Part 1 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 1 of 2 | Next |
|
|
PAGE' I 0, SECTION I THE HOU S l ON POST pays the ~ddl~r. should call _the pr~sent Commissioners Court- mately 300 acres at a · price of rega.t.ed? willing to consider a cut-down _______________ SUNDAY, _JANUARY 2,. 1961 tune, but _is w~g to negotiate which will be in office until the $10,000 an acre. A)_ Nobod ill d t·- version of the proposed stadium · the question. It 1s a matter to . . Y w give a e 1 . . . · St d• B d Q 1 . settled in contract talks end of 1962, at least - will not Q) What majority _of votes is nite answer to this question. To !he sports assoc1atio!1 beheve a lum On Iles Ions · permit an increase in the as- needed to authorize issuance of t d Id to ti 11 al' it would be out of business here, Q) IF ANYTHING goes wrong . the bonds? 0 0 so wou au ma ca Y i- as far as baseball is concerned, • with the lease a~eement, will sessment .. basis, alt~oug~ the A) A simple majority. enate a large number of poten- after having spent about $750, M It PI V t N rs the county be obligated to pay county will continue its proper- Q) Will the stadium belong to lial voters, regardless of what 000 to bring the project to its U I y as O e off_ the outst:nding bonds from ty revaluation program started the county? answer was .gi".'en. Ho.w~ver, a present point of development. tax revenues. several years ago. A) Yes. sports association official re- By MARSHALL VERNIAUD or d own war u depending on . A) Yes. The entire $22 Mil- AN¥ UPWARD REVISION of Q) Is it legal f~r the count! · called that no . other I?aj~r Harris County's fast-moving whether the best interest rate hon must be guaranteed ~o bond the county's assessment basis to lease the s~<l!um to a pri- league ball park m th natio~ is plans for a stadium have gene- .1 bl 1 b h' h buyers out of the county s gen- . . vate organization f segregated, and that various rated more direct questions, and avai a e wou d e ig er or eral fund tax revenues. The gen- would automatically raise t~e A) COUNTY OFFICIALS see public facilities in the city and h f t lower. eral fund tax rate cannot per aps ewer concre e answers, be baym ocuonutn otyf sttaaxtpea tyaexress tsoi nbcee ptahide n-ithing illegal about doing so · co. unty ha.v e taken down the ra- I than any major local public im- Q) Would the unty share in raised above its 80-cent consti- . • The county has for many years . cial barrier. provement issue in recent years. any profits the a elation might tutional limit without a state- st~te Jevy is based on county leased its park facilities to pri- Q-WHAT WJLL HAPPEN if Voters will be asked to decide earn? wide constitutional amendment. va ua ons. vate organizations, though usu- the c0unty and the sports asso. Tuesday, by ballot, whet h er A) At least three members Q) What is to prevent the Q) What assurance does the ally for short perio?s, On 1!1e elation cannot agree on satis- 0 the county shall issue up to $22 01 the Commissioners Court be- county from increasing its as- county have that the proposed theory tha! the stadium and its factory lease terms after the 1Million in genera I obligation Iieve a lease contract should sessment basis to raise addl· stadium site can be obtained for grounds will be a county park, bonds are approved by voters? bonds-with an implied promise provide that the county will tional revenues within the gen- $3 Million? there appears to be no reason A) '..... The bonds will not be that most or all of the bonds share in any profits over a spec. eral fund's constitutional limit, A) The County Park Board why the stadium could not also sold. 'will be paid off by the rentals ified amount, if only as an ad- in the event that the county bas has letters of agreement, tanta- be leased. And a long lease Q) - If the bond issue fails, ,paid by the Houston Sports As- ditional aid to the county's bond to pay off the bonds? • mount to options, that owners should be as valid as a short whM then? sociation-to build a super stadi- retirement fund. The association A) Nothing. But County Judge of land within the proposed sit~ one. A) - There will be no staum here. believes 1bat tl e fellow who Bill Elliott has pledged that the will sell the county approxi- Q) - Will the stadium be seg- dium. County officials are un- 1\IANY TAXPAYERS. aware that they will have to foot the bill for the bonds if anything ,goes wrong with the promise, 1have asked questions in an effort to weigh intelligently theit own personal advantages and :risks in voling on the bond question. In question-and-answer form, the most fr e q u e n t questions asked, and their most direct answers obtained from officials of Harris County and the sports association, are: Q) Why are voters asked to vote on two bond propositions rather tha.n on a single propoisitton for the full $22 Million? A) One proposition, designated "park bonds," is an ;18 Million package containing $3 Million for the purchase of a stadium site and $15 Million for actual construction of the stadium. The other proposition, designated "road and bridge bonds," is for $4 Million to pay the county's share of the estimated $10 Million cost of road and drainage improvements in areas ad- ' joining the stadium grounds. The :remaining part of this outlay 1 will come from other governmental agencies and from property donations of individuals. THE $4 MILLION issue may, at the county's option, be retired at the end of 10 years upon payment of any outstanding principal and accrued interest. The larger issue may not be retired until its maturity within a specified period of up to 40 years. Q) ls there any agr3ement bc- 1wce11 Harris Cow1ty and the Houston S p o r t s Association \: ·hich guarantees that the asso· elation will put up enough mon· e,y to retire the bonds without II, tar h1crease? A) There is as yet no written tll n The asso-
Object Description
Rating | |
Identifier | MSS0049-b14f11-058 |
Title | Stadium bond questions multiply as vote nears |
Author | Verniaud, Marshall |
Original Publisher | The Houston Post |
Date Original | January 29, 1961 |
Source | clippings (information artifacts) |
Type | Text |
Language | English |
Background | Biographical Note: Frank E. Mann was a native Texan who served on the Houston City Council from 1960 to 1979. During his tenure of nine terms in the City Council, Mann's accomplishments included a freeway program, the elimination of political firings, the installation of fire department ambulances, and the initiation of an employee insurance program. Concerned about the difficulty of accommodating urban services to the City's growth, he dedicated himself to air and water pollution control, improved sewage and garbage disposal, and a continued supply of pure water. He advocated an equitable system of financing City services between the City and the county. |
Keywords | articles ; newspaper clippings |
Subject Terms | Astrodome (Houston, Tex.) |
Geographic Subject Terms | Houston (Tex.) |
Era | 1960s |
Publisher | Electronic version published by Houston Public Library, Houston, Texas |
Collection | MSS0049 Frank E. Mann Collection |
HPL Location | Frank E. Mann Collection, Houston Metropolitan Research Center, Houston Public Library |
Finding Aid | Finding aid available at: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/houpub/00099/hpub-00099.html |
Related Resource | Frank Mann oral history. http://digital.houstonlibrary.org/cdm/ref/collection/Interviews/id/20 |
Funded by | TexTreasures Grant |
Rights | Ⓒ Houston Chronicle. Used with permission - no re-use. Contact the original copyright holder for permission to re-use this item. |
Date Digital | 2015 |
Format | |
Digitization Specifications | 300dpi ; tiff ; Contex HD5450 Plus |
Filename | MSS0049-b14f11-058 |
Description
Identifier | MSS0049-b14f11-058a |
Title | Part 1 |
Transcript |
PAGE' I 0, SECTION I THE HOU S l ON POST pays the ~ddl~r. should call _the pr~sent Commissioners Court- mately 300 acres at a · price of rega.t.ed? willing to consider a cut-down
_______________ SUNDAY, _JANUARY 2,. 1961 tune, but _is w~g to negotiate which will be in office until the $10,000 an acre. A)_ Nobod ill d t·- version of the proposed stadium
· the question. It 1s a matter to . . Y w give a e 1 . . . · St d• B d Q 1
. settled in contract talks end of 1962, at least - will not Q) What majority _of votes is nite answer to this question. To !he sports assoc1atio!1 beheve a lum On Iles Ions · permit an increase in the as- needed to authorize issuance of t d Id to ti 11 al' it would be out of business here,
Q) IF ANYTHING goes wrong . the bonds? 0 0 so wou au ma ca Y i- as far as baseball is concerned,
• with the lease a~eement, will sessment .. basis, alt~oug~ the A) A simple majority. enate a large number of poten- after having spent about $750, M It PI V t N rs the county be obligated to pay county will continue its proper- Q) Will the stadium belong to lial voters, regardless of what 000 to bring the project to its U I y as O e off_ the outst:nding bonds from ty revaluation program started the county? answer was .gi".'en. Ho.w~ver, a present point of development.
tax revenues. several years ago. A) Yes. sports association official re-
By MARSHALL VERNIAUD or d own war u depending on . A) Yes. The entire $22 Mil- AN¥ UPWARD REVISION of Q) Is it legal f~r the count! · called that no . other I?aj~r
Harris County's fast-moving whether the best interest rate hon must be guaranteed ~o bond the county's assessment basis to lease the s~ |
Filename | MSS0049-b14f11-058a.pdf |
Tags
Comments
Post a Comment for Part 1