ANTI-CENTER/ARENA PLANK OF CASCOS' CAMPAIGN PLATFORM

Special to El Rrun-Rrun

It was surprising that the recently defeated proposition to establish a regional convention center and arena in Cameron County (by 75 votes) that was to be paid through hotel-motel occupancy and rental car fees without reliance on property taxes was opposed by former Cameron County Judge Carlos Cascos.

Why, people wondered, was Cascos so opposed to the passage of the proposition that was supported by current county judge Eddie Treviño, the same politician who defeated him in the past election? 

Hadn't Cascos and the entire county commissioners court not passed a resolution years earlier in unified support of a regional center/arena? But as he contemplates a run against incumbent Eddie Treviño who was pushing for the passage of the proposition, the center/arena he championed now seemed like a bad idea. But guess whose good idea it was way back then in 2007?

Cascos' wishes back then for what he has been advocating for the last 14 years were on the ballot on the statewide constitutional amendments that included a local proposition to build such a center.

That resolution was signed by Cascos, Pct. 1 Commissioner Sofie Benavides, then-Pct. 2 commissioner John Wood (now a Port of Brownsville commissioner), Pct. 3 commissioner David Garza, and former Pct. 4 commissioner Edna Tamayo.

So suddenly – as the political season for the primaries in March approaches – some tend to forget where they stood on the center/arena before. Since his opponent will likely be his successor and his future Democratic Party opponent for another term (Treviño), maybe now it didn't seem like such a hot idea.

The center/arena was to be part of a larger TRZ (Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone) – supported by the City of Brownsville and county elected representatives – who voted to pass an ordinance approving the voluntary annexation petition of Madeira Properties Ltd. that brought 684.52 acres into the city.

The city-county interlocal agreement requires that the city contribute 60% of its maintenance and operation tax rate, based on tax valuation within the TIRZ, for infrastructure costs in Madeira. The county’s proportionate share is 35.5% of costs of the project, or the maximum total contribution of $57,650,218.

The city ordinance also directed the extension of municipal services to that land. Madeira Properties owns more than 1,330 acres. However, the remainder (646.28 acres) was already within the city limits.The ordinance also directed the extension of municipal services to that land. 

Before the election to vote on the propositions that included the arena/center, about the only voice in opposition was that of Cascos who said he had not seen the project's feasibility study yet still questioned the claims based on the study and advanced by Treviño to promote it.

This led to repeated claims by some opponents of the project who jumped on the Cascos bandwagon that the money that was to be spent on the arena/center would better be spent on roads and infrastructure like drainage. And it didn't matter that supporters repeatedly corrected these claims and asserted that the venue funds raised through hotel occupancy and rental car fees could not be commingled to be used for road improvements or road construction.

"NO ! NO ! NO ! FIX COUNTY ROADS, DRAINAGE & PUT UP SOME LIGHTS IN THE DARK AREAS ON THE ROADS ! BETTER PROGRESS NEEDED," was characteristic of the opponents' erroneous claims.

Here's Public Funding 101. 

Property taxes (ad valorem taxes) are used for things like funding public schools, libraries, city streets (potholes), county roads, public safety and city and county personnel payroll, infrastructure improvements, etc...

In other words, these property taxes are severely restricted in their use. 

Venue taxes such as the funding that tax on car rental and hotel occupancy taxes paid by visitors to the area, not county property taxpayers. These include stadiums, hotels, arenas, mutli-use venues like the proposed arena/center. These are also strictly restricted funds and can only be used for that purpose – to encourage tourism and attract outside visitors.

That, in turn, would fuel land development in the empty stretch near the intersection of Highway 100 and US 77-83 (I-69E) that would generate tax revenues for the local communities and encourage economic development, proponents said.

Proposition A on the ballot asked voters whether existing venue-tax revenue generated by the Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) and vehicle rentals should be used to help finance construction of the $100 million, 10,000-seat, multi-use arena that was part of  Madeira, the master-planned residential/commercial development to be built on 1,330 acres at the site.

The developer, Madeira Development LLC, also plans a full-service hotel, which would likely spur restaurants, bars and other businesses, Trevino said, adding that the arena would be the keystone of the larger development.

Now, as the jockeying begins for the primary elections of the Democratic and Republican parties this coming March, Cascos is including his opposition to the project which he championed more than a  decade ago as one of his anti-Treviño planks on his platform saying he had "actively supported a $100 M arena project that financially made no sense..."

The center/arena idea is still alive and could be brought back before the voters, according to its supporters. Will its detractors – like the former county judge – continue to oppose it by rejecting it out of hand? And will its opponents continue to mix apples and oranges with the "fix roads and drainage and lights" bogeyman knowing full well that the center/arena project funding is entirely separate from that and could spur economic development which is so sorely needed for the region?