Refuse the Juice

Quick break!

Trying to get some podcasts done and other projects.  Enjoy podcast for free

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/daily-davis/id1457733552

or here

 

https://daily-davis.pinecast.co/

Lost Dog Land Thieves Scrambling

So there was a comment made about the "executive committee" of the Lost Dog Land Thieves emailing about saving the already saved land from it's future as an economic driver for El Paso.  I was forwarded the email and it's true - they're kind of freaking out.  Why?  Because the city pulled a fast one on Bonart.  

They realize that the vote was utterly meaningless for "saving" the land in the longterm.  Now they are trying to figure out what steps they need to take to really "save" the land and they are kind of screwed.  The email lays out a bizarre list of options - things that have been used in other states with different laws.  They also suggest they are going to try and do a Public Improvement District (PID).  This was used for a couple of canyons on the westside in the recent past and it basically requires homeowners surrounding the property to agree to pay more in taxes to essentially buy the land from the city but never own it.  It's a funky system.  

The only problem with that approach is that the land is already a TIRZ and it appears you can't be a PID and a TIRZ.   Looks like the city knew what it was doing when Bonart came a knocking with his petitions and such.  It's mean, but I like the spirit here.  

It's always good to see the bad guys get their medicine.  

There is a God and he loves Norma as much as I do

As usual Max Powers spots something amazing and tells the world about it HERE.

The idea... errr... THE DREAM of having Norma on council has been mine for such a long time.  How happy I would be!  And for much different reasons than in the past.  What I would enjoy about her tenure on council has really evolved over the years.  In the beginning it was about never ending blog topics.  Now it's about Norma unleashing hell on the ankle-biters.  

Can you imagine her ripping the environazis a new one every week?  She doesn't give a damn about what some rich westsiders want.  She'd tell them that - but in a way that would make me giggle with delight.   The "Duranguito" showdown would have featured Norma on a bulldozer personally knocking the place flat while screaming obscenities at protesters.  I've got chills just thinking about it!

Your current council members from the Eastside are under the impression they were voted in by westsiders.  They are timid and play nice for fear that Bonart or Grossman will attack them with a petition.  This is not the kind of behavior you'd expect of Norma under attack.  She'd be screaming "BRING IT ON LOSERS!!!" and start a petition of her own declaring their petition stupid and illegal. And she'd do it during city council meetings!

Oh, it would be so awesome.  

I beg you, Santa... please make it so!  I've been a good boy for so long and I never ask for anything!

If she runs I'm 100 percent in for a $100 donation.  I would hope you guys would follow my donation as well.  Somebody start the "Draft Norma" Facebook page immediately! 

Some things here and there you should know

Your medians look like shit!  And you should probably be blaming your former city council members and the staff from the not too distant past for that - not TxDOT. My friend Jaime wrote about My friend Rep. Svarzbein martyring himself for the medians HERE. 

The truth is that years ago TxDOT and the city came to an understanding about median care.  TxDOT would spend what it could budget keeping them nice but after the money ran out, the city would have to pick up the tab for what they want.  Guess what - TxDOT's regional districts are always in a state of budget crisis, so medians take a backseat - and I mean a the furthest backward facing seat in your mom's station wagon - when it comes to their priorities.  

Bitch all you want, but higher fuel taxes or general taxes is the only way to solve this problem.  The city signed an agreement saying they'd pick up the slack and never did pick up the slack.  TxDOT officials can pull that agreement out at any time.  You all want money for that on top of the construction that's going on all over town that has everyone in the rest of Texas is either mystified or pissed off.  Nobody thinks El Paso should have gotten a dime for roads since they assume El Paso is a one stoplight town where Joe Moody lives amongst a dozen throwback cowboys who still ride horses and carry C0lt thumbusters. 

The biggest problem you have is that the entire western TxDOT district is now being looked after by a district director from another district. Your district director quit rather unexpectedly recently and I can only assume he pissed off the wrong politically connected jerk in El Paso who went and cried to the powers that be.  Make no mistake about it - the former director was known as a guy who didn't get pushed around by big money political donors or local politicos looking for special favors (funded by YOUR TAX DOLLARS).  Doing your job well at a state agency never ends well... and that's just a bigger discussion about the corruption of public service (hint: the incorruptible employees always manage to get fired or quit under duress). 

Anywho - what you need to be worried about is the fact that there's nobody making decisions about the problems that come up with the many TxDOT construction projects you have going on in El Paso.  Some local jackass got rid of the General in the middle of the battle.  You're left with no supervision - or supervision from afar - during the most important time in your highway history.  If you thought the last few years were bad - just wait to see how the next few months are going to go when there's nobody to make decisions when problems come up.  Medians will be the least of your worries then. 

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

The environazis are trying to steal land again.  This time in the Northeast where literally nobody ever goes for any reason other than to dump a body.  They are trying to stop municipal management district from being formed to protect the taxpayers of El Paso from the costs of a new development on said land.  The tax advantages for you are huge here.  Stop giving away land to Rick Bonart and his friends! 

The email from the environazis parrots yet another idiotic false fact.  No, 89 percent of El Pasoans did not vote to "save Lost Dog".  Roughly five percent of the 430,000 or so registered voters in the City of El Paso voted "yes" on an issue they had no understanding of.  These are the same people that voted for the quality of life bonds, EPISD bonds, "stand alone" Children's Hospital and any other self-foot-shooting idea you can remember.  

Bottom line - stop claiming that 88 or 89 percent of El Paso said, or did, anything with respect to the Lost Dog trail.  A whole five percent made that choice for the other 95 percent.   The same group of people Grossman thinks were too stupid to understand the QOL bond vote areapparently now smart enough to understand the Lost Dog vote.

Yes, my friends, I'm seeing the irony in that too. 

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

Speaking of - Grossman is miffed his property tax value when up again this year.  This is the same guy who was against developing the westside track of land that would slowed the rise in valuation of all existing properties by adding shiny new properties to share in the tax burden.  It was with quite a laugh that I read Grossman's email as it was just a few weeks ago he was demanding you all vote to save Lost Dog even though it would require lots more city spending (more taxes) and higher water bills for all (more taxes).  Seems like Grossman's politics are of a more personal nature than an ideological nature. 

Good news for Grossman is that Bonart totally screwed up.  Either it was because the city tricked him or he didn't pay attention to the way the last land grab was done correctly.  You may remember that on the west side a valley was saved from development forever.  Those rich white guys simply bought the land and then turned it into a conservation easement.  Bonart only got an ordinance passed... not even one that rezones the property much less bars it from being built on.  In two years the ordinance is voted out and the plans already being made to develop it go forward.  The only problem is that the city still has to buy the land for a pretty penny.   But at least Grossman will see some tax relief in about four years when they start topping out houses and new businesses.  

There's still a county commissioners court, right?

It was pretty eye opening coincidence today when opened two browser windows -

one to see what Max Powers was up to.

two to see what the hell was up with the county government

Looks like Max and I had the same thought at the same time - what happened to county commissioners court?  You hear nothing about them.  Maybe that's a good thing?  

I do remember, as Max does, that the El Paso Times did a lot of really friendly reporting for then Judge Escobar.  It seems they have lost interest in covering that body of government since she left for bigger and better things.  

Anybody care to give us some scoop on what's going down at the county?

Good ideas aren't always popular ideas

Once again somebody at the city is trying to create some longterm sanity when it comes to placing items on the agenda.  They say it's the mayor's idea. I hear he's just the lead and that several others were pushing for it as well.  More importantly - this is not the first time someone has tried to require critical mass in order to put an item on the agenda.  

Now, if you could trust council members not to be petty, you wouldn't need this rule.  Unfortunately they are always petty and you will always need this rule.  I can remember back in the day when the Shapleigh Campers ruled council and the poor man's James Taylor spent every other meeting giving Scary Larry the Conquistador Award (wonder if they let him hang those in his prison cell?) that there was serious concern over meetings deteriorating into one side sniping at the other using agenda items as the vehicle to do so.  One side would post an item that was not even actionable and then have a "discussion" about the item which was basically cover for members of the public being prepped to call one side or the other a bunch of jackasses.  It was a colossal waste of time.

Shortly after that the ballpark came about and the call for stricter agenda rules was made again.  Seemed like council members were just posting items to create ankle-biter speaking opportunities.  Meetings got really long and really worthless.  City staff would be stuck in council chambers for hours listening to the same morons rant about the same bullshit every week.   Meetings turned into one of those conspiracy focused swamps on the internet.  

And in both cases - and even now - there was a move to limit, or change the time of, public comment.  There was nothing constructive about having the same ten idiots bitch about the same thing every week and get warned not to insult council members and staff.  Because council is usually split and one side loves that the other side is getting slandered, the rules were never changed to really create a change in tone.  I did like it when they moved comments to the end so the ankle-biters didn't have an audience.  

I'm going to assume this latest move to restructure how items are placed on the agenda is in response to... or awareness of... the fact that Max Grossman and Rick Bonart run the city.  A few of the council members are now shaking in their boots after Lost Dog vote.  They're too ignorant to figure out that neither Bonart nor Grossman could win an election or have one of their candidates win an election - yet they feel now they need to bend a knee to save their own asses.  The mayor and other members of council want to try and mitigate what is likely going to be an onslaught of re-voting on long since decided measures going all the way back to the ballpark and quite possibly Chamizal Treaty.

I think the key to city council being effective is to make sure that the items they are considering are only on the agenda for a public good.  The agenda should not be used as a debate topic generator so one side can score imaginary political points.  You should be on board with this.  You are paying for these shenanigans.  Government doesn't do much good for the regular guy.  The more they meet and the longer those meetings are mean worse things get for you.  Think about that for a bit. 

Is Moody's stance on Mary J going to hurt a run for DA?

It's not a for sure thing that Joe Moody will run for District Attorney.  However, you can't have a political conversation in El Paso without it being brought up.  Moody himself is pretty noncommittal on it given he's really made a name for himself in Austin in the legislature.  He is by far the most effective... err... let's be honest - Joe Moody is the only name anyone else in the legislature knows when you say "El Paso."  When I meet a member of the legislature or a lobbyist or someone who interacts with the body from a staff position, I like to quiz them on El Paso.  Pretty much every time I ask they can only name Joe Moody. In most cases they assume he's the only representative west of  Marfa.  It's really kind of sad and you guys really need to do something about that. 

Anywho... 

Joe is doing a great job of at least being present and assertive in the legislature.  He's the cowboy pulling the weed wagon in Austin.  He'd like to reduce the penalty for possession of small amounts of marijuana.  He has bipartisan support for this.  Although, not the right Republicans are on board so it's going to die.  Nevertheless - he's a weed guy and he's a very respectable weed guy.  

If he wants to be next El Paso District Attorney, this could be a problem.  You see, El Paso's core Democratic voter is essentially a right-wing Republican when it comes to these kind of social and justice issues.  Legalizing drugs has always been a very ugly subject to broach with them.  I've seen liberal lefties try and the party elders were not too keen on that stance.  A primary opponent could make that his or her rallying cry against Joe - "I'm tough on crime, and Joe just wants your kids to get high!" 

Of course, that's not what Joe is saying.  He's just saying that maybe people shouldn't go to prison for minor offenses. However, campaigns don't care about your real intent.  They care about chopping you down and then chopping you up into little bits.  El Paso voters love this type of campaigning. 

I think if Joe decides to run he's got to get out there first to explain what he's trying to do.  He can't afford to let the opponents define him first.  It's always better to campaign on who you are instead of trying to convince voters of who you are not.  

City Council's awareness is their responsibility

Anyone who has ever done any business with the city or submitted an RFP, RFQ or bid to the city knows that none of that happens in secret.  By law the city must publicize its requests for everything in the previous sentence.  The newspaper carries all of these solicitations when issued by the city.  The city also has a page on their website dedicated to listing all of these opportunities.  You can see all of them - https://legacy.elpasotexas.gov/purchasing/ep-invitations.asp

So how come city council  members claim they didn't know about this RFP solicitation for third party "help" with the arena?  (I'm against all of his, but more on that in a minute.)

It's disingenuous for the media and people like Max Grossman to claim somehow this RFP was snuck in behind council's back.  It was listed many places and had any city council either read the newspaper classifieds to see the city's own solicitations or looked that city's own website, they would not have been surprised.  Every single thing out for bid is listed on the city website.  You'd think they'd take the time once a week, or even daily, to see what's out there.  Especially since each council member is fighting tooth and nail for street improvements in their district.  This solicitation would have been listed right next to them.    You can see all of them - https://legacy.elpasotexas.gov/purchasing/ep-invitations.asp

City staff in El Paso (and everywhere else in Texas) can put solicitations out without the direct consultation with city council.  After all, any major solicitation (major = lots of money) has to get council approval.  So, even if council is asleep at the wheel and doesn't see that something went out for bid, they get to see it once the bids have been collected and it is set to be awarded.  Council always has multiple opportunities to see what's going on.  

It's complete bullshit to say that this RFP for a private partner for the arena project was done in secret.  Council wasn't paying attention and that's their fault.  Max Grossman and the rest of you ankle-biters need to learn to read the newspaper for solicitations for all local entities seeking bids, RFPs etc... and you need to check online.  You look like an idiot to those of us who know the process.

It was interesting to see that some council members, after hearing about the RFP, said the process should be done with direct input.  Cool.  However, there are very important rules that must be followed that are put out by the state on how these things go.  Say one thing to one potential bidder at the wrong time and the whole process has to stop and be reset.  Generally, procurement experts like to keep the elected people away from the process after they've expressed their need.  Airhead politicians tend to at best muck up the process and at worst illegally steer contracts to their buddies.   And let's not forget the sheer amount of time it would take to have council hash out every word of a 30 page RFP for a design project or a bid for toilet paper at city hall.  

Bottom line - nothing illegal or unethical happened here.  The newspaper needs to stop being Max Grossman's bitch.  

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

With that said... It will be interesting to see how a private management groups reacts to this boondoggle.  It was my understanding that way back in the day a single sports facility management company (that helped pass the bond) would be paid to run the show.  I understood that to mean that they would be paid their fee no matter how the arena faired event wise or profit and loss wise... and would take a portion of the profits on top of that fee if they made profits.  That management company's goal would have been to get paid to manage the place into the ground and then buy the building for pennies on the dollar.

Side note:  This was the aim of Paso Del Norte group when they stormed the County Commissioner Court meeting to steal all the HOT tax (redundant).  They had contractors and design firms who needed money badly in the economic downturn and the only place of find money was to squeeze the local governments.  The proposal was to initially keep certain PDN members afloat by giving them this arena to design and build.  The second step was to make sure the city or county mismanaged the arena so badly that it would be sold to other PDN members for pennies on the dollar.  It was kind of a leveraged buyout situation you don't read about in investment books. 

If the new iteration requires capital investment from the private side, it will be interesting to see if they can find any value in being part owner of an empty building without a maintenance and operation budget.  Like I have always said - show me how you fill the place up with events that pay for the operation of the facility first and the bond second and I will support it.  Don't tell me that after it's built, "they will come."  They won't.  El Paso has at least three big places already that don't have but a few events a quarter.  

And let's be clear - I don't think they should build an arena because it's not going to host enough events to pay for itself (or even begin to try).  I don't care about the fictitious history of "Duranguito" - they can build a CVS on that property for all I care.  The issue for me will never be where it is.  My issue will always be what needs it fulfills and what those needs pay.  Voters voted not knowing all the facts when it came to that QOL bond issue (same thing with Lost Dog - which is fixing itself already from what I hear).  It goes to show that low information voters make bad decisions.  

Bottom line - somebody needs to prove to the taxpayers that this is a winner.  I have not seen that yet. 

Whitest guy in El Paso thanks other white guys for new white people park

You can't make this up.  And I promise I'm going to stop posting on this, but it's too funny to pass up. 

I know it's small, but it's a letter to the editor from Eliot Shapleigh that was fast-tracked into the paper (you usually have to wait a while to get your LTE published).  Shapleigh, who has lived most of this life in a neighborhood guilty of the most egregious destruction of the mountain, interjects himself into the Lost Dog vote hooplah.  It's the greatest landside in the history of the world.... which is should have been since the wording made it like voting against the measure would force children to beat dolphins to death with baby seals carcasses.  I told you the outcome would be what it was - that means it's not anything more than what it should be - a one-sided story.  And one-sided is always the story everyone believes.  

Shapleigh was once the prince of all Democrats in El Paso because he spoke Spanish and felt everyone's pain.  The Gringo was going to save us all.  And then he just kind of did whatever he needed to do to feed his own ego.  A Democratic party game player he was not.  As the factions of the Democratic party created themselves there was no room for the rich westsider talking down to the poor brown folks.  Shapleighs reign of terror came to an end and it wasn't long when even disciples like Beto refused to be seen with him (that has somewhat changed these days).  

Not lost on me is the picture four white dudes with a combined net worth probably around $10 million if not more congratulating themselves on taking your land for their own personal use.  Land you are no welcome to use if you are not a rich guy with a nice bike.  Believe me - go try to use the trail and see who starts yelling at you - those dudes.  And remember - they could have purchased all or part of the land, but chose not to because you were dumb enough to buy it for them.  

Anywho... 

Shapleigh goes on to thank the four white ringleaders for their landslide victory.  It's not ironic - it's just the way things sometimes go in El Paso.  I'm not one to play race politics here, but there comes a time when you look at everyone in the room and ask why it's just them and nobody else.  

 

Process of approval for Lost Dog Land Thievery

I got an email from someone who asks a lot of questions and suggests some different scenarios.  Do any of you have the answer?

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

So City Charter section 3.11 says if a petition to place item on ballot passes it becomes an ordinance.  Not sure if one has to be written – it probably was back in February as proposed language when council voted to approve the election – so it might be an automatic approval/vote due to the citizens vote on May 4^th.   But all ordinances have to have a “reading” for 2 meetings and then a public hearing and vote. Does this vote supercede those rules?   City of EP City Clerk page has link to City Charter.

Anyway- say council voted against the ordinance.  Could cause council members to be recalled.  Districts 1, 5, 6 and 8 could be recalled with 5% of vote in their last city district election – 2018.  D1 would need 5,307 signatures; D5 3,849, D6 3,423 and D8 3,080.  Total votes cast for City of EP elections only was 78,295 which would be the number used (I assume) for a 5% calculation if someone wanted to do city wide petition or 3,915 signatures.  You can see that November elections have a much higher number of voters.

Mayor and D2, 3, 4 and 7 would be calculated off the May 2017 election.  Mayor would need 6,458 signatures to recall; D2 650; D3 1,019; D4 947; D7 897.  Total votes cast in November 2017 was 205,862 but that included school districts and cities outside of EP city limits. Mayor’s election had total votes of 32,291.  So I don’t know if you add the single district total vote count to the 32,291 – not sure.

City Charter does state that ordinances can be revised and deleted.  No prohibition on any “in perpetuity” language, etc.

The reason I say all this is if council did vote down the ordinance you can bet there would be immediate recall petitions against those that voted down the ordinance for Lost Dog Trail.  The 2017 ones don’t need very many signatures for council.  Dee’s would be hard to come up with.  Someone already tried earlier this year and didn’t get close but he was a nut case and had bizarre reasons why he wanted a recall.

Cannot recall anyone with 1 year or less left in office.  The 2017 ones got a longer than 3 but less than 4 years in office – may calcs are 43 months in office ending 12/2020.  Not sure the exact 1 year mark for them with a November 2020 re-election for them.  They took office sometime in June 2017 and new date to assume office is January 1.  

Anyway – my 2 cents.  I think City won’t talk about next steps until votes are canvassed and accepted by the City.

School boards getting worse, not better

I remember a time when EPISD folks were back dealing with contractors and got busted.  We found out about it and what became public was probably only a very teeny tiny tip of a large iceberg.   And by "probably" I mean - "millions exchanged hands illegally but the folks investigating the crimes had zero knowledge of the procurement process nor basic construction and design knowledge so the really bad guys got away with it."

Oddly, I feel more comfortable with those guys than I do with the new round of members coming on board.  I guess it's because I knew what those people were capable of.  The new round of folks are tied to some bad hombres in the El Paso political scene.  And I mean every single candidate had at least one questionable buddy.  Some worse than other, but the face remains all were surrounded by those who would seek to have them do wrong once elected. 

The school board became pretty toxic after Susie Byrd got mad that Dori wanted to run for congress.  There was a good run of general harmony and a slow down on real estate acquisitions that I felt was positive.  Then Byrd gets pissed and starts investigating everyone who doesn't support her best friend and they in turn investigated her... which created little gangs of angry people who made friends with the leeches who feed off of these little gang wars.  Which brings us to where we are now. 

Ugly public political fighting like what we see here means that the "best candidates" don't have a chance - and may not even run.  The meanest son of a bitch on the block is who runs once the bad guys sneak in.  They look for fighters, not thinkers.  Running for the school board isn't about guiding the biggest taxing entity in the county.  It's solely about saying "f*ck you" to the other side.  And that creates opportunities for corruption.

The newly elected "fighters" listen only to the people who they feel got them elected.  Those people are cutting deals in dark rooms hoping to steer EPISD funds to those willing to pay under the table.  Remember, your new board members only ran in order to kick the other guy's ass or claim territory for their political faction. They have no other goal.  They have no other measure for success.  They become pawns - pawns that steer contracts to people and companies that either aren't qualified,  didn't earn them or are otherwise not a good use of taxpayer dollars.  

All of you are hyper-focused on the city or county and all along EPISD is where you should have been looking.  They take in a ton of money and they spend a ton of money.  EPISD can pull ten trolley projects out of their rear ends a year and you folks wouldn't even notice.  You need to start paying attention because this got ugly and it's only going to get uglier.  

I was way off and totally wrong (as usual) and answers to your questions

Yep - you got me.  I was completely off on the Lost Dog Land Grab vote.  I clearly said many times it would pass with 90 percent of the vote.  I couldn't have been more wrong. It was 88 percent.  My bad.  I can accept when I'm totally wrong.  I never claimed to be much of handicapper of off year elections and that showed with this estimation.  My sincerest apologies.  I overestimated again how many El Pasoans would vote against their own best interests... again - and again and again.  I mean, I have so many past cases of El Pasoans voting to shoot themselves in the foot and I just didn't study them enough to get the right number here.  

I do have to say - again - the way the item was worded would make it extremely hard for anyone to vote against it.  Especially the many thousands of people who had no information about the issue.  After all, I was the single and only consistent source of the realities surrounding the issue.  Nobody reads this blog - surely not enough people to sway an election.  

Yes, the Chamber of Commerce sent an email to their network and the home builders squeaked a little on it (they truly do not understand the problem due to their "leaders" not paying attention to any issues outside impact fees) and the mayor's wife wrote a very eloquent guest editorial.  Other than that - nobody was saying anything.  Including.... my parents.  Who all of you swore were behind my blogging on this issue.  Funny, they spend a lot of money supporting candidates and other issues yet didn't say peep other one comment on this blog about the issue.  It seems that all the players in the development and construction game were dead quiet on the one issue I figured was the most important to them.  More on why I think that was later. 

The funny thing is that Max Grossman (Mr. Budget Hawk) sent out an email patting Rick Bonart on the back (unelected dictators unite!) saying that all those voters couldn't be wrong - and must be right.  I like Max and he's a pretty smart dude, but that was not one of his smarter comments. I simply asked him if the millions of voters who gave Hilary the popular vote were all right.  Crickets.  Note to all, voters don't always make good decisions.  In fact, the same people who voted to give Rick Bonart his own park are the same ones who voted for the Quality of Life bond issues that gave us an unneeded arena that is to be placed on Max's sacred neighborhood where John Wesley Hardin once broke wind after eating the worlds first refried beans.  Max doesn't think much of those voters for that vote and is one of the people claiming that voters voted for something they were tricked into voting for with that QOL election.  Yet, these same people are brilliant geniuses for voting to raise their own taxes and water rates while killing jobs - based on wording on the ballot that didn't clearly state what people were voting for... or against.   

Sorry Max - everyone talks about honesty and consistency - it seems you are a part of a group that is neither honest nor consistent.  Just watch the KVIA episode of Bonart getting caught lying repeatedly by a city staffer.  All Bonart did was lie to people from the time he cut the deal to get his own 250 acre park originally - to backing out of that to get a 1,000 acre park.  I never had to lie to you about what was going on here - they did. 

The main theme with Bonart, Grossman and the rest of the ankle-biters is that they aren't virtuous about what issues they take up.  They have personal vendettas against people holding office and these actions are just a part of fighting with them using your tax dollars.  Do not think Bonart gives a single shit about you.  He doesn't want poor brown people moving next to him and he also hates everyone at the PSB and city because they kept kicking his ass out of meetings when tried to break the law.  He's a bitter baby and you all went along with his tantrum.  

The funny part is that late last week and into Sunday I got a huge uptick in emails and texts (thanks for those of you who freely give out my phone number, by the way) on the issue with a ton of questions.   I don't know all of the answers to everything.  I only know what seems obvious and what the powers that be will let slip out to nobodies like me.  

One main question was why the city made the language so lopsided and went away from standard practices by including the name of unofficial trails and letting the language stray greatly from the petition that created the ballot initiative in the first place.  Yes, they city pretty much let Bonart write the language and it differed greatly from the petition.  And yes "lost dog trail" is not an official trail in an official park and thus not a legal entity and shouldn't be mentioned in ballot language as to give voters the impression that it is an official park.  That's highly misleading.  And yes, you could probably take the language to a judge and get the whole thing thrown out.  You'd have to spend your own money and time to do so, but the lawyers who email me were kind of flabbergasted at the language and wondered if the city did it on purpose so they could wiggle out of it later.  More on this in a minute.

No, you can't sue the city if you fall down on the land and get hurt.  Can't sue Texas either.  As of right now the land is wide open and you use it at your own risk.  If you do get hurt you could try to sue Rick Bonart for blocking the development.  Had he not done what he did, the place wouldn't be there for you to fall down.  I'm only half kidding, but that kind of crap happens all the time. Remember, you can sue anyone for any reason- nobody said that means you are going to win.   

And yes, you can do whatever the hell you want on that land within the law.  Drive your car truck or motorcycle all over the place just like Red Sands.  Paintball tournament?  You bet.  Squat on the land in a homeless camp - you bet and it's way nicer than the bridges.  I encourage all of you to out there and do whatever the hell you want to do.  It is yours and you are paying dearly for it.  

Can the city use the land for public use?  That's a wide open question.  One source tells me that once the city gives the PSB $11,000,000 dollars (of your money) that it could become pretty much anything the city wanted it to be.  They are suggesting a kind of graveyard for Sun Metro busses and parts and other heavy equipment the city needs to store - along with construction materials.  It could also be offered to the feds for a tent city to house asylum seekers.  Water and sewer has been run up to the edges of the property so it would nothing to get that hooked up quick.   The good news is that the city could recoup some money from the Feds... which is still your tax dollars.  Public housing could be put on there as one person of knowledge read the ordinance.   And in fact, the city could work with the El Paso Housing Authority to get federal funds to develop the area.  They would go to the top of the list for grant money given a myriad of factors that the feds look at when passing out the money.  God knows Bonart's best new buddies downtown threw a shit fit when one building got a bunch of public housing slots.  They should be cool with moving the poor folks out to the westside away from their precious downtown properties.  

I truly don't know for sure what the city and development community's plans are.  I got several cryptic emails basically telling me that I was on the right path when I suggested that the city is simply going to pass an ordinance voiding this one.  

Note:  Just because it says "for all time" in the ordinance doesn't mean you can't delete the ordinance.  A law can't make itself a permanent law in the structures of our local, state or federal government.  I would think this was pretty well understood by all, but some of you are really dumb.  You literally think council can pass an ordinance saying that you can't delete an ordinance...  That's not how it works.  

No matter what, nobody was going to "develop" the land for two years.  That stays in place.  They can do some improvements for stormwater whenever they want.  And the commercial businesses below will be screaming for it after your next monsoon season.  And of course, they ordinance reads "no major public roadways" can be built... which means highways.  To retain federal funding they will cut at least one boulevard style road from the current houses to Transmountain.  The city screwed Bonart on that wording.

The rumor remains that all the big players kept quiet in order to let Bonart feel like he won only to come back later when things settle down and go ahead with their plans.  They knew they couldn't do anything for two years as is, so it wasn't worth the fight now.  There's a reason the TIRZ designation remains... They totally plan on developing it.  

Oh, and yes, I noticed that only white people were involved in the effort to steal Lost Dog.  Please stop emailing me this.  It's rich white dudes fighting with other rich white dudes.  I get it.  I pray that some day the rich white dudes really start caring about kids on the Eastside and their park needs.  But you guys have to do your part too.  Spending $11,000,000 on this was pretty selfish.  

Also - land values are going to go up in the area, but don't buy it!  Right now the market is going to think there's a scarcity of land over there, so prices are going to up.  However, they will eventually overturn the vote and the prices will come back down.  Don't be a fool.

Also, also - Poor Max Grossman is going to fight a lot more coming up.  Resources are going to be put into infill development meaning more of his precious buildings are going to be torn down in order to make way for high density development in central El Paso.  And don't let him give you this bullshit about those buildings being "protected."  They are not.  The only thing any of them have to do is retain the original facade - which they do all over the place all the time.  Max supported the one thing that guaranteed his buildings be destroyed... it's kind of funny if you think about it.  

It's a good thing the rest of Texas ignores El Paso.  I'm not sure you'd like to be laughed at by so many people so often. 

It's interesting how the budget hawks pick and choose

My friend Rich Wright is 100 percent correct in his thoughts on the waterparks HERE.

How are you going to pay for it?  Who is going to subsidize these parks when they don't earn their keep?  Is this the best use of the land for the taxpayers?

These are the same questions I'm asking about with the Lost Dog Land Thieves.  We now know that YOU have to pay $11,000,000 right away for the land.  Then you have millions more you have to pay in stormwater improvements.  Then you have to make up the money the PSB was banking on for those almost 10,000 new rate payers.  And after Bonart wins the vote, he's going to demand that the city provide bathrooms along with all the other maintenance that goes into the city's current two and three acres parks... this one is just like 500 times bigger and would cost several million a year to maintain.  And the land generates ZERO dollars.  It makes Bonart happy and that's about it. 

Giving these people 1,000 acres of your land because they either don't like who might move in or are too lazy to drive two miles to Tom Mays parks is no different than the trolley or waterparks in the desert.  

I like the budget hawks - I just wish they would show some consistency here.  

New Podcast! Feelings vs. Numbers

Remember - this starts playing as soon as you click it.

https://pinecast.com/listen/771db77c-6e4b-4aad-8d35-de295d4f7dcc.mp3

 

 

This delays

 

https://daily-davis.pinecast.co