Saturday, April 7, 2007

OV Magazine Misstates The Facts

The April issue of The Oro Valley Magazine published an article titled "Growth Spurt."
Unfortunately, the reporter misstated the facts concerning the Oro Valley Marketplace.
Following is my letter to Susan Cantrell, VP, Advertising Tucson Newspapers, pointing out the error by reporter Donn Green.
We will post the response we hope to receive from Ms. Cantrell, or her representative.
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Susan Cantrell
VP Advertising Tucson Newspapers

Dear Ms.Cantrell;

Wendy Capin, was kind enough to advise me to contact you concerning the article on page 21, in the April 2007 Oro Valley Magazine, titled, “Growth Spurt.”

The article’s main subject matter is about the Vestar Development at the SE corner of Oracle & Tangerine roads in Oro Valley.

As there are no quotations, attributing the statement, ”Voters finally greenlit (Green’s word, not mine) the project in March 2006, ending a delay caused mostly by the negative response some residents had to Wal-Mart tenancy,” I don’t know if this was information that Mr. David Welsh, Economic Development Administrator supplied, or if writer Donn Green got the info from another source. In any case, the above statement is incorrect. Your magazine has an obligation of reporting the facts concerning Oro Valley, especially when your readership is predominately Oro Valley residents.

The facts are this:
In 2004, the Oro Valley Town Council voted to give Vestar $23.2 million in our future sales tax revenue to develop a retail shopping center at the above-mentioned intersection. A group of citizens, including me, initiated a grassroots political committee called SOVOG (Stop Oro Valley Outrageous Giveaways), in an attempt to allow the citizens to vote on this issue.

Oro Valley and Vestar did not want this vote to take place, and as such we were in court approximately six times, finally winning the opportunity allowing the citizens their right to vote. (As reported, the voters approved the $23.2M in March 2006.)

It is important to note, our issue was the “Outrageous Giveaway” of $23.2 million-----not Wal-Mart. There is no doubt, we did not want Wal-Mart for too many reasons to get into here, but inasmuch as Vestar did not announce Wal-Mart as their main anchor until early in 2007, that was not the cause of any delay as reported by Mr. Green. If anything, Vestar asked for, and received extensions with their development plan, well after the voters approved their $23.2 million.

Without going into any more detail, the bottom line is this: Mr. Green reported misinformation, and, at the very least, a retraction and correction is necessary.

Should you wish to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me at 797-4282 or artmarth@comcast.net.

Sincerely,
Art Segal

copy:
Janet Perez, Managing Editor
Wendy Capin, Sales Manager

7 comments:

OV Objective Thinker said...

OV Magazine made no more of a misstatement of fact than did the folks gathering signatures for SOVOG. I personally observed some (not all) of those gathering signatures and their point was to stop a Wal Mart from coming to Oro Valley and not mentioning the EDA. So to say that you (personally and on behalf of SOVOG) were solely out there to voice your disapproval only for the Economic Development Agreement and not anti-Wal Mart is a bit of a stretch of fact.

mscoyote said...

Hi OV objective thinker. Regardless of who said what, the magizine printed something in error.
People who sign initiative's should read what they sign, in my experience 99% or actually close to 100% of people living here understand that an initiative puts or refers an action to the ballot.
People who volunteer to collect signatures all have the same goal, to get that issue on the ballot, but people all have personal opinions of different aspects of the issue. Unless somebody on either side knew that a Wal Mart was indeed coming to the market, then nobody could state that as a fact, but the article certainly leads us believe that this was a fact.
So there is a difference in discusssing an opinion and something that is in print that should be factual. Opinions are just that opinions.
Happy Easter to you and yours!
Are you ready to sign the pledge yet?

OV Objective Thinker said...

I am not disagreeing that OV Magazine may have placed too much emphasis on the Wal Mart issue. But to complain about it is like the pot calling the kettle black, especially from the king of misinformation.

It is ILLEGAL to solicit signatures based on a lie, which occured. The petitions I saw did not have the ordinance attached as required by LAW. Therefore there was nothing to read. People only responded to being told that signatures were being gathered to prevent a Wal Mart from being placed at Tangering and Oracle. That's ILLEGAL.

You stated in your post that "something that is in print... should be factual." You obviously think the print media only prints the truth. I know from your previous comments, you are not that naive.

mscoyote said...

Good I am glad we at least think that the OV Magazine placed too much emphasis on something and by trying to do so they printed in error, well at least we hope it was an error!!
You say its illegal to solicit signatures based on a lie? Who was telling a lie while collecting signatures? If you have proof of this or you have proof of the ordinance not being attached then you should have spoken up while it was still in the process.
Obviously I don't think that everything that the media prints is factual thus my comment "should" be factual.
Nothing wrong with writing to the adult in charge requesting a correction. Why do you have a problem with that?
And yes you are correct I am not naive!

Richard Furash, MBA said...

Greetings All,
The issue is not SOVOG or VESTAR or the prior vote. The issue is that WalMart is not an appropriate anchor for the new mall. Lets focus on the issue and bury the past. It is, after all, history.

mscoyote said...

Zeeman, yes in a way you are correct however in order to discuss Wal Mart, the history of how we got to Wal Mart needs to come up.
Sometimes in order to understand the present we just can't bury the past!
Just my humble opinion.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

OV Objective Thinker asserts that SOVOG collected signatures illegally. If they did something illegal, why did they win all those court cases?

If you want to discuss illegal, how about the fact that Vestar is guilty of fraud and false advertisement? What they promised for $23 million and what they delivered are two different things. The Town of OV should be suing them!