After listening to the pleas of the neighbors that would be so negatively impacted by this development on Rancho Vistoso Blvd between Commerce Loop & Vistoso Village Drive, the Council with the utmost compassion, begrudgingly approved the plan which includes four massive office buildings, 36 feet high directly behind a number of homes.
Heeding the advice of the Town Attorney, the vote was 7-0. The only option the council may have had was to possibly request another opinion to see if there was any way to change the position of the 4 out of 14 tallest structures.
Sadly, those homeowners directly impacted, many of whom are single seniors, will lose their views and see their property values diminish dramatically.
11 comments:
I saw compassion from everybody but
Mayor Loomis. Also the developer seemed to be a greedy cold blooded
creature. Guess he is what they call a cement head. Maybe him and body burner guy can bond.
Ms Coyote,
Mayor Loomis callously gloated as each council member registered their regret at this decision.His gloating felt sadistic. You are right, he has no empathy.
"There is nothing to fear except fear itself". Threatening the Council members with legal action sends the pervasive message of how Loomis controls their vote. It makes Oro Valley sound like a gestapo state! But the Council members allow themselves to accept the threat! They have a choice.
Inspite of their choice to vote for the project, some of them were genuinely empathetic. Their show of feelings was a first.
Strategically having Ford hire a lawyer to threaten the Council members was effective. Then the Council asked the attorney to interpret the legalese which reinforced their fears.
The part missing from his explanation was exactly how many times a politician has been personally sued, fined and held liable. Having the ability to sue does not mean they act on it. Or that once acted on it can be enforced in the Court. Winning by intimidation has a long history with lawyers.
Historically, the Town Attorney's office's record of wins is low. As Art suggested a second opinion might give new insights, even differ with those of the present Town Attorney.
Ah ha! What an interesting idea the Mayor has given to constituents! If the Council is personally liabel for its decisions, now Vistoso Vistas can sue the Mayor personally for the crematory!
Native Spirit
Art, it was wonderful that you reminded four of the Council members why they became politicians--to prevent developments which demeaned their homes!
You're right, mscoyote, Hizzoner didn't seem to care at all. One more slap in the face for Neighborhood Two! Now the main entrance will have a dumpster, the rears of two huge industrial buildings and loading docks as the 460 homeowners enter their subdivision. The homeowners adjacent to the other two huge buildings will have a solid view of the rears of the two other huge monstrosity buildings and loading docks. Good-bye mountain views!
Mr. Ford, who threw temper tantrums and hired Stubbs and Schubart to threaten the Council is only interested in his greedy fortune. He gave his "ME-ME-ME I'm so wonderful" speech again last night, as if he hadn't sung his own praises before. He is a legend of greed!
By the way, he can bond with the body burner guy...they hired the same law firm as he did, a firm comprised of "barracudas".
Spirit,
Some have wondered how Loomis controls the council .
The town attorney does not seem to be represent the town or I should say he does not offer any alternative, like
say a second opinion. Maybe he knows he is out of his league and would rather avoid a legal battle. I hope that the residents of Vistos Vistas do consider legal action. Health is more important then greed, well it should be.
Ferlin,
the developer was one of the most arrogant, obnoxious people I have witnessed in many years. Well what goes round, comes round.
The crematory nor this business will be a good neighbor, more like the neighbors from hell.
I am all for a recall of Loomis.
Timing is right. People are paying attention and most of us
are tired of this regime.
I find it interesting that the same commentators who recently excoriated my office for seeking an outside legal opinion on the issue of whether a certain blog needed to register as a political action committee under state law are now taking me to task for NOT obtaining an outside legal opinion on the issue of whether the developer of the Anthem parcel has vested rights to pursue his proposed development under well settled zoning law.
Here's a modest suggestion for you: if you are not satisfied with either Tom Parsons' opinion or my opinion on this issue, why don't you ask Mr. Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute to weigh in on the question of whether the developer has vested rights to his project under the zoning classification applicable to his parcel? Given that Mr. Bolick has just filed a 12 million dollar lawsuit against the City of Tucson for merely slowing down a developer near the U of A, I wonder which way he would opine on this issue?
By the way, Mr. Segal, it was a pleasure to meet and talk with you at the Council meeting the other night. Thanks for coming up and introducing yourself to me. I hope to get to know many more of the citizens and constituents of the Town during my service here.
Mr. Rosen,
"A second opinion" does not have to be paid for by the Town. The Council members, at the threat of being personally sued might want to obtain that on their own.
There is no question here about a developer having the right to sue nor the names of the present council being listed, the question is one of their personal liability.
In this current national climate, if what you are saying is accurate, then George W Bush might suffer unending lawsuits from the American public. Why has this not happened to him?
Mr. Rosen, Of course I am not an attorney, but here is something for all of us to think about.
In the blog case/pac case, supposedly there was one complaint or inquiry and there was a decision made to get further opinions. Ok, now we have an issue involving a whole neighborhood of citizens and no mention of seeking a further opinion was even suggested.
I don't think any of us disagree that this developer has the right to develop his property. But does he have the right to disregard everybody else's rights? I don't know what the law would say, just what I think is right. There must be some loophole in our town codes that would require him to have his project less intrusive to the
neighborhood. Hate to use the word loophole, but a loophole or interpretation by a zoning administrator in OV allowed the crematorium and another zoning official could possibly have interpreted the same thing differently.
About the Tucson law suit, again I am no lawyer, but slowing down a development and looking into a legal remedy for making this project less objectionable is two different actions or issues, well at least to me.
Since you are the town attorney, what actions will you recommend that the town take if the Turken v Gordon suit is successful?
I would think the town would be
hoping that Mr.Bolick is successful and perhaps our town
can benefit.
Hi Tobin--- Hope, we can be on a first name basis, although you were good enough to refer to me as "Mr. Segal.
I'll use this forum to make a couple of comments.
1) I was impressed with your straightforward response to the council on the issue if anything could be done to alleviate the situation these poor people find themselves in, with a 200 foot long, 36 foot high structure almost literally in their backyard.
2) Prior to your arrival in Oro Valley, our town government has seen fit to solicit outside legal opinions on many issues. As I suggested,it might have been helpful to the citizens that will be impacted and I thought that may be a viable option. I still think it is. Not to suggest your position is incorrect, but under the circumstances, I believe this issue deserved another opinion, certainly more than "my issue" did.
3) I don't believe any of the citizens impacted, nor I, suggested that the developer doesn't have the right to build within the town code. What everyone was asking was that if he was not willing to compromise, then, hopefully there was some way the town could assist in finding a better solution; whether it be by legal means or through some negotiation. Compassion is wonderful, but the people needed something more, and every option should have been looked into. In my opinion that includes another legal opinion.
4) Thank you for your acknowledgment. I hope you'll have a long and rewarding tenure working on behalf of the citizens of Oro Valley. I'm also pleased that you not only read the blog, but that you are good enough to partake in the discussion. Who would ever guess that up until recently you didn't know what a blog is----and now you're a full fledged "blogger."
Thanks.
Art
Nothing is all black or white - even the law! Approximately half the cases that do go to court end up with one of the lawyers LOSING their end of it.
Try this, the Town code states that 36 feet is an allowable height
as a MAXIMUM; it does not state that they must grant that the entire building be 36 feet; the Town zoning codes do, in fact, specifically state that [the structure be of harmonious nature with the surrounding properties]; as planned, the structures do not
appear to conform to this ethic either in design or material. More work will be done on this issue; of this I can assure you. And, please note, that a suit CAN be initiated against the TOWN AND THE DEVELOPER by the affected parties for the detrimental effect the development has on the value of their properties.
I believe that the Town responded in fear of the intimidation that was exercised upon them by the applicants' tactic; this outrage, in itself, needs further study by a legal authority.
Disclaimer: I am not of legal authority; this statement has been derived from my own interpretation of local and state codes and statutes, as well as informal conversations I have had with family members who are of legal authority.
Mr. Rosen, perhaps you can answer the following: couldn't the Town, under the undue pressure put upon them by various threats, have tabled the motion in order to study, in depth, a response to those threats, a'new' interjection in the matter, and be legally
exempt in the interim from those actions as threatened by the applicant? This was, after all, a public forum, not a study group, and as such should have been free of this type of public bullying.
Also, shouldn't this issue, with all of it's ramifications, been TOTALLY (or alomost totally) resolved by the Development Review Board befor going to Council? Unfortunately having attended a couple of the DRB meetings, I personally have witnessed some rather dubious 'activity' so I think I 'understand' the mentality of said Board.
Well, well. The Town Attorney weighed in on the blog! That's an interesting development since when the Town's Communications Manager weighed in a few months ago, she was excoriated by the bloggers.
Property rights are a delicious issue to discuss. We demand others to respect your property rights as outlined in the zoning code (more so than in the General Plan)when you want to add a shed, build a deck, change your roofing material, etc. But when someone else (individual or corporation) decides to exercise his or her same property rights, we go bananas.
The choices are: You can have your Council write an air-tight code that allows for absolutely NO interpretation and covers every conceivable situation. This is the kind of approach that Bill Adler has advocated for years.
OR, you can write a code that has some room for interpretation, but which still sets limits (e.g., heights of buildings, setbacks, etc.)depending on the unique situation. You would do this if you had confidence in the ultimate decision-makers--the Town Council.
Once again, if you don't like the decision of the legislative body (in this case, the Town Council), you can always ask them to change the code. But remember, those changes may come back to haunt you when you wish to do something that will no longer be allowed in the code without any consideration for special circumstances. One man's champagne is another man's poison.
Do the writers on the blog REALLY want the Town to spend literally hundreds of thousands of dollars seeking second opinions and outside counsel every time you disagree with their decisions or interpretations? Couldn't those funds be used for something more positive, like infrastructure at the Naranja Town Site or longer library hours? Do we really want the Town in constant court battles because a few people feel that their property rights have somehow been violated?
In a perfect world, developers would sit down with neighbors and work out satisfactory solutions. If, however, they don't, and if, however, they have plans that meet all of the code guidelines, then the towns and cities are wide open to being sued constantly. This happened in Tucson not to many years ago. Once a developer has met all the conditions, the Town Council's action is "administrative/ministerial" and no longer "legislative." This means that the Council MUST give approval to the development plan or end up in court. Do you want your taxes to go to outside counsel and lawyers, or would you prefer that it be spent on real needs in Town?
Sometimes, legislative leaders, given the laws they operate under, have to hold their collective noses and vote "yea" on issues that they really don't support. In a litigious society, that's the price we're paying. Trust me--it will happen to Bill and Salette, too, and they'll have as difficult a time explaining it as Helen, Terry, Paul, KC, Al and Paula do.
Post a Comment