Lets Talk Politics The Woodlands

[susan]

At the face of it all 3 make sense to me

Prop 1 will increase sales tax and reduce assessment fee (bit uncomfortable with the sales tax going up but if it reduces assessment fees, I think it will even out)

Prop 2 - woodlands residents will elect the board, I think by 2010 (according to chron only 3% of woodlands votes!)

Prop 3 - Increase property tax and reduce assessment fee, dollar to dollar, good because you can claim tax deduction on property tax but not assessment fee.

let me know if I am missing something here.

[Native1]

let me know if I am missing something here.

There is a lot missing.

From WoodlandskNOw.com:

http://www.woodlandsknow.com/message.html

Do you believe it's time The Woodlands had elected leadership that's directly accountable to the people and doesn't put the interests of the real estate developers and retailers ahead of our children?

THEN VOTE NO on 1,2,3

Here's why:

1. We are NOT in any immediate danger of annexation by Houston. The campaign slogan "Free the Woodlands" is a sleight-of-hand marketing ploy to get you to vote yes on 1,2,3 out of fear of being annexed by Houston. What it really does is give an elite few the power to run our community for years to come.
   
2. ) They are using scare tactics to consolidate THEIR power over our community. What the yes folks don't tell you is that voting yes on 1,2 and 3 gives THEM the power to control your community for the next decade!
   
3. It's time The Woodlands moved toward self-governance - NOT TCID and real estate developer governance.
   

We want government BY the people, FOR the people. Not a government BY the real estate developers and retailers, FOR the real estate developers and retailers.

If you want a democratically elected government that can be held directly accountable to the voters - VOTE NO on 1,2,3.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

www.TalkofTheWoodlands.com

[wxman]

When they say they are going to expand the borders of TCID or the town center, what exactly does that mean? Does that mean the "city limits" of The Woodlands will expand to include more than it is now? If so, do people who live in Oak Ridge or off Rayford/Sawdust (Imperial Oaks, Fox Run, Benders, Spring Trails) get to vote on this proposition? Just curious. I don't know what any of it means. I just know we don't want annexation...right? Can somebody gimme direction? (A non-bias direction). I guess what I'm asking is...what are we voting for?

[RedScare]

Currently, TCID only covers the mall and surrounding commercial areas. The vote would expand the TCID to include all of the residential areas. However, the residents would not be electing pepresentatives to the TCID board completely until 2010. So, the residents will get taxed for 2 and a half years with no say so in who runs the show.

Apparently, even after the Woodlands incorporates, the TCID could refuse to disband, and keep taxing the residents. If that happened, the City of The Woodlands would not have any revenue, and could not function. Probably wouldn't happen, but just how much DO you trust the Woodlands Operating Company?

From what I have seen so far, this is a bum deal. It should be voted down, and the resident should work toward incorporating without the WOC controlling the taxes. The City of Houston has already indicated its willingness to release TW from its juridiction. It will do so again. Now that the inner city is redeveloping, I don't think the City is nearly as concerned about annexing to survive as they were in the past.

[KatieDidIt]

From what I understand, the Parkway will go all the way through to 249. So, my guess is that the operating company will be strong-arming people off their farms to develop more Villages with Village Builders and Cheesemar homes.

I think I would be more afraid of what those currently in power will do than of Houston. Some of those guys are on the biggest ego trips of their lives and the place can be as politically dirty as old town Chicago. I can't imagine giving that group 2-3 years to run amuck unchecked!

I agree with Red, I don't think Houston really wants the Woodlands. Houston is into land value taxation. If you look at the Woodlands tax rolls, its the improvements that are 80% of the taxable value. Improvements depreciate, land in Houston appreciates.

Either way, I would bet the association fees/taxes will continue to artifically inflate. For a large portion of the pro-rated residents,they are already ridiculous for the services provided. Not to mention the Association is completely UN-HELPFUL to anything that happens.

[woody_hawkeye]

I will try to make some sense from all of this from a normal residents point of view.

Taxes: Annexation by Houston will bring sales taxes and ad-valorem taxes controlled by the city of Houston. The residents want to be able to define their own services and service levels and also be able to use their own money to fund those services. To do so politically requires us to be good regional partners with our neighbors. Since George Mitchell's vision was for Houston to be the primary stakeholder in these projects, it only made sense to make Houston the project manager for the regional projects. The Woodlands would be a benefactor of these projects as well as other communities to the north of Houston. Therefore a small portion of the tax structure is put into an escrow for these projects. The Township would have the standard 2% sales tax throughout The Woodlands, no different than Houston. The majority of the taxes collected would be utilized to fund local projects and operational costs. As a Township, all the sales taxes could be used for operations unlike a municipality, where one percent must be used for capital projects.

Should proposition 1,2,3, pass: 5 or 6 new board members would be elected in May, 2008, of the 11 member board. The other 5 would stay until 2010 when the board would drop to 7 members. The reason for this is that the incumbents must be allowed to remain by state law. There would no longer be representation by local communities. All 11 board members would be residents and all would have been elected to positions by residents before they were appointed to the board. Some were elected in the Town Center and represent residents now. There is a divided opinion on this matter and it gets a little complicated. You will see an argument that one board member was appointed by WCA and appointed to the TCID. However that resident was elected to the association for another job and is a prominent contributor to the welfare of The Woodlands. The opponents to the propositions claim foul and that there is "taxation without representation" where in reality, there will be a majority of elected candidates on the board after the May election. The bottom line is that the people on this board are quite capable of governing the villages, as well as facilitate the town center improvement district during the necessary transition period to 2010. Proposition 3 will be dollar for dollar offset against the very high association dues here. Residents will be able to deduct the ad-valorem on their IRS returns whereas as we all know, association dues are not deductible by law.

Township - we would have sales and use taxes to pay Houston and Conroe. With the excess we pay for part of the association dues, we would reduce our dues by as much as 31%. We gain freedom from the ETJ of Houston and Conroe. We gain the right to establish our own government, whether it is a township or a full fledged municipality in the future. We would not have ordinance capability at first, but may gain that right through later legislation. We would not be able to have our own police force, but would continue to use contracted police (i.e., Sheriff or Constable). We would not have zoning. We would continue to use the master plan for the final build-out of undeveloped properties and land use constraints on each tract as filed for the master plan.

Should proposition 1,2 pass but proposition 3 fail: the residents simply lose their ability to legally deduct the association dues. From this we would assume no one would oppose it. Hang with me for a minute and I will give insight into why some people do oppose it.

Proposition 1 and 2 must pass together or everything is off. I personally would like to get the 58% savings off of my annual association fee (that includes the additional cost of sales taxes), so I am supporting proposition 3. Although this sounds like an absolutely no brainer proposition, there are some people who do not trust anyone and run a campaign against new taxes period, when they will actually save money, mostly because they cannot understand the opportunity or they do not trust the TCID.

Should proposition 1 and 2 fail: The agreement with Houston is forfeited unless The Woodlands can come up with the payments within one year. The laws enabling the TCID to expand would expire immediately. There would be no enabling legislation possible until the next session in 2009. Therefore, Conroe would have to annex mud #39 because they would not want their ETJ to expire. They have already started their annexation plans and time would run out before the next session. Houston would start thinking about annexation because they can initiate their planning in 2011 for a 2014 annexation. To do this, they would need to build a fire station close by, probably during the planning stages. Legislation in 1999 was passed to make it more difficult for big cities to annex surrounding areas but not impossible.

Now to the political side of the equation. There are a few who have developed a disdain and distrust of the developer over the years. It all began when George Mitchell sold his assets in order to remain financially solvent. The buyer was not trusted from the beginning. Residents felt they had been sold out. That sentiment has spilled over to the modern day fight against the proposals. Any association with the builder is reason to distrust a member of the TCID board or for any elected office. Although I was here through the change of developers, I cannot support such a negative and persistent whining about the developer. Certainly some trees were felled that should not have been. Certainly there is disagreement whether a multistory complex should be built in a certain location. Certainly there has been contention on other projects, such as a gasoline station in a location very visible to several residential homes. None of the developer-related issues should be part of the decision for or against self governance, yet it is. This all boils down to trust. Opponents do not trust individuals or organizations with current or past ties to the developer in a master planned community that the developer has and continues to build. Proponents see the opportunity and know that they must act now. They are led into action by those who cringed at what happened to our neighbor to the east and have been working since 1999 to obtain self governance, following a logical process to achieve that goal.

That said, many residents are excited about all of this and feel they are part of a new era where they have a true say on empowering themselves with a local government. Each voter can influence the outcome. The Woodlands has made history before, and we hope it will do it again with a yes vote for the propositions. We hope to be the first community under the ETJ of a city in Texas to avoid being annexed. A light turnout at the polls is probable. Usually only those residents planning to stay or have stayed here for 5 or more years will be interested in determining the future of the community. We have a number of residents who cannot even vote in this election due to their citizenship status, but we also have many people here on relatively short job assignments.

I am sure some of this will not make any sense to outsiders, but I gave it a shot anyway. You can look into whatever you wish on my blog as well. Each member of the TCID board except for one has a bio there with some personal comments.

The Woodlands Commentary