As expected the Oro Valley Town Council approved the ballot question for the Naranja Park.
Although the total amount was bantered around like a tether ball, it will appear on the ballot to issue and sell general obligation bonds in the principal amount of $48,600,000.
What will the ballot state as to how the money will be spent? Quite ambiguous.
All it says is the funds will be used "to design, construct, improve, furnish and equip general and supporting infrastructure, recreation facilities and related facilities, including earthworks, infrastructure, play fields, courts, outdoor recreation support and parking for the site, and to pay all necessary legal, accounting, financial, architectural, engineering and other contingent costs in conjunction therewith and to purchase bond insurance or other credit support for the bonds."
The rate of interest may be as high as 12% and the bonds will mature over a period not to exceed 25 years.
KC Carter voted against this expenditure and Paula Abbott expressed concerns that the ballot's wording is "very vague."
Keith Hoskins, the Phoenix attorney hired to guide OV through this process suggested a pamphlet be included with the ballot with more specifics.
Here's a question for our astute readers.
How many of you would buy a house not knowing how big it is; how many rooms it has, how many bathrooms and how big a lot?
Also, how about a mortgage? Need I remind anyone how perilous a variable rate mortgage is? Well, a rate "not to exceed 12%" will bring that $48.6 million to ----who knows how much?
Let's not forget one more thing. This Bond Issue was approved by a "lame duck" council, which continued to show a propensity of making decisions without considering ALL the facts.
You can read The Explorer article on this issue here.
http://www.explorernews.com/article/show/21634
8 comments:
"Three Strikes And You're Out"
Building at theme park is a really bad idea. It all sounds good on paper. Sort of like making everyone happy. But, boy, it is bad in reality.
A performing arts center? Another pool in a town that has thousands of pools? Give me a break.
This is Hizzoner and the lame duck council's boongoggle.
Besides being a bad idea, giving Oro Valley the right to levy property taxes to pay the interest and principle on the bond is a really bad idea. Cause it won't stop there. It is a precedent that I, for one, don't want set.
Consider this: A bond issue of any sort is a very bad idea in today’s municipal bond market. The market has been severely impacted by the subprime problem because the five insurers who insure municipal bonds, thus reducing interest rates on those bonds, are in trouble because they foolishly insured packaged sub-prime loans.
The municipal bond market will not recover for three years because that's how long it will take for the financial markets to "settle down".
So: Do we have agreement? A theme park is a bad idea; giving Oro Valley the right to level a property tax on us is a bad idea; and issuing bonds; and issuing municipal bonds in this market is a bad idea.
Sound to me like: "Three Strikes And You're Out"
Well Zeeman...
Once again you speak from an emotion base and not a fact base.
I doubt most folks would agree that ball fields are a theme park?. There is no performing arts center proposed. There is no pool proposed. So you continue to mislead. Why??? How does this misinformation serve the community?
The Town of Oro Valley will not approve a secondary property tax. Only the voters will approve a property tax. So what you are saying is that you do not want to give the voters the right to approve a tax. That is exactly what Bill Garner said. He doesn't trust the voters to approve a tax on themselves. Very interesting!!!!
I guess you are saying that the voters don't have the smarts to make that decision for themselves.
And I won't even mention the fact that you did strike out last Thursday. Damn....I just let that slip. :-)
Objective Thinker---- Fine, there is NO amphitheater or aquatic center, but if it was up to Loomis, Parish & Gillaspie, it sure would have been on the ballot.
And---oh yeah----Bill Garner managed to impress enough voters to get elected in the primary. That's something you couldn't achieve in either two primaries or two elections managing to come in LAST PLACE!
Thank goodness the voters are a lot smarter than you.
We can't wait for your next run, so you can be a FIVE TIME LOSER!!!
"The first look at next year's city budget is not pretty. Expected planned increases in road paving, police officers and firefighters and parks improvements to be put on hold for a year to forestall a multimillion-dollar shortfall."
From The Arizona Daily Star
3-15-08
Referring to the City of Tucson. The same kind of "budget thinking" is going on around the country.
Budget shorfalls everywhere.
Time for austerity. Not frivolity.
Art....
Please allow me to refresh your memory and ONCE AGAIN correct your falsehoods(a nice term). I do believe that in the last election I did not finish last in either the primary or the general election and was defeated by a margin of only four votes.
While I have congradulated Salette and Bill on another post, if I were you (or them) I wouldn't be overly proud of being elected by only 21% of the registered voters.
"LOVE"
Don Cox is correct. He didn't finish last in the 2004 election or the 2006 primary. He did finish last in the 2006 election. That still makes him a loser.
To bring up the fact that Bill and Salette, or I, for that matter shouldn't be proud of their LANDSLIDE victory doesn't deserve a response.
It's comments like those that will bring Cox another loss should he be foolish enough to run again.
Thinker,
There you go again, still claiming that Salette and Bill didn't win any landslide election and now you say that they shouldn't be proud of getting only 21% of the vote.
I have responded to this statement in other posts but you have not responded back. As I said, you always disappear whenever we present you with the FACTS.
So I am going to present them again in this post and I will continue presenting them until you respond.
When Vestar got 58% of the vote (of those who voted, NOT 58% of all the registered voters) Vestar called this "overwhelming support" and you clearly agree.
But when Salette and Bill got 66% and 62% of the vote (of those who voted) suddenly you decide to do some "fuzzy math" and you determine that this is a small amount because it represents only 21% of registered voters.
So when it came to Vestar, you decided to look at the percentage of votes OF ONLY THOSE WHO VOTED so the percentage would be a higher number, but for Bill and Salette, you decided to look at the percentage of votes based on the NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS so the percentage would be a lower number.
You're trying to have it both ways and I'm not going to let you!
Bill and Salette received a larger percentage of the vote (of those who voted) than Vestar did and they didn't have the benefit of a million dollar advertising account (like Vestar did) to help them do it.
Cowgirl.....Pardon my failure to respond to other posts. I have not been posting for some time due to other obligations, but I'm back now and I know that will make you happy.
I don't recall ever agreeing to a Vestar characterization. That's not to say, I didn't, I just don't recall it.
I think Salette and Bill should be proud of their victory. But they should not be proud (nor should any candidate) of the fact that only 21% of the registered voters elected them and only 32% of the Oro Valley registered voters got off their collective behinds and voted. (See the Explorer tomorrow)
As for your comparison of the Vestar election and this past election, it's all about numbers. While Salette got 62% and Vestar only got 58%, I think if you will check the numbers, and I am confident that you will, you will see that there were far more voters casting a ballot in the Vestar election.
Art.....4 votes. You never mention that, do you? And I did not finish last in the 2006 election. You just can't get facts straight. But you can never be accused of not being consistent.
Post a Comment