Refuse the Juice

CVNA Members Lurking on Internet - Hurting Their Case

If you read this blog, you'll notice three recent comments from someone trying to defend the CVNA.  Looks like someone is violating their lawyer's request that they shut up, sit down and leave Patriot Place tenants alone until after all the suits are over.  They got one dismissed - the one everybody knew would be dismissed (more on that in a minute), and they are feeling a little froggy.  Let's hope they keep talking against their Attorney's wishes.

Again, it's interesting that members of the CVNA hired a lawyer who told them to stop doing exactly what they got sued for doing.  If the lawyer felt they weren't doing anything wrong, why would they ask them to stop?  It's because any idiot knows what they are doing is wrong and the first thing you do when you find yourself in a hole - stop digging.

The commenter's IP address = 69.91.71.84.  I only expose them because they are loading up comments under different names.  I don't mind if you use a fake name to hide your identity - that's 100 percent okay.  What is not okay is commenting multiple times under different names to make it seem like there are more people making a point than there really are.  The commenter names covered here are  "Roy T" - "M. E. Ramirez," and "it's the gutter."

------------------

As many of you know, Three Legged Monkey owner Mike Armstrong had his lawsuit against three CVNA members dismissed.   Because you were reading the El Paso Times, you didn't get the whole story - I now have it. 

First of all,  you can't trust the El Paso Times to get it right ever.  They indicated in the March 17, 2012 article Armstrong's suit against the mayor was dismissed along with the one against the CVNA members. On March 28, 2012, they had to retract that claim and correct the record by stating that the suit against the mayor is alive and well (not really and we'll get to that). 

Judge Chew dismissed the case based on a lack of evidence to substantiate Armstrong's claims.  That's a little misleading to those of us who are lawyers.  Because I've been sued and I'm familiar with Judge speak, I know what Judge Chew was referring to and it's not what you think.

The main problem with Armstrong suit is that it's a case of  "monkey see, monkey do" - pun intended.  He only sued after someone else did it first (David Cooper suit).  Armstrong went the way of Norma Chavez - he "gathered evidence" and put it in a file so that he could sue these people later with his mountain of "evidence." He, like Norma, has no idea how the law works and thinks the more you have, the better.  The problem with that method is that it's stupid and shows a complete lack of understand of how suing for defamation works (defamation was his lead claim).  In fact, gathering all the crap and throwing it a the judge will only hurt your case because you have to prove every single incident hurt you, and that's unlikely to happen.  You need on instance of defamation and that's it. 

The reason Armstrong's suit got thrown out wasn't because he couldn't show where these people said nasty, untrue things about him and his business.  It's because he couldn't provide any evidence of how it damaged him. 

In order to sue for defamation and win, you have to prove what was said or written damaged you in some way.  Often this means proving that you lost your job, or people stopped shopping at your store or otherwise hurt you monetarily.  You can't sue, and win, for hurt feelings.  You have to prove damages.

Obviously Armstrong couldn't bring a mountain of claims against the CVNA and then show direct proof for each claim where he was financially damaged.  What he needed to do was file suit after the very first incident and then cite direct numbers of how it affected his business.  He didn't do that.

Armstrong really hasn't had it all that bad since he's never been shutdown.  Yes, he's has to fight to stay open and what is happening to him is "unfair," but there's no law against things being "unfair."  The fact is - he's made money and he's still open.  If I were him, I'd go back to my house and swim around in my large pile of cash and forget about the CVNA. 

Bottom line - the Armstrong suit dismissal wasn't much of a win since they still had to pay their own legal fees and his bar is still open. 

----------------------

The suit brought by David Cooper is a lot different than the one brought by Armstrong.  If you google Cooper, you'll realize he's been in a lot of legal fights and has done well in them.  He knew what he was doing from the word "go" and basically let everyone from the CVNA to city officials walk into a big trap. 

Cooper didn't wait for things to pile up - he filed suit right after there was an official move to block him from doing business.  It was brilliant and just about every lawyer I know who was paying attention saw the city walk right into the trap.  Too bad the city's own attorneys couldn't see it and help avoid it.

The way Cooper has structured his lawsuit shows savvy - at least that's what one highfalutin attorney in El Paso has told me repeatedly about the case.  This attorney gets the impression that Cooper has a lot of experience with litigation and knows when to strike.  Cooper's history confirms this. 

Not only did Cooper strike when the iron was hot, he took the case to federal court.  This is a place the city knows nothing about.  Armstrong played in state court and got his ass kicked by a lazy judge - something Cooper and his lawyer knew would happen and avoided by going federal.  You don't have elected judges making decisions at the federal level and that's not going to bode well for the city.  Elected judges often rule based which side is going to make sure they're reelected - this won't be the case here.

The city is down about $1,000,000 so far in legal fees if my math is correct.  That means they've got a few million more once the depositions start and from what I understand, the list is long and distinguished.  

So... the CVNA folks are far from out of the woods at this point and their lurking around the internet on blog is only going to make the case against them all that much easier.

Please see 911 documents below.

Download PpStatement

Download PpSeptemebr_2010_False_Call_Scan_Doc0001

Download PpOctober_2008_False_Call_Scan_Doc0001

Download PpJune_2010_False_Call_Scan_Doc0001

Download PpIrene_Borunda_Scan_Doc0001

Download PpFebruary_2010_False_Call_Scan_Doc0001

Download PpAna_Nazario_Scan_Doc0001

Trayvon Martin - My Thoughts and an El Paso Connection

This is a hot topic with a lot of emotion tied to it, so I'm going to step lightly with the hopes of teaching everyone a lesson here. 

I grew up with a father who was prepared for everything.  He kept an eye out for trouble and avoided it if he could.  He taught me the same thing.  Cross the street to avoid a potential confrontation with a stranger if you felt there was going to be one.  There was never a need to walk into trouble when you could walk away from it.  He was adamant that you don't fight for fun and that risks taken with your life as the ante, aren't worth it. I imagine my father's service in a war zone took the fun and adventure out of putting yourself in the middle of danger.  A year of being shot at by strangers tends to quell the desire to be in that situation in the future. 

He also taught me that if you couldn't avoid a confrontation you were to do what you had to do to survive.  My father is always prepared to survive and is happy not to have to prove it to anyone if he can avoid it. 

This Zimmerman character has lived his recent life much the opposite of what my father taught me.  By all accounts this idiot drove around looking for trouble.  He was so enthused with this activity, that he appointed himself to a nonexistent position of authority in an imaginary army.  He also armed himself with a gun. 

I'm a gun guy - my dad is a gun guy.  Everyone we are close to are gun guys.  We love guns.  Laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons are applauded by all of us.  However, none of us think what Zimmerman was doing was okay.  None of us would think to strap a pistol to our hip and go looking for trouble.  That's a recipe of for something bad to happen.  And it also gives people the impression that you'd like to shoot someone - something none of us ever want to do. 

It's guys like Zimmerman who give gun owners a bad name.  It's guys like Zimmerman who need to be identified by local authorities and spoken to about their hobby. 

Zimmerman was a known frequent caller to the 911 dispatch in his town.  He spent countless hours riding around pretending to be the neighborhood policeman.  He spent so much time doing this and got so much joy from it, that he started to see trouble where there was none.  And because the only thing that can feed an addiction like this is ever closer encounters with the prey, Trayvon lost his life.

If you listen to the 911 call, you have to have some questions.  Since when do you call 911 because somebody looks suspicious?  The 911 system was implemented to serve emergencies, not one man's opinion about the actions of another.  What probable cause would the police have to stop Trayvon Martin even if they did show up in response to the call befor the shooting took place?  Since when is walking in the rain "probable cause?" 

I'm trying to piece together here how people aren't outraged that this self-appointed community police man is going around calling the emergency 911 dispatch to report people who are walking in the rain.  This is clearly an abuse of the 911 system and by all accounts, it was something Zimmerman did all the time.  At what point were the cops going to talk to this guy and explain to him that he shouldn't be out looking for trouble so hard that he's calling 911 to report someone walking in the rain? 

I'm not trying to get on the side of the race baiters here or really even trying to comment on the scuffle that led to the shooting.  I'm trying to figure out how this Zimmerman guy was allowed to keep playing police officer without a badge and why the cops in that city weren't smart enough to see that this guy was going escalate things at some point and somebody could die as a result. 

I'm not a very old man, but I'm old enough to know that a guy riding around with a gun looking for trouble is in fact trouble himself.  The entire episode could have been avoided.  The authorities could have shut this guy down a long time ago.

----------------------

Here's how this applies to El Paso. 

At the crux of the tragic crossing of paths in the Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin case is the abuse of the 911 system by an overly-concerned citizen.  Zimmerman's unchecked aggression was only bolstered by a system of bureaucrats who wouldn't tell him what he was doing was wrong.  He went too far and every person who didn't try to stop him in turn helped him. 

The Cielo Vista Neighborhood Association and the bullies who run it have abused 911 in El Paso for years now.  It's been well documented that they seek conflict with the business owners and patrons of Patriot Place.  They purposely put themselves in a position to draw conflict, or in most cases imagine conflict where it does not exist in order to fulfill their self-appointed duties as  neighborhood "watch dogs."

Because nobody has ever set these people straight, they crossed the line and brought people in official positions at the city with them.  The result was a lawsuit, a much better result than the loss of life, but not a good one in the context of money. 

People without the qualifications of authority who invent positions of authority for themselves should not be coddled, promoted or otherwise encouraged by representatives of the local government.  They will always exceed their authority as a private citizen and try to take the law into their own hands.  In some cases this behavior is a nuisance.  In others, it can lead to the loss of a precious human life. 

This was an impossibly sad way to learn this lesson for everyone.  I hope folks at the city will read this and realize how easily their support of those citizens on a power trip can lead to bad things. 

Something I wrote recently for another publication

 

 

http://2310scenicdr.com/?p=1212

More on Reyes and the Fam

It seems we have one commenter who just won't let the negative press on Reyes' campaign reimbursement practices and salaries die.  He or she wants to make some kind of federal case of the story and my subsequent "told you so" post, so we're going to honor that request and shed some more light on a subject I'm sure the congressman wants to go way as fast as it can.

First of all, I've said several times that the El Paso Times is out to get Congressman Reyes.  I even told you exactly why.  The editors at the El Paso Times are either asleep at the wheel, or implicit in the effort to get Beto O'Rourke elected.   I think it's great.  Reyes has been held to any account by the paper... ever. 

Second, even if the El Paso Times wasn't out to get Reyes, the report by CREW is newsworthy.  Reyes wasn't in the middle of the pack in the report - he led Texas (which has 32 congressional seats).  The report (that is several hundred pages long, by the way) calls him out specifically in the "executive summary." It does not matter if Reyes has an opponent or not, that's news.  Front page news. 

If Reyes doesn't want his name appearing that report, then he shouldn't be doing what he's doing.  It does not matter that it is not illegal.  It does not matter that "other people do it too."  All that matters is that there was a group formed specifically to watch members of congress and how they spend their money because they think it's bullshit. 

And here's the kicker - NOBODY ELSE DOES IT AS BAD AS REYES DOES IT!  They clearly show in the report that he does things very differently than 99 percent of congress.  That's noteworthy.

Reyes' niece by all accounts makes more than any other fundraiser for an individual member of congress.  In fact - most fundraisers need several members of congress with status on key committees as clients to approach her take. 

As you can see HERE, Reyes lagged almost $1 million behind the congressional average for money raised in 2008.  Yet, his campaign person was paid like she was the top fundraiser that cycle.  Why? 

There are a lot of questions people have about the reimbursements and the people on payroll.  It's kind of like having a baby with your step brother.   It's legal - perfectly and completely legal, but that doesn't mean it's not frowned upon. 

Just because I reimbursed myself $1,500 for the loan of $2,500 I started my campaign with, doesn't  mean I'm like Reyes.  In fact, I'm exactly the opposite of his operation.  He's got a campaign account that has been established for years and it has its own debit cards, checks and ability to draw cash.  There's no good reason why the stuff being purchased by his family and staff needs to be reimbursed when it can be purchased directly through the campaign.  There are two reasons for doing the reimbursement game in Washington.

1.  You use your own credit card for everything so you can get the reward points on purchases. 

2.  You're paying less than what's on the receipt you're going to submit for reimbursement (a huge problem here in DC, by the way). 

Either way - it doesn't look good.  In fact, it looks so bad, most everybody else in congress doesn't do it that way.

What Reyes supporters need to understand is that perception is reality.  Nobody implied anything wrong was done here.  It's not like when Marty Schladen accused a candidate and a donor of a crime during a city council race because he didn't understand campaign finance rules.  It's simply a presentation of fact - facts that don't look good.

My advice for people in elected office - don't hire your family.  Don't get someone else to hire your family.  Let your family volunteer.  Send your family to a foreign country with little or no communication with the outside world if you can. 

Now I know you Reyes folks are used to having a race. In fact - it's brand new territory and you guys are freaking the hell out.  Stop.  Catch your breath.  You can win this.  O'Rourke was going to smash you until he made one fatal mistake - he didn't hire Morris Pittle.  Now you have Pittle on your side and he's re-branded the congressman like nobody could have imagined and it's working.  Just don't ruin things by going nuts every time the El Paso Times does a story on the congressman.  You'll end up looking like O'Rourke's supporters who drew out the drug debate for a week for no reason. 

Ouisa Davis - Not too bright on national issues

This week Ouisa Davis decided to be a few days late and few dollars short on the contraception issue.  Not only was she late, she got it all wrong.  

Read her misinformed tirade HERE.

"Women's rights under siege again" is how she titles her column.  I have to ask - how might that exactly be?  Was there a bill filed?  Did the Supreme Court agree to take up a case in reference to women's reproductive rights?  Where is the official "siege?" 

What Ouisa Davis forgets is that there was a bigger question about the government asking religious groups to fund an activity they don't like.  Contraception just happened to be the issue.  

Because the Obama administration was generally thought to be wrong on this issue, liberals like Ouisa decided to change the subject.  Suddenly it was about "women's rights" not "religious freedoms" even though it was clearly the latter and only the latter to begin with.  

Did conservatives say that the government shouldn't be funding contraceptive services for women? Yes.  Did they say that women should never have access to contraception services?  No.  There's a big difference.

And let's get down to "rights" while we're talking about lies.  Does the government have the power to make other people buy you things?  I don't think so.

Turns out that the end result was MORE access for women at the price of FREE.  You know who didn't block that outcome?  Republicans.  

Maybe Ouisa needs to turn off MSNBC and turn on her brain.  

I've Been Saying This for a while

The El Paso Times finally figured out that for Congressman Reyes - it's a family affair.  Read the article HERE.

I've been saying for years that Reyes lives in DC and most of his immediate family does as well. They all have great jobs none of YOU would ever be considered for. 

As usual, the El Paso Times is late to the party and they only came because they've picked a candidate they want to beat Reyes.

Too bad this won't any negative impact on Reyes - he's just doing something you all approve of in El Paso.

Newspaper Tree set to return.. underwhelm you, bore you to death

If you were once on the Newspaper Tree's emailing list, you got an email yesterday with a big announcement about the online newspaper's return.  Unfortunately the rebirth of the digital paper isn't going to be very satisfying for any of you who liked what the old Newspaper Tree had to offer.  This is mainly because they've brought all new players to the table and they're going to wreck everything Newspaper Tree (NPT) was about.

Without Sito Negron - it's going nowhere.  He got what NPT was suposed to be.  In return people tuned in. 

The people they have running this thing now are a recipe for limited, untimely content that will be so boring it may instantaneously reverse the effects of cocaine.  What a terrible move. 

Here are the players:

Louie Gilot, Publisher- Former El Paso Times reporter and the only person in El Paso who speaks French, sounds French, looks French - is French.  She owes her popularity among El Paso's liberal elite to her Frenchness.  She also very cute - a real looker. 

She's an extreme enviro-nazi.  Anti everything that requires dirt to be moved, plants to be disturbed or air to be polluted.  Her main job will be to shit on all progress being made by anyone in El Paso as far development goes.  She will also babble on about "green industries" that have proven time and again to be pure losers - just ask President Obama. 

If you'd like a better, more informed take on the environment, go visit my friend Jim Tolbert at http://elpasonaturally.blogspot.com/.  He's a good man and he won't lie to you just to get you to agree with him. 

Bottom line on Gilot - snoozer... same liberal BS you already get by the metric digital ton right now. 

Reyes Mata III, Managing Editor- Liberal, Latino and not afraid to show it.  He's a slicker, less interesting version of Jaime Abeytia. 

He's likely to be the guy who writes the occasional article on how white people in El Paso are to blame for all the problems.  I will laugh heartily as he rips apart most of the Community Foundation donors on an infrequent basis (NPT is owned by the Community Foundation).  He will bite the hand that feeds him and that will be just fine with the person connected to that hand. 

Want a better, more informed version of what Mata will infrequently supply?  http://www.thelionstarblog.blogspot.com/.

Debbie Nathan, Investigative Reporter- Ultra liberal hater of religion.  Open borders advocate... She's basically Nancy Pelosi.   At 61 years-old I doubt she'll be doing much "investigative reporting" for some rinky dink digital newspaper in El Paso that nobody reads.  I think she has lent her name to the cause as a way for the Community Foundation to raise some money from donors or through government grants.  I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for her to churn out anything other than a few liberal lefty op-eds every other month or so.

--------------------

Bottom line - you've got three people working there and two of them consider themselves "managers" in some capacity.  That means you have lots of Chiefs and no indians.  That usually results in infrequent content.  That leads to nobody reading their stuff.  And when nobody is reading, nobody cares to fund the project. 

They could fix this thing right now and bring Sito Negron on and let him manage the operation.  Granted there will be no finger flipping op-eds from me or anyone else on there since it's a nonprofit journalism project, but at least it would have Sito's knack for relevant content reflected. 

It's a big loser.  Jaime and I will beat them in clicks all day everyday and still be your only sources for relevant political and social thought in El Paso.

One More Time on Voter ID Laws

I'll make at least a couple of you happy by once again posting all the ins and outs of this Voter ID issue.  Pay attention and use your brain, not your party allegiance, to understand what I'm writing here.

So, Attorney General Eric Holder did what we all thought he would do - messed with Texas.  President Obama's administration has been particularly hard on Texas from the day he was sworn into office.  If he wasn't sacking NASA and the majority of its employees located in Houston, he was specifically denying federal aid to the state for everything from illegal immigration to storm cleanup.  Their latest assault was expected - it was simply a matter of when it would be politically expedient to announce the move.

First of all, Texas' case is a little unique.  Other states have passed voter ID laws with no interference from the federal government.  Why did Texas get stopped when others weren't?   Texas has a history of "voter discrimination" and that means any changes they make to their voting laws must get federal approval from either the Justice Department or the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.  And just in case you wanted to know - the "voter discrimination" was the fault of democrats in Texas who were some of the top performing racists in the history of the nation.  Please proudly proclaim yourself a democrat anytime you want and remember that your party was the party of the Klan.  This may be a little awkward for you non-white democrats in El Paso, though.

The Justice Department under every single modern president has played politics with state laws.  Sometimes they have won in court, many other times they have lost.  What's happening now is par for course.  So please don't think that the Justice Department, run by Attorney General Eric Holder - a political motivated appointee facing numerous career ending scandals - is some kind of impartial body whose rulings are infallible, because that simply isn't the case.  Justice Department decisions, fueled by politics, in the past have been made just to annoy an enemy and are quickly overturned by a panel of judges.  This is what is in the process of happening right now. 

It should be noted that the voter ID law is not the only thing that Texas has done that the Obama administration is reviewing or stopping - it's just the most noteworthy.  It's a war and there are a lot of battles going on you never hear about.  All red states are being picked on by Obama - it's a strategy. 

Here are some of the problems I see with the Justice Department's claim and some general thoughts and facts about the issue as a whole. 

First of all, if you think the concept of a voter ID requirement is something that is born out of some kind of republican strategy to make sure only white people vote, don't read any further.  I don't want to deflate your unfounded conspiracy theories on which you rely to make your world make sense.  Seriously, stop reading after this sentence ends if you want to retain any thought that voter ID laws are only suggested and supported by republicans. 

Click HERE to read a section in the 2005 Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform called "Building Confidence in U.S. Elections." The commission recommends all states implement a voter ID law that is consistent across the board.  Their reasoning is simple - it's too easy to get away with voter fraud without the requirement.  

So what noted racist republican chaired this committee that would come up with such a racist policy?  President Jimmy Carter.  Former South Dakota Senator,Tom Daschle along with a bunch of other democrats were on the committee as well.  Former Secretary of State and universally loved American icon - James Baker co-chaired the committee with Carter. 

Apparently voter ID isn't a partisan issue - it's just a matter of good policy.  That's from the mouth of the second most liberal president we've ever had.

What's interesting about the report is that it brings up a common excuse for not implementing voter ID laws - there's not enough of a problem with voter fraud to enact laws to stop it.  They easily dismantle that argument with the very real prospect of millions of people committing voter fraud and there being no way to stop it (I personally think it's already happening and is quite widespread).  

Many of the laws in the United States do fall under the category of "a solution looking for a problem" and we don't seem to have any problem with them.  You see, there's no problem with people detonating nuclear devices in the United States, yet there's a law against making and having them.  I think we'd all agree that's a good law to have on the books just in case the problem does arise some time in the future.  

I personally think that it's laughable to assume that no crime is being committed because people aren't getting caught.  To vote in place of someone in Texas is only a matter of having access to their voter registration card and being of the same sex.  Currently poll workers are legally barred from probing into the identity of a voter who has a valid registration card.  This makes voting for others too easy not to be in practice all over Texas. I'll explain.

I recently moved from Texas.  I was registered to vote at 1224 Belvidere Street.  I'm willing to bet good money that the county sends me my voter registration card this year even though I live in Virginia and registered to vote there.  

When I first moved into the house in Texas, I received the voter registration card for the former owners of the house before the 2008 presidential election.  The former owners of the house had been gone a year living in south Texas at that point.  I'm willing to bet it happens again, only it will be my voter registration card and the former owners showing up this time.  

Whoever is living at my house now can do one of two things with my voter registration card. They can return it to the county letting them know that I don't live there anymore.  Or, they can give it to any male they choose and he go can go cast a vote at the Monte Vista Retirement home in my name. Nobody would know the difference.  Well, unless I checked the voter rolls after the election to see if anyone voted with my card (which I plan on doing).  

And that's the key - the only way a person would know that someone is voting for them is if they took the time to audit the files at the county elections department to see what their voting record is. How many people in El Paso don't vote?  How easy would it be to re-register them to an address where you control the mail and then vote for them.  If the person never votes, what are the chances they'll check with the county to make sure nobody intercepted their voter registration card and voted in their name?  I say almost zero.  

The only way to combat this fraud is to require a photo ID. Remember, the voter registration card does not have a picture on it - there is currently no verification other than good old fashioned trust.  Would you trust everyone out there?   

A long time ago I wrote out an entire scenario of how to commit voter fraud and was asked nicely by state officials to please not publicise the gigantic holes in their system. They admitted they had no legal authority to stop me, but asked nicely that I not give anyone any ideas.  I was more than happy to bury that post on this blog, but it still exists if you're a savvy searcher. 

So, when you hear people claiming "but they are so few prosecutions of people voting for others, so it must not be going on" you can rebut by reminding that person that it's a crime that's almost impossible to catch someone committing.  Although, intellectually honest people will not make that argument and you shouldn't be arguing with morons. 

Let's move onto the nuts and bolts of the Justice Department's claim. 

Obviously requiring a picture ID to vote will severely diminish voter turnout and it will be worst amongst democratic leaning voters, right?  Click HERE and read carefully - turnout in Georgia INCREASED after voter ID laws were put in place.  Not only didn't the dramatic claims of mass voter disfranchisement not come true, turnout actually increased.  If you're looking for a case study to prop your claims up on, actual elections in real states aren't going to help you make your claim of diminishing turnout with voter ID laws.  The panel of judges reviewing Texas' law will have to consider these facts.

This year's primaries in many states have continued the trend of proving the claim of low voter turnout due to disfranchisement wrong. 

---------------

The idea that minorities and old people are somehow adversely affected by the ID requirement has not held water with the Supreme Court.  You can click HERE to see how they ruled in Indiana's case.  It is likely that any challenge to Texas' law will end up in the Supreme Court.  Of course, this wouldn't be "again" because Texas will be challenging their status given to them in the voting rights act and the federal government's oversight of their laws - the Indiana case establishes the constitutionality of the law.

The problem the folks who brought the lawsuit against the State of Indiana had was the same one the people in Texas will have - proving their claims about old people, minorities and democrats. 

If you read Norma Chavez's blog you'll see that she said 700,000 people in Texas don't have IDs.  Other folks claim that anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 don't have IDs.  The numbers aren't consistent by any means and it makes people wonder if they're made up. 

Norma Chavez says 700,000 people don't have IDs, and you have to give some credence to her claim. She was a state legislator with access to people and groups who try to track these types of statistics.  Press reports often cite the 100,000 to 200,000 number, so they must be getting that from somewhere or someone respectable and honest, right?  Wrong. 

Anytime someone answers your question of "how many?" with "well, it's X amount or twice that amount" you have to wonder if they know what they're talking about.  Just think about that for a second.  Can you imagine missing the mark by 100,000 people at a concert?  That's a big deal.  That's an admission of "I don't know." 

The reason that's important is because the panel of judges, or the Supreme Court is going to want to know how the Justice Department came up with the number.  And the Justice Department can't just say "well Norma Chavez said so."  They have to have empirical data.  That means showing exactly how they found 100,000 people without IDs. 

Think about that for a second... take another second - don't speed through this. 

Okay, opponents of the voter ID bill somehow figured out how to track down 100,000 (or 200,000 depending on how your feel at the moment) who do not have an ID.  How do you find someone without an ID?  What search methods did you use?  Do you have names and addresses so that we can have these people testify as to why they don't have an ID?

These are questions a panel of judges will ask.  And they're going to get even more specific with their questions.

Why are Hispanic people less likely to have an ID than non-Hispanics?  What barriers are there to somebody of Hispanic origin getting an ID?  If there are barriers, how come a civil rights lawsuit hasn't been filed on their behalf?  Institutional racism was outlawed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and more specifically before that with the "separate but equal" legal doctrine that was misguided, but clear in its intent to deny nobody the same governmental amenities based on race or ethnicity.

The same questions will likely be asked about the claim that old people are likely not to have an ID. An explanation of why will be required. Ditto for the democrat label as well. And that's going to be the hardest thing to prove of all - that old people and Hispanics are democrats.  And there's an interesting caveat to proving this. 

If a judge was to believe that a voter ID law adversely and specifically affected this group, he or she would have to come to that conclusion based on racial profiling.  Just think about what would happen if a cop made an assumption about someone's behavior based on their age and race - he'd be in big trouble.  So why is it okay to racially profile these people when it comes to the voter ID law?  Just because you think something is a "fact" based on what you suggest is "common knowledge" doesn't make it so under the law.  You're engaging in profiling whether you want to admit it or not. 

The bottom line - proving to a panel of judges that these people without IDs exist is going to be hard enough.  Proving their race, age and party affiliation are correlated will be harder.  Explaining why they don't have an ID or can't get one and showing where the law in question doesn't provide an opportunity for them to obtain one will be the hardest thing to do.

As noted in the Indiana Supreme Court case, it would be an easier case to try if it was brought on behalf of an individual who was denied a ballot due to not having an ID.  Having an actual victim, instead of potential victims, lets a judge understand exactly what circumstances led them to the point where they were denied the ability to vote.  The judge could examine the facts surrounding the case, not the projected outcome of someone's opinion on the matter. 

It is likely that someone will file suit if a panel of judges rules in favor of the State of Texas.  That will be an interesting case when it is tried. 

So that's where we sit - in a place where myth meets fact.  I have no trust that the panel of judges who hear this case will rule in favor of the State of Texas due to the overwhelmingly liberal make up of judges in this country. I do, however, think the subsequent Supreme Court case will go Texas' way since there's a conservative majority on the court.

---------------------

I have another interesting question to bring up when it comes to this idea that requiring people to show an ID when voting is discriminatory.  If having to show an ID to vote discriminates against a certain segment of the population, don't all other public functions requiring an ID also discriminate against them?  You have to show a federal employee a picture ID to get on a plane - how is that any different than having to show one to a poll worker?  It's not.  The same goes for any other government program and the post office. 

And before you bring up the specific argument of "impediment to voting," you must understand that the onerous registration system is a severe impediment to voting along with the deadlines for registration before an election.  You can't say that some impediments are good and others are not. 

Anywho, just something to think about. 

I'll be curious to meet one of these people without an ID and see why they can't get one and how they survive in today's world without a picture ID. 

I was right about Norma's New Year's Resolution

I had said a while back that starting a blog as a new year's resolution is a bad idea.  In fact, doing most anything as a new year's resolution is a bad idea because you're always doing it for the wrong reason.  You don't start a blog because some arbitrary dates entices you to, you start one because you have a lot of stuff to stay.  Poor Norma has run out of things to say in record time.

I hadn't checked her blog in weeks because I hadn't heard anything about it from anyone.  I have been keeping up with the Fake Norma Chavez on twitter and I finally decided to go back and see what was happening on the blog.  Nothing... absolutely nothing is happening. 

Norma breaks the first rule of blogging - you have to post something every work day for months before you take a day off.  One gap and you'll lose people for ever.  It's why this blogging thing is a lot harder than it looks.  Creating something interesting once a week is hard - doing it five days a week is harder.

After a while you can take longer breaks like I do because people know to come back and your base is big enough to spread the word about your new posts.  She's a long way from that.

Most of what Norma's problem is that she's an insider carrying people's water and that means she can't write freely without pissing people off or getting someonein trouble.  When you are having your strings pulled, or you are pulling the strings, blogs are out of the question.  Too much is off limits as potential subject matter.  You can't be tied in and be successful.  You have to be willing to punch everyone otherwise you'll never have enough opponents to keep fighting. 

I'm very sad she has failed - could have been fun. 

Brilliant Neighborhood Association Rewrite Solution

As I mentioned yesterday, I did graduate from the second best junior college in El Paso (UTEP).  That means I'm not book smart, street smart or even just plain smart - I'm slow.  It took me a while, but the solution came to me while I was sleeping last night and it's so simple it will make you laugh.

The city of El Paso doesn't have to mention anything about political activity in their neighborhood association ordinance.  All they have to do is require that neighborhood associations organize as a 501(c)(3) non-profit to be recognized.  The city could even offer up help getting groups properly registered just to make sure there were no barriers to getting it down easily. There are tons of advantages to requiring this outside the point I make next. 

If a group is registered as a 501(c)(3) they can't play in elections.  The city wouldn't be regulating their behavior - the federal government would be.  It's a degree of separation that would keep even the most foolish idiots from filing frivolous flawsuits... I mean - lawsuits.

Click HERE to see what 501(c)(3)s can, and can not, do. 

Problem solved - NEXT!

Council Goofs - Lets Neighborhood Associations Become PACs

Unfortunately I was not able to chat with any member of city council on this issue before they voted  yesterday to strike part of the proposed amendments/rewrites to the neighborhood association ordinance.  In my place stood ill-informed, or just plain stupid, city attorneys who had been co-opted by neighborhood association stalwarts on the issue.  The result is a nightmare scenario where political organizations can masquerade as civic associations and neighborhood associations.

Where do I start? 

Apparently folks at the city have been eyeing the political involvement language for neighborhood associations (NAs from here on out because it's just too much to type) for a few years now.  Both city staff and council members were noticing that NAs were starting to broaden their activities as they started to get their political legs under them.  It was a natural progression - one that you can track historically at the national level where non-profit organizations sought to make their lobbying efforts (legislative outcomes) more potent by trying to affect political outcomes (birth of 527s and others).

Once Tom Brown pulled his little stunt (that ended up being unsuccessful because he only reads the Bible and nowhere in there did it tell him to register as a specific purpose political committee before setting off on his mission from God) things started moving fast at the city pertaining to any group threatening a recall. 

In past recall efforts the results were laughably short of the needed signatures.  When Brown whipped out his petitions folks at the city realized that recall efforts were no longer a laughing matter.  Their plan to stop NAs from being PACs first and NAs second had to be initiated.  However, it was too late - the NAshad become way too powerful and now control not only the representatives themselves, but entire city departments.  The NAs made sure the political language was struck from the rewrite.

However, now that the issue has been put on the table there a lot of people who have started thinking about the ordinance and how they can use it to their advantage.  I have on good authority that one local man of the cloth allegedly has a city wide plan to infiltrate NAs, call officer elections and load up the leadership with his God fearing minions who act at his direction.  They will register each association as a PAC with the state and collect "dues" as PAC donations.  The city will then be forced - BY THEIR OWN ORDINANCE - to give this soldier in God's army their undivided attention and even spend city dollars (tax dollars) to promote and support his agenda.  Just read the ordinance Download NA ordinance. 

Check out section 2.102.070 Services Available to Recognized Neighborhood Associations. Are you sure you want the city printing and distributing the political musings of these NAs with your tax dollars? Well, the morons in the city attorneys office told council to make sure that happens.

Back to the task at hand. In existing NAs where he can't take over the leadership, he will allegedly start a bigger stronger competitor and force the city to recognize them as well or in some case instead of the other group in the neighborhood.  They will have legal grounds to make all of this happen. Any resistance from the city will result in a lawsuit the city can not win and more of your tax dollars will end up in his hands.

And the fun doesn't stop there.

Now that it is clear that any PAC can become a NA and any NA can become a PAC, there's some work to do - mainly register yourself with the state and start shaking down developers and real estate folks for donations!  The NAs are highly involved in the zoning and development of their neighborhoods and they can squeeze prospective developers and current land owners into making large donations to their political fund in return for not protesting their plans.  That money can then be spent to purchase a new candidate or line the pockets of a sitting council member who favors their positions.  Can you imagine the kind of power these groups would have when they could pass $10,000 PAC checks to sitting representatives?  The NAs have already showed they are so powerful that the city will violate a business owner's civil rights to please them, what happens when they command tens of thousands of dollars in campaign cash? 

If you were a proponent of getting big money out of local politics - too bad for you.  The latest ruling at council has set up these NAs to be megafunds for upcoming elections.  From now on if you win their NA debate, you don't just get an endorsement - you get a check!

And just think - you only know of the alleged plot by a guy we already kind of know.  Can you imagine who else is lurking out there ready to start a PAC, register it as a NA and get to using your tax dollars to print and distribute their manifesto?  If you just had an image of Norma Chavez flash into you're brain - we think alike.

The city has ensured that what was once a program to help give residents a voice in matters that affect their neighborhood, is now just another reposit for political dollars and all the factionalism and back biting that comes with it.  So much for honest, open community input.  Way to go, morons - your ruined a good thing. 

note: neighborhood associations aren't actually a good thing because they empower a small few who do not represent the majority of residents.

--------------

How did this happen?  How did the city turn something so simple into such a mess?  And believe me - it's going to be a mess.  The city really can't stop this from happening - the politicalization (is that a word?) of these NAs has been known for a while and now it's a matter of law - PACs can be NAs and NAs can be PACs.  So, really how did this happen?

First of all, watching council do its little dance each week is important because you get a lot of clues as to what is being said during executive session.  The lovely and talented Ms. Acosta let the cat out of the bag when she lamented the fact that lawyers had once told her the PAC ban was okay and now were reneging on that opinion.  A little digging around city hall yielded an admission that the city attorneys office was intimidated by neighborhood associations threatening to sue.  On what basis?  Apparently freedom of speech and since most of the people who work for the city attorneys office are experts in real estate and procurement law, they just figured the NAs had a point they didn't feel like arguing against. 

A five minute conversation with the Texas Ethics Commission, Attorney General's office or any lawyer waltzing by the county courthouse would have proven the neighborhood associations to be full of shit. 

As for Carl Starr's lawsuit threat - they laughed at his suit because he had a few major mistakes that would have resulted in it immediately being dismissed on the grounds it was stupid and incorrectly cited.  So don't let Carl toot his horn when it was specific members of the NA community who were lobbying the legal department, other city staff and members of council.  They (NAs) want the ability to start PACs under their NA name and serve a dual role - community advisers and king makers. 

Here's why the city attorneys are stupid.  They define in the proposed rewrite the following:

F. "Political action group" means any organization or group of persons, which engages in any of the following political election activities: the endorsement of a candidate for municipal public office; the soliciting or receiving of contributions from any person, group, or entity for the purpose of expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate for a municipal public office; the production of publications or advertising for or against a candidate for municipal public office or political parties; or the support of or opposition to any initiative or referendum petition drive or for the adoption or defeat of any ballot proposition.

If you're involved with a group of people who are organized by a charter of any kind, collect dues and are recognized by any level of government and you do any of the things mentioned above - YOU HAVE TO REGISTER AS A PAC.  Just ask Tom Brown - he now knows. 

The key to that provision up there is that the word "individual" doesn't appear.  No person is being told they can not participate in any of the electoral, political or campaign functions listed above.  You can be the President of the Sunny Slope Neighborhood Association and still personally do all of those things listed above.  Hell, you could even be the President of the Sunny Slope NA and the biggest political fund raiser in El Paso and campaign manager for ten candidates and three ballot initiatives and there's no problem with that.  What you can't do is sign up your PAC to be a recognized NA by the City of El Paso and receive the special benefits afforded those recognized entities.  And that my friends is the key - special benefits.  

When you receive special status with the government you may have to give up some of your "rights" in order to achieve that status.  Ask a soldier if he or she may speak freely about whatever they want, whenever they want.  Their rights under the constitution - most notably the First Amendment - are suspended due to the government's recognition of their status.  The second an Army Private no longer wishes to be recognized by the U.S. Government as a soldier in their Army, he or she can say whatever the hell they want (I used the rank of private here because they aren't generally privy to major secrets and the rules change for people who know things - if you know what I mean).

A better example here are non-profit organizations.  A non-profit organization, much like a NA, seeks to obtain a special status from the United States Government.  This is generally in the form of some kind of tax break for donors and themselves.  The government obliged to officially recognize non-profit organizations and give them a tax break so far as they abide a certain set of rules. 

Here's where the parallel really begins - so pay attention people.

One of the rules that the United State Government puts on non-profits is that they must not do any of the shit listed in the italicized tabbed section above.  If you do any of that crap, the United States Government will not only stop recognizing your non-profit status and start taxing you, they will also likely arrest you and charge you with a crime. 

It's important to note that if you're currently a member of a non-profit group you can do any of the shit listed in the italicized tabbed section above on your own time and it's not a crime.  You just can't do it in your official capacity as a member of the non-profit. 

How the U.S. Government's prohibition on political activities for certain recognized groups receiving a "special benefit" isn't a first amendment issue and El Paso's prohibition of NAs functioning as PACs is, boggles my mind.  How the city attorneys office doesn't know this is astounding... and sad, I guess.  

If you take the side of the city attorneys office's reasoning on this issue, then you think Tom Brown and his group's first amendment rights were trampled on by the Texas 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.  If you think this ordinance rewrite infringed on free speech protections, then you're saying you support Tom Brown and what his group did.  You can not have it any other way.

So - did the city attorneys office issue an opinion to city council members that was in conflict with what the Texas 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the mayor's own recall?  Yes they did. 

To make this clear to all of you who suck up too much Juarez tire fire smoke. What the rewrite was doing was as follows -

Federal government says you can't be a non-profit and a PAC.

City of El Paso say you can't be a NA and a PAC. 

Federal government says that if you want to be a PAC, you are free to do so, but you will lose your non-profit status.  You may also start a PAC eligible entity under almost the exact same name as your non-profit if you'd like - however you can't take tax deductible donations.

City of El Paso says that if you want to be a PAC, you are free to do so, but you will lose your NA status.  You may also start a PAC eligible entity under almost the exact same name as your NA if you'd like - however you will have to make sure they meet at separate times with separate agendas. 

Please tell me I'm getting through to you people. 

If I was a city council member I would be livid right now.  For the city attorneys office to tell you that the rewrite was in violation of the United State Constitution was a baldfaced lie. 

Little o'le David K the village idiot laid out the legal argument protecting the re-write and I only graduated from the second best junior college in El Paso (UTEP).  You would figure with several million dollars worth of salaried attorneys prancing around in fancy suits at the city, one of them would have thought of the non-profit status argument.  Then again, these people aren't real lawyers, they just play them on Tuesdays. 

--------------------------

If you'd like to register your neighborhood association as a PAC right now before the city might change the law go to the link http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/filinginfo/g&mpacfrm.htm.  It takes about an hour total to get yourself signed up and made all legal like.  I would do it so that you can make sure your NA is grandfathered in.  There's really no reason not be registered - it just adds a little width to your influence at city hall. 

Those brain trusts sitting in a semi-circle on Tuesdays will be a lot less likely to twiddle with their computers and smartphones while you speak if they know you're commanding a five figure PAC.   Every time that Lisa Turner asks for more time and gets shot down she can make out a check to the Mayor's opponent from her neighborhood associations PAC - I bet she'll get all the time she wants after $5,000 or goes to the challenger. 

Forget I said any of this - I'm starting to think I could make some money on this deal.  I've had the wrong attitude all along - I shouldn't be taking action, I should be taking advantage!

 

If Atlanta Can't Do it - What Makes You Think El Paso Can?

This story is out of Atlanta and it shows what happens when mystery business interests use tax dollars to line their pockets. 

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has the follow up story HERE.  And a clever blogger/writer has the original objection and prophetic projection to the project HERE.

I'm not as inclined to oppose the tax increases in El Paso these days seeing as how recent data shows that they send the poor people to the hinter lands and leave the improved area as play areas for the rich.  After all, it's the rich who can afford the taxes, not the poor.  El Paso's west side will be a Mercedes only district soon and I wouldn't quite mind that. 

The Laughable Traffic Circle Debate -- A Metaphor for El Paso

My parents were in DC this weekend seeing their granddaughter and were telling me all about the traffic circle situation over at Montwood and Wedgewood.  They were laughing pretty hard at how the residents had reacted.  It seems as if the residents want a certain outcome, but are dead seat against the only way to achieve that outcome.  In the end it's typical El Paso bullshit and pretty much the reason Y'all are the armpit of Texas.

Read the El Paso Times article HERE.  The title "Confusing curves: Roundabouts still confound, irk El Paso Drivers"

I really like the opening question and the sense of bewildermetn that surrounds it. 

"Who has the right of way?

That's a question many residents are asking as they approach the newly constructed traffic devices known as roundabouts, and the confusion has led to a large amount of frustration against them."

Quantum physics and roundabouts - the two hardest things to understand in the universe.  Oh wait, I totally forgot - women.  They're very hard to understand as well. 

The truth is that the question posed by Times is answered by the street signs that are placed around the circle so drivers know exactly who has the right of way.  If you can enter a freeway, you can enter a traffic circle!  In fact it's easier to enter a traffic circle because the cars are traveling much slower than they are on the freeway.  Too bad the El Paso Times reporter didn't ask anyone with an IQ of 85 or higher that question because they could have saved them some print space.

And... if you read the article, it doesn't support the headline.  Nowhere in the article do they interview people who currently use traffic circles.  They talk to people who are slated to have one built in the future - so the traffic circles aren't confusing drivers per se, but residents slated to have one put in their area.  Having built the traffic circle at Upper Valley and Country Club, the confusion went away as soon as the concerned residents became actual drivers.  All of a sudden it wasn't so hard to understand at all when you were actually in your car and driving in the circle.  It was a miracle on par with Fatima.

Bottom line - It's the El Paso Times... you don't really expect them to get the headline right, do you? 

I will give the residents one thing - the city didn't send out the best person to explain how the circle works.  I've heard the speaker the city sent many times and you have no idea what he's talking about and I'm pretty sure he doesn't either.  Put me on that stage or anyone else with even a medium grasp of the English language and public speaking skills and that crowd would have been demanding a circle be built post haste.

The crowd's objections to the circle were so ignorant that they shouldn't have been considered in the first place.  Asking a bunch of people who don't know anything about traffic what they think of a traffic solution is like getting a steak advice from a vegan - worthless.  You can't base the progress of an entire city on the rantings of an idiot or a group of them for that matter.  In this case, the city has done just that.  Wait a second - it's what they always do!  If the dumbest guy in the room doesn't like it and yells the loudest, he wins. 

You know who should be offended by those cavemen GEICO commercials?  El Pasoans.

----------------

Here's the reality of a traffic circle at Montwood and Wedgewood.

1. If you travel Montwood you would never EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER have stop at Wedgewood again in your lifetime if they had a circle there.  Not one more second of your life would be wasted waiting for a light at that intersection.

2. If you travel Wedgewood you'll never have to wait for at a light for three minutes while zero cars pass by on Montwood.  You're allowed to enter traffic and go any which way you want and the only thing you are waiting on is an opening between cars - which will be easy since the traffic circle will force people to drive the speed limit and thus make it easier for you to merge.

3.  Wait times at the intersection will be nearly nonexistent with a traffic circle.  Again, never spend another minute of your life waiting on a poorly timed traffic light.  Ever pulled up to a light at 8:15 on a Saturday morning and sat there for five minutes with the light red and no cars coming in the lanes that have a green light?  That would never happen again.  One less stop on your way to get menudo (the food, not that band).

4. The chances of having a fatal wreck at that intersection will decrease to the point that you'll be more likely to be struck by lightning while being eaten by a shark.  The circles are traffic calming devices that eliminate the chances of morons running red lights at 60 MPH and T-boning helpless drivers obeying traffic signals.  That's a residential area and anytime you have an opportunity to slow vehicles down, you should take the opportunity to do so.   You're most likely to die in a car wreck within five miles of your home.  That likely hood decreases significantly when you live in neighborhoods with traffic calming devices.

---------------

The best example of how a traffic circle radically improves traffic and safety is the circle at Country Club and Upper Valley.  Like I mentioned above, we built it - we didn't design it (although we have designed them and they work).

Before the traffic circle was put in place that intersection backed up traffic in both directions on Country Club (for miles during rush hour - all the way back to Mesa) and on Upper Valley road.  Foot, bike or other non-vehicle traffic were subject to death by car if they even tried to navigate the intersection.  Many bad accidents had taken place there - loss of life or severe injuries were too frequently the result of accidents at this intersection.  At peek traffic hours it was fender benders galore due to stop and go traffic.

During construction Representative Lilly was threatened with a recall and many other things.  My crew and I were subjected to harassment on a daily basis with threats of violence being the norm and actual violence taking place a handful of times.  We had to hire off duty cops to protect us and the site. People didn't want a traffic circle because they didn't think it would work. They couldn't understand how it would work.

After we were finished I was one of the guys literally opening the circle up to use the day we pulled all of the barricades away and let the masses have at it.  Within the first 50 cars through the circle there were about five or so who were a little lost, but got through okay.  There were three drivers who really messed up and they all had one thing in common (besides being women drivers - hate to say it, but I watched that circle for days and women drivers were by far the ones who had the most problems) - they were on their cell phones.  Yep, people not paying attention couldn't traverse the circle - who'd a thunk it?

It was only a matter of hours before one of our normal harassers stopped by our construction yard that sat adjacent to the new circle. We were watching the circle with the engineer who designed it and some city staff.  We were ready for another fight, but found our former nemesis to be overwhelmed with joy instead.  She had been through the circle several times that day and was ecstatic at how easy to use it was and how she never had to even really slow down (we suggested that she probably should, but being the wife of an ultra-rich local businessman, she ignored our common sense advice). 

Over the next few days the kudos poured in from locals who had spent years waiting twenty minutes or more each morning and evening trying to get through that intersection.  Some residents even told us how they could sleep in an extra 30 minutes because the traffic congestion was now completely gone.  The circle had done its job and done it very well. 

Nowadays you won't hear much from the people in the Upper Valley Road and Counry Club area about this circle because happy people don't tend to stand around with signs at public meetings expressing their delight with something that has been completed to their satisfaction.  One angry person makes the noise of about 20 happy people (a guy who owns a restaurant told me that and backed it up with math).  Silence is often a sign of content.  

---------------

The lesson here is that Representatives Acosta, Noe and Ortega should have vetted the complaints from the public before acting. If the members of the public's fears were based on moronic rumors and general lack of intellect, the council members should have disregarded them.  Instead they retreated in fear for their political health and will let an unsafe, ineffecient intersection remain. 

The family of the next person who dies at that intersection ought to send a little thank you note with a picture of their dead loved one to Ortega, Acosta and Noe thanking them for being so mindful of their own political well being.  God knows holding office is more important than the safety of the masses.

If Noe, Ortega and Acosta think by bowing to the pressure from less than five percent of their constituency is going to stop the angry calls, they're wrong.  The minute the new stop light system is installed with the drainage improvements, the calls about ill-timed lights and speeders will resume.  The only way to have stopped those calls was to do the hard thing and go forward with the circle as suggested by the EXPERTS - you know, those people who actually know what they are talking about. 

If the city is going to shit on their experts advice at every turn and let the ankle biters make the decisions on these type of things, they should save the money and just stop hiring experts.  Why not put everything up to a vote of the constituents?  If they are right about this traffic circle, they'll be right about everything else - like same sex benefits and the tax rate.  Right? Isn't this where El Paso is going with these types of decisions?  I think so. 

If you read this and agree with me contact your representative and ask them to act like they've got a pair and do the right thing for 100,000 people who didn't attend the meeting instead of the 400 morons who did.  Go HERE and email them.

County Decides to Enforce Laws - Here's Where They Should Start

I have had some pretty interesting talks with folks out in the Montana Vista area recently.  It seems they are a little concerned about a growing theme of businesses popping up in their community.  In an odd coincidence, the County of El Paso has decided to start looking into actually enforcing their own rules around the county. 

The El Paso Times even got in on the act.  They printed a news story and an editorial on the sudden attention being paid to the rules out in the hinter lands (county).

News piece http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_20047563

Editorial http://www.elpasotimes.com/opinion/ci_20056802

The concerned citizens in the Montana Vista area came to me about the opening of yet another strip club in their area.  It's called "Koi Cabaret" and it's apparently in violation of more than a few of the county's requirements.

Here's what the county requires - http://www.epcounty.com/courtorders/SOB%20Order.pdf

I can tell you that the building is apparently within 800 feet of a residence.  The ordinance says it has to be at least 1,000 feet (not 1,500 as the El Paso Times reported incorrectly - are you surprised?)  from the nearest residence. 

The sign on the building is in major violation of the code. It's more than 10% of the entire surface area of the wall it hangs from and has graphics.  The rules say you can't have anything but the business' name on the sign.  Click to enlarge.

Residents in the area are picking on the code violations and have asked to see a some kind of business license for the new strip club in order to force the county into really looking at their own rules and enforcing them. 

The problem residents have is that it seems the only close place to get a job is a strip club and that's not something they want their teenagers to aspire to - for obvious reasons. 

And let's not forget that these places aren't known for the sober, level headed interaction between patrons.  Fights, drunk driving and the general debauchery associated with beered-up men around scantily clad women have an effect on the entire neighborhood. 

I don't agree with the opposition of a business that operates within the confines of the law just because a neighborhood isn't comfortable with what they do inside.  Just look at my thoughts on the CVNA situation. If these people are worried their daughters will become strippers because they live near a strip club, that's their problem, no the strip club's.  However, these residents have clearly shown violations of code and should get what they want here even if it's coming from a place of personal ideological preference.  Their claims are valid and must be looked at.

On top of the code violations, one sleuthy resident was able to figure out why the cops were called to the place before it even officially opened.  Apparently the owner has been accused of some kind of large theft from a business inside the El Paso city limits.  Details are sketchy, but my source says she's talked to county and city law enforcement officials and knows that the owner is not in a good place from a legal standpoint. 

There are lots of issues here that I think are important.  The unimportant issue is the business being a strip club.  You've got violations of the rules set forth and you got a guy who might be in some legal trouble running the place.  Those aren't the kinds of things that build healthy neighborhoods.  Somebody at the county needs to get over there and see about what's going with this place.