For whatever reason, Mr. Huckelberry in his letter dated Dec.16 to Lawrence Lucero, Governmental Affairs Manager for TEP wrote that inasmuch as Oro Valley's General Plan Amendment precludes a TEP substation in Arroyo Grande, "the substation should be relocated north from the site now proposed to lands scheduled and/or planned for development."
Congratulations to the County Administrator for taking this action.
Hopefully, the other parties involved, TEP & State Lands will now also agree with this position.
Kudos to the Oro Valley Council & David Andrews, our Town Manager for standing firm on this issue!
12 comments:
I'm a naysayer, a NIMBY, and for all practical purposes opposed to any new big developments. We don't have the water for it and we're eliminating the natural surroundings which either brought us here or kept us here or both. But if such developments are going to happen it's good to see some folks are keeping an eye on how things are done and working to keep them in check.
Thanks for your post, Bikebox; please continue to express your interest and make your comments.
In a short paragraph, you expressed a
great observation!
Chuck Huckleberry(in the 12-17-08 Explorer)observed that the State Land Dept is difficult to deal with and the Enabling Act of 1910 is way outdated. No wonder the SLD's stance hasn't shifted. They still insist on almost 16,000 homes and they don't seem to care about the roads and water problems
this construction would create!
Kathy, while the State, along with the 'followers' may lean on the Enabling Act of 1910, it remains that the State has failed to up-date this document (drawn up prior to Arizona becoming a State) and prefers to 'lean' on it for their own purposes (money!). Historically, Arizona has the reputation of being the land of land barons and just as 'families', dynasties, etc. go to all kinds of lengths in order to retain and perpetuate power, so does this 'stream' of our own shadowy 'ins'. Major problem? The State populace, which does have the power to force change, simply doesn't have the direction or the drive to do so. Yes, an example of trial was attempted through an initiative in our last election process however the execution of gathering signatures was (and I personally experienced an example of this) sloppy at best and therefor enough signatories were found to be not qualified and, as you know, the initiative never made it to ballot.
In short, if the processes at the lower levels don't have enough sense of responsibility then change will remain evolutionary not revolutionary. As to AG, I think that in one way or another, it will become a fact and, even though Mr. Huckleberry of Pima County has seemingly swung around (softly) relative to one facet, I will continue to believe that OV still is the best hope for the least amount of destruction there.
As to the number of anticipated housing, it is going to be problematical for that to be analyzed realistically. By all accounts, several MAJOR economists have stated that approximately 10-12 million homes most probably will yet go into foreclosure in the next 2 years and that other defaults, credit cards, business properties, etc. will follow suit. Thus, a couple of things will most probably happen: credit availability will be limited for years to come,, individuals ruined credit will prevent them from individually purchasing houses, and thus it may take years and years and years for this depression (yep, that's what many of us call it) to 'wash' out.
So, as to AG, we can plan it, we can annex it, we can 'play' with it or whatever, it's going to be a long, long time before it can become even a basic a reality; in the meanwhile, who knows?
Zev makes some excellent points here. The State Land Commission has a disproportionate amount of power and authority due to the state's constitution. All in all, it is in everyone's best interest to have Arroyo Grande within the Town limits, although the ownership of the land remains the same. The group on this blog has already demonstrated that local decision-making is much more responsive to local needs, as one might expect.
Hucklebery won't be around forever, but the land will be. The current Town Council and whoever follows as members will be in control of the land through both the General Plan and the Zoning Code--that's the best that we can hope for. And, yes, nothing will happen to that property for a very long time.
For the present, I would watch very carefully at who Governor Brewer selects to be state land commissioner.
Yes, b-b, seems like we're on the same page here. Thank you for your comments and concise perspectives.
Word has it that Brewer is more development happy than our current developer friendly Gov. I would expect the next Land Commissioner will be dangerously cozy with the likes of Conley Wolfwinkle, Don Diamond, and Vestar. Not only will our school system take major hits with the coming one two blow of a radical right wing legislature and governor, but so will OUR environment.
eth (and all)
Right now, too much development processes ABSOLUTE will be quite stupid! Unless we the people want to start letting our government start giving handouts to the developers, more and extreme development just can't and won't happen at least for many years to come. Individuals, families, businesses, all will be boxed in because they can't buy and they can't sell. As to where this country, as a whole, can move as far as economics, not even the most recognized economists seem to be able to answer that question! WE'RE IN A DEEP RECESSION OR DEPRESSION however you want to look at it and most reliable predictions are that we may be a long time coming out of it. Manufacturing? Ha! Research and development? Ha! Consumer ability? Ha! Agriculture? Ha! But, at least for a time, eth, it's going to be politics as usual whether it's Jan Brewer or Mickey Mouse, and until such time as the public decides what they really want, it's going to be THEM (Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Management, Unionists or whomever and whatever labels you can tag on peoples) that will attain and control the power and the money, not the mealy mouth do-nothings who simply talk and don't act! The Country, the States, and the Municipalities MUST get real; plans, yes, contingencies, yes, watchfullness, yes, bullheadedness and off-handed judgements, absolutely not!
I consider the Arroyo Grande process, as it is now proceeding, as having the most reliable foundation for protection and progression that is currently realistically possible and I believe that our Town is being quite responsible and cautious in their approaches to this sensitive matter. There are MANY factors that can intrude on our comfort and, too, we can speculate on many of the 'what ifs' that may exist. By doing so we allow ourselves to be perceived as perhaps being mired in a sea of weakness. However, by exerting a positive attitude of affirmation and strength, we thus can show the teeth needed for triumph.
Taking the long view (which doesn't deal with the current world financial situation), here's another reason to keep an eye on Arroyo Grande.
Although the Town may designate certain areas for open space, develoopment, etc., via the General Plan and the Zoning Code, eventually the Town will have to select a private developer (or more than one) to develop the actual plans for the area.
That developer will be investing in the planning process in the hopes (guarantee?) of being allowed to build on the land per approved development plans. The Town is NOT a developer and its role in determining what's on the ground will be limited.
So, whether it's Wolfswinkel, Diamond, or Cywan, some private interest will have a huge impact on how and when the land is developed. It may not happen for years, but that's the course that annexed state land usually goes through. The only alternative is for the Town (or the County) to buy the land and to keep it as undeveloped--but we already know that that option will not fly.
So, in addition to keeping an eye on the Governor and the State Land Commissioner, we would be wise to watch which private company is chosen to plan and develop the land.
B-b, I only have one criticism of your last post; please do not put me in the same company with Wolfswinkle
and Diamond (LOL).
Zev,
Clearly that part of my post that referred to you as a potential developer was tongue-in-cheek, so I'm glad that you're laughing about it.
But I hope that the larger question does not escape the readers of this blog. The Town can "plan" Arroyo Grande until the cows come home (and there are some cows there). But, ultimately, it will be a developer who will invest in more specific plans and who will create a kind of partnership with the Town.
Your post is very correct, b-b, at least part of AG will be ultimately sold to a developer or developers. The 'groundwork' plan, however, can remain in place - open space, commercial set-asides, densities, etc.; upon the commencement of development, I would assume that, at that time, there most probably will be applications for GP amendments, etc. just like there are now. And, by the time a new burst of energy might allow for new development, I would bet that
many views as to how things are 'planned' at this point in time will be looked at differently in the future.
Post a Comment