« More feed in the trough - whiners will not starve | Main | City's Million Dollar Mistake - Who's the leaker? »

June 24, 2014


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

Remember way back when council hid the arena project inside one bond issue that included parks, zoo, library, etc. so voters would have to vote it down if they didn't want an arena. Robinson correctly tried during that time period to have 5 bond issues on the ballot instead of 3 - and the progressives killed that idea right away because they knew the arena one would fail. It was all wrapped up in the Rick Harrow consulting hype of build it and they will come. They were also counting on Abraham Chavez being torn down to accommodate the arena and that's not going to happen either. So what gets torn down to make room for it and will it be through negotiation or eminent domain?

If the city wants to change their mind and build a soccer stadium instead of an arena I think you put it on the May 2015 ballot and see what happens.

all of this is on prior council and joyce. js is right in that carl tried to split things up more. if you make a retractable roof like Jerry Jones then it could pose as both indoor and outdoor. however, MLS requires grass and not turf. contrary to popular belief, grass can be grown indoors. i have friends who have grown their own pot indoors for years.

I think other issues would be risk of losing Tax-Exempt status of the $180m bonds besides how many capitalists have already lined up and banked on $180m Arena and would feel/claim injury...questions may be have the bonds already been advertised or sold. This may be the only time the city may need ankle-biters to do a 5percent of voters repeal petition of the $180m if Texas law allows in these facts, so as to try to shield indemnify the city from all the lawsuits that would come out of city trying to kill the Arena project.

TALAWANDA-The growing movement to stop the construction of a new Talawanda High School continues, despite confirmation that bond issues cannot be repealed. Stop Talawanda School District, a political action committee formed by district residents, is continuing its work to repeal a 4.7-mill bond issue passed during last November’s general election. The issue passed by more than 600 votes, though the group attributes those numbers to heavy turnout from Miami University students at Oxford precincts. Attorney Becky Princehorn, a partner at Bricker and Eckler LLC, said repealing a bond issue is simply not an option for the group. Repealing a bond issue would have incredibly detrimental effects on a school district, as Princehorn said lenders would refuse the purchase the district’s bonds ever again. WATERBURY – Residents voted Tuesday against repealing a bond they had accepted during Town Meeting Day in March for a municipal complex for the town and village. The final tally, according to town and village Clerk and Treasurer Carla Lawrence, was 493 for the rescission and 917 against. The bond, worth $2.95 million to be paid back over 20 years, will fund a new municipal complex for the town and village. The average homeowner will pay $86 per year, said Waterbury consultant and long-term community recovery director Barbara Farr. The bond was originally accepted by voters with 817 in favor and 609 against the bond, Lawrence said.A petition to rescind the bond was signed by 253 Waterbury residents after Town Meeting Day, prompting the rescission vote. There are currently 3,533 active voters in Waterbury, and a petition with valid signatures from 5 percent of voters was required to bring the bond back for another vote.

Someone at the City with some brains (is that an oxymoron?) needs to find a way to get us out of the arena deal. Take it to the voters. Don't issue the bond. Change it to a soccer stadium. There is always an answer. I think El Pasoans would choose soccer over an arena.

And BTW -- the Arizona Cardinals have turf in their indoor stadium. Google it and find out how they manage it.

"take it to the voters" ? PD, that's an oxymoron when it comes to your baseball stadium.

The 2012 bonds may have already been issued and thus the "unless other general laws" applies ie that neither the city or a 5 percent of voters petition can repeal, without a lawsuit re 'impairment of contracts'. Unless "substitution of something of equal efficacy" is a window out of the mess.

"United States Trust Co. of New York v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, Recognized that the protection of the contract clause was activated by unquantified financial loss or the potential for financial loss resulting from a legislative act. Holding that the law involved in that case impaired the obligation of contracts. State and federal authorities are uniform that, when an act of a legislature, authorizing a bond issue, creates, or authorizes the creation of, a certain fund for the bond's payment, such provision of the act enters into the contract between the debtor and the holders of the bonds, so that it cannot be repealed by subsequent legislation without the substitution of something of equal efficacy. The subsequent legislation would impair the obligation of the contract, and therefore come under constitutional condemnation.

Why would the bond be issued when the project is 4 years down the road?

MLS teams play only 17 home games a year. It makes more economic sense to play at the Sun Bowl

Just Asking- I think this why from above:
"when an act of a legislature, authorizing a bond issue, creates, or authorizes the creation of, a certain fund for the bond's payment, such provision of the act enters into the contract"

ie while construction may be 3 or 4 years down the road a city needs the money already BEFORE that day 3 years from now...besides above says: authorizes or creates...

btw the above is from a Texas case:
609 S.W.2d 565 (1980)
Richard DETERMAN et al., Appellants,
CITY OF IRVING, TEXAS et al., Appellees.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Dallas.
September 25, 1980.

FYI El Paso, I have forever left your fair city and state [unless return for court re my NSA suit] to help my elder folks in Oklahoma...I don't think I will start a blog but may post here until as one famous saying goes "you can leave Brownsville [Texas][and El Paso] but you can't get the Matamoros out of your Soul"

These type projects rarely pay for themselves even when external effects (e.g., downtown prosperity) are included. Wilson's own gentrification guru, Richard Florida, in his journal The Atlantic Cities, admits as much: "Why Cities Should Be More Skeptical of New Cultural Centers and Expansions."


Peppers view is that a city should tend to the basics before the luxuries and El Paso is a city deficient in basics as compared to nearly any peer city. We would have parks without a QoL bond issue if CC and the Plan Commission had the cajones to stand up to the builders and developers who manage to weasel their way out of parkland set-asides. We would have a DTEP if they didn't cave into the sleazoid speculators and building owners who have managed to skirt paying taxes for a generation.

Really, much of the QoL deficit is a result of CoEP shirking the responsibility of a government to assure that development pays its own way and is not a free ride for developers and builders. You get the government you pay for and they did!

Don't let anyone ever tell you that local corruption is free to the taxpayer

RP -- for what its worth, the "sleazoid speculators" are paying their taxes on time. Evidently they found not-paying, holding on to their money, wasn't worth the effort. So, the city has done a good job there because it wasn't too long ago when a certain person, whose first name begins with a B, paid only when the city threatened to sue.

watch, civic center will be torn down for the soccer stadium.

Peppers would support demolition of DTEP - all of it - for a soccer field. May as well go whole hog!

No one cares what you think RP.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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

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

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

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

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