CMTEX LLC

[limegreengecko]

Originally Posted by Rebel

Zoning directs how a property can/will be developed. For example. Brinkman Ranch has multiple different zoning classifications, but he can continue to use it as a Ranch since its always been a ranch. Same with all of the other large open land areas in Frisco. The property owners can use them as they have historically, but when they get developed the Zoning and Land use plans govern what can be developed there.

Thank you Rebel for explaining that.

[Surveyor]

Originally Posted by Tooleman

I agree with Burro.. Maso should just come out and say it..

He owns the land and has the AG exemption on it.. Perfectly legal non issue..

If I was a Maso supporter, knowing this info wouldn't stop me from voting for him..

If I owned a big piece of land like this, I would do the same thing.. so I do not see an issue here..

BTW I am not a Maso supporter..

I am convinced that what Smith is saying is true. My father had a saying, "The first Fox usually smells his own hole" in short Maso should not have brought up the pool issue. The truth will always come back to bite you in the arse.

[Daytimer]

Originally Posted by Tooleman

I agree with Burro.. Maso should just come out and say it..

He owns the land and has the AG exemption on it.. Perfectly legal non issue..

If I was a Maso supporter, knowing this info wouldn't stop me from voting for him..

If I owned a big piece of land like this, I would do the same thing.. so I do not see an issue here..

BTW I am not a Maso supporter..

You're right; "technically speaking" it is perfectly legal.

The hemming and hawing is over the ethics of purchasing a vacant piece of property that has a future zoning of retail/office/mixed-use, paying minimal perfunctory taxes while the individual homeowners in the surrounding neighborhoods are paying the max. Our high property values enhances and supports his family's investment.

It's an ethical tiptoeing act being mayor of the city where the land is located. At some point, a developer is going to want to build another olde thyme shoppe centre on the property (and Nelson will finally get his beloved gas station at that corner) Remember too, citizens are not privy to the deals the city makes with developers. These "legal" negotiation deals are made behind executive session. Public knowledge is only after the ink is dry.

While I'm perfectly comfortable with Maso himself recusing himself from the decisions, this is waaaaay to close of an ethical line not to have questions of favoritism/cronyism come up.

[RemoteUser]

Mayor Maher should come here and set the record straight.

[Tooleman]

So because Maso is the Mayor, he shouldn't be able to take advantage of the tax breaks available to him??

If he didn't own this land, someone else probably would.. And they would most likely be doing the same exact thing..

We are paying the max tax on our homes because we are using them.. Maso isn't using this land yet, and when it gets used for its intended purpose the tax will be paid..

Taxing this land right now is bad for business..

[Daytimer]

Originally Posted by Tooleman

So because Maso is the Mayor, he shouldn't be able to take advantage of the tax breaks available to him??

If he didn't own this land, someone else probably would.. And they would most likely be doing the same exact thing..

We are paying the max tax on our homes because we are using them.. Maso isn't using this land yet, and when it gets used for its intended purpose the tax will be paid..

Taxing this land right now is bad for business..

Yes, the taxes will be rolled-back five years and paid at the retail/office/mixed-use rates. But those taxes will be included in the developer's loan from the bank.

And Maso is using the land - even just sitting on it undeveloped. There are road improvements, fire stations, police, drainage, etc. at that location that increases the property's value. You can even say the schools improve the land because there is an educated workforce to draw from [the cashiers can potentially enter management for being able to form a complete sentence, "DO you want fries with that?"]

I don't believe any of these investor land owners should be scamming a tax advantage meant for real farmers/ranchers. Especially when they're surrounded by homeowners supplementing their investment. It's especially galling that it's the Mayor's property and that the city is going to eventually cut a deal with the developer of that property.

Didn't anybody pay attention to the Dwaine Caraway trial [ETA sorry - Don Hill not Dwaine Caraway - it's hard keeping up with the different political playas indicted in the last 20 years] in Dallas?

[Tooleman]

You have a good point Daytimer.. I wont argue with that..

But I do disagree with you lol.. Ill leave it at that..

[Daytimer]

Originally Posted by Tooleman

You have a good point Daytimer.. I wont argue with that..

But I do disagree with you lol.. Ill leave it at that..

No worries. I'm just not a fan of the "well 'technically'" excuse.

[Tooleman]

Im not a big fan of that either.. But in this case I would give the exception..

Mostly because I could see myself doing the exact same thing..

[ChiTownTransplant]

Originally Posted by Daytimer

Yes, the taxes will be rolled-back five years and paid at the retail/office/mixed-use rates. But those taxes will be included in the developer's loan from the bank.

And Maso is using the land - even just sitting on it undeveloped. There are road improvements, fire stations, police, drainage, etc. at that location that increases the property's value. You can even say the schools improve the land because there is an educated workforce to draw from [the cashiers can potentially enter management for being able to form a complete sentence, "DO you want fries with that?"]

I don't believe any of these investor land owners should be scamming a tax advantage meant for real farmers/ranchers. Especially when they're surrounded by homeowners supplementing their investment. It's especially galling that it's the Mayor's property and that the city is going to eventually cut a deal with the developer of that property.

Didn't anybody pay attention to the Dwaine Caraway trial [ETA sorry - Don Hill not Dwaine Caraway - it's hard keeping up with the different political playas indicted in the last 20 years] in Dallas?

Sure the land value is higher due to all of the development that has happened in Frisco, but the open space application that allows the huge break on property tax was created specifically for investors. There is a separate ag application for farmers/ranchers.

You have to realize that one way or another that land is going to be used as a business and no business is interested in losing money. So if they took away the open use application that so many people seem to disagree with on here, then the original farmer that farmed that land would never have been able to sell the land for more than its potential future earnings from farm revenue (i.e. no one will buy the land based on future development earnings if they know they have to sit on it for years and pay $70,000 per year in taxes on it). So, just making up numbers, instead of Maso's company buying the land for millions of dollars they might have picked it up for $200,000 and pays full taxes on it. Now the farmer gets screwed and Maso's company makes a fortune in 5 years when they develop this land and it is now valued at its future earning ability as a major development.

Instead of the above scenario, the open use application allows the land value to go up based on its future earnings potential, because there are investors willing to pay for that knowing that they won't have to pay the taxes on that value until it is realized (i.e. the land is developed). So now that farmer got millions of dollars. In many cases that I am aware of, the original farmer invested some or all of that money back into Frisco by building a large home or starting a business, etc. In some cases that money is supporing 2 or 3 generations of one family, with much of it being invested in Frisco. So this is a win/win situation that only works with this tax break.

I don't see any reason anyone would not support this property tax situation. Similar laws exist all over the country and they are absolutely necessary when you understand the economics of real estate. If people want to debate the idea of whether we should pass a rule preventing future mayors from owning any land in Frisco other than their primary residence, then feel free to have that debate; but I personally prefer to have a mayor who has a significant vested interested in the success of the city.