To its credit the "yes" folks PAC on The Naranja Park got their letter writers out, and there are no less than 5 letters espousing the park's virtues.
I'm sure we can expect this "blitz" to continue in the weeks prior to the election.
As we've been saying constantly, a park for our youth is a good thing. I don't know anyone that wants to deprive the kids some fields & courts to play on-----but 42 is overkill!
Remember, Oro Valley, like all of us, have WANTS & NEEDS.
This park is a luxury we DO NOT NEED, especially in this unprecedented terrible economic time.
Read the letters, and then do the right thing for yourself, for your neighbors and for the town
VOTE "NO ON NARANJA BOND ISSUE!
ADDENDUM: PLEASE BE SURE TO READ THE 1st COMMENT BELOW BY "COMMON SENSE THINKER"
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2008/10/15/opinion/doc48f53c784fdae997492093.txt
2 comments:
As the Blog Master clearly points out the Yes folks are certainly on a roll with their letter writing campaign. These types of campaigns are very easy to run with a simple blast E-mail with a few form letters to discuss position points. This all in an effort to somehow drum up support for a particular issue. All to well we realize the issue on the Yes folks' mind is to get you the voter to side with their position. The letters that were published supporting the park were long on emotion and short on facts. I will try to shed some light to flush out the numerous inaccuracies that I as a reader found with these letters. One interesting point is three out of the five writers could not even get the true cost of the park correct. One letter states the cost on a $250,000 assessed value home will be about $100.00 per year. Fact, that is assuming the bond can be sold at a 5 percent interest rate and if the life of the bond was at a tax rate of $0.3826. You won't even see that rate until 2020/2021 assuming the town growth estimates hold true as stated. The true cost of the bond will start at $0.52 the first year and slowly decline to $0.39 until you get to 2020/2021. If this writer had only looked at the table on page 7 of the bond pamphlet they would have got it right. Another writer states that they are willing to pay $9.00 per month for a park never explaining what their true cash value of their home will be. If this writer only is willing to pay $9.00 per month then they better sharpen their pencil because the math the writer was using simply does not add up. I think if this writer cared to take the time to really read the bond pamphlet they would quickly be changing their vote from yes to no. Another writer states in their letter that it will only cost the taxpayer $10.00 per month for 25 years on an assessed value of $300,000. Wow this writer was way off the mark in their math as 0.3826 was the average of the life of the bond not the actual cost. The writer goes on the talk about the costs would have been much higher for the cost for the land if we had to buy it now. I hate to break the news to this writer but you have been paying for the cost of this park land since the town purchased it over 8 years ago. Yes the purchase of the park land was in the form of bonds and we taxpayers have been saddled with the cost. My final point takes issue with the writer who comments that voting for the park will only raise your property values. I only wish the writer would have backed up that statement with some type of fact. Once again we have people who continue to be uninformed about the true cost of a park. If only the writer would have stopped to think, they would have realized that the operating and maintenance costs are only going to continue to rise and as a result the taxpayer will eventually be saddled with yet another tax increase to help pay for this park. I realize the town thinks the bed tax will solve everything, but stop and think what we face today with tough economic conditions, do you really think corporations are rushing to book the Hilton. The writer goes on to state that the town is under parked a notion that I debunked in an earlier post to OV Objective Thinker. In closing, do you really think if we build the sports fields that the field shortage will go away? Absolutely not! The sports teams will increase their enrollment numbers knowing that the Oro Valley voters have just put money in their pockets. In other words these teams collect monies to join and sell uniforms and other goodies that the players need. Who benefits? Directly the organized sports teams who can continue to push more kids through their programs at higher and higher numbers. Do the math and look at the facts as this bond initiative for the park is wrong. VOTE NO on 400!
Common Sense Thinker very accurately assesses some of the truisms relative to the actual costs as well as effects of this so-called park. Some time ago I wrote that, in the end, considering that this is simply phase 1, and in consideration of interest and other costs, this park will end up costing in the neighborhood of 1/4-1/3 of a billion dollars. I was challanged on that figure by OV 'Objective Thinker' a challenge that disappeared when I offered up more 'clues'. Understand that there are those who are purposefully or ignorantly misleading readers by skewing the numbers in such ways as to diminish reality. Also, there are some who toss around figures like studies that purport to assign population to parks
ratios, acreage portions of the overall parcel, etc., in short a lot of voodoo math and guessing game statistics.
Objective Thinker, for one, has laid out a whole lot of claims as to what this park will do for the community - increased property values, makes it more attractive for businesses to locate here, keeps our children out of trouble and more, none of which is certifiably true! Well, I lived in Raleigh, North Carolina during the years of intensive growth in an area called Research Triangle Park, an area in Cary called Regeancy Park, and other smaller business park clusters. At that time I was heavily involved in real estate relocation with thousands and thousands of persons moving there due to the growth and relocation of companies like IBM, Cisco, MCI, World Com, IM Clone, and a whole host of startups. Also the businesses were varied - high tech, pharmaceuticals, biotech, and more. This did not happen because of a host of clustered athletic facilities. It happened because of LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION (you should know that slogan well OV OT). Venture capital was available there, 3 major universities were within reach along with a whole host of 'minor' ones; the professional AND staff pools were extensive. In Wake county, seat of Raleigh and Cary and Raleigh and Cary themselves, with the exception of soccer fields (no grand stands), utilized the schools' facilities for their other athletic programs. I find it a joke that, at a couple of Council meetings here, one of the arguments relative to NOT using the scholls' facilities was that they had no lighting for night 'play'. Gee whiz, doesn't anyone in Oro Valley know how to install lighting in existing facilities instead of building whole new facilities themselves? Interestingly, the number of children who lived in these North Carolina communities was far more vast in numbers than in this area. In addition, prior to moving to North Carolina, I lived in the South Bay Area of San Francisco, working as well as owning retail businesses in 'silicon valley', and, the same things that I have averred relative to the Raleigh area can also be said for the Silicon Valley area.
And now for another issue, and, please, I am not trying to denigrate anyone's political affiliations. It appears to me by his associations that Objective Thinker is a Republican, Conservative or whatever. Now, since he (and others) have made statements that this park is [for the children], I ask him/them, what about taxpayer funded universal health care? Do you support that? What about taxpayer funded 'government bailouts'? Do you support that? What about broad taxpayer funded welfare programs? Do you support that? OR, do you simply want to pick and choose your own socialistic niches? From the pockets of many for the wants of a few; what doctrine is that?
Yes, parks ARE a good thing as long as a park is a park and NOT a huge contiguous athletic facility. Yes, we've had the land for a long time and only an over-the-top, overly grandiose ego trip has prevented this parcel from being properly 'developed' and utilized.
The climate here is restrictive, too hot to be able to even remotely utilize the vastness of this proposal and, at night, the time when the proponents are all talking about it's usefullness, shouldn't the kids be home settling in with their families and doing their homework? This scheme is, in reality, NOT 'for the children', can't be and can't work. As I have stated before, each and EVERY time I have visited Riverfront Park, there has rarely been any kind of available facility there being used (except for the toddler area). OV OT has stated that on Saturdays it's 'busy' there; so a one day per week 'need'(?) shows that we need a reckless expenditure?
As a last declaration: the advocates are passing this off as [just a small per household expense]! In the past year my food expenses have gone UP, my property taxes have gone UP, my gasoline expenses have gone UP, my utility expenses have gone UP, my insurances have gone UP, my income (fixed) because of deductions has gone DOWN - so, last year my increased cost of living was about $3500 for two people! How come all of the special interests, utilities, etc. say "well, it's just a little bit"? Little bits here and little bits there add up to a whole lot. And then there is the financial mess this country is in...........!
VOTE NO ON THE PARK BOND/PROPERTY TAX!
Post a Comment