elchuqueno.com published this article the other day.
Mr. Max Grossman wrote the article. He is a plaintiff in a proceeding that is being heard in Austin that deals with the arena issue. He wrote:
The City’s original petition for declaratory judgment makes it clear that they were expecting a challenge to the arena location. Actually, my team is arguing, contrary to what is stated in the first sentence of the El Paso Times report, that the City’s expenditure of bond money for the “arena” is illegal because El Pasoans never voted for a basketball “arena” in November 2012 but rather a “multi-purpose performing arts and entertainment facility.” The conclusion of our case brief is as follows: “A basketball arena is not a performing arts center as a matter of law. The City has misused the funds approved in the 2012 Quality of Life bond election. Its actions are illegal, invalid, and a breach of its contractual obligations to the taxpayers of El Paso. The Court should reject the City’s request to validate its actions, issue a declaratory judgment that the Project described in them RFQ is not a project the voters approved, and enjoin the the City from expending any funds from the Quality of Life bond on the Project described in the RFQ.”
According to the article a hearing was held the other day. In attendance representing the city were their out of town attorneys, their bond counsel, the city attorney and “others from her department”.
Does the city think they will lose?
If the city feels that they are right then why are they asking an out of town court to validate their authority to build the facility? According to a May 5, 2107 Times article
“The city is seeking a court hearing to validate its stance that the controversial multipurpose arena can be built in Union Plaza in Downtown El Paso, according to documents filed this week in Austin.”
The city could have filed their motion in El Paso but they did not. Filing in Austin makes it less convenient for us to participate. It also gives some of our city employees some travel time.
It looks as through their are at least two issues here. One is does the city have the right to build an arena when the voters were asked to approve a “multi-purpose performing arts and entertainment facility”? Another relates to the location.
The image below is from the ballot that voters were given back in 2012:
It makes no mention of downtown in either language.
The city however has taken this position:
Why would the city do that? The ballot language did not say downtown yet the bond election ordinance did. Shouldn’t we expect more from the legion of city attorneys? Shouldn’t we expect more from city council?
We deserve better