DT: Mixed Used Development on Lancaster Ave. in the Works
#1
Posted 11 June 2011 - 10:24 AM
Here's a link to the Business Press Article: http://www.fwbusines...velopment-.html
#2
Posted 11 June 2011 - 05:53 PM
#3
Posted 11 June 2011 - 08:09 PM
#4
Posted 12 June 2011 - 02:33 PM
#5
Posted 12 June 2011 - 02:48 PM
#6
Posted 12 June 2011 - 08:06 PM
As you said, if it were a viable risk, there would be no problem finding someone willing to take that risk on with his own money without the rest of us being on the hook for it. Isn't it amazing the sorts of things that are suddenly deemed viable and "worthy" so long as it is somebody else's money and hard work that is on the line?
I thought the city was having budget problems - cutting services, causing hot kids to go without park pools and such.
#7
Posted 13 June 2011 - 06:41 AM
Better Business Bureau: A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.
#8
Posted 13 June 2011 - 10:06 AM
For the life of me I cannot see what business the city has in getting into the real estate development business. How is this a legitimate city service? How much of our tax dollars did the council lose on the Mercado project? Now they want to put the taxpayer on the hook again for up to $35,000,000.00?
Was the city involving itself in real estate development of theTower project in DTFW similar or not? It seems that quite a few investors have purchased and sold condos there reaping personal profits with the assistance of "taxpayers dollars"
Keep Fort Worth folksy.
#9
Posted 13 June 2011 - 11:40 AM
Was the city involving itself in real estate development of theTower project in DTFW similar or not? It seems that quite a few investors have purchased and sold condos there reaping personal profits with the assistance of "taxpayers dollars"
I don't know the specifics of that project. But, if what you suggest is, in fact, true then basically what we have is a situation where money is seized from taxpayers of modest means who quite possibly struggle just to make ends meet in order to subsidize luxury dwellings for people who are more than capable of paying their own way. If so, that is even more unjustified than the subsidized dwellings in the project under discussion.
There are all sorts of nice things that can be said about The Tower and the benefits that have come as a result of it. And I am sure that there are all sorts of nice things that can be said about the planned development on Lancaster and that there will be beneficial things that result from its completion. But the ends do not justify the means.
#10
Posted 13 June 2011 - 01:27 PM
Was the city involving itself in real estate development of theTower project in DTFW similar or not? It seems that quite a few investors have purchased and sold condos there reaping personal profits with the assistance of "taxpayers dollars"
I don't know the specifics of that project. But, if what you suggest is, in fact, true then basically what we have is a situation where money is seized from taxpayers of modest means who quite possibly struggle just to make ends meet in order to subsidize luxury dwellings for people who are more than capable of paying their own way. If so, that is even more unjustified than the subsidized dwellings in the project under discussion.
There are all sorts of nice things that can be said about The Tower and the benefits that have come as a result of it. And I am sure that there are all sorts of nice things that can be said about the planned development on Lancaster and that there will be beneficial things that result from its completion. But the ends do not justify the means.
Yes, indeed Dismuke; yours is a well studied reply. With companies like NBC5 and the Locomotive Manufacturer cueing up at the door of city hall for tax subsidies, it seems unfair to point out that some housing, perhaps relying upon the taxpayers, is being aside for low income earners. Too often, low income earners are vilified for simply being poor or hourly wage earners with little regards to their individual character or potential. I cite Senator Wendy Davis for example. As a taxpayer too, I hope that this project will be home to all income levels based upon good character and good citizenship.
Keep Fort Worth folksy
#11
Posted 13 June 2011 - 01:50 PM
And do keep in mind that each US taxpayer that pays less than 40k a year in tax (Pays, not withholds) is sponging off their neighbors. I know I am going to pay in many times what I receive from the US Government as well as the City of Fort Worth. I pay taxes out the ying yang, have no kids in the schools, never in trouble with the law etc... And I am fairly typical of a downtown resident.
I do have a problem with the city subsidizing low income housing. A very poor return for the taxpayers money.
#12
Posted 13 June 2011 - 04:39 PM
... I know I am going to pay in many times what I receive from the US Government as well as the City of Fort Worth. I pay taxes out the ying yang, have no kids in the schools, never in trouble with the law etc... And I am fairly typical of a downtown resident.
I do have a problem with the city subsidizing low income housing. A very poor return for the taxpayers money.
Are you aware that this project and the new grocery store planned for downtown are being subsidized by the same governmental agency.
http://www.ongo.com/...n-grocery-store
As for the typical downtown residents, I have yet to be giving reason(s) why a person of good citizenship, regardless of income, should not be able to enjoy the amenities of downtown living and be just as typical a resident there as not. The irony here is that the central city and its inhabitants, long derided, red-lined and abandoned, would once again be shone in their own backyard if certain ideology is allowed to prevail . "Gated communities" and exclusive living is more of a suburban mindset than a central city lifestyle. I find both notions of a specialty grocery store and a single, working mother striving in DTFW a good sign.
Keep Fort Worth folksy
#13
Posted 13 June 2011 - 07:19 PM
I wish I could afford to live in the 87th floor of the John Hancock building in Chicago. I don't expect you to pitch in for that cause. I don't deserve to live on the 87th floor of the John Hancock building. Maybe I didn't study hard enough or I was shooting hoops when I should have been working at Sears. Or maybe I spent my money on crack or cable TV. Whatever. You get what you deserve. (With minor exceptions) Hopefully this Country, and others, will learn something about giving away money from Greece and Portugal. It doesn't work.
And anybody can "enjoy the amenities" of downtown, anytime. Even if they have to get on a bus to do so. (I paid for that too)
#14
Posted 13 June 2011 - 07:24 PM
I'm thankful I can finally see the money collected downtown actually going back into downtown.
Better Business Bureau: A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.
#15
Posted 13 June 2011 - 10:19 PM
Why should that same poor person be denied a 750i? Or a 60" LED TV? It is called capitalism.
I wish I could afford to live in the 87th floor of the John Hancock building in Chicago. I don't expect you to pitch in for that cause. I don't deserve to live on the 87th floor of the John Hancock building. Maybe I didn't study hard enough or I was shooting hoops when I should have been working at Sears. Or maybe I spent my money on crack or cable TV. Whatever. You get what you deserve. (With minor exceptions) Hopefully this Country, and others, will learn something about giving away money from Greece and Portugal. It doesn't work.
And anybody can "enjoy the amenities" of downtown, anytime. Even if they have to get on a bus to do so. (I paid for that too)
What a wild ride off topic (Greece,crack, cars, tv and the 87th floor); and an irrelevant one to boot. Do you readily vilify the Wall Street barons and whose white collar crimes nearly wrecked the global economy in pursuit of their astronomically high incomes. I would applaud you if you have written so in the past.
Of course one can believe what one wants to believe, that is an American right, but you can not vilify a person for their modest-low income level as long as it is achieved lawfully and honestly. I have yet to read a compelling reason for excluding good and lawful citizen with gainful income, all be it modest, from having an opportunity to live in Downtown Fort Worth, a place that epitomizes a collection of both the most prominent taxpaying and tax- receiving entities. It is undeniable that low income people have in the past served and some have died in the defense of this country; and do so today; as well as contribute in every aspect of the American culture and economy. If people of lesser means desire to live and work downtown, the city is morally right to try to make that attainable. Apparently, a majority of elected city officials seem to agree with that point of view and not with yours.
Keep Fort Worth folksy
#16
Posted 14 June 2011 - 06:43 AM
I pay a lot of taxes. I give a lot to Charity. I am proud for what I have and deserve what I have. I am not bitter because Bill Gates has more. He deserves more.
#17
Posted 14 June 2011 - 08:48 AM
Not off topic at all, of course. We have no obligation to play robin-hood in this Country. Unless you are Bill Gates, somebody has more money than everybody. Nothing unfair about that. And I surely do not believe all poor people deserve to be poor. I was surely not born to Royalty and have lived poor for years. At the time I was poor my goal was to not be poor and never once felt slighted because I was not allowed to live in an expensive neighborhood or drive a fancy car. I have always been a Capitalist and believe in the American dream.
I pay a lot of taxes. I give a lot to Charity. I am proud for what I have and deserve what I have. I am not bitter because Bill Gates has more. He deserves more.
I agree with Brian in almost all respects in this discussion. There's nothing wrong with being poor. I have been poor and will likely be poor again at some point. Many of my friends and family are poor and that comes with certain inherent limitations. One of them is that poor people don't get the benefits of having money, you know, benefits like being able to live where it is expensive to live.
It is the role of the government to provide for the common defense, maintain raods and infrastructure and promote the common well-being of it's constituents. It is not the role of our government to make sure everyone gets to live the same life-style. There have been governments that took on that role and they've all failed miserably.
Now, I don't see subsidizing the mixed use development as benefitting either the rich or the poor disproportionately. Assuming that the process was largely analytical, then the investment should benefit everyone by increasing the tax base for the city and putting more money in the city coffers. To do that, the project has to be successful, and I think having a mix of incomes represented in the city center is really important to achieving the goal. The city will be better off if there is housing available for people with modest incomes.
If the city is putting the fertilizer on the project then it makes sense to fertilize all the aspects of the project that are needed to make it work well. I don't know how much of a subsidy is too much or not enough. At the end of the day if it works and it 1) increases the tax revenue of the city more than its cost and 2) generally continues to make Fort Worth an enviable place to live. Then I'm fine with it. People come to town for conventions and absolutely love the place. And we all know it could be even better with the Lancaster corridor developed.
The ends justify the means, and let's face it, these means are pretty palatable to everyone except Ron Paul and his merry band of idealists. The onus is still on the city to be smart about investing in projects like this, just as it is on all spending.
The city put a lot of effort into getting the railroad here a long time ago. It was a good investment. The city spent a lot of effort getting the packing plants here. It was a good investment. The city has invested in its downtown environment and reaps the rewards today. To me, this just another investment in making Fort Worth a better city.
#18
Posted 14 June 2011 - 11:37 AM
That being said, the Tower was maybe the smartest money Fort Worth ever spent. I think the Montgomery Plaza money spent was smart. Picture Fort Worth without either and it is a very different place. Certainly for making a big project viable that will bring lots of spending and property tax money to town should be looked at differently than places that do not. (I know I am going to pay about 20k in property taxes downtown in 2011.) The money spent on the Tower was just plain a good investment for the citizens.
Assuming that the process was largely analytical, then the investment should benefit everyone by increasing the tax base for the city and putting more money in the city coffers....
At the end of the day if it works and it 1) increases the tax revenue of the city more than its cost and 2) generally continues to make Fort Worth an enviable place to live. Then I'm fine with it. People come to town for conventions and absolutely love the place. And we all know it could be even better with the Lancaster corridor developed.
The issue with both of these arguments is that they are basically a variant of Frédéric Bastiat's famous Fallacy Of The Broken Window.
When a government financed project such as the one proposed for Lancaster is completed, it is very easy to point to it and remind people that, had it not been for the government money, the building and all of the economic activity it generated during construction and after its completion would not have existed. And that, of course, is very true - without the government money the project most likely would not have existed.
But what is much more difficult to explain to people and completely impossible to point a finger to for people to look at is all of the economic activity that DID NOT take place and which was KILLED OFF as a result of that government money being diverted for the building.
If the money for the project came about through government borrowing, then that money is capital that would have otherwise been available for but was NOT invested in some private endeavor. And since that capital was no longer available, it is impossible to know or point to the investments, building projects, jobs and economic activity that WOULD have occurred but did NOT occur.
If the government money came through taxation, then that is money that, had it not been taxed, would have otherwise been spent or invested by the taxpayers it was confiscated from. And since the taxpayers did not get to spend/invest that money, it is impossible to know for sure or point to the economic activity that did NOT take place, the goods and services which were NOT created and the personal benefits that the taxpayers were forced to forgo.
Yes, certain people and certain constituencies benefit from such government projects and a certain amount of economic activity will take place as a result of them. But it comes as at the cost of everybody else and the rest of the economy being a little bit poorer which, thereby, kills off all of the economic activity that would otherwise have taken place had people been allowed to keep their own money and had the capital been available for private investment.
The same holds true for government "stimulus" to allegedly help the economy and the now notorious assertion that all government spending translates to stimulus. Sure, government spending will definitely "stimulate" and benefit those particular sectors and constituencies where the money is thrown at. But it comes at the expense of depressing all the other sectors of the economy that have to pay for it. And, worse, in bad economic times, it depletes and starves the economy of the very private capital that is desperately needed for the economy to recover.
Government does NOT create wealth - the only power it has is to confiscate and redistribute wealth. Money diverted to a government project or government subsidized project is money that is diverted away from some other economic activity that is, ultimately, starved and killed off as a result.
The ONLY time that government spending is a net gain for the economy is when that money is spent strictly for ESSENTIAL government services and ONLY to the degree that not one penny more than necessary is spent for such services. For example, money spent to provide adequate police and courts has an economic benefit because, without the rule of law, large scale economic activity would quickly become impossible. And given the government monopoly over things such as roads and water, one could argue that there are economic benefits there on spending for improvements that are objectively NECESSARY (as opposed to "pork" spending or "make work" type spending).
Anything beyond that comes at the expense of private individuals and all the economic activity that WOULD have been generated but was NOT generated had people been allowed to spend/invest their money however they saw fit. And, again, the difficulty is that, since the economic activity that was killed off did NOT take place, unlike with a government subsidized project that WAS built, people such as myself have nothing concrete to point to and say "look and see what WOULD have been built and the benefits that WOULD have come into being had they not been killed off."
The Tower has lots of high tax payers without kids in the school district. (There are like 5 kids in the Tower of 300 condos.) Also without contributing to the need for city services. (we are not filling the jails etc...) A great return on the city's money. The City's part was a small component of the total cost of the building and remodel. And that was just in the form of tax abatements.
I do draw a definite distinction between a project subsidized in the form of tax abatements verses projects where the government actively forks over funds that it either borrows or confiscates. I do have serious philosophical issues with such abatements. But I do not regard them to be as serious an evil as outright confiscation and redistribution.
Basically, such abatements amount to the government saying "we will continue to loot everybody else the same way we always have - but if you do what we ask you to do and jump through the hoops we tell you to, we will exempt you from being thusly looted."
Since most such abatements are usually given to projects that will actually generate economic activity, very often individual taxpayers are not on the hook for them. My problem with such tax abatements is with using tax policy as a tool of social engineering and the unequal treatment by government officials towards individuals and institutions who curry political favor/pull and engage in politician approved activity verses those who do not. The purpose of the tax process should be to collect the revenue necessary to fund the government and nothing more. And the tax laws should be applied to ALL citizens EQUALLY - not according to political pull and whether or not one conforms to the whims of those in power.
That having been said - I have difficulty coming down on city politicians and officials who extend such tax abatements. The problem is that, today, pretty much every other locality in the country is offering such abatements and investors who DO generate lots of economic activity shop around for such abatements when they choose where to invest and build. A city counsel that agreed with me philosophically that such abatements are wrong could certainly take a stand on principle and refuse to provide them. But since every other city in the country is actively involved in the game, the only thing that would result from it is such projects would simply go elsewhere. Given the reality of the situation, the reform that is needed cannot be expected to come from our local politicians. What is needed is a reform on the state and probably national level to establish the principle that, when various governmental bodies establish tax policies, they need to apply them EQUALLY to ALL taxpayers.
And even with tax abatements for The Tower rather than direct subsidies, the broken window fallacy is still applicable. Had The Tower not been built, the people now living there would not be homeless. The would live someplace else - someplace else that did not get to enjoy the benefits you mentioned that such residents bring. A family that moved into The Tower was a family that some other residential development was NOT able to make a sale to. That, of course, is the case with ANY buying decision that you or I make. Money that we spend with one merchant is money that we are not able to spend with another. But the problem here is one of the government providing a non marketplace, artificial financial advantage based on political pull to one developer of residential housing that was not available to competing developers who did not have similar political pull. It is exactly like when Cabella's was lured to town with TIF money. It is very possible that, because of the economic activity generated, individual taxpayers did not have to fork over a single dime as a result of the abatement. But that subsidy to Cabellas was a direct and profoundly unjust slap in the face to companies such as Academy Sports, Wal-mart, Target and any other merchant who competes with Cabella's for the same customer dollar.
The city put a lot of effort into getting the railroad here a long time ago. It was a good investment. The city spent a lot of effort getting the packing plants here. It was a good investment.
Actually, if my recollection of history is correct, I seem to remember that the project of extending the railroad from Eagle Ford to Fort Worth by deadline was privately financed by voluntary contributions from individuals and businesses who felt they would have benefited from it. I may be wrong on this - but I don't think City funds were used. And the packing plants were actually located in what was then a separate municipality, Niles City, which was later forcibly annexed by Fort Worth. I seriously doubt that Fort Worth tax dollars were used to build the packing plants.
And it is interesting that you bring up railroads because they are actually a perfect example of my main point.
The construction of the national railroads in the 19th century was NOT an example of a free market. The entire process was notoriously corrupt with land grants and subsidies being handed out - often as the result of political pull and with all sorts of strings attached - by both the Federal and state governments. In many instances, railroads were forced to build routes based not on what they felt made economic sense but on demands made by state legislatures in order to appeal to certain politically influential localities and constituencies. And, of course, the premise of all the various subsidies was the economic growth that laying a railroad through some small town in the middle of nowhere would supposedly generate. The result of these subsidies and the speculative rush that followed from them was a massive railroad building boom - what we would today call a "bubble" - which resulted in a great deal of overbuilding and malinvestment. And all the large sums of capital that was diverted towards subsidizing and overbuilding railroads came at the expense of the rest of the economy.
During that period we had two VERY significant and VERY serious and long lasting depressions starting with the Panic of 1873 and the Panic of 1893. Just as we today are working through and suffering the consequences of large amounts of capital being artificially diverted by government policy down the rat hole of large scale construction of homes and granting of mortgages that people could not properly afford and all of the economic ripples, malinvestments and various sub-bubbles that came into being as a result of precious capital being diverted and forever squandered down all sorts of non productive holes, the same was true for folks in the 1870s and 1890s. Back then the entire economy paid dearly for and had to work through the malinvestments made as a result of precious capital being diverted and forever squandered on building rail lines years before they were economically viable and justified. (And the railroads most heavily involved ended up going bankrupt as a result.)
The premise in all of these situations is that government officials are somehow wiser and more capable and more responsible at spending money than are the people who actually earned it. And all one has to do is look at all of the misery and economic debris resulting from of all sorts of various failed experiments along these lines around the world (not to mention rivers of blood in places such as the USSR, Germany, China, etc.) and which continues to pile up in our own time to see that government officials are NOT more capable of spending people's hard earned money. In fact, it is just the opposite.
And, finally, even if one COULD make the case that a politician in Fort Worth is more capable of and would be more responsible at spending my hard earned money than I am - even if that were true, it STILL wouldn't make any difference because it is MY money and I earned it and, therefore, does NOT properly belong to some politician or official who did NOT earn it, no matter how wise and capable such an official might allegedly be. That is what I mean when I say the ends do NOT justify the means. I don't care HOW brilliant some project might be or how many people might allegedly benefit from it. That does NOT give one the right to fund it by seizing and confiscating the hard earned assets of those who want no part of it.
#19
Posted 14 June 2011 - 12:17 PM
#20
Posted 14 June 2011 - 05:10 PM
#21
Posted 14 June 2011 - 05:20 PM
In an era where construction financing is for the most part, non existent, assisting, partial funding or insuring the funding, seems like a smart thing to do in order to get some back to work in the short term, provide more jobs downtown in the mid term and eventually provide an increasing tax base for years to come. It would appear that the city is stepping in to assist when many of the large entities with cash to spare are refusing to.
Better Business Bureau: A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.
#22
Posted 14 June 2011 - 06:08 PM
Certain financial assumptions are made when a TIF backs a project. If the project doesn't turn out as successful as it was assumed, the local government that created the TIF has to make up the difference. To see this in action just look at the City of Keller. Their Town Center project was financed with TIF money. However, the project has failed to live up to the rosy forecasts, so for the last two years the city has taken money out of its general fund to make up the shortfall.I don't see how TIF's are considered government funded, to be honest I'm not 100% sure how they work, I just know I pay into the downtown one, the same one that's securing the loans that are backing Oliver's, the same TIF that's backing the Lancaster development. I know it's just part of it but it would appear a good chunk of the money that's backing these developments are funds collected from downtown entities, people and companies.
I'm thankful I can finally see the money collected downtown actually going back into downtown.
#23
Posted 14 June 2011 - 06:12 PM
#24
Posted 14 June 2011 - 06:25 PM
If the money for the project came about through government borrowing, then that money is capital that would have otherwise been available for but was NOT invested in some private endeavor. And since that capital was no longer available, it is impossible to know or point to the investments, building projects, jobs and economic activity that WOULD have occurred but did NOT occur.
Wow. Talk about a fallacy. Your notion is entirely contingent on the ideas that 1) Capital is finite and 2) The the market for capital is operating at or near capacity. The reality is that there is, for all practical purposes, limitless capacity for borrowing for good projects. Now, the definition of a "good" project changes, a lot. But outside of brief periods of economic gridlock, the market will fund all the good projects that the rest of the market can come up with. And by virtue of the market's willingness to fund project "A" over project "B", then the market voted that it like project "A" better.
So, is capital finite? Technically, sure. There are only so many greenbacks in the world. But we're no where near full utilization of the money supply. And what do you think would happen if we approached full utilization? I suspect that China is going to show us. And I think they may screw it up and get a little over inflated, but what they won't do is run out of money. Are the oceans finite? Yes. But that doesn't mean I'm at risk of running out of water. Even if I drink it all, it will have to recycle back to the same ocean it was before I consumed it (trying not to be too graphic).
Another bit of evidence of the failure of this idea is the presence of market bubbles. If capital markets were anywhere near capacity, the one thing you would never see is market bubbles. There has to be a lot of free capital to cause a bubble. It all has to rush in from somewhere. But at capacity all capital would be zero sum, so the only way a bubble could form is if there was effectively a negative bubble occurring simultaneously in another part of the economy. But that's not what we see.
Anyway, build it. I'm all for it.
#25
Posted 15 June 2011 - 03:33 AM
Wow. Talk about a fallacy. Your notion is entirely contingent on the ideas that 1) Capital is finite and 2) The the market for capital is operating at or near capacity. The reality is that there is, for all practical purposes, limitless capacity for borrowing for good projects. Now, the definition of a "good" project changes, a lot. But outside of brief periods of economic gridlock, the market will fund all the good projects that the rest of the market can come up with. And by virtue of the market's willingness to fund project "A" over project "B", then the market voted that it like project "A" better.
Except that we are not talking about the market, are we? If we were then there would be no need for the city to be involved with and be subsidizing the project.
If the marketplace deemed the project to be "good" then some private venture would have already started the project and eagerly taken on the risks involved. The fact that no private venture has chosen to do so is a very strong indication that the market does NOT consider it to be a sound risk. As a result, some authoritarian central planner types at City Hall have apparently deemed the marketplace too stupid and incompetent to recognize the inherent brilliance of their little scheme for Lancaster and have, therefore, forced Fort Worth taxpayers to shoulder the risks that the marketplace did not consider to be wise or sound.
Now, it is certainly true that, if the City of Fort Worth chooses to finance the project through borrowing, it is going to have zero difficulty borrowing the money necessary to build it. But that says absolutely nothing about whether the project itself is a good risk. The City of Fort Worth will be able to raise the money not because the project is necessarily worthwhile but because 1) investors will get favorable tax treatment and 2) backing up the loan is the implicit premise that, in a worse case scenario, the City of Fort Worth has the legal authority to simply confiscate assets from the taxpayers to make good on its loans.
So, in fact, a given city project can be downright hairbrained and yet be far less risky for investors to fund than a thoroughly sound and responsible private endeavor. There is always risk associated with any private venture - and if a private venture fails, those in charge of it are not allowed to point a gun at their fellow citizens to extract the money needed to pay off their investors. The Fort Worth City Council, however, does have the authority to do just that. Loaning money to finance government projects is considered less risky for investors because most of the associated risks are shouldered by the taxpayers. If you invest money in a private venture, YOU shoulder the associated risks.
Furthermore, despite what you suggest, all government expenditures ultimately DO come at the expense of the private sector. There is simply no other place for it to come from.
If governments stopped borrowing or significantly reduced their borrowing then those investors who would normally seek the safety of having taxpayers shoulder the risks would be forced to turn someplace else besides the government if they wished to get a return on their money (and, in doing so, they would now be forced to assume the responsibility of having to judge and shoulder the risk THEMSELVES). And that WOULD mean a greater availability of capital for private endeavors. That greater availability of capital would manifest itself in one of two ways: the capital either becomes available for projects which would have previously gone unfunded or, in the absence of sufficient worthwhile projects, the cost of borrowing for those projects that ARE deemed worthwhile will go down.
Again: the government does NOT create wealth - the only power it has is that of confiscating and redistributing wealth. You can describe all sorts of intermediary processes that can take place and which can cloud the water. But at the end of the day SOMEBODY has to produce the material wealth necessary to acquire the goods and services that must be obtained for a government project to come into existence.
Capital, when all is said and done, is nothing more than wealth that SOMEBODY has produced and accumulated. In order for capital to exist, SOMEBODY (a whole lot of people, actually) has to produce more than they consume. If everybody immediately consumed everything they produced, then there would be no capital. And, contrary to what you say, actual, accumulated wealth (as opposed to mere easily manipulated "money supply") is VERY finite and is actually regarded by most people as being rather SCARCE.
Now, it is definitely correct that there have been a number of periods and places in history where the money supply has been extremely plentiful - to the point it has so little purchasing power that people even end up using the currency as toilet paper. But that does not mean that real, actual wealth is, therefore, somehow plentiful in such countries. Quite the opposite, in fact, as such hyperinflation actually destroys wealth and people's ability to produce and accumulate wealth.
There hasn't been a society in history, no matter how prosperous, where actual accumulated wealth hasn't been regarded as finite, scarce and highly sought after.
It is true that the Federal Reserve can create money out of thin air either through keeping interest rates artificially low or by resorting to the printing press. But when it does so, no actual wealth is created. All that happens is a dilution and transfer of purchasing power from the dollars that people have saved to the recipients of the newly created dollars.
If the Federal Reserve printed up a billion dollars out of thin air and handed it to the City of Fort Worth as a gift with no requirement for payback on the pretense of "stimulus", zero wealth will have been created. And the things that the City ends up buying with that billion dollars WILL come at the expense of the private sector. All that happens in such a scenario is the purchasing power of everybody else's dollars is diluted and redistributed to the City. And that redistributed purchasing power is purchasing power that people like you and me and anybody else who holds dollar bills or has a savings account will no longer have to spend or invest as we see fit.
The simple fact is that there is no getting around the reality that there can be no something for nothing. Wealth cannot be wished into existence out of thin air. Somebody has to create it in a quantity greater than what he consumes. The only way a government has to pay its bills, necessary or otherwise, is by confiscating some portion of the the wealth that private citizens create. And the more that a government spends, the more wealth it must ultimately confiscate. If investors voluntarily loan money to a government, they do so on the premise that they will be paid back with future tax receipts - i.e, with future confiscations.
I again emphasize that the private sector DOES realize an economic return on NECESSARY and ESSENTIAL government expenditures. Adequately funded police and courts ARE beneficial because the rule of law is a precondition for the accumulation of capital and the very existence of the sort of highly complex and long range economic activity that a free market brings about. Speculative ventures such as building retail and office space do not fall into that necessary and essential category - and neither do Utopian social engineering schemes to enable people to live in trendy neighborhoods they cannot properly afford.
The bottom line is that if the project on Lancaster is as good an idea as you say it is and if potential capital for such projects is as abundantly available as you say it is then it would already be underway and there would be no need for City involvement. But the reality of the matter is that capital is anything BUT abundant in this world. And those who do have capital to invest actually regard it as something which is SCARCE and VALUABLE and PRECIOUS - so much so that those who are highly successful at accumulating and managing capital tend to look very long and hard at a project's risks and worthiness before investing. The very fact that the project requires the city to fork over money to make it possible is my proof the marketplace probably does NOT regard it as being a particularly good risk.
Another bit of evidence of the failure of this idea is the presence of market bubbles. If capital markets were anywhere near capacity, the one thing you would never see is market bubbles. There has to be a lot of free capital to cause a bubble. It all has to rush in from somewhere. But at capacity all capital would be zero sum, so the only way a bubble could form is if there was effectively a negative bubble occurring simultaneously in another part of the economy. But that's not what we see.
Actually bubbles are caused by distortions to the marketplace, usually the result of governmental manipulation of the money supply and credit which result in the malinvestment of capital based on a false illusion that more capital exists or will exist than actually does.
For example, the recent housing bubble came about because of insane government policies designed to enable individuals the marketplace did not consider to be credit worthy to obtain mortgages combined with the Fed's policy of artificially low interest rates. The result was massive inflation in the housing sector which resulted in sharp rise in housing prices. People thought their houses were increasing in value. But, in fact, houses did not become intrinsically more valuable - there was merely an artificially stimulated demand for houses which bid up their price. There was not a "rushing in" of capital - at least not initially. It was nothing more than a classic inflationary boom - a mere transfer of purchasing power to the recipients of the suddenly cheap and easy to get mortgage dollars. Anybody else who was saving to buy a house and got into the market after the boom was underway discovered the purchasing value of his savings had been seriously eroded.
Furthermore, the rise in housing prices suddenly meant that existing home owners had, on paper, equity that they did not previously have. Feeling richer as a result, homeowners spent and borrowed money that they otherwise would not have. This, in turn, resulted in an unsustainable influx of dollars towards other sectors of the economy, for example retail and restaurants, which, in turn gave such businesses a distorted view of reality when making decisions about expansion plans.
As for the "negative bubble" that you mentioned - that is what we are actually living through right now. It is that "negative bubble" that took down and wiped out the assets of the major financial institutions that were most heavily involved with the artificially cheap and easy loans. It is that "negative bubble" that caused the stock market to crash and thereby wipe out a great deal of accumulated wealth in people's stock portfolios, life savings and retirement funds. SOMEBODY had to pay for the dislocations. SOMEBODY had to pay for the consequences of giving money away too cheaply and giving it to people who had no means of paying it back. SOMEBODY had to pay for all the loans taken out based on home equity values that were merely illusory. And people DID pay - big time. And they are still paying. And they are paying for the various "fixes" and "solutions" put in place by the very politicians who were responsible for the problem in the first place.
The premise behind the governmental policies responsible for the mess was that the law of cause and effect need not apply to the realm of economics and that it can simply be abolished by legislative fiat and the wishful thinking and allegedly good intentions of politicians and bureaucrats who consider themselves to be smarter than the marketplace.
#26
Posted 15 June 2011 - 09:03 AM
Except that we are not talking about the market, are we? If we were then there would be no need for the city to be involved with and be subsidizing the project.
All investments are done by entities with something to gain. In this case, the city has more to gain by steering development in a manner that fits into a long-term aggregate strategy than any individual investor would. When developers are left to their own devices they choose the path of least resistance, which has brought us sub-urban sprawl, the slums of the future. I know you're not in favor of the goverment over-regulating the market, so how can Fort Worth prevent developers from putting up stupid projects that the city will have to maintain for decades into the future? In this case I think having the city participate in the market is definitely preferable to over-regulation.
If the marketplace deemed the project to be "good" then some private venture would have already started the project and eagerly taken on the risks involved. The fact that no private venture has chosen to do so is a very strong indication that the market does NOT consider it to be a sound risk.
As an active investor I can tell you that's a pretty simplistic interpretation. First, information flow is imperfect. Markets do not operate with great efficiency (except commodity markets, and even then...). Not all investors can be aware of all investment opportunities at all times. Also, there are very real, non-financial limitations to investors' ability to invest. Even the great oracle of Omaha has limited band-width and can only consider a certain number of investments at any one time. Lastly, you're putting the role of all development and planning in the hands of the few, very rich Americans. What about Joe Schmoe who may think it's a great project, but by himself he cannot participate? He pays taxes and votes and perhaps to him this is a way his resources can participate in the development of the city he calls home.
And that WOULD mean a greater availability of capital for private endeavors. That greater availability of capital would manifest itself in one of two ways: the capital either becomes available for projects which would have previously gone unfunded or, in the absence of sufficient worthwhile projects, the cost of borrowing for those projects that ARE deemed worthwhile will go down.
Nah. That's theoretically true kind of like trickle down economics is kind of true. Actual behavior of money just doesn't show this to be the case.
Again: the government does NOT create wealth - the only power it has is that of confiscating and redistributing wealth. You can describe all sorts of intermediary processes that can take place and which can cloud the water. But at the end of the day SOMEBODY has to produce the material wealth necessary to acquire the goods and services that must be obtained for a government project to come into existence.
Capital, when all is said and done, is nothing more than wealth that SOMEBODY has produced and accumulated. In order for capital to exist, SOMEBODY (a whole lot of people, actually) has to produce more than they consume. If everybody immediately consumed everything they produced, then there would be no capital. And, contrary to what you say, actual, accumulated wealth (as opposed to mere easily manipulated "money supply") is VERY finite and is actually regarded by most people as being rather SCARCE.
First, this just isn't the case. Most of the wealth in the United States is fictitious anyway. It's not finite, it's imaginary. It's not based on me selling something I produced for more than I paid for it. We've got a service economy and a fiat currency. Someone made facebook, and someone else decided it was worth a gazillion dollars. So now Zuckerberg has a gazillion dollars of "wealth". Is there a cash buyer for facebook? Maybe. But it will be borrowed money based on the assessment that it's worth a gazillion dollars. There's not enough cash in the marketplace to settle up everyone's "wealth", and if there was, what would that cash actually be worth in terms of hamburgers and hot dogs. So "wealth" is a fiction and it appears and disappears quite a bit more freely than the money supply. In the real-estate collapse of 2007 - 2010, did a Trillion dollars actually disappear? Where did it go? No, the "wealth" didn't go anywhere. It never really existed. "Wealth" in the United States is an illusion based inherently on the perceived value of the fiat currency we use.
If the Federal Reserve printed up a billion dollars out of thin air and handed it to the City of Fort Worth as a gift with no requirement for payback on the pretense of "stimulus", zero wealth will have been created.
And the things that the City ends up buying with that billion dollars WILL come at the expense of the private sector. All that happens in such a scenario is the purchasing power of everybody else's dollars is diluted and redistributed to the City. And that redistributed purchasing power is purchasing power that people like you and me and anybody else who holds dollar bills or has a savings account will no longer have to spend or invest as we see fit.
Exactly. And "wealth" can be created just as easily, and with no regulation or oversight. The market just sort of votes wealth into existence.
So you see the foolishness of participating in an economy you despise. You should abandon the fiat currency and only barter. Get into mining. Natural resources and production are the sources of true wealth.
1. The simple fact is that there is no getting around the reality that there can be no something for nothing. Wealth cannot be wished into existence out of thin air.
2. Speculative ventures such as building retail and office space do not fall into that necessary and essential category - and neither do Utopian social engineering schemes to enable people to live in trendy neighborhoods they cannot properly afford.
1. This is simply untrue. I wish it was true, but it's not. Look at all the rich people you see driving around in Bentleys and Ferarris. Some of them accumulated wealth through traditional means (trade, production, inheritance, etc.). Many basically "wished" it into existence (day trading, IPO's, service jobs).
2. Perhaps the greater good in promoting development in the core of the city is that it allows the city to provide city services more efficiently, with less polution, greater quality of life and sustainability. The market will pursue the easiest money it can make in less than 10 year. The city has to live with these decisions for decades. Look at Detroit, trying to shrink because it literally can't afford to maintain services in outlying areas. That's not a Utopia issue, it's a very practical "how many square miles can we reasonably maintain" issue. The city is on the hook either way, it might as well promote something in the long-term best interests of its citizens.
The bottom line is that if the project on Lancaster is as good an idea as you say it is and if potential capital for such projects is as abundantly available as you say it is then it would already be underway and there would be no need for City involvement. But the reality of the matter is that capital is anything BUT abundant in this world. And those who do have capital to invest actually regard it as something which is SCARCE and VALUABLE and PRECIOUS - so much so that those who are highly successful at accumulating and managing capital tend to look very long and hard at a project's risks and worthiness before investing. The very fact that the project requires the city to fork over money to make it possible is my proof the marketplace probably does NOT regard it as being a particularly good risk.
Yes. Everything that's possible and a good idea will have already been done. Thhe market is perfectly efficient and that's why there are no opportunities to invest. All the good investments have already been done by the smart, rich people. Their omniscience is the source of their wealth, which explains why the pool of rich people is static. No new rich people are created and no rich people lose their wealth.
Actually bubbles are caused by distortions to the marketplace, usually the result of governmental manipulation of the money supply and credit which result in the malinvestment of capital based on a false illusion that more capital exists or will exist than actually does.
Are you serious? Bubbles are caused by the same rich people you defend as rational, omniscient investors. Rich people are greedy and are always looking for the next elevator going up. They invest in stuff they don't understand because another one of their rich buddies did it. The real estate collapse was driven by private money seeking "risk free" returns higher than what they could get from the government. Rich people forced money (often not their own) into the real estate market and the market found a way to spend it. Had the market for MBS, and CDO's not been so over heated, Fannie and Freddie would not have been able to wreak the havoc they did. And it wasn't just Freddie and Fannie. You could get a Jumbo Mortgage from almost any of the Wall-Street firms for ridiculous rates all through the last decade. It wasn't a policy problem. It was a greed and oversight problem.
As for the "negative bubble" that you mentioned - that is what we are actually living through right now. It is that "negative bubble" that took down and wiped out the assets of the major financial institutions that were most heavily involved with the artificially cheap and easy loans. It is that "negative bubble" that caused the stock market to crash and thereby wipe out a great deal of accumulated wealth in people's stock portfolios, life savings and retirement funds.
It was ficticious wealth to begin with. All these baby-boomers socked money away in their 401-K's for the longest bull market in history, made returns that were inconsistent with any long-term returns ever seen in the market-place, accumulated all this "wealth" by not doing a darn thing. And then they were stunned when it disappeared. What happened to their vineyard retirement plan? Real wealth doesn't appear or disappear very quickly. The baby-boomer's parents owned shops, and stores, and factories. They had equity in real enterprises. They did not spend their youth smoking weed and rebelling against their parents. I think the baby-boomers will ultimate ruin this country just like they looked like they would when they were in their twenties. Their parents paid for their youthful indulgences and their children and grand children will pay for their old-age and health care. Meanwhile, people under the age of thirty will have to actuallly build wealth because they won't be able to count on Social Security and Medicare to carry them in their own old age.
#27
Posted 15 June 2011 - 09:41 AM
So to judge current and future projects by the same tried and true methods simply will not net the same results and I believe the City of Fort Worth has come to this conclusion well ahead of a good number of folks that consider themselves experts in the field. Once the dust settles and Fort Worth has positioned itself at the top of many of the surveys progressive cities like to compare themselves by, you'll see more and more similarly structured projects in the metroplex, Texas and probably other states.
Better Business Bureau: A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.
#28
Posted 15 June 2011 - 10:25 AM
#29
Posted 16 June 2011 - 02:24 PM
Check out the property taxes...!
#30
Posted 16 June 2011 - 06:08 PM
#31
Posted 16 June 2011 - 09:01 PM
#32
Posted 18 June 2011 - 02:49 AM
#33
Posted 20 June 2011 - 06:16 PM
GAH it's hot. No city pools for kids is sad. Even the crummy, tiny Kellis Park Pool was bliss. Charge a bit more taxes for city pools and charge a bit more entry fee for city pool usage.
No. The tiny crummy pools were just that, and I spent hundreds of hours at the Kellis pool you mentioned, easy walking distance from the house I grew up in.
What is needed are year-round climate-controlled multi-use water facilities called natatoriums (natatori?) And no, the city cannot afford to build them but the city and the school districts can. Can you imagine if all the money used in the past 20 years for football stadiums in Tarrant County alone had been combined 2/3 to 1/3 with city money to build indoor, year-round swimming facilities? School swim teams could have use of the main lanes and diving well just before and after school hours, in between senior water aerobics and mother/infant swim and lessons, free swim time for citizens, sports teams like water polo and underwater rugby and hockey, SCUBA lessons in the evenings, the list goes on. Water sports are fun, are less demanding on joints and connective tissues, and can be enjoyed through most of the expected lifetime of most people. Most of the preceding statement cannot be truthfully applied to football, basketball, or even baseball/softball, the mainstays of school sponsored sports. Building natatoriums would be a major investment in the health of the community, one that is known nationwide for obesity, and would provide healthy recreation opportunities during the oppressive Texas summer and the brief but often hazardous winter. I have been to several different parts of the country where the local pool facilities put what we have available (to the public that is) to shame. The comparison grows even more embarrassing when you widen bring in the facilities in even modest European cities. The 2.5 month mini pools we grew up with were all we had, but we can do better. Municipal cooperation with schools for funding and scheduling to ensure full and even utilization makes sense. Professional, year-round management can ensure the best return for the money invested.
#34
Posted 22 June 2011 - 04:53 PM
The City of Keller and Keller ISD have such a joint arrangement for the Keller Natatorium. While I'm all for governments joining forces to save money or provide better services, it's not always that easy. One resident of Keller complained to me about the arrangement. His issue is that a large portion of the Keller ISD lies outside the Keller city limits. His argument was that the citizens of the City of Keller were subsidizing the citizens of Fort Worth, who live within the Keller school district.No. The tiny crummy pools were just that, and I spent hundreds of hours at the Kellis pool you mentioned, easy walking distance from the house I grew up in.
What is needed are year-round climate-controlled multi-use water facilities called natatoriums (natatori?) And no, the city cannot afford to build them but the city and the school districts can. Can you imagine if all the money used in the past 20 years for football stadiums in Tarrant County alone had been combined 2/3 to 1/3 with city money to build indoor, year-round swimming facilities? School swim teams could have use of the main lanes and diving well just before and after school hours, in between senior water aerobics and mother/infant swim and lessons, free swim time for citizens, sports teams like water polo and underwater rugby and hockey, SCUBA lessons in the evenings, the list goes on. Water sports are fun, are less demanding on joints and connective tissues, and can be enjoyed through most of the expected lifetime of most people. Most of the preceding statement cannot be truthfully applied to football, basketball, or even baseball/softball, the mainstays of school sponsored sports. Building natatoriums would be a major investment in the health of the community, one that is known nationwide for obesity, and would provide healthy recreation opportunities during the oppressive Texas summer and the brief but often hazardous winter. I have been to several different parts of the country where the local pool facilities put what we have available (to the public that is) to shame. The comparison grows even more embarrassing when you widen bring in the facilities in even modest European cities. The 2.5 month mini pools we grew up with were all we had, but we can do better. Municipal cooperation with schools for funding and scheduling to ensure full and even utilization makes sense. Professional, year-round management can ensure the best return for the money invested.
Several years ago, the City of Fort Worth and the Crowley ISD agreed to join forces and build a similar facility in southwest Fort Worth. I believe the city has bond money available for its share of the project. However, the Crowley ISD pulled out on the grounds that it's not good practice to spend money on an indoor swimming pool while you are laying off teachers. The last I heard the city was trying to get the YMCA to take over the school districts role.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users