14 replies to this topic

[John T Roberts]

I saw this article posted elsewhere and I thought I would share it with the forum.

 

https://www.marketwa...xh2inCuhyqCPXVQ

 

[roverone]

John, thank you for posting this article.  I really like the deeper financial analysis that it suggests we do.  I have often been frustrated that lifecycle costs for new infrastructure are not documented before we commit to their construction.  Ideally we would set aside or have a trust set up for the inevitability of maintenance costs.  I particularly have concerns for areas that have had much concurrent development, because that puts much concurrent maintenance somewhere on the horizon, and that spike is going to be difficult to handle.

 

At a minimum, every infrastructure project should be required to make a lifecycle cost estimate so the people signing off on it understand what they are agreeing to.

 

This article logically extends that concern to the revenue side to make the point that if the infrastructure being built is not in support of long-term tax income producing properties that can at least fund the inevitable maintenance costs, the additional development is creating an eventual burden.

 

I don't have any idea about the long-term infrastructure costs of single-family residential vs. different kinds of commercial.  I would assume that density helps, but it probably also increases the maintenance level required per unit of area because of the higher utility and traffic handling requirements.

 

An important thing to bring up is that our property tax base consists of 3 elements: residential property, commercial property, and business personal property.  That last element tilts things in favor of commercial development.

 

To include along with the lifecycle maintenance costs, a lifecycle anticipated revenue would be fantastic.  (yes, I understand that there are other beneficial components of development, and lots of development is not hyper-localized because it supports broad areas, but I still think it would be a responsible step toward financial accountability to at least try to make a estimates)

[renamerusk]

....This article logically extends that concern to the revenue side to make the point that if the infrastructure being built is not in support of long-term tax income producing properties that can at least fund the inevitable maintenance costs, the additional development is creating an eventual burden.

 

I don't have any idea about the long-term infrastructure costs of single-family residential vs. different kinds of commercial.  I would assume that density helps, but it probably also increases the maintenance level required per unit of area because of the higher utility and traffic handling requirements.

 

An important thing to bring up is that our property tax base consists of 3 elements: residential property, commercial property, and business personal property.  That last element tilts things in favor of commercial development.....

 

No it does not extend logically nor do it make a direct connection to the particular tax base ratio burden that seems to be maniacally repeated here as though it is unquestioned gospel.

 

"We need to stop pouring our money into aggressive growth schemes and start focusing on producing more value out of the places we have already built. Making low-risk “small bets” in depressed neighborhoods—putting in street trees or patching sidewalks—yields consistently healthy returns. An ounce of routine maintenance is worth a pound of revitalization". -  Charles L. Marohn, Jr.

 

After a complete reading of the article, you can only arrive at the conclusion that immediate gain from sprawl juxtaposed against the long term cost has made cities nearly if not all of them "functionally insolvent" . 

 

In a direct contradiction to the idea that density increases maintenance, that argument too is debunked by the article's proposed solution for cities is for them to newly mine the infrastructure that already exist and that is abandoned and underused for new shiny suburban growth.   The article predicts the logical benefit would be the realization of greater efficiency due to higher density and emphasizing the redevelopment of distressed areas within the city.  This is the strategy that I have been advocating for quite a long time.

 

It strains credulity yet again that worker income (higher type) is being cloaked as the salvation of a viable city. 

 

If cities can maximize production from its existing infrastructure instead of constantly building more and more infrastructure farther away from the core, then the tax burden will eventually be stabilized and the delivery and costs of services (education, public utilities) will be sustainable.

[Austin55]

Reminds me of that slide that West 7th is .12% of Fort Worth's land area but generates 1.25% of the cities property tax revenue (and that was waaay back in 2014). Sundance Square is even smaller and makes up .9% of the tax base.

[renamerusk]

W7 and SS are poster child examples for the argument being made in the article.  Both are redevelopments well within the core of the City and that are flourishing upon the upgraded decades of preexisting infrastructure. 

[johnfwd]

The article in post #1 challenges us to think realistically about suburban sprawl, though we are undoubtedly familiar with a phenomenon that's been evident in this country--at least since World War II.  Two points I would take umbrage with.  The first is that the term "giant Ponzi scheme" seems rather harsh to describe a natural urbanization development caused largely by the invention of motor vehicles.   And my understanding is that a Ponzi scheme amounts to illegal racketeering.  Was Fort Worth committing an illegal act by annexing large areas to the north in an effort to control population growth and commercial development in those areas?  Having to accommodate the emerging growth--with the short-term inadequacy of municipal services like police, fire, water and, sewer--may be bad urban planning and management, but it's hardly a crime.

 

The other point is that the author uses as examples the small cities of Ashville, North Carolina, and Lafayette, Louisiana to make his point that small cities and towns end up having a greater tax burden as a result of Walmarts and modern mixed-used developments than the old neighborhoods and inner-city businesses.  Mainly, he argues, it's because the "suburban sprawl" over-extends a municipality's budgetary capacity to provide the necessary infrastructure services for the newly developed areas.  I've never been to Ashville or Lafayette but both have small-city populations and they, themselves, would be considered suburbs if located in proximity of a metropolitan area.  The author should have focused on large metropolitan areas such as Raleigh-Durham and New Orleans if he wished to make an argument against suburban development.

 

I can understand why small cities and towns are ill-equipped budget-wise and staff-wise to engage in sound urban planning and management.  I don't believe the same is true for large metropolitan areas such as Fort Worth and Dallas.  I think the author of this article is well-meaning and has good points to make.  But I think he's a little late to be making an argument against suburban sprawl, considering that pandora box was opened up more than 70 years ago.  The only cure for suburban sprawl, in my opinion, is to completely replace the automobile with an inner-city rail system or something similar.  That done, eventually, over many generations, the urban design in the country will become more centralized, easier and less costly to manage.  Maybe.

[renamerusk]

.......  the term "giant Ponzi scheme" seems rather harsh

 

.....natural urbanization development caused largely by the invention of motor vehicles.....

 

.....Was Fort Worth committing an illegal act by annexing large areas to the north in an effort to control population growth and commercial development in those areas?  Having to accommodate the emerging growth--with the short-term inadequacy of municipal services like police, fire, water and, sewer--may be bad urban planning and management, but it's hardly a crime.

 

...The only cure for suburban sprawl, in my opinion, is to completely replace the automobile with an inner-city rail system or something similar......

 

...he's a little late to be making an argument against suburban sprawl , considering that pandora box was opened up more than 70 years ago...

 

A ponzi scheme is a method that hood winks a target.  It is described as a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.
 

I think that the author is fairly accurate by equating existing sprawl along with its immediate return to the benefit of the current Council that then place the burden upon future Councils who must pay the bill. 

 

A lie is not a crime until it is made under oath.  Viewed similarly, a ponzi scheme does not have to be a crime if the Council is willing to participate in it; nonetheless, it is still a scheme based upon dubious belief.

 

Sprawl nor urbanization development are not in any true sense natural.  Sprawl is the plowing up of virgin land while urbanization development can be done by recycling or reusing existing land.  The automobile infrastructure can function in a dense urban setting but its use becomes limited or impractical if there is a viable alternative such as transit, walking, other forms of mobility. 

 

If Fort Worth stopped sprawl beyond the imaginary border we know as Loop 820 and incentives higher density within this area, then the automobile would still be in demand and not replaced.  A strong argument can be made that a set quantity of automobile infrastructure (roads, parking) can be maintained to a higher standard than maintaining both the existing automobile infrastructure and new automobile infrastructure resulting from sprawl.

 

I would not agree assigning the author's argument with the "late" label as I suspect that he was not in any position to make that argument doing the time; and that the author's argument is a message assessing decision of past politicians and perhaps the politicians of today that they, as city leaders,  do nothing without a regard to the consequences.

[johnfwd]

I used to be a newspaper reporter, so I'm used to having my articles edited.  And I'm not thin-skinned when it comes to having my thoughts dissected and criticized, if it is necessary for one to do that to me.  But, in this instance, I was giving my critique of the article in Post #1 (which, I presume, the poster submitted the article for such a purpose in the Forum).  I was not expecting my own rendition to be the subject of a dissection and criticism.  I seldom critique others here who post thoughtful pieces.  Unless I make a glaring mistake (which I appreciate someone to correct me on), I wish my opinions could be left intact for others to consider without being prejudiced by overly negative and contrarian responses.

[renamerusk]

I am assuming that for your wish to be granted and consideration given to your opinions that you have the ability to read minds. Otherwise, how can you know if there is any interest or thoughts being given to them without someone taking the time to offer it.  Feedback, positive and negative is a constructive tool used by successful people and organizations to evaluate and improve quality control; and it is also a way to evaluate the soundness of your ideas.

 

But to the article and the treatment of its author. Using words like "umbrage" and "harsh" is critical language but using them were never taken to be either contrarian or prejudicial, just one's rightfully held interpretation.   Instead , using them could also be taken as an invitation to express a different interpretation and was accepted in a Socratic exercise.

 

The original poster of the article (post#1) can speak for himself as to the intent for sharing it, but presumably to solicit a debate. I guess he should have specified that the debate should consist of a single mindset and where opposing interpretation is not to be tolerated.

[John T Roberts]

I posted the link to the article for sharing and discussion.  I'm not going to say that I'm not going to allow opposing interpretation.  This is an open forum.  All that I ask is that everyone be civil to each other and to others.  When the discussions go over the line, then I will close the thread or react appropriately. 

[renamerusk]

Minutes from Council Report 01/28/20 as reported in Fort Worth Business Press:

 

 

LAND ANNEXATION "Cowley Family Style"

 

Following a public hearing at Tuesday's meeting, the Fort Worth City Council approved the owner-initiated annexation of approximately 412 acres of land in Tarrant County located at 12250 Old Weatherford Rd. Council also authorized an execution of municipal services agreement between the city and the list of 14 property owners, including Annetta Investments; GYF Investments, LLLP; Boa Sorte Limited Partnership; LS Tyler Investments, LLLP; Rio Claro, Inc.; TK Cowley Investments, LLLP; SPG-Harvard III, LLLP; The Cowley Family Foundation; SMT Investors Limited Partnership; CFG Zaharis, LLLP; CFG Broadway & Rooks, LLLP; Allen-Cowley Living Trust; CF,G Brown I, LLLP; and CFG-Whiteman I, LLLP.

 

Council also adopted an ordinance annexing Cowley Management, LLC for full purposes.

 

The property is located entirely in Tarrant County and is just west of Chapin Road. It is currently vacant land and has been rezoned for a single-family residential type development.

 

In a companion case, the council also approved the annexation of approximately 407 acres from the 11600 to 12400 blocks of Old Weatherford Road. That property, west of Vista West Subdivision, was also rezoned for single family.  "The Cowley group plans to add more single family to the Old Weatherford Road area annexation. Although there is significant traffic volume capability with the completion of the Chapel Creek, I-30 bridge, we are talking through other future routes to I-30," District 3 Councilman Brian Byrd said.

 

The city tax revenue is expected to have a positive fiscal impact over the next 10 years after the proposed development has been built.

[roverone]

I wonder what ISD(s) this annexed land is in?

[JBB]

A search that leads to a redfin listing says White Settlement ISD, but I don't know how accurate that is.

[renamerusk]

If I had to guess it would be either Aledo or White Settlement.

[elpingüino]

I wonder what ISD(s) this annexed land is in?

The TEA has a great school district locator map. https://tea.texas.go...istrict_Locator Old Weatherford Road is the boundary between White Settlement and FWISD in Tarrant County.