(05-28-2013 09:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's not about the money. It's about the lying.

Specifically, who lied?

(05-28-2013 09:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's about city council promising that it wouldn't cost more than 50 million and then turning around and asking for a loan of 57 million.

Can you provide a source for when City Council promised it wouldn't cost more than 50 million.

Especially considering the original budget was 52 million.

Also, considering it was City Council that voted down the request for the extra 10 million yesterday. It was the City Planner and the builders who requested the extra money.

(05-28-2013 09:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why should anyone be surprised.

I am not surprised you do not have your story straight. Your mission to be the alternative voice/opinion is causing you to make inaccurate statements.

(05-28-2013 09:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  You can't say I didn't warn you.

You don't even have a decent grasp of the story but you are warning people? Yeah.

I believe all of your questions are answered in today's paper

City leaders withdrew requests to increase the Downtown baseball stadium contract by $10 million on Tuesday, but several city representatives angrily criticized the plan and called for the firing of top city officials overseeing the project.
The City Council on Tuesday had been asked to consider bundling $5 million in previously approved street and sidewalk projects Downtown into the stadium construction contract, and that a $5 million contingency for unexpected costs be added to the contract with C.F. Jordan Construction/Hunt Construction Group. The joint venture companies were hired as the construction manager at-risk in January.
City Manager Joyce Wilson asked that the requests seeking the additional funding be withdrawn.
Reporter
Cindy Ramirez

She said that the streets and sidewalks projects would be done separately as originally planned and that the ballpark design and construction would have to stay within the original $50 million price tag. The council had also been asked to increase the design contract with Populous Inc. by about $725,000, bringing that cost up to about $3.82 million.
City Rep. Cortney Niland and other representatives admonished Wilson, Deputy City Manager Bill Studer and City Engineer Alan Shubert, who is in charge of the ballpark project for the city, for not communicating better with them about the proposed changes to the contract.
"I'll be damned if we don't deliver the project we promised to the community," Niland said. "And we are not going
Advertisement


to do it for a penny more."
The City Council voted 5 to 3 to sell $52.8 million in bonds to finance the Triple-A baseball stadium now under construction. City Reps. Emma Acosta, Eddie Holguin and Carl Robinson voting against it.
From the approved bonds, $10 million will pay for the ballpark design and pre-construction costs and $40 million will go toward construction as originally planned. Another $1.8 million will pay the cost for the sale of the bonds and $1 million will go toward public art as is required by city ordinance for capital projects.
The sale of the bonds will be repaid with hotel occupancy taxes, stadium lease payments, ticket surcharges and parking fees.
As a matter of procedure, the City of El Paso Downtown Development Corp., made up of the mayor and council, voted 6 to 3 to sell the bonds with the mayor voting in favor of the issuance.
The corporation is a public agency created to act on behalf of the council on matters related to the ballpark -- a common practice because a corporation can sell bonds without a debt reserve fund and can borrow at lower interest rates than the city could.
During the meeting, Holguin questioned why nobody had asked MountainStar Sports Group

›› El Paso baseball stadium section
›› Photos: City Hall implosion
›› Storify: El Paso baseball stadium timeline
›› Photos: El Paso baseball stadium artist s rendering
›› Watch live video of stadium construction
›› Twitter updates at #epstadium
›› Videos
whether the group would incur any of the costs beyond the original $50 million price tag.
Niland said if there are amenities the city or MountainStar feel are essential to the ballpark, then there would need to be an open dialogue between the two to come up with a solution that wouldn't require more money from the city.
"We can come to the table and negotiate, see how much they'd be willing to put in and maybe field some sponsorships or find other ways to pay for them," Niland said.
MountainStar investors Woody Hunt and Paul Foster, who were present at the start of the council meeting to receive an award, said they felt confident the baseball team would be coming to El Paso in 2014.
Foster said if the $10 million was not approved, it might only impact what the stadium would look like, not whether the team would come to El Paso.
Before the council vote, Foster told reporters that nobody had talked to him about paying or sharing the cost of any amenities beyond the $40 million construction cost. Asked if he'd consider it, Foster said only that he didn't want to get ahead of any discussions on the matter.
As part of the vote on the sale of the bonds, city Rep. Steve Ortega also asked that the council receive bi-monthly updates and real-time expense reports related to the ballpark.
Ortega said the city's mistake was in how the information was released, adding that there has been an "erosion of trust" from council toward city leaders, as well as from the public toward the city.
"We need to rebuild the trust that has been eroded," Ortega said.
The city held an unplanned media briefing with Shubert and Studer on Thursday after receiving calls from reporters inquiring about the cost increases. Acosta and Holguin attended the briefing.
Last week, Shubert said adding those projects to the ballpark construction contract made more sense because the general contractor would oversee the work for better coordination.
Wilson on Tuesday said the $5 million contingency request was made because it would be more cost effective to include that in the bond sale rather than having to issue another set of bonds in the future if they were to be needed.
Shubert said that the contingency funds may be needed for amenities such as two buildings that would house a bar-restaurant or group and party suites if the costs for the basic stadium needs go beyond the original $40 million construction estimate. He said that some trade bids have been higher than expected and he wanted to have the extra funds available if needed.
That discussion drew fire from council representatives, who questioned the construction manager at-risk method of construction they previously approved.
The City Council first agreed to build the ballpark in June, and entered into a contract with MountainStar for the lease of the ballpark in September. MountainStar purchased the Tucson Padres minor league team and will bring the team to El Paso in 2014.
Also in September, the council agreed to use the construction manager-at-risk to build the stadium. That method of building allows construction to begin as the design is finalized, which means the true cost of the project isn't known up front.
Shubert said that some of the construction bids have been higher than anticipated, but didn't yet have a final cost of the project as currently designed. About $11 million of the project has been bid out so far, he said.
The discussion Tuesday took place two days before the ballpark's official groundbreaking ceremony this Thursday, which some 500 people are expected to attend.
Cindy Ramirez may be reached at cramirez@elpasotimes.com; 546-6151.

No, Fitbud, copying and pasting an article doesn't answer my "questions." I have a firm grasp of the situation. You made a lot of outlandish claims in your post and I shredded the phuck out of them. I was questioning your claims. Go back and read your post, my reply, and explain how copying and pasting an article answers my questions to you. You were talking out of your ass for the sake of being "the alternative voice/opinion" and caught with your dick in your hand.

The article answers all of your questions. If you don't want to take the time to read it, it's not my fault.

Besides, you have made it clear that you won't take my word for it so why should I send the time explaining it to you.

I would rather you simply learn the facts, and then deflect the truth . You seem to be pretty good at that.

I had questions regarding your posts and your statements. I'm quite familiar with the facts of the actual situation. Pasting an article doesn't correct all the inaccuracies in your post. No matter how hard you try to deflect.

(05-31-2013 04:26 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  I had questions regarding your posts and your statements. I'm quite familiar with the facts of the actual situation. Pasting an article doesn't correct all the inaccuracies in your post. No matter how hard you try to deflect.

I just don't get you. When I give you my opinion, you complain that there is nothing to back it up.

When I give you the facts, you complain that it doesn't explain my posts.


What exactly do you want me to explain to you. Be specific.

(05-31-2013 11:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 04:26 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  I had questions regarding your posts and your statements. I'm quite familiar with the facts of the actual situation. Pasting an article doesn't correct all the inaccuracies in your post. No matter how hard you try to deflect.

I just don't get you. When I give you my opinion, you complain that there is nothing to back it up.

When I give you the facts, you complain that it doesn't explain my posts.


What exactly do you want me to explain to you. Be specific.

Post #21 in this thread is a very good example.

You made a very typical Fitbud type post full of inaccuracies. I ask you very specific questions. For example, you made a point about the "lying." I am still waiting to hear back from you about who was lying. You then said City Council made promises. I corrected you about that too. I ask you to back up your posts. You then tried to save face by copying and pasting an article (which, of course, I had already read and was well familiar with. That article did not address the inaccuracies in your post. You then try to deflect by saying opinions don't need to be sourced.

This from the article

Before the council vote, Foster told reporters that nobody had talked to him about paying or sharing the cost of any amenities beyond the $40 million construction cost.

So what is the actual construction cost? Is it 50 million or 40 million? Why is everyone so confused on the price tag unless the public was being misled?

Here is an article from Jan. that says the stadium will cost $50 million

City Hall could be imploded as soon as March 31 to make way for the $50 million Triple-A minor league baseball stadium. The demolition of the Insights El Paso Science Center, located adjacent to City Hall, could begin by month's

Rendering of the proposed stadium in Downtown El Paso. (Courtesy photo)
end, city documents show


The broken promises come from the fact that they said the stadium wouldn't cost El Paso tax payers money. We now know that is't true. Do I have to find the sources for that again?

(06-01-2013 10:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This from the article

Before the council vote, Foster told reporters that nobody had talked to him about paying or sharing the cost of any amenities beyond the $40 million construction cost.

Yes, that is the actual construction cost and that figure is probably also rounded for brevity. That is why I have been referring to the stadium as a 40/10 50 million dollar stadium. 40 is the construction costs. The other 10 million are for design, architecture, fees, etc...

(06-01-2013 10:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  what is the actual construction cost? Is it 50 million or 40 million? Why is everyone so confused on the price tag unless the public was being misled?

Again, 40 million (rounded) to actually build it. 10 million (rounded) to plan, study, and design it. I believe the cost to demolish City Hall was in the 10 million portion.

Specific question. Who is confused? Who is misled? The above info has been

(06-01-2013 10:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Here is an article from Jan. that says the stadium will cost $50 million

Again, that is just for brevity.

(06-01-2013 10:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The broken promises come from the fact that they said the stadium wouldn't cost El Paso tax payers money. We now know that is't true. Do I have to find the sources for that again?

Who said the stadium wouldn't cost tax payers money? Who? Even with the HOT tax, the informed El Pasoan knew we would be paying for 20+% of the stadium. The informed El Pasoan knew the City would borrow money for the 75+% and that would be paid with HOT tax money. So yes, please find sources for your claims. If not sources, at least be clear in what you are saying. You have been incredibly inaccurate and incorrect the few times you have been specific in who you were talking about (i.e claiming City Council made promises when it was the City Planner and Project Developer).

Ballpark gaffe: City Council berates staff

El Paso Times Editorial Board
Posted: 05/30/2013 12:00:00 AM MDT

In the end, City Manager Joyce Wilson made the right Downtown ballpark decision, but she and her top officials deserved the sharp reproof they received, nonetheless.
At Tuesday's City Council meeting, Wilson withdrew a city request to council that $10 million be added to the $50 million price tag of the ballpark. The official groundbreaking isn't until today, but another $10 million was needed? Already?
That request raised the dander of many, and it was understandable that some on council were furious, and for at least two good reasons:
They were not previously informed of the financial add-on. Members of City Council should always be kept in the loop.
They said they signed off on a $50 million ballpark that would not need property-owner financing. The money would come from a hotel occupancy tax, stadium lease payments, ticket surcharges and parking fees.
But the asked-for $10 million would, indeed, be on the backs of the El Paso taxpayers. Some $5 million would be a contingency fund used for unexpected costs, and $5 million would be for previously approved street and sidewalk projects Downtown.
City Rep. Cortney Niland was the most vocal and even called for the firing of top city officials overseeing the ballpark project. "I'll be damned if we don't deliver the project we promised to the community. And we are not going to do it for a penny more," Niland said.
Since the ballpark was approved by a majority of council last
Advertisement

June, both council and the public were led to believe $50 million was the final price tag.
We don't go so far as calling for heads to roll, as Niland put it, but this was most certainly a negative moment for the city manager and her staff. Wilson has been recently criticized for a lack of transparency with all members of council and with the public -- many of whom opposed the ballpark from the start. Three members of council have also voted against ballpark funding: Emma Acosta, Eddie Holguin and Carl Robinson.
City Rep. Steve Ortega said there has been an "erosion of trust" from council toward city leaders and an erosion of trust from the public toward the city.
Wilson said the streets and sidewalks projects would now be done as originally planned, not with funds earmarked earmarked as "ballpark."
City staff should have stuck with "originally planned" in the first place. Wanting to slip extra money into the ballpark project -- this time taxpayer money -- was a major mistake, and even more so a major public relations gaffe.
We were promised a quality Triple-A ballpark for $50 million. We agree with Niland. That promise must be kept.

I guessed its a safe policy to reply to specific questions with a vague editorial from the Times.

(06-01-2013 06:32 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  I guessed its a safe policy to reply to specific questions with a vague editorial from the Times.

I don't know what else to do. I respond with my own opinion and you rip me for not providing sources of information.

(06-02-2013 11:48 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 06:32 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  I guessed its a safe policy to reply to specific questions with a vague editorial from the Times.

I don't know what else to do. I respond with my own opinion and you rip me for not providing sources of information.

You could answer the specific questions.

(06-02-2013 05:22 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 11:48 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 06:32 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  I guessed its a safe policy to reply to specific questions with a vague editorial from the Times.

I don't know what else to do. I respond with my own opinion and you rip me for not providing sources of information.

You could answer the specific questions.

I would be glad to answer with my opinion if you would let me.

The questions I asked didn't lend themselves to 'opinion answers.'

So let me see if I have this straight.

You want me to answer with facts but you don't want me to use sources to back up my facts?

Okay.

1. City Council said tax payers would not pay for this stadium. They lied.

2. City Council said it wouldn't cost more than 50 million. They lied.

3. City Council said it would be an economic boost to the city. They lied.

(06-06-2013 11:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  You want me to answer with facts but you don't want me to use sources to back up my facts?

I have never said anything remotely close to that.

In the past, I have picked apart your post and asked several and different specific questions. If you think copying and pasting an article is answering my questions - so be it.

In the past, I have asked you to back up your opinions or explain how you came to your opinion. Again, pasting articles I have already read doesn't flesh out your opinions.

(06-06-2013 11:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  1. City Council said tax payers would not pay for this stadium. They lied.

You do know what, and who, City Council is, right? Not every City Council member is in favor of the ballpark.

Let's be vague and say "The City" for the sake of moving forward. Even at that, The City has always said that 70% would be paid by the HOT tax and 30% from taxes.

Where is the lie?

(06-06-2013 11:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  2. City Council said it wouldn't cost more than 50 million. They lied.

Again, I think you are mistaken when you say City Council.

Are you still clinging to the 50 million versus 52 million argument.

"City Council" has only approved the original 52 million budget.

Where is the lie?

(06-06-2013 11:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  3. City Council said it would be an economic boost to the city. They lied.

We have been through this before. Not worth the dialogue. Still, the book you cling to cannot predict the future.

How can this be a lie if the events have not even happened yet? How?

(06-06-2013 11:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  So let me see if I have this straight.

You want me to answer with facts but you don't want me to use sources to back up my facts?

Okay.

1. City Council said tax payers would not pay for this stadium. They lied.

2. City Council said it wouldn't cost more than 50 million. They lied.

3. City Council said it would be an economic boost to the city. They lied.

1. You lie
2. You lie
3. The stadium hasn't even been built yet, so you might be right at a future date, but for now... You lie

(06-07-2013 03:37 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 11:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  So let me see if I have this straight.

You want me to answer with facts but you don't want me to use sources to back up my facts?

Okay.

1. City Council said tax payers would not pay for this stadium. They lied.

2. City Council said it wouldn't cost more than 50 million. They lied.

3. City Council said it would be an economic boost to the city. They lied.

1. You lie
2. You lie
3. The stadium hasn't even been built yet, so you might be right at a future date, but for now... You lie

Studies have been done on several cities and it has been proven that stadiums do not improve the local economy. If you want to believe that El Paso is going to be the exception then be my guest.

Just remember however that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity.

(06-08-2013 01:19 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 03:37 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 11:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  So let me see if I have this straight.

You want me to answer with facts but you don't want me to use sources to back up my facts?

Okay.

1. City Council said tax payers would not pay for this stadium. They lied.

2. City Council said it wouldn't cost more than 50 million. They lied.

3. City Council said it would be an economic boost to the city. They lied.

1. You lie
2. You lie
3. The stadium hasn't even been built yet, so you might be right at a future date, but for now... You lie

Studies have been done on several cities and it has been proven that stadiums do not improve the local economy. If you want to believe that El Paso is going to be the exception then be my guest.

Just remember however that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity.

Quit trying to manipulate information, studies have been done on relocating stadiums with in a downtown area and they have been proven false and also true. If you want to lose this argument go right ahead, my friend. Off the top of my head, I will suggest you look up Oklahoma City, before you dig yourself any deeper. I don't mean to brag, but I have a lot more understanding on finance and economics than you do.