« Back Next Week | Main | More on the Lawsuit that will COST TAXPAYERS MILLIONS »

January 03, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Interesting...I gave it a quick read...one issue may be capacity, official may be best but sometimes better to try both individual and official capacity. Texas law leans towards official no doubt but there is no state law pendent claims here...also there is some vagueness re '4 bar checks in 6 weeks' when complaint says elsewhere it was 3.

Anywho 3 or 4 seems deminis when the damage does not seem spelled out clearly...there is some kind of lesser cuase of action to tort interfer w/contract...i dont remember term...maybe prospective but such a cause of action seems more likely to fly here vs tort interfer cause of action because damages seem vague here in my 2cents plus the facts on its face disputed.

Bravo Jim Martinez and Monaco! It's about time someone took on the "selective" anti-business practices of the City of El Paso. We all know the Cielo Vista N.A. is the most militant of the Neighborhood Associations. I can tell you that Cincinnati District and downtown don't get the bar checks this place did. Because city council likes Cincinnati and downtown. So I think they certainly have a good case for discrimination. For any city person reading this blog - prove you are not discriminating by doing bar checks at every bar in El Paso in every sector at least 4 times in 6 weeks. I believe there was an Executive Session item posted on council agenda regarding a bankruptcy filing for Patriot Place - the landlord where 3LM is located. So the city put them out of business too?

It seems obvious to me that the city is going to have to prove that the bar checks were justified. (The Police could lie about that.) And the defamation should be easy enough to win. Everyone knows that the city has tried hard to close down those bars. They screwed up in the first place by issuing a liquor license. The city is totally at fault here, in my opinion.

I am pro biz, I am just reading the suit layman legal wise...4 bar checks in 2010 seems hardly excessive and my bet is the police dispatcher log shows 2 or 3 PC complaints to which police must [should] respond...the issue is showing a pattern in 2010 that applies to 2011 and another [unopened?]location...thereseems to be some unallowed respondent superior pleading eg if so then only Wilson is liable and maybe only in her individual capacity. Police telling a subject they are scum or whatever is not defamation.

The other problem is the 4th and 14th do not apply to private actors re the neighbor assoc, rarely it can under a 1983 action but only when shown to be 'acting in concert with government' is plead...and i don't see that here.

It once again highlights the shortcoming of the council as a collective body over numerous past elections. Instead of having a group of ill prepared individuals who from past history is there to feather their own nest, we needed to have a council of dedicated experienced professionals that would look well in the future to recognize potential problems before it rises to crises levels. In this case, they granted a liquor license to an establishment near neighborhoods setting the stage for the Neighborhood Assoc to strong arm the weak council members to take this action. Let's also not overlook the shortcoming of the City staff in this debacle. They should have the experience to know better than the support they gave the council on this issue.

Anti business. Who are you folks talking about. Sure can't be the city as again as they always do they change their building codes every time a developer asks them too. Only costing you folks a million or two a year.

The obstacle that Council and Wilson will have difficulty overcoming is showing that they treated all venues equally.

And don't forget the several million they're about to blow in legal fees for yet another rate case against El Paso Electric.....

No question the City should not have issued Liquor License to begin with. I sure don't want that bar in my neighborhood!

Problem is given the complaints lodged against the bar I don't see the city losing. I expect the city to prevail here as they exercised their authority under the law. Of course the number of bar checks are low considering the number of DWI fatalities. ( 62 out of 74) and the 3,009 alcohol related traffic incidents so 4 bar checks are not excessive.

If Patriot Place Shopping Center is zoned for the use of a bar/lounge then the city has to let them open. Fighting a liquor license with TABC is another thing and I would hope TABC would use common sense. Of course the city could always "back zone" the Patriot Place property and not allow any restaurants or bars. Better yet - they should open a day care center at Patriot Place and that would put an end to getting a liquor license for a bar there.

I remember all the screaming and hollerin' when intoxicated pedestrians stepped out onto Mesa Street and got hit by cars. No one talked about shutting down Cincinnati district - not a peep about that. Its still a nightmare over there and violence has increased over there and the city is silent about those problems.

This one is still going to come down to equivalent treatment by city staff. I can't imagine that Patriot Plaza has generated more complaints than UTEP and the Cincinatti district which really is a nightmare for the locals.
I'm having trouble seeing how TABC would not issue a license based on location. Over on the eastside, we have a bar with a property line attached to an elementary school and in front of a high school.... and their sidewalk utilized daily by several hundred students from both campuses. While the building is no longer under the original ownership that built it, it has gone through 5 or 6 "re-openings" and every single one has had a liquor license.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)