Having seen Oro Valley victimized by Beztak in 2003-04, the potential General Plan Amendment in Rancho Vistoso is frightening indeed!
I spent almost two years full-time trying to convince the then current Town Council (Mayor Loomis, Council Members Dick Johnson, Warner Wolf, Bart Rochman and Paula Abbott) to abide by our General Plan and follow the El Conquistador Planned Area Development ("PAD").
They did not.
Oro Valley is far worse because of their decision. Oro Valley wound up with 138 two and three story apartments, packed into the parking lot of the businesses on the Southwest Corner of LaCanada and Lambert Lane.
Everything about this project was in direct conflict with our General Plan and the El Conquistador PAD. Still, the Council at that time approved it. These apartments never should never have been approved. They never should have been built. But they were.
Now, Beztak is back.
Now, the residents of Rancho Vistoso face a similar problem to those faced by the El Conquistador residents: Development of a property that may be incompatible with and injurious to the abutting and adjacent neighborhoods.
The Ford Property project, to be approved, must meet all of the following three requirements:
- The proposed Development should comply with the citizen-approved vision for our community. This is what our General Plan is.
- The proposed Development should comply with the Rancho Visto PAD.
- The Development, itself, should be in harmony with the existing Development.
Right now, everyone must ask: Do we, the residents of Oro Valley, have a Town Council that will vote to protect our community; to protect the quality of life of those living in Rancho Vistoso? Or will they sell out, as the Council did in 2004, to Special Interests. Clearly the Council in 2004 violated the General Plan, the Grading Ordinance, the El Conquistador PAD and basic design principles. Will they do so again?
Let's hope that that an encore performance is not waiting in the wings.
Conny Culver
--
8 comments:
Thanks for your insight.
Venture West with intended developer HSL (Humberto Lopez of Hotel Arizona fame) essentially wants to do the same thing at Parcel 7-1 at the NW corner of Tangerine & Rancho Vistoso Blvd.
I believe this also conflicts w/ the Town's General plan & Rancho Vistos Pad. Clearly apartments are not mentioned in the Town's 2011 Economic Development Plan.
Unbelievable destruction of our desert & homeowner property values!
Conny, the answer to your question...
"Do we, the residents of Oro Valley, have a Town Council that will vote to protect our community; to protect the quality of life of those living in Rancho Vistoso? Or will they sell out, as the Council did in 2004, to Special Interests?"
is this...
They will sell out to special interests. Why? Because when a government has to choose between protecting quality of life for its residents or collecting revenue, they will always choose revenue.
The only questions they will ask are, "how much money can we get from this project" and "how soon can we get it?"
Is Humberto debt free? I thought the Hotel Arizona was in Chapter 11 or something.
I guess you can get a loan to develop a parcel if you have a failed business model.
It really is time for our Oro Valley Mayor and Councilmembers to choose to protect the quality of life for the residents.
The only question is, will they?
---
It is important that the residents show up in large numbers at the Beztak/Ford property neighborhood meeting on the 10th; then, at the Planning and Zoning Board public hearing (whenever that is) and then at the Council Meeting (whenever that is).
These residents represent about 1,000 votes!!!
If this General Plan Amendment does get recommended by Planning and Zoning, approval will require 5 Council votes to pass. I doubt that Council Members Garner and Gillaspie would vote for this. They are citizen centric.
It would be political suicide for Council Person Solomon to vote for it. His Council appointment is up in June. He has taken out papers to run for Council in March. Voting for this General Plan Amendment would be a major blow to his candidacy. So, my guess is that, given strong and vocal citizen opposition, he will vote against it. So, the rezoning of this property will not be approved.
That said, once the rest of the Council recognizes this, they will also vote it down, as it would be a blemish on their record that served no purpose.
---
Z opened this post up to the topic of Election Day 2012. This should be a recurring topic on the blog, in my opinion; one of the most major impacts this blog could have on TOV would be to generate a 'campaign platform' that 'Everyman' could run on and that truly represents the core positions of those who want the best for our community, with absolutely no hint of influence from special interest groups. I for one would like to see this topic posted regularly....
---
"...one of the most major impacts this blog could have on TOV would be to generate a 'campaign platform' that 'Everyman' could run on and that truly represents the core positions of those who want the best for our community, with absolutely no hint of influence from special interest groups."
Thanks you for you suggestion, Christopher. I will certainly give some thought on how to make this happen.
---
I would like to see everyone, just for a moment, take a step back and take a deep breath.
A common occurrence on this blog is for someone to post something and then others chime in and take for granted that what was originally posted is accurate. Not always, but frequently, the original post only points out or makes reference to the poster's side of an issue or totally misrepresents fact. Such is the case with Ms Culver's post.
She states:
“The Ford Property project, to be approved, must meet all of the following three requirements:
• The proposed Development should comply with the citizen-approved vision for our community. This is what our General Plan is.
• The proposed Development should comply with the Rancho Visto PAD.
• The Development, itself, should be in harmony with the existing Development.
Can anyone seriously believe that, on any level, the requested Ranch Vistoso General Plan Amendment request meets any of these requirements?”
Here is what the General Plan ACTUALLY says:
“Adoption of Amendment. The disposition of the General plan amendment proposed shall be based on consistency with the vision, goals, and policies of the general Plan, with special emphasis on:
1. The proposed change is sustainable by contributing to the socio-economic betterment of the Community, while achieving community and environmental computability; and
2. The proposed change reflects market demand which leads to viability and general community acceptance; and,
3. The amendment will not adversely impact the community as a whole, or a portion of the community without an acceptable means of mitigating these impacts through the subsequent zoning and development processes..
The applicant for the amendment shall have the burden of presenting facts and other materials to support these conclusions.”
You can characterize Ms. Culver’s misrepresentations any way you wish. I choose to describe them as erroneous, self-serving, irrational and inflammatory.
I could spend a great deal of time in an attempt to identify why Ms. Culver would go down this path, but suffice it to say that she has an ax to grind and she wants to influence you to assist her in turning the wheel.
There will be many opportunities for input on this project and I would encourage you to participate. The General Plan is available on line at the Town web site and while it is generally pretty boring reading for the average person, it does lay out some of the tools utilized by Town staff, recommending boards and the Town Council.
Post a Comment