VOTE "NO" On Naranja Bond Issue

I sent the following email today. Your comments are welcome.

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

Hi Everybody----- I'm quite sure there are those that receive this email who feel the $48.6 million expenditure for the Naranja Park is worthy of a "Yes" vote.

I believe the issue is not whether we build another park, mainly for our youth, but the fact that the previous Town Council felt a park with a total of 38 courts & fields, plus a skate park, plus a BMX track was not too extravagant. If not then, it is CERTAINLY NOW AN EXTRAVAGANCE, especially with the financial crisis we are now experiencing.

While many of us are trying to make do with the cost of life's necessities----food, home, utilities, gas, insurance to name a few, certainly, a park with all of these amenities that will be utilized by only a few, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A NECESSITY.

There are those that fail to realize that this $48.6 million expenditure will actually be approximately double the cost over the time-frame of funding the bond issue, even with a relatively low interest rate.

There are also those that fail to acknowledge the millions of dollars that will be required to maintain & operate this park on an annual basis. These individuals tell us the funding will come from the bed tax and user fees. Didn't we hear this same scenario about the income we would be generating as a result of the $50 million we gave to the retail developers with a sales tax subsidy? At last count, the monies coming into Oro Valley fell so short of projections, that it would be laughable, if it wasn't so sad.

While we acknowledge there is a proactive PAC lobbying for a "yes" vote, with intentions of marching with signs, addressing the Town Council, writing letters to newspapers, and touting the park to neighbors, we believe, although well intentioned, these folks do not see the big picture.

The big picture consists of two big negatives.

1) This park is just too much for too few of us.

2) There are too many of us that do not need an additional tax, especially in these difficult times.

Might it not be more prudent to allow this present Town Council that is so much more fiscally responsible than its predecessors the opportunity to review the details of this bond issue, and come back with potentially a more realistic package?

We urge all of our citizens to VOTE "NO" on this Naranja Park, which means voting "NO" on a PROPERTY TAX.

Thank you.

Art