City of Greed

North Richland Hills, TX

by Ron West

        One would like to think that private property rights would be most vigorously defended at the local city level.  While that would be nice, it certainly is not true in North Richland Hills, TX.  The saga of North Hills Mall is a classic example of the city's ever increasing greed to increase the tax base that far outweighs any real property rights in this city.

        North Hills Mall was a well built but smaller mall than a neighboring mall just to the east of it.  The larger mall, North East Mall is located in Hurst, TX which is far more friendly to business than North Richland Hills.  The local government in NRH is dominated by a relatively small group of elitists that believe that the city has dictatorial rights over all private property.  North Hills Mall - after multiple battles with city hall - was reported to have lost the battle.  An obscure city board called the "Substandard Building Board" ordered that the vacant mall must be demolished.  This order has nothing to do with the structural integrity of the property and buildings, rather the "violations" included dead rats found in the vacant former food court and an inoperative fire control system monitoring the vacant property.  As a result of these critical violations of the "building code" in this city, the owner was given 75 days to begin demolition of the structures and is allowed only 60 days to complete the task. 

        Apparently ignored in the order was the fact that the property was vacant, of modern construction and surrounded by a chain link fence to keep the populace out of such "dangerous" buildings.  The city does not want the existing buildings to be used because they might be able to get more expensive buildings built in the future that would yield more tax revenue.

        Just prior to the past two elections, the same city government incumbents were loudly proclaiming the finalization of a complete redevelopment of the property that would yield large returns in the form of sales taxes and property taxes.  None of their announcements came to fruition so I suppose they decided that a flat vacant piece of ground is better than a large paved parking lot with a relatively recently constructed mall on it.  It certainly does not speak to any consideration for the property owner or his rights.  There were also reports of special "back room deals" that favored one of the owners over another.

        This is the same local government that has decided for its populace that only business locations on the main freeway through the city can have pole signs.  They, in their wisdom, have decreed that even property owners who have existing pole signs must remove them if they vacate their property and rent it to others.  All around the city we have pole signs with blank faces because the current business occupants are not allowed to reface and use the existing signs.  Did I forget to mention that the local officials have also determined that tax revenues can be used to help cut down the existing pole signs if the property owners ask for the city to do it.  Signs costing thousands of dollars have been destroyed by the city over the past few years.  (While no laws exist to support such efforts, occupancy permits have been denied to new businesses prior to their destruction of such "non-conforming" signs.)

        Recent actions of this local elected body included a "revision" of the existing sign ordinance to allow large businesses along the freeway - which includes several very large automotive dealerships who have contributed heavily to the incumbent members of the city council and mayor - to utilize large inflatable signs for promotional periods.  Such signs must be more aesthetically pleasing than those old pole signs around the city.  Quietly, the same "revision" changed the "rules" for political signs at the same time.  With the revision the city can now pick up any political signs they deem in non-compliance without notice to the owners.  In this city, such has been the practice for some time but previously was done simply at the behest of the incumbents without ordinance authority.  This part of the revision is apparently attempt to silence any remaining opposition to council actions for future issues and elections.

        This is the same city that is continuing to fight a wrongful death lawsuit from 1999 where local police - using an admittedly false no knock warrant, broke down a citizens door and 1.7 seconds later murdered a young man.  This is same suit where the "crime scene" was "modified" by the local police.  The city has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars so far defending the wrongful actions of the police.  There have been no reported attempts to settle this suit.

        This is also the city where any opposition to the city council is called "political terrorism".  Dissent is just not tolerated in North Richland Hills, TX.

        Going back to the demolition order, the city apparently feels that by destruction of the mall, new investors will be eager and willing to spend millions investing in development in our city.   With business friendly governments in surrounding cities, I truly wonder why any investor with millions to spend, would elect to spend them where private property rights are openly ignored and abused.

        Finally, this is the city that was selected as one of the best cities to live in, in the U.S.A..  As long as quality of life does not include cognizance of our Constitution and reasonable protection of citizen rights, and as long as anyone moving in has no interest in local politics, and as long as one does not mind living where there are actually no private property rights, maybe the selection was true.  If citizens having a voice in local government with a reasonable expectation of respect for the citizens of the city is important, then the people who made the selection didn't really know what they were talking about.  This is a city of greed with ever increasing taxation along with ever increasing spending as the primary goal of local officials.  Just don't let issues of citizen or property rights get in their way or - watch out!