Zev Cywan Needs Help--Re: Arroyo Grande

On our posting noting that the OV Council initiated action to amend the General Plan to accommodate the potential annexation of Arroyo Grande, Zev Cywan has concerns figuring where all the 68% of "open space" will come from.

Perhaps Council Member Parish, an avid blog reader can help Zev and others understand where the "open space" will come from with up to 16,000 new "dwellings."

Below is Zev's comment:
Art
******************************************************************************************

HELP!I can't get the numbers to work!

Within the General Plan Initiation 'packet' handed out at the TC meeting on Wednesday, March 5, OPEN SPACE is defined as follows: "Land designated Open Space and for Wildlife corridor will be public, natural open space".

State of Arizona, Section 37-311, definitions:
"Open Space means land that is generally free of land uses that would jeopardize the conservation and open space values of the land or development that would obstruct the scenic beauty of the land"

Town of Oro Valley, Zoning Code, Chapter 31, Definitiions, section 236A:
"Common Open Space shall mean any landscape or natural open space other than frontage open space, INTENDED FOR USE BY ALL OCCUPANTS OF A DEVELOPMENT"

From my years in the real estate profession, open space was most aptly defined as [those areas which are unencumbered by private ownership and available for the use and enjoyment of ALL persons](the Town Zoning definition is more in keeping with this standard); streets, curbs and gutters were not included as open space except for 'path streets' that may be included in a park or similar application. COMMON AREAS were those areas within a subdivision, campus, or multi-commercial entity with limited availability for patronage.

According to the Council, 68% of the annexed land is to be designated OPEN SPACE; THIS LEAVES 32% FOR INHABITED AREAS - houses, condos, apartments, commercial, streets, curb and gutter - that is if we utilize the most commonly accepted analysis of the 'OPEN SPACE' terminology application.

BEAR WITH ME
If the annexed property in ARROYO GRANDE is 14 square miles as is noted in several publications and 68% of said property is set aside as OPEN SPACE then we would be left with 32% or 4.48 square miles for development. Translated into acreage this would total out at 2867 acres included for structure, curb, and gutter. 16,000 dwellings and commercial entities within this size of an area? IMPOSSIBLE!
So, are we being led to believe, and, is the state and our town parsing in muck, that we are going to get this glorious open and vastly natural addition? This appears to be a myth, cleverly worded to present merely an impression and hide the truth.

Oro Valley & Pima County "Butt Heads" On Arroyo Grande Potential Annexation

In the March 5 issue of The Explorer, it is reported what we already noted on the blog: Oro Valley & Pima County officials are "butting heads" as it concerns the potential annexation of the Arroyo Grande area to our north.

Read the article here.
http://www.explorernews.com/article/show/21593

An Oro Valley Neighbor Responds To Explorer Editorial, Re: Oro Valley Marketplace

One of our Oro Valley neighbors, Joan Sherrard responds to the Feb 27 Explorer editorial on the OV Marketplace.

The editorial: "Your Choice" can be read here.
http://www.explorernews.com/article/show/21526

Art
**************************************************************************************

Last week's Explorer editorial titled, "Your Choice" said that there are people in Oro Valley who are upset about the Oro Valley Marketplace. It's actually the story behind the Marketplace that has thousands of residents so angry.

The core of the controversy revolves around the EDA between Oro Valley and Vestar, the developer of the Oro Valley Marketplace.

Voters approved this agreement, believing that in turn for Vestar receiving 23.2 million dollars in future sales tax revenue, Vestar would build a unique and upscale shopping center.
Don't you think that Vestar should hold up their end of the bargain? I do. Don't you think that every council member has the responsibility to ensure that this takes place? I do.
Obviously the council does not. They want the whole issue to go away. They want you to forget. I can't.

You would also think that Vestar would want to show OV that they plan to keep their promise. Yet Vestar refuses to even make an appearance before the voters. Yes, the same voters who believed the Vestar "PR" and voted to give them 23.2 million.

Can you forget council member Parish lending his support to Vestar? His name and endorsement appeared on several Vestar flyers, and he wrote an editorial supporting the tax subsidy. Did he believe what Vestar told the voters or does he not care what Vestar promised us? Either way, Parish's credibility doesn't look too good right now.

Oro Valley council members tell us that their hands are tied. Funny how those tied hands didn't stop them from discussing giving Sanofi-Aventis, a billion dollar pharmaceutical giant a tax break of $360,000! The three incumbents, Parish, Dankwerth and Gillaspie commented that it would be an "insult" to give them less, it was a "minuscule" amount, and it would be a "nice gesture." I need to invite those three to my next birthday party!

Regarding the amounts raised by the candidates, what concerns me is not the amounts but the names of the contributors. According to the editorial, Parish received approximately three times the amount of contributions as the other candidates with most of that money coming from people with ties to developers. What do they want in return for these large contributions?

As a citizen if I make a political contribution, it's because I support what a candidate stands for. I don't expect any financial gain.

Oro Valley is now driving full speed towards annexation and a new development called Arroyo Grande to include at least 16,000 new "dwelling units." Can we trust our council members to vote with the interests of Oro Valley citizens in mind. I don't think so. After all, their hands are always tied and they've never learned to "just say no" to greedy developers and irresponsible spending.

So let's put two new members in the driver's seat: Salette Latas and Bill Garner

Joan M. Sherrard

Oro Valley Council Initiates Amending General Plan. Why Is The Question!

At the March 5 Oro Valley Council meeting, the vote was 6-1 to initiate amending the General Plan. This was the first step in the potential annexation of the area north of Oro Valley known as Arroyo Grande.

Is Paula Abbott the only one who understands the issues of lack of water, too much traffic, too many new homes, not enough wildlife corridor, not enough infrastructure and not enough knowledge?

Will we once again see a decision made with "unintended consequences?" This council has a propensity to do just that on too many occasions.

The argument that the land would be better in the "hands of Oro Valley" than some other entity doesn't mean Oro Valley knows what's going on.

It seems Mayor Loomis wants two legacies: An annexation and a "theme park!"

PLEASE------ Elect Bill Garner & Salette Latas to bring some sanity to our government!!!!

Note: Thanks to "Cyclone" for correcting the fact the Council voted to Initiate Amending The General Plan.

Are The Developers Trying To "Buy" The Election For Terry Parish?

Please read what our neighbor John Musolf noted in his letter printed in the March 5 Explorer. If you want Parish elected, just remember, he pretty much sold his sole to the developers! Talk about a "quid pro quo." This may be taking it to the extreme.

Art
*************************************************************************************

His contributions came from elsewhere

I would like to comment on Patrick McNamara’s recent article “Parish, Latas attract most donations in OV campaign,” published in The Explorer on Feb. 27.

The article points out that incumbent TOV councilman Terry Parish has received $22,410 in donations to his Political Action Committee for re-election to the TOV Council.

Most voters have been bombarded with three glossy mailing brochures and newspaper ads supporting Mr. Parish’s re-election. Ever wonder where the money is coming from?

Councilman Parish appears to have garnered much support from individuals associated with the building community.

People associated with the development community — among them builders, contractors, architectural firms, law and civil engineering firms — contributed at least $12,250 to Parish‚s campaign. Of the total, employees of Phoenix-based Vestar Development Company gave $3,900 (anyone heard of the Oro Valley Marketplace?).

What is not detailed in the article is that of the 60 people contributing exactly the $390 limit (not random $50 or $100 contributions), only one person has an address of Oro Valley. The other 59 people have addresses outside of Oro Valley. For example, 23 from Tucson, 12 from Phoenix, 10 from Paradise Valley, four from Colorado Springs (?), and even one from Tennesee (?). The occupations listed are chairman, president, chief financial officer, general counsel, contractor, etc.

Mr. Parish’s latest filing as of Feb. 20, 2008 increases the donations by $10,680 to a total of $33,090. This filing has 28 people contributing the same exact $390 limit. In this filing, there are three addresses in Oro Valley The other 25 people have addresses outside Oro Valley. For example, five from Chandler, five from Scottsdale, four from Paradise Valley and even one from La Jolla, Calif. (?). The occupations listed are architects, real estate agents, public relations, etc.

So out of a total of 88 people contributing to Mr. Parish’s campaign, only four are from Oro Valley.

Every week or month, some matter comes before the TOV Council on development or building issues. It seems that the development community wants to have someone representing them on the Town of Oro Valley Council and is willing to spend to get it.

In my opinion, the above information should tell voters that a vote for Mr. Parish is a vote for the influence of the development and building industry.

John Musolf
Oro Valley

Golder Ranch Fire District & Terry Parish--Another "Quid Pro Quo"

Terry Parish---- Another reason to not have him on the Oro Valley Council. Read Michael Dayton's letter from the March 5 Az Star.

Fire district resorts to bullying

What has happened to free speech in this country? I had a neighborhood meeting at my home in regard to the Golder Ranch Fire District's annexation of our area. Evidently this really bothered the district.

A fire truck was driven up and down our street several times. The district had fire officials on the road outside our home handing out what I would consider scare-tactic information sheet. And if that was not enough, Oro Valley Town Council member Terry Parish came to my door. When I told him this was for our neighborhood only, he said I was "closed-minded."

Obviously this bully behavior must be standard procedures for both Golder Ranch Fire District and Parish. Is this the type of organization/town councilman you want representing you?

Michael Dayton

Retired, Oro Valley