When one looks at the attached organizational chart for the Town of Oro Valley, the answer is obvious....the RESIDENTS are at the top of the chart. But is this really the case?
The evidence states otherwise
• Town Council ignores results of Parks and Recreation Survey
The residents replied to the Town's statistically valid survey regarding park amenities and advised that golf was the second to last of their desires, but the Council majority voted to purchase 45 holes of golf just 6 months after the survey was released.
• Town Council ignores citizen emails and pleas during council meetings
During the public meetings about the golf course purchase, over 65% of those that attended and voiced their opinion advised AGAINST the purchase. Additionally, over 75% of those that emailed their concerns advised AGAINST the purchase, yet the Council majority disregarded their input and purchased the property.
• Town Council ignores voter-approved General Plan
The Town spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to insure that the new General Plan (Your Voice, Our Future-YVOF) would be comprised entirely of the desires of the residents. Less than two weeks after the residents ratified the new plan, the Council amended it. In fact, less than 13 months after the YVOF was ratified, the Council amended it three more times.
• Town staff ignores a 7-0 council vote and an agreement made between a developer and a citizens group
In May 2015, the Council passed the La Cholla Major General Plan amendment, 7-0, with the stipulation that there be NO direct access to Canada Hills Drive from the new development (as was agreed upon during meetings between the developer and a La Cholla area citizens group), BUT the staff later rewrote the policy giving the authority to decide the final design to the Town Engineer. When this was brought to the Town Manager's attention, no corrective action was taken.
• Town Staff violates Neighborhood Meeting Ordinance
The Neighborhood Meeting Ordinance was written to give consideration to residents living adjacent to a proposed development, to give them a say in protecting their views, their privacy, minimizing traffic, etc.
The Neighborhood Meeting Ordinance states that “a minimum of two (2) neighborhood meetings are REQUIRED” with the following exception: “One (1) meeting may be sufficient if the project is of very limited scope and NO RELEVANT PUBLIC CONCERNS HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED, as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator.”
At the first Miller Ranch neighborhood meeting, The Lehman Academy and residents living on Sunkist Road both expressed concerns about traffic and access to the residential areas. These concerns have not been addressed, yet the staff has decided that there will not be a second neighborhood meeting. They are now violating the terms of the Neighborhood Meeting Ordinance.
• Town prioritizes Community Center over other needed items
Residents are concerned about the traffic situation at the intersection of Moore Road and La Canada. However, the Town decided instead to prioritize a traffic signal in front of the Community Center without performing a signal warrant analysis. Where is the regard for the concerns of the residents?
Who’s at the top?
Does the top of the chart state "Staff?” Does the top of the chart state "HSL Properties?” Does the top of the chart state "Developer" or "Builder?” Does the top of the chart state "Campaign Contributor?"
NO, the top of the chart states RESIDENTS. Do you feel like you are at the top of the chart?
