CSNbbs

If I had a nickel for every bullshet reason for opposing the Ballpark, I'd have a lot of nickels...

(10-03-2012 09:32 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote: [ -> ]If I had a nickel for every bullshet reason for opposing the Ballpark, I'd have a lot of nickels...

Actually, you wouldn't have any nickels.

The only reason why people do not want the ball park is because they have to demolish City Hall to do it.

That isn't a bad reason.

Former Mayor Salazar is making a complete ass out of himself. Only the ignorant and uninformed believe in what he has to say. I doubt it will but he will set El Paso back decades if his lawsuit costs us our franchise. Idiot.

(10-05-2012 12:50 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-03-2012 09:32 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote: [ -> ]If I had a nickel for every bullshet reason for opposing the Ballpark, I'd have a lot of nickels...

Actually, you wouldn't have any nickels.

The only reason why people do not want the ball park is because they have to demolish City Hall to do it.

That isn't a bad reason.

There's another nickel right there....

(10-05-2012 11:22 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2012 12:50 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-03-2012 09:32 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote: [ -> ]If I had a nickel for every bullshet reason for opposing the Ballpark, I'd have a lot of nickels...

Actually, you wouldn't have any nickels.

The only reason why people do not want the ball park is because they have to demolish City Hall to do it.

That isn't a bad reason.

There's another nickel right there....

Opposing the ballpark because it requires the demolition is a good reason for responsible citizens of this city.

City Hall is paid for and renovating it would cost much less than building or renovating in another location.


Only irresponsible citizens who care more about a sporting event than they do about the cities finances would think otherwise.

(10-08-2012 01:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2012 11:22 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2012 12:50 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-03-2012 09:32 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote: [ -> ]If I had a nickel for every bullshet reason for opposing the Ballpark, I'd have a lot of nickels...

Actually, you wouldn't have any nickels.

The only reason why people do not want the ball park is because they have to demolish City Hall to do it.

That isn't a bad reason.

There's another nickel right there....

Opposing the ballpark because it requires the demolition is a good reason for responsible citizens of this city.

City Hall is paid for and renovating it would cost much less than building or renovating in another location.


Only irresponsible citizens who care more about a sporting event than they do about the cities finances would think otherwise.

And another nickel...

City finances can be viewed in the short-term, and in the long-term. Since you're short-sighted, you wouldn't understand. But we wouldn't expect any less (or any more) from you.

Should El Paso's City Hall be up to city code? If your answer is yes, then the price tag is $30 million minimum.

Some are saying that building can be bought and City Hall employees moved for that same $30 million dollar figure.

Fitbud must be a Sith! Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Every citizen can have their opinions based on what is important to them. I want baseball and I don't mind paying for it. That does not make me irresponsible.

In a recent article in the El Paso Times, it was revealed that the city of El Paso has increased it's debt at an alarming rate within the last ten years. Even though the population of El Paso has increased, our debt has increased far more than is necessary for a population of our size. Failure to recognize and deal with that situation effects us in the short and long term.

Mistabinks

You are correct, every citizen has their own opinion and I agree with you. I too want baseball and I don't mind paying for it.

Unfortunately, that isn't what City Council originally told us. What they said was that building the stadium wouldn't cost the tax payers money. It was only after they were questioned extensively that it was revealed that the stadium would actually increase taxes.

Had the City Council been straight with the people they represent and stated the situation in the way that you just did things could have been different.

As far as City Hall is concerned, City Council themselves estimated the cost of renovating City Hall at 12 million. It was only after people did not want it demolished that the number increased to 30 million.

No, that is the way you want to remember it. It has always needed 12 million in immediate repairs. It needs 30 million to be brought up to code. There is a difference.

Mistabinks

Incorrect. The 12 million in immediate repairs would bring it up to code. The 30 million is what was needed to completely renovate the building and make it like new.

In 2010 Shubert told City Council that the $12 million estimate will just cover the essentials. One of the main problems is the building's leaky windows.

"They leak water, air, they are not energy efficient," said Shubert. "In high winds they actually push the windows in," said Shubert.

There is plaster falling off the side of the building. "That's obviously a major concern, you don't want anything falling off the building this high," said Shubert.

Shubert said the building needs a complete revamp of the old, overused elevators

"The issues that we are having aren't unique issues. They're issues that you have with a 33- year-old building that you haven't done any replacement on," said Shubert.

Shubert said included in that $12 million estimate is fixing the main entrance, which functions as a wind tunnel on blustery days.


http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/news/city-wil...din/nSDN6/

That is not what the Deputy City Manager and City Engineers have stated.

(10-10-2012 03:39 PM)mistabinks Wrote: [ -> ]That is not what the Deputy City Manager and City Engineers have stated.

Of course that isn't what they have stated because they want the public to believe that 30 million is what it would take to simply bring the building up to code.

The number is what they came up with after the media determined that 30 million is what it would cost to move to another location.

That magic number is now the number they claim will be required to renovate the building so that they people will believe that it doesn't matter whether they move or not, it would cost the same.

The truth of the matter, and my article proves it, is that 12 million would bring the building up to code.

Your article makes my point. Cut and paste where it says 12 million brings it up to code.

(10-11-2012 02:43 PM)mistabinks Wrote: [ -> ]Your article makes my point. Cut and paste where it says 12 million brings it up to code.

The first sentence of the article says the following.

"EL PASO, Texas — A city engineer tells KFOX14 if the city doesn't bulldoze City Hall to build a baseball diamond, the 33-year-old building will require a minimum of $12 million in repairs. "


Explain to my why anyone would put 12 million into a building that would still not meet code.

Obviously, when this man speaks of the essentials, he means the minimum required to bring it up to code.


The article also says the following.

"Shubert said if they renovated City Hall to meet the standards City Council requires of a new building, it would cost $30 million. "


This proves that the 30 million is not required to bring the build up to code but rather to make the building like new.

In other words 30 million make the new building like new to the specifications of city council.

Not to meet building code.

And yet another article


"City officials announced on Tuesday that about $12 million is needed to fix leaky pipes, faulty sewer lines, out-of-code fire panels and other problems on the building at 2 Civic Center Plaza."

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_16516...otimes.com

You keep making my point. Your whole argument is based off the fact that you assume the essentials means meet code. It does not.

(10-11-2012 06:04 PM)mistabinks Wrote: [ -> ]You keep making my point. Your whole argument is based off the fact that you assume the essentials means meet code. It does not.

Yeah since "meeting code" is so important you'd figure they would've used that phrase instead of "essentials". Oh here's a thought! They probably didn't mean "meet code". But someone with the thinking capability of fitcrud probably cant grasp that.

(10-11-2012 04:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-11-2012 02:43 PM)mistabinks Wrote: [ -> ]Your article makes my point. Cut and paste where it says 12 million brings it up to code.

The first sentence of the article says the following.

"EL PASO, Texas — A city engineer tells KFOX14 if the city doesn't bulldoze City Hall to build a baseball diamond, the 33-year-old building will require a minimum of $12 million in repairs. "


Explain to my why anyone would put 12 million into a building that would still not meet code.

Obviously, when this man speaks of the essentials, he means the minimum required to bring it up to code.


The article also says the following.

"Shubert said if they renovated City Hall to meet the standards City Council requires of a new building, it would cost $30 million. "


This proves that the 30 million is not required to bring the build up to code but rather to make the building like new.

In other words 30 million make the new building like new to the specifications of city council.

Not to meet building code.

You're an idiot, just like the rest of the naysayers. MINIMUM of $12 million... that is the low end to only fix what is currently broken or doesn't work, $30 million is to get it in compliance with city council's energy efficient guidelines for city buildings, it has nothing to do with making city hall a new building...

Fitdumb, all you and the few others of the uneducated naysayers do is... try to manipulate numbers and facts, you guys have no leg to stand on and can't even interpret articles correctly, mainly because you just don't know better

The articles I have posted clearly show that the 12 million dollar estimate is to bring the building up top code. The second article actually says " to fix out of code out of code fire panels".

If that isn't enough proof for you then nothing is.

Why else would we make 12 million dollars in repairs and not bring it up to code?


You guys cannot be that naive.

Honestly, at this point, I am not sure if you are simply trolling or if you don't know that you are wrong. Still, why are you trying to make your weak case in four different threads?