We got 49 responses to our Times poll. Thank you to those that took the time to respond.
The question was “Do you subscribe to The El Paso Times?”
The answers were
Yes, 9 times or 18%
No, 30 times or 61%
No, but I would if they changed their editorial policy, 7 times or 14%
Yes, but I am thinking of stopping, 3 times or 6%
Muckraker
Leave a Comment » | 
El Paso Times | 
Permalink
Posted by Muckraker
It probably is not fair for me to think that we will be taken advantage of again before a deal goes bad. For my part I guess that I can’t help it since it happens so frequently.
We recently learned that a local developer and former city alderman wants to build a $17 million dollar Marriott right next to his Hilton Doubletree hotel. His Hilton might turn out to be the biggest beneficiary of the new ball park.
The developer already operates a hotel downtown that has received tax breaks from us. Insider’s club was about how our most recent former mayor tried to lobby for the developer in spite of a city ordinance prohibiting him from doing so.
Now the developer has come forward and publicly stated that he wants to build a $17 million dollar hotel right next to the one he already has. I believe that they would then be the two closest hotels to our new ballpark. He will need $3 million dollars in concessions from local government. The concessions will need to be “virtually identical” to the ones his other hotel received.
His other hotel received concessions and a contract was executed. Then the developer came back to city council and claimed that the contract was too stringent — he needed relief. My recollection is that he got it. Then as I recall he came back to city council again and needed more relief which council dutifully gave him. This is the classic two step we see frequently in town. Start with one set of promises and then change them once you have gotten what you want.
The developer is in negotiations with the city. We are told that the hotel will be a Marriott, he will spend $17 million to build it, that it will have 140 guest rooms, and that it will have a 90 space parking garage.
Given past history we might wake up one morning and find that it is not a Marriott, that the cost was not $17 million, that it does not have 140 guest rooms, and that there is not parking garage. What it will have is whatever turns out to be most advantageous to the developer regardless of was promised in order to get the tax concessions.
There is already a Marriott in town, located near the airport. Is El Paso a large enough market to support two? I hope so. Will a new one take business away from the existing one? Would that put us in a position where the existing Marriott has less business and thus pays lower taxes? I hope not. The developer says that no market study has been done.
The existing hotel does not contribute to the Hotel Occupancy Taxes that are being used to finance our new ball park even though it looks like the hotel will be biggest beneficiary of the construction.
This sentence comes from the 2005 staff report to city council:
Approximately 75 percent of the projected Hotel Occupancy Tax revenue is to be derived from business shifted from other El Paso hotel properties.
We deserve better
Brutus
7 Comments | Ball park, City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
The new shopping center we know as The Fountains at Farah is another example of the two step process that gets used in El Paso to get the public to help pay for new development.
The first step was the request for $12 million in tax rebates from the city and county. The money was needed to make the project economically viable for the developers.
The sales pitch was that the new center would bring “upscale retailers” to El Paso.
They got their $12 million after a long battle. This quote from El Paso Inc. summed up the loser’s argument:
Simon Properties, which owns Cielo Vista Mall, and De la Vega Group, developer of Las Palmas Market Place, argued the center would simply steal tenants from other El Paso shopping centers and malls, especially damaging as the economy was slipping into recession.
The Inc. went on to write that our local leaders took measures to keep that from happening:
The city and county responded by tying the entitlements to a requirement that The Fountains attract net new tenants to El Paso.
We now know that Best Buy and Barnes and Nobles are doing precisely what the losers feared. They are both closing existing stores and moving to the Fountains.
What about the promised upscale stores? El Paso Inc later published another article that explained why no luxury stores have decided to come to El Paso.
The developers tried, but we just aren’t affluent enough, especially since our property tax bills will go up as a result of this.
None, nada, zero, zilch upscale stores.
El Paso got a very nice brand new shopping center. The taxpayers gave away $12 million. Existing stores did move out of old centers and into the new one. The existing tax paying retail center owners got taken.
We deserve better
Brutus
14 Comments | City government, County Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
The blogger at www.elpasonews.org says that he filed a public information request with the city and tried to pay for it with a United States postal money order.
According to him the city refused the payment because they do not take money orders.
Why does the city continue to make it hard to get public information requests?
The public information act requires the city to respond “promptly”. Many cities respond to simple requests (just a few pages) within one business day. Our city regularly responds on the last day that it is legal for them to do so. The fact that they claim to be closed on Friday adds even more days to the time it takes to get information.
The blogger has written that his money order was turned down because the city does not accept money orders. He wrote that the city sent him an email saying “[the] city does not accept money orders“.
That is not true. Many departments do. The city clerk, treasury department, tax office, police department, Sun Metro and the parks department are just a few that do.
The Fiscal Operations Accounts Receivable Manual published by the city contains these two definitions:
Deposits – Monies received in the form of cash, check, money order, and/or traveler’s checks.
Money – Legal tender received and collected, in the form of cash, checks, money orders and/or traveler’s checks.
The manual has gone so far as to say that money orders are legal tender. They are not, but it is not surprising to see the city defining things with its own terms.
We need to let our feelings be known to city council. The city is stalling.
I doubt that the decision to refuse the money order was made by a clerk. There may be a paper trail showing who authorized the denial.
I hope that our new administration will take steps to put a stop to these kinds of actions.
Some might even argue that a law has been broken here.
We deserve better
Brutus
Leave a Comment » | City government, Open Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
We are experimenting with a Twitter feed.
For those of you who are interested you can follow this blog on Twitter @brutusep.
3 Comments | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
elpasospeak 
You must be logged in to post a comment.