There are several ways to parse the disappointing commissioners court’s 3-2 vote against a tax abatement for Maverick Tube Corporation Monday.
There was a lot riding on this vote – mainly 120 jobs the Maverick plant operation would provide the county that sorely needed an economic development break of this magnitude.
Most abatement requests that come before the court offer a mere handful of jobs.
This proposed $450 million plant’s employees would have each made $75,000 a year.
Last time I checked we have housing developments cranking up, but a lot of that depends on industrial and business growth.
This was a step back for us.
By all accounts from people who follow economic development this will hurt Matagorda County in the perceptions of professional industry locators.
What about other industries who were considering Matagorda County that were watching and wondering what the court did?
Whatever factored in the commissioners’ thinking to oppose the abatement, my opinion is that it wasn’t in the best interest of Matagorda County.
But it’s also my belief that the commissioners owed the citizens of this county a reason why they voted the way they did.
Did they have a good reason – factors that informed their decision?
Who knows, because they didn’t say anything about this project in public over the months it was brewing.
They had my least-favorite kind of meeting on Maverick Tube Corporation at a closed meeting Friday afternoon, July 28.
You can cloak all sorts of discussion in an executive session, perhaps even commissioners’ reasons for opposing Maverick.
No one opposing the abatement spoke before, during or after the vote.
Since they didn’t speak up, who knows what drove their opposition?
County Judge Bobby Seiferman did a good job explaining why he thought the commissioners should support the abatement.
Part of Monday’s meeting was the attendance of several Van Vleck residents who said their homes were flooded in Hurricane Harvey because of the drainage off Tenaris.
They wanted the court to hold off “rewarding” Tenaris with an abatement until they got resolution on their flooding claims.
County Attorney Jennifer Chau pointed out the flooding lawsuit was in district court.
The claimants won, but Tenaris is appealing the ruling.
The county has no jurisdiction on that flooding, she said.
I wonder now since the abatement failed, will those people see justice at the expense of what could have benefited the county?
