8/25/8  Big payroll deductions for City Employees, but ...

Certain council members and do-gooders are pushing for 700 new housing units for homeless -- coming to your neighborhood.

Millions and millions are available up front and for future maintenance costs on the Opera House and Performance Hall for the artsy fartsy elite's entertainment.

A council member with unanimous support of city council can close down a 70 year old Dallas business, which will put more than 60 employees (Dallas residents) out of work and possibly make their families homeless.

City Hall overcharges Dallas residents for water usage so they can give $5 million to AT&T to move up here from San Antonio.

Please stop here and read Dallas Officer:  City balancing budget on backs of employees and then come back.

I am the Comptroller for a small law firm with 17 employees.  We have to deal with health insurance premiums like other responsible employers.  We have a very good policy with one of the best insurance carriers in the state.  Our deductible is $1500 annually and our premiums are better than what the city plans to charge its employees, sworn and civilian.  If a small company like ours can get affordable coverage for our staff, why is the City of Dallas shafting the people who work for us?  With the size of their staff, they would have much better leverage to get decent premiums.

The other day I heard Councilwoman Angela Hunt on an afternoon talk show (think it was Wells Report on KLIF, 570 AM) promoting her idea for the city to furnish new housing for street bums and the homeless.  The host was not buying her arguments, but apparently he is a big fan of her.  She said it's cheaper to pay for their housing than deal with the problem later.  I almost ran off the road.

We just built a $10 million spa/hotel for the street bums that was supposed to be all we would need to get them off the streets and back into productive living.  Same morons who voted for that bond item likely supported the DISD's latest bond-fabrication.  Meanies like me said it would draw more street bums to Dallas and Downtown.  We were right because there are now as many if not more aggressive panhandlers Downtown as before.  I will admit that a few weeks ago when I was in the Flag Room for a friend's retirement party I could not see any bums sleeping on the benches in front of City Hall.

We spent millions to build the street bums' spa/hotel, and now the same do-gooders want more millions to provide new housing for them.  Excuse me, but isn't that the job of the Dallas Housing Authority?  The DHA has millions and millions of public money to assist the homeless, etc.  Why are we considering duplicating the DHA?  We have been forced to accept DHA public housing in formerly stable neighborhoods with the inevitable increase in crime and lowering of property values.  Now, some do-gooders at City Hall want to build SRO's (single room occupancy) complexes throughout the city.

It's not just building the new units that's part of Councilwoman Hunt's plan.  Not only does she want you and me to provide housing for the street bums, we will also provide therapists and counselors on an on-going basis for the residents of the new street bum housing.  Factor in the cost of maintaining the facilities being used by the street bums who won't even take care of themselves.  We are talking millions annually.

Millions for street bums but we can't provide affordable insurance for our city employees?

Way back when it was first built and everyone was oohing and ahhing over the Meyerson, then Councilman Jerry Bartos said the annual costs of operating the building was $3 million AFTER all revenue was applied.  All that beautiful woodwork in the hall must be kept at a specific temperature, or it will start to peel.  Keeping the facility at a specific temperature is compounded by the excessive glass on the building.  If it was operating at a $3 million loss in the 80's, you can imagine how much it costs us now.  Try to find the loss on the Meyerson in the budget handouts at one of the council's townhall meetings.

We over-charge our city employees, civilian and sworn, for health insurance, but we have the resources to build and operate (at an expected loss) two more artsy fartsy facilities that were designed for someplace other than Dallas.

I was making that point to some fellow board members, but two said fine arts and entertainment are essential to a city, to draw big companies like AT&T.  If that's what it takes to get a company to abandon another Texas city to move to Dallas so we can give them $5 million and even more in tax abatements, how is that a good thing?  We don't know how many of those 700 AT&T promised jobs are going to be future Dallas residents.  Probably many of the executives will have a place in town or in the Park Cities because they can afford to live in a high rise or gated community and they can afford private schools for their kids.  I don't believe the average AT&T employee will find living in Dallas to be affordable, particularly when they have to pay for private schools.

After the budget townhall meeting I attended last week, I am even more convinced we are better off not recruiting big business to Dallas.  Do you know where the $5 million came from for the council to give AT&T to lure them from a sister Texas city?  It's a program called "PILOT" funded by the Water Department, or more specifically by Dallas water users -- that would be you and me.  "PILOT" is an acronym for "Payment In Lieu Of Taxes".  Surplus revenue generated by the Water Department is put into this slush fund for the council to dole out to billionaires and billion dollar companies.  If there are millions and millions generated by the Water Department, then Dallas residents and businesses are paying way too much for water usage.  Why not refund some of that surplus to Dallas homeowners?  Why not lower our water and sewer rates?

Here's an idea -- Why not use the PILOT slush fund to pay city employees' insurance premiums?

I have another question.  Why would a City of Dallas division, like the Water Department, have to pay taxes at all?  It's an oxymoron for a city division to be taxed by the city.  Or, maybe it's  a conundrum.  Or, maybe it's just a sneaky way to rob Joe Taxpayer to give our money to fat cats and billion dollar businesses.

There are a bunch of for sale signs in my neighborhood.  A couple of houses have sold at good prices on my street, but some of the streets south are not doing so well.  The closer you live to the DISD school full of kids from the apartments south of us, the less likely it is that you will get a good price for your house - if you are able to sell at all.  The aunt and uncle of one of our least qualified local elected officials resorted to a mortgage scam to unload their house.  A guy from Frisco (now lives in Forney I'm told) bought their house at an inflated price on the basis of a bogus appraisal.  The sellers and the buyer split the overage (about $70K) at closing.  The buyer never made a payment on the mortgage.  We can guess what company did the title work.  You and I get stuck with the consequences of their greed and dishonesty.

The houses that have sold recently have been young straight couples without children and gay men.  Having lived in Oak Lawn for 30 years, I see the gay men and gay couples as a good sign for my little piece of Heaven.  Their interest and investment in my neighborhood bodes well for us. 

Still, houses on streets near the DISD school full of kids from the apartments are not moving well.  The apartments south of us are just awful.  They were built for occupancy (one bedroom units) for swinging singles, but they are occupied by families now.  The kids have no place to play, so Dallas homeowners are supposed to build them parks and recreation centers, rather than the apartment complexes providing play areas for their residents' children.  Dallas homeowners who spend whatever they have to keep their kids out of DISD schools are doubly victimized by proximity to DISD schools.

Councilwoman Hunt and her colleagues will assure us these 700 SRO's are only stop gap housing to help the street bums and homeless restart their lives.  Right!  There will be children living in these facilities before the paint is dry.  We will have instant slums that will further diminish the quality of life for Dallas taxpayers.  We will have fewer Police officers to protect us from the street bums who will then be right up the street and see our middle class homes as tempting targets.

It's all connected.  We over-charge Dallas residents to give millions to billion-dollar companies. We short-change our city employees to save money to waste on street bums.

Yesterday, a friend complained about a problem relative who has been living in Las Vegas for years.  Some group out there gave the woman a one-way ticket to a Dallas County city for her to crash at one of our numerous women's shelters.  This woman has not lived in Dallas County for 20 years, but here she is back on our dole.  She left a bunch of kids behind in Las Vegas.  What you want to bet we get those little darlings on our dole, too?

Like all the do-gooder programs, when you offer losers something for free, there's always a ready taker.  The old "build it and they will come" theory is proved true over and over with each new give-away program.  Councilwoman Davis knows what those give-away programs have done for South Dallas, and she wants no part of those 700 street bum units in her district.

We have done enough for the street bums by building that spa/hotel for them.  The do-gooders need to take their hands out of our pockets. 

If my water bill is being padded to provide a slush fund for billionaire buddies of the city council, I want my rate reduced -- not increased as the 2008-09 budget provides.  If the slush fund must continue, then use that money for the health insurance premiums of city employees.  Don't give it away to lure companies away from sister Texas cities.

We can't live in this city without city employees making things work and public safety officers protecting us and our property.  They must be the first priority of this 2008-09 budget. 

sb