Corpusfishing.com

[The Trash Heap]

http://www.caller.com/news/2007/dec/09/packery/

Will comment later.
_________________
The Trash Heap Has Spoken!
NNYYAAAHH!!!

[The Trash Heap]

The first thing I did on reading Beth Wilson's December 9 article was to compare it to the Packery Channel/TIF Information Sheet (Info Sheet)(http://www.cctexas.com/files/g29/packery.pdf) and look for inconsistencies. Waiting for the improvements is not what the TIF is all about, as the Info Sheet explains: "The theory is: construction of the public improvements will generate higher tax revenues due to additional private development; without the public improvements the increased tax increments would not occur." The Info Sheet goes on to spell out those improvements and to state that the ready money for their construction comes from the sale of bonds, which the TIF revenues pay off later. There was never intended to be a "hand-to-mouth" relationship between the TIF revenues and the improvements, as the article suggests, because the improvements were what generated to tax increment, not vice-versa.

The article attributes to the City Manager this statement: "We're only now able to consider those other improvements." It isn't as clear where the following lines came from, however: "The tax increment financing zone now has about $3.46 million, just more than the required reserve of $3 million. As an assurance to the lenders that the city could cover what it borrowed, the fund requires the city to collect $3 million before spending anything for these other improvements." At any rate, neither quotation is supported by the text of the Info Sheet. The Info Sheet instead indicates the size of the reserve fund for channel maintenance is $4 million, not the $3 million cited in the article, and states the reason for picking the $4 million reserve fund figure is so as to cover the channel maintenance costs out of the interest generated from investing that reserve fund. The Info Sheet says the bonds are expected to be retired in 20 years, so the TIF was not expected to fund maintenance directly, much less forever. Like the City's share of the channel costs and the park amenities, the maintenance fund was supposed to be purchased immediately by the sale of bonds in order to create immediate and lasting property value increases in the TIF zone.

Even if you believe the quoted passages above, there are the additional embarrassing inconsistencies with how, long before the reserve fund reached $3 million, the City spent over $1 million of the TIF money on the seawall parking lot and access ramp amenities. It's also unclear if the City has used TIF money already to cost-share with TPWD the initial surfacing of the access road and parking area at the Packery Channel boat ramps, or if the TPWD did all that initial work on its own nickel and the City's share is the yet-to-be-spent $625,000 cited in the article.

There's no doubt, by the way, that building the seawall parking lot and ramp increased property values as intended, although perhaps not in the most obvious fashion. Without those specific amenities, the adjacent private landowners could not have succeeded in having the beach in front of the seawall closed to vehicles without the Open Beaches Act clouding title to their property, thus making it impossible to get loans for improvements or to sell the lots. Since the voters put the beach closure out of the picture, at least temporarily, placing first priority on spending the TIF money on the seawall amenities turns out to have been misguided, for, although they donated the land for the parking lot, it has so far ironically benefited the property values of even those adjacent landowners very little.

I'm most distressed to read that "Getting amenities for the south side of the channel is more complicated, he said, because the city is taking into consideration the requests of the adjacent landowner that any structures be temporary to lessen the impact on future private development there." This particular landowner deserves no more consideration than the rest of the voters of Corpus Christi, especially since he stands to benefit disproportionately, anyway, no matter what permanent recreational amenities are built as a consequence of the TIF election. Furthermore, this landowner's intent to close the beach to vehicles to enhance his own designs on public lands was repudiated by the voters last year. Finally, the City has, to my knowledge, signed no contractual obligations with this or any other landowner that might affect the City's lease with the Texas General Land Office of the Packery Channel area and the beaches north and south of it, yet the City, apparently bowing again to that unofficial "consideration," reneged on its lease agreement to submit plans for subleasing developments and concessions to the TGLO by the time dredging of the channel was completed. Thus, not only is this individual "consideration" delaying the recreational amenities and the anticipated increased property values of other island landowners, it's resulted in a violation of the state's lease. This blatant favoritism is costly, unwarranted and must cease now, not at some indefinite time.

Issue the bonds and build the jetty parks immediately, as the voters were promised over five years ago.
_________________
The Trash Heap Has Spoken!
NNYYAAAHH!!!

[Tyler]

Amen to that Johnny. Why do they continue considering Schexnailer's demands on the south side. Nothing was said about that in the original Packery TIF proposal.
Remember when he said he was going to build that Watercolor type development on the south side of Whitecap regardless of the beach closure vote? What happened to that?

My guess is that even if the beach driving vote had gone the other way that resort would not have been built due to current economic conditions.

TT

[robul]

sure does look like a lot of negative comments over on the caller board.. .. If they really wanted that resort they should of really gotten off there butts and voted.. Good thing I went and voted!!

[GinMan]

[TITELINE]

What is it going to take to get the right person in our corner to do what is right and promised??? The last elections didn't do it...

[landlocked beachbum]

"Developers", and I use that term loosely, almost always get their way. $$$$$$$ talks.
_________________
Dave


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits". Albert Einstein

[rabbit]

Schnexy is still trying to steel the state land on the south side of packery. By the way what about the halfass way they repaired the broken seawall on the south side of packery.
_________________
Fishing and Kayaking its a rough life but somebody has to do it.

[Drake]

Good point Rabbit.... What does a couple of truck loads of sand cost?