If you’re a native of El Paso, or even if you’re a semi-recent transplant, you probably enjoyed the rides at Western Playland at some point. Formerly situated at the heart of Ascarte Park, Western Playland was the source of many happy childhood memories for me and for my own children. Lately, however, it has become the cause of much strife on Commissioner’s Court.

A few years ago, as a result of a dispute with the County, Western Playland owner Pat Thomson decided to pack up his rides and move to Sunland Park, NM with no notice to the County. While he’s moved on, the County has been unable to use the property where Western Playland used to sit because Thomson has a lease until 2014. Not only are our families unable to enjoy any entertainment venue there, but we are also unable to generate revenue from that property while it sits vacant. And sadly, the once thriving park has begun to look like a deserted wasteland.

Although Thomson’s lease runs to 2014, there is a clause in the contract that gives El Paso County—you and I—the legal upper-hand. We have the right to ask Thomson to clean up the property and leave so we can use it for something else.

Getting a “divorce”

Back in January, just after the new County administration was sworn in, Commissioner’s Court quickly had to confront ending the relationship with Thomson once and for all. An item to discuss the issue appeared on our January 22 agenda, and we learned we could exercise our option to give Mr. Thomson 30 days to finally move out and clean up.

Judge Cobos asked Commissioner’s Court to postpone the item so we could consider amicably severing our relationship with Thomson. Cobos argued that if we purchased some of the structures left behind by Thomson, we could finally be “divorced” from him without involving any legal wrangling. While I was leery of purchasing anything left behind, I wasn’t completely closed off to the idea. However, I was determined that Commissioner’s Court would exercise due diligence before expending precious County resources or binding the County to any long-term commitments.

The Judge asked me to tour the site with him, and I agreed. After touring the facility, I felt more strongly than ever that we should not spend taxpayer dollars for the various items left behind. I saw one or two assets that might be worth keeping, but much of the property (like a warehouse with a very leaky roof, a concession stand with asbestos, a water ride that may or may not work) was more of a liability. Furthermore, Mr. Thomson was asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars of your precious tax dollars for property he clearly didn’t think was worth taking. I believed paying Thomson anything—especially hundreds of thousands of dollars—was the height of fiscal irresponsibility. And I wasn’t alone.

The item was postponed and came back on January 29, March 12, March 19, April 16, April 30, May 21 and this week, June 4. That’s a total of 8 meetings where this has been the subject of discussion for the Court.

Nevertheless, week after week, there was a new reason the County Judge gave to postpone the item. Not everyone has toured the property, Judge Cobos argued one week. We need an appraisal of what’s left behind, he argued another week. We need to hear from Pat Thomson; we need to give him (Cobos) time to negotiate “man to man.” We need to wait, we need to postpone, we need to delay. I indulged him week after week until May 21.

Trying to bring closure to the issue

Two weeks ago at our meeting on May 21, we decided that it was time to finally put this issue to rest. We debated again. Judge Cobos said he wanted to pay Thomson $200,000 for everything left behind. When we heard from Mr. Thomson, we learned that he was giving away most of what was left behind. “Why can’t you give those things to the County?” asked Commissioner Luis Sariñana. “The County has never been fair to me,” replied Thomson. But the question remains. Why should we pay Pat Thomson $200,000 for property he is willing to give away to someone else? How does that make any sense? How does that represent responsible stewardship of our tax dollars?

At that same meeting, Commissioner’s Court instructed the County Attorney’s office to draft a separation agreement. The agreement was to list all the items the Judge wanted us to keep. Commissioner Dan Haggerty, who also seemed unwilling to pay for any of the leave-behinds, insisted that the agreement not include any financial remuneration to Mr. Thomson. The Court—including Judge Cobos—voted to have the County Attorney’s office draft the document.

So the date set for the final decision was Monday, June 4. That morning, the headline in the El Paso Times read “County, amusement park ties to end.” Every news station was present at our meeting, which is unusual. Clearly, they were there to witness not only the end of this long-delayed, contentious issue but also, I think, the end of an era in El Paso County. A wistful moment, perhaps, for all of us who had memories of going to Western Playland. Wistful or not, however, it was clearly time to sever the relationship once and for all if the County hoped to move forward and make good use of the land that once held Western Playland.

Just after the County Clerk Recorder read the item into the record, Judge Cobos announced he wanted yet another postponement. This time, he wanted us to wait two weeks so we could hear from “experts” who would tell us all the reasons we should pay Mr. Thomson $200,000 for the property he left behind. I was very frustrated by the prospect of yet another postponement. Neither Commissioner Sariñana nor I wanted to postpone the item. Commissioner Haggerty was out of town. Commissioner Teran, however, was a solid vote for Cobos. The motion to postpone the item made by Cobos and seconded by Teran failed because it was a tie. We got more legal advice in executive session, and when we came out we repeated the same vote.

After the vote to postpone failed a second time, Teran abruptly got up and left the meeting. That meant that the only members of the Court present were Cobos, Sariñana and I. We debated the issue some more, and I made a motion to adopt the settlement drafted by the County Attorney’s office with the offer of no money to Thomson. I didn’t get a second. Thomson came to the podium and was aghast at the fact that he wouldn’t get the $200,000 Judge Cobos wanted to pay him. He said if that was the case, he would keep the leave-behinds on the property until 2014. I then made a motion to instruct the County Attorney’s office to send the 30-day notice to Thomson. I didn’t get a second to my motion. However, a bit later, when it looked like one of my motions might actually be approved, Judge Cobos stood up, gathered his things and said, “You all do what you want.” My response was “We can’t if you break quorum.” Cobos replied, “That’s right, that’s exactly what I’m doing.” Out of frustration, I said, “That’s leadership.”

And that was that. The meeting was over for lack of a quorum, and we were unable to do anything because of the Judge’s “walkout.”

The $200,000 question

I’ve been asked why Cobos wants to pay Mr. Thomson anything. I can’t answer that. While the property Thomson left behind might have some value to someone out there, I’ll say once more that handing over nearly a quarter of a million dollars for it is unbelievable fiscal irresponsibility.

The County of El Paso has many needs. We have just received approval from the State for four new courts and now we have to find a place to put them; we must fully invest in our City-County Health District; we are considering investing in the Sports Park; Commissioner Teran wants a $5-7 million annex in Fabens. At the same time, we have a County Judge who ran for office on a campaign of strict fiscal conservatism and who has repeatedly stated that he will not raise taxes and will trim the fat at the county.

Why on earth would we spend $200,000 to purchase an old, plastic water ride that may or may not work, a concession stand with asbestos, a leaky warehouse, an entrance that says “Western Playland” that will almost certainly have to be demolished if the footprint of the park changes, and all the problems, known and un-known, that this property brings with it?

What if we find someone willing to lease the property, but who wants more land? You, the taxpayer, would have to pay to demolish and dispose of the leave behinds we purchased, and you would have to pay for the remediation of the asbestos. What if we find one tenant who wants a smaller portion of the property and we open up the rest of it for fairgrounds? Once again, you the taxpayer would have to pay to demolish, remediate, and dispose of the leave behinds we so expensively purchased. This is not a difficult decision.

It’s an absolutely irresponsible proposition and I will not support it. In fact, I have placed an item on Monday’s agenda to finally be done with it, and I hope I can gain the support of at least two other commissioners.

The walkout

I’ve also been asked about Cobos’s walkout. Here are my thoughts:

There are historic, important, symbolic walkouts, and there was this one. The civil rights walkouts by L.A. teenagers in the 1960s come to mind. The recent effort by our state senators and representatives who opposed the illegal redistricting engineered by Tom DeLay also comes to mind. These walkouts called national attention to illegalities and injustices. They were significant, courageous and historic.

But to walk out on a vote to avoid further debate and the resolution of an issue only because it is clear you’re going to lose is irresponsible and unprofessional. There’s no uplifting symbolism. There’s no courageous statement of principles. There’s only an elected official whose agenda has been stymied and who chooses immature tactics to get his way.

I was also disturbed by what later turned out to be a false claim made by the Judge (during Commissioner’s Court and to the media) that we should postpone the item “out of courtesy” to Commissioner Dan Haggerty who, the County Judge claimed, had called and asked him to postpone the item. After the meeting, I called Commissioner Haggerty to ask him if he had indeed requested that the item be postponed, and he said he had not.

As public servants, our job is to work for the people. Our role in government is to ensure that we have fair processes, that our decisions are made with integrity and honesty, and most importantly, that our community be at the center of our decisions. This is why I fought the $200,000 purchase, and it is why I decided to speak out about it. Our office, Precinct 2, has many goals, many projects and we’re hard at work every day to make our community better. You can bet that I won’t use your hard-earned money to pay for leftovers of highly questionable worth that would otherwise be given away.

Regarding this issue, it’s time to move on. We have too much important work to do at the County.

* * *
Veronica Escobar is County Commissioner for Precinct 2