Wednesday, October 1, 2008

A New Blogger Says "NO" On Naranja Bond Issue

"Sacredbirder" is a new blogger who commented on a recent posting. Hopefully, more readers will see it here than as a comment. Hence---here is the comment thanks to "sacredbirder"

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

sacredbirder said...

I will definitely vote against this bond issue, the first time ever that I have voted against any bond issue. My reasons: the Naranja sports complex is a huge luxury, not a necessity. Roads, libraries, and schools are necessities. I am totally fed up with the rampant overspending that has gotten us into the financial difficulty our country is facing now. I have lived my entire life with the attitude that I would not buy anything, other than my first house, that I couldn't pay cash for. As a result, even though I am a senior citizen living on a small fixed income now, I am doing OK. I would have no problem voting for a bond issue that would benefit our schools, but I'll be darned if I will go quietly into poverty with increased property taxes to help finance what I see as an out of control example of the "want, want, want, spend, spend, spend" mentality that is gripping our society and driving it into the ground.

Marion Erickson

Two More Oro Valley Residents Say "NO" To Naranja Bond

In their letters to The Explorer Oct 1, 2008, Oro Valley residents John Musolf & Donald Bristow give more reasons why we should VOTE "NO" ON NARANJA BOND.
**************************************************************************************
Tax to pay for a park, but ignore Oro Valley roads

Chet Oldakowski formed a PAC to stop the Naranja Town Site Park.

Dick Johnson (NTS supporter) is quoted in the news article. According to Johnson, communities have just as much obligation to fund parks as they do roads. And the burden to pay for such things falls upon all members of the community, not just those who benefit from them.

“That’s not the way we do things in America,” Johnson said. “It’s not just about me, it’s about the community.”

Interesting that Mr. Johnson brings up the analogy of funding roads as well as parks.

The TOV already has long-term “under-funded liabilities” that exist for TOV roads. If such “under-funded” obligations are permitted to grow over a long period of time, they can have a substantial effect on a government’s financial condition (sounds like our country’s current economic crisis).

Where is Mr. Johnson’s voice on “community support” for maintaining our roads?

Mr. Civalier, town engineer, appeared before the TOV finance committee in both 2007 and 2008 to discuss “pavement management;” that is, the strategy on how to maintain our streets (roads).

We are currently at least $1 million short each year in budgeting reserves for pavement management.

Mr. Civalier indicated it would help if we could spend about $3.8 million for about 7-8 years ($25-30 million) to maintain the roads properly.

According to Mr. Johnson, we must tax our citizens for a park and ignore our roads.

John Musolf
***************************************************************************************

Bonds too costly in THIS economy


In a recent letter to the editor, Don Cox indicated that Oro Valley will be a town of mediocrity if the citizens don’t approve the Naranja Town Site (NTS) bond proposal.

How can that be? Without the developed NTS, the town recently received several excellent recognitions. U.S News & World Report stated Oro Valley was one of the top places to retire; Money Magazine reported Oro Valley was one of the best places to live in 2008; Family Circle and Parents.com rated Oro Valley as one of the best 10 towns for families; and Fortune Small Business Magazine ranked Oro Valley 44th out of the 100 best places to live and launch a small business.

It doesn’t appear the quality of our town or our property values have suffered from the lack of the developed Naranja Town Site.

Investing in the high cost of the NTS to save some citizens money on gasoline spent to reach recreational facilities outside the town is a minor consideration. A major consideration should be the current financial state of United States and its potential impact on the bond issue.

While it is anyone’s best guess, it appears likely the ability to borrow money for everyone, including the Town of Oro Valley, will be at a higher rate than when the town first asked its citizens to assume more personal long-term debt (up to 25 years and up to 12 percent per annum) by approving the bond proposal. Therefore, it is likely if the bond issue is approved now, we will receive fewer facilities due to higher costs.

The NTS will also cost more to operate. It would be wise to reject the parks and recreation improvements bond proposal for now due to the cost uncertainty. If approved now, the resulting additional property taxes (personal long-term debt) and operational costs will further reduce our shrinking standard of living.

Without the NTS, the Town of Oro Valley will not be a town of mediocrity. It will continue to be a community of excellence.

Donald Bristow

Oro Valley

Explorer Editor Endorses Naranja Bond Issue. We Say "NO"

Mr Dave Perry, Explorer ecitor & publisher has voiced his opinion on any number of Oro Valley issues since his arrival here less than one year ago. We have disagreed with him before. We disagree with him now.

His arguments that a "yes" vote on Naranja will bring us "a real jewel in the midst of Oro Valley" is an opinion not shared by 1000's of our fellow citizens. Referring to a park, which consists, almost exclusively of sports fields, courts and a BMX track as "a jewel," is like referring to a chunk of coal as "a jewel."

To state that a "sports complex" next to your home will enhance property values is certainly argumentative. Why not ask those living near Riverfront Park on Lambert Lane how much their homes have appreciated as a result of this park.

Mr. Perry goes on to say that this park will help in recruiting new businesses to Oro Valley. Conversely, might a business not look at the additional tax burden this park will have, in addition to all the other OV taxes & fees, and be more inclined to not come here? Perhaps.

The balance of Mr. Perry's editorial warns against the shortcomings of this park. This we already know. Issues such as "the park won't pay for itself," the $48.6 million in debt service, (not even considering the millions of dollars in interest), and the fact that home values are depreciating which results in slower and less tax collection are quite accurate.

Bottom line: We say VOTE "NO" on Naranja Bond.
************************************************************************************************
Following is The Explorer editorial. Judge for yourself if you agree.

Vote 'yes' for OV park bonds
By Dave Perry, The Explorer
Published:
October-01-2008
On the Nov. 4 ballot, we suggest Oro Valley voters approve the issuance of $48.6 million in general obligation bonds for the construction of a public park on the Naranja Townsite property.

The park’s master plan is the result of hundreds of hours of discussion, and it has the chance to become a real jewel in the midst of Oro Valley. This is truly a multi-generational park, as advertised, with something for everyone, including open space and natural desert protection, and visual buffering from nearby homes. This park would be without rival in the Northwest, and a significant improvement from the existing, now-idle quarry.

Bond issue opponents, on signs and elsewhere, argue against the bonds as too expensive for property owners. Their argument is fundamentally financial, and we all must acknowledge this time of raw economic nerves. We understand the money concern, and we respect people’s right to express it.

And the opponents are correct; $48.6 million, the accompanying millions in debt service, and the ongoing expense of operating the park, add up to a lot of money. It is imperative that government financial decision-makers use all their resources to minimize the bonds’ impact on property owners, including an effort toward retiring the bonds as inexpensively and quickly as possible.

Parks don’t pay for themselves, either. Oro Valley is pledging revenues from its bed tax, as well as user fees, to pay the projected $1.2 million a year to operate and maintain the Naranja Townsite Park. Members of the business community have expressed concern that user fee estimates are too high. Our hope is that they are realistic.

Estimates of property valuation growth must be rational, too. Given what’s happening in the housing market, values may not rise as quickly as first thought, which means tax collections won’t leap ahead. Town officials must be honest, then, in explaining to the public what’s happening with bond repayment, debt service, bed tax and user fee revenue, and operating expenses.

Here’s a fair question — is it worth millions to Oro Valley property owners and residents to build a park at Naranja Townsite?

Yes, we suggest.

Homeowners immediately adjacent to a park, including those in the Copper Creek development, should experience a strengthening of their property values. Or, to put it another way, when they go to sell their homes, it will help that this impressive facility is within walking distance for children.

The property value effect is rippling, with the largest effect on homes close by. Still, it can be argued, a park on the centrally located townsite could enhance the value of more distant homes. Parks are demanded by modern Americans, particularly those with kids who want to live where life is best. Life is really good in Oro Valley, and this park would take it further.

We might suggest Oro Valley’s growing biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries would have an easier time recruiting talent when, on a tour of the community, families see this park. That’s why it’s appropriate for major industrial property owners to pay money for it. Their employees benefit directly, and their recruitment efforts are bolstered.

One other point.

Over the last 100 years, Americans have approved the issuance of government bonds, to be paid for with property tax revenue over time, to build public facilities, such as schools, libraries and parks. These are often investments in the future; property owners taxing themselves now to help the generations to come. Our forebears sacrificed so that we had better schools, improved fire protection, or safer water. With these park bonds, we are being asked to pay it forward.

Regardless of your position, please flip over the printed ballot to the Naranja Townsite bond question. It’s the last question on the ballot.

Municipalities Can't Get Bond Monies

A New York Times Business article, today, echoes what we have been saying all along: that trying to sell bonds, especially for a frivolous expenditure like a park, is going to be costly and very difficult.

And it will soak up Oro Valley's ability to borrow for important future expenditures. Even real projects for important activities are not being funded in today's market.

Oro Valley's finances are not immune from the terrors of today's financial markets.

Now is the time for fiscal austerity; not fiscal insanity!

VOTE "NO ON NARANJA"

Click here to read the article.