KVOA presented a rather biased segment on the Oro Valley Sign Code enforcement on the late Sunday night news.
Biased in the sense that business owners interviewed would be likely to say they are against enforcement, and that's what the report showed. One resident interviewed thought businesses should abide by the same codes imposed on homeowners.
Here's the link to the KVOA story.
http://www.kvoa.com/news/tonight-at-ten-cracking-down-on-business-owners-in-oro-valley/
The Oro Valley web site has a survey on this issue for residents & businesses. However, any survey that allows for as many responses as one wishes to make isn't worth anything. The town, plans on submitting the results of the survey at the Council meeting on Nov 18.
You can access the survey here.
http://www.orovalleyaz.gov/Town_Government/Planning_Zoning/Survey.htm
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Tucson Resident Addresses "Ugly Wall" Along Our Scenic Corridor
In her letter to the Az Star, Jean Israel echos what many many of us believe: The wall along the east side of Oracle road approaching Tangerine, is a blight on our community.
Ugly wall is no enhancement
Not so long ago the drive north on Oracle Road toward Tangerine was one of the loveliest in the area. Now the highest, ugliest wall has been erected along a particularly scenic portion, completely wiping out the mountain view to northbound drivers. The final insult is the etched mountain peaks in place of the real beauty of that face of the Catalinas. The "decorations" that were promised are no enhancement.
When will Arizona appreciate the beauty of its Sonoran desert and mountain surroundings? Rosemont mine comes to mind, a potential scar in a particularly beautiful area of the Santa Ritas.
Jean Israel
Tucson
Ugly wall is no enhancement
Not so long ago the drive north on Oracle Road toward Tangerine was one of the loveliest in the area. Now the highest, ugliest wall has been erected along a particularly scenic portion, completely wiping out the mountain view to northbound drivers. The final insult is the etched mountain peaks in place of the real beauty of that face of the Catalinas. The "decorations" that were promised are no enhancement.
When will Arizona appreciate the beauty of its Sonoran desert and mountain surroundings? Rosemont mine comes to mind, a potential scar in a particularly beautiful area of the Santa Ritas.
Jean Israel
Tucson
Pima County Superior Judge Rules Against City Of Tuscon On Prop. 207
Tucson Court Issues First Prop 207 Victory for Home and Business Owners
Goldwater Institute wins lawsuit against City of Tucson
Tucson--A Pima County Superior Court judge has ruled in favor of Goldwater Institute client Mike Goodman, who filed suit against the City of Tucson under Arizona's Proposition 207, the Private Property Rights Protection Act passed by Arizona voters in 2006, which requires government to compensate property owners if they pass laws or regulations that diminish property values.
The verdict clears the legal path for Goodman to be awarded the first court-mandated damages under Prop 207.
"Arizona voters overwhelmingly embraced greater protection of private property rights," said Clint Bolick, director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation, "and this ruling vindicates that intent."
Mr. Goodman, a Tucson builder, buys run-down properties in the downtown area and near the University of Arizona, and replaces them with new housing that meets or exceeds zoning requirements and building standards. But in 2007 the City of Tucson enacted an anti-demolition ordinance that subjected property owners to a labyrinth of rules that limited property use and instantly reduced property values for thousands of homeowners and small business owners. This ordinance applied to Mr. Goodman after he had received building permits and begun the building process.
The presiding judge, Hon. Paul Tang, wrote in his decision, "The Court believes that the public's interest in laws requiring compensation for partial regulatory takings is significant and arguably compelling." He also wrote, "To adopt the City's view . . . would render [Prop 207's intent] superfluous and obsolete."
The next step in Goodman v. City of Tucson is to determine the amount of damages the City must pay. "[F]or every actionable injury there is a corresponding right to damages," Judge Tang added. Prop 207 is "part of a greater effort and movement in favor of individual rights."
For more information on this and other Goldwater Institute lawsuits visit www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.
Goldwater Institute wins lawsuit against City of Tucson
Tucson--A Pima County Superior Court judge has ruled in favor of Goldwater Institute client Mike Goodman, who filed suit against the City of Tucson under Arizona's Proposition 207, the Private Property Rights Protection Act passed by Arizona voters in 2006, which requires government to compensate property owners if they pass laws or regulations that diminish property values.
The verdict clears the legal path for Goodman to be awarded the first court-mandated damages under Prop 207.
"Arizona voters overwhelmingly embraced greater protection of private property rights," said Clint Bolick, director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation, "and this ruling vindicates that intent."
Mr. Goodman, a Tucson builder, buys run-down properties in the downtown area and near the University of Arizona, and replaces them with new housing that meets or exceeds zoning requirements and building standards. But in 2007 the City of Tucson enacted an anti-demolition ordinance that subjected property owners to a labyrinth of rules that limited property use and instantly reduced property values for thousands of homeowners and small business owners. This ordinance applied to Mr. Goodman after he had received building permits and begun the building process.
The presiding judge, Hon. Paul Tang, wrote in his decision, "The Court believes that the public's interest in laws requiring compensation for partial regulatory takings is significant and arguably compelling." He also wrote, "To adopt the City's view . . . would render [Prop 207's intent] superfluous and obsolete."
The next step in Goodman v. City of Tucson is to determine the amount of damages the City must pay. "[F]or every actionable injury there is a corresponding right to damages," Judge Tang added. Prop 207 is "part of a greater effort and movement in favor of individual rights."
For more information on this and other Goldwater Institute lawsuits visit www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)