Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Miles ruled that a $97.4 million taxpayer subsidy for the upscale CityNorth shopping mall is constitutional.
The Goldwater Institute will promptly appeal the decision. Clint Bolick stated, “We remain confident that the courts will vindicate the rights of Arizona taxpayers.”
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/AboutUs/ArticleView.aspx?id=2134
14 comments:
It may not be a surprise, but I am sure it is a bitter pill for some to swallow .
Maybe we can put the incentive issue on the back burner since the cornerstone of the opposition has been the "illegality" of incentives.
We have bigger and better issues to hash out.
The "bitter pill" is still in the container. Let's see what the Az Court of Appeals has to say.
Certainly, the Goldwater Institute, and in fact Judge Miles knew before his ruling, the next step is the Court of Appeals.
The "fat lady hasn't even started singing."
This is not unexpected nor a surprise, but yes it is a disappointment for the citizens and taxpayers of Arizona!!!
Clint Bolick knew that most likely a lower court judge would rule against the G.I. But also know that Mr. Bolick apparently is looking forward to arguing this case before the State Supreme Court.
Good Luck to Mr. Bolick.
We need more people to stand up for injustice, especially when it involves our tax dollars.
Thinker,
The "opposition" had more than one argument. Violating the AZ Constitution was just one of them, and we knew the judge would rule against Bolick and we knew WHY he would...because AZ is a pro-business state with pro-business judges, so they're not exactly an unbiased bunch, now are they? Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not interpret it with a pro-business bias or any other bias, but that's what they do. Why do you think Bush appoints all conservative judges to the Supreme Court? So they will vote with a biased conservative opinion.
The opposition has other arguments of which you are well aware...bait and switch, inflated sales projections, building a junk mall in a scenic corridor, false advertising of "no new taxes" etc.
You always side with developers because you are also pro-business, just like the judges, so you have your own bias in this regard, just as the judge did.
Bias does not equal "objective."
It almost is inherent that lower courts, 'first' courts, do not want to tackle constitutional issues, yet they must act as the 'first step' in the process of litigation; it seems that they prefer to 'stick' to decisions relative to the simpler issues of 'man vs. beast'. The fact that we have courts of appeal is, in fact, the real door to resolving CONSTITUTIONAL issues. The judges are more 'schooled' in the realm
of constitutionality, and also more accountable relative to it.
It is thus that we have a step by step process in order to determine
the actuality that a a violation of a consitutional question might
be resolved in it's totality. As I am not a legal authority, let the above stand as a lay opinion )based on some personal realities, however).
OV OT, I do not believe that the CORNERSTONE of oppostion has been the 'illegality' of incentives, but that it has been comprised of a series of relative facets. The fact that the 'first step' resulted in a 'negative' ruling was not only, not a bitter pill to swallow, but it was virtually an expectation. Yes, the subject, outwardly, should be put on the back burner because it can only be handled, in a sense, by the system 'taking care of it'.
Yes, we do have more issues to 'hash out' but ARE they 'bigger and better' - not necessarily as they ALL contribute to or detract from the welfare of the community. But, as you say, we do need to move on to those other issues and not overdwell on those gone by. However, the past DOES influence the today and tomorrow, and so forward we must march - under the caution of yesterday as well as the expectations of tomorrow.
Re: my above post, sorry for the messy layout, all.
Cowgirl....One could draw the conclusion that you would prefer that we live in an anti-business state with anti-business judges. Among others you chastised me for being in favor of the incentive agreement using the legality argument. Now you speak with different voice saying you knew all along the court would rule this way. Hmmmmmmmm????
And I plead guilty to being pro-business. It is the oil that makes the economy of this nation move forward. That doen not mean that I am anti-people or anti-anything. Where would we be without business?
I don't always side with developers but I always do side with Oro Valley and what's good for our community and the wonderful people living here, including you!!!
Zev....your acknowledgment that we must move on is refreshing. I do believe we have some great issues on our horizon, not the least of which is the Arroyo Grande project. This is one of those issues where the community should join together and do some great, collectively beneficial planning of the area. Unless we do so, Pima County will screw it up just as they have Three Points, the Avra Valley/Trico Road area and Catalina.
One needs to look no further than the Pima County road maintenance capability and their ability to manage the costs of Kino Hospital to see perfect examples of their inability to do anything well.
Thinker,
No, I wouldn't prefer that we live in an anti-business state with anti-business judges. I would prefer that we live in a state where everyone and every living thing is considered equally and not one where business ALWAYS comes first. I would prefer that all judges be objective and not base their decisions on their own personal bias.
You said you don't always side with developers. Funny you should say that because I was planning to ask you if you could name some instances in which you sided against them. I'd be curious if you have and what the criteria was that made you side against them.
Regarding Arroyo Grande, you said Pima County will screw it up. You think that Oro Valley won't?
Cowgirl...I doubt we ever have or ever will live in that kind of a world (state). Judges, juries, legislators, residents all have biases which cannot be totally ignored. I read the entire ruling of the judge and he cites case law for all significant rulings. Zev brings up a valid point that typically higher courts are more well versed on constitutional issues. But it appears on the surface that this judge did his homework.
Since you asked, during my tenure on P&Z I voted several times to oppose housing developments north of Tangarine until specific conditions were met to insure the density met the general plan. At that time the GP stated that we needed to feather (gradually reduce) densities as we approached the unincorporated areas. I voted against allowing a communication tower to remain on the property located on the NW corner of Oracle and El Conquistador after it was illegally constructed. I was the ONLY member of the P&Z that voted against the Splendido conditional use permit.
I was the individual that forwarded the idea of doing away with the four findings of fact for general plan amendments citing that there was 100 other pages in the general plan that were being ignored during the amendment process.
Most recently, I strongly opposed allowing a religious institution to be located in an existing residential neighborhood without a conditional use public hearing. My reasoning for this was based on the problems created by not having a public hearing before allowing the crematorium.
I attempted to have strict guidelines placed on HOA's to insure they were proactive in the preservation of riparian areas located within their boundries. That suggestion has been put on the back burner until we address the Sensitive Lands Ordinance.
So I do look at issues very carefully and do consider all sides of an issue before I vote.
I can assure you, Oro Valley will do a much better job on Arroyo Grande than Pima County. Take the time to drive out to some of the places I cited in previous posts and look at the fine zoning work of Pima County. It's disgraceful. OV isn't perfect, but we are head and shoulders above anything the County can produce.
Thinker,
Thanks for answering my question. I wonder though, I think you were on P&Z when decisions were made about the development across from the post office. That beautiful open desert area that was turned into high density housing. Every square inch of that land was cleared. What were your feelings on that development?
I think calling that corner "beautiful open desert" is a bit of a stretch, but I guess it's in the eyes of the beholder. It is bordered by two major arterials, on the north and east, and residential on the south and west.
You are testing my memory, but I do believe that when the initial project came before the P&Z we sent it back to reduce the density on the west to be more compatable with the existing residential, limited the homes on the west side to single story so as to lessen the impact on the view of those in the Monterey development to the west. It was already the same density as the subdivision to the south. There was also some discussion about connectivity to the subdivision to the southwest but I cannot remember the discussion or the outcome.
And as a minor correction to your description, the entire area was not cleared. There are two significant riparian areas on that property which were left untouched and provide a very nice backdrop for many residences in that area. Now I believe there are some DRB issues with part of that development but P%Z has no control over that group of "nar-do-wells".:-)
Hope this answers your question.
Thinker,
I seem to remember that that parcel was 80 acres of pristine desert so I would call that open desert. I don't think something has to be as big as Arroyo Grande to be considered beautiful open desert.
Yes they left the riparian areas but they completely cleared everything else on that 80 acres. They didn't leave one tree standing. Then they built cookie-cutter houses on postage-stamp sized lots, all surrounded by ugly walls. There is no desert view anymore. You look out your window at a wall. May as well be in prison.
So, yeah, I guess beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Some people think Julia Roberts is beautiful. I personally think she is butt-ugly. My husband and 4 of my friends agree with me. Just thought I'd throw that in as an example of "eye of the beholder."
But I guess my real question is, what do you think of what happened to that parcel of land? Was it more aesthetically pleasing before or after?
Cowgirl.....
Your last question is one that points out why we have disagreements and it is worth discussing because it is one of the foundations for our disagreements.
You as an individual look at that particular piece of property and see beauty. That is a valid observation with which others may agree or disagree, like Julia Roberts. :-)
As a person sitting on the Planning and Zoning Commission, pretty carries very little weight. We must decide, within the guidelines of the various codes, general plan and owner rights what is the best use for that land. The Town would end up being sued all over the place if they failed to allow a property owner the right to develop his/her land on the basis of the fact that it is "pretty". That may seem harsh to you, but that is the reality. That's why we have codes that require plant inventory and salvation of certain species. We have codes that identify riparian areas and mandate their protection.
That's one of the reasons that I am pushing for the annexation of the Arroyo Grande property. Our failure to do so would result in the residents of Oro Valley having no (Zero-none) say it what happens to that piece of property. Pima County can't/won't/didn't even build a bridge over the CDO at LaCholla in all of these years. How archaic is that? They don't/can't/won't even maintain the streets they have now. No other entity in this metropolitan area does a better job at maintaining the infrastructure than Oro Valley. That's one of the reasons we live here.
Growth (or excessively high taxes) is the only way a community can pay the overhead expenses which are going up very, very fast. You can only cut services so far and then the people start gritching.
As for the cookie-cutter look and the ugly walls, I couldn't agree with you more. Those are the DRB's issues I was referring to. The density is a zoning/legal/owner rights issue that is very convoluted.
Thinker,
Those "convoluted" rules you refer to are exactly why I am so fearful of ANY development. Those rules were made by man and man is not perfect. Man makes the rules to suit his best interests. There was a time when women couldn't vote or own property. Why? Because that was in "man's" best interest.
And when it comes to development, the rules are also in "man's/the developers" best interest. The wildlife is inconsequential. Someone's view or property value is inconsequential. And all I ever hear is, "we have to do this or we'll be sued."
I have this dream where I become filthy rich and I spend my time fighting greedy developers. Every time they threaten to sue, I say, "looking forward to it." And then I keep them tied up in court for years.
Just because they threaten to sue doesn't mean they will. It's usually just a scare tactic and they use it because it works! They're just a grown-up version of the schoolyard bully. They won't stop their bullying behavior until someone stands up to them.
Post a Comment