This post in elchuqueno.com nails it in my opinion.
I hope that you take the time to read it.
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak
City of El Paso debt=$2,670,400,000, county and school district debt=$1,600,000,000. Total $4.27 billion. Your share $19,350
elpasospeak 
Do the happy crowds at the ballpark care about a violation of the Texas Municipal Code? The city and county pay lip service to ethics and stopping corruption, yet ignore a blatant violation like this by their own officials. I’m beginning to count the number of times each week I hear or read that El Paso “voted” for the ballpark. If that lie is printed or repeated enough times it will, unfortunately, be considered the truth while those who assert the truth are called naysayers and Neanderthals.
LikeLike
However, this law does not apply to EP, we don’t have a population of more than 1.9 million. You need to read the whole statute, not just one section.
Sec. 334.002. APPLICATION TO CERTAIN MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES. This chapter applies to a municipality with a population of more than 1.9 million and to a county with a population of more than 3.3 million only if the municipality and county create a sports and community venue district under Chapter 335 and only to the extent the use of this chapter by the district is necessary or convenient for the creation or operation of the district to the fullest extent authorized by Chapter 335.
LikeLike
Let me school you a little on reading comprehension, Anonymous.
You overlooked the words “only if.”
“This chapter applies to a municipality with a population of more than 1.9 million and to a county with a population of more than 3.3 million only ifif the municipality and county create a sports and community venue district under Chapter 335 and only to the extent the use of this chapter by the district is necessary or convenient for the creation or operation of the district to the fullest extent authorized by Chapter 335.”
If you’re having any problem with the big words, let me know.
LikeLike
You pasted a section of the law (334.002 – 334.0083) that addresses certain populations. There are other populations address in that section too, such as populations under 176,000. Those are subsections of Section A, which lists certain restrictions or unique situations. The section under discussion appears in Section B, which applies to all locals.
Also, please see 334.001 Definitions (1) “Approved venue project” means a sports and community venue project that has been approved under this chapter by the voters of a municipality or county.
Voting on how to spend hotel/motel tax does not constitute a vote on an approved venue site.
LikeLike
just dont ever go to a game. save up. go to abq. ride the train to santa fake. speak with your wallets.
LikeLike
Guys –
The ballpark is/was legal. Otherwise, the Texas Rangers would be hauling all of the City administration who put it together off to jail.
It was built where it was because the site was a part of a sports and community venue project – that was approved in the 1970’s when the Civic Center and old City Hall were constructed. State law says that if a new stadium were to be built on said site, all the city had to do was ask for voter approval on the use of the HOT to pay for it. Which it did, and it was. By extension, it means that the citizens voted for it. Had the citizens voted against it, and it was built anyway, then you would have some legal basis for screaming about it.
The allegation that if something gets printed or repeated often enough it’s perceived as the truth has…truth. Except here, the truth that is characterized as a lie is actually the truth.
Carlos
LikeLike
Hahahahaha… and I guess since we elwcted the Clowncil, by extension, we voted for tge baseball stadium!
Oh and to allow MSG to rape us while we smilef!
LikeLike
Actually, that’s exactly true. As I’ve mentioned in several other posts, you elected your Council representative to speak for you in matters of governance of this city. If you don’t like the way they voted, you can do all you can to remove them. You also have the right to run against them yourself, if you can get enough people to agree with your positions.
It’s Civics 101, baby.
Carlos
LikeLike
No.
The authority for the ball park as cited by the Downtown Development Corporation (the agency created by the city to develop and own the ball park) is Texas Local Government Code chapter 334 (the “Venue Project Act”).
Chapter 334 did not come into existence until 1997.
Brutus
LikeLike
No what?
I’m not disputing that 334 was used for this.
LikeLike
Good morning Carlos,
Sorry, but “by extension” doesn’t mean a vote. I keep a weekly tally of statements that “approval of HOT constitutes approval of stadium.” Yours will be added to the El Paso urban legend list.
So, if what you say about the ballpark being on a community venue site is true, this explains why City Council refused to consider other locations. Council and their masters convinced you and others that a “by extension” vote is legitimate. But if another location, say the old ASARCO site, had been proposed a real vote would have been required.
balmorhea
LikeLike
Bal. you’re right. “By extension” is not a direct vote. But that doesn’t make it any less valid. Call it whatever you like – urban legend, creative expression or mischievous thought – it is a fact. Your argument holds water if the HOT vote hadn’t passed, but It did – however, I respect your passion. The discussion here invigorates me.
Your conclusions about Council’s refusal to consider other options should’ve been a bright red flag. It was to me, since I have a lot of experience working with public sector entities, but I wasn’t opposed enough to it to try to find something wrong with it. it’s like a spouse who refuses counseling to fix their marriage – why would they agree to it if they’ve made up their mind? That it had to built it where it is, without considering other sites, means they had a plan already.
The resounding success of the ballpark (til now, at least) says a lot about the soundness of the plan. And if Downtown continues to rebound, if recent plans for development of vacant properties seem to suggest, then there will be a lot of people here who will be faced with pushing a position that flies in the face of reality.
Being a naysayer is your prerogative. But how ’bout being a part of the process instead of screaming at it from the fringes?
Carlos
LikeLike
Carlos,
I am far from being on the fringe (your words). You really have no idea how many projects I am involved in that further progress in El Paso. Please stop using your buzzwords to define me and others who disagree with you.
Sorry, but you haven’t convinced me that an indirect vote (your words) constitutes approval. Are you saying that if using HOT to finance the ballpark bonds had not passed the ballpark would not have been built? No, the ballpark coalition made it clear that if HOT did not pass other means would be found to finance the bonds. The voters never had a choice about whether to build the ballpark or whether to tear down City Hall, whether HOT passed or not.
So far the ballpark has been a success and I hope it continues to be. No one wants to see El Paso succeed as much as I do. That doesn’t change the unethical and illegal approval process that was used. The end does not justify the means.
balmorhea
LikeLike
Well said.
Brutus
LikeLike
Bal, the nature of our participation in discussions on this blog allows me to make characterizations that I wouldn’t dare make in real life. It’s my intent to stimulate thought and discussion, to dispel myth and misconception; otherwise, I’d be part of the groupthink around here that frankly doesn’t need any more participants.
As for use of buzzwords, you’re preaching to the choir, buddy.
There is a signicant reason the stadium did not go to the voters. It would never have passed. Not because it isn’t a good idea – it obviously is. The “sky is falling” crowd would’ve mobilized and made it seem that a small baseball stadium would cause the fall of modern civilization. The “taxes are too high” crowd (one and the same, I think) would have begun screaming about taxes being too high and we’d have small-balled everything. In other words, we would’ve had another Cohen. And none of us, not even Northeast people, can say with a straight face that Cohen is a model for success here in El Paso.
Was the process unethical? Hmm…I don’t think anyone’s going to hell for it. Illegal? I think our discussions over Chapter 334 have addressed that.
The vocal minority is active, funded, engaged and LOUD. But still a minority, one whose preferences for this city I’m not opposed to marginalizing. If it took using a law intended for Grand Prairie, then so be it.
Carlos
LikeLike
Carlos,
So it’s ok for an elected body to ramrod a stadium through because they don’t think voters would support it? That is an unacceptably demeaning attitude toward El Paso voters. A better-than-thou attitude is the height of arrogance and selfishness and shows no respect for citizens and their ability to make up their own minds. We elect representatives to vote for us on issues like trash collection, city manager candidates, budget etc. We don’t elect reps to vote for us on very large projects like the stadium that will play out over a generation. Do not kid yourself, my friend. This is not a marginal issue.
balmorhea
LikeLike
if someone gets a kickback for pushing it then i dont think thats legal. proving it happened is the problem and O.J. was innocent.
LikeLike
LOL…I think.
LikeLike
WELL, its legal , but not ethical. especially the 50 k Woody and paul gave to ortega’s campaign at the end after he had already had his ass handed to him by leeser.
LikeLike
Carlos,
You had done so well building up your credibility on this site, and you blow it so quickly.
Could you please cite the State Law to which you refer? We can parse it better then.
I know it must be hard. You believed the rhetoric, just like everybody else. But it’s hard to refute the written law, which says the citizens get a vote. Did we get to vote on the stadium? Not just the financing, but the up/down on the stadium itself.
I await your reply.
elrichiboy
LikeLike
Richi, you asked for it — see below.
You were not given an opportunity to vote on the stadium itself. Your Council representatives, whether you voted for them or not, did that for you. That’s not what you want to hear, but it’s accurate. You can’t look at the law, get stuck on the part that’s convenient for you, and then whine because it doesn’t achieve your ends (well, you can whine but it has the same effect as pissing in the wind).
When I first got here a few months ago, I was inclined to believe you guys. As I dug deeper, and analyzed the whole thing objectively, it is very apparent that city administration did this lawfully. Wilson and her ilk may be in cahoots, as is popular to allege here, but I doubt she’d go to jail for anyone.
I’ve said all of this before in different ways.
Anyway, we start with definitions in Chapter 334:
Sec. 334.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) “Approved venue project” means a sports and community venue project that has been approved under this chapter by the voters of a municipality or county.
(2) “Governing body” means the governing body of a municipality or the commissioners court of a county.
(3) “Related infrastructure” includes any store, restaurant, on-site hotel, concession, automobile parking facility, area transportation facility, road, street, water or sewer facility, park, or other on-site or off-site improvement that relates to and enhances the use, value, or appeal of a venue, including areas adjacent to the venue, and any other expenditure reasonably necessary to construct, improve, renovate, or expand a venue, including an expenditure for environmental remediation.
(4) “Venue” means:
(A) an arena, coliseum, stadium, or other type of area or facility:
(i) that is used or is planned for use for one or more professional or amateur sports events, community events, or other sports events, including rodeos, livestock shows, agricultural expositions, promotional events, and other civic or charitable events; and
(ii) for which a fee for admission to the events is charged or is planned to be charged;
(B) a convention center, convention center facility as defined by Section 351.001(2) or 352.001(2), Tax Code, or related improvement such as a civic center hotel, theater, opera house, music hall, rehearsal hall, park, zoological park, museum, aquarium, or plaza located in the vicinity of a convention center or facility owned by a municipality or a county;
(C) a tourist development area along an inland waterway;
(D) a municipal parks and recreation system, or improvements or additions to a parks and recreation system, or an area or facility that is part of a municipal parks and recreation system;
(E) a project authorized by Section 4A or 4B, Development Corporation Act of 1979 (Article 5190.6, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes), as that Act existed on September 1, 1997; and
(F) a watershed protection and preservation project; a recharge, recharge area, or recharge feature protection project; a conservation easement; or an open-space preservation program intended to protect water.
(5) “Sports and community venue project” or “venue project” means a venue and related infrastructure that is planned, acquired, established, developed, constructed, or renovated under this chapter.
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 551, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 784, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1044, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 189, Sec. 1, eff. June 2, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 966 (H.B. 1908), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2013.
Then we move to the portion of 334 that relates specifically to El Paso:
Sec. 334.0082. VENUE PROJECTS IN CERTAIN MUNICIPALITIES. (a) This section applies only to a municipality that:(1) has a population of at least 176,000 that borders the Rio Grande, and that approved a sports and community venue project before January 1, 2009; or(2) is located in a county adjacent to the Texas-Mexico border if:(A) the county has a population of at least 500,000;(B) the county does not have a city located within it that has a population of at least 500,000; and(C) the municipality is the largest municipality in the county described by this subdivision.(b) Notwithstanding any other law, including Section 334.089, after complying with Section 334.022, a municipality to which this section applies may hold an election under Section 334.024 on the question of approving and implementing a resolution to:(1) authorize the municipality to plan, acquire, establish, develop, construct, or renovate a convention center and related infrastructure in the city limits of the municipality as part of an existing or previously approved sports and community venue project, regardless of whether the convention center is located on the premises of the existing or previously approved venue project;(2) impose a tax under Subchapter H at a rate not to exceed two percent of the cost of a room; and(3) authorize the municipality to finance, operate, and maintain the venue project described by Subdivision (1), including the convention center, using the revenue from any taxes imposed by the municipality under this chapter, including taxes previously approved in relation to the existing or previously approved venue project.(c) If the resolution is approved by a majority of the votes cast in the election, the municipality may implement the resolution.
Added by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 264 (H.B. 2032), Sec. 1, eff. May 30,into philosphical 2009.
Let’s hope we don’t get into philosophical discussions about what words mean to you, or get wound up into a hundred knots about the little things here. The law is the law is the law. As I’ve said, I don’t know if the city used this particularly to get the stadium built. In that instance, I’m like many here who pull opinions out of certain bodily orifices. But I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the part of 334 they used to justify building the ballpark the way they did.
Tag — you’re it.
Carlos
LikeLike
Section 334.0082 was house bill 2032 in the 81st legislature session of Texas.
The Texas House Research Organization analysis is available at http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/hroBillAnalyses/81-0/HB2032.PDF
It says in part:
SUBJECT: Continuing Grand Prairie’s hotel occupancy tax for its convention center
The analysis goes on in its “Supporters Say:” section:
HB 2032 is a technical correction bill. It would allow the city of Grand Prairie to continue to use the local option hotel occupancy tax to support its local convention center. This tax was first approved by the citizens of Grand Prairie in an election in 1999. Currently, the population reference in sec. 334.2516(a) is not explicitly tied to the most recent federal census. HB 2032 would correct this oversight and would ensure that Grand Prairie could continue to use the hotel occupancy tax for the support of the local convention center should its population change in future censuses. The convention center generates tremendous economic development and investment in Grand Prairie, and HB 2032 would help it to continue to do so.
Brutus
LikeLike
True enough, but it just bolsters my argument.
The law may have been created for Grand Prairie as you allege, but its use is not exclusive to Grand Prairie. El Paso meets the criteria for use of this section – again, I don’t know at all that this section of the law provided the basis for the City to build the ballpark – but it sure looks to me like it was.
Carlos
LikeLike
Carlos, I have alleged nothing.
Brutus
LikeLike
It’s curious that Grand Prairie is so far from the Rio Grande. Grand Prairie is a suburb of Dallas.
Something is rotten here.
LikeLike
Carlos,
The law doesn’t apply to El Paso. To wit
Back to you, Charlie.
LikeLike
Sorry, my html code didn’t come up like I wanted. I meant to highlight this part: “the county does not have a city located within it that has a population of at least 500,000.”
El Paso County has a city like that, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
Of course it applies to El Paso. (a)(1) is it — a municipality that has a population of 176,00 that borders the Rio Grande (check) and that approved a sports and venue project before January 1, 2009 (the Civic Center complex — check).
That’s where it stops – the next one, which you’re focused on, applies only if the first one doesn’t.
Et tu, richiboy?
LikeLike
Help us here, please.
Can you point us to something that will show that the vote for the civic center was a vote for a sports and community venue project?
Brutus
LikeLike
“or.”
Point Carlos.
LikeLike
Carlos,
So it’s ok for an elected body to ramrod a stadium through because they don’t think voters would support it? That is an unacceptably demeaning attitude toward El Paso voters. A better-than-thou attitude is the height of arrogance and selfishness and shows no respect for citizens and their ability to make up their own minds. We elect representatives to vote for us on issues like trash collection, city manager candidates, budget etc. We don’t elect reps to vote for us on very large projects like the stadium that will play out over a generation. Do not kid yourself, my friend. This is not a marginal issue.
balmorhea
Bal, was it you who lectured me yesterday about using buzzwords to define others that disagree with you? Or was that someone else?
I’m not necessarily saying that I condone the process the City used, only that it was lawful. Trying to make me out as insensitive to voters will not validate your argument that the process was illegal. Besides, you may believe our representatives shouldn’t vote for stadiums or other large projects – the reality, as evidenced in early 2012, is that they do.
It is an uncomfortable reality that a state law exists that allows municipalities to build large stadiums or other “sports and community venues” without going to voters. That El Paso availed itself of the law does not make it unethical or illegal, only expedient. In this or any other case, if it betters the community, I’m all for it. Expending energy and effort for the betterment of the community, rather than fighting innuendo and deceit, the weapons of the opposition thus far, is a worthwhile endeavor.
We can get into an unending discussion about voters and their inability to determine that which is beneficial to them or for society as a whole. You need look no further than the Republican Party who, through its Tea Party faction, has managed to convince voters in the most disadvantaged of states to vote against their best interests, thus ensuring that we’ll be having these kinds of philosophical battles for at least another generation.
Make no mistake Bal – my eyes about this are wide open.
Carlos
LikeLike
Democracy is a constant battle of ideas. It’s messy but better than an oligarchy or dictatorship. Who can say whether someone’s vote is uninformed? Call arrogance a buzzword if you wish, but that is the right word for an “I know better than you” attitude in elected representatives. And that goes for elected reps on any side of an issue. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with the rep or not.
LikeLike
Help us here, please.
Can you point us to something that will show that the vote for the civic center was a vote for a sports and community venue project?
Brutus
Brutus, I point you to the definition of a “venue”:
Sec. 334.001(4)(B) a convention center, convention center facility as defined by Section 351.001(2) or 352.001(2), Tax Code, or related improvement such as a civic center hotel, theater, opera house, music hall, rehearsal hall, park, zoological park, museum, aquarium, or plaza located in the vicinity of a convention center or facility owned by a municipality or a county;
It might be appropriate to explain the logical process by which I arrived at my conclusions:
1) Chapter 334 was brought to my attention by another regular poster here – the name escapes me.
2) I looked at the ballot for the HOT last year. It was a word-for-word listing of the text required by Chapter 334 to hold a referendum to use the HOT to pay for the stadium
3) it’s not that far a leap to conclude that if the ballot contained language from 334, then 334 was the basis for building the ballpark
4) Then it was just a matter of figuring out which section applied to El Paso and the ballpark construction.
I’m no lawyer, as my tax guy would certainly agree. But in my mind, this law is the reason Joyce can work anywhere else in town instead of worrying about when the Texas Rangers will coming knocking at the door.
Carlos
LikeLike
I don’t think that we have to go back to the civic center vote.
The ballot language from the ball park vote:
VENUE PROJECT AND HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX PROPOSITION
Authorizing the City of El Paso to designate and develop the Stadium
Project as a sports and community venue project within the City of the type
described and defined in Section 334.001(4)(A) of and permitted by Chapter 334,
Local Government Code, as amended (the “Act”), designated by a City
Resolution adopted on June 26, 2012 (the “Resolution”) and described in
summary form as a multipurpose coliseum, stadium or other type of arena or
facility that is planned for use for one or more professional or amateur sports
events, including minor league baseball games, and related infrastructure as
defined in the Act, and to impose a tax on the occupancy of a room in hotel
located within the City, at a maximum rate of two percent (2%) of the price paid
for such room for the purposes of financing such venue project as authorized by
Subchapter H of the Act, and approving the Resolution.
Then there was the statement from our past mayor that if the voters did not approve the hotel occupancy tax the facility would be built anyway.
Brutus
LikeLike
That was the most distasteful part of this whole process – that the stadium was going to built anyway, no matter the outcome of the HOT vote. For me, it’s one of those “hold your nose and vote” choices, like choosing between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.
But the process was legal – that’s the myth I was attempting to dispel. And besides, in the long run it’ll be good for the City, comments from the peanut gallery notwithstanding.
Carlos
LikeLike