Doesn't it seem like yesterday that we were being inundated with those glossy postal cards on almost a daily basis extolling the virtues of Vestar's Oro Valley Marketplace?
Well, it was not yesterday, but about 2 years ago that Terry Parish, as Vestar's "spokespersopn," was telling us "It's A Home Run!"
As we now know, we got "snookered" by Parish & the smooth talking David Malin of Vestar who promised us a "unique" & "upscale" shopping mall. Instead, we are ending up ----not unexpectedly for some of us, with a monster 24/7 Wal-Mart Super Center.
Now, what are we getting in our mailboxes? If you're like me, it's glossy postal cards that have an eerie look about them. After the second one arrived, I said, "Hmmm. This looks like a reincarnation of Vestar's glossies. Could it be that Parish is getting a good deal on this REALLY expensive advertising campaign?"
I guess the costs don't much matter, as Parish unabashedly acknowledges that the BIG DEVELOPERS support his campaign financially. And why not? Parish continuously supports the developers on just about every vote.
So, if you're ONLY a citizen, and NOT a developer, especially a developer with no scruples, please
VOTE FOR ONLY BILL GARNER & SALETTE LATAS FOR OV COUNCIL.
Let's take back control of our town government. We deserve nothing less.
19 comments:
Don't forget about Werner Wolff, who Terry Parish is NOW listed as an endorser on his website!
In regards to the VESTAR SELL-OUT...
PUBLISHED ON APRIL 22, 2004: Tucson Weekly
The Skinny
"....Wolff, who is retiring this year, appeared unusually delusional when he threatened the candidates in the upcoming election who opposed the deal--namely, Conny Culver, Kenneth "KC" Carter, Helen Dankwerth, Barry Gillaspie, Terry Parish and Richie Feinberg. Wolff warned them that if they try to change the deal after the election, he will personally lead a recall against them. Congrats, Werner--you've won the Developer Stooge of the Year award!....."
Funny that Parish opposed it at first, but a few drinks and rounds of golf with David Malin, and an endorsement from Wolff.. and holy crap... he has become the biggest supporter of the Vestar deal.
Don't believe anything Parish tells you. Both Parish and Dankwerth have the uncanny ability to appear to be on "our" side and then stab a knife in our backs when it comes to our taxes, developers, and our community.
My ballot is ready and marked for Latas and Garner!
Time to replace that hip!!
Vote for Salette & Bill.
You know I have given some thought to the voting process. I know that some people believe that we should only vote for Bill and Salette, but I think this may be a mistake. Not voting for the third seat could leave us open for Parish or Dankwerth to come in third place and take the open seat.
I think it is important to vote for both Salette and Bill and also to go ahead and vote in Gillaspie as he is mostly benign.
I am just afraid that if we try and get Salette and Bill the 50%, where does that leave the vacant seat?....We might be opening ourselves up to unintended consequences.
Does anyone have an opinion on this? I would like to hear it. I may have just misunderstood the previous statements made.
Websleuth,
I agree with you on voting for Gillaspie as well. I also think that voting for only 2 candidates will leave the third seat up for grabs and it's better to make a choice from the 3 incumbents.
For anyone who isn't sure which incumbent to vote for, remember that Gillaspie was the only one of the incumbents who worked with OV1st to stand up to Vestar.
Dankwerth claims to be anti-Wal-Mart now that it's election time, but she was silent during all those months that OV1st was fighting this deal and she refused to even meet with OV1st to discuss it. And when Paula Abbott tried to work with town staff to get Vestar to come back and give an updated presentation, Dankwerth yelled at her and told her to drop it!
I say we drop Dankwerth instead!
OVwebsleuth,
The way I understand the process is that if Salette or Bill get 50% of the vote +l, then Salette or Bill do not have to be placed in the run off election in May. Then in May we would be voting for 2 seats instead of 3.
But then again I probably don't fully understand this process :)
guess somebody needs to spell it out in simple terms for me, but after all I am only a coyote. haha
Cowgirl, I sure hope you understand this process better then I do.
So paw with me. Say we vote for 3 candidate's, how does this avoid us voting again in May
I think this whole run off thing is phooey, for the birds.
Most people are going to say I already voted, why vote again.
Why not just have the top 3 vote getters elected to office.
Where did the town get this system?
For those who believe we need to elect Bill Garner & Salette Latas, VOTE ONLY FOR BILL & SALETTE.
If---hopefully they both receive 50% + 1 vote, the next two voter getters will have a run-off election in May.
The last place vote getter will be eliminated.
It will NOT be helpful to vote for any third candidate. Let Gillespie get "his own" votes and run-off against one of the other two ---Parish or Dankwerth.
You'll then be able to vote for Gillaspie in May, if that is your choice.
VOTE FOR ONLY TWO---BILL & SALETTE!
Art
Thanks Artmarth.
We already sent in our ballot.
So 2 votes for Latas and Garner
from the coyote house.
After that we will try to decide what candidate we can trust to try to represent us and not just vote with the mayor or represent the developers.
The voting system used by the Town is quite common among municipalities in the U.S. that don't conduct election by party affiliation; of course, it works best when you have many candidates running in the primary--it helps to winnow down the field.
Now the question that you have raised is: Assuming the two challengers are either elected in the primary or garner enough votes to make it to the general election, who are you going to vote for for the 3rd seat?
I will not engage in any name-calling or negative statements about any of the candidates. It seems that you need to pick someone who can forge alliances in order to get the 4 votes needed to pass or deny a motion.
By the way, before we go picking on former Vice Mayor and Police Chief Werner Wolff, you should know that he has been very ill and hospitalized. Let's not make his life any more difficult by dredging up old votes or statements. They may be accurate, but a little sympathy and human kindness here would go a long way.
Thanks for filling me in on the voting process, I will vote only for Bill and Salette. I do think Gillaspie will continue to vote with the majority at future council meetings and we can re-elect him into office in May.
As far as Wolff goes, I wasn't aware that he was ill. No ill will was intended on my part. I was only reminding people of the wishy-washy behavior of Parish and pointing out that Parish is just a puppet for the one that writes the biggest checks. But if Wolff is sick why is Parish using him as an endorsement? Shouldn't he be left out of this as Boobie-Baby suggests?
I apologize to anyone that I may have offended, as it was not my intent.
As regrettable as it is that Werner Wolff might be ill and hospitalized, that he is listed on someone's website as an endorser does make his record fair game for scrutiny. The fact that a quote from a prior news/op-ed piece is used here, strengthens the mode of criticism directed at Mr. Parrish and serves to validate the very reason for such criticism, too.
Boobie-baby, I think that you do have a point in your assertion that
alliances need to be forged in order to garner 4/3 votes to pass or deny a motion; the problem, as I see it, is that, instead of alliances or coalitions formed for
individual issues at particular times, we have instead an almost perpetual 'me too' mentality that seems to govern instead - and I find that somewhat suspicious.
Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate between a personal attack and a 'political' one; the fact is those two do become entwined at times and thus we are left with having to sift through it all. Veneer or solid wood? Hmmm.
I still don't get the idea of voting only for two candidates. If the next two top vote getters go to a run-off election in May, there is no guarantee that those next two people will be Gillaspie/Parish or Gillaspie/Dankwerth.
If we don't vote for Gillaspie now, then aren't we setting up a situation where the next two top vote getters could be Dankwerth and Parish and then we'd have to choose between the two of them instead?
As Boobie-Baby said, we need to choose the person who would most likely vote along with Latas and Garner so we can get the 4 votes we need to get things passed. I think that Gillaspie is the most likely candidate to do that.
If the run-off is between Dankwerth/Parish, I will vote for Parish because, despite the Vestar deal, I can still manage to find some things to like about him. But Dankwerth turns me off on every conceivable level!
This is like a chess game. You really have to plan out your strategy!
Victorian Cowgirl,
You are right, I thought the exact same thing about not choosing a third candidate.
I would be horrified if come May, we had to choose between Parish and Dankwerth.
Is there anyway to ensure that Gillaspie will be included in the run-off?
I think we need Gillaspie to get the 4 votes. He might leave a lot to be desired when it comes to backbone... but at this point, I think it is a choice for the lesser of 3 evils.
If Salette & Bill get elected in the first vote then the rest of those running meaning Gillaspie, Parish and Dankwerth, vie for the 1 seat left.
Is that correct.
If Salette and Bill or the other candidates don't get the 50% plus 1, then all 5 go into the run off election in May.
I think that is how we also ended up in a situation where we almost did not have Paula Abbott on the council
One reason to vote only for Salette and Bill, is ok, if they don't get the 50%plus l, a lot of folks may not vote again. Then God forbid we get the same 3 back again on council.
If Latas and Garner are elected in the primary, there will be four populist votes on council: Abbott, Carter, Latas, and Garner.
Then it will not matter which of the three incumbents is elected for the third seat.
But if Latas and Garner are not elected outright in the primary, you will see the developer money pouring in to their boy, Parish. You will see Golder Ranch and the Chamber and the Realtors out there working for their three stooges.
And one more thing to consider: every vote for an incumbent, including Gillaspie, increases the chance that an incumbent could win in the primary.
Let's assume that Gillaspie were the only one to win outright in the primary. Then we'd have Latas and Garner facing Dankwerth and Parish for the two remaining seats in the general. Not a good thought.
Gillaspie voted for the garish Best Buy sign for Vestar. He voted for the 60-foot hotel and said that he wouldn't be ashamed of his vote. He moved for and voted for the $154-million bond for the park. He is openly in favor of giving $360,000 in tax subsidies to a French pharmeceutical company, the third largest in the world. He has given a lot of favors to a lot of deep pockets that will come to his rescue, if necessary.
If Gillaspie ends up going to the general, I might vote for him, but only after Latas and Garner have their seats. I'm voting only for two in the primary.
I was also thinking about how we could get the 4 votes to pass a motion with Latas-Garner-Abbott-Carter but that wouldn't always be a given, since one of them might have a difference of opinion on certain issues.
So with Gillaspie on board, he could often be the 4th vote, or in the best case scenario, the votes would start becoming 5-2 and this would completely marginalize Mayor Loomis and I'm all for THAT!
Question: If Gillaspie was the only one to win in the primary, then in the general election wouldn't the run-off be between 3 remaining candidates since the lowest vote getter would be eliminated? I thought I read that in another post.
After the primary, twice the number of candidates as there are seats avaialable remain in the race. For example, if no one gets the 50%+1, all five stay in because there are 3 seats, 3X2=6 and we only have 5 candidates. If one gets the 50%+1, the remaining four will advance to the general because there will be 2 seats up for grabs, 2X2=4, and so on. Hope that clears it up. If not, you can read the Town Code Article 2-3.
Who pays for this??
We just got our 3rd glossy postcard telling us to vote for Terry Parish.
We voted for Salette & Garner.
But we have a problems with Terry's using a badge on his political literature.
He is not running for Sheriff, he is running for town council.
Town of Ov has a problem with a blog where we all are welcome to express our opnions, but nobody questions a candidate using a badge in his flyers. This is a possible conflict in my mind, and at best gives the appearance of not being ethical.
Terry says in one flyer, he will never forget what makes Oro Valley unique, our local business, geez what a crock of BS, he endorsed the EDA that resulted in the super Wal Mart. Does he understand the connection, apparently not.
Here is a quote that is taken from a Vote Yes on @ flyer.
"Not only will Oro Valley Marketplace and Question 2 create new convenience for our residents, the project's enormous new sales tax revenues will significtnly reduce the need for tax increases at a time of budget deficits."
HELLO TERRY, ANYBODY HOME?
You voted for new taxes and you voted for having a bond issue on the ballott for $154 million dollars.
If we are in a budget deficit situation, why the h ll are you pushing an expenditure of $154 million.
Terry it is time to stop yapping about home runs and slow down cause hopefully you are about to strike out!
Post a Comment