So, you're going with the Brian Defense?
Prove it, no prove it again, no this time prove it even more, with numbers, no not
those numbers...
I'm sorry, but I'd assumed that you'd read the subsection that you specified, if not well, so I didn't feel it necessary to quote it. But here you go. Please note that this subsection only deals with the transfer of money into and out of the trust fund and the ability for truly major events to receive some of those funds 12 months before the event occurs. It has nothing to do with the comptroller's ability to make unilateral 'contracts' with outside parties, much less whether she's able to do so prior to the funds even being requested. It does, however, reinforce the point that she can only act in unison with the city or county...
(r) This subsection applies only to an event that the comptroller determines under Subsection (b) of this section will generate at least $15 million in state and local tax revenue. The comptroller and one or more endorsing municipalities or endorsing counties may enter into an agreement to provide that an amount equal to the amount of local tax revenue determined by the comptroller under Subsections (b)(2) through (5) of this section shall be remitted to the comptroller by one or more endorsing municipalities or endorsing counties and shall be deposited by the comptroller into the Major Events trust fund before the event. In the 12 months immediately preceding the event, the comptroller may deposit into the trust fund an amount equal to the amount the state is required to deposit under Subsection (f) of this section from any amounts appropriated by the legislature for the purposes of this subsection. The comptroller may make disbursements from the trust fund in amounts that do not exceed the amounts deposited under this subsection in accordance with the agreement to pay costs relating to attracting and securing the event. An agreement under this subsection may provide that, following the last day of an event, the funds eligible for disbursement under Subsection (k) of this section be held in the trust fund and made available to pay the cost of securing the event in future years.
I'll get back to this in a bit, just for dramatic affect, but as for the rest, your m.o. is to ignore any evidence that contradicts your theories and you've refused to acknowledge direct evidence so many times that it seems a waste of internet to post them. Plus, this has all been posted before. But in the interest of whatever you think it's in the interest of...
(What, you didn't think I'd have these handy? Oh, I
know how to use teh googles.)
http://impactnews.com/articles/cta-stat ... age-2.html
Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson has called for an investigation of Comptroller Susan Combs' authority in initially promising F1 $25 million before any city endorsed the race.
The crux of Patterson’s argument centers around a May 10, 2010, letter Combs sent to F1 CEO Bernie Ecclestone stating that $25 million from the state’s Major Events Trust Fund would be paid to Formula One World Championship Limited no later than July 31, 2011. Combs said in the letter that the $25 million sanctioning fee would be sent every year before July for 10 years, making a $250 million total contribution from the METF fund.
Patterson said Combs stepped beyond her legal authority, putting into question not only the F1 deal, but potentially other METF events as well.
“There are dozens of projects like [F1], and I now wonder how many of these have been funded without complying with the law,” Patterson said. “She exceeded her authority. Sometimes when you screw something up, what you should do is say ‘I screwed this up, and I won’t do this again.’ Our comptroller has a real serious problem with that concept.”
...
Patterson said Combs should be asked to testify in front of the Texas House General Investigating and Ethics Committee as well as the Texas Senate State Affairs Committee about her actions and discretion related to F1 and other METF events.
According to METF statute, an endorsing body such as a city, county or organizing committee must endorse the race and apply for funding before any funds can be committed or promised. An economic impact analysis must be made within a year of the event, studying the incremental taxes the event may generate from out-of-state visitors spending money on merchandise, alcohol, hotel costs and retail goods.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... lease.html
“This deal to give away a quarter of a billion in taxpayer dollars is a real turkey — New Jersey got their race and didn’t have to pay a dime for it,” Patterson said. “Comptroller Susan Combs exceeded her authority and ignored the law to cut this deal and she’s now trying to hide her mistakes.”
Other requirements of the law — approved by the 80th Legislature at Combs’ request — were also ignored. As of May 10, 2010, Combs’ office had not made any determination of the incremental tax increase an F1 race might bring. As of May 10, 2010, Combs’ office hadn’t even established what market area would be likely to experience measurable economic impact. Both steps are also required by state law.
“I'm not opposed to F1, but I am opposed to getting screwed,” Patterson said. “I'm also opposed to elected officials abusing their authority and committing a quarter billion taxpayer dollars they have no statutory authority to commit.”
http://www.window.state.tx.us/newsinfo/ ... mula1.html
...as is the case with all METF events, each application will be reviewed and analyzed for its likely economic impact and only after the race occurs would any funds be disbursed.
If an METF application is submitted, it will be thoroughly vetted and economic impact data scrutinized based on the actual circumstances for that event.
From the horses mouth:
http://www.kvue.com/video/raw/RAW-Susan ... 78493.html
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/investigat ... ncial-role
"OK, let me just state this,” Combs said to KXAN, “a letter of optimism and support is not a contractual obligation. I think that's really important. ... They want to know that at least there's a welcome mat laid out for them."
Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin – the lawmaker who wrote the bill that helped get F1 on the list of events eligible for that money – spelled out the statute.
"There's a very specific process that requires a local government or local organizing committee that has been approved by a local government to first apply,” Watson said.
Watson's interpretation suggests Combs cannot guarantee the money until organizers or the city apply for it. But those applications did not come for more than a year after she sent that letter.
"I think some people were wrong in the way they were reading that statute or they just wanted it so badly they kept talking about it,” he said, when asked about Combs' action. "She obviously made a lot of comments that I disagreed with."
Combs said clearly that the state has given no money to F1. At this time, there is no application on file for any state money.
It is worth noting that Combs has reportedly expressed interest in running for lieutenant governor in 2014, though she is currently focused on her job as the state's accountant. Patterson's has already formally entered the race for Texas' second highest position. He and another declared candidate - Ag Commissioner Todd Staples - have been openly critical about Combs' involvement with Formula One.
The first application for METF money came long after Combs’ letter said the state money would be in place. The initial request was from Austin City Manager Marc Ott on June 30, 2011, authorized by the Austin City Council a day earlier.
So, with all that, please tell me that you aren't going to stick your head in the sand and repeat your mantra that there ever existed any kind of valid contract guaranteeing the METF funds. Because if you do, then your ability to say "I was wrong" is weaker than any man's I've ever met.
Now, on any METF money being dependent on Tavo's involvement, or if Tavo's departure scuttled the deal...
On Monday, promoter Tavo Hellmund called state Comptroller Susan Combs asking whether a change in management or promoters would affect the circuit's eligibility for money from the state Major Events Trust Fund. The state has pledged $250 million over 10 years from the fund.
Combs said the race would still be eligible for the incentives in a letter Tuesday to Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone.
So, that settles that.
And, bringing us full circle, as promised here is the plain english version of the statute subsection from above, taken directly from the comptroller's website...
The Major Events Trust Fund applies local and state gains from sales and use, auto rental, hotel and alcoholic beverage taxes generated over a 12-month period from certain major sporting championships or events to pay costs incurred from hosting the event.
...
An event, which must not be held more than once per year, expected to generate at least $15 million in local and state tax receipts is eligible for prior funding to attract and secure the event. If the event recurs, the previous year’s receipts can be used to attract and secure subsequent events.
Emphasis theirs. The fund can be used for multi-year events, but it must be reapplied for every year with the previous year's tax revenue used to determine each subsequent year's funding. No recurring event (this is from the subsection 's' you cited - do I need to quote that, too?) can receive funding for more than 10 years. Again, the subsections you quote don't do diddly (alliteration!) to help your case about the comptroller's ability to make funding promises. In fact, even if you say that she was ok in promising the first year's funds (which she wasn't) this clause proves without any room for doubt whatsoever that she was unable to guarantee any amount of money outside that first year, since each subsequent year's funds are entirely determined by the actual amount of tax money the event brings in the previous year.
Do you mind if I repeat that, for clarity, and also to rub it in a bit?
This clause proves without any room for doubt whatsoever that she was unable to guarantee any amount of money outside that first year, since each subsequent year's funds are entirely determined by the actual amount of tax money the event brings in the previous year.
It
could be $25 million; it
could be nada.
QED, baby.
Now, since we're in an evidentiary mode, I feel a tad bit maligned by this comment*...
Too much of your theories have been debunked as wishful thinking and opinion. I refer to your theories about Hellmund provoking Epstein to oust him by not adhering to his duties of signing the F1 contract over in time to COTA. All available legal sources claim the exact opposite.
Please, if you will, provide evidence to back up your portrayal of my 'theories' as well as these 'legal sources' of which you have unique knowledge. Alternatively, you may kindly withdraw your statement and apologize.
Thank you and adieu.
* Though equally amused at your debunking of a
theory by exposing it as an
opinion. Bravo, my rhetorical friend.
