I hope all the residents of our area will take the time to read Barry's comments below, as they pertain to the future of Arroyo Grande, and indeed, the future of Oro Valley and beyond.
As we noted in an earlier post, the next General Plan Amendment meeting on Arroyo Grande is scheduled for July 1. Please try to attend, and add your voice to those of us that have grave concerns about the future of this critical parcel known as Arroyo Grande.
Art
****************************************************************************************
Barry writes:
Based on the past, hearings such as the one scheduled for July 1 are a complete waste of time. If the past is any indication of the future, the single most important issue, the impact that the development of Arroyo Grande will have on the area’s water supply, will not be adequately addressed.
Viewed from 3,000 feet above ground level, AG is a natural quilt work of ravines and pockets that capture water during the rainy season which replenishes the aquifer that lies below. Given the precipitous and continuous drop in the aquifer we depend upon for drinking water, the questionable supply available from the CAP, and the toxic mess left by the U of A which threatens to seep into the aquifer, it is absolute madness to inhibit AG’s ability to absorb rain water by paving it over with concrete pads and asphalt roads. The placement of houses and shopping centers over Nature’s “sponge”, which supplies one of the most precious substances we need for life, is nuts.
My good friend Oro Valley Councilman Gillaspie, whom we actively supported in the most recent election, believes that if OV serves as overseer of the development of AG, the outcome will be less intense than Pima County. In essence, Gillaspie frames the question in terms of which municipality would be the lesser of two evils.
While I understand his reasoning and respect his experience, I reject Gillaspie’s “frame”. The fundamental question to be answered concerning water is not the selection of that government agency which will deplete the water supply more slowly. To the contrary, the fundamental question to be answered is what we must do to stop the project altogether.
Viewed from 3,000 feet above ground level, AG is a natural quilt work of ravines and pockets that capture water during the rainy season which replenishes the aquifer that lies below. Given the precipitous and continuous drop in the aquifer we depend upon for drinking water, the questionable supply available from the CAP, and the toxic mess left by the U of A which threatens to seep into the aquifer, it is absolute madness to inhibit AG’s ability to absorb rain water by paving it over with concrete pads and asphalt roads. The placement of houses and shopping centers over Nature’s “sponge”, which supplies one of the most precious substances we need for life, is nuts.
My good friend Oro Valley Councilman Gillaspie, whom we actively supported in the most recent election, believes that if OV serves as overseer of the development of AG, the outcome will be less intense than Pima County. In essence, Gillaspie frames the question in terms of which municipality would be the lesser of two evils.
While I understand his reasoning and respect his experience, I reject Gillaspie’s “frame”. The fundamental question to be answered concerning water is not the selection of that government agency which will deplete the water supply more slowly. To the contrary, the fundamental question to be answered is what we must do to stop the project altogether.
While many of us support the initiative that would place AG off limits to development, too many initiatives end up in court, and/or lose at the polls thanks to high priced marketing campaigns produced by special interests who have no concern for the well being of the community's water supply. Must I remind folks of the “convenience campaign” that Vestar used to suck $23 million out of our pockets? Vestar's marketing campaign worked, and people willingly voted to deplete their town treasury for a Wal Mart. Clever marketing employed by deep pockets knows no boundaries and is capable of fooling the less-informed over and over again.
Developers and their minions in public office typically convey a sense of "inevitability" to mollify the electorate into sleep mode so more land is available for their projects. "AG will be approved", they say, better to let the lesser of two evils administer it but if you look at the history of OV, invariably, one by one, sections of land will be rezoned in the future from the advertised low density into higher density. The population will skyrocket, and the water supply will be challenged even further. Right now, OV is being asked for 5 changes to its general plan to accommodate more homes & development. What makes anyone believe that won't continue in the future?
We've seen the marketing campaign known as “inevitable” over and over again, but given our recent string of successes in OV, I believe there is no reason to acquiesce to this latest assault on reason.
SUGGESTION: Via a simple, non binding petition or a series of emails conveying the same message, we can and should demand an answer from government of an entirely different question than which agency is the lesser of two evils. At present we have five decision makers in OV (including Gillaspie) who are able to view the situation impartially given their ethics and allegiance to the people whom they serve. It is our job to ask council to add an agenda item that organizes the following procedures to help council & the community understand and explore the issue of water and AG.
Developers and their minions in public office typically convey a sense of "inevitability" to mollify the electorate into sleep mode so more land is available for their projects. "AG will be approved", they say, better to let the lesser of two evils administer it but if you look at the history of OV, invariably, one by one, sections of land will be rezoned in the future from the advertised low density into higher density. The population will skyrocket, and the water supply will be challenged even further. Right now, OV is being asked for 5 changes to its general plan to accommodate more homes & development. What makes anyone believe that won't continue in the future?
We've seen the marketing campaign known as “inevitable” over and over again, but given our recent string of successes in OV, I believe there is no reason to acquiesce to this latest assault on reason.
SUGGESTION: Via a simple, non binding petition or a series of emails conveying the same message, we can and should demand an answer from government of an entirely different question than which agency is the lesser of two evils. At present we have five decision makers in OV (including Gillaspie) who are able to view the situation impartially given their ethics and allegiance to the people whom they serve. It is our job to ask council to add an agenda item that organizes the following procedures to help council & the community understand and explore the issue of water and AG.
1) Our non binding petition asks OV to invite local water experts who oppose AG to address council, staff, & the community at town hall. We've heard from the proponents, we’ve endured threats from state land, now it's time to hear from the opponents in a free exchange of ideas. Unlike the Vestar debacle during which Loomis thwarted community opposition, this time opposition is invited to provide its issues in an unfettered forum. At the end of the opposition's presentation, Q & A is provided council, staff, residents, and affected parties who depend on the same aquifer.
Our petition specifies two council members, Latas and Gillaspie, to seek out and invite these opponents.
2) Our petition also asks Latas and Gillaspie to communicate with Pima County Supervisor Ann Day and Pima County and ask them to present the impact Pima County would have on AG if OV dropped out of the game. In other words, how much development would realistically occur if OV took itself “off the table” and the only option became Pima County? Invite Supervisor Ann Day to address the issue at this meeting, in front of council, and the entire town. Our petition also allows Q & A from residents and affected parties.
2) Our petition also asks Latas and Gillaspie to communicate with Pima County Supervisor Ann Day and Pima County and ask them to present the impact Pima County would have on AG if OV dropped out of the game. In other words, how much development would realistically occur if OV took itself “off the table” and the only option became Pima County? Invite Supervisor Ann Day to address the issue at this meeting, in front of council, and the entire town. Our petition also allows Q & A from residents and affected parties.
We may THINK we know what Pima County will do with AG, but it's better to hear it directly from them and provide an opportunity for Q & A.
3) Play Devil's Advocate - Our petition directs staff to consider and discuss all legal measures OV can use to forestall the increased demand on our water supply. Staff should be asked to take the position that AG is bad for the community's water supply and provide our council decision-makers with a list of measures and tools they can use to stop this project, if they so decide.
3) Play Devil's Advocate - Our petition directs staff to consider and discuss all legal measures OV can use to forestall the increased demand on our water supply. Staff should be asked to take the position that AG is bad for the community's water supply and provide our council decision-makers with a list of measures and tools they can use to stop this project, if they so decide.
Instead of staff serving as the purveyor of development, it should assume the role of opponent for this exercise thereby providing the decision makers, the council & the community, with the ability to make a reasoned judgment.
4) OPTIONAL: If Phill Gibbs is ready and willing, our petition asks Phill to share his research which articulates the position of all of the players, their motivation, and the likely outcome of each scenario. Frankly, Phill should be the first speaker, if he's willing. Phill knows that he can count on my assistance at all levels if he decides to present his research.
5) The petition also asks council to suspend all further work on changes to the general plan concerning AG until this meeting occurs.
AG is not a foregone conclusion nor is it "inevitable". Only those members of staff who expect to move onto employment with developers, and those developer sycophants on council, see AG as inevitable. I expect five members of OV's council to be able to consider all opportunities impartially. Town council's job is not to rubberstamp every project that comes along. To the contrary, town council is a decision-making body and as such, it deserves to hear all sides of an issue.
4) OPTIONAL: If Phill Gibbs is ready and willing, our petition asks Phill to share his research which articulates the position of all of the players, their motivation, and the likely outcome of each scenario. Frankly, Phill should be the first speaker, if he's willing. Phill knows that he can count on my assistance at all levels if he decides to present his research.
5) The petition also asks council to suspend all further work on changes to the general plan concerning AG until this meeting occurs.
AG is not a foregone conclusion nor is it "inevitable". Only those members of staff who expect to move onto employment with developers, and those developer sycophants on council, see AG as inevitable. I expect five members of OV's council to be able to consider all opportunities impartially. Town council's job is not to rubberstamp every project that comes along. To the contrary, town council is a decision-making body and as such, it deserves to hear all sides of an issue.
So do we.
Loomis will decry the time this will take and conjure up reasons this discovery process should not occur. But his objections should be discarded because there is no more imminent threat to the well-being of this community than its water supply. If we don't take the time to deal with this issue realistically before we blunder, we will surely deal with the ramifications of our mistake.
AG has remained open space for millions of years. A few more months invested into proper consideration of this issue seems prudent and warranted.
It is up to us to let all seven members of council know that we expect dutiful, purposeful, thorough consideration of all possible scenarios. If any assistance is required in this assignment, our petition suggests that Doug McKee serve as project advisor to the town. Given his extensive work with the town and his former experience as a professional advisor to General Electric upper management, I can think of no more qualified individual than Doug to serve in an advisory role to his community. I hope he is willing.
It is up to us to let all seven members of council know that we expect dutiful, purposeful, thorough consideration of all possible scenarios. If any assistance is required in this assignment, our petition suggests that Doug McKee serve as project advisor to the town. Given his extensive work with the town and his former experience as a professional advisor to General Electric upper management, I can think of no more qualified individual than Doug to serve in an advisory role to his community. I hope he is willing.
It is up to us to remind all seven council members that they are here for our service, that they represent our interests, not developers. Given the five people we’ve bootstrapped into office, the folks we’ve learned to trust and admire, I cannot recall a better opportunity to change the dynamics of development in this town, and in this state. I also cannot recall a more urgent need to rein in the demand of that substance known as water, which we need for life
Barry DiSimone
Barry DiSimone
17 comments:
A nation that fails to plan intelligently for the development and protection of its precious waters will be condemned to wither because of its shortsightness. The hard lessons of history are clearly written on the deserted sands of once proud civilizations.
This was coutesty of LBJ.
To show this is a nonpartisan issue please refer to Governor Ronald Regan's report of Colorado River Legistation published on May 3rd, 1967. This is a very telling document which still has application in 2008.
If we can't substain life on our own water supply than we will be subjecting future generations in OV to the same type of energy problems this nation faces because of its dependence on oil from other countries. It is amazing to me that a strike on Shell in Nigeria can cause such harmful effects on the price of gas in the USA.
What is the risk/ reward for developing this land??
What and where is the toxic mess left by the UofA?
Fear...
I am not sure I follow the latter portion of your comment.
In response to your risk/reward question, I would forward the thought that if we (the citizens of Oro Valley)wish to protect our northern border from the type of development that Pima County is known for, then we MUST annex this land so we can control the development. Putting it in the hands of the only other governing body, Pima County, to me would be a tremendous risk.
I am also very confused by Mr. DiSimone's position on this matter. I know he would like to little, if any develpoment on this land and yet he wants, or so it seems, Oro Valley to back out of the process. I would think that with the current majority on the Council to be slow or no growth types, this would be the perfect opportunity to exercise the control it appears he wants.
I have no faith in Pima County's ability to manage that property. They can't even keep the county transportation system (roads) in reasonable repair. Their historical record of prudent management of any project is very dismal.
Speaking for myself, I was able to follow Barry's total comment.
Furthermore, I was certainly not at all confused by Barry's position.
As the title of the post says, this is "A Very Important Message From Barry DiSimone Concerning Arroyo Grande"
I certainly hope all of our readers will take the time to read the posting. After all, Arroyo Grande may be the most important issue our council & the citizens will have to deal with.
We hope common sense prevails!
OVOT,
Your points have merit and are thought provoking.
Do you think we face any problems with the water supply if this area is developed?
I did read the important message. Could someone please respond to the statement regarding the toxic mess left by the UofA.
yada,yada,yada,
I am by no means an expert but I do recall reading something about a toxic waste site and a connection with the U of A.
Not sure if this site is within the targeted annexation area but it was certainly close or near it.
Anyway that is my recollection.
Either way it is something that should be looked at closely.
YYY and Ms. Coyote...
The site referenced is much further to the north as I recall also. I do not know exactly what it was but the U of A did some experiments on some of their (or granted) property many years ago and it is now considered a contaminated area. I have only heard about this 3rd,4th or 5th hand.
Fear...Thanks for the positive comments. Water supply in our area is always a concern. If there were only a way (canal system) to channel and harvest some of the excess water that falls in the midwest almost every year we wouldn't have any worries. One of the issues to be hammered out with the state is additional water rights necessary to develop the area in a manner that is agreeable to all parties involved. While water is a delicate issue, it is unfortunately also used as a red herring by some as a means to stunt any growth.
Living near the OVM site makes it hard for me to believe TOV can handle a project the size of Arroy Grande. Their inability to maintain safety and noise concerns (they were working at the OVM site at 5:15am Sunday and NOT pouring concrete)for nearby residents of the OVM site has been a problem for a year. This morning a TOV employee told me it is a mess at the construction site, there are too many contractors to control, and no way to handle the dust and dirt. I do appreciate his honesty and at least wasn't given the run around. This project is nowhere near the size Arroyo Grande will be and how will the town be able to provide proper monitoring and control?
I think water at Arroyo Grande is way beyond a delicate issue. Water is the determining factor about the substainability of life and without a documented scientific study saying water is in place or it isn't, then how can anyone even think about developing this land.
I'm kinda confused! I would think that Barry would put more trust into the newly elected OV board than that. Why would you want to turn over AG to the County and where there is no recourse? At least the OV council knows that the electorate is watching, and if not careful, will face recall.
Cactusmouse...
My point exactly. Evidently Barry DiSimone has more faith in the Pima County Board of Supervisors than he does in the current elected Council. That is VERY interesting.
Go figure.
While Barry makes some interesting points, there may be some legal issues here that need to be explored. Since the Town Attorney has seen fit to weigh in on this blog occasionally, perhaps he'll share his legal opinion with us.
I'm not certain that the towns or cities have primacy over the state of Arizona, or the Constitution of the state which spells out what must be done with the state land.
Politically, many of you are correct. But who would you rather have as a steward of the land--Pima County with the terrific job they've done in Catalina, or Oro Valley where, at least, you can approach most of the Council members and make your best argument.
I don't believe that leaving AG as complete open space will pass the legal test since the state has obligations to sell it. It would be best if the state, the county and Oro Valley worked together to come up with a sensible plan that would take the most important issue of water into consideration as the primary driver of what could or could not be done with the land.
The voter-approved General Plan does show the Oro Valley town limits reaching into the AG area. Should the plan be amended?
Boobie-Baby writes:
"It would be best if the state, the county and Oro Valley worked together to come up with a sensible plan that would take the most important issue of water into consideration as the primary driver of what could or could not be done with the land."
Tht seems to make total sense.
Another point to consider--- If the initiative(hopefully) passes, it will eliminate approx 2/3 of the parcel for development. Question: If Arroyo Grande does then get developed, will the number of homes allowed also be decreased by an equal amount, or will the zoning be changed to permit more homes per acre? I believe we need this question answered by all the entities involved.
One last point. Is there a viable plan to alleviate the additional traffic that will come through Oro Valley when there are thousands of more people living in the area?
I have had several conversations over the past eighteen months with Barry Gillaspie regarding the AG project. He also provided me a copy of his letter to Ann Day regarding her comments at the Catalina Board meeting which were very caustic toward Oro Valley.
According to the information I was given, Pima County representatives either attended or were invited and chose to not attend, all of the meetings with the State Land Commission and Oro Valley regarding AG. They had the opportunity to provide input and in fact did provide input. There are some, including Ann Day, who state that this was not the case. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I have no reason to doubt Barry Gillaspie’s word.
The pre-annexation agreement between Oro Valley and the State Land Trust is the document where the water issues and transportation issues and many others will be hashed our. I also believe there will be some language regarding the initiative, should it pass.
I do not believe it to be in the best interest of Oro Valley to abandon their talks with the State Land Commission. Nor do I believe we should cease all activity leading up to and including a General Plan amendment. And once again I will state that I have no faith in Pima County’s ability to properly plan this project and there is NO way that they will look out for the best interests of Oro Valley.
Much if the angst over some recent development issues, including the continued scarring of the Pusch Ridge/Catalina hillside, development in northern Rancho Vistoso and to some extent the Tangerine and 1st development can be attributed to bad decision making in the late 1980’s. That’s when some of the zoning rights were acquired.
Oro Valley now has the opportunity to make good decisions regarding the development of the AG project and we should not abandon our opportunity to do so and we should not allow our northern border to be at the mercy of the Pima County Board of Supervisors and the likes of Chuck Huckleberry.
The real issue is whether or not this land should be developed. If the sale were taken off the state lands agenda, then the issue of who controls the land (Oro Valley or Pima County) is moot.
There is a much bigger "game" here that those who are opposed to this development should play. It is with the Governor.
Zeeman.....
Help us out. What is the "game" and how does it relate to Gov Nappy?
Post a Comment