.

So......how do we get the city to become cost effective and only provide services to only homes that "pay their way?"

.....  I got it!!

We send a letter to all the homeowners that the Dallas or Rockwall Appraisal Districts say own homes that have a value of less than $325K.  We inform these homeowners that Rowlett can no longer provide police and fire protection.  They have to hire their own police and fire protection.  Also, they have to repair their own streets.  Heaven forbid that the sanitary sewer line stops up.  It might get a little "earthy" in the old subdivision. 

Of course, we'll lose all the tax revenue that is generated by homes valued at less than $325K.  Therefore, we'll have to raise the rate of all homes over $325 to compensate.  Or, we can layoff all the employees that have  become unneeded because of the reduced work load.   I doubt that most houses in Rowlett exceed $325K in value, so that means more than half of the staff and employees would be laid off. 

After the above adjustment, we would have the value vs. cost ratio in balance.  We would now have a cost effective city.  Everything is really cool, now.  Brian can go fishing.

Does anyone besides me realize just how incredibly stupid and useless such "facts" are?  Why does our "officialdom" insist on using them?  Is it simply a lack of knowing what the hell they're talking about?  Or, is it more sinister?

It doesn't matter.  We can fix all that. 
.
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.