I sent the following email today. Your comments are welcome.
Art
**************************************************************************************************************************
Hi Everybody----- I'm quite sure there are those that receive this email who feel the $48.6 million expenditure for the Naranja Park is worthy of a "Yes" vote.
Art
**************************************************************************************************************************
Hi Everybody----- I'm quite sure there are those that receive this email who feel the $48.6 million expenditure for the Naranja Park is worthy of a "Yes" vote.
I believe the issue is not whether we build another park, mainly for our youth, but the fact that the previous Town Council felt a park with a total of 38 courts & fields, plus a skate park, plus a BMX track was not too extravagant. If not then, it is CERTAINLY NOW AN EXTRAVAGANCE, especially with the financial crisis we are now experiencing.
While many of us are trying to make do with the cost of life's necessities----food, home, utilities, gas, insurance to name a few, certainly, a park with all of these amenities that will be utilized by only a few, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A NECESSITY.
There are those that fail to realize that this $48.6 million expenditure will actually be approximately double the cost over the time-frame of funding the bond issue, even with a relatively low interest rate.
There are also those that fail to acknowledge the millions of dollars that will be required to maintain & operate this park on an annual basis. These individuals tell us the funding will come from the bed tax and user fees. Didn't we hear this same scenario about the income we would be generating as a result of the $50 million we gave to the retail developers with a sales tax subsidy? At last count, the monies coming into Oro Valley fell so short of projections, that it would be laughable, if it wasn't so sad.
While we acknowledge there is a proactive PAC lobbying for a "yes" vote, with intentions of marching with signs, addressing the Town Council, writing letters to newspapers, and touting the park to neighbors, we believe, although well intentioned, these folks do not see the big picture.
The big picture consists of two big negatives.
1) This park is just too much for too few of us.
2) There are too many of us that do not need an additional tax, especially in these difficult times.
Might it not be more prudent to allow this present Town Council that is so much more fiscally responsible than its predecessors the opportunity to review the details of this bond issue, and come back with potentially a more realistic package?
We urge all of our citizens to VOTE "NO" on this Naranja Park, which means voting "NO" on a PROPERTY TAX.
Thank you.
Art
11 comments:
This is NOT a park; this is a sports complex. Oh, yes, there are a piddley amount of asides that are thrown in to make it appear that this is available for all to use, but, a sports complex is still what it is! There are those who say that the amount each home owner would pay is a puny amount compared to an overall picture. Who are those that have the right to judge that any amount whatsoever is simply insignificant for any homeowner? And when one starts adding up all the small increases to our yearly expenses, utilities, county property taxes, health insurance premiums, drug increases, food increases, fuel increases, homeowners association increases (need I go on), well, in total my own expenses rose by approximately $3500 last year(a 2 person family), my retirement income dropped because of increased deductions, my portfolio of investment accounts necessary for my future security has gone the way of our economy (as have many others), and as to the overall benefits of the park, as designed, for me, there are none.
To those who want these extravagant
amenities as adults, I say, go find yourself some investors and build them yourselves for your self-serving needs and/or wants. To those that say [it's for the children], I say your mantra is old and worn; let the kids use school facilities for their sports energies. Yes, I can understand a park for the community, but this one reeks of socialism gone upscale.
AND, understand that this is but a mere 1/4 of that which the Town has on the drawing boards. In the long run YOU will be paying around 1/4 - 1/3 of a BILLION dollars (with all expenses, interest, maintenance added in) for your over-the-top party before it's all said and done. Worth it? I don't think so.
Do you really think that the 30-40,000 inhabitants of the planned northeast section of Oro Valley in Arroyo Grande will travel the miles and fight the traffic in order for them to use the facility, traipsing themselves and their kids back and forth after school to play games they should be able to play in their own 'backyard'? No again! There are some advocates who play ball here that decry the distance they VOLUNTARILY travel in order for them to participate in league play citing time and cost of fuel.I ask them, what about those that will live in the Northeastern section that YOU WANT to annex and incorporate into the Town?
This park, as it is 'written', is not about need and it is NOT about COMMUNITY; it is about selfism at it's highest level, it is about many providing for a panting few, and, yes, it appears to be about legacy, too.
The Naranja Park bond issue must go down in defeat! The needs and wants of the COMMUNITY as well as more appropriate financial considerations must be revisited.
My vote is a resounding NO on this ill-conceived malfeasance.
Dear Readers--- Please note I deleted the above comment by Don Cox (OVOT) who obviously still doesn't acknowledge that he was advised to curtail comments about my (or Zee Man's personal life.
Art
Art.....Censorship is what the real reason. If I make a comment you don't appreciate then why not delete the comment and leave the rest as I have done below?
The truth of that matter is that you simply don't want to hear anything that differs from your point of view nor do you want anyone to point out those many instances when you are disingenuous.
PREVIOUS POST............
Zev..Please account for your LUDICROUS comment, "AND, understand that this is but a mere 1/4 of that which the Town has on the drawing boards. In the long run YOU will be paying around 1/4 - 1/3 of a BILLION dollars (with all expenses, interest, maintenance added in) for your over-the-top party before it's all said and done."
If you wish to vote against that Park then do so, but don't make an attempt to poison the waters with unfounded comments.
Art.....
The current plan was pared down to it's present configuration by the previous Council at the request of the citizens. They wanted the recreational activities not the water park, not the arts complex and not the community center. So if they did what the citizens wanted, was it a bad thing?????
Mr. Cox----two points.
My only option is to leave a comment intact, or delete it.
You are welcome to disagree with anything. You are NOT welcome to make personal comments about my or Zee Man's life. If you finally learned that is the case, all will be well. Otherwise---remember it is Zee Man & I, not you that controls this blog
OV OT
The original aim of the prior administration(s) was a 'park' to cost approximately $160,000,000. It was subsequently then decided to present a PORTION only in order to[get the thing started and in so doing thus asking only for a reduced amount of about $146,000,000], thus leaving the remainder of the plan to future consideration (water 'features', state of the concert hall, etc.]. If one does the math, OV OT, over the long haul inclusive of the bonds themselves, interest on same, future increases in building costs for those items NOT INCLUDED in this CURRENT PORTION, extraneous costs (sorry OV OT, leaning on the bed tax for maintenance just doesn't wash with me as a given), and considering that 1/4 of a billion dollars is equal to $250,000,000, then that figure is not that much over (in fact) the $160,000,000 when you consider those additions which I listed above.
You, of all people, a real estate agent should know that a person buying a home for a given amount will, after paying off a 30 year mortgage, taxes, and insurance end up paying a HUGE amount over and above the selling price of the house. Again, I will state to you most emphatically that for 15 years my wife was the budget coordinator for the County of Wake, North Carolina and I was made very much aware of that difference between the published (bond) amount versus the REAL end costs. In addition, I, like you, also was a real estate agent, and, long ago, as well, a bank lending agent. So, the reality of my logistics is NOT without hefty foundation.
WHAT YOU THINK YOU SEE, OV OT, IS NOT WHAT YOU GET. SO, CALL MY PROJECTION LUDICROUS IF YOU WILL; THOUGH MERELY A WINDOW, IT ISN'T!!!
I just got back from the tooth doc, had to have my fangs cleaned. Anyway, I learned that the doc's business has fallen off lately. According to the office help folks are cutting back because of the bad state of the economy.
I doubt a new tax for the park is going to go well!
I just received, as was required by the Arizona Revised Statutes Section 35-454, my information pamphlet and text of ballot relative to this issue.
PLEASE, EVERYONE, NOTE THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL TAX RATE EXAMPLES AS PREPARED AND ENTERED BY TOWN STAFF(page 6):
First example - $100,000 cash value of residence - ANYONE KNOW OF ANY HOUSES FOR SALE FOR $100,000? STAFF, this is not
even close to being a realistic starting point.
Second example - $249,370; why was that oddball number utilized and what does the 'c' stand for?
Third example - $250,000; ordinarily that would be acceptable BUT why a third example that is only $630 more than the prior one?
ONCE AGAIN, ARE WE GETTING SKEWED?
Oh, and by the way, OV OT, the more you study this pamphlet, the more you will have to admit, if you are adept at mathematical analysis, that the manner in which I presented the cost above, when all is said and done, is most probably not so "ludicrous" as you stated.
APOLOGY - in my prior post I stated that I didn't know what the 'c' stood for in the second example of value; in further reading I am now aware that it stands for: "estimated average value of owner-occupied residential properties and commercial and industrial properties, as applicable, within the Town as provided by the Arizona Department of Revenue". Now, isn't it nice that commercial and industrial properties are comingled with residential properties in the 'example' section that is listed under RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY only in bold lettering. SKEWED AGAIN!
Zev-
Fair warning that I am going to pick on you a little bit. If you look at the chart in the pamphlet that details the secondary property tax valuation, the little "c" is a reference. I know you figured this out, but you'll note that the little "c" appears in two places, once under residential estimates and once under commercial estimates. The little "c" reference isn't saying the two are averaged togateher, but that each number in each location is an average secondary property valuation for which ever category of property it appears under. The top number ($24,900 roughly) is for residential and the bottom number(I can't remember) is the average for commercial.
cyclone1,
Because of your acuity and demeanor, please continue to [pick on me a little bit] when you feel the need to inform or correct me; I am education oriented and will accept YOUR input gracefully. In rereading the subject within the pamphlet the reference does seem a bit fuzzy in a non-analytical sense.
I am certain that you have read my defending the validity of this Pamphlet relative to the A.R.S. which governs it. Though I do believe that, as presented, it does appear to be correct and legal, to the ordinary folk, it
diminishes the IMMDEIATE reality and/or impact. Example: by AVERAGING the tax rate over the full 25 year period, it does not, in my opinion, reveal a true picture for the REAL and MORE CURRENT household expense; perhaps if an average were given for every 5 year period, it might then produce a more realistic picture that the public could readily understand (just a thought).
Post a Comment