Thursday, February 18, 2010

Two Points Of View On Supporting Oro Valley Businesses

The Explorer has two "Guest Columns" Concerning Oro Valley & the "Business Community."

One column is written by our friend and Oro Valley voter John Musolf.

John, who has vast knowledge and experience in financial matters writes that it is "foolhardy' (my words-not his) to keep funding outside agencies such as TREO & MTVCB when we do not get a good return on our investment.

We believe John knows from whence he speaks.


The other "Guest Column" is written by Ramon Gaandarse,President & CEO of the NPCCC.
Not surprisingly, the C of C endorses 4 candidates in the Oro Valley election. The are Satish Hiremath for Mayor & Joe Hornat, Mary Snider & Lou Waters for Council.

Why these four? Because the Chamber feels they are all good for the business community.

What about the other candidates? Well, we know Loomis is all for the business community, and was more than a little upset that he was "tossed aside" by the Chamber.

However, we will address the two candidates we support.

Both Mike Zinkin & Dr. Don Emmons appreciate the small businesses are critical to Oro Valley's future and, when elected, will work closely with them in order to help in determining their needs and helping them achieve their goals.

Does that mean the businesses can have their lights blaring throughout the night? No! These two will offer to compromise, but will not compromise the "dark skies" that are also a key factor in the economic well being of our community. Mike & Don will also give the people of Oro Valley at least the same consideration as the businesses.

Read the two columns and decide whether or not you want candidates who are supported by any Special Interest Group. We certainly don't like that idea.

http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2010/02/18/opinion/editorials/doc4b7c3d8ecbc86729821345.txt

http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2010/02/18/opinion/editorials/doc4b7c3e17981e4162898997.txt

59 comments:

OV Objective Thinker said...

As you might expect, I disagree with John's statement. I don't know if he has talked with the General Manager of the Hilton El Conquistador but his comments would indicate that he has not. He should. At that time he will learn the financial benefits we receive from MTVBC. The same would be true of chatting with David Welch of TREO.

I also find it interesting that the blog masta already knows what Zinkin and Emmons are going to do BEFORE they get into office.

There are many schools of behaviorial science. But one common thread among most of them is as follows: "The greatest predictor of future performance, is past performance". Mike Zinkin has turned his back on the business community on several occasions while a member of the DRB. Dr. Emmons has a very checkered business background. While he may be a great vet, he has a history of bad business decisions.

Lastly, I want to make an observation that I find interesting. The four candidates who have received an endorsement from the NPCCC have been criticised because they support the business community.

Why is it a sin to be supportive of the group of people who generate more revenue to the Town of Oro Valley than any other entity?

I would ask that someone take a moment and ask Al Kunisch what demands were placed on him by NPCCC in return for their endorsement when he was a candidate. I know the answer but I think it would be beneficial if one of the organizers of this blog take the time to call and ask Al. And while they are at it they might ask the same question of the SAHBA and TAR endorsements he received.

The quid pro quo argument for endorsements that is repeated continuously by our purveyors of questionable information is nothing but a red herring presented to you to raise suspicion.

artmarth said...

Interesting prior comment.

Cox disagrees with John Musolf, who has a wealth of financial & business degrees & experience.

Cox finds it interesting that I know "what Zinkin and Emmons are going to do BEFORE they get into office."

That's why I support Mike & Dr. Don. Because I know they are independent from any Special Interest Group, INCLUDING TREO & MTVBC who take our tax money year after.

Cox says that "Mike Zinkin has turned his back on the business community on several occasions while a member of the DRB."

Any reasonable person would say, "Mike Zinkin, while serving four years on DRB, two as chairman continuously voted to uphold Oro Valley's General Plan and its town codes. He did not give-in to any entity at the expense of the people of Oro Valley."

Cox refers to Don Emmons of having "a history of bad business decisions."

I know Dr. Don as a disabled veteran, who works caring for people's sick cats & dogs, and in his spare time, working with disabled veterans.

It's so easy to "go after" such a caring person as Don. That approach from his detractors is not surprising.

Cox asks why it is a sin to receive support from a Special Interest Group?

Because Special Interests Groups expect something in return for their support. 'nough said!

Finally, Cox brings his dear friend, Al Kunisch into the discussion, asking "what demands were placed on him by NPCCC in return for their endorsement when he was a candidate?"

One only need look at Kunisch's voting record to answer that question. As a real estate agent himslf (just like Cox,) Kunisch consistently pushed for signs and more signs cluttering up our roadways. Kunisch endorsed allowing the businesses to keep their lights on throughout the night to the detriment of the scientific community and the homeowners. Kunisch knew who supported him, and why. It was no accident the support he received was returned with his support, time after time.

Maybe it was "just a coincidence"--you think?

Cox can opine all he wants. That's his right. It is not his right, however, to twist the facts to his liking.

Nombe Watanabe said...

It would be helpful if we spelled out the name of the organization before we used the initials.

MTVBC and TREO may have no meaning to new readers of the blog.

Thank You.

artmarth said...

Thanks Nombe--
Good advice

MTCVB---- Metropolitan Tucson Convention & Visitors Bureau

TREO----Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities

NPCCC--- Northern Pima County Chamber of Commerce

DRB--- Development Review Board---A volunteer group working at the pleasure of the OV Council, making recommendations as it concerns building codes and the like. (Example---Developer adhering to a paint code)

arizonamoose said...

In response to OV Objective Thinker

“Birds of a Feather Flock Together” When Spending Taxpayer Money!

In the Explorer News Article on the Recent NPCCC Candidate Forum.
Reporter Pat Mcnamara commented: “On at least three occasions, the questioning turned to issues of economic development and funding of groups like the MTCVB and TREO. A few of the candidates came out in favor of renewing funding for such groups. Hiremath gave unequivocal support for resumed funding”.

[Zinkin, Rabb, and Finchem are quoted as supporting performance-based contracts.]

In my opinion, people like Hiremath, Mayor Loomis and OV Objective Thinker (LOVE blogger) want us to give taxpayer money to MTCVB and TREO who have not provided Oro Valley with any “real” performance in past contracts.

Mayor Loomis:

At the budget retreat on Saturday, January 23, 2010, Mayor Paul Loomis stated that he felt that money for the 2010/2011 budget should be included for MTCVB and TREO under economic development. Mayor Loomis is now trying to get the community funding budget money for MTCVB and TREO reinstated under the guise of economic development. Full Disclosure: Mayor Loomis sits on the TREO board.
The use of budget money for MTCVB or TREO was never justified with Return on Investment (ROI) or any performance objectives in any prior years. The “donations” were listed under “community funding” Switching it to a different name (economic development) will not get Oro Valley a justifiable Return on Investment (ROI).

Again, under the future agenda items at the Town Council Study Session on January 27, 2010, Mayor Loomis asked to discuss economic development at a future Town Council Study Session.
Look for Mayor Loomis to suggest marketing money for MTCVB and TREO for economic development. Another way to spend taxpayer money without any real performance.

OV Objective Thinker:

There was a comment by OV Objective Thinker on January 30, 2010, 2:39PM on the LOVE Blog directed to one of Zev Cywan’s comments:

“Zev....I cannot disagree with you on your request for 'full disclosure' when it comes to non-profits. However where we may disagree is with organizations like TREO and MTCVB. Those organizations provide us with a well documented ROI especially MTCVB. TREO's return is a bit more difficult to track unless you require them to do so much finite record keeping that that alone eats up any financial support. It is organizations like them that should receive funding from a bed tax or even a small cut of sales tax revenue because that's where the ROI typically goes.”

Definition on Government Return On Investment (ROI) from Internet.
ROI is calculated by considering the annual benefit divided by the investment amount (Government Accountability Office).

Maybe OV Objective Thinker can provide us with his definition of ROI. Also, OV Objective Thinker should provide us with a copy of the well documented ROI from MTCVB?

Perhaps, OV Objective Thinker should have reviewed the latest “performance” reports from MTCVB and TREO prior to commenting. In the Explorer article I reviewed some of the non-performance of MTCVB and TREO. I did a “request for records” to obtain factual information from the Town and got the MTCVB and TREO latest reports and dissected them. These reports were woefully inadequate.

Summary:
Oro Valley does need to update its Economic Development Plans to reflect the economic conditions that exist now and for some time into the future.

In the Explorer News article, I ask Amanda Jacobs, OV economic development manager, to advertise for competitive bids (request for proposals) from economic development organizations for developing business and tourism growth with strong performance objectives.

John Musolf

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Thinker,

Regarding the candidates endorsed by the Chamber, you asked, "Why is it a sin to be supportive of the group of people who generate more revenue to the Town of Oro Valley than any other entity?"

Because that "group of people" are very self-serving and act like they own the town and that the town owes them every little thing they desire, whether it's justified or not.

Case in point:

One OV business owner was quoted as stating that ever since she has not been allowed to leave her outside sign lit up all night, that customers have been asking her if her business has closed. This begs some questions...

(1) If her customers were asking her this question while IN her business, then they KNEW it was still open.

(2) If they were asking her this question when they ran into her somewhere (hard to believe that so many customers just happened to run into her) didn't these customers also notice that EVERY outside sign in that plaza was also turned off at night? Did they therefore assume that EVERY business in that plaza had closed?

I think she was making up the story about all these customers asking her if her business had closed. The real issue for these business owners is that they PAID for expensive signage and they therefore want to use it. It isn't that they NEED to use it, it's that they WANT to use it because they paid for it, NOT because they think it will bring them more customers. The customer angle is just an excuse. Hiremath stated at at least 2 forums that even HE doesn't believe that leaving HIS sign lit up at 3 AM will bring him even one more customer.

You also asked what "demands" were placed on Kunisch by the NPCCC as a result of their endorsement. I doubt that there are any "contractual" type demands (for lack of a better word) but the "I scratched your back, now you scratch mine" idea is IMPLIED.

Art pointed out one example:

"Kunisch endorsed allowing the businesses to keep their lights on throughout the night to the detriment of the scientific community and the homeowners."

That's right. Three separate entities weighed in on the issue. Two entities (scientific and resident) spoke against it. One entity (business) spoke in favor of it. That's 2 to 1, yet Kunisch voted WITH the business community.

OV Objective Thinker said...

The only fact twister here is Art.

I'll go way out on a limb and say that either Art doesn't know the all of the facts or he does know and chooses to ignore them and perpetrate a fraud on the public. In either instance his choices should be taken with a grain of salt. I have previously opined that because of this blog and his questionable agenda he is a special interest. He will endorse any candidate that agrees with his 'view of the world'. Let's all not forget, that he endorsed Carter, Dankwerth, Culver, Abbott and Gillaspie. He turned on all of them when they didn't toe his line. Then two of his endorsed candidates in this race drop out early. I suspect that his "my way or the highway" attitude had something to do with it. Time will tell. I have a suspicion that some of the 'king's' castle will come crumbling down.

Cowgirls comments ramble so much they are hard to decipher.

She states that business owners are "self-serving". Yes, Cowgirl they are. They have invested many thousands of their dollars and are trying to make a profit. That's really "self-serving" isn't it. You see, the bottom line is that Cowgirl hates capitalism.

She is always making accusations without a shread of information. "I think she was making up the story about all these customers asking her if her business had closed." Everything is a conspiracy to her.

And just to set the record straight the Town did not receive A SINGLE complaint from citizens about the business lights remaining on nor did the 'dark sky' community file any complaints.
The only complaint came from Mike Zinkin. Please refer to my original post on this topic about his 'support' of the business community.


John...

Once again I challenge you to talk to the General Manager of the Hilton El Conquistador and to David Welch, Vice President of TREO. And then come back and tell us what you learned. Until then your comments don't hold water. You say the reports were "woefully inadequate" but you don't tell us what they said and why that information is "woefully inadequate". It's really only your opinion. The financial facts are there, if you will simply take the time to look at them. I suspect you don't want to find out at this point.

It's not up to me to provide you with the information. I DO my homework. Do yours, John.

artmarth said...

Cox can challenge me. Cox can challenge "Victorian Cowgirl." Cox can challenge John Musolf. Cox can challenge Mike Zinkin, & Dr. Don Emmons. Cox can challenge Bill Garner, Salette Latas & Barry Gillaspie.

Cox can challenge the fact that the Oro Valley voters refused to elect him in his two attempts to get on the council.

Cox can challenge the intelligence of the Oro Valley voters.

Our intelligent readers know quite well that when you don't have the facts, you try to attack the other side.

That ploy didn't work for Cox in the 2008 election. We hope it won't work in the 2010 election either.

There are a total of three candidates with no "Special Interest" endorsements.

Although we have not supported Matt Rabb, he joins Mike Zinkin & Dr. Don Emmons as the only three that can make that statement.

The voters of Oro Valley will decide what is in our best interests.

That's the way it ought to be.

John Martin said...

I feel badly for Matt Rabb. On the one hand, the purveyor's of this blog go out of their way to tout some of his qualities, of which they evidently approve. On the other hand, the purveyor’s of this blog go out of their way to remind readers that he does not have their full support. He's worthy of consideration, but he does not yet carry the LOVE Blog seal of approval? Perhaps he needed only to actively court the blog’s support in the beginning. Kiss the ring as it were.

The best endorsements lend themselves to advancing the message of a particular candidate, not the one who’s doing the endorsing. You “place” a product; you don’t “force” it.

I only say all of this half-heartedly, and to prove a larger point. It is one thing to say that candidate is truly his own man, and courts no support except for that of the electorate’s. It is another thing entirely to suggest that a particularly candidate enjoys no special interest support, because I support him and I have seen fit to speak for everyone else.

artmarth said...

Dear Mr. Martin--- Once again you offer your opinion, but obviously, you don't fully understand the situation.

For your benefit, and anyone else else that has doubts as to what our motives are, and what we expect for our support, I'll, once again attempt to clarify it.

In the last election, we chose to support only two candidates; Bill Garner & Salette Latas. Both were elected in the primary and have served the people of Oro Valley with class, distinction, integrity and an abundance of intelligence.

In this upcoming election we have chosen to support ONLY Mike Zinkin for Mayor & Dr. Don Emmons for Council.

We are quite cognizant that there are three vacancies on the council.

We have seen fit to not support any other candidate as we are not as confident in all of their positions as we would like to be.

However, we feel both Matt Rabb & additionally, Mark Finchem would be viable choices for those voters that want to vote for one or two other council candidates.

Our hope is that Dr. Don, Matt & Mark will garner enough votes in the primary election to reach the run-off election in May. (Certainly, we'd like Dr. Don to win in the primary.)

Let there be no doubt, we expect nothing in return for our support other than the candidates holding true to their commitment to the people---just like Bill & Salette have done.

Finally, if you are confused who the "purveyors" of this blog are, it is me, Art, with the able assistance of Richard, "The Zeeman."

Art

PS--You are sadly mistaken if you believe we speak for everyone else, but you might be a bit disappointed to know, there are thousands of citizens out there just like me---wanting nothing but candidates that are concerned about US.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Mr. Martin, Mr. Martin, Mr. Martin.

You have hit a "home run" and a grand slam. The first home run is your comment about the 'casual' support of Matt Rabb and as an after thought Mark Finchem.

The grand slam is that this blog, it's masta and to a FAR lesser degree the assistant, Richard (he has some clear thinking gray matter)only support candidates that will promote the BLOG's agenda...not their own.

Now here is one perfect example of the complete fabrication of Art Segal:

"We have seen fit to not support any other candidate as we are not as confident in all of their positions as we would like to be."

Art Segal, through this blog, openly supported two other candidates for Town Council in this election. And allow me to cut and paste a comment from a previous post:

"Then two of his endorsed candidates in this race drop out early. I suspect that his "my way or the highway" attitude had something to do with it."

It would appear that there is seepage in the vessels of Art's memory.

You just can't make this stuff up. It gets funner and funner and funner!!!

artmarth said...

Let me remind Cox, neither I or The Zeeman, Richard are candidates
for any position.

The voters will determine if the police unions, the N Pima Chamber of Commerce the likes of TREO & MTCVB are Special Interest Groups or if The Zeeman and I, two senior citizens of Oro Valley are a "Special Interest Group."

That is the bottom line!

The Zee Man said...

Some bloggers spend their time attacking the blog and Art. It's often 80% of what they write and it really muddies any other message they are expressing.

The "let's beat up on the blog and Art" thing is really old. It is a huge waste of time. It bores our readers. I know. They tell me.

(Every once in a while, I think about deleting these kinds of blog comments; but, out of respect for our bloggers, I don't.)

Once again, let me set the record straight.

The LOVE Blog "is what it is". We have never pretended to be anything else. And the same goes for Art: "What you see is who he is!"

The only candidates or council members for whom we advocate are those who have Oro Valley's citizens as their only special interest group.

That is the bottom line! We won't advocate for anyone who accepts the support of a group that has a vested economic interest in the result of the election.

LOVE has no vested economic interest in the operations of the town or the results of an election. We are two old guys with something to say who want to give the citizens or Oro Valley the chance to state their views and have real, honest, thoughtful discourse.

So please, in regards to this election, it you have something to say in support of a candidate then say it. We'd love to hear it!

Nombe Watanabe said...

I offered a compromise -it seems like months ago - for the GREAT LIGHT DEBATE (GLD). Give them another half hour and move on.

AZ Moose is the ONLY one with a Grand Slam in this thread. Return on investment - results - should be the determining factor in any government support to:

MTCVB---- Metropolitan Tucson Convention & Visitors Bureau

TREO----Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities

NPCCC--- Northern Pima County Chamber of Commerce.

Let us compromise on the GLD and concentrate on ROI.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Thinker,

You're always complaining that this one is a special interest and that one is a special interest but you are all over the business community who are clearly a special interest. I still don't understand why you are so threatened by one singular person that you describe as a special interest but you think a large group constituting a special interest is just dandy.

I am looking for council members and a Mayor who will consider the needs of the people at least as EQUALLY as the needs of the business community. Instead we get treated like step-children. Business ALWAYS comes first.

"Cowgirl hates capitalism."

Why do you always use the word "hate" anytime someone disagrees with you on ANYTHING?

I hate GREED and I hate those who will trample over ANYONE in their quest for it. Perhaps that's YOUR definition of capitalism and that's how you make that connection:

capitalism = greed = therefore anyone who hates greed also hates capitalism. Interesting...

"She is always making accusations without a shread of information."

Really? I also happen to know that this same business person who claimed that her customers think she's gone out of business because she no longer has a lighted sign has also been quoted as saying that this bad economy has not hurt her business at all.

So one day she asserts that in this economy she will lose business without her lighted sign and another day she asserts that her business has not been affected at all. Keep in mind that I actually have more information than what I post on this site. I keep some info private to protect identities. Just because I don't provide ALL the information does not mean that I am making stuff up.

You said, "And just to set the record straight the Town did not receive A SINGLE complaint from citizens about the business lights remaining on nor did the 'dark sky' community file any complaints."

Not true. At the council meeting where this issue was discussed, numerous people from the scientific (dark sky) community spoke at the podium and residents also spoke at the podium. They were all AGAINST 24-hour lighted signage.

You said Zinkin was against the 24-hour lighted signage and this is an example of his "support" for the business community. I'd like to point out that the scientific community is also part of the business community, since they too, bring a lot of money into the community.

OV Objective Thinker said...

VC...You evidently did not accurately read my post.

OVDad said...

On this blog...
I agree with OV Objective Thinker, I am glad somebody is raising these issues here. LOVE would be a great blog if it actually did what it claims to do: create a forum that informs about OV-related issues and gives room for discussion. Instead, and this applies especially to Art, it is pure propaganda.

On business...
So, I assume everyone here is against a property tax. In this case, the sales tax is the major income of the town. Examples such as lights on at 4 am create a false impression in order to create support without talking about the issue. The issue is "can we be lenient with our codes if significant revenue for our town can be created so e.g. a property tax can be avoided?" My answer is yes, but everybody has to decide for themselves. If you agree with me, Zinkin is the candidate you do NOT want to vote for.

On John Musolf...
Art has repeatedly said he "knows what he talks about" due to his "vast experience." I do not know the individual, but would like to hear about his credentials since he is made out to be a figure like Ed Prescott or Paul Krugman although I have never heard of him.

OVDad said...

Also:
"We are two old guys with something to say who want to give the citizens or Oro Valley the chance to state their views and have real, honest, thoughtful discourse"

vs.

"(Every once in a while, I think about deleting these kinds of blog comments; but, out of respect for our bloggers, I don't.)"

... good thing you only think about it.

OV Objective Thinker said...

OV DAD hits several nails on the head.

Zeeman...Stop whining about what goes on the blog. It sounds like what you really want is a corner in a little coffee shop where you "two old guys" can gather with your buddies all talk about the same thing and constantly agree with each other.

I have a greater suggestion for you if it is becoming such a distasteful detraction. In the spirit and words of a very great American, "TEAR THIS BLOG DOWN!"

LOVE!!!

Nombe Watanabe said...

Oh Thinker, there you go again.

If you didn't have this blog to kick around you would end up around midnight, naked as a bluejay on the 15th Green at Stone Mountain Golf Course howling at the moon.

OV dad, however, is on the right track regarding discussion on this blog.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Nombe.....

I would NOT howling at the moon!!!! :-)

OV Objective Thinker said...

Insert the word "be".

mscoyote said...

Exactly what does the business community in Oro Valley want? Some in the business community keep saying that OV is not business friendly
Keep reading how the lighting issue keeps being discussed.
Well if the business community thinks that the lighting code is the reason their business is not doing well, then that business is indeed in trouble in my opinion.
Could business be off because the economy in general is off along with maybe the business itself not being customer friendly in terms of hours, pricing and service.
Personally I don't want to see our standards relexed but would not mind the town going out of there way to help a business , not helping financially but more in the way of help with going thru the process of getting started.
Not in favor of affirmative action for business :)) but ok with a helping hand

OV Objective Thinker said...

Ms. Coyote....GREAT to hear from you once again.

You know, the lighting code in reality is just one very small facet to the bigger issue. And quite frankly the non-decision by the Council is not going to make any major financial impact on the top line of 90% of the businesses in town. But what the business owners were looking for, in my opinion, was an indication from the Town Council that they were willing to bend a little. They (business) got their answer.

And just to clear the record (once again) Al Kunisch did not vote to keep the lights on all night as has been reported by Mr. Segal (another of his falsehoods). In addition there is no record reflecting, "Kunisch consistently pushed for signs and more signs cluttering up our roadways." This is another falsehood. Others may refer to it as another outright lie, but they would be chastised my the 'purveyors'

To use the words of the Zeeman, this is supposed to be a place
where we have "have real, honest, thoughtful discourse."

It's hard to accomplish that when the purveyor continues to post less than honest comments and attempts to present them as fact.

artmarth said...

For those interested, the record of past council meetings can be accessed on the OV Town web site.

Before Cox goes around calling others liars, he might want to listen to his good buddy Kunisch,.

But then again, Cox was never interested in facts.

His attitude to anyone that speaks the truth is always the same.

Whether it be me, The ZeeMan, John Musolf, Bill Garner, or Salette Latas, it's always the same.

Like a broken record, his comments are worthy of being tossed in the garbage.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Art....

"Kunisch endorsed allowing the businesses to keep their lights on throughout the night to the detriment of the scientific community and the homeowners."


I listened and I read the minutes. A motion was made to extend the lighting hours to 10 PM NOT ALL NIGHT as you so clearly stated.

AUGUST 19, 2009:

6. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. (O)09 - 18 OV7-09-005 AMENDING SECTION 28.3 REQUIREMENTS, AND SECTION 28.5, PERMANENT SIGNS, OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED Explanation: The zoning code amendment would permit wall signs to be illuminated until 10 P.M. or to be turned off immediately after closing, whichever is later.

Any questions?????

Victorian Cowgirl said...

That's right, Thinker. The 8/19/09 council meeting had an agenda item to discuss amending the sign code to permit wall signs to be illuminated until 10 P.M. or to be turned off immediately after closing, whichever is later.

However, the business community showed up that night to lobby for allowing 24-hour lighted signage. They weren't even happy with 10 PM. They had to ask for more.

And this is precisely why I said...

Business owners "act like they own the town and that the town owes them every little thing they desire, whether it's justified or not."

What happens when they get 24-hour lighted signage and still there is no change in their revenue? Will they then demand 24-hour blinking neon signs? And if you were on the council, would you approve that?

They've become the boy who cried wolf. I simply don't believe them anymore.

OV Objective Thinker said...

VC.....You didn't believe them in the first place and let's not try to kid each other.

They would have settled for the 10 PM compromise but certain folks on the Town Council denied that.

artmarth said...

From the 8/19 OV Council Meeting minutes---

There were many speakers on the subject. Here are 3 perspectives, representative of the scientific community, business & residents.

Edward Beshore, non Oro Valley resident and scientist at the University of Arizona spoke regarding the threat of lights to astronomy. He stated that astronomy was a thriving industry in our area and we needed to keep our skies as dark as possible. He stated that astronomers from around the world come to the Tucson area to study under our dark skies and astronomy provided jobs and enriched students in southern Arizona.

Paul Parisi, Oro Valley resident, representing Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce commented that businesses should be allowed to determine when they should turn off lights. He also suggested that wall lights aid in public safety and that better signs mean better business and better tax revenues.

Phil Richardson, Oro Valley resident, stated that he had mixed emotions as he was interested in astrology but also supported businesses. He stated that he has visited with people from Kitt Peak and any increase in lighting adds to the loss of dark skies. He also commented that $150 million was spent in Pima County by astronomers.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Kunisch and seconded by Vice Mayor Carter to adopt Ordinance (O)09-18, OV7-09-005, amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Chapter 28 with additional direction to staff to complete a comprehensive review and update of the Sign Code to be completed by September 2010.

MOTION failed, 3-3 with Council Member Garner, Council Member Gillaspie, and Council Member Latas opposed.

Council Members Garner, Gillaspie and Latas did not support the motion due to non-compliance with the General Plan, protection of dark skies, quality of life in Oro Valley and current non-compliance with the Sign Code.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Gillaspie and seconded by Council Member Latas to direct staff to return by November with a comprehensive assessment and proposal as it relates to the existing Planning Work Plan and the Sign Code that will provide a recommendation for comprehensive amendment involving all stakeholders and that also gives staff direction to look at it in context of the other elements of the General Plan that we made need to change to start the full Sign Code amendment and work on this and to invite the stakeholder community.

MOTION carried, 4-2 with Vice Mayor Carter and Council Member Kunisch opposed.

Council Member Kunisch did not support the motion as he felt that businesses needed some relief and Vice Mayor Carter expressed concerns regarding what he perceived as discrepancies in the General Plan (maintenance of dark skies vs. safety of residents).

Victorian Cowgirl said...

There was another business owner who claimed that she needed to have her sign lit all night because her business is set far back from the road and can't be seen from the road. Yes, and her SIGN cannot be seen from the road either! Another weak argument from a business owner.

Nombe Watanabe said...

Compromise, move on.
Vote, move on.
Howl at the moon, move on.

NW

OVDad said...

Seems like Art and the Zeeman are ignoring my comments. All the more reason to reiterate one of my points of concern. So let me ask one more time very directly:

What is the vast experience John Musolf has that leads you to believe him "from whence he speaks"?

It is really bad blogging to throw a persons name around and trying to qualify their contributions with personal judgments about them. John Musolf, Nobel Prize winner in Economics, has this take on blah is valid. John Musolf, who we believe due to his vast experience we do not choose to elaborate on, ... is not.

This is not an attack on this person and I hope nobody tries to qualify my post as this. If it turns out that he has the qualifications that will make me believe his words, I will be more than glad.

artmarth said...

OV Dad--- Seems that you may be a bit premature in your last comment.

Nah! Nobody would think your comments are "an attack" on Mr. Musolf.

You were just being a bit inquisitive, right?

Let me assure you, John has not won any Nobel Price, but if you have any clue as to his contributions to the Oro Valley community, you might have thought twice before you commented.

Then again, why be concerned when you can remain anonymous?

John will soon be noting his credentials, rather than us doing it on his behalf.

Perhaps then we can move on to the main issue: electing worthy candidates to represent the PEOPLE OF ORO VALLEY.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Translation....Art doesn't know.

Now I am not being critical of Art because I don't know John Muslof's contributions to the Town either.

OVDad said...

Just a few points.

1. I do not care about his contributions, since they do not inform about what makes his opinion qualified to be trusted. I want to know what exactly it is that should make us trust every word he says.

2. The paradox I see in what you are standing for is as follows: You want less government (no property tax, less expenditures). You want more government (strictly adhering to and enforcing codes, which will keep business out of town), a result of which is less sales taxes. As I see it, you can't have it both ways. I agree that codes need to be enforced, and if they are no longer suited they need to be changed. But as we all know, that is a long process and the budget situation makes exceptions feasible, if they bring in a lot of tax revenue.

artmarth said...

Cox's "translation" of my last comment speaks volumes.

I venture to say that anyone that attends town council meetings, or at the very least, watches the archived streaming video, would know that among his contributions to the town, was the fact that John Musolf was the impetus in saving six police positions as a result of his in depth analysis of OV's budget..

No doubt Cox won't believe this (because I said it)---so I suggest he talk to Police Chief, Danny Sharp for verification.

John Musolf does not need me to be his spokesperson. He is quite capable of speaking for himself.

Anyone that believes Cox's gibberish gets what they deserve---gibberish!

OVDad said...

I guess I will take it as a compliment that Art rather tries to discredit someone else who uses the same polemics he employs than discuss the issues I raise. The only feedback I have received so far is about my anonymity. Talking about not wanting to deflect from what the issues are!

arizonamoose said...

OV Dad

I apologize that I didn’t publish my personal biography on the LOVE blog for your review.

I do have a B. S. in Economics and Accounting from the University of Wisconsin from 1963 (this means I’m an old geezer).

The Norwegians have not seen fit to award me the Nobel Prize in Economics as of yet. However, one can only hope!

Please forgive Art Segal and the Zeeman who know my background. They are good friends who have given me some wonderful compliments. Perhaps they have been zealous at times, which I hope both of us can understand.

My (vast) but brief work history:

I was in accounting and data processing management for the first 15 years of my career. I managed small and large departments for a number of corporations (where I did budgets). I performed many non-data processing departmental audits to increase efficiency and reduce costs.

The next 25+ years I was a management consultant finishing my career at Deloitte Touche.
I performed over 50 management studies for many small and multi-billion corporations, hospitals and government agencies in accounting (budgets, etc.) and many non-accounting areas.

I taught courses in project management at the University of Wisconsin for over 20 years.

I have been a speaker at both international (Australia) and national forums on manufacturing technology and project management.

I retired in 2002, and moved to Oro Valley with my wife in 2003. I pursued and was awarded my Masters degree in Computer Technology Management in 2005 from the University of Phoenix.

One of my avocations for the last seven years has been to observe the Town of Oro Valley governmental proceedings. I have published at least 20 articles and/or letters to the editor in the Explorer News and Arizona Star on budget and other Town issues. Last Year, Chief Danny Sharp called me to ask if I would help on the police budget which I did. I worked with Chief Sharp (and his staff), David Andrews (Town Manager), Stacy Lemos (Finance Director), and council members Bill Garner and Salette Latas. I have continued publishing opinions on some budget recommendations and been involved in forums such as the January 23, 2010 all-day budget retreat where the budget facilitator (at my request) added cost justification and zero-based budgeting to his slides for discussion. Since the founding of Oro Valley, budgets have been set using “traditional budgeting” and more recently “program budgeting” approaches. The missing element from the Oro Valley budget process has been cost justification.

John Musolf

arizonamoose said...

OV Dad

I forgot to add that I have attended most of the Town Council meetings for the last seven years and spoke at many of them. I have also sent countless emails to the Town Council members on a variety of Town issues prior to council meetings and asked that they be made part of the public record.

Lastly before speaking and writing I try to check my facts with "requests for records" with the Town Clerk. Kathy Cuvelier and her staff know me on a first name basis because I have made so many requests.

John Musolf

artmarth said...

Thanks John---For your response, but more important, thanks for all your work on behalf of the rest of us---the people of Oro Valley.

As I said previously--"John Musolf knows from whence he speaks."

John Martin said...

John Musolf has been correct to advocate for "zero-based" budgeting in Oro Valley. I consider the "program" approach less than transparent. We can see money (i.e. revenues) coming into coffers on the front end, but then town budget officials spread it across various departments (based on how it's spent) and we can easily lose track of what's what from there. The "zero-based" approach draws a direct line from revenues to expenses.

John is to be commended for his effort to advocate for solid financial practices in town. While I don't always agree with his point of view (what he writes on this blog or to various newspapers), I do appreciate his willingness to stick to facts, the record and engage responders in a cordial manner.

artmarth said...

Hey John--- Could it possibly be that you were able to accomplish what I couldn't no matter how hard I tried?

The silence from Cox & "Dad" is deafening.

Might your outstanding credentials have done the trick----or are they "reloading" in anticipation of another assault?

Hopefully, i's the former, not the latter.

We'll see!

OVDad said...

Art,

Your previous post is incredibly disrespectful. But what should one expect from a man who cannot simply thank someone for their work when his wife is very sick and leave different views aside in such a moment.

I specifically mentioned a few times that this was not an attack on John and I hope he understood it as such. However, I am ALWAYS weary when someone's views are introduced as "this person knows what he is talking about" without reasoning why this person knows what he is talking about. I do not think that unless my point could not have been missed unless it wanted to be misunderstood as in your case.

You are simply trying to shut down opposing views, but isn't this exactly what you blame some councilmembers for? The fact that you call my arguments (which I have presented as unemotional as possible) "assaults" and talk about deafening silence that you tried to achieve shows what this blog is about - denunciation of opposing views.

Maybe it would be the right time now to reconsider your motto posted on the blog:
"Giving you, the Oro Valley voter, an opportunity to discuss what we can do to "LET ORO VALLEY EXCEL"."

I have yet to see you trying to facilitate discussion. My suggestion: "Endorsing candidates that two guys have found worthy and trying to shut down other views are the best we can do to "LET ORO VALLEY EXCEL"

OVDad said...

The above should read:

I do not think that my point could have been misunderstood unless there was intent to do so.

OVDad said...

I am also perfectly in line with John Martin's comment.

OV Objective Thinker said...

OV Dad...

Unfortunately you have experienced what every person experiences with Art Segul should you post anything on his blog with which he disagrees. Art is not about open discussion or promoting concepts that will assist out community. He is about his ideas, his belief system and his rules. And that is exactly why I refer to him and this blog as a special interest. I happened to receive an e-mail from a good friend of mine who stated it far more clearly than I have. She said that Art's special interest is "his ego". The blog is simply an extension of that.

John.....

You outlined your activities very well and you are well educated. But I am still waiting to see your "contributions" to the Town. Attending Town Council meeting and expressing your opinion is not a contribution. Writing letters to the editor of the Explorer is not a "contribution". Meddling into the financial affairs of the Town at the request of a sitting Town Council member because he doesn't have the desire or time to do it is not a contribution. When you were appointed to the library study group you quit because your ideas were not adopted.

Art....

The following is ANOTHER complete and absolute falsehood:

"John Musolf was the impetus in saving six police positions as a result of his in depth analysis of OV's budget.."

artmarth said...

Cox-- Just wanted to let you know that your intentional misspelling of my last name did not go unnoticed.

Neither did your last sentence.

Do you really think if you you keep telling lies here, the readers will "buy into it?"

Our readers are much smarter than that.

Aside to John Musolf---you were right. It was just a matter of time before there was going to be another nonsensical response from Cox.

freedom fighters said...

Thinker & Dad . . . . . . start your own O.V. Post ( HufPo), please. I am tired of the never ending tirade of your off putting & trivial comments. Art's blog is HIS blog, and he could have banned you long ago; but, for the sake of an open ended discussion, you're still taking up a lot of space & wasting a lot of my time.

So, for the "fair & balanced" meme you crow for, get your a$$'s in gear and start a discussion for those who share your point of view. I, for one, am too old to listen to your constant, deadended harping.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Art...Typo's happen. But I did notice that you had NO response to
my statement that your comment about the 6 police officers was completely false. You usually don't because what I post is accurate. You continue to post words with no foundation. Please advise your readers what supporting evidence you have for that statement. All I am after is accurate info!!! If you can provide that then I will openly apologize for posting innacurate information.

Freedom Fighter....If you don't like it don't come back. Obviously you do not care for the truth. And I am to old to allow lies to go unchallenged. I think that's the higher moral ground. And what are your beliefs?

freedom fighters said...

Thinker - freedom fighter says it all.

OV Objective Thinker said...

FF....Having spent some time in my life wearing the best uniform in the world, I will forward this as my credo: " I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend, to my death, your right to say it."

artmarth said...

Cox writes the following, quoting me:

Art....
The following is ANOTHER complete and absolute falsehood:

"John Musolf was the impetus in saving six police positions as a result of his in depth analysis of OV's budget.."

John Musolf writes the following:

"Last Year, Chief Danny Sharp called me to ask if I would help on the police budget which I did. I worked with Chief Sharp (and his staff), David Andrews (Town Manager), Stacy Lemos (Finance Director), and council members Bill Garner and Salette Latas."

Cox writes:

"Meddling into the financial affairs of the Town at the request of a sitting Town Council member because he doesn't have the desire or time to do it is not a contribution."

How many of our readers have the patience to read through these 50+ comments---I don't know, but "fredom fighters" got it right in his analysis of Cox.

As "blogmaster, if he can't control himself, he'd do well to disappear and start his own blog, as we don't want or need what he contends is his "contribution."

Finally, I too have worn the uniform of the US Army for 3 years plus, but I didn't find it necessary to point it out.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Art.....

Once again you avoid answering. John says nothing about being an "impetus" for anything. Therefore one can conclude that he wasn't.

But just for discussion sake let's say that you are correct and I am incorrect. The police department management was prepared to reduce the department by six officers but Musolf WAS the driving force ("impetus") behind keeping them.

Therefore all of those folks (including you) who have stated that we have too many police officers and that the police budget is inflated can place blame on John Musolf.

That's priceless.

OV Objective Thinker said...

And did I forget to mention that since Musolf was working so closely with Garner and Latas you can also blame them!!

Even more priceless!!

Fear the Turtle said...

OVOT,

Your endless stream of disinformation continues to flood this blog.

Please provide verifiable facts to support your statements.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Turtle....Which statements are you referring to?

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Thinker,

It seems you can't decide what side you are on. If Garner and Latas don't do what you want, you're upset with them. If they DO what you want, you're upset with them. If Musolf gets involved and does what you want, you're upset with him.

EXAMPLE: First you were upset with anyone who complained about the OVPD bloated budget and you weren't happy with the OVPD management's plan to "reduce the department by six officers."

You always praise Chief Sharp. He can do no wrong in your eyes.

Chief Sharp contacted Musolf last year to ask him for help with the police budget. You do not approve of this, yet you blame it on Musolf and not on Sharp.

Now you're blaming Garner and Latas for doing exactly what you wanted.

I quote: "And did I forget to mention that since Musolf was working so closely with Garner and Latas you can also blame them!!

Interestingly, Musolf also worked closely with Dave Andrews and Stacy Lemos on this project but you do not throw THEIR names into the mix of people we should "blame."

CONCLUSION: If you like someone, they can do no wrong even when they do something in direct opposition to what you want.

If you don't like someone, they can do no right even when they're doing exactly what you asked them to do.

And you call yourself objective.

Nombe Watanabe said...

VC: You hit the nail on the head, or should I say, you hit the Thinker on the head!!

Thinker, time to reflect.

See you at midnight....Woooo!

OV Objective Thinker said...

VC.....

READ!!!

I am not the one complaining about the PD. I don't believe I have ever opined about reducing the department by 6 officers.

I just said that THOSE WHO WERE COMPLAINING can blame Musolf and Latas and Garner.