A few months ago, Dick Johnson wrote a story in the GOVAC newsletter imploring people, especially kids to come to the Oro Valley Council meeting saying how badly they wanted the Naranja Park.
Kid after kid got up and spoke. They said how difficult it was to travel to fields in other parts of Tucson, etc.etc.
Guess what? The vast majority of the folks & kids Johnson"bussed in" were NOT Oro Valley residents!!! Here they were, TELLING US HOW WE SHOULD TAX OURSELVES so they wouldn't have to travel as far.
Well---Johnson, as a Naranja Park PAC leader, may well have had a hand in getting a bunch of people writing "Yes" arguments for this luxury park.
Hopefully, enough voters will see that this park, at this time is too much. We trust enough voters will not want this park, will not use this park, do not need this park, and will not be able to afford this park and the millions of dollars in interest and upkeep that will be required.
Read The Explorer article here.
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2008/08/06/news/doc4898d20307c3b505905979.txt
4 comments:
Is this the same Dick Johnson who while serving on council supported and voted to give Vestar 23.2 million of our sales tax money?
And we should trust his judgment ?
I don't think soooooooooo.
This guy seems to have a habit of making foolish, expensive mistakes.
I'm not 100% convinced our town will publish all of the letters that opposes this Park.
In another sign of the "good" economic times ahead for us another home in our development had a foreclosure notice slapped on the front door of the house last week.
Does anyone in this PAC have their head on straight? Where is the tax base for this type of expenditure?? I wonder how many of these PAC members are real estate people, developers, or contractors and are in this PAC for their own economic gain.
I'm not convinced either. I think the "powers that be" want this park so bad that they will skew the information. I hope I'm wrong..
raindancer
I could be wrong (yes, it happens), but I believe that--by state law--the Town is obligated to print all arguments that are submitted, as long as the submitters pay any required fee and meet all other requirements (e.g., maximum length of submittal, proper listing of who submitted the argument, etc).
I understand the cyncism here. Should even one argument against the bonds be rejected for non-compliance with any part of the state law, we could probably hear the yelling all the way to Ajo.
Post a Comment