Monday, June 28, 2010

Results From Miller Ranch Neighborhood Meeting Are Not Encouraging

The following is a comment from a neighbor concerning the Miller Ranch Development Plan.

Anyone with any concerns should attend the July 21 council meeting. This will be on the agenda.


Hi--I didn't attend the meeting as I am out of town, but what I heard from an attendee was disturbing.

Text that follows was emailed to me by an attendee regarding the Meeting. "At the meeting on June 22nd the facilitator imposed a one question only format. How can you discuss traffic in only one question with no right to respond to answer?

Any meaningful discussion was stifled. Councilman Solomon interjected with very audible horse and donkey sounds -- we're not sure if he was objecting to questions by women and/or the subject of development. The developer-applicant made repeated misrepresentations and the facilitator (Mary Davis -- spelt phonetically) flew to his rescue to shut down objections."

What is going on with this process? Why do we not have the right to have ALL our questions answered?

Council meeting is on July 21st 2010. Help and cooperation are needed to do what we can before then: Appeal to Council to add conditions to approval. Comments need to be linked to specific text in the Zoning Code and General Plan.


Oro Valley Mom said...

Horse and donkey sounds???!! Maybe we should just put Solomon's office out at Steam Pump Ranch so the tourists will think that something is actually going on there.

Nombe Watanabe said...

I find this information quite distressing.

If true, the meeting was not conducted in a proper manner.

I wish we could get more info about this meeting.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Nombe....I attended this meeting and the description of the meeting is totally misrepresented.

The meeting lasted two hours, with the first 5 minuted devoted to introductions. The next 20 minutes was devoted to a presentation by the developer and the remainder of the time (1 hr 35 minutes) was questions from the audience. I would guess there were about 40 people in the room with about 15-20nearby residents. Most of these folks were from the subdivision across LaCanada from the subject developmnent. Some people asked no questions and several people asked multiple questions and follow-up questions. The only reference made by Ms. Davis to "one question" was that questions would be entertained one at a time.

There were multiple questions about traffic, noise,location of buildings, potential clients for the property, etc.

I sat immediately behind Councilman Soloman and the only sounds I heard from him were some chat with the individual to his left.

I don't believe I saw any individual that raised their hand that wasn't called upon at least once, to include the gentleman who wanted to know why one person paid more property tax than another.

This is just one more example of how lies are told, published without question or investigation and then totally accepted as fact by readers.

artmarth said...

The bigger issue is this: The prior meeting and this June 22 meeting was held, but both meetings were not run in accordance with OV code and there was nobody facilitating either meeting that were in the Planning Dep't.

Whether or not the individual that attended the meeting and expressed their total disgust may have exaggerated somewhat, is questionable but I will say this.

I have the word of a very reliable OV resident that their was nobody representing the town that had any idea about the code and the ordinance.

I would suggest that once again, Cox finds it necessary to make nasty comments. His final statement:

"This is just one more example of how lies are told, published without question or investigation and then totally accepted as fact by readers," leads me to note that Cox is once again way out of line in his comment.

Jay D said...

Art, it seems obvious that OVOT annoys you. On another thread, you 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." Let me just mention that you used OVOT's real name, but are admonishing him for doing the same with VC. It seems that many posters on this site know the real names of those who use pseudonyms. I have seen many other posters call OVOT by his real name, but they have not received any warnings. I suggest the rules must go both ways!

I was pleased to read OVOT's description of this meeting, which I did not attend. I often say that before any of your posters jump to conclusions, they should go to the source and get accurate information. It's sort of like playing the time the last person comments, the story is even further from the truth.

So you thought OVOT was being "nasty" when he said, "This is just one more example of how lies are told, published without question or investigation and then totally accepted as fact by readers." But I say this is just a matter of semantics. Maybe you would prefer that he said "inaccuracies" rather than "lies." Or what? The bottom line is that posters will respond to the original post, whether they have accurate information or not. If you want this blog to have any sort of intelligent conversation, then I would encourage, not discourage, anyone, whether it's OVOT or someone else, with the facts to comment.

OV Objective Thinker said...

I think you believe, that fact is "nasty" unless it fits you agenda. My post obviously didn't.

But let's examine some fact.
You state:
"... but both meetings were not run in accordance with OV code...."

Please share with us what code you might be referencing.

Second you present the following:

"I have the word of a very reliable OV resident that their was nobody representing the town that had any idea about the code and the ordinance."

First I would like to know what code and ordinance they are referring to. I am sure you can obtain that information.

Both meetings were attended by Joe Andrews, one of the town attorney's, Paul Popelka, Acting Director of Planning and Zoning and David Ronqillo, Senior Planner.

Maybe you could clear up these two inconsistencies.

I am really sorry <:-)>that my posts irritate you. But I wouldn't have to post if what you presented here was accurate. I will be happy to never post again if what is posted is accurate. It's up to you.

artmarth said...

JayD--- Before you make comments concerning cox, you ought to know that not I nor anyone else divulged his name. Cox himself did so well before you became a blogger.

And---by the way, there's a hell of a big difference between "lies" and "inaccuracies."

As for cox, I stand totally behind my comment as written.

I am quite aware of who was present from OV. You'll note however that it was Ms. Davis who ran the last meeting, and Pat Klein, the prior meeting. Neither are in the Planning Dep't and they were not appropriate choices for being the facilitators.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Jay D-

There is a BIG difference between what OVOT did in using my real name and what Art did in using Don Cox's real name. And the difference is this:

When Thinker began posting on this site years ago, he began by using a pseudonym, but very quickly turned to signing his posts with his real name.



To this day, there are times when he still signs his real name at the bottom of his postings.

So when you say, "I have seen many other posters call OVOT by his real name, but they have not received any warnings" there is no reason to give any warnings, as they have done nothing wrong.

I, on the other hand, have NEVER called Thinker by his real name (until this moment) even though I know who he is and even though he has voluntarily revealed his identity numerous times.

I also know the identity of many of the other bloggers, and not just those whom I happen to know personally or those whom I usually agree with, but I also know the identities of some who I seldom agree with and who have NEVER volunteered their real names, and yet I have always remained civil and respectful of their choice to remain anonymous.

For example, I know the real identities of Cyclone-1 and Boobie Baby. But I don't try to threaten them into silence by using their real names.

So you don't like it that Art used Cox's real name even though Cox has VOLUNTEERED it time and time again. Well, then you should be REALLY ANGRY at Cox for using MY real name when I NEVER volunteered it! So go ahead, Jay D, show us all how "objective" you are and give Cox a good tongue-lashing. I can't wait.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Allow me to set the record straight. I don't ever recall (although it may have happened) using my own name until after Art used it. If he can produce that I will readily admit to it. Just because Art says it is true does not make it fact.

Second there are thousands of Don's in Tucson just the same as there are thousands of other first names like yours VC. So get over this name thing....both of you. The point is that I am not ashamed of my postings and others must be.

Your argument is without much else.

Lastly, Art, we are still waiting for the code information. I'll keep reminding you until you post it or state that the information is false.

Victorian Cowgirl said...


You revealed your identity first. THEN, Art began using it. I remember this because when you signed as "Don" I thought it was an ego thing. You wanted to make sure you got credit and/or validation for your comments.

Yes, there are thousands of "Don's" in Tucson, but there are not thousands of "Don's" who sat on the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission. You also revealed this information in your earlier postings.

So you revealed that your first name was Don and that you had been on the OV P&Z. You also revealed that you were a real estate agent.

Now maybe Jay D couldn't put all those clues together and figure out who you were, but it was not Art who gave up your identity. It was you.

Additionally, not once did you admonish Art for using your real name so apparently it didn't bother you.

But you know what's really great about this? For years Art has been saying that you're a nasty person, mean-spirited, and vindictive. And you have countered that it's really Art who is all of those things...that he's the one who can't be trusted. I had no way of knowing whom to believe (although I had a hunch -- you know, that women's intuition thing). So I just decided to sit back and wait knowing that eventually the truth would be revealed.

Then you deliberately use my name in a posting and I know you did it to try to silence me. It won't work. However, it did reveal that you are everything Art said you were.

Have a great day!

OV Objective Thinker said...

VC....Most of what you post is without foundtion. So why don't you provide some

Please let me know WHEN my last name appeared and who posted it.

Lastly, I say again, get over it. I doubt that anybody, but you, gives a damn and since your last name was not used I have no ill feelings. MANY posters on this blog already knew who you were.

Otherwise, rant on.

Victorian Cowgirl said...


You said that the reason you sign your posts and others don't is because, "I am not ashamed of my postings and others must be."

Therefore, you just stated that Jay D and OV Dad and OinStarr and Roger are all ashamed of their postings. They're not going to like that.

It's also quite evident that you have upped the ante against me ever since I wrote my "Good Old Boys" post. That's interesting because I never mentioned EXACTLY WHO the boys were yet you seem to know that you are one of them. I guess you saw yourself in my description of the boys -- inability to debate, always resorting to their Battle Cries of character assassination and name-calling, etc.

I asked you to explain why you said nothing when Palomino made derogatory comments about Lou Waters. You couldn't answer the question so you pulled out your standard Battle Cries saying I was a fool, borderline lucid, and saying my logic was non-existent and I couldn't comprehend reality.

Character assassination.

Thank you for proving that you're exactly what I said you were. Which of course also proves that you were wrong when you said, among other things, that I can't comprehend reality.

As for your comment that the blog master has no respect for my comments, I guess that would explain whey he deletes many of YOUR comments but none of mine.

Thinkerbell, you're logic is non-existent and you can't comprehend reality.

Victorian Cowgirl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.