County was wrong with surprise plan

Published 7:09 pm Saturday, December 6, 2014

In a surprise move, the Smith County Commissioners Court took action on an issue last week their leader had previously promised would be given a renewed public vetting, when it was tabled indefinitely in 2013. Commissioners created a Transportation Reinvestment Zone along Toll 49.

According to what was passed on Tuesday, all the money from the TRZ will go to the county, but commissioners indicated some portion could be set aside for the Northeast Texas Regional Mobility Authority.

What commissioners are saying is “just trust us — we’ll sort the details out.” But that’s no assurance at all that the public won’t be put at a disadvantage here.

We are stunned and disappointed at the county’s sudden action and we feel this is a departure from what has been a pattern of communicating openly and often with the public on key issues involving tax dollars.

In contrast to the jail project, which was vetted thoroughly, this proposal came up last year and was tabled indefinitely, and when the court tabled the matter, after negative feedback in public hearings, County Judge Joel Baker said, “We’re going to continue to study the matter and get input from citizens, and maybe we’ll see some more hearings in the summer. But for now, we’re not doing anything with it.”

The details of the revenue split between the county and NETRMA have changed since the last public hearing process. But for some reason, commissioners didn’t feel obligated to let voters weigh in on such issues. Less than a month after three members of the court were re-elected, this matter comes up in a way that is incomplete and does not meet the smell test of what Smith County residents have come to expect from their taxing entities.

Several candidates we endorsed made no mention in the election process that such an action would be taken up so soon and so abruptly.

When the matter did come up in the campaigns, Baker’s primary opponent, John Furlow, correctly stated that the county tried to rush the process but pulled back because of public backlash.

So why now? No clear reasons have been given for this process to have come up so suddenly.

County officials have maintained they held more public hearings than anyone else in the state on a TRZ. While that may be true of the original version of this idea, it has not been true as new information has been presented.

The problem with the idea, at its core, is that we are sharing tax revenues on some of the most valuable property in the county with a quasi-state entity, when no compelling data has been presented that this is necessary.

In other words, we have given away our proverbial birthright when no gun was held to our head to do so. This leaves us to express a vote of no confidence in the members of this court who rushed this matter to what appears to have been a foregone conclusion, at the expense of the people they represent.

Smith County voters have proven, time and again, they’re willing to support quality tax-funded projects, when they are treated as full partners, and with thorough and respectful dialogue.

This is a black mark on a court which has shown more respect to its constituents on other projects. We have come to expect better leadership than this, and deserve better.