Following is a letter from neighbor Shar Pelzl printed in the Jan 16 Explorer.
It’s good for OV voters to have long memories
Does anyone remember Conny Culver, who served a two year term on the Oro Valley Council, ran for re-election, but was so unpopular that she finished dead last? It appears that history may repeat itself.
At the Jan. 8 candidate forum at Sun City, Councilman Terry Parish managed to alienate himself from most of the Sun City crowd when he affirmed that he would take campaign money from developers. Parish said, “Yes, I would take money offered by developers, and I’m proud to say that they support me.”
I also recall how Parish served with pride as poster boy for Vestar, allowing himself to be quoted in brochures and newspaper articles promoting Oro Valley Marketplace (with its Wal-Mart anchor) as a “home run” for the town.
Another incumbent, Helen Dankwerth, suddenly changed positions on Wal-Mart at the forum. After claiming to be neutral on the big box, and refusing to stand up to Vestar on behalf of her constituents, Dankwerth now claims that Wal-Mart is not the high-end shop she’d had in mind for the Marketplace.
But apparently Wal-Mart was all right for the rest of us — her constituents — whose opinions are disdained by Dankwerth. “My decisions are based on my own knowledge,” she went on to say. “I am beholden to no one.” Apparently not even to the citizens who voted for her. And to think we thought that our councilwoman represented us.
Fortunately, Oro Valley voters have long memories and the best thing we can do in the voting booth (or on our vote-by-mail ballot) is to boot these out-of-touch incumbents and start anew.
Sharleen Pelzl
Oro Valley
21 comments:
Two observations relative to Dankwerth:
Contention 1: "My decisions are based on my own knowledge".
Being that her portrayals are all over the place I would have to conclude that her so-called KNOWLEDGE is very much shallow indeed.
Contention 2: "I am beholden to no one". No, Mrs. Dankwerth, you are very much beholden to someone and that is to your ego-driven SELF and you perpetuate your supportive deceptions by catering to which ever way the winds of the 'power elite' blow.
SO MUCH FOR KNOWLEDGE AND PURPOSE!
As usual, Zev comes up short on the facts, once again. This is becoming quite the pattern.
Your quoting, along with Ms. Pelzl's, of Ms. Dankwerth's statement was incomplete. I believe she stated and also states in her printed campaign liturature that she is beholden to no but you, meaning the Oro Valley voters.
I would also point out that you were again incorrect in your assumptions and statements that the OV Council had something to do with the flap over this blog. As was appropriately pointed out after you spoke at the last Town Council meeting. The Town Council was the body to put a halt to any further inquiry.
I do not understand why you, AND OTHERS, cannot simply be accurate with you comments and/or do a little research to see if the original comments/statements were accurately portrayed. It relatively easy to do......if you want to be accurate.
OV OT
YOU are the one who can't get things straight (as usual)! I have heard Mrs. Dankwerth speak, I have listened carefully to her comments in TC meetings, and I have seen her quotes in print in more than just this blog. I will stand by my observations.
As to my comments to the OVTC this past Wednesday, I was very careful in NOT assigning blame to the Town Council for this flap (as you put it). As usual, Mr. Parish, in a 'rebuttal' statement, implied that I did (at least he did act as a gentleman in the portrayal of his observation).
Mr. OV OT, you seem to hold yourself in high esteem as to being
THE expert relative to all of the 'facts' about this community.
Well, you might have a FEW but you can't seem to include them in your comments with much of a reasonable or cohesive manner.
If you want a lesson in some of the FACTS relative to this town's execution of government, I would suggest that you study those clauses in the Arizona Constitution relative to the required operational procedures of municipalities as well as the zoning codes and definitions for the Town of Oro Valley, take a basic course in logistics and semantics at an appropriate institution, and apply some reflective thinking as to the attitudes and abberations of some of our Town's leaders. Until you can reflect those traits in your 'dissertations'I have no alternative but to dismiss them as balderdash!
OVOT--- Do I need to remind you the email you sent me (with your true identity---no outrageous pseudonym) two days PRIOR to the Az Star story?
Your words were: "My point in writing is to suggest that you register LOVE as a political committee in Oro Valley. Since you are actively advocating for and against candidates you fall into the state definition of a political committee. It doesn't cost anything and the paperwork is relatively simple."
Wow.That sounds very much like the letter the Town Clerk sent me that stated a "citizen" raised the issue and as such I MUST form a Political Committee.
Also,where in the world did you get the idea that the Town Council "put a halt to any further inquiry?" Parish basically said the outside attorney, (that was paid for by OUR tax money,) told OV to back-off before they look even more foolish. (My words, not the outside attorney's.)
Remember, Parish & Dankwerth claimed they knew NOTHING about the Clerk's letter to me until "after the fact." Who then, is running the "asylum," if not Loomis & his 4 cronies? (Note, I exclude Paula & KC.)
With all your influence, perhaps you can find out who in the town pursued this issue against me.
As to credibility, we'll let the people decide who has more; you or Zev.
"Objective Thinker?" You 'gotta" be kidding!
Thinker,
You want us to be accurate with our comments? Well, when we ARE, you still find a way to twist our words or deny them altogether so you can continue to argue that you're always right and we're always wrong.
Case in point.
There were some recent blogs regarding Terry Parish's comment at a recent candidate forum implying that Salette was promoting pornography. Even though 2 different people stated that they heard him make this comment, YOU insisted that he never said it, even though YOU weren't there!
You then contacted Parish and asked him. He denied having said this and you automatically believed him and asserted that those who heard him say it were lying.
I just spoke to a third person who was at that candidate forum and she told me that this is what he said at the end of his closing comments:
"I fought to keep porn out of the library and Salette Latas fought to keep it in!"
So he lied when he told you that he never made any such comment.
The reason she fought against having filters installed on library computers was because the filters would also prevent someone from looking up medical information... breast cancer for example. The word breast would be filtered out. So a person trying to do some research on this topic, perhaps because they were just diagnosed with it, would not be able to access the information.
So while it's true that she was against filters, it's not the WHOLE TRUTH! Parish never mentioned WHY she was against them although she had previously made her intentions quite clear, so he was well aware of them. But it was in his best interest to manipulate the facts.
Can't wait to see how you argue this one!
'OBJECTIVE'
"Expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as percieved without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations"
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
'THINKER'
"To subject to the process of logical thought"
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
OVOT, you need another moniker; you simply do not impress as a realistic fit for the above definitions. I might not either, but I don't pen as a 'fake me'.
I 'LOVE' it. Once again I make one small insertion and we go from 1 comment to 7. Art, you should be happy that I am around to support your blog. I'll respond to you first.
While 'LOVE' MAY not fall into the precise definition of a political committee (althought it's arguable) according to Arizona Revised Statutes (16-901 Para 19), you have endorsed candidates and continue to make an attempt to influence the Oro Valley election. I can see how someone not completely familiar with the statutes could make that determination in their mind. If you want to know who filed the complaint, I believe all you have to do is ask for a copy of the complaint.
My involvement in this is limited to the fact that I had heard rumblings about a possible complaint and frankly didn't want to see you or Dick get into any unnecessary hot water. As I said in my e-mail it really is simple to declare yourself as a political committee and the paperwork is relatively simple, especially if you are not collecting any money. It would have been a very easy solution to the issue....rather than fight and whine to the press.
Your interpretation of the comments made by Mr. Parish differ from mine. I understood him to say that an outside attorney (probably at no cost to the Town) sent the Town an opinion stating that it was up to the Council to pursue the matter if they desired. The Council chose not to. The opinion and advice of the attorney was NOT "to back-off" to use your words.
I have no reason to doubt that a citizen filed a complaint. I doubt that the Town employees dremt this up. The Town was obligated to investigate. So you argue against one of your own cornerstones, that being that the Town does not respond to it's citizens. How interesting.....and humorous.
And just a passing comment on another of your faulty assumptions, I doubt that the Town Clerk copies "Loomis and his 4 cronies" on 99% of her correspondence. She does not report to them.
Now Zev......
I am amazed at how you have become SO KNOWLEDGEABLE about all things Oro Valley in such a short time. I applaud you.
As for my knowledge of the Town I don't state, pretend or even allude to being an "expert" to use your language. But I have lived here since 1996. I have taken to time to learn much about the governence of this Town. I have served on the Planning and Zoning Commission for five years. I have served on the General Plan Revision Committee. I have run, albeit unsuccessfully, for office twice. (PS....I'm not finished.) I have served on several candidate interview committees because of my knowledge of the issues and my ability to be impartial. I have a copy of the Oro Valley Zoning Code revised within my reach as I type this response. I do not run up to the podium at Town meeting to feed my ego. I quietly and rather effictively, I might add, send e-mails to all Council members and express my opinion.
So if you wish to dismiss my comments as "balderdash" be my guest. I probably won't lose any sleep over it. At least I can apply some Oro Valley reflective thinking over a period of nearly twelve years and your reflective thinking period is somehwat less than that.
Ms. Coyote.....
I responded to your developer comment in the other topic comments, but I will do so again. As long as a developer (occupation) makes a PERSONAL contribtion then it is legal. Candidates cannot accept donations drawn on a business account.
Mr. Parish did NOT accept any money from any individual from Vestar. He was elected before they came on the scene. His support of the Oro Valley Marketplace(OVMP)is, in my opinion, as result of his belief that the economic benefits to Oro Valley outweigh the negatives. I cannot fault him because I hold the same beliefs. I lobbied hard for another client in OVMP other than Wal-Mart. But as has been pointed out by many, many, many people shop at Wal-Mart. And many people need a Wal-Mart to survive, especially on the low wages paid in Tucson.
Hi Cowgirl....
I am not going to argue, I am going to present my opinion....which will most likely differ from yours. But I appreciate and respect that.
I want to correct one of your comments first. I have clearly stated that people heard what they wanted to hear. I have never accused someone of lying although the blogmaster was real close with his comments about my P&Z term. I stated that his comments were 'patently false".... a nice alternative, I think.
The comments were made that Mr. Parish stated that Ms. Latas was a "pornagrapher". Did he? NO. The other comment that was made was that (and I must paraphrase it)
she supported pornagraphy. Did he say that? NO.
Your argument and Salette's comment about breast cancer is arguably weak. While typing the word "breast" may block some routes it certainly would not stop a person from finding information regarding breast cancer. I am currently undergoing treatment for cancer and I can assure you that there are many avenues available to someone to find medical information on the web. Salette's argument while sincere just isn't a valid. Again the benefits of filters may outweigh the limitations.
I am not always right. You are not always wrong. We simply see things differently. And as you pointed out, there are times that we agree.
On a personal note would you or MsCoyote give Zev a chocolate or something to make him feel a bit better. I really hope there is something positive in his life.
Time to get dinner ready!!
So, OVOT, if it took you 12 years to get through the 1st grade does that make you a genious?
Thinker. I now have evidence that you can't be too bad of a guy since you cook dinner!!
About Terry Parish and the developer contributions. Thank You for the explanation and be assured I did read your initial post about the difference
Problem is not about you and I knowing the difference between taking money from a developer and taking money from a person who is a developer.
Terry Parish is the one who says that he takes money from developers.
That is what Terry Parish is quoted as saying, I did not make it up.
I did not say that Terry Parish took any donations from Vestar.
But since Terry Parish himself admits as reported in the paper that fhe takes money from developers then I do think it influenced him to urge others to vote for the EDA.
Terry Parish may not have been on council when the EDA was signed but developers were in existence and you certainly know that there are close relationships between developers.
OVOT, the sarcasm of asking MsCoyote and Victorian Cowgirl to [give me a chocolate or something to make me feel a bit better] is another of your mealy attempts, along with some of the other hash you sling at me (and others), to
denigrate my person. Yes,I do get my share of 'digs' in but I do try not to be stupid.
Thinker, you say that many need a Wal Mart to survive, especially on the low wages paid in Tucson.
Well that may be true for Tucson, but not true in Oro Valley.
And those low income wage earners in Tucson are not going to drive up to OV to shop at Wal Mart, they have local Wal Marts.
I assume you also supported or still do support this 23.2 million EDA?
Do you still support the EDA knowing that there is a really strong possibility of EDA's being unconstitional in the State of Arizona?
Aside from all of the back and forth some in fun, some not fun, I truly believe most are fed up with the majority of our council and their antics.
"Objective thinker"---- The others are more than capable of speaking for themselves, so I'll only address the comments that pertain to me.
Your statements----
Parag 1--- Yes I do appreciate your comments, especially that you suggest you're "not finished" for your run for Council. You already have two strikes. Why not go for three? Then you'll certainly be out.
Parag 2--- So nice to know you have a legal background, especially as it concerns the Az Revised Statutes. And, I thought you were only a real estate salesman. As to requesting a copy of the complaint---why bother? I'm sure I'd be told it was a "verbal inquiry." And why would the town tell me that when they didn't even have the common decency to let me know they received an outside legal opinion. I had to find that out in the newspaper.
Parag 3--- You "heard rumblings" and you didn't want to see me or Dick "get in hot water." Well, thanks. That was really gracious of you. Your suggestion for me to form a Political Committee, would have suited you. But I decided to stand up for my rights, and let the press know of my plight. "Whining" is what you constantly do here on the blog. Don't talk to me about whining. That's idiotic, especially since the reporter and editorial writer thought my story had merit.
Parag 4--- As usual, your good friend Parish takes it upon himself to be the council's spokesperson.
Obviously, Loomis is happy with that arrangement.
I'd like him or anyone in the town to have the common courtesy of sharing "the FREE opinion" they received from their outside law firm as it pertains to me. Let's see if it says, "it's up to the council to pursue." Whoever made the decision to initiate this action against me, didn't have the good sense to think there may be some "unintended consequences" ---like looking foolish, if nothing else.
Parag 5--- You say the town was obligated to "investigate" the complaint. Stop and think. What would have been the prudent thing to do? Certainly not to run quick and send me a letter when any lawyer would have said, "forget it. You're wasting your time." But no---that's not how Oro Valley acts. Their approach is do the wrong thing, and worry about it later!
Parag 6--- So, you are saying the Town Clerk does NOT work for the Town Council. Does the Clerk work for the Town Manager? Who does the Town Manager work for?
Perhaps Oro Valley needs a change in their chain of command, or at the very least, let the left hand know what the right hand is doing.
Conclusion: The Az Star editorial writer said it all in one sentence. "The situation made the town look like a bully and could have been avoided if workers had done more homework."
I'm sure you'll find that statement not to your liking. Perhaps you should write the editor and tell him your opinion. And don't forget to tell him about your total knowledge of the Arizona Statutes.
Thinker,
You said many people need a Wal-Mart to survive, especially with the low wages paid in Tucson. Problem is, the people who actually LIVE in Oro Valley are not earning those low wages. They couldn't afford to live here if they did. So that Wal-Mart is not being built for OUR benefit. It's the anchor for OVM because Wal-Mart uses Vestar as a FRONT to get them into new shopping centers. And I'm sure that WM pays Vestar quite well for this "service." This is just a deal between WM/Vestar and never had anything to do with serving the people of OV.
Regarding Parish's pornography statement, true you never said that those who heard him say this were lying, but you implied it when you said that he never said that and therefore they just heard what they wanted to hear.
You continue to claim that he never said that she was "promoting" pornography. But isn't that what he was IMPLYING when he said that he fought to keep porn out of the library and she fought to keep it in? What else could he have been implying?
For the record, I am torn about what should be done about porn at the library. I don't think people should be able to view pornography in a public place, especially one that is frequented largely by women and children. I don't think it's about free speech. I think it's about sleazy people wanting free porn. And I don't want my tax dollars supporting THAT! Do you?
On the other hand, I don't want medical information access to be filtered out in the process.
Do you have an idea of how to solve this problem?
Sorry to hear that you've been ill. I hope your treatments are going well. If you haven't already looked into these two things, may I suggest you do some internet research on macrobiotics and also on a supplement called Juice Plus.
Art...You are mellowing in your advancing years. That was unusually nice. I hope I am also. However let me add a few points.
I was told two years ago that verbal complaints would not be pursued and the complaint must be in writing and must be signed. It should be there so go for it...if you want to.
You may find this difficult to grasp but I think, that void of an expert opinion, (the Town legal beagles have no clue about campaign law), the Town over-reacted. They should have, in my opinion, waited until an expert opinion was obtained OR simply requested that you complete the political committee paperwork and go from there. But you also over reacted, which is not uncommon for you. You could have completed the appropriate paperwork or sat down with the Town Attorney and Town Clerk and worked out some compromise. You chose the "I refuse" route and then ran to the press with the story. And let's be real up front about their (the press) involvement. They put "merit" far below selling of newspapers. The entire incident was distasteful to me. I don't like anything that brings discredit or unfavorable publicity to Oro Valley. This incident did exactly that. You are not a poor innocent bystander in this as you want people to believe. You relish the publicity else you wouldn't post all of the comments on this blog.
It the old, "Neeeener, neeeener, neeeener" attitude.
Ms Coyote.....
I am really going to wow you now. My WONDERFUL wife of 37 years works full time. My schedule is much my own. So I make dinner every night. I also vacuum and iron all of my own clothes and some of hers.
I supported the EDA then and I support it now. I doubt that EDA's are unconstitutional as one "Philadelphia" lawyer has stated. If they are, why hasn't the battle been fought in the courts. Marana just entered into a huge EDA and there is no indication of pending legal action. What I think IS unconstitutional and may be why the battle hasn't been fought is that the constitutional language that you refer to may conflict with other state law. Why should a state government be allowed to dictate how an incorporated municipality spends it's money?
Please read my response to Cowgirl as it will reflect on one of your questions.
Hi Cowgirl...
I would be the first to admit that the Wal-Mart is not being built solely for the benefit of Oro Valley residents. We will benefit but that's not where they see their big money coming from. It's the surrounding community and the Pinal County growth that causes them to lick their chops. Many Oro Valley people will shop there because of the savings but I don't think Wal-Mart's target market is the Oro Valley shopper.
One of the things that I have given up on is making any attempt to guess (and that's all it can be) what any person was "implying" when they make a statement. But I know Terry Parish fairly well. He is very focused on crime prevention and, in particular,the porn industry. And if crime prevention is served at the expense of inconveniencing someone looking for breast cancer info by typing in "breast" I believe he will take the same path every time. And that's a path I have to support. Think of this....
If the filters would prevent one perv from sitting in the library viewing porn and possibly luring a child into some terrible scenario and the same filters caused an individual to find an alternate way around the word "breast" which would you and I and others prefer? The answer is clear. As I said, opposing the filters on that basis is just not an argument that holds water. That's my answer to the problem. You can't prevent every incident. But you do what you can to discourage the activity.
Thanks for your comments regarding my medical issues. Hopefully all of the cancer has been removed surgically (5 since October 2006). It's an insidious disease that, once present, you can never ignore. But today I am clean. Next scope is this coming Friday and I have high expectations.
Zev....
Sorry to keep you until last but frankly I have much more respect for the comments made by others and place them in a higher priority.
My only response to your postings is to quote you and respond to your last sentence. You stated, "Yes, I get my share of 'digs' in but I try not to be stupid".
The only conclusion that can be drawn from that statement is that you come by it naturally.
Have a great week!!
Hello Thinker
So what time is dinner served and what are we having?
You posted that you doubt that EDA's are unconstitutional as one "philadelphia" lawyer has stated.
I will just assume that you are not aware of the stellar credentials of Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute.
And if you are then I will assume that when you use the term "philadelphia" lawyer it was a compliment as the original origin of the word was a compliment!!
And if you did not mean "philadelphia" lawyer as a compliment then I will only say
that opinion would be determined by where Mr. Bolick sits, either across from you or by your side.
You ask why the battle is not being fought in the courts.
It is going to be fought in the courts and hopefully Clint Bolick and the Goldwater Institute prevail.
Personally I will be sitting in support right next to that "philadelphia" lawyer. And I use the term in the original intent or origin.
Since you mentioned this term, and now that you made me research it(but that is ok), I think most of the town council is guilty of trying to find loopholes to justify their votes and decisions.
So it should be interesting either way.
Hope you are all cancer free.
Thinker,
You said Parish is very focused on crime prevention and that's why he wants to keep porn out of the library. OK, I get that. But he apparently wasn't concerned with crime or crime-prevention when he endorsed OVM with it's Wal-Mart anchor. This is where he loses me!
His way around this seems to be to increase taxes to pay for 18 additional police officers. Well then, why don't we just take one of those police officers and have him posted at the library to do porn patrol?
OVOT,
You write, "While 'LOVE' MAY not fall into the precise definition of a political committee...I can see how someone not completely familiar with the statutes could make that determination in their mind."
Shouldn't the Town Clerk and the Town Attorney be familiar with those statutes? Apparently not, as they had to hire an outside attorney to get an answer, and as you mention later, the town attorneys have "no clue about campaign law." And do you really believe that the outside attorney worked "at no cost to the town"?! This town is getting a reputation as a good source of easy money for lawyers, and I don’t know of any lawyers who would represent a town government free of charge.
The bottom line is that Parish publicly supported this attack on the constitutional rights of one of his constituents. Barry Gillaspie, to his great credit, wrote to the Star in support of his contituents’ constitutional rights.
You also seem to think that people should register with the government any time the government asks them to, rather than stand up for their rights. I disagree. Local governments should not regulate political speech.
As the Goldwater Institute wrote today, "The town mischaracterized Arizona law regarding political action committees, which encompass not mere endorsements but organized efforts and expenditures to promote candidacies. Indeed, were the laws broader than that, newspapers that endorsed candidates would have to register as well.
"More important, political speech is at the core of the free speech guarantees of both the Arizona and U.S. Constitutions.
"Registration constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint-and even a warning like the one served on Art Segal has an impermissible chilling effect."
Regarding your "ability to be impartial," your role as chief apologist for Dankwerth and especially Parish belie that assertion.
You might be correct that Parish accepted no money from anyone employed by Vestar, as they were not yet "on the scene." But he accepted money from people employed by Vistoso Partners, who owned the property that Vestar sought to develop, and who stood to gain from the passage of the tax subsidy, which would finally allow them to unload what they seemed to consider an "unbuildable" property at a profit. And he took that money after the election was over, when the press and the public didn’t have a chance to find out about his funding. Parish then turned around and publicly campaigned, as a council member and as vice mayor, for a ballot measure that would financially benefit his benefactors.
You assert that many people need a Wal-Mart to survive. That might be true after Wal-Mart comes to town and drives down local wages. A study published last month by UC Berkeley said, "Our research finds that Wal-Mart store openings lead to the replacement of better paying jobs with jobs that pay less. Wal-Mart’s entry also drives wages down for workers in competing industry segments such as grocery stores...When Wal-Mart entered a county, the total wage bill declined along with the average wage. Factoring in both the impact on wages and jobs, the total amount of retail earnings in a county fell by 1.5 percent for every new Wal-Mart store."
--laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/walmart_downward_push07.pdf
As the Marketplace will host at least the 13th Wal-Mart in Pima County, by these estimates, they have caused a decline in local retail earnings of nearly 20%. So yes, Wal-Mart brings poverty, and the result can be people who "need a Wal-Mart to survive."
As for your comments that Salette Latas’s argument about breast cancer is weak, you should follow your own advice and "do a little research." I have heard Salette Latas speak on this issue and her argument is strong, so strong that when she presented it at a council meeting, Parish’s motion died for lack of a second. Her argument was that the council needed to be aware that the filters don’t work, that they both under-filter (allowing porn through) and over-filter (blocking health information). Parish’s comment that she had fought to keep porn in the library was a distortion of the facts, and it was uncalled for. It was also in line with his comments in support of investigating Art. He does not seem to have any respect for anyone whose opinions differ from his, and because of that, he won’t be getting my vote for another term.
I agree with your assertion that "the benefits of filters may outweigh the limitations." But there's an old saying, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Up to 95% percent of child molestation crimes are committed by relatives, friends, or other people the child knows. And 90 percent of child molesters are men. So, should we keep men out of libraries? Should we keep them away from children? Wouldn't it be better to supervise our children than to waste taxpayer money on something whose benefits "may outweigh the limitations" just so Parish can score political points?
I have to agree with Cowgirl. If Parish is truly concerned about child safety, he needs to be educating parents and caregivers on the dangers of shopping malls, not telling us they’re a "home run" for Oro Valley. I'm much more concerned about my children's safety in shopping malls than I am about their safety in the library, but I supervise them in both places.
You complain that Art "ran to the press with the story. And let's be real up front about their (the press) involvement. They put 'merit' far below selling of newspapers. The entire incident was distasteful to me. I don't like anything that brings discredit or unfavorable publicity to Oro Valley."
That entire statement could also be made about Parish, Dankwerth, and the sign story that the Explorer ran.
You state, "I supported the EDA then and I support it now. I doubt that EDA's are unconstitutional...If they are, why hasn't the battle been fought in the courts.” Again, follow your own advice and "do a little research." The battle over subsidies has been fought in the courts, in fact, more so in Arizona than in any other state. Let me try to paraphrase the Goldwater Institute’s arguments in the CityNorth case. They argue that tax subsidies violates three clauses within the Arizona Constitution:
1. the gift clause
2. the privileges and immunities clause
3. the special law clause.
The Gift Clause prohibits the state of Arizona and its cities from making "any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association or corporation." It was designed to prevent state and town officials from using our tax dollars to support private enterprise. The Arizona courts have interpreted this clause to mean that any payments must have a public purpose and be neither donation nor subsidy to a private entity, even though “public purpose” is neither mentioned nor defined in Arizona’s constitution as applies to this law. In any case, tax subsidies such as the one for Vestar support purely private enterprise, and fulfill neither of those criteria.
The Privileges and Immunities Clause prohibits the state of Arizona and its cities from granting a citizen or corporation special privileges which are not available to all citizens. By granting the subsidy to Vestar, Oro Valley is relieving them of a portion of their tax obligations without offering the same rebate to other businesses in the town. The taxes that those other businesses pay are actually helping to subsidize their competitors. In other words, the subsidy is an unconstitutional form of discrimination that burdens small businesses to the benefit of a large, out-of-state developer.
The Special Law Clause prohibits the state of Arizona and its cities from passing a special law that creates an exclusive class of citizens without a legitimate reason for doing so and without encompassing all members of the class. The Vestar subsidy creates an exclusive class of one developer to receive a substantial benefit without including area small businesses in that class. If Oro Valley would like to attract business and development, it can pass general laws that will create a favorable tax environment, but it may not single out one business and give it special tax breaks.
As Robert Robb wrote in the Tucson Citizen back in May, "From a flat prohibition, judicial erosion has turned it into a balancing test of public purposes and benefits, with the presumption in favor of any deal a city signs.
"Nevertheless, the clause exists, some of these deals are questionable even under the diluted judicial interpretation, and there is always hope that judges will recover the ability to read plain English."
-- http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/opinion/51456.php
OV Mom.....
The Town Clerk and the Town Attorney are familiar with the statutes but certainly not expert. And for that reason they asked for an opinion from an attorney who is, I assume, more familiar. And yes opinions are provided without charge as part of the Towns's membership in the League of Cities and Towns.
I am sure there are many arguments for and against filters. But to say that we should not have the filters because it blocks people from finding information about breast cancer is not valid. That was the point presented on this blog and I disagree with that point.
Unfortunately UC Berkley does not hold a very high reputation for looking at anything impartially. So I don't place a lot of weight in anything they say.
I am an apologist for only myself. I have been critical of every member of the current Town Council when I belive they have made an error in judgement. And they have all made errors, in my opinion.
Finally, I do not believe that any person in the employ of the Town of Oro Valley or any elected official made any attempt overtly or covertly to deny Mr. Segal and others of their constitutional rights. To make that assertion is ludicrous. I maintain that the entire incident was poorly handled by all parties and has done nothing but bring discredit to our Town.
Ms. Coyote.....
Bolick may be a fine attorney. I just simply disagree with his position on EDA's and there MUST be some reason for the fight not to have been fought by now even though other communities continue to use EDA's. It's just not
By the way dinner is usually served close to 6 PM and I'll set a place for you any time you wish.
Cowgirl.....
Crime is attracted to any place where large groups of people gather and money changes hands. You might find it interesting that there were over 400 police incidents at Rooney Ranch during the fiscal year which ended
June 30, 2007. I doubt that many folks would describe that area as unsafe and yet there are police calls there on a daily basis. OV Marketplace will have crime but not necessarily because of it's tenants.
Let's all pick another posting place to gather. This one is getting too long!!!
:-)
Thinker,
If "crime is attracted to any place where large groups of people gather and money changes hands" and Parish is tough on crime and wants to keep it out of OV, then why did he promote OVM, a place that fits the above description?
He can't have it both ways. He (or you) needs to explain how he can be so anti-crime while at the same time promoting entities that attract crime.
Agreed that we should go to a new post to continue our conversation.
OVOT,
So you don't trust studies coming out of the Univesity of California. Isn't that where Rick Cunnington got his degree?
You belie your assertion of objectivity.
Post a Comment