I hope all the residents of our area will take the time to read Barry's comments below, as they pertain to the future of Arroyo Grande, and indeed, the future of Oro Valley and beyond.
As we noted in an earlier post, the next General Plan Amendment meeting on Arroyo Grande is scheduled for July 1. Please try to attend, and add your voice to those of us that have grave concerns about the future of this critical parcel known as Arroyo Grande.
Art
****************************************************************************************
Barry writes:
Based on the past, hearings such as the one scheduled for July 1 are a complete waste of time. If the past is any indication of the future, the single most important issue, the impact that the development of Arroyo Grande will have on the area’s water supply, will not be adequately addressed.
Viewed from 3,000 feet above ground level, AG is a natural quilt work of ravines and pockets that capture water during the rainy season which replenishes the aquifer that lies below. Given the precipitous and continuous drop in the aquifer we depend upon for drinking water, the questionable supply available from the CAP, and the toxic mess left by the U of A which threatens to seep into the aquifer, it is absolute madness to inhibit AG’s ability to absorb rain water by paving it over with concrete pads and asphalt roads. The placement of houses and shopping centers over Nature’s “sponge”, which supplies one of the most precious substances we need for life, is nuts.
My good friend Oro Valley Councilman Gillaspie, whom we actively supported in the most recent election, believes that if OV serves as overseer of the development of AG, the outcome will be less intense than Pima County. In essence, Gillaspie frames the question in terms of which municipality would be the lesser of two evils.
While I understand his reasoning and respect his experience, I reject Gillaspie’s “frame”. The fundamental question to be answered concerning water is not the selection of that government agency which will deplete the water supply more slowly. To the contrary, the fundamental question to be answered is what we must do to stop the project altogether.
Viewed from 3,000 feet above ground level, AG is a natural quilt work of ravines and pockets that capture water during the rainy season which replenishes the aquifer that lies below. Given the precipitous and continuous drop in the aquifer we depend upon for drinking water, the questionable supply available from the CAP, and the toxic mess left by the U of A which threatens to seep into the aquifer, it is absolute madness to inhibit AG’s ability to absorb rain water by paving it over with concrete pads and asphalt roads. The placement of houses and shopping centers over Nature’s “sponge”, which supplies one of the most precious substances we need for life, is nuts.
My good friend Oro Valley Councilman Gillaspie, whom we actively supported in the most recent election, believes that if OV serves as overseer of the development of AG, the outcome will be less intense than Pima County. In essence, Gillaspie frames the question in terms of which municipality would be the lesser of two evils.
While I understand his reasoning and respect his experience, I reject Gillaspie’s “frame”. The fundamental question to be answered concerning water is not the selection of that government agency which will deplete the water supply more slowly. To the contrary, the fundamental question to be answered is what we must do to stop the project altogether.
While many of us support the initiative that would place AG off limits to development, too many initiatives end up in court, and/or lose at the polls thanks to high priced marketing campaigns produced by special interests who have no concern for the well being of the community's water supply. Must I remind folks of the “convenience campaign” that Vestar used to suck $23 million out of our pockets? Vestar's marketing campaign worked, and people willingly voted to deplete their town treasury for a Wal Mart. Clever marketing employed by deep pockets knows no boundaries and is capable of fooling the less-informed over and over again.
Developers and their minions in public office typically convey a sense of "inevitability" to mollify the electorate into sleep mode so more land is available for their projects. "AG will be approved", they say, better to let the lesser of two evils administer it but if you look at the history of OV, invariably, one by one, sections of land will be rezoned in the future from the advertised low density into higher density. The population will skyrocket, and the water supply will be challenged even further. Right now, OV is being asked for 5 changes to its general plan to accommodate more homes & development. What makes anyone believe that won't continue in the future?
We've seen the marketing campaign known as “inevitable” over and over again, but given our recent string of successes in OV, I believe there is no reason to acquiesce to this latest assault on reason.
SUGGESTION: Via a simple, non binding petition or a series of emails conveying the same message, we can and should demand an answer from government of an entirely different question than which agency is the lesser of two evils. At present we have five decision makers in OV (including Gillaspie) who are able to view the situation impartially given their ethics and allegiance to the people whom they serve. It is our job to ask council to add an agenda item that organizes the following procedures to help council & the community understand and explore the issue of water and AG.
Developers and their minions in public office typically convey a sense of "inevitability" to mollify the electorate into sleep mode so more land is available for their projects. "AG will be approved", they say, better to let the lesser of two evils administer it but if you look at the history of OV, invariably, one by one, sections of land will be rezoned in the future from the advertised low density into higher density. The population will skyrocket, and the water supply will be challenged even further. Right now, OV is being asked for 5 changes to its general plan to accommodate more homes & development. What makes anyone believe that won't continue in the future?
We've seen the marketing campaign known as “inevitable” over and over again, but given our recent string of successes in OV, I believe there is no reason to acquiesce to this latest assault on reason.
SUGGESTION: Via a simple, non binding petition or a series of emails conveying the same message, we can and should demand an answer from government of an entirely different question than which agency is the lesser of two evils. At present we have five decision makers in OV (including Gillaspie) who are able to view the situation impartially given their ethics and allegiance to the people whom they serve. It is our job to ask council to add an agenda item that organizes the following procedures to help council & the community understand and explore the issue of water and AG.
1) Our non binding petition asks OV to invite local water experts who oppose AG to address council, staff, & the community at town hall. We've heard from the proponents, we’ve endured threats from state land, now it's time to hear from the opponents in a free exchange of ideas. Unlike the Vestar debacle during which Loomis thwarted community opposition, this time opposition is invited to provide its issues in an unfettered forum. At the end of the opposition's presentation, Q & A is provided council, staff, residents, and affected parties who depend on the same aquifer.
Our petition specifies two council members, Latas and Gillaspie, to seek out and invite these opponents.
2) Our petition also asks Latas and Gillaspie to communicate with Pima County Supervisor Ann Day and Pima County and ask them to present the impact Pima County would have on AG if OV dropped out of the game. In other words, how much development would realistically occur if OV took itself “off the table” and the only option became Pima County? Invite Supervisor Ann Day to address the issue at this meeting, in front of council, and the entire town. Our petition also allows Q & A from residents and affected parties.
2) Our petition also asks Latas and Gillaspie to communicate with Pima County Supervisor Ann Day and Pima County and ask them to present the impact Pima County would have on AG if OV dropped out of the game. In other words, how much development would realistically occur if OV took itself “off the table” and the only option became Pima County? Invite Supervisor Ann Day to address the issue at this meeting, in front of council, and the entire town. Our petition also allows Q & A from residents and affected parties.
We may THINK we know what Pima County will do with AG, but it's better to hear it directly from them and provide an opportunity for Q & A.
3) Play Devil's Advocate - Our petition directs staff to consider and discuss all legal measures OV can use to forestall the increased demand on our water supply. Staff should be asked to take the position that AG is bad for the community's water supply and provide our council decision-makers with a list of measures and tools they can use to stop this project, if they so decide.
3) Play Devil's Advocate - Our petition directs staff to consider and discuss all legal measures OV can use to forestall the increased demand on our water supply. Staff should be asked to take the position that AG is bad for the community's water supply and provide our council decision-makers with a list of measures and tools they can use to stop this project, if they so decide.
Instead of staff serving as the purveyor of development, it should assume the role of opponent for this exercise thereby providing the decision makers, the council & the community, with the ability to make a reasoned judgment.
4) OPTIONAL: If Phill Gibbs is ready and willing, our petition asks Phill to share his research which articulates the position of all of the players, their motivation, and the likely outcome of each scenario. Frankly, Phill should be the first speaker, if he's willing. Phill knows that he can count on my assistance at all levels if he decides to present his research.
5) The petition also asks council to suspend all further work on changes to the general plan concerning AG until this meeting occurs.
AG is not a foregone conclusion nor is it "inevitable". Only those members of staff who expect to move onto employment with developers, and those developer sycophants on council, see AG as inevitable. I expect five members of OV's council to be able to consider all opportunities impartially. Town council's job is not to rubberstamp every project that comes along. To the contrary, town council is a decision-making body and as such, it deserves to hear all sides of an issue.
4) OPTIONAL: If Phill Gibbs is ready and willing, our petition asks Phill to share his research which articulates the position of all of the players, their motivation, and the likely outcome of each scenario. Frankly, Phill should be the first speaker, if he's willing. Phill knows that he can count on my assistance at all levels if he decides to present his research.
5) The petition also asks council to suspend all further work on changes to the general plan concerning AG until this meeting occurs.
AG is not a foregone conclusion nor is it "inevitable". Only those members of staff who expect to move onto employment with developers, and those developer sycophants on council, see AG as inevitable. I expect five members of OV's council to be able to consider all opportunities impartially. Town council's job is not to rubberstamp every project that comes along. To the contrary, town council is a decision-making body and as such, it deserves to hear all sides of an issue.
So do we.
Loomis will decry the time this will take and conjure up reasons this discovery process should not occur. But his objections should be discarded because there is no more imminent threat to the well-being of this community than its water supply. If we don't take the time to deal with this issue realistically before we blunder, we will surely deal with the ramifications of our mistake.
AG has remained open space for millions of years. A few more months invested into proper consideration of this issue seems prudent and warranted.
It is up to us to let all seven members of council know that we expect dutiful, purposeful, thorough consideration of all possible scenarios. If any assistance is required in this assignment, our petition suggests that Doug McKee serve as project advisor to the town. Given his extensive work with the town and his former experience as a professional advisor to General Electric upper management, I can think of no more qualified individual than Doug to serve in an advisory role to his community. I hope he is willing.
It is up to us to let all seven members of council know that we expect dutiful, purposeful, thorough consideration of all possible scenarios. If any assistance is required in this assignment, our petition suggests that Doug McKee serve as project advisor to the town. Given his extensive work with the town and his former experience as a professional advisor to General Electric upper management, I can think of no more qualified individual than Doug to serve in an advisory role to his community. I hope he is willing.
It is up to us to remind all seven council members that they are here for our service, that they represent our interests, not developers. Given the five people we’ve bootstrapped into office, the folks we’ve learned to trust and admire, I cannot recall a better opportunity to change the dynamics of development in this town, and in this state. I also cannot recall a more urgent need to rein in the demand of that substance known as water, which we need for life
Barry DiSimone
Barry DiSimone
