Item 15.1 on the July 28, 2015 city council agenda was another item concerning downtown.
After council finished their consent agenda the representative from district 8 asked that the mayor bring the item forward for consideration before the lower numbered items. The people involved are after all important, evidently more important than the rest of us.
The city gave a little more than a third of an acre of land adjacent to the Mills building to the owners of the Mills building for $10.00. The building owners have promised to spend more than $400,000 dollars to improve the land.
The individuals were never mentioned by name. That way many members of the public did not know who the involved parties were. Council evidently does not want to be too transparent.
The improvements sound like a good deal for the community but I wonder how successful one of us would be getting land for free if we wanted to build something on property that the city owns.
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
Yet another example of the hypocrisy of this Council, and their disregard for the citizens of El Paso. When are they going to learn that all the incentives they keep giving to businesses and rich people do not provide any benefit to this city or it residents? Worse, because of all the freebies they give away, we, the taxpayers have to carry a burden that much heavier! We do indeed deserve better.
LikeLike
I suppose, by taking the little triangle of land and removing it from city property to tax paying property is what they are hoping for.
And if there will be $400,000 in improvements and the land is really worth at least $100,000. then they are hoping to tax this property for $500,000.
They may get $10,000. or more a year from taxing this.
I know they are covering up the ownership.
BUT WE KNOW.
They are trying to slide this by and turn it into tax paying property, but they should do it in a more transparent way.
Maybe, “Transparent” means: “To be invisible.”
“To not BE SEEN.”
“To go undiscovered.”
The city COULD have SOLD the land for maybe $100,000. and got the same results if the buyer promised to build on it.
It does seem like much of this was discussed over cocktails at the ballpark, rather than in open meetings.
LikeLike
If their motives were as pure as turning this into a tax-generating property, council would have been more open about the identity of the recipient.
Members of council and city management really believe that people aren’t smart enough to see through the things that they do.
LikeLike
If it is the property that I think it is, that piece of land could not be sold for more than $10. The improvements will benefit all who go downtown. Someday — probably not in my lifetime — we might have a nice downtown but it won’t be due to those who see corruption in every action of city council.
LikeLike
If you have a willing seller and willing buyer, there is no limit to what a piece of property can be sold for. If city council handled things differently and more openly they wouldn’t create such mistrust and a perception of corruption.
LikeLike
The city documents refer to it as a ROW Vacation. ROW refers to right of way. We are apparently giving part of our sidewalk and street property to the buyer.
Considering what they are doing and the $10 purchase price, ROW could also mean Redistribution of Wealth.
The net/net is that some public officials, who have received campaign donations from the buyers, agreed to sell a public asset to their benefactors for below-market price. How is that not corrupt?
It would have looked a little less dishonest if the city had leased them the land for a penny per year. Any council member who took campaign money from the buyer should have abstained.
LikeLike