A Gen Xer disagrees
Re: “Patrick’s Tax Plan Isn’t Any Better — Among other problems, it would pit young against old,” Sunday editorial.
Your editorial dismisses Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s property tax plan as helping “the wrong end of the age spectrum.” As a Gen Xer raising children, grandchildren and aging parents simultaneously, I disagree.
Ageism in employment is real. My generation faces hiring discrimination, layoffs and a job market that discards experienced workers. We have paltry savings rates because we’re supporting multiple generations at once.
Waiting until our 60s for tax relief is oppressive, especially given our longer life expectancy. Why should people who lived responsible lives be punished with decades more property tax burden?
Opinion
The bulk of property taxes funds public education — services my age group uses almost as little as retirees. If we’re going to talk about fairness, let’s index education costs to the parents who actually use the schools, not the homeowners who already raised their kids.
Patrick’s plan recognizes that Gen X is squeezed from all sides: employment discrimination, caregiving responsibilities and property taxes for services we don’t use. That’s not pitting young against old. That’s basic fairness.
Will McCutcheon, Richland Hills
Lower sales tax instead
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick calls for lowering the age of senior property tax exemption to 55, even while admitting 3.3 million of Texas’ 6.1 million homeowners would qualify. The result would burden the remaining 2.8 million younger homeowners.
The inequity is striking. Workers aged 55 to 65 are at their peak lifetime earnings. They’re often empty nesters whose mortgages are paid. Are they more deserving of relief than young families struggling with day care and the other expenses associated with rearing children?
The majority of households in Dallas County are renters. If Patrick wishes to cut taxes, he should reduce the state sales tax, the most regressive tax of all.
Ken Duble, Dallas/The Cedars
Former mayors mistaken
Re: “Move City Hall and save downtown — Two former mayors call for action in Dallas’ endangered central business district,” by Tom Leppert and Ron Kirk, Thursday Opinion.
I was surprised and disappointed to read this opinion piece by Leppert and Kirk suggesting that we needed to redevelop the City Hall site in order to save downtown. These are two former mayors whose leadership skills inspired our citizens and advanced Dallas’ economic health. But this time they are not thinking clearly.
The portion of the City Hall site occupied by the building, its parking garage and plaza is only about 10 acres. The land owned by the city available for redevelopment after the demolition of the eastern half of the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center is almost 40 acres, and the mostly vacant land owned by Michael Hoque along with the undeveloped south half of the City Hall site is another 15 acres. Without demolishing City Hall, there are 55 acres of land available to make an offer to the Mavs ownership for a magnificent arena and entertainment complex and great potential for adjacent restaurant, retail, hotel, residential and office development.
Unfortunately the City Council has panicked because the Mavericks set a February deadline for making a decision about a possible new home, reasoning falsely that the City Hall site is the only solution.
Decouple these two decisions. Take the time first to rigorously program the city’s space needs and then accurately determine the relative costs between restoring City Hall and relocating elsewhere in downtown. And in the meantime, make a compelling offer to the Mavericks’ ownership on the vacated convention center land.
R. Lawrence “Larry” Good, Dallas
Suspicious and familiar
Who knew all I needed to make me appreciate Mayor Eric Johnson was a dose of Trinity Toll Road backers, former mayors Ron Kirk and Tom Leppert?
We are all suspiciously and suddenly finding out that downtown and City Hall are in such dire straits that the only solution is to scrap I.M. Pei’s world renowned work of art for another 20-year shelf life sporting arena.
Ironically their pitch referenced the last arena they sold us. The “forces for good” gave us the American Airlines Center, but the teams we built it for can’t leave it fast enough. So we should do that again?
Rather than “cede public space to the homeless,” let’s cede it to a casino developer. Casinos help the homeless, said no one ever.
They did learn from the Trinity Toll Road. Don’t let the voters anywhere near it, get it done ASAP and during the haze of the holidays.
Nothing good ever gets passed in a hurry at Christmas at City Hall. Particularly its own rushed, greed-driven, disingenuous demolition.
Michael Amonett, Dallas/Oak Cliff
Soul-crushing proposals
As the former city of Dallas Historic Preservation officer and author of Lost Dallas, there isn’t much more I could say in defense of City Hall that hasn’t already been said. However, I did want to make some comments in rebuttal to this op-ed from Kirk and Leppert.
The assertion that moving City Hall would save downtown is absurd and lazy. Since the American Airlines Center or other big-ticket developments of the past didn’t save downtown, why should Dallas residents think that a new arena owned and operated by the owners of the Mavericks would magically do the trick?
The supposed failure of downtown isn’t because of City Hall. It’s because of the lack of imagination and fortitude from current and previous city council members (including Kirk and Leppert) to budget accordingly as well as the stakeholders and caretakers of downtown Dallas for not demanding more than what is being peddled as a “quick fix.”
The most depressing thought about this entire discussion is that the City Council would prefer for Dallas city offices to be scattered among Class B office buildings downtown than the current grand and iconic civic building and space.
Soul-crushing, indeed.
Mark Doty, Glen Allen, Va.