What does the name Herb Kai mean to you? Some recognize the name as Marana's Vice Mayor.
Those of our neighbors living in Catalina Shadows or the custom homes at Palisades get frightened beyond belief when the name "Kai" comes up.
Why?
Because Herb Kai and his family own some 271 acres of land in and around the only entrance to their homes.
That's fine. What's not fine is the fact for the last five years and more, the Kai's have been coming to the Oro Valley Council requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the zoning.
What do they want?
Well, among other things, offices, shops, restaurants, housing and a continuing-care center for seniors have been requested.
Why bring this up now, you ask?
Anybody driving on 1st Ave from Oracle road towards Rancho Vistoso Blvd can't help but notice six candidate signs on Kai's property---- two each for Hiremath, Hornat & Waters.
Why is that an issue?
Who do you think will help Herb Kai with a General Plan Amendment, if elected?
Yup!It's those that have their signs there.
ONLY MIKLE ZINKIN & MATT RABB ARE ON RECORD OF STATING, "NO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS UNLESS IT SERVES THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE!"
Serve your own interests! VOTE FOR MIKE ZINKIN & ONLY MATT RABB.
56 comments:
I assume those candidates sought permission from the landowner to post their signs there. Did Zinkin seek permission and get denied? If not, then I think the allegation that some sneaky backroom dealing has occurred doesn't really hold a lot of water, as far as I'm concerned. Would seem to be a stretch.
Geez John--- We sure see things differently.
I suspect---but don't know that the three have permission to put their signs on Kai's private property.
I will tell you, neither Mike nor Matt ask for that type of favor, as they both realize that "favors beget favors."
Where did I suggest that this was some "sneaky backroom deal?
I did NOT!
You ought to be a lot more careful in choosing your words---especially when you attribute them to someone else---in this case, me.
I have a Zinkin sign in my front yard. The way I obtained this was to phone Mike Zinkin and request one. I did this because I support Zinkin and want to help advertise for him.
So I can only assume that Kai called Hiremath-Hornat-Waters and asked them for signs as well, which means he supports them. That's fine, he can support whomever he wishes, but when you own 271 acres of prime real estate, and your plans for developing that property have caused a lot of grief for the surrounding homeowners, and then you try to get certain people elected to the OV town council, well, it's pretty easy to connect those dots.
What kind of restaurants? Nice ones? I hate driving to Tucson for a good meal. How about a bar that has live music. I hate driving to Tucson to see a band.
If you don't want someone to develop his own land buy it and donate it to the nature conservatory.
If you don't want further development watch the town council like a hawk and don't let them re-zone property without a fight.
Nombe--- "Watching the town council like a hawk," would be like "watching the barn door AFTER the horses got out."
It will be TOO LATE.
The answer is this:
Watch who you vote for. Elect the Special Interest candidates, and don't be shocked with what you get.
Art, I do not wish to offend. I can see now that the phrase "sneaky backroom deal" falls flat and seems harsh. For the poor phrasing choice, I apologize.
Perhaps you can help me better understand the crux of the original posting. You wrote: "Who do you think will help Herb Kai with a General Plan Amendment, if elected? Yup!It's those that have their signs there." The way I read that, I'm to infer that some kind of arrangement has been reached among Hiremath, Hornat and Waters, should they get elected, to help Kai with a general plan amendment. That favor would be in exchange for permission to post their signs on his property?
Perhaps I should have sought that clarification in my first comment, I now am willing to admit. Instead I poisoned the well a little bit.
I think sometimes such offenses can occur when I foolishly try to divine another person's motives without first asking for more information. I will take care to choose my words more in a more diplomatic manner. Thanks.
John--- Thank you. I'm sure there are times when I could also do better in my "phraseology," so I'm fine with your explanation.
As to the issue---- I do not know--or mean to infer, as you put it, "that some kind of arrangement has been reached among Hiremath, Hornat and Waters, should they get elected, to help Kai with a general plan amendment."
I will leave it to the reader to determine that.
From my standpoint, perception is very meaningful. I for one, perceive that if the developer is allowing campaign signs on HIS property, he supports those whose signs are prominently displayed.
Might Kai just be a "nice guy" trying to be helpful, or is he looking ahead when he once again comes to the OV Council asking for an amendment?
I'll let it go at "perception."
Art-
This is simply disgusting. You imply and imply and imply, only then to say "I will leave it up to our readers to determine that."
I only mean this comparison to make my point, not trying to start a discussion about this topic -- You do the exact same as most of the birther movement: "We want to see a birth certificate" but when they are pressed for facts "we never said the President was not born here."
"Anybody driving on 1st Ave from Oracle road towards Rancho Vistoso Blvd can't help but notice six candidate signs on Kai's property---- two each for Hiremath, Hornat & Waters.
Why is that an issue?
Who do you think will help Herb Kai with a General Plan Amendment, if elected?
Yup!It's those that have their signs there."
This clearly and frankly implies a "sneaky backroom deal." To say otherwise is fake and phony.
"ONLY MIKLE ZINKIN & MATT RABB ARE ON RECORD OF STATING, "NO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS UNLESS IT SERVES THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE!""
This clearly implies that the other candidates would change the plan even if it was against the best interest of the people.
I have no problem with you making such points - absolutely none. I don't agree with them. In fact, some of your points enrage me - that is why I post here from time to time.
But to throw words around like you do, only then to back off and say "I never meant to imply that" and "I will let our readers determine" is as cowardly as it gets. Take position, say what you mean, but don't do this.
OVDad--- As usual, your contribution to our blog is greatly appreciated.
Oh yeah!
Allow me to clarify my position, so you'll fully understand it.
MIKE ZINKIN & MATT RABB ARE THE ONLY TWO CANDIDATES I TRUST TO DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE OF ORO VALLEY---not the special Interests.
Art,
I am not surprised that you would suggest that there is something to be feared by placing campaign signs on private property. Or, to twist and theorize why this would be done.
Rather than fear monger, why don't you state the fact that State Law requires cities/towns to accept proposals for major plan amendments. I'm sure the two time CPI graduate could explain in detail how and why a GPA would be requested, along with the procedures involved.
The property owner has rights and the property has been zoned for many years. Some the examples you give are part of that zoning already.
OinStarr--- Don't worry about Mike Zinkin---or as you refer to him---"the two time CPI graduate."
Mike knows all about the General Plan.
Mike also knows that a developer can keep coming back year after year asking for a "self-serving" amendment to the General Plan until, he finds a council that will be sympathetic to him and grant what he wants, regardless of how detrimental it is to the residents---the citizens of Oro Valley.
Mike knows that. The big question is, does YOUR candidate Dr. Hiremath know that? Better yet, assuming he knows----does he care?
Do you now understand why I and thousands of other knowledgeable citizens are so concerned as to who gets elected?
Just check out how the folks in Marana are dealing with Kai's land that is being proposed for a landfill. It looks like a mess, and the annexation almost got rammed through.
What will happen if Kai doesn't get his way in Marana, and his candidates get elected in Oro Valley?
To our readers---- As a courtesy, I want you to know that I saw fit to delete a comment from OVDad made subsequent to my last comment responding to him.
Inasmuch as our only choice is to either Accept or Reject comments, but NOT to edit them, I chose to "reject," for one reason only.
ODDad saw fit to endorse Dr. Hiremath. That was OK. What is not OK is to intentionally distort my position and to attribute something to me that I did not say.
Whether OVDad can accept my decision or not, is not important.
Although, no one knows which, if any comments are rejected, (there are very few---mainly from one individual)---I thought you should know.
So, Hiremath, Waters, and Hornat are out to subvert Oro Valley; personally I think this kind of thinking is a super stretch. As an avid pro-Zinkin supporter for Mayor as well as a pro-Waters, pro Hornat, supporter for Council, and as one who is fine with Raab if he should get a seat, and as one who is not so hot relative to Hiremath' candidacy, my opinion is that this sign thing is much ado about nothing. I have a 'Mike Zinkin', a 'Lou Waters', and a 'Joe Hornat' sign in my yard. Hey ,guys, whatcha going to give ME if you get elected? I mean, after all, how am I going to get my quid-pro-quo? To all of this nonsense relative to who's got who's sign on who's property, I say, so what, it doesn't mean diddly squat; the issues and answers do! So, bloggers, tell me what you think are Hornat's, Water's, Hiremath's and Zinkin's visions for the future of Oro Valley are and how do they plan on getting there; I bet most of you can't! Bloviating is fun, just for the hell of it, isn't it?
OV Dad,
You've taken issue with Art's comment, "Who do you think will help Herb Kai with a General Plan Amendment, if elected? Yup!It's those that have their signs there."
So let me ask you this question. Why do YOU think Herb Kai has those signs there? He does not live in Oro Valley. So why is he so concerned with who gets elected to the OV town council?
Dear Art - would you please let me and your readers know where and how I distorted your position?
Inasmuch as I barely talked about you in that post, I do not understand it. What I can accept, however, is that when somebody brings forth valid reasons to vote against Mike Zinkin and Matt Rabb they are not provided a forum on Let Oro Valley Excel. This is no forum for discussion. And as one of the last people left that wanted to use it as such, I am utterly disappointed and will no longer post.
My best wishes for the future, may this be a forum to talk about issues again after the election. Until then, I will no longer take part in this propaganda machine.
OinStarr,
I'll ask you the same question. Why do YOU think Kai has those signs when he's not even a resident of OV?
Yes, the law requires cities/towns to accept proposals for major plan amendments. It does not, however, require them to approve the proposal.
If I remember correctly, the residents in this neighborhood already made concessions some time ago regarding the General Plan and this parcel of land. Then Kai came back and wanted even more. This time, the neighbors were adamant that they were not making any more concessions and Kai backed off.
So if I were one of those neighbors, I would be pretty suspicious right now as to why Kai is endorsing these candidates. As I said, he does not live in OV.
Dear "OVDad"--- Having deleted the subject comment, I can't quote from it. Suffice to say---you or anyone else can quote me as long as it is something I said.
What you should not do, is interpret what I said, and attribute it to me.
You did exactly that in trying to demean Mike Zinkin.
If and when to decide to return to this blog as a blogger, I expect we'll have the same rules in effect.
Everyone should be able to accept that.
I don't think that's asking too much. ask
One last and final point: It is ok for you to continuously suggest that certain council candidates and a candidate for mayor are in it for quid pro quo's but when I suggest that you and Mike would not consider the big picture and deny a request from someone like Kai flat-out it is not ok. I wonder what is more demeaning.
OVDad--- Your "One last and final point" is probably a good way for you to leave, because one final time, you saw fit to take liberties with what I said.
Why don't you do one more LAST AND FINAL POINT and show me and the readers where I or Mike Zinkin, for that matter said--- as you suggest---
"you and Mike would not consider the big picture and deny a request from someone like Kai flat-out it is not ok."
"Deny a request FLAT-OUT." Who said that, besides you?
You seem to have reading comprehension skills or, as I SUGGEST, you intentionally try to mislead our readers.
That kind of comment will not be missed as a result of your self imposed departure from the blog.
Why don't we call Mr. Kai and ask him if he knows that the signs are on his property?
There's plenty of history regarding what developers want to do with the Kai property and we've documented all.
You can read about this "history" by searching on the word "Kai" in the search box at the top left of the postings page or, better yet, copy and paste the following link in you browser.
http://letorovalleyexcel.blogspot.com/search?q=Kai
As a resident who lives in Catalina Shadows (off Palisades), my neighbors and I objected before and we will object again to any proposal requesting a long-term care center be constructed on the Kai property. As zoning laws and the General Plan now stand, that property is zoned residential. 425 homes in our subdivision plus two other subdivisions open onto Palisades, our only exit to the outside world! We do not need another "Splendido" clogging it up.
I see definite differences between the candidates. Hiremath falsely stated in his campaign lit that he is the only mayoral candidate opposing a property tax. That is not true--Zinkin has stated on record, in print, and at various venues that he does not favor a property tax. Hiremath must have heard him unless he was not listening!
That is just one reason I do not favor Hiremath.
Hiremath also states that HE is the pro-business candidate. What does this mean? To many of his supporters who are donating big bucks to him that kind of emphasis is a wink to them saying that whatever businesses want, they will get if Hiremath is elected. I believe that is his deliberate message -- that he is the laissez-faire candidate. We saw what happened to Wall Street with a laisse-faire (anything goes!) administration.
The Kai property debacle is an example of over-reaching. While such a facility might generate more dollars, what would we all pay in the long run? How many people would have to get up earlier to commute to work? Would the facility benefit the people in the long run?
This sort of assertion makes you look silly, Art. If you have to go to such lengths - your candidate is going to suffer.
AzVicki -
Good Point but it it is too late..their candidate already looks silly. Mike Zinkin was careless with his use of the Town Logo which cost him financially. He knew the rules but "forgot". Our citizens cannot afford this type if financial disaster..just ask his neighbors in his HOA..
RC: (et al)
My parents and, I would guess, your parents, lived for 70 or so years with no HOA. If only we could do the same.
Cuba has HOAs in each neighborhood, they are called "Block Cadres" every 10 households has a Captain and each 10 Captains have a Comendante...you get the picture. I don't think the Cubans have to PAY for a management company though.
Point being, anything that angers anyone who has to do anything with an HOA is moot. Because HOAs, management companies, and the entire superstructure of over arching laws, bylaws, rules, and what-have-you are designed to:
1. take your money. 2. Cause distress in the community. 3. Enhance portions of human nature which are best left repressed.
Thank You -- NW
....and HOAs are notoriously divided and, frequently, their divisions becomes fodder for Seinfeld type comedy. Does anyone know of any president of any homeowners' association that is loved by all of the homeowner participants? Oh, perhaps in Stepford, had'nt thought about that place.
AZ Vicki and RC,
You think Zinkin looks silly just because he inadvertently used the town logo on his fliers? It was an honest mistake. Perhaps you didn't read another post I left on this topic stating that the medical office where I once worked did the exact same thing, using a hospital logo on their letterhead.
What's really silly is how all the Hiremath cheerleaders have been completely silent on the following Hiremath issues:
couldn't balance the GOVAC budget...
doesn't attend council meetings because they're too frustrating...never returned for the afternoon session of the budget retreat...lied about Zinkin's position on a property tax...refuses to have a public mayoral debate with Zinkin.
Zinkin supporters have been able to explain the inadvertent use of the logo. I haven't seen ANY of Hiremath's supports offer ANY explanations for Hiremath's lack of interest in attending council meetings, lack of interest in the budget retreat, or lack of interest in holding a debate.
Your continued endorsement of Hiremath coupled with your inability to explain his questionable behavior is making all of YOU look SILLY.
1. Why is it that Zinkin is the only candidate who made an "honest mistake" and included the town logo in his mailing? I'm pretty sure that the town educated all candidates regarding the dos and donts of campaign literature. Was he not paying attention? That's bad. Did he think he's above the rules? That's bad.
2. I would worry about a candidate who has had problems getting along with others. It doesn't matter to me if it's with an HOA or anyone else...A mayor must have the ability to get along with his/her constituents whether he/she agrees with them or not. Seems like Zinkin has a pattern (judging by recent letters to the Explorer) of making enemies. This is worrisome.
3. VC, you might want to stop bringing up the issue of Hiremath not returning for an afternoon session at the budget retreat. I understand that Zinkin did NOT attend any part of a recent Saturday budget session. I heard him interviewed on Chris DeSimone's radio broadcast this week. Zinkin's excuse was that he was out walking the streets, campaigning. He did say that he had sent in his concerns to only a couple of the councilmembers. Why did he do that? If he expects to bring people together, he should have included all councilmembers and the mayor in any correspondence! (This again makes me wonder if he is able to get along with people!)
VC, no one on this blog who can present facts (as I have done above) looks silly...Unless of course you don't want to hear facts that are not in keeping with your beliefs!
"Mark"--- First thing you need to do is differentiate "FACTS" from Opinion.
1) Let's assume Mike Zinkin INTENTIONALLY used the town seal on his literature---although it was NOT intentional.
Compare that to Hiremath's "oversight" of stating he (Hiremath) was the ONE candidate opposed to a property tax. Perhaps he didn't hear Mike's position in the three forums;perhaps he didn't read Mike's position in The Explorer & Az Star, and perhaps he never read about it on this blog.
As for the Anderson letter, it has be proven that the letter she wrote----or more likely had a "shill" write, was proof that she either has a bad memory, wanted to do damage to Mike, or just outright lied about the situation. Most likely, a combination of all three, but hardly a fact.
As for the disgruntled homeowners, you should know what the overwhelming majority of those in the HOA think about these three Hiremath supporters. Their letter totally lacked credibility.
Yes. Mike was busy walking the streets handing out his literature. Do you know why? Because Mike Zinkin didn't have the N. TUCSON Firefighters help and they did for Hiremath on at least two weekends.
Oh yeah! Mike Zinkin also wasn't out on street corners with his signs, as your candidate was a week ago. Did Hiremath have a permit to do so, or, perhaps, was that an oversight?
So---- Before you come to this blog talking about facts, you ought to learn facts from fiction.
You are obviously one of Hiremath's supporters----and he has many, but why not be like most of the others, and try to be honest about what you say?
I see no evidence on this blog to prove that Ms. Anderson did not know what she was talking about. (The opinions of posters on this blog are not fact.)
The fact that Zinkin chose to walk the neighborhoods when he should have been at an important Town of Oro Valley budget meeting is very telling. First, he criticizes his opponent for not making meetings...then he does the same himself! No excuse for this. Why did he only mail information regarding the budget meeting to two of the councilmembers?
It does not matter that Hiremath had firefighters walking for him...Zinkin could have attended the Saturday session (which I believe was only scheduled for half the day), then walked neighborhoods after that...and on Sunday...and Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday! Remember, he is retired and should have the time!
And I am not clear about your referral to Hiremath standing on a street corner with signs...I must have missed this, so please enlighten me. If he was standing there temporarily with signs, promoting his campaign, are you saying this is in conflict with town policy? I really can't respond to your comment until I have the facts (which is something that doesn't often happen on this blog).
Politics is definitely a dirty business. But I don't see comparing the property tax issue with Zinkin's use of the town seal as equivalent. We will have to agree to disagree.
I resent your comment that I must learn facts from fiction...But again, we will have to agree to disagree. My facts are fiction to you...and vice versa!
Finally, you imply that I am a Hiremath supporter. Honestly, I have not made up my mind...
Too bad Satish Hiremath constantly refused to debate Mike Zinkin.
That would have a good way for you and others to make up your minds.
You write "politics is a dirty business." Have you noticed one side uses dirt. The other side only tries to refute it.
As to the rest of your points, I don't believe any response would be acceptable to you.
VC,
Not all comments are posted. Remember Art is monitoring his blog.
I had a comment last week relating to fact and opinion and it didn't get posted.
Art,
You talk about a "shill" - you always tell us what Mike thinks or would say.
OinStarr--- You are correct. Last week, two comments were not deemed worthy of posting. One was yours.
As for me speaking for Mike---- I really don't need to do so. All I do is report what Mike already said, or I respond in his behalf.
That's quite different from somebody putting their name to a letter that they didn't write.
Certainly, you can differentiate between a "shill," and stating another's position ACCURATELY.
Personally, like Mike Zinkin may have thought, I believed that the Oro Valley logo belongs to the residents of Oro Valley. You know, the taxpayers. We say this is "our" town, so who does the logo belong to? Guess I would have been wrong! To me the mistake was unfortunate but understandable.
Maybe we should ask the artist who designed it who he made it for.
Are we not all Americans? Would I hesitate to use an American flag as a symbol of my loyalty or nationality on my car or on my stationary?
I am curious. Was the OV logo purchased from the designer by the Town using taxpayer's money? I fail to see why Zinkin's use of it on a postcard should have so seriously offended anyone.
I suspect that "someone" is being very partisan.
Mark,
Regarding your comment, "I see no evidence on this blog to prove that Ms. Anderson did not know what she was talking about. (The opinions of posters on this blog are not fact.)"...
Not only is there evidence on this blog (which you can choose to ignore) but there was evidence in a letter to the Explorer that appeared one week after Ms. Anderson's letter appeared. Did you read it?
You can find it on this blog under "DRB Member Sets the Record Straight."
You mention that some of the comments about Hiremath are opinions rather than facts. OK. Perhaps you would like to take a crack at answering some of my questions that other Hiremath supports have been unable/unwilling to answer.
How do you defend Hiremath's statement that he doesn't attend council meetings because they're too frustrating? That statement is a FACT, not an opinion.
How do you defend Hiremath's refusal to hold a public debate with Mike Zinkin? This is also a FACT, not an opinion.
Mark,
You also said, "I would worry about a candidate who has had problems getting along with others.....Seems like Zinkin has a pattern (judging by recent letters to the Explorer) of making enemies. This is worrisome."
There was another letter in the Explorer about Hiremath's time with GOVAC. It said that Hiremath micromanaged the board which caused half of the board and many volunteers to resign.
Why did you overlook that letter?
Could it be (and I'm quoting you here)..."Unless of course you don't want to hear facts that are not in keeping with your beliefs!"
I'd like to add that IGNORING FACTS leads to one thing:ignorance. Could it be that some Hiremath fans are stubbornly ignorant & proud of it?
"VC," I am not overlooking anything...Actually, I am pretty clear about everything.
Like "Kathy Pastryk" says
"...IGNORING FACTS leads to one thing:ignorance." I suggest that this holds true for the Zinkin followers on this blog who have decided that those people who accuse Zinkin of being difficult to get along with are IGNORING FACTS.
"Art," you say: "As to the rest of your points, I don't believe any response would be acceptable to you." If the response is filled with facts, I'm willing to listen. But of course, this blog is yours and you can choose to print posts or not and respond to comments or not. I asked some important questions, like why Zinkin is the only candidate who made the "honest" mistake of using the Town Seal. (To some poster on this site, the use of the Town Seal implies the town supports Zinkin, which is why it is not allowable. It has nothing to do with who owns the seal!) I also asked why Zinkin saw fit to email budget concerns to only two councilmembers...This does NOT sound like a team builder to me, but someone who has already chosen sides. Again, is this proof that he is unable to get along with others?
Mark--- You're just the latest in a small group to show up on this blog, find fault with those of us that have been following OV politics for years, and understand the ramifications of who gets elected.
Answers to your questions are refuted by you stating ,"show me facts."
The CHAIRMAN OF THE DRB REFUTED THE "CRAP" FROM ANDERSON.
The woman made a claim to a meeting she wasn't at. Next time her "ghost" writer ought to be more careful.
To suggest that Mike was inferring the town supports his candidacy because he inadvertently used the town sticker----that most people wouldn't have even noticed, is so totally ludicrous, it doesn't deserve a response.
By the way, if YOU have nothing of substance to add, we can manage as we have for years, without your input.
Mark,
(1) Why do you choose to believe DRB member Jill Anderson's statements over DRB member Mike Schoeppach's statements?
(2) How do you KNOW that Zinkin is difficult to get along with? Have you witnessed this "problem" first hand and multiple times so that you've personally seen a pattern of this behavior?
(3) And since you're promoting facts over opinions, why can't you answer these two questions?
(a) How do you defend Hiremath's statement that he doesn't attend council meetings because they're too frustrating? That statement is a FACT, not an opinion.
(b) How do you defend Hiremath's refusal to hold a public debate with Mike Zinkin? This is also a FACT, not an opinion.
OK - Have to respond to Kathy Pastryk's remarks regarding the Town Logo:
1) It is a trademarked logo that the Town purchased from the artist and may only be used with the Town's consent.
2) I refer you to state statute:
16-925. Deceptive mailings; civil penalty
A. In an attempt to influence the outcome of an election, an individual or committee shall not deliver or mail any document that falsely purports to be a mailing authorized, approved, required, sent or reviewed by or that falsely simulates a document from the government of this state, a county, city or town or any other political subdivision.
It's not whether it "offended" anyone - it's arguably illegal and definitely unethical for a candidtae to use the Town's logo. It would be the same regardless of who did it. It implies the Town, as an entity, supports Zinkin - which by the way brings up other legal issues as its illegal for the Town to use public funds to campaign. (See ARS 9-500.14) I like Mike, I always have, and I would tend to believe it was an oversite, BUT to make such light of it is disingenuous as it is a big deal.
NOT A BIG DEAL.
I have made many mistakes in MY life. I guess Mr. Zinkin is not entitled to make ANY mistakes because he is willing to put up with the debasement which comes with running for public office.
Presidents make mistakes, Mayors make mistakes. The day I stop making mistakes. You will be invited to my Irish wake. (lots of good wine if I don't get to it first)
Please read your holy book (any of them) forgive, and MOVE ON!
Cyclone-1 (and all others who keep posting the statute),
Read the first 10 words of the statute...
"IN AN ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF AN ELECTION..."
Can anyone prove that Zinkin's INTENT was to influence the outcome of the election? No? Then it has to be assumed that it was an oversight. Innocent until proven guilty.
You also say that use of the logo was "unethical." Synonyms for unethical include, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous. To be any of those things, one has to be AWARE that they are doing those things. Zinkin's use of the logo was inadvertent.
Hiremath, in contrast, LIED on his campaign flier and (we're told) repeated the lie again at a Sun City Republican Club gathering. THAT'S unethical, immoral, dishonest and unscrupulous.
Nombe,
Loved your post.
"artmarth," my assumption is that you do not intentionally use this blog to mislead people. As such, in the interest of fairness, you should let people know when you censor comments, so they don't misunderstand and think that the poster has opted not to respond. Of course, since this blog is obviously meant for the "substantial" discussion of your followers, I, like so many before me, choose to no longer post.
"Mark"--- When bloggers can abide by OUR RULES, every comment will be posted.
There have been a few PRIOR to you joining us, that also saw fit to depart.
That's fine.
We manage with or without you.
It is just too obvious that the few unnamed individuals had their own agenda,(including you) but after repeating the same falsehoods over and over, I DECIDED, enough is enough.
That is why we went to monitored comments----to avoid this.
I'm sorry - what was the intention of sending out flyers advocating for the election of a particular candidate? Something other than influencing the outcome of an election? As I stated, and as I have read the Town Attorney has determined, it was most likely an oversite on Zinkin's part. My post was in response to K.P.'s that intimated anyone and everyone should be able to use the Town logo however they choose because it belongs to "the people". The fact is it belongs to the legal entity that is the Town, it has been trademarked as such and can only be used with the sanction of the Town (i.e. the Manager or Council). I stated using the logo was unethical because that is my opinion. One of the ethical standards of public officials is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. I agree that to act as such you have to be aware of the act - however who ever put the flyer together knew they were using the logo and probably should have thought more about what they were doing.
cyclone1--- Give it up!
artmath-
You probably won't post this, but at least you can read it. How rude - give it up? Is this blog about discourse or not? The majority of times I have posted it was because the information being provided was either incomplete or inaccurate. KP's comments hit a nerve with me because it was apparent there was a lack of understanding as to the issue with the logo. Someone comments on my statement and I am not allowed to explain myself? You give it up Art - give up believing that you are the great savior of the people of Oro Valley - we were just fine before you started the blog and we'll be just as fine when you go away.
C1--Surprise! Here's your comment.
Now---Give it up!
I posted your explanation.
If you would pay attention, you'd see the Town Attorney made a ruling on this subject.
Don't keep beating the same dead horse!
It is NOT an issue!
Art, you probably won’t post this either but I don't understand why you won't post the facts of my entry and then discuss the reasoning behind my post. Mike and Matt were absent from the budget session yet Waters, Hornet, and Hiremath were there. That's relevant, especially after VC went on and on about Hiremath texting and absent during the latter half of an earlier budget session and challenged all to defend him. It’s been defended that Mike was pounding the payment but argued that he could do this any day since he’s retired so he should have been in attendance. How about the absence of Mr. Rabb?
Further, while in the clerks office, on 2 separate occasions, I personally witnessed Mike’s demeanor toward staff and found it hostile, rude, and just plain demeaning. If Mike is going to treat the “common folk” this way, how is he going to treat his whole staff, including said folks.
None of what has been said, goes against your policy and you choosing not to post my entry is censoring and going against your policy
Art-
If you would pay attention you'll note I referenced the fact that the Town Attorney had determined Zinkin's actions did not warrant further review. You will also note that in every one of my comments I stated I like Mike and assumed his conduct was not intentional. Once again you are the pot calling the kettle black. My point in posting was to clear up the fact that the logo is trademarked Town property and that there were legitimate issues at stake when candidates play fast and loose with campaign materials. I know the first response to that comment will be "Hiremath lied - why don't you comment on that?!" Here's why - Hiremath's transgression did not run afoul of any laws. I would also call his conduct unethical - and for the record I don't particularly care for either mayorial candidate as mayor although I like Mike as a person- but it could also be called the spin as is commonplace in the political arena. I waste too much time trying to re-explain my postings on this blog which I think has to be the most frustrating part of communicating this way!
Cyclone-1,
You asked, "What was the intention of sending out flyers advocating for the election of a particular candidate? Something other than influencing the outcome of an election?"
Perhaps you need to reread the statute to understand my post. Of course the intention of the flier itself is to advocate for a particular candidate. The statute wording is not about the flier itself. It is about falsely purporting that the flier was
authorized by or sent by the town.
"...shall not...mail any document that falsely purports to be a mailing authorized, approved...sent or reviewed by a...city or town..."
As Art pointed out, the flier stated that it was paid for by the Committee to Elect Mike Zinkin.
OV Citizen,
You mentioned Mike's absence at a budget session and said, "That's relevant, especially after VC went on and on about Hiremath texting and absent during the latter half of an earlier budget session and challenged all to defend him."
The difference is that Hiremath has shown a PATTERN of disinterest. Mike has shown a PATTERN of being interested and in being involved.
So if Mike misses an occasional meeting, I'm not concerned about it and neither should you be, considering that it doesn't concern you that Hiremath NEVER attended council meetings, NEVER took the CPI course, NEVER took boards and commissions training, and NEVER showed up for the afternoon session of an all-day budget retreat.
The key word is PATTERN.
True VC but on several different blog threads, there's been a presumed PATTERN of how Mike interacts with peaple and staff, witnessed first hand.
I may be wrong, but didn't yesterday's Star indicate that Zinkin asked for and received the Town Seal from the Town's own Communications division?
Has anyone explored that? Why would a Town employee do something that is counter to the rules that were distributed to the candidates?
Post a Comment