LOVE: Let Oro Valley Excel: Is It All About "Sour Grapes" With Don Cox?

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Is It All About "Sour Grapes" With Don Cox?

Is it nothing more than sour grapes with Don Cox? After being turned down in his attempt to get back on the Planning & Zoning Commission, Cox thought the best he could do would be to denigrate Council Member KC Carter & Planning & Zoning Chairperson Doug McKee.

Doug was recently offered a 6 month extension to his 4 year term on P & Z in order to help the community as there are 5 potential General Plan amendments upcoming, and two members of the commission will not continue their service. Doug thought his knowledge & expertise might be useful to the community. (Yes Doug! You are a valuable asset to Oro Valley!)

Doug's intention was to volunteer to continue on to better serve our town, whereas, he could have left P & Z and volunteered for another Board or Commission position. But Cox, who always seems to suggest he knows everything about everybody couldn't accept that. No! He'd rather come up with some ignorant reason why KC and the council (other than Loomis & Kunisch) voted to allow Doug to continue his service.

Below are Cox' comments from a recent posting alluding to the extension of Doug McKee's term as a volunteer on the P & Z commission, that he now chairs.

OV Objective Thinker said...: "There is a Town policy that was enacted several years ago that set term limits for people serving on Boards and Commissions. This policy was part of a number of recommendations forwarded by a citizens committee. IT WAS THE CITIZENS THAT WANTED THE TERM LIMITS.

If this Council wishes to change the Town policy, then change the policy and go forward. Don't violate the policy just because it's your buddy.

All of a sudden, when it fits your agenda, you want the Council to violate Town policy and ignore the citizens wishes.
This was petty politics forwarded by a petty politician and the lemmings just following along in a row. Not good!!!

I know Doug (McKee). I also know KC Carter VERY well. I know the relationship between KC and Doug. On this subject I am eminently qualified to speak. This was a political buddy set up.

KC paid off his buddy for past favors. KC violated every standard for allowing qualified candidates to sit on P&Z. MARK my words....this will come back to haunt him!!!"

As far as we are concerned, Cox once again proves one thing. With him, it's all about HIM! Sour Grapes seem to be at the forefront of this most recent tirade.

53 comments:

travelling dancer said...: Excuse me, but I am a bit confused. OV thinker stated that a few years ago there were term limits put on Boards and Commissions. If that is so, then what are all these Reappointments for the various Boards and Commissions. If they can reappointment these other individuals then why is it not possible to reappoint Mr. Mckee?; June 10, 2008 at 9:26 PM
artmarth said...: "Dancer"--- Doug served what is presently considered the max. term of 4 years on P & Z. The issue is, at this time his term was due to expire in June, whereas terms should expire on Dec 31.
Hopefully, the OV Council will discuss this issue at a forthcoming "retreat" and rectify this disparity.

The point is, Cox, as always, thinks he knows what's best for Oro Valley, and indicates how well he knows Doug & KC.

Previously, he noted how well he knows Barry DiSimone when he saw fit to say nasty things about him.

How in world Cox is up for appointment to the Board of Adjustment is mind boggling. Let's just hope none of us find ourselves in front of that committee which will include Cox & Alan Dankwerth, among others.; June 10, 2008 at 9:41 PM
OV Objective Thinker said...: The only thing sour around here is Mr. Segal.

Mr. Segal has never served on day of public serive to this community on a board or commission. As far as I know he has never even made an attempt to apply. There is probably a good reason for that, but I won't get into those details. The bottom line is that Mr. Segal has little to offer this community in the way of a constructive contribution.

As I have stated before and will say again...

If there was any other Chairperson on the P&Z who had termed out, Mr. Carter wouldn't have lifted a finger to retain that person. Maybe Mr. Carter and/or Mr. McKee would like to post some rebuttal to that statement rather than send their attack puppy out to speak for them.

Doug has done a good job on the P&Z and for that all of us are grateful aand we thank him for his service. But the policy is for folks to serve two terms. The Council reaffirmed that position as part of it's May 21st agenda. One meeting later two members reversed their position.

Everyone should note that Mr. Segal offers not one shred of reason or logic for the retention of Mr. McKee. The only point of his posting was to attack me. That's all Segal knows how to do. He is a professional at empty rhetoric.

As for my potential service on the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Segal and all others will recieve the same fair, courteous, objective treatment that was my history on the P&Z. That's the best I can offer.; June 11, 2008 at 10:05 PM
artmarth said...: Don Cox--- You are, without doubt, a mean-spirited person.
You never learn. You continue to denigrate others with total disdain.

You write, "Mr. Segal has never served on day of public service to this community on a board or commission. As far as I know he has never even made an attempt to apply. There is probably a good reason for that, but I won't get into those details."

Your innuendo that there is a good reason for that, but "I won't get into those details" is despicable, but not unexpected from you. I challenge you to substantiate that asinine comment!

As far as my service to the community, it is twofold.

1) I helped get Paula Abbott elected & reelected; I helped get KC Carter elected & reelected I helped get Bill Garner & Salette Latas elected.

2) I did a big service to the town by helping to defeat you in your attempt to get on the council in 2000 & 2004.

As far as continuing your diatribe on Doug McKee & KC Carter, you are not smart enough to know when to shut up. It is time!; June 12, 2008 at 6:27 AM
OV Objective Thinker said...: Art....

Since you were so kind as to quote me, allow me to quote you.

"Don Cox--- You are, without doubt, a mean-spirited person."

"You continue to denigrate others with total disdain."

"Your innuendo that there is a good reason for that, but "I won't get into those details" is despicable, but not unexpected from you. I challenge you to substantiate that asinine comment!"

I believe that you are the one that posted the "sour grapes" theory. Why do you think it is OK to sit on your perch and take shots at me?

The truth is that you haven't held any position on a board or commission. A check of the public records indicates that you have never applied. If you would like to post some information that proves either one of those statements to be false, please do so. There must be a reason(s) for that. What it is, or they are, I have no clue. Again you may wish to post some information to enlighten us.

My opinion is, and since you asked, that you have a reputation as being an argumentative, close-minded person. You frequently make statements which you present as truthful or fact which prove to be inaccurate or patently false. That's a by-product of your refusal to take the time to do any research. You type and sometimes talk before you think through the subject matter. That is not the kind of person that is compatable with service on a commission or board.

Taking credit for getting folks elected, or not elected, is not what most right-minded folks would consider community service. But if you are comfortable with that, that's all that counts.

By the way, you have yet to give any response as to the logic behind retaining Doug. If you can come up with any please let all of your fans know what it is. We are sitting on the edge of our chairs out here waiting for some logical explanation. Without any logical explanation we are left to speculate and I haven't heard any one come up with anything that would refute my allegations.

So Art, for once, as hard as it may be, make an attempt to post something that deals specifically with the subject matter (Doug's retention) and not take shots at one of your most loyal contributors.; June 12, 2008 at 9:47 AM
Victorian Cowgirl said...: Thinker,

So what if Art or anyone else hasn't held a position on a board or commission? Because you HAVE done this, you use this as your meter for determining who is good and useful and who isn't. You imply that that's the ONLY type of community service that matters. That's a very narrow-minded view.

Volunteering your time to help get someone elected to office is also a form of community service. Police and firefighters perform community service. Are they somehow less than you if they haven't also served on some board?

Regarding Doug McKee's 6-month term extension, you said, "We are sitting on the edge of our chairs out here waiting for some logical explanation."

All you have to do is watch the video of the council meeting from last Wednesday to hear the arguments for extending his term. You could also read the article that was in the AZ Star. There is a link to the article on the LOVE website. It's no big secret why his term was extended. The arguments for doing this WERE "logical" which you would know if you would stop being so closed-minded.

If you really believe that Doug did a good job on the P&Z, why are you soooo angry that his term was extended for a measly 6 months? It's not like he is planning to destroy the town. I have to wonder why you get so angry about such inconsequential stuff. Really, Thinker, in the grand scheme of things, this is NOTHING.; June 12, 2008 at 11:26 AM
artmarth said...: Cowgirl--- Why is Cox so angry at Doug McKee, KC, Barry DiSimone, me and others?

That's because of his mean-spirited attitude. As for Doug, Cox obviously thought he'd get that position, but "it ain't business as usual" in Oro Valley.

And as for Cox thinking this blog needs him, he ought to think again. If he disappears, this blog will continue to thrive and make a contribution to the community.; June 12, 2008 at 11:57 AM
yada yada yada said...: Interesting forum for exchange of ideas.; June 12, 2008 at 12:47 PM
artmarth said...: "Yada"--- Good observation. Sorry it has come to this. Perhaps Cox will realize we don't need him, and we can get back to the important issues.

Art; June 12, 2008 at 12:53 PM
cyclone1 said...: If that were true, Art, then why did you feel the need to devote an entire posting to him? Ever heard the expression - "Don't poke the bear"? And just for the record, I have no opinion on either you or Mr. Cox, but I find the banter between the two of you devolves rather quickly into who has the biggest rock. We get it, you can make fun of him for not having been elected, and he can make fun of you for not having served on a board or commission. The fact is you are both concerned, involved residents of Oro Valley - leave it at that and move on with your lives.; June 12, 2008 at 3:52 PM
yada yada yada said...: I too question why only OVOT's comment was singled out from a previous post. Was is meant to "stir the pot?" Anyway, like to read both sides and come to my own conclusions. If this blog was all one-sided, I wouldn't bother.; June 12, 2008 at 4:11 PM
artmarth said...: A quick response to "cyclone" & "yada"---

The fact is on an earlier posting,Cox saw fit to introduce the issue of Doug McKee being approved for an extended 6 month term, by denigrating both Doug & KC Carter.

It was not the first time he has used disparaging terms towards individuals, and he has been told on a few occasions that is unacceptable.

Hopefully,you both can accept my response---and hopefully, we can move forward.

Comments for or against a position I may take are welcome here. Denigrating others,is not. Cox seems to be the only one who fails to understand that.; June 12, 2008 at 6:53 PM
boobie-baby said...: Artmarth,

Actually, amid all the other junk, Don asks a good question: Why do you not choose to volunteer your expertise, opinions and experience to serve on a formal committee or board for the town? I ask the question in all seriousness without any idea of what the so-called "innuendo" is. It's admirable to work for the election of representatives, but OV has such a wealth of volunteer opportunities (library, police, more formal committees) that I wonder what your reason is.; June 13, 2008 at 9:35 AM
artmarth said...: "B-B"--- Although I have no interest in responding to Cox, I will give you (and anyone else that may be interested,) my reply.

I must say, I'd much prefer responding to a name, but inasmuch as you, and others choose to use a pseudonym, so be it.

I have spent years as a volunteer serving my HOA (La Reserve) in a number of capacities, and I would hope you (and others) will see that as service to the community.

Additionally, I, along with my good friend Dick (Zee Man) volunteered to start this blog 1 1/2 years ago, and many of our friends & neighbors consider this a service to the community.

I do not take the fact lightly, as I previously noted, helping to get Bill & Salette elected (replacing Dankwerth & Parish) was as positive a thing that I could have accomplished had I been on any board or commission.

I accept the fact, although you choose to remain anonymous, that you do serve the community, (as you noted in an earlier comment on OV history & Steam Pump Ranch.)

However. I hope you can appreciate that as the person responsible for attempting to keep our neighbors informed as to the goings on in Oro Valley (via this blog,) takes quite a lot of time. I say that, not as a complaint, but a point of fact.

I trust my response meets with your approval.; June 13, 2008 at 12:04 PM
yada yada yada said...: If I may……using a pseudonym is my preferred way of communicating on this blog. I might note that the instructions to begin blogging is to have fun selecting a pseudonym. That aside, whether someone wants to share comments shouldn’t matter if they use their real identity or choose to remain anonymous. I think the point of this blog is to share ideas. Art, your blog is one way to read other’s viewpoints, but I don’t always find factual information here. That is why an informed individual needs to look elsewhere for the facts. Your blog is just one of those sources. There is a lot of emotion and often questions asked of individuals that don’t pertain to the issues. I have noticed many of the postings receive “0” comments, while posts that slam or personally attack individuals seem to be the most popular.

I was once accused of not having anything to add to the blog because I had never responded before. I said it then and I will say it again…..it is not the quantity but the quality of the comments.; June 13, 2008 at 1:43 PM
OV Objective Thinker said...: Cowgirl(Ladies first).....

There are two things about the Carter/McKee action that I question. Obviously I have not done a good job expressing them. Please don't interpret my objection as anger.

First of all, we have a Town policy that was established as a result of extensive citizen input. I happen to personally disagree with the term limit policy but it is the policy of the Town. If the policy needs to be changed for some reason, then it is the responsibility of the Council to change it, not violate it.

Changing that policy was brought before the Council on May 7. Barry Gillaspie was the only member that stated that the policy needed to be changed. Ms. Abbott argued that the policy needed to be followed as did Loomis, Kunisch. Carter, as usual, offered no comments. The consensus of the Council was not to change the policy but to have a study session in July or August and comprehensively review the matter. Less than one month later, it becomes,"an extreme situation that calls for extreme measures" (Abbott's words). What happened in those few short days that created an "extreme situation"?

Secondly, real reason behind the extension is that Doug is Carter's right hand. As I have said many times before, if any other person was 'terming out' besides Doug, Carter wouldn't lift a finger. I don't mean to deminish the work Doug has done on the P&Z, but there is nothing on the horizon that couldn't be accomplished very well without him. The Vice Chair Teree Bergman is very capable and has far more planning and zoning experience than does Doug. Messrs Adler, Paolino and Redden are quite capable of providing leadership to three new commissioners, if needed,as is the Planning and Zoning Staff.

Let me also point out that many of the posters on this blog, including yourself, have battered the Town for what you see as violating the will of the people, not listening to the people, violating Town policy, etc. However when something goes 'your way', even though it does all of the above, that OK. It's the epitome of a double standard.

Art,

You continue to dodge the issue. What is your opinion on THE ISSUE. We all know what your opinion of me is but that's wasn't the issue brought forth. Do us a favor and explain your position.

By the way, I have been nothing but complimentary of Doug McKee and his work on the P&Z. Remember Art, I was one of the three votes that put him on the P&Z. You seem to forget that little tidbit of history.

Cyclone, Yada, Boobie..... I think it is obvious what Mr. Segal's goal was by creating the original posting. It should also give you crystal clear insight into how objective he is and how objective he wants this blog to be.

He also stated in one of his replies that, I thought I would get Doug McKee's job. This is another example of his irrational thinking. There is no logical way that comment can be explained other than a form of taking a shot at me.

One of his favorite words is "denigrate". According to Art, when I disagree with someone or point out what I believe to be their irresponsible actions, I am denigrating. However when he refers to me as "ignorant", and "despicable"(by the way that was a favorite word from one of the Looney Tunes cartoon characters) it's his form of community service. Go figure!!!

But stay tuned, I am sure there will be more anti-Don Cox postings in the future.; June 14, 2008 at 7:41 AM
boobie-baby said...: Art,
Since you've lived in OV for many years and have certainly taken time to attend Council meetings and provide your opinions, I still don't understand your unwillingness to volunteer formally for the town. The fact that you run this blog is not an excuse because you certainly had enough time on your hands before this blog ever started.

Let me take a guess here: It's much more fun to sit at the computer and initiate or respond to those who post here then to put yourself out in public where you can be part of the decision-making process or helping to make the town better by being, at least, a library volunteer.

The Doug McKee situation is smaller than a molehill compared to the mountain. Yes, he's attached at the hip to KC Carter, and 6 more months is not going to kill anyone. But Councils cannot selectively choose to ignore their own policies and procedures when it suits them.

As for anonymity, I choose to do so because I believe that my postings will be taken (slightly) more seriously, and so that that my postings don't divolve into an Art Segal/Don Cox personality- driven tit-for-tat.; June 14, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Zev Cywan said...: Severl blogs ago when I questioned the use of the word EMERGENCY as utilized in the Town provision for [extended construction hours] and having posted the definition of the WORD as designated in the Merriam-Webster disctionary, 2 attempts were made to justify the usage of this WORD in said application (I personally believe that the term EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES would have been a more appropriate application). In response, cyclone1, without demeaning me or my post, but purporting agreement with OV OT, simply replied that "the legislature takes a different stint on the definition of (the word/application) emergency"; on the other hand, OV OT, dripping with sarcasm wrote: "when everybody else is satisfied with the explanation, leave it to Zev to not understand". He went on to state "there are many words in the standard dictionary that may take on another additional meaning in legal settings or legislative settings".

Note: unfortunately there seems to be a new 'breed' of parsers in governments (not just ours) who think they can 'adapt' words not just in context but in the acual meanings of the words themselves. I have not seen that 'legalese' might include a new dictionary in progress.

So now, OV OT, after having agreed with the 'toyed', legally ambiguous provisions for construction hour extension, and thus supporting it, however thinks that an allowance for the extension of service for volunteer, Doug McKee, is a [blatent disregard for 'rule'] and in such presentation he attempts to demean the approval given, rages at (and threatens) K.C. Carter, bloats his own qualifications, etc. I was at that meeting and I felt BOTH sides had valid argument! However, it appeared that by Mr. Kunisch's own statements, it was felt that the timelines for terms of service were in question and were in the process of being reassesed. Because of such and in consideration that because of the myriad of amendments that were/are in continuum of progress and whose conclusions are to be forthcoming, though the term was not used, an EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE was, for me, in play.

If presented with REASONABLE fact and opinion, postings, without invective, would most certainly lead to more mature and productive discussion; constant denigration and irrelavent flap leads nowhere. There are legitimate means for dissection of a post; 'slash and burn' is not one of them.

As to whether or not one might serve as a public servant is not a true measure of those contributions a person might make to his/her community. Some people might prefer to work in the background, some might be restrained by age and/or physical limitations, some might prefer debate, some might have other 'causes' to which they contribute, and some might not be available 100% of the time or be available at beck and call. Involvement takes on many faces and, if sincerely directed, than I would deem that person to be of equal stature to any other.; June 14, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Victorian Cowgirl said...: I agree with Zev as to some of the reasons why someone might not be available to be a public servant. It involves a set schedule and if someone has any type of medical issue, they might not be able to meet the demands of that schedule.

For example, if someone has respiratory problems, they might not be able to leave their house when it's humid or when it's an ozone day so they would miss a lot of meetings in the summer months. So it's better for them to not offer their services than to offer them and then not be able to fulfill the obligation. Health issues are the reason that I do not volunteer any longer for anything that requires a set schedule. But I'm still happy to volunteer for things where I can set my own schedule or work from home.

Regarding McKee's extension, you asked, "What happened in those few short days that created an "extreme situation"? That's actually a good question and it would be interesting to find out. But because I trust Paula Abbbott and know that she always works for the citizens, I would expect the answer to be a logical one. I really don't think that anything underhanded took place here.

You said, "its the epitome of a double standard." Well, if a policy can be changed immediately for a developer without the benefit of a study session just by "declaring an emergency to exist" then why can't this same "emergency" clause be applied to everything else that is deemed to need immediate action? One set of rules for developers...another set of rules for everyone else. Isn't that a double standard?

Regarding definitions and how they change depending on whose using them, well, I guess that depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.

I couldn't resist.; June 14, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Zev Cywan said...: Very good, Cowgirl! I'm wordy, you're succinct but we agree. I love the correlation in your last line - very appropriate!; June 14, 2008 at 11:17 AM
yada yada yada said...: Defending why someone does or does not volunteer is not really the issue here. Frankly, volunteering for a commission and putting yourself out there really takes a strong personality. Bottom line is, the boards and commission members are volunteers and not a group of town government professionals or lawyers. Hopefully those dedicated volunteers are doing it for the right reasons and not for a personal agenda.

Also, another observation......Paula Abbott and logical in the same sentence is a stretch as is "Don Cox, as always thinks he knows what is best for OV." Invective to some, not to others.; June 14, 2008 at 12:08 PM
OV Objective Thinker said...: Cowgirl....I might have agreed with Zev but I didn't understand exactly what he was trying to say.

The change in policy you referenced was done after a public hearing was held. Had Mr. Carter followed the normal procedure for change an "emergency" could have been declared, I suppose, and the change could have been immediate. Had Mr. Carter forseen a problem he could have initiated this change in a timely manner. It was simply an attempt at backdoor politics and should not have happened.

Unfortunately I do not share your faith in Paula. She does little research, has a very small group with whom she communicates and is very easily swayed by others. The fact that she misses so many meetings just adds to her lack of things current. I believe the "extreme situation" was the fact that Carter observed (and shuddered) what she had said in the May discussion and urged/begged her to change her opinion. Other than that NOTHING changed.

As for you last comment...

A long debate could take place about the definition of "is". However I am simply happy that Clinton IS out. One more story about landing under heavy gunfire and I think I would have to seek therapy!!! :-) Art probably thinks I should anyway.; June 14, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Victorian Cowgirl said...: We all need therapy. Maybe we can get a group rate!; June 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM
boobie-baby said...: Well, if nothing else, OV OT (Cox) has put himself out there publicly for election, no small feat in itself. Until you've run for office, you really can't imagine how difficult it is and how bruised you can get. A long time ago, in another state in a different era, I did it, and I'm still thinking about therapy!

The odd thing here is that KC was re-elected with the largest majority of all of the candidates in 2006, and Paula retained her seat by 2 votes. I will subject myself to innumerable hate blog entries, but I have to say that the two of them together don't have the I.Q. of a box of hair. Their comments are usually inane, their votes frequently counter to the law (and they are on the losing side in those votes) and they have trouble following even slightly sophisticated arguments.
Oh well, OV, I guess that's who we want to make decisions for us.

We can hope that Bill and Salette will at least attend meetings, stay awake, and familiarize themselves with the laws and policies of the town in order to counter-balance the vapidness that KC and Paula represent. In fact, I doubt that they could even spell the word "vapidness."

OK, don't all line up at once to throw things at me....; June 14, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Zev Cywan said...: boobie-baby, I find some of your comments to be elitist, perhaps even a bit self-indulgent. I personally do not think that is a necessary ingredient in explaining others. However, I do appreciate and enjoy reading your posts, so, please keep them coming.; June 14, 2008 at 3:56 PM
artmarth said...: Boobie-Baby---

Don't you think it shows a mean spirited attitude to denigrate Paula & KC when you write "the two of them together don't have the I.Q. of a box of hair."

That's easy for you to say while you hide behind your pseudonym.

Paula Abbott put up with more unwarranted disdain when she was the single voice of the people and was constantly being scorned by Johnson, Rochman, Wolff & Loomis.

This continued, perhaps to a lesser extent with the two subsequent councils.

As for KC, thankfully he was elected & reelected to serve his constituents.

Although I do not agree with them on every issue, I have had the pleasure of speaking to them both on numerous occasions. They both exhibit quite a bit of intelligence and thoughtful consideration of the issues.

Being on what you perceive as "the losing" side does not indicate Paula & KC were wrong.

Too many times, the so-called intelligent members made decisions with unintended consequences.

Thank goodness, we now have a council with a lot more common sense than in previous years, and I expect KC & Paula will no longer be on "the losing side."; June 14, 2008 at 4:50 PM
boobie-baby said...: Nope, not mean-spirited or self indulgent--just telling the truth as I see it. Elitist? How could ANYBODY in Oro Valley be considered elitist? (Does anyone here appreciate irony?).

KC and Paula--nice enough people, well-intentionted. But try to leave a message for Paula in her voice mail; try to get an answer from her via snail mail; try to find her in her office at Town Hall. KC--a misogynist, past his "sell-by" date who has had to be counseled about the way he treats women who work for the Town; a man who can't remember the names of his own department heads. Oh yeah--a great twosome they are.

But, you dance with the one who brung you, so dance away!; June 14, 2008 at 5:29 PM
yada yada yada said...: Art,

The losing side are the registered voters of OV who chose not to cast a ballot...their mistake. How can you determine that we now have a council that uses common sense when they have only been seated for one meeting. Their vote on one issue has garnered 28 comments on this post and a like number on a previous post. I wait in great anticipation for this second coming you proclaim.

Meanwhile, I'll just continue to read the General Plan, Stratigic Plan, view the meetings videos, etc.; June 14, 2008 at 8:36 PM
Zev Cywan said...: yada,
Those who chose not to vote cannot be considered to be on any side; by not voting, in essense, they chose to be neutral or disinterested. These were mail-in ballots, so, any excuse is a non- issue. Your 'side' lost; deal with it!

boobie-baby,
It seems like you are getting more and more into personal attack rather than substantive issues. The election is OVER, why not simply let the 'fun' begin. You seem to have 'things' to say; say them - don't let a forked tongue get in the way of your credibility.; June 15, 2008 at 7:36 AM
boobie-baby said...: I don't give a whit about the last election and who voted and who didn't. It is what it is (it was what it was). All I'm saying is that you're stuck with the team you've got now, and I just wanted to share my impressions of at least two members of that team. Don Cox can continue to run for office until the cows come home (or at least until they start grazing in Arroyo Grande), but the voters have spoken.

I agree--one meeting doesn't tell you anything. When you follow the votes on "substantive issues" (as I have) you'll understand better what I mean. I stand by my perceptions and can only hope that Salette and Bill raise the collective IQ of the Council.; June 15, 2008 at 8:45 AM
Victorian Cowgirl said...: As for Oro Valley citizens always being referred to as "elitists," allow me to quote Bill Maher...

"Just what does it take to be labeled an elitist these days? That you don't buy your groceries at the gas station?"

As for name-calling, the following is my mantra on this issue...

"The way a person treats me is a reflection of who THEY are, not of who I am."

And my mantra regarding personal attacks...

"Insecure people always try to elevate themselves by diminishing those around them."; June 15, 2008 at 11:03 AM
boobie-baby said...: VC,

They sell groceries at gas stations? Wow.

The next thing you know, you'll be able to go to a big, big store at a major shopping center and buy everything you need including groceries.

What a wonderful world we live in.; June 15, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Victorian Cowgirl said...: Maher was referring to self-service gas stations that are attached to convenience stores. I'm surprised you didn't get that. After all, you claim to have an IQ that's much higher than that of a box of hair!; June 15, 2008 at 1:18 PM
yada yada yada said...: Art,
Not to be antagonistic...
didn't you set the tone for this thread. What I am hearing is....some can dish, some can't.; June 15, 2008 at 2:08 PM
OV Objective Thinker said...: Cowgirl...

I am sure glad I always treat you nice!!!

I know you are a Paula fan and probably a Carter fan. But as one who has followed them very closely since their election, BB is in the ball park. I have frequently observed Paula ask a question, the answer to which was previously stated. She asks questions that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, has delayed meetings to read something that has been in her inbox for weeks and as BB said will not return e-mail, telephone calls or letters from most constituents. Carter frequently cannot keep up with the progress of the meetings as has to ask people where they are in the meeting. I am sure that Paula is a very nice person and I know she is very devoted to her family. But her overall performance on the Council is, in my opinion, severely lacking. BB has already pointed out some of Carter's behavioral issues and I could add to the list but I choose not to at this time.; June 15, 2008 at 2:28 PM
artmarth said...: Paul;a Abbott & KC Carter were elected & reelected.

Don Cox could not get elected in four attempts.

Might this be another example of the same scenario----sour grapes?; June 15, 2008 at 3:01 PM
boobie-baby said...: VC,

Of course, I "got it." "Everything's up to date in Kansas City--they've gone about as fur as the can go." They even got big stores that sell groceries as well as clothing, auto parts and cheap electronics.

What do you take me for--an elected official or, better yet, a blog operator?

I've made no claims about my IQ or anyone else's, except for two Council members. It takes guts to run for office; it takes hard work and intelligence to govern effectively.; June 15, 2008 at 6:01 PM
OV Objective Thinker said...: To all...

If any one ever had any doubt about Art Segal's motives, objectivity and/or desire to create a blog that was intended to present and discuss the issues that are important to Oro Valley, all you have to do is start at the beginning of this thread and read through.; June 15, 2008 at 6:11 PM
artmarth said...: As far as the last comment from Cox, I agree.
I encourage everyone start with the itial post and go from there.

Don't miss what initiated the post---Cox, referring to Council Member KC Carter, writing--"This was petty politics forwarded by a petty politician and the lemmings just following along in a row."

Need I say more?; June 15, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Victorian Cowgirl said...: Boobie baby,

You said, "I've made no claims about my IQ." Yes, you did. When you accused someone of having the IQ of a box of hair, it was IMPLIED that you have a higher IQ than they do.

If I call someone a moron, it's implied that I am NOT a moron.

When you said, "What do you take me for--an elected official or, better yet, a blog operator?" You were IMPLYING that our council members and Art are stupid and you're not.

I can read between the lines.

In any event, why do you find it necessary to be so nasty?; June 16, 2008 at 10:06 AM
boobie-baby said...: Sorry, VC. I've never made any claims about my own intelligence (of lack thereof). You can imply if you want--that's your right, but that wasn't my intent.

Everyone (including you) deserves to know what kind of people are representing them. I shared my opinion--honestly, knowing that it would create some backlash. I wish there were some "nice" way to let you know about the relative brain power of a couple of TC members.

If I think that someone is bright, that doesn't imply that I am not. If I think that someone is less than bright, it doesn't mean that I think I am brighter.

There are no sour grapes on my part (although a nice glass of cabernet would be helpful). If you disagree with my assessment of these two Council members, that's fine. I'm only suggesting that everyone watch what they do, how they do it, what they say, and what they don't say. I'm confident that others will come (or have already come) to the same conclusion.

Now, excuse me while I go outside and empty my box of hair.; June 16, 2008 at 12:06 PM
artmarth said...: Boobie-Baby--- Your sarcasm is only superseded by your continued denigration of others while hiding behind the veil of anonymity.

It's so easy to do while refusing to identify yourself saying, "As for anonymity,I choose to do so because I believe that my postings will be taken (slightly) more seriously,---"

Surely, you don't think anyone with the IQ of "a box of hair" will take that excuse seriously.; June 16, 2008 at 2:06 PM
boobie-baby said...: Denigrate? Moi? Why, Art, I'm surprised that you even know the word since your postings here have always been so positive, uplifting, and optimistic.

Remember, this thread started with a discussion of a Council decision that went against its own policy. I wasn't the one who posted it under the "Sour Grapes" heading, an interpretation which seems to denigrate Mr. Cox.

I have merely highlighted the fact that a couple of
Council members are not operating at full capacity and that readers of this blog still have the power and opportunity to influence their decisions.

Frankly, I don't really care if those Council members with the box of hair IQ read this blog or not. I stand by what I say, and knowing who or what I am doesn't diminish or augment the issues that I raise. You either agree with me or you don't. Period.

Game, set, match. Let's move on.; June 16, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Zev Cywan said...: Some time ago, OV OT asked the question [do you think the citizens of the town of Oro Valley are intelligent?]. I believe I replied to that question by stating that there are [different types of intelligence] and went on to example a few. Boobie-baby, while we can all be judgemental, at times you seem to take it to an extreme;and you do so by off-handed denigrations of others and a thirst for your own self-elevation. Earlier, I accused you of being an elitist and did so because you seem to portray that a council should be comprised only of one type of mentality, one that fulfills YOUR delineation of intelligence and perception; I do not and will not accept governance in a format of 'philosopher kings'; there is always a place and a need for 'ordinary' people.

Frankly, b-b, you sometimes come off as being simply cantankerous; perhaps you are carrying a lot of hurt. There is no question but that you are smart and well educated; use that benefit wisely and you can be of great inspiration to many - throw it up in the face of others and you will only end up being discredited.; June 16, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Zev Cywan said...: For what it's worth, I was in the process of writing/editing my last post BEFORE the previous 2 were in place; I then hit 'publish' without being aware of those 2.; June 16, 2008 at 3:28 PM
OV Objective Thinker said...: Maybe this will be the last post of this stream, but somehow I don't think so.

It seems to me than some (many) of you spend entirely too much time trying to overanalyze why people say what they say and try to make a philsophical determination of what triggered the remark.

Art makes a post, we either agree or disagree. That seem pretty simple to me. Hell, even Zev is on the "denegration" bandwagon. To have an opinion about someone is not to belittle or defame. Art is a good softball pitcher. He is not a good batter. That's my opinion and that doesn't denegrate him. (Sorry Art, I talked about softball...I'll give myself a second warning)

To say that, in my opinion someone has a low IQ, does not denegrate them, or infer that mine is higher or lower. It's simply an opinion.; June 16, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Zev Cywan said...: Can't help but try to throw me to the wolves at any opportunity, can you OV OT; an exorcist might help you get the edge off. Just an opinion DC - LOL.; June 16, 2008 at 4:24 PM
boobie-baby said...: Zev,
Good advice, and I'll take it in the spirit in which is was offered. I really do believe that a representative body should reflect the community to the extent that it can. I do not subscribe to the "philosopher king" or "benign despot" school of leadership.

I can't recall one posting of mine that purports to elevate me. This is not about me but about the future of this community.

Zev = wolf. Stay on the prowl.; June 16, 2008 at 4:45 PM
OV Objective Thinker said...: Zev...A perfect reflection of what I was saying. You are making an attempt, albeit wrong, to determing what my motive was as opposed to just sticking to content. And then the exorcist comment. Why is that so necessary for you?

You must be carrying a great deal of hurt.....to use your words.; June 16, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Zev Cywan said...: And you, dear OV OT, couldn't see my 'motive'; my post was simply meant as a tool to help 'lighten it up'.

Boobie-baby, thank you for YOUR response - I care!; June 16, 2008 at 6:51 PM
OV Objective Thinker said...: Zev...Unfortunately you are out of character when you make an attempt to "lighten it up". I usually put a 'smiley face' on my such attempts. It is very challenging to be able to make that kind of determination when you instantly go from very serious to the Red Skelton personality. Maybe the LOL was your indication...if so I will look for it more carefully.; June 16, 2008 at 7:33 PM
OV Objective Thinker said...: Art.....
You seem to take great joy out of pointing out that I lost four elections. First of all that is incorrect. But let's not quibble.
At some level I believe that you think your senseless barbs will get under my skin and I will lash out at you and then you can sit back and say to all, "I told you so".

I am proud of my accomplishments in the election arena and don't forget that there was only four votes seperating us in the last election.

I happened to run across the following as I was surfing the net this evening. NOW IF THIS WERE TO HAPPEN THEN YOU COULD HAVE ROOM TO RIDICULE!!!

BUCHAREST (Reuters) - The residents of a Romanian village knowingly voted in a dead man as their mayor in Sunday's municipal election, preferring him to his living opponent.

Neculai Ivascu, 57, who ran the village for almost two decades, died from liver disease just after voting began -- but still won the election by a margin of 23 votes.

A local official said the authorities decided to keep the poll open in case Ivascu's opponent, Gheorghe Dobrescu, won, avoiding the need for a re-run.

"I know he died, but I don't want change," a pro-Ivascu villager told Romanian television.

In the end, election authorities gave the post to the runner-up, but some villagers and Ivascu's party, the powerful opposition Social Democrat Party (PSD), have called for a new vote.

Have a great evening sunshine!!!; June 17, 2008 at 6:25 PM
Zev Cywan said...: In some instances a dead person might be preferable to a live one.
They are truly objective (no opinion, no bias), non-political,
they don't run at the mouth, have no obligations to special interests, could care less about 'real estate', and they can't vote. WHAT MORE COULD YOU ASK FOR?; June 19, 2008 at 7:18 AM

Pages

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Is It All About "Sour Grapes" With Don Cox?

53 comments: