Two groups have formed to carry the fight forward on Amarillo’s multipurpose event venue, which will be decided Nov. 3 in a non-binding municipal referendum.
Under normal circumstances, I’d be pulling for the underdog in such a contest, the one with little money, name ID or significant political backing.
Not this time.
In one corner is Vote FOR Amarillo, which is campaigning in favor of the $32 million MPEV, ballpark component and all. In the other corner is Amarillo Citizens for Tomorrow, which opposes the MPEV design.
VFA vs. ACT. There you have it.
As my friend Jon Mark Beilue reported in the Amarillo Globe-News on Sunday, the differences between the organizations go well beyond their respective views on the MPEV.
For example:
- Paul Matney, a highly respected — and admired — former Amarillo College president and community leader, is leading the VFA effort; ACT doesn’t appear to have anyone leading it.
- VFA has registered as a political action committee; ACT has not.
- Matney and Wendi Swope are serving as spokespersons for VFA; ACT hasn’t designated anyone to speak for the group.
- VFA has secured the backing of dozens of key community leaders, business groups and civic organizations; ACT calls itself a “grassroots organization.”
I am not going to denigrate the grassroots aspect of ACT’s political base. However, it is important — to me, at least — that a political action group is marching forward with critical backing from a diverse base of business and civic interests.
VFA wants the MPEV to proceed as it’s been presented. The ballpark will be more than a ballpark, Matney and others have declared. It could play host to a number of outdoor activities that could attract visitors to a revived downtown district.
One of the more curious arguments being offered by ACT has been its contention that hotel-motel tax revenue that would pay for the MPEV’s maintenance and operation would be “exhausted in a few years,” forcing the city to increase property taxes to pay for future Civic Center improvements and expansion. I’m not quite sure what one has to do with the other.
Even if the city were to expand and dress up the Civic Center first, it would do so with certificates of obligation or perhaps submit the proposal to voters for their decision on whether to approve a bond issue election. Either way, property taxes would come into play.
I continue to support the MPEV as it’s been developed and presented. Moreover, I will continue to put my faith in an effort led by someone with the credibility that Paul Matney has earned through his many years of service to his hometown.
in addition, the charge that HOT would just “run out” ignores the fact that HOT would only rise with more conventions and events being drawn here due to the catalyst project. and with a facility to partly make up for the space restrictions due to a civic center remodel, we won’t lose much of that revenue during said remodel.
John, have you seen the financial projections for this project? I am skeptical because I believe the HOT money will not be sufficient to service the debt and the inevitable annual losses. Maybe I’m missing something, but I do believe that a tax increase will be necessary to support the garage and ballpark/mpev. Trust me that I am not trying to “start something,” but I don;t see how the math works without substantial taxpayer participation, beyond the HOT and sales taxes.
Vince, the financials of the MPEV are not being represented very fairly by anyone. First, the ballteam was budgeted to pay 250K/year, which obviously doesn’t pay much towards a 32 million debt, less than 1% annually. Second, the main income budgeted 1.1mil/year from HOT taxes. These are clearly taxes, and all that is happening in this plan is they are being diverted from their current use to the MPEV. This is NOT a new revenue stream the MPEV brings in, that’s limited to the 250K lease, assuming that even happens or gets paid.