This far-reaching bill approves spending that citizens and taxpayers will not be able to contest, and which we can ill afford. There is increasing use of phrases in bills that say voters do not have to be consulted at all for spending that has been outlined in a very general and limitless way
Note: State Rep Jason Isaac's latest electronic newsletter to District 45 constituents (Hays, Blanco and Caldwell counties) makes no mention of the Municipal Utility District and Hays County Development District No. 1 bills he has introduced thus far in his first term in the Legislature. It looks like Isaac is doing a fine job for his land development constituency. All these bills grant taxing and bond sale authority and are skating right along in the legislative process. They will likely wind up on the Local Consent Calendar, which is the free pass place for locally directed legislation.
Three other actually worthwhile bills filed by Isaac, HB 1515 that would put a temporary hold on college tuition increases and HB 2180 that would reduce the noise from outdoor entertainment venues in unincorporated areas, have been hung up in committee since early March. Isaac's HB 3083, to exempt exemplary and recognized school districts from standardized testing for the following one or two school years, has been idle in the House Public Education Committee since mid-March.
Send your comments and questions to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to Ms. Hopson at hopsonbarbara@yahoo.com, to Rep. Isaac at Jason.Isaac@house.state.tx.us (512-463-0647) or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story
By Barbara HopsonSpecial to the RoundUp
State Rep Jason Isaac (R-Dripping Springs/Belterra) has so far authored four bills to create Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs). The bills all are captioned "providing authority to impose a tax and issue bonds; granting a limited power of eminent domain."
The proposed MUDs are in Hays or Caldwell counties, and the bills are HB 2182 and 2893 (Ranch at Clear Fork Creek MUD No.2), HB 2183 (Ranch at Clear Fork Creek MUD No.1), and HB 3813 (Hudson Ranch Water District). Every MUD is essentially a gift to a land developer, allowing him to tax the people who will live in the area covered by the MUD, to help him pay doing-business expenses.
More alarming and far-reaching than his MUDs, however, is Isaac's HB 3832, "Relating to the Hays Development District No. 1." The Texas Legislature's website shows that the bill was filed on March 31. This legislation offers extensive additions to legislation enacted by the Legislature in 2001. The upshot of the proposed additions is to grant authority to Hays County to spend taxpayer money on almost anything under the sun, and without voter approval. Read the text of the bill, which shows additions by underlining. Especially note Sec 5A which shows all the new items for which your tax money can be spent. Go to the middle icon (HTML) under "Text" and see the (marked-through) wording that is to be omitted from the legislation – phrases such as "after approval by voters at an election."
Sec. 5 is aptly named "Powers." Under Sec. 5A, "Improvement Projects," taxpayers could wind up paying for such corporate frills as advertising, ornate fountains, skywalks, heliports, lakes, golf courses, trails, archways, banners, and almost anything else the developers deem desirable.
This far-reaching bill approves spending that citizens and taxpayers will not be able to contest, and which we can ill afford. There is increasing use of phrases in bills that say voters do not have to be consulted at all for spending that has been outlined in a very general and limitless way.
Especially if you live in Hays County, you need to read HB 3832. It is lawmaker's language for "Dripping Springs Conference Center and General Boondoggle." It is brought to you by land owners and developers who want to make big bucks by selling the pipe dream that a big "conference center" will bring in jobs and business to the Dripping Springs area. This center would be off RR 12, south of the Hwy 290/RR 12 intersection. The site is more than 500 acres in size.
As is usually the case, this sort of Chamber-of-Commerce-economic development-type Trojan horse project – all the planning, construction, paying off of bonds, etc. – will cost taxpayers far more than any economic benefit the community may derive. The profit will go to the people who sell the land to the developers, and to the developers themselves.
There will be some minimum-wage jobs picking up trash and flipping burgers. Even the construction jobs will mostly go to big outfits in Austin, Houston, or San Antonio – where there are firms familiar with this large-scale construction. Local constructors may build a sidewalk or two, or put up a fence.
The local economic development ambassadors will say that people who flock to conferences at the Center will have to pay for lodging and food, but the hotels and the restaurants will be on the premises (or periphery) of the conference center, and customers will only enrich the hotel and restaurant corporate owners. Dripping Springs may take in some sales tax revenue. Visitors may have to pay a hotel occupancy tax when they come to town, but that income will be far overshadowed by the taxes and assessments that citizens will fork over to pay off the bond indebtedness for the next 30 years.
24 comments:
Barbara, you conveniently forgot to mention that the MUDs would only be able to tax the people that are dumb enough to move into a development, which they have jurisdiction over. Good examples in Hays County are Belterra and Hipointe where thousands decided it was worth it. Their MUD taxes are huge and when added to the excessive school taxes and County tax on a $300,000 House they amount to over $8000 per year. Yet they moved there and I kind of look at the MUD tax a voluntary tax. I wish more taxes were voluntary.
Boy, “Development” is really a bad word in the Woodcreeks and Wimberley but it is coming and you best get ready for it. This is starting to be the standard behavior of losers of elections to bash the winners or demonstrate in the streets or file lawsuits. There seems to be a lot of that in the Wimberley area; maybe it is because there are more losers there.
Development is a bad word in Woodcreek and Wimberley only when it is blended with special interest cronyism and political payback time.
I can't speak for citizens in other Hays County towns but I think the Wimberley and the Woodcreek area is the most beautiful area in the county and I don't want greedy big money cronies and their bought and paid for local politicians to screw the area up with overdevelopment and irresponsible water consumption.
I for one will support any citizen or group in west Hays County who wants to make sure all development is intelligent and well planned.
If Dripping Springs, Buda, and Kyle citizens want their areas to look like corporate strip malls that must have ground water that THEY pay for, that is their right - as long as it does not create water shortages in west Hays County.
Not much to ask. And it allows citizens in other areas to live the lifestyle they want. And for those of you in west Hays County that want to turn Wimberley/Woodcreek into DP, KYLE, or Buda, I would say you will have a political fight on your hands.
That is democracy, folks.
Didn't this website promote Jason Isaac over Patrick Rose? And didn't Isaac pull alot of votes out of Belterra?
Guess the voters really do get the representation they deserve. Lucky it's a short two-year term. Let's see how long the voters' memory is...
I finally have to comment on this blog. What did you people expect when you elected an ultra right wing nut to this office? Darn right Patrick Rose looks good, but I expected that.
Mike must be a sadly ignorant man - since he uses the word "losers" to describe anyone who doesn't agree with his insipid "pro-business at at any cost" attitude.
Just so you know, Mike, I respect the "losers" in west Hays County much more than those you probably consider "successful" in your neck of the backwoods - because anyone who must label someone else a loser to make himself feel superior - well, we all know you are the real loser.
Unfortunately most elections these days are based on what the incumbent did wrong or what they didn't do right. And during the election cycle we can only trust that the new candidate is telling us the truth when we hear his or her spiel.
Regretfully, the angry reactionary Democrats and many independent voters felt it necessary to make a statement against Patrick Rose - and not necessarily FOR the now known right wing socially repressive big government conservatism that Isaac clearly represents.
If Texas want a politician telling their women how to use their bodies and their reproduction rights - and make doctors and patients give up their privacy, then re-elect Isaac next time around.
And be aware that Isaac's co-authored sonogram legislation will by default promote illegal abortions and medical procedures that are done in secrecy and by untrained personnel, i.e. dangerous and clinically-unhealthy.
So, people, these MUD deals are about nothing but crony money. Isaac's women-hating abortion legislation is social fascism and totalitarian government - similar to what the Nazis, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Hunts did.
Don't let Isaac around your wife or daughter. He is a women-abusing sheep in wolf's clothing.
to Anon April 4, 2:34 PM:
Yes, a lot of us Democrats did
vote for Jason Isaac (R) instead of
for Patrick Rose (D) last time.
Sometimes it's a matter of choosing
between bad and worse.
We knew for sure we didn't want any
more of Rose's giveaways to land
developers. We hoped that Isaac, a freshman Representative, wouldn't
have all those slimy connections,
but I guess Jason is a fast learner
in some ways. He didn't miss a beat
in continuing with Rose's projects.
We won't be voting for Isaac again,
you can bet. Neither will many
Republicans.
UPDATE
Since Hays County Development District No. 1 was first created by
legislation in 2001, the planned
development has been modified from
something like a conference center to a luxury-home resort with a golf
course and a hotel that could host
conferences. The development is
called Caliterra and is planned to
include 400 single-family homes
($400,000 to $2 million) and 50
villa style homes ($300,000).
Caliterra would not be a MUD,
but a "development district,"
a hybrid creation something like
what Patrick Rose created for the
Salt Lick owners.
From an April 6, 2007 real estate
release:
"Caliterra is a development district that was approved by the
State of Texas Legislature, Hays
County, and the City of Dripping
Springs. Development districts are
designed to operate like municipalities that lower the cost
of planned communities..., WHILE
ALLOWING THE SALE OF COUNTY OR
MUNICIPAL BONDS." The only lowering
of cost would be for the developer.
UPDATE
Rep. Isaac's HB 3832 was sent
to the House County Affairs
Committee today. Email the members
of that committee (especially chair
Garnett Coleman) to tell them you
don't want the bill to be passed
favorably from the committee.
garnett.coleman@house.state.tx.us
marisa.marquez@house.state.tx.us
ken.paxton@house.state.tx.us
and so on.
So, Barbara, where does Isaac the female health inspector stand on this development you mentioned as an Update?
Finally, jwigginsburns, I was waiting all this time for your input. And I say "right on."
Don't forget the HOA fees and don't forget that people don't necessarily want to live in these places - however that is what is available.
I agree 100 percent with Rocky's points regarding development and the water rights of homeowners.
Patrick Rose was a cancer that needed to be removed from the district he manipulated.
Is Jason Isaac, a newbie, trying to repay his wealthy constituents for their votes and support?
Has Isaac been a House Rep. long enough for us to form an opinion and to compare him to "Raunchy" Rose who was our Rep for many terms? It's doubtful. Isaac is sure to make some mistakes.
Anyone ask Isaac directly why he pushed this bill? I did. I'm waiting for an answer.
I am sure the wealthy special interests covered their bets by supporting both candidates Isaac and Rose to be sure they get whatever they need and want. This is the way various interests ensure their success no matter who wins. It is done all the time in politics. It often doesn't matter who we vote for.
By the way, "Mike", the only "loser" I see on this blog is you. You earned title that by ignorantly calling western Hays folks losers. Further more, the MUD tax is not a "volunteer tax" as much as a fee paying tax.
I also disagree with you regarding developments becoming "the standard behavior" in Hays County.
I'm betting that people will get a little smarter about such developments and will try to avoid them and vote them down.
A case in point is the Rim Rock development, which is having a difficult time selling all the lots. This, after Dripping Springs permitted the developer to cut the 10-acre lots to 5-acre lots to make it more affordable for people to buy them.
However, all the city did was to double the number of people who will move here without ensuring that the county or development can handle that doubled figure.
Developments ARE "bad" when they are poorly thought out and take away from their long-time neighbors and are a detriment to the environment.
“This is starting to be the standard behavior of losers of elections to bash the winners or demonstrate in the streets or file lawsuits. There seems to be a lot of that in the Wimberley area; maybe it is because there are more losers there.”
What else would you call someone who didn’t win an election? You people need to read things in context and not jump to conclusions that do not exist.
to Mike, April 4, 12:19 PM:
Mike, I didn't "conveniently
forget" to mention that MUDs tax
only the people who live in the
MUD area. See the last sentence of
paragraph 2 of what I wrote:
"Every MUD is essentially a gift to
a land developer, allowing him TO
TAX THE PEOPLE WHO WILL LIVE IN THE
AREA COVERED BY THE MUD...."
Mike, is there an underlying reason why you stated, "... there are more losers there (in Wimberley)" hahaha.
I can understand why people took it the way they did.
Sure sounds like you have an intention there the way it's phrased. Good job.
Mike, your last post would make Patrick Rose the "loser" in this context; and he has not filed a suit, protested or demonstrated.
Nice try at crawfishing, but it's not going to work.
Peter,
To play the devil's advocate here - just how does these types of developments "take away from their long-time neighbors"? What is being "taken away" that the neighbors own that is not something that they have to share? (Like air, water, space, the good life...)
You know, it's funny, but everybody seems to have their own funny little buzz words that are really nothing more than cliches that they use to demonize people, without ever putting substance behind it or explaining just what "it" is.
You may have some tangible asset that is being "taken away", but if you really think about it, "it" might not be something you "own". Or maybe it's something that is intangible (peace of mind, peace and quiet, beautiful view - which is on someone else's property) that is not yours to "own" or "sell".
So, before we all go off half-cocked, and blow the decent developments off with these terds (Caliterra), let's discus civilly what we want these developments to provide, bring to the table in the way of good development, etc., for our beautiful community. Simply wishing them away will not make it so, and to not engage in dialogue will not give us long-timers a chance to provide them with feedback as to what "we" want to see brought to our "community" that will enhance it, and at the same time alleviate some of the "problems" that they, at least in perception - maybe some in reality - bring.
Give peace a chance, bro.
Great comments, Yellow Armadillo. That was the best post I have seen here and it said just what I wanted to say but just couldn’t find the words. I fear it will fall upon the deaf ears of most that oppose any development here. Thanks for the comments.
Anon 5:18, so in a choice of bad or worse, you voted for worse?
to Anon April 6, 10:25 AM:
No, I voted AGAINST "worse" (Patrick Rose). And I didn't know
Jason Isaac was going to turn out
to be so "bad."
Actually given Isaac's uberrightwing social agenda, you voted for worse.
I can't understand what is wrong with the idea of charging those and only those who use a service for the cost of providing that service.
Keep up the good work Representative Isaac.
Hey, Cook,
This post is about MUDs and
HCDD#1. You somehow bring in Isaac
and abortion to every post on The
RoundUp.
Give it a rest.
Post a Comment