This past April,
my wife and I took a wonderful river cruise from Paris to Normandy. As with most vacations, one of the positive benefits
was building new relationships. While
getting to know a couple on our riverboat, it turned out that the husband had
been a member of his city’s council, as well as the Mayor. When I revealed to him that I had just lost a
close race for the Mayor of my community and was contemplating running again
for a Council position, he shared a lesson with me, a lesson that he had learned during
his years as an elected official.
“There are
three things that you must consider prior to making any decision,” he said.
“Is your decision legal?
Is your decision ethical?
Is your decision politically correct or, is it what the Citizens desire?”
Let’s look
at recent Council decisions and track them against these criteria.
Raising the Utility Tax – Legal? Yes Ethical? No, especially when the
Council did nothing to cut the excess spending or show any sacrifices within
the budget. Citizen’s desire? Absolutely, positively not!
Considering eliminating/transferring
of Coyote Run – Legal? Yes Ethical?
No. Coyote Run is a 16-year, award winning, program that is unique to Oro
Valley. The current “gang's” plan is to put the service in the hands of the RTA. Their plan will put the
program in jeopardy after 2013. This "gang" has presented their plan prior to negotiating an
Intergovernmental Agreement, so they really don't know the economic bottom line of this decision. In other words, they
have made their decision, a decision supposedly driven by money, without knowing the costs or the benefits of this
decision. Coyote Run costs the Town $300,000 a year. There is a plethora or
areas where this money can be found. Citizen’s desire? Absolutely,
positively not!
Considering allowing apartments at
the northwest corner of Tangerine and Rancho Vistoso?
Legal? This decision has been delayed 60 days. Planning and Zoning and the Council had not
done their due diligence. It took an affected citizen to advise the “gang” that
the PAD wording was suspect. Ethical? No.
Allowing this amendment without compelling reasons is against the voter
approved General Plan. There are almost 1,800 acres that are currently zoned for High Density Residential. Why add more?
What of the other impacts of this amendment: The negative effects of
increased traffic, the impact on school enrollment and the resultant costs,
and the increased building heights?
While Tucson is being called “the emptiest City in the Nation” with high
apartment vacancy rates, does Oro Valley really want to dive “head first” into
the apartment business? Is our local
economy so different than that of Tucson that Oro Valley is a boom town while
Tucson and the rest of the nation drowns in an economic malaise? Do the citizens want this? Again, Absolutely,
positively not!
Special
interests and people who support these actions will tell you that it is for the
betterment of the Citizen because it will increase our revenues. After the construction tax is paid, where are
the revenues? They will tell you that
eliminating Coyote Run lessens the Town’s obligations by $300,000, but they will
not look at the myriad of additional opportunities to cut the Town budget. Council member Garner gave a 20-page Power Point
presentation showing over $3 million in savings, only to be chastised, and
ignored by the “gang”.
It is a good
thing for them that the “gang” did not meet this gentleman that I met because in no way do their votes meet these criteria.
You see, their criteria are very different: Is there a way this can be made legal? Does it satisfy the people who donated to their campaign? And, is this what the Special Interests desire?
You see, their criteria are very different: Is there a way this can be made legal? Does it satisfy the people who donated to their campaign? And, is this what the Special Interests desire?
To me, leading using the gang's criteria is no way to run our Town.
Mike Zinkin
Mike Zinkin
36 comments:
Mike,
Well said!
Remember these three things come election time:
(1) They voted to raise the utility tax.
(2) They tried to eliminate Coyote Run.
And they did this despite numerous citizen input against it and despite...
(3) Council member Garner's 20-page Power Point presentation showing ways that the town could save over $3 million.
Thank you Bill Garner for the amount of time and effort you spent on putting that presentation together on behalf of the CITIZENS.
Thank you Mike Zinkin for contributing this article to the blog.
I too would like to thank Mr. Zinkin for submitting his guest opinion. It allows me to point out just how far off base he is, in my opinion.
It would seem to me that if I was going to run for elected office and had a forum that was going to allow me to present my views on a topic, I would do my best to present something that is logical and appropriately researched. After all that would be an opportunity to put your best foot forward, as they say. Evidently Mr. Zinkin has a different take on things.
Let’s start with a brief dip into a dictionary. “ETHICAL: Conforming to professional standards of conduct.”
I suppose because Mr. Zinkin disagrees with a position taken by an elected official he also believes the actions of the elected official are unethical. That is a preposterous position. Maybe that is why he financed the recent recall flop. It truly calls into question whether Mr. Zinkin actually understands the word, “ethical”. His actions in regards to the wastewater management tape would also indicate to me that he may have some issues with understanding “professional standards of conduct”.
I also take exception to Mr. Zinkin’s reference to the elected Oro Valley Town Council as a “gang”. It shows total disrespect for the very body he aspires to join. There is a member of this Council for whom I have little regard. But I would not refer to him as a member of a “gang”. Let’s move on.
This is a quote from Mr. Zinkin’s guest post and it relates to the Oro Valley budget. “No, especially when the Council did nothing to cut excess spending or show any sacrifices within the budget.”
I would refer Mr. Zinkin to the overall budget figures for the past two years. The 2010-2011 budget that was approved by this Council was $5.3 million less than the previous year. The 2011-2012 budget approved by this council was $22 million less than the previous year. I don’t know about you, but I believe a reduction of $22 million would qualify as doing something….. as opposed to “did nothing”.
Mr Zinkin evidently is unhappy with the decision making process currently under way with the land use decision under consideration for the property at Rancho Vistoso and Tangerine. There are more inaccuracies presented by Mr. Zinkin in this area of his post than pebbles in the CDO wash. I quote. “Allowing this amendment without compelling reasons is against the voter approved General Plan.” This action is not a General Plan amendment. This property is part of the Rancho Vistoso PAD and the action is simply an interpretation of the language in the PAD. Zinkin goes on to reflect on “ the impact on school enrollment and resultant costs, the increased building heights”. Wilson and Ironwood Ridge schools are currently operating under their maximum enrollment. The “resultant costs would be borne by the school taxes paid by the property owner just like the taxes in a single family residence. What “increased building heights”? The Vistoso PAD is very specific on allowed building heights. The proposal for this property fits into those allowed. Then there is my favorite and again I quote. “Is our local economy so different than that of Tucson…….” Surprise, Mr. Zinkin, our economy is vastly different than that of Tucson. It is scary to me that he believes the two are alike.
Lastly Mr. Zinkin consistently talks about “Citizen desire?” And he uses the term “Absolutely, positively not!” I submit that Mr. Zinkin is a poor judge of the will of the citizens,and he has been handed two mandates. It is blatantly obvious that most of Mr. Zinkin’s positions are not shared by a majority of the Oro Valley voting public. Maybe he should more closely examine the tea leaves.
I can assure you, I will as time goes on.
Everyone should know that cox, using the pseudonym "objective thinker," is a two time loser as a candidate for town council.
For cox to preach that Mike Zinkin's "positions are not shared by a majority of the Oro Valley voting public" is pure lunacy.
Had Hiremath not been financially supported by the Special Interests, while outspending Mike by better than 4-1 in the last mayoral election, only to win in a questionable election by 30 votes, puts the cox diatribe in perspective:
Total BS!
Does anyone expect anything other than BS from cox?
It seems to me that OVOT presents FACTS, based on his knowledge and experience related to the town's planning and zoning regulations. Rather than dispute the facts, Art pipes in to slam OVOT. I guess that's what people do when they can't argue the facts...just attack.
Speaking of legal vs ethical...Seems like Zinkin should have some personal experience with this dilemma...There was a certain, unauthorized use of the town seal during his campaign. This definitely was NOT ethical!
The more some things change (art no longer holding the reins of the LOVE Blog) the more some things don't change. An example of the latter would be that when art has absolutely nothing to add to a discussion (the norm) or when he disagrees with an opinion (all except his own), he goes into attack mode. This was well pointed out by another poster.
The depth of art'a substantive thinking ability is conatined in the words "lunacy" and the abbreviation "BS". art is a master of the latter.
I will say that art accurately points out that I was unsuccessful in two bids for a seat on the town council. However, in my last attempt I only lost by 4 votes. In comparison, Zinkin took a good old country butt whippin'. :-)
Lastly, individuals in this country are allowed to contribute money to candidates for public office. It is a time honored tradition. When a candidate's message is positive and strikes an affirmative chord with people, contributions will be forthcoming. Zinkin, like art, never has a positive message or anything positive to say about our community. Thus, he gets little money.
One need look no further than the following comment from cox, to determine if he speaks factually, or spews nothing but BS.
cox wrote:
Zinkin took a good old country butt whippin'. :-)
FACTS:
Hiremath outspent Mike Zinkin by about 4:1, including many thousands of dollars from Special Interest Groups (Fire districts, police unions, Home Builders, real estate, etc.)
Final vote tally: Out of almost 15,000 votes, Mike lost a questionable election result by 30 votes.
cox calls this "a good old country butt whippin'."
'nough said!
Good try art. But taking comments out of context doesn't work for you or anyone else. That attempt simply highlights how little regard you have for the intelligence of those who read these comments.
As usual you exceed my expectations of you.
The sad thing about this blog is that rarely, if ever, does anyone mention the numerous positive things that occur in Oro Valley. The focus tends to be on attacking bloggers who don't agree with the few who regularly post.
I would suggest a column to point out positive events, people, experiences, or activities that are specific to Oro Valley .
I'll go first. To those who seem to enjoy attacking OVOT, did you know that he was just named the 2011 Male Volunteer of the Year for the Town of Oro Valley? How many of you can say that you have spent any time volunteering in this community, to make this a better place for the rest of us?
It's so much easier to criticize and be negative, than to be helpful and part of the solution! I challenge those on here who are so negative, to volunteer in this community.
OVOT continues to call the recent recall effort a "flop".
Yet he also claims the town government expended funds - for some reason- as a result of the recall effort.
I maintain the recall was not a flop if the power elites in town government were so flabbergasted to find that citizens would organize to oust some offending council members, that they roused themselves to spend town funds.
UNKNOWN makes an outstanding point. There are many wonderful aspects to Oro Valley. It would be wonderful to add a side bar to the blog listing and emphasizing the great activities and accomplishment of the OV and residents. Also congrats and thanks to Mr. Cox for his service to the community.
Nombe.....Maintain all you wish.
The facts are the Town Clerk's office expended time and effort in the administrative handling of the recall paperwork, recording and reviewing the financial records of the recall committee and closing the records of the failed recall.
The recall folks could not even get enough signatures to place the item on a ballot even though they had months to do so.
From most any OBJECTIVE point of view, that is a flop, a failure or fiasco. Pick you choice of "f" words.
Nombe...Thank you for your kindness.
Congratulations on your award, OVOT
Yes, Blog's posting of accomplishments of its citizens is a great idea, Nombe!
OVOT,
"No matter how things change, they always remain the same."
No matter how OVOT varies his presentation, his goal is to provoke. OVOT never changes.
Your pattern of provoking others to angry diatribes is well known. For example, you bait Art about blog negativity and Zee. Tucson Cowgirl gives you precise reasons, you run, but return with the most venemous adjectives you can find to attack her. With AZ Moose you attack his Recall methodology and label it a "miserable failure". You accused me of not fact checking the Optimist Club. Your goal with each of us is to incite rage. You are like the little boy who provokes, stands behind his buddies for protection and to ridicule the unsuspecting person who falls into the trap.
Let's look at Zinkin and your statements. He ran a fiscally transparent campaign, on 1/5 of SH's budget. All but two of his donors were private citizens. No material to provoke Zinkin there.
Zinkin talked to citizens, answering their questions candidly. What he could not immediately answer, he got back to them, showing concern for their needs. Eminently reliable. No material there.
Zinkin was on DRB and Chair. He brought TOV experience on his qualifiers. No material there.
Ah, yes, he used the Town seal and was called on it. He apologized and accepted responsibility. Ah ha!
A tiny error to use as bait.
Goal? Provoke...provoke...provoke...
Get the attackee to respond enraged...get him to look out of control...This time you thought more verbiage and research would mask your ends...But we see through you.
What motivates you to provoke Zinkin?
Are you jealous of his near victory for Mayor in 2010? Of his immense popularity with both parties? Or because he's tall? Good looking? Supported by the Blog? Or because it gives you a feeling of power to get him angry?
Don't hold your breath, OVOT! Zinkin sees what you are up to!
Hello "Unknown",
Please do send me a Guest View about anything that you wish regarding Oro Valley. I welcome it.
The "rules" for doing this are detailed in the left column of the blog. Also, there you will find a link to which you can attach your Guest View. If you wish, simply put your Guest View in the body of an email and I will format it for posting.
You must identify yourself in the Guest View. This does not mean that you have to identify yourself as "Unknown"to me; just that you are the person who is submitting this Guest View.
As you know, Don Cox and others have posted their views. They are encouraged to do so.
I look forward to your thoughts.
Positive stories about Oro Valley are most certainly welcome.
Respectfully,
Richard
Hello Nombe,
We are working to bring balance, enthusiasm and fresh thinking to the blog.
So, your comments are appreciated.
Notice that I have been posting events, such as the Holiday Ceremony and the talk of the Attorney General at Rancho Vistoso.
That said, the blog is the only place for people to come if there is a concern. For example, note our posting tomorrow regarding a planned Fry's Gas Station near Lambert and LaCanada. There are some who are concerned so they have come to us as a means of discussing the issue.
There is no other publication regarding Oro Valley that provides this service and the immediate access that it enables.
Thanks for you help and all your comments.
Perhaps its time for you to submit a Guest View.
Respectfully,
Richard
Hello Sheldon,
I think this is the first time you have posted to this blog.
Thanks for joining the dialogue.
Your views are welcome.
Respectfully,
Richard
Richard, thank you for your invitation to write a "Guest View," but I have no intention of doing that. I have followed this blog for a while and have watched the small number of disgruntled, like-minded posters disrespect and attack those who disagree with the majority here. The comments by Art and others toward OVOT are just one example. I have seen numerous negative comments made here by others and it seems to serve no purpose to attempt to post thoughts or opinions that are in conflict with the majority of people who post here. In my opinion, it seems that even when presented with facts, posters on this blog insist on arguing and disagreeing with the facts.
I also disagree that this blog is the only place to go when there are concerns regarding Oro Valley. Ideally, people in town who have concerns should contact the town directly. That's where the facts should be found...not the blog.
Finally, Desert Voice, I remember the flap over Zinkin's use of the town seal and I don't think it was a tiny error. That is your opinion, but not the opinon of many others.
DV…..
Thank you for your kind remarks regarding my volunteer service. I appreciate it.
I state an opinion or point out what I believe to be weaknesses in the logic or fact of others and you refer to that as “provoking”. To use art’s language, the failure of others, to include yourself, to NOT use the term “provoking” toward art’s piece is “lunacy”. Art comes along refers to me as “a two time loser”, refers to my suggestion as “lunacy” and you say nothing. I suppose his comments were soothing and comforting.
I don’t run from anybody who presents reasoned statements. I refuse to respond to VC because her conclusions are nothing more than a figment of her imagination and drawn on a scenario that is present only in her vision of what is real, not reality. Here is an example of her ‘logic’.
“It was only AFTER they were informed that they were being recalled, that they suddenly had a change of heart and held another vote to reconsider it."
"It was only AFTER they were informed that they were being recalled that they actually put the time in to research the issue properly."
There is absolutely no basis for the above statements other than, as I stated, a figment of her imagination. She has NO practical way of knowing if either statement has any validity. The timing of the two was completely coincidental. There has never been a “change of heart”. The plan to rid Oro Valley of the cost of Coyote Run is still in the works and has not changed from the beginning. Only RTA’s inability to be ready for the transition as promised has changed the timing. Many other have pointed out her lack of cohesive commentary for years. It is not just my assessment.
I have never said anything negative about the “methodology” of the recall. I stated that the recall itself was inappropriate and an abject failure. You simply cannot argue the latter. I made absolutely no negative comments about John and you cannot find one. For Mr. Zinkin to support such an action on the eve of his attempt to gain a seat on the Town Council is, in my opinion, void of class and shows a total disregard for the body. You don’t recall someone because you disagree with a vote they made. You can argue that point all you want but I will assure you, his very public involvement with the recall will come back to haunt him.
As for Zinkin outside the recall, I have never made any negative comment about his “transparency”, or a lack of “concern”. I also made comments that were critical of his involvement with the Wastewater management tape in which a young female staffer was fired. And I will assure you that will also come back to haunt him, and others more directly involved.
And if you go back and check, I did not mention the use of the seal. “What motivates you to provoke Zinkin?” So far I have no indication that I have provoked Zinkin. YOU are the only one who has so stated. Mr. Zinkin is a big boy and I am confident that he can respond to anything I might say. He certainly was capable of visiting my table Thursday evening and making an offhand snide remark to me.
“Get the attackee to respond enraged”. DV, if anything I say or write provokes rage, then the individual does not deserve to hold public office. I don’t take the word “rage” lightly nor should you use it lightly.
You are completely off base on this one DV.
What are "ethics"?
Webster: the disicipline of dealing with what is good and bad with moral duty and obligation; a set of moral principles and values...
"Moral"
Webster: of or relating to what is right and wrong in behavior;expressing or teaching right behavior
Refocusing on "ethical behavior" on the part of an elected official, several areas come into focus. Yes, it was legal for Realtors of America to contribute $2080 to Hiremath, $1000 to Hornat, SABHA's gift of $350 to Mayor, $250 a piece to Waters, Hornat but was it ethical for them to accept this donation when the donor's intent was that they vote their way? There is a moral mandate to vote with integrity, facts, citizens and refuse to allow special interests to "buy" their vote. Legal? yes but morally bankrupt.
TOV's budget undergoes fine tuning and fat trimming annually. Leaders by their spending habits demonstrate respect or disregard of Town's finances. While it is legal to use their expense accounts, is it morally responsible, as citizens struggle to survive, to spend for "wants" not "needs"? Examples of indulgent choices include Hiremath's $350 for a golf tournament, Snider's $500 dues to Optimist Club and each luncheon fee, Waters' and Hornat's 51 cents per mile for routine travel to meetings.
Finally, if the Town can fire an emmployee for a lie, why are Mayor and Council exempt from this penalty? For example, during his campaign Hiremath stated he was the only candidate against a property tax. Once elected he began to educate citizens about the need for a property tax. While campaigning he ignored the permit necessary for human signage when he campaigned on the corner of Magee and Oracle with his children.
Nov. 16 at Council he reversed what he'd written on this blog,ie. RV's HOA was marking trees for removal because of a dangerous bug, that no surveyor was on the 7-i plat and gave TEP's explanation for why they were on 7-i. Teaching the public that lying is an acceptable behavior is unethical. Why isn't he held to the same standard as the young woman who was dismissed?
DV....You are getting farther and farther out in left field.
Show me ONE vote that has been registered by any elected official in this town that you can tie to campaign contributions. Just one.
All you are doing is blowing a lot of hot air into the sky with absolutely no foundation.
Bloggers:
When you think of Terry Parish and his run for re-election to Council what comes to mind instantly?
Yes, his candid acknowledgement of $33,000 in campaign contributions!
I rest my case.
And just what did that $33,000 buy someone?
It is not illegal, immoral or unethical to accept campaign contributions.
Come up with some meat!!!!
I submit you have nothing to offer other than empty tasteless rhetoric.
Is that provoking?
OVOT,
Yes, it is not illegal.
Immoral or unethcial???
You and I have very very different standards of integrity.
DV....Let's get down to brass tacks. First of all you did not answer what the $33,000 bought.
I can only guess there is no answer, but I will wait to draw that conclusion until after your next post.
Lastly, you must feel that there should be NO political contributions. Is that true?
OVOT:
Are you going to answer DV's question about the Mayor and his email. It was full of lies.
Cares,
Yes, I, too, would like to hear OVOT address Hiremath's email/TOV speech.
OVOT, voters did not need to see which specific vote Parish made. $33K in contributions was enough "proof" for them to vote him out of office.
Cares.....I don't know what the letter said, therefore I can't respond. If you can send me a copy I'll be happy to look at it.
So I was correct.....there was nothing purchased for the money. Can you point to any specific vote made by any sitting council person that was 'bought'? I doubt you can.
So your comments still have no foundation other than a figment of your imagination.
OVOT,
Hiremath's email is posted on the blog.
Is this what you are talking about?
"Our Town Attorney received a correspondence via e-mail which said that the property owners of Parcel 7-i will be asking for a 60 day continuance this Wednesday (11-16-11). Also, there seems to be some misinformation being spread by some residents that the developer is marking trees for removal. This is not accurate information. Some trees are being marked for removal because they are infested with an invasive bug and must be removed. This is being done by the Rancho Vistoso HOA and NOT by the developer. This, unfortunately, is a coincidence and the property owner is NOT jumping the gun and starting development which has NOT yet been approved by the council. With regards to TEP marking the area, no one has any idea why they are out there but our Town Manager will look into this Monday when TEP reopens. I just wanted to pass this information on to you in a sincere effort to eliminate the preception of not communicating with all of you, as well as, clearing up any misinformation that is being spread to residents regarding parcel 7-i."
And if so what is it that you are questioning?
I'm sure that Hiremath being the Vice Chairman of the RTA had nothing whatsoever to do with him pushing as hard as he could, and ultimately casting the only vote earlier in the year when the users of the Coyote Bus Service pleaded to not allow OV to give their service to that outside organization.
The fact is, you don't need "kick backs" to do the wrong, immoral and unethical thing.
Thinker,
YOU SAID: "It would seem to me that if I was going to run for elected office and had a forum that was going to allow me to present my views on a topic, I would do my best to present something that is logical and appropriately researched."
MY RESPONSE: You always assert that if someone doesn't do something EXACTLY the way YOU would do it, then there is something wrong with them. If you know so much about how to get your message out to the public, then why have you lost every town council election that you have entered?
YOU SAID: "I also take exception to Mr. Zinkin’s reference to the elected Oro Valley Town Council as a “gang”. It shows total disrespect for the very body he aspires to join."
MY RESPONSE: You once referred to the council members with whom you disagreed as being a bunch of "lemmings." You showed disrespect for the very body you aspired to join.
YOU SAID: "It is blatantly obvious that most of Mr. Zinkin’s positions are not shared by a majority of the Oro Valley voting public."
MY RESPONSE: Zinkin lost the mayoral election by a mere 30 votes (or so we're told). That's hardly a majority.
Thinker,
Forgot to mention that since Hiremath outspent Zinkin by 4-1 in the mayoral election and then won the election by just a mere 30 votes, this is just more proof that Zinkin is better at getting his message across.
Zinkin wasn't able to get out AS MANY MESSAGES as Hiremath, but the messages he DID get out obviously had a lot of impact if there was only a 30 vote difference in the end.
Quality vs. Quantity. I voted for quality.
Anyway, this is just more proof that you're wrong when you assert that Zinkin is not adept at "putting his best foot forward."
Unknown,
To answer your question...
"How many of you can say that you have spent any time volunteering in this community, to make this a better place for the rest of us?"
My husband and I have spent NUMEROUS HOURS volunteering in this community, both for people and for animals.
Although I'm thoroughly enjoying Thinker's new strategy of not responding to my posts (which means I now get the last word), I have to point out that when Art ran the blog, Thinker was often incensed that Art would not publish his responses to me.
And now that Thinker has the opportunity to respond to anything and everything that I post, he CHOOSES not to respond.
Just an interesting observation.
Post a Comment