As I sipped my coffee while reading this article in the Chronicle Sunday morning, I kept asking myself, why?
For more than 40 years, it has occupied a prime chunk of public real estate near River Oaks caring for, employing and housing the mentally retarded.
But now the city of Houston is planning to sell the land to the highest bidder, meaning the nonprofit Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation has to find a new home.
Why would the city force a group providing services to the most helpless among us to uproot lives and spend money not on serving the helpless but upon buildings and infrastructure in a “less desirable” location?
The first argument, made by the city administration, is for the money. Potential property tax money that is. If so, they need to rework their spreadsheets. If the numbers in the article are correct and the land has a market value of $26 million, the city’s annual revenue would be roughly $170,000. The center is currently providing over $1 million a year in free services to city residents. It would take $130 million in improvements for the city to break even. Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
There is a clue provided in the article by a salivating real estate broker.
“That’s Class A. It doesn’t get any better,” said Creech, who thinks the land would be choice for high-rise condominiums, in large part because of the unobstructed view of downtown to the east and River Oaks to the west.
Exactly what the city needs. More condos, requiring more sewer capacity, more trash pickups, etc.. Meanwhile, when I visited the center yesterday, the streets in the surrounding neighborhoods were in complete disrepair, impossible to avoid potholes. But developers donate to campaigns and campaigns for governor are expensive.
But wait! It just isn’t fair says the city attorney.
And City Attorney Arturo Michel said it’s not fair to give such a sweetheart deal to one nonprofit. In fact, the city has begun reviewing similar deals with other nonprofits housed on public property.
Fair Mr. Michel? You want to talk about fair? Is life fair to the people that were born helpless, Mr. Michel? Are you so callous as to think that it is fair to turn helpless people away from help that costs you nothing? In the never ending search for more government revenue or political contributions?
Remember, it was the mayor’s own good heart that allowed thousands of helpless people from New Orleans to come into the city, soaking up resources and increasing crime. Why is his heart not the same when it comes to helpless people that do neither? How many commendations has the mayor given to the people that give hope to the hopeless rather than fill our streets with violence, drugs and misogyny?
Why not do the right thing? Which is nothing. Nothing at all. Just renew the lease that was signed in good faith and let this group continue to help those that cannot help themselves. Doesn’t cost a penny to do the right thing.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
42 Responses to “For The Revenue? Or Just Another Payback?”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Mighty fine post, Mr. B.I.G.J.O.L.L.Y….
I would expect the land downtown, currently used for City Hall by politicians, would be worth much more than $26 million. It is also land being used by a “nonprofit Center”. Those occupying it and making the proposal, apparently should avail themselves of the services of the River Oaks “nonprofit Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation”.
Greed’s ugly side. Real Estate brokers must be just wetting themselves! Which one of these RE brokers will ‘mark’ the land with their scent? We see on Animal Planet, the dominate male ’sprays’ its territory to mark it.
BigJolly, your financial argument only works if The Center closes its doors. If it vacates the property and opens up shop in a cheaper locale, we have the best of both worlds:
-Low-cost care for folks who need it
-Development of the land up to its highest and best use
#4 Matt
If it vacates and is forced to build new buildings, money is diverted from care to construction. After construction, money is diverted from care to interest payments on the construction loans.
No longer would the Center provide free care for city of Houston residents. They would bill the city for services, currently over $1 million per year. Unless the new development is appraised (land and improvements) above $155 million, the city has a net loss.
And yeah, I know it isn’t the classic conservative, free market argument. Something about turning mentally retarded people out brings out the liberal side of me.
Bigjolly
Helping the truely needy is as conservative as it gets.
The ones that grip me are people that have the ability to help themselves and not refuse to do so, but demand that the Government provide for them.
Every bit of that is speculation.
If we’re conservatives, and we believe in small government, why not seize an opportunity to shrink city government by a NPV of $26 million?
I’m not sure where the speculation is in my comments. Money spent on bricks, mortar and interest does not go towards care.
Do you think that the city will use that money to retire debt or give rebates, i.e., shrink itself? No, they will distribute it to pet projects, those that bring in votes. As trl3 put it above, they will give it to the people that otherwise could provide for themselves.
And I don’t think that conservatives, classic or otherwise, are in favor of no government at all. But again, I understand that I’m stepping over the classic free market paradigm here.
If it were up to me, the government would own no property at all and would immediately divest itself of any. In this specific case, if it were up to me, I would sell the property to the charity organization that has provided services to the citizens of Houston for over forty years for the sum of one dollar. Stipulating that they would not sell the property but continue to operate a much needed respite on the site.
I have only two comments, this sucks and the city attorney is only saying what he is told to say. I’m glad I don’t live in Houston. Guess that’s three comments.
IMHO;
Jolly’s position is the more Conservative of the two being discussed between Matt and he.
1. The use of a Not For Profit Organization to do the “good works” of a society is more Conservative than having Government take over the task.
2. NOT collecting taxes is also a Conservative position. In this case, the only action of Government is NOT collecting taxes on the property these people own or use. No money spent, and none collected by the goverenment.
3. The very idea that property exists so that government can tax is is Anti-Conservative. Thus, removing a non-taxpaying entity so that a tax paying entity can occupy thier land is a Liberal, not a Conservative idea.
4. Examining the possible “unintended consequences” of any goverenment action or inaction is also an inherently Conservative principal. In this case, Jolly very Conservatively points out that the burden imposed on government (and that is ultimately TAX BURDEN on the citizens) by the increased sewer, trash, and other city services that would result from the inteneded use of the property after the NFP is evacuated far out weighs any tax advantage derived.
Jolly’s right, and has taken the most Conservative approach to this.
In fact, I think the only Government action that should be taken here is one that Conservatives do feel is one of the proper actions of a city goverenment:
Fix the damn roads, and let developers worry about, and take the finacial risk of, property development.
So lets see - -
Let’s see our City government has done …
1) Lied when they pledged the land for 99 years. (would a politicain lie about something to get his picture in the paper??)
2) Has been planning to turn the land over to developers at least since the secondary contract was not renewed - That would be Bill White, Right?
3) Sees no problem here - Just dump the patients on the street - What’s a few more signs on street corners?
4) Needs to watch out for Taxpayers money. Like when it agreed to place the bonds on the parking garage by the baskeball arena . Only $20 Million.
But the real reason is the need to feed more land in the area to developers - remember Allen Parkway Village. I wonder who is the lucky developer/realtor.
How much did they ‘donate’ for the opprotunity?
If you assume all politicians are crooked then the infrequent honest ones are pleasant suprises.
Would not someone be liabel for not researching the city’s charter before the contract was signed? Something about ‘due dillagance’?
Would the city be liable for falsely cliaming the right to sign the contract? Are the Taxpayers (comitted by the illegal actions of politicans) responsible for damages to the United Way and to the residenta snd patients for these fraudlent actions?
This is just another Allen Parkway Land grab and proof that if you place your trust in our city’s leaders it will be proven to be a misplaced when money shows up.
What was it Bush said? Something like “Money trumps….(long pause)…”
Yeah, but you haven’t shown that The Center has no alternatives.
No, I don’t expect that the city will use that money to shrink government. But the loss of a $26 million asset is a reduction in the size of government, and a reduction in the city’s ability to borrow.
But, here are the choices as you described them:
1. City owns a $26 million piece of land, or
2. City spends $1 million/yr.
You get a bigger reduction in government by getting rid of the huge asset, even if that means spending a million a year.
Sarge, I think you misunderstand me.
Yes, I like development. Not because it generates tax revenue, but because of all the other benefits.
Development in general turns non-productive land into productive land. It creates jobs, places to live, places to work, cool things to see.
It is an unfortunate reality that an improved economy results in a higher tax base. But look at the alternative.
That’s not my motivation. The way I look at it is: using the market to replace a non-productive (from a rent-generating point of view) user with a productive one.
It’s also important to consider the location needs of both proposals. It doesn’t really matter where the mental hospital is located. You can put a mental hospital anywhere — it doesn’t need to be on prime land.
A high-dollar, high-density development like this, however, does need to be situated at a good location.
Actually, I’m just quoting the article:
How can there be a reduction of a $26 million dollar asset if this is a broker’s WAG? Surely the city doesn’t have this on the books at anything close to that market price. HCAD has the land across the street listed at $42.54/sq ft = $11 million for this 6 acres.
And in relation to the city’s borrowing capacity, if this is on the books as a $1 a year lease, how does it affect it? And, as a conservative, why the hell not limit their borrowing capacity? Sounds like a plan to me.
I’m not sure what you mean with your choices question. The city isn’t spending $1 million a year currently. The Center is providing that service to the city for no charge, so your # 2 would be zero if your # 1 stays as is.
#16 Matt
Well, I counter that this land is exactly everything that you just said. It is extremely productive according to Paula Manning, CEO of Triad Resources. They are productive, creating jobs, work on site and off and when I was there yesterday, there were some cool things to see.
A manicured courtyard, well kept buildings, volunteers walking with the residents and best of all, huge smiles around. Yeah, cool things to see.
My point is, that’s a pretty big “if.”
I still don’t see how your plan — keeping a valuable asset out of circulation while offering a sweetheart deal to a favored entity — is conservative.
#20 because that “sweetheart deal” is keeping the taxpayers from spending extra money to offer these services?
That’s the difference. I don’t think that the gov’t should have assets. I think that this land should be given to the organization that has been both a good steward of it and given back to the citizens through the years.
How that could be a sweetheart deal is not registering with me, given that the city did just fine with this “illegal” lease until the developers that Mayor White is beholden to decided it was time to own it. 2007 - 1963 = 44 years. Why wasn’t it illegal 14 years ago?
Can’t wait for the campaign ads against him on this. On this half of the screen, we have city paid sanctuaries for people illegally in our country. on the right side of the screen, we have that train from the video steaming down the tracks, Mayor White jumping out of the way and a mentally handicapped person left standing in the tracks. No sancutary for you, oh helpless one. But the grass cutter? Here, need another glass of water?
It’s not a good deal.
An asset worth $26 million — just the land! — is generating $1 million worth of mental health care per year.
That sucks! That’s not even a 4 percent return! It’s another example of land-use policies being used to keep land below its highest use. The city could sell the land at a 10 percent discount, put the money in 30-year Treasuries, and still do better than $1 million/year.
C’mon guys lighten up. You know neosoc™ politicians know how to take care of the less fortunate in our society. It’s all good! They care, really!
Matt - Call me liberal on this one (but I really don’t think so) but the city isn’t entitled to earn money on the land they own.
I’d rather it was City Government that showed it has no other alternative than what they would like to do.
I suspect there is a person here that is part of the developer food chain.
well this sure is a hot potatoe. This shouldnt be about taxes or land improvement or most of the things listed in arguement. This is about donig the right thing. The right thing is leaving these people in their home. This is their home. They are used to it, the understand their routine, and they need consistancy. Being a conservative to me , is also being Christian. Leave these people in their home. We are a wealthy city. Houston will not succeed or fail by running these people out of their home. I have never had the problem of having too many almighty dollars, but it sure seems the almighty dollar runs everything.
Agreed, that’s what development does.
But I don’t remember any of that being the proper role of government.
And one other thing development does that argues against government involvement in it:
Profit for the developer.
If any action of government tends to bring profit to one group of people, and at the same time that action devolves to the detriment of another group that is truly in need, then the government should back off.
We all agree that government should do things that help those truly in need.
tell me again:
The developer who will profit from the building of the condos—what is his “ture need” that would cause the government to act on his behalf?
#23 Matt
Your 4% calculation only includes the free services given to the city. What about the other $10 million in the budget? That is a heck of a return.
One other thing that bothers me about Matt’s argument:
it comes awfully close to the ones made in favor of Kelo—–
Grrrr.
Sarge, no one is talking about the city taking property from a private entity.
From all indications, it’s an illegal lease! Yes, the timing of the enforcement is suspect, but it’s still an illegal lease.
The scary part about Kelo was the part where a property owner had his land seized against his will. That is not going to happen in this instance.
Not sure how this could be an illegal lease if it’s been in effect since the 1960’s.
If both parties have made a good faith agreement that has been in place for nearly half a century, and both entities have kept up thier side of the bargain for all that time, then any “illegality” is taken out of it–or at least should be taken to the voters for a solution, not to those who may profit monetarily, politically, or both.
Government land gets it’s “productivity” from the benefit the “public” gets from it, courts, jails, police and fire stations, etc—as well as facilities that take care of people in need that do not spend public money in the process. Or oil and timeber leases that the government sees an income from. It would be different if this were truly “unproductive” land: a vacant lot, or abandonded buildings for instance.
If this land is no longer giving benefit to “the public,” then and only then would I consider it “unproductive government land.” I see the land in the hands of the developer being of more benefit to his bottom line–and I see it in the hands of this charity in particular as doing good for “the public.”
Why, then, was the lease found to be illegal now, when big money was to be made?
I dunno - it seems like a better arrangement could be made, one that does not gain the city big tax bucks, the developer big bucks, and the charity and the people they’re helping the shaft, no?
In fact, if this land is being put to use by anentity that benfits “the public” wihtout cost to “the public,” then it IS “productive public land” in the sense that all other entities on “pulbic land” such as police and fire statiosn actually COST “the public.”
We’re seeing no cost and a little income here.
“The public” benefits from that in and of itself–let alone the benefit we see from the actions of the entity occupying it.
One other thing:
Any benefit derived from turning this into “productive developed land” is transitory at best. The same argument was made about the land surround the Astro Dome at about the same time as the original lease done on this building.
In the intervening half century, the “productive developed land” around the Astro Dome has cost taxpayers literally billions of dollars to keep it that way or to expand it.
#17
Matt
My dad use to tell me a story every now and then. I was born here in the 50’s and at that time my dad had an opportunity to buy some land. Back in that day, this location was out in the country, which is basically at the corner of Westheimer and Post Oak. At that time my dad told this friend of his,now why would I buy land way out in the country. Just think if he had bought some of that land, where my parents would be today.
I don’t think it is justified to kick someone to another location just because the land is valuable.
Matt I have a question? If this group does move to another location and somewhere down the line that piece of property becomes valuable do we keep kicking them to a new location?
As with all other wonderful things, GREED is GOOD! City of Houston, and “Lawyers rule the world”, James D Doyle III, Samo-O-Samo.
“Snakes” don’t bite lawyers as a professional courtesy!
WB
If the city violated its charter by signing a 99 year lease when it is only allowed 30, it seems that it either entered into a contract to commit fraud (it knew and sought to take advantage of the other party) OR it was negligent (so it should have liability to the other party)
Whether this is a ’sweetheart deal’ or not, governments should not be allowed to own land or have the power to grab land to benefit private developers. Land use should be limited to public use; if they want to take that land back to put in a library or even a city run retardation center that is fine.
Government land grabs and real estate meddling is how we end up with stadiums and toy trains that are more benefit to developers than taxpayers.
I’m with Mr. Jolly on this one.
Why not use part of the $26 mil. topay for new place ?