Exactly what is going on here?
In case you missed it, Oro Valley took out a 1/2 page full color ad in the April 2 Explorer. The ad extols the virtues of the Naranja Park and tells the reader to log on to the OV web site for more information.
Let's not forget the Town Council recently approved to put the question on the Nov 2008 election as to whether or not the citizens wish to have this park which will be funded by a $48.6 Bond Issue, resulting in a secondary property tax.
Whether it's legal to spend town funds (our money) to "push" for this park is questionable. Whether it's even a prudent thing to do should also "raise some eyebrows."
If that's not bad enough, if one goes to the web site, http://www.ci.oro-valley.az.us/PkRec/NaranjaTownSite.htm
you can decide if it may misrepresent what the citizens will get for the $48.6 million.
The web site states "Up-to date information" can be found on the web site.
However, the site shows an Aquatic Center, A Music Pavilion & A Community Center. These amenities were part of the $156 million bond that the council wisely eliminated. Although the web site alludes to the fact they are not included in the bond issue, but part of the "master plan." if someone is not alert enough to see that, but sees all the plans prominently displayed on the web site, they might say, "Wow! An Aquatic Center, Music Pavilion & Community Center, plus all the sports facilities for ONLY $48.6 million. I'll vote for that!"
Also, notice the fact that the site addresses the cost for this park. However, the costs allude to what the town refers to as "the master plan." The ONLY ballot issue is a vote to approve or disapprove a $48.6 million bond. One may ask, why confuse the issue by introducing a figure that is totally inappropriate? Keep it straightforward. Talk to what will be voted on--- nothing more & nothing less!
"The town chooses to use a home with a market value of $300,000. OK---surely there are many homes in Oro Valley at this price. The web site says the tax on this priced home would be $10.20 A MONTH FOR THE FIRST YEAR. They do not address what happens after year one. What's the rate? And how about the interest on a $48.6 million bond that could be for 25 years at a rate up to 12%?
Let's not even consider that many economists believe we are either in or about to be in a recession. Why burden the taxpayers on this boondoggle, especially in these times?
More important-are we being intentionally deceived to get a "yes" vote for this bond?
If not deception, is it just plain sloppiness? Either way, it's irresponsible, and the citizens deserve better!
18 comments:
I don't think it was sloppy, it was
meant to create an illusion.
Remember Vestar, the master deceiver.
Vestar created an illusion of what we were going to receive for 23.2 million of taxpayer money.
A picture is worth a thousand words and especially true when one is trying to avoid the truth.
I resent that our town is spending our money to convince us we need to tax ourselves for things we don't need.
When does this bs stop!!!!!!
I love that line...
"Vestar, the master deceiver."
Sounds like Satan to me!
No arguments here.
Looks like the TOV has taken a page right out of Satan's...um, I mean Vestar's handbook...deceive them with words and pictures that illustrate one thing and when all the stupid people by into it...give them something else entirely.
Oro Valley residents should be made more aware of what it's going to cost to bring in the CAP water. We're not going to have a choice with that, are we? How much can we really afford?
Some days I get discouraged wondering if Oro Valley residents know what's really going on.
Some of us know what's going on but too many others are complacent which is how the town gets away with things. It's always the same group of people standing up to them.
Some people didn't know about Oro Valley Marketplace or Wal-Mart even though it was in the paper every week and on the news.
I recently mentioned Arroyo Grande to someone and they didn't know what I was talking about!
Those of us who pay attention are also concerned about the water issue...the cost and the lack of. It's also interesting how on one hand they tell us we need to conserve water (take shorter showers, etc.) while at the same time they're planning to add another 15,000 homes.
It's pure hypocrisy. They always look the other way when there's money to be made. This is why I don't trust Oro Valley to do the right thing.
Is it just me or do I hear those who scream their lungs out accusing the Town of Oro Valley of doing a poor job communicating to their citizens, being critical of an effort by the Town to communicate information about the Naranja Town Site?
I guess it one of those cases where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Does anyone other than Don Cox not understand the issue here?
If the town puts out information on the Oro Valley official web site, and states it is "up-to-date information," that is anything but up-to-date, then they are either incompetent, or deceptive.
It's hardly "damned if you do, or damned if you don't!
Maybe the citizens of Oro Valley who enjoy being apathetic are better off. Every Council meeting lately we have watched them give away money that is needed for other important priorities, approve developer plans that destroy citizens' enjoyment of their homes and devalue their investment.
Trying to understand the manipulations of Hizzoner and those who support his games is quite beyond understanding by those who value accountability and responsibility. We said and wrote long ago that the residents of Oro Valley DO NOT have infinitely deep pockets, but some of them are deaf to our needs and concerns. The last election didn't wake them up yet!
Could someone write a letter to Town Manager Andrews requesting that the information on the web site be stated accurately and requesting that the town cease and desist from advertising or otherwise promoting this project? That it is not an appropriate use of town funds?
Send a copy of this letter to the Explorer for publishing there.
And we could also publish it at our site.
Also, we need to have an attorney involved on this BEFORE things get out of hand. Otherwise, the town will steamroll this through.
There is clear, intentional deception here and we must act now.
Thinker,
Why do you get upset if there is inaccurate information posted on the LOVE site, but you do not get upset if there is inaccurate information posted on the Town of Oro Valley website?
OV OT and all others:
I am one of those who has [screamed my lungs out] relative to the 'communications' that the Town offers it's citizens. I have advocated and will continue to advocate that, when there is a 'public notification required' edict because of the necessity of public hearings on general plan
issues, zoning issues, the Town of Oro Valley has been woefully lax in carrying out the dictates of the
Arizona Statutes as well as those specifically written into the Zoning Codes for Oro Valley, thus depriving that a general dissemination of notice be given in accordance with those edicts.
As to the information that is 'put out' by the Town in relation to the Naranja Town Site, section 9-500.14. of the Arizona Revised Statutes, 'use of city or town resources or employees to influence elections; prohibition' states "a city or town shall not use its personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or other resources for the purpose of influencing the outcomes of elections. Not withstanding this section, a city or town may distribute INFORMATIONAL reports on
a proposed bond election as provided in section 35-454. Nothing in this section precludes a city or town from reporting on official actions of the governing body".
In short, just the FACTS, ma'am, just the FACTS, no advertising 'slants'!!!
Art...You put out incorrect and inaccurate information all of the time. Where does that place you? By your own definition it must be in the "incompetent" or "deceptive" category.
Zev....You are accurate in your response about advocating for or against. However I don't see any "slants". Do you?
Zeeman....
Please point out to me any statement advocating for or against.
OV OT
Just pointing out the perameters that do exist - I'm not pointing fingers or being accusatory (at least for now); simply understand that 'puffery' is a facility of advertising and it remains to be seen how this issue, will, in fact, be portrayed.
Please refer to Arizona Revised Statute # 35-454. "Informational pamphlet for election; review; election; return; canvass of vote; certificate of election."
A. "The governing body or board of the political subdivision (municipality, town, county) SHALL:...
Therein lies those facts that the Town MUST include in distribution to the voters. Referred to as an 'informational pamphlet', it provides for a statistical analysis projection of the [monetary impact], timelines, and other procedural information relative to the ACTUALITY of a 'bond authorization'.
EVERYONE-PLEASE READ THIS FORMAT DOCUMENT, 35-454, AND,IN ADDITION, 9-500.14 WHICH GOVERNS THE FORBIDDANCE OF TOWN RESOURCES THAT MIGHT INFLUENCE ELECTIONS.
I am going to share what I sent to Mary Davis and Ainsley Reeder. The people listed at the bottom of the FAQ about the NTS.
I am currently awaiting a response.
I would like to request some further information about the Naranja Town Site proposed plan.
I am currently a home owner in the Tangerine Terrace Subdivision. My backyard backs up to the the proposed road that is described as the "main entrance" to the Naranja Town Site. Therefore more specific details regarding construction of this road and its direct impact on my home is of great interest to me.
I am aware that the City of Oro Valley has a right of way behind my property, however there is no information that I can find that describes the width of the road, the number of lanes, if the road will be lighted or not, if there a traffic light will be added to Tangerine Road, and FINALLY HOW ORO VALLEY WILL DEAL WITH TRAFFIC GOING THROUGH MY SUBDIVSION.
I am very concerned with the potential of my sub-divsion becoming a drag strip. I can see a scenario, in which people in the future trying to avoid a line of traffic while exiting the park after a future baseball game would then use my sub-divsion to avoid some future traffic light. This would be unacceptable option! Currently one of the entraces to my subdivsion is off of the future entrance to the Naranja Town Site, thus unless this issue is addressed my subdivsion will become a SHORT CUT!
On other note, the proposed Naranja Town Site seems to be an exciting addition to our community and I will looking forward to it.
Lastly, I noticed that the Naranja Town Site website still does not depict the revised version of the Park. I would think it would be very helpful to see an updated Site Plan, budget and other such revisions.
Thank you for your time and I will be looking forward to your response.
Hi "kkjon"--- Your concerns certainly have merit.
As you opted to use a pseudonym (which is perfectly acceptable), I can not contact you directly, so I'll use this forum to ask you to post any response you get from either Ms. Davis, Ms. Reeder, or both.
Mary Davis reads the blog, and she is always welcome to comment as she sees fit.
An aside to Don Cox---Speaking of "deception" ---- your pseudonym "OV Objective Thinker" is a good example of "deception."
"OV Objectionable Thinker" would be much more appropriate.
Your statement:
"You put out incorrect and inaccurate information all of the time," is a prime example of an erroneous, exaggerated comment. Most of our readers know you by now and put as much credence in your comments here as they do your letters to the Explorer.
kkjon...I would hope that you also ask your questions of the builder that sold you the property. They have a responsibility to disclose. They know the proposed routes in and out of the park. All of t
he information you seek is not etched in stone but it sounds as though NONE of this was discussed during your purchasing conversations and it should have been.
Art.... You can whine and disclaim all you want. You most recently put out incorrect information about Arroyo Grande. To your credit you corrected it BUT only when challenged. Your other frequent attempts to publish incorrect information have resulted in multiple retractions.
Unfortunately you display the inability to make a distinction between fact and your insatiable desire to malign the town of Oro Valley, it's elected representatives, the Town staff or others. So the FACT is that you put out incorrect information frequently. Whether you want to admit it or not is irrevelant. We all know that you do it.
I visit this site often because I enjoy the conversational exchange. I also know you well enough to know that you have less regard for fact than you have for forwarding your personal agenda. It is your blog and you can post what you wish. But I will not allow misinformation to go out unchallenged by you, the Town or any contributor who wishes to post here. Opinion is one thing, making patently false statements is yet another.
The best interest of the residents of Oro Valley can only be served when accurate, unbiased and timely information is available.
Don Cox---- The more times you comment, the more readers will know how unworthy you are, should you try for a third try to get on the town council.
So, keep at it. Deceit, falsehoods, exaggerations, and arrogance are your main attributes.
By the way, I'm sure Terry Parish loves your endorsement----like he doesn't have enough problems without you!
Post a Comment