29 replies to this topic

[PLS]

Taxpayers group plans drive to cap spending on Trinity project
By MAX B. BAKER
maxbaker@star-telegram.com

FORT WORTH -- A citizens taxpayers group is expected to announce today that it is kicking off a petition drive to cap the amount of money the city spends on the sweeping, $435 million Trinity Uptown project.


Steve Hollern, who chaired the successful petition drive to allow Fort Worth residents to decide if the city should finance and own a convention center hotel, will lead the effort for Citizens For Taxpayers’ Rights.


Fort Worth City Councilman Chuck Silcox and former councilman Clyde Picht earlier called for limiting what the city spends on the 800-acre riverfront development project out of fears that its cost will balloon.


“For a project of this magnitude, it is unthinkable that the voters would not have a chance to directly express an opinion on the extent of the city’s expenditure of taxpayer dollars,” Hollern said in a prepared statement.


Hollern wants to change the charter of the city of Fort Worth to limit the city’s involvement. He said specific wording of the petition, and the proposed charter amendment, would be available at a press conference today.


Silcox proposed setting a financial ceiling similar to one imposed by the city of Arlington when it agreed to help build the new Dallas Cowboys stadium.


Arlington capped its financial participation in the Cowboys stadium at $325 million when the estimated cost of the new arena was $650 million. Since then, the projected cost has risen to $1 billion.


So far, the city has promised to provide $26.6 million for the project. It also created a tax increment financing district, or TIF, in 2003 to pour an expected $115.9 million into the project.


Trinity Uptown is billed as a flood-control project that will create development space for 10,000 residences and businesses with 16,000 new jobs. The project calls for a town lake and a Trinity River bypass channel that would cut through north Fort Worth, creating an island intended for mixed development.


The Tarrant Regional Water District is providing $64 million for buying land; the largest contribution — $217.5 million — is expected to come from the federal government. Tarrant County is kicking in $11 million.


Opponents of Trinity Uptown say that the flood control part of the project could be done for about $10 million and that the overall price tag for the deal could rise, with local taxpayers picking up the tab. They are outraged that some land likely will be taken from its owners by condemnation.


Silcox estimates Trinity Uptown will cost at least $130 million more than now believed because of inflation and higher construction costs. He also is worried about continued federal funding, and U.S. Representatives Kay Granger and Chet Edwards said last month it will be harder to protect that revenue stream after President Bush and others promised to halve the amount spent on federal earmark projects.


Tarrant Regional Water District Board President Vic Henderson said in an interview earlier this year that it is possible that Trinity Uptown’s price tag could rise if it takes longer to build than expected or if inflation becomes a factor.


But he cautioned against capping the amount spent locally, saying that could cheapen the project.


“We could end up with something that doesn’t get finished,” Henderson said.


Max B. Baker, 817-390-7714

[JBB]

Am I the only one that thinks that $435 million is insanely high? Especially when they've only committed 26 so far? I know this project is far from done, but jeez.

[David Love]

That’s 110 million more than Arlington is kicking in for the Cowboy’s stadium!

[Now in Denton]

I see a risk of the some or the whole project going private by doing this.

[JBB]

That's a risk? I'm guessing it is too far along to go completely private, but I think that would be just peachy. I'll believe it when I see it. They would never be able to get the necessary land without the cushion of ED.

[AndyN]

Their ability to use Eminent Domain comes from TRWD being involved. I don't see where a cap on the city's portion would affect that. TRWD is unique in that it was one of maybe two projects that was exempted from the "get tough about eminent domain abuse" legislation last year. I think the other was JerryWorld. (Ah thank you Charlie Geren).

But, this is a City of Fort Worth project. If construction costs do rise for a project that really is more about economic development than flood control, should not the city of Fort Worth be responsible for the cost overruns than the regional water district? If City of Fort Worth can't pay for its own project, why should the region incur the additional costs?

[Now in Denton]

^^^
Well said. If anyone from Fort Worth who is for this project or not. You had to know from day one this 435 million would not be the final cost.

[pelligrini]

Silcox estimates Trinity Uptown will cost at least $130 million more than now believed because of inflation and higher construction costs.

I would hate to think that this wasn't considered during budgeting.

[mosteijn]

Why the hell is Chuck Silcox, of all people, complaining about the money being spent on TU when he vehemently defends the Southwest Parkway? Let's compare the city's contribution for each. Trinity Uptown: $26 million. SW Parkway: $60 million. Oh wait, SW Pwky actually runs through his district, I forgot! What a...well, let's just say my generation has plenty of unkind words for people like Silcox.

Now, I wouldn't be opposed to a spending cap, but I really don't want to see a few close minded old farts (cough Clyde Picht cough) destroy what is probably Fort Worth's best chance EVER at truly great urban development. If it doesn't happen, you can count on one less future resident to add to Fort Worth's population figures.

[cbellomy]

Jonnyrules, the difference between the SW Parkway and TRV is that the SW Parkway actually accomplishes something. It may not be a very desirable something but it is something.

TRV, on the other hand, takes a perfectly functional flood control system and re-engineers it such that we end up with Fort Worth's very own version of Cadillac Heights in Riverside, along with a bunch of new real estate that will back up to a lake so filled with contaminants that it will make Lake Worth look like Lake Tahoe. And lest anyone forget, Lake Worth turns 100 in seven years, still having never been dredged not even once -- a civic jewel, choking on decades of neglect, while this pointless TRV project sucks in the dollars.

Tell me again why anybody who doesn't stand to ring the cash register should want this. The old Trinity River Authority project to make the Trinity navigable to ship traffic as far upstream as Fort Worth made more sense than this.

[Fort Worthology]

Chris, you and I are usually right there together on everything, but I've gotta disagree - the TRV is far from pointless. Assuming it's pulled off, it will be the start of an incredible urban development for this city, one that will be vital to combating sprawl. I am all for it, personally.

[mosteijn]

Tell me again why anybody who doesn't stand to ring the cash register should want this.

Because the implications are so much more far reaching than the immediate economic impact. The TRV shows people that Fort Worth ISN'T afraid to take risks, and that it cares about reinvesting in its inner city. Yeah, we could just update our flood control, but that's the way Fort Worth has thought for too long. Let's settle for less! Finally, though, it seems the local leaders are actually thinking about the future, about making Fort Worth a better place to live in the long run, and seizing the opportunity to give the Trinity river back to its citizens along with a great urban neighborhood to enjoy it in is one of the most progressive things I think any city has done in a while.

Progress isn't achieved through simply sprucing up what you already have - progress is made when you innovate, when you expand your possibilities, and when you take risks. Sure, some folks in our town may be afraid of that progress, but it shouldn't stop the rest of the city from moving forward.

[cbellomy]

Tell me again why anybody who doesn't stand to ring the cash register should want this.

Because the implications are so much more far reaching than the immediate economic impact. The TRV shows people that Fort Worth ISN'T afraid to take risks, and that it cares about reinvesting in its inner city. Yeah, we could just update our flood control, but that's the way Fort Worth has thought for too long. Let's settle for less! Finally, though, it seems the local leaders are actually thinking about the future, about making Fort Worth a better place to live in the long run, and seizing the opportunity to give the Trinity river back to its citizens along with a great urban neighborhood to enjoy it in is one of the most progressive things I think any city has done in a while.

Progress isn't achieved through simply sprucing up what you already have - progress is made when you innovate, when you expand your possibilities, and when you take risks. Sure, some folks in our town may be afraid of that progress, but it shouldn't stop the rest of the city from moving forward.

You're a very bright guy, wise beyond your years. You've been told that before and I want to reiterate it before I disagree with you again.

I agree with pretty much everything you say up there. Where we differ is in the potential upside of this particular risk, as well as the downside. When a city takes risks like this that fail, that not only sucks money and energy away from the more mundane aspects of municipal upkeep, but it also makes more risk taking less likely. Once a generation get burned by a boondoggle like this, it tends to lose its appetite for more.

I realize that I'm presupposing failure with TRV and that this is not a universally held view (to put it lightly), but nonetheless I do hold that opinion pretty strongly. No one, here or anywhere, has offered much in the way of rebuttal about the toxicity of the lake they plan to build. This will be water that is stagnant much of the time -- there is not much in the way of headwaters in the Trinity River basin to keep the contaminants moving downstream. (This is the problem that Lake Worth has, except that Lake Worth, until recently, was contaminated only by the aircraft plant and the air base. The downtown lake will absorb urban contaminants from all directions.) Add to that the revisions to the flood control plans that would threaten Riverside and you end up with a system that's inferior to the one already in place in just about every way.

I do applaud bold civic vision. A light rail system would be a huge boon to this town. A City Hall whose plans weren't mailed in by a guy with a box fixation (or, face it, David Schwarz) would be beneficial both to civic function and self-image. The city could invest in Lake Worth and make it an absolute jewel -- imagine a public marina facility where the NAS marina is today, done up right, with a dredged lake. With easy access from the west side, the lake would become relevant in our civic culture again. Have you ever watched the fireworks over downtown from a boat on Lake Worth? It's gorgeous.

My point is that it's not enough just to take risks. A city must take smart risks. I think the Omni is a good one. The new arena out by WRMC, maybe not so much. TRV just looks like a slow-motion disaster to me.

[safly]

Agreed. It's a 15 year sales job. And the majority of the public still does not know what they are getting for their tax dollars.

I would rather have tax dollars invested in some major industries that employ better wage earning jobs. Preferably not construction and not retail oriented high schoolers who will be ringing up faux-skiers at the Magic INTEL Mountain or some antler beaters at the local Cabela's.

Let's all agree to take off the blindfolds and PUT A CAP ON IT.

No one, here or anywhere, has offered much in the way of rebuttal about the toxicity of the lake they plan to build. This will be water that is stagnant much of the time -- there is not much in the way of headwaters in the Trinity River basin to keep the contaminants moving downstream.

Actually, I did touch on this in one of my earliest posts ('05). Having jogged the TRV numerous times in numerous seasons. The stagnation of the TR was quite noticeable and worth studying. Heck, even after our wonderful rain as of late you can still see what junk the TR gathers and keeps.

[David Love]

Not a cap-ital idea
By JACK Z. SMITH
Star-Telegram staff writer

Oh, boy, just what we need: another city election that most Fort Worth residents will ignore.

Only 20,487 Mootowners voted in the mayoral race in last Saturday's municipal election. Fewer than one of every 14 registered voters cared enough to cast a ballot.

Now former Tarrant County Republican Party Chairman Steve Hollern is leading a well-intentioned -- but ill-conceived -- petition drive to force an election calling for approval of a city charter amendment that would cap the city's spending on the $435 million Trinity Uptown project. If Hollern and his supporters can get 15,000-plus valid petition signatures, the election could be held sometime in 2008.

I've long known Hollern as an honest, public-spirited citizen with an admirable populist streak. But he's misguided in undertaking this petition drive.

The city charter outlines basic rules for the operation of city government. It isn't meant to include such specific items as a spending cap on a particular project.

The city is to contribute an estimated $92.2 million to the Uptown project, or 21.2 percent of the $435 million. Those dollar numbers could change considerably because Uptown is a unique, multi-faceted venture not set for completion until 2017.

Uptown could transform a large, forlorn area north of downtown into a vibrant "second downtown" complete with alluring residential, commercial and retail development that would significantly increase the city's tax base and create an expanded urban waterfront that would be a recreational asset for local residents and tourists.

It wouldn't be unusual for such a long-range, massive project to incur higher costs than expected. But if costs did jump somewhat, the project could still be worth the additional expenditure.

But what if a voter-approved charter amendment capped the city's spending on Uptown to what later proved to be an unrealistically low level? That could kill or greatly weaken an innovative undertaking that has strong potential to be an economic and recreational grand slam for Fort Worth.

Spending-cap proponents stress that Arlington limited its commitment for a new Dallas Cowboys stadium to $325 million, leaving team owner Jerry Jones to absorb any cost increases for the project, for which the price tag has jumped from $650 million to $1 billion.

But Uptown and the stadium are apples and oranges. The Arlington project is simpler (essentially, build a giant football stadium) and a much shorter-term construction job, therefore making it easier to predict costs.

Uptown is a massive public infrastructure project, with only government partners. The federal government is projected to pay half the $435 million cost; the other half is to be borne by local government, primarily the city, the Tarrant Regional Water District and Tarrant County. The project is expected to trigger large-scale residential, commercial and retail development by private developers during the next 40-plus years.

Arlington's outlay of $325 million for the stadium is 3.5 times the $92.2 million that Fort Worth is expected to allocate to Uptown.

Arlington has raised sales, hotel occupancy and car rental taxes to help pay for the stadium. But Fort Worth isn't expecting to raise taxes to pay for Uptown. The bulk of Fort Worth's commitment is projected to come from money generated by a tax increment financing district benefiting from new tax revenues from private investment spurred by the Uptown infrastructure project.

Our elected representatives on the City Council and water district board already are riding herd on Uptown to ensure that it's a worthy project.

It would be a foolish precedent to start holding special elections to put dubious spending caps on major public projects each time a new one is undertaken.
jzsmith@star-telegram.com
Jack Z. Smith is an editorial writer for the Star-Telegram . 817-390-7724

[360texas]

Disagree with the article. Put a cap on spending now ! City Council must quit buying shopping centers that resell at a loss and trying to get involved with convention center hotels. City council must focus on spending tax payer dollars for basic city services.

Let private enterprise do their thing.

Then reduce property taxes with the Barnett Shale Gas collection revenue pouring into the city coffers.

I must have gotten out of bed on the wrong side this morning.

[cberen1]

I liked the article. While I'm generally in favor of free market economics and governments not participating in them, I still like the idea of Fort Worth promoting this kind of development. I don't oppose a cap, but this kind of reactionary politics is bad business. If you want to change the city charter, put a cap requiring voter approval for any future developmental expenditure over $XXX Million. That way people know what the rules are before they start. You can go around changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Also, I don't think the water is that bad. I've got friends that paddle in it and they think it's fine. I walk along the trails and it seems ok to me. I wouldn't swim in it necessarily, but that's true of a lot of Texas lakes.

[safly]

I don't oppose a cap, but this kind of reactionary politics is bad business.

Reactionary Politics is mostly bad. But I would categorize this as a decision that should have been made (along with your charter restructure) long before the dirt was flying. Many have presented this case throughout the years, but it has been so widely ignored and never brought to the READERS attention by ST until now.

Going from a TRWD deal to an extra multi billion dollar ticket development project is not good CITY BUSINESS tactics either.

So, it's hardly reactionary.

[pelligrini]

Also, I don't think the water is that bad. I've got friends that paddle in it and they think it's fine. I walk along the trails and it seems ok to me. I wouldn't swim in it necessarily, but that's true of a lot of Texas lakes.

Don't take any fish from there. Something about Chlordane, DDE, and PCBs.

"By order of the Department of State Health Services, fishing is catch-and-release only in the Trinity River from the 7th Street Bridge in Fort Worth, downstream to the Texas 34 Bridge southeast of Dallas. Mountain Creek Lake also is catch-and-release only, and anglers are advised not to consume any fish from Lake Worth."

http://www.dshs.stat...Prohib11_17.pdf

[mosteijn]

I liked the article. While I'm generally in favor of free market economics and governments not participating in them, I still like the idea of Fort Worth promoting this kind of development. I don't oppose a cap, but this kind of reactionary politics is bad business.lakes.

Exactly my sentiments! I can't say for sure...but I also wouldn't be surprised if the REAL people behind the cap were really just trying to kill the project altogether - NOT "look out for the citizens' money."

[AndyN]

Ding ding ding. Johnny wins the prize. I know there have been elections for both the water district and city council, trust me I know. But, there has never been a specific vote on the project itself. I think they think this is the next best thing to the public voting up or down on the project and not having to weed through a popularity contest on the candidates for a particular office. I would make one qualification on your comments though... I think it is possible to be "looking out for the citizen's money" and trying to kill the project all together at the same time.

I know I have already expressed my disappointment at the improper (and in my opinion, unconstitutional) acquisition of private property for the enrichment of other private individuals, but I do look forward to a completed project. I just hope the property owners who are having their land stolen are adequately compensated for the theft.

[youngalum]

I guess hand picked successors who lost, failed runs for water district and city council seats isn't enough for some folks. We get another failed bit that will be defeated as well.

Here is an idea, the ship has already sailed on this project. If anyone doesn't like it----then move to an area where the concern of yours is not going to cause so much pain to you.

[cbellomy]

Here is an idea, the ship has already sailed on this project. If anyone doesn't like it----then move to an area where the concern of yours is not going to cause so much pain to you.

That's not an option for most of the people downstream of this boondoggle whose homes will be flooded because of it.

But screw them. They shouldn't be poor in the first place.

[djold1]

Ummmm..

Phact or Phantasy?

Oxbow or Oxymoron?

(Poor people)........whose homes will be flooded because of it. .

I have heard this remark above several times before and yet I have not seen one thing in the form of a flood plain map of the OxBow that is marked to show any inundation of occupied dwellings.

Here is a description of the land involved:

A currently dry flood plain east of Riverside Drive, West of Beach Street and north of I-20 that was formed by an "Oxbow"of the Trinity River. The area is owned by the City of Fort Worth. It was created when the Trinity was straightened and channelled some years ago. The levee that was created defines the southern limit of the plain.

There is currently a proposal to use this area as flood overflow as part of the Trinity River Vision instead of diverting the overlow to a fllod plain area west of the TRV which would intrude on existings population and would be costly to buy.

http://trinityriverv...s/story_109.PDF

Because of this controversy and the seemingly illogical assertions made, I have been down and on the ground in this area several times. I have also looked at the terrain on Google Earth and the topo maps. The area to be occasionally (rarely) flooded as I read the proposal, is either land inside the Oxbow loop that is currently owned by the City OR, it is part of the projected overflow into Gateway Park which is also public land.

Given the nature of this kind of project, I also have to presume that if such inundation was going to be a fact that there would be a buy-out of the supposedly affected properties.

Because of the utter lack of documentation of these assetions I am led to believe that this is simply a little ploy to pave the way to get some "pork" into that representative's district as well as generating some false sympathy for the residents. Again, I would like to see some verified documentation for the total number of occupied dwellings or businesses to be adversly affected.

It has been published that this solution combining the occasional flooding overflow with the Gateway park project will end up costing less overall and be more workable. If true that seems reasonable to me. Is this true or not? Facts please...

Also, it's hard for me to see how all the "rich" people to the west will benefit by changing the overflow pattern. That west overflow area, which I think also includes part of River Oaks which is proudly not "rich", will still be in the low bottoms and probably won't offer much to build on anyway. Anymore than it does now.

In any case it's definitely not an "arrogant rich" vs "paranoid poor" issue whatever it is... So let the whining about that stop...

I'm no expert on TRV, so if someoone will please draw or show me a contour map of the Oxbow flooding at its projected worst with a population (and median income) overlay that supports this contention, then I might stand corrected.

But please give me solid facts.

I stand ready to be whelmed...

[mosteijn]

Because of the utter lack of documentation of these assetions I am led to believe that this is simply a little ploy to pave the way to get some "pork" into that representative's district as well as generating some false sympathy for the residents. Again, I would like to see some verified documentation for the total number of occupied dwellings or businesses to be adversly affected.

I think you're right about the ploy to generate false sympathy, but I don't think it's really a pork issue...I think it's yet another pathetic attempt by the anti-TRV minority to kill the project, exploiting innocent eastside residents in the process. Of course, it would be hard to prove that, because I'm sure all the people who think they're going to be affected by this have been convinced that the "evil empire" of the Westside is out to get them

[youngalum]

It is a 20 sec sound byte that sells and is easy to convey. The truth cannot be told with a 20 sec. sound byte.

It saddens me that the people who most oppose this thing will more than likely not even be around to see completion. But god forbid that the city wants to do something and in the process moves some body shop in a city full of body shops.

Save the body shop and its tax base of few thousand dollars over billions of dollars in development that will follow. Screw the project because commercial developers will get rich. If people cannot have some of the action, it is automatically bad and should be condemned.

These people are the same people who complain on anything in the guise of protecting tax payers rights. It isn't about rights of others, it is about THEIR rights only. Again, move to a rural area if the tax burden of a large city bothers you that much.

[safly]

If residences or business owners are to be removed by ED, then they should be given a 15 year (approx. length in time of project) property tax freeze in the county. And should be reimbursed since day one on.

[cbellomy]

Youngalum, if you need strawmen to argue with then you should move someplace where there's more straw.

Maybe there's some place downstream of, say, I-35W where they plan to keep the levees. If so, I haven't heard of it. If not, look at a satellite photo of the Riverside neighborhood. Go drive down there. Go look at the old photos on this site of flooding in Riverside. Is the Corps of Engineers' record of accuracy and integrity really so great that we're just willing to take their word on this project?

What galls me most about this is that the system currently in place isn't broken. What's the point?

[djold1]

Chell....

I enjoyed the "flood" pictures from the early 1900's. Riverside definitely did flood.

I can't help but ask: Are you implying that the "rich" people on the east bluffs around Samuels and on Summit caused this to happen to the "poor" people who presumably lived in Riverside that this time? Or that somehow the people that lived across the river on the west banks of the Trinity were not flooded even though they too may have been "poor"? And that this scheme was the result of a miraculous feat by the Van Zandts, Luke Short, John Petersmith, the Daggetts, Amon Carter, Jerry Jones and B.B. Paddock in order to punish Riverside for its sins?

That flood that you pictured covered all the low parts of Fort Eorth including Riverside. All of Fort Worth, until the 1960's flooded constantly. Remember the pictures the the Montgomery Ward on 7th street buidling under water by several stories?

As I said earlier, I'm interested in facts. Do you have any or are you just bloviating?

Don't flood me with specious sympathy ploys and irrelevant photos used out of context.

There are definitely valid differences of opinion on whether TRV should be built and about the pros and cons of ED. Each one needs to be in a thread or perhaps its own forum.

However, when they are mixed into a conversation about the effects of using the Oxbow as flood relief (And not necessarily as part of TRV), then you are only blurring the issue.

[cbellomy]

Pete, here are the facts:

1. There is a levee system in place today that works.
2. Before installation of said system, Riverside was prone to fairly frequent flooding.
3. The point of TRV is to remove the levees.
4. All flood relief design in TRV to make levee removal possible occurs upstream of Riverside.

See the problem?

I'll reiterate: maybe they plan to keep the levees between Trinity Uptown and the Riverside oxbow. If so, great. But as I understand the project, that is not the case. Given the history of that area, I believe this is cause for serious concern.

To reiterate yet again: why are we spending all this money to get rid of a system that has withstood the test of time? Is the status quo really that much worse than the thing they propose to replace it? Is it worse at all?