How many of our readers remember our good friend Richy Feinberg? Richy was an integral member of the Development Review Board a few years ago, until he was unceremoniously "fired" because he suggested giving Vestar $23.2M of our future sales tax was totally inappropriate.
The sitting council, three of whom (Conny Culver, Helen Dankwerth & Terry Parish), were defeated in their reelection bid, along with Mayor Loomis voted to "fire" Richy as they believed he had "a conflict of interest."
Why bring this up now? Well, we probably all know at this point that Don Cox has lamented the fact that he was not immediately approved for a Board of Adjustment position, and was turned down for P & Z and DRB.
Was Richy's "sin" more egregious than what Cox has just done as it pertains to The Naranja Park Bond? Our readers can decide after reading the following unedited email Cox has sent out to Oro Valley residents.
Pay close attention to the reference to Tucson, Pima County & Saddlebrooke residents as Cox wants them to enjoy the park that will be (if passed) funded solely by Oro Valley taxpayers for the next 25 years or more.
Don Cox Email:
I would just like for you to tell every Oro Valley resident you know to vote for the bonds. I would like for you to talk to [name deleted], as will I, and ask him to push the idea in Sun City. I would also like for you to suggest to all softball players that they send a check to our organization. $10, $20, $50....it all helps. Our address is:
Citizens for the Naranja Park Bonds
PO Box 68644
Oro Valley, AZ 85737
For more more information information they can send an e-mail to:
yesontheparkbonds@aol.com
While this is a park in Oro Valley, and we will pay for it, it will serve all of us. So Tucson, Pima County, Saddlebrooke residents will benefit also.
Yes, send my e-mail out to everyone. This is an opportunity that we may never see again if it is defeated.
Don
17 comments:
I am 100% in favor of funding the park with contributions from Don Cox and his email contacts and those who support this park.
The coyote house will be voting NO!
I also favor Don Cox and his cronies paying 100% for the park.
In our household we will be voting NO!
raindancer
I/we, Ferlinetta and I, prefer that THOSE WHO USE or will use the Naranja Park PAY for all its costs/maintenance. Leave the taxpayers in general out of this.
OBSESS: vt. To haunt or trouble in mind; preoccupy
OBSESSION: n. an idea, desire, etc. that obsesses one
There is absolutely nothing about my support for the Naranja Park and the firing of Richy Feinberg that can even remotely be connected.
ov objective thinker:
I would like to know why you have no problem with burdening OV homeowners with a tax for 25 yrs to pay for a "regional park" so that Tucson, Saddlebrook, Catalina, Pima county, Marana, all have a place to play.
raindancer
As for the firing of Richy Feinberg and the "connection" to Don Cox possibly being appointed to the BoA, I believe the connection is this...
Apparently, it's OK for a town official to speak out in favor of something that the town is promoting. They won't call it a conflict of interest and you won't be fired. But if you speak out against something that the town is promoting (as Richy did) the town decides that you have a conflict of interest and they fire you.
Yes, Don, I know you haven't been appointed to the BoA yet, but when the decision is being made, I'll bet they won't hold your well-known opinion of the Naranja Park against you.
I think that may have been the point that Art was making.
I think the big distinction here is that OV Marketplace would have come before the DRB, which Feinberg sat on and conceivably would have been biased against, regardless of the standards that are supposed to be applied. The Board of Adjustment, however, will NEVER hear any matter involving Naranja because it's Town owned property.
Cyclone-1
I do understand that OVM issues would have come before the DRB whereas Naranja Park issues will not come before the BoA, but I wonder what would have happened if Richy had spoken out IN FAVOR of OVM. Would it still have been determined that he had a conflict of interest? Would he still have been fired? Or would he have been allowed to remain on that board making decisions pertaining to OVM?
Terry Parish was allowed to be on the council where decisions regarding OVM could come before him, but no one accused him of having a conflict of interest even though he promoted OVM.
That's why I suspect that it's only considered a conflict if you disagree.
VC-
Unfortunately none of us can really answer your question as it happend in the past and we can't use our alternative reality machine to see what would have happend. (Incidentally if anyone has an alternative reality machine - cool!) I can offer, only, my opinion that the the cloth cuts both ways - being overly supportive of an issue can be just as damaging as overly critical. Both situations open the Town up to accusations of bias and circumvention of due process.
As for Terry Parrish, I thought he was accused of having a conflict of interest -just about everyday on this blog? Whether that alleged conflict rose to the level that it exposed the Town to a lawsuit??? The main difference between the two is that Parrish was elected and could only be removed by recall or some other legal proceeding. Feinberg served at the pleasure of the Council and could have been removed for wearing a blue shirt. Again - just my opinion.
Thanks Cowgirl for understanding my analogy with Richy.
Cyclone is right-on with her comment about Parish being elected, whereas Richy Feinberg was appointed. In fact, Terry at some point acknowledged that exact situation as to why he didn't have a problem.
As for Cox----hopefully he won't be appointed to anything. To say Oro Valley taxpayers will pay for the park, but everyone else in the surrounding area will reap the benefits is analogous to the night Dick Johnson "advertised" to have kids speak at a council meeting saying how much they need this park. Too bad none of them lived in Oro Valley, but they were telling us how to spend our money.
By the way, be sure to read the Zee Man's posting on how much this park will cost us, if approved.
Raindancer...The answer seems pretty obvious but I'll give it a go. The park will be of great benefit to residents of Oro Valley in addition to the rest of the people you mention. Users from other areas will have to pay a user fee, that if we do the project right and keep Pima County funds out of it, will be higher than Oro Valley residents. To carry that one step further, I would support allowing Oro Valley residents and businesses to use the park and waive any user fee.
Parks increase property values, they beautify, they help clean the air and they add a significant amount to the overall economic development of the area in which they are located.
Parks are good for a community and that's why community governments have been building them for hundreds of years with taxpayer money.
VC...There never was any conflict of interest in the Richy Feinberg case. That was as trumped up as the rest of what was said about Richy. To be opposed to a project is not illegal, immoral, fattening nor is it a conflict of interest. The members of the Town Council that banded together accused him of violating an attorney/client relationship, that never existed and I believed they accused him of lying to the Town Attorney and a Town Councilperson.
Mr. Gillaspie can give you the details of the case should anyone care to ask him.
Thinker,
Now you have me all confused. You said that "Users from other areas will have to pay a user fee, that.....will be higher than Oro Valley residents."
Then you said you would support waiving the user fee for OV residents.
Are you saying that the current plan is for OV residents to be charged a user fee on top of the secondary property tax?
Did I miss something?
Cowgirl--- No reason to be confused. Remember, Cox is NOT on the town council. In fact, he is not on any board or commission.
Therefore, all he can do is offer his opinion as it concerns user fees and who will pay how much, if at all.
There may well be user fees---if this park is ever approved, but it is certainly not up to Cox, if, when, or how much.
Hopefully, it won't come to that, as a vast majority will realize how much this "boondoggle" will cost to build, maintain & operate.
Too many citizens got "snookered" by Vestar. I believe we have a much more educated electorate today, and as such, irrespective on the town's "education program," enough voters will say "no" if it ever gets to a vote in Nov.
Cowgirl... I'll answer your question without getting personal with anyone. I am capable of doing that....others are not. It's that obsession thing, you know.
Just like, Jim Krieg Park and Riverfront Park if you reserve a ramada or a ball field you will pay a user fee. What I hope will happen is that OV residents will have that fee waived so we are not paying twice for the same thing. That seems only fair. However if we accept Pima County money for any part of the project then I believe we cannot charge others a rate different than we charge Oro Valley residents.
Hope that answers your question.
Thanks Art and Thinker for clarifying that for me. Now my next question is for Mary Davis.
Will there be a user-fee for this park? Will it be waived for OV residents? Will these issues be decided PRIOR to the vote?
It wouldn't be right for people to vote YES on this and THEN find out that they will also be charged a user-fee.
Art and OT, thanks for the info.
Now this is where it gets "murky", I believe the town owes it's citizens answers before the vote:
1. User fees: the citizens should know, will there be or not
2. The brochure; town citizens need to KNOW that if they vote yes..what they see may not be what they get
3. User fees for non-residents. And, I ask this because I came from a town that had this problem.
If an OV resident or Business takes a tennis court, softball field, whatever...in their name so as not to be charged a fee and than turns it over to non-residents, does that mean no one pays?
another ex: OV resident is the head of a club, takes the field in their name at no charge and than 50 non-residents who are members of said club,pay nothing
another ex: Tommy is a resident who brings six friends to ride on the BMX track who are not residents.. will non-residents sign an insurance waiver and will they not be charged.
finally: who is going to "police"
So as a taxpayer, when I see the "huge" number of fields suggested for this site...and the use it will get from "outsiders"; I believe it should be a regional park paid for with regional funding.
Last July at Riverfront park, I fought for a parking space because the park had been taken over by southside Tucson. Other times it's been the soccer field overtaken by Marana. In May, Marana was using the park for lunch on the way home from Catalina State Park.
If there is a need for a "regional park" than the "whole region" should share the cost.
OV OT; while "community parks" are good and worthwhile; OV citizens should be made aware of for what and for whom their taxdollars are being used.
raindancer
Rain....Good questions and comments.
While I cannot speak for the Parks Department, I can assure you there WILL be user fees for reserving park facilities at Naranja just as there are at Jim Krieg and Riverfront.
I suspect that the only policing that will be done will be by the Parks and Rec department when the reservations are made. I doubt there is any way to prevent someone from lying to the person making the reservation and collecting the fees.
As for others using our park without paying let me share what happens in our softball league. When we (OV Senior's) travel
to Murrieta Park (Silverbell just South of Grant) to play Art's team (A Tucson team)we pay nothing but I believe Art's team pays the Tucson Park Department. When Art's team visits Jim Krieg to play us, they pay nothing but we pay for the use of the field. So the use of the facility is borne by the home team.
Hopefully that helps a bit.
Post a Comment