Read this:
Shall an ordinance be approved to preserve in its natural state, for all time, the 1,107 acres owned by the City of El Paso and referred to as "Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number Twelve," which includes the "Lost Dog Trail," and to prohibit, for all time, any private development and any major public roadways on said 1,107 acres?
It will be interesting to see how some of you ballot language hawks react to what's about to happen with this little issue.
It seems to me that the city has fulfilled its duty after the ballot question passed with 150 percent of the vote. The city approved an ordinance just as the ballot question required. Case closed, right? Wrong, apparently.
The Tuesday City Council agenda item #27.1 has the city council taking further action on the land far exceeding what was required by the original ballot language. It seems as if the city is about to create a conservation easement for the entire plot of land that would most surely have them sued by the various utilities that have existing easements on the land and also create chaos as the land will be then under severe restrictions for recreational use of any kind.
If you are to believe that the city can not build a sports arena because of the ballot language on the QOL bond issue, then you must agree the city doesn't have to, nor should they, convert this land to a conservation easement. Nothing in the ballot language said anything about a conservation easement. It would stand to cause that He That Shall Not Be Named Because He Has a Team of Lawyers would be filling a lawsuit posthaste with the state to protect voters from a misinterpretation of ballot language. After all, He That Shall Not Be Named Because He Has a Team of Lawyers should be upset that $11,000,000 or more in taxpayer dollars will be lost if the land is turned into a park nobody is allowed to use. I'll be waiting to see his email about his latest lawsuit!
Mr. Bonart seems to be calling the shots at the city and none of you elected him to anything. In fact, you have repeatedly chose not to elect him to office. You should be appalled when one citizens has this much power over your tax dollars - whether they bought that access, threatened for that access or has some other incentive for city council members that has them act in the interest of a single person. It makes no difference how they gain the influence - it's the influence itself you must fight against.
I'm inclined to think they are now going forward with the conservation easement because item #19.1 on the consent agenda is to remove the TIRZ designation from the land, which would have to be done before a conservation easement is granted. And again - the ballot language said nothing about removing the TIRZ and even referred to the land as a TIRZ. This is a huge overreach by city council. It's no different than voting to give Rep. Svarzbein a trolley car and then having him build a high speed rail to Balmorhea (settle down Peter - you can't actually do that.)
Link to agenda http://agenda.elpasotexas.gov/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=620&doctype=AGENDA
Item 19.1 does not remove the TIRZ it is only the required notification for a public hearing on Oct 29
Item 27.1 is a staff presentation reporting back on a previous direction from CC explaining the costs and impact of a conservation easement (CE) with possible action.
The recommendation is not a CE but to maintain the status quo, leave the land in the PSB inventory, and use the open space/stormwater charged to ratepayers by the PSB to pay PSB for the land.
You are however correct about the ballot language needing to specify preservation of the land in a CE because of the prep work cost plus the recurring CE management fee.
The City only publicly stated an estimated purchase cost if the proposition passed.
The proposition would have needed to specify preservation of the land in a CE which I believe would have required the City to inform the voters that they are also consenting to additional recurring costs beyond the purchase.
Posted by: Mary | October 15, 2019 at 03:36 AM
One of the recommendations is to review adding restrictive covenants. That was not in the wording of the ballot proposition. I heard Svarzbein is postponing 27.1 for 2 weeks. Guess the land grabbers are in a tizzy that they are not going to get their way. They should have been smarter about the wording of their petition. Too late now. If they decide to do another petition to get their easement it will take 10 times the number of signatures from last time.
Posted by: Westsider | October 15, 2019 at 07:34 AM
The City is only reviewing options so they can defend a decision to do nothing more than what would be minimally compliant with the proposition, which is maintain the status quo and leave the land in PSB inventory.
Posted by: Mary | October 15, 2019 at 01:09 PM
Mary: I get that. And I think that's exactly what the city should do - leave it alone. It's the Lost Dog Trail people that don't understand. Peter delayed it for 2 weeks hoping he can get the city to reverse themselves or give the group time to get a lawyer to somehow argue their point.
Posted by: Westsider | October 15, 2019 at 02:49 PM