As reported in The Az Star, the Oro Valley Council will consider relaxing the sign code to ease the burden on the town's businesses.
That could mean illuminated signs on later at night & earlier in the morning. That also could mean "A" frame signs in front of every business.
Is this a good idea?
It depends who you ask. Most businesses will welcome the change. I suspect, most citizens will think it's just another step closer to being part of Tucson----not what many came here for.
Click here to read the Arizona Daily Star article.
....
84 comments:
They will relax our sign code if they are NAIVE enough to believe the lies that are told to them by business owners whose REAL reason for wanting their signs lit 24 hours is simply because they paid for the signs and they want to use them.
This fact was verbalized numerous times by business owners during a council meeting some months back. Their main reason for wanting their signs lit was because they had paid a lot of money for the signs.
One business owner told the media that she was losing money in this bad economy and needed her sign lit 24 hours to help with advertising.
A few weeks later, I was in her place of business and I nonchalantly asked her if her business was suffering at all in this economy. She said that she had not been affected at all by it and was still doing very well!
Funny, that's not what she told the media!
Cowgirl:
Your use of anecdotal evidence to support your world view is fascinating. Your logic is flawless: A dog barked at me, maybe even two dogs barked at me, hence all dogs bark at me. It's almost as good as OVDad, proud part of your 'Old Boys Club', saying: Victorian Cowgirl's logic is flawed, she is a woman, hence all women's logic is flawed. Since I only dislike your opinion though and think that women are generally as competent as men (I was a strong supporter of Mrs. Snider, by the way), I know I cannot make that argument. And as far as I am aware, there is lots of scientific evidence that these signs do draw customers.
Now that your opinion is refuted, I want to make it clear that your argument is besides the point anyways. This council was voted in because the majority of Oro Valley residents wanted a change of tone vis-a-vis the business community. Another campaign promise kept? I couldn't be happier.
VC and OVDAD:
As a Citizen Member of the Sign Code Task Force, I believe that, so far, both of you might be a bit 'out of touch' in this matter. VC, the overwhelming majority of the SCTF voted down a 24/7 allowance for lighted signs; we did vote for a blanket turn-off time (exceptions for open restaurants, theaters, or any other business whose hours run past the recommended time out)in lieu of the current 'one hour after closing' code stipulation. The reasoning behind such a vote was basically twofold: allowing for a bit more exposure, recognition, and identification for business establishments as well as the ability to enforce such code in a more effective manner than can be effected by a myriad of 'off' times. OVDAD, that the candidates elected were voted in to the new Council simply because of their certain expressions towards the business community in no way is an indicator that these persons have an 'anything goes' mentality nor does it mean that the Community itself, overall, wanted to allow for such and thus voted for them in order to get it.
A Community must have a healthy symbiotic relationship with all of it's sectors and I think that MOST would agree that such is the ONLY path for achieving and/or retaining itself as a "community of excellence".
Please note that, although I am on the Task Force, I do not speak in an official capacity for it. Relative to this subject and the SCTF there have been, aside from the 'Force' itself, two separate focus groups giving feedback on our points of discussion as well a separate opinion poll conducted with several hundred participants from virtually all sectors of the community.
OV Dad,
You said, "Your use of anecdotal evidence to support your world view is fascinating."
Before I engage you any further on this topic, please give me your definition of anecdotal evidence.
Also, your support of the business community is oddly strong for someone who doesn't even own an Oro Valley business. Or do you?
Zev,
You said, "the SCTF voted down a 24/7 allowance for lighted signs..." My understanding is that the SCTF made that recommendation (and the others you mentioned) to the council but that the council still has the final say in the matter. Is that correct or is this where I'm "out of touch" with what's going on with this issue?
I missed the sign code open house last week so admittedly I'm not completely up to speed on what's happening.
VC, you are right in that the Council will have the final say in this matter. Given the OVERWHELMING
objections to a 24/7 lit sign capability, I doubt that Council will pursue it to such end. Yes, the NPCCC most probably will push for it however there is a difference between a semi (or not so semi) REGIONAL Northern Pima County vs. the consideration of a LOCAL Town of Oro Valley. Given the fact that the Task Force will present a perceived reasonable 'compromise' I doubt that Council will chance 'teasing the bull'.
Zev,
I have absolutely no issue with your post. If I gave the impression that either the citizens of Oro Valley or the newly elected council members have an "anything goes" mentality, I did not intend to do so. In fact, I strongly believe that the majority of our town is in favor of relaxing the sign code (not abandoning it). That's what the newly elected members stand for in my opinion.
Victorian Cowgirl,
Let me explain 'anecdotal evidence to support your world view'. On this blog you have repeatedly used something that you claim has happened to you or someone you know as evidence for something much larger. For example, look at your first post on this blog entry.
That you are very prone to stereotyping is evident in your suggestion that due to my support of the business community I might be a business owner. For your information, I am not. I simply do not believe that not allowing In-N-Out to plant palm trees (from my understanding, this almost kept them out of OV) is helpful to the future of our town.
OVDdad, it appears that we do have a similar perception of the 'task' at hand as well as the Council that will move forward with it. Just one small clarification however; the immediate issue of allowing deviation from the current sign code can be termed as a 'relaxation'; the recommended changes that will be presented in September should be considered as a probable 'update' requiring
an actual change in codification.
As to the anecdotal 'evidence' that we are subjected to, I agree that much of it is weak. I can also state (with some authority) that some businesses who play the blame game actually shoot themselves in their feet by not recognizing how to perform within the business to which they aspire. Sign exposure is only one very small facet of a potential for improvement; the rest hangs on the shoulders of the business owner to see his business practices as they truly are.
OK, as a business owner (but not in OV) and as someone intimately familiar with codes, let me add this:
Successful business is based on a whole range of skills; when the economy is bad, it's easy for the business owner to blame someone else. Many businesses--in a downturn--actually reduce their marketing budgets. In fact, that's just the time when marketing (and a smart PR campaign)
can pay off.
Many on this blog have said that there are other elements that draw them to a business--not the existence of a lighted or non-lighted or sandwich board or rotating signs. My business has NO signage whatsoever and yet still grosses nearly $1 million per year. (Yup--retail with walk-in clients, too). Pay attention to who objects to strict sign restrictions. My guess is that it will be marginal or unsuccessful business operators. Businesses that are succeeding won't turn out on this issue.
Naturally, the NPCCC will oppose sign codes. That's what their members want, and they're entitled to have their say.
It appears, though, that appropriate compromises will come out of this process, and that OV will continue to maintain its low impact signage policies.
In the mean time, businesses need to take a look at themselves and strategically select other methods to communicate their location and services out to the public.
OV Dad,
The impression I'm getting from you is that your definition of anecdotal evidence means that you simply don't believe anything that I say. If you weren't there to witness it yourself, then it's merely a "claim" or “anecdotal” and not a fact.
On the other hand, "Roger" can state that Zinkin tried to get all the same endorsements as Hiremath did, but when pressed for proof of his claim, he submits nothing, yet you and Jay D never called his claim, "anecdotal evidence." In fact, you never said a word.
You claim that my first post on this entry is anecdotal and that it's an opinion and not fact. You said, "Now that your opinion is refuted..."
How can it be anecdotal or just an opinion when all one has to do is watch the council meeting to which I refer to hear all the business owners argue that they paid for their signs and they therefore want to use them?
The inconsistent comments made by the business owner who told the media one thing and told me another is also a FACT, not an opinion. Just because you weren't there to witness it does not mean that it didn't happen.
To use your style of arguing...the Holocaust never happened because OV Dad was not there to witness it.
OV Dad,
More on anecdotes vs. fact:
A few months ago, another blogger made a comment about Hiremath not being married to the mother of his children and asked "what kind of role model is that?" You took this very personally because your parents also were not married. You said, "This statement is nothing less than an insult and I demand an apology!"
You were insulted by her belief that it is immoral for unmarried couples to have children, and you then presented "anecdotal evidence" of how you were the child of an unmarried couple and you always felt loved just the same.
So OV Dad, you "used something that you claim has happened to you...as evidence for something much larger."
But I guess that's only wrong when I do it.
Again, to use your style of arguing...my parents were not married but they were not immoral, I still felt loved and I turned out just fine; therefore, no unmarried parents are immoral, and every child of unmarried parents feels loved and turns out just fine.
You might want to think twice before labeling my facts as anecdotes in the future.
Astute Gal,
Your post was spot-on. It's refreshing to see a business owner who takes responsibility for the success of her business.
I would love to see someone start a consulting business where they would visit local businesses, review their business practices, and then submit a report on their findings on areas where the business is lacking.
I think Astute Gal and Zev would both be great at this!
Jay D,
My post was directed to OV Dad, not you, so why would YOU respond and why would you say...
"VC, there you go again bringing up Roger! I've told you several times that I have NO idea who the heck Roger is."
Sounds like you and OV Dad might be the same person!
I've also noticed that whenever you become frustrated arguing with me, you disappear and OV Dad shows up to take over the job. Now, OV Dad has disappeared and you show up.
You'll notice that I never have to "phone a friend" to help me debate anyone.
Now allow me to introduce you to Roger, whom you've already met on this blog but have conveniently forgotten:
On May 20th, Roger said:
I really enjoy all the comments on Hiremath taking handouts from special interest groups. I also find it amazing that no one discusses Zinkin's attempt to gain THAT SAME SUPPORT but was turned away. Hmmmmm!!!!!
I then asked Roger:
Are you stating that he met with EVERY SINGLE ONE of the special interest groups that endorsed Hiremath? Specifics please.
Roger responded:
A personal friend WAS there when MZ met with "special interest." Specific enough for you?
----
Notice how Roger began with "special interests" PLURAL but quickly changed his story to "special interest" SINGULAR. And then the only "evidence" he had was that a "friend" was there and saw it.
Yes, and I know this happened because my sister's hairdresser's mother's next door neighbor saw it.
I just think it's very revealing how you and OV Dad will let something as blatantly false as Roger's assertion go unchallenged, meanwhile you'll challenge everything I say, even when there is video-evidence to prove my claim!
VC, thanks for the laugh...I needed one today! So you seem to know so much...Now you think I'm OV Dad...That's definitely funny. In several of your posts, you specifically ask me things about Roger, including the one I referred to where you said, "...yet you and Jay D never called his claim, 'anecdotal evidence.'" When you are referring to OV Dad in this sentence by using the word, "you," and you use my name after the word "and," that implies you are talking to both of us! So in order to be clear, you just wrote, "My post was directed to OV Dad, not you, so why would YOU respond..." I am responding to you because you used the word, "and." We all make mistakes, maybe you didn't mean to refer to me every time you ask about Roger!
Back to the topic at hand...I will rely on Zev, the rest of the SCTF, and our council to do the right thing. If relaxing the code is deemed right, then so be it. "Relaxing" does not mean eliminating the code all together.
Oh VC, here you go again with the "Fox News" Tactics you yourself hate so much: First off, when did I post this? How long did you have to go back to find that? I also believe if you go back again and read that discussion, you found there was pretty much a consensus established that you went overboard. Furthermore, if you are my age, had to fight people with prejudices (yes, the belief that children growing up without married parents are generally [... you can fill in this blank], is a prejudice) for most of your life, now finally see society give up its scientifically unfounded(!) belief... I do believe it's alright to get offended when someone like you comes around. If you want, we can continue this discussion but I see no merit in it for the discussion about OV sign codes.
You and Art seem to agree on most issues, might it be that you are the same person? You got me, JayD and OVDad are the exact same person, we also are both big business owners and police officers at the same time. In fact, we are also behind all the Pima voting irregularities with our spiritual superpowers that came into existence because we grew up without married parents. Are you realizing that your arguments are unfounded? Is that why you come up with conspiracy theories and try to label people?
Jay D,
Oh, and in case you missed it, here is a post that Palomino left on another thread. Apparently he agrees with me on your faulty reasoning skills.
"And I had to laugh at Jay's comment-- "This "reasonable" person can not be impressed by the credentials of at least two of the people Art seems to be enamored with." (David Griscom and John Brakey) but Jay has no trouble "reasoning" that Brad Nelson is a stellar individual whom he can completely trust despite Nelson's reputation for dishonesty and fixing elections."
Palomino,
Hope you don't mind that I reposted your comment here but it was something like #75 on the other thread and it was too good of a comment to risk letting it go unnoticed.
VC, funny how you always condemn me for not responding to your questions, but if I call you on something, you don't respond. You continue to go on and on, off topic, which is why I do get fed up and will ignore you...just like I chose to ignore the ridiculous posters on the other thread. Zee Man tried to reel that in, with no luck. The one good post on there was Zev's, apologizing for making a mistake, something that many others on here could learn from!
Isn't it a coincidence that OV Dad and I are posting almost at the same time? He has now provided me with the best laugh of the day so far....
Let's get back to the topic of this post...
OV Dad,
If you read the post properly you would have noticed that I said, "A couple of months ago ANOTHER BLOGGER made a comment" about Hiremath not being a good role model.
I am not the one who made the comment but you said, "there was pretty much a consensus established that YOU went overboard."
No, I didn't. I didn't make the comment. In fact, in a later post, I said that I personally didn't care if an unmarried couple had children. I do feel that the other blogger is entitled to her beliefs and that you went overboard in your response to her.
You asked, "First off, when did I post this? How long did you have to go back to find that?" It doesn't matter WHEN you said it. It only matters THAT you said it and that it was fairly recently. (So you can sleep well tonight knowing the actual dates, this conversation took place on Feb. 15-16, 2010.)
You also said, "Furthermore, if you are my age, had to fight people with prejudices (yes, the belief that children growing up without married parents are generally [... you can fill in this blank], is a prejudice) for most of your life, now finally see society give up its scientifically unfounded(!) belief... I do believe it's alright to get offended when someone like you comes around."
"...when someone like YOU comes around." Again, I'm not the one who made the comment, so, to quote you, "I demand an apology!"
Now, how do you know that you and I are not close in age? How do you know that I also didn't grow up similar to you in a time when children of unmarried parents were given all kinds of derogatory labels? How do you know what my "family" consisted of?
You will be surprised to learn that you and I are not very different in this regard.
You asked, "Are you realizing that your arguments are unfounded? Is that why you come up with conspiracy theories and try to label people?"
Your argument that I don't understand you because I grew up in a different time or with a different type of "family" IS UNFOUNDED as you don't know anything about me or my childhood.
My "conspiracy theories" are NOT UNFOUNDED since there is a paper trail, a history of fixed elections in Pima County, and court documents and affidavits pertaining to the RTA election that all point to the fact that there are some unscrupulous people working in the Pima County Elections office.
In 2008 did Fortune Small Business name Oro Valley as #44 in its list of "100 Best places to Live and Launch" a business? How much has changed in OV in less than two years?
Astute Gal's points are right on!
Our company grew from $14,000,000 in sales in 2000 to $72,000,000 in sales in 2009, and it had nothing to do with our signage, and everything to do with marketing and proper utilization of our limited resourses.
I have volunteered my services to our town several times now, but have not heard back. I guess they are the experts in business development and think this sign issue is the pill that will cure our economic woes.
Jay D,
What questions did you ask me that I did not respond to (as you asserted)? I cannot find any questions in any of your above posts.
Meanwhile, I notice that you STILL won't respond to Roger's anecdotal post even though I posted it here for you, so you can no longer claim that you don't know who he is or what I'm talking about when I reference his earlier "assertions."
OV Dad,
Change of plans. Rather than apologize to me for all the false accusations you made about me, perhaps you could just "refudiate" your comments instead!
:)
Oh VC, this is exhausting...I did NOT say you didn't answer my question! What I said was, "...funny how you always condemn me for not responding to your questions, but if I call you on something, you don't respond." In one of your earlier posts, you claimed you were NOT talking to me, just OV Dad, but I tried to explain the grammatical confusion...that you used the word "and," which implied you were talking to me AND OV Dad! You never responded to this confusion of yours.
In reference to your concern that I not answer your questions about Roger, I do not respond about every poster on here, I don't care what many say, and I am not in the business (unlike you) of dissecting their statements...So Roger switched from PLURAL to SINGULAR. In today's vernacular, OMG! Maybe you should alert the authorities! Poor Roger...he was not consistent...Should we assume there is something shady here? Maybe a mistake? Did you consider that maybe all of these special interest groups were in the same place, at the same time, talking to the candidates?
Give it a rest VC....
VC-
My apologies for mistaking your view in that matter. I would like to get into the matter of why I think me using myself as an example for a certain view is different from me basing this view on that example, but I will spare us a textual analysis because I have the strong feeling we won't come to an agreement in the end.
Unrelated:
The censorship is hardly acceptable, especially since what was presented here was a matter of public record.
I have no quarrel with the originator of this blog. Art is entitled to do whatever he wishes, whenever he wishes.
As a very infrequent contributor, I have watched as other discussions have dissolved into ugly accusations, counter-accusations, ad infinitum.
We need to recognize and respect Art's right to post or not post anything he wishes. We always have the right to start our own blogs or to cease participating in this one.
I have suggested a topic that I believe deserves exploration, but I do not think that I'm entitled to it. Maybe I'm bending over backwards to be fair here, but the 1st Amendment creates speech with which we may not all agree. In the case of other media, we vote with our pocketbooks or our eyes and ears. With electronic media, such as blogs, we are as beholden to their originators as we are to the publishers of newspapers or the owners of television stations.
Such is democracy.
Jay D,
"You never responded to this confusion of yours."
I didn't respond to it because it wasn't important in the grand scheme of what we're actually discussing here, and I didn't think it required a response.
I do realize that you "do not respond about every poster on here" but the pattern is that you always feel it necessary to respond to everything I say, but for some reason when another poster says something very similar or uses the same approach to an argument, you don't say a word. What this means is that you are singling me out, attacking the messenger instead of the message. You seem to fear disagreeing with another member of the GOB.
Roger was very specific in his original post, but when challenged for specifics, he became very evasive and then disappeared altogether. So yes, any reasonable person would "assume there is something shady here."
If I made an assertion like that and then changed my story when challenged and then just disappeared altogether, you would have crucified me.
"Did you consider that maybe all of these special interest groups were in the same place, at the same time, talking to the candidates?"
Did YOU consider that all of these special interest groups INVITED Zinkin in for an interview (ie. they sought HIM out, he didn't seek THEM out) and if he had refused to meet with any of them he would have been accused of snubbing these organizations, but if he accepts the invitation he is then accused of seeking out the same endorsements as Hiremath?
You only want me to "give it a rest" because you've lost the argument.
Back to the subject as originally posted:
Subsequent to a prior meeting during which 'relaxation' of the sign codes was introduced, on November 18, 2009 the following took place:
From the minutes: "Planning and Zoning requested approval to initiate a proposed project scope to review various sections of the Oro Valley Zoning Code......."
"A motion was made by Council Member Latas and seconded by Council Member Garner to approve the proposed scope of the work, methodology and timeline to review various sections of the Zoning Code Revised......." (note: the proposed project scope was so extensive that to cover it within this post would utilize too much blog 'energy'). The motion carried 5-0 (Abbott's resignation had just been accepted and one other member of Council was either absent or did not respond because of a 'phone' participation).
Now, my point is that the 'sign code issue' was in place prior to the resignation of then Council Member Latas and, in fact, by evidence of the record she was instrumental in having the issue go forward.
As to the final outcome, at this point, I am only aware of the recommendations that will be made to Council. I will stress however, that the change of Councils absolutely did not change the perspectives of the Sign Code Task Force itself.
The other issue is the temporary 'fixes' that might be implemented at this evening's regular session.
I have made my own voice clear to each and every Council Member; in the end what they propose and/or implement as a temporary remedy will be by their own hand. I believe that it as incredibly false assumption that a 'revolutionary' approach to the matter will be the panacea that will propel business to new heights. Perhaps, though it might give certain individuals within the business sector a psychological lift spurring them on to work smarter and harder; in other instances, however, to the contrary, those who see no improvement might be prone to 'give it up' having eaten the false illusion that signage is THE means to attract business.
Zev Cywan
Sign Code Task Force, Citizen Participant
Yeah, Nombe you may be right, but, only for those who have been watching "The Guiding Light' for the past 70 years or so; even that's going off the air so who knows, maybe our own Oro Valley Soap Opera will be 'cancelled' too.
At any rate, there was an opening post and thus I did follow it. If the blogmasters would prefer that
this become a new type 'show' then so be it; so far they have not seen fit to stop it.
Hey - I at least tried to make an effort, albeit feeble, at commenting on the topic.
I know cyclone but you were out-feebled.
Fear....
FTT posted a messge about the sign issue on the Miller Ranch property post and I let him know that I would respond in this thread.
I suspect the reasons that Sunny Side Up is packed on a daily basis and Down Home Delights isn't can be attributed to three major factors.
1. SSU has been around a long time. It's far more a part of the Catalina/OV culture than DHD.
2.You cannot access DHD from the north unless you go past the place and wait on a lengthly light to make a U-turn. In addition you cannot leave DHD and head south without accomplishing the same traffic maneuver. The fact that ADOT has drug it's feet allowing a left turn into that business area is sinful.
3. DHD is attempting to cater to a different segment of the community than SSU
My only argument with your last sentence is that there is a segment of this community that wants to revert back to the 70's and 80's when there was little in the way of commercial development.
In a later paragraph you state "most council members decide their vote on any issue prior to the meetings". I suspect that is partially accurate. My guess is that barring some significant, previously unknown information surfaces at the meeting (which seldom occurs) there is no reason to change your mind. I know that at least three of the council members were out soliciting input from the public days prior to the meeting last night. And I heard input from both ides of the issue. They do,do their homework.
I would also point out for those who missed it the ill-temper and lack of civility, which has been eluded to on many posts, surfaced again last night when garner cast his vote against the sign recommendation. Maybe that's where your recall should be focused.
cox--- You comments about HDH is "hogwash."
To have the owner come to a council meeting and state her business improved because she illegally put out an "A" Frame sign on weekends has almost zero credibility.
Did anyone notice that she now gives 50% off 2nd meal which is part of the reason Jerry Bob's is always filled with patrons?
That's like her husband from 911 Collision saying his business is down because he couldn't leave his neon sign on all night.
More hogwash.
But probably the biggest load of "hogwash" was your last comment.
Because Bill Garner is the ONLY one with enough gumption to understand to do not allow Special Interests to control the town and votes "no" on an ill-conceived motion by the appointed council member, is hardly a lack of civility. It shows thsat he is the ONLY one to understand you don't take an action that is not thought out and will end up with unintended consequences.
The fact is this council now consists of a super majority that understand how they got to their positions, and Oro Valley residents have already noted who will be getting the "short end of the stick."
Hint: It "ain't" the developers. It "aint" the Chamber of Commerce.
It "ain't" the cop or fire unions; and it "ain't" SAHBA, MTVCB or TREO!
Thinker,
I did not see any ill-temper or lack of civility on the part of Councilmember Garner. He was quite civil as he was asking questions about the temporary sign code and quite civil when he was explaining why he was voting against it.
On the other hand, as for Bonnie Quinn of Down Home Delights, all I can say is I can see that the personality bypass was a success!
I stopped visiting her restaurant after witnessing her husband's caustic outburst at a council meeting last year. I don't give my business to uncivilized people. Now, after witnessing Bonnie's behavior last night, I can see that I made the right decision.
And how can she afford to give 50% off the 2nd meal after claiming that she "has taken a HUGE HIT from the economy."
She carried on about the "horrible visibility" of her business and how it's "behind a hill and hidden by trees." Thinker, you are always the first one to blame the homeowner when they complain about something they don't like in their neighborhood. You say they should have researched the area before purchasing the property, etc. Well, Ms. Quinn should have known that her business would not have great visibility from the road, shouldn't she?
I agree that a left hand turn should have been created for that plaza, however. A similar situation exists at Casas Adobes Plaza where you cannot drive from the back parking lot to the front parking lot without waiting 10 minutes to pull out onto Ina, wait another 5 minutes at the light at Oracle, and then drive down Oracle and enter the plaza from the opposite side. That was some great planning there!
Jay D,
You said, "Who better to hear from at last night's council meeting, than businesses that can demonstrate increased sales based on sign usage." I assume you're referring to Bonnie Quinn's statements.
Exactly how did she "demonstrate" increased sales based on sign usage? She told a story that OV Dad would call merely "anecdotal."
You said, "I see absolutely NO reason why this information has "zero credibility."
In order for it to have ANY credibility, one would need to see receipts from her business for, let's say, the first 6 months of 2008 and compare them to the first 6 months of 2010. Would they show that she has taken "a huge hit" this year?
Then one would also have to see the receipts from last weekend and compare them with receipts from perhaps the previous 4 weekends to confirm that she really "doubled her sales revenue" after using the sign.
And if she DID double her sales revenue upon using the sign, one would still need proof that those customers came in because they saw the sign and not that they were just friends and family members that she coaxed into visiting her restaurant that weekend in order to boost her sales so that she could "prove" that the sign worked.
I'm not saying she lied. I'm saying we have no proof of her claims. At this point, they're all just anecdotal. :)
You all threw a fit when Zinkin INADVERTENTLY used the town logo in his campaign fliers. Where is the outrage now that Bonnie Quinn admitted that she DELIBERATELY violated the town sign code?
Zinkin's violation was an honest mistake.
Quinn's violation was deliberate.
Reposting this for Fear....
Let me first start by saying Down Home delights is a nice place, but I'm not sure how the little breakfast place in Catalina is always packed and she is struggling. Hopefully the sign continues help her, and maybe she can do little marketing things like offer discounts to those who stay at the Holiday Inn Express. We citizens want our local businesses to succeed, and the idea that we don't is insane.
I really feel sorry for those citizens who really care for this town, and put forth the effort in volunteering and participating in town events and meetings. These volunteers really try to be part of the process and in most part have nothing but good intentions for this town. Unfortunately, their input has little if any influence on the way this council is going to vote. Last night the mayor was smooth but to me was poster person for patronizing, and could care less about input from the citizens.
Based on input from their "special interests" most council members decide their vote on any issue prior to the meetings. I'm not sure if most put the time and effort into reseaching topics and just go with the flow or go with their "heart".
The time to start the process recall Solomon is now. Watching him read his prepared text and his influence over certain council members makes this council very unbalanced. I fear for those residents of Catalina Shadows and Palasides when the Kai property comes before this council.
I agree with Cowgirl. Garner was civil, Quinn was not. Her tone was far too strident and she came across as very unlikable as a result. I've never been to DHD, but after seeing the owner's demeanor, I don't think it's a place I'd want to patronize.
On one hand, she claims to have taken a huge hit from the economy. On the other, she claims that she doubled her sales revenue one weekend just by placing an A-frame sign on the sidewalk.
Wait a minute. If the economy is what's hurting her business (ie. people aren't eating out because they've been forced to cut back on luxuries) then how would a sign change that? The sign didn't turn the economy around. Patrons didn't suddenly find more money in their pockets because a new sign appeared.
Her story is fishy.
Art....I will assume you disagree with the decision. :-)
I don't really give a damn how Garner voted. It was the way he votes, He talked over the Mayor and yelled his vote. His body language clearly indicated his anger.
The ability of certain people to demonize other citizens (business owners=liars) and the inability to think logically (look at Palomino's post above) is fascinating.
OV Dad,
You're overreacting to my comment.
I didn't say "business owners=liars."
I said HER story was fishy. She is one business owner, not ALL of them.
Just look at the difference in demeanor and content of the speech given by Bonnie Quinn of Down Home Delights vs. Eric Sheffield of Sheffield's Diamonds.
I HAVE patronized HIS business and, after listening to the civil and polite tone of his speech the other night, I will continue to do so.
Now, exactly where in my post did I show an "inability to think logically?" You made a statement without any argument to back it up.
If more visible signs, extra signs, and 24-hour lighted signs are what brings in business, can someone explain to me why even LAS VEGAS is suffering during this bad economy?
A NEWSWEEK ARTICLE FROM MAY 2008 stated that the weakened economy was even hurting Las Vegas "which was once thought to be impervious to the economic swings suffered by the rest of the country." Gambling revenues had fallen, conventions had dropped 10.4%. Stock prices of MGM (owner of 10 resorts on the strip) were cut in half between October 2007 and May 2008.
FROM THE LAS VEGAS SUN, JANUARY 2010:
High unemployment and cautious consumer spending are expected to dampen retail sales in Las Vegas once the holiday counts are completed at the end of January, retail analysts said.
“Consumers have less money in aggregate than they did a year ago, and they are cautious with their spending...fewer people are employed than a year ago. The overall outlook remains challenging” said Brian Gordon, a principal with research firm Applied Analysis.
“I think Las Vegas is no different from what we are seeing nationally except that we are one of the hardest hit states in the country,” said Pamela Joy Ring, a retail consultant with Ring Retail Advisory.
Cowgirl,
You mentioned in an earlier post on this thread how Bonnie Quinn carried on about the "horrible visibility" of her business and how it's "behind a hill and hidden by trees."
You said she "should have known" about these factors prior to purchasing the business.
I think I've determined why she didn't know about these "obstacles."
I drove by her restaurant today and have no idea what hill or trees she is referring to. I had clear visibility of her business from Oracle Road.
Thought you'd appreciate that!
Palomino,
Yeah...I noticed that, too! But who knows, if she was willing to violate the sign code, maybe over the past few days she also bulldozed the hill and chopped down the trees!
LOL
As comment #63 (including all those deleted) I'm not sure how many will read this, but what the "heck."
Ms. Quinn does have one big thing going for her. Let's not forget she and her husband (911 Collision) proudly formed a citizen PAC helping the mayor and the others get elected.
Might we see a "quid pro quo" in the future?
Hmmm!
Art, while I will not comment (any further at this time) on Ms. Quinn's blatant, disgusting, and illegal disregard for the Town of Oro Valley, I do not think that we can yet pin a 'quid pro quo' on this because of a PAC anymore than we could have pinned a 'quid pro quo' in your favor on any of the past actions taken by Salette or Bill because of your non-PAC support for them. I do not wish to publish my thoughts and/or knowledge of her 'Down Home Blights' at this time. Stay tuned.
Zev....
Don't you think "blatant, disgusting" is a bit overboard and somewhat melodramatic!!
Here is an individual who is making an attempt to save a small business and she puts out an a-frame sign.
I think your choice of words here is completely over the top.
QUID PRO QUO
Lat. 'what for what' or 'something for something.' The concept of getting something of value in return for giving something of value.
What is it I am looking to personally gain?
The answer is NOTHING.
What might Mr. & Mrs. Quinn look to gain?
Certainly, it's SOMETHING!
Therefore, we have the potential for a "quid pro quo."
Thinker, having worked 'with' Ms. Quinn on the 'Task Force' and having discussed some of my personal observations with her as well as a bit with her husband, Mike, Ms. Quinn's defiant and illegal actions as well as her boastful appearance before Council was, for me, a "blatant" action against the Town of Oro Valley, and, because she was well aware of the purpose and conclusions of the Task Force and being aware as to how it was to proceed, AND, her VERY questionable 'conclusion' as to the sign's effectiveness, YES, combining an illegal act with bragging 'rights', in concert with a 'questionable' conclusion is, for me, "disgusting".
OVOT, a little sign, almost on top of the road and probably a danger where placed, virtually unreadable unless one is on top of it (maybe at 5 mph in a 45 mph zone), does not a business make.
Her neighbor, The Loop, had three banner signs in a row when I passed it yesterday; did he have
a permit FOR ALL THREE?
"Over the top"? OVOT, I've just touched the tip of the 'iceberg'.
IRRESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH YOU LIVE IS A BLIGHT ON IT'S ABILITY TO ATTRACT GROWTH; NOT A CONTRIBUTION
TO IT'S VIABILITY OR VITALITY!
Problem with the "Loop" is two-fold. First, its hard to get into it if you are traveling South on Oracle. So, the Loop has requested and a study is afoot to put a left turn from Oracle Road into the Loop at Greenock.
The second problem is that it is expensive. The food is good but the prices are high.
Thinkerbell,
From Dictionary.com
BLATANT
1. (of bad behavior) Done openly and unashamedly.
All of that describes Bonnie Quinn's performance last Wednesday. Zev's description of her was accurate.
So you think "blatant" and "disgusting" were overboard and melodramatic. Hmmm...and what do you think of ILLEGAL? I notice you left that one out!
Funny how you made a huge issue out of Zinkin's use of the town logo when he wasn't even aware that he couldn't use it for that purpose, but you gloss over Quinn's DELIBERATE use of an illegal sign (she was well aware that it was illegal) and her subsequent boasting about it!
Apparently, violating laws, ordinances and town codes is OK as long as it's perpetrated by someone YOU like.
Frankly, the idiocy of the "blatant and disgusting" argument is that those of you that want to support that position are never heard from when you see garage sales signs every Saturday which are also illegal signs. You only bitch when you feel that it supports your narrowminded approach to governance.
No one is arguing whether it was against the current code. My point was that you are very much overreacting to the severity of the infraction.
Let's move on to the next traumatic argument!!!
Thinker,
Regarding Quinn's deliberate violation of the sign code you said...
"My point was that you are very much overreacting to the severity of the infraction."
You mean like the way Hiremath (and Snider too I believe) overreacted to the severity of Zinkin's use of the town logo?
THEIR response was an over-reaction since Zinkin was not aware that he had violated the code. OUR response to Quinn's use of the A-frame sign is NOT an overreaction since her violation was DELIBERATE and she even bragged about it!
VC -
As always, you are beating a dead horse. Do you think pointing out the same thing over and over makes readers come to your side? I am fairly sure that any neutral observer (if there are any left) realizes the two things are not comparable and that it does not make a difference whether breaking a law was done deliberately or not. You must be getting your interpretations of law from the same source Ms. Latas gets hers.
Where is the evidence that Zinkin "...was not aware that he had violated the code..." Because he said so? This is old news...but if it's being brought up again, I would suggest that somehow, in all of the years we've lived here (close to 20) Zinkin seems to be the only person running for mayor (or council) who was "unaware" of this code. How could that be?
OV Dad,
You say, "it does not make a difference whether breaking a law was done deliberately or not."
I beg to differ. It speaks to CHARACTER. The person who breaks a law that he is not aware of has made an honest mistake. The person who deliberately sets out to violate a law/ordinance etc. and then brags about it afterwards has some serious character flaws pertaining to ethics and morality!
If you truly believe that "it doesn't make a difference..." then why did you complain when Zinkin did it but said nothing when Quinn did it?
Let me guess...because you're a hypocrite, that's why.
Jay D,
You asked, "Where is the evidence that Zinkin was not aware that he had violated the code?"
I already answered this question some time ago but you like to ignore anything with which you can't argue, so here it is again:
To all the people who think the use of the logo was deliberate, ask yourself this question...
Why would Zinkin deliberately use the town logo KNOWING that it was against the law, and therefore KNOWING that at least one person would file a complaint against his campaign, and KNOWING that he'd be contacted by the town attorney and told to discard the remaining postcards, and KNOWING that the whole story would then be reported in the Explorer and the Star, and KNOWING that this would result in his losing quite a few votes?
Long story short...why would Zinkin sabotage his own campaign?
And there's the PROOF that it was an inadvertent mistake and not a deliberate one.
Anyone else notice how OV Dad and Jay D always disappear from the blog at the same time and always return to the blog at the same time?
Funny, but I notice the same thing! Of course the answer could be that there's some conspiracy or that the two are one in the same. I know this is VC's theory...Or the real answer is that I find OV Dad's comments to be more rational, well informed, and interesting than many others, so I enjoy responding to those!
I could spend all day arguing about why Zinkin used the town seal...It's obvious that it wouldn't do any good because VC is convinced she has the "proof." Hard to believe this "proof" would stand up anywhere! The bottom line is the use of the town logo could have been inadvertent...Or it wasn't. Why Zinkin used the logo, despite all of the ramifications, could possibly be because he thought it would not come back to bite him. None of the concerns, like having to talk to the town attorney, losing a few votes, throwing out postcards, etc., prove anything. Now since this thread is about the sign code, I'm done with the Zinkin town seal discussion!
VC-
I find people subscribe to conspiracy theories when they realize that they are incapable to deal with reality. Just think about that for a second.
Why would Ms. Quinn deliberately break the code KNOWING that it was against the law, and therefore KNOWING that at least one person would take offense and post on this blog, and KNOWING that this person would no longer come to her business and try to keep other people away from it as well, and KNOWING that the whole story cause a discussion here and keep readers away, and KNOWING that this would result in her losing revenue?
Long story short...why would she sabotage her own business?
Do you see now that your argument makes NO sense at all?
Jay D,
I'll ask you the same question I asked OV Dad...
Why did you complain when Zinkin used the logo illegally but...
(1) Did NOT complain when Hiremath violated the sign code by having his children waving signs at the corner of Oracle and Magee, and
(2) Did not complain when Bonnie Quinn violated the sign code with her A-frame sign?
Jay D...
There is a reason why Zinkin went to the individual he went to to get the copy of the Town logo and not through the Town Clerk as he should have.
VC -
Why did you complain when Hiremath violated the sign code by having his children waving signs at the corner of Oracle and Magee and when Bonnie Quinn violated the sign code with her A-frame sign but...
Did NOT complain when Zinkin used the logo illegally?
For my part, I never witnessed nor cared too much about either of these miscues, but you are the one bringing them up ALL the time (as in this thread). I can only speak for myself (although I am sure JayD has a similar opinion since he is me and I am him), but I am not too big on sign codes to begin with.
OV Dad,
To answer YOUR question, the reason I complained about Hiremath and Quinn violating the sign code, but didn't complain when Zinkin violated "the logo law" is because Hiremath and Quinn KNEW that they were in violation of the law and Zinkin did not. They deliberately thumbed their noses at the law. Is this how all of us citizens should act?
First you say,"it does not make a difference whether breaking a law was done deliberately or not." So you claim that all these infractions were EQUAL which means you should have complained about ALL of them. But when I asked why you didn't, all you could offer as a reason was that you didn't "witness it" or you "are not too big on sign codes to begin with."
So if YOU don't like a particular law/ordinance/code, then it's OK for any citizen to violate it and you won't speak up when they do. And you say that MY logic is faulty!
Jay D,
You never answered my question (surprise, surprise!) Exactly how did Quinn "demonstrate" increased sales based on sign usage?
She produced no concrete evidence, no receipts for comparison, just a "story," yet you said, "I see absolutely NO reason why this information has "zero credibility."
You believe her "story" despite her inability to offer any proof just like you believed Roger's "story" despite his inability to offer any proof, but you demand proof from everyone else. You're quite the piece of work.
No one from the GOB answered THIS question either: If more visible signs, extra signs, and 24-hour lighted signs are what brings in business, can someone explain to me why even LAS VEGAS is suffering during this bad economy?
One last thing...Regarding Zinkin not being aware of the logo issue, you said it's "hard to believe this "proof" would stand up anywhere!" Well, it DID stand up somewhere. It stood up LEGALLY. The Town Attorney determined that Zinkin did not deliberately violate the law and that he was not trying to make the campaign fliers look like an official government document since the fliers clearly stated that they were paid for with campaign contributions.
Just one more argument you've lost.
Post a Comment