So 3,719 Lincoln County voters were frightened or bamboozled into consenting to behave like vassals paying tribute to the local lord. This doesn't feel like democracy, just some weird brand of feudalism. Now Hubbard perhaps can get the gold plating renewed on the fixtures in his jet.
Those who opposed this extortion need to resist and see to it that the demanded $750,000 is not generated.
Definitely urge visitors not to go to the Billy the Kid Casino; friends who have gone there report that it's dirty and the food is lousy anyway.
The taxpayers of Lincoln County already subsidize horse racing. Racehorses are a tax write-off for the wealthy, as are the private jets, effectively subsidized by those who don't have that option. Now that the PAC has had their way, it seems likely that all the talk about diversifying the local economy will remain just that. We'll all go back to sleep, (a little less) fat, dumb and happy, until Mr. Hubbard decides he needs to mobilize his flunkies to extract more tribute from the peasantry. I'm up for kicking in for a legal challenge on the grounds that the tax violates the anti-donation clause of the state constitution.
Heal? How can I heal when I know I'll feel degraded every time I have to pay tribute to Hubbard? This rubbish of obligating the poor and less-well-off to subsidize the obscenely wealthy has got to stop. For greater depth of understanding how we're being ripped off, read Free Lunch: How the wealthiest Americans enrich themselves at government expense and stick you with the bill. (And don't worry, the author David Cay Johnston is a registered Republican.)
Joyce Westerbur
Alto
Well, we lost. But let's hold our heads high. There's no shame in taking a position, defending it honorably and giving it your best shot.
Let's give the opposition their due. The Hubbard organization is an awesome machine. From Commissioner Tom Battin carrying Hubbard's water at the state and county level all the way down to Tim Keithley parroting the Hubbard party line on a minute-to-minute basis behind the microphones, R.D. is able to hammer home pretty much whatever he wants.
Let's take a minute to look at the positives. By taking almost $4 million from the taxpayers of Lincoln County, Hubbard has increased the value of his racino by a like amount. In doing so, he has made it more valuable to a potential buyer. It would be the best thing that ever happened to Lincoln County for the racetrack to have a new owner.
If you have ever been to a track in California, Texas or Kentucky, then you know comparatively, Ruidoso Downs is a third-rate dump. The infrastructure has been neglected for decades. The casino is a smoke pit. The food served there is barely edible and the service is worse.
Let's keep our fingers crossed [that] Hubbard uses this opportunity to sell out and allow our beloved track to be owned and managed by those capable of making it the very best it can be.
J Williams
Hubbardville (Ruidoso), NM
3 commissioners get cozy
Posted: 09/23/2010 08:15:23 PM MDT
When three Lincoln County commissioners ended up sitting together at a celebration party for passage of a business retention gross receipts tax late Tuesday, some eyebrows were raised.
While commissioners conversing at the same table during a social function is not illegal, the practice is not advisable, says the head of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government.
In this case, because the three commissioners voted in favor of conducting a special election sought by supporters of passage of a business retention tax, the image carried more punch.
A special election in September allows the tax aimed at offsetting a portion of the Ruidoso Race Track and Casino's state tax debt for five years, to take effect in January. Delaying until the general election would have moved the effective date to July 1, 2011.
According to unofficial results, voters approved the tax by a margin of 420 ballots out of more than 7,100 returned in a mail-in election.
"Its not illegal on the face, but it is not advisable," FOG Director Sarah Welsh said of the three commissioners sitting together at a table in the Billy the Kid Sports Bar at the casino on election night. "The attorney general tells people that in his road show (when he visits counties to brief officials and the public on the Open Meetings Act). Your constituents assume you are talking county business. It is inadvisable to sit together any time (even at social functions). It is illegal to discuss public business, so if someone overhears such a discussion, they could file a complaint." Commissioner Dave Parks said Thursday that commissioners, some times all five, frequently eat together during the lunch break in Carrizozo at the once-at-month commission meetings.
As for the election night party, Parks said, "We sat together part of the time and wandered around most of the time. It occurred to me after people started taking pictures (that sitting at the same table might not be a good idea). Absolutely no policy was discussed.
"We're all three good friends and we know better than to talk business."
Battin said when he saw the photograph of the three appear in the newspaper, he thought someone might object.
"I arrived about 7:45 p.m. and spent about 40 minutes going around the room visiting everybody," Battin said. "Dave invited me to sit down and I did, but not for long. Unfortunately, people jump to conclusions. It would have been difficult to conduct business with four or five other people at the table. It didn't occur to me it would be offensive to anyone at the time. If I had thought that, I would not have joined him."
Commissioner Don Williams said he and wife Misti arrived at the party first.
"Dave and his friend came over and sat with us and later, Tom arrived by himself and sat down," Williams said. "Yes, it did occur to me (they should not sit together), but it wasn't planned. In my case, you can't say 'No, don't sit there,' but I wasn't that concerned. Tom spent most of the time mixing and eventually he came back and sat down. I did point out we had a quorum."
A former colleague of Williams, Michele Rebstock, who served with him on the Ruidoso Village Council before resigning earlier this year, saw the photograph and offered her opinion based on information received during a completed Municipal Official Leadership Institute course, where she received a certification.
"Don Williams was my classmate," she said Thurs-day. "We were taught by an attorney to avoid being seen with any other elected official from our council or commission. A public entity is supposed to have all discussions and votes in public (to comply with New Mexico's Open Meetings Act and Government in the Sunshine law).
"To be a purist, there should not be any private meetings with developers even with one elected official. (The attorney) did state that there could be times, especially in a small town, that two or more officials could be present at a social event. I took this to mean church, theater, fund raisers and the like. He was quick to warn that one should leave, if there was a quorum, if possible. But, at least stay far away from each other and do not speak to each other as this could lead to suspicious concerns from the public."
Rebstock said at the village's Holiday parties, sometimes two councilors sat at a table, "But we always had plenty of employees and family members at the table to witness there was not any 'official' conversations going on," Rebstock said.
"The definition of a quorum for the county commission is three members present. To have three members of the county commission present at the same table at a political celebration funded by the private entity that requested a 'special election' for their private gain, which these commissioners endorsed and voted for, may be considered a violation as well as a serious breach of public trust. There was an appearance of impropriety to say the least."
The triumph of fear over anger
Hubbard arrives at his moment of truth
Posted: 09/23/2010 08:50:35 PM MDT
Two emotions collided in the run-up to Tuesday's vote on the Business Retention Tax to help subsidize Ruidoso Downs Race Track & Casino.
And fear triumphed over anger. Concern for jobs and the economy beat opposition to horse racing/gambling or a taxpayer bailout for the richest man in the territory.
Because fear is a more visceral emotion that quickly dissipates once the threat passes, and because anger fuses into a slow burn that must run its course, this Lincoln County "community" will not quickly heal after the most divisive election in its history.
We can all sing kumbaya and dance as one, but the divisions were revealed by the day-to-day grind of a civic "debate" steered by scare tactics and based on phantom numbers and conjecture.
Those divisions materialized in the closeness of the mail-in vote. Consider: If just one out of every 35 "Yes" voters had reversed their decision, this would have been a tied ballgame.
On paper, this David vs. Goliath match-up offered a rout for the "Yes" side.
The political action committee (PAC) that supported the tax got the special election from the county commission it so coveted. The timing coincided with the racing season and isolated the issue from the November general election.
The "Yes" PAC raised some $82,000 compared to the "No" PAC's $2,000. That's 40 bullets to one, an overwhelming advantage in advertising firepower.
The "Yes" side rode a ready made alliance comprised of, among others,the Ruidoso Valley Chamber of Commerce, the Ruidoso Valley Economic Development Corporation, the real estate/housing industry, Rotary, ENMU-Ruidoso and the Spencer Theater (both of which stand to reap "overage" windfalls after the track cap is reached), merchants and their employees, and the far-reaching racino enterprise that attracted out-of-state support.
The "Yes" side had a glib attorney as its spokesman who polished his arguments in numerous speaking engagements. It had in-house organs with the Ruidoso Free Press and KRUI radio.
The alliance's strategy doubtlessly wrung out every last "Yes" vote on the rolls, while opponents probably left a number of "No" votes on the table through apathy and access to fewer resources. So, what happened? Adherence to the principles of low taxes and free markets. Aversion to corporate bailouts and an arrogant sense of entitlement. The blowback was sufficient to make it a horse race. And it suggests racino owner R.D. Hubbard will undergo unparalleled scrutiny - for the condition of his facilities, for his promise, made in an interview with the Ruidoso News, to remain five more years should the tax pass.
As we have stressed, Hubbard is hardly bound by any legal document with the county, but we expect him to honor that pledge, unless he sells the racino to someone who would fix it up and keep it here.
Another fissure that developed in the body politic during this campaign occurred between urban and rural interests.
Consider that the three commissioners who voted in the special election - and, appearances be hanged, attended a victory party Tuesday at the track - all have Ruidoso addresses; the other two are from Carrizozo and Glencoe.
The "Yes" campaign crystallized in Ruidoso-Ruidoso Downs, papered with "Fight Back" posters up and down the street. Out in the county, the topic was placed on the back burner - always simmering but never boiling over.
It could even be argued that horseracing concerns in Texas and Colorado cared more about the result than did ranchers from Carrizozo and Corona or artists from Nogal.
This split could reopen old wounds that festered as recently as five years ago between the population center "up the hill" and far-flung areas less dependent on tourism. The resentment is fresh and palpable.
Even talk of boycotts has a rural edge, though it remains to be seen how shopping and dining habits will be altered.
This saga began in November 2009, when R.D. Hubbard made noises - again - about leaving Ruidoso Downs if he didn't achieve tax parity in the state Legislature with Indian casinos.
He didn't get parity, but he got his referendum. With this Pyrrhic victory, we feel Hubbard has exhausted his relocation threats to this community. Whatever transpires during the five-year life span of this tax, people here have lost their appetite for another such exercise.
We are worn out, and maybe that's a good thing.
Perhaps we've grown up, as well. In an effort to function once more, residents, politicians, civic leaders and business people must pick up the pieces and arrange them in a new order, seeking opportunities while accepting both our liabilities and our strengths.
Never again should we be guided by insecurities that hang like loose threads from the emperor's coattails.
The people have spoken; we must buy time for our economic future, they clamored. Now, presumably, they've got it. This is their moment of truth.
And in 2015, should the track stay and tax parity with Indian casinos not be achieved, we must be vigilant that the sunset clause on this bitterly fought tax not be extended, that it bids a colorful farewell over Western skies.
