You had to know that Stuart Blaugrund's op-ed in the El Paso Inc. would get answered at some point. You only had to wait week until the El Paso Times ran an "open letter" in response. You can read it HERE.
I really had no idea it was in Sunday's paper until I received an email from one of my biggest fans. And by "biggest fan" I mean a person who has dedicated their life over the past few years to telling anyone and everyone that "David K is lying asshole who is responsible for Katrina, the Holocaust and the Designated Hitter rule." To say this person doesn't like me is to say that a couple of people in El Paso might like the Dallas Cowboys - it's a severe understatement.
I was very surprised to recieve the email in the first place and more suprised by the fact that it only said "you were right." I didn't initially know what I was right about and it bothered me. Here's a person who has spent the last three years telling everybody that I was wrong and now they were telling ME that I was RIGHT!
So I asked them "about what?" They sent me the link to the "open letter" in response. I read the letter and was still confused. Nothing in the open letter pertained exactly to something I had made a statement on recently, so I had to ask "about what - exactly?"
That's when they followed with a longer, angrier (not at me for once) email about how I was right when I said that the El Paso Times was in cahoots with the PDNG and their desire to rip-off taxpayers for a new arena and that the paper would never cover the story openly and honestly.
I do remember saying that! And the fact the paper let an op-ed from those arena people run in the paper that lacked a single verification of the facts stated in it was more proof of my claim.
I know that op-eds aren't news stories and the rules are different. However, a real news source knows that the rules governing the declaration of fact apply to all sections of the paper. In this case they let the author/authors mislead their readers and it was obvious and obnoxious. Let's rip it to pieces.
The letter opens with a not-so-thinly veiled attempt at painting Blaugrand as an "out-of-towner" from Dallas who doesn't know his ass from his elbow about El Paso. I find this to be funny since a few names on that list refuse to hire anyone but people from Dallas, Houston and all points not named El Paso to work for them. Legendary Real Estate tycoon, Bill Sanders hired next to no one from El Paso either as employees or consultants. He gave most people the impression that the people who lived and worked in El Paso were not smart enough to work for him or his company. So it's funny that they start out attacking a person they'd probably find to be more qualified as a lawyer than others in El Paso based on the location of his domicile on the location of his domicile (read four times, it makes sense I promise). The fact is that Blaugrand is from El Paso and he did represent clients who were wary of having their property confiscated by the government and handed over to other private individuals for next to nothing. Can you blame him for gloating a bit when it seems property rights have been upheld for five years?
The next part is funny because they use the "revitalization" of a part of downtown Dallas as an example of how things "take time." It should be noted that Dallas' reunion arena was deemed almost worthless after about 12 years of operation - that was in 1990. For the next 12 years it descended into even worse condition and it was finally in too poor of shape for even the most fly-by-night sports team with short finances - that was 2002. In 2009, having come to recognition of failure that was the entire revitalization of the area, they blew up the building and along with it the dream of revitalization of that part of town. The true story is that it was a massive failure compared to the wonder worked in Ft. Worth, which followed a completely different model than the one touted by the open letter. Using that example for revitalization is like using Fukashima as an example of how safe nuclear energy is.
The whole mention of the Dallas project is an attempt to throw-off readers and to hide the fact that they don't have much to brag about. Take out the side trip to Dallas revitalization and the letter is pretty short... pretty short on honesty as well.
The open letter states:
"The recent restoration of El Paso's architectural treasure, the Mills Building, is now complete.
Next door, the Centre Building has been completely revitalized. And north of both buildings is an adjoining 800-plus unit parking structure.
These efforts are substantial, and represent the beginning of a complete revitalization focus on the Mills Plaza District, the official "heart" of Downtown."
This was in no way a part of the downtown revitalization plan submitted to the public five years ago. This was Paul Foster using his money and his ideas to do what HE thought ought to be done downtown. I hear that privately the original downtown revitalization group was furious with Foster for "going it alone." Foster may have signed this letter, but that doesn't mean what he did with those buildings had anything to do with the plan submitted five years ago. For those people to take credit for what he did is an egregious lie that should have been edited by the El Paso Times. I have no idea why Paul Foster would have signed this letter...
Their next claim:
"What people will also see as they look around are businesses moving into the Downtown area. Two banks -- United Bank and Banamex -- have opened or are moving new corporate offices and headquarters into Downtown."
Two banks moved downtown? How many have left? How was this a part of the downtown plan? On what page of the submitted plan was the moving of two companies a stated goal? While they were throwing mud at the wall, they should have just claimed that Occupy El Paso, a regional arm of an international human rights organization, had moved their corporate headquarters to downtown El Paso as well.
The local nonprofits who already owned space downtown due to rich folks leaving it to them got in on the action too:
The Paso del Norte Foundation and the El Paso Community Foundation have both built new offices and meeting spaces in Downtown El Paso.
Pretty much one in the same when it comes to these two entities. The community foundation runs the theatre downtown, so they're pretty much married to the location. As for the Paso Del Norte Foundation - take the number of employees they have and add 10 and you'll get 15. Probably not a big enough number to qualify as a one of the top migrations of jobs to a downtown ever recorded.
Next we get a very vague claim including the age old "I'm about to tell a lie" qualifying statement of "too many to list here."
A substantial number of EI Paso companies, too many to list here, have relocated their headquarters in Downtown.
Martin Yung of JDW signed the letter. He works with State Representative Dee Margo (of the original JDW fame) who moved the company downtown from a building that was already basically in downtown. A net gain of zero if you're counting. The other "companies" referred to are all crammed into the Chase bank building and aren't all that large. I think claiming "too many to list" is just a way of saying - "please don't ask us, we're embarrassed by the real number." I think this group needs to provide an accounting of employees that have moved downtown. I can tell you that a significant amount have moved out and they worked for two of the signers of the letter.
Then they get real brave mentioning what one council member described as a "rip-off":
The old Holiday Inn has been totally rebuilt into a first-rate hotel, now a Hilton DoubleTree property.
Jim Scherr, prominent attorney and most notably the biggest democratic fundraiser in El Paso, worked directly with democrats on city council to broker a sweetheart deal to polish the turd that was Hotel Baghdad. Not only was this not a part of the downtown revitalization plan submitted by the PDN five years ago, it was done in spite of them! Scherr's hotel had nothing to do with the plan and I demand someone tell me on what page of the plan they mentioned it on so I can go reference where they said Scherr would get the deal of the century. Then I can blame them for Scherr coming up short on this end of the deal by not hiring as many people as he said he would.
Housing? Sure they mention housing.
In addition, The Lofts and the Magoffin Villas, both representing the first new housing in more than 50 years in Downtown El Paso, have been built or are under way. There is also planning under way for upscale condos in the Mills Plaza District area.
If the sales at The Lofts were any indication of how "upscale condos" are going to do at Mills Plaza, the future is not bright. I commend the guys who did The Lofts - awesome job, but in no way a part of the downtown revitalization plan put forth by the PDN group. For them to take credit for that is a slap in the face of the two brothers who put it all on the line to get it done.
And it wouldn't be complete if they didn't completely stick their foot in the mouth:
And the number of restaurants and entertainment establishments in our Downtown area has grown substantially, with more being constructed at this time.
I'm sure you can name more restaurants that have moved out of downtown than in (Ruli's anyone?). The same old spaces see the same old turnover of tenants. The biggest complaint you hear from people who work downtown - there's nothing to eat! The Union Depot has added restaurants, but that wasn't a part of the plan. That was the hard work and ingenuity of local entreprenuers trying to make a buck in a unique location. It's wrong for these people to take credit for their hard work.
Of course the letter ends with a pitch for the arena and takes a parting shot at Blaugrand:
Civic leadership in El Paso will result in the revitalization of our Downtown. It will take a strong and lasting commitment from the public and private sectors, including investment and thoughtful planning. It will also take intelligent patience.
"It will take a strong and lasting commitment... including investment" - anybody see what they did there? Bond issue! The very people who wrote this letter and took credit for the hard work and investment of others downtown want you to give them $200,000,000 to play with. They've had five years to something and have done nothing. They'd now like you to pay for their dreams because they believe so little in them that they won't put their own money in.
At the center of their latest plan is an arena... just like the one in Dallas. Do you want to see how that ended? Do you want to see how it will end for El Paso as well? Click HERE.
The parting shot? What do you think they mean by "intelligent patience?" Are they calling Blaugrand stupid? Why would they do that? Calling people names is for bloggers, not distinguished business leaders.
Because the El Paso Times is dishonest they let this op-ed ride unedited when they should have protected themselves and had them deal only with the facts. Too bad the integrity of a news and opinion source isn't important anymore. Their readers are much too dumb to know the truth, and to be honest much to intellectually challenged to even read the opinion page. So I guess it's a toss-up in the end.
We'll see if the paper can pull off helping pass the bond issue without getting themselves in trouble for advocating in an election. Free column space in collusion with any kind of campaign is against the law even in the case of a bond issue. Maybe they should learn something from all of this recall hoopla before it's too late.
This was sad. Makes me happy I go out... but then I'm still sad for those I know there...
"While they were throwing mud at the wall, they should have just claimed that Occupy El Paso, a regional arm of an international human rights organization, had moved their corporate headquarters to downtown El Paso as well."
Priceless statement!!
Posted by: fan of downtown in the 60s | December 12, 2011 at 06:01 PM
I doubt its illegal for the press to endorse a candidate or take sides on a bond issue. It needs research but David is always saying something is legal or illegal but never gives case law cites to support his claims.
Posted by: Carl Starr | December 12, 2011 at 06:41 PM
Interesting thoughts David K.
Here's the line from that guest column that really caught my attention: "It is important for the citizens to know that no major downtown area in the United States has been revitalized overnight -- it rarely happens in less than three decades."
This comment causes me to also question if an arena is really such a good investment?
Thanks again for your interesting comments.
Posted by: Old Fart | December 12, 2011 at 10:11 PM
downtown redevelopment is organic and fluid as the rio grande. Sometimes it's up a little but runs mostly low and weak. It's a bit toxic but some will be scene playing in it.....hats off to anybody who tries to improve downtown regardless if it's in the plan or not and as for the arena just stick a couple metropolitan movie theaters,an applebees and some other chains to anchor down the anchor and it might work.ep people like movies and food just like any other mid western city...
Posted by: Jazzo | December 13, 2011 at 03:54 AM
How about a tour of Scherr's other buildings downtown? The guy is a jerkwad slumlord.
Posted by: dot | December 13, 2011 at 08:43 AM
Jim Scherr is nothing more than trailer trash with a law degree. Shameful that anyone in El Paso would cut him a deal with respect to property taxes. In less than 2 years we find out the man can't even live up to the minimal committment required to obtain the tax deferrment & then claims he didn't understand the contract terms. Anyone who has sat through a deposition with this idiot would not be surprised at that outcome!
Posted by: Ken | December 13, 2011 at 08:54 AM
carl,
I didn't say endorsements were illegal. I implied that giving valuable inches of your paper to a campaign in collusion with that campaign is illegal.
It would be quite a coup if one took the time to audit their reporting on the subject of bond election issue. if they found that a political group steered their coverage and received a benefit from that steering, they could be in big trouble.
There is no case law as of yet on this exactly, but it's all the buzz in Washington and they are now looking back at incidents in past elections all over the country. The word here is "collusion" and election law is pretty damn clear on what that means.
Posted by: David K | December 13, 2011 at 09:15 AM
ok my guess is the United Citizens case may cover corporate influence even press corporations, i mean I dont agree with it and its enough to make one throw up or drop out but it surely is expected and goes on...my feeling is the whole world is based on power and influence and its mostly carried out by pro establishment types and not occupy types in tents.
Posted by: Carl Starr | December 13, 2011 at 10:27 AM
this makes Bayto look bad, especially when he wouldnt recuse himself from voting on the downtown plan way back when and supported his father in law Sanders. the plan originally intended to use eminent domain. you cant use that anymore. now they try to use the Bond issue. In other words they used to make the land owner suffer and take what price they offer regardless of fairness. Now they pay them what they want at the expense of the taxpayer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paso_Del_Norte_Group
Posted by: no one to vote for | December 13, 2011 at 10:34 AM
Oh well bet you can't wait for the city to turn over operations of the bridges to a private firm. Doing so will mean tax increases to make up for what the private firm will be skimming off the top. Of course they may sell them instead. Nothing like destroying a revenue stream that keeps your taxes 10-15 cents per $100 lower if we didn't have them. Really doesn't matter your taxes are going up again next year.
Posted by: Texaswoman | December 13, 2011 at 06:20 PM
if the city turns over the collection to a private firm then that is just another kick-back waiting to happen just like every other government entity in this town. we have become "little juarez".
Posted by: no one 2 vote 4 | December 14, 2011 at 05:10 PM
Carl
I think there is a huge difference in the Citizens United case and a local recall petition and election. Citizens United was concerning a broadcast, a federal election and not a city election issue where the Churches have instigated the issue. I can see where States have a Right to set standards for their elections in regards to money. The constant blabbering that the Texas Law is Unconstitutional is bogus. The Texas Law is Constitutional until such time that the Courts say otherwise. One would think that a lawyer and the Judge in this case understands that.
The judge in this case needs to be removed. Signatures for a petition gathered illegally make the petition itself illegal thereby invalidating it. Yet the judge has allowed an illegal petition to force a recall election. Something stinks here.
Posted by: Texaswoman | December 15, 2011 at 11:46 AM
My ref to Citizens United was re Press influence on elections and bond issues.
For good or ill Citizens United seeks to influence all state and fed laws re any and all corporate influence...because of global media corps with holdings in many fields, scotus saw fit to let all corps speak, including media corps, be they have holdings or interest in urban bond elections or not. It is now for each person to decide which type of corporations they support eg nonprofit, church or capitalist but it seems clear CU scotus case seems to treat them all the same re politics. Somehow even after CU, some think the Press cannot 'collude' with capitalists on bond issues, when infact they could before CU and even more so now since CU. We must live with the good and ill of CU re corps and choose which corporations we support more albeit they are all the same re 1st Amendment and Politics re influence.
Posted by: Carl Starr | December 15, 2011 at 12:57 PM
Carl I still think the 10th Amendment and the fact it was " broadcast" and a federal election gives sufficient grounds to allow states to control such things. After all if it goes the other way then a basis for Equal Time....other side...no cost response must be instituted as all free speech must be heard.
Posted by: Texaswoman | December 15, 2011 at 03:23 PM
I like your writing style and have bookmarked your blog for my Newsfeed. I don't know who you are (not even your first name) and am not in EP, (am in Las cruces, from Clovis, moving to Santa Fe someday) but appreciate the effort and information that goes into these postings. Besides, what's goin' on in govt there is 99.9% likely to be goin' on wherever else I cast my view. Especially REGIONALLY!
Kayla Krattiger
NMSU student
Posted by: k. krattiger | December 29, 2011 at 04:57 PM
I read the EP Inc's story re PPP's and just starting to research it, the new law seems untested, a few minutes research already shows much debate on PPP's, I am not sure if its coming from the left or right yet.
"In all cases, the scope of PPP business, and so its potential for profit, are constrained contractually rather than by market forces or the intervention of a statutory regulator. Normal private sector incentives for management still apply within a PPP, such as the need to earn an adequate return on capital, but the business is, in effect, passively regulated by virtue of the constraints placed upon it contractually and without the intervention of a regulator."
Posted by: Carl Starr | January 10, 2012 at 07:07 AM