The anti-ballpark crowd's crusade is stupid, built on lies and out right laughable in some respects. However, a win is a win and they got a huge win yesterday. The only way to beat stupid is to kill it smart. The only way to lose to stupid is challenge it with more stupid. City Council brought stupid to fight stupid.
Eddie Holguin brought up Sal Gomez's second certified petition for discussion and somehow council agreed to place it on the ballot in May for consideration by the voters. The only one voting against the measure was Steve Ortega. Niland was out.
The city manager, city attorney and the affirmative voting block minus Ortega are all under the impression that the case in state court will clear all of this up and they can implode building before May. They are likely wrong. They were right - until they handed the ankle biters this vote.
Now Sal Gomez and friends have a guarantee from the city itself that the voters will decide the fate of the ballpark. Any judge could be easily persuaded to issue an injunction given the anti-ballpark crowd gets a bond to cover it. A lawyer I talked to last night told me that they can get relief on the size of the bond and that there's probably only one judge that wouldn't issue an injunction on their behalf.
The bottom line is that now city council has completely validated Gomez's claims to the point of asking voters to decide the issue. This negates their entire case in Austin at the moment where they are trying to prove that they don't need to go to the voters and that any attempt to pass a repeal is against the law. Any judge would look at this action and simply ask "WTF?" The city is fighting to keep this question off the ballot and out of the hands of the voters and then turns around and puts it on the ballot. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Dumb. Very Dumb.
What the pro-ballpark voting block should have done is voted against putting the item on the ballot. And don't tell me "they have to by law," because if that was the case - they'd not have the ability to vote on it. Voting it down would have maintained the status quo from council and given nothing new to the anti-ballpark's case. Gomez would have to sue again to get this put on the ballot in may and would not likely get that decision in time for the May ballot. More importantly, a judge wouldn't have a clear cause for imposing an injunction on the razing of city hall.
If the anti-ballpark crowd were to retain a good lawyer for a change, they could really kill this deal thanks to council's inexplicably dumb move. And if you don't believe that council can get bad legal advice - have a talk with Mayor Cook about this couple hundred thousand dollars in legal fees over an issue that should have never gone to a vote in the first place.
Fact is - Eddie Holguin out-maneuvered everyone on council and the entire pro-ballpark crowd yesterday. City council should not be living on some lawyer's best guess at the outcome of a pending lawsuit in state court.
With all that said- they'll eventually demolish city hall. The time line is going to be moved back quite a bit, but it's going to happen. Well, that's if Gomez and friends don't screw this legal challenge up like they have the rest. Council has handed them a gift - let's see what they do with it.
I am glad this will finally go to a vote. The CC ignored one legal petition after another, basically telling the voters, "FU". That said, why are you worried? The ballpark will pass, probably by a wide margin. But it will be unquestionably the voters' choice this time and not a financial coup d'etat by Fosterwood and its stooges on CC.
Posted by: Rotten Peppers | February 12, 2013 at 12:16 PM
Rotten Peppers,
actually - lower turnout featuring more angry and suspicious voters means voters will vote to keep city hall. September to Novembers wasn't long enough to poison the waters - by may most of the voters will have the wrong facts and a belief in outright lies like the one you just told and it will vote accordingly.
Foster and Hunt can blame a very dumb city council for this one.
Posted by: David K | February 12, 2013 at 01:43 PM
Finally David I agree with what you wrote....
Posted by: Notary Public/LC | February 12, 2013 at 03:17 PM
I have to admit, I was scratching my head on the reason Susie Byrd gave to the news - "We did it as a compromise". Compromise is only a possibility between two parties who possess common sense, and as well as the desire to act in the interest of a common good.
Because the ballpark crazies have nothing but their love of self, love of the camera, love of controversy, they are incapable of reaching a compromise.
I'm glad that Steve Ortega voted 'no'. I wish he could have induced the other ballpark proponents on Council to have voted 'no' as well. I can only hope that the judge in Austin will not see their capitulation to the ballpark loonies as anything but trying to hush up the screaming toddler tendencies of Sal Gomez, Norma Chavez, et al.
Council, you really screwed the pooch on this one. I hope you don't live to regret it. I also hope that the next time you decide to "compromise" with crazies, you remember the voters who backed you up and applauded your vision. It would be a crying shame for all the work that was done to ensure that the ballpark could be built, be for naught.
Posted by: been in the CV for 15 years | February 12, 2013 at 04:21 PM
CV: what is crazy about wanting a straight-up vote on city hall demolition and the ballpark, something the Fosterwood referendum denied to voters. Are you afraid that, once voters realize what a lopsided deal this is for El Paso, they will reject it?
I mean, we put up $100MM and Fosterwood puts up $20MM and keeps all the revenue. We demolish a 30 year old building and move people into 100 year old buildings. Such a deal they have for us!
But don't worry. It will pass and you will have your AAA and Fosterwood will have the use exclusive of the $100MM toy we built for them. Plus all the high-tech hot dog jobs it brings to downtown.
Posted by: Rotten Peppers | February 12, 2013 at 05:01 PM
rotten peppers: I bet you voted for Obama and believed his line of crap since 2008 that "the rich need to pay their fair share". So you hate, despise, can't stand, resent and wish all "rich" people would go away.
They aren't evil. And if you are not self-employed you work for someone that you probably consider "rich". So do you shoot them dirty looks all day and pray for their eventual destruction and bankruptcy so you can be without a job and feel good that they are no longer rich?
Or do you work for the government - which means you don't give a damn - you just hate everyone in the private sector.
Remember the Commandments - it's going to be Lent. Give up your hate for the next 6 weeks. Maybe you will feel better.
Posted by: Lslsls | February 12, 2013 at 05:19 PM
No offense David, but you were wrong about Propositions 1&2 - horribly wrong. Not only did they pass, but they passed with an approval of 3 out of 4 people. You were also wrong about Proposition 3. Now you seem to know exactly how voters will react to this. Did you have this same insight before you entered into your elections? Don't be offended, it just seems fitting to ask at this point.
I do agree with your points on the bad move by City Hall yesterday - they tried to fight stupid by killing smart. SMH.
Having read the actual petitions, they are poorly worded, and it's likely the building will be down before May, making the measure(s) on the ballot moot.
Posted by: Implode | February 12, 2013 at 07:12 PM
Lslsls - Rotten doesn't work, silly! Rotten gets welfare because why should he/she work? I mean, you and I go to work and pay taxes - why should he/she? "Wealth redistribution" - isn't that what the 'pobrecitos' love to call it? There is no reason why Rotten, Sal Gomez, Orthon Medina, and all the other crazies should put themselves out! We make more than enough for the President to take a lot of what we work for and shovel it over to people who believe that anyone who makes money is a racist, classist bastard. Of course, they don't mind taking wealthy people's money in the form of a handout, but in the form of quality of life improvements? Never! My God, what are you, a sellout? A coconut? You vendido!
And really, Lslsls, all rich people are devils, usually Anglo, and always, always, out to screw brown people and wipe their influence off a city that is 80% brown. Gonna take a big brush, but they're rich, so they'll be able to buy one.
And Rotten, the reason why I don't want this to go to a vote is because WE ALREADY VOTED ON IT! We voted in our representatives on City Council. They voted on the ballpark. We voted to use a HOT tax to help pay for it. It's called, and make sure you read slowly so your pea brain doesn't overload, A REP-RE-SEN-TA-TIVE FORM OF GOV-ERN-MENT. Google it sweetness. We'll wait........
K, now that you've realized that in a representative form of government, what Council did was completely within their power, please take your Troops O'Crazy, and stop holding everything up. And for god's sake, bring a mop so you can clean up the trail of slime Norma, Four Names, Orthon, Sal, et al, leave behind. I don't want to slip and get your mess on my suit.
Posted by: been in the CV for 15 years | February 12, 2013 at 07:18 PM
Orthon is retired from EPNG. Bet he has a sweet retirement and probably stock. He keeps up his engineering license - don't know why - he doesn't seem to understand the engineering and construction business as it exists today.
Posted by: Lslsls | February 12, 2013 at 07:45 PM
Someone needs to send the Judge a copy of the comments made by the crazies at the city council meeting. They were slandering the Judge and he can very easily find them in contempt of court. That would be lovely.
Posted by: Josie | February 12, 2013 at 07:52 PM
implode,
I was wrong the first time around with reason. You wouldn't believe what "proving David K wrong" does for some people's motivation. You also had a very odd electorate show up for Beto. They will not vote in this election. This election will be less than 15 percent turnout.
The waters have been poisoned since the last election to a level that people are starting to turn. If you hear enough bad shit enough times, you start believing it. Almost everybody running for office this time around is against the ballpark. Literally only Tolbert and Ortega are pro-ballpark out of everyone running. That's how bad it is. you don't get 20 candidates for an election who are all running with one mission without some kind of real support behind them.
Unfortunately, El Paso darkest days are ahead, not behind. The latest proposed Charter Amendments are set to turn city employees into a 6,000 strong campaign team (seriously - no more punishment for campaigning on taxpayer time - watch the video, a city employee can use city resources to call voters, raise money etc.).
Beto was elected - the entire group went to sleep and are never coming back. All that is left are the old-guard who hatees change.
It was fun while it lasted.
Posted by: David K | February 12, 2013 at 08:02 PM
CV; the last I looked at the stadium deal, the wealth redistribution was from taxpayers to Fosterwood. "Trickle-up" economics: we put up $100MM and Fosterwood puts up $20MM and keeps all the revenue.
Well, we get the hot dog and street sweeper jobs. Oh, and the EP Times presstitutes got their white elephant building off their back at taxpayer expense for supporting the Fosterwood ripoff.
So who's getting the welfare? Not me.
Posted by: Rotten Peppers | February 12, 2013 at 08:16 PM
David; you give Holguin too much credit. As long as there is a certified petition to repeal the stadium resolution on the Clerk's shelf, no investor will buy the debt issued in whatever form that is needed to finance this deal. CC knows that and has to allow the vote to occur or risk a failed financing. I don't know how a judge can "quiet" the petition but I'm no judge.
Posted by: Rotten Peppers | February 12, 2013 at 10:24 PM
This may be an opportunity for the Mayor to leverage a veto for his legal fees!
Posted by: Gossip Girl | February 14, 2013 at 12:26 AM
1. The vote is required by City Charter as the result of the Certified Petition.
2. As for City Employees and elections you are dead wrong.
Posted by: Wert | February 14, 2013 at 08:13 AM
Wert: no he's not. The proposed charter amendments removed the "improper political activity" clause from CSC rules that would cause an employee to be disciplined, suspended or fired. So if that survives council's changes and wins in May - employees can run up and down the hallways asking employees to sign petitions, hand out bumper stickers for their favorite council candidate etc.
99.9% of El Pasoans have never, ever read the Charter - it isn't that many pages - so they have no clue how we are governed. Some members of the Ad Hoc Charter committee did not study their materials - had no clue how Civil Service works - had no clue about the enabling ordiances and Rules that govern CSC so they made changes "willy nilly" without any idea of the background and the repercussions of their decision.
We get the government we deserve.
Posted by: Lslsls | February 14, 2013 at 10:45 AM
Dave:
I wish you could have been here for the demolition. That went down fast.
Posted by: Cube | April 15, 2013 at 11:15 AM