Short Term Rentals currently in Plano

The Battle Over Short Term Rentals
 
“You shall own nothing and be happy.” This quote comes from the World Economic Forum. In Plano that quote is getting closer to becoming true. Plano is getting closer to more people renting their domiciles instead of owning them. One kind of rental that is causing problems for residents is the Short Term Rental.
You may have heard of some of the companies that do Short Term Rentals. Airbnb, VRBO, Homeaway, and Homestay are just a few of the platforms where people can rent a home for a short stay or vacation. Renting a home for a vacation is not new. People have rented beach or ski homes for vacations for decades. What is new is the internet platforms that make the renting process easier, and bring vacation rentals to cities that are not typical vacation destinations such as Plano. Unlike Aspen and Galveston, Plano is not a city that people would go to for a vacation. The majority of our residential units are occupied by full time residents. Also, unlike destination cities, Plano does not have the resources, organization, or regulations that a destination city has. Since Plano is not designed for vacation homes, residents are having problems with short term rentals in their neighborhoods. Some reported problems are, loud parties at all hours of the night, trash, parking problems, and illicit activities. In one short term rental the police broke up a sex trafficking ring. The rental in question is in a family neighborhood. You can read more about the arrest and problems with STRs at https://www.tncplano.org/post/sex-trafficking-ring-at-str-in-plano.
Personally, I have nothing against vacation rentals in general. I have rented one through Airbnb to go on a trip with one of my oldest friends. However, there is a time and place for vacation rentals. Plano’s residential neighborhoods is not one of those places, and our current zoning regulations agree. 
Plano residents cannot do anything they want with their property. A person whose property is zoned for a single family home cannot use the property for a restaurant, bar, retail store, strip club, or hotel.  According to Plano's own website,https://www.plano.gov/453/Hotel-Occupancy-Taxes
“A Hotel is any building or buildings in which the public may obtain sleeping accommodations for a cost of $2 or more each day for a consecutive duration of 30 days or less. This includes, without limitation:

• Bed and breakfasts
• Hostels
• Hotels
• Houses or courts
• Inns
• Lodging houses
• Motels
• Rooming houses
• Short-term vacation rentals
• Tourist homes
• Vacation rentals by owner
• Other buildings where rooms are furnished for consideration

 
The City of Plano's Hotel Occupancy Tax rate is 7%. The City's tax is in addition to the 6% rate imposed by the State of Texas, which must be remitted separately to the State. Airbnb started collecting hotel occupancy tax for Plano effective May 1, 2019. Homeaway, including VRBO and all other Expedia group platforms, started collecting hotel occupancy tax for Plano effective February 1, 2020. Hosts in the City of Plano not utilizing these platforms will need to charge their guests a 7% occupancy tax and remit payment to the City of Plano following the same instructions for hotels mentioned above.”
​So, according to the city of Plano, Short Term Rentals are hotels, and the only residential districts that allow hotels are Urban Residential and Residential Community Design with a specific use permit. If a short term rental is anywhere else it is operating illegally and the city has an obligation to stop it. We have nearly 600 Short Term Rentals all over the city of Plano. Some are in the correct zoning and other are unlawful.
For over five months residents have been going to city council meetings asking the city to enforce the law. Yet the only thing the city has done is tell the residents to call the police if they have a noise problem from a loud party or other nuisances from a Short Term Rental.
Why is the city not enforcing the law? Well the answer, in my opinion, is simple… MONEY! If the city gets rid of the unlawful Short Term Rentals, they lose the hotel taxes.
What can you do to get the city to enforce the law? My first recommendation is to go to the TX Neighborhood Coalition Plano Chapter website and join them. https://www.tncplano.org/ . Next, contact all the city council members and demand they order the city staff to enforce the law. No one or thing is above the law, not even the City of Plano.
This is Plano’s Political Pit Bull signing off.

The yellow areas with the red dots are Urban Residential zoning. This is where Short Term Rentals are legally allowed in Plano out right.

 
On April 11, 2022 the Plano City Council had a discussion on it’s Comments of Public Interest Policy. This was placed on the agenda by Council-members Tu and Grady due to a few people’s unorthodox comments and presentations. The first of these presentations, a few weeks before, went viral and was even featured on Fox News. While some residents are laughing at the man’s unique way he redressed the government of his grievances, as well as his copycats, some council-members’ response to this is to limit our first amendment rights.
Before we go over the discussion the city council had to limit our rights, let’s go over a few important facts. The First Amendment of our Bill of Rights lists five freedoms the government cannot stop people from doing.

• Practicing their religion.
• The freedom of speech.
• The freedom of the press.
• The right of the people to peaceably assemble.
• The right of the people from petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The US Bill of Rights
Now, notice what the First Amendment does not list; it doesn't list any limitations or exceptions to those five rights other than to peacefully assemble. These five rights are not just in the Bill of Rights, they are also in each states’ Constitution.  
The right to speak and petition our government for a redress of grievances was not something our framers invented. One of the earliest documents to list these two rights is the Magna Carta.
Following the Magna Carta, American colonists used their local assemblies as surrogates for the King to make complaints. Also, in 1641, the Massachusetts Colony created the very first code of laws in New England called, Body of Liberties. It recognized the right to address Massachusetts government bodies.
 Moving on in history, in 1689 the English Declaration of Rights proclaimed, 
“it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning is illegal.” 
Moving forward in time to 1776, “[a] group of petitioners sought relief from England for a series of intolerable acts…and numerous other limits on self-government. Denied redress, the petitioners became revolutionaries, [and some went on to become leaders of a new nation]” 
(Adam Newton) 
 https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-petition/freedom-of-petition-overview/
Our founders and framers knew history, and had first hand experiences dealing with a King that tried to limit and even take away their liberties. So, when it came to writing the first amendment, Madison purposefully only put the limitation of peaceful assembly in it. He knew that a free republic and self-government depends upon the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and complaints without the threat of limits, retaliation, harm or punishments from governments. However, this is not something that a few people on Plano City Council know or seem to understand. Even those members that hold law degrees lack this understanding.
Our first example of a person who lacks the understanding of our first amendment and its history, came from the person who wanted to talk about limiting the public's right to redress in the first place, Council-member and lawyer Maria Tu. She started her comments by saying, “I find it, that when we allow public comments it’s a great exercise of our constructional rights.” So far she is off to a bad start. Notice she used the words, “when we allow”. In others words, she is under the assumption that the council gives permission for people to address Plano’s government body; Plano City Council is not where the people get the authority to address their elected officials. Mrs. Tu continues to show us what she truly believes in her next statement.“ However, I think Plano has been known for many years as a city of inclusiveness, rather than exclusiveness, and when comments are meant to harm the city’s image as well as some of our residents, that’s where we need to draw the line and we need to actually do something about it.” No Mrs. Tu, you don’t need to and can’t do anything about it. You are not a queen, and the council is not a tribunal or group of tyrannical Nobles, that can trample on the people’s God given constitutional right to speak and petition their government. Even Justice Scalia, in talking about a case dealing with the first amendment, said, “If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-breaded weirdo who burns the American flag. But I am not king.”
The only Constitutional way to combat any speech you don’t like is with speech you do like. What Council-member Tu should be doing is adhering to the oath she swore to when she took office, that being to defend the Constitution. That means doing what Oscar Wilde said, “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.” Trying to enact any limits on speech and petition, reveals, as James Madison believed, that Council-member Tu is an opponent of limited self government.
Moving on to our next council-member who thinks he is a king, Rick Grady. He agrees with Tu, and also suggests Comments be moved to a different part of the meeting. I wonder where he would like to move them to? Perhaps the end of the meeting so, when the council has a meeting that goes late, those that want to speak have to wait until midnight? That is just another way to limit speech. Nice try Mr. Grady, but the people are not going to fall for that old trick. Councilman Grady also stated that Comments need to be relevant to the city. Now, who is supposed to make that determination? What overlord will decided what is relevant to the city? Mayor Muns may think something is relevant, but Councilman Williams or a resident may disagree. For example, Councilman Williams wants to talk about Ukraine at a future meeting. Now at first glance one might think that the problems of Ukraine are not relevant to the city of Plano, and the city can’t do anything to help. However, if we dive deeper we could see that there are residents in Plano that are affected by the war. If Mr. Williams is prevented from bringing it up, we won’t know if there is anything the city can do to help these families.
Speaking of Councilman Williams, a self proclaimed First Amendment supporter, he is also for limiting content to anything the Plano city government can actually do. Again, though, who will be the judge? Councilman Williams went on to further say, “Any restrictions beyond that might be a declaration of, game on.” So far that has been the smartest thing anyone on the council has said.
Next, Councilman Anthony Riccirdelli, the other lawyer on the council, spoke. He too thought it made logical sense to limit comments to city business. Where in the Constitution he got that from he did not say. In case you were wondering, that is not in the Constitution.
Councilwomen Julie Homer and Prince agreed with their fellow council-members for the most part. Mrs. Homer did mention that she is accessible by email, so if the lords and ladies infringe on your rights, you can email them. 
The only council member to say anything truly profound and constitutional was Rick Smith: 
“I don’t think we should allow the city and this body to be high-jacked by the juvenile actions of someone. … If we react, change the process that we’ve done for years because of something like this, what’s the next step? … I just think we let it play its course. This is not representative of us as a body or as a city. It’s purely when someone comes and puts an act on, it’s on them. It [is] nothing - it’s not a reflection on our city, on the professionalism of our city, or the good things that we do.” Smith also made the very important point that by reacting they are showing that these antics are affecting the council. “I would say let them come. They want to come waste their time, hey I’m here. I’ll give them the three minutes and I’ll listen to them. ”Bravo Councilman Smith! After hearing Smith’s wise remarks, Councilman Williams stated he wanted to try the idea. Councilman Smith is clearly an elected official who knows his place and who believes in the first amendment. He is also someone who knows that by reacting you only feed the trolls. So, the best course of action is to ignore them. What you don’t do is punish the majority for the acts of a minority. As Jay Cost said in his article titled, James Madison’s Lesson on Free Speech     
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/james-madison-free-speech-rights-must-be-absolute-nearly/ :
“Give us the right to think what we like and say what we please. And if we the people are to govern ourselves, we must have these rights, even if they are misused by a minority. As we confront those who use their right to free speech to abuse the norms of decency and civility, we should calmly recall Jefferson’s admonition from his first inaugural address. ‘If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it’.”
This is Plano’s Political Pit bull Signing Off
Here are some more quotes on the subject of the First Amendment.

• “The First Amendment was intended to secure something more than an exercise in futility.” Justice John Paul Stevens 
• “United Mine Workers of America v. Illinois State Bar Association (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court exalted the [freedom to petition] right as “among the most precious liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights” and implicit in “the very idea of government.” The Court had earlier affirmed the right to engage in such activity; it thus deemed it a fundamental liberty, protected against encroachment by federal, state and local governments.” Adam Newton and the US Supreme Court,
• “The people shall not be restrained from peacefully assembling and consulting for their common good, nor from applying to the legislature by petitions, or remonstrances for redress of their grievances.” James Madison
• “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” George Orwell
• “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington
• “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. ”Benjamin Franklin,
• “This is slavery, not to speak one's thought.” Euripides
• “It was a shocking thing to say and I knew it was a shocking thing to say. But no one has the right to live without being shocked” Philip Pullman
• “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. "Harry S. Truman

 

 

 
At the July 26, 2021 City Council Preliminary meeting, the cities legislative body discussed changing their Code of Conduct rules; specifically, the campaign finance reform rule that former member Lily Bao and current member Rick Smith crafted and got passed in December of 2020. They also talked about the endorsement policy for council members. .First, lets talk about the endorsement discussion. Council members Grady and Prince think that current members need to stay neutral in council races. Councilwoman Tu first suggested using the word ‘support’ instead of ‘endorsement’ when current Council members want to help people who are running for city office. Tu thinks that endorsements create a “tear that would make a working relationship difficult and it takes years to heal.”
My response to all of this is, give me a break. First, politics is a blood sport, and those in it need to have thick skin. If you can’t handle a current council member endorsing and working for your opponent, then you need to find another line of work. Second, Tu, Prince, and Grady need to remember the line in the first amendment of the US Constitution that prevents government from making any law, “abridging the freedom of speech”, a fact that Councilman Ricciardelli mentioned at the meeting. Also, just because you got elected does not mean you gave up your right to engage in political speech. Current council members need to be able to help get the person elected they would prefer to work with. The grown up thing to do, when someone helps in your opponent’s campaign, is after the race is over you wish the winner congratulations and get back to work; you don’t hold a grudge or refuse to work with those who helped your opponent. You are an adult running for city office, not a teen running for High School President.
Sadly, a vote to see if the council wanted to move forward with having staff bring back a change passed 6 - 2 with Williams and Ricciardelli in the minority.
Now lets talk about the campaign finance reform. In December of 2020, the council passed an ordinance requiring council members to recuse themselves from votes if the applicant gave $1000 or more to a council member’s campaign. An exemption was made and is as follows:
“In the event a quorum cannot be obtained because of recusals pursuant to this section, abstention is not required and the impacted members of City Council may vote as long as the nature of the conflict of interest is fully disclosed on the record.” You can read the full ordinance at the following link https://texasscorecard.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Plano-Code_of_Conduct_Ordinance-2020-12-08.pdf
Council passed this ordinance because big developers were contributing to the campaigns of those running for city council. It is suspected that these developers were donating large sums of money to make sure their big projects get approval by city council. This is not something that should shock anyone who follows politics. Owners of companies often donate to campaigns for leverage, or just to stop elected officials from creating regulations that would harm the companies. Some companies donate to all the candidates in a race, because that way they are sure to have donated to the winner. While this is not illegal, it is slimy, and leaves most residents at a disadvantage. You see, most residents cannot donate large amounts of money to campaigns. Former Councilwoman Bao and Councilman Smith were looking out for the average resident when they made this ordinance. Now that Councilwoman Bao is gone, the first chance the losers of the December vote got, they brought the ordinance back for “discussion”. More likely it was to get a feel for how the new members will vote on changing it.
Council members Tu, Prince, and Grady all don’t like having limits on them. They want the cash to keep flowing in from high paying donors. Both Tu and Grady also did not like the amount of money PACs gave this past election, and also thought more PACs were made to hide developer donor money. Of course they did not bring any evidence to support that statement. If the members are so worried about PAC money in their elections, they could refuse the PAC money and help, both of which none of them did during their elections.
Council members Smith, Williams, and Ricciardelli don’t mind improving the ordinance, but would vote against its repeal. Unlike Tu, Grady, and Prince, they really care about a conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety. Smith also worries that the cost of running for office is too high, and only the rich or well connected will be able to run for office if they repeal this ordinance. Unfortunately, I think that ship has already sailed.
New members, Holmer and Mayor Muns, did not comment on whether they want to keep, change, or repeal the ordinance. However, when it came time to vote on a motion to have staff bring back a change to council, they both voted in favor with Tu, Prince, and Grady. Councilmen Smith, Williams, and Ricciardelli voted against the motion.  
I wish I could say I am surprised by all of this. I knew with the new make up of City Council, the good work that Lily Bao did was at risk of being repealed. Of course like most politicians, the first thing this new group did was work to ease restrictions on lining their coffers.
 
This is Plano’s Political Pit Bull signing off.        
 
 

The following is a press release form Allan Samara, V.P. Communications Plano Citizens Coalition.
4/28/2021 
Comprehensive Plan Select Committee Reaches(CPRC) agreement on A New Comprehensive Plan for Plano with a 15-0 vote.
The CPRC Comprehensive Plan Review Committee reached agreement tonight on a new plan for Plano’s growth and passed it by a 15-0 vote and
sent it on for review by Plano’s Planning and Zoning Commission.
The CPRC, a select committee of 16 citizens was appointed by the City Council in August to create a new plan to replace the controversial Plano
Tomorrow Plan of 2015 which voided by the City Council following a successful court ruling by a citizen’s referendum petition suit that dragged on
for more than 4 years and at one point reached the Texas Supreme Court.
The CPRC needed a 12 vote supermajority to adopt the draft document and received a 15-0 vote affirmation, after over 3000 hours invested in
planning meetings over the last 15 months. The committee of 16 was appointed by the City Council and began work in January 2020.

City Council candidate Justin Adcock who ran on a platform of keeping Plano suburban, hailed the decisive vote as a “potential Win-Win victory for
Plano Homeowners and developers, as an essential element of his campaign to win a Council seat.
“We’ll have to assess the plan in detail as it comes through the process of approval through public hearings and then to our new council by early fall
but we’re all hopeful that the new plan will bring a new sense of cooperation and support for Plano’s suburban character.”

Lily Bao, running for Mayor on a platform promise to “Limit Density to Protect the Suburban Character of Plano” remarked that the new plan “Will
give us all hope that a new fresh breath of air to continue Plano’s growth and excellence for decades to come.”
The Plan goes forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission which may pass it by a simple majority or amend the plan and which will trigger
public hearings where the citizens of Plano will have a chance to weigh in on Plano’s future Comprehensive Plan.

BY STANLEY KURTZ of National Review
​APRIL 7, 2021

With the introduction of his massive, $2.3 trillion “infrastructure” bill, President Biden’s campaign to end suburban single-family zoning has begun. If you think this issue was debated and resolved during the 2020 presidential campaign, you are mistaken. It’s true that Biden’s campaign platform openly and unmistakably pledged to abolish single-family zoning. As soon as President Trump made an issue of that pledge, however, Biden went virtually silent on the issue and the Democrat-supporting press falsely denied that Biden had any designs on single-family zoning at all. Now that he’s president, Biden’s infrastructure bill openly includes programs designed to “eliminate” single-family zoning (which Biden calls “exclusionary zoning”). 
How, exactly, does Biden plan to end single-family zoning? According to the fact sheet released by the White House, “Biden is calling on Congress to enact an innovative new competitive grant program that awards flexible and attractive funding to jurisdictions that take concrete steps to eliminate [‘exclusionary zoning’].” In other words, Biden wants to use a big pot of federal grant money as bait. If a county or municipality agrees to weaken or eliminate its single-family zoning, it gets the federal bucks.
The wildly overreaching Obama-Biden era Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation — which Biden has pledged to revive — works in a similar fashion. The difference is that by adding another gigantic pot of federal money to the Community Development Block Grants that are the lure of AFFH, Biden makes it that much harder for suburbs to resist applying — and that much more punishing to jurisdictions that forgo a share of the federal taxes they’ve already paid so as to protect their right to self-rule.


Are federal carrots enough, however? Prosperous suburbs may forgo the grants in an effort to secure their independence. The success of Biden’s initiative depends in part on exactly how much money gets allocated to grants tied to zoning reform. The details of that ask haven’t yet been released, but the $213 billion allocated to Biden’s total affordable housing initiative leave room for an awfully big pot for the anti-zoning portion.
If there aren’t enough carrots, however, how about sticks? During the campaign, Biden backed a draconian plan to withhold federal transportation grants for road repair from suburbs that refuse to kill off single-family zoning. That hasn’t been proposed by Biden, and the reason is fairly obvious. Democrats don’t yet have the votes to pass such a law. The only way they can get around the filibuster is to squeak spending bills through Congress under the rules on “reconciliation.” So, for now, it’s carrots all the way down. If Senate Dems expand their majority and kill the filibuster in 2022, however, out come the sticks and down goes suburban zoning.


There’s more danger in store for America’s suburbs in Biden’s current proposal than meets the eye, however. If I were administering Biden’s various federal housing programs, I would sucker well-off suburbs into accepting grants on lenient terms. The trick is that once a jurisdiction accepts a HUD grant, it has to sign a statement promising to “affirmatively further fair housing.” Now that Biden is going to revive the old Obama-Biden AFFH rule, that pledge can be used by activist non-profits or the administration itself to sue localities for failing to meet the outrageously expanded definition of that term set forth in Obama’s AFFH. It was suits like this that dragged Westchester County, New York through years of federal control and torment. Just the threat of such suits intimidated Democratic officials in Dubuque, Iowa into surrendering their city’s self-rule to the Obama administration.


Here’s the bottom line: Biden’s campaign to abolish suburban single-family zoning has well and truly begun. As during the Obama era, it will likely escalate in intensity with each passing year. At this point, any jurisdiction in the country that wants to keep control of its zoning and development should decline to apply for federal housing grants. No matter how good the money looks, sign that promise to “affirmatively further fair housing” — as the Biden administration will define it — and you are signing away your birthright.


There’s a pattern here. Biden and the Democrats are working overtime to undermine the federalist system in which zoning and education are local concerns. In each case — housing and education — the plan is the same: use federal grants to hook states and localities into conditions that will effectively override their authority. Kill suburban zoning and force leftist action civics and critical race theory on red-state schools. Siphon off taxes and return the money to taxpayers with conditions that effectively gut the foundational layer of our federalist system — the layer closest to the people.


If Republicans have the good sense to make an issue of Biden’s attack on single-family zoning, it will split the Democrats down the middle. The media will keep trying to cover for Biden. But once the administration begins enforcing AFFH, the reality of his policies will emerge. College-educated suburban Democrats won’t like that. Republicans are split on this issue as well, however, although the split is more politicians from the base than a split within the base. Under Obama, House Republicans overwhelmingly voted to defund AFFH, but Senate Republicans divided. This time, the GOP ought to get smart and expose Biden’s “infrastructure” bill as the anti-suburban zoning bill it in fact is. That would change the “infrastructure” narrative from a Christmas tree studded with goodies to a hammer to smash your way of life.
Naturally, this will all be called code for racial discrimination, but Democrats now lay that charge on pretty much every measure favored by Republicans. Curiously, earlier this week, the New York Times featured a story on opposition to an affordable housing initiative that would rezone New York City’s SoHo neighborhood. Residents worry that the rezoning proposal will bring more massive high-rises, tourists, and traffic into a neighborhood famous for low-rise, nineteenth-century architecture and narrow cobblestone streets. Many say the rezoning proposal is more about pleasing developers than affordable housing. It’s unlikely that many, or any, of these residents voted for Donald Trump in 2020. And the Times story prominently features an opponent of the rezoning initiative who is black. Nor is that an outlier case.


Last summer, when California floated a measure to kill single-family zoning, there was powerful opposition from residents who objected to a law that would make their neighborhoods denser, noisier, and more filled with traffic. Predominantly minority residents in South Los Angeles saw the bill as an “affront to how hard Black Americans fought to join single-family neighborhoods, battling redlining, racist covenants and even targeted violence. And they worried that suddenly relaxing zoning rules would not only ruin the low density they enjoyed, but also unleash an investment flood that would accelerate displacement of the Black community as developers scooped up old homes and built new ones unaffordable to most in the community.”
The zoning issue is tough and complex. It balances principled libertarian objections to zoning and the interests of developers, on the one hand, against core principles of federalism and local control, on the other. Massive spending and taxation are fundamental to the federal effort to override local zoning laws. Neighborhood preservation vies with “creative destruction.” There are plenty of complex, conflicting, and legitimate considerations in the balance. But reducing the zoning issue to bogus charges of “racism” is the way Democrats play the game nowadays.


If Republicans find the courage to stand up to the usual nonsense and oppose this big-government attempt to kill off the federalist system itself, they will find not only the vast majority of Republicans, but a great many independents and Democrats in their corner.


STANLEY KURTZ is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

We just got the following from Councilwoman Lily Bao’s Communications Director.
(Plano’s Political Pit Bull’s analysis is at the bottom.)
“Plano City Council to take up the issue of the conversion of taxable multifamily properties into tax-free lifetime entities through the legal loophole of adopting a tax-free agency as a fractional development partner. Councilwoman Lily Bao places the issue on the council agenda for their March 16th meeting to support House Bill 1604 tightening the loophole, which threatens the tax base of City and School district funding for Plano, Collin County and statewide taxing entities.
Councilwoman Lily Bao attended a meeting of the non-profit Plano Housing Authority on Friday September 4th on an afternoon at the start of  Labor Day weekend, at it she learned that Plano Housing Authority planned to participate in a new state housing initiative that would allow an apartment developer to convert his project to a totally property tax-free asset by drawing in the local affordable housing authority with  a microscopic ownership share and allow it to be free of City, County, School District and College District taxes for its entire useful life. It’s an apparent loophole that “affordable” housing advocates are utilizing to enhance developer’s property values by millions, for for-Profit-majority owners, while escaping property taxes wholly for the entire lifetime of the property.
A giveaway that is built into State law Sec. 303.042(f) penalizing school districts and especially high-value property communities like Plano and PISD. To aggravate matters thoroughly, in high-land value suburbs, the apartments don’t even provide the advantage of affordability.
As an example, in Plano the eligibility for assisted housing would be placed at 80% of the average family income or approximately ($83,000 x.80) $66,400 and the apartment rent would have to fit into 30% of gross income. At a peak this would mean (66,400 x .30= $19,920 annually) or a limit of $1660. per month rent. Hardly “affordable” but very lucrative for the for-profit out-of-town development partners trafficking in this questionable conversion, and leaving millions in added value to be distributed in the form of service fees and maintenance set asides, all because no property taxes are owed.
 
[Councilwoman] Lily Bao views this loophole as a fraud on the taxpayers, the schools, the county and as a councilwoman a fraud on the city treasury. As a person whose name Bao means “protect”, she was rightfully offended, but offended for the people of Plano.
To bring matters home, an aging apartment complex at 7301 Alma Rd. called  “The Alexan” had its sale fall through prior to closing to one developer, only to re-emerge with a new name as a quick sale to another known for affordable housing conversions and it joins three other projects being similarly converted to delete these properties as contributors to the city services and schools they will utilize.”                                
                                                                    
· Link to House Bill 1604….....https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB1604/id/2275850
 
· The following are projects as of December 3rd for Plano Public Facility Corporation resolutions:
         1.Enclave at Legacy
         2.Fountains at Steeplechase
         3.Fairfield Legacy
         4.Alexan at Plano Central(renamed JAIDA)
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Ad16057a9-c8e8-4425-9fd6-8401bc696e68#pageNum=1
· The Following is a study by the University of Texas School of Law
“Public Facilities Corporation and the Sec.303.042(f)Tax break for apartment developments, a boon for affordable housing or windfall for apartment developers?”
2020-ECDC-PFC-Report.pdf (utexas.edu)
From the Executive summary of the study….”To receive the exemption, a private apartment developer transfers land to a public facility corporation (PFC) set up by a local government entity---such as a public housing authority, county, or city ---which then leases the land and any buildings on the land(including those built in the future) back to a limited partnership controlled by the developer. The local government entity gets paid to participate in the venture.
Other local government—such as school districts—have no say over these tax breaks to for-profit apartment developers even though the tax breaks directly impact these other entities property tax base and bottom line.”
Also from the study:

• “Since 2016, at least 30 apartment complexes in Texas have been acquired, developed, or are in active development under this tax-exempt leasehold interest structure, with 17 of these deals approved in 2019. At least six additional deals with this structure have received preliminary approval by a public facility corporation board. Eight of the approved deals involved the acquisition of an existing apartment complex versus new construction. Housing authorities, cities, and counties report an on-going onslaught of proposals by apartments developers to convert existing apartment complexes as well as develop new apartment complexes under this structure in order to obtain the Section 303.042(f) exemption. The 100% property tax exemption on all 30 of these properties, once they are completely developed in a few years, will remove an estimated $1.2 billion in property values from the tax rolls. The fiscal impact is significant, with local taxing jurisdictions, including counties, cities, school districts, as well as the state’s public education fund, seeing a loss of over $32 million in annual tax revenue from these 30 apartment complexes alone once they are completed. With the recent rapid growth in these exemption deals and the deluge of apartment developers seeking to benefit from this exemption, the exemption could remove more than $12 billion in property values off the tax rolls by 2026 with a cumulative property tax exemption of $326 million a year.

 

• At the same time these tax-exempt projects are being approved, Texas faces an on-going affordable rental housing crisis for Texas’s 1.4 million renter households who make less than 50% of the Area Median Income, with a severe shortage of rental units that are affordable to these households. Thirty-three percent of renters who make less than 50% of the Area Median Income are extremely cost burdened. In contrast, only six percent of renters making 65 to 80% of the Area Median Income are extremely cost burdened, and only one percent of renters making over the Area Median Income are extremely cost burdened.
• Texas actually has a surplus of units that are available and affordable to households making up to 80% and 100% of the Area Median Income.”
• Property owned by a public facility corporation is eligible for a 100% tax exemption. Tex. Local Govt Code, § 303.042(c).
• If recent trends continue, the Section 303.042(f) exemption could remove more than $12 billion in property values off the tax rolls by 2026, resulting in a loss of approximately $326 million a year in revenue to local taxing districts and the state public education budget.
• Texas’ middle-income renters do not need deeply subsidized rental housing.
• PFC projects discriminate against tenants with vouchers. Very few properties with a Section 303.042(f) exemption accept tenants with rental vouchers from their local housing authority. For example, none of the PFC-sponsored properties in San Antonio with a Section 303.042(f) exemption accept tenants with vouchers. In contrast, other major affordable housing subsidy programs—such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program—prohibit apartment complexes from discriminating against voucher holders. The failure to accept voucher holders is troubling, especially given that housing authorities are sponsoring most of these projects. Housing authorities’ largest group of clients are voucher holders, who are predominantly African-American and Hispanic. Many of these renters face enormous challenges securing a unit with their vouchers, especially in high opportunity neighborhoods with access to strong schools, transit, and jobs.”

 
PPPB’s analysis: Just in case you are confused by what you have read, please allow your lovable Pit Bull to simplify things for you. The owner of an apartment, condo, or townhouse development can sell less then 1% of their property to Plano Housing Authority. After the sale is final, that entire property becomes property tax exempt forever. In other words their property tax bill is now zero, nothing, zilch. However, the people living in these places will still require city resources, which they will not have to pay for. If children live in these developments, those children will get to go to school for free. Now, who do you think gets the wonderful task of paying for all of this free stuff? The property tax paying homeowners, that is who. Who is the big winner in this scheme? Big wealthy developers of course. They make out like bandits while taxpayers get screwed.  The Housing Authority also does well in this gimmick. This is why economic fascism (public-private partnership) is evil. The wealthy and “public entity” succeeds, while the common person suffers the exuberant tax burden.
PPPB does not think this is what the TX Legislature originally intended when it passed this amendment in 2015. However, every new law always has unintended consequences, and those consequences always cause suffering. House Bill 1604 attempts to fix the tax free windfall. Please read it and let your state representative know how you feel about the bill. Also, let the Plano City Council know if you want them to support HB1604 by Tuesday, March 16, 2021. If you would like to speak at the March 16th meeting go to https://plano.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_KQGiTb4JRgmLm6oZ82vEUw
Thank you Councilwoman Bao for bringing this issue to our attention.
This is Plano’s Political Pit Bull Signing Off

The election to select Council Members for Places 2, 4, 6 (Mayor), 7 and 8 will be conducted on May 1, 2021.  Early voting starts April 19-17. All places are elected at large. Candidates for Places 2 and 4 must live in the districts they are running for. Place 7 is a special election, because Council member Bao is stepping down to run for Mayor. 
 
The following is a list of all the candidates running in each race. The names are in alphabetical order. City council races are nonpartisan. If the candidate has a primary voting record, we wrote it down under their name.
We strongly recommend everyone to do their homework on all the candidates. Question everything they say, and don’t take anything they tell you at face value. Remember these are politicians, so you must read between the lines. If they have a voting record on a board or council, look it up.
 
PPPB does not and is not endorsing any candidate.
 
City Council, Place 2
 
Steve Lavine
www.Steve4Plano.com
[email protected]
214-466-1199
( Sits on the Library Advisory Board. Has voted in the Democrat Primaries.)
 
Anthony Ricciardelli 
www.AnthonyforPlano.com
[email protected]
(Is the current Place 2 Councilman. Was on the Heritage Commission before being elected to council. Has voted in the GOP Primaries)
 
City Council, Place 4
 
Justin Adcock
www.JustinforPlano.com
[email protected]
972-836-7656
(Voted in the GOP Primaries.)
 
Nassat Parveen
[email protected]
(Has voted in Democrat primaries.)
 
Kayci Prince 
www.PrinceforPlano.com
[email protected]
(Is the current Place 4 Councilwoman. Was on the Planning and Zoning Board before being elected to council. Has voted in the GOP Primaries.)
 
Vidal Quintanilla
www.VidalforPlano.com
[email protected]
(Has not voted in any primary, because he registered to vote in Aug 2020.)
 
 
City Council, Place 6—Mayor
 
Lily Bao
www.lilyforplano.com
[email protected]
214-517-7071
(Current Councilwoman for place 7. Was on the Housing Board before being elected to council. Has voted in the GOP primaries.)
 
John Muns
www.johnmuns.com
[email protected]
972-403-7676
(Was on the Planning and Zoning Board. Has voted in the GOP primaries.)
 
Lydia Ortega
www.lydiaortega4plano.com
[email protected]
214-414-2010
(Has voted in the GOP primaries.)
 
City Council, Place 7
 
Julie Holmer
[email protected]
469-634-2771
(Has voted in Democrat primaries.)
 
Bill Lisle III
[email protected]
214-475-4203
(Has voted in the GOP primaries.)
 
Chris Robertson
[email protected]
757-560-3453
(Has voted in the GOP primaries.)
 
Sandeep Srivastava
[email protected]
972-655-4382
(Has voted in the GOP primaries.)

David M. Smith
www.davidforallplano.com
[email protected]
​972-516-3849
(Former city council member  from 1993 through 1999. Votes in the Democrat primaries.)​
 
City Council, Place 8 
 
Elisa Klein
www.elisaforplano.com
[email protected]
469-585-6444
(Voted in the Democrat primary.)
 
Rick Smith
www.rickforplano.org
[email protected]
214-707-4575
(Current Councilman for Place 8. Has voted in the GOP primaries.)

​
On February 1, 2021, the Plano Planning and Zoning Board passed zoning case 2020-033 to rezone 5.3 acres located on the corner of Park Boulevard and K Avenue from Corridor Commercial to Planned Development-Corridor Commercial. Even though the new zoning says commercial, the only thing that is planned for this site is a five story low income apartment building with 1-3 bedroom units. A five story residential building that will sit right next to train tracks for the Parker Rail Station 100 feet away, diagonally across from a gun range, and next to a Rent A Tire and a pawn shop. The question this commentator has is, is this spot a good place for adults and children to live?
To answer this question I need to talk about this lot and the surrounding properties. This piece of land has been used as a typical commercial site since 1973. In 1998, one building of two on the property was demolished. In 2002, the City of Plano decided to buy the property for $1.7 million for redevelopment to reinforce transit use. In 2003, the second structure on the property was torn down, so now the lot is empty.
Seventeen years later, in 2020, the Plano Housing Authority approached the City Council to buy the property for $900,000, to be paid in $45,000 installments. If you do the math, that would have been a loss of $800,000. Thankfully, at a June 2020, City Council meeting, the PHA offer was rejected by a vote of 4-3. Council members Bao, Williams, Ricciardelli, and Smith were the majority in that vote.
Next, the City Council decided to see how much they could get for the lot on the open market. In the following months, they got four offers. The Plano Housing Authority then made a bid for $2 million with a $20,000 deposit. The full $2 million will also not be paid off for at least 26 months. Why, you may wonder? You see, the PHA has to file for a grant to actually get the money. Of course, that means they may not be approved for the grant, and won’t be able to buy the land.
A request to accept the Housing Authority’s offer was placed on the consent agenda for the October 26, 2020, City Council meeting. Thankfully, Councilman Williams pulled the request from the consent agenda. During the council’s discussion, Councilman Grady said that the City should take the offer, since it was the highest bid. Councilman Smith said, “The problem is we don’t have an able buyer.” Having a buyer who will not have the money for over a year, and may not ever get the money, is a valid concern. Councilwoman Bao agreed with Councilman Smith, and she did not think housing was the best use for the property. Councilwomen Prince and Tu, as well as the Mayor, did not have any concerns about the deal. Councilman Williams agreed with Smith and Bao. Lastly, Councilman Ricciardelli said that he was fine with the sale of the property to PHA, since they were not voting on what the property would be used for. In the end, the request to sell the property to PHA passed 5-3. Council members Bao, Williams, and Smith were the 3 who voted against.
Fast forward four months to the February 1, 2021, P&Z meeting,  the PHA requested to rezone the property to build a five story low income apartment building. 80% of the units would be for low income individuals or families, and 20% would be rented at a fair market value. Board members Samara, Barbara, and Cary were the only ones to have concerns about the area the apartment building would be built, while members Downs, Stone, Horne, Walters, and Gibbons seemed fine with the idea of families living right in front of train tracks. These tracks have trains coming and going from 4:28 A.M. - 1:49 A.M. in 20 minute intervals, and 100 feet from the future apartment building site is the Parker Station where these trains will stop. People will be getting on and off those trains all day and into the wee hours of the morning. The closest train tracks to my home are 1.5 miles away, yet I can hear a moving train from my bedroom every once in a while. Image what a train would sound like right next to your bedroom window every 20 minutes. I can only guess that Downs, Stone, Horne, Walters, and Gibbons have never lived by train tracks, so they did not realize how crazy it is to put an apartment building right in front of them.
The other problem with putting housing on this lot, is it would be the only residential building on K Ave from Park Blvd to Parker Rd. The apartment building will also be the only five story building on the block, so aesthetically it will look out of place.
Now lets talk about what kind of businesses are on this block. Going north from the corner of Park and K Ave, the first thing we see is a Rent A Tire. The PHA will try to get a 99 year lease for this property, so they can take it down and put green space; however, if the owner does not agree to the deal, the Rent A Tire will stay. Directly across the street is a Shell gas station and Chiropractic office. Next to the property in question is a Pawn Shop. Across the street, and next to the Chiropractor, is a run down strip mall with various retail stores. Next to, and slightly behind the Pawn Shop, is a bowling ally, the only business on this street appropriate to have next to homes with children. Across from the bowling ally, and diagonally across from the future apartment building, is a Gun Care Shop and The Bullet Trap Gun Shop and Range. I have shopped and gone shooting at this range, and it is a nice place; however, homes should not be built within walking distance from the Bullet Trap, or any gun range for that matter. Now, I know most Texans love the second amendment and going to the shooting range, but that does not mean they want to live across from one. Continuing north, we have a Tint Windows Shop, an auto sound store, Window Treatment Center, a gym, Auto Electric Services, and a 1st Choice Auto repair shop. Across the street from those business, is an AAMCO. Next to that is a Cash Loans on Car Title place and Public Storage. Across from them are Texaco, U-Haul, and a Convenience Store. Next to those businesses is a large strip mall with retail stores and food pantry. Walk across K Ave, and we have a car wash, convenience store, and fast food restaurant. That is the future neighborhood for the families that will live in this new apartment building. Clearly, this is not a block that was designed for residential housing. This lot and area is obviously not suitable for a residential building. The building will look out of place and the area is unsuitable for adults and/or children to live in. So, to answer my original question, is this spot a place for adults and children to live? The answer is, heck no!
Now, some of you are most likely asking, where is PHA supposed to put low income housing? To answer that question, lets look at where Plano currently has low income housing.
I did a simple internet search and found a list of 13 low income apartment complexes and one house in Plano with availability. All of them on the list are in nice residential neighborhoods. None of them are right next to train tracks or a gun range. In fact, when I did a Google Maps search of all apartments in Plano, all of the complexes that came up are in or near residential neighborhoods. I could not find any apartments in an area like the K Ave block which the PHA wants to build their apartment building on. That is most likely because people don’t want to live in a commercial area next to train tracks, and near a gun range.
If PHA needs to build low income homes, I suggest building small houses next to Plano Center on Jupiter Road and Spring Creek. I suggest this area, because the city owns this land. The city also agreed to lease a part of this area to Radisson Hotels for free in 2018. You can read about this sweet heart deal in the article Corporate Welfare at its Finest at the following link.  
https://planospoliticalpitbull.weebly.com/posts-about-council/july-20th-2018 
If the City truly feels low income housing is so circuital, they should be more then happy to give a portion of empty land near the Plano Center to PHA for the same deal as Radisson. Then the PHA can use the $2 million to build nice homes for poor families.
 Some other reasons I recommend this spot is the neighborhood is nice and the Oat Point Nature Preserve is there. Also, current area residents probably won’t mind having single family homes there. Another plus is the area has two bus stops for people who need public transportation; one on the corner of Spring Creek and Des Moines Drive, and the other on Jupiter by Collin College. Clearly, this location is a much better place for people to live than K Ave and East Park Blvd.
The only thing that is suitable for the K Ave property is a parking lot for the train station and businesses nearby. A parking lot would also fit the reason the city bought the land in the first place; to reinforce transit use.
The City Council is scheduled to vote on this zoning request on February 22, 2021. Please contact the City Council members and tell them K Ave and Park Blvd is not a suitable place for people with children, or without, to live. Tell them to vote ‘no’ on zoning case 2020-033.
This is Plano’s Political Pit bull signing off.

The following link is an article from National Review. The national media has finally caught up to what some Plano residents already know.  People want to get rid of the suburbs and single family houses. Even with COVID 19 hitting urban centers harder then suburban and rural areas because of their density, progressives have not given up on the dream to abolish the suburbs. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/biden-and-dems-are-set-to-abolish-the-suburbs/
​

​
 
The city council tabled zoning case 2019-023 on February 24, 2020 at the request of the applicant Sam Ware. It will come back to council on Tuesday, March 17, 2020. A reason for tabling was not given.
As I said in my original article on Feb. 24, 2020,
​https://planospoliticalpitbull.weebly.com/posts-about-council/foreclosure-on-former-jcpenney-headquarters-property, Sam Ware wants to build a mixed use development with over 600 apartments on this property. However, the property is currently in foreclosure. Sam Ware managed to get a court to halt the bank from seizing the property temperately. However, that hold will expire on March 3rd.  
Sam Ware has been looking for new financing. However if he can’t pay the $389 million loan he currently has, how will he pay back a new one? I don’t see anyone risking millions on someone who can’t pay his bills now. We will just have to see what happens. 

​​ 
Beal Bank has flied to foreclose on the JC Penny Headquarters property in West Plano. The bank provided $388 million to Sam Ware for the property around 1,100 days ago.
Sam Ware has big plans for the property. He wants to build more office buildings, a hotel, food truck park, retail, and apartments. One thing this mixed use development does NOT have: a grocery store. So, everyone who will live in this development will have to get in their car and drive down Communications to Kroger.
The city council has already denied this project in 2019. However, Sam Ware will not give up. He brought a revised version of the project back to Planning and Zoning at the beginning of February and it passed. It will be brought to city council tonight, February 24, 2020.
 Sam Ware managed to get a court to halt the bank from seizing the property temperately, but in the meantime, he’s dug up the trees to sell. I am not sure how this project will get off the ground, when the developer can’t even pay the mortgage on the property and has to sell the landscaping.
In my opinion, this project is not right for the area. More importantly the financial instability of the developer makes this project too risky. This property could be tied up in court for years or seized by the bank. Those issues put development at a stand still. Until the fiances of this property are worked out, the city should not approve anything for it.
If you agree, write to the members of city council, or go to the meeting, and tell them to oppose the project.   
This is Plano’s Political Pit Bull signing off. 

THE CITY OF PLANO IS FINALLY BEGINNING TO EMBRACE FISCAL POLICY MAKING THAT BETTER RESPECTS THE ECONOMIC LIBERTY OF TAXPAYERS. BUT THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR CITIZENS TO GROW COMPLACENT

(Published by Empower Texans) 
CONNOR BARRON
PPPB is very impressed with Connor Barron. This article by Connor perfectly explains the 2019/2020 tax rate and budget. 
SEPTEMBER 4, 2019
On September 9, Plano City Council will adopt a property tax rate and budget for the next fiscal year beginning on October 1. The process has been mostly the same as it has been for years. The staff presented an overview of the budget, council members asked questions, projections for the short term were discussed, and so forth.
What’s different, however, is the tax rate currently being proposed by city staff.
For the first time in decades, the city’s proposed tax rate is the Effective Tax Rate. The Effective Tax Rate is the rate required to collect the same amount of property taxes (on existing properties) as in the prior fiscal year. In Plano’s case, that rate is $0.4482 per $100 of property valuation.
Residents’ actual tax bills are equal to this rate multiplied by their property’s assessed value. With the Effective Tax Rate, the average Plano homeowner will only pay $3 more in property taxes in the upcoming fiscal year (a 0.22 percent increase). In other words, residents will be paying roughly the same amount in property taxes as in the previous year.
Considering that the average homeowner has seen a 39.73 percent increase in his or her property taxes from 2013-14 to the present fiscal year of 2018-19, this is much-needed property tax relief.
Plano’s online budget portal breaks down the general fund into several functional areas, which are essentially categorizations of individual department budgets. To see what the general fund and other aspects of the operating budget consist of in greater detail, readers can go to the City of Plano website to access the 2019-20 recommended budget.

​

It is very clear that some of the fastest-growing portions of the budget are administrative in nature. Over the last five years, Finance Administration increased 91 percent, Public Works Administration is up 176 percent, and Procurement and Project Management has increased by an astounding 211 percent. There are many reasons why this occurs. Some increases in spending are justified and others are not. As such, the issue of certain spending trends and their causal budgeting decisions still needs to be addressed.
Thus, this is not the time for citizens to grow complacent. If progress is to be made and continually built, the elected representatives serving on Plano City Council need to hear from their constituents about how important it is that they deliver long-term property tax relief. The goal should be to adopt the Effective Tax Rate whenever possible, so long as doing so does not inhibit the City of Plano from adequately performing its core functions.
As repeatedly witnessed in recent years, an engaged and well-informed citizenry can make a great difference in their local community. For now, it appears Plano is on the verge of hopefully one of many victories in the movement to forge a new standard of governance that better serves its people.

​
 In a packed city hall on July 22, 2019, the Panning & Zoning and Plano City Council had a joint session. On the agenda was repealing and replacing the Plano Tomorrow Plan.
The meeting was supposed to start at 6:00 pm and last one hour. At the start of the meeting the City Council and P&Z recessed into executive session. They were there for 1 hour and 30 minutes. This really frustrated some people in the hall. Others could not wait for Council and P&Z to come back from behind closed doors, so they left. What could they possibly have been doing in there, and why couldn’t they do it in public? We will never know.
When the open meeting finally got started, P&Z members spoke first. Board member and former councilman David Downs strongly felt he did not have enough information to make a decision. Member Hilton Kong and the P&Z Chair felt the same way. They also wanted more time to study the issue. Honestly, I can’t blame them. They got a huge packet from city staff the Friday before the meeting. They do not know how repealing the Plano Tomorrow Plan would effect projects that are currently up for approval or under construction.
 In the end, the P&Z unassumingly tabled the repeal and replacement of the Plano Tomorrow Plan until their next meeting on August 19th. The P&Z decision led the City Council to also table the repeal and replacement of the Plano Tomorrow Plan.
 The August P&Z meeting will be after the court date on August 15th between the city and residents. That is where a judge will finally decide if the city secretary must present a citizen petition to city council. The petition asks the city council to put the Plano Tomorrow Plan up for a referendum vote. As one of the plaintiffs said at the joint meeting on July 24th during the public comments section, “The only thing our petition asks for is to put the Plano Tomorrow Plan up for a citizen vote. You can vote yes, or you can vote no.”
If the judge sides with the plaintiffs and orders the City Secretary to present the petition to council, what happens next? According to the Plano City Charter Sec. 7.03, when a petition for referendum is brought to council, “the city council shall immediately reconsider such ordinance or resolution and if it does not entirely repeal the same, shall submit it to popular vote.” So, council could repeal the Plano Tomorrow Plan. With the losing track record the city has had in court, Council and staff better be working on a temporary comprehensive plan to put up for a vote at the August 26th city council meeting. After a repeal, council and residents, can work together on amending the parts of the Plano Tomorrow Plan that 50% of the Plano voting residents have a problem with.
Many council members feel the Plano Tomorrow Plan has divided the city into two camps, those in favor of the plan and those against it. This divide was overwhelming in the last two city elections. Four people sit on council now because more than 50% of the voting residents want to keep Plano’s suburban feel. In this old dogs opinion, the city council should just repeal the Plano Tomorrow Plan. Another election will only lead to more division and cost more taxpayer money. The best thing to do is for the two camps to come together, compromise, and change the parts of the plan that are causing disagreement.
If you would like to watch the three hour joint session for yourself, you can at http://www.plano.gov/210/Plano-TV .
This is Plano’s Political Pit Bull signing off. 

​
The saying, “It ain’t over til it’s over” seems fitting for the long three year saga of the Plano Tomorrow Plan lawsuit. On August 15th, 2019 the case will head back to district court.
 In case you don’t know, the Plano Tomorrow Plan is a comprehensive thirty year plan for the city. It lays out what City Council wants Plano to look like in thirty years. When this plan was passed in 2015, residents overwhelmingly disapproved of it. Hundreds of people packed the Planning and Zoning meeting to speak against the plan and to tell the board to vote no on it. The board ignored the residents, though, and the plan passed. The plan went to City Council where residents again packed the chamber, and again they were ignored and the plan passed. Citizens went on to file a petition with the City Secretary for a Referendum vote. That way the residents could vote up or down on the plan. The petition got more then 4,000 signatures. City Attorney Mim refused to let the City Secretary present the petition to council. Mim felt it would be against state law for the residents to vote on a comprehensive plan, and barred the secretary from presenting it to council. Residents filed a lawsuit. Three years, multiple rulings in favor of the plaintiffs, a trip to the TX Supreme Court and $400,000 of taxpayer money later, we thought we were approaching the end to this conflict.
On July 10, 2019 the city and the plaintiffs agreed to attend mediation. The discussions during mediation are confidential, but a statement from Plano Future that was released on their Facebook page said, “We anticipate that the agenda for the City Council meeting on July 22, 2019 will include repealing and replacing the Plano Tomorrow Plan. Depending on the outcome of that meeting, the lawsuit may become moot. Further information will be made available as the process continues.” The original July 19th court date was postponed to August 15th.
Between July 10th and 17th something happened that has caused whatever was agreed upon mediation to fall apart. Plano Future posted the following from the Plaintiff’s Lawyer Jack Ternan. “Over three years ago, I took on the representation of five citizens in a lawsuit regarding a petition--signed by 4,300 citizens--calling for a referendum on the ordinance adopting the Plano Tomorrow Plan. The rule of law and the democratic process are important, and that lawsuit continues.
On July 10, 2019, there was a mediation involving the plaintiffs and city staff. The plaintiffs understood that the City Council would meet to repeal the Plano Tomorrow Plan and replace it with a new comprehensive plan on July 22, 2019. Obviously, such an action would have a legal consequence on the pending lawsuit and, to give the City Council an opportunity to act, the plaintiffs agreed to move a court hearing set for July 19, 2019.
The plaintiffs complied with their end of the bargain and moved the hearing to August 15, 2019. The agenda for the meeting on July 22, 2019 still reflects that a discussion of the repeal and replacement of the Plano Tomorrow Plan will occur. However, city staff has indicated in a press statement that they intend to renege on holding such meeting. We will find out soon enough what actually happens.
Over the last week, it became apparent that the city's attorneys wanted to cast the replacement plan as a “settlement agreement” and needed my clients' consent in order to make that characterization stick. Having failed to obtain that consent, the city staff have taken to the media to contend that an “agreement” fell through. The public should be deeply concerned that the stated intent of the staff was to secretly negotiate a replacement comprehensive plan for the city. I am proud of my clients for not giving in to the temptation to usurp a function that properly belongs to the City Council and the citizens of Plano.
We put an end to the improper negotiations and intend to proceed with the lawsuit to compel compliance with the law.”
 In a statement to Community Impact city spokesperson Steve Stoler said, “the plaintiff ‘changed their minds’ after reaching a deal with city staff last week. When we walked away from the mediation, we believed we had a solid agreement acceptable to the plaintiffs to swap the land use provisions in the current plan for the counterparts in the 1986 plan that was repealed in 2015.”
In a statement to Community Impact plaintiffs lawyer Jack Terman also said, “Where the breakdown happened was they were trying to get my clients to agree to a replacement plan. My clients aren’t elected. The City Council is elected. The City Council should be the ones putting together the replacement plan.”
 
From the above statements, one can only conclude that the city wanted the plaintiffs to change the current comprehensive plan, or create a new one, and the council would vote on it on July 22nd. My response to this is, has the city staff all lost their minds? It is council’s job to change or create a new plan. A new plan could take a year to create. If the council wanted to, they could just replace the Plano Tomorrow Plan with the plan that was in effect in 1986, or the plan that was in effect in 2012 when the 86 plan was amended, then work on creating a new plan.
I have another question; what is the city attorney trying to pull here? The reason the lawsuit was originally brought was to get the city secretary to present the petition to city council. Once the petition is presented, Council can repeal the plan or put it up for a referendum vote. I believe the city does not want the district judge to issue an order to the city secretary to present the petition to council, because it would create a legal precedent the Municipal League does not want. That precedent would be that city comprehensive plans can be voted on by the residents. Giving residents a say on what their city looks like; the elitist politicians and bureaucratic planners cannot have that.
Whether by city council or a judges ruling, hopefully this three year ordeal will come to an end before Labor Day.
 
This is Plano’s Political Pit Bull Signing off.

 If you have lived in Plano for more then 40 years you have seen a lot of changes. Plano was originally a rural town, and most residents were in the agricultural business. But, as people began to move away from big urban cities, Plano changed from a rural city to a suburban one. Yet, Plano still managed to keep some land for farming. If liberals have their way, Plano will not have any farms and become the urban city that most of today's residents moved away from.
For many years parts of Plano kept its farms while making room for single family housing developments.  East Plano and some of West Plano still has farm land. The Lavon Dairy Farm has been in East Plano for about 90 years. Next to Legacy West on Communications we still have longhorn cows. They use to occupy all of the Legacy West area, until the Mayor thought they should make room for what is now a mixed use development with restaurants, condos, apartments, and office buildings. Eventually the cows’ small pasture will probably be sold to a developer, and the cows will have to leave Plano.
If you drive down Windhaven you will see a field of, what looks like wheat growing. On Spring Creek in West Plano you will find horses. You can also find a very large farm off of Dallas Pkwy and Spring Creek. That farm used to own most of the land that is now car dealerships.There is also wheat growing on land off Dallas Pkwy; it has a sign on it saying the land one day will have an office development on it. So, no more wheat growing there.   
Ironically, the same liberal mindset that wants to bulldoze the farms in our city for mixed use developments, walk-able neighborhoods, and less people driving, also want fresh locally grown organic food, less CO2 emissions, and want to go to farmers markets where local farmers can sell their crops. There is just one problem with that. In order for us to have locally grown food we need local farms to locally grow that food.
Farms need lots of land. If the city council continues rezoning farm land for mixed use, eventually we won’t have any local farms left in Plano. That means the food will have farther to travel in a truck or a plane which would create more CO2.
We can’t have it both ways. We can’t tear up every bit of farm land to build a concrete jungle without pollution. And we can’t have locally grown food without farms. While we can’t regain the farm land we have lost, we can preserve what little farm land we have left.  
This is Plano’s Political Pit Bull Signing Off. 

​
 
Monday, June 24, 2019, was Plano’s three new council members first full day on the job. The meeting started out smoothly, but by the end two new members made it clear they were there to change the status quo.
The preliminary meeting began with the Mayor announcing his appointments of council members to be a liaison to Boards and Commissions. The Mayor decides which council members get which board or commission.Council members Prince and Smith were assigned to the very important Planning and Zoning.
During the general meeting the almost 400% park fee increase was on the agenda. The park fee is billed to a residential developer when a permit is issued to build housing, and the fee can only be used by the city to buy land and build a park. If a fee is collected, a park must be built.
Councilwoman Maria Tu was the only council member to mention the fact that the developer will just pass the park fee on to the home-buyer, which will raise housing costs. Maybe she read the PPPB article on the park fee. https://planospoliticalpitbull.weebly.com/posts-about-council/new-home-prices-to-rise-if-council-raises-fees
Councilman Williams suggested a different amount billed for different areas, since the cost of land is different depending on where the land is.
Councilman Ricciardelli suggested the fee should be throughout the whole city. The head of the Parks and Recreation Department was hesitant about doing this. Councilman Ricciardelli suggested this because Legacy West was not apart of a park fee zone. At the time the fee was created, the city did not think that area would be zoned residential. When the zoning changed from agricultural to mixed use, the city council did not redo the park fee zones to add Legacy West. So, those folks living there now never paid the park fee. Even though they did not pay the fee Legacy is still getting a park. It will just be paid for by everyone in Plano.
While most council members wanted to add zones to the park fee and study charging different amounts based on the cost of land, most did not want to delay increasing the fee. So, the increase passed 7-1 with Councilman Williams the only no vote. On his Facebook page Williams wrote the following, “On Monday, I had my first Plano City Council meeting and my first lone dissenting vote. Nothing like making a statement right off the bat.
This specific vote was over a 340% increase to the park fee. This is simply a per-house/apartment fee charged to developers of a new residential area for the city to acquire land and develop a small neighborhood park. This is a good way to make sure we have green space as Plano is built out.
However, the park fee has not increased since it was established 26 years ago, in 1993, at $467.47 per house and $323.96 per apartment. Monday's proposal made several key revisions and increased the fee to $2,065.43 per house and $1,442.66 per apartment. Inflation since then has been 73.3%, but I don't have data on how much land values have likewise gone up.
The fee needs to be brought current, though I would have liked to see the numbers behind the numbers. However, I had numerous questions and concerns, centered mainly on two things:
1) The 1993 ordinance divided the city into 14 "service areas" so that park fees collected within a given area could only be used within that same area. That's good, but some areas were not included, and hence exempt from park fees. Legacy West was one of these, and those residents never had to pay the fees. The revised ordinance still excluded those areas, and I feel no part of the city should be exempt.
2) Development costs are the same across Plano, but per-acre land values vary drastically, and the park fee is a flat fee no matter the land value in the area. Thus, new residents in one part of the city are subsidizing parks for new residents in other parts of the city.
I wanted to table the proposal to work through some of these considerations, and bring it back up for a vote at the next council meeting on July 22. Several council members initially expressed agreement, raising additional questions, but after a few minutes of discussion, a motion to approve the revised ordinance was made, and I was the only holdout.
    There are three circumstances in which I will always vote "no":
1) I flat disagree with the proposal (e.g. a big tax increase)
2) I don't fully understand the proposal (I won't cover my own ignorance by going along with something I don't understand)
3) I don't think the proposal is quite developed enough for a vote (this is how I felt about Monday's park fee proposal)
When it comes to legislation, I'm a minimalist. Our purpose is to protect citizens' rights and liberties, and to ensure safe and orderly society. Unless there's a true crisis, I won't pass an ordinance just to get something passed. It doesn't have to be perfect, but it has to be ready, and this wasn't.”
The council did instruct the staff to research adding more zones, and research how a fee based on the value of the land would work by the next council meeting. The Mayor has already said he is against the latter, because we don’t charge people different amounts for police. Their is just one problem with that statement; we do charge people differently. A person in a $500,000 house pays a higher property tax bill than a person in a $300,000 home. Therefore the person in the $500,000 home pays more for services.
Some other things discussed on this first day was adopting Robert Rules of Order for city council meetings and the nominating process for boards and commissions. Both items were put on the preliminary agenda by Council members Bao and Williams. The seasoned council members were hesitant to change. The excuse given was usually, “we have always done it this way”. Councilwoman Bao had the best response to that. She said, “Just because it has been done that way does not mean it has to continue. We are here to improve the system.” Those who elected Bao and Williams definitely did not put them there to keep things the same.
This is Plano’s Political Pit Bull Signing Off.

 
On June 10, 2019, Parks and Recreation director presented an increase for a Park Fee for builders of residential units at the City Council Preliminary meeting. When a fee is collected, a park must be built in the area. The fee can only be used to buy land and build a park.It can’t be used for the up keep of the new park. The balance of the park fee fund is currently $5,381,101.
Right now the park fee is $467.47 per single family unit and $323.96 per multifamily unit. Park and Recreation staff want to raise the single family fee to $2,065 per unit and the multifamily fee to $1,443 per unit. That is about a 441.75% increase for single family and about a 445.43% increase for multifamily. My first reaction when I saw these numbers was, have they lost their minds! Amazingly, the city council members did not have any reaction to these exorbitant increases that would have made loan sharks blush.
Some of you may be asking, what if these future residents don’t want a park? Everyone doesn’t use parks. Some people, like my spouse, have terrible allergies and going to a park would cause an allergy attack. The developers can’t opt out of the fee, even if their buyers don’t want a park.
If these steep increases are passed when they come up for a vote, be ready for new single family housing prices and new apartment rents to go up. Why? Even my young puppy knows when it costs a developer more to build a house or apartment, they will pass that cost right along to the consumers. With housing prices and rents already at an all time high in Plano, we need this fee increase like we need a hole in the head. This leads me to wonder if anyone in the Parks and Recreation Department, or on council, understands basic economics.
I understand that the cost of land and construction has gone up. It is understandable that the bureaucrats in the Parks and Recreation Department would suggest an increase. However, a 400% one is outrageous. Try a 50% increase in one year. That way the price of building new homes won’t be affected that much.
There are currently 63 parks in Plano. According to Plano’s website they are…..

• Arbor Hills Nature Preserve  
• Archgate Park
• Arrowhead Park
• Big Lake Park
• Blue Ridge Park
• Bob Woodruff Park North  
• Bob Woodruff Park South 
• Buckhorn Park
• Caddo Park
• Capstone Park
• Carpenter Park 
•  Skate Park at Carpenter Park
• Cheyenne Park
• Clearview Park
• Copper Creek Playground
• Cottonwood Creek Greenbelt South
• Cottonwood Creek Greenbelt North
• Coyote Creek Park
• Dog Park at Jack Carter Park
• Eldorado Park
• Enfield Park  
• Evans Park
• Frank Beverly Park
• Glen Meadows Park
• Hackberry Park
• Haggard Park 
• Harrington Park 
• Hidden Meadow Park
• Hoblitzelle Park 
• Horseshoe Park
• Indian Creek Park
• Jack Carter Park
• Liberty Park
• Lone Star Park
• Longhorn Park
• Los Rios Park
• Lt. Russell Steindam Park
• Memorial Park
•  Oak Point Park and Nature Preserve 
• Old Shepard Place Park 
• Parkwood Green Park
• Prairie Meadow Park
• Preston Meadow Park 
• Ridgeview Park
• Russell Creek Park 
• Rustic Park
• Schell Park
• Shawnee Park and disc golf course 
• Shoshoni Park
• Steeplechase Park
• Stimpson and Drake Park
• Stoney Hollow Park
• Suncreek Park
• Sunset Park
• Tejas Park
• Timber Brook Park
• WH. "Buzz" Rasor Park
• Wagon Wheel Park
• Westwood Park
• White Rock Trail Park
• Willowcreek Park 
• Windhaven Park
• Windhaven Meadows Park

 
This does not included one park that has not broken ground yet, athletic fields, or trails. With 64 parks do we need anymore? I think the answer is obviously no. Most towns around the nation have one city park and maybe a baseball field. I don’t know of any town or small city that has 64 parks, different athletic fields, and trails. The vote on the increase will be at the June 24th city council meeting, and I have a suggestion for our council members. Lets keep housing costs from going up by retiring the park fee all together, and residents in new developments can use one of the 64 parks we already have.
This is Plano’s Political Pit Bull Signing Off

​ 
On June 8, 2019, Lily Bao and Shelby Williams won their run off elections in one of the most contentious and expensive local elections in recent memory. Lily Bao beat former Democrat precinct chair Ann Bacchus by 2,775 votes, and Shelby Williams won by 1,281 votes over incumbent Ron Kelly.
This local election was very expensive. Almost a quarter of a million dollars was spent by big developers and donors to get Kelly and Bacchus elected. Some of the money was spent on scummy and false mailers attacking Lily and Shelby. The Mayor got in on the despicable behavior calling Lily and Shelby the “hate slate”, so he could maintain a majority on council. Lily and Shelby’s win proves out spending your opponent does not mean victory. It also shows that calling people names and assaulting your opponent’s volunteer, like Ann Bacchus did, will not get you votes.
Shelby and Lily won the election not with money, but with grassroot support. Plano residents volunteered to block walk, call, and poll greet for Shelby and Lily. These volunteers have seen their property taxes go up about 40% in five years, and they can’t afford another tax hike. They are tried of the lack of transparency from city council and staff. Lily and Shelby’s supporters also have had enough of the Mayor’s verbal abuse towards them at council meetings, in the press, and on social media. Some of those instances Plano’s Political Pit Bull has written about.
Some of Shelby William’s volunteers helped to get Ron Kelly elected 4 years ago. Why did they support Shelby this time? They feel that Ron Kelly betrayed them. They thought he was going to fight for lower tax bills and limit more apartments. After council members Rick Smith and Anthony Ricciardelli won their elections two years ago, supporters thought they had a 4 to 4 balance on the council. In the end, Ron Kelly voted with the Mayor on issues Kelly’s supporters were against. Some believe Ron Kelly has been seduced by power. Others believe he has been manipulated by the Mayor. A few simply think Ron Kelly lied to get elected. Whatever the reason for his change, in this election most of Ron Kelly’s original supporters went to help Shelby William and Lilly Bao’s campaigns.
After the election these supporters again have four people they believe will fight for them. Now the question is can Shelby Williams, Lily Bao, Anthony Ricciardelli, and Rick Smith do what they have promised? Can these four not be corrupted by the Mayor and the government swamp? Can they stand up to the Mayor and staff on behalf of the residents? Will they be able to question everything staff says, and not take things at face valve? With the staff’s recommended budget and tax rate for 2020 about to be released, we will soon find out.
This is Plano’s Political Pit Bull Signing Off.

With property tax burdens and outside developer influence taking center stage, turnout in Plano’s heated city council runoffs is outpacing the May general election.
By Erin Anderson 
​June 7, 2019

Plano residents are taking notice of important local elections, turning out to vote early in the city’s hotly contested runoff races in high numbers that actually outpaced early voting totals in the regular May municipal elections.
From May 28 through June 4, 15,373 voters cast early ballots in the Plano City Council runoffs—over 9 percent of the city’s registered voters—with 861 of those ballots cast by mail.
By comparison, early voting in Plano’s May 4 general election drew 13,915 voters (8.57 percent turnout), with 663 casting ballots by mail.
Collin County Elections Administrator Bruce Sherbet says it is “very rare” for more voters to participate in a June runoff than the May election.
Fueling the higher-than-normal turnout are contentious runoffs for two city council seats—the only races on the ballot—that have attracted a flood of special interest money. Campaign finance reports filed with the city show outside high-density developers are heavily backing Mayor Harry LaRosiliere’s endorsed candidates: an incumbent criticized for hiking city tax bills and a controversial Democrat.
Campaign rhetoric has heated up during the runoff—in attack mailers, outside the polls, and on social media. Even the mayor chimed in on Facebook, calling the citizen-supported pro-taxpayer candidates he opposes the “Hate Slate.”
Candidate Shelby Williams is challenging Place 5 incumbent Ron Kelley, who voted with the mayor to raise Plano homeowners’ city property tax bills each year he’s been in office. Lily Bao is running against former Democrat precinct chair Ann Bacchus for the open Place 7. Bao challenged LaRosiliere in the 2017 mayoral election.
Williams and Bao say they favor responsible growth that maintains Plano’s current suburban identity and doesn’t overtax residents or give special deals to developers at the expense of residents. Both are endorsed by government accountability group Plano Citizens’ PAC and other community leaders and organizations, as well as the Collin County Republican Party and Gov. Greg Abbott.
Kelley and Bacchus are part of the mayor’s slate of pro-developer candidates who are heavily financed by developer-funded We Love Plano PAC and the Plano Firefighters Association.
Campaign finance reports show Kelley received over $45,000 from We Love Plano PAC and other developers during the general election, and more than $50,000 from the Plano firefighters’ union for his runoff campaign.
Bacchus reports We Love Plano PAC gave her more than $100,000 during the general election and another $32,000 for her runoff campaign; the Plano firefighters’ union gave Bacchus over $19,000. Voters also learned recently that Bacchus spoke at a fundraiser last year for U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), who is notorious for her anti-Semitic comments.
The other two council candidates endorsed by the mayor, Maria Tu and Rick Grady, were elected in May.
Plano’s last city council election, in May 2017, also resulted in runoffs, which were won by pro-taxpayer candidates Anthony Ricciardelli (who defeated Bacchus) and Rick Smith. Early voting turnout in the June 2017 runoff was 7.9 percent (12,535 votes), well below that general election’s early voting turnout of 12.1 percent and lower than this year’s runoff participation.
Total turnout in this May’s election was 13.3 percent. Sherbet said it will be very interesting to see if Election Day turnout in the runoffs continues to outpace May turnout.
Election Day is Saturday, June 8. Polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Plano voters who live and are registered to vote in Collin County may cast ballots at any polling location within Collin County. Plano voters who live and are registered to vote in Denton County must vote at Denton County’s polling location.

Erin Anderson
​
Erin Anderson is the Metroplex Bureau Chief for Texas Scorecard, reporting on state and local issues, events, and government actions that impact people in communities throughout the area. A native Texan, Erin grew up in the Houston area and now lives in Collin County.

Democrat Congresswoman, Ilhan Omar, was in Richardson, Texas for a fundraiser in her honor. Ilhan Omar is known for her Anti-Semitic tweets and hate for the Jewish State of Israel. She was almost reprimanded by the House of Representatives for her bad behavior, but the cowardly House leaders backed down. Ann Bacchus, City Council Candidate Place 7, helped with and spoke at this fundraiser.
The Mayor and the PAC We Love Plano support Ann Bacchus. We Love Plano PAC is funded by big developers. At this time, no one from the PAC, the Mayor’s office, or any of those who have endorsed Ann Bacchus have denounced her support for an Anti-Semite. This is disgraceful. It is also hypocritical, since Ann Bacchus and her supporters set out to recall a councilman for controversial posts to his Facebook page. Apparently Ann Bacchus, her supporters, and the Mayor think it is ok to post things against Jewish people.
When Ann Bacchus learned that her support for an Anti-Semite was made public, the only thing she reportedly said was curse words. At the time this article was printed, Ann Bacchus had not put out a formal statement to explain her actions or apologize.
The Democrat party has an Anti-Semitism problem. A few national Democrats have said and done things that are hateful to Jews. Ann Bacchus is following in her party’s ways.
We at Plano’s Political Pit Bull strongly oppose any Anti-Semitism and support the Jewish State of Israel. Anyone who supports an Anti-Semite is Anti-Semitic and should not serve in public office. That goes for Democrat Ann Bacchus and anyone who supports her.
Plano residents must go out and vote against Ann Bacchus. Residents must not let this women win the city council election. If they do, Plano is saying it is ok to have an Anti-Semitic leader.
Voting ends May 4th at 7:00 pm.
This is Plano’s Political Pit Bull Signing Off
link to radio broadcast of story
http://www.wbap.com/chris-salcedo/
News story about fundraiser.
​http://jagotimes.com/dallas-muslim-leaders-hosted-fundraiser-for-ilhan-omar/?fbclid=IwAR3xpKwWzimchFYRX8OMqUKRAL7tTBMRKKTgE8CdX83CMyeNkKE3Icjczg0

The following is a video outlining the possible election laws the Mayor and City Council Candidate Ann Bacchus may have broken. The endorsements made  by the people in the video are theirs alone. PPPB is not endorsing any candidates in the local elections. Early voting starts on April 22, 2019 and Election Day is May 4th. 

The Political Committee, We Love Plano, should really be called We Love Developer’s Cash. The group’s first Texas Ethics Commission report states they got $70,000 in contributions from 10 people/entities. Nine of them are developers, and eight live outside of Plano.
Our first donor is Eric Schmitz, a real estate developer, whose company, Aquatech Saltwater Disposal, in Denton made a $25,000 contribution to We Love Plano. Our next pair of donors is a couple from Dallas. James and Sarah Feagin are also developers who gave $25,000. Then there is Steve Folsom, a developer from Addison. He gave $1,000. Next we have the Harry LaRosilier Campaign. The Mayor took $15,000 from his campaign coffers and gave it to We Love Plano. Our sixth donor is Randy Heady from Dallas. He owns Heady Investments, a development company. He donated $1,000. The second Plano resident and seventh donor on the list is Dave Johnson. He is the CEO of Aimbridge Hospitality, a hotel management and investment firm. Mr. Johnson gave $1,000. The eighth donor is Mark Lewis from Dallas. He is also a developer who gave $1,000 to We Love Plano. Lastly, we have Mehul and Vaishali Patel from Southlake. Guess what they do for a living. If you guessed developers, you were correct. They also gave $1,000.
By now you are probably wondering what We Love Plano is doing with all the money they are getting, and why out of town developers are donating to it? According to the TEC report, the group is supporting four candidates for the City Council election. They are Maria Tu, Ron Kelly, Rick Grady, and Ann Bacchus. Those candidates have also received direct campaign contributions from developers. The report for We Love Plano says they spent $38,977.89 on advertising and consulting expenses from Nasia Murphy in Austin.
Clearly big money has come to the Plano City Council election. Unlike federal campaign contribution law, there is no limit to the amount of money a person or business can give to a local campaign. As far as we can tell, the Plano Citizen Collation PAC, the counter group to We Love Plano, does not collect that much in donations. As of their last TEC report PCC had $136.92. The group does not get money from big out of town developers. PCC PAC is supporting Danial Long, Colleen Aguilar-Epstein, Shelby Williams, and Lily Bao for City Council.
Why would big developers, mainly out of town developers, care about a Plano city council election? The developer wants to make sure the city council is made up of people who will remember they donated to them directly or indirectly when a zoning change is needed.
Of course the Mayor donated to people he knows will rubber stamp his agenda. Lord forbid he should have independent thinkers on city council with him.
The TEC reports show that this election is truly a David and Goliath battle. Big business developers’ money against small grass roots activists. We wonder who the voters will get behind?
This is Plano’s Political Pit Bull Signing Off.

We at Plano’s Political Pit Bull are not endorsing any candidate for City Council. We encourage voters to do their homework on each candidate, attend the forums, and go vote on May 4th. Early voting starts April 22nd.

As of April 8, 2019 PPPB knows of the following city council forums….

• Plano Republican Women Tuesday, April 16, 2019 @ 11:30 am.

For more information and to RSVP go to www.planorepublicanwomen.org

​On March 25, 2019 zoning case 2018-025 was withdrawn by the developer, but not before corporate neighbors had their say. If you don’t know what case 2018-025 means, it is the application to build 800 apartments and a multi-use development where the old JC Penney's headquarters currently stands.
Developer Sam Ware bought the JC Penney property, but instead of just renting out the office building to a business, Sam Ware wants to build apartments, retail, and restaurants. Of course his plan passed the Planning and Zoning Board. When it came to City Council on March 18th it was tabled for March 25th.
At the March 25th meeting we saw some new and surprising faces speak against the multi-use development. The first speaker came all the way from DC. He represents the firm that owns the Federal Express building at the Legacy Office Park which is across the street from the JC Penney complex.
The gentleman first told us how the Legacy Office Park came into existence. The Office Park was the brain child of Ross Perot in the 1980s. According to the speaker, “[Ross Perot] thoughtfully planned the area. He felt strongly back in the 80s that there be no apartments in the development. He laid out strict guidelines for it. As a buyer we took a lot of solace in the way that was put fourth. Had we known that an apartment development was going to be put up across the street from us we would have thought twice about the investment.” Fed Ex wants to expand, and having apartments across the street would impact them. The speaker also said, “Legacy Office Park has brought 25,000 jobs to the area in 10 years. I would really hate to see anything happen that could have a negative impact on the job growth that it brings to this community.” WOW was my reaction. Clearly Fed Ex does not want this project and feels so strongly about it that they would spend money to send a spokesman to a little city council meeting to let the members and city know it. While the speaker did not say it directly, he inferred that Fed Ex would leave if the City Council went ahead with this development.
The next speaker was a women representing the company that developed One Legacy West in the Office Park. Her company wants the Office Park to stay as it was originally planned. She said, “It would be highly detrimental to us if you change [the zoning or] character of the [office park] because its success depends on being what it is today.
The last speaker basically said the same thing. He was happy that the owner is withdrawing the plan; however, he added, “If they ever come back, the [other owners] will come back and [fight it]. Toyota is another company that has said it is against the apartments.
A person representing the developer also spoke. He made it clear that while the company was withdrawing this proposal, they would come back with another plan in the future. It seems like the developer wants to talk with the neighbors before moving forward.  
This fight between companies puts the Mayor and his people on city council in a difficult position. Sam Ware, the owner of the old JC Penney's land and other property in Plano, has donated to the campaigns of the Mayor, Councilman Rick Grady, and Councilman Ron Kelly. Of course they will feel some obligation to him. That is why some residents have called for the Mayor and anyone on council who has taken donations from Sam Ware to recuse themselves from any vote dealing with this case. It is obviously a conflict of interest to be voting on a development owned by a person who has given money to a council member’s election.   
The other problem the Mayor has is companies that have been a part of Legacy Office Park since the beginning now appear to be ready to pick up and leave if Sam Ware’s 800 apartments are approved. With the loss of Dr. Pepper and JC Penney, it would be a tremendous blow to Plano’s Economy and the Mayor’s legacy, if we lost Fed Ex or any of the companies currently in the office park. Imagine being known as the Mayor who drove major corporations out of Plano over apartments. I wonder which big corporation the Mayor will side with?
This is Plano’s Political Pit Bull Signing off.
 

BY ERIN ANDERSON From Empower Texans
MARCH 14, 2019 
Special interests are once again bankrolling Plano politics, donating to “pro-developer” council candidates backed by the city’s mayor.
High-density real estate developer Sam Ware donated $1,000 each to a slate of four Plano City Council candidates backed by Mayor Harry LaRosiliere, according to the latest campaign finance reports. Ware’s company Dreien Opportunity Partners is on track to build a 795-unit apartment complex at the former J.C. Penney corporate headquarters site in Legacy West.
Plano’s planning and zoning commission gave Ware’s proposal the green light last month over the objections of current property owners in the corporate business park, and city council is expected to approve the project later this month.
The pro-developer council slate supported by Ware and LaRosiliere includes incumbents Rick Grady (Place 3) and Ron Kelley (Place 5) and open-seat candidates Maria Tu (Place 1) and Ann Bacchus (Place 7). Grady and Kelley both have records of voting for higher city property tax burdens. Bacchus is a former Democrat precinct chair who ran unsuccessfully for council in 2017. Tu is a political newcomer who identifies as Republican but is backed by Democrats.
Dreien partner Jeffrey Blakely also donated $1,000 each to Bacchus and Kelley on the same December 2018 dates as Ware, as did developer Jack Dawson of Centurion American. None of the three donors live in Plano.
Outside special-interest money is nothing new in Plano politics. LaRosiliere raised over $300,000 for his 2017 re-election campaign. More than $175,000 came from individuals and PACs with ties to developers or their financiers, apartment projects, and other special interests from outside Plano.
The investment appears to have paid off. The mayor has continued to push an unpopular density policy that aims to urbanize the suburb at the behest of developers, despite near-unanimous opposition from Plano homeowners, earning him the nickname “High-Density Harry.”
In a campaign fundraising email sent March 1, LaRosiliere urged his supporters to send him money to help elect the candidates he said “will help me over the rest of my term” and defeat his chosen slate’s opponents, who he called “anti-business, anti-developer, anti-growth,” and “anti-new headquarter relocation.”
The political outsiders challenging the mayor’s coalition say they favor responsible growth that maintains Plano’s current suburban identity and doesn’t overtax residents or give special deals to developers at the expense of residents.
Candidates Daniel Long (Place 1), Colleen Epstein (Place 3), Shelby Williams (Place 5), and Lily Bao (Place 7) are endorsed by Plano Citizens’ Coalition, an organization that promotes government accountability, transparency, and fiscal responsibility.
Plano citizens can follow the money to determine which candidates support high-density developers and other special interests, and who prioritizes the interests of city taxpayers.
Early voting in Plano’s May 4 municipal election runs April 22-30. The last day to register to vote in the election is April 4.