League City Must Have a Jump to Conclusions Mat

I thought I was done for the night after the lengthy post earlier... but I can't resist commenting on this: Marc Edelman has lost his mind, and all it took was a parking garage to push him over the edge.  He's created three separate threads today alone complaining about the parking garage that's part of the proposed Downtown Revitalization effort.  But the latest thread really takes the cake for busting out a jump to conclusions mat.  Given Marc's history with city politics, I find it rather hard to believe he's truly as clueless as his post makes it seem.  Much like continuing to share the deceitful sign from a previous election that falsely claimed the Democrats were endorsing Heidi Hansing and Geri Bentley, I wonder just how much of what Edelman writes isn't simple ignorance but actual deceitfulness.  Here's his post:

"So let me get this straight, we are going to build a parking garage to revitalize the old downtown area, however the majority of the parking spaces are going to have to be reserved for a park and ride so we can get the federal government to pay for 80% of the cost.  Then the majority of the parking spaces are going to be available at night when the majority of the adjacent businesses are closed, but we are going to have to create a new tax called a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) to levy against all the adjacent businesses to help pay for the 20% of the cost that the federal government will not cover.  Then there will be some ground floor shops built into the parking gareage to increase revenue to the city who will compete with the businesses who will pay taxes to subsidize these new businesses rent.  All I can say is wow."

Please keep in mind, I'm not entirely sold on the parking garage yet; however, I'm not opposed to it yet.  I don't have enough information about it yet to have an opinion on it, and I'd like to know more about what the anticipated economic benefit is, the margins of error on that estimate, etc.  But then again, I'm a rational person, which isn't something I can say for sure about Marc at this point.    That being said, this post needs to be analyzed line by line.

"So let me get this straight, we are going to build a parking garage to revitalize the old downtown area, however the majority of the parking spaces are going to have to be reserved for a park and ride so we can get the federal government to pay for 80% of the cost. "

 - Yes, getting the federal money requires this parking garage to be used for more than a place to park when the city hosts events in the parks downtown.  Setting it aside for a park and ride would meet the qualifications.  This is an opportunity for League City to get back some of the money the residents pay to the Feds instead of all our money being shipped off to other cities/countries.  Sounds great to me.  There's nothing "Libertarian" about failing to make use of programs that the Fed has set up simply because you disagree with the programs.  League City residents wouldn't be getting a refund of Federal taxes if we don't get this money from the Feds.

"  Then the majority of the parking spaces are going to be available at night when the majority of the adjacent businesses are closed, but we are going to have to create a new tax called a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) to levy against all the adjacent businesses to help pay for the 20% of the cost that the federal government will not cover. "

- Nights, weekends, holidays the parking spaces would be available to residents and visitors for any use.  This part of the statement is true.  These are also the times when most shopping and dining are done.  These are also the times when the city likes to host events at the parks (like the 4th of July event).  In other words, these are the times when the additional parking would be needed.  Your statement is predicated upon the assumption you made that this is "when the majority of the adjacent businesses are closed".  Please clarify which businesses you are referring to.  The desire is to create a hotbed for restaurants and retail shops, all of which would likely be open at night (you know, when us productive members of society are typically free from the entanglement we lovingly refer to as "work"). 
-  You pretend ignorance about how a TIRZ functions, and I find it hard to believe.  The council discussed this to a level that could best be described as beating a dead horse, and you were previously on the Planning and Zoning commission, so I highly doubt you can be so ignorant as to think of the TIRZ as a new tax being levied.  It should more accurately be described as an allocation of taxes to be spent closer to home.  It's no additional tax rate on the properties.  It's not an increase in appraised value on the properties.  It's simply earmarking any future tax increases due to appraisal increases to go towards development in that area.  Some have pointed out that the County has tended to oppose creation of TIRZ as if that's an argument to oppose it.  That's a good thing, and of course the county will oppose it - it's robbing them of added revenue in the future by earmarking the funds for the TIRZ to be used only in that location.  No more shipping money to the island from League City.  Sounds great to me.  Please comment if you can dispute this explanation of a TIRZ.

"Then there will be some ground floor shops built into the parking gareage to increase revenue to the city who will compete with the businesses who will pay taxes to subsidize these new businesses rent. "

- Yes, ground floor shops will increase revenue to the city - giving the city the opportunity to fund infrastructure and improvements throughout the city without increasing our taxes.  Sounds good ot me... yet you've deceptively implied that neighboring businesses will be subsidizing the rent for the new businesses.  First, you assume that these will be "new" businesses, and ignore the possibility that existing local businesses might move into these locations.  Perhaps a second location of Barry's Bistro would be perfect in one of these slots.  Secondly, you assume that the city (or whoever ends up being the landlord, I believe that part of the plan is not fully developed yet) will be subsidizing the rent.  Pretty sure the rent from these retail shops will be subsidizing the parking garage, not the other way around.  Not to mention they'd ALSO be contributing retail sales tax revenue.  If anything, these neighboring businesses will be getting a very low cost boost to business from the added amount of potential customers brought in by the additional businesses (few people visit just one shop on a shopping trip), and the city has figured out a way to get the Feds to foot 80% of the investment.  

"All I can say is wow."

- Well, on this one we agree.

And yet, after all this nonsense, you clown on League City Politics is a Full Contact Sport ate this crap up.  Here's a sampling of the brilliant replies:

Holly Shelden: "The city has lost their mind! Something is very fish"
- Yes, Holly, the deceitful post from Marc was VERY fishy!!

Byram Lass: "You 'll need a lot of drinking establishments to pay that bill.  Which means a lot of people stumbling out onto 518.  That won't last long"
- Byram, I seriously am amazed at your ability to waffle between theocratic fascist and self-professed Libertarian.  Talk about jumping to conclusions... 1) Why would you need bars, sorry, "drinking establishments" to generate tax revenue?  Retail shops, coffee shops, restaurants, even Upcycling Boutiques all generate tax revenue, why do you assume it needs to be "drinking establishments"?  2) Most all "drinking establishments" in the area are located near major roadways... I've yet to see people "stumbling out onto" the streets.   Where have you witnessed this, please let me know, I'm going to bring some popcorn and enjoy the show this weekend.

Cara Herr: "Stupidest thing they can do.  This is ridiculous.  They are off their rockers.  More wasted tax dollars and space.  Just stop building anything for a while.  Quit ruining league city.  We used to love this town... now it's hard to when its over populated and it's getting over run by house apartments fast food places and gas stations.  How much crap can one town hold."
- Prone to hyperbole much?  I can think of a LOT of worse things they could do, without even reaching to extreme examples.  For starters, they could be wasting space in City Hall for our Mayor to have a full-time office for a part-time position, or doing nothing to revitalize the rather run-down downtown.  What's ridiculous is the amount of commentary on it when the plans aren't even finalized and the city is simply trying to study the feasibility and possible return-on-investment.  That's called being proactive - looking to bring in tax revenue from someone other than all the homeowners (and getting the Feds to foot 80% of the bill, no less!).  But then you REALLY go "off [your] rocker" when you show your true colors - you miss the way things were and you're refusing to accept that this city has grown up around you.  It's not the sleepy little bedroom community any more.  League City is the 2nd fastest growing city in the country, and if you don't like that, you should probably move.  Unless you're rich enough to buy up the rest of the land and keep it the way it is.  Can you do that?  I doubt it, else you'd be much more excited about the city taking steps to attempt to increase revenue from sources other than homeowners.  But seriously, there's plenty of open space over in Rosharon or Damon if you can't handle the growth and can't afford the land.

In summary, everyone chill out.  Stop listening to Marc Edelman and his Democrat allies.  Do your own research, find out the pros and cons.