Hopefully, they will concur with Paul's concerns and not "rush to judgment" on the Arroyo Grande parcel to our north.
Art
**************************************************************************************
Re: 9000 acres of state trust land north of Oro Valley now known as "Arroyo Grande".
I have fought for 10 years to keep that land from being developed.I believe Pima county would be better able to protect the land from development then OV. I believe that the Sonoran Desert Conservation group and the Nature Conservancy, if given a little more time, will be able to acquire the land . I think nothing should be done.
1, This land should be preserved as it is.
2. More people do not give quality of life for the residents of OV.
3. Water is and will be a major problem with further development.
4. The cost of developing that land will run into millions for the necessary infrastructure.
5. Can we think of more traffic, when it is bad enough now.
6. We must protect the sensitive environment.
Thanks for your consideration. Paul E. Sobel
6 comments:
Art,
Since you posted Mr. Sobel's e-mail to me, I thought you might be interested in my response. Here it is.
Dear Paul,
Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns about Arroyo Grande.
I'm curious. On what do you base your belief that Pima County would be better able to protect the land from development than Oro Valley? Having had contact with both jurisdictions, I can tell you that I don't share that belief. The majority of the Pima County Board of Supervisors have accepted a large percentage of their campaign contributions from developers. The majority of Oro Valley Town Council members have not accepted any campaign contributions from developers.
In our first few months in office, the current council has adopted the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, eliminated the planned La Cholla road extension through the Tortolita Mountains, and raised impact fees so that new development would not have a negative financial impact on current residents. Pima County's impact fees are now much lower than Oro Valley's. The State Land Department and developers are well aware of that fact, and would be happy to take advantage of it to build more homes, more quickly, and at a greater profit if Arroyo Grande were controlled by the County instead of Oro Valley. The State Land Department has let us know that they have never made the kind of environmental concessions for anyone that they have made for Oro Valley, so Pima County has apparently never asked them to make any of these concessions. [Note: I confirmed this at tonight's study session: Pima County has never asked for the kind of environmental concessions from the State Land Department that Oro Valley is asking for.]
You may know that I was unanimously elected by my peers to join Councilmember Gillaspie on the Arroyo Grande negotiating team. We have been working very hard to protect wildlife linkages, riparian areas, and other natural and cultural resources in this area. It hasn't been easy. The Arizona State Land Department believes that it has a constitutional mandate to sell State Trust Land for "the highest and best use," and to them, that means obtaining the highest density zoning possible, and then selling it to the highest bidder, namely commercial real estate developers and high-density residential developers. They have no concept of selling land to the County, or anyone else, for conservation purposes.
You may be correct that a conservation group may be able to acquire the land, if given enough time. The problem is that without Oro Valley in the process, we have no control over that timeline, and the State Land Department is likely to continue their efforts to sell the land to the highest bidder at commercial value, not conservation value. How much is commercial value? Well, an undeveloped commercial property in northern Oro Valley just went on the market for over a half-million dollars per acre. I don't have a lot of confidence that the Nature Conservancy is able to spend that kind of money to acquire property along Oracle Road.
As to your specific points:
1. This land should be preserved as it is.
I agree. We all agree. Unfortunately, the Arizona State Land Department claims that the land is theirs, and they are determined to sell it to the highest bidder.
2. More people do not give quality of life for the residents of OV.
I agree. Unfortunately, whether the area is incorporated into Oro Valley or not, the houses will be built, and the people will come.
3. Water is and will be a major problem with further development.
I agree. That's why Councilmember Gillaspie and I, along with Water Utility Director Phil Saletta, are working so hard to institute policies that will ensure that Oro Valley's water resources are protected from unwarranted growth. If Arroyo Grande is not annexed by Oro Valley, the growth will happen anyway. The developers can create their own water company and drill wells into "our" aquifer and mine "our" water without any approval from us.
4. The cost of developing that land will run into millions for the necessary infrastructure.
I agree. That's why we voted to increase impact fees for new development to cover the costs of the necessary infrastructure.
5. Can we think of more traffic, when it is bad enough now.
I agree. That's why Councilmember Gillaspie and I, along with Town Engineer Craig Civalier, are working so hard to institute policies that will ensure that developers incorporate walkable communities and public transportation, and complete traffic studies to ensure that the traffic in the remainder of Oro Valley is not degraded. We're also working to ensure a balance of jobs with homes so that people don't have to use Oracle to commute to work. If Arroyo Grande is not annexed by Oro Valley, the growth will happen anyway, but without the restrictions that we're working to implement.
6. We must protect the sensitive environment.
I totally agree. I have been a life-long environmentalist, but I saw a black bear crossing Rancho Vistoso Boulevard in 2001, and it renewed my committment to protecting this particular environment that we have chosen to share with that bear.
Paul, I hope that you'll attend tonight's study session on the General Plan amendments, as well as our council meeting on November 19th, when we'll vote on the amendments. You can find the council packets here, so you'll have all the information that we have:
http://www.orovalleyaz.gov/TownClerk/MinutesAndAgendasTC.asp
Thanks again for taking the time to express your concerns. I do admire your dedication to our community and to our planet.
With best wishes,
Salette Latas
Councilmember
Town of Oro Valley
11000 N. La Cañada Drive
Oro Valley, Arizona 85737
Phone: (520) 229-4992
Fax: (520) 297-0428
slatas@orovalleyaz.gov
http://www.orovalleyaz.gov/TownOfficials/COUNCIL/slatas.htm
Salette----Thanks for tasking the time to respond to Mr. Sobel, and thanks for sharing your insightful response with us.
Art
Ms. Latas:
Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed response to a resident's concerns. I'm with you 100% on the status of Arroyo Grande. Whether we like the idea of further development or not, it IS going to occur. Our best bet as a town is to have jurisdictional control over the property, with land use policies in place to ensure future development is congruent with the town's desires and priorities.
Dan
I'm happy that the council adopted the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan but am wondering what is the status of adopting the Environmentally Sensitive Land Ordinance? Last I knew, the council had been debating this issue for about 10 years.
Cowgirl,
The Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance is in progress. As you might know, the previous Council approved hiring a consultant to complete the ordinance, and the current Council approved the budget that included funding for same. The ESLO will apply to all of Oro Valley.
Thanks for your interest!
Salette Latas
Salette, Art, Dan, et al.....
My entire push has been toward the annexation of the Arroyo Grande land into Oro Valley. And I have continuously stated that Oro Valley, NOT PIMA COUNTY, will be the better steward.
While I disagree with some of the comments posted, we must annex this land in order to have control over it. That is truly the bottom line of the issue before us at this time and to that end, I hope that everyone supports Salette's position on the annexation.
If annexed, we decide. Without annexation, others will decide. Which do you prefer?
Post a Comment