I wrote this before the news conference last night. To me the thoughts are still relevant. The addition that I would make is to thank the mayor. Having a strong leader as mayor makes a difference.
I wouldn’t want to be in the mayor’s shoes relative to the latest ball park cost overrun.
Any concession that he makes in a contract modification will be seen by many of the citizens as a sell out.
We were sold a bill of goods by city staff.
Then city staff came to us with a $14 million cost overrun. Some city council members feigned outrage. “No more” they said.
Then city staff bungled the bond sale and cost us $17 million in extra interest. Council went along with it.
Now they need another $10 million. The sports group has offered to repay it after the stadium is built. The sports group wants some contract changes.
Is their $10 million dollar offer only good after the stadium is built because there is fear that there will be even more cost increases? Otherwise, why not pay it now?
Unfortunately these people have lost our trust. Even if what the city is considering makes sense, we do not have a reason to believe anyone is acting with our best interest at heart.
I think that the mayor’s best chance here is to act in a strong and open manner.
Whatever he does needs to be well publicized with nothing hidden.
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
The “bill of goods” city staff sold us was actually Mountainstar’s bill of goods. Staff just toted the water as did certain council members and former Mayor Cook, all of whom were complicit in this charade. The Mayor appears to have done a great job of standing firm. However, I think we will need to be attentive and vigilant to make certain that certain concessions are not made quietly and that certain event day costs and other ballpark operating costs are not shifted to the taxpayers after the fact. if there is one thing we know for certain, city staffers are experts at moving money around.
LikeLike
Yes,
Mr. Hunt’s letter referred to a second amended agreement. I can only find the original agreement and the first amendment on the city web site.
I wonder what changed.
Brutus
LikeLike
Interesting. Perhaps it’s a semantics. Second agreement, amended. Time for me to do some research.
LikeLike
I believe the first amendment was September of last year and is explained at the link below. The first amendment contained a few sweeteners Mountainstar agreed to in an effort to counter public opposition to what was an even more one-sided deal originally.
http://www.ktsm.com/sports/breaking-news-mountainstar-sports-changes-agreement-give-more-el-paso
LikeLike