From Refuse The Juice:

Ray Salazar's City Hall Deal EXPOSED!

One of my favorite readers forwarded me some archived El Paso Times articles last night. Looks like Ray Salazar has no leg to stand on when it comes to his allegations against the City Manager and City Council.

I will display two articles below that you can click on to enlarge. Here's what I take from them.

1. Salazar and his council preempted the unveiling of the new city hall plan commissioned by them when they opted to enter into a deal with a developer who just "showed up" to a council meeting and gave a presentation. Public discussion was not welcome. No bid solicitation for other options was ever sent out. Salazar and company arranged a land swap with a developer to move to the current site away from a pre-planned site near the county building. That arrangement was later deemed "illegal" by an attorney hired by the City to investigate the land deal.

2. Salazar pursued this this action without a vote of the people. Not a single voter was consulted on the land swap or the allegedly illegal hotel deal. For a guy now claiming his voting rights were violated with the current deal, he sure didn't mind putting the citizens through a shadier version of what he claims his happening now. Somebody needs to ask Ray why it was okay to pull his stunt in 1977 without voter approval, but not now.

3. The original City Hall was going to be much smaller and much cheaper. For no apparent reason Salazar threw out a design that had already been paid for and came back with one that made the building two and half times bigger than it was originally supposed to be. The original plan was to use federal money (YOUR TAX DOLLARS) to cover a four story building. That amount was $4 million. As you will see, the construction cost alone were $6 million and come to find out, that didn't even include an interior. The City of El Paso would end up tapping city taxpayers for another $5.2 million to finish the building. That's two COs for $1.5 million and $1.7 million and the initial $2 million to meet the $6 million construction bid. Again - not a single taxpayer was allowed to cast a vote on this project. A project, mind you, that was born out of a single presentation to council by a developer.

4. The building is in such rough shape now because it was built piecemeal. Ask any builder in town about how City Hall was built using the facts in these articles and they'll tell you that's why the building is a giant piece of ****.

5. The FBI wound up doing about a two-year investigation of Salazar’s land deal, but the U.S. attorney eventually decided against any charges.

Looks like Ray Salazar is quite the hypocrite and his management of the project may be the main reason "his building" is now being torn down. This most recent process used for the baseball field is light years ahead of Salazar's deal in transparency and cost to taxpayers.

source: http://refusethejuice.typepad.com/thinka...posed.html

I can't wait to hear fitcrud's defense of Salazar

So is the city hall building part of his so-called legacy, and wants to ensure it stays in tact? His sacred cow?

If so, then I'm gonna piss on that pile of rubble, after it's demolished.

Interesting blog.

http://refusethejuice.typepad.com/thinka...otive.html

"I was sent two numbers over and over again. The minimum to just fix the building enough so that people can continue to work in it is $15 million. To do what some folks want to do to the building, they're looking at $30 million. "

refusethejuice.typepad.com/thinkaboutit/2012/09/salazar-and-his-minions-lie-to-the-public-just-like-the-current-mayor.html

"..... He claims that El Paso City Hall is worth $38 million dollars (almost $200 a square foot). Really? In El Paso? Maybe if the building was located in Manhattan it could reach the $20 million mark and that would be the price of the footprint, not the building - it needs to be torn down no matter where it's located. "

(10-13-2012 08:51 PM)chuwy9 Wrote:  Interesting blog.

http://refusethejuice.typepad.com/thinka...otive.html

"I was sent two numbers over and over again. The minimum to just fix the building enough so that people can continue to work in it is $15 million. To do what some folks want to do to the building, they're looking at $30 million. "

Nice quote. It directly contradicts information given from other groups.

No, it supports everything else. It only contradicts the way you interpreted that one article.

I think you should click on the link and continue reading the entry...

$15 million to renovate.
During renovations, people are gonna have to be relocated for a while. Add in 3-4 million.

For $20 million you can build a brand new 1000 people capacity building. (Same price brand new schools have been built around the area.)

Interesting quote from the blog entry:

"Even if you use the city's estimate on what the building is worth ($12 - $13 million), the repairs are more than the value of the property. And the city has a inflated value attached to the building because they technically use it as collateral for loans. It's advantageous to a loan seeker to over-value their assets because they can get more money at a better rate. If the city was to come out now and tell the truth about the worth of the building - they'd likely get sued by the people who loaned them money on the inflated amount thinking the city was being honest in their assessment."

(10-15-2012 12:27 PM)chuwy9 Wrote:  I think you should click on the link and continue reading the entry...

$15 million to renovate.
During renovations, people are gonna have to be relocated for a while. Add in 3-4 million.

For $20 million you can build a brand new 1000 people capacity building. (Same price brand new schools have been built around the area.)

I don't deny that. The number being thrown around now however is 30 million.

Just what exactly does city council want for 30 million?

It's 12 to 15 to fix immediate problems. It's 30 million to bring it up to code.

(10-15-2012 02:01 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  It's 12 to 15 to fix immediate problems. It's 30 million to bring it up to code.

Where did you get that information from?

I have not seen anything anywhere that says that.

The sources I have provided say different.

(10-15-2012 03:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2012 02:01 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  It's 12 to 15 to fix immediate problems. It's 30 million to bring it up to code.

Where did you get that information from?

I have not seen anything anywhere that says that.

The sources I have provided say different.

Read it and weep, Fitbud. This isn't new information.

Quote:The layout of the building can also be confusing and the scarce parking is another issue frequently brought up, said Shubert.

"It's not user friendly, it's not customer friendly, we certainly wouldn't build a new city hall like this," said Shubert.

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

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

(10-15-2012 04:23 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  

(10-15-2012 03:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2012 02:01 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  It's 12 to 15 to fix immediate problems. It's 30 million to bring it up to code.

Where did you get that information from?

I have not seen anything anywhere that says that.

The sources I have provided say different.

Read it and weep, Fitbud. This isn't new information.

Quote:The layout of the building can also be confusing and the scarce parking is another issue frequently brought up, said Shubert.

"It's not user friendly, it's not customer friendly, we certainly wouldn't build a new city hall like this," said Shubert.

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

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

What city council requires and what is required to meet code are two different things.

(10-15-2012 04:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2012 04:23 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  

(10-15-2012 03:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2012 02:01 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  It's 12 to 15 to fix immediate problems. It's 30 million to bring it up to code.

Where did you get that information from?

I have not seen anything anywhere that says that.

The sources I have provided say different.

Read it and weep, Fitbud. This isn't new information.

Quote:The layout of the building can also be confusing and the scarce parking is another issue frequently brought up, said Shubert.

"It's not user friendly, it's not customer friendly, we certainly wouldn't build a new city hall like this," said Shubert.

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

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

What city council requires and what is required to meet code are two different things.

Even by your lowly troll standards, I have to hand it to you, that was a pretty good straw to reach at. Kudos.

(10-15-2012 05:56 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  

(10-15-2012 04:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2012 04:23 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  

(10-15-2012 03:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2012 02:01 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  It's 12 to 15 to fix immediate problems. It's 30 million to bring it up to code.

Where did you get that information from?

I have not seen anything anywhere that says that.

The sources I have provided say different.

Read it and weep, Fitbud. This isn't new information.

Quote:The layout of the building can also be confusing and the scarce parking is another issue frequently brought up, said Shubert.

"It's not user friendly, it's not customer friendly, we certainly wouldn't build a new city hall like this," said Shubert.

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

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

What city council requires and what is required to meet code are two different things.

Even by your lowly troll standards, I have to hand it to you, that was a pretty good straw to reach at. Kudos.

You've already been exposed trying to edit quotes to further your agenda.

LOL

Yep, I made an editing mistake.

It's obvious I wasn't trying to get away with anything. I wouldn't have posted the link if I was.

Your case was weak to begin with. That link demolishes whatever petty stance you were trying to take.

But yeah, keep harping that I pasted over the word "new."

Any of the other Miner fans would have called me out if I was trying to get away with something.

(10-16-2012 10:29 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2012 05:56 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  

(10-15-2012 04:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2012 04:23 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  

(10-15-2012 03:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Where did you get that information from?

I have not seen anything anywhere that says that.

The sources I have provided say different.

Read it and weep, Fitbud. This isn't new information.

Quote:The layout of the building can also be confusing and the scarce parking is another issue frequently brought up, said Shubert.

"It's not user friendly, it's not customer friendly, we certainly wouldn't build a new city hall like this," said Shubert.

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

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

What city council requires and what is required to meet code are two different things.

Even by your lowly troll standards, I have to hand it to you, that was a pretty good straw to reach at. Kudos.

You've already been exposed trying to edit quotes to further your agenda.

LOL

Hmmmm...and you think you know the opinions of the majority of the city and are using AN INTERNET POLL to further your agenda which isn't scientific by any means. What's funnier is the poll still doesn't support your agenda and your too weak to admit it.

Still waiting for your defense of Salazar.

(10-16-2012 03:21 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(10-16-2012 10:29 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2012 05:56 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  

(10-15-2012 04:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2012 04:23 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  Read it and weep, Fitbud. This isn't new information.


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

What city council requires and what is required to meet code are two different things.

Even by your lowly troll standards, I have to hand it to you, that was a pretty good straw to reach at. Kudos.

You've already been exposed trying to edit quotes to further your agenda.

LOL

Hmmmm...and you think you know the opinions of the majority of the city and are using AN INTERNET POLL to further your agenda which isn't scientific by any means. What's funnier is the poll still doesn't support your agenda and your too weak to admit it.

Still waiting for your defense of Salazar.

I'm not claiming to know the opinions of the majority of the city. I am simply making some conservative observations.

Even if this stadium sells out every single game, it wouldn't even amount to half of the metropolitan population of the area.

You would then have to assume that a different set of 6000 people went to each and every one of those games.

This team will likely draw around 300k per year. That isn't even half of the population .

Given those numbers, it is safe to say that the majority of El Pasoans will not be attending these baseball games.

(10-16-2012 04:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I'm not claiming to know the opinions of the majority of the city.