Mr. Ardovino's argument to save the stack(s) was based on a very trustworthy engineering report that the stacks are "strong, straight and solid".
On November 27, 2012, City Council voted to save the stacks as long as they did not have to spend any money. It has been contended since then that Puga has the authority to give the stacks and land to the City rather than holding the City hostage for millions of dollars if it wants to save the stacks.
So here is what has happened post 11/27/12 bringing you up to now:
Not long after the City Council vote, prominent El Paso leaders met in Mayor Cook's office and placed a call to Mr. Puga and his attorneys. Present along with Save the Stack leaders Robert Ardovino and Jeffrey Wright and journalist, Sito Negron, were Mayor John Cook, Rep. Steve Ortega, U.S. Rep.-elect Beto O'Rourke and State Senator Jose Rodriguez. They urged Mr. Puga to donate the land to the City and contended that Puga has the discretion to do so. Puga contended that he must sell everything and he continued to claim that no one will buy the land with the stacks standing.
Senator Rodriguez has asked for an opinion from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott whether Puga has the discretion to donate the land. Keep in mind that the Senator is very environmentally friendly. His Environmental Advisory Committee is wall to wall environmentalists/conservationists. Dr. Richard Teschner is the chairman. (Disclaimer: I recently was awarded a certificate for serving on this Committee.)
Puga's company, Project Navigator Ltd, benefits more when Puga gets more money. To turn the site over to the City now would curtail how much more Project Navigator makes and how much more Roberto Puga himself makes. As one Save the Stack person told me: "There was no chance in hell that Puga was ever going to keep the stacks up."
It is rumored that one possible land buyer would play war games on the site - real war games not elaborate paint ball. Imagine the consequences of a volley falling on UTEP or . . . Mexico! The stacks no longer belch, they are strong, straight and solid so why, Ardovino wonders, risk bringing them down during El Paso's windiest season using an untested $650,000 misting system?
Preservatonists for the most part argue that the stacks (or stack - most concede now that it may be only possible to save the larger of the two) are historic landmarks and monuments and treated properly would make valuable attractions. It is pretty much common sense that, such a prominent landmark, could be commercially beneficial in spite of what Mr. Puga proclaims.
On the other hand, environmentalists, seem to be split into two camps: those who believe that it is best to tear them down and, if really, truly possible, contain the contaminants permanently. The risk of an environmental catastrophe just doesn't make sense. The other camp says that the risk to the environment is much greater if the stacks are brought down. Among those who want to keep these strong, straight and solid structures standing are those who also see the positive in their becoming landmarks. However, some who want to keep them standing, do so because the contamination would be too great to bring them down and, in fact, the contamination of the land now is too great to contemplate ever remediating and developing the land.
In my next post, I'll discuss the arguments for and against keeping them standing.
No comments:
Post a Comment