Has anyone other than I noticed a trend with ex council members. Not all, just some.
Dick Johnson sought reelection in 2004 was soundly defeated. Unfortunately, it was a little too late in that within two months of the election, Johnson lead the charge and voted to approve three EDA's. The most egregious was the $23.2 million to Vestar.
But Johnson, as a citizen still thought he knew what was best for Oro Valley, and on a number of occasions, returned to "lecture" the council on what he perceived to be good ideas. Among them, was his "latte" speeches. That's where he insisted we should approve the bond issue for Naranja Park, for the price of a latte. Obviously, 58% of the voters said "no" to Johnson, his latte proposal and the bond.
More recently, Conny Culver who finished dead last in her reelection bid in 2006 saw fit to rip Paula Abbott who was reelected in the same election.
And now, we have Terry Parish. It's kind of ironic that Terry's old seat on the council is figuratively and literally occupied by Bill Garner. Parish couldn't get reelected in his bid in 2008. Bill, along with Salette Latas were elected in the March '08 primary---the first time anyone was elected in the primary.
Who does Parish find fault with? None other than Bill Garner, who many consider "a breath of fresh air." To say Parish is hypercritical would be an understatement. The electorate is smarter than Parish. They don't buy what he is trying to sell.
We see a common thread with with these three individuals. Does anyone else?
15 comments:
Art
So much for wanting a discussion. Seems more like you only want to hear the voices that have no town experience and then onnly if they agree with you.
I'm disappointed thought you were beter than this smear campaign your running now. Maybe you're just angry and will get over it. Maybe not but I sure thought you were a better man than this.
Thanks for the comment. Is there ANYTHING in this post that is not truthful?
Terry---you should not be the one talking about a "smear campaign," with your unwarranted attack on Bill Garner.
You & I haven't agreed on too much before your election, during your tenure on the council and most recently. However, if you check the postings, I welcomed you back as a blogger, especially with your law enforcement background, as I thought you'd be able to add something to the community.
Sadly, all you added was telling us about the drug cartel and how rotten Mr. Garner is. That's too bad.
First, Art, you left out Helen Dankwerth who, shortly after the 'new' Council was seated, got up before them and gave said Council a stern lecture on her interpretation relative to what was expected of them.
Now, PERSONALLY, I have no axe to grind with any of these now just-ordinary-citizens making comments to Council; as a matter of fact I was at a 'Council On The Corner' gathering and both Johnson and Dankwerth gave some reasonable input into the subject matter at hand.
Now, the difference with Culver and Parish is that they have elected to vilify current sitting members on our duly elected representatives; whereas Culver 'took on' one person in an elitist blast, Parish has tried to smother information, some of which was (is) meticulously presented, in a manner in which he seems to proclaim "our 'Police', right or wrong". And, in so doing, Parish accuses one of our Councilmembers as being a liar.
In this stream Officer Parish makes a statement that "you only want to hear voices that have no experiences". How non-substantive that statement is. Both Councilmember Garner and Councilmember Latas have put in an incredible amount of time researching, researching, and researching. For Parish to use the
'no-experience' ploy is ludicrous; I will take someone who can think, who can absorb, and who is willing to progress with 'continuing education', way over and above someone who simply stands there, has a position, and will not only use every trick in the book to advance it, but doesn't even have the clarity of mind to deliver said position in a responsible, deliberate, and dispassionate manner.
I think the most hideous use of
deflecting and diverting the reality of all of this by Parish is when he refers to Councilmember Garner as being a liar. This was not only extremely tacky but showed us the true character of the accuser, above and beyond his attacks and/or counterattacks on the subject matter as presented, right or wrong, by various persons who seriously want answers. Mr. Parish himself might not be a 'liar', but because of his inability to put things in a proper perspective he becomes contradictory and irrational and thus many of his conclusions do become untruths.
This is exactly the style of postings that keep citizens away from this blog.
If you have all the answers Art, put yourself out there to have every decision you make examined! How would you like it when your character was smeared over a difference of opinion?
Art, you clearly have an ax to grind with Parish, Dankwerth, Johnson and Culver. Again, I'm requesting you explain exactly what actions they took while on council that would in any way justify your ongoing personal attacks.
Art, may I remind you it was Culver that defeated Johnson in 2004? You supported Culver and Dankwerth in that election.
In 2006 33.8% of OV's registered voters bothered to vote. That is approximately 7,900 voters. In that election 3,427 voted for Cox, another one of your favorite targets 2,751 of them voted for Culver. I would say a lot of citizens liked what Culver did in office and Cox came damn close to winning too. When you disrespect them you are also insulting those residents who voted for them.
Zev, I appreciate your explanations regarding the individuals you discuss. Sometimes you go so far as to say positive things about them and you likely didn't support them in the last few elections.
I don't always agree with you, but I have come to respect your opinions and the civil manner in which you generally post them.
Deacon,
I won't speak for Art, but the reason I didn't like Parish, Dankwerth, Johnson and Culver was because they never stood up to developers unless the development was going to take place within view of their own homes.
You said that when Art disrespects them, he is also disrespecting those who voted for them. Well, I voted for Culver and Dankwerth and I don't feel the least bit offended by the comments that Art or anyone else makes about them. I agree with the comments. They did not turn out to be what they promoted themselves as being.
You said, "I would say a lot of citizens liked what Culver did." If that's true, why did she come in LAST place when she ran for re-election?
In the May 2008 run-off between Gillaspie and Parish, Gillaspie got 63% of the vote to Parish's 37%. I believe that's called a landslide victory.
As you said, in 2006, 3,427 voted for Cox and 2,751 voted for Culver. This was 33.8% of OV's registered voters.
Yet, in the 2008 primary election, 5,340 voted for Garner and 5,704 voted for Latas. This was 32.6% of OV's registered voters.
While the PERCENTAGE of voters only differed by 1.2%, the individual tally for Latas and Garner was much higher.
So I don't think Art's (or anyone else's) negative impressions of Culver, et al. are false impressions or the impressions of just a chosen few. As I said, I voted for Dankwerth and Culver and was quickly disappointed.
VC,
I didn't see Dankwerth and Culver giving millions to developers like Johnson did. They do not deserve that kind of criticism.
I have served on citizen committees and on a town board. If you have the opportunity to do that I encourage you. The hard cold facts of the law will come as a shock.
The votes on developments in Oro Valley by Dankwerth and Culver followed the law. I observed Dankwerth, Culver and Gillaspie negotiate with development to bring a higher standard to Oro Valley. Carter doesn't say no.
Abbott simply sits in the corner and votes no and denies the landowner, typically the developer, their land rights bestowed by the State of Arizona.
Deacon--- I hope our readers get to see your last comment and my response.
You write:
"The votes on developments in Oro Valley by Dankwerth and Culver followed the law."
I'm sorry to tell you it didn't take more than their first meeting in June 2004 to screw up. Not heeding the advice of the Town attorney---who, interesting enough, was later forced out by your two friends---they voted to put a halt to the Beztek development at the se corner of Lambert & La Canada.
Don't believe me. Check the record. And while you're at it, check the fact that a subsequent law suit filed against OV and naming Culver & Parish as defendants was settled behind closed doors, at a substantial cost to OV taxpayers.
So much for your knowledge on this subject!
Art, you say certain Council Members didn't stand up to developers and that is why you dislike them. When they did deny a developer, you clearly have a problem with that too.
As has become your habit-only part of the facts and VERY selective recall.
I was on a town board at the time and followed the issue closely. I think the vote was 5-2. If memory serves me correctly, the Mayor and Carter were dissenting.
The Beztek Corporation was in violation of several ordinances at the time. They corrected the violations and were issued their permits.
VC,
Yes, Salette and Bill were elected in the primary. I have been pleased with their performance so far.
I would be interested in why Dankwerth, Parish and Culver disappointed you.
Having recently arrived at this blog I haven't been able to get an answer to that.
My issue is the distortion Art posts whenever his opinion is challenged.
.
In the 2006 primary Cox (4877) and Culver (3902) and again in the general election, the number of votes separating all the candidates never constituted a landslide. In the general it was Cox with 3427 and Abbott with 3430. I think Abbott lost more votes between the primary (5669) and the general election than any other candidate.
Art's constant prosecution of individuals. For example, when it comes to Culver he always fails to point out her husband was diagnosed with a degenerative brain disease at that time and she chose not to campaign. Family came first. Culver had made it clear she would work from home and be in Town Hall only for meetings. Tough to win an election if you aren't on the campaign trail.
Cox too has had his share of serious health issues.
These facts were common knowledge and Art would compliment anyone he liked for being willing to serve the community in spite of the adversity they faced.
It is the bias and personal vendettas I find troublesome with Art.
Deacon,
Regarding the Miller Ranch, Abbott didn't deny the developer his land rights when she stood up for the citizens when the developer tried to get a second continuance in regards to rezoning the wash.
Citizens showed up to speak at the first meeting but the developer postponed it. Citizens showed up again to speak at the next meeting. Again the developer asked for a continuance.
Abbott defended those citizens by stating that it wasn't fair to grant the developer yet another continuance when this is the SECOND time the citizens have shown up to speak. She protected the citizens without denying the developer any of his legal rights.
The citizens WERE allowed to speak at that meeting. It's the developers own fault that he wasn't there to explain or defend his actions.
You can stand up to developers without denying them their land rights or their legal rights. Past council members didn't even have the inner strength to do that much.
Deacon,
You asked, "I would be interested in why Dankwerth, Parish and Culver disappointed you."
CULVER: She appeared to be someone who was against the over-development of OV. I expected her to take a tough stance with developers. She never did. She also made false accusations against Richy Feinberg who just happens to be one of the nicest and most honest people you will ever meet. She also will not admit when she is wrong. She accused OV1st of sending her an e-mail that they never sent her. When it was later proven that someone else who DID receive the e-mail had simply forwarded it to her, she refused to retract her original statement and said that she "stood by it." How can you stand by a statement that is false? Not much integrity there.
PARISH: Way too developer-friendly. No great vision for Oro Valley in that he believed a Wal-Mart and a Best Buy were the right fit for this community. Worships at the altar of Vestar, a company that pulled the biggest bait and switch in the history of Oro Valley. Also created issues with Richy Feinberg where non existed.
DANKWERTH: Poor Helen. I've made this comment on this site so many times, I'm sure she's sick of seeing it. I'm actually sick of having to repeat it over and over. But here goes...when running for office she said she wanted to "attract unique image-enhancing commercial entities" to Oro Valley. THAT's why I voted for her. And then she rolled over and played dead for Vestar and Wal-Mart, etc. But at re-election time, she was suddenly anti-Wal-Mart again. At council meetings, I also thought she was often very rude to the other council members when she couldn't get them to agree with her way of thinking. I prefer a more civil approach to getting things done.
I could give many more examples of my dissatisfaction with these council members but I've already gone over this many times in the past and unless they decide to run again, I consider this to be "old news" and no longer relevant.
VC,
Thank you for your explanation.
Regarding Vestar I can tell you from personal experience there is not a way to stop WalMart from opening in any commercial area. Council members do not have to power to prevent owners of buildings, Vestar, from renting to anyone they want.
Have you ever talked with Culver, Parish and Dankwerth about the issues that have bothered you? There may be more to the story that what you read.
I know two of them very well and think there is a lot more to the story than you may know. All of my experience showed Culver is fair minded and and a straight shooter. Ask her a question and she will respond openly and honestly.
Parish seems a little hard headed but honest. When you talk things over with him he explains where he's coming from and why.
Dankwerth I don't know that well. I only talked to her a few times.
Deacon,
Some other towns HAVE stopped Wal-Mart by passing a big box ordinance. I remember Kunisch saying that we shouldn't do that because it would also prevent a Dillard's from opening here. I argued that Wal-Mart is a big box store and Dillards is a department store. There is a difference.
I did send letters to Dankwerth and Parish about the Wal-Mart issue. They did not respond. I never contacted Culver. Can't remember why.
Although Parish and I have different political philosophies, I did like that he told you what he felt, not what you wanted to hear just so you would vote for him.
I also admit that there are probably many factors of which I'm not aware that caused council members to do certain things or NOT do certain things. But that's why they should respond to the letters we send them. It's their opportunity to explain their actions. When they don't respond, I just assume that they have no defense for their lack of action.
VC,
Thanks for your reply.
The big box problem is based on square footage. That's why department stores would be stopped too. So I'm pretty sure Kunisch is correct.
I hope you continue to keep an open mind and look into the some of the accusations I see on this blog. Go to the source-the person accused and
ask them directly.
If more of us ask questions maybe this blog will be a place real solutions can take place.
Post a Comment