Wednesday, June 23, 2010

New "Super Majority" Has Its Say On Oro Valley's 2011 Final Budget

Was it one of the first examples of the new council supporting one of the entities that supported the election of the new members?

Maybe "Yes." Maybe "No."

All we know was by a 5-2 vote (Incumbents Bill Garner & Barry Gillaspie) the council,with amendments to the 2011 budget vote decided to cut the funding for the all important Oro Valley police department study.

You can read the explanations in The Explorer article below.

Additionally, the funding that was supposed to go to the restoration of Steam Pump Ranch was also excluded from the final budget.

Well, that's democracy, where the majority rules!

Here's the article
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2010/06/23/news/doc4c2138d884ace276123890.txt

63 comments:

Jay D said...

I am sure this article will create quite a bit of discussion (and angst) on this blog. I watched most of the council meeting online and my understanding is that $500K is still in the budget for restoration work at Steam Pump Ranch. Removing approximately $400,000 from Steam Pump Ranch funding allows the town to continue to fund the much-needed Coyote Run (as noted in another blog post on this site)! I did not hear that the money removed from Steam Pump Ranch funding was a permanent move. Yes, this is a democracy, and the majority rules, but it seems as though the council voted to continue to protect those town members who are the neediest (the Coyote Run riders)! It would be nice to see this town council come together and comments like Garner's, "There was a lot of things done that evening that weren't done in good faith," do not help with any good will efforts, but rather appear to be very divisive.

Zev Cywan said...

I don't think it was any secret during the campaign as to where the elected candidates stood relative to certain issues and/or sectors of our departments. And so, the electorate voted them in
and that IS democracy!

I personally question that new Councils should be able to overturn major decisions made by previous Councils. In essence, doing that can potentially void the RESPONSIBILITIES/ACTIONS of about one year's worth of previous Council action (over a period of 4 years) thus leading us to effectively have only about 3 out of every 4 years of effective leadership by allowing for it; however, I guess that's democracy too, or is it?

Where the kicker lies is that because some of Council's determinations require funding, if the budget procedure carries over from one Council to another and prior Council action has not been 'signed into finality', the 'new' Council has the ability to deny funding by 'playing' with the budget and thus nullify certain prior Council's actions by doing so.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

To quote Jay D on the Steam Pump vote:

"It seems as though the council voted to continue to protect those town members who are the neediest."

And when it comes to cutting "the funding for the all important Oro Valley police department study," it looks like "the council voted to continue to PROTECT those town EMPLOYEES who are the neediest."

Nombe Watanabe said...

I was never in favor of the Steam Pump Ranch project.

Moving the money from the SP Ranch to help keep Coyote Run, well, running is a good idea.

As far as I am concerned they can take the rest of the money, sell the ranch to Wal-Mkt and use the funds to buy atomic ray guns for our police so that OV remains crime free.

Palomino said...

Well, of the 4 new council members, the only one I voted for was Waters and I did so because I suspected that the other 3 would always vote in lockstep with each other and I thought Waters would be more independent-minded and would offer more in-depth debate. At the candidate forums, Waters appeared very confident and on his game. However, what I've seen since he's been elected is a council member who looks like a deer in the headlights. He appears intimidated by Snider and Hornat and fearful of voicing his own opinions.

I'm posting this comment in the hopes that Waters will read it and take stock of it.

artmarth said...

Hi Palomino---It might be better if I let your comment stand on its own merits, but I'll say this:

I think it may have been only wishful thinking on your part. Although I hardly know Mr. Waters, he certainly comes across as a likable person, who I remember as a good anchorman on CNN a few decades ago.

Having said that, it was just so obvious that he was---using your word---in "lockstep" with Snider & Hornat from the get-go.

What I saw at the forums, was Waters saying, "I agree with Joe, or I agree with with Mary."

Their campaign signs were always together, they campaigned as "triplets," and, at least for me, we got what I expected.

Only time will tell if Lou Waters decides to be an independent thinker.

We can only hope that will be the case.

The Zee Man said...

I noted in a comment just before the election that the election of Dr. Hiremath, Joe Hornat and Lou Waters would result in a "Super Majority" that will do whatever they want. This is because they would have four votes to put a replacement on the Council who would suit their liking. This they did.

I was criticized by some who felt I was being overtly rancorous. I was not. I was merely pointing out what would happen.

And, by 16 votes (Hiremath's victory margin), out of 15,000 the Council has completely tilted and is complete imbalanced in terms of representing ALL of the people.

I am not talking "sour grapes." I am talking reality.

Now, as the posting notes, the Super Majority is using its power to do as it wishes. And they could continue to do so for the next four years.

Zev notes they can undo whatever they wish that our prior Council did. Heck, maybe they could even bring back those outrageous giveaways.

Yes, Zev, this is a Democracy. I would not, however, say that the deomcratic process produced this result. We did not elect Salette's replacement.

So, you see, what the Super Majority wants is not necessarily what the people want.

Bill and Barry, now a minority of two, speak for a significant number of voters. It is entirely possible that their voices will not be heard.

Who knows what the future will bring.

As we have for the past three years, however, one thing is certain.

We at LOVE will be watching and, hopefully, you will be commenting.

Fear the Turtle said...

Some of us got a little complacent with the results from the 2008 election, Loomis's defeat, and disconnected from the scene.

Well it looks like we are "back to the future", and must rally behind those council members that serve the public's interests, and show the other members of the council their pandering to special interests groups will not be tolerated. There are several ways to do this and one is to simply go to the council meetings and make your presence felt.

The Zee Man said...

Fear... That's an excellent suggestion. There is the Call to the Audience section at the beginning and one at the end of the meeting.

A real opportunity for us to speak.

Nombe Watanabe said...

Fear the Turtle has - once again - made an excellent point. Sending Loomis to the woodshed gave us hope, But when we lost Salette it was the beginning of the end.

We are truly back to the future.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

While I didn't vote for any of the triplets, I do understand Palomino's comment about why he voted for Waters because I heard this same comment from quite a few other people during election season. Many said that they weren't happy with ANY of the council choices but that they felt Waters would be the "lesser of the 3 evils." They thought that if anyone would break ranks, it would be him.

They could be right, I suppose, when you consider that he was a Democrat, then an Independent, then a Republican. So it appears that he CAN change his mind. Hopefully, he WILL become more independent-minded as he becomes more comfortable with his position.

Of note is that Waters received 1300 more votes than Hornat which confirms that there were 1300 voters who, like Palomino, also thought that Waters and Hornat weren't necessarily cut from the same cloth.

I hope they're right.

The Zee Man said...

VC...

Me Too...

It is unrealistic to expect the three to operate in lockstep forever.

It is more important that we understand that each is a individual and that we should approach them in that manner.

In the 2008 election, I didn't know Barry Gillaspie. I reserved judgment. I am glad that I did.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Three observations for some to consider.......

The "beginning of the end" was not the loss of Latas. It was, in my opinion, the 'attitude' that Latas and Garner brought to the Council. Every newly elected Council person clearly pointed this out (civility)without naming those individuals.

Second, I believe each item that was 'de-funded' was a wise fiscal decision.

Lastly, Mr. Garner is the last person on earth who should reference "good faith". MORE TO FOLLOW.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Just to clarify one point in my post. The newly elected Council members campaigned on bringing back civility to the dais.

Fear the Turtle said...

OVOT,

Please describe what you mean by "attitude", perhaps you can subsitute the word independence instead. Independence from the "hold" special interests groups have over them.

Also, lets move this town onto bigger and better things. After the last year of bs and confusion, I think the citizens have had enough and want this town to move forward. This town cannot afford to waste time on meaningless counter productive matters.

On a personal note I can't rent my condo in OV while my other properties throughout Tucson are rented out with long term leases. My rental management company always sighs when they try to explain the OV stigma attached to our community. This stigma goes back several years.

Bottom line is eliminate polarization and bring positive contributions to our community or get the hell out of the way.

Christopher Fox said...

Civility, shmivility! When a small town bureaucracy can run roughshod over rational decisions about regarding fiscal prudence, with the complicity of a super-majority of its town council that was suspect in its formation, I for one will enthusiastically participate in the recall effort that I fully expect to occur as soon as the six month time frame has passed. For those who will decry this as a repeat of the past, so be it: the only problem with past recall efforts is that the conditions that precipitated them took too long to become apparent. That is not the case now!

Christopher Fox

Zev Cywan said...

CF, as I stated above, I think it is an undermining of Town interests when a prior action, duly voted upon by an 'in place' Council, can be overturned by the simple use of a line item budget manipulation (et al) by a 'new' Council. Technically this can nullify perhaps one out of of every four years of Council action because of a 'change' of Council make up every two years and the allowance for an assumption that prior issues voted upon may take up to 6 months to 'take hold'. To use an old expression of mine: 'it may be legal but is it right'?

OV Objective Thinker said...

Fear....If you want to use the word "independence" I can go along with that only if it is proceeded by the word "arrogant". Until KC and Paula Abbott bolted from the Latas/Garner/Gillaspie camp, there was an 'in your face, my way or the highway' attitude on our Council. Once Carter and Abbott left then there was a period of very nasty in-fighting among ALL members of the Town Council. Very little was accomplished. Think back to the budget process last year and the subsequent turmoil that resulted. It was a very unhealthy, polarized Council and community. While he made his own bed, so to speak, the demise of David Andrews was to a degree attributable to this polarization. If the Council would have been better aligned with Oro Valley as it's focus rather than personal agenda's. David may have survived his transgressions.

And I think you will see this Town now take a forward look and grow our way out of some of the financial woes we have suffered.

Please share with us the "stigma" as described by your management company.

Chris.....I am not sure I understand the following:

"When a small town bureaucracy can run roughshod over rational decisions about regarding fiscal prudence,", But I think you are saying that the budget amendments made by Mr. Hornat, were misguided. If so, I would haertily disagree. If I have misinterpreted please clarify.

I would also be very interested in your expansion on,"town council that was suspect in its formation,".

You may not have to wait 6 months for a recall. :-)

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Thinker,

What's all this talk about the new council members "bringing back civility to the dais" and alluding to Latas and Garner as not being civil?

I've been watching council meetings for years and the only people I've witnessed as having problems with civility were Helen Dankwerth (the entire 4 years), Terry Parish (a bully in his first 2 years who toned it down in the second 2 years), KC Carter (exceptionally belligerent in his last 2 years), and now Joe Hornat.

Latas was ALWAYS civil, respectful, and soft-spoken, even when she was addressing David Malin who certainly wasn't deserving of any respect after the $23 million dollar bait and switch he pulled on us.

And the only time I've ever seen Garner lose his temper was during the Dave Andrews "resignation set-up" and he had every right to be angry that evening. A dozen citizens got up to speak that evening as well, and they were also angry. Loomis and Carter lost their re-election bids as a result of their underhanded shenanigans.

As for Hornat's lack of civility, I hope Palomino won't mind if I refer you to a comment he made on another thread. He said...

"Garner asked Hornat for clarification on a motion he made saying something like...Did you mean blah blah blah?...and Hornat answered "Noooooooo, that's not what I said." His whiny disrespectful tone did not go unnoticed by this observer. Garner again asked for clarification of the motion and this time Hornat answered with "I didn't saaaaay that." Again with the disrespectful-condescending tone."

Hornat is the last person who should be claiming that HE will bring civility back to the dais. He's got a real attitude problem.

I may not like Waters or Snider or Hiremath, but at least they're civil when addressing others. And I also noticed that none of Hornat's supporters argued with Palomino's keen observation of him.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Palomino,

I've been referring to you as "he." My apologies if you're really a "she."

Christopher Fox said...

Re: my prior post here, delete the word "about." I am referring specifically to defunding the analysis of the OVPD that had been agreed upon by the last council.

OV Objective Thinker said...

VC....As has been posted by many others on this blog, you tend to see and hear what you want to see and hear and no amount of fact can change your opinion. Therefore it seem pointless to respond to you.

CF....If you look at the crime statistics in Oro Valley and compare them to other communities in Arizona, you will discover that we are THE safest community. I personally like that and evidently most of the citizens like that also. I suppose there is an argument to be made that there may be a few dollars saved that a management study might uncover. But when you are numero uno and the Town is experiencing financial difficulty, I think I would rather fund Coyote Run than do a management study of the PD. Public safety is not free.

Vistoso Val said...

I am sooooo glad that some folks are already talking about a recall...let's hope we can survive the six months without being in shreds!

We're truly sorry to see nasty attitude displayed on our Council...and now there's more than one that prefers that method of treating others!

How many more months left?

Jay D said...

I thought I'd sit back and just watch the comments, but there is too much too ignore:

1. Hiremath's victory margin was 30 votes, not 16 (7,398 vs. 7,368). No, this is not a mandate, but I just wanted to clarify the final total.

2. I do not believe, as VC states, that the "the council voted to continue to PROTECT those town EMPLOYEES who are the neediest." This is ABSURD! Those of you who criticize the OVPD probably have never lived in a place with a crime problem. Try living in an area with a high crime rate, then see how much you'd miss the OVPD!

3. My assumption is that name recognition explains why Lou Waters received more votes than Joe Hornat, not any of the nonsense theories, like "lesser of 3 evils."

4. I strongly suggest that you all attend the council meetings or watch them online. The discussion of a lack of civility is laughable. I see a relaxed, respectful council, regardless of VC's interpretation of Joe Hornat's use of the word "Nooooo...." I have heard the council/mayor laugh (this is new and and a great change). Unless you count eye rolling as a civil behavior (as existed with a favorite councilmember who recently resigned), civility has returned to Town Hall! There is definitely no "nasty attitude" being displayed by the current council or mayor. Instead of picking apart behaviors, why not focus on the issues? Isn't that the most important part of our town government?

Nombe Watanabe said...

OV..stigma?

Fear the Turtle, what is this about?

Fear the Turtle said...

The stigma still attached to OV is we have nothing to offer and this is the place where people go to retire.

This is just not true and if our town, and did some positive marketing instead of relying on an random article in the AZ Star, OV would be known for:

- new top ten nationally ranked Charter school;

- new restaurants;

- good transportation facilities;

-easy accessibiltiy to Skyharbor;

-top notch public safety record;

There are several more items to add to this list.

No one knows about this stuff, and in fact as my daughter says OV is known as the "bubble town". where no one leaves and only the residents stay.

Perhaps the town can focus on some aggressive marketing campaigns to get the word out on our good features. Heck, don't we have several people in our communications department that can do this??

artmarth said...

Jay D--- The point of the vote disparity that was perfectly clear to me and probably everyone else, was that if 16(SIXTEEN) votes that went to Hiremath went instead to Zinkin, Zinkin wins the election.

As for demeanor, I'm afraid it's in the eye of the beholder.

As Hiremath pointed out from the dais, respect is a two way street. Too bad, if didn't show any respect to Bill Adler with his recent admonishment, that was not at all necessary.

As for Mr. Hornat, you see what you see. Many of us see what we see. That is total disrespect for at least one of the incumbents.

By the way, once again, welcome back from your self exile from the blog.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Fear...Isn't it interesting that you post all of the positive things which just happen to be many of the things this blog and many of the posters oppose. Ironic!!!!!

Jay D said...

Art, my self exile from the blog is because I hate to feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall. Sadly, there are several people on here who behave like brick walls.

In terms of the vote margin, Zee Man said: "And, by 16 votes (Hiremath's victory margin..." You interpreted this differently than I did and honestly, I don't agree when you say to me: "The point of the vote disparity that was perfectly clear to me and probably everyone else." Zee Man's language is not perfectly clear.

I guess the bottom line is that we all will see what we see and as usual, I guess we will disagree.

Fear the Turtle said...

OVOT,

You lack any credibility, and don't know where most people stand on some of the items I pointed out.

You are truly one of the most ploarizing figures in this community, and are one of the reasons why we can't blend our resources together to better our town.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Jay D,

1. The council DID vote to PROTECT the OVPD. What's absurd is your belief that the ONLY reason we have a low crime rate in OV is because of the OVPD. There is another factor at work and it's called demographics!

2. I agree that name recognition is ONE of the reasons that Waters did so well and that just goes to show you that some people choose a candidate based on very shallow reasons that have nothing to do with the ISSUES. However, the lesser of the 3 evils strategy is not a "nonsense theory" since I heard at least a dozen people state that this was their reason for voting for him. That makes it a fact and not a theory.

3. You said, "I see a relaxed, respectful council, regardless of VC's interpretation of Joe Hornat's use of the word "Nooooo...." You know why that's so funny? Because it was Palomino who made that comment, not me (although I later agreed with him) but you never said a word when Palomino made the comment/observation. But the minute I agree with him, suddenly the comment/observation is wrong.

Objectivity isn't your strong suit!

Victorian Cowgirl said...

There is a pattern on this blog of certain people (I call them “The Good Old Boys” since they are always of the male persuasion) being able to say whatever they want without fear of subsequent ridicule, character assassination, or attacks on their intellect.

Conversely, posts by myself and other female bloggers are often singled out for the above-mentioned forms of ridicule.

It has become quite apparent that “The Boys” have little concept of how to argue a position or debate an issue in a mature and civil fashion. Whenever they can’t explain something, they simply create a diversion using one of their infamous “Battle Cries” as outlined below:

Character assassination.
Name-calling.
Word-twisting.
I won’t discuss that. It’s old news.
No once cares.
You only see what you want to see.

They resort to these tactics whenever they cannot defend their position. They are no match for the bloggers (both male and female) who think, reason, and articulate their positions well.

So “boys,” the jig is up! If you continue with your immature tactics, just understand that you're not impressing anyone, and it's just an admission on your part that it's the only form of communication of which you're capable.

artmarth said...

Cox--- Your earlier comment alluding to my friend Bill Garner, where you saw fit to denigrate him, and then made the comment, "More to follow," did not go unnoticed here.

Our recently imposed "monitored comments" which we imposed mainly because of your demeaning comments was more recently removed.

If you think for a minute you'll have this forum to spew your nasty comments about anyone----which you started doing on this thread---think again.

If you can't abide by the rules of OUR blog, you'll find out soon enough, you will no longer be welcome here.

If you doubt me, you'll be making a big mistake.

To our other bloggers, we apologize if it comes to that, but Cox will be the impetus for this action.

We hope he is smart enough not to test us, but, we'll see.

Art

OV Objective Thinker said...

Fear.....I will admit to being one of the most polarizing people to folks like you and VC. I do receive many compliments about my LOVE postings and opinion pieces from most others.

Based on my beliefs and the results of the recent election, I think most of the VOTING public of this community and I are pretty well aligned. The other source of my information is the polling that the Town does from time to time.

But to address each of your points specifically, lets look at them.

BASIS School...We all agree on that one.

New Restaurants: Several people on this blog including the propriator could say nothing nice about Red Lobster, Olive Garden and In & Out Burger. Some current and former LOVE posters picketed the Marketplace. Your buddy Zinkin, as Chair of DRB, did everything he could to make El Charro's life miserable.

Good transportation facilities....I don't know what you mean by that. What transportation facilities do we have? If you are referring to Coyote Run, I do believe Garner and Gillaspie (those you support) just voted against the revised budget which funded Coyote Run.

Easy access to Sky Harbor...This has never been a hot item on any survey done and you are the only human being I know that thinks that is a positive of Oro Valley. Why don't you support your 'local' airport facility?


Top notch safety record...Most people who post on this blog were supportive of firing Chief Sharp, slashing the police budget, spending $80,000+ a management study of the PD.

I may not have any credibility with you and that's OK with me. There are those who will come to the same conclusion every time even if facts indicate otherwise. That's what makes this great community of ours go around.

Have a great weekend!!

OV Objective Thinker said...

Art....

"Lastly, Mr. Garner is the last person on earth who should reference "good faith". MORE TO FOLLOW."

I will assume that the above is what you were refering to as "where you saw fit to denigrate him".

As I have said many times in the past, your belief is that any comment that does not fit into your overall opinion of someone is denegration.

It's your blog and you can do with it as you wish. My life was just as pleasant with out the LOVE Blog. So if you at any moment in you life thinks that I am even slightly intimidated by your heave handed comments, rethink your position.

You have a great weekend also.

Jay D said...

VC, you continue to prove to be one of those brick walls I referred to. I numbered my previous post to make the details clear. You chose to do the same; sort of passive/aggressive if you ask me.

The council protected the town, not the OVPD. Yes, demographics play a part in the low crime rate. But you quite obviously are unaware that Oro Valley is the safest town in Arizona. Many towns in this state have similar demographics, but they can not boast the same low crime rate. They do not have the OVPD and we are lucky enough to live in a town, serviced by this fine police organization.

I had to laugh when you said, "I heard at least a dozen people state that this was their reason for voting for him. That makes it a fact and not a theory." A dozen people is far from statistically significant and is not nearly a large enough sample size to say something as definitive as "...a fact and not a theory."

On this thread, you are the one who referenced Hornat's "Noooo..."

In terms of you telling me, "Objectivity isn't your strong suit," this is just another example of the pot calling the kettle black. You know nothing about me, let alone my level of objectivity. Please point me to your objective posts!

And finally, VC, you seem to be very concerned about "The Good Old Boys," and the way they are treating the female bloggers. This must mean that you know the identities of every single poster on this site. My impression is that most posters use aliases, which makes it impossible to identify their gender!!

Art, I suspect that most posters appreciate that you have removed the comment monitoring. This allows for a more real time "conversation" and much less censorship. Personally, I have no problem with any of OVOT's comments. He is no more offensive than your friends on this blog. The fact that he may make negative comments about people like Garner, should not be a reason to block him from posting. Many posters make negative comments (just read through this thread) about councilmembers and the mayor. You have not threatened to block them, nor should you. Personally, I prefer to hear from both sides!

OV Objective Thinker said...

Wow...my typos are borderline embarassing. That's what happens when I don't proof read. :-(

"So if you at any moment in you life thinks that I am even slightly intimidated by your heave handed comments, rethink your position."

It should say:

So if you, at any moment in your life, think that I am even slightly intimidated by your heavy-handed comments, rethink your position.

PS> Thanks Jay !!

Fear the Turtle said...

OVOT,

You have no idea who, what, or why I support something or somebody.

I think the heat has gotten to me and that is why I'm even responding to you.

New Restaurants - Open your eyes and look outside of those restaurants at OVM. Even someone with limited tunnel vision like you should be able to see the new restaurants around town. You do a discredit to those restaurants outside of OVM.

Transportation - Because of the excellent infrastructure in place some of us can use other methods besides vehicles to run errands. The fact that we have great bike paths and walking paths is a valuable asset.

Access to Skyharbor - Those who travel back East have a great vantage point living in OV because of inexpensive NON-STOP flights. Improvements on I-10 have made this trip shorter (1hr 15minutes last week).
I would love to use Tucson International, but there are -0- non-stop back East, and the fares are much higher.

I'm worried about my sanity when I actually take someone like you with more than a grain of salt.

The Zee Man said...

Does anyone know what we're actually discussing here? It's not even related to the topic of the posting which simply noted the fact that 5 of 7 Council members approved the 2011 budget.

Maybe we should make another posting called:

"Bloggers Beat Up On Each Other For No Good Reason".

Or maybe we should start another blog that is strictly devoted to this :-)

Then, bloggers could post comments commenting on the comments of other bloggers.

C'mon guys, lets get on point.

The point is that there is a super majority on the Council that can do whatever it wants and that may not suit what a large portion of the population of the town always wants to happen.

The point is that Mayor Hiremath won by a bare majority. In a Democracy, this does not mean that "winner takes all." He will most certainly have to consider the needs of ALL of us.

The fact is that the individual occupying Salette's seat has created the super majority. The fact is that this person was not elected by the people.

These are facts.

This is reality.

This is what we have to deal with.

The fact that one blogger may not like or respect the opinion of another blogger is absolutely irrelevant and merely adds noise to the conversation.

All of us need to work together to help Oro Valley be a great town. Let's get on with it.

Fear the Turtle said...

Z, I agree.

I took the bait and got hooked in mindless chatter. I should have known better. All I was trying to do was explain the stigma others have attached to OV, and point out some of positives our town has to offer.

Hopefully our town will launch an aggressive marketing campaign to point our positive features. I will once again volunteer to help them in their efforts to promote our town.

Zev Cywan said...

This stream is not good!

OV Objective Thinker said...

Zeeeeeeeeeman...Please allow me a bit of an editorial comment prior to addressing your comments specific to the original post.

I would assume you and the other guy have some desire for this blog to be successful. I also assume that you look at the comments (both number and content) as a form of measurement.

The fourteen posts previous to this one had a total of 35 comments. This post has 40 prior to this one.

If your goal is to have a free flow of dialog among Oro Valley residents, then let it go my friend. If Fear and I want to utilize our keyboard to duke it out on some tangential issue, let it flow. OR, if you see that participants are going off on another direction then DO post a related topic to allow others to join in. Open dialog is good for the soul and healthy for the community.

Now back to 'the point'. Once again I am forced to remind you that is isn't "Salette's seat". But more importantly on May 18th (for Satish, Joe and Lou and earlier for Mary) the voters spoke. And they did so knowing that the people for whom they cast their ballot were going to appoint a seventh person to fill a vacancy. They gave their proxy. So I take exception to your statement, "The fact is that this person was not elected by the people." Mr. Solomon was elected by proxy.

Lastly, I want to remind you of a post that was made earlier on this blog. I don't remember if it was from you or the other guy. It stated that who ever was appointed, it would be nice if it were a unanimous vote.I couldn't have agreed more. The two incumbants (those I previously stated had an attitude issue)took it upon themselves to not allow unanimity. One voted "No" and the other avoided the opportunity to stand and be counted. The word "tacky" comes to mind. Had I been in either one of their shoes, I would have voiced my concerns before I voted to welcome Mr. Solomon to the dais. That would have been the high road.

artmarth said...

Cox--- Your premise that many of the people that voted for YOUR candidates knew what they were doing is more than questionable. It is doubtful.

As to the quantity of comments,
do you think we really care how many comments a posting generates?

One or two thoughtful comments are more desirable than most everything you think you contribute.

We already proved that with our monitored postings, that, if necessary, will be re-instituted.

Nombe Watanabe said...

Remaining on target, restaurants a good topic!

I went out to the Dove Mountain Grill the other day, it was very nice. They did serve the red wine too cold tho.

Now, lets focus. Red Lobster, O. Garden, Mcd's and In N Out are all fine establishments and they are all welcome, but despite opinions voiced above. This is NOT destination dining.

Good thread.

Fear the Turtle said...

NW,

Dove Mountain Grill is a nice place, but give the new Italian restaurant, Angelina Ristorate, at the Safeway shopping center a try.

You won't be disappointed.

Also, Keg Steakhouse, San Carlos Grill, and China Kitchen will soon be opening at OVM.

Your restaurant critic and really off topic blogger.

GO USA!!!

artmarth said...

Hey Guys--- This "ain't" a restaurant blog.

As Turtle acknowledges, you're not only getting off the topic, you're so far removed as to be on another planet.

As Zeeman previously noted, we have a "super majority" that is flexing its muscles.

First was the appointment of the developer, then they "deep sixed" the police management study----one of the Special Interest entities that supported the four winning candidates.

Soon to be an issue will be the funding of MTCVB & TREO.

That my friends, is a hell of a lot more important than another burger joint coming to Oro Valley--the new place to come for "fast food."

Nombe Watanabe said...

Blogmasters.

This thread was so far off track that I thought a few restaurant reviews would be just the ticket!!

My thanks to Fear the Turtle for playing along.

The super majority concept has been surfaced and now all we can do is wait.

I hope the new TC and Mayor will be careful with our money and not fund MTCVB & TREO.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Jay D,

My responses to your comments:

1) I numbered my previous post to make the details clear. You chose to do the same; sort of passive/aggressive if you ask me.

RESPONSE: I've been "numbering" my posts for years. I didn't just start doing it because YOU did it. What an ego! I've been blogging here since March 2007. You will find that many of my posts during the past 3 years have been numbered. Feel free to check.

2) You quite obviously are unaware that Oro Valley is the safest town in Arizona.

RESPONSE: Noooooooo...YOU quite obviously are unaware that I AM aware of OV statistics.

3) A dozen people is far from statistically significant and is not nearly a large enough sample size to say something as definitive as "...a fact and not a theory."

RESPONSE: It's a FACT that a dozen or so people made the "lesser of 3 evils" comment to me. It's also a FACT that many of those people do not even know each other. So if a bunch of people who don't know each other and therefore didn't discuss it with each other all made the same comment, then one can extrapolate on that and realize that there were many other people in town who were thinking the same thing.

4) On this thread, you are the one who referenced Hornat's "Noooo..."

RESPONSE: I REFERENCED it on this thread. But I am not the original author of it. Yet you said NOTHING when Palomino made the original comment and you also didn't mention Palomino when you brought it up on THIS thread.

You said, "I see a relaxed, respectful council, regardless of VC's interpretation of Joe Hornat's use of the word "Nooooo...."

Why didn't you say, "I see a relaxed council, regardless of Palomino and VC's interpretation of Joe Hornat's use of the word "Noooo..."

Why did you leave Palomino completely out of your response? I'll tell you why. It's because you prefer to attack the messenger and not the message! You don't base your responses on WHAT'S being said. You base them on WHO's saying them. You are not objective.

5) You know nothing about me, let alone my level of objectivity.

RESPONSE: See Number 4 for a reference on your lack of objectivity.

6) Most posters use aliases, which makes it impossible to identify their gender!!

RESPONSE: I use the alias - Victorian Cowgirl. Has it been impossible for you to identify my gender? If something as obvious as that is impossible for you to figure out, well, that explains many of your posts!

The posters I refer to are ALL MALES. That's a FACT, not a theory. Many of the aliases are masculine such as OV Dad and Roger. Others use neutral aliases but their writing style reveals that they are male. And some of them use their real names and identify themselves as being male.

It is NOT impossible to figure out!

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Zee Man,

I just noticed that you left a new post under ORO VALLEY CITIZENS NEED COYOTE RUN. I don't think anyone saw it though because the previous post on that thread was from one week earlier.

Since this thread is about the "Super Majority" and the "2011 budget" I think you should repost it here or maybe start a new post since this one has gotten quite lengthy.

You made an interesting observation about Coyote Run in that post. I think it deserves further discussion.

Jay D said...

VC, as always, it's impossible to talk to you. In your lengthy response, you have reinforced all of the opinions/points I already made. Thanks! If I did not reference Palomino as the poster who commented on Hornat's use of the word "Noooo," it's because it was not in this thread; you were the one whose comment I read. Excuse me if I do not read every single blog post and comment.

You can continue to argue that your sample size of 12 can be extrapolated to all of Oro Valley, but again I will tell you that in no way is this statistically significant. I'm sure you will disagree. That's your right.

What frustrates me is that you do know nothing about me, yet you suggest I have quite the ego and that I am not objective. These are the sort of attacks that I think anger the blogmasters when someone like OVOT makes them. Why is it that it's okay if you attack other posters?

Again, you made me laugh with this comment: "I use the alias - Victorian Cowgirl. Has it been impossible for you to identify my gender?" Aside from the fact that you use the name "Cowgirl," why would this mean you are female? It is naive of you to think that because posters may use male names, they are men and vice versa. That is the beauty of blogging...it's anonymous and there is no way for the readers to truly know the posters! Nothing about any of the writing styles on this blog indicate the writer's gender. Ridiculous!!!

Finally, I am tired (as I've been before) of arguing with you. It serves no purpose and sadly, I don't think you listen. Your opinions are just that, but sadly you consider them fact!

I will post when there is something worthwhile to discuss, but no longer will I respond to you. It's useless.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Jay D,

Now you expect me to believe that you just happened to read ALL of my posts but you also just happened to miss ALL of Palomino's posts? Well, I'm glad that you think my posts are so noteworthy that you can't afford to miss even one of them!

And I guess I'm also supposed to believe that OV Dad and OVOT and Roger and OinStarr also just happened to miss all of Palomino's posts and that's why they also didn't comment on them. Wow, what a coincidence!

Allow me then to repost Palomino's comments here. Now you can't claim that you never saw them.

On June 17th he made the Joe Hornat, "Nooooo....I didn't saaaay that" observation. He said that Hornat's demeanor was "disrespectful" and "condescending."

On June 19th he said that the council's choice of a developer to replace Latas was "unsavory" and that "H-H-W-S thumbed their noses at all of Latas's supporters."

On June 23 he said Waters looked like "a deer in the headlights" at the council meetings and "appears intimidated by Snider and Hornat and fearful of voicing his own opinions."

Yup, it sure is a coincidence that not one of the Good Old Boys happened to see ANY of those comments even though they appeared on 3 different days over the course of a week.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Jay D,

As for your comment, "Nothing about any of the writing styles on this blog indicate the writer's gender. Ridiculous!!!"

I have this to say...

Just because someone's writing style/gender is not obvious to YOU doesn't mean it's not obvious to others. Here's an example. Back in 2007 when OV Objective Thinker left his very first post, not only did I know that he was a male, I also knew his ACTUAL IDENTITY and I was RIGHT! I knew by what he said and by the alias he chose.

But it's a proven scientific fact that women are better at picking up all kinds of clues from what they see and hear and then being able to put those clues together to draw an accurate conclusion. It goes all the way back to our days of being hunters and gatherers and what women needed to know in order to effectively do the "gathering," but it's too long of a discussion to get into here.

So I'm sorry if you don't have the capacity to figure this stuff out, but that doesn't mean that I don't.

Zev Cywan said...

VC, your statement that "women are better at picking up all kinds of clues from what they see and hear and then being able to put those clues together to draw an ACCURATE conclusion" is blatantly INACCURATE! The premise portion of your statement may be the basis for what is commonly referred to as 'womens' intuition'; it most certainly is NOT a basis for "scientific fact"! By the way the words 'proven' and 'scientific fact' are redundant; 'Scientific fact' needs no 'proven' as a go-with.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Zev,

You know how you know a lot about how the retail industry works because you worked in that industry, owning a retail business, for years? Well, I know a lot about medicine, science, psychology and psychiatry because I worked in that field for 20 years.

During that time, I had access to dozens of medical journals covering the various medical specialties. I read dozens of peer-reviewed articles every week for 20 years. I was also involved in the publishing of scientific studies when I worked for doctors who were also conducting studies of their own (some through local universities, others on a national level such as through the NIH.) So I know how studies are conducted (eg. double-blind studies, placebo-controlled studies, etc.)

During part of my medical career, I worked in psychiatry/psychology/neurology (all interconnected).

My information comes from years in that industry, so I'm not sure why you think it is "blatantly incorrect."

You mentioned "women's intuition." In fact, one of the articles I'm referring to was about women's intuition and it delineated the scientific basis for it. Yes, Zev, there IS a science behind women's intuition.

The reason I used the words proven AND scientific AND fact is because I'm tired of hearing from "the boys" how all of my facts are merely just my opinions.

OV Objective Thinker said...

VC...

So I guess it was a result of your years of 'scientific exposure' that allowed you to come to the conclusion that the three candidates didn't knock on your door because they 'knew who you were'.

Simply amazing stuff! Who would have thunk it?

artmarth said...

Cox--This last comment is like an old newspaper---good for wrapping fish and nothing else.

Why would you bring up something so meaningless and worthless?

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Thinker,

The study of human nature IS a science!

Since you brought up the "knocking on the door" incident, (boy I must have really hit a nerve with that one -- here it is 3 months later and you're STILL obsessed over it)...I'll add something to that story that I didn't add at the time.

Remember, no one was able to offer a LOGICAL explanation for why they knocked on everyone's door but mine. Well, a few weeks after that incident I was at a party for Zinkin supporters and I heard two women talking. One of them was saying that she was home when Waters-Hornat-Snider walked her street and that she saw them go to everyone's door but hers. My ears perked up! Later, I asked her about the incident and if she had any idea why they skipped her house. She said, "The only thing I could figure was that I have a Zinkin for Mayor sign in my front yard so they didn't want to be bothered talking to me."

So there you have it. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to provide an update.

And I never said that the reason they skipped my house was because they knew who I was. I said they EITHER had a list of voters with them and therefore KNEW who I was, or they WEREN'T working off a voter list and bypassed my house because of the Zinkin sign.

I offered two plausible explanations. The Good Old Boys Club offered none. They just pulled out their standard character assassination and name-calling "Battle Cries." Because that's why they do when they have no defense.

So Thinker, why didn't YOU argue with Palomino when he said that Hornat was disrespectful and condescending? Why didn't YOU argue when he said that Waters looks like a deer in the headlights, is intimidated by the other two, and seems fearful of voicing his own opinions?

Because you saw the video and you know he's right? Tough to argue with a videotape, isn't it?

OV Objective Thinker said...

Art....

"Why would you bring up something so meaningless and worthless?"

I can't deny that it was "meaningless and worthless", but it is a perfect match to what VC usually posts.

VC.....

Your post, like most others you have presented recently is twaddle.

"Because you saw the video and you know he's right? Tough to argue with a videotape, isn't it?"

I didn't see the "videotape".I know Mr, Hornat well enough to know that the characterization of his comments being "disrespectful" are nothing more than the words of folks that are still stinging from May 18thitis.

And a more modern description would be a digital recording.

Zev Cywan said...

VC, I did not say that your information was "blatantly INCORRECT", I wrote that it was "blatantly INACCURATE". No matter your education or experience, your 'proof' is ANECDOTAL and anecdotal evidence, though it may have some merit, is NOT scientific!

AND, VC, why not stop using an excuse that it's 'the boys' who are the reasons for your frustration;I've seen several posts of yours, not necessarily on THIS site, that suffer from an illogically oriented emotional bent that have nothing to do with 'these boys'.

artmarth said...

People--- Instead of this back & forth as to which one of you is smarter and more knowledgeable than the other, why not spend more time on the issues:

OV Budget.

Discontinuation of OV police Management Study.

Funding outside Agencies.

Where this new council will take us in the next 2-4 years.

On, and on.

I don't think too many others are concerned as to who was a retailer, who came to whose door, etc.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Zev,

You said, "your 'proof' is ANECDOTAL" but I never offered the proof. I just hinted at it with these words:

"It goes all the way back to our days of being hunters and gatherers and what women needed to know in order to effectively do the "gathering," but it's too long of a discussion to get into here."

You also said that you've seen posts of mine on other sites, but I do not post on any other sites.

Thinker,

Well, you just gotta love this one! You didn't see the video containing the evidence, but you KNOW that Hornat wasn't disrespectful because you know his character. I just love how people who didn't witness the incident know more about what transpired than people who did witness it.

You think Palomino wrote that comment about Hornat because he didn't vote for him and he's just "stinging" from the election results? OK. Explain this one.

Palomino also stated that he DID vote for Lou Waters, so why did he also make derogatory comments about HIM? You can't use the excuse that he's upset about the election results! He voted for him!

Deer in the headlights.
Intimidated.
Fearful.

Those words no longer just describe Lou Waters. They now also describe the "boys" inability to challenge Palomino despite being given numerous opportunities to do so.

Thank you Palomino. You've been the gift that keeps on giving! Please come back.

I'm done with this thread...but that doesn't mean that I won't bring these issues up again on another thread if the opportunity presents itself...and it will.

OV Objective Thinker said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
artmarth said...

COx--- The next time you see fit to use a blogger's name when they chose to use a pseudonym, it will be the last comment you'll make on this blog. If you doubt me, just try it. This is your first and last warning.

Art