bond props, 1-4

First off, COR webmaster, stop with the unnecessary Flash animation crap, ok? I think there's an important metaphor in there somewhere but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

I think in future bonds we need more granularity. Instead of
Street Improvments
Parts and Rec
Municipal Public Buildings
Neighborhood Vitality

we could have
Street Improvments - Critical
Street Improvments - Optional
Parts and Rec - Critical
Parts and Rec - Optional
Municipal Public Buildings - Critical
Municipal Public Buildings - Optional
Neighborhood Vitality - Critical
Neighborhood Vitality - Optional

This would help prevent critical expenditures from getting bundled with "sure would be nice" issues.

Or, even better: think of how different borrowing would be if we actually got to vote on each item. That would be something like 34 items instead of 4. Would I be willing to take the extra 10 minutes at the poll? Believe it. I don't think it will ever happen because it would KILL pork, and pork is the lifeblood of politics. Starve the beast, people.

Prop 1, $24.7M
The question here is whether or not to spike this $24.7M prop because of the inclusion of:
Galatyn Overpass Extension $787,500
UTD Roadways $2,836,000

Am I willing to drive on worse roads for a couple of years in order to send a signal that the city shouldn't try to bloat up bond props? Yes, I am.

BTW, I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with the city building erosion features for what appear to be two private residences at 1709 Timberway Dr. and 1502 Braeburn Dr. Anyone know the dates of the work sessions or council meetings when those were discussed? I'd like to educate myself on that issue. My immediate reaction is that underwriting poor residential location choices increases moral hazard.

Prop 2, $22.6M
This one is easy. No.

We're likely required to do
City Wide - Park ADA Modifications $262,500
which we can do out of current funds.

As much as I'd like to see trails, I will take my own medicine here. This is not the time to borrow money for that.

Note: Hey COR, I understand your girlfriend Heights Park is hot and more than a little high maintenance. Promise her all the trinkets you want, just don't expect the rest of us to underwrite your adventures. We're trying to buy groceries and make the mortgage over here.


Prop 3, 10.5M
No.

Would I like to increase doggie ventilation? Sure. Do it out of current funds. Or get a corporate partner. Who wouldn't want to go on the record as helping adoptable dogs stay cool?

The 724K RFID project will probably save money in the long term, and if so should be in a reasonable bond prop.

Prop 4, $8.15M
No.

Seriously, this is how you're going to list it? How about a link of some kind.
HOA Requested NV Projects Screening walls, entry features, bridge aesthetics $2,100,000

I have no problems with sidewalk repair but 25% undifferentiated fluff in that prop seals it for me.

Man, I'm getting grouchier as I age.

Tree The Town == debt lever?

I'm getting a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I really, really hope this isn't the underlying rationale for Tree the Town:

Posted by Dollar Tree @ 2:04 PM Tue, Mar 16, 2010
The hidden story in this is how these sponsors are effectively bolstering the City's asset base by tens of thousands of dollars. Not long ago, the Texas Legislature enabled municipalities to place a dollar value on trees. This is intended to increase the net worth of the municipality, and thus make its financial solvency seem more plausible. Well, enter the Tree The Town project. For every tree that is planted, the City will gain additional credibility in the financial markets, thanks to the value of trees being added to the asset base. The only loser here are the citizens who have to repay the debt for which these assets will be applied as collateral.

I hope Amir addresses this in public somewhere.

Line in the sand: I will actively work against any council member/candidate who seeks creative ways to increase COR's ability to go deeper into debt. We need leadership that will help wean COR off debt.