Friday, October 26, 2012

Voting "NO" on Prop 3 Means Voting to Tax Yourself

Based on everything I've seen and hearing it straight from a city rep who voted AGAINST the stadium, if voters vote down Proposition 3, they are essentially voting to tax themselves for the ballpark. Voting against Proposition 3 is NOT voting against the stadium. The people telling you it is are either mistaken or lying to you.

The question before voters on Proposition 3 is how it will be financed. Period.

I've included some video of a Representative Acosta's community meeting just last night in which I posed the question personally. There is an argument that is made by those in opposition to the ballpark that is made consistently, and I was able to get video of Stephanie Townsend-Allala and former State Representative Norma Chavez, both opponents to the ballpark and propositions, making the argument.

Representative Acosta and Ms. Arrieta (city finance staffer) respond consistently that Proposition 3 is not about the ballpark.

The argument made by opponents to the ballpark and proposition 3 is that the question before voters is about the venue and if they vote it down it will mean the end of the stadium. They don't present any data, evidence, or official legal opinion from the Attorney General's Office to support their claim, so its basically just an argument on their part...for now.

I saw for now because they may ultimately be right, but the only way to know if they are right, at least from what I can tell, would be to litigate after the fact.

If Proposition 3 fails.

But based on the questions and answers last night, its pretty clear. Proposition 3 is not about whether or not we are going to have a stadium. Its about who's going to pay for it. If you vote NO on proposition 3, you are probably going to vote to ad more taxes to your bills or they will have to cut services to pay for it.

Those are the facts.


Ernesto Villanueva said...

dude i have been trying to call out norma on all of her bullshit, she has been blasting all this stuff and straight up lying to people to get them to vote no.

Ernesto Villanueva said...

She has been telling people that prop 3 is a vote in increase their taxes and Allala's case is not much better. The statute states that in order for the city to use this money, ie the HOT tax, then it has to be designated a sports venue and approved by the voters.
The ballad ias asking the voter to approve the designation of the ball park as a sports venue so we can use the money for the HOT. Then its asking voters to raise the HOT.
People this does not mean the ballpark will not be built, this means that the park will be built using funds from Texas code 331 for border communities. If you vote no, all that would happen is that the city will use other means to build the stadium which may include raising taxes. The city is trying everything they can to prevent that, but if you vote it down you only have yourself to blame. Vote in way you like, just know what your voting for.

Ernesto V.

Anonymous said...

those issues are as clear as mud...and most people here in el paso, vote on what the neighbors say, because no one trusts the politicians anymore. the corruption is knee deep.

Marc Salazar said...

So if Prop 3 fails doesnt it also mean that the ballpark is NOT designated a sports venue?? What does that implicate?

Ernesto Villanueva said...

It implicates nothing, all that means is that the park is not designated as a sports venue and therefore cannot use the funding mechanism, ie hot tax, to fund the construction anymore. City would have to look elsewhere for funds build it.
The designation is only so the city can use Texas code 331 and use HOT to build it, nothing else. You would that the "Lawyers" fighting this would understand this. Sad actually.

Errnesto V.

Anonymous said...

the hot tax will only pay the interest on the stadium and will not pay the principle. its simple math. the times pointed out that it will take 25 years of the hot tax to collect 35 million dollars. that is 1.4 million a year and 50 million dollars at 3 percent(if wilson can even get that and it sure wont be long term)is 1.5 million in interest on the first year. this all means that wilson will have to steal the principle amount from the general budget and say she is taking the money from sales tax or traffics tickets or whatever bullshit she can come up with so she can say she is not taking it from property tax. however, by taking the principle amount plus any interest amount left over away from the general budget she will be faced to raise property tax to some extent. if the hot tax doesnt pass then she will have to come up with much more money from the other revenue sources in the city and then she and council will have to raise property taxes much more(a lot more). raising taxes "a lot" more gets your butt replaced in city council and maybe the new council might even look for a new city manager. if you vote "no" you may get taxed more in the beginning, but you also may get new city council members and a new city manager in the long run. if thats what you want then in the words of bobbie brown then "thats your prerogative."