Before you know who pops off about the additional money being requested for the stadium.

I did my fair share of digging and homework and this is what I came up with. Feel free to disagree.

The ballpark is not over budget and and the construction company is not asking for an extra "ten million." From the various El Paso Inc, El Paso Times, KVIA, and KFOX articles, it seems the construction company has pretty much said this was a 50 million dollar stadium (plus 10 million in design etc) when you include all the downtown upgrades. The mistake was the city selling this as a 40 million dollar stadium (plus the 10 million in design etc).

For those against the stadium, this is the perfect time to pop off. Have fun.

Keep in mind, the stadium is the City's. The team is MountainStar's. So who is "getting rich" off the additional money needed to build the stadium properly? Again, Chicken Littles, have fun popping off.

It would be great if the project would actually cost 40/10 million for a total of 50 - as advertised. That is not the case. It is actually going to be 50/10 for a total of 60 million. Is this a stunt? A scam? Blah Blah Blah? Maybe.

I would hope the ankle biters would do a little digging and homework before declaring this a stunt. How is it a stunt? Where is the scam? Do you have actual details?

Myself, I just want the stadium and the upgrades to downtown. I am okay with the additional money needed. I blame City Council for selling one number when the exact amount wasn't exactly known and while the construction company was clearly saying it was a higher number than what they were putting out.

Either way, Play Ball!

Good digging Mistabinks.

If the stadium costs 60 million total, with all the sidewalks and design fees added, so be it. Anybody who thought the stadium would come in under budget, or even at the amount the city council was saying, should reevaluate their gullibility. Even the building that we tore down to make room for the ballpark was over budget.

I think that if anything, the project should have been presented with a worst case scenario projection. It is always best to exceed expectations, than to over-promise, and under-deliver.

So there are going to be some extra stretch marks... I'll still love the baby delivered.

Seriously speaking, the damage is that this leaves the wrong impression. The naysayers are going to jump up and say "See! See! We told you!". I think that the perception from this alone, will seal Steve Ortega's mayor bid's fate. Too bad, cuz even though Leeser is a good business man, I don't see him as a strong civic/political leader.

City Rep. Eddie Holguin, who has opposed the ballpark project from the start, said he would "absolutely not" support the contract amendment.
"We promised the voters of this community it would not cost more than $50 million," Holguin said. "This ballpark is being built on a mountain of lies."
City Rep. Susie Byrd said said that while she has some questions on the issue, she would feel comfortable supporting the contract change "if these projects were pre-approved and we're just delivering a seamless project."
The city is also requesting an increase of about $725,000 to the design contract with Populous Inc., bringing that cost up to about $3.82 million. City officials said the design increase is due to additional features of the ballpark and design requirements for building near the railroad. They added that the change increases the contract value but is still within the design budget previously approved by council.
Overall, the council is being asked to approve up to $57 million in bonds to cover the design, site preparation and construction costs associated with the ballpark project, as well as the cost to issue the bonds and install public art as required on capital projects.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci...llion-more

I'm glad they aren't cutting corners, it's been an El Paso tradition to cut corners, not so much anymore. There is no such thing as "bueno, bonito y barato", you get what you paid for, and the people of El Paso are starting to realize this. Anyways, this is a lot better than spending 30 million on remodeling a depleted building that didn't fit the downtown architecture.

Of course they aren't going to cut corners because it isn't their money. It's fleecing the public 101. I'm sure now that they have got the public to approve it, they are going to find a few more things to add on to it when it's all said and done.

so.... you like to cut corners? that explains why you're against progress.

(05-28-2013 01:12 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  so.... you like to cut corners? that explains why you're against progress.

I've never said I was against progress. I just don't like it when someone tells me I have to buy something right now or it isn't going to be available to me in the future.

It's the oldest sales trick in the book and it looks like you and others just fell for it.

But hey. Your the rich guy that gives his son $200 to spend at UTEP games. LOL.

Why is it that everyone on the internet is rich? LOL

Anyone have the facts on this thing?

According to talk radio...........

1. Joyce Wilson is blaming Mountain Star sports claiming they demanded more amenities.

2. City Council is blaming Joyce Wilson saying she got suckered into a bad deal.

3. Contractor claiming he never said it would cost 40 million. Now saying we will not get a state of the art stadium for less than 50 million.

what a cry baby you are

yes fit, you want something for nothing, that is your kind.

Las Vegas, who already has a AAA team, just vowed to build a new 60 million dollar AAA stadium. Their homework led them to believe it was vital for the quality of life for LV residents.

First off, we are still, at worse, getting a 52 million dollar stadium.

The situation yesterday was laughable and embarrassing though. Why is no one on the same page and why are the stories not adding up? MountainStar said no one came to them and that they didn't request anything. Joyce Wilson said the cost of the ballpark went up because of new items MoutainStar requested. The builders claim they said all along this was a 50/10 million dollar stadium.

All this just plays into the hands of the naysayers. Like I mentioned in another thread, Las Vegas is about to drop 60 million on a new stadium for their AAA team. That is how important quality baseball is to Americana quality of life.

Could this not have been added to the same thread? Or do you have a need to be the author of new threads?

Anyway, it's 52. Am I happy about the potential added costs? No.
But we aren't going backwards.... So it is, what it is. And we move on.

Rand

On the contrary, I'm laughing all the way to the bank. I bet several people that the cost would go up and I won.

Mistabinks

This is what happens when you rush into things. City Council was convinced that they had to hurry to make this happen and therefore mistakes happen. If they had taken their time, pitched it to the people, and come to a decision that the people could support, then everyone would be happy.

Unfortunately, all they have done is divided the city on the issue and most likely doomed the project to failure.

Run

Actually, we are going backwards. According to the contractor, without the additional money, the stadium will have to scrap the third deck in right field, which was supposed to include a bar and skywalk.

Rand

Actually, it is you that wants something for nothing. You are the one that doesn't care how much it cost because it isn't coming out of your pocket.

Mistabinks

If you think Las Vegas wants a baseball team to improve their quality of life, I have some land in Horizon to sell you. LOL

(05-30-2013 12:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Mistabinks

If you think Las Vegas wants a baseball team to improve their quality of life, I have some land in Horizon to sell you. LOL

Fitbud

For the locals, absolutely yes. Because of the casinos and entertainment, you might disagree. There are hundreds of thousands of Las Vegas residents who do not go anywhere near the strip.

Their AAA baseball club is very important to their quality of life.

(05-30-2013 12:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  On the contrary, I'm laughing all the way to the bank. I bet several people that the cost would go up and I won.

Then you owe them money, sucka.

The ballpark is 100% not over budget. As of yesterday, they have only contracted out 20% of the budget.

Here are facts. Not a cut/paste. Not my gut reaction. But facts.

From that 10 million, 5 million was for non ballpark item to enhance and connect the ballpark to the rest of downtown. That is stuff the City wanted and will most likely get. It will come out of the downtown quality of life bonds. The other 5 million was simply for contingency. The City Planner wanted a cushion. City Council said no. End of that story.

Unless the people you bet with are as allergic to actual facts as you are, you actually owe them money. Cut and paste that.

(05-30-2013 12:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Mistabinks

This is what happens when you rush into things. City Council was convinced that they had to hurry to make this happen and therefore mistakes happen. If they had taken their time, pitched it to the people, and come to a decision that the people could support, then everyone would be happy.

Again, you do not even know what you are bitching about.

The City Planner wanted 5 million in contingency funding. That is it. The (huge) mistake he made was talk to the media. People like you ran with his comments.

The City was approved by the State legislature to spend 58 million on the ballpark. They chose to spend 52 million on the actual ballpark. They will 5 million from downtown bond money for the walkways and sidewalks to blend the ballpark into downtown.[/quote]

(05-30-2013 12:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Unfortunately, all they have done is divided the city on the issue and most likely doomed the project to failure.

Wrong yet again. All this has down is feed the same naysayers with more garbage for them to spew from their big mouths. The same people that support the club still support the club. As a matter of fact, my "local radio" listening friend, quite a few of the naysayers called in on Tuesday just to say they were against the ballpark but at this point we might as well build it right and spend the extra money.

(05-30-2013 12:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Actually, we are going backwards. According to the contractor, without the additional money, the stadium will have to scrap the third deck in right field, which was supposed to include a bar and skywalk.

Link?

Because Kappy, of "local radio," has stated several people involved with the building of the ballpark have stated they jumped the gun with their statements and regret saying what they did.

(05-30-2013 12:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Rand

Actually, it is you that wants something for nothing. You are the one that doesn't care how much it cost because it isn't coming out of your pocket.

As much as you complain about everything, I'm sure most of us have to pay more than our fair share for the services you use

(05-30-2013 12:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Run

Actually, we are going backwards. According to the contractor, without the additional money, the stadium will have to scrap the third deck in right field, which was supposed to include a bar and skywalk.

I meant we are not going to take a step backward after all that has been done and committed.

This is not idea. But even if it was, you'll never be happy; so what's the point?