« Jumping to all the wrong conclusions with Impact Tax increase | Main | Masking your real motivation and why I like Jim Tolbert »

February 23, 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I think you were the one pointing the finger at the "billionaire EPWU" for wanting the fee, not your bloggers. Nevertheless, it is a user tax, as much as you hate it. And that's how taxes should be. And don't come back with the food stamp argument because there are many things we all pay for that we don't use.

Just Wonderin',

You have me confused with CW... I understand that some of us pay for a lot of things we will never get use of and that a lot of you pay nothing for everything you get use of.

As for EPWU, I was pointing out that they didn't need the money and have never asked for the money yet some guy at the city is claiming they do. Well, turns out they aren't getting the money. It was an attempt to make you see logic.

For the last time: 1/15/2014 agenda. PSB votes unanimously with one abstention to approve the impact fee increase. No city planner in the room.

It's on the PSB agenda that way:
http://www.epwu.org/public_info/agenda/011514_agenda.pdf

It then goes on the City agenda, because that's how it's required to work under Texas law.

Two things must be posted with the item--land use assumptions and the Capital Plan, the latter prepared by EPWU. Read that report. The Rogers water treatment plan is called out specifically as the reason for the increases.

Scroll about half way through the document posted at the link below and you'll see the memo from EPWU that starts this report.

http://agenda.elpasotexas.gov/sirepub/cache/2/sottj1wqp1bee144o5n1kvz1/789402242014064431532.PDF

David, you have not in the past struck me as a liar, but you're blinded as to the facts on this one. Striking out blindly because you may not like specific people makes no sense on technical issues.

David's Conscience,

The capital improvement plan always mentions the in place impact fees (they are always up for discussion when capital improvement plans come up - that doesn't mean they wanted them raised and they could be lowered or done away with - you over look this).

As PSB insiders are telling me - if they wanted these impact fees, they'd be doing the presentation and the item on council's agenda would be theirs. It's not. It's planning's item. `

And none of what you are posting is saying what you says it says. If the PSB needed money for the Rogers water treatment plant, it's not listed in the links you keep providing.

The PSB also noted in their financial report that they had unspent bonds to cover issues that might arise with the capital improvement plan. How do you square that now with your claim that they need money from impact fees to cover?

And by the way - without a single stick of growth the Rogers water treatment plant has needs now. Laying this on future growth that may, or may not happen is a little weird, don't you think?

I'm not liar because I'm asking questions you don't want asked. I'm asking for the truth and you can't answer these questions. You keep linking to pages that don't even exist and then you make up content for what you *think* is there.

Why is the city planning department asking for this and not the PSB? Where is the money going to be held? Why can't the use the $30 million in unused bond money to maintain their responsibilities? Why can't they use the other $50 million in profit they take in each year to maintain their responsibilities?

You see, this argument started out with you guys claiming growth doesn't pay for itself. I proved you wrong. You've now moved to whatever this is and you can't really defend either the PSB or the city asking for money. You also can't square why the PSB isn't making this presentation since it is supposed to benefit them solely. I mean, when's the last time one non-affiliated department gave a presentation for another? Does Sun Metro do the Parks department agenda items and I missed it somehow?

I live everybody - I don't know why you'd assume my questions about government taking money from citizens has anything to do with me liking anyone. You should be less interested in me and a lot more interested in what tricks your government is playing on you.

And none of what you or I think really matters - the item is slated for a 6-2 vote. I lose. Nobody is paying attention. None of that money will be spent on PSB projects that have anything to do with these new developments. Do you know what happens if the homeowner can prove the PSB didn't spend that money on directly related projects? Have you read the ordinance? Well, in ten years the city owes the homeowner the fee plus interest if they fail to use the money for upgrades.

What you don't know is much greater than the little things you already have wrong.

I'm sorry you will not drink the water I have lead you to. You know what they say...

The comments to this entry are closed.