---
After 2.5 hours of discussion, after listening to the planning and zoning commission's recommendation, after listening to Roger Ford, the property owner, after listening to what seem to be "hired supporters' of the amendment (all of whom live outside Oro Valley), after listening to the residents, after discussion, the Town Council voted 6 to 1 to deny a General Plan Amendment to allow apartments on the Northeast corner of Rancho Vistoso Blvd and Commerce Loop.
There is no celebrating this victory for the General Plan.
It was simply a wise decision on the part of Council for a million reasons!
This time the Council got it right!
That said....
Joe Hornat and Lou Waters tried to do an "end run" by leading a charge to continue the decision pending a study of how many apartment units are really needed in Oro Valley. There is no surprise here because both Hornat and Waters are also leading the charge to Amend the General Plan to allow apartment units to be built on Tangerine and Rancho Vistoso Blvd (Knows as F-I).
A continuance would only have added to the misery and uncertainty on the part of the residents.
This continuance motion failed 4-3, with Hiremath voting for the delay. Once again, no surprise here on how the Mayor feels.
Barry Gillaspie, Bill Garner and Steve Solomon opposed this because they recognized that this decision whether the General Plan should be amended is based on the four criteria to amend the plan and not on whether apartments are needed, in general, in Oro Valley.
Mary Snider's philosophy: Oro Valley has this land ready for buildup of technology park and that converting this property from that use for short term gain is wrong. This is the same reasoning that Planning and Zoning Commissioner Cox used.
So, yes, the Council got it right this time.
But, don't look for Roger Ford and Beztak to go gently in the night. They have attorneys. My guess: They will start litigation for this change.
It ain't over till it's over.
---
16 comments:
Tis the election season very soon. If this council is permitted to retain their current super majority proposals such as Beztak will likely not be denied after May 2012.
It is my opinion Beztak would be wise to delay their litigation. My personal experience with them (both as a private citizen and a Council Member) has proven to me they know only one tactic. Legal bullying. I doubt they will go quietly.
I urge residents to tour the eyesore and development of unmet promises for the "upscale apartments" on the SE corner of Lambert Lane and La Canada.
Crammed behind the loading docks and trash bins of the commercial properties is the Beztak "upscale" apartment complex. Adjacent on the south end, towering over single family homes invading their privacy and lowering their property values is an example of what we can expect from Beztak.
The Council's decision was based on a firm basis (requirements written in the reasons for a General Plan Amendment) and I thank and am impressed by the capability of SOME of The Council members' understanding of that.
Hopefully, the results of litigation by Ford will not prevail in his favor.
Can anyone tell me the Council person that voted "nay" to the denial?
---
Hello,
The Council Member who voted Nay was Council Member Lou Waters.
His Nay vote speaks volumes.
Richard
---
Thank you Zee Man....seems to me that Councilman Waters is lost in the fog and is not certain where he is or what is going on :)
Ferlin, Councilman Waters is not the first council person to be lost in the fog. But that is a tale best left for another day.
Zeeman.......You have it wrong. Councilman Waters voted with the majority.
Conny....Evidently those who have filled that complex don't agree with you.
Conny, Ferlin, Zee and Nombe,
What a holiday gift! A fair vote from Council!
Yes, Beztak seems to increase its coffers through litigation. Part of me wonders if they tried this in AZ because they underestimate our capacity to fight smart.
However, Ford has his "lack of candor", his consistent pattern
of "fantasy", deceit which his lawyer will have to defend. He blatantly lied in several circles about the Ford/Acorn project for which there are witnesses. His lawyer will have to rehabilitate his character from the start.
Given this economic climate what defense can his lawyer launch to say that his losses were caused by TOV and not the economy? Seems like a thinking lawyer might take his money for a few rounds but know that Ford might not prevail. However, the wound to Ford's ego as a wealthy man who publically lost three rounds is like a rattler in death throes.Any desparate action in death throes can be expected.
Nombe,
Concur with your assessment of the one "lost in the fog". However, hearing some of those other lost sheep vote for the people last night gives hope. Yes, I'm eternally optimistic and no, I don't carry a card for OVOT's club.
OVOT,
What method did you use for that study?
Have it through the grapvine that the "nay" for denial was from Councilman Hornat......this may not be caused by just fog; could it be that there are some games worth $ being played????? It is very bad to irritate the wealthy.
Ferlin,
Your grapevine is correct. Andrea Rivera, AZ Star reporter covering the meeting just confirmed by phone that Joe Hornat was the nay vote.
Indeed, his relationship with Ford goes back quite a few years.
Should I write him an email and ask his "reasoning" for voting against the denial of the change?
If our illustrious mayor knew how to run a meeting, he would have indicated a 6-1 vote, noting who was the lone "no" vote.
Perhaps I shouldn't be too critical. After all, he's only been doing this now for such a short time. I guess it takes a while to "find your way."
Bloggers:
It's peculiar that there was such confusion over the nay vote. Yes, the Mayor in the previous motion never announced who the Nays were nor in this one. Was it fatigue from the length of the meeting and its heavy agenda or was it intentional?
A doubting Thomas, I just reviewed the meeting tape. Waters seconded Solomon's motion to deny suggesting he would also vote for denial. Hornat clearly voted against. Yet even a member of the Council and Star's reporter Rivera responded initially with uncertainty who the nay sayer was.
Art, I agree. It should be crystal Clear at the meeting how each council member voted.
I am posting the following for one of our readers:
"As most of you may already know the Council voted 6-1 to deny the change in zoning to build the apartments. Mr. Ford had recruited a number of outsiders who do business in Oro Valley to promote them .
We were furious! When I got up to speak I mentioned first that I was not recruited from out of town to speak in favor of the apartments, I was a homeowner here for 10 1/2 years.
I am so grateful to the six Council members who voted against it. We have heard from several sources that the dissenting vote was Joe Hornat and we observed him smoozing Mr. Ford and his cadre outside after the matter was closed. Does Joe care about any of the residents in Oro Valley or just his own fortunes?
Thanks to all of you for your letters and communications with TOV. This is the first time Neighborhood Two has been on the winning side!
Brenda and Larry Ryan"
Brenda, Larry, et al----Should anyone be surprised by Joe Hornat's vote and subsequent actions?
After all---Hornat is from Chicago, and we all know how politics works there, going back to Mayor Richard Daley who did all the favors for his cronies.
OV Thinker, Last time I checked the vacancy rate was high in the 'upscale gated community." By the way, the promised decorative iron gates are red and white striped poles, much like you find in a parking lot. Can you honestly tell me you want more of this?
Post a Comment