Thanks to the Az Star NW Regional Editor for allowing me to present the opposite point of view as it concerns the Naranja Park Bond Issue.
If you haven't seen the article in the Az Star NW section, please read it here.
Art
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/85737/263323
63 comments:
Yes, everyone--DO read the rebuttal that Art wrote. Then read the comments from the readers below the rebuttal.
As I have stated before, I do not believe that the park bonds will pass this time. The general economic picture does not lend itself to a "yes" vote. However, if younger families manage to get out and vote in higher numbers than usual, it's possible that it may pass by a slim margin.
Assuming, though, that it doesn't pass, what would readers of this blog have the Town do with the land? Come back with a more scaled-down bond package? Put the land up for sale? Leave it as a rustic park?
How will the Town's needs for recreation space be met in the future?
These are serious questions that deserve serious discussion. You can't be "anti" something unless you have a reasonable alternative to offer. So, what is it to be folks?
Perhaps if boobie-baby read what I wrote rather than being concerned with the responses, he/she would realize I offered a solution.
I won't bother repeating it, as my letter says what needed to be said with total clarity.
Those that actually read what I said will understand the rationale for VOTING "NO" On Naranja.
Art
Perhaps if Art would read his own writing, he'd realize that besides encouraging others to vote "No" he did not offer any other "solution" for the use of the property. Nor does Art speak for me or for anyone else.
My questions were for everyone who reads this blog. What are the alternatives for the property is the bond issue fails?
Correction: "if" the bond issue fails. (Last sentence).
Well---if boobie baby wants a continued dialog, that's fine. I'm even willing to repeat what I wrote in my Az Star article.
My last two sentences were:
"Allow the present council to come back with a more realistic proposal that we can all afford. Until then, vote "no" on the Naranja Bond."
My questions to the readers of this blog still stand. It's not too early to begin the discussion.
Another perfect example of the "Artmarth Philosophy"...I have no solution, but I am against it.
It's easy to pass the buck and say that others should come up with something. ART....What is YOUR suggestion??? What do YOU think should happen with the 213 acres?
For once, grace us with your specific proposal.
We could dig a deep pit at the park site.
All the folks who had property values, 401Ks, retirement plans etc, could visit the pit and cast their dreams into it.
Art....
I just had an opportunity to look at the link you posted for your unfounded comments about the park. Seems as though you are highly outnumbered.
LOVE!!!
As one of the commenters noted on the azstarnet link, it's a Sports Complex! My suggestion would be to make it a park. We don't need that many tennis/basketball courts or baseball fields. The cost will be much more reasonable. It's too much for too few residents to support.
Cox seems to think a couple inaccurate comments made in the Az Star are meaningful.
Well here's one of those comments, followed by my response.
4. Comment by paul d. (pauldunn)
I would also like to point out that mr segal states the economy to be the worst since 1932. He obviously does not pay attention to history, read the Economist or provide any support for this outlandish statement. His is off by about 40 years in an "emotional" application of fear. Support your facts, then make your statements please. The last Economist had a great article to this reference.
___________________________________
My response---
5. Comment by art s. (artmarth) "Paul Dunn also probably doesn't believe Robert Shiller whose credentials are well known. Don't believe me. Read what Mr. Shiller says."
Eight years ago, Yale superstar professor and MacroMarkets chief economist Robert Shiller famously called the top of the stock market in his book Irrational Exuberance. Then, a year before the housing bubble peaked, he predicted the colossal bust we are now experiencing.
Robert Shiller, an economist, keeps stock-market data going back to 1871. The only other 12-month periods worse than the current one all came in 1932.
In 2004, it was the worst economy since 1932. This year, it’s the worst economy in eighty years.
The fact remains, in today's economy, voting for a tax for a park with 42 fields & courts still makes NO SENSE!
Ok, Ok:
Instead of the GW Bush Pit of Pain, let us sell the land to a developer. What do we have 218AC?
Zone it for 100 homes plus a modest park paid for by the builders.
Additionally, we could give the builders a kick back on the fees if they agree to build a more robust park cum sports complex.
No tax - no pain.
Dear Readers--- You will note I deleted all comments that I feel do not belong on this blog. If anyone is offended by my actions, I am sorry.
This blog is here to discuss issues of concern to Oro Valley. For those that wish to discuss national politics, I suggest you find another forum.
This is my blog. This is my policy.This is my rule. Hopefully, the vast majority of reasonable people will understand.
Art...In my opinion, your actions are so childish. It's just like a two year old throwing a temper tantrum.
LOVE!!!
Well, I'm glad to see the silliness gone.
Now can we get back to the original question?
If the land is sold for residential development, the Town will never get it back for a park. Do we need more residences in Town?
If the park plans are scaled back, there will still be a need for infrastrture--electric, sewers, water, roads, etc. Would this community support, for example, a $25 million bond to put in the infrastructure?
Let's have a truly meaningful discussion here.
I'd like to be more objective but the way the Market Place was shoved down our throats, I'll have a hard time voting for a water fountain there!
What bothers me most about the whole park deal is that if the cost to maintain the park goes over a certain amount the town can then impose a property tax on us without our approval. This is something the town and those who support the Park are not pointing out.
The park as currently planned is over the top in terms of what we need and what we can afford.
We are not in favor of spending in excess for things that we want v things we need.;
Why spend the money for a luxury when the town eventually will need us to pay for necessities.
Mscoyote,
I think someone has been feeding you bad info. A PRIMARY property tax HAS to go to the voters for approval the first time a municipality imposes it. If the bond passes, it will be paid off with a SECONDARY property tax that can only be used to pay off the bond, it can't be used for operating the site. Once the bonds are paid, the secondary property tax goes away. If the Town wants to impose a primary property tax, that will be a whole separate vote. Essentially, the Town can't impose any property tax, primary or secondary, without holding an election, either for the bonds in the case of a secondary property tax, or the tax itself in the case of a primary property tax.
Cyclone,
Thanks for the correction. I knew that the voters had to approve a property tax, but for some reason I was hearing that if the cost of operating the park went over a certain amount ,the town could then impose a tax without voter approval
So a thump on the head to me!
Good thing I have a hard head :>
Ms. Coyote... No thump on the head for you. Chet Oldakowski, the 'voice of the NO folks' has printed flyers that state and spoken publicly that if the operating expenses are greater than the estimates then the Town would impose a property tax to cover the overage. IT IS A LIE. It was stated to misinform the public and try to scare folks into voting no. You probably heard correctly but the information given to you was patently false.
Boobie....
I do not want the property to be sold to anyone. Your point that this is the LAST place available for a good park in Oro Valley is valid.
Your second question is true "silliness". Why would folks pay "$25 million" for infrastructure? People cannot use infrastructure. Infrastructure doesn't relieve the need for more active recreation areas. Infrastructure doesn't generate income. Your suggestion is illogical.
Please explain how the Town will pay for the maintenance expense overrun?
I'm not trying to be a naysayer; I'm not trying to change minds here, but there are ALWAYS overruns - have you ever seen a project that, with a several year lead time, has come in on budget? 48M probably will not be enough from the onset, let alone upkeep and 1M a year.
AzVicki....
When you look at the economy today there is good news and bad news, depending on the task at hand. The Town has budgeted $48.6 million to do the work in Phase 1. I believe that was a very exaggerated. The Town historically over estimates expenses and under estimates revenue. Since the time of that estimate, the economy has tightened considerably. Therefore we have the benefit of construction companies who are begging for work and they will reflect that in their bidding for this project.
As for the ongoing operating costs I believe there is sufficient money available from the bed tax and user fees. Keep in mind that the park will not be completed until late 2010. I believe our economy will be heading upward by that time thus generating more bed tax revenue....and the addition of two new hotels will also be a benefit. We must also change our philosophy on user fees. We now set a goal of recovering %50 from users...and we don't meet that goal. I think we should raise that goal to a much higher level and hold the department head responsible for achieving that goal as part of their annual evaluation.
Hopefully you can now have a more optimistic view of this great project.
OV OT,
There's no silliness in suggesting that whatever public facility goes onto the site (smaller park, recreation fields, etc.) will require infrastructure. There are no roads, parking, no water, no sewer, no electric--nothing on the site that would allow it to be used for anything except what it is right now--a "rustic" park.
Silliness is suggesting that somehow we can use the land without the supportive infrastructure.
But, I'm not here to offer an opinion. I'm here to ask all the nay-sayers and yeah-sayers what we should do if the bond question fails. Do you still want some kind of recreational facility there?
Right now we're just sparring over details but it's my opinion that user fees will not work unless you have the market for it. Personally, I don't believe there is one. Holding the department head responsible doesn't make it happen either.
During the initial planning stages we were told that there would be grants and free money for such a "park". Where is that money? It never materialized. See where speculation got us.
Bed Tax and projecting two new hotels:
I'll point out that Hotels have decommitted to Oro Valley in the past, and in this economy, I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't happen again.
Using a similar model, Marana's Sports Park wasn't successful. As someone else pointed out, if Marana had built it, the taxpayers would still be throwing money at it.
I'm a true Republican and believe in getting government out of the way and letting free enterprise and entrepreneurs step up to the plate. We need to be fiscally responsible. My budget can't be based on "hopefully", or rosy projections of what the economy will be like in 2010.
I say again, a park is one thing but a sport COMPLEX is quite another.
I've said this on many previous posts but no one has ever commented on it. When Vestar was selling us their junk mall, they asserted that the sales tax dollars from the mall would "make the Naranja Town Park a reality."
Haven't heard a word about this since the mall was approved. So what's the deal?
Boobie-Baby,
What Thinker and I were discussing was not "silly." The posts were removed because the content did not apply to Oro Valley politics, but rather to national politics.
But to answer your question, what do I think should be done with the Naranja Town Site if the bond doesn't pass, I'm not paid to devise or research plans, so I leave that to others. As Art said, let the council (who is paid) come back with an alternative.
I'm sorry, VC, but your answer--in my opinion--is intellectually lazy. Letting the Council (the members of which are meagerly paid) come back with something only allows the bloggers to pick it apart again.
I believe that if you're going to comment and encourage people to defeat a plan that you have a responsibility to step forward with a reasonable alternative. Hundreds of people spent thousands of hours at a time when international finances were not what they are today, and they came up with a plan.
So, given today's circumstances, what would YOU suggest for the site if the bond issue fails? The citizens of the Town need to tell the Council what they want, not just what they don't want.
A recent history of Oro Valley.
1) Remember the names Dick Johnson, Bart Rochman & Warner Wolff?
In 2004,these three past OV Council Members voted to give Vestar $23.2 million of our future sales revenue.
Two months later, Johnson & Rochman were defeated in their re-election bid. The voters didn't get a chance to vote Wolff out, as he quit.
2) In 2008 Helen Dankwerth & Terry Parish voted for the $48.6 million expenditure for the Naranja Park.
A couple months later, they were voted out of office in their re-election bid.
So---- What's the moral of the story?
Easy! Vote against the best interests of the majority of the citizens, and your tenure representing us won't last long.
Vestar's $23.2 million subsidy that resulted in the likes of a Wal-Mart made as much sense as a $48.6 "sports complex" subsidized by a property tax to the residents of Oro Valley.
Let's not get stuck with "unintended consequences" once again.
Surely, if this taxpayer subsidized park is defeated, this present council will be smart enough to reconsider and offer the voters a more realistic alternative.
Once again, we've received an intellectually lazy response, trusting the Council to come up with a "more realistic alternative."
Now is YOUR chance. What alternatives do you have to offer? Just voting NO does not fit the definition of an alternative.
Do you want ballfields? How many? Do you want ramadas? How many? Do you want tennis courts? How many? Do you want a dog park? How large? Do you want a building for recreational activities? Do you understand that all of these choices have infrastrucutre, building and O/M costs associated with them? Of course you do. So, what's your choice?
Perhaps this thread has run out and it's time to start a new thread that poses these questions in anticipation of the vote.
BB-
If you've been reading my posts for the past year, you know that I'm anything but "intellectually lazy."
There is no law that says that if I'm against something that I have to offer an alternative. That's your rule, not mine.
And since you seem to know all of the background on this issue, why haven't you answered the question of what happened to OVM paying for this park? No one wants to talk about that.
Vestar's ads also said that the sales tax dollars from this mall would eliminate the need for a property tax or other taxes. Yet here we are discussing saddling our citizens with a new tax.
So where are all the OVM proponents now? Why aren't they discussing this issue (how OVM was supposed to pay for the Naranja Park) on this site? Some of them read this site and contribute to it regularly but they completely ignore discussing this aspect of the deal.
Is it selective memory? Are they embarrassed by their stupidity? Do they think if they ignore it that we'll forget what they said?
And before someone says that this thread is about the Naranja Town Site and not about Oro Valley Marketplace so can we please stop discussing OVM, my answer is "No!" OVM and NTS were joined at the hip during the Vestar "educational campaign." It was one of the selling features of OVM, therefore the two are connected.
Vestar's PR people joined them at the hip, not you. So, don't swallow their line of thinking and do some of your own. OVM is a done deal, whether we like it or not. The income will help the Town's operating budget, no doubt about it.
But the questions still remain: What should be done with the park site? I'm going to keep asking the question until someone takes the time to give it some serious thought and not respond with the same tired references to past discussion topics or issues that are no longer on the table. Crematorium anyone?
BB...Stop wasting your time. VC and Art are joined at the hip and both have the same malcontent attitude.
Trying to reason and logically discuss an issue with them is impossible.
As I have said before the predominate thinking is, "I have no alternative or positive input. I'm just against it."
Vote YES ON QUESTION 400.
This Park Is nothing but a "sports complex" with its multitude of fields & courts.
Let's agree that none of us have the intellect to decide what should be done with this old gravel pit.
Why not allow the astute "boobie-baby" answer his/her own question. Tell us "b-b"----what's your plan?
Maybe we can use that as a starting point.
As of now, the best solution is "VOTE NO" and take it from there!!!
I'm reminded of a song that Groucho Marx sang in one of the Marx Brothers' movies, "Whatever it is, I'm against it."
As long as Groucho, Chico, Harpo, Gummo and Zeppo keep refusing to answer the question on this blog, we'll just have to sit around watching re-runs of "Monkey Business"--a helluva lot more entertaining!
I personally don't trust the board to come up with an alternate plan. They're the reason we're having this discussion!
My husband and I went to most of the early planning meetings. Every group and agency, regardless how small and specialized or large and organized, were encouraged to submit and present their "desires" to the Park Planning Committee. The sky was the limit. The board had illusions of grandeur and the planning committee had their instructions to build a Crown Jewel.
My suggestion:
A nice park with a few fields and a few courts will do nicely. Add onto it as it's affordable and necessary. However, I've noticed that the Townsite gets a lot of visitors as a rustic park.
A couple of questions for those of you in the know:
I've lost track, how many million has already been spent on the OV Townsite?
I've noticed that Objective Thinker refers to this as Phase I . Is Phase II the State of the Art wave pool, GOVAC's dream Fine-Arts Auditorium, or both?
The camel's nose under the tent. Tax and Spend, is that how this Council want's to be remembered?
BB-
"Vestar's PR people joined them at the hip, not you."
That's exactly what I said, so what's your point?
"So, don't swallow their line of thinking and do some of your own."
I AM thinking. That's why I keep asking the question why isn't OVM paying for this park since that's what we were promised.
"OVM is a done deal, whether we like it or not."
Yes, but the deal we made and the deal we received are two different things.
"What should be done with the park site? I'm going to keep asking the question until someone takes the time to give it some serious thought..."
Same here. I'm going to keep asking the people who promoted OVM and all the "deals" that went along with it why they are mute on this topic now?
If they won't discuss why OVM was supposed to pay for this park but now that's off the table for some reason, then I won't spend my time coming up with alternatives.
I didn't create this mess and I'm not going to fix it. The people who insist that they're always right, but who turned out to be wrong, should fix it. It's their mess.
They said it would be upscale. We got Wal-Mart. They said OVM would pay for the Naranja Park. Apparently, it won't. They've lost all credibility at this point.
VC...You have now progressed into nonsense. OVM has NEVER said that they would pay for Naranja Park. Stop lying!!!!!
The reason you won't come up with any ideas is that you have none. And BB is right when he says that your response is lazy.
You are pissed off about OVM and you just can't get over that hurdle. The voters of Oro Valley said yes. Accept the voice of the voters.
THOSE ARE THE FACTS!!!
Well Vestar lied to us and got away with it
Vestar did indeed say that tax revenue would help pay for parks they just never mentioned what parks
About any of our suggestions, why would it matter what we think?
Does it ever?
Changing my sign on name to
MsCynic:>
How much did the town pay for that property, I can't recall
Maybe wait for the economy to pick up and sell part of the property for luxury homes like the one's near the park and leave some of the property for a few ball fields
Maybe a corporation would like the property for a training type center or conference center
Maybe and just maybe we could partner with the county for some type of park. Please don't insult me, just an idea or thought;.
We pay taxes to the county anyway and that does cover some recreational activities, etc;.
Cox--- You call anyone here a liar again on this blog, and your damn comments will be removed.
How many times do you have to be
warned before you understand the rules.
Don't bother answering. Just start acting like a normal person.
If you can't--you are not welcome here.
Art....
I will state fact. If that means that I must state that an individual is posting false information, so be it.
Of course you don't want me to answer because sometime the truth hurts!!
Cox--- How convenient that you don't recall Vestar claiming their Marketplace would generate so much revenue for OV (it was to be $62 million as I recall)that it would negate the necessity of a property tax.
Now, your mayor and that council, 2/3 of whom were voted out of office, tell us we need a property tax to subsidize this "sports complex."
If you want to talk about falsehoods, you and your friend David Malin of Vestar lead the pack!
Art, Don, everyone else--settle down.
Don is right--there were no promises made by Vestar that the income from the shopping center would somehow pay for the Naranja Town Site. However, sales tax income in any form goes to support the Town's general fund which, in turn, would be used to operate and maintain any public facility.
At least AZ Vicki made some suggestions. Now, what about the roads to access those courts; what about the water to maintain those fields; how about electricity so that the fields can be used in the evening? All of these things cost money--money that would have to be fronted before any facilities could be installed.
So, maybe we should try working backwards. What would each of you be willing to pay in a secondary property tax--per year--to build out the park. $100? If so, that might generate about $2.3million per year--about enough to start putting in infrastructure. But, at that rate--and with inflation, etc.--you can see that it would take over 20 years just to finish the first phase. So, how about $200 per year? $300?
In other words, figure out what you can afford and then see what it will buy. But, before you buy, you have to have a plan with priorities and a strategy to reach build-out.
How is it that Lambert was built without a property tax?
Vicki....
I don't know which Lambert Park you are referring to.
If It is West Lambert Lane Park then it is undeveloped with only a trail and some parking space. If you are talking about Riverfront Park it is only 30 acres of which 10 acres are natural desert.
There is only going to be 24.8 acres of sports facilities in the proposed Naranja Park out of 213 acres. That's why I disagree with the term "sports complex".
If Loomis and some of his cronies had their way, this Boondoggle would have included an aquatic center, a theater complex and who knows what else that we can't afford. As it is---this $48.6 million expenditure(without counting the interest that will make that amount look inexpensive)will be almost exclusively a "Sports Complex."
Cox can call it whatever he wishes. The fact remains this thing which includes 42 courts & fields will serve such a small minority of the citizens, predominately, the kids.
Boobie can keep asking what we're all willing to spend, and what we suggest.
To be perfectly clear, let's get through Phase 1----which means voting "No" on this Boondoggle.
Then,those that wish can make whatever suggestions they want. The fact is, the council will be the entity that decides what happens next.
Vestar's ads said that the sales tax dollars generated from OVM "would make the Naranja Town Park a reality."
They also said OVM revenue would help avoid "a property tax or other taxes."
So, Thinker and Boobie baby, you are both wrong on this issue. And Art and I are right. Gee, that must be killing you.
Let me try this again...
azviki-
I believe Riverfront Park (Lambert) was built, in part with 1997 Pima County bond funds, so there was a property tax imposed, it was just done so by the County.
To others -
As for Vestar paying for the Townsite, I think it's all about perception. I wasn't in Town as the time, but given what I am hearing was said,I can only come to a couple of conclusions. Vestar saying the OVM would make Naranja a reality is not the same as saying Vestar will pay for it. To me, that reads as tax income from OVM would help fund the cost of the park. Likewise with the promise of no primary property tax, sales tax income would help delay the need for a property tax - and I have always wondered, why in a million years would anyone believe Vestar had any control over whether the Town imposed a property tax.
Cyclone 1--I agree with your memory and perceptions. Having a large, revenue-generating commercial center would bring increased cash-flow to the Town.
But, a center with empty stores and a portion of the population dedicated to avoiding the center by intentionally shopping elsewhere doesn't help anyone and certainly doesn't contribute to the building and operation of any park, let alone fund roads, police or library operations.
VC....So where did Vestar say that OVM would pay for the park. I am still waiting for your verification of that little 'story'. Your statement was patently false.
There was never any statement made regarding secondary property taxes. I think if you check with the ad agency you will find that the statement made was referring to a primary property tax. And the truth of the matter is that OVM will delay or permanently eliminate the need for a primary property tax. Your interpretation of what was said is simply your spin on the statement and has nothing to do with reality.
Art....24.8 acres in a 213 acre park (11.6%)isn't a sports complex. Using your definition both Riverfront and JDK parks are a mega "sports complex" because they have a much higher percentage of sports use acreage.
Can I get clarification that Riverfront Park was indeed funded by a county bond?
OVOT,
What percentage of the 24 acres are fields? Being totally fed up with the "Over the Top" plans, I was not at the last informational/open house, but it was my understanding that since they've removed the Aquatic area and the Fine Arts Building, the "park" was primarily fields/courts and parking. I'm sure someone will let me know if I'm wrong.
Thus the term, "Sports Complex" seems reasonable.
I checked the Pima County bond site and Riverfront was built with bond funds and Town funds. $1,250,000 from Pima County Bonds and $400,000 from Town funds. The construction began in 1998, not sure when it finished. Here is a link to the IGA:
http://www.pima.gov/contracts/125212-00.pdf
Page 45 of the following report states that the park was competed in 2000 and the Town paid $1,245,800 of the construction and the bonds paid $1,254,200.
http://www.bonds.pima.gov/PDF/comproj.pdf
Call it what you wish, but as 'Az Vicki' notes, "A Sports Complex seems reasonable." Put a tuxedo on a pig and it's still a pig!!!
It seems the dogs are getting a better deal than the senior citizens. At least they'll have a place to romp around!
The following is from the Oro Valley Official Web Site.
What is included in the current phase proposed in the bond election
* 12 Tennis courts
* 9 Basketball courts
* 3 Soccer fields
* 4 Baseball fields
* 4 Softball fields
* 5 Sand volleyball courts
* 4 Tetherball courts
* Multi-purpose field
* Playgrounds
* Skate park
* Bicycle (BMX) track
* Dog park
* Festival area
* Picnic ramadas
* Large group ramadas
* Horseshoe pits
* Sidewalks, paved paths and hiking trails
* Restrooms
* Concession buildings
* Park furniture, such as drinking fountains, picnic tables, grills, benches, bicycle racks and bleachers
* Earthwork and infrastructure
* Offsite access road improvements
* Naranja Road and Tangerine Road entrance/exit
* Improvements at both access points
* Landscaping and signage
* Maintenance area
* Parking
Post a Comment