In his letter to The Explorer, OV citizen Ray McMahon offers some some great advice. Mr. McMahon sums it up this way. "Salette Latas and Bill Garner represent a chance for change and a more responsible government that will not tax and spend."
Art
_______________________________________________________________________
The Explorer Feb 6, 2008
Just say ‘no’ to OV council incumbents
After carefully examining the records of the incumbents of the current town of Oro Valley Council, I have come to one clear conclusion. Just vote “No” for the incumbents.
The existing town council has increased our taxes, added new fees to our water bills, given tax breaks to retail developers, and demonstrated a total inability to say no to department heads for staff additions, programs and increased budget growth. Check the records, in the past five years Oro Valley population has grown by 3 percent per year while the town’s budget and employee growth has been grown at a 6 percent annual rate. Fifteen percent versus 30 percent in five years is a clear chart to where the town council incumbents are taking Oro Valley in the future.
Our current town council has not served the citizens in a fiscally responsible manner and need to be replaced with new, more economically thoughtful leaders.
Salette Latas and Bill Garner represent a chance for change and a more responsible government that will not tax and spend.
Raymond P. McMahon
Oro Valley
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Don't Let Dankwerth Fool You This Time!
In their letter to The Explorer Mr. & Mrs. Peters tell us how Helen Dankwerth says one thing as a candidate, and does something totally different once elected. Some may call it "speaking out of both sides of your mouth."
Don't let her fool you this time. It's too important!
Art
_______________________________________________________________________
The Explorer Feb 6, 2008
OV couple won’t vote again for the incumbent
As Oro Valley Town Council election day nears, we would like to remind voters of the difference between what Helen Dankwerth said when she ran for council four years ago, and what she did after she was elected.
Prior to her election, Dankwerth was quoted in the Explorer stating that she wanted “... to attract unique, image-enhancing commercial entities...” to Oro Valley. Foolishly, we believed her and voted for her, but once elected, she rolled over for the Oro Valley Marketplace, its Wal-Mart anchor, and refused to stand up to the developer.
We sent Dankwerth a letter in June of 2007 and asked her: “How will Wal-Mart with its light pollution, noise pollution, traffic congestion, low wages, sexual discrimination lawsuits, disrespect for environmental laws, and reputation for attracting violent crime enhance the image of Oro Valley?”
Dankwerth never responded.
Now that it’s re-election time, Dankwerth is suddenly anti-Wal-Mart, as she stated at the recent Suffolk Hills candidate forum, where she also changed her: “I am beholden to no one” yarn into, “I am beholden to no one but you,” referring to Oro Valley citizens. Yet, Dankwerth refused to stand up to Vestar even after 3,000 petition signatures were collected from Oro Valley citizens.
In contrast to Dankwerth, OV1st was the real advocate for these citizens. Dankwerth was not. She also ignored an appeal by OV1st (on behalf of the citizens) to request that Vestar come back and give an updated presentation on the Marketplace followed by a question and answer session. If Dankwerth won’t speak out on behalf of 3,000 Oro Valley citizens, don’t expect her to speak out for you.
We voted for her last time. We won’t make that mistake again. Fool me once.....
Robert and Diane Peters,
Oro Valley
Don't let her fool you this time. It's too important!
Art
_______________________________________________________________________
The Explorer Feb 6, 2008
OV couple won’t vote again for the incumbent
As Oro Valley Town Council election day nears, we would like to remind voters of the difference between what Helen Dankwerth said when she ran for council four years ago, and what she did after she was elected.
Prior to her election, Dankwerth was quoted in the Explorer stating that she wanted “... to attract unique, image-enhancing commercial entities...” to Oro Valley. Foolishly, we believed her and voted for her, but once elected, she rolled over for the Oro Valley Marketplace, its Wal-Mart anchor, and refused to stand up to the developer.
We sent Dankwerth a letter in June of 2007 and asked her: “How will Wal-Mart with its light pollution, noise pollution, traffic congestion, low wages, sexual discrimination lawsuits, disrespect for environmental laws, and reputation for attracting violent crime enhance the image of Oro Valley?”
Dankwerth never responded.
Now that it’s re-election time, Dankwerth is suddenly anti-Wal-Mart, as she stated at the recent Suffolk Hills candidate forum, where she also changed her: “I am beholden to no one” yarn into, “I am beholden to no one but you,” referring to Oro Valley citizens. Yet, Dankwerth refused to stand up to Vestar even after 3,000 petition signatures were collected from Oro Valley citizens.
In contrast to Dankwerth, OV1st was the real advocate for these citizens. Dankwerth was not. She also ignored an appeal by OV1st (on behalf of the citizens) to request that Vestar come back and give an updated presentation on the Marketplace followed by a question and answer session. If Dankwerth won’t speak out on behalf of 3,000 Oro Valley citizens, don’t expect her to speak out for you.
We voted for her last time. We won’t make that mistake again. Fool me once.....
Robert and Diane Peters,
Oro Valley
Hector Conde Raises Questions About Arroyo Grande
Hector Conde has been following land use issues for more years than most of us have lived in the area. If any one person knows the issues, I believe it is Hector. So, when Hector speaks, we all should listen. Below is an email he sent us.
Art
______________________________________________________________________
Art
______________________________________________________________________
At the State Land hearing iat the OV Study Session on Jan 16th, a question was raised by many attendants as to whether the State Project Manager, Ms. Muench, knew the definition of "Open Space."
As I pointed out then, I saw it defined 4 times in the OV building code. It is also defined 5 times in
the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS). There, the phrase "open space" appears 36 times.
To find the definition she has to: use a computer, access the internet and type http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp Then query "open space". A simple task.
Notice that it was pointed out that the State was, for the first time, including Open Space in
The Conceptual Plan. Maybe she overlooked ARS 37-331.03 that requires: "Conceptual land
use plan means a plan that is developed for urban state trust land and other state trust lands
the commissioner considers to be appropriate and that identifies: (a) Appropriate land uses,
including commercial, industrial, residential and OPEN SPACE uses."
As I pointed out then, I saw it defined 4 times in the OV building code. It is also defined 5 times in
the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS). There, the phrase "open space" appears 36 times.
To find the definition she has to: use a computer, access the internet and type http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp Then query "open space". A simple task.
Notice that it was pointed out that the State was, for the first time, including Open Space in
The Conceptual Plan. Maybe she overlooked ARS 37-331.03 that requires: "Conceptual land
use plan means a plan that is developed for urban state trust land and other state trust lands
the commissioner considers to be appropriate and that identifies: (a) Appropriate land uses,
including commercial, industrial, residential and OPEN SPACE uses."
Besides at "37-332.3. The state lands under consideration are located in areas where planning
for urban growth and development is appropriate, is beneficial to the trust and does not promote
urban sprawl or leapfrog development." ARS 37-101.12 says "Leapfrog development means the development of lands in a manner requiring the extension of public facilities and services from their existing terminal point through intervening undeveloped areas that are scheduled for development at a later time, according to the plans of the local governing body having jurisdiction for the area and which IS RESPONSIBLE for the provision of these facilities and services".
In other words, the voters pay for roads and infrastructure.
for urban growth and development is appropriate, is beneficial to the trust and does not promote
urban sprawl or leapfrog development." ARS 37-101.12 says "Leapfrog development means the development of lands in a manner requiring the extension of public facilities and services from their existing terminal point through intervening undeveloped areas that are scheduled for development at a later time, according to the plans of the local governing body having jurisdiction for the area and which IS RESPONSIBLE for the provision of these facilities and services".
In other words, the voters pay for roads and infrastructure.
Hector Conde
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)