Last Thursday, September 14th, Axe the Tax Chair, Jim Horn, sent the following letter to the Town Manager and the Town Attorney regarding what is perceived to be the Town’s illegal advocating for the Naranja Bond via information provided on the Town website.LOVE readers have also noticed the same advocating in hand-outs, the Open House on September 13th, and in an editorial by Oro Valley Communications Administrator, Misti Nowak published in the Oro Valley Voice this summer.
Legally, the Town is only allowed to provide education and information about the bond. They are not allowed to advocate for it.
It has been one week and there has been no response from the Town.
September 14, 2017
Town Manager, Mary Jacobs
Cc: Town Attorney, Tobin Sidles
Ms. Jacobs,
I understand that the Town cannot advocate for or against the Naranja Park Bond but can only “educate” and provide information.
However, in looking at the Project Fact Sheet on the Town Website, it appears that the Town is subliminally downplaying the cost of the Naranja Bond by using bold print for certain terminology and by omitting some of the facts. This is outlined below.
The Project Sheet begins by giving the basic facts such as what’s in the plan and that it will be paid for with a secondary property tax. However, under the heading, “What’s the cost and how will it impact residents?” it then goes on to sway voters into voting YES by placing the following words in regular print:
$17 million
secondary property tax
$1.4 million per year for 20 years
While placing the following words in bold print:
$4.50 per month to an average homeowner.
In addition, the final cost of the bond with interest is $28 million. This number has been omitted from the website. Instead, it is worded, “$1.4 million per year for 20 years.” When worded this way, the number doesn’t seem so high.
In other words, just because the website does not specifically contain the words, “Vote YES on the Naranja Park Bond” does not mean that the Town is not presenting information in a way that is designed to sway a person in that direction.
Under the heading, “Alignment with Your Voice, Our Future General Plan,” the Project Sheet states that the “Naranja Park Bond Project conforms to the 70% voter-approved 2016 Your Voice, Our Future General Plan…” This is more subliminal messaging and manipulation of the facts designed to sway voters into thinking that this proposal must be popular if it was approved by 70% of the people.
It wasn’t 70% of the town, it was 70% of the voters who cast a ballot.
Let’s look at what “70% voter-approved” really means:
Oro Valley has a population of 43,781 (U.S. Census Bureau)
Oro Valley has 30,321 registered voters. (Town of Oro Valley Website)
23,250 ballots were cast for Prop 439 – Your Voice, Our Future General Plan (11/8/16)
16,424 voted YES (70.64%)
6,826 voted NO (29.36%)
The General Plan was not approved by 70% of the total population of 43,781. It was approved by 70% of the 23,250 ballots cast which equals 16,424 residents or 37.5% of the population of Oro Valley. This is not overwhelming support.
In addition to the bond information on the Town website, if your future newspaper ads and educational meeting(s) also present a manipulation of the facts, all of this equates to free advertising for the “Vote YES on 454” PAC, which they are getting with OUR tax dollars.
The “Informational Pamphlet” that the Town will be mailing to registered Oro Valley voters about a month prior to the election is also paid for with taxpayer funds. Will this publication also be heavy on “$4.50 per month” and “70% voter approved?”
In closing, when both sides aren’t presented equally or one side is not presented at all, this could be interpreted as the Town advocating for one side over the other. If the Town presents only the positives and none of the negatives, isn’t that in effect advocating for the bond?
Yours truly,
James W. Horn
Chair, Axe the Tax PAC
