Finally! Mayor Loomis has finally said something we can agree with. As it pertains to the ongoing issue of sign code regulations, Loomis said: "If something can be done quicker, we need those ideas to be brought forward."
Here's the Az Star article.
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/318723
12 comments:
I love this part:
"Mayor Paul Loomis expressed some frustration that the matter has yet to be resolved."
"If something can be done quicker, we need those ideas to be brought forward," he said.
THIS from the man who always wants to table everything until another meeting or who always needs more study and more information on anything before he can vote on it.
But if he's FOR something, it should be done as quickly as possible.
VC...Once again you are guilty of looking at a comment and putting your spin on it when you have no idea the context in which the comment was stated. Like most libs you think that everything you read in a liberal paper is accurate and is reflective of the entire subject.
The mayor, in his latter comment, was responding to a comment made by staff that they could resolve the real estate signs issues much faster then the overall revamp of the sign code in it's entirety.
Like you said you missed the meeting so you get a pass on this one.
Happy "T" Day!!
Thinker,
I did know what he was referring to. I was just noting that his usual M.O. is to table everything for months or if a vote is being taken now, he can't vote yes because he needs more information (eg. Vestar and the sales tax escrow account).
He delays anything that he doesn't want to see happen (usually anything that might get in the way of a developer) always with the excuse that he needs more information.
You keep calling me a liberal. Actually I've always been a centrist, however, when the conservatives started appointing religious fanatics as their leaders and spokespersons and they turned their backs on intellectualism and scientific fact, I began leaning more to the left. As someone who always asserts that he is all about "facts" I'm surprised that you still support the fantasy-land nonsense of the far-right.
You called the Explorer a "liberal paper." You've got to be kidding!
Meant to say, you called the Star a liberal paper. Of course, you probably think the Explorer is liberal, too. Just like you think all the TV news stations are liberal. It's a conspiracy, I tell you!
I'm sure you think everything you hear on Faux News is "accurate and is reflective of the entire subject."
I was merely pointing out that Loomis' quote was so opposite his normal disposition. The sign "issue" is so inconsequential in the grand scheme of things here in Oro Valley, yet THIS is the item that he'd like to see expedited!
But when they're discussing big money issues (developer subsidies, OVPD budget) he likes to drag his feet.
Once again VC you are not seeing the big picture through your tunnel vision glasses.
The sign code is tremendously important to the business community....who contribute 14 million bucks to the Oro Valley general fund. Just remember that the dollars that don't come from local businesses must come from our wallet. But as a true lib I suppose that is OK with you.
And I suppose that you would like someone who makes big money decisions without due diligence. But I momentarily forgot you did love Paula Abbott who couldn't be bothered with such nonsense.
Thinker,
To use your comment..."The sign code is tremendously important to the business community....who contribute 14 million bucks to the Oro Valley general fund."
I reply...The Dark Skies Law (ARS 49-1102) is tremendously important to the astronomy community whose economic impact is $250 million dollars a year.
The following is from an AZ Star article from February 2008:
The state of Arizona's astronomy and planetary and space sciences research cluster is world-class, yet few Arizonans probably realize how valuable it is in terms of economic impact and international prestige.
Truth be told, this research cluster is taken for granted. That has to end.
All Arizonans, particularly legislative leaders and members of Congress, need to realize there is a jewel in our midst. The state should not only protect this research and business cluster, but find ways to nurture and invest in it so that it grows.
Arizona can protect this sector by making sure that communities don't pollute the night sky with ambient light. Our idea (The Arizona Arts, Sciences and Technology Academy) is for the Legislature to update and strengthen its dark-skies law so that all Arizona communities are abiding by the same rules and all are equally effective in reducing light pollution.
VC....Your comments here and elsewhere are getting more ridiculous. Show me the Oro Valley portiion of the $250 million.
The dark sky personnel testified before the Council that leaving the lights on until 10 PM would not adversely effect their operations.
Stop the gibberish and deal with the facts that you can support.
Wait a second OVOT. Let me make sure I'm understanding you. You're now suggesting that unless something has a direct (beneficial) financial impact on Oro Valley, the Town shouldn't be concerned with it. Now that's faulty logic, "ridiculous" and "gibberish" at its finest.
Oro Valley should be interested in doing its part in maintaining dark skies for the entire region, and not merely for some financial benefit to the Town.
Apparently the notion of being a good neighbor has been entirely lost on you.
AZ Cactus....You start off by saying, "Let me make sure I'm understanding you." You then go on put your spin on what I said. Evidently you don't understand me.
Our codes are dark sky friendly.I helped write the sign code and being a good neighbor was one of the paramount considerations. Every commercial light allowed in this community passes through a rigorous set of filters to insure it complies with the dark skies guidelines.
My comment to VC was directed at her irresponsible position that the sign code "is so inconsequential". It isn't!
And I will say this regarding the budget aspect of your comment. We need to doggedly protect every penny that flows directly into our general fund. Those issues that do not directly effect our bottom line are secondary to those that do. You may interpret that any way you wish.
Thinker,
I didn't say that the sign code was inconsequential. I wouldn't be arguing the pros and cons of it if that were the case. I said that it was inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. It's NOT the biggest problem we have!
The business community does not seem to want to compromise. When the discussion came up about turning the lights off at 10 PM, they continued to argue that THAT wasn't good enough and that they NEED the lights on overnight. One woman said that she wants her lights on when people are commuting to work in the early morning hours (approx. 5 AM-6 AM) when it's still dark out during the fall/winter months.
When AZCactus1 said to you, "You're now suggesting that unless something has a direct (beneficial) financial impact on Oro Valley, the Town shouldn't be concerned with it." You accused him/her of putting a "spin" on what you said. But you followed that with, "Those issues that do not directly effect our bottom line are secondary to those that do."
That's EXACTLY what AZCactus1 said that you were implying!
How is THAT being a good neighbor? What if a neighboring community wanted to do something that would have a positive impact on THEIR general fund but would have a seriously adverse effect on Oro Valley? (noise, air pollution, traffic jams, etc.)
VC......
My words:
"And I will say this regarding the budget aspect of your comment. We need to doggedly protect every penny that flows directly into our general fund. Those issues that do not directly effect our bottom line are secondary to those that do."
Cactus' words:
"You're now suggesting that unless something has a direct (beneficial) financial impact on Oro Valley, the Town shouldn't be concerned with it."
Your words:
"That's EXACTLY what AZCactus1 said that you were implying!"
Where did I say that we should not be concerned? We are concerned which is clearly evidenced by out lighting design guidelines. That concern is manifested every time an applicant comes before us with a light package.
When I say that revenue should come first and non-revenue should receive a lower priority that does not translate (to most rightminded people) that the non-revenue should be disregarded.
Did it ever occur to you and AZ Cactus that both can be accomodated. They can. It just takes a little more effort and a little give and take on both sides.
BTW...10 PM would have been welcomed by the business community.
From the comments I heard from business owners at the council meeting, 10 PM would NOT have been welcomed by the business community. They were adamant about all night lighting.
My comment, "That's EXACTLY what AZCactus1 said that you were implying!" means just that. Your words could be interpreted to mean that that's what you were IMPLYING.
You know, like the time you took something Michelle Obama said, twisted her words into something slightly different, and then IMPLIED that that's what she really meant!
Apparently, you don't like it when someone does that to YOUR words. Hee-hee.
Post a Comment