memo<\/a> in December. <\/p>\nNeither Bazaldua nor Cadena responded when we reached out for more information. <\/p>\n
At any rate, Dallas\u2019 consideration of amortizing GAF and TAMKO creates an opportunity to examine the two situations in detail. What makes sense in one case might not in another. <\/p>\n
The situation on Singleton<\/p>\n
GAF\u2019s West Dallas plant is wedged between Singleton Boulevard and the railroad tracks. The company has operated it for almost 80 years, our newspaper reported last month. The plant became nonconforming in 1952, according to Bazaldua and Cadena\u2019s memo. <\/p>\n
Stretching out to the plant\u2019s south, there\u2019s an expanse of commercial and industrial properties: concrete companies, meat sellers and construction businesses. But the story is different with many of GAF\u2019s other neighbors. The plant is surrounded by residential homes, a church, a junior high school and a community center. <\/p>\n
No reasonable person would pretend GAF\u2019s plant suits the neighborhood. The company doesn\u2019t either and has agreed to shut down of its own accord. <\/p>\n
\u201cGAF remains fully committed to the timeline previously outlined for West Dallas, with operations ceasing in July 2029,\u201d a company spokesperson said last week. \u201cSince announcing plans to close the West Dallas facility, we have been supportive of repurposing the land in the future in a way that supports the city\u2019s vision for West Dallas and will continue to work with West Dallas officials on those efforts.\u201d <\/p>\n
There is no reason for Dallas to spend taxpayer dollars forcing out a business that is already planning to leave. Even if it did, there\u2019s no guarantee amortization would get rid of GAF any faster. The process can drag on for years. <\/p>\n
The only reason we can think of for preferring a forced closure is that it would come with all the appearances of \u201cwinning.\u201d Amortization would bring a heavy-handed, punitive feeling to GAF\u2019s departure. <\/p>\n
But that has nothing to do with what\u2019s actually best for the community. What\u2019s best is for the GAF plant to close so that the West Dallas neighborhood in its shadow can breathe cleaner air. In GAF\u2019s case, the best way to accomplish that is to let the company leave on its own terms. Amortization is the wrong approach. <\/p>\n
How things are different between TAMKO and Joppa <\/p>\n
TAMKO\u2019s plant is situated at Linfield Road and South Central Expressway \u2014 near the Great Trinity Forest and right across the railroad tracks from residences in Joppa. It has operated there for nearly 40 years, this newspaper reported. <\/p>\n
Like those in West Dallas and other parts of the city, Joppa has shared its air with industrial polluters for generations. The former freedman\u2019s town has also been the subject of long neglect from local leadership. <\/p>\n
A TAMKO spokesperson said the plant is not a meaningful source of pollution in Joppa. The company pointed to investments in environmental controls and process improvements, and stated that the wind blows away from Joppa about 90% of the time, \u201cmaking it physically implausible for TAMKO to impact air quality.\u201d <\/p>\n
\u201cTAMKO values its long-standing relationship with the Joppa community and remains committed to continued investment in South Dallas,\u201d the statement reads. <\/p>\n
In deciding whether to pursue amortization, the city will have to independently and fairly evaluate TAMKO\u2019s environmental impact. <\/p>\n
But the use at TAMKO\u2019s location became nonconforming in 1955, according to Bazaldua and Cadena\u2019s memo. And residents have a right to want a better future for their neighborhood, and frankly, we can\u2019t blame them. Who would want to share space with a shingle factory, even under the best circumstances? <\/p>\n
Whatever the outcome, Dallas should pursue negotiations with TAMKO and other industrial operators to plan eventual exits. Setting aside pollution, industrial uses are no longer where these neighborhoods are, and it isn\u2019t their future.<\/p>\n
Where negotiation proves unfruitful, amortization should be an option. <\/p>\n
The road forward<\/p>\n
Amortization is complicated, expensive, heavy-handed and generally as unpopular as eminent domain in a state that champions business and private property rights. But it\u2019s also an important, last-resort tool cities need for getting problematic businesses out of areas that are trying to grow and change. <\/p>\n
It\u2019s possible that state law has rendered amortization so cost prohibitive that it\u2019s functionally useless. If that turns out to be the case, we would urge lawmakers to revisit this issue when they reconvene next year and look for a better balance. <\/p>\n
In the meantime, it\u2019s worth it for Dallas to study the cost of closing these two factories. Even though it won\u2019t make sense in GAF\u2019s case, it could make sense in TAMKO\u2019s. And at any rate, the exercise could help Dallas get a sense of how state law will affect this tool going forward.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"No one wants to live near an industrial site that belches pollutants into the environment, but there are…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":517489,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5135],"tags":[5229,1596,14840,6083,358,3187,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":{"0":"post-517488","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-dallas","8":"tag-america","9":"tag-dallas","10":"tag-dallas-city-council","11":"tag-editorials","12":"tag-texas","13":"tag-tx","14":"tag-united-states","15":"tag-united-states-of-america","16":"tag-unitedstates","17":"tag-unitedstatesofamerica","18":"tag-us","19":"tag-usa"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115898167060206773","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/517488","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=517488"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/517488\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/517489"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=517488"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=517488"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=517488"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}