How does the City inform the public? I knew that the City Hall was going to be demolished for the stadium for quite some time. Does Emperor Wilson have to go door to door explaining this to the crabs?

(10-10-2012 06:42 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  How does the City inform the public? I knew that the City Hall was going to be demolished for the stadium for quite some time. Does Emperor Wilson have to go door to door explaining this to the crabs?

fitcrud wants to have a sitdown breakfast with the city leaders (fully paid for b/c he's a cheap ass) where he has to critique every minute detail and if the council doesn't approve his every suggestion...he will file a lawsuit.

(10-10-2012 09:38 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Here is one such news story that says that City Hall can be renovated for 12 million.

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

"It gets so bad the guards actually have to close the main entrance and let people in other doors," said Shubert.

One of City Hall's main issues remains its outdated fire alarm system. In May, the fire department conducted a risk assessment of hundreds of downtown structures. City Hall received one of the highest risk level ratings, a level 3 out of a possible level 4. It was deemed "moderate risk and moderate hazard."

Shubert said City Hall is bigger than it needs to be, with a lot of wasted, vacant space. Moving City Hall to smaller buildings would be a more efficient use of space.

"The problem is, you have a vacant area but you still have to feed utilities to it. You have to heat it, cool it and deal with the plumbing," said Shubert.

'The cast iron piping in this building is 30 years old and it's rotten," added Shubert.

But beyond the necessities, "It's not an iconic building; it's not built like you would build a city hall. It's built like a hotel," said Shubert.



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

This is the problem with you negative nancies, none of you are educated enough or smart enough to read an article and interpret it correctly.

Fitcrud, for the good of the city, will you and your clan just shut the hell up for once? This is way beyond any of your group's comprehension level, you guys just don't get it and are simply, too simple minded to understand business and economics.

Stephanie Townsend Ayalla's look on tv when the mayor blew her off, was priceless.

Out of curiosity.....why is it that all of a sudden people are fighting to save City Hall? I always thought that it was well documented that it was a fairly unpopular (with employees) building that required a large number of repairs..

Am I the only one who ever heard this or some of you did as well. Also, is it it true that at one point or another city hall was almost sold to a develop to make into a high end hotel? How long ago was that if true?

(10-11-2012 12:08 PM)chuwy9 Wrote:  Out of curiosity.....why is it that all of a sudden people are fighting to save City Hall? I always thought that it was well documented that it was a fairly unpopular (with employees) building that required a large number of repairs..

Am I the only one who ever heard this or some of you did as well. Also, is it it true that at one point or another city hall was almost sold to a develop to make into a high end hotel? How long ago was that if true?

It's how El Paso rolls...***** and moan about everything that costs money, then complain when there is nothing to do.

(10-10-2012 03:55 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  I seriously think you are reading what you want to read. That link makes my point - not yours.

The article clearly shows that the estimated costs to bring it up to code are only 12 million and that the 30 million estimate is a complete renovation of what city council wants and not what will bring it up to code.

The article also debunks another common reason for the move....that the current building is too small.

(10-10-2012 06:29 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 09:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 07:33 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 01:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Yesterday on 7 extra, there was a discussion about the proposed ballpark and multipurpose arena and how the majority of that work will be done by out of town contractors.

Apparently, there was a meeting recently where Joyce Wilson admitted as much.

If the bond passes, where will the proposed multipurpose arena be located?

I've hear that they want to demolish the Abraham Chavez theater and convention center and put it there.

hey I thought you only opposed the stadium because it would replace city hall, now you're opposing the arena because it would replace another building. Fitcrud, get a life, tell us the truth on why you are against progress, your "tearing city hall down" argument has lost all merit now.

On the contrary. I do not oppose the arena. I am simply pointing out that if city council does not inform the public that they plan to demolish the Convention Center to build this stadium, they risk another back lash.

If we want the city to get behind something like this, they need to be given the heads up.

All heck will break loose if the city votes for this without knowing that it is going to mean demolishing the Civic Center.

You do realize that there is no room in downtown right? Things have to be demolished for new things to be built. Or are you too retarded to understand that? And I guarantee you and your cronies will be opposed to it...I know because I saw a poll in the el paso times.

I don't think the public would mind if certain buildings would be demolished for another stadium. The problem I foresee is that the public is not aware that the planned buildings are relatively new buildings in comparison to many others downtown. The civic center and city hall buildings were built in the 70's and 80's. Most people don't see the logic in demolishing buildings that are less than 30 years old but on the other hand renovating buildings that are much older.

You still use the word "retarded". What are you 8?

(10-11-2012 01:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 03:55 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  I seriously think you are reading what you want to read. That link makes my point - not yours.

The article clearly shows that the estimated costs to bring it up to code are only 12 million and that the 30 million estimate is a complete renovation of what city council wants and not what will bring it up to code.

The article also debunks another common reason for the move....that the current building is too small.

Quote: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.

You aren't the sharpest tool in the shed

Clearly! lol

(10-11-2012 02:44 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(10-11-2012 01:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 03:55 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  I seriously think you are reading what you want to read. That link makes my point - not yours.

The article clearly shows that the estimated costs to bring it up to code are only 12 million and that the 30 million estimate is a complete renovation of what city council wants and not what will bring it up to code.

The article also debunks another common reason for the move....that the current building is too small.

Quote: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.

You aren't the sharpest tool in the shed

Since bring a building up to code would be considered "essential", it is obvious that he is talking about those things required to bring the building up to code.

(10-11-2012 01:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 06:29 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 09:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 07:33 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 01:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Yesterday on 7 extra, there was a discussion about the proposed ballpark and multipurpose arena and how the majority of that work will be done by out of town contractors.

Apparently, there was a meeting recently where Joyce Wilson admitted as much.

If the bond passes, where will the proposed multipurpose arena be located?

I've hear that they want to demolish the Abraham Chavez theater and convention center and put it there.

hey I thought you only opposed the stadium because it would replace city hall, now you're opposing the arena because it would replace another building. Fitcrud, get a life, tell us the truth on why you are against progress, your "tearing city hall down" argument has lost all merit now.

On the contrary. I do not oppose the arena. I am simply pointing out that if city council does not inform the public that they plan to demolish the Convention Center to build this stadium, they risk another back lash.

If we want the city to get behind something like this, they need to be given the heads up.

All heck will break loose if the city votes for this without knowing that it is going to mean demolishing the Civic Center.

You do realize that there is no room in downtown right? Things have to be demolished for new things to be built. Or are you too retarded to understand that? And I guarantee you and your cronies will be opposed to it...I know because I saw a poll in the el paso times.

I don't think the public would mind if certain buildings would be demolished for another stadium. The problem I foresee is that the public is not aware that the planned buildings are relatively new buildings in comparison to many others downtown. The civic center and city hall buildings were built in the 70's and 80's. Most people don't see the logic in demolishing buildings that are less than 30 years old but on the other hand renovating buildings that are much older.

You still use the word "retarded". What are you 8?

You see, the problem with demolishing those older buildings is that most of them are historic and PRIVATELY owned. Which means the city will have to PURCHASE them for a LARGE price, and if the owner won't sell you'll have to resort to EMINENT DOMAIN. Now I know your type and you will DEFINITELY not support any scenario. So the only option is to use the land the city ALREADY owns. So I'll use a different word to describe you..idiotic.

(10-11-2012 03:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-11-2012 02:44 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(10-11-2012 01:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 03:55 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  I seriously think you are reading what you want to read. That link makes my point - not yours.

The article clearly shows that the estimated costs to bring it up to code are only 12 million and that the 30 million estimate is a complete renovation of what city council wants and not what will bring it up to code.

The article also debunks another common reason for the move....that the current building is too small.

Quote: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.

You aren't the sharpest tool in the shed

Since bring a building up to code would be considered "essential", it is obvious that he is talking about those things required to bring the building up to code.

Oh, fitbud said it so it must be true

http://www.elpasotimes.com

(10-11-2012 03:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-11-2012 02:44 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(10-11-2012 01:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 03:55 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  I seriously think you are reading what you want to read. That link makes my point - not yours.

The article clearly shows that the estimated costs to bring it up to code are only 12 million and that the 30 million estimate is a complete renovation of what city council wants and not what will bring it up to code.

The article also debunks another common reason for the move....that the current building is too small.

Quote: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.

You aren't the sharpest tool in the shed

Since bring a building up to code would be considered "essential", it is obvious that he is talking about those things required to bring the building up to code.

Wrong again. Essential means to function. The basics. The bare minimum. In other words, the essentials.

(10-11-2012 01:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 06:29 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 09:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 07:33 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 01:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Yesterday on 7 extra, there was a discussion about the proposed ballpark and multipurpose arena and how the majority of that work will be done by out of town contractors.

Apparently, there was a meeting recently where Joyce Wilson admitted as much.

If the bond passes, where will the proposed multipurpose arena be located?

I've hear that they want to demolish the Abraham Chavez theater and convention center and put it there.

hey I thought you only opposed the stadium because it would replace city hall, now you're opposing the arena because it would replace another building. Fitcrud, get a life, tell us the truth on why you are against progress, your "tearing city hall down" argument has lost all merit now.

On the contrary. I do not oppose the arena. I am simply pointing out that if city council does not inform the public that they plan to demolish the Convention Center to build this stadium, they risk another back lash.

If we want the city to get behind something like this, they need to be given the heads up.

All heck will break loose if the city votes for this without knowing that it is going to mean demolishing the Civic Center.

You do realize that there is no room in downtown right? Things have to be demolished for new things to be built. Or are you too retarded to understand that? And I guarantee you and your cronies will be opposed to it...I know because I saw a poll in the el paso times.

I don't think the public would mind if certain buildings would be demolished for another stadium. The problem I foresee is that the public is not aware that the planned buildings are relatively new buildings in comparison to many others downtown. The civic center and city hall buildings were built in the 70's and 80's. Most people don't see the logic in demolishing buildings that are less than 30 years old but on the other hand renovating buildings that are much older.

You still use the word "retarded". What are you 8?

You still use the words "most people." Do you have a midget in your pocket. You only represent yourself. The dozens of crabs can speak for themselves.

(10-11-2012 05:06 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(10-11-2012 01:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 06:29 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 09:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 07:33 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  hey I thought you only opposed the stadium because it would replace city hall, now you're opposing the arena because it would replace another building. Fitcrud, get a life, tell us the truth on why you are against progress, your "tearing city hall down" argument has lost all merit now.

On the contrary. I do not oppose the arena. I am simply pointing out that if city council does not inform the public that they plan to demolish the Convention Center to build this stadium, they risk another back lash.

If we want the city to get behind something like this, they need to be given the heads up.

All heck will break loose if the city votes for this without knowing that it is going to mean demolishing the Civic Center.

You do realize that there is no room in downtown right? Things have to be demolished for new things to be built. Or are you too retarded to understand that? And I guarantee you and your cronies will be opposed to it...I know because I saw a poll in the el paso times.

I don't think the public would mind if certain buildings would be demolished for another stadium. The problem I foresee is that the public is not aware that the planned buildings are relatively new buildings in comparison to many others downtown. The civic center and city hall buildings were built in the 70's and 80's. Most people don't see the logic in demolishing buildings that are less than 30 years old but on the other hand renovating buildings that are much older.

You still use the word "retarded". What are you 8?

You see, the problem with demolishing those older buildings is that most of them are historic and PRIVATELY owned. Which means the city will have to PURCHASE them for a LARGE price, and if the owner won't sell you'll have to resort to EMINENT DOMAIN. Now I know your type and you will DEFINITELY not support any scenario. So the only option is to use the land the city ALREADY owns. So I'll use a different word to describe you..idiotic.

But the city is purchasing privately owned building and renovating them anyway. So what is the difference.

Now they are going to demolish the Abraham Cavez Theater if the bond election passes. Don't you think that this will upset people further?

Have we not learned anything from what Oklahoma City did? The way to make this happen is to get the city behind these projects. Not piss them off every step of the way.

(10-11-2012 06:01 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  

(10-11-2012 03:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-11-2012 02:44 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(10-11-2012 01:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 03:55 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  I seriously think you are reading what you want to read. That link makes my point - not yours.

The article clearly shows that the estimated costs to bring it up to code are only 12 million and that the 30 million estimate is a complete renovation of what city council wants and not what will bring it up to code.

The article also debunks another common reason for the move....that the current building is too small.

Quote: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.

You aren't the sharpest tool in the shed

Since bring a building up to code would be considered "essential", it is obvious that he is talking about those things required to bring the building up to code.

Wrong again. Essential means to function. The basics. The bare minimum. In other words, the essentials.

Explain to me why the city would estimate 12 million dollars in essentials if that isn't what will bring it up to code.

Furthermore, since you contend that it's in fact 30 million that is needed to bring it up to code, please provide the evidence of that.

Today only on the El Paso Times website.

There is a poll on the excitement of triple A baseball


Currently

30% excited for triple a baseball

38% baseball stadium not good for the city,.

How many have voted in that poll?

Your article. That one you have plastered in every other thread. It makes my point. You see it differently. So be it. For whatever reason, you believe the word "essential" means something entirely different than essential.

My house could use some renovations. I have two budgets. One to fix a few things that are straight up damaged or broken. Another to make my house the way I want it. One budget is for the essentials and one is for a renovation.