Election day is coming November 4th.

This is a crucial election, not just for San Antonio and Bexar County, all of the state, as we have some constitutional amendments on the ballot as well.

Hello, I'm Randy Pima, and welcome to our KLRN News special.

Bexar County votes on the November 4th ballot for Bexar County.

There are going to be two local propositions A and B. Now, prop A is basically whether the county should allocate funds to redevelop the Frost Bank center, the Freeman Coliseum and the stock Show and rodeo venue, collectively known as the Coliseum Complex.

Prop B is where the Bexar County should pay a share of the total cost of building a new downtown arena for the San Antonio Spurs, but it is important to understand this election will not be a vote on the entire project.

Marvel.

Now that would be much bigger than just building a new downtown arena.

It would include refurbishing the Alamo Dome, the former John Wood Federal Courthouse building, a pedestrian bridge, possibly from the Alamo Dome over to the HemisFair area, and then possibly also a new convention center hotel.

Keep in mind, though, you will not be voting on whether the City of San Antonio should contribute to the construction of a new arena or any other aspect of the bigger project.

Marvel now to get an in-depth look at both of these propositions.

First, we are joined by UT San Antonio political science professor and associate dean of the Political Science and Geography Department.

John Taylor, thank you very much.

Thank you for coming in.

Now, first of all, we will be getting to people on both sides of this pro and con and to the state constitutional amendments.

But first we want to talk about prop A and B, just having you lay out what those are.

Already pretty much did it.

So I can leave now.

Oh no no no no it's it's very complicated.

Those propositions are very long.

As is typical of the kind of language you use for ballots.

You know, tries to explain in detail what will happen if this takes place with proposition eight.

And same with proposition B. Welcome to Texas state election law.

That's how this stuff works.

But prop A pretty much is trying to fulfill the promise we made to the East Side years ago about economic development, in this case, trying to create a San Antonio version of the Fort Worth Stockyards and the stock show, in which we centralize everything for rodeo.

We basically improve the area, the Freeman Coliseum, plus the Frost Bank center.

The idea is, is that we want to try to encourage in this respect, you know, building up what's happening in San Antonio when it comes to rodeo, when it comes to stockyards, when it comes to to basically encouraging that area of San Antonio, perhaps to the point of actually seeing other economic developments spur off of that, potentially.

That would be 189.

Million dollars million, to prop eight, and it would raise the hotel motel tax or whatever terms you want to use.

You use it for, for people who are coming to San Antonio using hotels and conventions.

People are using rental cars.

You'll raise that tax slightly from 1.75 to 2%.

The idea being, again, that you can make the argument, well, we're not paying for it as taxpayers.

Other people are.

Property.

Rights.

It's not property taxes.

Other people are paying for it.

I should note.

Our rental.

Car rental taxes as well.

And by the way, I should note this is not unusual to do this.

San Antonio is far from alone.

We go over to Houston.

They've done this for years.

This is how they built NRG Stadium, how they built Toyota Center, how they built Dyson Field.

All those came from the same approach.

We talked with Cody Davenport of the Stock Show and Rodeo.

And they have a vision for it that they have laid out economically.

It somewhat makes sense just because, again, where it's already located, what we already do there.

And that is prop A and have both pro and con people here in just a few minutes.

But prop B, That's the one.

That one just.

Nuts and bolts just straight ahead.

How do you.

Describe nuts and bolts?

This is the county's portion of what could be Project Marvel.

You're talking about $311 million or so that would be dedicated toward building a downtown sports arena by dedicating, again, a portion of the taxes to this project.

Is the county's portion of of trying to build a new downtown arena.

Here's the the rub and why people find it controversial.

One year moving the Spurs from their current location to a downtown location, which has obviously elicited controversy and opposition in some community to the Spurs, have an out clause, and that if proposition B fails and this is the threat, that's been the kind of subtly put out there, is that the Spurs can move out of San Antonio.

After 2031, people are fearful they'll move to Austin or somewhere else.

I mean, I'm not saying that the Spurs are threatening there.

Not necessarily.

But there is that subtlety there.

You saw protest, you saw rallies in downtown regarding the Spurs and oh my gosh, they're going to leave and all this.

And I get San Antonio's heavily connected to the Spurs.

When these kind of things occur within politics, emotion sometimes gets the best of you.

Rather than thinking about the taxes and the long term implications.

And that's where the people coming in for the debate will have more discussions.

Yes, but nonetheless, we're not alone in this either.

There are cities, not even large cities.

I mean, Oklahoma City is one, but just to the south in Norman, Norman is partnering with the University of Oklahoma to build a huge entertainment complex of also build a basketball arena for the Sooners as part of an economic development package.

And the city and people in the city of Norman are voting on this.

So it's not just big cities doing this.

Well, thanks very much for laying that out.

We'll come back to you in a few minutes after we hear from Pro and con to talk about the constitutional amendments, and there are some interesting things there as well.

Professor John Taylor, thanks.

Pleasure.

And now and along with the League of Women Voters of the San Antonio area, want to give you a look at both the pro and con of these propositions.

As you know, there are voices on both sides who feel strongly about that.

And two speakers here today have been among those voices.

We did a coin flip to decide who would speak first.

And that spot goes to Haywood Sanders, professor emeritus at UT San Antonio.

Thank you for coming in.

We'll get to and Berry in a moment.

I should say she isn't going to see what you say.

You haven't seen you know what she will say.

So we'll just talk about this.

I may bring up points, but it's just to to kind of elicit from you both what your arguments are.

First of all, you're against proposition B, I know.

And proposition A. The position of the local community organization, Cops Metro is neutral on prop AA.

If there are need to improve the facilities at the county fairgrounds, it makes sense to invest in it.

But one of the larger issues here is the funding we're talking about.

The county venue tax can be used for a whole broad array of purposes, not just the facilities at the fairgrounds and in need, not just an arena.

So are you against them both A and B, you're.

So if folks want to support A that's fine.

B is really the crucial one here.

It may be our only opportunity to, for the public county and city to vote on this whole arena and larger development proposal.

And for proposition B, the one that you are in cops Metro is against.

What are the arguments there?

Well, the the real issue here, is not about the Spurs about whether we love the Spurs or we want to keep them here or how much we value them.

And it's not even just about providing, an up to date arena for the Spurs.

The real issue is the proposal.

The only proposal we've ever seen, in fact, to build that new arena on a site at HemisFair Park downtown with a whole series of attendant necessary costs to wich that arena into that site.

The city has talked about up to $250 million in necessary street and traffic improvements.

There's going to be a need to build parking garages.

The city has also talked about the imperative to construct a land bridge over I-37.

We don't have a cost on that, except we know it's going to be expensive.

And while there may be federal grant dollars to pay for some of that, we don't know if we can get federal grant dollars in the current climate.

Now, that's really part of Project Marvel itself, proponents would say.

But the problem is, if we're going to build an arena that's going to attract people to that location, we've got to have some place for them to park.

We've got to have some adequate access.

The city recognizes that, the unfortunate part of the way this has been packaged together is that this may be the only opportunity we have for the public to actually have a say.

Because the term sheet, would be void with the Spurs in the city if the county doesn't vote for this very.

Concisely and that would give us an opportunity to take a pause and rethink this and rethink two dimensions of this.

First, to rethink building an arena at what cost and where we have the possibility, for example, of renovating the existing Frost Bank center or building an entirely new arena at the Joe and Harry Freeman fairground site.

We've not had a public discussion of that at all.

And one thing about this venue tax that the public really ought to be aware of and conscious of is that we can use it for a whole variety of things.

And we have in the past.

Right now there are some limitations, but if you would.

Well, now what do you mean?

In 2008, then County Judge Nelson Wolff, then the county commissioners put a venue tax proposal on the ballot, uses the same tax revenues under the same state legislation.

With that money, we built the museum reach improvement of the river.

We built the mission ridge.

We built the small Eagle Land segment of the Riverwalk improvements.

We use that for the Tobin Performing Arts Center and the Alameda Theater and the Briscoe Western Art Museum.

And then we used it to build a host of amateur athletic facilities around the county.

Facilities for UTSA, the Northside Swim Center, bunch of soccer complexes.

There's a whole variety of things that we could use.

That money were propositions A and B for, but we've never had a community conversation about that.

What about the, part of the proposal that says to increase the hotel and motel visitor tax from or tax from 1.75 to 2%?

Is that something you are for or against in itself?

Well, it's the same thing.

It's a modest increase.

It is primarily a tax on visitors.

But the problem is if we commit those dollars now, when we vote in November to a new arena for the Spurs and only a part of the full arena finance public arena financing, if we commit those funds now to that, we've lost the opportunity to do a whole host of other investments in our community, investments that may, in fact be more desirable and more beneficial to the public.

And we also have the opportunity that a no vote in November gives us to talk about the most effective, cost efficient way to accommodate the Spurs and their desire for a new arena.

What about those who would say and have said the Spurs could leave?

Well, that's that's the point.

The Spurs could leave.

And indeed we've seen NBA teams leave where they were notably in the case of the Seattle Sonics and go somewhere else.

That's a business decision.

The Spurs are a business.

Yeah, but new arena.

We're not.

The money we're talking about now is our tax dollars okay.

It may not come directly from local taxpayers, but there are public tax dollars.

And I think we really need a a community discussion, which we've never had so far.

And what about the studies?

I saw you speak to city council and you talked about similar studies and why, as a mayor wanted to pause for those studies.

They should be done.

And what do you think of those kinds of things?

Well, it's a this is a very curious case.

We have a consultant study done for all of the elements of Project Marvel, the convention center, the dome, a new event center at the John Wood Courthouse, a mixed use development in the area done by one consulting firm that regularly does studies of convention centers and sports facilities.

But that firm didn't do the study for the arena.

The economic impact study for the arena was done by a separate company, hired and paid for by the Spurs.

It was simply their results were simply reported.

And those results are, frankly, highly flawed and not at all credible.

I hate to stop us there, but we want to make sure that we have exactly equal time between you and, the proponent for the, A and B, thank you very much, professor Emeritus Heywood Sanders of UT San Antonio.

Thanks.

Nice to join you.

And now in support of both propositions A and B here in Bexar County, Trish DeBerry joins us.

She is president and CEO of Centro Santo.

Tonio, thanks for coming in.

Always good to be here.

A big picture.

Why proposition A and B?

Why should voters vote for them?

Well, let's work very well together.

But let's start with proposition B. And so that we're keeping it distinctive for voters B means basketball.

So proposition B is about bringing the arena back into downtown where it always should have been in the first place.

Quite honestly, in my opinion, we look at the old HemisFair arena, the loudest arena in the NBA for years and years.

The baseline bombs the energy, what that meant to downtown.

And so when it moved to the Eastside without really an overarching economic development strategy about how we were going to complement the arena, it does need to come back into downtown because we have inherent foot traffic with the tourist economy that we have, a lot of energy with the Alamo, catalytic developments like baseball, the opportunity to really bookend downtown to the east and the west west with the baseball stadium is with a proposed new Spurs arena.

There are only great things that can happen in between regarding housing, bars, restaurants, more entertainment options.

So, we're about to live through an era.

We talk about the decade of downtown and how important that was.

We're in the era of downtown, and this is a huge complement to that.

And proposition A, well.

Let's be clear about the fact that the rodeo in the Spurs being on the same property together, they've kind of outgrown each other.

When we look at the Spurs, have to go on a rodeo road trip for two weeks.

Right.

So the rodeo can take place, if not a little bit longer than that.

But, the rodeo, regarding their impact regarding economic impact, like $300 million or more, on an annual basis.

And so the opportunity for them to be able to take over that entire property, bring in horse cutting shows, barrel racing, regional finals.

They have an equestrian center that's out there right now.

So, my feeling is, yes, we can rodeo San Antonio, but not just in February.

Now we can go rodeo all year long.

And so that's why I'm a huge proponent of not only the fact that I love rodeo, but what we can make regarding the East Side that will be comparable to what we see in Fort Worth.

And taxing on this.

You call it not property taxes.

Opponents would say it's still public money coming from venue taxes.

Well, a venue tax is a visitor tax.

The only ones paying a tax associated with both propositions are visitors who come to town and stay in a hotel room or rent a rental car.

And by the way, they're probably only paying 35 to $0.38 more on their tab when they're staying at a hotel.

We are the only city in Texas right now with a hotel, motel tax rate at 1.75.

Houston, Austin, Dallas.

Others are at a full 2.0%.

We have arrived.

At the time, the place in San Antonio where we need to be at that max.

So is anybody going to choose San Antonio versus Houston because of $0.38 more when they stay in a hotel room?

I don't think so, because we have so much more to offer in San Antonio than Houston or Dallas or in Austin.

So I think it's well worth it.

And so there is this narrative out there that you, Randy, you, the taxpayer, are on the hook.

You're not on the hook.

The visitor who's from accounting perspective will be paying.

And then if we look at the $489 million from the city, that's going to be repaid by ground leases by the San Antonio Spurs, also general revenue bonds that will pay back the city.

So the city is going to get its money back.

So why someone would not vote in favor of this?

Because your money is not being expended on this.

Does not make sense to me.

Alternatives that could be that money could be used for is another argument for people that they don't want a private entity like the Spurs getting, money.

From public taxes, period.

And that they could go to alternatives.

What do you say to that?

Well, if you're talking about alternatives like, streets and drainage and parks, those are general obligation bonds.

And by the way, the city has bonding capacity for that.

That will take place like Lee in 27 or 28.

So this thought that what we're voting on in November is replacing the general obligation bonds that we vote on every single year is a complete bunk.

We have room to be able to do both.

This is not an either or conversation.

This is a capital A in D. We can have all of it.

We can have an expanded livestock show and rodeo.

We can have a new Spurs arena in downtown, but we can also have maybe $851.2 billion bond associated with streets, drainage and sidewalk.

The capacity is there to be able to get that done.

So I want to be clear about something else, the PFC, which is the zone in which the state has designated, right, that revenues will come in through taxes that cannot be used for anything else but hotel and tourism.

It cannot be used for speech.

By the legislature.

And this is very specific about where that money can be used.

And there's also, the importance of this.

I've heard from proponents such as yourself, is that this vote could be the only vote that we take on this, that the whole term sheet that the city signed is contingent upon this vote.

If it fails, the whole deal fails.

Yeah.

It was hell.

You it would be detrimental.

And that vote did not pass.

There is not a plan B regarding what happens to the Spurs if this does not pass.

We know this is a very small market team.

There are lots of people and lots of other cities that are willing to roll out the red carpet, whether that's Austin, I would tell you, I was recently in Vegas.

Vegas is desperate to have a basketball franchise now.

We don't have the kind of tourism or the casino operation that a Vegas does, but it spins off a heck of a lot of money so they could woo the Spurs to come to Vegas without the Spurs having to pay a dime.

And by the way, the Spurs have skin in the game to the tune of $1.2 billion $500 million for the arena, another 500 million associated with development around the arena, as well as what is not talked about a lot, a community benefits agreement, which, by the way, no other city in the United States has been able to strike a $75 million community benefits agreement.

So that adds up to 1.2 million for the Spurs that are in those.

And not only CBA, but no other city that has had this kind of option.

Has the organization guaranteed to the city if we have cost overruns.

If something goes south, we are guaranteeing that we're going to pay for it.

That is unheard of.

All right.

Well, thank you very much for, explaining, the arguments for proposition A and B. Tricia Berry, president and CEO of Central San Antonio.

Thank you.

Now, besides those two propositions we've been talking about for Bexar County, voters across the state are also going to decide on 17 amendments to the state constitution.

We bring back Professor Taylor to go through these, at least quickly, get a basic description, and some of those more controversial ones will focus on, first of all, proposition one, the Technical College Infrastructure Fund that sets up a separate permanent pot of money to build and equip tech colleges.

It's not real concrete.

It's not.

It will affect Seguin.

I think they want to put in there.

Proposition two is a capital gains tax ban that would forever ban the state from taxing capital gains.

Investment profits, such as stocks or property.

There's an argument that it's a reward to some of, majority party supporters in the legislature.

Proposition three bail denial authority allows judges to deny bail in certain felony cases where prosecutors show the suspect poses a flight risk or danger, the community basically tightens the existing rules.

But this is also caused controversy because the argument is, is that this is an attack on Blue County prosecutors, who have been a little more lenient on bail than other counties.

And basically, we're bringing up the controversial part because these are written by by Republicans.

And the majority proposition for revenue for Water Fund, the less controversial, dedicates a portion of sales and use tax for the Texas Water Fund to support water infrastructure, flood prevention and rural access.

Given the the increase in our state's population and in particular our water scarcity issues, this was one that everybody supported in the legislature.

And proposition five tax exemption exempts animal feed from local property taxes if it's for the purpose of retail sales.

This goes back to the whole idea about constitutional amendments.

Some are there to clean up problems in the state constitution.

Others are to deal with issues within the law that have been basically ignored.

And constitutional amendments in Texas are so common that we have to vote on a lot more.

More than anybody else in the country.

The U.S.

proposition six blocks tax the legislature from adding an occupation tax on securities transactions.

Should be noncontroversial.

But again, some have made the argument it's a it's a reward for certain donors.

Proposition seven surviving spouse exemption.

Surviving spouses of veterans who died from service related conditions keep a homestead property tax exemption.

Texas has been very friendly toward groups of people who especially are in need of property tax exemption.

This is just part of that.

A proposition eight banning state level death taxes, so-called such as estate inheritance or gift tax.

Texas wants to be more friendly when it comes to the death tax and inheritance taxes.

This is something that politically made sense for some.

Proposition nine another tax exemption.

It would exempt a portion of market value of business personal property from local property taxes.

This is basically a nod to small businesses, especially proposition ten.

A temporary tax exemption for rebuilt value when a home is entirely destroyed by fire.

Again, another another example trying to help property owners who have lost their property.

11 would expand exemptions.

The exemption value on elderly or disabled homeowners homesteads for their school district taxes.

Again, the idea is to provide relief to the elderly and disabled.

Now, proposition 12 judicial conduct reform A little more controversial arises the structure and authority of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Some have made the argument that can be weaponized and used against certain judges, particularly depending on political party.

And here in Bexar County, that judicial conduct, that has come up.

Right.

That's how they govern.

Travis County as well.

And Harris County two.

And 13 would be a homestead exemption increase raises the exemption for residents homestead for property tax purposes.

Again at the school district level.

This is linked back to to debate in the legislature in the spring and the regular session.

This is something that Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick in particular was pushing hard.

Proposition 14 dementia prevention and research, creating a Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, and a research fund allocating initial funding for that.

And also tremendous support for this.

And it should be it, by the way.

Correct.

It will be located here in San Antonio.

Parental rights and proposition 15 affirms the rights and responsibilities of parents, including the fundamental right to make decisions on the child's upbringing.

Some have argued this is controversial because it gives parents the right to opt out of teaching of certain subjects or certain materials and classes.

Citizen voting.

Prop 16 clarifies in the state constitution that only US citizens may vote, codifying basically existing state and federal law.

Which to me seems a redundancy.

But proposition 17 border tax exemption allows property in border counties to receive a property tax exemption for value added from border security infrastructure.

Some have said that this is a reward to people who basically supported the governor's, the border security issues, and therefore they're being basically being compensated for it.

Others would argue, no, this was a property rights issue to begin with.

The Texas and the state need to compensate them.

All right.

Well, thank you very much for explaining all that.

Appreciate it.

Professor John Taylor, thank you for being here today from UT San Antonio.

That's right.

We have to say that we also want to thank the League of Women Voters of the San Antonio area for their help with this program.

And you can find voting information, including details on these propositions and amendments from the league's voting guide.

Just go to vote 411.org.

And again, Election day is Tuesday, November 4th.