Councilperson Terry Parish believes that anyone who does not agree with him is "against virtually everything". He calls us CAVE people. So, last week we asked the question: "What do you think of "CAVE" people?"
There is not doubt about it. Our bloggers are universally proud to be CAVE people. Their definition of it is a bit different from that of Terry Parish. Our bloggers define a CAVE person as someone who is concerned about Oro Valley's future, not simply its present; someone who is not beholden to special interests; someone who genuinely wants the quality of life in Oro Valley to excel. In other words: Terry Parish-NOT!
Click here to read excerpts from your responses.
3 comments:
As I heard Mr. Parrish told at the Nov. 5 special session on the bonds for the Naranja Park, yes we are CAVE people by your definition, but it is better than being a CAVE-IN person who coddles the developers with no regard for what the citizens really want. And by the way, we are not against virtually everything. I myself would have loved to see the Ritz-Carlton come to Oro Valley and would love to see the OV Marketplace as it was promised, similar to La Encantada. I have been an OV resident in Rancho Vistoso since 1989 and know that Rancho Vistoso, and therefore by default Oro Valley, was being marketed as the “New Scottsdale”, well a lot has happened since then, including the developer going bankrupt, many of the builders moving out even before they were finished with their developments, and I might add, the original developer being able to buy back much of the Vistoso land for about a third of the cost. So although seeing OV as the Southern Arizona “Scottsdale” may be a good thing, we need to look at the size of the Town and approach it on a reasonable basis. During the Nov. 5 special session, the Council approved the “Option 2” to do the minimum work for the Naranja park (Phase I elements only, the sports fields and grading, parking, etc.) to allow for growth from there and I feel this was a good decision given all the additional items that will need to be funded in the future such as the CAP water. However, in this case, another viable option, even supported by Mr. Parrish, was to let the voters decide using “Option 1”. Even one of the Staff members tried to remind Mayor Loomis and the Council that the bond question could be broken down into multiple phases and the voters could decide which levels made sense. My impression was that if those in favor of going ahead with the full $150+ million plan could not get the ‘whole enchilada’ then they didn’t want to ‘play ball’ (excuse the pun). I do think the voters are smart enough to do the right thing and should have been given the chance to vote on the issues broken down into multiple and reasonable alternatives.
As far as the height restrictions in the Town Code, they are there for a reason and yes, as Mr. Parrish said during the break at the Nov 5 meeting, the Council has the right to do what they think is best, but be responsible to the residents, not the developers! I have no problem with giving some variants to developers if it makes sense. In the case of the hotel next to the hospital, the question had to come up 3 times before it was passed by the Council, reminiscent of the Bible story about the widow finally wearing down the judge (Luke 18). I agree there is a need for more hotel space in OV and next to the hospital is a great place to have one. Some of the arguments for the additional height were based on the height of the hospital, but as we know the hospital is on land that is lower than the land where the hotel will be built. Also the land is going uphill so where will the 60 foot building height be in relation to the hospital and the views behind them toward Pusch Ridge and Mt. Lemmon?
I love living in Oro Valley, and agree with Mayor Loomis comments at the Nov 5 meeting that we need to consider needs of us ‘older folks’ in OV, I just don’t want fiscal irresponsibility and selfish political goals to drive out many people who cannot afford to have our taxes increase so quickly and have worked so hard to get where they are and would like to stay here!
Curly-jim - when we moved to Arizona, we had the option of taking up residence in Scottsdale (Some people call it SNOTtsdale); we have a daughter, son-in-law, and now 2 grandchildren living there. So, we took an apartment in Scottsdale for 3 months -it is a madhouse with a lot of plastic people (lots of embedded plastic) living there. Yes there are some upscale shops, parks, big box stores (lots of them), and whatever - lot's of things to do with one exception - you just can't relax. So, if someone wants a Scottsdale, let 'em go live IN Scottsdale. As to your comment about Terry Parrish saying the council has the right to do what they think is right, that, sir, is baloney!!! Zoning ordinances and procedural issues are restrictive covenents, and I believe that you would know what a covenent is. Can exceptions be made, can restrictions be altered or changed, yes, but, as outlined in the Arizona State Constitution as well as the rules and regs for Oro Valley, there are 'correct' and legal methods for doing so and the one way they cannot be done is having someone like a narcissistic blowhard like Terry Parrish simply and offhandedly telling us what is good for us and then playing God!
Thank you curly-jim and zev for offering some of the best Terry Parish observations I've seen.
It gives me an idea...
VOTE TERRY PARISH
NARCISSISTIC BLOWHARD
FOR ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
Wouldn't that make a great bumpersticker??!!
Post a Comment