We don't know Oro Valley resident Darrell Murray, but we think all of us should heed his advice as noted in his letter printed in the Sept 24 Explorer. I travel to Tucson 2 or 3 times a week to play softball, but that's a small price to pay rather than burden all residents with a $48.6 million bond plus millions in annual Maintenance & Operating costs.
Art
*************************************************************************************
With park, many would pay for the choice of a few
In a letter to the editor, Don Cox cites examples of citizens traveling to events throughout the city for the lack of a local area park; namely the proposed bond issue, Oro Valley’s Naranja Park. Most leagues travel to play at other leagues fields; part of the game. As far as creating a tax to fund a park for the local communities to be paid for off the backs of the citizens of Oro Valley, we have to look and say ‘should the many pay for the fun of the few?’
I would say the park would be used, but by who? Oro Valley only residents? Doubtful. Look at the parks in the city of Tucson; campgrounds for the homeless? Other serious crimes committed? Do local people feel safe in using them? Crime travels; to think we are immune because we live in Oro Valley is sticking your head in the sand.
We do have one of the finest law enforcement agencies in the area. I myself started my law enforcement career in Oro Valley in 1977, before retiring from the Arizona Highway Patrol in 2000. But the police are having a hard time dealing with what they already have on their plate; look at the high rate of burglaries, for one.
I’ve lived in this area all my life; my parents founded Golder Ranch Fire District and were the first chiefs. I retired in the Copper Creek area, because there were no property taxes; Uh oh! Bad word! I should of said “bond” issue.
Cox points out we can move ahead or slide back on this issue. In the current economic turmoil, this is not a good decision to spend a few dollars more. Again he states it’s either that or spend it on gas; the big difference is now, it is your choice to do so or not. Voting for the park bond issue takes that choice away from everyone. Just so a few people, who choose to play ball, would not have to travel. Again, that is their choice.
We do not need this park in our community, on such a grand scale, or a property tax needs to pay for it.
Darrell D. Murray
Oro Valley
16 comments:
Can there be any doubt in the mind of any rational person, regardless of party, that this is a very bad economic time to vote in favor of a property tax? Is there any doubt that issuing town bonds at this time is extremely irresponsible?
Is there any doubt that No on Naranja is the only way to vote?
Here is my so far un published ltr to the editor: (same subject)
Reference: 7 Sep 08, Letter to the Editor "Invest in OV's Future with Yes Vote on park bonds".
I don't know where Mr. Cox resides, but here on earth we just received our property tax bill. Despite the huge decrease in the value of my home, I will pay more than ever for community services. This increase in the cost of living coupled the the losses that many of our citizens are taking in retirement savings due to the on-going credit disaster is very painful to Oro Valley residents, especially the fixed income folks. In this time of economic distress yet another tax, in the form of Naranja Park bonds, on the homeowner is not prudent.
Art... always looking out for the financial well-being of "all residents". That's humorous.
Well, Art let's look at the math. You spend more money each month driving to and from your softball games than the tax will cost. Therefore you may save money or at least break even if your games were local. Furthermore, the "millions in annual Maintenance & Operating costs" that you want to throw out as a red herring....is paid for by the bed tax and user fees, the vast bulk of which is paid by non-residents of Oro Valley.
As for Mr. Murray's letter, I respect his opinion but I doubt that we can compare the Tucson Parks (many of which by the way were paid for with Tucson money....that Art and the rest of us use free of charge!!!!!)to the Parks in Oro Valley. To say that the same activities will take place would be an insult to the Oro Valley Police Department.
Mr. Murray goes on to state,
"Most leagues travel to play at other leagues fields; part of the game."
Would it be bad if we had sufficient facilities located locally so we wouldn't have to travel? Sounds like Murray thinks so.
"As far as creating a tax to fund a park for the local communities to be paid for off the backs of the citizens of Oro Valley, we have to look and say ‘should the many pay for the fun of the few?’
To accept his logic means that those who do not have children or whose children no longer attend public schools or attend a private school should not have to pay the Amphi School tax. If you don't use the library you should not have to pay the Library tax. That just isn't the way it works, Mr. Murray.
Lastly, Mr Murray distinguishes himself as being the ONLY current or past law enforcement person that I have talked to in the past six months who thinks parks, where our children and young adults can gather and recreate, are a bad thing. Even Mr. Murray's former boss in 1977, is a supporter of the Naranja Park.
YES ON THE NARANJA PARK BOND!!!!!
Just like the 'park' OV OT, 90%+ of your discourse is all about baseball, a highly specialized interest, isn't it? As to comparing this expense to a that of a library or, as someone else posted, a road that not everyone uses, is ludicrous. Roads are there to move traffic around all of us (the roads that don't, private roads, are paid for with private monies), the intent of a library is for educationl, historical, reference material, a quite place to study or simply to read; these are in company with other amenities that might be considered as 'for the common ability for a community to function'; I do not believe that this park, as it is now conceived, is one of them. Understand, I am not against intermingling SOME sports facilities within a park system, but to create a sports COMPLEX at the taxpayers' expense is simply providing narrowly targeted entertainment vehicles and/or practice facilities for a few.
FOR ME IT'S SOMEWHAT SOCIALISTIC AND THEREFORE A NO GO!
Zev....Maybe you didn't pick up on the previous post. I am only responding to Art's comment on softball (but god forbid that you be critical of his post) and to the comments of Mr. Murray.
And I couldn't agree with you more, the comparison is ludicrous....but it's not my comparison. It's Mr. Murray's. I quote,"‘should the many pay for the fun of the few?’" Just as we all pay for roads for all, schools for all, libraries for all we should pay for a park for all.....whether you choose to use it is your decision.
Just as libraries, good schools, a good transportation system create a great community, a good park system is an intricate part of that foundation.
OV OT
I agree that a GOOD park system is an INTEGRAL part of a GOOD foundation of a community; however, I just cannot accept the current plan as a GOOD one.
In rereading your post I see that you, too, agree that certain comparisons are inapplicable. So, in that we agree.
I am certain that we shall confront this issue more; for now, since I just returned from a stressful jaunt to Snottsdale, I shall sign off without further ado. Simply though, let me say that if I feel that ANYONE might be wrong, misguided, or whatever, I will, in some way, let that person know. That may be on this blog, it might be by e-mail, or it might be by telephone or in person; and let me assure you that each and everyone, including Art, have been made aware of any disagreement I might have with them. But, just as you and I have pretty much evolved into civility, I am trying to keep everything in perspective (though I most probably will maintain my 'poetic
license' style of writing) and I do TRY to keep a handle of reason towards all.
Hope you had a good tournement.
Zev
Thinker,
In response to your comments/questions:
"Would it be bad if we had sufficient facilities located locally so we wouldn't have to travel?"
Well, where do we draw the line? If we want to have EVERYTHING in Oro Valley so no one has to drive anywhere, then it won't be long before OV looks like NYC. Is that what you want?
I have to travel to go to the zoo, the art museum, Nordstrom, an aquarium, etc. I'll ask this question for the umpteenth time. If you want/need everything close by, why did you move to Oro Valley?
You said to Art, "You spend more money each month driving to and from your softball games than the tax will cost."
And that's the real reason you want this park, because you believe YOU will spend less money on the tax than what YOU are currently spending driving to Tucson to play softball. It's all about YOU and saving YOU money but you try to spin it so that it's about Oro Valley and its citizens.
Regarding the argument that the many shouldn't have to pay for the fun of the few, you said:
"To accept his logic means that those who do not have children or whose children no longer attend public schools or attend a private school should not have to pay the Amphi School tax. If you don't use the library you should not have to pay the Library tax."
I already had this argument with Boobie Baby months ago but I'll repeat myself. First of all, schools and libraries are necessities. A softball field is not. Second, paying for things like schools and road maintenance is reciprocal. I don't have kids in school but I'm happy to pay taxes for schools because someone else once paid taxes for me to go to school. I'll pay taxes to maintain roads I never use because someone else is paying taxes to maintain roads that I do use. It's reciprocal.
So your comparison of schools and libraries being the same as a park is not a sound comparison.
Now, Thinker, we know what's in it for you. It will cost you less money to play softball than it is costing you today.
What's in it for me?
VC...Your comments are getting more illogical the more you post.
I have never been to New Your City but a lot of people live there and appear to be happy. It is also one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world. I guess all those people are stupid for wanting whatever is in New York. That is a typical NIMBY position.
The fact that you are a Nordstrom shopper says volumes about you. The great majority of Oro Valley residents are not and I think that is what separates you from the vast majority. There is nothing wrong with being a Nordy but it is not where most Oro Valley choose people shop clothing and accessories.
I don't travel to the Tucson Parks any more because of the cost of gasoline. I do love to play softball but I am not willing to pay $20-$30 a week to drive that far when I can play locally...albeit fewer times a week. So your attempt to make this about my softball preferences are without foundation.
I will say the same thing to you that I said to Zev. He got it....you evidently don't. The schools/library comparison was not my comparison. It was the former OV cop (1977) that made the comparison. I disagreed.
Your last question was what is in it for me. Unfortunately it's all about "me" and that's one of the problems with our world today. Everyone is so focused on themselves (NIMBY) that they are anesthetized about what is good for the community....or as I like to call it, 'the greater good'.
The Naranja Park is an investment into the future of Oro Valley. It is an investment into the developement of our youth. It is an investment into your property values. You probably played in parks when you were young. You go to the zoo, which is located in Reid Park. How much did you pay for Reid Park???? Like you said, "It's reciprocal."
VOTE YES ON THE NARANJA PARK BOND!!
Yes, the park is a major expenditure, but most who tend to oppose it for "expense" also don't ever envision the demographics of our town evolving. We couldn't possibly think that more families might move here and fewer retirees.
Maybe if the excessive fees for the Golder Ranch FD were more reasonable more people might think about voting for this park. On second thought this freakin Park is a nightmare in the making and if this Park is approved OV will be known as the tax capital of Az. How many young famlies will be able to afford the taxes? This Park and accompaning taxes will be a disincentive in attracting young and old alike.
Back to Golder Ranch for a second....I have friends in high places in a few Fire Departments across this country and they can't believe the amount we are being charged for fire service. Our town hall officials need to look into these taxes and find a solution to lower this excessive tax.
VC....Pardon the 'word reversal' in Paragraph 3.
Should read: "Oro Valley people choose to shop...".
I have to sharpen my proofreading skills.
mr. street
YOUR statement about the future demographics of this area is not
on solid ground. Several months ago, in an article in the Star, it was offered by a regional study that the PERCENTAGE of retirees vs 'others' moving to this area would go UP NOT DOWN! It is the Southeast that, AT PRESENT, is the major attraction for business growth and families, NOT the Southwest! HOWEVER, given the current economic situation in this country today, I think that NO ONE
can, with any authority, predict where, when, or how this is all going to play out. I do know a couple of things however - there is and there will continue to be an overabundance of houses on the market throughout the country, this abundance will climb, because of tightening credit and more persons with tainted credit. Fewer individuals will be able to buy a home, AND, because of that plus increased costs, new home sales, as is already happening, will be sharply curtailed. So what do we really have here, mr. street? A big questionmark! And when you have a big questionmark, mr. street, you don't answer the question by throwing more money at it. Clear?
Thinker,
Regarding your comments about NYC and how my not wanting OV to turn into NYC is a "typical NIMBY position"...
(1) Do YOU want OV to turn into NYC? If you DO, then that speaks volumes about your vision for this beautiful town. You want to cover the entire town with asphalt and concrete and block the views of the mountains with tall buildings. If you DON’T want that, then according to your own definition, that makes you a NIMBY because you don’t want that in YOUR backyard.
(2) The people who are happy in NYC are not going around saying, "You know, I don't like these tall buildings and all this traffic so let's get a bond issue on the ballot where we can make taxpayers pay millions of dollars to change this big city into something more rural and quiet because that's what I want."
They live in NYC because that's the atmosphere they like. If you don't like what's already in OV, then move to another town that has everything you're looking for but stop trying to create YOUR "fantasy" at others' expense.
(3) You said the fact that I shop at Nordstrom "speaks volumes" about me. You're so quick to judge. What does it say about me that I also go to the zoo, art museums, and aquariums? You glossed right over that part! By the way, hate to burst your bubble, but I only drive to Scottsdale twice a year during which time I visit Old Towne, a couple of my favorite art galleries, and a trip to Fashion Square Mall which includes Nordstrom and many other stores that I can't find in Tucson.
But I guess I'd be a better person if I spent my time in bars, the racetrack, gambling at the casinos, and watching wrestling on TV with a beer in one hand and a cigarette in the other.
(4) The fact that you've never been to NYC (and quite a few other places that people on this site have mentioned) speaks volumes about YOU. You profess to know so much yet you have experienced so little.
This is one of the reasons that Zev's posts make so much sense. He has been to and has lived in many places and therefore has an excellent fund of knowledge from which to draw upon.
Thinker, when you discuss things like planning and zoning laws, an area where you have lots of experience, your posts are interesting and factual and I seldom see any reason to argue with you, but in most other areas, your knowledge and life experiences appear to be very limited and therefore your arguments become very weak.
(5) If the Naranja Park did NOT INCLUDE softball fields, would you still be voting in favor of it? Because in that scenario, you would be paying a tax for a park that does not have the facilities you desire and you would also be paying "$20-$30 dollars a week" to drive to Tucson to play so it would now cost you even more than it currently does. If you're complaining about spending $20-$30 dollars a week then won't you be complaining even more when you have an additional tax on top of THAT? For something you won't even be using?
Thank you, VC, for pointing out the importance of 'touching' an experience in order to truly be able to know it; in so doing you are able to refute the jumble that those who haven't try to pawn off as some kind of a reality. New York City - vibrant, bustling, a cultural menage, beautiful in many ways, overbearing in others, with ugliness, too, in it's midst. There is NO other city in the world like it! Some like living there, some do not but do so anyway, and many, after years of it all, leave in order to secure a more relaxed environment in which to refresh or retire, their departures leaving room for the infusion of a new blood. That there are millions who visit New York City is not a testament to it's livability, it is simply a means for those who care to enrich their lives to add a wondrous leaf to their own trees of life.
Now, Thinker, to refer to someone as a "Nordy" in order to attempt to classify them (without using the term) as uppity, is, in itself derisive. Just like you can't seem to comprehend that which is New York City and it's non-relationship to that which is Oro Valley, you just can't seem to get it when it comes down to those who might hold Nordstrom's in higher esteem than many other similar establishments (or DO you get it, but your need for destruction is greater than your need for accommodation?). It's not just the clothes, the shoes, the accessories, the overall selection that makes Nordstrom's what it is; it's all that PLUS the purchasing atmosphere (cordial) AND the before and after sale service on which they insist. Think you can get that at a Walmart or even a Macy's? Dream on, it just isn't there! In addition you state that Oro Valley people [are'nt Nordstrom patrons] and by stating such you are inferring that we have a bit of a caste system in place here. We don't. I like a GOOD hamburger as well as a GOOD Chicken Cordon Bleu, but BOTH must be GOOD in order to gratify; no snob me!
Thinker, you need to drop your prejudices, get out and about, and LEARN THIS WORLD. You are no dummy but, in my opinion, you have a tendency to get tangled up within yourself. You CAN do better.
I will definitely vote against this bond issue, the first time ever that I have voted against any bond issue. My reasons: the Naranja sports complex is a huge luxury, not a necessity. Roads, libraries, and schools are necessities. I am totally fed up with the rampant overspending that has gotten us into the financial difficulty our country is facing now. I have lived my entire life with the attitude that I would not buy anything, other than my first house, that I couldn't pay cash for. As a result, even though I am a senior citizen living on a small fixed income now, I am doing OK. I would have no problem voting for a bond issue that would benefit our schools, but I'll be darned if I will go quietly into poverty with increased property taxes to help finance what I see as an out of control example of the "want, want, want, spend, spend, spend" mentality that is gripping our society and driving it into the ground.
Post a Comment