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/
0 Comments
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…..
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….
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. Have you noticed that lately our local media has been doing articles attacking those who disagree with the Mayor? The Plano Star did an article about the Plano Citizen Coalition a few weeks back. The Plano Profile did glowing multiple articles on the Mayor in their most resent issue. Both media outlets discredited those who happen to disagree with him. While the Star stuck to the issues, The Plano Profile called the Mayor’s opposition racist. The magazine and the Mayor also called his top political opponent, Lily Bao, in the 2017 Mayoral election, a bigot. This is a common play used by the Democrats. You don’t agree with them they call you racist, bigot, sexist, homophobic, etc. When the left can’t win the debate on the merits, they bully their opponents into submission often dehumanizing them in the public’s eye so no one will listen to them. There is just one problem with using this play on Lily Bao; she is a double minority. Lily is a woman and an Asian American. If someone wanted to they could say the Mayor and Plano Profile is being sexist, misogynist, and racist by attacking Lily. So, what are the issues Lily disagrees with the Mayor on? Well, according to the Mayor it is apartments, low income housing, and the Plano Tomorrow Plan. It is humorous that the Mayor and Plano Profile claim that Lily is against low income housing because she is a member of the Plano Housing Authority Board. You know, the origination where low income people go to get housing? Clearly if Lily was against low income housing she would not be handing it out. So the Mayor’s attack is just a way for him to belittle and show a sense of superiority over Lily and those who agree with her. The Plano Profile does not stop at just attacking Lily. It also attacks Plano Future and anyone against the Plano Tomorrow Plan calling all of them bigots. Again, a group of people disagree with the left, so they must attack and discredit them. It can’t simply be that people who are against the Plano Tomorrow Plan have valid reasons for their opinion. No, they must be evil. Of course, this is ridicules. Are the people who oppose the Plano Tomorrow Plan against all apartments? Well, if the writer from Plano Profile bothered to even ask anyone from Plano Future, he would have learned that they are not opposed to all apartments. Plano had apartments before the Plano Tomorrow Plan, and people from Plano Future did not have a problem with all of them. What Plano Future and others from all races are against is high density. They don’t want to cram lots of people into a small area. Packing folks in like Japanese trains is not good for their quality of life, as studies have shown. It causes traffic and pollution and, according to a Psychology today article, high density causes stress and mental health issues. We see this with the developments at Legacy West and Shops at Legacy. In a recent Community Impact issue the newsletter talked about the traffic problems now caused by the Legacy development. Gee, who would of thought cramming large amounts of people in a one mile radius would cause traffic problems? Oh, the people who opposed the density of the development, that’s who! Perhaps if the Mayor had listened to the concerns of the residents the problems could have been avoided. However, the Mayor thinks he already listens to the residents. He is quoted in Plano Profile as saying, “I’m always ready to listen and do what’s bests for our city, but I’m going to do it in a manner that’s going to unite the city not divide us.” Clearly the Mayor is in complete denial about his behavior. He may listen, but he only listens to what he wants to hear. Calling people racist due to differences on an issue is not what most would call listening. It also does not unite it divides. Saying they are not smart at city council meetings is disrespectful as well, of which he has done many times. In the same article the Mayor said, “Some people simply don’t like the look of giant apartment buildings, [but] Plano has property standards and [it] will make sure certain areas look and feel consistent.” Perhaps the Mayor has not passed the massive five story apartment building on Preston and Plano Pkwy. It is across from a single family housing development, that was against the massive structure, commercial businesses, and next to a car dealership. The builder apparently could not decide on a color, so the building has a range of different colors. It would be an understatement to say the building is completely out of place with the surrounding area. So why attack those who disagree with the Mayor? Simple, the 2019 local elections. The Mayor does not want people who disagree with him on council. He wants people who will go along with his agenda. In order to make sure people he likes wins, he must discredit those he does not like so people won’t elect them. He must attack their character because that is the only way he can win, even if the character he makes them out to be is untrue. If he could win on the merits of the debate, he would not resort to character assassination. Instead he would stick to the issues. However, it is easier to call groups of people names than engage in an actual debate on ideas. The question for the voter is are you going to give all the candidates a fair chance by listening to their ideas, or are you going to disregard the candidates based on a title given by someone who disagrees with them? This is Plano’s Political Pit Bull Signing Off Plano’s Political Pit Bull is not endorsing any candidate in this years local elections. You can find a list of the candidates at https://www.plano.gov/312/Elections Please do your homework on them. Attend the forums that groups around town will be having. Then you can make an informed decision about who to vote for. Psychology Today article mentioned. https://www-psychologytoday-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-wandering/201208/stress-and-the-city?amp=&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D&fbclid=IwAR1L8pLNd6L8xTnaQ-xO8qeHyYrLjy9FRp-RZ0FjH7Fw7VGbcTtQOEyj9KM&_js_v=0.1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.psychologytoday.com%2Fus%2Fblog%2Fmind-wandering%2F201208%2Fstress-and-the-city While the following article is about a city much smaller than Plano, this is a such interesting idea Plano's Political Pit Bull felt it needed to be shared.
BY CHARLES BLAIN from Empower Texans As the legislature considers two landmark property tax reform proposals, local officials and taxpayer-funded lobbyists are scurrying around the Capitol, most in opposition to the 2.5 percent limit on property tax increases found within Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 2. One city, however, has done away with property taxes entirely. Instead of opposing reform, local officials should look to Stafford, Texas. Stafford, a Fort Bend County city of about 20,000, eliminated its property taxes more than 20 years ago under long-serving Mayor Leonard Scarcella. Scarcella wanted to “end Stafford’s reliance on municipal property taxes” and did so with a 100 percent local property tax abatement. A certificate presented to Scarcella and city officials last year says: “For the last 22 years, the city has managed all public spending through the municipal sales tax fund and has met the needs of the community without incurring additional debt; the city’s innovative approach to fiscal management has led to a notable increase in cash resources and has saved residents and businesses thousands of dollars in taxes each year.” Stafford is the largest Texas city to abolish property taxes on commercial and residential property. As a comparison, the neighboring city of Sugar Land levied a 45.7 cent property tax on every $100 of valuation at the time Stafford abolished theirs. The county, school district, and other local entities still levy property taxes, and the city collects a 2 percent sales tax: 1.5 percent goes to the city and .5 percent goes to the Stafford Economic Development Corporation. Their most recent financial report shows that sales and use taxes make up about 58 percent of their revenue with service charges coming in well behind at 27 percent of revenue. Contrary to what is often claimed by local officials, the city isn’t losing out on new business, debt hasn’t added up, and public services are fully functioning. Stafford benefits from being located near a major city and off of a major highway, and sees a significant influx of commuters during the day, so it is uniquely positioned to abolish its property tax and manage with a reasonable sales tax. However, this wouldn’t have been a successful experiment without sound fiscal management, which shows that it can be done. So while other cities fight to oppose property tax reform in the legislature, Stafford residents need only fight their county and school district to follow suit and put taxpayers first. by Mark Reid PCC President We would like to thank Mr. Glasscock for his years of service to the City of Plano as both Chief of Police and City Manager. We wish him the very best in his retirement. We also want to thank him for acknowledging that there are Plano citizens that, like him, care about our city and want to have a say in Plano’s future. That said we would like to respond to some of the statements attributed to Mr. Glasscock in a recent Dallas Morning News Article. The article calls us the anti-government crowd and insinuates that we oppose Plano’s “top-notch amenities.” But like Mr. Glasscock, we too are proud of Plano. Plano is a very well-run city with top notch employees and programs. From first responders to water, sewer, trash collection, road repairs, libraries, parks and recreation, and all other areas, Plano is truly a city of excellence that we love and support. However, we know that with proper vision and leadership, excellence can be achieved without increasing city taxes at three times the rate of inflation. We know this because we too are leaders that do this year after year in public, private, and volunteer organizations. We are long time Plano citizens. We are well educated, informed, involved citizens who own and run businesses, serve on public and private boards, and are respected executives and professionals in their fields. We are as knowledgeable and intelligent as any of the council members that sit behind the dais. After all, the council members are elected from among Plano citizens. The article accuses us of wanting to see “the city government stripped down to little more than police, fire and road repair.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. We simply want our city council to give the same respect to the voters that they give to the city’s seemingly insatiable need for higher taxes. We want our city to prioritize its needs and wants just like we do in our families, our businesses, and our public service organizations. And we want our city to realize that allowing city taxes to increase 46.5% since 2014 while the city’s population has increased only 5.7% in the same period is simply unsustainable. We are tired of those that are elected to represent us being rude, condescending, and dismissive of our desire to maintain the suburban lifestyle that we drew us to Plano in the first Place. We don’t like seeing Plano being “fundamentally transformed” from a safe and inviting suburb to an overcrowded urban environment with sewers that overflow, foul water, rough roads and congested traffic. What we want is city council members, a mayor, and a city manager that are representative, transparent, and remember that they work for the citizens of Plano. We want a city government that does not use first responders as pawns in a game to raise taxes and spend money to the benefit of wealthy donors and huge corporations. We want council members and a mayor that take responsibility for city taxes, rather than blaming others entities. What we want is city government that respects and represents its citizens rather than bully us because we dare to disagree with their vision and policies. While we don’t have an open microphone at City Council meetings and we don’t have the support of publications like the Dallas Morning News, we do have the attention of Plano voters that are looking at what the city is doing and asking “Is this what I want for Plano?” So Mr. Glasscock, thank you for your service to Plano and know that Plano Citizens will continue to work to keep Plano a City of Excellence. We look forward to working with likeminded city council members and the new City Manager Mr. Israelson when he becomes the new City Manager in May. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/01/30/angry-crowd-gains-clout-worries-planos-outgoing-city-manager?fbclid=IwAR3Ptxm9_jMdITdMfFTKnBz9K1rkoM9wDxMvthsRTioHMxHdAB1EDgiH28Q At the January 28, 2019 Preliminary Open Council Meeting the Mayor let it be known that he is against the Governors Property Tax Reform Proposal, and he thinks the whole council should be against it too. The Mayor said, “If we want to address property taxes as it effects us, we need to talk about the 2% or 2 cents cap our governor wants to impose on us. That is the resolution [I want]. I would love to see our council step up…. and say this is not right for our city.” He also said, “I’d like to see [us] focus on what we spent hours and hours discussing during budget time, which is in our purview, [and] be affirmative on what our city needs.” The Mayor also called the Governor’s proposal, “Draconian”. So, the Mayor basically said he does not want the residents to have the right to vote on property tax increases. Not surprisingly the Mayor also got the facts wrong about the Governor’s Plan. So I, your cute Pit Bull, will give you the real facts about the plan. If you would like to read the plan for yourself here is the link for it. https://www.gregabbott.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/PropertyTaxReform.pdf First, the plan “establishes a property tax revenue growth cap of 2.5 percent per year without voter approval.” Not 2% or 2 cents as the Mayor said. Second, the plan allows for two exemptions. 1) Taxes from new developments are not affected. 2) Any proposed revenue increases over the cap must be for limited purposes. Some examples listed in the plan are, “compensation for emergency services personnel (including law enforcement), compensation for classroom teachers or other instructional personnel in public schools, or critical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and school classrooms.” However, “increases above the cap may not, in total, exceed the statewide increase in population growth plus inflation, as calculated by the Comptroller of Public Accounts.” Simply put, if the police department needs more money to hire more cops, the city can get it. Third, any increases above the cap must be approved by a (2/3rds) super-majority vote of the people and the elected officials. Fourth, the cap excludes revenue from sales taxes and local fees. Lastly, the revenue cap would start on January 1, 2021. So, I have a question for the Mayor. What is so Draconian about that plan? Just to make sure we are all talking about the same thing, I looked up the synonyms for Draconian. Some synonyms for the word are harsh, severe, strict, extreme, drastic, tough, cruel, oppressive, and repressive. Apparently the Mayor feels it is oppressive to give the people the right to vote on property tax increases. Sorry Mayor, but letting people vote is the opposite of oppressive. Voting is a core principle of our Constitutional Republic and any free society. Now, having local governments impose property tax increases people can’t afford, that is Draconian. Clearly the Mayor is worried that if the Governor’s Plan passes the voters will stop the property tax gravy train, and the city will have to slow its spending increases. Did you really think there would not be consequences for ignoring your residents, Mr. Mayor? Residents have been complaining about the dramatic rise in property taxes for a few years. They have gone in front of council begging for you to not raise their property tax bills. Some people said they simply can’t afford the tax increases anymore. A group of citizens went through the budget and pointed out where you could slow or cut spending. Hundreds of people signed a petition asking you not to raise their tax bills. However, you ignored all of them. You talked down to them and insulted their intelligence. Did you really think they would just give up and continue to take the abuse? Of course they would go to a higher authority. When residents get the cold shoulder from one elected official, they go to the next one up the political food chain. In Plano City Council’s case that would be the state legislature and governor. State House Reps Jeff Leach, Matt Shaheen, and former State Senator, now Congressman, Van Taylor have received calls, letters, and emails from their voters begging for help. Newly elected State House Rep Candy Noble and State Senator Angela Paxton ran on property tax reform. Unlike the Mayor and some on council, they want to help their constituents. The Governor also wants to give Texans property tax relief. One way of doing that is putting the power back in the hands of the people by giving them a vote. That way instead of the people going to the Mayor and council begging them not to raise their taxes, the Mayor and the council would have to go to the people and beg them for more money. That is not Draconian Mr. Mayor, that is well deserved karma. This is Plano’s Political Pit Bull Signing Off. In the December 21, 2018 issue of Community Impact Plano edition, the front page article was titled “From teens to mid-30s, Plano sees youth dip.” According to the article Plano’s young adult population (20-29) is about 12%. Allen and McKinney are at 11%. Dallas has the highest at 18%, which Community Impact seems to be envious of. I just have two questions in regards to this article, SO WHAT? What is the problem?
It is very normal for large urban cities like Dallas to have more young adults than its suburban neighbors. Traditionally when kids turn 18 they leave their childhood suburban home for college. They spend most of their early twenties away from home. After graduation one of three things happens. One, they find a job and get their own place. Two, they find a job but can’t afford to live on their own, so they live with mom and dad until they can. Or, three, it’s a parent’s nightmare become reality. Their adult kid can’t find a job, has to live at home, and mooches off of them. In some states like NY, the cost of living is too high for young adults to live on their own, so they are stuck at home with mom and dad. Due to the free market policies of our state government, TX has a great economy and low cost of living. Therefore, most of our young adults can get a job and afford to live on their own. Where do these young adults who are just starting out typically choose to live? Normally apartments in large urban cities. They might live alone or with a roommate. Since they typically are not married with children, they don’t need a house. They probably can’t afford or want to be bothered with the maintenance of a house either. Most young adults also want to be near action and nightlife. They have the time and energy to stay out all night at clubs and bars. Typically young adults don’t want the quiet life of the suburbs. So, who traditionally lives in the suburbs? Simple; married people in their late 30s with children. Folks who move to the suburbs typically want a house to raise children in. They want their kids to go to good schools, play in a backyard, or swim in their pool. Friday night out for them consists of going to watch their kid play football. These folks want a more quiet life. There is nothing wrong with young adults choosing to live in large cities while married people with children live in the suburbs; it is natural. Community Impact should not make it seem like something is wrong with this natural phenomenon. The fact they think that something is odd about this makes me suspicious. Are they trying to plant a seed in city staff and council members heads that Plano needs to have things that attract people in their 20s to it? That would mean having builders building cheap small apartments, bars, and night clubs that are open all night. That means making Plano into Dallas. Most people who currently live here don’t want that. If they did, they would live in Dallas. Plano has been a suburb for decades. That has attracted hundreds of thousands of people to it. Those who move here typically stay here through old age. Therefore, People should stop trying to make Plano into something it is not. If they don’t they will drive away those who came for what it is. Plano is great being a suburb. If it was not, people would not live here. This is Plano’s Political Pit Bull signing off. On December 10, 2018, Plano City Council voted to approve the appointments of two lawyers to be ethics investigators, even though one has serious conflicts of interest issues.
Glenn B. Callison and Kimberly S. Moore were picked by the City Attorney, Paige Mims,to replace two ethics investigators who have stepped down. There is a total of four Ethics Investigators contracted with the city. They are only paid if a case arises, and charge by the hour. The city council was only made aware of Ms. Mims picks the Thursday before the meeting. That is not a lot of time to look into the candidates. Plus, the city council has until January 14, 2019 to replace the out going investigators. To top it all off, the appointments were placed on the consent agenda. So, to have more time to look at the candidates, Councilman Tom Harrison pulled it from the consent agenda to table it for another day. He would also like more candidates to choose from. Right now the council only gets to vote up or down on one person to fill an open spot. Ms. Mims seemed annoyed that the items were pulled from the consent agenda, and at the fact that some council members wanted more time to vet the candidates. She repeatedly asked the council to, "Respect my professional opinion and appoint these people." Ms. Mims also told the council, "If you have recommendations I would be happy to consider them, but it has to be people I can trust to represent my office…" She also said, “I have already asked these people to serve, [and] I don’t want to go back and tell [them] we are not going to use you. I am asking that you… appoint these people this year, and if we want to change [the process] next year and you want to give me names, I’ll be happy to do that.” Now wait just a darn minute! Ms. Mims has clearly forgotten her place. First of all, Ms. Mims works for the city and under the council. The city council does not work for her. She also wasn’t elected by the citizens, so she needs to drop the, “we” from her statement. If the city council wants to change the process, that is only up to them. Secondly, the Ethic Investigators do not work for the City Attorney: they work for the city. They need to be independent, because they may have to investigate the city attorney, or one of the staff members in her department. Instead of saying she “would be happy to consider lawyers the council recommends,” she should be saying, she would be happy to vet them. Third, how dare she say, “I don’t want to go back and tell these people we are not going to use them.” She makes it sound like she told these people they had the job before the council voted on them. Just because she is sitting on the dais, does not mean she has the same power as the city council. If she wants a vote, she needs to be elected by the voters. As for the process, Councilman Ricciardelli would like to see a more open application process. That way whoever wants the job can apply for it. He also wants candidates who have a significant focus on ethics in their practice. Another thing he suggested was for the council to pick people who do not live in Plano to avoid the appearance of favoritism, corruption, and conflicts of interests. As for the candidates, Kimberly S. Moore is the more qualified of the two. This is because she does employment law. However, she was the chair of the Plano Chamber of Commerce, and Leadership Plano Board Member. Glenn Callison has conflicts of interest issues and is not an ethics or municipal attorney. He is a commercial lawyer. He and his law firm have clients that have done, and are, doing business with the city. His wife is a former council member, and he has also been involved in politics. He personally knows most of the council members and lives close to Ms. Mims. It makes me wonder if he was picked just because Ms. Mims and some council members know Mr. Callison personally? He has also donated and voted for the Mayor and others council members. However, he did not support Anthony Ricciardelli’s campaign even though Glenn Callison says he is a Republican and Councilman Ricciardelli, a Republican, ran against a Democrat Precinct Chair in a run off. He also did not support Rick Smith’s election. Since the Ethics Investigator has a say on whether or not a council members have violated the law, Mr. Callison would have to recuse himself from those cases. His law firm also should not represent clients that do business with the city while he is an investigator. Three residents spoke out against Glenn Callison’s appointment. All sighting his conflict of interest issues. Of course the Mayor had to put his two cents in on the issue of the appointments saying, “The city attorney gets to choose who she believes is in the best interest of representing [her] office.”He went on to say, “I don’t want choices, I want the city attorney to give me who she thinks is the best person because if she gives me three choices next year for a spot, I am not sure that I’m qualified to say who is that better person.” The Mayor closed his remarks by telling the council to, “Stay in our lane. We tend to get into the business of the city manager and the city attorney.” First of all, Mr. Mayor, the city attorney doesn’t get to pick, or get a vote; she gets to recommend. You vote yes or no. If city attorneys knew what was best, city councils wouldn't have to vote. Now Mayor, if you think you are not smart enough to pick an attorney, you can abstain from the vote. Just because you don’t think you are qualified to pick an ethics lawyer does not mean the others on the council are not qualified. Councilman Riccadelli is a lawyer, so he is more then qualified to choose one. Second, everything that goes on in this city is in the councils “lane”, because at the end of the day the buck stops with the city council. The voters didn't elect the city council to just be a rubber stamp for whatever the city staff wants.They didn't make you Mayor to be a yes man. You and the council are the ones who are accountable to the voters. The council members are the gatekeepers. They are supposed to make sure the people’s money is spent wisely, things are running smoothly, and done correctly. They put you there to sometimes say no to city staff and bureaucrats.They elected the council to oversee the running of the city. If the city council members don’t want to do that, Plano might as well get rid of council and just have the city manager be the dictator of Plano. In the end, the council approved both candidates. Council members Tom Harrison and Rick Smith were the only no votes. This is Plano’s Political Pit Bull Signing Off. (The following views are GARRY BECKHAM's only and, may or may not reflect the views of Plano's Political Pit Bull's owners or staff.)
BY GARRY BECKHAM |NOVEMBER 28, 2018 Written first for Empower Texans A citizens’ rights tragedy is occurring in Plano. The tragedy isn’t just city officials’ disregard for over 4,000 legal petitioners against the city’s Comprehensive Plan, commonly called the Plano Tomorrow Plan, but a tragic loss of rights for all Plano citizens — and all Texas citizens too! It doesn’t matter if you are for or against the Plano Tomorrow plan. What matters is this: “If you have a complaint against what the Plano mayor, city council, or hired management is doing, then you have the right to bring a petition to the secretary’s office.” The petition would then be reviewed and, if enough valid signatures have been obtained, it would then go to the city council. The group that brought this legal petition against the Plano Tomorrow plan, and all citizens of Plano, has been stripped of their legal course of action against the city’s leadership that acted with impunity. Plano’s legal beagles want to link the comprehensive plan to Texas zoning laws, which are supposed to be so complex that common citizens can’t understand them and thereby they cannot be petitioned. While I am not a lawyer, Texas lawmakers were pretty clear that a comprehensive plan is not a zoning regulation. Title 7, Sec. 213.005 of Texas Local Government Code states: NOTATION ON MAP OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. A map of a comprehensive plan illustrating future land use shall contain the following clearly visible statement: “A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries.” Texas law clearly states that a comprehensive plan is not a zoning regulation. Could it be any simpler? Therefore, the petition against the Plano Tomorrow plan was legal, and it will be verified by an honest district judge in McKinney. A decision in favor of the city would lead to the loss of citizens’ rights across the whole state of Texas! It is too bad that the judicial and legal system of Texas has allowed the city of Plano to maneuver and delay for several years to keep the petition from proceeding to the city council. This was the city’s plan: DELAY! DELAY! DELAY! And push Plano Tomorrow into action. The legal system should have forced the city to put the plan on ice until the petition issue was resolved. In addition, the city wants to persuade a judge that a comprehensive plan is like other complex municipal planning documents, which the average citizen could not possibly understand. When one looks at the educational level of the citizens of Plano — one of the highest per capita in the nation, with many citizens having engineering and other highly technical degrees — I am pretty sure this is not the case at all. It is just a conniving way to take away citizens’ rights to petition against overzealous city leadership backed by the wealthy with special interests. Plano’s leadership and lead lawyer actually acted unethically when they directed the city secretary to not count the votes and forward the petition to the city council. These actions have allowed the city to put the Plano Tomorrow plan into action without citizens’ approval, which allowed building that would have otherwise been stopped until the plan was approved or rejected by voters. Why didn’t the city just hold a vote on Plano Tomorrow? I am pretty sure the city leaders calculated that a citywide vote would bring a defeat to the plan. At the time, there was a tsunami-size swelling of anti-Plano Tomorrow sentiment. In addition, in an era of voter apathy, low turnout means the city probably could not have mustered enough “For” votes to pass the plan. To give a little evidence to this theory, ex-City Councilman David Downs, an avid leader for Plano Tomorrow and rising star of the cronies, was voted out at the election following city council’s approval of the plan. If you are a Plano citizen, do you think city leadership will act within Texas law if you bring a legal petition to the Plano secretary? Or will the city deny citizen petitions with legal maneuvering, using far-out, far-fetched, unrelated tangents, because they have special interests to protect? Just think, your petition may be the next one that is axed before being counted at the secretary’s desk! Every decision has a consequence. What should the consequences for the leaders of Plano and Plano’s chief legal adviser be? Should the mayor step down? And should the city’s manager and chief legal adviser be fired and forced to repay all legal expenses, which include the city’s expenses, the opposition’s legal expenses, and court costs? How much should they pay for stripping citizens of their legal rights? The bottom line is this: Texas citizens’ rights are at stake due to the actions of the city of Plano. This means the ensuing court case will impact citizens’ rights across the state, not just in Plano. A citizens’ rights tragedy has already occurred in Plano. Let us hope the tragedy doesn’t continue. This is an outside commentary submitted and published with the author’s permission. If you wish to submit a commentary to Texas Scorecard, please submit your article to [email protected]. By Mark Reid, PCC President (The following views are Mark Reid's only and, may or may not reflect the views of Plano's Political Pit Bull's owners or staff.) In the City Council’s Preliminary Open Meeting on Monday, November 12th, city staff provided a year-end report. General revenue was reported at 2.4% ($8.2 million) higher than budgeted and expenses were reported at 1.5% ($4.3 million) lower than budgeted. As a result the city finished the fiscal year with just under a $13 million surplus. This follows a $4.7 million surplus in 2017, and an $11.1 million surplus in 2016. As staff reported “We came in a little over in revenue and a little under in expenses and that is not abnormal to how we usually perform.” These numbers actually represent very good forecasting and management by the city staff and City Manager. They also represent almost exactly what the Plano Citizens’ Budget Committee anticipated and discussed during the budget and tax rate discussion last summer. In the regular City Council meeting following the preliminary meeting, there was a discussion about the budget process. Councilman Grady began the discussion stating that “For the benefit of staff…” people should submit their ideas about budget adjustments NOW, rather than during the normal public review process in July and August. I’m sure the staff appreciates Councilman Grady’s sensitivity to the challenges they face in preparing the budget, his suggestion ignores the normal process. Even the City Manager recognized that staff does not ask the City Council for direction until March. Then the various departments prepare draft budget recommendations that go to the City Manager at the end of May. So the impassioned calls for input NOW seems like little more than a thinly vailed attempt to preclude public input during the established budget review cycle. There was broad discussion about how the budget should be based on service levels rather than some arbitrary number like the Effective Tax Rate. In fact, Councilman Grady said that “The Effective Tax Rate is the worst model … that he has ever seen in his life!” As justification for this statement, Councilman Grady went on to state that adopting the Effective Tax Rate “…means that you need less and less money every year…” Apparently, Councilman Grady does not understand how the Effective Tax Rate works. The mayor stated that “The idea that we set a tax rate to set a budget is not how we operate…” and that he would “…vehemently oppose … setting a tax rate and then … deciding on the level of service that we want to deliver.” He attempted to use a business example, but failed to complete his analogy. Business base budget decisions on revenue they can reasonably expect to earn in a competitive market place. They then go to work, finding ways to provide the level of services necessary to generate the revenue they need to be profitable in those competitive markets. If they fail, they go out of business. The city has no such competitive pressure. They simply set the tax rate to generate the tax revenue they want. Councilman Kelley expressed his concern about how we “Got bogged down with a citizens’ group” who looked at the budget and argued for the Effective Tax Rate. He then said that a comment was “…put out there … that [the city council] does not know how to run the City of Plano…” and that there were accusations about “… incompetency of the city staff…” No such accusations or statements were made by the Plano Citizens Budget Committee and I challenge Councilman Kelley to produce the source and record of such comments by anyone. Vilification of one’s opponents in a debate is indicative of weak arguments and only diminishes Councilman Kelley’s credibility. Councilwoman Prince expressed concern about the City Council “… playing its proper role …” and not “… micromanaging …” city staff. She expressed her view that the City Council should “… set the vision …” for the budget and not get bogged down in line item analysis. We agree. The City Council’s oversight responsibility does not involve minutia … it involves vision … a vision of excellence in city services with a focus on core functions of city government while keeping city property taxes in line with growth plus inflation. The Effective Tax Rate allows for growth but Plano property taxes have outpaced inflation by two to three times over the last several years. This is simply unsustainable and the City Council under our current mayor consistently refuses to take steps to mitigate property tax increases. Councilman Smith recommended a “zero based budgeting” approach, focusing on the city’s core needs like public safety and infrastructure first then prioritizing other services as needed. Councilman Smith also pointed out that had the City Council adopted the Effective Tax Rate it would have been the highest budget ever adopted by the City of Plano. Of course the mayor and his allies took exception to Councilman Smith’s suggestions. Councilman Ricciardelli suggested a process along the lines of budgeting to the Effective Tax Rate as a base, then adding additional services as needed. Councilman Harrison echoed such an approach. These recommendations were also dismissed. The mayor and Councilman Kelley commented on how adoption of the ETR would cause reductions in services or the elimination of departments, how “citizens” did not want the library to buy new books, and how there are those that don’t want us to invest in our parks. Plano tax payers would be far better served by a city council that engaged in reasonable discussion, prioritization, and direction of our city manager and staff than this kind of tax and spend hyperbole. Getting back to what we pointed out at the beginning of this article, city staff confirmed what the Plano Citizens Budget Committee pointed out last summer. The City of Plano normally over forecasts expenses and under forecasts revenue. This is good fiscal management and it leads to surpluses, year after year. This is how the city is able to maintain surplus accounts roughly equivalent to the entire annual budget, well in excess of $500 million. The surplus from 2018 alone is equivalent to the savings Plano taxpayers would have enjoyed by adopting the Effective Tax Rate for 2019. No services would have to be cut! No departments would be cut! The libraries would still have been able to buy new books! The parks would still be well maintained! Nothing would have to be reduced … except the budget’s rate of growth. Plano Citizens’ Coalition applauds and thanks Councilman Harrison, Ricciardelli, and Smith for their support of transparent, fiscally responsible city government. It is unfortunate that our mayor, along with Councilman Grady and Kelley (and presumably Councilwoman Miner) fail to recognize that the city of Plano can remain a City of Excellence without tax increases that grossly outpace inflation year, after year, after year. It is high time for the Plano City Council to adopt a vision for the budget process that focuses on core functions of city government while limiting property tax and budget growth to no more than inflation and growth. After increasing property taxes and the city budget roughly 40% in the last five years, it is time to stop business as usual and adopt policies that protect Plano taxpayers. By Plano Citizens’ Coalition
On Monday November 12, the recently completed Housing Trends Analysis and Strategic Plan was presented to the City Council during the preliminary open meeting. There was no action taken during the council meeting. However, attention needs to be directed at the implications this plan would have for Plano’s future should it be approved in its current form. The Housing Trends Analysis and Strategic Plan primarily seeks to address what could be a housing affordability issue throughout Plano in the near future. In a memorandum to the City Manager, the Director of Neighborhood Services stated that “the City is encouraged to be specific and intentional about the tools that may be used to address the housing concerns highlighted in the report.” While region-specific approaches were not elaborated upon within the plan itself, the memorandum also suggests that the City “include mixed-income housing (rental and ownership) for the redevelopment of Collin Creek Mall, the Oak Point Area, and four-corner retail.” Other provisions found within the plan were summarized in the memorandum such as “assemble land for the purpose of redevelopment that includes workforce housing” and “create a public-facing campaign for the down payment assistance program”. The Housing Trends Analysis and Strategic Plan was initiated in March earlier this year. The plan was prepared for the Neighborhood Services Department by a Denver, CO based consultant, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. It consists of a study of current supply and demand trends found in Plano’s housing market. Also included are the findings of the Housing Survey conducted by the City of Plano last May. Along with the study, possible policy tools are discussed. The nature of the policies listed is particularly concerning. Under “Policy Options” on page 21, the plan includes a policy tool referred to as “Housing as Infrastructure”. This idea treats housing as part of the infrastructure the city is responsible for providing in some form. Affordable housing would be funded through the use of general obligation bonds. The plan pointed to Austin as an example of a municipality that practices such a policy on page 153. Austin voters approved a bond for $65 million in 2013 to contribute towards affordable and workforce housing. Also mentioned, is the fact that Austin voters were to consider another bond package on November 6 that included $250 million for affordable housing. Voters approved this measure along with a number of other propositions. If Plano were to approve a similar bond of that magnitude, the Interest and Sinking Property Tax rate (which funds the debt service of general obligation bonds) could very likely be raised. In other words, this policy tool advocates for citizens paying for affordable housing through a portion of their property taxes. The plan correctly notes that “some tools require political will”. Another provision floats the possibility of further regulating the development industry through “land use controls”. Outright blame for affordability issues are assigned to housing developers. The plan claims their prices “are sometimes seen to be a part of the problem”. The plans lists policies such as inclusionary zoning, commercial and residential linkage programs as a solution. As explained on page 142, inclusionary zoning requires developers to set aside a portion of new housing construction as affordable to households at specified income levels. Commercial and residential linkage require developers to pay a fee to be used by a city to construct affordable housing. Ironically, despite suggesting such policy tools, the plan notes that mandatory inclusionary zoning and linkage programs are illegal in the state of Texas. Voluntary inclusion zoning is, however, legal. In this version, developers are asked rather than required to include affordable housing. They are often offered incentives to do so. The plan references the City’s recent actions regarding the Envision Oak Point Plan as well. It even calls for creating more area specific plans similar to Envision Oak Point throughout the City in anticipation of future redevelopment. Furthermore, as mentioned in the memorandum, it discusses the possibility of establishing an ‘inventory’ of sites with redevelopment potential. A policy tool called “upzoning” could also be utilized. Upzoning is a practice that involves rezoning in order to guide areas that consist mostly of residential to increasingly commercial. It is controversial in the sense that it often leads to congestion and higher population density, negatively impacting residents living in the vicinity of where upzoning occurs. It is unclear where upzoning would be implemented within Plano, as the plan does not elaborate any further. Under “Policy Direction” on page 29, the plan considers increasing the supply of market rate housing. It blatantly suggests doing so by encouraging a greater number of housing that is “affordable by design” such as townhomes, or greater density housing product types. The plan calls for additional funding and regulatory support for workforce and low-income housing. The Housing Trends Analysis and Strategic Plan is correct to point out that the number of jobs in Plano has outpaced the growth of residential development. Perhaps this is the root of affordability issues in the short term, as demand exceeds available supply. That could in part, unfortunately, be the result of deliberate attempts by the city government to expand the number of jobs within the City through repeated use of economic development incentives. Ultimately, how the plan goes about addressing that phenomenon is problematic. The policy tools suggested, if taken seriously, will amount to an unprecedented intervention by the local government into the City’s housing market. Massive costs could be imposed upon taxpayers to fund new programs designed to implement affordable housing. City property taxes have already increased 39.7% over the last five years for the average home. Indeed, this is one affordability issue that the plan fails to address at all. The first step the City of Plano could take to encourage greater affordability is halting the massive increases in property taxes and slashing wasteful spending. Many residents are at great risk of being taxed out of their own homes. It is also difficult to determine the duration and extent of any widespread difficulty to afford current housing prices in Plano. Short of outright clairvoyance, there is little knowledge as to how the housing market will behave in the long run. This plan is an overreaction by the City government and is, in reality, a means to take advantage of a momentary economic situation and increase the City’s power to influence continued development. It should be noted that City Staff pointed out during the 2018-19 budget process that property values appear to be beginning to stabilize. Whether or not this increase in power of government is intentional is irrelevant as this is the consequence of an increased regulatory scope and further costs assessed upon the public. It is not a coincidence that the Housing Trends Analysis and Strategic Plan favors higher density housing developments. This plan is the realization of the vision belonging to the current City Council majority. It is the latest in a series of measures to increase government spending, move towards a central planning style of development, and generally expand the role of local government. Plano Citizens’ Coalition believes in a vision for Plano defined by a free market and minimized cost of government. The zoning process exists to minimize conflicts and functionality issues as developers with diverse interests and goals utilize their land holdings in close proximity to one another. It is not a tool for elected officials to use to reconfigure our community as they see fit. What costs that are assessed upon the taxpayers should strictly be confined to public safety, infrastructure, and other basic services. This plan is fiscally irresponsible in the sense that it adds to what is forfeited unnecessarily in a manner that is not directly beneficial to all of those from whom the funds were acquired. PCC implores the City Council to be proactive and abstain from authorizing any market intervention that could have far reaching consequences for the community. It is worth noting that within Appendix A of the Housing Trends Analysis and Strategic Plan is a staggering number of comments received from participants of the Housing Survey that reflected a sense of urgency concerning rising property taxes, dissatisfaction with the excessive proliferation of high-density residential developments, and a desire for open space in the form of parks. It is time for our city government to begin listening to those that it is supposed to serve and turn back from what could become an irreversible loss in the qualities and characteristics that make Plano a great community to be a part of. |
|