Does the name Dick Johnson ring a bell? Yup! He's the same guy who led the charge as a Council Member in 2004 to "push through" some $50,000,000 in "giveaways" to the big retail developers.
Johnson was free and easy "throwing" our sales tax revenues right into the developer's pockets. To this day, he still insists that monstrous building going up on Tangerine Rd just west of Oracle Rd is good for Oro Valley. How anybody can believe a 24/7 Super Center Wal-Mart is good for Oro Valley is difficult to comprehend.
Now that Johnson came up way short on his re-election bid, as too many voters wised up to his "cunning" ways, he's at it again, only this time it's "citizen" Johnson. Now he has become a lobbyist for GOVAC, the cash-strapped Arts Council that came to Oro Valley asking for something like a $200,000 donation.
Following is GOVAC's e-mail newsletter. If you believe Johnson "snookered" you while on the Council, we hope it won't happen again. Using the old cliche': "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Don't let his smooth talk confuse the issue. The last guy that tried "smooth talking" Oro Valley citizens, was David Malin of Vestar, who convinced too many that Vestar was bringing us a "unique, upscale" shopping experience. Yeah! Sure. What did we get? WAL-MART!!!
Need I say more?
A park with ball fields for the kids is one thing. An amphitheater and aquatic center is something else. Building, maintaining and operating something like this will cost more than a few "lattes!"
Here's Johnson's "pitch."
Art
____________________________________________________________________
Greater Oro Valley Arts Council E-mail Newsletter onNaranja Town Site:
Please take the time to read this information because it contains CRITICAL information on the future of the Naranja Town Park. I am going to provide facts that give you insight into the past, the present, and the future.
The Past:
In November of 2000 the land for the Park was bought from the State Land Trust. This land was combined with adjacent Town land to form a 212 acre park site. In September of 2001 Stantec Consulting and The Architecture Co. began master planning the site. This process took 14 months. Included in this process was 17 public meetings; 6 meetings with 38 stakeholders representing the users of the Park; 3 community workshops and monthly meetings with a large Task Force appointed by the Council.
In 2004 an extensive evaluation of the cultural needs of the community was made by Webb Management. They interviewed a diverse group of users/potential users, patrons, etc. Their report clearly outlined the facilities the community would support.
In May 2006, the architecture firm of Burns, Wald-Hopkins began the programming of this site. In this phase, more detailed layout and planning was accomplished with relevant cost factors assigned to each component of the Park. This is where the $150 million figure came from
During the entire process there were an unbelievable number of Council meetings and study sessions. What was the result of all this input, money, and energy---not much.
The Present:
The Town Council has not yet decided how much of a bond authorization to establish for the November 2008 election. The debate is between a basic proposal of $49 million for the infra structure and the outdoor recreation facilities. No community center classrooms, offices, arts or indoor recreation areas are included. This proposal would cost an owner of a $300,000 home about $5.60 per month.
The other proposal would amount to $80,000,000. Beside the components of the above proposal this proposal would include a pool to be used for recreation as well as for swim meets held by high schools and swim clubs; and, a community center with a 500 seat multipurpose facility (performing arts, speakers, and HOA meetings are some examples for usage). The owner of the same $300,000 home would pay only $7.40 per month.
The cost difference is a whopping----------$1.80 per month. Not even enough to buy a latte.
The Future:
On February 6th the Council will meet to decide on the amount of the bond authorization. It is important to understand that a bond authorization is not an issuance and therefore does NOT incur any debt to the Town or to the taxpayer. Do not get wrapped up in a possible discussion of Operation and Maintenance expenses. This discussion will be held at the time the bond issue is discussed and decided upon. Currently, the Town's bed tax would be used to cover the O&M expenses.
Your involvement is absolutely needed to give the citizens the opportunity to vote on the bond issue they want. The $80 million bond authorization gives a greater number of citizens a stake in the Park thereby improving the probability of passage.
Please pass this email on to others and send an email to the Town Council expressing your views of this issue. Addresses are: kcarter@orovalley.net, bgillaspie@orovalley.net, akunisch@orovalley.net, tparish@orovalley.net, ploomis@orovalley.net, hdankwerth@orovalley.net, pabbott@orovalley.net,
We need you and others from your organization to attend the February 6th Council meeting. Have a representative from your organization speak (3 minutes). Also, more impact is gained by having a participant, especially a young person, also speak.
I strongly urge you to take action on this Park or another 8 years will pass and nothing will get done. If you have any questions please call me at 904-5554 or email me.
Thanks for your attention!!
Dick Johnson Oro Valley Citizen
Greater Oro Valley Arts Council
19 comments:
hmm, so then the way this will be worded won't give us a choice or chance to vote down a bond or tax?
It just gives us a chance to vote on how much we get taxed.
Is that correct?
Again what weasels they are.
If this is indeed true.
Has anyone noticed that the treasurer of the financially troubled GOVAC has the same last name as one of our favorite tax happy Town Council members? Although they seem to think we are the size of NY by what they want to spend on the "Park", seems unlikely 2 Dankwerth's are not related in a Town of our size. If so, isn't this a conflict of interest? I actually like having GOVAC promoting the arts in our fair town, as I am an artist and member myself, but as has been said before, where’s the fiscal responsibility?
The citizens of Oro Valley still haven't gotten a 'true' accounting as to what the cost to each and every one of us would be. All kinds of figures have been bandied about and no CLEAR presentation or definition as to how the funding
would work has been offered; your's, published here, doesn't jive with other reports!. So who are you Mr. Johnson? You are a member/officer of GOVAC which itself can't keep track of it's own
finances. Arts councils are notorius for being 'button' issue organizations that continously sob for of mo' money, - knowledge of the 'arts', ha, that's a joke! At a time when Tucson had published their dire need for decreasing funding, including that of their arts council, shortly thereafter that same arts council asked for their grants to be doubled - typical chutzpah of a flailing bunch of arts nebishes.
Question, Mr. Johnson: why was your organization named 'GREATER Oro Valley Arts Council? Why does the town want an 'over the top' sports/'so called' arts complex near the MIDDLE of the Town? Why wasn't a Wal-mart/theater complex designated for somewhere near the center of the Town instead of the outskirts Rancho Vistoso PAD where it is being built? Do you and certain other self proclaimed elites think that there is a portion of Oro Valley that is 'greater' and that somehow it deserves a kind of 'inside the beltline' special status while we on the outskirts get a mediocre development with all of it's potential negatives, a Town center with 'temporary, open ended housing', obtrusive city 'vehicles and equipment', a projected police facility and whatever, a crematorium that, to date, the owners display an open view of the emissions stack (yes, I've been told a solution is being worked on,yada, yada, yada).
Mr. Johnson, I have had intimate knowledge as to how towns and councils work; my wife was the Budget Coordinator for a major county for 15 years, working directly under the County Manager and Budget Director before our retirement. The 'powers' don't give a damn about bond/taxation effects on the People; they only care about 'glories' they THINK they can bring to a community, glories with all fluff and little effective substance. WE JUST CAN'T TRUST YOU OR YOUR PROCLAMATIONS, MR. JOHNSON!
Oh, and by the way, are you aware that we are in a recessive period, deficits are growing, and it could get worse and a recovery could be longer than 'normal'? And, don't use the so-called good-shape position in Oro Valley as an excuse for continued excesses; given the number of empty retail spaces, the quantity of homes for sale and not selling, the slowing of retail sales, the failure of EDA tax sharing 'benefits' to reach anything close to projected (imagined) fruition, a reluctance of businesses to expand at this time, etc. etc. CAUTION IS IN ORDER, MR. JOHNSON; YOU HAD BETTER START BELIEVING IT!
So Dick Johnson who was one of the council members who voted to "gift away" our future sales tax dollars to the tune of potentially 23.2 million now wants to support another attack on our money for a theme park?
Dick Johnson should really stay away from playing with money.
Maybe somebody should buy him a monopoly game so he can spend
only play money.
Curly-Jim,
Yes, the two Dankwerth's are related. The treasurer of GOVAC is Helen Dankwerth's husband. And yes it is a conflict of interest. As a councilmember she has asked for more money for GOVAC and she's also asked for more building space for them.
Cowgirl,
I think that Ms. Dankwerth should consider not voting on issues involving GOVAC and money.
I also think that council members who are employed as realtors or developer connected should consider excusing themselves from voting under certain circumstances.
Also true for Terry Parish, he needs to be aware of possible conflicts.
Actually in some states if you are employed in the law enforcement field, you can not hold public office until you are retired.
not sure why this is never mentioned, as there is at least the potential of a perceived conflict of Interest, even if there is none.
"Do not get wrapped up in a possible discussion of Operation and Maintenance expenses."
Kinda sounds like "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
Does anyone have the expected annual cost to maintain Naranja Park as it is currently proposed?
How many employees will we need to hire and equipment to buy?
Just wondering if anyone has published this info, I have not been able to find it.
The Naranja Town Site plan has been examined, inspected, detected, collected, directed, injected, infected,neglected and selected (Apologies to Arlo Guthrie)for nearly 8 years. Dick Johnson put his neck on the line to support the purchase of the land and to develop a comprehensive plan for its use. Paying for the improvements in today's dollars will be a whole lot cheaper than paying for them in 2015 dollars or later.
The point of getting the issue on the ballot (at whatever level of funding the Council decides) is to give all of us the opportunity to give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down, perhaps settling this once and for all. But, while we've been sleeping, thousands of families with children have moved into the community--a town of 45,000 with only two active parks and kids swimming 4 and 5 to a lane in practice at the Kriegh Park pool.
Sure, my kids are grown and it would be easy for me to say that I don't have any responsibility for amenities for somebody else's kids. But someone voted for parks and pools and playgrounds and amphitheaters that I played in when I was young. God bless their generosity and community spirit; I would only hope that the residents of OV would be equally supportive of a well-rounded community that offers a safe environment for outdoor and indoor activity. If not, there's an open casting call for the part of Scrooge in the next ATC production and I suspect that many on this blog could easily become Stanislavsky-type method actors to secure the role.
Boobie Baby.
My understanding so far about voting on this issue, is that we don't get a chance to vote yes or no on a tax/bond, we just bet to vote yes or no on how much we get taxed.
Is this correct?
Also I don't consider myself a scrooge at all.
I would not have a problem with a park, I just don't want to pay for a theme type megal park.
I also would not have a problem with paying a small amount monthly to help out the kids, but you know how that works, first its a small amount then it sky rockets.
I can't speak for others but my "extra" money goes for helping some family members who are in financial difficulty. So that is far more important to me then say
paying for a pool or a tennis court.
Also I don't expect the town to entertain me either.
People who moved here knew what ammenities were here before they moved here or they should have.
Also if our town had not gifted the potential of 23.2 million to a developer, we would have had most of the money for a nice park.
So they spend 23.2 of our tax money and now they want more.
We should trust this group, why, tell me why?
Ms. Coyote--You have asked some good questions and, in the process, have allowed me to correct some misinformation, so for that--I thank you.
Vestar has not received ONE PENNY from the Town for building Oro Valley Marketplace. The $23.2 million that everyone kicks around is the MAXIMUM shared sales tax that they would receive if and when the entire facility is built, rented and creating sales that are taxed. There's a time limit to all of this, too. If Vestar should accomplish all that is contained in the agreement, the Town itself will reap substantially more that the $23.2 going to the developer. The funds come ENTIRELY from sales taxes, so there's not any impact on the town's general funds. So, the quicker the developer moves to build and lease the space, the quicker money will flow to the town's general fund as sales taxes.
As for the vote on the Naranja Town Site, you will absolutely have a chance to vote "yes" or "no". The question will most likely be phrased something like this: "Would you support the issuance of bonds in the amount of X dollars to build the Naranja Town Site (or some portion of it?"
You can vote yes or no. If the measure fails, the Town must wait until the next November to ask you if you'd support a different amount. Again, you could vote yes or no.
I am grateful for the voters and adults who previously approved bond packages where I grew up so that I could have parks and playgrounds for recreation for me and my children. My kids are grown and gone now, but I still believe that I have a responsibility to provide similar opportunities to the children of today. Yes, it will create a small burden on my savings and pension accounts, but not much more than a meal at Chili's. That seems to be a small price to pay to help keep Oro Valley as a community of excellence.
boobie-baby, while you seem to be clear in your own mind relative to the Naranja Town Site, please read, read, read what I say above.
While you may be correct about the 8 year time span that elapsed and that the site has been studied to the max, unfortunately there are some of us that do feel that, as planned, and for now, it is 'over the top'. Unlike your claimed experiences about 'bonds', I moved here 2-1/2 years ago from an area that had one bond issue after another, new parks, a childrens museum, an Imax theater, a remodel of an older convention center, the tearing up of a fairly 'new' downtown open air mall (which had been paved with marble) in order to allow for a few more parking spaces, the building of a new CONVENTION center along with an hotel partnership, schools, schools, schools, the arts council overruns, etc.and, guess what boobie, when I left, this city and county was in debt up to it's eyeballs; the parks were hardly used, the museum was attended by school field trips, the soccer fields were under utilized, the traffic became a horror even though the nice 'country' roads had been turned into poorly designed 5 and 6 lane messes, the schools were in disarray, the arts council always needed more and more, and I could go on and on and on. This Naranja deal would have been better off consumated long past. Eight years ago the economy was moving rapidly; today it is a slug and potentially (if you study some current economic causes and effects) could get much worse! Now, if some of the school ADMINISTRATION personnel, the city employee numbers, and all of the studies and other wasted fluff were eliminated, I might be a little more inclined to be SOMEWHAT forgiving - at this time this town doesn't need it ALL; we're supposed to be a property tax free municipality, remember, but if we keep this mismanaged entanglement up we are going to be in debt up to OUR eyeballs!
"boobie-baby"-----First---as the guy who puts this blog out, please allow me to welcome you as a new blogger. It is refreshing to have a dissenting opinion expressed in a rational way, without the need to denigrate others.
Perhaps Mr. Cox can learn from you.
Now---as to your comment as it concerns Vestar, let me say this:
I, and every other blogger here fully understands that Vestar will not receive any of OUR revenue---it you discount whatever costs Oro Valley may have put forth in the Tangerine/Oracle road improvements and recent addition of cement barriers.
The Vestar "issue" has been addressed here numerous times.
1) Wal-Mart is coming and 1000's of the citizens were deceived on that one point. (hardly "unique & upscale" as per David Malin, Vestar)
2) You fail to address the issue of cannibalization, which, in effect means that every dollar spent in Vestar's Marketplace, and not our existing retailers,will have the developer "pocket" almost 1/2 of OUR revenue. If that massive amount of lost revenue is not included in your analysis, it is you, not anyone else who is misinforming the readers.
Concerning the Naranja Park,
Dick Johnson bandies around the fact that an $80 million bond vs. a $49 million bond is the cost of "one latte" each month.
If I understood your comment, the cost for the park is no more than
"one meal" at Chili's. (I assume that's per month.)
Whether it be a latte or a meal at Chili's, no one knows how much this park will ultimately cost the taxpayers, but you can bet it will be a lot more than we're being told. Has anyone calculated the interest payments, and the escalated costs to maintain & operate this "boondoggle?"
As a councilman,Johnson and his cronies "passed out" millions of OUR dollars to the developers. Those of us who sat through that charade a few years ago have as much trust for the majority of this council as we do for standing next to a pickpocket!
Once again----welcome.
Art
Art,
Thank you for your kind welcome. I do not intend to use sarcasm, name-calling, or perjorative statements to make my points. I'll lay them out factually and, after that, if you disagree, that's your choice. But I do think that we need to lower the level of vituperation in these blogs since "facts" and "opinions" sometimes come out as interchangeable.
If OV Objective Thinker/Cox chooses to learn from me, I'll be humbled since I know him quite well.
Zev--you have every right to vote yea or nay on the proposal (if it ever reaches the ballot box) for whatever reasons you want. Naturally, I cannot speak to what happened in your previous city. There are so many moving parts to public improvements and local/national/global economic forces that it's hard to generalize from one city to another. Getting rid of administrative "fluff" might save everyone a couple of million, but nowhere near enough to even install the first water line to site.
If someone were to ask my opinion about a vote (and, admitedly, none of you has asked my opinion), I would urge you to ask the Council place the infrastructure costs on the ballot and no more. And I would encourage you to vote yea on the measure. That way, if and when there is sufficient support to continue to install soccer and baseball fields, the initial work will have been done. I know that some Council members want the voters to have a say on the "whole enchilada," and I understand their reasoning, especially given the cost of funds. With bond rates low right now, that might make good economic sense, but I don't see this community ready YET to sign off on the whole thing.
Most important, though, is to get a proposal on the ballot and let the voters have their say. The park will rise or fall on its merits, and we can move on from there.
Art--I really can't speak to "cannibalizatiion." Did Home Depot cause a local nursery or lumber yard to fail? Does Target cause Ross to close its doors? Is Chili's forcing Risky Business to close? Businesses are smart--they know their customers and they know their products. If they can sell a better mousetrap at a cheaper price, they will. Whether we like it or not, that's the way capitalism works. But here's another thought: If you don't care for Wal-Mart (full disclosure: I own some stock in the company. How many of you have pension funds that also invest in Wal-Mart?)--if you don't like the company, don't patronize it. If not enough people go to the store, it will fail (and, with it, the sales tax that accrues to the Town). Just like the vote on the Naranja Town Site, it will rise or fall on its own merits. Let's see what happens. [Whether I spend my dollars at CVS or Walgreen's, the sales taxes still go to the state and the Town, the issue of "cannibalism notwithstanding].
And Curly Jim, I believe that Ms. Dankworth has recused herself and left the room whenever there's a discussion about GOVAC funding because of her husband's position on the GOVAC board. That's right and proper and, whatever else you might think of her, she's to be commended for that.
Zev--for the benefit of other readers, please define an "art nebish." Maybe some of us fall into that category and we don't even know it--something else for our resumes! And doesn't "Zev" mean "wolf?" What are we to make of that except that you do enjoy sinking your teeth into weighty subjects. Your participation also helps to keep the conversation moving along.
OV Web Sleuth--Phone either the Town Finance Department or the Parks and Recreation Dept. They have initial data on operations and maintenance costs for the park.
Y'all have a pleasant evening!
Dankwerth does not recuse herself and leave the room during discussions of GOVAC. She stayed for the entire study session where GOVAC pleaded for money from the town. During a regular session when Steam Pump Ranch was being discussed, she brought up whether or not there was going to be office space provided there for GOVAC and the Chamber. I agree with Jim that it looks like a conflict of interest.
Oro Valley Mom--
Council study sessions are just that--discussions. There is no formal action taken--no votes on anything--that would be unlawful. When action items come before a Council at a regular meeting, Council members may recuse themselves and may choose not participate in the discussion. They certainly do not participate in any votes. Conflicts of interest come when there's the potential for someone to gain monetarily from an official decision. It's a stretch for me to see how the spouse of a Council member who is Treasurer of a non-profit organization could reap any personal benefit, but if that's what you want to believe, please be my guest.
Boobie-Baby
First, I also welcome you and, as Art mentioned, appreciate you’re courteous and rational comments.
As I was just going to post a comment to ask about your statement that you believe Mrs. Dankwerth’s recluses herself from GOVAC funding issues, as I didn’t believe that to be true, at least not on all occasions, I read OV Mom’s response. Thanks OV Mom. I also saw your response to OV Mom and was in the process of reading the minutes of the Town Council Study Session where the GOVAC gave a presentation on their funding request, Mrs. Dankwerth was present, and since there was no vote at that time I think that was a good thing. I don’t think she should leave the room during discussions; even during regular sessions of the Council, she needs to be informed as much as the rest of us and the Council. However, she should recluse from voting on issues directly related to GOVAC funding and if she has done that, I also commend her.
I also concur with your comment to Zev about asking the Council to approve the basic infrastructure and allowing the growth of the Park to rise or fall on it’s own merits. I am not opposed to the Park, just not the whole thing at this time.
However, and correct me if I am wrong, didn’t Mrs. Dankwerth change her position on the amount of the bond issue from her original vote for the lower $49 million, at the 11/05/07 Special Session on the Park (I was in attendance) to push for the $80 million to include the Arts Center after a plea from GOVAC to support the higher amount? Although I was not in attendance at the 12/19/07 Council Meeting where they voted to look into the higher amount for the bond issue, I seem to remember reading that Mrs. Dankwerth decided that the Arts Center should be built and was now in favor of the increase in the bond issue. Does anyone else remember this? If this is true, I still think this is a conflict of interest.
I reiterate, I appreciate we have GOVAC, but feel it needs to be run like any other business or organization, with fiscal responsibility. If you read the emailed newsletter from GOVAC, the second part of which prompted this posting on LOVE, the first part from the President of GOVAC, regarding the finances Mr. Hiremath points out GOVAC had only promised to reduce G&A expense contributions from the Town to $0, which I understand and thank him for the clarification. However, there is a subsequent statement that I will quote: “As an example, many people are familiar with the Independence Day Celebration. The Town gives us roughly $38,000 towards this one single event but the expense to GOVAC to put on this event is roughly $78,000. GOVAC has to come up with that difference!” Well if they cannot come up with the difference, why go ahead with the higher cost event. As much as I enjoy the 4th of July celebration, if a business could not afford an event that cost more than their budget, it would scale it down or find a way to fund the additional costs, but not by getting additional funding from the Town. Now maybe that is what happened, it wasn’t clear in the newsletter, but if GOVAC is having financial difficulty they need to become more creative in getting additional funding and better control of expenses. Just makes good sense. Although I was not going to be sarcastic, I can’t resist, maybe they should ask Wal-Mart to help them out! (Sorry)
boobie-baby,
You originally said, "I believe that Ms. Dankworth has recused herself and left the room whenever there's a discussion about GOVAC funding..."
I merely pointed out that she didn't.
Boobie-baby....
Let me add my welcome from this side of the aisle. It get's pretty lonely!! :-)
As a matter of routine I post responses to this blog. Most of the time my responses are reasonably stated and supported with verifible fact. I believe I have a reasonably good rapport with many of the day-to-day posters. However there are times when, after being referred to as asinine and stupid, being routinely maligned by the 'blog-master' that I occasionally make my comments not only factual but pointedly personal.
I will make every attempt to follow your astute lead in the future. I will, however, be absent for a while was I attend more important local business.
Again, I welcome your fresh and accurate portrayal of fact!!!
Post a Comment