In November, you will be voting to issue $48 plus million in bonds to build the Naranja Park. And to add a secondary tax to your tax bill.
There is a website that is copyrighted to the Town of Oro Valley that is separate from the town's website although they are linked. The site is not registered to the Town of Oro Valley, It is registered to Gordley Design Group, Inc, an advertising and promotion firm (here comes the slick brochures extolling the virtues of this theme park: Shades of Oro Valley Marketplace).
In our opinion the town is hiding the fact that it owns this site.
Yes. It is a separate web site from the Oro Valley web site that barely identifies itself as a Town Of Oro Valley Site. (Challenge: go to the site and find the reference to the fact that is is an Oro Valley town website. Hint: Look for tiny print at bottom.)
The site promotes the boondoggle: The vast majority of the site discusses the virtues of the park. There is hardly any discussion on its heavy burden placed on the taxpayers.
In addition, the town also is appearing at local functions, handing out brochures that promote this park extoling the virtues while severely understating the costs and the burden on taxpayers.
The town will claim that it is merely informing people about the park.
However, their materials do not present a balanced view of the costs (such as the heavy annual ongoing maintenance costs, the implications of the town using its general obligation bonding capacity or the potential interest rate of the bonds) of this extravagance. In addition, the web site's very existence as a unique and distinct eight page web site that is separate from and, we contend, whose relationship to the Town Of Oro Valley is stealthily hidden is done to hide the fact that the town is promoting this endeavor..
Use of town funds to promote or otherwise influence your vote is ILLEGAL.
The site should be taken down immediately. All brochures or town web pages that discuss the endeavor should devote equal space and words to discussing its on time and ongoing costs, such that readers get a balanced view.
Visit the site. Get copies of the literature. Tell us what you think.
31 comments:
Actually, Zee Man, the Home Page seems pretty balanced to me. It shows what we're getting if we pass the bond issue, and it shows the cost. What could be more balanced than that?
The booklet that comes with your ballot should be the place for commentators to lay out the pros and cons. I think the website is fair--it shows exactly what you would get for your money. It allows you to look at the whole park and where amenities will be located. It doesn't encourage you to vote one way or another (which WOULD be a violation of the law).
Gordley knows what they're doing. They've done these educational campaigns before. I can't find even one sentence in the entire site that advocates for me to vote a certain way.
If anyone believes that this site advocates instead of informs, he or she should file suit in court. That's what happened to Tucson with their transporation bonds and the information they put out. I don't see that here, but it would be up to a court to decide.
Do you want to spend Town funds in a courtroom battle? I think that demanding that the website be removed will not get you anywhere.
boobie-baby;
While the site doesn't advocate voting for or against; it does highlight the "glitz" but it sure doesn't promote the WHOLE COSTS.
raindancer
A while back the town council voted to spend xx amount of dollars to a firm to "educate" us on the Naranja Park. I really don't recall the dollar amount.
Ok, is this the same firm that you mention in the posting?
Obviously the town would not be spending money to "educate" us into
taxing ourselves if they were not advocating a Yes vote.
I doubt any of us are lawyers, except Mr. Tobin, so maybe this is not technically illegal but it sure is heck is not ethical .
Of course this is just my opinion.
What are the names of the TOV Council Members that voted for this website expenditure?
As far as I know, the approval of this expenditure came during the 2007-08 budget year, so that would place Parish and Dankwerth on the Council.
Again, I think the best place to hash out the opinions is in the voter's guide that will come with your ballot. You can have your say and no one can challenge you.
Whenever a governmental entity puts something on the ballot (and the Legislature gave us a nice gift this year with a few referenda of its own), it's asking for your approval. In the case of the Naranja Town Site, it requires your approval since it will result in the sale of bonds that we will all have to re-pay.
Why would a governmental entity begin an education program that would give you a reason NOT to vote for the proposed expenditure?
You can see the expenses for yourself; you can figure what it's going to cost you, at least for construction. Long-term O and M should be explained, too, if it's known or projected. O and M HAS to come from the Town's General Fund--you can't fund it through bonds.
So, if the General Fund needs increased income, from whence will it come? Retail sales tax income or, if voter-approved, a primary property tax. (Remember, only YOU can approve a property tax through an election).
So, there you have it. Ask the questions about O and M--those are legitimate. And ask how the Town will fund those costs.
We think boobie-baby is missing the point. We know we'll get a voter's guide prior to voting. That is NOT the issue.
The question we raise is this:
Has the town of Oro Valley crossed that fine line of "educating" the voters or "promoting" the issue?
Perhaps it it legal. It may even be proper. If, however it is an attempt to deceive us by utilizing an experienced PR firm to try and "sell" this park, that is not good.
We hope to find out one way or the other and let our readers know.
Well, I looked at the site and it looks pretty balanced to me...
I guess some people just like to keep it stoked up.
Any suggestions as to how the site should look versus just plain being critical?
Would you suggest they hire an incompetent firm to publish this?
Frankly, from what I saw at the meetings there seemed to be some pretty strong support for this being on the ballot and maybe even the issue itself.
I think it still faces the issue of the current economy, but...
I wonder where all your favorite council people are on this? Do they think it is a good idea?
I wonder....
I don't know if the town is trying to deceive us and I really don't think we need to spend public funds for this
education effort.
On one hand I think the voters will turn it down because of the Vestar deal , many feel deceived and don't trust our town or for that matter government in general.
Plus the economy is really bleak so they can forget throwing around that cost of a latte or two will pay your share. Read that Starbucks is closing 600 stores.
Then again I would have bet that the voters would have said NO to the Vestar deal.
Has anybody thought about liability issues that would or could be associated with this Park.
Thought about this because of the
golf course issue.
I brought up the liability issue a long time ago and our than council member Mr Parish said: that's what we have insurance for!
Now seems to me the more things you add, that make your liability go up...causes insurace to escalate too. But, that is probably one of those "hidden" O&M costs.
boobie-baby & observer 77:
I gather you support the good citizens of OV becoming the "endless pockets" for the region.
raindancer
Raindancer,
What I support is giving each of us the right to vote on the proposal.
My vote may be different from yours, but it doesn't count any more or less.
Keep asking about 'whole costs,' the extent to which they can be known. Of course, if we allowed O and M costs to determine the future of the community, Riverfront Park would have never been built, nor would the bike lanes and pedestrian trails that we have.
The Naranja Town Site bonds may not pass in November. It may take a few elections before the demographics of OV are such that the voters will finally approve the bonds.
But, at least we'll all have an official say on this issue--finally.
An "education campaign" should present both sides equally. Yet the pro's of this project are presented on full-color pages which open first and are therefore easy to find and pleasant to look at.
To find the con's, in essence you must look for the "small print" located in the middle of a paragraph. Click on the word "maximum" and you will be taken to a PDF file containing the formula for determining your share of the expenses. Of course this info is in black and white.
If I were educating a group of people on evolution vs. creation, and I presented multiple color pages with color photographs showing the evidence of creation followed by one page of black and white text showing the evidence of evolution, what words and images do you think would stick most in people's minds?
Don't believe me? Look at the Vestar campaign. They also played on "emotion" by using colorful images and lots of smiling people to make you feel good about the project and get you to vote YES based on your emotions.
These tricks can easily be found filed under "Politics 101" and "Advertising 101."
And just who were the "38 stakeholders representing the users of the park" who attended the initial planning meetings?
It also says, "more than 1,000 residents participated in the process of selecting the amenities." Yes. That would be the 1,000 people who are going to use the park that will be paid for by the remaining 39,000 people who won't be using it.
The opening caption reads, "hike, bike, run, play." Last time I checked, you could do all of those things for FREE.
Boobie-baby,
I left another message for you under the Bob Oro "Genius" caption.
9-500.14 AZ Revised Statutes
"A. A city or town shall not use its personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or other resources for the purpose of influencing the outcomes of elections. Not withstanding this section, a city or town may distribute informational reports on a proposed bond election as provided in section 35-454 (AZ Revised Statutes + HB 2585-482R-I Ver). Nothing in this section precludes a city or town from reporting on official actions of the governing body.
B. Employees of a city or town shall not use the authority of their positions to influence the vote or political activities of any subordinate employee.
C. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as denying the civil and political liberties of any employee as guaranteed by the United States and Arixona Constitution."
Posters, bloggers,pro and con, I suggest all of you read section 35-454 AZ Revised Statutes and HB 2585- 482R - I Ver This seems to be the WHOLE enchilada outlining the MUSTS of this process.
Is the Town Web Site in conformity with the dictates of these statutes to date? Perhaps Council needs to consult with Mr. Rosen, Town attorney; I have mixed feelings, Mr. Rosen should have the legal realities.
"The approval of the bond issue by voters in the proposed amount will result in an estimated maximum secondary property tax for Oro Valley homeowners and business owners of $.48 per $100 assessed market value."
If you click on "maximum," you get a PDF explaining how to calculate your tax. Does anyone know how they came up with a multiplier of .00004 to figure your tax?
Also, the document says that if you don't have your tax assessment, you can estimate it, but it should tell people how they can look it up online.
The website is perfectly legal. The "cons" are the price you pay through a secondary property tax. That's different for everyone.
The "pros" are what you get for your money. Whether you choose to use them or not is up to you.
Your gas taxes go to pay for streets that you'll NEVER use in your whole life. A previous blogger called that "reciprocity." When you approve these bonds, you are reciprically allowing others the opportunity to participate in outdoor recreation, even if you don't personally.
The 39 groups and the 1,000 people were all involved in 2001-2003 in an intensive effort to design the park so that it met community needs (not wants). Some people wanted an equestrian center--but do you see it on the plan? The Town wanted an indoor pistol range for the police? Do you see it on the plan? Nope--the citizens' committee nixed those and plenty of other "wants."
So, the plan went through plenty of revisions, and the 1,000 people came from all over the town to view it and make their suggestions.
Then it languished for 3 or 4 years until the Council felt that it was time to finally put SOMETHING on the ballot--get a vote of the people--thumbs up or thumbs down. Some Council members wanted the whole enchilada on the ballot; some only wanted the rice and beans (sorry for the metaphor), meaning the infrastructure and ball fields. The rice and beans won out, so that's what we get to vote on.
So boobie-baby, are you offering your opinion, or is it a definite fact when you write: "The website is perfectly legal."
I guess we'll need to verify that ----or can we rely on your expertise that it is legal?
I have posted the Arizona Statutes which appear to 'govern' that which can, must, or cannot be utilized in the conveyance of fact relative to this Narajna Site project. READ IT!!! The original post was about whether or not the TOWN was/is promoting the park site. It has nothing to do with the merits of the plan itself, it has nothing to do with whom gave what input and when, it has nothing to do with anything other than the 'correctness' of the publications to date. READ THE STATUTES!!! And, if you are not an attorney, give an opinion but don't pretend that it is a legal one. Tobin, how about it?
Excuse, I have posted the statute
9-500.14, the content; I have referred this group to statute 35-454 for your own perusing, not the content. See my previous post.
Good morning. I wanted to help clarify several points that are recurring themes in the NTS education campaign discussions:
1. Tobin Rosen, our town attorney, has reviewed everything that has gone out with respect to the public education materials regarding the upcoming bond election. This does include the web site.
2. The council approved $50,000 for the use of a public education campaign.
3. The town is prohibited from presenting either pro or con points on the bond issue. However, we have put together several fact sheets, including the average estimated financial impact of the secondary property tax for property owners. More detail is available by contacting my office. There are a lot of different scenarios depending on whether you are a commercial or residential property owner, and that can include pages and pages of financial data. So as not to confuse, we are happy to work with anyone who would like more information based on their own situation.
4. If approved, the bonds would be repaid through a SECONDARY property tax, not a PRIMARY property tax, which I think someone included in their blog entry. A secondary property tax, by law, must go away once the bonds are paid off and can only be used for the purposes outlined in the bond question.
5. Pro/Con statements can be included in the ballot pamphlet. The town clerk has information on how to include those statements--you can reach her at 229-4740.
6. Finally, we do not have "slick" brochures as part of the public information campaign. If anyone has received the information, they are laid out on an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of standard white copy paper. We do print the maps in color to help readers see the contrast. The web site is linked through the Town's main site merely because of technical limitations--there is no effort on our part to "deceive" the public. When we talk to citizens, we always reference the site as the town's web site.
I hope this is helpful. Please always feel free to contact my office if you have additional questions.
I believe Mary explained it very well. Remember, too, that Tobin works for the Town Council, and so he is there to do their bidding, not to give legal advice to members of the community.
If you still have trouble with the information campaign, you should take it up with the County Attorney's office or the Arizona Attorney General's office. They're the ones that would prosecute the town if there was proof that the town had violated the statutes.
No, I'm not an attorney (although I've played one on stage--does that count??), but I am intimately familiar with ASRS and the statutes concerning education of voters re. bond issues. That's why I can say without hesitation, and with Mary's concurrence, that the material that is out there passes the legal test.
Understand please that I was not exhorting Mr. Rosen to give legal advice to the 'community'; my question was rhetorical. I, personally, have no objection to the information posted on the site. Mr. Rosen has given input relative to questions past; they seemed to have been coined in a quasi-legal sense not as substantive proclamation. As to the information that the STATE SAYS is to be mailed to each and every voter, that IS in writing and is specific within the revised statutes. I do not think it is helpful or in the proper spirit to state or imply that, after the fact, if we feel that the [law hasn't been followed],'so sue me'.Just do it right in the beginning, follow the directives, and be open and honest; then, I will have NO problem with the result whether I agree or disagree with it.
boobie-baby, when you played an attorney on stage, did you win or lose the case? If you ad-libed you probably won.
Zev,
Good points all. While the information campaign stays within the law, it doesn't prevent anyone from paying the fee and having his/her argument included in the information booklet that will go to all voters. Of course, that booklet will also contain arguments about the many state initiatives and referenda, so good luck finding the Oro Valley arguments.
If Tobin chooses to weigh in, that's fine, but Mary has already said that he approved the wording, so that's good enough for me.
On stage, I prosecuted Lizzie Borden. Naturally, we won, and Fall River, MA, has never been the same since!
Hmmm, b-b, I was always under the impression that Lizzie was acquitted. Oh well, hack away. LOL
Yes , Lizzie Borden was acquitted
Oh! Oh! Boobie-baby writes---"On stage, I prosecuted Lizzie Borden. Naturally, we won."
Zev & MsCoyote are correct. On June 20, 1893, the jury acqitted Lizzie.
Does this totally destroy boobie's credibility, or shall we use the possible forthcoming excuse that she forget, as the verdict was so long ago?
Ah, Artie my friend, that's the beauty of theatre--political or otherwise. Whoever writes the script can manufacture his or her own ending.
So, if Lizzie is convicted in my version, then clearly I was the better attorney--defying even historical fact itself.
That's one of the beauties of this blog--how often we get to defy historical fact.
But, it's good to know that folks on this blog have time to do deep, meaningful, historical research. I wonder how Lizzie would fare today in front of, for example, the Board of Adjustment (assuming one can ever be selected)!
She might be whacked, and deservedly so.
Aha, boobie, so you portray that a good attorney can get an innocent convicted; is this justice or simply poetic license?
Look, I didn't write the damned play, it was 40 years ago, and--yes--a good attorney can argue either side of a case.
I suspect that there are even some attorneys out there who would look at the Naranja Town Site information and find something that he or she would want to take to court. But who wins in that case? If the judge says, "change the website so that it's in black and white" and the Town has to spend $ hiring outside counsel, that's our money, too.
So, let's leave it alone. We all get to vote in November--those who don't want any more parks and those whose children need a place for organized baseball, soccer, tennis, swimming and similar recreation.
Geez b-b, I was only joshing, having a bit of fun, nothing serious intended!
Post a Comment