Settle Down People - Nothing is set in stone yet with baseball deal

You guys also need to get your facts straight and that means waiting until there are actually facts out there to get straight.  Understanding that this is a plan based on contingencies will help keep you from stepping on the rake over and over again with your wild-ass conspiracy theories.  You know - the ones you've been throwing out in the comment section of this blog. 

First of all, do take the time to realize that the baseball stadium and it's backers are completely different than the PDNG and their plan.  Maybe six years ago Hunt and Foster were hot and heavy into the PDNG, but that's not the case as of right now.  If anything, this move by Hunt and Foster really screws of the PDNG and their goal of having a monopoly on taxpayer owned downtown entertainment sites.  That is a GOOD thing. 

This out of town guy hired by PDNG t0 separate you fools from your money is probably so pissed right now, he can't see straight.  With $50 million going into a guarantee for a baseball stadium without voter approval, you can bet voters aren't going to give the thumbs up to a downtown arena in the quality of life bond issue.  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. 

For all of you who don't pay attention and think all the rich people are best friends, take a look at the recent past.  Paul Foster out-maneuvered the PDNG when he went willy-nilly on the Mills building and bought the Plaza Hotel and it seems like he's done it again with the baseball deal.  Nobody will go on record as saying they're mad at Foster for going it alone on downtown revitalization, but plenty of them will when it's off the record.  Foster's foray into downtown redevelopment was not a part of the original plan - a plan that has not yet been executed to my knowledge.  The PDNG sought to strictly control downtown redevelopment by owning every aspect of it.  When Foster started buying up the best properties and polishing them up - the folks at PDNG lost their minds.  You can't have total control when some Billionaire Baylor grad starts calling the plays from the huddle - if you know what I mean. 

Again - nobody at PDNG or in the Hunt/Foster crowd will confirm what I'm saying here, but behind closed doors it's pretty evident what's going on.  If you think they're all in cahoots - you're wrong.  Rich people don't automatically like each other no matter what the conspiracy theories you believe purport.

That brings us to relocating city hall.

Fact is - we don't know exactly what will happen at this point.  It is likely that the final plans won't be known until the trigger is actually pulled on this project.  Prospective downtown properties may all be rented by the time the ballpark deal goes through - then what?  Well, there's going to be several different plans I'm sure.  If you attend the meeting, you'll probably get to hear most of them.  I say "most" because knowing city staff there's always something they keep from the public because it will cause a shit storm. 

The good part is that you have input.  You can attend the meeting and put your two cents in.  If I were there I'd say the building of a new stadium on the land where City Hall sits allows the City Manager to send every single city employee home one day and not invite them back.  We'd save $100,000,000 a year easy without the bloated mass of bureaucracy that currently resides in that God-awful building that smells like the inside of a porta-potty 90 percent of the time.  We could hire private companies to execute the limited day to day services provided by the city and not only would the taxpayer save money, they'd be better served! 

I'm sure none of that's going to happen...

The city needs to let people put in bids for the new space.  Lowest square foot cost wins and it doesn't matter if it's on Joe Battle or Redd Road - whatever is cheapest and the taxpayers don't have to maintain, wins.  There is zero advantage to having city operations downtown.  In fact, with all the coming and going it would be better to have it in a more accessible spot on the East Side.  The County of El Paso has had great success with their regional annexes, the city should follow.

Wait - I just thought of this - the city should close city hall and then relinquish their duties to the County!  Dissolve the City in a glass of County - GENIUS!  Less policitians!  Less government workers!  Less lying, cheating and stealing! 

Any friends I had at the city are no longer "friends" after that little outburst...

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

Here's the bottom line - you'll have a chance to you voice your opinion on this entire deal.  Come armed with facts because council members are going to have theirs at the ready.  Drop one little piece of misinformation on that stage and they'll disregard everything you say along with the thoughts of anyone they associate with you.   I can't tell you how many times a group of well meaning citizens are sunk by one idiot who takes the podium and starts spouting lies.  Re-zoning the North West part of town and the Transmountain expansion come to mind immediately. 

Again - get your facts straight before going into battle. 

Don't try to smear the Hunts and the Fosters - it won't work. They're not bad people and they don't do bad things.  Your attempts to tie them to things they're not involved with will only embarrass you and detract from your point.  Playing a game of "they're rich, so I don't think they should get this" won't work either.  If you put together a group of investors who had a viable shot at owning a baseball team you 'd get the same consideration.  Jealousy is El Paso's most prevalent natural resources - you can change that starting now. 

Good luck to you.  And remember - if you have ever touted a politician in the past that has been indicted in the now - do not think your opinion holds weight here - it doesn't.   If you couldn't see Larry Medina for exactly who he is - you don't deserve to have your thoughts reviewed by the blog reading public.

Comments

[are they demanding where the stadium is built]

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.

[David K]

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...

[are they demanding]

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 ?

[David K]

"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.

[are they insisting]

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.

[David K]

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

[I guess they are insisting]

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.

[I guess they are insisting]

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.

[David K]

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.

[dot]

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.

[william]

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.

[Ana]

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!

[Justin]

"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.

[David K]

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.

[Cindy]

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?

[business owner]

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?

[Cindy]

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.