Nobody is perfect, and The Zee Man is no exception.
In his blogcast of June 21, the Zee Man misidentified the one candidate that was up for appointment to the Board of Adjustment as Helen Dankwerth. It was in fact her spouse, Alan Dankwerth.
The main point, however is the fact that the council saw fit, after hearing citizen's concern about Mr Dankwerth & Don Cox, to continue the process and allow other qualified candidates to submit their resumes.
We apologize for the error.
29 comments:
Just one more example of carelessness.
As I have stated before, talk or type first, and when, AND IF, challenged, correct.
That's a nice 'committment' to accuracy!!!
Well, well---"Mr. Perfect" is back adding tremendously to this blog.
Just what we needed---- more Cox sarcasm!
Art...You confuse accuracy and fact as "sarcasm"
Thanks,
The Zeeman stands corrected.
Zeee......
Thinker,
You voted for Bush TWICE didn't you? Did you ever accuse HIM of carelessness or inaccuracies? No one has ever made as many speaking errors as he has.
VC
What is the relevance to this thread.
VC....As a matter of fact, I did vote for Mr. Bush twice and am damn glad I did both times. I have also been critical of some of the Bush decisions.
I bring forward my observations and opinions because it is not something that happenes every now and then, but it is a pattern. Not necessarily with the Zeeman but on this blog.
And as YYY said, Bush really doesn't have anything to do with the topic.
I noticed that Mr. OV Thinker never responded to the Blog mentioning the extension of the application to the Board of Adjustments. From what I read, he applied to the Board of P and Z and was not accepted. I believe it is wonderful that members of our community are willing to volunteer for the Boards and Commissions and he has made so many comments about GOVAC and the arts then maybe this is an area that he should pursue
Yada,
The relevance is obvious! Thinker loves to point out whenever someone makes an erroneous statement and then implies that that person cannot be trusted and that they're deliberately misleading everyone. He's all about FACTS and HONESTY and ACCURACY and never saying the wrong thing, even if by accident. But he votes for Bush twice and is glad he did! The hypocrisy is astounding. I was simply pointing out that Thinker has one set of rules for Art and the Zee Man and the rest of us on this blog and a completely different set of rules for Bush. And that's the relevance to this thread.
VC
It is obvious!! Still not relevant.
VC....I didn't imply anything. You continue to make your own determination of what someone was saying rather than just read posts as they are presented. I can trust Zeeman and I don't believe he deliberately was trying to mislead. But inaccurate statements are frequent. Why is the truth so hard to accept?
Whenever a person cannot argue a point that another person has made, they always claim that the point is not relevant.
This thread is about the Zee Man saying something inaccurate. Thinker responded using words like, "carelessness," "accuracy," "a pattern." I simply pointed out that one could say the same things about Bush, but when HE does it, it's overlooked.
There's the relevance whether you like it or not.
Yada,
Speaking of relevance, what was the relevance of the Zee Man inadvertently saying "Helen" when he meant to say "Alan?" It was a simple mistake and Art corrected it and that should have been the end of if. But noooooo! Thinker had to jump in with, "Just one more example of carelessness." Interesting that you didn't stand up to Thinker and ask him what the big deal is. Yeah, I'm sure neither one of you has ever misspoken in your lives...
Cowgirl--- Thanks. I couldn't agree with you more.
The Zee Man is responsible for all the verbal comments.
As soon as I noted his error, I saw fit to correct it via a posting.
I thought it would not generate a single response, but as you so astutely noted, Cox felt compelled, as usual to say something nasty.
I think we'll just have to expect nothing more and accept from "whence it comes."
This whole stream is a group of postings run amok. Zee Man makes a 'mistake' and a bunch of 'chicken littles' come into play. THIS IS MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING and has spiraled downwards from there.
Now, VC, I do have a comment relative to your utilizing politicization as a footing for trying to get a point across.I have stated several times befor that party politics has no place defining our local issues. As many of you know OV OT and I have butted heads on more than one occasion but I, like him, voted twice for George W. Bush. I, though a registered independant, am of the Republican philosophy because I believe in the reasoning behind the original 'setup' of the way this country was supposed to work. I am a conservative because I believe in a narrow interpretation of the constitution. Now, does this make me prone to accept the 'lies' that come out of Washington? Absolutely not! Can Mr. Bush be held accountable for all of the lies that come out of Washington? Absolutely not! Am I anti 'social' because of my political bent? Absolutely not!Is rampant and perhaps overly greedy capitalism simply a republican/conservative thing? Absolutely not! Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives - they are ALL up to their eyeballs in being part of the problems that our country is now facing and many of their motivations are suspect.
Did Clinton lie, did Gore lie, has Bush lied, has McCain lied, has Obama lied? Probably they all have, and ALL willingly and with knowledge of the fact.
In the first course in logic that I took when I was in 'advanced' education, an example of flawed logic was presented:
ALL DOGS ARE ANIMALS
ALL MEN ARE ANIMALS
THEREFOR:
ALL MEN ARE DOGS
Careful of your comparisons, VC,they may dilute the potential veracity of your commentary.
How's this:
OV OT VOTED FOR BUSH TWICE
ZEV CYWAN VOTED FOR BUSH TWICE
THEREFOR:
OV OT AND ZEV CYWAN THINK ALIKE
I DON'T THINK SO!(LOL OT)
To all I will repeat - let's keep our political bents out of our local politics!!!
ZEV.....Cut and paste the following as it may not be repeated often. But know that when true, I am the first to jump on board!!!
Zev has framed the issue perfectly in my opinion and I applaude him for his astute and (somewhat) consise presentation. :-)
WELL DONE, ZEV!!!
Zev,
It's tough to keep our "political bents" out of these conversations because our political persuasions are so often implied in what people say and do and think. For example, Thinker called it a "political buddy set-up" or something to that effect when Carter motioned to extend Doug McKee's appointment to the P&Z. Then I watched as Loomis and Kunisch voted to appoint Cox and Dankwerth to the Board of Adj. even after hearing numerous complaints from citizens as to why these two should not be appointed. Loomis, Kunisch, Cox and Dankwerth are all Republicans. Was it a coincidence that Loomis and Kunisch ignored the pleas of citizens in this regard? No. It was the political buddy system at work...in this case, the Republican political buddy system. So it DOES affect local politics, too.
I know that you and some others on this site don't like it when I bring up party politics, but on the other hand, I've received private e-mails from others who tell me not to back down on this issue. But actually, when I DO bring it up, for me it's more about the hypocrisy than it is about the party politics. But because the hypocrisy is DUE TO the party politics, well, one thing runs into the other.
VC….
My use of the term political in the KC/McKee comment had nothing to do with republican or democratic politics. There is more meaning to the word than ‘R’s & D’s’. It’s kind of like “emergency”.
As for partisan politics the person who spoke against me is a Republican, which kind of blows your R & D political theory.
I would also point out that out of 42,000+ citizens in Oro Valley, having one person stand and voice opposition certainly shouldn’t sway a Town Council…..unless, of course, four members of the Council had discussed this in advance. I believe your characterization of the events of the evening (“numerous complaints from citizens”) is a bit skewed.
So, VC, you think that 'party politics' is a Republican thing? Do you think that the 'buddy system' is a Republican thing? Do you KNOW for a fact that Loomis and Kunisch voted in the manner that they did because of a conscious (or even unconscious)
effort to keep the Town in a format for Republicanism? What issue is it that your private e-mails tell you not to back down on? If it is that you should continue to inject party politics into these discourses, then I will convey to you that those who sent you those e-mails are enveloped in political ignorance, a kind of ignorance about which I am tired.
I could cite many cases of Democrat
malfeasance and hypocracy both outside of and within this community; but, I prefer not to get into a political stream of who did this or who did that or who said this or who said that and lay the blame to their party politics.
As you should know, I have not been known to tip-toe through this blog site; I do try to be issue based (and, yes, a person, under certain circumstances, can be an issue), and I don't try to 'pin' things on what I believe to be irrelevant political speculations. Whether or not one might think that a person acts in a particular manner because of his or her overall political philosophies, unless otherwise proven, is merely being suggestive and therefor in a weak position to proclaim.
I, too, have received personal e-mails as well as other types of communications, and, to the contrary of what you have portrayed, they have re-enforced my claim of need for keeping party orientation out of our local governance - and these contacts, VC, have come from BOTH sides of the political fence. PLEASE!
Thinker,
I know the person who spoke against you is a Republican. But she is unlike many Republicans in that she believes that issues come before party. The type of party politics I refer to and the political buddy system I refer to comes from the type of people who ALWAYS put party first, the type who will defend their candidate no matter what. This doesn't just happen on the national level, it happens on the local level as well, which is why I think it's absurd to say that we can't mention the elephant in the room. Party politics is a FACT, certain people basing their decisions solely on what party they belong to is a FACT. Now all of a sudden you want to eliminate FACTS from the discussion!
In case anyone has forgotten, I'll remind them that I am an Independent. I have worked on campaigns for both Republicans and Democrats over the years because I vote based on issues not party.
Regarding numerous complaints from citizens, I had spoken privately with one of the council members about this issue and that person told me that they had already received "numerous complaints" so there were many more complaints received than just those that were expressed at the podium that night.
Zev,
I never said that party politics was a Republican thing, I said, "in this case" it was, although I do believe it's stronger on that side. From what I've witnessed over the years, Republicans are much more loyal to their party than Democrats are. Just to point out one recent event, look what happened when Hillary lost the nomination and many of her supporters said they are so angry that they will vote for McCain instead. There's party loyalty for you! You don't see that happening with Republicans.
I'm not sure why you think that those who are aware of what goes on in party politics are guilty of "political ignorance." Being aware is the exact opposite of being ignorant.
My contacts also come from both sides of the political fence.
And just what is the "need" for keeping party orientation out of these blog discussions?
All,
If we can't mention party politics because we might offend Zev, and we can't discuss our opinions which may or may not be based on fact because we might offend Thinker, and we can't have opinions that are emotion-based because Thinker can't handle that either, and we can't discuss Wal-Mart because we'll offend Wal-Mart shoppers who label us elitists, then just what are we allowed to discuss here anyway??!!
Brad and Angelina?
VC...I have no objection to emotion based opinions as long as they don't overwhelmingly obscure the true issue. When emotion clouds reality then someone needs to step in and remind folks what is real and what is emotion. And you are absolutely correct when you say that I have difficulty dealing with statements that are not factual. Other word for that are lie or deception. I think you would agree with that.
And I can guess who the other council person was and I can guess where the other complaints came from....that doesn't take much detective work. :-)I also know where the papers originated that Ms. Ottobani submitted to the Clerk. Did you know that the "quotes" she was refering to were from 3,4 and 5 year old letters to the editor when I was being critical of the very people you(pl)wanted out of office? Isn't that ironic?
VC
1)I never said that [those that are aware are guilty of political ignorance]; that is an entirely misguided statement on your part.
2)As for the need to keep political orientations out of these blog discussions, unless party politics is the discussion in itself or is a definitive and accurate basis for a particular subject, I don't see it other than that as an irrelevant means of attack.
3) That you include "if we can't mention party politics because we might offend Zev" in your
list of issues, is a distortion of the intent, meaning, and content of my post.
So said, we have agreed on many things, VC, and, all in all I have a great deal of respect for you and your posts; let's try to get back to the real subject matters that affect us all - those things pertinent to the quality and governance of our Town.
Zev,
I was referring to your statement, "those who sent you those e-mails are enveloped in political ignorance." We were discussing e-mails I received from people who think we SHOULD include political party comments in our discussions if it's relevant to the discussion.
Actually, my initial post on this topic that got some of you so upset was really about hypocrisy and not about political orientation. Thinker made an issue about a misstatement by the Zee Man, so I pointed out to Thinker that he voted for Bush twice despite ALL of the misstatements HE had made. And hey, when you're talking "misstatements" who better to reference than Bush?
Everyone on this blog has their own hot button issue. For Thinker, it's "facts," for Zev it's "party politics" and for me it's "hypocrisy" also known as "one set of rules for those I like and another set of rules for those I don't." That was really the only point I was attempting to make.
My other hot button issue is when someone puts a spin on something to make it look like something else. Example: when Parish said, "I fought to keep pornography out of the library and Salette fought to keep it in!"
No...Salette fought to keep medical information available at the library. What if Salette had said, "I fought to keep medical information available at the library and Terry Parish fought to keep it out." I'll bet Thinker would have jumped all over that and accused her of "misleading" the voters, but when Parish did it, Thinker was mute. Well, I guess that takes me back to hypocrisy...
Thinker,
The only time a non-factual statement is a lie or a deception is when the statement is made deliberately. If it's an honest mistake, such as Zee Man saying Helen instead of Alan, then it's not a lie and I hope you would be objective enough to agree with that.
Questions for OV Objective Thinker and other experts in this area.
Are decisions made by the Board of Adjustment considered administrative or legislative here in OV?
Say xyz wants a rezoning from medium high density to high density. First it would go to Zoning, correct?
Ok, say Zoning says No to XYZ. Does XyZ go to the Board of Adjustment or do they appeal to the town council?
Does each municipality get to determine if the decisions of the Board of Adjustment are to be considered Legislative or Administrative?
Ok, when the decision was made that it was within the zoning code to allow the crematorium, was that decision made by town staff planning director or was it made by planning & zoning or the Board of Adjustment?
Hope I used the correct terminology.
Ms. Coyote-
Decisions of the BoA are neither - they are a quasi-judicial body so their decisions are about applying law to facts. If someone does not like the decision the BoA makes, their recourse is to challenge it in court. All of this is set up in state law.
A rezoning goes first to the P&Z Commission for recommendation and then to Council for a decision. P&Z makes no final decisions, they are only a recommending body After that, the next avenue is court - the BoA has no part in rezonings.
As for the funeral home, there was an interpretation by the Zoning Administrator that the zoning code allowed crematoria as an analgous use to a funeral home. This normally would have been an issue the BoA could have heard an appeal on, but a year passed before any attempt was made to appeal the interpretation. The zoning code states appeals must be filed 30 days from the interpretation. At that time, the judge who decided the court case ruled the neighbors had missed their window to appeal.
Thanks Cyclone. This does get a bit confusing : )
So then does P & Z grant or approve Special Use Permits or Conditional Use Permits? These decisions are subject to the referendum process, correct?
Also the 30 day window that you spoke of, the town set the 30 days not the state. Meaning the process or right to an appeal is a state law but the time frame is subject to town regulations.
Meaning OV could amend that to say 60 days or xxx days.
In some towns P & Z has the final say and all towns have different codes for these diferent boards & commissions at least that is what I am understanding.
So the town zoning official made the determnation about the funeral home and then planning and zoning recommended approval to council.
So could the council have voted No at that point.
Thanks for taking the time to help.
Is all of this info included in the Citizens Planning Institute course?
Ms. Coyote...
I'll try and answer some of your questions and Cyclone can fill in the blanks I leave.
Conditional use permit requests are heard by the P&Z after public notice and public hearing and then forwarded with recommendation to the Town Council (TC). The TC then has final approval. I believe these are considered administrative decisions and therefore would not be subject to the referendum process. Most, if not all, conditional uses are outlined in the zoning code.
The 30 day requirement is stated in the Oro Valley Zoning Code however I cannot state with certainty that it is not a mirror of state law. It may be local as you suggest. (GOOD QUESTION)
As far as I know the ONLY request that the P&Z has final approval upon in a Type II Home Occupation Permit and that is granted only after proper public notice and a public hearing is held. Conditions may, and often are, placed on Home Occupation Permits.
Regarding your last comment about the funeral home. There are several determinations that can be made by the Planning and Zoning Director and these too are spelled out in the Zoning Code. When those determinations are made they do not come before the P&Z nor do they go to the Town Council. The Town Council does however grant the P&Z Director this right when they adopt the zoning code in question. I do believe however, and this is an opinion and not based on any case history, that once a determination has been made the Council could review the decision if questioned shortly thereafter.
I believe Mr. Gillaspie has made the suggestion that once such a determination on a particular use has been made, public notice be given. Whether that has been approved at this point, I simply don't know.
You are correct about all towns and cities being potentially different. Some don't have P&Z Commissions and either farm that review out or allow the governing body to make the only determination. The same is true for the Development Review Board (DRB)
I would be happy to loan you my copy of the zoning code which also outlines the duties of the Board of Adjustment and the DRB. There probably has been some minor changes but it's fairly up to date.
VC
A quick statement and then I'm outta here. At the beginning of your last post you you started with quoting me as writing: "those who sent you those e-mails are enveloped in political ignorance." You took this quote OUT OF CONTEXT and therefor YOUR PORTRAYAL IS JADED.
As to your 'hot button' analysis, only when one assigns a POLITICAL LABEL that has a stereotypical ring to it does it become a 'hot button' issue with me.
VC, I think we can move on to better things; I had NOT intended this banter to get personal or acrimonious.
Conditional use permits are tricky as in some jurisdictions they may be a legislative decision, and therfore subject to referendum, and it some they may be administrative and therefore not - it all depends on how the code is written. Special use permits, in oro valley, are reviewed adminstratively and granted bythe Zoning Adminstrator.
P&Z had no part in the funeral home decision. There was no rezoning or CUP so all that was required was development review by DRB and approval by Council. Development plans are administrative decisions that basically have to be approved if the plan meets the zoning code.
State statute says BoA appeals of administrative decisions are to occur in a "reasonable" amount of time. In OV, that's 30 days. I am not sure what other jurisdictions consider a "reasonable" amount of time.
BoA and P&Z are creatures of state law, so while they may differ slightly from city to city, town to town, for the most part their functions and process are the same. Other boards, such as DRB, HPC are creations of the Town and therefore may be vastly different between jurisdictions.
Post a Comment