Bob Oro writes a column in the NW section of the Az Star. Below his column, it states; "Bob Oro is a husband, parent, dentist, and children's advocate in Oro Valley."
Too bad Bob Oro is not an advocate for the senior citizens on fixed income or the families struggling to make ends meet. If that were the case, perhaps he wouldn't be so quick to ask
"What lessons does God have in store in this journey for the community?"
The good dentist was so enthralled with the 100 or so folks, including mostly children that marched in support of the Naranja Bond issue, that he attempts to pull at the heartstrings of his readers with the comment:
"Their little 4 to 8-year old legs were starting to tire."
If that wasn't bad enough, he suggested that Susan Zibrat & Nancy Martin, leaders of the "yes" group "should be cloned."
I don't know Ms. Zibrat but I do know Nancy, and certainly acknowledge she is a good, well intentioned lady, but to "be cloned" might be a slight exaggeration.
Bob Oro can espouse his views on this or any other subject. By the same token, I believe God may be looking out for those that realize this $48.6 million expenditure for ALL Oro Valley residents, to satisfy a few, is the wrong thing, at the wrong time.
Hopefully, enough voters will agree with me. We'll know in 19 days.
If you haven't yet voted by write-in ballot, please VOTE "NO" On The Naranja Bond Issue.
Should you be interested in reading the whole column, click here.
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/85737/262508
6 comments:
I posted the following comment to the Oro comment in the Arizona Daily Star today:
"Clearly, the good Dentist has lost his mind!
The Naranja Town Site is a foolish, frivolous use of the Town of Oro Valley's bonding capacity. Nor should the town be granted the right to levy a property tax.
This park is not a necessity. It's a wish list item, as the assorted collection of "stuff" that will be built there attests.
Oro Valley's current parks, its school parks, and Catalina State Park provide ample places for "the kids" to play.
And all are currently under-used.
It's about need and money, Bob.
This Town Site is not a need. It is a want. And now is not the time for frivolity. Now is the time for austerity.
This bond will cost the tens of thousands of us who will never use the park hundreds of dollars each year in property taxes for the next twenty-five years.
And granting the town this right to levy a property tax sets a bad precedent. Once Oro Valley gets the right to levy a property tax, they will try to do it for other things again and again. Just take a look all the taxes added to our water bill once the town took over. One of these taxes pays for police!
The good Doctor needs to act on reason and not emotion. Now is the time for clear heads.
That's why I voted NO ON NARANJA."
God told me to vote no.
Who has designated Bob Oro as the spokesperson for Oro Valley? The sappy way he writes on more than just this issue indicates that he is passing himself off as just that. If the Star wants to allow biased editorialization of Oro Valley then let them put in a 'letters to the editor' section within the 'Northwest' insert; then, opposition voices can be heard.
Great point Zev. This is not the first time Oro has taken a stand on what some consider a confrontational issue.
Previously, I and others took him to task on his column suggesting the OV Marketplace was "absolute genius."
See our posting on Thursday, June 26, 2008 OV Marketplace: "Absolute Genius." You 'Gotta' Be Kidding!
As I noted, his opinion is one thing, but for the Az Star to allow this nonsense without offering a forum for rebuttal is more nonsense.
I took the opportunity to call Tiffany Kjos the Regional editor of the Az Star. I explained to Ms. Kjos that I thought the Bob Oro column presented a one sided view in the upcoming Naranja Bond vote
To her credit, Ms. Kjos agreed and offered me the opportunity to present the other side of the issue.
I want to publicly thank Tiffany Kjos for being so gracious, and my apologies for not calling her PRIOR to posting my previous comment.
The AZ Star has today (October 19) published the opinion that a "Yes" is advised on Prop 400...
I guess Ms Tiffany Kjos had made up her mind and/or did not listen to you, Art.
We too are looking to the future; we voted "No".
Post a Comment