---
The Oro Valley Town Council is considering a general plan amendment that adds a mixed land use designation to our codes ("mixed land use") when it gets back to business. A public hearing may be included in the September 5 meeting. The public hearing is your chance to speak out on this land use designation. Read our previous positing on mixed use.
Why does this matter to you? It matters because the current general plan, the one that the voters approved in 2005, does not contain a mixed land use designation. This is because "mixed land use" was removed from an earlier version of the plan, one that the voters rejected in 2003. In other words, the voters said "No" to mixed land use then.
Our concern has always been the following: We think it is wrong for any council to substitute its judgment for that of the people. For the council to now approve something the voters rejected would be doing just that.
What's the rush? The town is to draft a new general plan in 2015. Why not simply wait. Include mixed land use in that plan. Let the voters decide.
The general plan is an extraordinary document. It is the blueprint. It is the people's agreement on what they want Oro Valley to be as Oro Valley grows. Its intent should not be subverted by council.
Since this is a General Plan Amendment we believe that it will require a super majority (5-2) to pass. We urge you to go to this council meeting. Contact our council members. Let your voice be heard.
---
10 comments:
Very light traffic here, lately....
Not sure why this is even up for discussion; taking the will of the citizenry into their own hands is outrageous, and simply should not even be considered, let alone discussed. As stated, what is the rush? The next revision of the General Plan will soon be up for debate; that is the time for this topic's light in the sun....
Mr. Furash knows very well that the voters did NOT reject "mixed use". Once again, for the 101st time, the committee that was tasked to suggest rewrites to the rejected general plan made it clear in their discussions that the problem was simply that there was no definition to the proposed land use. Because Mr. Furash and twenty or so others in this community diasgree with mixed use, accuracy does not matter.
In addition the voters did approve a methodology for making changes to the general plan. The town has followed those steps to the letter. It is obvious that this same very small group disagrees with the vote of the public on this subject.
Chris......How much can 15-20 people post? How often can this same group type, "Great post.Garner and Zinkin are great."?
Christopher Fox,
The reason the blog traffic is lighter recently is because OVOT has not been participating as much which means that the rest of us don't have to spend all our time arguing and debating him. But we're still here...reading everything.
And OVOT is back...the debate begins again.
I'd just like to point out that whenever anyone disagrees with him, he always refers to them as "a very small group" of people.
Yet we were a large enough group to get Garner, Zinkin, and Burns elected in the primary with no need for a general election. So right now, it is OVOT who is in the "very small group that disagrees with the vote of the public."
He likes to brag about the "vote of the public" whenever that vote goes his way, but he becomes very quiet on the vote of the public when they vote in opposition to his wishes.
Give the voters a clear definition of mixed use and I'll bet they will STILL vote against it.
I think I hear the traffic picking up.
---
Note: I do not agree nor disagree with "mixed use". I am still learning about it as the council. I do disagree that it was not rejected by the voters and, I believe, that the Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department would agree with that. So, my only point is: Let's do this right. Put it in the next plan; define it in detail; have the voters approve it or not. This will occur in November of 2014.
Richard....
I don't know if you were here when the proposed general plan was originally rejected. What I do know is that you were not a part of the process in either developing the the plan or in revising the plan once it was defeated. I was. I was intimately involved in the original plan and peripherly involved in the rewrite. Whether you agree or not that it was rejected by the voters is not relevant. Whether the DID agrees or not is also not relevant.
Having said that, what WAS approved by the voters was a process whereby the plan could be changed between statute driven reviews. It is clearly outlined in the plan. The steps are reasonably clear. The Implementation Plan which is an inseperable part of the General Plan clearly dictates that a definition for "complementary use" be adopted in the "short term".
The 'founders' of the General Plan concept, knew that the plan needed a such a process because things happen.
The town has followed the process to a "T".
OVOT,
You stated, or bragged, in an earlier P&Z meeting, that you and an unidentified group of others, worked to find another term for "mixed use." "Complementary use" became that other term.
I do not ever recall "complementary use" being defined to the public as another term for mixed use. Thus, I find your actions quite deceptive. Were you merely "peripherly involved in the rewrite" using this term?
I would love to live in a city with great mixed-use properties.
Define it properly; put in the up-coming plan; hold public meetings; and have the citizens vote. Then we will all live with the vote of the public who care about Oro Valley.
Cares.....Your childish attempt at sarcasm fell flat.
I think I made it very clear where the term "complementary use" originated. What about that explanation did you not understand?
And you have finally said something on which you and I agree. I too, would love for you to live in a city with great mixed use. Unfortunately, at this time, it isn't Oro Valley and we are not a city.
Have a great evening.
Changing Mixed Use to Complementary is deceptive, at best. Sustainability & Smart Growth are also new terms (found on town website) to avoid use of the term "UN Agenda 21." Read these articles & see if this doesn't sound like what's happening in OV. Certainly the Overlay district in Innovation Park will stifle community input & put decisions in hands of town staff. And rezoning to Mixed Use to build high density apartments on top of our houses is unacceptable. Lest you think this is a conspiracy theory, consider that the AZ State Senate nearly passed legislation to prohibit the implementation of Agenda 21 within the state. it weill be re-introduced this session.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_agenda_21_coming_to_a_neigh.html
http://americanpolicy.org/?p=8305
excerpts fr 2nd article:
How do the citizens feel about Planning that creates non-elected boards, councils and regional governments to enforce their policies, which actually diminish the power of the officials they elected, severely reducing citizen input into policy? Do they still support such “Planning?”
How do the citizens feel about planning policy that dictates the size of their yard and forces high density developments where one practically sits on top of their neighbors? Do they still support such “Planning?”
How do the citizens feel about planning that enforces the creation of public transportation with a limited number of riders – yet could cost taxpayers so much money that it would be literally cheaper to buy each potential rider a brand new Rolls Royce, even when the chauffeur is thrown in for good measure? Do they still support such “Planning?
How do they feel about planning that enforces limits on energy use and forces up energy costs? What if that included forcing residents to replace their appliances with more energy efficient ones to meet “Planning Standards?” Do they still support such “Planning?”
How do the citizens feel about Planning that forces cars to “share the road” with bicycles and foot traffic, even as Planners narrow the streets, deliberately making it harder to drive? Do they still support such “Planning?”
How do the citizens feel about Planning that forces tax payers to pay for plug-in stations for electric cars that hardly anyone wants or uses, for the specific purpose of forcing people to buy them? Do they still support such “Planning?”
Post a Comment