Now that there is a PAC out there trying to tell us why we need this Naranja Park, we thought it would be appropriate to tell our readers what they may not know.
The town is being less than straight forward when they talk about a Bond Issue in the amount of $48,600,000.
Well, guess what?
There will be another factor. You see, when the town borrows the money, they will have to pay interest. How much will the interest be?
Well, over the 25 years of the loan, the town sees fit to use a 5% interest rate even though the interest can be as much as 12% annually.
Even at 5%, the total amount we will be obligated to pay is not $48,600,000 but a whopping $85,868,750.
And that "aint" all. The town tells us the annual Maintenance & Operating costs are anticipated to be well in excess of $1 million per year.
Keep in mind, Operating costs will likely result in a Primary Property Tax and/or a reduction in basic services such as road repair and resurfacing, police protection, library services, etc.
Remember that Primary Property taxes, once enacted, can be raised year after year without voter approval.
There are still more reasons for voting "NO," and we'll address them in a future posting.
46 comments:
So let me get this straight:
-A secondary property tax on me to pay for the bond
-Interest to be paid on the bonds
-Annual maintenance cost of the facility of at least $1 million
-Added costs for police, parks and other infrastucture costs.
And I, the taxpayer, have to pay for it all?
Why this will cost me $600 per year.
What an extravaganza.
Makes Oro Valley a bad place to retire.
Is there anyone organizing a "Vote NO" group/pac?
I volunteer to help.
We keep adding more and more to the OV debt. Who needs this park at a time when the economy is so bad. We lead the country in foreclosures. Does anyone think that a park at $48.6 will make us feel better.
This is not the time to be borrowing for such a project. After all OV just gave Walmart a huge tax break and now they want us to pay for the park. What's wrong with this picture?
Maybe we can wait till Walmart starts paying some of the taxes they would have paid. Then we can get Walmart to pay for the park. It's only fair since they are such a "community minded" company...Not
That's right. Vestar's ads about Oro Valley Marketplace stated that the sales tax dollars from OVM would fund the Naranja Town Park. Next thing you know, we're being asked to fund it.
Just like Vestar's ads said that the sales tax dollars would help OV avoid the imposition of a property tax or other taxes. Next thing you know, we'll end up paying a secondary property tax to fund the park and a primary property tax to fund operations and maintenance.
Save us from this tax!
Where do I sign up for the VOTE NO PAC??
Well, at least we all agree on something--that the voters of Oro Valley will finally have their say about the park.
To those who think it should go elsewhere in Town, try to find a 213-acre parcel similar to this one that the Town could buy for a couple of million like it did with the Naranja site (State of Arizona land auction).
Timing is everything. It's been 4 or 5 long years since there has been a Council with the desire to place the issue on the ballot, so for that we should be thankful.
There may be an opposition PAC that arises, but I doubt that one will be necessary because there are so many people who are financially crunched right now and who would probably vote NO anyway.
The difficulty will come when voters try to find the issue on their ballots among all of the political offices, initiatives and referenda at the state level. So, both sides of the issue need to undertake an education campaign just to show people where the issue will appear on the ballot!
If it fails this time, it may turn up again in November, 2009. In fact, I would venture a guess that it will take 3 or 4 times before any kind of funding will be approved. At that time, of course, the cost of money will be greater and who knows what the interest rates on the bonds will be?
In the mean time, it might be helpful for some of the bloggers here to talk to the parents of children who participate in soccer, Little League, softball, Pop Warner, and other sports, to find out how far afield they have to drive to get their kids to practices and games. Certainly, all those miles can't be helping the air quality.
How many of the bloggers here have actually walked the entire site? It's instructional (I wouldn't do it now in the heat of summer)--get ahold of a copy of the plan from the Community Development Department, walk around the site, and check out where different amenities might go. Right now, the vote is for infrastructure and ballfields, but it would be good to envision the whole thing.
We won't always be in a recession (I hope), so if it doesn't pass this time, perhaps better economic conditions for everyone will help in the future.
boobie-baby
There is no question in my mind but that you are a beneficent person; however, this 'park' is really a sports center with a plethora of venues for different 'games'and the mantra I keep hearing is "it's for the children". Why was there not a balance within the first phase which should and could have included venues for the arts, performing and otherwise,as well as facilities for senior citizens who also dominate some of the 'landscape' of Oro Valley and whose amenities should be as important as those for the kids.Is it not also a fact that music and the arts are as important to the growth of the child as is sports; so why such an emphasis on the latter? You have posed the question asking how many of us have walked the site; I ask you the question, how much do you think my expenses have gone up in the past couple of years? What is the community going to do to take care of me and my peers, to help us with our entertainment, travel, etc.? Why don't you walk my site?
I had posted a couple of op-eds in a prior stream relative to this issue; please go back and read them. Again, I do not doubt for one moment your sincere approach to the child; Though I doubt that the reultant overall picture will be as pretty as you paint it,I do appreciate your very lucid, informative, and pleasant presentation.
Thank you, Zev, for your always-polite responses.
As for the needs of others besides children, the entire Naranja Town Site master plan includes classrooms, entertainment venues, and adult-oriented recreation areas. As we recall, the Mayor wanted to put the entire plan on the ballot, so those amenities would have been included had he prevailed.
Instead, the Council chose to focus on the infrastructure and the easiest/cheapest things to build right now--the ball fields, courts and playgrounds. I wholeheartedly agree that arts-oriented amenities are in order, and they are included in the master plan. But, the vote this time will not be on the entire master plan.
Of course, as in life, timing is everything, and I doubt that--given the current economic situation--the current Council would place the issue on the ballot today. But because those decisions have to be made so many months in advance, there it sits, awaiting an up or down vote.
Sure, I've walked the site, and-yes-my orientation is toward children. I can understand how many adults who have recreation facilities within their neighborhoods (e.g., Sun City) would choose to vote NO on the proposal. Unfortunately, children don't have access to these amenities on a regular basis, so the Naranja Town Site is one way to address that deficiency.
Again, I am doubtful that it will pass this time, if for no other reason than the timing mentioned above. And so it will sit as an undeveloped "rustic" park with trails until the voters decide otherwise or until some very rich person or company decides to underwrite the development of the park. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the latter to happen.
TO AL and Dick Furash: You talk about how a reporter does not back up opinion with fact, and yet you opinionated that the residents of this town will pay via their property taxes the cost of the annual maintenance of the park. When the facts are (see www.naranjatownsite.com) that the Annual Operating and Maintenance cost for this phase of the park will be paid for by user fees generated by the park and also by (a portion of) the money the town collects via it's Bed-Tax. NOT by the residential taxpayer as you opinionated on this blog.
And of course it is going to be a financed park, and will have interest, but of course you state the highest interest possible (12%), when it will more likely be much lower (like 5-6%). SO for example the cost to a homeowner with a home that has a market value of $400,000- the estimated monthly cost is $14.73 (and that's taking into account the interest on the bond), and note that (as I hope) eventually property values will go up over the years of the life of the bond (25yrs or less) this monthly amount will DECREASE. In addition, the amount of money that families will save from not having to drive their children out of town limits for sport games and practices would probably more than cover the minimal cost of the increase in their taxes. But a sacrifice from your pocket to help the community is not part of your mantra.
Then to others: I too wish there were a community center and a out door amphitheater added to this park, but in my opinion (after attending several town meetings on the issue) the town council was under the impression from most residents (probably from this blog) that either they already had these amenities where they lived and did not want to pay for it again through the city. Plus the council felt the higher the price tag the more likely you all would not be in favor of this park. But it turns out no matter what the council did you're not in favor of the park.
I just feel that you all are being very selfish (and you stretch the figures too), and you talk about setting good examples for children, well in my opinion "selfishness" is not one of them. I don't see how having the community as a whole paying for a park for the children is a bad example. If your so against the park only for the monetary reasons, then why don't you follow your own advice and go out and find corporations to pay and build it, plus of course buy the land back from the city. Let me know your opinions on how likely you think that would happen in a small town like Oro Valley.
On another note: I challenge Art Segal to do a poll on how many of those on this blog own a home here and in another state. Maybe it is not a choice between food & medicine, or a park, for most on this blog but rather a choice between affording one or two homes. Which I guess is a luxury. Hmm?
Oh and this may be a shocker to most of you, but I agree with you on not developing, nor annexing Arroyo Grande.
Hello Moe.
You make the assumption that none who post here or are not in favor of financing the park thru a property tax also do nothing to help the community or the kids here.
You are playing the "kid" card :)
If some residents feel strongly that they would like to have this park developed to their needs, I say it is up to them to start the effort.
Personally, I don't feel that my husband and I are selfish for not wanting to pay a property tax for a park.
We donate to the schools , aside from our taxes.
Our "extra" income goes to help out family members who are really in need. We consider that more important then ball parks.
I know to some that ten, fifteen or twenty dollars a month is nothing at all, but to some members of my family it would help buy food or some other necessity.
So we are selfish for helping our family members in need.
I don't think so.
We only own one house!
Thank you, Moe, for expressing what I'm sure many families are feeling regarding recreation in general in the community. As I've written, I fear that this proposition will go down to defeat this time, but that cooler heads will prevail in the future and that, eventually, the majority of voters will be able to agree on the need for a large park and recreation facility.
Not to go off on another thread, but the question regarding Arroyo Grande is this: Who would you rather have in charge of its stewardship--Pima County or Oro Valley? Those are really your only two choices--annexation to the Town, or leave it in the County's hands. Which level of government is more approachable? Which one has a better track record in responsible development? Take a look at Catalina or even the County-approved La Reserve patio homes snaking over the hillsides before you answer that question.
Moe,
You said, "the amount of money that families will save from not having to drive their children out of town limits for sport games and practices would probably more than cover the minimal cost of the increase in their taxes."
So the people with children will, in effect, pay NOTHING for this park that THEY want because they will break even. The money they spent on gas/car maintenance will be transferred to taxes for the park instead. What a great deal!
I, on the other hand, and the thousands like me who do not have children that we must cart to sporting events every week, WILL pay the ENTIRE price for a park that includes nothing for our demographic. Wow!
Thanks, Moe. You just gave me another reason to vote no!
I'll answer your poll question. I do not own any other home other than the one in which I live, a 2000 square foot middle class home with no pool. So, no, it's not a question of having to choose between owning two homes or paying this tax. For me, it boils down to believing that MY money should be spent on MY food, MY utility bills, MY medical bills, and if there's anything left, MY recreational activities and MY choice of charitable contributions.
My husband and I have given up many things lately to compensate for such high food and gas prices, and for what? So we can just hand that money over to someone else because it's too difficult for them to drive 30 minutes to a ball park?
If the biggest problem in your life is that you have to drive to the other side of town to take your kid to a baseball game, count your blessings!
Moe,
You also said, "I just feel that you all are being very selfish."
I think the parents who are complaining that they have to drive their kids to the other side of town for ball games and therefore the rest of us should fund a nearby park for their kids just so they can save money on gas are the ones who are being selfish.
They pull out the "it's for the children card" when it's really for themselves. They're sick of driving long distances for these games. It really cuts into their day and takes too much out of their gasoline budget.
Well, just as we had to make adjustments in our life to accommodate high gas prices, these people can make some adjustments, too.
Moe, a good statement for 'your side'. But, I do take issue with a couple of your conclusions.
Let's start with going out and [finding corporations to finance and build it]. On the other side of the coin, Moe, WE, the Town, GAVE money to corporations to the tune of approximately $50,000,000 in the form of EDAs, supposedly because they wouldn't have located here unless we did so. THAT is baloney! As a former retailer, real estate agent, banker, I can assure you that the retail sector will go where the money is to be made, not where they can receive a handout. In short, instead of the busines community helping in the support of our community, we, the community, have been forced into donating to the business community.
Then, you admit that the park is for the children (as you have written) and that therefor we are selfish in not supporting this 'for the children' endeavor. This has become not a park but primarily a sports facility. I have advocated that a more balanced approach should have been taken. The arts, nature, etc. are as important to the growth of a child as are sports. I also took an approach that senior citizens should have been more represented in the plan. I was reminded by boobie-baby [that these amenities were included in the original and complete (master) plan but that because of costs only the first phase was viable].I cannot wholeheartedly agree with that assessment. I do feel that some type of reasonable design compromise could have been at least explored in order that a wider disbursement of utility be attained. It wasn't and it is thus that I feel that the first phase is over the top and use specific.
I, a senior citizen, am not a selfish person but at this stage in my life I MUST be somewhat pragmatic. In the past few years my living expenses have gone up, way up. Food, automobile fuel, electricity, gas, water, garbage collection, insurance, homeowners dues, medical expenses, etc., etc., etc. - they have all gone up, up, and up! Everything has gone up but my income. How's about it Moe, give me some relief in my golden years; help me with some of my needs for entertainment, travel, and so forth. After all, we are born as babes and as children we are taken care of and as we are in the process of growing up, most of us are taken care of. Once we reach a certain plateau and can attain the ability to flourish and stand on our own feet and mature, the need for assistance generally becomes a moot issue. Once we reach a certain age though, Moe, we begin to shrink, we physically regress and we become more like children again, and it is thus that we might need more assistance as our multiple governments - country, state, county, city, have taken and continue to take more and more of what we thought we would have to continue on with our lives. Help me, Moe, for I am now a child again and, after all, I need to have some fun, too.
Moe, I am not trying to make light of your stance; I'm only trying to illustrate that there must be a balance in life and it must be for ALL of us. And, incidentally, like boobie-baby and several others, you bring a very strong benefit to this site and that is greatly appreciated!
I personally drive a hybrid and do not need the parks closer to my home (and even if I did not have a hybrid I would still drive where ever it takes to have my children involved in team sports- my concern is for those parents; some I already know do not drive their kids because it is to far, and thus the kids stay home and play nintendo, now this is not every family, but I fear this could happen to more children as gas prices either stay the same or go up). I support the bond for the park because I feel that it is for the good of the community (of ALL AGES). I should clarify the "selfish" issue, I feel that some on this blog are selfish only because they state since I already have these amenities why provide it for the greater community. I too volunteer within the community and donate to schools, churches, and more, and never said that anyone on here doesn't or does. In addition, my children are involved in music and art too, and only one sport.
I also stated that I too wanted a more rounded park (but I was not able to make the decision on that as were most posters on here- the town council did and as I stated before more than likely to gain your support). I almost felt like not supporting it because it did not have the two aspects that I really did want, which were an outdoor amphitheater and community center, but after thinking it over I felt that I should support it because there are others that could use the park and enjoy it, and it will not cost me to much. Thus, placing the needs of others above my own wants. The cost is minimal to me and may not be to others, that is true. I would have to say that if I was struggling to get by month to month, or if my family members needed my support and I could not afford $10-18 a month to go toward the community, then I might not have considered living in Oro Valley and would have choose a less expensive area where the homes are less expensive.
In regards to the EDA, I did not agree with that either (and actually all of that was completed/voted on before I moved here). But I feel what is done is done, we must not punish the community as a whole for something that was initiated by a few. Also, the poll I requested should probably wait until Sept/Oct since most 2nd home owners are enjoying their summer at their second home and may not feel like checking on this blog. Although, the Zee man does.
Moe, you sound like a person who
thinks out your variables and I commend you for that. You do give a rational perspective. It doesn't change my vote, but thank you.
Hello Moe.
One of the reasons we moved here was because the cost of living was low, well low compared to where we previously lived.
Our financial circumstances have not changed but those of several family members has. We had no control over that.
We have to help out quite a bit, not fifteen or twenty dollars a month.
Yes we can afford the cost of the property tax, but it is more important to help my family with
necessities then to help pay for a
park.
If a park or sports park was that important to you and others , then maybe YOU should have considered moving elsewhere.
Transportation costs, specifically the price of gas affects all of us, not just people going to sporting events.
Some people have to choose between
buying gas or food or medicine.
If it is a hardship then people need to start car-pooling to sporting or other events.
My point is that some of us have other or different priorities.
Moe,
you say that some should have considered looking elsewhere for a home if they could not afford the 10-12 dollars a month for the community.
I would like to mention that YES we did count on eventually paying a property tax in OV but for essential services not for a park.
Moe--- You are certainly welcome to voice your opinion here, but unlike some of the others who feel you enunciated your position quite efficiently, I must tell you, I find some of your comments out of line.
It is really none of your business whether any of our readers have one or two homes, whether some find it difficult to make ends meet on a fixed income, why they chose to live here, or whatever they may feel as to why they may vote against taxing themselves.
You indicate you only moved here a few years ago. Well, you may find it interesting, but this little poll we are doing on the blog----which,incidentally can not be skewed as it's one vote per email address, is running at the present time 70-30% against this bond issue.
For the last 15 years or so, other,more sophisticated polls have consistently showed the same results: Approx. 70% of the residents will vote "no" on a property tax.
Using your rationale, 70% of the population of Oro Valley have always been "selfish." I think most people would find that statement to be somewhat ludicrous.
As to your challenge, to have a poll as to how many OV residents own two homes, I must tell you, I'll leave that up to you or perhaps the folks who started the "vote yes" PAC."
Actually some of the people I know in OV who have two or more homes don't vote here.
So they will have to pay the property tax anyway and won't use the park.
Somebody mentioned that voting No is
not setting a good example for the children.
Actually neither a yes or no vote is setting a good example for the kids.
A lot of the kids have no clue about how hard their parents work to support them and the value of money.
Back in the cave days of my youth,
our parents did not just buy us everything nor did we expect them to nor did any of us expect the taxpayer or government to meet our every need or desire.
I say it is time for the people who really want the park to start
organizing not for hand outs but to either raise the money or get corporate contributions.
\
To date, has any group started
any fund raising?
Maybe that would help some to see that this is not just all one sided and those who want the park are willing to work hard to achieve the goal.
Right now I see this as very one-sided.
Just gimme gimme gimme.
Art....Why are you the only person who thinks Moe is out of line?
My analysis is thatyour thought processes are jaded and don't conform to the same patterns of most folks. Your response is a very good example of my hypothesis.
When folks sit back from their Cape Cod cottages and opine about 'park vs medicines or food' that not only makes Moe's question revelant but rather astute. When you can take a month long vacation in August every year you are not hurting for money to invest in the future of Oro Valley either.
I am sure you remember the old expression about folks who live in glass houses.
Additionally the results you mentioned are for a PRIMARY property tax. Once again you run up the red herring flag and once again it doesn't wave.
By the way Art, how many days have you played softball on a field provided by taxpayers over the past couple of years? Don't you think it's time for you to pay for others to follow in your very large footsteps???
Have a great week.
Ms. Coyote...The cost of living here is still very low compared to other places in this wonderful Country.
Hi Thinker,
Yes the cost of living here is low.
Actually when you check out all the statistics, etc, it is considered
average.
One thing that we found "odd" about the property tax system is that the first year we moved here our property tax was just about nothing. Not sure , but seems that Pima is behind with
recording sales, etc. We assumed we would get some type of bill stating that we owed xyz from the date of sale. Never happened.
But it did allow us to spend lots of money for house furnishings, etc, but I know this would not have happened where we are from.
Thinker,
Actually I thought some of Moe's remarks were a little out of line.
But you can't read a person over the computer
calling other posters selfish, etc, is attacking the character of others.
I can take it and will allow somebody to take a few shots at me then
I will attack back and trust me on this one, I can hold my own.
Ms C.....You bring up a very good poin. Your original property taxes were for the land only and not the improvements you placed on the land (your home). While they (Pima County) is getting better at catching up, thay are basically a disfunctional government body.
That is EXACTLY why I support Oro Valley being the steward of Arroyo Grande rather than Pima County.
Hope you are doing well.
Ms C...
I know (VERY WELL) that you can hold your own.
I think Moe's point was that your father and mother paid taxes for parks that you or other children played in and their mother and father did the same. I don't have any children but I have a responsibility to pay for things like public education and parks.
We always have to keep the future in the forefront of our thinking and planning.
Thinker,
Yes we all pay taxes for public education.
So does that mean we owe every child
a Harvard , Yale or Princeton level'
education? Or do we owe each child a private tutor, etc, you get the picture.
We do pay taxes for parks, etc, we pay a tax to Pima county.
I really believe that a small park with a few fields might have gone over with the voters.
But for a town this size this park is over the top.
Well, well, Cox is back with more foolish comments. He talks about his "analysis," but doesn't have the knowledge to understand there are those of us not speaking for ourselves, but those not as fortunate.
Here's an excerpt from an email I just received from one of our neighbors. (I need not post his name.)
"I am 90 years old and my wife of 66 years nearly the same. We have lived in Oro Valley since 1994."
"I get no veterans tax relief. The rules for income property taxation require me to report my WW2 disabled veteran war time disability income which is otherwise non-taxable by the State and Federal government. Have all
country and state officers forgotten the years my life was hazarded for them to lightly think up these expenditures? There will be other veterans. Added thousands of seniors will never be able to use this park."
"I disagree with the Oro Valley Park Bond issue.This places an added burden on many elderly, especially those requiring accelerated assisted care."
Perhaps we should tell the writer of this email---"If you cant afford to live here, maybe you should move."
This is only one home owner's concern, but he is not alone.
Is this too much for Cox to understand?
Art...To answer your foolish question, that is not too much for me to understand. I know there are people who will never use the park. They are not only the older generation but the younger generation who will move, who have no children, who for any number of reasons will never utilize the park facilities, But that is not to say that they will not benefit from the park.
Are you so narrow minded that you cannot see that there are other benefits to the community other than one person being able to utilize the park facilities? It's a rhetorical question, Art. We all know the answer.
One flew out of the cuckoo's nest -Heeee's back!
Hey Moe how are Curly and Larry doing?
As I have mentioned in earlier posts on this blog I was part of a process that enabled children of our community to play ball on fields near our homes.
Our county was one of the most affluent counties in the US and about the same size in population as Pima County. Our community was about the same size of OV and when we went to our county gov't to request more fields and we were told to get in line behind about twenty five similiar requests from other parts of the county.
Well that set in motion the process where we got together with other communties that were "neglected" and started our own boys and girls sports league. If we had waited for government to do their thing our kids would have been way too old.
My point is that if you want something bad enough go out and do it. Of course this isn't easy but what is that is really worth it.
Also by the time this park is built (if at all) your kids will be away at school or out of the house. All of these wasted years in waiting for government to do something for your kids that you all could have done on your own...what a pity.
Well, what started out as a fairly reasoned discussion has turned into name-calling again with remarks like "foolish comments" and "how are Larry and Curly doing?"
Perhaps Zev is right--some people have regressed back to school age, complete with juvenile retorts that don't help the discussion at all.
It's clear that no one on this blog is going to be persuaded or dissuaded one way or another regarding the vote on the Naranja Town Site. If you vote no, you're labeled as "selfish." If you vote yes, you're labeled as willing to pay for a "theme park" for over-coddled kids. You can't win, at least on this blog.
It appears that the residents of OV have been able to live here for the past 34 years without significant local taxes due to the income to the Town that came from building related permits. It's no wonder that you're shocked, shocked (see "Casablanca") that there might be some taxes in your future in order to pay for amenities in this desirable community.
Whether it's a secondary property tax to pay off park bonds, or a primary property tax to keep the Town afloat, you'll get your chance to voice your opinion at the ballot box. That's the way the state set it up, and your vote counts just as much (or as little) as mine.
Employers are attracted to communities that are willing to take reasonable risks to create a viable and balanced local economy. That "quality of life" issue that we keep hearing about includes the political will of the people to invest in amenities that will make the community a truly special place. I fear that the vote in November on at least one major amenity will not add to the "quality of life" of Oro Valley.
BB,
Come on lighten up!!
Why don't you address my point as to why you want this Park built completely on the back of all of the taxpayers. Where is entrepreneurship and leadership to get this Park built through a combination of private sector, public sector, and government funding. Why are folks like you just sitting around waiting for the government to act??
Moe,
In response to your statement, "Thus, placing the needs of others above my own wants" I have this to say...
I am being asked to place the WANTS of others above my own NEEDS.
Therefore, it is they who are selfish.
Thinker,
I also thought some of Moe's comments were out of line. He made assumptions about us that were false (we're selfish and we're all wealthy and own multiple homes). Some people on this site assume much and know little.
I notice that no one has argued with my comments that people say it's for the children when it's really for the parents. If they admitted it was for themselves, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, so they manipulate it into being for the children so they can attack anyone who is opposed to it by saying we're selfish and we don't care about "the children."
Someone in my neighborhood recently fought a battle to get the town to install a traffic light at a particular intersection because it was too dangerous for her child to cross there on his way to school. This is a 2-lane road with a crossing guard present every day, yet somehow this was too dangerous. What she didn't tell the town was that she actually drives her kid to school every day and the real problem was that she had to sit at that intersection for too long every day before being able to proceed and THAT'S why she wanted a traffic light installed! It was for HER benefit but she claimed it was for the safety of her child. This same woman has pulled many other "it's for the children" stunts over the years but it's always been about HER.
Forgot to mention that she and many other parents complain about the traffic problem during the hours when school is starting or ending for the day, but they don't admit that THEY'RE the reason for the problem. The refuse to put their kids on the bus that conveniently drives down their streets every day. Hundreds of them insist on driving their kids to school (coddling them) and then they complain about the traffic problem. They ARE the problem!
I pay taxes for those school buses for the benefit of THEIR kids but they refuse to utilize them. And these are the very same people who now expect me to pay for a park for their benefit.
I recently overheard this same woman bragging about how she got the traffic light installed and then she said, "Now we just have to convince everyone to vote for the park and we'll be all set."
Perhaps she's one of the bloggers on this site and will see herself in this posting.
Turtle,
Please find me a sugar-daddy ready to pony up $42 million, and I'll take you to lunch (or send you to lunch with OVOT who seems to relish that approach).
The public/private partnerships that create huge public spaces in other cities don't exist in the Tucson area. We have no major corporate headquarters here (except Raytheon), and gifts of $50K or $100K just simply don't get the job done.
I think it will be possible to get some local tie-ins: Perhaps PetSmart will help with the dog park; perhaps a sporting goods store will help with the basketball or volleyball courts. But I don't know of anyone who would make the necessary investment in infrastructure (roads, lights, plumbing, etc.) since they don't provide any kinds of visible credit to the partner.
In other words, looking for private donations is a little like setting up a a lemonade stand on the corner in order to pay the mortgage. It may feel good going down, but it doesn't satisfy the underlying thirst.
We either make the decision to tax ourselves or we don't.
BB,
Please note Olney Boys and Girls Club Community Sports Association site, or the Damascus Sports Assocciation site. Somehow these two groups put together two of the top sports/activities programs in Maryland WITHOUT anywhere near 100%tax funding and a $42,000,000 park. Olney and Damascus are each about the same population size of OV.
In fact not only did these groups provide facilities for the kids but also leadership, coaching, and involvement of the entire communtunity.
On the flip side Maryland did have its own Naranja Park in the form of South Germantown Recreational Park. This park has been a boondoogle, divided the community, and had to resort to private financing to stay afloat.
I'm sorry, Fear, but two successful sports programs do not equal a master-planned 213 acre site. That's not to take anything away from the Maryland experience--it sounds like it was/is a wonderful success.
But it's a little like comparing a friendly game of dominoes to a professional football team. Yes--they're both sporting events, but the scale and needs and venues are so different as to make comparisons meaningless.
Could there be successful sports programs in OV above and beyond what already exist? Certainly. Now tell me where they will practice and play within the Town.
Let me remind everyone that I'm really not taking a stand on the issue. How you vote is your business, not mine. The fact that we get to vote is success in and of itself. The people will speak, and then they'll have no one but themselves to hold responsible for the outcome of the vote.
My quality of life in OV is not going to be enhanced by this park.
Now I would be thrilled to have this land kept as a nature or natural preserve type of park.
I agree with BB that the bond issue probably won't pass. But who knows.
If it is defeated, I think it would be great if they put forth a new plan. I might go for a few fields, a multi purpose building and the rest left for nature.
Would be great to hear some new opinions about the park and the secondary property tax, both for and against.
Hi Ms Coyote---- I believe our straight forward poll question has answered the question as to opinions.
We acknowledge that the vast majority of our readers see fit not to comment for whatever reasons, but at this point 160 of our neighbors have opined on this issue.
We don't pretend to be the voice of the people, but when 70% of those who respond say "NO"----that is a good indication as to what the Nov vote will be.
It seems clear that many folks feel this park is a luxury that they don't need, don't want, won't use, and in many cases can't afford.
By the way, keep in mind there is only one vote per email address. So, in many cases, where there is one email with a household of two or more, we would expect the differential in the tally would be even more pronounced as a big "NO."
BB,
You really need to visit the web site of the Olney Boys and Girls Club Community Sports Association web site before you reach any judgements or make comparisons.
The folks in Olney decided to build a Park for their community.
The fields are topnotch and the Park provides recreational facilities for over 7,000 kids annually and has served over 45,000 kids over the time its been in existence. The fields and facilities on this 118 acre site were developed and paid for in most part by public and private donations and the largest donor, a local developer, contributed $1,000,000, hence the name for the name for the facilities is Freeman Park. The Park is also used for family oriented activities and is the centerpiece of this community. Total cost for to build this excellent Park was well under $42,000,000.
Now tell me why we need a facility like Narjana Park that will cost at least $40 some million to build?
Who decided that we need all of the stuff at this park. If someone came to me and asked me to donate money for facility that had a BMX and Skateboard Park I would tell them to pound sand. Lets get rid of all of the goofy stuff at Naranja and get some nice ballfields built for our kids. I'll volunteer my time to raise money for these ballfields, but I'm 100% against this Park in its current form.
BB,
Quick follow up....
The total cost for the park in Olney was $6,500,000, and it was built in 1998.
Ms C. If you can, please walk to the sight that is a great place to view the project about 100 feet off of Copper Spring Trail. The area was once used a an asphalt plant so I doubt it could be left as a nature preserve.
I suspect that if this proposal does not pass it will be sold to a developer on which more homes will be built.
Ms C...
Obviously my fingers are not keeping up with my gray matter or visa versa.
I'll try again.
Please try to walk to the sight. There is a great place to get a panaoramic view of the project about 100 feet off of Copper Spring Trail in the Copper Creek subdivision.
Well, I tend to think the park is a bit overblown, but that's based on my needs. I'd be good with some trails and a dog park. I provide daycare for my two grandkids, but they are both too young right now to make use of the proposed facilities and I can't quite get my head around thinking of them growing up.
However, I would really, really hate for this proposal being defeated and resulting in the property turning in to yet another unnecessary subdivision, adding to what I see as tumor-like growth in OV.
As for the poll, well, to be the grinch, 160 people is a pretty small sample and you have to realize that the people gravitating to this site are likely to have a certain point of view. If said poll was administered to homeowners in OV in general, I suspect the outcome would not be so lopsided.
Still, even though I think the park plan is bloated and designed to line someone's pockets other than the community's, I have to say I'd rather my tax dollars go to build a park than Vestar's Walmart Extravaganza that a majority of OV voters mistakenly voted for (and continue to whine about even though they voted for it). [For the record, I definitely did not vote yes for that mess.]
And, in response to the comments about voting one way or the other being an example (good or bad) to "the children," no, how you vote is not the issue. Voting period sets the example.
Bikebox...
Great post. You struck a nerve with me. I just hope that Oro Valley citizens get out and vote. In a community with our demographics, to have such a low voter turnout is really, really sad.
A significant part of good planning is looking to the future. The 'look' of Oro Valley is changing. We are attracting more families with children and our planning rightfully should reflect that. So while there may be 2 or 3 basketball or tennis courts planned that may not be fully utilized today, I would rather see them put there than have to do a re-do in 3 -4 years which may destroy a planted tree. The little league and softball fields will all be used immediately as will the skate and BMX areas.
The potential benefits of this park are already being seen when you have venues like the Tucson Museum looking to relocate to the area.
THANK YOU for your park support!!!!
Post a Comment