The Town of Oro Valley must walk that fine line of NOT endorsing the Naranja Park Bond while at the same time, making every attempt to "sell" us on voting "yes."
Don't get snookered. VOTE "NO"
Here are more reasons why. The Voters Pamphlet was received.
1) On page 6 which addresses the "Estimated Cost To Taxpayers," the annual figure of $.038/$100 assessed valuation is used to calculate the estimated cost to a property owner.
However, if we go to the table on page 7, you'll note it won't be until the year 2020/2021 that this figure is applicable. Initially, the tax is not $.038, but in fact $.052---almost 40% higher!
2) On page 5, "Plan Of Finance," it is noted that the interest rate may be as high as 12%.
However, very conveniently, the interest rate is calculated on page 7 at a rate of 5%.
Why was 5% used? Why not 6% or 7% or more? Was it to make this bond more palatable for the voters?
Even at 5%, it will cost us taxpayers almost $86 million to finance this "Sports Park," with its 42 courts & fields.
Wouldn't it be better to allow this present Town Council that has a majority of fiscally responsible members the opportunity to review this Boondoggle Park?
VOTE "NO" on this excessive, unnecessary expenditure that was forced down our throats by a prior inept council.
7 comments:
Please see and READ my comments relative to this issue on the previous 2 streams
The Pamphlet is designed to mislead.
I hope someone with higher math skills than I can get a ltr published in the Explorer and/or the AZ Daily Star - pointing out the "new math" on these tax rates.
"We won't get skewed again"
- the who
I have been asked to post the following comment.
Art
*****************************************
Re: the Naranja Park booklet; this is not a booklet, it is a major slug of hype. How much did the Town of Oro Valley pay to have this printed & distributed?
No matter; we - the residents of Oro Valley - cannot afford it,
especially not now. Any kindergardener could answer the question of - if you have $1 to spend and the cost of the toy is $10.00, can you pay for it? Okay, shoot me, I'm old fashioned; I think any kindergardener could answer that one.
But perhaps Mayor Loomis & his henchpersons, Melanie Larson, Dick Johnson, et al, have gotten a lock on New Math and come up with a way that struggling Oro Valley residents can pay for a mega- million dollar bond for an ego park. I doubt it!
We don't need it and we don't WANT Naranja Ego Park.
Hohokam Hannah
This pamphlet will be subjected to legal review by a pretty sharp attorney to see if the town of OV is using deceptive material to influence the voters.
The town might want to put their insurance carrier on notice.
Outrageous.
"Vote No On Naranja"
Hey, all,
Before everyone gets carried away by the content or lack of it within the pamphlet, PLEASE locate a copy of the Arizona Revised Statute 35-454 (A)(1); this is the governing statute relative to the process and information required for publication whan a
bond issue comes up for election within a political subdivision (municipality, county). After scrutinizing and comparing the infomation pamphlet with the statute, even though I personally feel that the information therein is lacking in 'real-term' vernacular, I believe that this document does follow said statute to the letter (even though I, too, find a couple of items a bit fuzzy, factual but lacking). Last July, I corresponded with our Town Attorney, Mr. Tobin Rosen, requesting that the State statute(s)be adhered to and he assured me by return correspondance that the Town would act in compliance with same.
I believe that it is now the time to get out to the public some of the more immediate actualities of this measure as well as the
eventual possibilities of it, etc. in order that we have a FULLY informed constituency in a manner that they CAN understand.
I read every FOR and AGAINST argument in the pamphlet and noticed the following theme from the FOR crowd:
As the parent of 2 teenage boys...There are many families that have to travel out of town limits for their children's sports practices and games...Save families money at the gas pump...Help them stay more physically active...I am raising 2 teenagers...Kids obesity because of a lack of activity...For kids to develop their athletic skills...I play senior softball and must drive to a Tucson ballfield and back (36 miles)...I urge you to begin the planning of this project so MY SON can...
Yet in an earlier post when I asked, "What's in it for me?" I was chastised for being so selfish. These FOR arguments aren't selfish?
Aren't they being selfish expecting me to pay a secondary property tax for the next 25 years so THEY can save money at the gas pump? Aren't they being selfish when they expect me to pay for THEIR KIDS athletic/recreational activities so their kids won't become obese?
Try this. Feed them nutritious food instead of junk and make them go outside and run and bike and climb instead of sitting on their behinds playing video games...games that YOU buy them!
One of my favorite quotes was from Dick Johnson who described the proposed park as "a scene from a Norman Rockwell painting." There they go again, trying to get you to vote YES based on emotions rather than fact. This from the same man who promotes Oro Valley Marketplace and Wal-Mart with the same vigor. Yeah, they sure conjure up images of Norman Rockwell paintings!
Then there's the person originally from Phoenix who refers to those of us who are against this park as, "the small mindedness of the anti-growth and anti-everything mentality." Yes, and that's exactly why Oro Valley is STILL beautiful and doesn't look anything like Phoenix, which is nothing but concrete, asphalt, buildings, slums, and traffic congestion but USED TO BE beautiful! The once beautiful desert-setting was paved over and destroyed because of the "small-mindedness" of the pro-growth faction. If he thinks Phoenix is so great, why did he LEAVE PHOENIX and move to Oro Valley?
Post a Comment