(09-20-2012 04:12 PM)zyxwvutsru Wrote:  

(09-20-2012 03:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Lastly, the majority of El Paso is against removing City Hall for a stadium. We know this because that is the reason why they are fighting so hard to keep it from going to a vote.

The only people who want this stadium in that location want it for selfish reason. Because they want to see baseball, because they believe that their is nothing to do in El Paso, because they are so ashamed of El Paso and it's people that they feel the need to try and be like everybody else.

If we truly want to move El Paso forward, we need to stop criticizing what we have and remain financially sound rather spend our money trying to be like other cities.

1. 51% of El Paso can't agree on anything....51% of eliglible voters who show up to vote on a certain day and on a certain issue, might.

2. You are right, we do need to stop criticizing what we have, and we have to remain financially sound. This can be done with the new ball park. The two concepts do not have to be mutually exclusive.

It doesn't take fifty one percent of El Paso to agree. It only takes a majority of voters to agree.

Remaining financially sound is not contingent on a downtown ball park.

Mistabinks

Our property taxes are high because we have a balanced budget? WTF?

Nobody said the Stadium would be free of charge to tax payers?

If the majority of El Pasoans are for this stadium then why not put it to a vote?

Yes.
Correct.
Because the PCL wasn't going to wait for a public vote.

(09-21-2012 05:05 AM)mistabinks Wrote:  Yes.
Correct.
Because the PCL wasn't going to wait for a public vote.

I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean by saying that our property taxes are high because we have a balanced budget.

City Council repeatedly said that the stadium wouldn't cost tax payers money.

The PCL didn't have to wait for a public vote. Foster and Hunt could have purchased the baseball team at any time. The PCL themselves said that they did not require a downtown stadium for the purchase of the team.

To this day no one including you has produced any evidence that any other city was interested in purchasing the team.

Doesn't that bring up a red flag for you?

A balanced budget simply means the City actually has the money to pay and fund everything in the actual approved budget. Sounds easy enough but not every city is a able to do that. I rather pay less in property taxes but I'm fine if this is what I have to pay for the services I receive from the City. Especially considering the quality of our Police and Fire Departments.

I, myself, never heard City Council say the stadium would not cost taxpayers anything. Then again, i have actually remained informed throughout this process so that alteady differentuates myself from you.

Yes. The sale of the Padres to El Paso was absolutely contingent on the commitment from the City to build a new stadium. The PCL even sent Darth Joyce an email this week stating that. They were not going to wait for a public vote on the issue.

I live in El Paso. What do I care what other cities wanted this franchise. You are the one hung up on the issue. Not me. That's your cross to bear.

Through this while process, I have stayed informed. There has been no red flags in my opinion.

Mistabinks

Being as I do not work for the city, I doubt that I have the information that you have. I can only say that everyone from local sports talk radio to the El Paso times to jo shmo on the streets have repeatedly said that this stadium isn't going to cost tax payers money. Even people on this forum have said that.

The league did not say that the sale of the team was contingent on the building of a new stadium. What they said was that they preferred a downtown stadium. They never said however that it was necessary for the purchase of the team.

The reason why whether or not other cities were interested is important because it is the reason why city council insisted that we needed to do this quickly.

That no other cities are interested proves that City Council lied in order to do this in the eleventh hour.

(09-21-2012 03:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Mistabinks

Being as I do not work for the city, I doubt that I have the information that you have. I can only say that everyone from local sports talk radio to the El Paso times to jo shmo on the streets have repeatedly said that this stadium isn't going to cost tax payers money. Even people on this forum have said that.

If that is what you heard then that is what you heard.

I kept up with everything as a local sports fan. Not so much because I work for the City.

(09-21-2012 03:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  league did not say that the sale of the team was contingent on the building of a new stadium. What they said was that they preferred a downtown stadium. They never said however that it was necessary for the purchase of the team.

Joyce Wilson received an email from the PCL this past Monday that clearly stated that the lack of a new stadium would negatively affect El Paso's chances of being approved for a team. Fact. That was the latest of many correspondence between the PCL and the City.

(09-21-2012 03:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  reason why whether or not other cities were interested is important because it is the reason why city council insisted that we needed to do this quickly.

Again, that is your cross to bear. Not mine.

(09-21-2012 03:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  no other cities are interested proves that City Council lied in order to do this in the eleventh hour.

If that is how you see it. So be it.

AAA baseball is a big deal. Other cities wanted it. Other AA and A ball clubs would have loved to upgrade. In this case, I don't have links or sources or proof. Then again, neither have any of your rants. So it is what it is. And what it is is that El Paso is getting AAA baseball.

Viva El Paso!

Hooyah! Baseball! Too bad I don't live there anymore to savor it. +2 to mista for sticking it to fitcrud. Definitely a lopsided argument.

Last night on KVIA Extra, it was revealed that the HOT tax will be grouped with the Quality of life proposals and will require one vote for all three.

If this is indeed the case, the city will have to have the voters vote yes for a tax increase in order to avoid paying for the baseball stadium.

This is a very interesting development.


Voting yes for the quality of life bond will mean that the HOT tax will pay for the stadium but it will also mean a vote to increase property taxes by over $40 per 100k.

Voting no will prevent the city from increasing taxes but will put the city on the hook for the price of the baseball stadium.

I also watched Xtra and did not get that impression. I think it is still three different ballots. I could be wrong.

There is three ballot issues not one. The State of Texas ordered El Paso to break up the bond into at least two bonds. The HOT is separate. The opponents to the baseball stadium are highly misinformed. The biggest bond cost is the downtown arena and MLS stadium. Both totaling ~400M while the baseball stadium cost 50M.

As for the baseball stadium being legal, the Attorney General has approved it back in July in the original language.

Wow I am a bit confused.


I read in the El Paso Times that the quality of life bond was to build a soccer complex but I thought they meant a park with a bunch of soccer fields. Not an MLS stadium.

The article also said that the "soccer complex" would likely be built on the east side.

Does this mean that the "soccer complex" will be located there?

(09-25-2012 01:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Wow I am a bit confused.


I read in the El Paso Times that the quality of life bond was to build a soccer complex but I thought they meant a park with a bunch of soccer fields. Not an MLS stadium.

The article also said that the "soccer complex" would likely be built on the east side.

Does this mean that the "soccer complex" will be located there?

No, the east side is going to get a soccer complex (complex and stadium are totally different things) which it badly needs, the MLS stadium will be downtown, but I believe that is contingent on El Paso getting an MLS franchise.

There was a study done when the MLS started and it listed El Paso as the top candidate for an expansion team. Fit, you can either hold the city back, or you can get in line with the rest of us and bring the city forward.

Randy

Actually, I have always been in favor of El Paso trying to get an MLS franchise. Unlike Triple A baseball, American soccer popularity is on the rise.

Unfortunately, because the future of how the baseball stadium will be paid for is unclear, I"m going to have to vote NO on the Quality of Life bond.

I don't think it is responsible for our city to spend, spend, spend when our economy is uncertain.

The economy or ours? El Paso, to its credit, has done better than most during the recession.

El Paso does good when the economy nationwide is bad. But if you want a better quality of life you need to vote yes. This city pays professionals too low, until the quality of life improves expect the brain drain. I am surprised I am still here, but flying to watch UTEP can be costly.

(09-25-2012 09:00 PM)SWFootballFan Wrote:  El Paso does good when the economy nationwide is bad. But if you want a better quality of life you need to vote yes. This city pays professionals too low, until the quality of life improves expect the brain drain. I am surprised I am still here, but flying to watch UTEP can be costly.

Quality of life is a relative subject. Most people would agree that you don't need expensive stuff to have a good quality of life. I don't deny that some of those things may attract people to live in this city. What does not attract people to this city however is the increasing cost of property taxes.

El Paso would be better served educating their public so that they have the skills to get higher paying jobs rather than attempting to attract people from other cities.

What good does it do for El Pasoans if we attract skilled workers from other cities to compete for the few paying jobs that we have?

Interesting tidbit from El Paso Inc.:

By El Paso Inc.’s count, there were 78 speakers – 43 for the stadium project and 33 against, with two speaking neither in direct support nor in opposition.

Source

So 55% in favor, 43% against and 2% unsure.

Also, I have to reiterate how absolutely terrible they have bungled the PR side of things. So much freaking misinformation on both sides.

No matter where you are in this dispute (for/against), you have to admit this whole debate has been eye opening to how ignorant/uneducated El Pasoans are.

(09-26-2012 12:07 PM)chuwy9 Wrote:  Interesting tidbit from El Paso Inc.:

By El Paso Inc.’s count, there were 78 speakers – 43 for the stadium project and 33 against, with two speaking neither in direct support nor in opposition.

Source

So 55% in favor, 43% against and 2% unsure.

Also, I have to reiterate how absolutely terrible they have bungled the PR side of things. So much freaking misinformation on both sides.

No matter where you are in this dispute (for/against), you have to admit this whole debate has been eye opening to how ignorant/uneducated El Pasoans are.

Thanks for the information

I was referring to an El Paso times poll that showed at the time that 248 people had voted and 78% of them opposed the stadium being built at City Hall.

If the majority of people were in favor of the stadium, then they wouldn't have a problem allowing the people to vote for it.

I'm sure most people would agree that if it was put to a vote, El Paso would vote against it.