Yesterday we wrote about Vistoso resident demands that Council Member Steve Solomon be excluded from council actions regarding the town's potential purchase of the defunct Vistoso Golf Course. The following is one of two emails to The Oro Valley Town Council stating their position in more detail. Tomorrow we will publish the second email.
We have removed identifying information regarding the writer in order to promote harmony in the community. This email was sent to council after the council's decision to attempt the land purchase.
---
It was with relief and anticipation that your 7-0 vote to initiate the process to purchase the defunct golf course from Romspen at fair market value was received. Relief, that the council voted down Councilman Solomon's motion to act as our sole agent in a murky, backroom negotiation with Romspen. Anticipation, that the town is now on board with the community in actively seeking a permanent conservation easement for all of the property. The Rancho Vistoso neighborhood has been adamant that we want conservation and limited use for walking and cycling in a natural setting. No development.
Those of us on the Zoom conference were aghast to learn that Councilman Solomon had been acting as an unauthorized "town agent" to give Romspen a premium and likely a path towards development in order to sell. One is left wondering what his motivations were .... His lack of transparency in responding to inquiries about the framework of his deal was alarming for a town council member. His boasting of "major, $100 Million deals" was telling. He's just a wheeler-dealer; a retired developer that wants back in the game. A Romspen "Fixer".
For those reasons, I ask you to demand a recusal of Councilman Solomon from any further dealings in the matter of the defunct Vistoso Golf Course property.
Solomon's opportunistic "Preserve Vistoso" signs stapled onto his re-election signs signaled his intent to support conservation. He talked conservation up during his campaign. Now his actions demonstrate his true intent, which is to create value for Romspen at the expense of our community. He wants to divide our community into winners and losers, depending on where you live around the old course. This is exactly what Mike Ford, The Conservation Fund (TCF) stated in his final communication to us. He said THIS MUST NOT HAPPEN. Mr. Ford knew well the perils of dividing the community with partial development. That is why TCF insisted that their effort to create a conservation easement be for all 208 acres, nothing less. Partial development would tear at the social and financial fabric of our neighborhood. The fear of partial development is palpable and needs to be taken off the table.
We believe that the best way forward is just what your 7-0 vote calls for - a full conservation easement in perpetuity. It may be a long, hard path to walk but just knowing that the council will stay the course to that conclusion will sustain us.
Councilman Solomon's motion for creation of a task force included a seat for Preserve Vistoso, (PV), leadership in the deal making. He unwittingly confirmed what many of us have suspected for some time. His comments appeared to be in line with a PV survey that circulated last spring polling residents as to their stance on potentially developing some of the property in order to conserve other areas around the course. I saw the survey. It clearly showed the golf course property right behind our home as available for development. I note that none of the PV leadership's homes were near the areas they thought would be agreeable to Romspen for development. Conservation would take place near their homes. After I saw the survey form, I quickly rescinded my five figure pledge to PV. I then spoke directly to Mr. Ford by phone. He was aware of the survey and told PV to cease sending it out, as it as divisive; it would tear the neighborhood apart and TCF would not be a party to it. The form disappeared quickly. Unfortunately, a seed of doubt has been planted in our neighborhood. What were PV leadership's real intentions? What are they going forward? Are they for creating a conservation easement for ALL of the defunct golf course, or just those areas behind their homes? Is PV really just a self-serving entity?
I would like to see the Preserve Vistoso leadership offer the community a clarifying statement, so we can better understand their motivations and survey mis-step. Perhaps they can re-affirm their role as a strong, collective voice for our neighborhood regarding the future of the old course.
The council's rejection of Councilman Solomon's motion to create a task force to codify his murky deal also gives PV an opportunity to step away from him. Instead, they could provide our neighborhood with the much needed clarifications on where they stand on the future of the defunct golf course. While only the town council speaks for us in legally binding matters, PV can be our voice and gathering place to hash out and communicate to you our collective desires in these matters. They are not our negotiators.
I know the hard road to town ownership of this land will be successful. We have the votes and the will of the people behind the effort. [We] will re-pledge our donation to the purchase of the land if the council stays the course towards a fair market value for the property. Many others in Rancho Vistoso will do the same. As Mayor Winfield said, "We can find the money". We can take the time, too.
Most importantly, you have the power to just say NO to re-zoning the property. If Romspen sees that the council majority is in favor of a full conservation easement and has not opportunity to develop the land, they will finally sell at fair market value terms. The property has been abandoned. It is subject to condemnation. They will sell when they see our resolve.
Our neighbor, [name deleted], has asked to sign onto this letter. [Information regarding neighbor deleted for privacy purposes.
[We] and many others share the opinion that Councilman Solomon must recuse himself from this agenda item. We hope the entire town council agrees.
For those reasons, I ask you to demand a recusal of Councilman Solomon from any further dealings in the matter of the defunct Vistoso Golf Course property.
Solomon's opportunistic "Preserve Vistoso" signs stapled onto his re-election signs signaled his intent to support conservation. He talked conservation up during his campaign. Now his actions demonstrate his true intent, which is to create value for Romspen at the expense of our community. He wants to divide our community into winners and losers, depending on where you live around the old course. This is exactly what Mike Ford, The Conservation Fund (TCF) stated in his final communication to us. He said THIS MUST NOT HAPPEN. Mr. Ford knew well the perils of dividing the community with partial development. That is why TCF insisted that their effort to create a conservation easement be for all 208 acres, nothing less. Partial development would tear at the social and financial fabric of our neighborhood. The fear of partial development is palpable and needs to be taken off the table.
We believe that the best way forward is just what your 7-0 vote calls for - a full conservation easement in perpetuity. It may be a long, hard path to walk but just knowing that the council will stay the course to that conclusion will sustain us.
Councilman Solomon's motion for creation of a task force included a seat for Preserve Vistoso, (PV), leadership in the deal making. He unwittingly confirmed what many of us have suspected for some time. His comments appeared to be in line with a PV survey that circulated last spring polling residents as to their stance on potentially developing some of the property in order to conserve other areas around the course. I saw the survey. It clearly showed the golf course property right behind our home as available for development. I note that none of the PV leadership's homes were near the areas they thought would be agreeable to Romspen for development. Conservation would take place near their homes. After I saw the survey form, I quickly rescinded my five figure pledge to PV. I then spoke directly to Mr. Ford by phone. He was aware of the survey and told PV to cease sending it out, as it as divisive; it would tear the neighborhood apart and TCF would not be a party to it. The form disappeared quickly. Unfortunately, a seed of doubt has been planted in our neighborhood. What were PV leadership's real intentions? What are they going forward? Are they for creating a conservation easement for ALL of the defunct golf course, or just those areas behind their homes? Is PV really just a self-serving entity?
I would like to see the Preserve Vistoso leadership offer the community a clarifying statement, so we can better understand their motivations and survey mis-step. Perhaps they can re-affirm their role as a strong, collective voice for our neighborhood regarding the future of the old course.
The council's rejection of Councilman Solomon's motion to create a task force to codify his murky deal also gives PV an opportunity to step away from him. Instead, they could provide our neighborhood with the much needed clarifications on where they stand on the future of the defunct golf course. While only the town council speaks for us in legally binding matters, PV can be our voice and gathering place to hash out and communicate to you our collective desires in these matters. They are not our negotiators.
I know the hard road to town ownership of this land will be successful. We have the votes and the will of the people behind the effort. [We] will re-pledge our donation to the purchase of the land if the council stays the course towards a fair market value for the property. Many others in Rancho Vistoso will do the same. As Mayor Winfield said, "We can find the money". We can take the time, too.
Most importantly, you have the power to just say NO to re-zoning the property. If Romspen sees that the council majority is in favor of a full conservation easement and has not opportunity to develop the land, they will finally sell at fair market value terms. The property has been abandoned. It is subject to condemnation. They will sell when they see our resolve.
Our neighbor, [name deleted], has asked to sign onto this letter. [Information regarding neighbor deleted for privacy purposes.
[We] and many others share the opinion that Councilman Solomon must recuse himself from this agenda item. We hope the entire town council agrees.
Sincerely"
---
