Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

D.R. Horton moving to City Center


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 Bird Dog

Bird Dog

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 22 posts
  • Location:NW Tarrant County

Posted 06 August 2004 - 07:27 AM

From the Star Telegram:

FORT WORTH - D.R. Horton, one of the nation's largest home builders, will move its headquarters from a nondescript former shopping center in Arlington to space soon to be vacated by Pier 1 Imports in downtown Fort Worth's City Center complex.

The move gives Fort Worth another Fortune 500 company and gives the fast-growing Horton a high-profile address that quadruples its headquarters space.

D.R. Horton has signed a 10-year lease for more than 160,000 square feet of space on eight floors in the tower at 301 Commerce St. It will become the tower's largest tenant, and the building will be renamed D.R. Horton Tower when the company moves more than 220 workers there early next year.

Pier 1 will soon begin moving into a new 20-story headquarters nearing completion on downtown's western edge. That move is expected to take several months.

"What this reflects is an ongoing market validation of downtown's appeal as a corporate address," said Andrew Taft, president of Downtown Fort Worth Inc. "The market concern of abundant space a year ago looks like it won't materialize."

D.R. Horton will occupy floors 37 and 38, space vacated two years ago by book publisher Harcourt Brace, as well as the Pier 1 space on floors 5 and 8 through 12.

The company also has options on floors 6 and 7, which could add 40,000 square feet to the deal. Horton will also lease 4,000 square feet of retail space on the building's second floor.

Horton is expected to move in during the first quarter of 2005, said officials with Sundance Square Management, which handles leasing at the complex.

"We are excited to be coming home to Fort Worth," Donald Horton, the firm's founder, said in a statement. Horton, who lives in Fort Worth, founded the company in the city in 1978 with $3,000 and one home site.

D.R. Horton grew into the nation's largest home builder, by volume, by paying close attention to its bottom line -- the company's frugality is legendary on Wall Street -- and shrewd acquisitions. It targets entry-level buyers and people moving up for the first time, offering both standard models and homes with custom features.

The company has turned out quarter after quarter of record sales and profits as it has steadily grown. It builds homes in 21 states and reported revenues of $8.7 billion for 2003.

The company has been looking for more headquarters space for at least a couple of years. At one point, it discussed building a seven-story building near its current site on Ascension Boulevard in north Arlington.

But when the costs of building versus leasing were penciled out, it made more sense to lease space, said Stacey Dwyer, D.R. Horton's executive vice president.

"We can put that capital into our home-building operations and generate returns that will more than cover the lease costs," she said. Dwyer declined to say how much Horton is paying for the City Center space and whether it is paying to put its name on the building.

Fort Worth is also seeing a spate of growth, with new headquarters for RadioShack under construction as well as Pier 1.

Other major corporations based downtown include AmeriCredit, Cash America and XTO Energy. American Airlines is based on the city's eastern edge near D/FW Airport, and Burlington Northern Santa Fe has a campus in north Fort Worth.

"We travel all across the country in our business, and Fort Worth has one of the best downtown areas we've seen," Donald Horton said in his statement.

City Center's owners have known for nearly two years that Pier 1 would be leaving a big void. But, as happened when other downtown spaces opened in recent years, a new tenant will pick up the slack.

In 2000, the Carter & Burgess engineering firm took several floors in what is now called Carter Burgess Plaza that Union Pacific Resources was vacating after it was purchased by Anadarko Petroleum.

Early next year, RadioShack will leave its space in the Charles D. Tandy Center for its new riverfront campus. PNL Cos. of Dallas, the new owner of the Tandy Center, said it will convert the twin office towers to condominiums; that means 320,000 square feet of office space will not hit the market.

Johnny Campbell, president and chief executive of Sundance Square Management, said the company is thrilled to have signed a Fortune 500 tenant. He said D.R. Horton is almost certain to expand in the office tower.

Campbell described negotiations, which lasted several months, as complex but speedy.

Wes Jurey, chief executive of the Arlington Chamber of Commerce, said Thursday that he was disappointed that Horton will leave Arlington.

"I'm never pleased to hear that we're losing any company, let alone a Fortune 500 company," he said. "We've endeavored to work with Don and members of his management team over the past several months, showing them alternative sites in Arlington. We've competed as aggressively as we could."

Bill Booker, director of leasing, handled negotiations for Sundance Square Management. Kay Day of Kay Day Real Estate represented Horton.

The two City Center towers were built in the early 1980s and contain about 1.5 million square feet of space. The towers are owned by Fort Worth's Bass family.

D.R. Horton

• Founded: 1978 in Fort Worth

• 2003 sales: $8.7 billion

• Employees: about 6,000 nationwide

• Units built: 44,000 this year (est.)

• Where active: 21 states

• Stock symbol: DHI

#2 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,421 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dirty suburbs

Posted 06 August 2004 - 09:16 AM

Great news. Didn't they announce plans to build a corporate headquarters on the East side at some point not long ago?

#3 redhead

redhead

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
  • Location:Cultural District

Posted 06 August 2004 - 09:33 AM

Under "Relocating Companies" thread on the 3rd, I related that this move was in the rumor stage. I talked to Don Horton personally and they do not have time to build a building as they have severely outgrown their present office space. They bought a building in north Arlington from RTC and moved over a decade ago. The other consideration is their rate of return on capital, which is better utilized in the building business, not in the building themselves a building. And JBB, you are right that the announcement was made for a tract of land between Cooks and Eastchase, but they did not close on that deal. GREAT NEWS for downtown Fort Worth!!!

#4 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 06 August 2004 - 09:52 AM

Mwaha, this makes 2 Fortune 500 companies and (I think) 5 Fortune 1000 companies for downtown!!! Does anyone have a number to throw out in terms of employment this will bring?

#5 AdamB

AdamB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Location:Upper West Side
  • Interests:Living in the city

Posted 06 August 2004 - 11:55 AM

this is going to add further pressure on the lease market down there and I think we will see the demand drive the development of newer buildings! Who are the major players that will be relocating as a result of this move??

#6 AdamB

AdamB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Location:Upper West Side
  • Interests:Living in the city

Posted 06 August 2004 - 07:13 PM

Talked to a few Arlingotn people about this... Boy are they PISSED! Talk about hate for the city government! They dont understand why Arlington did NOTHING to try and keep them there.

#7 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 07 August 2004 - 04:05 PM

Busy trying to capitalize on the last big company they paid to be there (The Rangers) while looking for the next big splash (Cowboys).

Besides, what could they offer Horton to compete with Fort Worth?

#8 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 07 August 2004 - 07:40 PM

Busy trying to capitalize on the last big company they paid to be there (The Rangers) while looking for the next big splash (Cowboys).

The Dallas Morning News had an article yesterday calling into question the economic benefits that the proposed Cowboy stadium would bring to Arlington in exchange for all of that cities tax dollars which would be spent on it.


http://www.dallasnew...gton.a647f.html

I think the questions are very valid - but I kind of wonder if the News is raising them because it would prefer to see the stadium in Dallas. While I still subscribe to the paper, I can't say that I have followed it closely enough in recent years to know where it stands on the stadium and, if it wanted it to be located in Dallas proper, if it would resort to such tactics.
Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#9 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 07 August 2004 - 10:03 PM

I can't quote chapter and verse, but my understanding is that economic analysis (by peer-reviewed impartial academics) have not shown stadium subsidies to be beneficial to the cities that have ponied up the money. Granted, those were probably cities that were already in the big time, which might make Arlington comparisons suspect. But the consensus view seems to be that the added income to a city, from all sources, does not cover the expense of a stadium subsidy.

Now if Arlington had a city income tax and could grab a portion of the player salaries that might be different...

#10 AdamB

AdamB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Location:Upper West Side
  • Interests:Living in the city

Posted 08 August 2004 - 12:14 AM

The Arlington city government is driving away that last good residents there.. I cam from an affluent part of that town and many that I knew growing up cannot run away from Arlington fast enough!

#11 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 08 August 2004 - 09:02 AM

Hey gang, You do not bash Arlington; they are family and we are in the same boat - Tarrant County.

A healthy Arlington Economy, like a healthy Fort Worth Economy rises the economic ship for all of us in the "County". Better an exchange between Fort Worth and Arlington than elsewhere. If Fort Worth and the County can help Arlington in its pursuit of a new football stadium, then I feel Arlington should be helpful when FW goes to the County to fund a new Arena for the Stockyards, where I believe any new arena belongs. Also, might Arlington also be more agreeable to assisting FW in renewing an effort to bring the Smithsonian Museum to the Will Rogers Center as a permanent and ideal replacement to the annual the Stockshow and Exhibition.

#12 redhead

redhead

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
  • Location:Cultural District

Posted 09 August 2004 - 09:32 AM

Back to the topic at hand---Horton moving to downtown: All of the city nay-sayers have been singing doom and gloom about the downtown TIF going broke with so much potential see-thru office space. This and the conversion of Radio Shack to condo/retail should preclude that from happening. Who knows, with the absorption at this rate, we may be setting the stage for (drum roll, TA DA) another HIGH RISE? Wouldn't that be very nice...about the time Pier One and Radio Shack finish construction, just move those cranes to another site! What a great time for Fort Worth!!!

#13 Willy1

Willy1

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 554 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 09 August 2004 - 12:25 PM

I agree... if FW was 98% full before the Pier 1 and Radio Shack move, and now both of those spaces have been claimed for leasing and redevelopment, then it certainly seems that FW is primed and ready for some other tower to go up. It almost seems like a "build it and they will come" situation. I would love to see something much taller than what we already have in place (something well over 700 ft.) Hey XTO - whatcha planning on doing on the Landmark Tower site? Sure seem like a good place for a nice, new, tall building for your employees! And, this time I'd like to see something other than a flat-roofed tower... I nice spire atop would be a nice addition to the FW skyline. Of course, something between the Pier 1 Tower and the CBD would be cool too. That would probably spawn some infill development around it. I just don't want anything to block my view of the Pier 1 Tower or THE TOWER from the west. ;-)

Edited by John T Roberts, 09 August 2004 - 07:28 PM.


#14 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,667 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 09 August 2004 - 04:11 PM

Occupancy was actually lower - in low 90's or high 80's depending on how you measure it. DR Horton's move will prevent the Pier 1 space from coming on the market and will take about 2 floors (I think) that Harcourt left vacant. So, it will ensure that the market will remain tight in the future. The only other big vacancy will be Radio Shack's space, which appears to be spoken for as the County is taking the low-rise Tech center and the two towers appear to be slated for condo-conversion.

Hopefully some new large companies will be interested in moving into downtown and paying the rates required to justify new development. DR Horton's quote was correct - Downtown FW is one of the best downtowns in the nation. I can't see why firms relocating to Texas wouldn't consider it.

#15 normanfd

normanfd

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts
  • Location:Fort Davis

Posted 10 August 2004 - 01:41 AM

I'd like to see towers go up along the long-neglected east end of Downtown as well. That location would give a strong impression on people driving along I-35 on their way toward or coming from either Denton or the DFW airport.

After that, perhaps with the Trinity River Vision project, high rises could be extended to Northside Drive thereby doubling Downtown's skyling profile in a northward direction.

#16 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 10 August 2004 - 05:55 AM

Norman, that is the plan of the Trinity River Vision, to double the size of the downtown core up to Northside Drive. However, the city does plan to put height restrictions on the island created by the diversion channel. The height restrictions will be used to preserve views. This area will have the same problems as Pier 1 Place. Any high rise building constructed in this area will appear to be much shorter than it actually is because it is about 100 feet lower than the Courthouse.

#17 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 10 August 2004 - 07:03 AM

Are the soil and substructure of that area (flood plain, I suppose) capable of economically supporting high rises?

#18 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 10 August 2004 - 09:18 AM

Why do we still need height restrictions to preserve views? If city leaders REALLY wanted to preserve views, they would have set a height limit back in the 1920's and Fort Worth would probably be one of the largest cities in the country without a skyline to speak of. Look at Philly, they used to not allow buildings to pass their City Hall, but that really didn't look good for the skyline, and now it has an amazing skyline with buildings higher than City Hall.

Besides, I think the only view of the Courthouse worth preserving is looking down Main; which is a view that could only be taken away if someone closed off Main for development. Don't get me wrong, I love the Courthouse, and I think preserving some views are important, but let's be realistic, Fort Worth needs to move into the 21st century someday :D

Greg, isn't Pier 1 built in a floodplain too? I don't think there's much problem with the soil, but then again, I'm not a geologist, so I couldn't give you an honest answer.

#19 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 10 August 2004 - 10:25 AM

Why do we still need height restrictions to preserve views?

I, too, think that "preserving views" is rather dubious. If one is trying to preserve view of nice looking older buildings - well, I can understand that sentiment in a certain sense because so many buildings built over the past few decades have been so ugly. But the solution is to build new buildings that rival the old ones in terms of beauty. If the view that is being preserved is that from inside existing buildings - well, I submit that there is no such "right to a view" unless one goes out and either buys up all surrounding land or reaches voluntary agreements with surrounding land owners. But to say "nobody should be allowed to build anything above a certain height to the north of my building because it will interfere with my tenants' views" - well, that is plain nonsense. Land owners to the north have the exact same rights that the owner of the building did when he "blocked the view" of property owners to his south.

I can understand height restrictions in situations where buildings are in the flight path of a nearby airport. But I am not sure that is the case with downtown Fort Worth.
Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#20 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Funkytown

Posted 10 August 2004 - 02:35 PM

Dismuke, you are right on the money.

Personally, I don't think the courthouse is that great.

It's not nearly as grand as some of the many government buildings in DC/Virginia.

#21 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,945 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 10 August 2004 - 09:08 PM

CJ,

You are right about the classic government buildings in the DC area; I was amazed when I went there for the first time last year. But I was also impressed with the visual scale of the city, considering the HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS of buildings within the District. I think the highest building you can put up there is about 20 floors. This constraint has encouraged architects to use devices other than raw height to make their edifaces impressive. Arlington, across the Potomac, looks sort of "cheap" in comparison, even considering the highrises that look down on the federal capital. I agree with Dismuke that restricting height to preserve existing views doesn't hold weight here (in DC it was to preserve views of our nation's capitol building). If there was to be a height restriction it should be based instead on discouraging extreme high density development and the resulting traffic and other logistical nightmares. More medium height buildings spreads the density out and makes the city more "user friendly" (in my opinion). While I would like to see XTO hire John Roberts and his skyscraper desigh (with spire) to replace the Landmark Building (why not recycle the name), I would rather see five 20 story buildings filling in the vacant lots around the edges of downtown.

Prairie Pup

#22 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 10 August 2004 - 09:24 PM

I think the height restrictions serve two purposes. The first is to discourage extreme high density and to encourage more of the area to be built out. In other words, to discourage vacant blocks of parking to support the development of a very tall building. The second reason for the height restriction is to preserve views of the skyline of the existing downtown. I believe that due to the bends and curves of the river, that the downtown skyline view could be obliterated from further north if super high rises were allowed in certain parts of island created by the diversion channel. Also, you must remember that North Main shifts with the grid; thereby, creating alignments with downtown that are not readily apparent. Certain view corridors that come to mind that might need to be preserved are the view from the J.P. Elder Annex and Circle Park, the skyline from the Northside Drive Bridge, anywhere in the Stock Yards (North Main and N.E. 28th and the N.E. 28th Street Bridge), and other locations. One plus regarding this area in having taller heights without blocking the skyline is the fact that the area is 75 to 100 feet lower than the Courthouse, similar to Pier 1.

Greg, you don't have to worry about the soil in a flood plain. Buildings of any significant height are anchored down to bedrock. If there are any "low rise" buildings constructed on the island, they will still be anchored to the rock with piers deep enough to support their height.

#23 Doug

Doug

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Location:Between Capps Park & Victory Arts center
  • Interests:Fort Worth<br>Tennis

Posted 11 August 2004 - 09:44 AM

Today's S-T article on DR Horton move -- probably too bad about sign or Logo at top of building beint scrapped.

Posted on Wed, Aug. 11, 2004

Horton moving up in the world

By Mitchell Schnurman

Star-Telegram Staff Writer


It's about time that D.R. Horton started livin' large.

The nation's No. 1 home builder announced last week that it was moving from a discount corner in Arlington to one of Fort Worth's best addresses, atop a downtown high-rise.

In typical Horton fashion, the company expects to save a lot on the deal.

"We can lease for roughly 50 percent of what it would have cost us to build," says Don Horton, the company's founder and chairman.

There are cheaper ways to house a headquarters staff than to take eight floors at City Center II and rename the glass building the D.R. Horton Tower.

But this isn't just about saving money. It's also an acknowledgement that D.R. Horton has come of age, that it's become a big player worthy of the best.

Horton started his company with $3,000 in 1978. Since then, it's grown into a powerhouse with a market cap of almost $6.8 billion and a No. 241 ranking on the Fortune 500.

"Our people are proud of what we've done here," Horton says. "So when they see the D.R. Horton Tower, they can all say they've had a part in it."

The company has a relatively low profile because it has been tucked away on an Arlington side street and because executives don't care much for self-promotion.

Horton is an unassuming guy who drives a Suburban and admires Sam Walton's penny-pinching ways. The company has some of the lowest costs in its industry and doesn't pay for employees' cellphones or cars. Everyone flies coach.

Its current headquarters is a collection of single-story buildings that look like they were supposed to be a strip center. Horton bought the property, a casualty of the savings-and-loan crisis, in 1993 for about the price of the land.

The company outgrew the space long ago, and workers have been squeezed into hallways and back rooms. Horton says he looked for a new headquarters for about 18 months and considered more than a dozen options.

Building would have cost at least $20 million; if the company puts that money into building homes, Horton figures the company can earn $4 million to $5 million on it.

Still, Horton seems the least-likely candidate for a downtown skyscraper.

But who wouldn't be seduced by an executive office with a private elevator to the 38th floor and a balcony overlooking Fort Worth?

"I'll be truthful -- he didn't even want to go to the building," says Kay Day, the broker who lined up possible sites for the company.

Horton thought it would be too highfalutin, that it might undermine the company's cost-cutting culture. So Day worked out the financial parameters to make sure it would be an attractive sell.

The Basses, who own the building, didn't have their usual leverage because Pier 1 Imports is vacating its space for a new tower on the Trinity River.

Once the numbers were in line, Day had Horton and his top executives come over for a private tour and dinner with the City Center team. That clinched it.

Horton loves the tight security at the building. That's always been an important issue for the wealthy Basses, and Horton has created his own fortune through the years, too.

He also admires Sundance Square, both as a development and a place to play. He believes that employees will be energized by all the activity.

The company's CEO, Don Tomnitz, was sold on the building's fitness center, Day says.

The Basses had reason to make a deal. A lot of office space was about to be dumped on the market, courtesy of Pier 1's move and the pending completion of RadioShack's new headquarters, and there aren't many chances to lease to a single tenant.

City Center management quickly agreed to rename the tower, a concession it wouldn't give to Pier 1 several years ago. It even offered to put the Horton name at the top of the building, where it could be seen from the highway.

But that would have required city approval, so Horton settled for having the name at the base of the building, inside the lobby and in the garage.


D.R. Horton agreed to take 160,000 square feet on a 10-year lease, with an option for 60,000 more feet. At its current headquarters, the company has 52,000 square feet.

"We're trying to lay out enough room to grow for the next six to 10 years," Horton says.

The company expects to build 44,000 homes this year, 55,000 next year and 65,000 in 2006.

"Long term, we want to take it to 100,000 units," he says.

It's natural to be skeptical, but Horton has a history of overdelivering. In 1996, Horton told me that his goal was to hit $1 billion in sales by the end of the decade. The company did it the next year, and by 2003, sales topped $8.7 billion.

Surprisingly, Horton didn't push for any tax breaks with the move. Because he's not building a facility, he thought there wouldn't be much chance, but he plans to talk to Mayor Mike Moncrief anyway.

The move won't hinge on that, however. Horton hopes to begin construction of interiors in the next week and perhaps move some employees by the end of the year.

That doesn't mean that the company will change its thrifty ways. Day, the broker, says it may take along its old furniture to save money.

"As long as we keep our head, this company will always continue to grow," Horton says. "That's part of my job -- to make sure we keep our head."

It may not be any easier from the 38th floor, but it ought to be a lot more enjoyable.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Schnurman's column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. (817) 390-7821 schnurman@star-telegram.com

#24 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 11 August 2004 - 10:39 AM

"As long as we keep our head, this company will always continue to grow," Horton says. "That's part of my job -- to make sure we keep our head."

That was a great column - thanks for posting it. I've been griping about Schnurman's "flat face" comments and the Star-Telegram in general - but they certainly did a good job here.

Based on this column, Don Horton sounds like an admirable and highly focused individual - someone who has a solid understanding of the principles that have made him successful and has remained loyal to them. It is people like that, not the politicians and bureaucrats at City Hall or in Washington, who "make the world go 'round" and to whom most of us owe the high standard of living which we often take for granted.
Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#25 normanfd

normanfd

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts
  • Location:Fort Davis

Posted 11 August 2004 - 03:26 PM

I apologize for getting back off topic again about courthouse views, but I think the advantage of the courthouse's location at a bend of the river means that the Trinity very naturally preserves views from several directions.

#26 David Love

David Love
  • Guests

Posted 09 September 2005 - 01:00 PM

Posted on Wed, Sep. 07, 2005

City Council is considering tax break for D.R. Horton
By ANNA M. TINSLEY
STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER

FORT WORTH - The nation's largest home builder could get a nearly $29 million break on city sales taxes over the next decade -- and potentially $86 million over 30 years -- for moving its purchasing unit to Fort Worth.

The proposed tax break was presented publicly to the City Council on Tuesday, but members decided to delay voting on the matter until next week to give the public time to consider it.

"I don't feel good about voting on it without the public having time for feedback," said Councilwoman Wendy Davis, whose district includes the downtown D.R. Horton headquarters. "We need to give the public time for feedback."

The proposed deal for D.R. Horton, which moved its headquarters into rented space at the City Center this year, does not call for any new construction, participation by minority- or women-owned businesses or additional employees.

Mayor Pro Tem Chuck Silcox supported the delay but criticized the proposed deal.

"Isn't $86 million quite a chunk to give up?" he asked. "They're not creating new jobs. They're not building a new building."

Assistant City Manager Dale Fisseler said this deal would refund 1 percent of the sales tax paid to the city by the company -- about $2.87 million a year -- for all materials bought from the company's Fort Worth office.

But the boost in local purchases would add to the amount of sales taxes received by both the city's Crime Control and Prevention District and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority.

The crime fund could get about $1.4 million a year through point-of-purchase taxes, and the transportation authority could get an extra $86,000 a year through destination taxes, Fisseler said.

Giving up the deal, he said, would strip an additional $45 million from the crime fund, he said.

"This doesn't help the general fund, but it helps our crime tax and the T," Fisseler said. "This is a great deal. It's new money that could go anywhere in Texas, but it's coming here."

D.R. Horton officials could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Fisseler said the unit could be moved to any other city where D.R. Horton has offices, including Houston, San Antonio and El Paso.

But Silcox noted that if local residents decline to continue the crime tax, then the city could end up with no revenue at all on the deal.

"I don't like that fact," he said. "Some of that should go to the city of Fort Worth."

City officials say there was great competition to land this retail-purchasing unit, once the company's deal was on the verge of expiring in Sachse.

D.R. Horton has already relocated 250 employees from Arlington to the renamed D.R. Horton Tower at 301 Commerce St.

The deal would consolidate all materials bought in Texas to Fort Worth.

The proposed deal is good for 10 years and could refund about $28.7 million during that time.

It can be renewed for two additional 10-year terms, which could mean a refund of $86 million during those 30 years.

D.R. Horton is building in 63 markets in 21 states. Last year, the company earned $975 million on revenue of $10.8 billion.

"This would be money to the city that we might not otherwise get," City Manager Charles Boswell said. "If we pass on it, they will go to another city.

"I don't see a downside," he said. "There could be an upside."

www.fortworthgov.org

#27 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 09 September 2005 - 01:13 PM

WHo in-the-hell votes in these idiots at CH. This shouldn't even be a discussion. FLAT OUT NO!

You're basically telling the public both local and abroad that FW is a place that feels obligated to bend over backwards in offering the most economical scenery for a DTFW corporation. All while paying the price in the General Fund. PATHETIC!

I ASSUMED that DTFW and the whole city was one of the most vibrant and booming cities and DT districts in the country. Or was that just chicken scratch being fed to us. Let DR go if they choose, another will look to fill it's vacancy. I know for sure that SA will not offer them the same incentive deal, too much demand/competition for that city too. CA and FL are about to emerge in one of our countrys biggest RE bubble, so maybe they will have corp's looking to flee to another reasonable place, like FW. Perhaps DR thinks that a bubble is upon us (at least in those markets) and wants to soften the impact a bit to help their overall future gains. :?:
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#28 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,279 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth

Posted 09 September 2005 - 07:32 PM

WHo in-the-hell votes in these idiots at CH. This shouldn't even be a discussion. FLAT OUT NO!

You're basically telling the public both local and abroad that FW is a place that feels obligated to bend over backwards in offering the most economical scenery for a DTFW corporation. All while paying the price in the General Fund. PATHETIC!

I ASSUMED that DTFW and the whole city was one of the most vibrant and booming cities and DT districts in the country. Or was that just chicken scratch being fed to us. Let DR go if they choose, another will look to fill it's vacancy. I know for sure that SA will not offer them the same incentive deal, too much demand/competition for that city too. CA and FL are about to emerge in one of our countrys biggest RE bubble, so maybe they will have corp's looking to flee to another reasonable place. Perhaps DR thinks that a bubble is upon us and wants to soften the impact a bit to help their future gains.  <_<

View Post


It's a game of chicken.

Understand, Mr. Fly, that it is one department that is looking for a new home. In exchange for rebating a portion of the sales tax, Horton will locate the office in Fort Worth. There is no reason for the office to have been located in Sachse except for the fact that they were getting pimped for the sales tax rebate. Heck, there are probably a few dozen suburb communities that would bend over backwards and smile to get this office. From the city of Fort Worth's point of view, it is a case of either give the rebate to gain a little or do not give the rebate and get zip. Horton's main offices are unlikely to move out City Center, but the purchasing office will not move to town.

I think the best way to nip this in the bud is to outlaw it on a statewide level. This is blackmail and/or chicanery that cheats cities out of legitimate sales taxes. It is corporate welfare. Why should DR Horton be paying 7.25% sales tax when I got to pay 8.25% for the same lumber? :mad:
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#29 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 09 September 2005 - 08:20 PM

It is corporate welfare


Exactly, and something should be done at the state level about that. I'm WRITING MY REP. <_<

Dude, good show on Dateline NBC tonight.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#30 Sam Stone

Sam Stone

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Overton, then Monticello, now expat in OC, CA

Posted 10 September 2005 - 11:13 AM

It is irresponsible policy. The tax rate for ALL could be lower if no abatements or rebates were given out. Also, DRH has clearly already made their decision to move (which is typically the case) and then goes to the city for a rebate. This is very difficult to outlaw at the state level because it is really an expenditure, not a tax. Cities are free to make expenditures on just about anything. The more appropriate action is to make this an issue in council elections and elect members who are firmly against abatements and rebates as a matter of policy and in turn make the development and permitting process more friendly.

#31 redzeep

redzeep

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Interests:Real Estate

Posted 11 September 2005 - 03:41 PM

The company has some of the lowest costs in its industry and doesn't pay for employees' cellphones or cars.


Just another example of using and abusing. They have cut wages for employees and pay for the subs that work on the houses. Yet, they have not reduced the cost for the consumer. All the while, going on and on about how their profits continue to grow.

WHo in-the-hell votes in these idiots at CH. This shouldn't even be a discussion. FLAT OUT NO!


Aren't they supposed to be looking out for us?!?

It is corporate welfare. Why should DR Horton be paying 7.25% sales tax when I got to pay 8.25% for the same lumber?


The nation's largest home builder could get a nearly $29 million break on city sales taxes over the next decade -- and potentially $86 million over 30 years -- for moving its purchasing unit to Fort Worth.



If they are taking over the world why do they need to screw the citizens of Fort Worth?!

#32 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 11 September 2005 - 09:11 PM

"I don't feel good about voting on it without the public having time for feedback," said Councilwoman Wendy Davis, whose district includes the downtown D.R. Horton headquarters. "We need to give the public time for feedback."


What good has that done in the past? How much moolla$$ has she personally voted to give away since her reign as Distr. 9 chair anyways? Any numbers out there?

Forget it, I don't even want to know. I can JUST IMAGINE.

She needs to GET SERVED. :ph34r:
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#33 Sam Stone

Sam Stone

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Overton, then Monticello, now expat in OC, CA

Posted 11 September 2005 - 09:38 PM

That's a very good question Safly. This is exactly the sort of thing I study. Unfortunately, I am so busy studying this stuff that I don't have time to do it for FW. But it is a matter of public record.

For anyone so inclined, here's what you do. First divide total property value in the city by total property tax revenue. That will give you the effective rate. This number is a little misleading because it does not take into account homestead exemptions or tax exempt property, but it's a good place to start. Then, you find the total value of all property tax rebates. Subtract that from total property tax revenue. Then subtract the total value of all tax abatements. If you really want to get fancy you can add the city's portion of the TIF districts. You divide that number into total property value and get effective rate 2. The difference between the two is the amount we could lower our property tax if we weren't giving it away to the big corps (sort of, remember the above qualifications regarding exemptions). This is a very rough way of doing it. If I had the time I could take exemptions into account and break the property down into classes. But anyway, the last time I looked, the budget had all the abatements and rebates listed. I'll bet Johnny could even score the CAFR in Excel.

BTW, this of course only refers to property taxes. This thread takes on the issue of sales taxes which is much more straight forward, i.e. FW stands to lose X amount of dollars to give away to DRH even though they've already decided to relocate.

A well done version of this would certainly make good fodder for debate in an election year if any of the reporters at the ST could a) wrap their minds around it and B) do a story that questions the holy word from city hall.

#34 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 11 September 2005 - 09:44 PM

I'll bet Johnny could even score the CAFR in Excel.



Accountant Geeks- "Go Johnny Go, Go Johnny Go!" B)

Well, let's get this thing movin before the next city elections. Put the HEAT on her!

A well done version of this would certainly make good fodder for debate in an election year if any of the reporters at the ST could a) wrap their minds around it and  do a story that questions the holy word from city hall.


Yeah, I have better chances buying a World Series ticket, with the Rangers playing. :D
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#35 David Love

David Love
  • Guests

Posted 14 September 2005 - 11:59 AM

Posted on Wed, Sep. 14, 2005

A request that should be illegal, not delayed
By MITCHELL SCHNURMAN
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

There ought to be a law against the tax break that D.R. Horton was pursuing Tuesday night, because companies shouldn't be getting public money for simply shuffling paper.

It's enough to give corporate welfare a bad name.

In exchange for moving its corporate purchasing to Fort Worth, the city is being asked to give D.R. Horton a sales tax rebate of almost $2.9 million a year for a decade. That's 100 percent of the taxes that would otherwise go to the city's general fund.

What Fort Worth would get is the half-cent sales tax earmarked for the crime district, which is more than $1.4 million a year in new revenue. By law, the crime district cannot grant tax breaks, so there's no slipping that.

D.R. Horton isn't creating any new jobs for this purpose or adding to its office space in the City Center skyscraper. The only thing that's changing is the billing address; instead of Sachse, located northeast of Dallas, the point of purchase would be Fort Worth.

Many officials thought that this deal would be approved Tuesday, but for the second consecutive week, a City Council member requested a delay.

On Monday, a D.R. Horton senior executive, Sam Fuller, expressed shock that the proposal was drawing criticism.

"We never thought it would be so hard to give away $15 million," Fuller said, referring to the total revenue the crime district would receive in the next 10 years.

D.R. Horton and many in the city believe this deal represents the ultimate free lunch: each gets an annual seven-figure windfall for doing almost nothing extra.

If only life -- and economics -- were so easy.

In fact, the scheme rips off some Texas community somewhere, because it lets D.R. Horton legally dodge half its local tax burden.

Who do you think has to make up the difference? That would be the rest of us.

If Fort Worth declines to be the enabler, you can bet that San Antonio, Austin, Houston and other Texas cities would gladly sign on -- D.R. Horton has made that point repeatedly.

Maybe it's human nature that D.R. Horton and Fort Worth are drawn to this idea, especially after D.R. Horton received an even higher rebate from Sachse for the past two years. But that doesn't make it right.

The strategy is reminiscent of big national companies moving their offices to Bermuda to avoid taxes, or rock superstars claiming residence in a tax haven like Luxembourg.

Why would Texas get into this business when it's facing all kinds of financial problems? Hey, loopholes happen, and accounting firms like KPMG figure out ways to take advantage and sell those strategies to companies like D.R. Horton.

Lawmakers improved the so-called company-purchasing law a few years ago by requiring firms to have a significant economic presence in the city where they centralize buying. That's supposed to prevent shell companies from exploiting tax rebates, but it doesn't go far enough.

A state House committee recommended a year ago that the Legislature consider ending the process entirely, or at least raising the threshold so that companies had to build infrastructure or provide other direct benefits to qualify for a sales tax rebate. That didn't happen.

In testimony before the Local Government Ways and Means Committee in October 2004, Mayor David Dorman of Melissa said that cities were being shortchanged by the practice. When vendors sold goods -- and should have earned their host cities some sales tax -- the tax revenue was instead going to companies that put central-purchasing units elsewhere.

"Sales tax rebates lacking a corresponding public benefit [such as infrastructure or other local municipal needs] subvert the integrity of the system," Dorman said, according to an interim report by the committee.

Most people are already skeptical about the value of corporate incentives. They don't accept that big, successful corporations should get tax breaks that the regular guy will never qualify for.

I've argued here many times that some projects are important enough to warrant public help, and sales tax rebates are an important tool.

Consider La Gran Plaza in Fort Worth. Formerly known as Fort Worth Town Center, the mall lost major anchors J.C. Penney, Sears and Dillard's, and its vacancy rate topped 60 percent. Sales fell by half from 2002 to 2004, and then a developer unveiled a bold plan to rebuild, rebrand and rename the mall and target the Hispanic market.

He wanted to invest more than $40 million, including the mall's purchase price, but needed a huge public infusion to get financial backers. In June, Fort Worth leaders agreed to rebate a portion of the new sales tax receipts generated by the mall, as long as the investment was made and the additional sales materialized.

If the project works, Fort Worth will have an asset that attracts residents and retailers and generates new tax revenue and jobs. It also will give a boost to an area that needs economic help.

Sounds like an ideal public-private partnership.

Sales tax rebates also were crucial in landing a SuperTarget for Montgomery Plaza on the edge of downtown Fort Worth. The city desperately wanted to attract a supermarket, but there aren't enough residents in the central core to justify the investment. So the deal required a public boost.

With its size and success, Target doesn't need public money. But the retailer needed it to make the downtown Fort Worth location fly, and again, that seems a prudent way to use the tools of economic development.

D.R. Horton's proposal is a sham compared with these cases.

D.R. Horton didn't demand any public incentives when it moved its headquarters to Fort Worth from Arlington. Funny how it left money on the table then -- is unwilling to do so now.

The Legislature needs to put an end to this practice. Just require companies to actually do something to earn a public incentive.

Then if Fort Worth goes ahead with this deal, it can exercise a clause in the agreement later and end the rebates. And D.R. Horton can pay the same sales tax as everyone else.

#36 David Love

David Love
  • Guests

Posted 14 September 2005 - 01:33 PM

It would seem that Fort Worth is finally playing hardball when it comes to attracting “big business” to Fort Worth. I think they should do whatever it takes to attract large companies to Fort Worth, as long as they are required to maintain a Fort Worth address as well as contribute to the Fort Worth tax coffers, at least the same amount and number of years beyond the termination of the tax breaks.

I’ve not seen any hard data as to how Dallas County is so successful at attracting big business but I get the feeling, what Fort Worth is doing, pales in comparison.

#37 Sam Stone

Sam Stone

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Overton, then Monticello, now expat in OC, CA

Posted 14 September 2005 - 01:44 PM

Hell hath frozen. I actually like what Schnurman has to say. Well, most of it anyway. The part about Target is very questionable. There are some aspects of that deal that the news media (probably) doesn't know about and that some of us on the forum are too polite to talk about.

Another point here is that due to all these rebates and abatements, the tax rates on the rest of us is higher than need be to generate the same amount of revenue. And this is where I disagree with ol' Mitch again. He thinks that there are situations where abatements are ok, I do not. We have the highest tax rate in the metroplex and what happens is that people filter out of the city because of it. Not everyone, of course. There are many factors people take into consdieration when buying a house and taxes are but one. But, this high tax rate moves people out of the city into the burbs. Companies like to be near their labor pool and if white collar folks are packing up and moving to Southlake, some of the jobs do too. Our tax rate has to remain high to squeeze even more revenue out of us and the cycle continues. The generous people of FW are already subsidizing most of the county's cultural, civic, and educational institutions (they are tax exempt and can sort of be thought of as abatements). Adding the private sector squeezes homeowners even more.

#38 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 14 September 2005 - 02:31 PM

SCHNURMAN! You da MAN!

Just because of this tiny yet effective article, I MIGHT go out and get me a subscription TODAY. I have been his biggest fan on local affairs for quite some time now, but that was on Sundays. I totally agree with every word in his article. This is the kind of "no nonsense", "take charge" kinda attitude, and journalistic LEADERSHIP the ST so desperately needs. I vote Schnurman for MAYOR! :)

Only if CC would show some and go all in. Ante it up and play them cards city folks. DR can either acknowledge the fact that this is CORPORATE WELFARE, and stop spinnin, or they can go spend more money packin the division up and leavin. Because another company somewhere else is lookin to take their place in DTFW. I GAHHRONNTEE ! ;) The city just needs to have better salesman to go and get em. ;)

I'll let him slip on the Target tip, but corporate welfare sans local job gains is pitiful.

It's TOO late DR, the bad PR machine is just-gettin-warmed-up. :ph34r:
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#39 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,279 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth

Posted 14 September 2005 - 02:51 PM

Gee, some of the points in Mitch's article sound awful familiar.

Funny how the only thing I really had a disagreement with was the Target comments. But, I suppose if you gots to have your corporate gubmint cheese, I'll take Target over the DR Horton paper shuffle.

But I don't think I'm ready to lose DR Horton on a whole, Mr. Fly, so don't rhetorically chase them from town.
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#40 David Love

David Love
  • Guests

Posted 14 September 2005 - 04:19 PM

I just hope I don’t hear any of you whining the next time a company, promising to bring countless jobs to Texas, chooses Dallas over Fort Worth. ;)

I’m not that familiar with the process, but I’d think this kind of thing would have been locked up before they moved, unless it was promised or implied and now being retracted after they’ve already committed.

#41 David Love

David Love
  • Guests

Posted 14 September 2005 - 04:23 PM

Don’t think this version states that Fort Worth has the 3rd highest rate in the state. Isn’t a city fact checker covered somewhere in the budget? It appears that some of the expenditures are being highlighted a bit. I’d hate for my salary to show up as, “and guess what they’re paying this guy to coordinate a bunch of volunteers?”



Posted on Wed, Sep. 14, 2005

Tax rate stays the same in budget
By Anna M. Tinsley
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

FORT WORTH - The City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved a $838.5 million budget for 2005-06 that includes millions of dollars for employee pay raises, street improvements and police and firefighters.

The budget, which is an 8.1 percent increase over this year's, leaves the property tax rate unchanged at 86.5 cents per $100 of assessed value. The budget takes effect Oct. 1.

"I think it's a very good use of taxpayer money," said Jungus Jordan, the newest council member. "We took a hard look at how dollars are spent and put them at the best needs of the community.

"In the future, I think we need to look at how we can start reducing taxes."

Included in the budget are $52.9 million for health insurance for city employees and retirees, $16.3 million for street maintenance, $12.9 million for pay raises and $4.7 million in overtime to ensure double-company fire stations are staffed with four firefighters per truck.

The budget also provides $230,000 to boost City Hall security, $250,000 for new library books and materials, and $90,716 to keep an employee who coordinates volunteers at the Fort Worth Botanic Garden.

Last-minute additions included an animal cruelty investigator, three positions to expedite the city's development process, two administrative secretaries for council members, two executive secretaries for assistant city managers and a landscape architect to oversee a revived small neighborhood grants program.

City administrators said budget writers were able to overcome a deficit that could have reached $14 million, partially with higher-than-expected property valuations from the Tarrant Appraisal District.

The tax rate has stayed the same since 2002. Before that, the council lowered the tax rate seven straight years after it peaked in 1994-95 at 97.35 cents per $100.

Some property owners may pay higher tax bills if the value of their property increased.

#42 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 14 September 2005 - 04:48 PM

Come on Love. An idea or condition such as this, does not just get swept under the rug during contract time. And a company similiar to this ain't gonna go around sniffin about in Dallas. If so, let them burden their tax relief demands. It seemed a bit obvious with the whole FWST promotion of DR moving into the City Center Tower and trying to get it's brand across the top o tha building, that situations such as this would HAVE to come up. DR acts if like they were the best thing to come into DTFW since.... Pepe Romero? I could give a flyin flip about their NOW DEMANDS , especially from our city gubament. Which then of course shoulders the tax burden upon us, the citizens of this great town. DR can pack it up for all I care, others would love to ACTUALLY CREATE a job market for DTFW. So why can't OUR city gubament support or scout those interests? Jobs, jobs, jobs people. Do I have to get "redhead" out here to explain it?

" Heeey Wendaay, Zuh Gat Sum Ezzplainen Tu Duuu!" :lol:


The budget also provides 1) $230,000 to boost City Hall security, 2) $250,000 for new library books and materials, and 3) $90,716 to keep an employee who coordinates volunteers at the Fort Worth Botanic Garden.



1) Remote Tele-Court. Web-Cast Court. And improved web based city services might solve this issue.
2) Again, web based solutions. Besides, why do libraries need NEW books?
3) Hmmm, personal favors or interests? Another reason why I cancelled my FWBG memebership this last year. I'll take that position for half the pay. I ain't too proud. I'll even work weekends. Here and there.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#43 David Love

David Love
  • Guests

Posted 14 September 2005 - 05:22 PM

Safron Flux

I’d still like to know what Dallas offers that’s so enticing, no one has been able to shed any light on that one. Is it that secret?

I do think there’s some serious back scratching going on if a company is able to get this pushed through AFTER they’ve already set up shop. I’m not behind DR Horton getting the extra tax breaks after the fact, but I am for offering tax incentives to companies, that when you add up their overall contributions at the end of the year, the city is well into the black, for that specific company.

I think we should have a forum section, “City Government,” that keeps track of voting records on areas of forum interest. That way it would be easier to decide whom to vote for, or against, depending.

#44 Sam Stone

Sam Stone

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Overton, then Monticello, now expat in OC, CA

Posted 14 September 2005 - 06:45 PM

Gotta disagree with you on that one, David. There is a serious equity issue here. Take Target for example. They sell a very wide product range. There must be hundreds of retailers in FW who sell a product also sold by Target. That makes them competitors. Is it fair for the city to subsidize the competition of existing businesses? What makes Target worthy of the tax break and these other retailers not? Is the solution to give all of them tax breaks? How do you calculate the contribution they've made to the local economy? Is this a calculation you could make for all of the potential recipients of the tax break? How much tax revenue would we lose if we did that? Where would we go to make up that loss?

There's a fantastic demonstration waiting to happen here for any political activists reading this. What you do is get as many business owners or representatives of business owners down to City Hall on a council night (alerting the media before hand of course) form a line, a very long line, and each one comes fills out a speaking card, and asks council for their tax break in proportion to what RS, Target, Cabela's, etc. is getting. One by one. You'd need at least a few hundred to do it right. It would be both hilarious and drive the point home that there are many local businesses operating without the benefit of a tax break and often competing with bigger companies that are.

The solution is simple: No tax breaks for anybody, reduced rates for everybody.

#45 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 14 September 2005 - 09:54 PM

Exactly Sam. Just like those Tower folks who got first dibs on the units are the only ones eligible for tax exempts on the first year. From what I heard.

I only agree that Target should receive the tax rebate over DR. Solely due to the "supposed" INFLUX of jobs for that area. To me, DR is for starters not anchoring any specific industry for DTFW, they just set up an office for all I know. And DR is not creating such an impact that TAX PAYING employees from all over the country will gravitate towards DTFW. It's not happening. If the C of FW bends over backwards for DR, then DR should be held accountable every quarter in OPENING THEIR BOOKS. DR should have to earn this priveledge. Our city, in a sense, would be a huge corporating shareholder. We would of course base our actions to continue/discontinue the agreement based on their financial/earnings performance reports and proforma sheets. None of that fuzzymath-doubledippin accounting stuff that's gonna give our town a blackeye. Then of course we would have to acknowledge the need for a city related tax rebate oversight commitee. Well, we can just wipe off the budget for that FW Botanic Gardens volunteer "supervisor" position and transfer it to this one. There you go, plain and simple. Wendy would still have some explainin to do.


I like the idea on FW's local small business owners congregating on this matter. It's got style, sex appeal, and would definately hit home to many of folks on what dealings occur here at the oh so quiet CITY HALL. I do remeber Sports Authority or Wal-Mart complaining about this issue in a FWST article last year on tax refunds offered to Cabela's. They have every right to voice their concerns at CH. Perhaps we could make DR an offer that they cannot refuse. Allow the tax coffers from sold products to support local educational efforts (books, computers, music, meals). They surely wouldn't run from an opportunity in FUNDING OUR FUTURE to get their learn on.

Media would be all over this. Anyone interested in setting this up? I've got some A+ media contacts to offer this story too. Of course John , the FW Forum would be given credit as an instrumental tool in this issue. If you so permit. Just remember what the bloggers did to Kerry's campaign and Rathers career. ;)



Safron Flux :lol:

I’d still like to know what Dallas offers that’s so enticing, no one has been able to shed any light on that one. Is it that secret?


Make sense boy. Make sense.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#46 David Love

David Love
  • Guests

Posted 15 September 2005 - 06:56 AM

Exactly Sam. Just like those Tower folks who got first dibs on the units are the only ones eligible for tax exempts on the first year.


The Tower tax abatement is for 10 years, sounds like quite a windfall but when you consider it’s just .865%. What people seem to forget is that home owners still have to pay the additional 2.523277% to Fort Worth ISD, county tax, hospital district tax, water tax and community college tax. I'm more worried about the FW ISD tax which is currently at 1.658%. I don't hear anyone whining about that one.

DR Horton Materials Inc., their purchasing section, has not yet moved into the vacant space DR Horton has leased. The tax collected would be on items purchased in Texas which would equate to $2.87 million per year, the city would still get $1.4 million per year for the city’s Crime Control Prevention District, possibly an additional $86,000 per year for destination taxes.

It’s always popular to be opposed to taxes and always annoying when someone else gets a tax break and you don’t or when big business does and the little guy doesn’t. I think everyone is missing the big picture, NET GAIN.

So Fort Worth will receive $1.4 million by giving up $2.87 million they don’t yet receive, sounds like common sense to me. With an extra 1.4 mil perhaps CH would have fewer excuses to not grant a tax break next year.

Other than offering incentives in the form of tax breaks, what can a city government do to entice a company to choose them over other cities, or should I say, over cities that have much better name recognition?

#47 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 15 September 2005 - 02:11 PM

You can reduce taxes from other corp's. That would be quite a popular plan. Then any new corp's moving into DTFW and ONLY DTFW would receive a zero tax plan for their first year or two, and then a tier tax or scale system for the following years. The new businesses must show a longterm willingness to participate in DTFW, say 15 year minimum on lease agreements or other arrangements.

In DR's case, they are asking for 2.5 or whatever over the long haul. That's just not right.

The tower plan was just something I had known about before. It's just that these "windfalls" are being tossed around like year old candycorn.

Dallas commercial property is too darn expensive. Why would someone pass up an oppt. to open up shop for less, some 25 miles west of there.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#48 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,279 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth

Posted 15 September 2005 - 04:51 PM

I find it ironic, in light of this conversation, that when the City of Fort Worth decided to subisidize the move of Lousianna evacuees, they borrowed money for apartment rentals from a reserve fund. Dallas, on the other hand, is out with hat in hand asking for donations. Safe to assume no reserves in Dallas?

The answer might be easier to find on the Dallas forum, but I wonder how many tax give-away schemes Dallas has had in the past few years?
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#49 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,069 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 18 September 2005 - 01:00 PM

[quote name='David Love' date='Sep 14 2005, 05:19 PM']
I just hope I don’t hear any of you whining the next time a company, promising to bring countless jobs to Texas, chooses Dallas over Fort Worth. :D


Well said . And that was what the Dallas City Council asked and grilled our Fort Worth Council 3 years ago at the joint council meetings at DFW. TIF's . As good or bad they my or not be. We gave our trade secrets to Dallas.

#50 David Love

David Love
  • Guests

Posted 22 September 2005 - 11:39 AM

Pathetic!

What a bunch of whiners. Why should anyone care that a company is profitable as long as it’s honest? It WAS free money that Fort Worth had to do NOTHING for, it was all on paper.



Posted on Wed, Sep. 21, 2005

Horton retracts tax break request
By Anna M. Tinsley
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

FORT WORTH - D.R. Horton backed out of plans Tuesday to move its purchasing unit to Fort Worth after concerns were raised about a proposed deal to give the company up to $86 million in sales tax breaks over 30 years.

Some City Council members had questioned the incentives, because the deal did not call for any new construction, participation by minority- or women-owned businesses or additional employees.

D.R. Horton, the nation's largest home builder, moved its headquarters into rented space at the City Center building in downtown Fort Worth this year.

Officials did not return several telephone calls seeking comment.

Mayor Pro Tem Chuck Silcox said he opposed the deal because D.R. Horton earned $975 million on revenue of $10.8 billion last year.

"It's a matter of principle that a company that made nearly $1 billion in profit last year didn't want to pay taxes," Silcox said. "They didn't want to pay their fair share.

"Sorry, I just can't accept that."

Under the proposed deal, the city would have refunded 1 percent of the sales tax paid by the company -- about $2.87 million a year -- for all materials bought from the company's Fort Worth office. The deal would have generated about $29 million in sales tax over the next decade and could have been renewed for an additional 20 years.

City officials said that although no new revenue would have gone into the city's general fund, the Crime Control and Prevention District would have gotten $1.4 million a year in point-of-purchase taxes, and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority would have gotten an extra $86,000 a year in destination taxes.

Councilwoman Wendy Davis, whose district includes downtown, said the city lost free money that could have helped buy new police cars, fund a crime lab or build new police storefronts.

"The only thing we accomplished today was to turn away a gift of $1.4 million to our crime-tax fund," Davis said.

"I think D.R. Horton was making what they considered to be an opportunity to the city to collect some tax dollars we weren't collecting. They were surprised at the reception."

Assistant City Manager Dale Fisseler has said the purchasing unit -- which is a paperwork deal and requires no shifting of employees -- could be moved to any other city where D.R. Horton has an economic presence, including Houston, San Antonio, Rowlett or El Paso.

D.R. Horton has relocated 250 employees from Arlington to the renamed D.R. Horton Tower at 301 Commerce St. Council members had twice delayed a vote on the deal to have more time to consider its merits.

Councilmen Donavan Wheatfall and Carter Burdette were not present Tuesday.

Mayor Mike Moncrief said he believes that the company withdrew the offer because it realized that it lacked the support on the council for approval.

"While I understand there's a potential, over 30 years, for millions of dollars to come into our city through the crime-tax district, the perception ... was that this would set a precedent for other companies headquartered here to make the same request," Moncrief said.

"I hate the thought of leaving that money on the table because I think our crime district can use the money," he said. "But it's no longer an issue. We move on from here."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users