Would You Give Money to a Liar?

The overwhelming tone of the emails I have received on the post in response to their response to Blaugrund's op-ed (can you follow that?) has been angry.  All of the emailers want to know why I didn't point out one major issue with the lying in the paper and the upcoming quality of life bond issue - do you trust people who'd lie to you in print with $200,000,000 of your money? 

The answer is = NO.

The people who signed that letter are very much the same people who will be in control of the money taken from taxpayers in the next big bond issue (if it passes).  They have no problem misleading the public now, so I imagine they don't mind lying later.  The big problem with this is that they will serve as the only people overseeing the spending of those bond dollars.  How will we know the money was spent as promised?  You can't trust the signers of that letter to tell you the truth after they took the time to lie to you in a very public way.

If you're not getting nervous yet, I wonder what it will take to make you nervous. 

Comments

[Old Fart]

Yes I'm nervous!

This is the statement which made me nervous after reading that Sunday guest column in El Paso Times: "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."

Is this desired downtown arena, going to be a white elephant needing tax dollars for support, during this long period of time?

Nervous? You're darn right I'm nervous!

[no one to vote for]

I THOUGH WE ALREADY VOTED AGAINST THE BOND ELECTION IN NOVEMBER ? ARE THEY GONNA BRING IT UP AGAIN ?

[Texaswoman]

There wasn't a City bond issue on the ballot in November. The talk now is for what they call a quality of life bond election. It will raise your taxes. The present debt situation with the city is not good in my opinion. For every dollar in property taxes there is more than 3 dollars in debt we owe. The police and fire pension bailout is costing you over 5 cents per $100 of valuation on your tax bill. The debt levy in 2005 was 17 cents per $100 and today it's closing in on 27 cents per $100 of valuation. If a 200 million dollar bond issue is approved you can add another 5 cents per $100 to your tax bill plus the cost of running the new approved programs which can add another penny or two in increases to your tax bill.

[no one 2 vote 4]

so if we vote "no" on the quality of life bond issue whenever it comes around they cant build the arena ? or will council be able to override our vote again ?

i wonder how much the city would save if they quit paying any portion of the dependent health coverage ?

[Gossip Girl]

In this austere economic times I will vote no on any measure that will raise taxes. General Obligation bond issues at the City, County, State, School Districts....no to all. Our "dedicated public servants" elected to positions need to get the message loud and clear: No more money to pad budgets and hide previous financial mistakes. They need to totally get it that they need to reduce spending, period!

[Robnelp]

People give money to liars all the time, they are called politicians.
With few exceptions, they tell us one thing and do another, then give us some kind of ambiguous scripted response to try and place blame on someone else. Happens every day.

As far as Mr Blaugrund's op-ed is concerned, he's paid for by business people in the downtown area that somehow have plenty of money to fight improving downtown but never seem to have enough to spend that money on improving their own businesses and immediate surroundings all on their own without some kind of plan "motivating" them to do so.

Say what you will about the $$ or motivation behind PDNG or any other entity who has proposed redeveloping downtown (or any other area of the city) at least they are trying to do something about it. Same cannot be said for the individuals and businesses paying Mr. Blaugrund's fees.

[bumpkin]

Rob,

What $$? The only money being "invested" in downtown is taxpayer $$. If private business wants to develop downtown, do it. They wont, unless the taxpayer does the legwork and they reap the benefits.

[Robnelp]

bumpkin,

The source of the funding and the $$ for the arena project is a separate issue.
My point is we wouldn't need much of the "revitalization" if the downtown business owners who are standing in the way of ANY efforts to improve the downtown area contributed their obviously available disposable funds towards actual "brick and mortar" improvements of their own instead of giving that money to an out of town, carpet bagging attorney.
Obviously there is more to it than just that but I am simply pointing out that Mr. Blaugrund and his clients aren't fooling anyone. They intend to keep Downtown just as it is, for THEIR own personal benefit.
You can argue PDNG or whatever group is going to benefit by the revitalization as well, and that may be true, but in the end the entire community ultimately benefits by improving the area, increasing the tax base and making the area more attractive to whatever tourists, locals, businesses or events happen to use the proposed improvements.
Nothing is free, yes it will take public money to accomplish it. Like everyone else, I never want my taxes to go up, but that's not realistic.
If we do nothing, nothing will ever change. That's just not acceptable to me.

[Robnelp]

What would El Paso be like if we said no to everything that might raise our taxes and we had never built the...

Coliseum
Equestrian Arena (now the hockey rink)
Civic Center
Haskins Center
I-10 Freeway
Spaghetti Bowl
Patriot Freeway
Transmountain Road
Loop 375
Spur 601
McKelligon Canyon Amphitheater
Zoo
Ascarate Park
Album Park
Cohen Stadium
UMC

I could go on and on listing both publicly funded and privately funded features of this community..do you really think we would be better off if we never built those things?

[Propery Owner]

Rob, you obviously don't own any land or property and had these assholes try to take it through eminent domain. Well, i have and screw the PDNG and the rest of them.

[Robnelp]

Property owner,

for the record I do own property in El Paso and have for over 25 years, is it downtown? no. Regardless, quit telling stories,
the fact is PDNG or any other entity ever tried to take your property through eminent domain..was it discussed as a possible option to complete the plan? yes, but it never went any further than that, and you and everyone else knows it...so quit exaggerating.

[Carl Starr]

Greater Houston P'ship v. Abbott, COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, THIRD DISTRICT, AUSTIN, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 4422, June 10, 2011

The Houston Chronicle May 9, 2009 Greater Houston Partnership sues AG to keep books closed Advocates of open government won early round SUIT: Dispute hinges on legal definition BYLINE: By BRADLEY OLSON, HOUSTON CHRONICLE The Greater Houston Partnership is suing the Texas Attorney General's Office to keep its dealings and financial transactions private, the second time in five years the regional economic development vehicle has taken that step. The lawsuit was brought after the attorney general ordered the release of the partnership's check register, which would detail how it spends money that comes from local governmental entities and businesses. The original request for the records came from Jim Jenkins, a Montgomery County man who is part of a loose-knit band of open government advocates in the region. Jenkins called the partnership's response to his request "arrogant." "Why wouldn't you be willing to show the public what you spent that money on?" he asked. "If what you're doing has public value, you would be proud to show people where their money went. The only reason you wouldn't is if you were trying to hide what it is you're doing." Jenkins said he asked for the register because he believes entities like the Greater Houston Partnership, which receive public money, should be more accountable for how they spend it. A spokeswoman for the partnership, which filed the suit in December, declined to comment. Houston has a contract with the group worth $885,000. Other governmental bodies in the region do as well. Harris County has one worth $175,000, which prompted one official to chafe at the lawsuit. "I believe it's very difficult to justify claiming financial information should be deemed confidential after someone solicits and receives millions of dollars in government money," County Commissioner Steve Radack said.