Noted helicopter blogger David K had this to say in a recent column about the new ordinance the City is considering to muzzle maverick City reps:
Being the lone jackass who still thinks the ballpark deal was somehow illegal means you don’t have much in they way of support. You are in the “minority.” City Council has no obligation to discuss whatever insane thing you’ve cooked up in your tiny brain.
Is the ballpark the subject that City Council is trying to keep from being discussed?
Personally, I thought that we’d moved on to other controversies, but Mr. K, or perhaps maverick City Representative Lily Limon, seems not content to let sleeping dogs lie.
According to Texas Local Government Code Title 10, Subtitle C, Chapter 334, Subchapter A, Sec. 334.0082:
VENUE PROJECTS IN CERTAIN MUNICIPALITIES. (a) This section applies only to a municipality that:
(1) has a population of at least 176,000 that borders the Rio Grande, and that approved a sports and community venue project before January 1, 2009;
Now you remember when that ballpark was approved, don’t you? Wasn’t it 2012? I’m not a mathematician, but it seems to me like 2012 is after 2009.
I’m sure we could get bogged down in the legal interpretation of Texas Local Government Code Chapter 334 for hours, and even though that sounds like a lot of fun, I’d rather watch South Park reruns. But I’d love to hear your Dershowitzian logic. That’s what comment sections are for.
Obviously there was something hinky about the ballpark deal, or the City wouldn’t have fought so hard to hide those emails, but what’s the point of putting those well-meaning political sock-pockets through criminal charges, or a trial? I mean, sure, the ballpark is a multi-million dollar money pit that the City is never going to dig its way out of, and none of the collateral development that we were promised has materialized, but gosh darn it, they tried, didn’t they?
El Paso falls does not fit under (1) in that section but remember there is an “or” at the end of the sentence and El Paso falls under (2). I’ve pasted the entire section below. To me, the real question was whether the ball park fits the definition of an approved venue project, which 334.001 defines as a sports AND community venue site. Is it a community venue?
Sec. 334.0082. VENUE PROJECTS IN CERTAIN MUNICIPALITIES. (a) This section applies only to a municipality that:
(1) has a population of at least 176,000 that borders the Rio Grande, and that approved a sports and community venue project before January 1, 2009; or
(2) is located in a county adjacent to the Texas-Mexico border if:
(A) the county has a population of at least 500,000;
(B) the county does not have a city located within it that has a population of at least 500,000; and
(C) the municipality is the largest municipality in the county described by this subdivision.
(b) Notwithstanding any other law, including Section 334.089, after complying with Section 334.022, a municipality to which this section applies may hold an election under Section 334.024 on the question of approving and implementing a resolution to:
(1) authorize the municipality to plan, acquire, establish, develop, construct, or renovate a convention center and related infrastructure in the city limits of the municipality as part of an existing or previously approved sports and community venue project, regardless of whether the convention center is located on the premises of the existing or previously approved venue project;
(2) impose a tax under Subchapter H at a rate not to exceed two percent of the cost of a room; and
(3) authorize the municipality to finance, operate, and maintain the venue project described by Subdivision (1), including the convention center, using the revenue from any taxes imposed by the municipality under this chapter, including taxes previously approved in relation to the existing or previously approved venue project.
(c) If the resolution is approved by a majority of the votes cast in the election, the municipality may implement the resolution.
Except for this:(B) the county does not have a city located within it that has a population of at least 500,000; and, . . .
But we’re just being stupid, arguing about it in a blog. That issue will not be decided except in a court of law, and it will probably never see a court of law. A good attorney would probably argue legislative intent. Those exclusions were created for specific projects in south Texas which were already underway in 2009.