elpasospeak

What is the job title of the fellow who writes for the editorial page of the Times?  To me “reporter” would be inappropriate, his articles seem to be arguments, often devoid of facts. Last Sunday he wrote about those of us that have a problem with how the ball park deal was done, that by the way includes our mayor.  Scattered among the insults he made were several misstatements.

He wrote “the fact still remains that no property taxes will go toward ballpark construction”.  As the lawyers say, that is a distinction looking for a difference.  Money taken from sales tax revenue and service/permit fees is money that will have to be raised through other sources, property tax included.  His argument is like saying that your spouse’s paycheck does not help pay the mortgage.

Then he wrote this:  “They paid $20 million to purchase the Triple-A franchise of the San Diego Padres. They are not going to recoup $20 million anytime soon — probably never.”  The fact is that the teams are bought and sold regularly  for more money than our sports group paid.  This quote from a Forbes article sets the record straight:

The most instructive transaction was the recent sale of the Las Vegas 51s (Pacific Coast League/AAA), the New York Mets‘ farm team that recently set a new baseline for Class AAA teams. The 51s ranked No. 48 in attendance last year, and only three AAA teams drew fewer fans. The Wall Street Journal profiled the team’s many troubles in June, noting that no MLB franchise wants to be affiliated with the team. And yet in May the Vegas team sold for $20 million, which has become the generally accepted minimum price for a AAA team.

Next he wrote “Nobody in their right mind would pay $20 million for a minor-league baseball team unless they were already so rich that $20 million isn’t the milk money”.  Once again he is wrong.  The article How billionaires like Warren Buffett profit from minor-league baseball ownership explains that owning a team is often a good investment.  This quote from the article expains:

Someone that paid $22 million for a team earning $4 million is roughly getting an 18 percent pretax return on capital. Another example of the great return on investment is the owners’ ability to sell teams for much more than the original purchase price.

Then came  “And, no, they’re not going to turn around and sell the franchise for $21 million to some family in another city that would be honored to have Triple-A baseball” another statement that has no foundation.  Yes the contract with the Downtown Development Corporation requires the team to stay in our eventually to be built stadium for 20 years.  That does not mean that the team cannot be sold.  The value of the team will depend in large part upon attendance.  The ownership group has not fared well publicity-wise.  It is possible that they might want to get out of the deal eventually because of local public opinion.

“Perhaps the most ridiculous statements by math-challenged Livids is that the Foster-De La Vega built a new parking garage next to their renovated historic Mills Building so they could get back their part of the $20 million by soaking El Pasoans at the garage” was his next argument.  I have no way of knowing the real number but I would not be surprised to learn that 74% of the voters don’t find the statement ridiculous at all, even with the grammatical error that our professional newspaperman had in his piece (statements … is).

Our writer then ventured into arithmetic, another subject that he sees differently from many of us.  He wrote  “And ridiculous statement No. 2 is that the Hunts and Foster-De la Vegas couldn’t even get us a winning team. Doiiink! Our franchise finished this past Pacific Coast League season 10 games over .500.”   I am happy for the team, they did have a winning season this year.  The facts, however, are:

The Tucson Padres played three years.  Their record was 198/234, or 198 games won and 234 games lost over that three year period.  The team unfortunately has a losing record.

I don’t know why this writer feels the need to insult us.  He might argue that he was trying to be humorous.  I don’t buy that.  I think that he is writing what his bosses want him to write.

Ultimately the newspaper must make money.  Subscriptions are a smaller part of its revenue stream.  Advertising generates the majority of the income.  However, advertising income is based on how many newspapers they sell.  Personally, I am coming to close to voting with my wallet.

Then again, they never get the coyote.

We deserve better

Brutus