By now most of us probably know the "lame duck" Town Council voted to expend $48.6 million for a bond issue to fund the Naranja Park site.
We noted in previous postings that we believe the timing to go out and finance a park with a property tax on the citizens in not a smart thing to do, especially when many believe the country is either in or going into a recession.
Question: What is your thought on the town not only proceeding with putting this on the Nov 2008 ballot, but expending taxpayer's money by constantly running 1/2 page full color ads in The Explorer touting the park?
Before you respond, keep in mind, the new OV budget totals $201 million, an $82 million increase from last year. $48.6 million of the increase is for budgeted expenses tied to passage of the Naranja Town Site proposed park.
You can respond here, or via text msg. or email.
14 comments:
I have two comments, take them for what ever you think they are worth. First, the education campaign is paid from last years budget (bed taxes)and is not an unusual approach to a bond issue. You can find all kinds of examples of public education campaigns run by municipalities facing a bond election for a similar project. Second, the $49 million of next years proposed budget WILL NOT be spent if the bond doesn't pass as the revenue won't be there, and there will be no park to build so... Bottom line on all of this is it was time to make some decision on the park - build it or not. After years of screwing around with the issue, at least the voters will get to make a decision. If a majority believe the economic forecasts are such that it's not the right time to approve the bonds, it won't pass.If it fails, fine (not my preference) but you have to give the Council credit for at least putting it up for a vote.
OK - three comments - just because the bond election passes, doesn't mean the bonds ever have to be issued - if the new Council decides to wait a while or forever...? But again, it was time to make some kind of decision on moving forward.
This post makes my point. The voters deserve the opportunity to decide. The citizens designed the masster plan not me, not the mayor, not the super secret trip we took to Colorado. don't forget the mayor and I had to dig a tunnel with dull spoons back home so we could sneak in the plans.
The town council approved the programming of the sight, by the way no surfing feature was ever even contemplated only a lazy river. Kids use them to ride around slowly on their flotation devices and seniors use the for low impact resistance exercises.
My goal was to allow the citizens to vote 1 time on the entirety of the plan. Following that the council would have the ability to decide what was prudent based on the timing and needs of the community.
Now we will have to pay to vote at least three times. Haven't we spent enough money yet? When do we reach the necessary ammount to qualify you to vote yes or no?
Terry--- I hope you'll see fit to continue commenting on the blog when you are an ex-council member.
Concerning this issue, inasmuch as I posed the question, I'll refrain from answering, but will say this:
Yes! You are correct. We already spent more than enough money on this would be park that you and the mayor wanted to fund to the tune of $160 million.
Hopefully,the new council will be a lot more fiscally responsible than you & the mayor! I'll sum up with one word---"Priorities."
Cyclone1, I find your commentary to be informative and matter of fact; please, keep it up.
Terry, as of your past few posts, you seem to be going back to your 'flip' side, a trait that I thought was subsiding, a trait that has caused many to question your veracity, and a side most of us don't like! Is it that, since you might have concluded that the decisions/voting are concluded, that now you can take your mask off? You disappoint me. As to your
statement that "the citizens designed that master plan" - which citizens, what age group, what demographic part of Oro Valley and who decided that these were the representative 'body' for Oro Valley? As of now, the proposal is NOT a TOWN PARK, it is a SPORTS COMPLEX and, if Arroyo Grande goes through, not even a centralized one at that. Yes, it is time to get off the dime and vote; let's stop the suspense. Hopefully it'll be NO and perhaps we CAN come up with a better plan.
Cyclone1, included in a packet I will be sending to Mr. Tobin Rosen, our Town attorney, for the clarification and applications of the Arizona Statutes governing
[elections of the nature of the one we are facing re: Naranja Town Site] is an Arizona State Legislature format document #9-500.14 relative to revised statute which reads as follows:
"Use of city or town resources or employees to influence elections; prohibition"
(In part)"A. A city or town shall not use its personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or OTHER resources for the purpose of influencing the outcomes of elections. Notwithstanding this section, a city or town may distribute INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
on a proposed bond election AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 35-454 (a seemingly specific directive and outline of those procedures which must be followed). Nothing in this section precludes a city or town from reporting on OFFICIAL actions of the governing body".
It appears to me that the slick advertising campaign in the Northwest section of the Star goes a bit above and beyond 'public education' and/or 'educational reports'. But, as I am not of legal authority, am interested in a fair and 'legal' approach to this referendum, at this point I can only question and leave the answers to a competent authority.
Zev
I didn't think the spoon joke was mean to any blogger and I read again I haven't called anybody any names. What old ways do you mean??
I never stopped stating my positions.
Terry, it wasn't mean, it just seemed flippant to me as did your comments relative to California, Stockton, etc. in a previous post.
Perhaps the words 'a bit sarcastic'
might be in order. I don't think you are mean, Terry; you did not target anyone. I just think that your choice of expression might have been somewhat (mildly) arrogant. Sorry, that's how it came off to me.
Terry, Art, Zev............
Let's take a step back and look at the original post.
Art is incapable of posting a "fair and balanced" question. He has to include in his posting things like "lame duck". The only person he was quoting is himself. He continuously refers to "we". I have asked him who "we" is. There is no answer because "we" is in reality, 'me'.
He attempts to lead you to believe that there is this huge increase in the Oro Valley budget where in thuth there is a VERY small increase...other than two capital improvements projects.
Having said all of that, it is up to the voters to decide. What can be more fair?
Zev continues to talk about subjects that he has admitted that he has limited (I am being kind here) knowledge about.
It was fine to put the Vestar EDA into the hands of the voters but it is not OK to put the Naranja Park development in the hands of the voters.
Is there a conflict here???
Zev
I was trying to be funny sometimes it is difficult in writing, voice inflection is obviously missing.
Seemed like Coyote got it :) and all.
It's ok, Terry, I can see that - I did not mean to 'pound' you on it.
I think you should know by now, that personally I find you to be
a very decent person and you do have a sense of humor where you can poke fun at yourself and be enjoyable.
It seems Don Cox is watching too much Fox News with his "fair & balanced" comment.
Until Bill & Salette take their seats in June after their landslide victory, we will continue to have a "lame duck" council.
Whenever I use the 1st person singular or 3rd person plural you can be sure it is "me" speaking.
So, Mr. Cox, put that issue to rest! "I"---"Me"---"We" will always be ME!
Hi! Here is question from a first-time poster who just stumbled onto this interesting blog who hasn't yet had time to peruse all of the topics.
I seem to remember voting in favor of a bond issue for an Encantada-style retail development at Tangerine/Oracle, only to find out - after the vote - that we were welcoming WalMart. While I like WalMart just fine, I (and just about everyone in my neighborhood) do not like feeling hoodwinked by our elected representatives.
I would love to see, and am willing to pay for, a nice park. Given what happened with WalMart, how can we have even the slightest confidence that our millions will be spent as promised?
Hi Lothar--- Welcome to our LOVE blog. Glad you found us.
In response to your question---two answers.
1) It was David Malin Project Manager and Vestar that "hoodwinked" enough OV citizens into believing we were getting an "upscale" shopping experience.
Certainly, the council that voted to give them a $23.2 million "giveaway" didn't help.
2) Concerning the Naranja Bond issue, the present seated council voted to put forth a $48.6 million bond for the voter's consideration this Nov.
The good news is this. With Bill Garner & Salette Latas elected to the council and taking their seats next month, the days of being "hoodwinked" are over. Whether this issue goes to the voters is questionable once the new council reviews the recently passed motion to proceed.
Hopefully, you'll continue to read our blog, as we try to keep our neighbors informed on the issues that affect their lives in Oro Valley.
Zev, I note from your earlier post that you evidently intend to send me a request for an interpretation of the state statutes relating to election publicity. In my capacity as Town Attorney, I can not respond to requests for legal opinions or advice from the general public. Rather, I provide legal advice and representation to the Town and to its departments and officials. I hope that you will understand why I will not be able to respond to your request.
Tobin,
Thank you for your quick response and candid reply; I understand.
I will be sending you this information anyway and you may review it and if at all pertinent,
utilize it in an appropriate manner.
Zev
Post a Comment