Runoff support started

May 13, 2013

A businessman forced a city council member into a runoff according to this propaganda piece from the El Paso Times.  Calling it a news article strains my ability to be civil.

The facts are that the businessman had well over 50% of the early voting.  That was enough to get him elected.  The city council member improved his standing with the election day vote.  He forced the businessman into a runoff.

That is unless you take the view that the city council member was supposed to win and the upstart businessman disrupted the Times ordained result.  The word writer is more appropriate than reporter in this case.

She wrote of the council member  “(he)  has argued that voters supported the ballpark and its location through the November 2012 vote that designated the ballpark as a venue and authorized the use of hotel occupancy tax dollars to finance it.”

Yes he has argued that, just like a lawyer  is paid to make an argument that he knows not to be true.

This October 27. 2012 Times article by the same writer had the title:

El Paso Mayor John Cook: ‘No’ vote on stadium bond means El Pasoans will pay, not visitors

The writer dutifully quoted our mayor as saying “We are asking voters to approve a way to pay for the ballpark and not whether the city should build it.”

The writer knew the argument was a false one, she herself documented the proof.  Yet she did what she could to further the lie.

This link to the definition of integrity might help her.

Muckraker

 

2 Comments | Ball park, City government, El Paso Times | Permalink
Posted by Muckraker

Sardine school of architecture

May 12, 2013

This editorial in the El Paso Times once again shows who they are.

The piece gives credit to their favorite mayoral candidate for bringing a new school of architecture downtown with 500 students.

Let’s start with the fact that the city gave away 16,587 square feet of the Union Depot for 75 years.  Actually the taxpayers will get $1 per year for each of the next 75 years so he did get something for our property.  It does not take much of a salesman to get someone to move into a beautiful building  for free.

Then we have the fact that the Union Depot is not considered to be downtown by many of those over at the city — at least not when it does not suit them.

The editorial made it sound like 500 people would be eating lunch and revitalizing downtown every day.  The space involved is 16,587 square feet.  How many students can you get in that amount of space?

Maybe there should be an article about this.  Is Texas Tech going to build some more buildings to handle 500 people?  Have they invented a new system where they can pack lots of people in very little space?  Inquiring minds would like to know.

Then again the Times does not inquire when dealing with their masters.   They print what they are told to print.

Muckraker

2 Comments | City government, El Paso Inc., State Government | Permalink
Posted by Muckraker

Numbers don’t lie but some politicians do

May 11, 2013

An August 23, 2012 email from our city representative that is now running for the El Paso Independent School District board addresses the Western Refining valuation issue. Quoting the email:

“Western’s value went from $280,224,075 to over a billion dollars in one year. That is about a 200% increase.”

You can read it yourself here.

No wonder

When she thinks a 356% increase is “about a 200% increase” it is easier for us to see how she thinks, or doesn’t.

Now she wants to be on the school board.

Maybe she should go back to elementary school to learn something about basic math. This web page could help her prepare.

We deserve better

Brutus

2 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Gravy train

May 9, 2013

The 8th day campaign finance reports are out for the candidates in the upcoming election.

I want to clearly say that I support citizens contributing to campaigns.  Personally, I don’t think that companies should, but the supreme court seems to have a different view.

The city councilman who is running for mayor has lined up an impressive list of well known and respected people from El Paso as contributors.  This is good and I am glad to see it.

The 8th day reports evidently do not disclose previous contributions.  I guess that each reporting period stands on it’s own.  The January 1, 2013 to April 1, 2013 report does have one contribution that bothers me a lot.

The Union Pacific Corp. Fund for Effective Government gave the candidate $1,000 on January 18, 2013.  Why would the railroad care about a local mayoral candidate?  Does the Train wreck post provide a clue?  If the railroad was simply trying to improve the local political process, did they contribute to the other candidates?

The reports show significant monies from out of town companies that are in the architecture/engineering/public works businesses.  Do they hope to profit from a new city administration?  Why else would they be donating money in an El Paso election?

And what about the owners of the baseball franchise?  If you add up the contributions of those individuals (thankfully not their companies) you get a lot of money.  Is this a payback for voting in their favor?  I doubt it.  What I suspect is that they realize that the downtown renaissance will need more affirmative action from the city in order to be successful.  I guess we will see in the coming months what else the city will make us pay for.

We deserve better

Brutus

3 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Special or secret?

May 8, 2013

Two commenters recently wrote about the new soccer complex that we will be building with proceeds from our quality of life bond issue.

City council held a special (secret?) meeting April 25, 2013 to discuss the complex and also the problems with shrinking traffic at our airport.  The meeting was held on Thursday, not the normal Tuesday.  It was probably legally posted, but they certainly did not want us there.

A local developer donated 80 acres of land for the complex in return for the city not requiring the developer to comply with the city parkland ordinance on a new housing area.  That actually might make sense, I don’t know the particulars.

One commenter addressed the way council slipped this through without public discussion.

The other asked about Cohen stadium and why it was not used.

The Cohen site is only about 50 acres.  I don’t know how much land is needed or if splitting up and having more than one complex would make sense.

What I do know is that the Cohen site is convenient.  Citizens from central, northeast, and west El Paso would have an easier time getting to the facility.  Two major arterials provide access.

The Cohen site is looking for a use.  The stadium might be remodeled to provide a great featured field.

Maybe Cohen would not be the right answer.  It sure would have been nice to get public input on where to build the facility.

Holding a special meeting with little or no publicity is an old trick.  We don’t know whose decision that was.

We deserve better

Brutus

Leave a Comment » | City government, Open Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »