Guest View: Diane Peters ~ The Royalty vs. the Peasants. Part 2.

Part 1 was published yesterday. If you missed it, please scroll down beneath this article to read it.
---
Below is the speech that I’ve been attempting to give since July 24th at a Town Council Public Hearing or during the Call to Audience.

Mr. Mayor and Council,

Although my husband and I don’t live near the golf courses, we understand the concerns of the people who do. They purchased their homes expecting that they would always have a golf course view. They are now understandably concerned about what will become of their views and property values if the courses are closed. But those residents aren’t the only ones affected by a change in their views.

We purchased a home with desert views. All the undeveloped land surrounding our home was zoned for low density rural residential. So, we expected that when that land was eventually developed, that it would be low density, one-story homes on very large lots…and our magnificent desert views, the peace and quiet, and all the wildlife would remain. That’s what we bought.

But over the years, developers got all that unspoiled desert rezoned down to much smaller lot sizes, including tiny mass graded lots with 2-story homes.

If that’s not enough, the road behind our house was a quiet 2-lane road with dirt shoulders. There were no traffic lights, streetlights, or sidewalks. Today, that road is being turned into a 4-6 lane main road with multiple traffic lights, a concrete median, and sidewalks. But wait…there’s more. We’re also getting the addition of twelve, count ‘em twelve streetlights at the intersection near our home.

Residents along the golf courses stated that they purchased their homes along the golf courses for the following reasons:

• the beautiful views
• the tranquility
• the serene neighborhood
• the abundant wildlife

And they’ve made the following arguments for what will happen if the golf courses are closed:

• the ambience they paid for will disappear
• digging up the courses could subject them to Valley Fever
• closing the golf courses would be a pretty dramatic hit both visually and financially
• it will transform an esthetically pleasing landscape into something far less desirable
• it will result in a dramatic reduction in their home values

Now replace the words “golf course views” with “unspoiled desert views” and you will understand our situation.

So, our question is, why should their property values be deemed more important than mine or anyone else’s?

Our neighborhood has changed drastically and yet we’re being asked to subsidize the views for residents living in another neighborhood. Where are the tax subsidies to maintain our views, our peace and tranquility, our property values?

Since 2015, residents who have lost their views and property values due to rezonings and unbridled development have been forced to pay an increased sales tax to maintain the views and property values of other residents, and in doing so, the former mayor and his majority council turned Oro Valley into what I call -- The Royalty vs. the Peasants. The Royalty has been given hours upon hours of time to present their case at numerous town meetings. Tonight, I’m speaking as one of the peasants.

It seems to me that an equitable compromise would be a combination of 18-holes of golf, natural open space, walking trails, and maybe a park. Then everyone gets something for their tax dollars. That’s a lot more palatable than caving in to the Royalty’s demands for special treatment and millions of dollars in public support to protect their lifestyle and their views.
---
Diane Peters has lived in Oro Valley since 2003, moving here to escape the humidity of the East Coast. She’s been involved in OV politics and development issues since 2006. In 2014, she organized a citizens group, Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan, who over a 9-month period, successfully negotiated a controversial 200-acre development project. In her past life, she worked in medical research at various University Hospitals in New England. Her interests include reading, writing, nature photography, travel, art galleries, museums, and politics.

Guest View: Diane Peters ~ The abject favoritism of the OV Town Council. Part 1.

Over the past few years, I’ve noticed a pattern of favoritism on the OV Town Council whereby there seems to be one set of rules for residents (and even council members) who are supportive of the mayor’s plans for the town and another set of rules for the residents and council members who are critical of his ideas.

In a recent two-part article, “The Great Bond Caper,” I addressed the difference in how the Town Council waffled on applying Call to Audience rules during the April 5th Town Council meeting; strictly applying the rules to one resident (a critic) while waiving the rules for another resident (a supporter). In that case, the rule in question was: ”any member of the public is allowed to address the Mayor and Town Council on any issue not listed on today’s agenda.”

Today’s article will address the rule that states…”Per Town Council Parliamentary Rules and Procedures, you must address the Council as a whole.”

When partiality supersedes objectivity
The mayor and council waived the above rule during an October 2016 council meeting when Steve Solomon (a friend of theirs who has since become a council member) specifically called out then-Councilmember Mike Zinkin, accusing him of spending more on travel than what his travel budget allowed. Solomon specifically called out “Mr. Zinkin” four times during his speech. No Point of Order was called at any time. (As usual, Solomon was incorrect in his assertions and this will be discussed in Part 2).

This raises the question: Are these rules a mandate or is enforcement at the whim of the mayor? I am in the process of obtaining clarification from the Town on this question. If it turns out that enforcing the rules is at the mayor’s discretion, then the next logical question would be: Why does the mayor enforce Town Council Parliamentary Rules for his critics while waiving them for his supporters?

Solomon’s Hypocrisy
Solomon’s speech that night raises another question as well. Why was Solomon so concerned about Councilmember Zinkin’s travel expenses (all approved by then-Town Manager, Greg Caton) yet he never criticized the Town Manager for approving them?

Even more telling is that after Solomon became a council member in November 2016, he said nothing when, just two months later, Mayor Hiremath and Interim Town Manager, Danny Sharp, spent over $3000 for a one-day trip to the U.S. Conference of Mayors Winter Meeting in Washington, DC just so the mayor could receive a “2017 Public Leadership in the Arts Award.”

They arrived in Washington, DC on January 18th at 7:00 PM and they left DC on January 19th at 1:00 PM. They were in DC for less than 24 hours. What benefit did Oro Valley taxpayers derive from this $3000 trip?

Mayor Hiremath’s trip expenses were as follows:

Airfare        1048.46
Hotel           528.85 (for one night)*
Meals          87.50

TOTAL     $1664.81

*NOTE: Mayor Hiremath cancelled his original hotel room (Hilton Alexandria Old Town) when he found another room (Hilton Homewood Suites) closer to the event location. The cancelled room was NON-REFUNDABLE at $209.39. The new hotel room was $319.46, bringing the Grand Total for a one-night hotel stay to $528.85.

Getting closer to the venue would make sense if the mayor was staying there for a week and needed to go to that venue every day, but he only had to go there one day and for this he stiffed the taxpayers an additional $209. The mayor should reimburse the town. After all, that’s what they would have expected Mike Zinkin to do. (This will be explained further in Part 2)

Interim Town Manager, Danny Sharp’s trip expenses were as follows:

Airfare        1048.47
Hotel           313.07 (for one night)
Meals          87.50
Taxi             45.18

TOTAL      $1494.22

Grand total to the taxpayers for Mayor Hiremath to receive an award in Washington, DC was $3,159.03.

Is it lonely at the top?
What was the necessity of having the Interim Town Manager accompany Mayor Hiremath on this trip? It served the town of Oro Valley no purpose to drag the Town Manager along on a purely ceremonial junket. If the mayor hadn’t invited Danny Sharp to accompany him and he hadn’t cancelled his original hotel room, the Grand Total would have been just $1345.35. It’s funny how Steve Solomon never complained about or questioned any of these unnecessary expenses.

Part 2 of this article will be published on Wednesday.

Guest View: Don Bristow ~ The Great “Bond” Caper (Part 3)

Last week on LOVE, “The Great ‘Bond’ Caper (Parts 1 and 2)” revealed the biased treatment of Call to Audience speakers based on whether their presentation concurred or not with the Council’s wishes. Unfortunately, censoring the first speaker (Ms. Stratman) while taking no action against the second speaker (Mr. Baker) were not the only biased acts of the council that evening.

As a preamble to Call to Audience, Mayor Hiremath read the following statement:
“At this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Mayor and Town Council on any issue not listed on today’s agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, individual Council Members may ask Town Staff to review the matter, ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda, or respond to criticism made by speakers. However, the Mayor and Council may not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during Call to Audience. In order to speak during Call to Audience please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card.”

As noted in last week’s LOVE article, Attorney Gary Verburg reiterated the above protocol during the meeting.

Protocol Schmotocol
Therefore, at that point in the meeting, the mayor, council, and town staff had TWICE heard the protocol that they must follow regarding a Call to Audience speaker. In fact, they are reminded of this protocol at every meeting. Despite this, Councilmember Solomon made the following comment upon completion of the first speaker’s presentation:

Solomon: “Mr. Mayor, there was an implication [in Ms. Stratman’s speech] that Oro Valley has a problem with their budget somehow…I’d like to ask our financial director [Stacey Lemos] to give us a brief summary of whether we are in trouble financially or not…”

Solomon initiated a financial discussion with Stacey Lemos with the intent of countering Ms. Stratman’s comments. Neither Attorney Verburg nor any councilmember objected to Solomon’s action which was out-of-order and a violation of Arizona Open Meeting Law.

Later, after the discussion on Regular Agenda Item 2 (the bond issue) had ended, Mayor Hiremath also responded to Ms. Stratman’s earlier golf course comments in his typical manner of lecturing and criticizing. As we’ve witnessed many times, anyone who questions or disagrees with the mayor and council is painted as negative and misinformed.

The fact that he delayed his lecture until after the bond issue had been discussed still did not make it allowable. He, too, violated Arizona Open Meeting Law without anyone objecting.

Recap: It’s a Matter of Ethics

• Point of Order called against Ms. Stratman for speaking on the bond issue.
• No Point of Order called against Mr. Baker for speaking on the bond issue.
• No Point of Order called against Councilmember Solomon for discussing an issue brought up during the Call to Audience.
• No Point of Order called against Mayor Hiremath for discussing an issue brought up during the Call to Audience.

With no member of Council or Attorney Verburg raising a Point of Order on any of the above prohibited actions, it calls their ethics into question.

Anyone interested in hearing all of the Mayor’s comments can go to the Town’s website and view the video of the April 5, 2017 Town Council Meeting.