Continue reading »]]> El Paso government officials decided that the city needs a quality of life center for El Paso’s future. They allocated over a million dollars to fund the project and they started to build the structure. The voters of the community said, hold on for a moment, why didn’t we get a say in this? The government officials responded that this is good for El Paso, and necessary for the future of the city.

Eight community activists file suit to stop the boondoggle and demand a say at the election box.

Months later and after many court hearings, the government lawyers, paid for by the same tax dollars ultimately destined to pay for something the taxpayers don’t want, amass legal mumbo-jumbo arguments and the court issues a ruling that does not stop the construction. The court hides behind the notion that you have no standing or that we can’t stop it now until all of the legal process is complete, conveniently many years later.

Of course, the politicians proclaim, you see the courts agree with us.

The local paper, who coincidently has Bob Moore on its payroll, champions the project. “It’s good for the city” the editorials proclaim while the news section reports how the dissenters have lost in court again.

The three government leaders, staking their reputations on the “betterment” of El Paso, approve $11.5 million in general obligation bonds to finish the project. Of course, the project was originally budgeted to cost around $1 million. But what’s a million here and there between friends?

One of the saner politicians, who voted against the bonds, tells the local paper that “voters should send a message to all politicians that they should never try to ram something down their throats again”.

The electorate responded via the ballot box and votes two of the three out of office.

The incoming administration immediately orders that the construction stop and that the voters be allowed to vote on it.

Guess what the voters said? That’s right they told the government we don’t want it.

By the time the dust had settled the taxpayers paid a little over $1.5 million for a hole in the ground filled with water.

The boondoggle?

In 1990, then County Judge Luther Jones, Martie Georges and Orlando Fonseca pushed for the El Paso Aquatics Center even though the public was against it. Even after the electorate had voted Luther Jones and Martie Georges out office, they nonetheless voted to approve $11.5 million in general obligation bonds to complete the pool originally budgeted at $1 million. During their lame-duck session, they were helped by Orlando Fonseca.

Charles Hooten, who told the local paper that the electorate should send a message to the politicians ramming the project down their throats, and Rogelio Sanchez, voted against the expenditure.

Undeterred, Jones, Georges and Fonseca contracted Silverton Construction to build the aquatics center.

Incoming County Judge Alicia Chacon immediately stopped the project and took it to the voters. In fact, one of her most visible issues in the election was the pool fiasco.

And, guess who was championing the aquatics center, none other than the El Paso Times. They took the position that the aquatics center was good for El Paso. After spending over a million dollars, the County ended up with a glorified pool at Ascarate Park.

Today’s boondoggle is the downtown baseball field.

As it was then, so it is now. The taxpayers are funding projects that they clearly do not want. The lame-duck government is intent on ramming it down the taxpayer’s throats.  And as before, the cost over-runs start even before construction begins. And the government tax-funded legal teams continue obstruct the people’s will.

And just as before, the taxpayer’s of the community will eventually have the last word.

Continue reading »]]> I have to give credit where credit is due. Steve Ortega hates the essence of El Paso. Unlike Susie Byrd who embraces her El Paso heritage publically but turns around and votes against it, Steve Ortega has consistently been open about his disgust for his El Paso heritage.

In a paper Steve Ortega presented to his Chicano/a Literature class at the University of Texas at Austin, Ortega describes how he hated visiting his great grandmother’s house south of the freeway. Steve Ortega describes his great-grandmother’s house as a “pistachio bright green structure [that] would (sic) surely awaken the eyes of any sleeping child”.

In the paper titled; Family Narrative, Steve Ortega describes south El Paso as smelling differently; “dusty, rustic smell of the worn down neighborhood”. He adds; “people looked, talked and dressed different”. He describes his great grandmother’s home as being located in a neighborhood that “was in utter shambles”.

Ortega goes on to discuss how growing up in “middle-class east El Paso, the south-side was foreign territory to my sister and I”. He describes the area as “graffiti and religious murals [that] decorated any available space” on the walls.

As for his great-grandmother, Steve Ortega had nothing much to say about her other than to state that “he did not understand Spanish”, oh, and that she gave him $5 each time he visited. What a shame because if he had taken the opportunity to listen to her, regardless of whether he spoke Spanish or not, he would have seen the pride she had in her “pistachio bright green” house.

Just as Steve Ortega had no use for his great-grandmother’s life on the south-side of the freeway, he also has no interest in the “brown faces” that surround him. In a paper titled; Border Response, Steve Ortega writes about crossing the international bridge and seeing kids hawking gum on the border. He describes them like this, “their brown faces were blackened by the exhaust fumes of the automobiles and their clothes appeared as if they were not changed in weeks”.

I can visualize the disgust in his face as he relates this experience.

But too truly under Stave Ortega one should not look further than what he writes next as he closes his paper by asking;

“how can la migra tell that I am not a juareno (sic)?” “The unfortunate answer is; they can’t”, he closes.

And there you have it El Paso; Steve Ortega is ashamed to be brown and to not be indistinguishable from his brown brethren.  More recently, Steve Ortega proudly proclaimed his hatred for the El Paso identity.

Remember the $100,000 PDNG Glass Beach Study from 2006?

The city universally condemned the study as demeaning to the character of El Paso. Steve Ortega, on the other hand did not. Instead, according to an interview in the Border Observer, he states that the Glass Beach Study was not “particularly offensive” to him. He added that he would rather be associated with “Salma Hayek” than with his grandfather.

I haven’t found anything where Steve Ortega discusses his grandfather but from his own writings about his great-grandmother, I’m not sure he had much respect for the heritage of his grandfather, either.

Even on his campaign material Steve Ortega focuses on wanting to “continue our (El Paso’s) momentum forward to greatness”.  His platform is centered around keeping the bonds on time, in other words, his public checkbook at the ready for his no Spanish and no Mexicans gentrification of El Paso. It is clear that in Ortega’s world there is no place for Spanish speakers, even in his own family and the Mexican roots that dominate El Paso.

In his political website’s “neighborhood section” Ortega makes no mention of the uniqueness of El Paso that makes it the city it is. Instead Steve Ortega writes about how he was elected to raise the “standard for expectation and accomplishment in El Paso.”  He is always quick to point out that he is a “fifth generation” El Pasoan but just as quick to point out that he doesn’t embrace the beauty of El Paso culture, instead he sees it as something that must be discarded.

In another nod to honesty, Steve Ortega promises to keep an “open door” to constituents but nowhere does he promise to actually listen to what they want. What Steve Ortega has publically and many times stated as that he makes the hard decisions regardless of what the community really wants.

El Paso is a unique city with much history and heritage. Many El Pasoans are multi-generational and many more have recently migrated to the city. Many embrace and honor the heritage of what El Paso is. Steve Ortega, on the other hand, doesn’t want anything to do with what El Paso is; rather he wants to make it into what he perceives El Paso should be.

In Steve’s El Paso, there is no place for hard-working Mexicans, Spanish speakers or any El Pasoan that wants to embrace the El Paso culture that makes El Paso unique.

Continue reading »]]> Something has been bothering me about the Steve Ortega campaign finance reports. They just do not add up. As I sat down to review them, I wanted to check my numbers once again so I went to the Municipal Clerk’s office and lo-and-behold Steve Ortega had filed not one, but two amendments to his initial filings. The amendments were filed after Election Day. Bottom line, the Steve Ortega Campaign under reported approximately $40,000 in campaign contributions before Election Day.

Before Election Day he reports $242,344.88 in political contributions. After Election Day he amends his reports to report $282,460.38 in contributions.

Was this on purpose?

According to the amended reports, the reason for the amendments was that on “May 6th, the COH identified discrepancies regarding the total contributions and total expenditures previously filed.” In other words, he forgot to add some contributions and expenses to his reports.

What were those contributions he forgot to add?

Nothing too important, just $40,000 in additional contributions he conveniently forgot to report, before election night.

As if that wasn’t enough, the amended report for the last period before the election seems to have been passed through so many Xerox machines that it makes it extremely difficult to read the report. In this age of electronics it is just too convenient that an important report that begs to be analyzed is extremely difficult to read. And that’s not everything. The amended report’s math just doesn’t add up.

The fact is numbers don’t lie, although people do.

Even before realizing that the Steve Ortega Campaign under-reported $40,115.50 going into the election, his financials just did not add up. In school, granted it was before computers, I was taught that two plus two equals four. Unfortunately in the Steve Ortega political contributions this math just doesn’t work. I may just be too dumb.

Focusing on the amended reports filed by Steve Ortega, yesterday on May 16, 2013 I applied some simple mathematics. According to the filings, Steve Ortega took in the following in the form of contributions:

In the July 16, 2012 to December 31, 2012 (January 15), report Steve Ortega reported $54,385 in political contributions. According to this report, he spent $12,905.37.

In the January 1, 2013 to April 1, 2013 (30-day) report, Steve Ortega reported $80,774.88 in political contributions and $36,251.11 in expenditures.

In the April 1, 2013 to May 1, 2013 (8-day) report, Steve Ortega reported $147,300.50 in political contributions and $201,296.49 in expenditures.

Since there was no report filed by Steve Ortega prior to the July 16, 2012 to December 31, 2012 period, I assume his campaign started at $0. I did review the last report he filed as a City Representative and it only showed $11.47 available to him. So my premise of starting at zero still holds.

Based on my basis of starting at zero, I add the contributions for the three reporting periods ($54,385+$80,774.88+$147,300.50) and I get a total of $282,460.30 for his campaign.

I then do the same with the expenditures ($12,905.37+36,251.11+201,296.49) and I get $250,452.97 in monies out going.

Now I take the income, $282,460.30 and subtract his expenses of $250,452.97 and I get a balance of $32,007.33.

According to the final financial report he filed, the amended one, Steve Ortega reports that he has $23,496.24 still available to him. What happened to $8,511.09 that does not appear as money still available to him?

I have owned and operated a restaurant and several retail stores. My number one rule for my cashiers was that the cash register tally should equal zero at the end of the day. This was a rule set in stone and when a discrepancy appeared there had better be a good explanation.

One of the arguments I was constantly challenged with was why, are you upset? The cash register shows more money than it should have. My answer was always the same; the cash register should always be in balance, not more and not less. Why?

Simple, if you allow the cashier to monkey around with how they handle giving change then you allow them to pocket money. Skimming one dollar here and another one there always resulted in an out-of-balance cash register. The scam works like this, cashier’s play a scam where they knowingly shortchange customers on their change. To keep everyone happy they put in some of the money in the cash register and pocket the rest. If a customer objects, they apologize and give them the correct change. They just add more from the next skim. At the end of the day, the cash register will never balance but most scheming cashiers are happy to report that they got more money in the register so that the owner doesn’t scrutinize the cashier. To me two plus two should equal four. Anything else is a scam, as far as I’m concerned.

So why doesn’t Steve Ortega’s financial reports add up? And why did he file amendments for the two reports that were scrutinized by the public before the election?

Was this a simple problem of forgetting something?

The fact that Steve Ortega amended both financial disclosure reports after Election Day that showed that he actually took in $40,115.50 more in contributions than he initially reported is troublesome, at best. This wasn’t a simple case of forgetting some contributions or expenditures. The adjustment represents about 14% of his total contributions to date.

This is a significant amount, and one that conveniently benefits him. Hmm.

Continue reading »]]> On May 8, 2013, KVIA reporter, Matt Dougherty shed more light on El Paso Police Officer Alberto Machorro’s road-rage incident with Dee Margo back in September of 2012. Some have speculated that this incident led to Margo’s reelection loss to Joe Moody. Was this incident a conspiracy?

As with all conspiracies the evidence is circumstantial, at best, but added to all of the other political shenanigans in El Paso it would not be surprising at all. Part of the problem with conspiracies is that the conspirators take steps to protect their actions from the scrutiny of the people.

So let’s connect the dots so that you can judge for yourself. But, first some background.

Dee Margo, a Republican, challenged Pat Haggerty in a bruising primary for the Texas House District 78 seat in 2008. Dee Margo then lost to Democrat Joe Moody in the general election. Two years later, in 2010, Joe Moody lost the District 78 seat to Dee Margo.

During the 2012 general elections, Democrats Naomi Gonzalez and Marisa Marquez publically endorsed Republican Dee Margo over his challenger, Joe Moody, much to chagrin the Democratic Party and the Haggerty’s. By the time the dust had settled, Joe Moody had reclaimed the House seat by about 3,200 votes from over 41,700 cast. Publically Dee Margo blamed redistricting for his loss, but privately political operatives whispered about the “October” surprise.

On September 7, 2012, prior to the election, Dee Margo was involved in a minor car accident with an off-duty police officer outside of the Westside Regional substation. Shortly after that, a whisper campaign alleging felony charges and allegations of drunk driving began to surface in the community involving an unidentified politician who the whisper campaign identified as Margo.

On October 13, 2012, El Paso Times reporter Daniel Borunda published an article stating that the El Paso Times was investigating a “month-old fender bender involving state Rep. Dee Margo”. As is typical with political conspiracies, the El Paso Police Department gave little information, hid behind the privacy excuse they use to obfuscate the truth and conveniently added that it was “an open investigation”.

It was just enough innuendo to give credence to the whisper campaign and Dee Margo lost his election in November.

A conspiracy involves more than one accomplice, enough information to affect an outcome and secrecy. Willing accomplices must be willing to keep secrets while getting dirty in the process and feel they will be protected. In the case of El Paso dirty politics, the players are well-known and their historical record is well documented. So, let’s take a look at the characters involved.

The first character is Jaime Abeytia.

Remember useful idiot Jaime Abeytia? The one currently getting paid by your tax dollars while under a felony indictment because Vince Perez thinks he’s so useful he can’t bring himself to put him on leave. Political operatives employ two useful tools to get their candidate elected. They employ “opposition researchers” looking to get “dirt” on their opponents and use whisper campaigns to start rumors about their opponents. Of course the candidates disavow all knowledge of this. And this is where the useful idiots come into the picture. Jaime Abeytia, through his now defunct “The Lion Star Blog” started creating the foundation for the upcoming whisper campaign against Dee Margo for the 2012 elections. Between September 27, 2010 and December 10, 2012, Abeytia posted no less than 32 blog posts and numerous Youtube videos denigrating Dee Margo. Over that 27 month period, Abeytia posted at least one monthly blog post targeting Dee Margo’s actions at the Texas House of Representative or his business connections. These were essential to fueling the whisper campaigns. In military parlance, the blog softened the target up before the attack was to be launched.

Although, it remains unproven, many, including myself believe that the “leak” of the police investigation into Dee Margo was passed on by Jaime Abeytia to Daniel Borunda, or Bob Moore, at the El Paso Times. Jaime Abeytia is deeply connected to political operatives that wanted to see Margo defeated.

This leads us to the El Paso Times, Bob Moore and Daniel Borunda.

I have written extensively since 2001 about how disgusted I am with the El Paso Times. I won’t bore you with the details. It is sufficient to state that, in my opinion, Bob Moore turned the El Paso Times into the mouth-piece of the Ray Caballero-Eliot Shapleigh-Jose Rodriguez cabal and now their disciples; Susie Byrd, Veronica Escobar and Steve Ortega.

It is no coincidence that The El Paso Times recovered some measure of respectability in El Paso as soon as Bob Moore left in 2005. It immediately lost it again as soon as Bob Moore returned in September of 2011. The public record is clear, when it comes to El Paso politics involving Ray Caballero and his cabal, Bob Moore is at the helm of the El Paso Times. But Bob Moore needs his own “useful idiot” to do his bidding. Enter Daniel Borunda.

I had the misfortune of crossing paths with Daniel Borunda once. In 2003, Daniel Borunda called me to tell me that he was doing an in depth story about my business ventures on the Internet. He wanted to interview me about our Internet innovations, or so he told me. After doing a telephone interview, Daniel asked if he could bring an El Paso Times photographer to take pictures of our operations. I accepted.

I found it strange that instead of a photographer; Daniel himself came to my office to take a couple of pictures and spent a lot of time looking at our equipment. For weeks no article appeared and I eventually gave up on an article showcasing our innovations.

I was naïve.

About a month later an article finally appeared in the El Paso Times. It wasn’t what I expected, instead it was a slam piece designed to stigmatize my business in order to protect felon Larry Medina.

After several court actions and in retrospect I finally understood that Daniel Borunda was nothing more than a hired-gun who was ordered to target me for the simple reason that I was in the way of the Ray Caballero renaissance. I was in the way because I happened to launch a small online newspaper that was indirectly connected to the Larry Medina recall.

Yes, the same Larry Medina sitting in jail today for public corruption.

I have no doubt that Bob Moore was directly or indirectly approached by Ray Caballero to silence me in order to help keep Larry Medina in office. It didn’t matter that I wasn’t leading the recall election. It just mattered that I was part of the mechanism that allowed it to flourish. I needed to be gone in order to allow Ray Caballero to continue to hoodwink El Paso into financial disaster.

Unfortunately for them, instead of going away I got angry and that is why I blog today.

Bob Moore left after Ray Caballero lost and returned to El Paso as soon as the Ray Caballero disciples; Byrd, Escobar and Ortega rose to power. Coincidence, I don’t think so.

But a conspiracy needs a motive and sustaining players to keep it going.

Joe Moody benefited directly from the Dee Margo whisper campaign, he won the election. More importantly, as we begin to connect the dots you will see where he fits in, in the puzzle that is the “Dee Margo Affair”.

But first we need another connecting dot, Alberto Machorro. Alberto Machorro was the police officer involved in the accident with Dee Margo.  This is the genesis of the whisper campaign alleging a criminal act by Dee Margo shortly before the election he lost. According to public records, the accident was a fender-bender with little or no damage.

It is important to note that the accident happened in front of the Westside police sub-station. Cameras and witnesses had to have seen what transpired. But in a conspiracy the first thing to do is to bury the truth or delay it in order to get the desired outcome. Keep in mind that while the “allegations” about impropriety were having on effect on Dee Margo’s campaign the police was “doing an investigation” that necessitated secrecy. Thus the whisper campaign was allowed to flourish unimpeded.

Not until April of 2013 did the true nature of the events began to publically surface. What we know at this time, thanks to KVIA, is that officer Alberto Machorro and two “unnamed supervisors” were given verbal reprimands, in other words, a slap on the wrist. The violation was filing a “fraudulent report”.

This is important to note, an accident report is a government record and many people have gone to jail for falsifying government records. In fact, many El Paso police officers are currently indicted for filing falsified government records, in the ongoing over-time scandal.

Why is Alberto Machorro only given a “verbal reprimand”? Simple, part of the arrangement with useful idiots is that they are given protection. All conspiracies include some measure of protection in order to allow the useful idiots to participate.

So who is Alberto Machorro?

Understanding who Alberto Machorro allows us to further connect the dots. El Paso police officer Alberto Machorro is no stranger to allegations of wrong-doing. In May 2002, Alberto Machorro was accused of sexually assaulting a teenage girl in the desert, along with another police officer. A very controversial investigation by the District Attorney’s office and the police department involving questionable investigative techniques that included charging the alleged victim with lying to police ensued. The “investigation” by the police department was so thorough that the two accused officers were never even asked to provide the clothing they wore on the night of the incident, much less their DNA specimens. This is important to note because, generally in sexual assault cases it is normally a “he said-she said” scenario. In order to determine the “truth” the accuser provides a “rape-kit”. The alleged victim provided one that showed the possibility of an assault. In normal cases, the accused is asked to provide the clothing they wore at the time of the alleged incident in order to look for trace biological matter. A DNA may also be requested. Neither officer was asked to provide their clothing on the night of the alleged incident even though the alleged victim had already provided information and undergone a medical examination.

Eventually a rarely used Court of Inquiry was filed in 2004. A civil lawsuit was later filed that same year. During the Court of Inquiry testimony and evidence was presented of police harassment of the alleged victim and her family. The sister of the alleged victim was also killed, during this time, by a hit-and-run driver who has yet to be identified by the police department.

Let’s connect some more dots.

The prosecutor tasked with investigating the police officers, and who also charged the alleged victim with lying to the police, even before an investigation of the two police officers was started is Jaime Esparza. Alberto Machorro, Sr., the father of police officer Alberto Machorro involved in the Dee Margo accident and also in this case, was hired by Jaime Esparza in July 2002. Machorro senior also happens to be a retired police officer.

Yes, you read that right, the father of one of the accused officers is working for the same office that should be investigating his son. Machorro, senior was hired two months after the alleged assault, in July 2002, but before the investigation into his son had even started, much less completed.

So now we have, a teenager alleging sexual abuse by two police officers in May 2002, one of them being Alberto Machorro, Jr. Before an investigation of the younger Machorro is started, his father starts working in the office that ultimately files making a false police report against the alleged victim and ultimately drops the charges when the spotlight is shined on the prosecutor’s office. Oh, and according to the prosecutor’s office, the false police report charge is filed at the same time that office is investigating the allegations of assault against the police officers.

In other words, after public scrutiny forces the prosecutors to “investigate” the police officers they have a pending criminal charge against the alleged victim for the same alleged criminal act, albeit they are accusing her of lying while investigating her allegations of abuse.

Now keep these two Machorro’s in mind because they both surface again in the Dee Margo Affair nearly eight years later.

Both the Court of Inquiry and the civil lawsuit resulted in finding no wrong-doing by Machorro. This fact complicates the connection of the dots but it must be kept in mind that court cases do not prove innocence rather they show that the prosecution did not present enough evidence to convict.

As you think about this, remember that Bob Jones was investigated by a federal agency that found no wrong doing before Jones was finally convicted. Likewise, EPISD and Lorenzo Garcia were investigated by a State agency and again, no wrong doing was found.

Both Bob Jones and Lorenzo Garcia sit in a jail cell today for wrong-doing. Those in a conspiracy love to proclaim but we were “investigated” and no wrong doing was found. Garcia held press conferences after press conferences proclaiming how he was being victimized. This is part of a cover up, we were “investigated” and they found nothing.

So now we come back to Joe Moody. Joe Moody worked for Jaime Esparza for four years. This is the office that prosecuted the alleged sexual assault victim. Remember Alberto Machorro, the father? He also worked for Jaime Esparza while Moody was there, and he may even still be working there today. So we know that Joe Moody and Alberto Machorro Sr. worked in the same office and conceivably knew each other.

Now let’s get back to the Dee Margo affair.

Seventy-two hours after the accident, an Austin based political consultant, Miguel Liscano filed an open records request with the city asking for information about Dee Margo’s accident. How did a consultant, linked to Joe Moody know about an accident involving Dee Margo that no one had made public and for all intents and purposes wasn’t even an investigation because each driver went on their separate ways after surveying the damage?

Here are the dots, so far. Joe Moody and both Machorros are connected to each other. Machorro junior is involved in a fender-bender that suddenly becomes a felony case. An out of town political operative finds out about it within 72 hours and the local paper starts to “investigate”. The El Paso Times found out about this case, most likely via useful idiot, Jaime Abeytia. All about an “investigation” that wasn’t really an investigation at all.

So was it a conspiracy? If so, was it successful? You judge for yourself.

Dee Margo narrowly loses the House seat, even after being endorsed by two Democrats. Alberto Machorro, Jr. is issued a five-hour suspension for participating in the creation of a police report accusing Dee Margo of felony evasion of arrest, in other words, falsifying a government record.

Remember that many police officers are currently being prosecuted for falsifying government records and have lost their jobs. Alberto Machorro gets a five-hour suspension, for a similar event. Why?

As if that wasn’t enough, during the police investigation and according to the KVIA report, the elder Machorro was approached by someone connected to the Joe Moody campaign asking to speak to his son, officer Machorro. When KVIA contacted the elder Machorro for comment about who had contacted him, he told them he didn’t know if he could “tell them that”.

Thirty minutes later he told the television reporter that “attorneys in the district attorney’s office told him not to give ABC-7 any information”. Who are these attorneys? The attorneys work for Jaime Esparza who also employs Machorro, the father. The elder Machorro is conveniently told by his coworkers not to talk to KVIA.

Keeping secrets is part of a conspiracy.

Once a conspiracy begins to be scrutinized it is imperative that secrets be kept. When people ask questions the answer is we can’t discuss this right now because we are “investigating”, or because we were ordered not to. Remember when the El Paso Times published the affirmation that Dee Margo was being investigated for felony hit-and-run? The allegation was facilitated because no one could talk about the incident because it was under “investigation”. How very convenient.

This served two purposes. The first is that it validated the illusion that Dee Margo was involved in a felony hit-and-run. The second is that the truth did not have to come out because the “investigation” stifled any serious investigation. These “investigation” delay tactics help to control the outcome and delay the truth. The last “investigation” delay tactic is designed to kill curiosity and therefore the issue disappears.

Jaime Esparza told the media that he would “investigate” whether the leak came from his office. This delays further exposure of the truth. The previous “investigation” gave Bob Moore, Daniel Borunda and the El Paso Times the perfect cover to run with an article that hurts a candidate without blatantly exposing the truth. The “investigation” gives the whisper campaign credibility and the newspaper gets to say, we asked but no one gave us the answers.  It’s all under “investigation”.

The beauty of this strategy is that when the target first becomes aware of this, in this case Dee Margo, he is ambushed with an allegation that could put him in jail. So his initial reaction is incredulity, then a reactive statement of the event being something completely different to eventually it’s “nothing”. The public is left with the impression that it’s more than “nothing” but the culprit must be Dee Margo because the truth is so conveniently delayed by an “investigation”.

But why Daniel Borunda? Borunda has demonstrated to me personally how unethical he is when it comes to reporting the political events of the day. His body of work further reinforces this for me. Any decent reporter would have delved deeper into the police investigation and maybe reached the truth before the damage had been completed. Daniel Borunda accepted that it was an ongoing “investigation” and left at that. Conveniently it hurt the candidacy of Dee Margo. Daniel Borunda, is Bob Moore’s useful idiot.

Bob Moore’s record in local politics is amply demonstrated today, as it was during the Ray Caballero run up to office and during his term as mayor. Bob Moore leaves and the paper recovers some measure of objectivity. Bob Moore then returns and guess what happens, the paper not only sells its building to the City of El Paso but actively supports a controversial candidate and the accompanying political intrigue.

The El Paso Times was the instrument used to validate a whisper campaign that affected the outcome of the Margo-Moody race. The other instruments were the Machorros who created the actual event and are linked to the one who benefited from it, Joe Moody.

Had the police department truly valued transparency and accountability then Alberto Machorro would be treated exactly the same way as all of the other officers who have lost their jobs even before they have been convicted of falsifying government records. The police investigation found that Machorro brought discredit to himself by his participation in the filing of a false police report. How come his “punishment” is only a five-hour suspension?

There are too many dots connecting the players but unfortunately no smoking gun. This is why conspiracies work. The desired outcome is achieved with little or no ramifications for the perpetrators. But the fact is that someone benefited from Dee Margo’s loss.

Continue reading »]]> Let’s get this out of the way from the onset; the only way Steve Ortega is elected mayor in June is when pigs fly. The mathematics of last Saturday’s election clearly spells this out, contrary to UTEP political pundits that clearly have no basic understanding of basic mathematics.

For clarity, so that the El Paso Times will understand this; Steve Ortega did not lose. Steve Ortega did not come in a close second.

Steve Ortega was repudiated by the electorate of El Paso.

But just for argument’s sake, let’s do some number crunching for the El Paso Times and Bob Moore who are just desperate to get their guy into office. After all, what else will keep them relevant with an increasingly dissatisfied readership?

The cold hard facts for the Steve Ortega camp.

160 precincts cast a ballot for mayor. The average result was 47% in favor of Oscar Leeser and only 22% in favor of Steve Ortega.

The average difference between votes for Oscar Leeser and Steve Ortega in the 160 precincts is 74 in favor of Oscar Leeser, per precinct.

In fact, Steve Ortega only won five of the 160 precincts. That is only 3% of all of the precincts.

To make matters worse, there were only 13 precincts where the difference in votes cast between Oscar Leeser and Steve Ortega was 10, or less. Each of those precincts reported less than 100 votes cast in the mayoral election. In other words, Steve Ortega only had a chance to win 11% of the precincts where a ballot was cast.

Here are two pie charts that clearly demonstrate the repudiation of Steve Ortega by the electorate.

First, here are the voters who voted against Steve Ortega.

And finally, the number of precincts won by Steve Ortega.

The electorate’s message was very clear; they do not want anything Steve Ortega is selling.

Continue reading »]]> When I first stumbled across a campaign contribution from Bain Construction to Steve Ortega while reviewing Ortega’s financial disclosure it stood out to me for three reasons. First, it was because instead of an individual’s name it was a company’s name. Second because it did not have the standard “LLC” of a company that is allowed to give corporate donations to politicians in the State of Texas. Finally, it stood out to me because large contractors almost always outgrow their sole-proprietor status and convert to corporations in order to protect their personal assets. Bain Construction is a significant business concern in the region and does business with both the City of El Paso and the Water Utilities, among others. I was curious as to why they weren’t incorporated.

After doing some research I realized that at best, the Steve Ortega Campaign missed the origin of the campaign contribution and would rectify the situation once they became aware of it, or at worst they knew exactly what was going on and it didn’t care.

I felt that Steve Ortega, as an attorney, knew better than anyone what the laws are in relation to corporate donations, especially after he strongly advocated against the recall petitions filed by Pastor Brown by using the corporate donation doctrine.

When the Steve Ortega Campaign first responded to me they stated that after discussing the particular check with the Texas Ethics Commission and “in accordance with guidance from the Texas Ethics Commission lawyer” they had decided to return the money. The campaign also added that they “had self-reported” themselves to the Ethics Commission.

Great, I thought, that’s the end of that issue. After all, they seemed to have reached the same conclusion as I had about whether the entity is a corporation or not. They had taken action and the matter was now closed.

Imagine my surprise when in my morning’s Facebook inbox I receive another email from the Steve Ortega Campaign where they let me know they have decided to keep the money after all.

I assume, but have no way to verify it, that the emails sent to me are either sent from Steve Ortega himself, or under his authority, so I take them as his official position.

The message stated that the Steve Ortega “team researched the issue further and the Bain Construction” check that they received was from a LLC. Therefore they were keeping the money.

This action raised several questions for me. It was a dead issue and all of sudden it became an issue again.

But first, there are a couple of things that need clarification.

The first is whether in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission the question of whether corporate donations to campaigns are legal in Texas. My reading, as a non-attorney, of the Texas Ethics Commission clarification of the August 12, 2010 Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 489 it still illegal for corporations to give directly to political candidates.

The second question is whether a Limited Liability Company (LLC) is able to give a political contribution to a candidate. I’ve already covered the complexities of corporate designations so I will limit my commentary to the following.

My research into Bain Construction ended up showing that there seems to be one Bain Construction company, without the corporate designation properly registered in El Paso to conduct business. This company is owned by Bain Enterprises, LLC.

The Steve Ortega Campaign reinforces this when they write the company that gave them the money is a LLC. I also consulted the city records and came across a city contract between the city and Bain Enterprises, LLC dba Bain Construction. DBA, stands for “doing business as” and it ties perfectly with the records at the County.

Without looking at the actual check and relying on the financial disclosure form filed by the Steve Ortega Campaign I can only conclude that the check the campaign accepted was drawn on a check titled “Bain Construction”. I sent a follow up message asking for clarification to the Steve Ortega Campaign at about six this morning. Six hours later I have not received a response, although yesterday’s response was prompt.

I also faxed a request to Bain Construction at about nine in the morning asking for clarification. I do not know if the appropriate person received the request or not. Regardless, three hours later I have not received a response from Scott C. Bain.

Therefore I am working on the assumption that the check is drawn from a bank account owned by Bain Enterprises, LLC doing business as Bain Construction. This would explain why the Steve Ortega Campaign listed the contribution as coming from “Bain Construction” while also being a LLC, as per Ortega’s campaign message letting me know that they would be keeping the check.

So what’s the problem?

As far as I can tell there is only one entity in the State of Texas that is related to Bain Construction and is a LLC. It is Bain Enterprises, LLC. According to the state records, Bain Enterprises, LLC is wholly owned by Bain Construction, Inc., an entity prohibited from contributing to a political campaign, according to my understanding of the Texas Ethics Commission rulings.

I also consulted the Texas Ethics Commission to get a better understanding of this. According to Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 383, dated December 12, 1997 they conclude that “a limited liability company owned in whole or in part by a corporation is subject to the restrictions” against political contributions to candidates.

From all of the information I have been able to compile it appears to me that the Bain Construction contribution of $500 from April 23, 2013 to Steve Ortega violates the prohibition against corporate donations to candidates, such as Steve Ortega.

What I find most interesting is why the about face from the Steve Ortega Campaign?

At first, they were returning the money after consulting an attorney from the Ethics Commission and even went so far as to “self-report” themselves to the Commission. Then, an about face, they claim that further research indicates that they can keep the check after all.

Steve Ortega is a lawyer and there are many lawyers supporting his candidacy. The amount of money, $500, is less than one percent of his total take during the last reporting period. It’s not like they need the $500.

So why the about face?

Speculating, there are many reasons for this. They range from arrogance to a cover up.

If my assumptions are correct then returning the money is problematic for the Steve Ortega Campaign. My understanding of the legal process is that a legal violation cannot be cured by reversing the action. Take for example, if someone steals an Apple. If they then return it was it illegal to begin with? The violation has occurred even if the individual returns the Apple uneaten.

In this case the penalties for accepting a corporate contribution are considered a third-degree felony and other candidates can sue and demand restitution from the Steve Ortega Campaign for twice the amount of the contribution plus other penalties. And, not only is Steve Ortega subject to the possible penalties but also are Scott C. Bain, the owner of Bain Construction, and anyone else that helped Steve Ortega manage his political contributions.

Could this be the reason for the about face?

Finally, as always, our local media is nowhere to be found on this issue, even though it is important to the community. In the case of the El Paso Times, if this had been an issue of any other candidate it would have been front-page news yesterday and today.

Continue reading »]]> You won’t be reading about this in the El Paso Times because it involves Bob Moore’s favorite golden boy; Steve Ortega. Had this been any other mayoral candidate you can expect it would have made front-page, above the fold “breaking news”, a few days before the election. But alas it involves Steve Ortega and there are all sorts of excuses as to why it is not news.

Although the US Supreme Court has ruled that corporate contributions to candidates are not illegal, to my knowledge, the State of Texas has not yet accepted this premise. The city and Mayor John Cook used the “illegality” of corporate donations in the State of Texas to demand a criminal investigation of, and filed a lawsuit against Pastor Brown.

Section 253,091, of the Texas Election Code defines corporations as those organized under the Texas Business Corporation Act.

I am not a lawyer but as a businessman I’m somewhat familiar with how corporations are viewed by State and Federal entities. It can get a little confusing when “Inc.” or “Corp” is mixed in with “Ltd.” and “LLC.”. Simplified, an “Inc.” is a corporation that is treated by the State as distinct and separate from its owners. For purposes of taxes, a corporation pays taxes on its income and then the “owners” of the corporation pay taxes on the money they take out of the corporation. It is double taxation of the same income.

In other words, an “Inc.” stands on its own. Whereas a “LLC” is normally a sole-proprietor that has some of the protections of a corporation but none of the double taxation issues of a normal corporation. A “LLC” is just a way of protecting the assets of the individual owner without the liability of paying taxes twice on the same income.

Because of this, a “LLC” is treated as an individual by the State of Texas and therefore it can give campaign contributions to political candidates. But an “Inc.” is prohibited from giving campaign contributions to a candidate. Complicating this even further, a “LLC” can be owned by an individual or a corporation. If it is owned by an individual then a contribution from it is legal.

Section 253.094 clearly states that a corporation “may not make a political contribution”. The section adds that a “person who violates this section commits” a third-degree felony. Section 253.131 states that a candidate that accepts such a contribution in support of the candidate, then each other candidate in the ballot is potentially entitled to for damages, twice the value of the contribution and reasonable attorney’s fees.

While examining Steve Ortega’s 8-Day Campaign Contribution Report I came across a political contribution from Bain Construction to Steve Ortega on April 30, 2013 for $500. Bain Construction caught my eye because generally large-scale construction companies incorporate in order to protect themselves from liability. As discussed above, there are two obvious corporate designations; Inc. and LLC. In this case the contribution listed neither so I did some digging.

Something you would expect the El Paso Times to do, and they would have had it been any other candidate. But I digress.

As far as I can tell, there is one entity named Bain Construction owned by Scott C. Bain but registered as three different entities at the State of Texas and six at the County level. Examining the public record I was able to breakdown the various entities as follows.

Following the timeline of each entity’s registration at the County from 2004 until 2007 it appears that Bain Construction is owned by Bain Enterprises, LLC. But a wait a minute, isn’t a LLC allowed to give corporate contributions?

Not so fast, because of the complexity of the corporate taxes and liability umbrellas LLCs are not necessarily sole-proprietors, in fact they can be owned by other corporations.

In this case, Bain Enterprises, LLC., is registered with the State of Texas under a General Partner which happens to be Bain Construction, Inc. Although the numerous entities registered with the County includes three entities named Bain Construction owned by Scott C. Bain a following of the timeline seems to indicate that Bain Construction is owned by a corporation.

According to the records this is what I found.

Bain Construction, Inc. was registered with the County on July 31, 2003. Both Bain Construction, Inc. and Scott C. Bain are listed as “owners”. The State of Texas lists Scott C. Bain as the registered agent, President and Director. All use the same address in Horizon. On August 30, 2004, Bain Construction is added to the County assumed names database. One is “owned” by Scott C. Bain and the other is “owned” by Bain Enterprises, LTD. Bain Enterprises, LTD is listed as “not setup for Franchise Tax” by the State of Texas.

Finally, on September 27, 2007, Bain Construction is once again added to the County assumed name database with one “owned” by Scott C. Bain and the other “owned” by Bain Enterprises, LLC.

The Texas Comptroller lists Bain Enterprises, LLC. with Scott C. Bain as the registered agent and one General Partner named Bain Construction, Inc. All entities use the same address in Horizon.

Without actually looking at the check that was actually deposited by the Steve Ortega Campaign and subpoenaing the bank from where it was drafted to see if the account is held by an individual or a Texas Corporation, by reviewing its tax identification number, it is impossible to determine whether it, in fact is a corporate donation or not. Only law enforcement could make that determination. But don’t expect any investigation to be conducted because Steve Ortega is heir apparent.

As for the El Paso Times, had this allegation been made against any of the other mayoral candidates, not only would you be reading it as front-page news but you would also see editorial, after editorial demanding that an investigation be conducted. Bob Moore would have ordered reporters to investigate this and ambush the unfortunate candidate at the most inopportune moment in order to help his anointed golden-boy.

But, unlike the El Paso Times and although I am not a journalist, I wanted to give Steve Ortega an opportunity to respond to the allegation. So I sent him an email via his Facebook page. Unfortunately he does not provide a fax number or an email on his campaign website so I was forced to use Facebook to attempt to communicate with him. I realize that I did not give him much time to respond but as this is important to the community I did not feel I could withhold the information much longer. The following is the message I sent him. At about 1:00, right under the deadline I received an unsigned response from his campaign. I have reproduced it in its entirety following my message to his campaign.

Facebook message submitted at 11:45 pm, El Paso Time.

My name is Martin Paredes and I publish a blog at elpasonews.org. In reviewing the 8-day financial disclosure report for Steve Ortega I came across a campaign contribution in the amount of $500 made by Bain Construction on April 30, 2013. I realize that the contribution does not list the contributor as a corporation as defined by the State of Texas, but according to County and State records, Bain Construction appears to be owned by a Texas Corporation named Bain Construction, Inc. with the same address listed in the campaign disclosure form.

This appears to be a violation of the Texas prohibition against corporate contributions. I am doing a blog on this issue that I plan on publishing at about 1:00 pm today, El Paso time. I realize that this is very little time but because of the potential legal ramifications of this I consider this breaking news that needs to be published as soon as possible. Because of the implications of this I wanted to give the candidate an opportunity to respond to the allegations. If the candidate is unable to respond by the 1:00, I will publish my blog with a notice that I submitted a short-notice request for comment from Steve Ortega and that I am awaiting his response. If Steve Ortega chooses to respond I will publish his response as an addendum to the article. If Steve Ortega is able to respond before my publishing deadline I will include his response, in full, in my blog post.

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

Steve Ortega Campaign response received at approximately 1:00 pm.

“Mr. Paredes,

Thanks for contacting our campaign; I appreciate the opportunity to respond. We reviewed that check before we deposited it. Some corporations are exempt and we relied on information from the company’s comptroller and an AG opinion for this particular check and the type of corporation it is. We discussed this with the Texas Ethics Commission this morning with their legal department, and we self-reported out of an abundance of caution. In accordance with guidance from the Texas Ethics Commission lawyer, we have also returned the money. The returned contribution will be noted on our next campaign finance report for the current period. Thanks again.”

In the end, the question remains, did Steve Ortega accept an illegal contribution or not? His campaign, if not himself under his direction, responded that they have returned the money. Although it appears that many individuals were contacted and an AG opinion was consulted ultimately the money was returned. But was there a violation of the law? We will probably never know.

Continue reading »]]> Last Sunday, as I prepared to celebrate Cinco de Mayo, far from my beloved Mexico, I took some time to contemplate the Cinco de Mayo holiday. I have always argued that the fascination with Cinco de Mayo in the United States derives from a clever beer marketing gimmick that was used to market beer sales in the United States. Contrary to popular belief, Cinco de Mayo is not a celebration of Mexican independence but rather it is a celebration of the liberation of a culture from those who tried to reinvent Mexico with an Anglo-Saxon cultural identity.

From the surface, the ultimate expulsion of the French from Mexico was the regaining of Mexico’s sovereignty from invaders. But, in reality it was much more than that. Although Maximiliano, along with his wife Carlota, tried to portray a sense of “love” for Mexico and its well-being; the truth is that he was attempting to impose in Mexico an Anglo-Saxon culture upon the Mexicans. In Maximiliano’s eyes, Mexico was better off if it adopted the Anglo-Saxon way of life.

Maximiliano’s early successes were the result of the Mexicans who embraced the emperor in the mistaken notion that he was the future of the country. Those “vendidos” were embracing the power center in order to further their own ambitions at the cost of their cultural identity.

History demonstrates that the Anglo-Saxons have conquered others through forced assimilation with the imposition of their notion of what is better for a community via the helpful help from the local “useful idiots”. The useful idiots feel that they could achieve a measure of success by attaching themselves to those they perceive to have the power.

Much of the history of what led to Cinco de Mayo has been playing out in El Paso for decades.

El Paso has a unique history and a unique cultural identity derived from its Mexican heritage and reinforced by its Anglo-Saxon brethren. El Paso is rich in culture because its citizens have embraced each others’ unique cultural identity; the Mexican and the Anglo-Saxon traditions that melted into El Paso’s uniqueness throughout history. El Paso is neither Mexican nor Anglo-Saxon rather it is uniquely El Paso.

Case in point is the excellent El Paso food, neither Mexican nor Tex-Mex but rather El Paso unique. Many attempt to replicate El Paso cuisine outside of El Paso but none succeed.

Just as Maximilano, who hailed from Vienna to impose his vision upon other people by destroying their local heritage and cultural identity so are modern-day conquerors, hailing from other places, trying to destroy the El Paso uniqueness to create their own utopia for their own personal playgrounds.

Evern Wall, Bob Jones and now William Sanders, Paul Foster and Woodley “Woody” Hunt have taken it upon themselves to “make El Paso” better by imposing their values on the city.

And just as before, the useful idiots are helping them at the cost of El Paso’s rich cultural history. The most recent “renaissance” for El Paso started with the grand-vision of Ray Caballero. For too long Ray Caballero looked for his “ticket” of acceptance into the elite Anglo-Saxon community of El Paso never achieving the equality he so longed for.

The Ray Caballero “vision” consisted of doing away with the “grittiness” of El Paso and replacing it with sprawling grand-central type parks and doing away with the Segundo Barrio “riff-raff” to revitalize the city.

But was this Ray Caballero’s vision or was it Woody Hunt’s, along with others?

Eventually, the city of El Paso rose against the Ray Caballero “vision” and sent him away. He left El Paso to settle among his perceived peers in Portland Oregon. He peeks in, once in a while, to see if he can someday comeback to stake his place among the high-falutin elite who he still perceives as his ticket into high-society.

But the “vision” wasn’t his; rather it was someone else’s.

Caballero’s disciples; Susie Byrd, Veronica Escobar, Steve Ortega and Robert “Beto” O’Rourke have taken up the torch for the cabal intent on making El Paso “better” by erasing the uniqueness of El Paso and replacing it with their vision of what El Paso should be like.

Like before, the Anglo-Saxon outsiders have come into El Paso to remake the city into their vision of what it should be.

But why would the Hunt’s, Foster’s and Sanders’, who have the resources to establish themselves in the Anglo-Saxon strongholds, spend their resources in a city like El Paso?

Simple economics.

El Paso and Cd. Juárez are uniquely situated to potentially take advantage of the new economy that drives the world’s economic engine. Both cities share the largest international border in the world with two economies that can produce the goods the world consumes and distribute them to the consumers of the future.

Mexico boasts the most free-trade agreements of any country in the world. Under these agreements, any product produced in Mexico can be sold to the largest consumer markets at reduced or no tariffs. Basically, you use the American ingenuity to create consumer products and you build them in Mexico to ship them to the worldwide consumers.

The Foxconn industrial complex in San Jeronimo is the beach-head of this possible economic future.

There are three things you need to make this a reality: 1) build the manufacturing complexes at the border to import and produce the consumer products, 2) reduce the time needed to import and export across the border, and 3) build the legal frameworks to streamline the process of manufacturing and the transportation of the end products to the consumers.

For the modern day industrialists, on both sides of the border, the plans are in motion. Foster, Hunt, Sanders and their counterparts in Juárez have been diligently preparing for this. Those that control the land nearest the international borders, in the United States and in Mexico, will create the best economic legacies for their families to enjoy for generations to come.

Don’t believe me?

Take a look at what has happened in the last twelve to thirteen years. Look at who controls what. Oil, the substance that drives the economic engines, also creates the wealth that funds the “visions” for El Paso. Guess who controls that?

Ray Caballero, along with Susie Byrd, targeted Asarco and Jobe Concrete under the notion that El Paso had outgrown its legacy of blue-collar labor and was ready to grow into the elites of white-collar labor. Therefore Asarco and Jobe had to be gone. It was all about the environment they gleefully proclaimed. So, in the end they brought Jobe into the fold and destroyed Asarco.

But what about Western Refinery?

For them, a refinery smack in the middle of town just didn’t seem to be a threat to the community.

Why?

Could it possibly be that Western Refinery wasn’t a problem because the masters of the useful idiots; Byrd, Escobar and Ortega told them that Western Refinery wasn’t a problem.

Sanders, on the other hand, started to lay the groundwork for the future economic engine by asserting control over vast-land holdings along both sides of the border. The Asarco land, the Segundo Barrio and Lomas de Poleo among others are being prepared for the future.

Those that control the land stand to make the most off, of the future economy.

Hunt, on the other hand is not only part of the economic engine funding this but his experience in large-scale developments and inter-governmental working relationships are important to the network. He also controls vast amounts of water that is needed for the economic engine. Not to mention that he was one of the first to have the “vision” to create the necessary framework for this economic renaissance.

Shortly after Ray Caballero started to impose his “vision”, rather Hunt’s vision, on El Paso; the citizen’s of El Paso employed the democratic tools to stop his gentrification of their city, or rather the Anglo-Saxon gentrification of the city, and forced him out.

True to their brethren roots, the citizens of El Paso rose up and challenged the status-quo of the elites. Democracy was the tool and it stood in the way of the elites.

For the invading Anglo-Saxons this could not be, so they updated their plans and quietly imposed a City Manager to control and stifle the democratic processes. Knowing that an external Anglo-Saxon led “renaissance” would not be acceptable to the masses, they enlisted the modern-day vendidos of Byrd, Escobar and Ortega to lead the charge. And as before, they were promised “power” in the future El Paso to keep them in line.

Their plan is coming to fruition. Beto O’Rourke has been placed to facilitate and create networks at the federal level in order to create the necessary environment at the federal level. Joyce Wilson was brought in to control the “riff-raff” of Byrd and Ortega and impose control over the functions of the city.

Keep in mind that the city is the only local authority that is allowed to make laws to facilitate the needs of the elites in control. But the County must also be brought into the game in order to control land in the targeted areas. The County encompasses the City and therefore the land that is needed for the plan. Not only does Veronica Escobar serve this purpose but she indirectly influences the law-enforcement authority of the County, by her influence over the budgets of both the Sheriff’s Department and the prosecutors at the County Attorney’s and District Attorney’s offices.

In other words; the water, the fuel manufacturing capabilities, the lands, the ability to influence at the federal level legislation that would facilitate international trade and controlling the local legislative branches and law-enforcement are now under the umbrella of the foreign Anglo-Saxons revitalizing El Paso. The pieces to the plan are firmly in place. Just look around you.

But why downtown El Paso?

Simple, industrialists controlling vast complex empires need to be near their investments. Currently El Paso is not the proper playground for them so they need to create one.

Enter downtown revitalization.

El Paso, as you go out and vote for your future leaders, take a moment to contemplate what the El Paso “progressives” are really about. The Anglo-Saxon invaders know better than to rely on the exposed “useful-idiots” as they learned their historical lesson by the expulsion of Ray Caballero.

There are many more vendidos waiting to grab their piece of the power pie for their own perceived acceptance into the ethnic identity they long for but will never be able to attain. They are the political candidates you should repudiate. As always, follow the money. Foster, Hunt and Sanders make investments; they do not just give money away.

Continue reading »]]> Although the media-spin machine has created the perception that El Paso is solidly behind the Tucson Padres making El Paso home there are indications that not all is what the spin meisters would have us believe.  Although the baseball stadium is well on its way, after City Hall was recently demolished, there are still several unanswered questions as to how the economic mechanics of the baseball team will work.

Sure, we are deep into the contract that to stop the progress now may be cost prohibitive but should we really continue down this road? Do the economics make sense? Exactly how does the economic model for Triple-A work? More importantly, is it even possible that the stadium would be an asset to El Paso?

But first, how did the Tucson Padres end up in Tucson?

In 2010, the Tucson Padres, a minor league affiliate of the San Diego Padres, made Tucson a temporary home while waiting for Escondido California to build them a new stadium. While at Tucson, the Tucson Padres were not only in last place in their league but also struggled to sell tickets. (6)

Originally Escondido tried to lure the Padres to Escondido by promising to build them a baseball field.

Where did the Tucson Padres come from?

In 2010, the Portland Braves were kicked out of their home stadium because Portland converted the baseball stadium into a soccer field. San Diego Padres’ owner, Jeff Moorad purchased the team and renamed it the Tucson Padres in anticipation of having them play in Escondido, right outside of San Diego. Moorad parked the Tucson Padres in Tucson while he worked to get funding from California taxpayer’s to build him a new stadium. Although Escondido spent over $11 million in land acquisitions and environmental studies, the California taxpayers were reluctant to approve public funding to build the stadium if it could not be paid with public redevelopment funds.

Under the California redevelopment law, agencies were created to provide funding for public works such as roads and affordable housing. These were similar to the TIF districts in which revenues from the increased tax-base were used to pay for the projects. The 60-plus year old law was intended as an urban development funding tool.

In 2012, the California legislature did away with redevelopment funds.

US Citizenship for Investing

When the redevelopment fund plan failed, Escondido’s Mayor Sam Abed desperately tried to get the Padres’ to Escondido, by having foreigners pay for the stadium. To do this, Escondido was promising foreign investors a fast-track into US citizenship in return for their investment of $50 million.

Under the EB-5 immigration visa, any foreigner who invests at least $500,000 is given two-years of permanent residence in the United States to manage their investment. This usually leads to US citizenship.

The city of Escondido could not entice any foreign investors to invest in the proposed stadium. In late 2011, the team owner, Jeff Moorad put the team up for sale. By the end of December of 2011, Moorad received three offers to purchase the team. None came from Tucson.

Having played in Tucson for the last two years and with all of the arguments perpetuated by supporters of the baseball stadium about how a Triple-A baseball team would drive economic development, the question that begs to be asked; is why didn’t anyone in Tucson see the benefit of keeping the team there?

Could the answer be that, contrary to popular belief, Triple-A baseball does nothing for the local economy?

In essence, taxpayers in Escondido had no problem using redevelopment funds, monies self-generated by increasing the target area’s tax base but they were not interested in paying for a new stadium from their own taxes. Why? And why were foreign investors, with the promise of citizenship dangled before them not be interested in building a baseball field for the team?

Why did Portland kick the team out?

Another question that needs to be asked is why did Portland convert the baseball field that the Portland Beavers were using to a soccer stadium? After all, the Portland Beavers had been in Portland for the last 10 years. The Portland Beavers are today’s Tucson Padres.

What is it that Portland knows about Triple-A’s ability to drive economic development that the El Paso leaders haven’t asked themselves? Why did they choose soccer over baseball?

Or, is this one of those inconvenient questions that no one at the city wants to ask?

As if those weren’t enough questions to ponder, what are the attendance numbers for the Tucson Padres? After all, the revenue model much touted by the city is that attendance to the games will drive economic development.

Fan Attendance Declines

A comprehensive attendance analysis conducted by David P. Kronhein (7) of the attendance trends for both the Minor Leagues and the Mexican Leagues shows that the attendance rates for the Pacific League, the league that the Tucson Padres belong to, had two teams with the most attendance decline in 2011. Both Salt Lake City and Sacramento ranked first and second place of the biggest declines in total attendance for 2011.

The Tucson Padres’ attendance fell 52,196 from the 2010 to 2011. “The Padres’ attendance of 252,136 was the lowest of any Class AAA team in 2011”, writes Kronhein in his attendance report. (7, page: 20) In fact, the Padres had an average attendance of 3,410 for each of its 71 home games. In contrast, the closest team to the Padres, the Las Vegas 51s, averaged 4,486 per game. (7)

Not only are the Padres at the bottom of its league in games won, but it is also at the bottom of its league in attendance numbers.

According to the city’s fact sheet on the ballpark (8), “Triple-A baseball would provide 71 home games per season”, bringing an “annual estimated 436,000 patrons”.  In other words the city is assuming that just because the worst team in the league is now making El Paso home, it will magically increase its attendance from 4,486 to 6,141 per game.

According to the city’s logic, 1,656 additional fans will attend each game because the city says so.

It makes me wonder where they came up with $17.9 million in revenues. Could it be the same place as the additional 1,600 plus fans?

As if that wasn’t enough magical hocus-pocus with the numbers, the city adds; “many cities have experienced considerable growth in the area where the ballpark is located”.

Oh, really?

“The basic idea is that sports stadiums typically aren’t a good tool for economic development”, wrote Victor Matheson, an economist at Holy Cross that has written extensively about the economic impact of stadiums. (3) He adds that cities produce studies that are made by interested parties in building the stadiums in order to bolster their argument.

But, he adds, take the “number the sports promoter says, take it and move the decimal one place to the left”, adding, “then divide it by ten” giving you a good estimate of the actual economic impact. (3)

So the city says that the economic impact of the baseball stadium is going to be $17.9 million. Let’s apply Matheson’s formula to this number. This gives us an economic impact of a whopping $179,000. How realistic is this figure?

Proponents of stadiums like to point out that the economy is stimulated by the construction jobs to build the stadium. (1) In the case of El Paso, every recent major construction project has gone out to out-of-town builders. Small, trickle down jobs are given to the locals. But, the money leaves town. Regardless, the jobs are temporary and end as soon as the stadium is built.

Finally proponents like to point out that the people attending the games generate new spending in the community. (1) Unfortunately that is not true. People who attend the games simply reshuffle their disposable incomes away from movies and other local attractions to attend the games. (2) Randal Vataha, founder of Game Plan who has been involved in minor league transactions agrees that minor league teams compete with movie theaters for entertainment dollars. (5) No new spending is generated with the stadium.

Here is something else to ponder; economists generally disagree on almost everything, except that they are in agreement on one thing, that when it comes to public financed stadiums; the teams, i.e. the owners win and the taxpayers lose. (4)

And since the city leaders love to compare El Paso to other cities, here is one they should be paying attention to. Glendale, who actually negotiated a deal, unlike El Paso, with the team owners to pay $2.2 million in annual rent payments, will still lose $9 million annually even if their home team were to dominate their league. (3)

Susie Byrd, Steve Ortega and Joyce Wilson, along with the complicit news media have done a good job in creating the illusion that the baseball stadium is a good thing for El Paso. The truth is that the economics of minor league baseball, especially with the contract that the city leaders put in place with Foster and Hunt will only benefit Foster and Hunt at the expense of the city’s taxpayers.

Forty-nine percent of the revenues for teams come from ticket sales. (5) The costs for the players are paid for by the big-league affiliates. Without the expense of a stadium, Foster and Hunt stand to make some serious money off, of the backs of the local taxpayers.

Now that’s a good deal, where do I sign up?

Sources:

1. Brooking, Article | Summer 1997, “Sports, Jobs, & Taxes: Are New Stadiums Worth the Cost?”, By: Andrew Zimbalist and Roger G. Noll Wisconsin Reporter
2. “Selig defends sports stadiums funded by taxpayers”, Unknown author, November 28, 2012, online blog accessed on April 25, 2013
3. The Atlantic, If You Build It, They Might Not Come: “The Risky Economics of Sports Stadiums”, Pat Garofalo and Travis Waldron, September 7 2012 Reason.com
4. “Taxpayers on the Hook for Gwinnett, Ga. Baseball Stadium Public subsidies for stadiums are win-lose propositions: The teams win, and the taxpayers lose”, A. Barton Hinkle, October 31, 2012
5. Forbes, “Minor Leagues, Major Profits”, Michael K. Ozanian, August 08, 2008
6. Inside Tucson Business, “Tucson Padres confident they’ll stay another year, maybe longer”, Kaity Sitzman, June 29, 2012
7. Minor League Baseball 2011 Attendance Analysis, David P. Kronheim
8. The City of El Paso Downtown Ballpark Factsheet

Continue reading »]]> The El Paso voters recently increased the Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) from 15.5% to 17.5%. According to the city’s documents the new tax rate, the two percent increase, will be used to fund the new baseball arena. The same documentation adds that the revenues collected, including the increase, will be a little under $112 million annually. In comparison, Houston generates $80 million while Austin only generates $49 million from their respective hotel taxes.

Why does the City of El Paso think it can generate more revenue than Austin or Houston?

Austin and Houston have a much more vibrant hospitality economy than El Paso; therefore the city’s numbers do not make any sense.

According to the city’s own analysis, El Paso now has one of the highest hotel occupancy rates in the State of Texas. In other words, the city with the least ability to attract out of town hotel occupants has now made it even more unattractive to visitors to the city to stay at the local hotels. With the New Mexico cities’ of Las Cruces and Sunland Park, visitors driving through the region will have an even harder time justifying their stay in El Paso.

Gimmicks such as hidden taxes imposed upon visitors to a community were easier to impose before the Internet as travelers were not conditioned to compare rates on the Internet and the information was not readily available. Travelers, today plan their vacation itineraries online.

Those travelers to the region will make their decisions on the cost involved in lodging. There is no economic reason for them to stay in El Paso on the way to a vacation destination.

The city, of course, will point out that the occupant’s of hotel rooms are businessmen visiting maquilas across the border or businessmen involved in local government-related industries. As the economic pressures on government-based industries continue and the flexibility of online meeting technologies continues to improve, the trend will be to reduce travel expenses rather than increase them.

The issue though, that the city glosses over is that the numbers that the city is basing their revenues on are based on hotel occupancy rates. The more people that stay in the hotel rooms the more money the HOT tax will generate.

So what are the El Paso occupancy rates?

El Paso has 95 hotels with about 9,000 rooms, according to the Texas Comptroller’s office. In 2012, the occupancy rates were 65.5%, fueled by business travelers. The 2011 rate was 67.6%. The trend is lower occupancy rates, not higher. The city has, of course, glossed over this and instead focused on the fact that hotel revenues were up during the same period.

The problem is that revenues can be artificially inflated by the higher rates sustained by unusual travel activity. During the period that room rates increased in El Paso, there was an active influx of Mexican travelers escaping the drug war fighting in Mexico and increased construction and other activity at Fort Bliss and the other military installations.

These were temporary activities that are unsustainable. The rates will go down as the activity decreases.

Even more disturbing is that the El Paso International Airport is reporting a 15% decline in passenger traffic since 2010. The first few months of 2013, traffic at the airport is down three percent. El Paso is not a vacation destination therefore any drop in air traffic will directly impact the hotel occupancy rates.

According to the city’s fact sheet, the city expects to fund 72% of the baseball stadium with the HOT tax increase. As is normal with the city, they have glossed over how the rest of the 28% will be paid.

But even more important is that the city has committed to paying for the stadium, even if the HOT tax does not generate the revenues needed to meet the debt service. Therefore the city will use other taxpayer monies to meet its obligations. If the hotel occupancy rate continues to drop the city will shore up the deficit with other taxpayer funds.

It is easy for the city to state that “property taxes are not to be used” to fund the project because that is a commitment made on existing forecast models, even though the models may not be accurate. The city can, and will likely come back in the near future and state that “unforeseen circumstances have decreased the expected revenues” and therefore other sources must be used. After all, the city is committed; therefore you, the taxpayers are committed as well.