While LOVE has no issue with presenting opposing sides (and we have done so many times as long as the letters are respectful), we believe it is best when an individual presents their views as an individual and not as part of a cabal that has been formed to gang up on one person. We also believe that if a writer has a personal stake in the topic being discussed, that they should disclose this information upfront rather than presenting themselves as an objective bystander.
We find these truths to be…
What we have seen in the majority of letters submitted to LOVE (and in many of the letters submitted to the Explorer as well) is that the letter writer makes no mention of having a personal stake in the issue. But a little investigating on our part always unearths these truths.
LOVE received a letter from George and Sheila Lindsay (the same letter that was published in the Explorer last week). Their letter asserted that the Town needs to keep the golf courses because “the El Conquistador has hosted at least 13 charitable tournaments so far this fiscal year” and that these fundraisers “help the community.” And while no one would argue with hosting charitable events, the Lindsay’s made no mention of the fact that they have a personal stake in this issue as they own a home along the golf course.
The elephant in the letter
While Edward Cooke, whose letter we published yesterday, did sign his name as being the “former president of the Canada Hills Master Association” he did not state what his current connection was to the golf courses…which is that his home is adjacent to one of them. His letter discussed loss of tax revenue, winter visitors no longer visiting Oro Valley for golf, and that restaurants, hotels, and OV Marketplace “will suffer greatly” and “people will lose their jobs” should the golf courses close.
The burden of proof for those assertions is on the writer. Is there any evidence that when golf courses closed in other cities/towns, that it led to businesses and hotels suffering greatly, which in turn, led to people losing their jobs?
It’s fine to have concerns about all of those things, but we found it suspicious that a person who owns a home along the golf course would just happen to not mention anything in his letter about concerns of loss of property value. It was the “elephant in the letter” that no one was supposed to notice.
The difference between Naranja Park and the Golf Courses
Mr. Cooke also asked why spending tax dollars on Naranja Park was any different from spending tax dollars on the golf courses. He wrote:
“Why is the O.V. Council spending money ($1.350M) on Naranja Park when the residents of O.V have voted the park down on numerous occasions? How many dollars does Naranja Park generate for the town? How much are we spending to maintain this park annually?”Our response is that Naranja Park is free and available to every citizen of Oro Valley. This is not the case for the 18-hole dedicated golf course for the golf members. Residents have to pay a “daily fee” to use the golf courses if they are not a golf club member. Both Naranja Park and the Aquatic Center also host events that bring families and out-of-towners into Oro Valley where they stay at our hotels (bed tax revenue) and eat in our restaurants and shop in our stores (sales tax revenues). This is something that an 18-hole dedicated golf course does not do. There is a big difference between a public park and a private golf course.
Remember…Golf was at the bottom of the list
LOVE believes that the majority of the 43,000 Oro Valley residents think a town-owned golf course is a bad idea. That’s why they came out in great numbers to speak against it when it was first brought to the public’s attention in December 2014, and have continued speaking against it in numerous LOVE Guest Views and letters to the editor. It’s also why golf placed 33 out of 34 amenities that Oro Valley residents requested in the Town-sponsored Parks and Recreation Survey in June 2014.
LOVE Editor
