elpasospeak

I appreciate the El Paso Times pointing out how our current city councilman who is running for mayor has changed his tune about receiving campaign contributions from the group behind the baseball franchise.

The article said:

In January, Ortega said he would not accept contributions from them.

“On the heels of the ballpark issue, it’s more appropriate for me not to accept money from the ownership group, nor have they offered,” he (Ortega) said.

Then they quoted the candidate again:

On Friday, Ortega said, “I welcome their support that they believe in community and future.”

Whatever that means.  We don’t know if that was a misquote or just not a good sentence.

What we do know is that he has accepted money from the people he said he would not take money from.

What we do not know is how much money.  The Times did not report that.  The actual numbers will probably not come out until after the election since the report will not be due until then.

By waiting until late in the campaign to make their contributions they were able to avoid public disclosure of the actual  amounts until later.

What portion of what this person says should we believe?

This article in The El Paso Times failed to tell us what is really happening.

The reporter tells us that the bond rating organization named Fitch Ratings gave an A plus rating to the $51.4 million of city bonds being issued to finance the ball park.

You will remember that the city approved “a contract of about $40 million for the construction manager at-risk, the general contractor that will subcontract and oversee all the trade companies that will work on the Triple-A minor league baseball stadium. The remaining $10 million of the ballpark’s cost is for architects, consultants and other work to be performed before the ballpark is built” according to the Times.

40 + 10 = 51.4

What? The Times failed to explain the increase from the $50 million the city keeps claiming the ball park will cost.

The city formed the City of El Paso Downtown Development Corporation to organize the financial matters relating to the ball park. Earlier reporting in the Times quoted the chief financial officer of the city as saying “forming the corporation — a recommendation from the Texas Attorney General’s office, which reviews and approves bond issues — allows it to issue bonds without having to have a coverage ratio or a debt reserve fund, which in turn allows it to borrow at lower interest rates than the city could.”

Does the corporation have the authority to issue more than the $50 million we voted on? Here is the ballot language that the voters passed:

VENUE PROJECT AND HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX PROPOSITION

“AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS, TO DESIGNATE THE MINOR LEAGUE BASEBALL STADIUM PROJECT AS A SPORTS AND COMMUNITY VENUE PROJECT WITHIN THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH
APPLICABLE LAW AND TO IMPOSE A TAX ON THE OCCUPANCY OF A ROOM IN A HOTEL LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY, AT THE MAXIMUM RATE OF TWO PERCENT (2%) OF THE PRICE PAID FOR SUCH ROOM, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF FINANCING SUCH VENUE PROJECT.”

What’s missing?

A dollar limit for starters. We agreed to raise the tax by 2%. We did not limit the amount of money that can be spent on the ball park. We did not vote to spend a certain amount. We voted to raise a tax. How much council spends is up to them.

A + is a two step downgrade.

Municipal bond ratings go from AAA (the best) down to AA+, AA, AA-, A+. A, and even lower.

Fitch rates El Paso municipal bonds as AA. These special ball park bonds have been rated two steps lower (riskier). A lower rating means a higher (more expensive) interest rate. Our chief financial officer told us that the new development corporation would allow us to borrow at lower interest rates than the city.

That does not look like it is true.

It does not look like the Times is watching out for our interests either.

Muckraker

I know that Cato plans to be active the next few days, but he has agreed that a front page article in the El Paso Times yesterday (February 24, 2013) should be addressed.

The article indicates that the Mayor wants to charge the city for some $500,000 dollars worth of legal fees that he incurred.  It says that his claim is based upon bad advice that he received from a former City Attorney.

Later the article indicates that  city lawyers’ claim that the recent citizen petition that seeks to stop the tearing down of city hall is not a valid action since “… the charter affords no right to place the proposed matters on the ballot …). They claim that the recent petition is a “referendum” not an “initiative”.

The reporters write that a referendum measures voter approval or disapproval of an action while an initiative proposes action.  They then point out that the charter  only provides for referendums that relate to collective bargaining agreements between the city and it’s employees.

The full story is of course different.  The charter does have two different sections titled “Initiative” and “Referendum”.  What they do not point out is that the city charter in section 1.04.040 says “The headings and subheadings in this code are for  convenience in  searching  only, and are not intended to  limit or expand the text.”  In other words the petition is neither an “initiative” nor a “referendum”, it is a petition.

“Whenever a number of registered voters equal to at least five percent of the voters who voted in the last general City election sign a petition setting forth the precise content of an ordinance desired by the signers (emphasis added), the Council must place that ordinance on the agenda of a Council meeting to be held within thirty working days of the receipt, by the City Clerk, of the petition bearing the authenticated names and addresses of the petitioners. Such an item shall be treated by the Council exactly as any other proposed ordinance”.

The item on next Tuesday’s council agenda calls for an election on a proposed ordinance.  The ordinance would take action.  The action would repeal a prior resolution (a resolution is just an expression, not a law or ordinance) relating to the ballpark and to evacuating city hall. According to the proposed ordinance “This petition called for the proposed ordinance to be placed on the ballot …”.

A petition calling for an ordinance.  New action.

The city lawyers are of course arguing for their side as they are paid to do. What about the Times reporters?  Were they doing their jobs too?  Did they not do their research to  find section 1.04.040 or did they only tell half of the story on purpose?

Either way the article is misleading to the voters of El Paso.

I quote the Yiddish proverb “A half truth is a whole lie”.

We deserve better

Brutus