« Support the Baseball Stadium and Understand What's Happening | Main | Having it both ways with the Supreme Court »

June 25, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452a92569e2017742b3230d970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Settle Down People - Nothing is set in stone yet with baseball deal:

Comments

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

After reading your comments it seems to conflict with what Joshua Hunt said in the Times. I myself have no problem building the stadium with tax dollars for Hunt and Foster to bring the team here. However, are they demanding that we build the stadium downtown ? Hunt's talk in the Times sure sounded like it. Common sense would tell you that tearing down 2 buildings and then removing the rubble to build a stadium sounds like it would cost the taxpayer double compared to taking some city land out near the loop in northeast and building one from scratch. Not to mention the new bill the city would start paying "forever" on their new leases if they had to move. Taxpayers don't care about the smell of the City Hall building. It mixes well with the smell of possible corruption very well.

are they demanding where the stadium is built,

HUH? I never said the stadium was going anywhere but where city hall resides - that's the only place that's on the table.

If you read with care, you'll note that I suggest city hall may be moved away from downtown. You didn't do that and have no confused the issue...

Well, are Hunt and Foster demanding that the stadium be built with our Tax Dollars downtown ? Is that the deal or would they consider other options ?

"demanding" isn't the word. They've obviously approached the city to see if they'd do the deal. The city can say "no" and move on.

There are advantages to the city owning the field in the long run.

Call it demanding,insisting, part of the deal or anyway you want to spin it. It's the same question. Did Hunt and Foster say we want,demand, or insist that the stadium for their team be downtown or they won't do the deal ? Albuquerque spent 25 mill on their AAA stadium. Tearing down buildings just to put it downtown doubles the cost. "Demanding isn't the word" ? Would they "agree" to a stadium in North East on city land ? Man, you really have become a Lobbyist.

Tearing down a building doesn't double the cost - I come from the construction industry and you can't fool me.

Still didn't answer the question. Building one on vacant land without having to demolish and remove is cheaper. You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it. So, would Foster and Hunt say "no" to a new stadium in North East ? Oh, and anything downtown means the PDNG wins.

Forgot one thing. I forgot to add the building of a new City Hall and Museum or lease. That makes the total more for sure.

It's pretty clear the deal is only for the land city hall sits on. I don't know why you keep asking when that's been made completely clear from day one.

Sure, empty land in the northeast would be cheaper, but not better.

Building and owning and maintaining a new city hall would be a terrible idea. Renting space is better. Governments are notoriously bad at building upkeep - many examples in El Paso alone prove this.

No - only stuff owned by PDNG insiders is a win. Anything done downtown not according to their very specific plan is a major loss for them. Every single little thing that happens outside of the plan they've never been able to execute makes it more an more useless. This completely wrecks their main goal - own everything in downtown and control rent.

Again, not all the rich people are on the same team all the time.

Okay - if they can figure out a deal where City Hall gets demolished, the City staff gets significantly reduced and Council meetings are held at IHOP.... there's some possibilities.

If anyone can make a team successful in El Paso, Hunt and Foster have a fighting chance. I just don't see the advantage for them of having the City in control of their venue.

sounds like to me whichever pdng member that controls the rent of city hall downtown will greatly benefit from this. hasnt wilson already have them moving into the blue flame building ? isnt it owned by sanders ? of course it will cost the taxpayer forever.

Sorry David, but your logic here, coming from a supposed staunch fiscal conservative has more ripples in it than Susy Byrd's cottage cheese legs!

"I think it's a better bet to spend $50 million on the baseball deal because El Paso knows a lot more about what's happening there. Spending $150 million plus on an arena where no backup material exist - not even an artist's rendering - is not something El Pasoans want to do. "

By the time this is over it will be 100 Mill plus for a new City Hall, Insights, and the rent while things are being demolished and built. http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_20946417/new-city-hall-could-cost-33m

Looks like the Demanding's comments above were spot on.

Justin,

you're mixing a lot of things here - Demanding wasn't right or wrong about anything overall... he or she was asking a question, which means they aren't wrong or right, but seeking information. The times he or she did make a statement they were wrong.

A new city hall "could cost $33m" means that it's not a done deal. They'll save more in rent than building and maintaining a building over the long run. lets hope they are smart and put city hall in one of those empty factory buildings in the northwest part of town. Pennies a squarefoot for the world's largest cubicle farm.

You say you're ok with the deal now that Hunt and Foster are behind it rather than the PDNG. Yet, your original objection to PDNG doing the deal was that they would give the sweetheart contracts to their friends. So that won't happen now? You also said that we taxpayers would pay twice -- once for building the field of dreams, then if/when the venture fails. How is that different now? Also, someone has to pay for a new city hall and rental for city offices before it's built. Could it be the taxpayers? Sure, maybe those expenses aren't paid directly from taxes, we know where the buck stops. You can't support a ballpark on tourists alone, you must have business from locals. Maybe El Pasoans will embrace paying over $200 for a night out for the family at the ballpark (tickets, hot dogs, popcorn, and parking add up) but going to the ballpark won't be a regular event for most of us low-paid taxpayers. Any businessman who goes to the bank to borrow money is required to submit a business plan. Where's the business plan for the ballpark?

Why in the world would a privately help entity share their business plan with the general public? Do you not understand the rights that a privately owned business has?

I don't want to see the business owner's plan. That is proprietary. However, this is a private/public venture. What I care about is asking city government to explain how their plan for building a ball park with taxpayer money is sound. That plan should include a market analysis, cost analysis for tearing down a building, renting space, and possibly building another building.

The comments to this entry are closed.