A March 29 story in The AZ Republic reports that conservationists are considering an initiative for the Nov 2008 ballot, allowing the citizens to preserve Arizona's trust land.
As we all know the Arroyo Grande, north of Oro Valley that our Town Council may consider for annexation is part of the state's trust land.
Click here to read the story.
22 comments:
sn.comWhy don't they put the same vigor into funding the education of our children. State trust land is intended to serve that purpose so what is the proposed alternative???
I have for my entire life hiked and enjoyed nature in the Tortalita Mountains. Most of you don't believe this (scares me) but my kids know more about the picto-graphs and archeology of the places within than most of you.
My kids have helped me haul water to the watering sites for the animals that live and travel there. My children know more about the wildlife of the area and Arizona than most of you will ever know. I agree with the few that this type of education is as importantant if not more important than any education that the Az. State Govt. can provide.
However, we need to face the facts Az is 49th in providing an education to our children. My kids are in that group. What are we trying to save? What is our future if our children don'have quality educations We have to find a balance one that is true to both goals.
State Trust land is constitutionally there to help pay for the education of our children. The Az budget crisis makes it that much more important to our future. Do we care? I do!
But we must balance that with wildlife cooridors for the wildlife my kids and hopefully yours know so much about.
Welcome back to the blog Terry.
How about this for an idea. Forget the legislatures voting; forget any initiative.
Why not not let the mule deer, javelina, bobcats, coyotes and the other wildlife that keep getting displaced vote on what to do with Arroyo Grande?
That's one way to keep the land as is----instead of 15,000 more houses, more traffic, more pollution and not enough water----and the animals are probably smarter than most politicians, and more concerned than most citizens!
Thanks Art been pretty busy of late trying to stop dog fighters and puppy mill operators.
This subject is something that we as a state and a community really need to come to grips with. Sorry about the typos in my last post.
TP - it has been proven time and time again that throwing more and more money at a broken down school system simply doesn't work. That the State of Arizona professes that monies derived from the sale of state lands goes to EDUCATION is not only a scam but a finite source of funds that begs the question: what happens when the ability to sell off trust land is no longer an option? No, Terry, it is the SYSTEM here in Arizona that fails in education. You ask what is an alternative to trust land funding; well, Terry, first let me advise you that, as a 'national rule' most of the education 'take' never makes it to student education, it is gobbled up not only by government waste but by administrative beaurocracy to the hilt. Reading, writing, and arithmatic - I still believe in that basis for education. Social engineering by the schools, playing nursemaid, political agendas, etc. - isn't that where family life should come into play, Terry?
As to nature, don't take such a high road; you are one of the strongest advocates of an over the top Naranja Town Site 'park?' in order that kids have a place to
gather. I say, let 'em go out to the desert and enjoy nature and get a grasp on the 'lay of the land' instead of the 'lay of the asphalt', tether ball courts, and drugs.
I find it interesting that YOU want the 'Government' to fund it all, yet, YOU would rather take money from special interests for your own campaign(s) instead of demanding that those interests contribute to our schools. Can 'deals' be worked out between developers and the communities which would benefit the school system? Yes they can and have done so in other parts of the country. But not here, Terry, because they would rather sink their money into payola or ask that the public help fund THEIR own projects - WHAT A TWIST!
Just so you know, Terry, I am not against absolutely the Arroyo Grande 'project'; WE, the people, need to know 'what, where, when, why, and how' it can be CORRECTLY
applied, administered, utilized in such manner as not to be a savage detriment to the rest of the area. Trust our town? Ha, that's a laugh.
Trust our State? Ha, that's a laugh. Trust our county? Ha, that's a laugh. Trust YOU, Terry, well, you are paid for, so that's a laugh, too.
I know this may sound "wierd". But, it would be good to have these dialogs without the personal attacks.
Aren't we past this? Isn't "enough enough"?
Shouldn't we focus on the central issues and not on the central characters?
Zee Man - while my comment may seem redundant and personal, please remember that Mr. Parish introduced the 'I' factor in his post. Yes, I, too, would like to stick to the issues only but there IS a lot of me, me, me that seems to permeate the realities in this town; when that happens, things can get 'personal'.
Terry , you asked about proposed alternatives to funding schools.
I don't think that selling off land to fund may be in our best interest.
Seems like a no win type of situation, well at least to this coyote. More land developed means the need for more schools. Developers should have to pay higher fees to pay for more schools, not just the building, but maintaining.
You said that Arizona is 49th in providing an education to the kids. You mean 49th in terms of money spent per pupil? That may be, but looking at the whole picture Arizona seems to have big school districts, that costs less to run and spending more per pupil does not mean the child automatically gets a better education. Of course being a coyote, I am no expert.
Some states fund schools by lottery tickets or other means.
Also states that rank higher in per pupil spending most likely all have higher property tax bills that would scare most out here. I also strongly feel that giving more money to the government is usually not a good idea or solution, tthey always spend what the taxpayers give them and never never give back change.
Our desert environment is our crown jewel, not more and more housing and developments.
Hopefully you may start to learn the difference between wants and needs and help OV from becoming
another Phoenix.
Just a few more thoughts. Most small kids are just as happy playing with an inexpensive item as they are with the expensive one until they get brain washed by the media . Watch small kids play with the package or box, rather then the actual gift : )
Maybe we need a return to the basic's as Zev says. Let's teach children that people are more important then things. The world does not owe them everything and by providing excess we really are setting some up for a big disappointment when they realize the all these "things" are not free and they have to pay thru the nose with taxes.
In addition to my post in response to Zee Man I would like to add: I do not 'hate' Terry Parish; as a matter of fact, my personal interaction with him has always been amiable and he has always treated me in a gentlemanly fashion. Simply stated, I (there it is, the 'I' factor) have lived in many places in my life, probably way more places than Mr. Parish has - the San Francisco Bay Area, a small town, Petaluma,north of same, the Los Angeles area including the San Fernando Valley, Raleigh, North Carolina, etc. I have seen the San Francisco area for the most part ruined over the years; I have seen the craziness of uncontrolled sprawl in the L.A. area, I have seen Raleigh, NC go from a relaxed, picturesque 'city' in 1989 to a hectic, traffic jammed, clear cutted, mess in 2005.
So, I do not want to see all of that, and more, happen here in Oro Valley.
I have seen too many princesses turned into frogs; I have seen and am seeing our Federal Government
fade into mediocrity; I am seeing our quality of life diminished by greed and corruption. And so, my trust in individuals as well as governance has been diminished, too.
I believe that Mr. Parish truly believes that he is doing well by the community; from a 'practical' standpoint I simply cannot accept or trust in the crux of those beliefs; that my opposition to them are 'vocalized' in the manner of passion I feel, saddens me.
My last line should have read:
'that my opposition to them are 'vocalized' in the manner of passion I feel I must express saddens me'.
Terry,
Read Zev's comment again:
"I have seen Raleigh, NC go from a relaxed, picturesque 'city' in 1989 to a hectic, traffic jammed, clear cutted, mess in 2005."
Who made the decisions that led to the above result? Politicians, bureaucrats, "leaders" etc. This is precisely why we don't trust our "leaders" to made the right decisions. Every decision made is about MONEY and who can make the most of it.
And even when that money is given to the government for the welfare of the people, the people never see that money because it gets squandered away. Just look at the $9 billion that was "lost" in Iraq! Sorry, I no longer trust our government to do anything right.
Do you really want to see Oro Valley transformed into the nightmare that Zev described?
We will be known forever by the tracks we leave.
Lakota Proverb
As Zev said I do believe I am doing right by our community and from my perspective the arguments raised on this issue and many others don't make sense.
For example: We want no town property taxes.
Problem: The town has not developed economically as fast as it did residentially.
Means:Town lacks resources to even fund the police protection necessary to maintain our quality of life.
Solution: Temporary Utility tax to fund necessary police until sales tax revenues come on-line. No property tax needed. Utility Tax expires Jan 2009 sales tax revenues are up 15% while statewide revenues are down the tax did what it was supposed to buy time for economic growth to take hold. Now the tax needs to expire.
For example: Some people want the State Land preserved intact.
Problem: Az State General funds gone. State constitution mandates state lands be sold to fund our already poor education system.
Solution: We preserve 68% or state land as open space and allow the sale of the rest to honor our committment to education.
Problem: People don't trust any gov't don't believe this, don't want to pay taxes, do want to be safe, do want property values to be high, do want kids educated so we don't outsource all of our
jobs,
Solution: Balance
Kathy Pastryk asked me to post her comment in answer to Terry Parish's latest entry on education and the future.
Art
Concerning the education of children, Parish glosses over the fact that the sale of State Land does NOT increase school revenues.
Unbeknownst to many of their constituents and to the probable delight of many AZ legislators, an influx of cash from State Lands reduces the amount spent from the state coffers but does NOT affect the amount spent on education. The "extra" revenue is then conveniently available for
"earmarks," pet projects, and pork.
Mr. Parish asserts that his children know more about wildlife than most adults. That is fine and I congratulate him on their knowledge and interest, but that doesn't detract from the endless time and devotion many Pima County adults have expended on the study and preservation of this region's
wildlife. Nor does it negate the work that Hector Conde, Carolyn Campbell, Chris McVie and many, many others have done to promote open space as a necessity sanctuary and a corridor animals native to Southern AZ must have to avoid extinction. People from ADOT, AZ Games and Fish, and countless conservation groups deserve Parish's support and respect. Sadly, it sounds as if he isn't about to take them seriously.
Scoffing at other will not accomplish the serious work left undone. It isn't wildlife versus education, Terry. Both are extremely important to save and to
enhance for our future and our quality of life. I'm sure your children could tell you that.
Whether we like it or not, the survival of life as we know it is in jeopardy because of the rapidly declining water table. Roads that must be built must be done with care to preserve our wildlife. We need our desert for many more reasons than to frame a sunset.
Since Oro Valley’s water supply declines at more than 5 feet per year how can anyone support doubling the town's population? It is a council member's duty to protect the people who live here from the degree of water scarcity that would ruin our lands, our animals, our plants, our air quality, our crops, our recreation, our future. It is high time to take stock of what we value and take seriously the probable consequences of unbridled expansion.
Certainly there are important steps that our government can take towards ensuring that Oro Valley grows gracefully and doesn't gamble away our precious resources.
Kathy is correct. That is why there will be more pressure on State Trust Land. I agree and as seriously as I take environmental issues. I don't believe that the people in those groups serve their causes as effectively as they could.
Not one that I can remember has ever asked me to meet them to discuss an environmental issue. GOVAC has Bill Adler has countless times and many more from wheelchair bound veterans to the United Way.
Some may say, "they don't trust you" they don't agree with you"I would say at least they would then be able to educate me as to their beliefs. I would say we should talk to those we disagree with to further our own education. I would also say how do you know you disagree if you've never sat down for a meeting.
I have taken the time to meet with Art and I'm glad. It changed my point a view about him. I learned som about myself and have tried to make use of that knowledge.
Council people deal with so many issues they do not have time to reach out to every person that people hold in high regard. But if those people want to to speak they can call me and I will meet with them. I think I'm the only Councilmember to put my cell phone number on my business cards. I am not hard to find.
Terry,
You said your kids know about the pictographs, the archeology and the wildlife, probably more than many people do. But suppose that 50 years ago, some developer had cleared all that land where your kids saw all those things so all there was for them to see today is a bunch of tract homes, roads, traffic lights, and commercial entities.
Just as it was left for your children to see, it needs to be left for future generations to see as well.
And we need to protect animal habitats. We do share the earth with other creatures, after all. It can't always be about us. We need this and we need that. Animals have needs, too.
I never had a problem paying a property tax if it meant that the natural beauty and clean air of the area would be preserved. But to destroy all that we have, more people, more traffic, more pollution, more strip malls, less beauty, less wildlife and THEN to tell me that I also have to pay a property tax...Well, no, I'm NOT going to pay a property tax for that. Again, this is what I mean when I say that "leaders" do not have a clue how to grow a town. They continue to destroy everything while also raising taxes.
Terry, are you an animal lover? Do you own any pets? Can we trust you to do the right thing to protect wildlife? We know that you've been working to stop puppy mills, etc., but that is part of your job with the sheriff's dept. Does animal advocacy carry over into your personal life?
Cowgirl I don't own pets I work 16 hours a day and am rarely home not fair to the animal. When my 13 year old Akita died I did not replace her. Please read my first post regarding wildlife.
During the drought my children and I would tow water trailers into the State Trust Land to help keep water in the Trick Tanks installed for the wildlife by Game & Fish.
I look at raw land very differently than land that is already zoned and has entitlements.
I agree with Victorian Cowgirl about the property tax issue. We are willing to pay a property tax to keep this area close to the way it is now and would have been happy to pay a property tax to keep it the way it was when we moved here.
We are not willing to pay a property tax to support the greed and destruction of the desert caused by too much development.
About meeting with you Terry, there is more chance of me getting my girlish figure back then you changing your mind on development issues!
Terry,
You said you look at "raw" land differently than land that's already been zoned. But that zoned land was once "raw" land! Then somebody decided to zone it residential or commercial or industrial or whatever and it was destroyed. Just because some person (or governing body) makes that decision doesn't mean it was the right decision.
And although I know what you mean by the word "entitlement," it sure is a word that says it all!
The original "entitlement" of that land was given by God to the people and the wildlife and the trees and the cactus. Unfortunately, developers think they're entitled to own/ruin everything.
Terry, I can understand that you look differently upon raw land and land that has 'entitlements': it is how those 'entitlements' are utilized that has many of us questioning the applications. Developers, proprietors, councilpersons, town administrators - they seem to all want something and give away the 'house' to get it but NOT necessarily for the benefit or the will of the constituents. There simply is no such thing as a blanket entitlement; it may seem so by zoning definitions but even those MUST be tempered by common sense. Those communities which implement reasonable but firm controls and demand that statutes, rules, and regs be followed in favor of the highest standard and that follow the age old practice that, to be allowed into a community is an INVITATION to do business, it is not an automatic right, those are the communities that RETAIN their superior character. I have seen right and I have seen wrong, I have seen communities 'beg' and I have seen developers and proprietors 'ask', and the result to the community, as a whole, makes for a world of difference. One might argue that, based on the term 'vested rights', that those 'rights' must be absolute; as I understand it they are not! It is because this town has thrown itself at the feet of certain members of the development community, certain proprietors, and that it has skewed processes and has forgiven inappropriate attention, that it has cowered before threats and, in turn, will not threaten the threateners, that it has given certain developers tax sharing advantages and that those developers are in turn utilizing some of that money in an effort to curry favor, that scorn has been heaped upon certain citizens at certain times by those who would rather dictate than communicate or participate; those are some of the things, Terry, that lead to a collective that begins to question 'virtually everything' because it must. When a town is out of control, Terry, everything becomes suspect.
"Why don't they put the same vigor into funding the education of our children."
By "they" do you mean "conservationists"? If so, I can assure you that many of "them" are educators, and others work very closely with educators on such projects as Prop. 106, the 2006 initiative that sought to conserve state lands AND provide funding for education. "They" also try to work very closely with the legislature, which is the ultimate key to providing funding for education.
"my kids know more about the picto-graphs and archeology of the places within than most of you."
It's admirable to be proud of your children, but it's less than admirable to insult the knowledge of your constituents.
"More land developed means the need for more schools."
The Coyote is wise.
"Parish glosses over the fact that the sale of State Land does NOT increase school revenues."
Ms. Pastryk is wise, as well.
"I don't believe that the people in those groups serve their causes as effectively as they could. Not one that I can remember has ever asked me to meet them to discuss an environmental issue."
Again, by "those groups," do you mean conservationists? I saw that Carolyn Campbell of the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection made a presentation at a Town study session recently. Were you not there? She then took the extraordinary step of organizing an educational presentation for the entire town, along with representatives from ADOT, Sky Island Alliance, and others. I saw K.C. Carter, Paula Abbott, and Barry Gillaspie in attendence, but I did not see you. It was a very good presentation. I'm not sure what more you expect "those groups" to do to educate you.
Dear Mom,
It was not my intent to insult anyone. I was simply pointing out that most Oro Valley citizens have not taken the time to educate themselves on our areas rich history and wildlife. Reading my post I understand you point in this matter and apologize.
Post a Comment