Isn't it great that The Southern Arizona Homebuilders Association (SAHBA) gave Dankwerth their "elected official" award for 2007?
How did Dankwerth merit this "prestigious award?" After not having Impact Fees for new homes raised since 1996, the Council finally agreed for the need to raise these fees. Rather than raise the fees as initially proposed, Dankwerth joined others and gave in to the Homebuilders "whining" and phased in the increase over a five year period. We're not really sure, but that might be one reason SAHBA "loves" Dankwerth.
That got us thinking----doesn't Dankwerth deserve even more recognition? No doubt! Let's think about a few other "awards" she so richly deserves.
1) LOOKING OUT FOR THE CITIZENS AWARD--- After the Council twice voted down the 4% Utility Tax, Dankwerth spearheaded the drive to push something through. We ended up with a 2% tax on our gas, water & electric bills, thanks to Dankwerth who said: "A half a loaf is better than none at all." Thanks a lot Helen "Taxwerth!"
2) GOLDER RANCH FIRE DISTRICT AWARD--- We're sure Fire Chief John Fink and his GRFD are indebted to Dankwerth who was responsible for the initiative to get GRFD as the SOLE provider for fire service in Oro Valley. The "hell" with the citizens whose bills have gone through the roof since then.
3) THE VESTAR INCENTIVE AWARD--- Back in Nov 2004, Dankwerth emphasized that the final decision on Economic Development Agreements rests with the Town Council according to existing policies. Her vote defeated a motion that would have allowed any Economic Development Agreements to be referable to the voters. And she claims she's an advocate for the people! "Give us a break!"
4) SANOFI-AVENTIS AWARD--- Talk about giving OUR tax money away. At a recent Council meeting Dankwerth had this to say concerning a $360,000 Construction Tax "kickback" to the world's 3rd largest pharmaceutical company with revenues of $39 BILLION: "I'm comfortable in giving them the MINUSCULE" amount of $360,000."
5) "UP IN SMOKE AWARD"--- Dankwerth came through once again, in "burning" the people. Unbeknownst to the citizens, a Crematorium was approved under the guise of a "Memorial Chapel." The citizens whose residences are nearby received zero consideration, which seems to happen much of the time.
6) EMBASSY SUITE AWARD--- The Rancho Vistoso area where Embassy Suites wants to build a hotel has some town codes that should be adhered to. The PAD specifically states "NO Hotel, and NO Structure over 36 feet." Don't you think Dankwerth voted FOR a hotel, and against the recommendation of the P & Z Commission, she helped approve a SIXTY FOOT HOTEL!
Do the voters need any more reasons to "send Dankwerth packing?"
Please----Help in improving Oro Valley for the PEOPLE of Oro Valley.
VOTE FOR ONLY BILL GARNER & SALETTE LATAS.
Art
28 comments:
See next post
Anyone interested in an opinion of Mrs. Dankwerth (mine), please go to
posting under topic 'Last nights forum.....' on this site Jan 22 - I GAVE HER AN AWARD!
I am a new resident to Oro Valley. I work at Raytheon but like this area.
I have heard a new shopping area will be close to here but that some people are upset. Why? It seems innocent enough to me.
Art....Once again you streeeeeeeeeetch the truth only to further your own cause.
I believe in giving awards when they are due but I am not sure Ms. Dankwerth is deserving of these accolades.
In previous postings you have stated that if Al Kunisch hadn't changed his vote the utility tax would have been defeated. Now it is Ms. Dankwerth. Which is correct? Fact 1 - Art - 0
I think several of the Council members voted in favor of Golder Ranch. And at the last forum you heard, once again, that Rural Metro is charging the higher rate, not because they must, but because they choose to rip you off!!! Fact 2 - Art - 0
I believe the Economic Development Agreement(EDA) between Oro Valley and Vestar was put to a vote by the public and the public voted in favor of the EDA. She recently voted to eliminate any future EDA's for retail development.
Fact 3 - Art - 0
You are on a roll Art...as usual!!!
Sanofi receives a reward for being enviornmentally sensitive which may serve as a cornerstone for future development. And once again it was at no expense to the Town. She did say that and she was right and you are right to so report!!!
Fact 4 - Art 1
The crematorium decision to following the zoning code was not a Council decision.
Fact 5 - Art 1
The vote to approve the hotel in question was based on the overall benefit to the community. The height exception makes the footprint smaller which takes up less natural landscape. This hotel will also serve as a temporary residence for those receiving ongoing out-patient treatment from Northwest Medical Center - Oro Valley and for those who are here to attend to loved ones confined to the hospital. Is that bad?
Fact 6 - Art 1
Blog Master Award - Yes
Fact Master Award - No
Whether people vote for or against Helen is their decision. But let's allow them to make that decision based on fact and not your impression of the truth....which historically has been inaccurate.
Don Cox (OVOT) saw fit to put this comment out on another post.
My only comment---look in the mirror.Enough said!
Art
__________________________________
OV Objective Thinker said...
ovwebsleuth....
You continue to make accusations, spread untruths and make comments that can only lead one to the conclusion that you have an alternative ax to grind.
Be objective, factual, compassionate or (my thought)
fade into obscurity. I have yet to see anything constructive to any discussion added by you.
OV OT
Just a quick comment: until either 'tossed out', amended, or otherwise, under the Arzona State Constitution, EDAs are still apparently illegal, PERIOD. Historical negligence of a law does not negate that law. Even the vote relative to the approval of the Vestar EDA, had questionably a LEGAL result and could possibly have been challenged at some point. In addition, there seems to be the misconception that a majority of the Town voted for a Vestar EDA; this is a skewed statistic as only the majority of THOSE THAT VOTED approved the measure (many of whom did so because of a a plethora of misinformation that had been bandied about). True, the latter is our system, but at least present the results in their true relativity.
OVOT
Please read my response under "Emil Franzi Notes"
Hi "Newby"---- Welcome to Oro Valley, and welcome to our blog. We're glad you found us.
I believe you are alluding to the Oro Valley Marketplace at the intersection of Tangerine & Oracle roads. If I am correct that you are asking about that shopping area, I can certainly tell you why a lot more than "some people" are upset.
The answer can be short or long. For the long answer, check out our archive posts on Economic Development Agreements & Wal-Mart. They are available on the left column of our blog home page.
The short answer is "EDA's & Wal-Mart."
In 2004 our Town Council gave Vestar, a Phx based retail developer $23.2 million of our future sales tax revenue to bring us an "upscale, unique" shopping experience. Those 1000's of residents that are upset come down to the fact that we didn't want a 24/7 Wal-Mart Super Center, especially since Vestar gets to pocket almost 50% of OUR future tax dollars for this "much less than 'upscale' retailer."
Please continue reading and commenting. If you have any other questions, you can always email me at art@letorovalleyexcel.com.
Thanks,
Art
Dear Objective Thinker:
Let's get the facts straight on the crematorium. In November of 2005 Harpold paid the CUP fee to get a funeral home on the C-1 lot. That property wasn't even zoned for a funeral home, let alone a body burner!
In December (mysteriously, and unannounced, the zoning was changed to allow the funeral home.)
The next month, January of 2006, our P & Z Director, Sarah More decided that a body burner (a crematorium) was "analogous" to a mortuary! In your polluted dreams!
Harpold's C-1 site was NEVER zoned for a body burner! "Crematorium" does not appear ANYWHERE in the OV Zoning Code.
Now, you know the facts!
OVOT
You said the public voted in favor of the EDA. That, my friend, is only a half-truth. The whole truth is this:
Only about half of the registered voters in OV voted on that particular election day. I'm doing this from memory so my figures won't be exact but my recollection is that there were 11,000 voters with 6,000 voting FOR the EDA and 5,000 voting AGAINST it. So only 6,000 out of a population of 40,000 actually voted for the EDA.
Also, those 6,000 people who DID vote for it did so because they thought they were voting to build an "upscale" mall with "unique, stand-out shops." They agreed to give up half of the town's sales tax revenue from said shops in order to get the "extraordinary shopping experience" that was promised by the developer.
If the EDA referendum were held today, with the knowledge that the mall would include a Wal-Mart anchor and other run-of-the-mill stores, I GUARANTEE you that the referendum would not pass.
OVOT, if you want to continue to call yourself "objective" then you need to actually become objective and analyze ALL the facts and not just cherry-pick the ones that confirm your beliefs.
Art....The challenge is always there. Rather than empty rhetoric, be specific and challenge, with fact, my postings. Your typical response is something non-specific such as "look in the mirroe". What is that supposed to mean?
Websleuth.....I did read your postings there and responded to them.
Zev...
To my knowledge not a single EDA's has been struck down by a court in Arizona. The reason, I believe,is because the language in the constitution is very vague (from a legal standpoint) and difficult to apply. Subsidies (EDA's) have been around for a long time. Some governments pay for infrastructure expenses rather than revenue share. Pima County did exactly that with La Encantada because they realize no sales tax revenue. It was their only option. Under your scenario, I believe you must feel that sort of action is also illegal. Is that correct?
When the case in Phoenix is resolved, it will be very interesting to read the exact language as I think it may be very specific to that case and not a broad brush approach. We'll see.
Got to run....more to follow!!!
Don Cox (aka OV Objective Thinker)--- I will once again make you look foolish with the "challenge" you throw out concerning your list of errors in my post here.
1) Blame Kunisch, Blame Loomis, Blame Parish or BLAME DANKWERTH. Those Four Voted For This UTILITY TAX. Nothing will change that!
2) Dankwerth and the others that were endorsed by Golder Ranch Fire District voted to allow them to take over serving town hall within a month of being elected.
You write: "And at the last forum you heard, once again, that Rural Metro is charging the higher rate, not because they must, but because they choose to rip you off!!!"
That statement alone proves your credibility is ZERO. You heard that all right. You heard it from Gillaspie. So did everyone else. The only problem is, it's NOT true. Rural-Metro is charging the rates sent forth by GRFD. Ripped off? You bet we're getting ripped off! By the Council that forced this merger and by GRFD!
3)Dankwerth voted to keep SOVOG out when there was a chance we could have done something about that $23.2 million giveaway to Vestar. She fought us every step of the way. You "buy" the fact that she FINALLY voted against EDA's. By then, OV already committed to give more than $50 million away.
4)Your statement that giving Sanofi-Aventis $360,000 in a construction tax REBATE is at "no expense to Oro Valley" makes no sense whatsoever. Dankwerth's statement that it's a "MINUSCULE" amount makes more sense that you saying "it is at no expense to OV!"
Do you ever bother to read these foolish comments before you put them on the blog?
5) The Crematorium. As "Ferlin" stated subsequent to your comment, it was a devious decision that blindsided the neighbors. If you don't believe it, ask anyone living next to that place.
6) The 60 foot hotel. Your old committee; P&Z said NO SIXTY FOOT HOTEL. Dankwerth & the other cronies paid no attention. There are enough hotels to serve the patient's visitors. All of a sudden you're buying into the hotel's sales pitch. Town code should supercede a developer's demands or don't you believe that?
Your most recent comment was: "More to follow."
Don't bother. I and I'm sure the rest of our readers do not need you here. Go write some more nasty letters to The Explorer instead!
Art
Re. the crematorium, perhaps we can put this one to rest (no pun intended). The zoning for the property did indeed allow for a funeral home/mortuary. Because it was an allowable use under the code, there were no public hearings required EXCEPT for the landscape plan. Yes, the Zoning Administrator did make a decision that the crematory was an adjunct use of the property, much as snack bar would be an adjunct to a supermarket (and, as such, would not require a separate hearing as if it were a restaurant). There is not one crematory in Pima County that is NOT affiliated with a funeral home, and--to my knowledge--there are no free-standing crematories in the County.
If you are unhappy with the notification process (posting signs on the property and making mailings to residents within 300' of the property line), you have the ability to ask the Council to change the code so that the radius for notification is increased. Likewise, you have the right to ask the Council to exclude crematories from future funeral home applications, although it will not affect the one currently being built.
Democracy is messy and slow, and whoever is elected to the Council will find that it still takes cooperation and agreement among 4 members to pass any motion, resolution or code amendment. Therefore, candidates or incumbents who go marching off to the beat of their own drummers are likely to be frustrated and lonely.
OVOT
I noticed you responded to/challenged the comments by Art, OV Websleuth, and Zev, but you didn't challenge my comments relating to a "half-truth" vs. the "whole truth" and how if the election were held today, the outcome would have been very different. So I'll assume you agree with me on this issue.
Victorian Cowgirl...
This will be my last post for an extended while as I am turning my efforts to a community project that I believe will be VERY beneficial
I think some of your numbers are accurate. The vote totals were in the ball park. However the rest is a bit cloudy. (How's that for diplomacy)
The total registered voters in OV is anly about 21,000. So to say that only 6000 out of 40,000 voted in favor is a little misleading.
I don't know that the vote would be any different today. I believe it may be even higher in favor. If I am to buy into your theory that the vote was based on the premise that having a "unique" shopping experience was the basis for the vote, then I must discount convenience, local tax benefits, time savings, a local theater and so on. I cannot do that.
Boobie-baby is a wild card! Does she know that the site of the famous crematorium WAS NOT zoned for a funeral home until that was changed (mysteriously and unannounced) in Dec. of 2005.
A crematorium is "analogous" to a funeral home like a slaughterhouse is to a meat market! The semantics for this are most questionable.
"Crematorium" is still NOT in the OV Zoning Code, Boobie-baby!
Just a quick fact check for you!
ferlin-
YOUR facts are inaccurate. The funeral home site was and is zoned RV PAD C-1, which includes all uses covered by the zoning code, which includes funeral homes. Prior to 12/05, funeral homes required a CUP in C-1. That was amended as part of a massive zoning code amendment to the commercial code. There was no back room zoning change on behalf of the funeral home. Check the public records if you don't believe me, but get your facts straight.
Hey Cyclone 1,
You're right that C-1's required a CUP and Harpold paid the fee. They then added funeral home to C-1uses and gave him back his fee when they changed C-1 uses to allow funeral homes in December of 2005.
You must remember: no signs on the site, the TOV website did not publish meeting agendas then as they do today, the HOA published the wrong address....so the poor inhabitants of Neighborhood Two in Rancho Vistoso really got dumped on!
The next month (Jan. 2006) the famous "analogous use" determination!
Possibly nobody in Town Hall knows that other places in the world are concerned about crematoriums because they pose a dangerous health hazard. Even the EPA doesn't test for Mercury and other heavy metal pollutants emitted by them because it's too expensive. Mercury and heavy metal emissions contribute to a very long list of diseases.
"Crematorium" is still not in the OV Zoning Code.
Got my facts straight!
OVOT
You said, to say "only 6,000 out of 40,000 voted in favor" is a little misleading since there are only 21,000 registered voters in OV. But that's not what I said.
I didn't say that there were 40,000 registered voters. I said there was a "population of 40,000." And that only 6,000 out of the total population voted in favor.
If you want to look at registered voters instead, then my comment would be that only 6,000 out of 21,000 registered voters voted to approve it.
Either way, you can't say that "the public" voted to approve it, as you tried to say. That is misleading as it implies that the majority of registered voters or the majority of the population voted to approve it. Neither of these statments is true.
Ferlin--Check Chapter 23 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code wherein it has always stated that "Funeral chapel and mortuary" are permitted commercial uses; (There is no mention of crematoria, hence the interpretation by the Zoning Director). The code further states that the mortuary is "permitted as a matter-of-right in the respective zone district, subject to compliance with all applicable regulations in this Code." This means that no hearing is required except to review issues like landscaping, parking, ingress and egress, etc. So, contrary to your claim, there was no mysterious, unannounced decision because there was no requirement for a decision.
If you believe that a crematorium/funeral home application should require a public hearing, I would encourage you to ask a Council person to propose an amendment to the zoning code that would require a Special Use Permit for similar facilities, thereby creating the necessity for a public hearing. However, that won't change the facts of this particular case.
Art--was I disappointed by the Wal-Mart announcement? Of course I was. But the project is underway and we can choose to shop there or not. Will we likewise choose not to attend movies at the new theatre or not eat at the new restaurants? That's up to all of you--you vote with your feet and your wallets. Remember that Albertson's looked like a good match for OV, but the feet and wallets didn't follow. So, now we have a sporting goods store. Nothing is forever--not you, not me, not Wal-Mart, not even this blog. So, let's make the best lemonade we can out of the lemons that fell from the tree.
Dear Boobie-baby,
If you think funeral homes were permitted prior to the December, 2005 change in C-1....check it out.
I'm glad you know OV Zoning code so well, and "Crematoria, or crematorium" does not appear..AT ALL!
If you think crematoria and mortuary are "analogous"....you are confused with sematics. Mortuaries embalm...they don't spew pollutants for up to 20 miles.
Do you care about pollution? Are you educated as to how European countries treat crematoria? Are you aware they have repeatedly forced them to "be sited away from residential areas."
I didn't think you knew.
Check out mercury poisoning on the internet. Check out the rest of the pollution from crematoria. You won't find it on the websites recommended by the developer of the crematorium either.
It's a good idea to get oneself educated on these issues!!
Ferlin, my friend:
I never said that crematoria appeared anywhere in the zoning code. Please re-read my entry.
If the Zoning Director made the determination that crematoria are analogous to funeral homes, that was her decision, not mine (and certainly not yours, I'm sure).
I have searched minutes and ordinances from 2005 and, so far, have not found any changes to the C-1 zone relating to funeral homes. You may be right--I just haven't located them yet, have you?
There are no such things as "mysterious" and "unannounced" changes to zoning laws. They are ordinances and must go through the public hearing process. All hearings are posted at Town Hall, all agendas are public records that you can read any time during business hours, all hearing notices about properties are posted on the property sites, and all agendas are available at Town Hall. If you don't like the way these are handled (signs too small, ads not big enough, not enough people notified by mail), then please ask a Council member to suggest amending the Town Code so that the notification procedures meet your requirements.
As for my knowledge of pollutants, you don't know me. I have lived in Europe and I am well aware of the pollution put out by automobiles, restaurants, buses, trucks, crematoria, fireplaces, etc. In Arizona, the towns and cities have no meaningful jurisdiction over air pollutants. Your arguments are best taken up with the state or the county, both of which are charged with regulating public health.
Now, with all of that said, you still have the opportunity to ask your Council representatives to omit crematoria as permitted uses in any zone. That's your constitutional right. Again, it won't affect the current situation.
I'll ask all of you to refrain from ad hominem attacks on one another which, by definition, are based on emotion and not reason. Let's keep our discussions
literate, polite and non-personal.
Read the council packet from 10/19/05 and ordinance 05-39. This is when the change from CUP to permitted occurred.
Thanks, Cyclone1. Innocent question: What are we to conclude from this--that the funeral home got special treatment? What other changes were made at that public meeting? Did any other potential commercial developments benefit from a change in the zoning laws?
It's the end of the day for me--I'm going home now, where I live within a few blocks of a cemetery and a crematorium. I'll have my spouse check my mercury levels and let you all know the results tomorrow!
Boobie-baby, You've got the equipment to check the Mercury emissions? I'm impressed! You're better than the EPA! We already realize the local PDEQ,or AZDEQ won't be monitoring the emissions.
Also, check the records and find out that Oro Valley has prohibited another funeral home on the west side of Rancho Vistoso in the C-1 diagonally across from the Post Office, let alone another crematorium.
Too many Council members live over there.
Wonder why???
The zoning code amendments that were approved on 10/19/05 amended the entire non-residential zoning code, not just funeral homes. It was a broad brush sweep at updating the code. Most, if not all, undeveloped commercial properties (CN, C-1, C-2) in the Town were affected.
Ferlin:
Huh? The post office is at Tangerine and La Canada, so what "west side of Rancho Vistoso" are you referring to?
The land diagonally northwest of the post office is zoned R-144, although the General Plan designates it as commercial. Here's the difference between that property and the previous funeral home: The Harpold property already had zoning rights--there was no approval required by the Town. If someone else wants to build a similar facility at Tangerine and La Canada, that would require action by the Council because of the existing zoning, which is not commercial. It's not unusual for the GP and zoning designations not to match; in California, it's a requirement that they do, but in Arizona the changes take place as areas develop. The Town has never undertaken a massive rezoning to bring all properties in compliance with the General Plan.
If no more funeral homes or crematoria are being approved, perhaps the Council heard your concerns and declined to approve any other zoning changes that would permit such facilities. If so, consider yourselves victorious on that count.
By the way, my mercury levels are fine but I'm a quart low on oil.
Boobie-Baby,
My reference to "Rancho Vistoso" was to the area, not the Boulevard.
It's hardly what I would call a "Master-planned Community"!
It was the Town Attorney (Ms. Garrahan) now replaced, who informed many that there would be no more crematoriums, or funeral homes in that specific C-1 location. Just quoting "Her Eminence".
Post a Comment