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
