This following "listing" is for property F-I as listed by Carlier Company. It is for Rancho Vistoso property F-I.
It is also an example of "Chutzpah."
Notice that this listing states, under the Features section, that: "PAD amendment can allow for high-density multi-family." It can be found on the Carlier Web Site.
The words should be: "If a PAD Amendment is approved by the Oro Valley Town Council, development can all for high-density multi-family."
Rather than state the pure truth, the Carlier posting mentions the PAD amendment using the word "can". Sort of like using the word "may."
We think that Carlier Company is trying to justify the $5.9 million listing price for this property by inferring that the property might be used for high density residential. Chutzpah? You bet it is.
---
18 comments:
What gall! Does Carlier have inside information as to how the Council will vote?
The ad also says the property is "commercial/mixed-use". Did I miss something?
First......I don't mean to be picky....but who the hell has more real estate experience and knows how to market property?
Possible answers:
A.Zeeman
B.Cares for OV
C.Kat
D.Carlier
Second someone please read the following and tell me what the hell it says"
"The words should be: "If a PAD Amendment is approved by the Oro Valley Town Council, development can all for high-density multi-family."
Thinker,
To answer your first question..."WHO THE HELL has more real estate experience and knows how to market property?
Carlier probably has more real estate experience and they definitely KNOW how to MARKET property. They market it by being dishonest about it in order to get more bites.
Zeeman is correct. They are inferring something that is not true.
For someone who is always pushing for FACTS over misinformation, it's interesting the way you allow for misinformation if it can make someone a buck. Ah, yes...capitalism. Your Bible.
To answer your second question..."someone please read the following and tell me WHAT THE HELL it says"
I read it and had no problem figuring it out. Zeeman inadvertently left out the letters "OW" in the word "ALLOW" so it said "ALL" instead of "ALLOW."
If I could figure that out, being as stupid as you claim that I am, "WHY THE HELL" couldn't YOU figure it out?
Yes, Cares for OV, they have inside information :) Carlier has a "sayan" a person/persons(Sayanim) on the inside (include Staff and The Council as the inside) more than one maybe...
I doubt it The Council will have a vote on MU before the election. Stevie is "playing" nice to the citizens, Mr. Garner is FOR the Citizens, and then we have Waters who is a jack-sayan :)
Ferlin....This is one time I do hope Garner is for the citizens and a clear opportunity for him to step up and vote for them. Since the citizens directed the Town to come with a definition for MU, I think it's about time it was done.
It's better late than never.
In my opinion/memory Mr. Garner has never wavered in his voting for the good of The Citizens of The Town.
Where do you get the "Since the citizens directed the Town to come up with a definition for MU......"
Staff found it advisable to bring the subject up.....I do not understand at whose bidding.
Why is this so important now? I believe that it is developer inspired and being "facilitated" by Staff pushed by Mr. Rodger Ford and Carlier, etc., (working for Venture West), apparently.
Development has be stalled by the economic climate. This hurts the developers money-wise.....they will do anything to sell.
I see MU as a way to subvert the PAD. Let the changes be made next time changes are to be made-- (confused about when--2012-2014?) and seek approval from the Citizens of OV.
Hi Ferlin.
In the Strategic Implementation Program of the 2005 General Plan the following statement is made:
“LU.8 1.3.1, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.6, 1.5.5, 7.1.4, 7.2 (all), 7.3.1
Define and develop a Complementary Use District (as defined below) Zoning Ordinance and design standards that will be utilized in developing master plan proposals including commercial, office, and/or housing.”
And the time frame assigned to that task is "Short Term".
Again we simply cannot cherry pick the General Plan and choose to only use certain parts of it when they fit into our agenda du jour.
I believe staff felt obligated to bring it up at this time because of the resubmission for the development of the property at 1st and Oracle several months ago. The applicant actually proposed a mixof uses and refered to it in their presentation. I also made mention at the time that we were talking about a use that we still had not defined.
I, for the life of me, do not understand why people are so opposed to the mixed use concept. It has been very successful when properly planned in several locations and is extremely eco/land use friendly.
What is your objection for the concept?
The concern in MU being applied by The Council is that they will allow (of course after they make some convenient rules) apartments and one office, or apartments and one Taco Bell.....:) Their power with the MU designation, if used, may deny Citizens/Voters in OV to have a say.
Many of us do not trust the Mayor, Ms. Snider, Mr. Waters, Mr. Solomon and MR. HORNAT.
Ferlin......That is not mixed use and I believe your lack of trust is completely without foundation. Help me understand it.
Most interesting posts, Bloggers! Thank you for looking at the sutlties.
Permit me, please for a moment to refocus on Carlier, the Venture West salesamn. At the 1/12 meeting Carlier denied the listing as shown on the Blog. However, it was extracted directly from Carlier's website. So did Mr. Venture West deny the contents after asking Carlier what he should say. Mr. Venture West stated that he had no idea the residents were not "for" his sale/development. Mr Venture West also stated, but did not show the residents the written permission that ADOT agreed to one exit onto Tangerine. Asked directly by an engineer if Mr. Venture West had done a a traffic survey, Mr. VW eeled out of ansering, excused himself, instantly changing the topic. While fimflamming residential and commercial, Mr. VWest slipped in a veiled threat about what future construction of that plat might be.
If Carlier intentionally misrepresented his own website, Mr. Venture West colluded in doing so. Mr. Venture West surrendered his credibility with that statement.
If you were selling a $6 million property, wouldn't you make it your business to take the pulse of the neighborhood which has power to upset the deal on a daily basis?
If you had permission signed by ADOT to provide egress onto Tangerine, wouldn't you share that with those opposed to verify that what you are saying is true?
Knowing this intersection is extremely congested with dangerous turns, why wouldn't you want to anticipate the question about a traffic study and provide one?
Chutzpah, indeed!
A week or so ago, Ferlin posted a comment on another post that caused me to sit back and re-examine some of my posts on this blog. And I am going to suggest you do the same thing.
If you are opposed to the proposed F-1 changes then to attack Mr. Carlier does nothing to advance your cause. What does the "Chutzpah" post do other than to simply elevate emotions.
Argue the points of the general plan. Argue the points in the PAD. Argue the points of the zoning code if they are applicable.
There is nothing an any of the above mentioned documents that states that Mr. Carlier needs to be a good Realtor or that listings have to be 100% accurate. And when you really get down to brass tacks, his listing is really far more accurate that you may want to believe. You see he may have a definition for what he believes is "Mixed Use". The Town of Oro Valley has no definition for mixed use.....and it should. And I hope it soon will.
I am going to be working very diligently in this next year to insure that the neighborhood meetings required for some changes, are far more effective in their intended purpose. If the purpose of the meeting is for educational purposes then it should be laser focused on that goal. And when someone voices an objection to a proposal,they need to be coached on how to present it in such a way that it relates to the requirements of the appropriate governing document(s). Some objections simply don't relate and therefore will carry (or should carry) very little weight. Every objection counts. Some just count far more than others.
There are reasonable, appropriate objections to the changes on F-1. Carliers listing isn't one of them.
Thinker,
In your response to Ferlin, you said...
"In the Strategic Implementation Program of the 2005 General Plan the following statement is made..."
"DEFINE and develop a Complementary Use District (AS DEFINED BELOW) Zoning Ordinance..."
(1) Why are we DEFINING a Complementary Use District if it is already DEFINED BELOW?
(2) WHERE was it defined below? I didn't see any definition of it.
Then you said, "The applicant actually proposed a mix of uses and referred to it in their presentation."
You then said, "we were talking about a use that we still had not defined."
You then asked, why are people so opposed to the mixed use concept.
So you state on one hand that it hasn't been defined and then you ask on the other hand why people are opposed to it. Huh?
How can they be in favor of it when it has yet to be DEFINED?
You also said, "It has been very successful when properly planned in several locations and is extremely eco/land use friendly."
(1) Since Oro Valley does not currently have a definition for mixed use, how can you say that "IT has been very successful...in several locations."
(2) Can you name for us some of these locations where "IT" has been very successful AND eco-friendly?
Without specifics, your comments don't mean very much.
OVOT,
Mr. Venture West's behavior was recorded factually. That does not constitute a personal attack.
Perceptively VC illustrates contradictions in your thinking and writing, holding up a mirror for you to understand yourself. While VW's plan was to sell his project, his behavior undermined his goal.
Good news! VW/HSL withdrew its application. For now there will be no apartments!
DV.....I don't care if you attack Carlier forever. My point was that it doesn't help the anti'F-1 cause. In the scheme of things it (his listing language) means nothing.
Does the following sound reasonable to you:
'I am opposed to mixed use here in Oro Valley. I don't know what mixed use is here in Oro Valley, but I am opposed to it.'
There are several definitions out there for mixed use and there are come common threads running through many of the definitions. But to be opposed to mixed use here in Oro Valley is somewhat suspect when we don't have our own defining code.
Allow me to present a very general description of mixed use.
It is placing a combination of uses (residential/retail/office park, etc.) on a piece of property in such a manner that that would allow the residents to live, work and be entertained within a short/medium walk. It should also allow for those living off site to take public transportation to their work site and remain there all day to include to possibility of dropping off their dry cleaning, getting their teeth cleaned, having lunch or dinner, maybe seeing a small quartet at an outdoor plaza in the evening, weather permitting, and then returning home on public transportation.
There are many benefits to this kind of planning.
Following Thinker's own thought process, I present the following:
Does the following sound reasonable to you:
'I am FOR mixed use here in Oro Valley. I don't know what mixed use IS here in Oro Valley, but I am FOR it.'
"To be FOR mixed use here in Oro Valley is somewhat suspect when we don't have our own defining code."
"Allow me to present a very general description of mixed use...."
Thinker, if YOU can be FOR mixed use when you only have a "very general description" of what it might be, then WE can be OPPOSED to it based on that same "general description."
You see, Thinker, in ridiculing OUR thought process on this, you inadvertently ridiculed your own!
OVOT,
Residents opposed VW/HSL because:
-excessive congestion on key intersection
-traffic overload, safety irregularities
-HDR properties and existing rental vacancies
-overcrowding in schools
-loss of Commericial property
-crime
-"mixed use" a latecomer to this list of reasons
What cemented residents disdain, OVOT, was Mr.Venture West's duplicity. "Mixed use" was the cinnamon on the latte.
Aaaah, yes there are advantages to Mixed Use Landuse designation :)
The question is going to be whose advantage? and the detriment?
Right now (F-1 has a sign on it today--1-18-2012 FOR SALE) MIXED USE.
Drive by and look! When did The Council approve this? P&Z has power, that I did not realize.
However, I do understand the power of money and apparently that power has been used--P&Z and Staff got this accomplished for their developer friends--Venture West and Rodger Ford. 2-E get ready for the new FOR SALE sign.
I hope that this is discussed at The Town Council meeting this evening.....January 18, at 6 pm
Please Citizens, attend tonght....our neighborhoods are effected by this MU designation.
2-E and 1-F are a real concern, I think.
Post a Comment