Letters to the editor for July 2
‘Unfair, unbalanced’ reporting shameful
Mr. Patrick McNamara wrote “Town to re-advertise 3 slots on board of adjustment” published June 27.
Quoting Mr. McNamara: “Two other citizens joined Pelzl to blast the appointees, prompting the council to vote 4-2 to delay its decision and to re-advertise the positions on the board. Pelzl also donated to the campaigns of Garner and Latas.”
Later, Mr. McNamara stated: “Ottoboni also gave council members a collection of letters to the editor Cox wrote to The Explorer dating back to 2003. The letters provide ‘an insight into his personality,’ said Ottoboni, who has donated money to the election campaigns of council members Barry Gillaspie, Bill Garner and Salette Latas.”
Does Mr. McNamara mean to imply that Gillaspie, Garner and Latas voted for the delay because Pelzl and Ottoboni contributed to their campaigns?
This is terrible innuendo heaped on the residents Pelzl, Ottoboni, and the council members integrity.
Don’t destroy Big Wash with development
I recently read an opinion of Dr. Oro’s regarding development in Oro Valley.
For the most part I would have to agree that Oro Valley and Rancho Vistoso have been designed very well and provide many assets to its citizens. However, I feel it is time to re-evaluate some pending developments, such as future growth in Neighborhood 5.
This development will be built down in the Big Wash, in which the majority is classified as a FEMA A Flood Zone (which is an area of undetermined flood depth). Another area of concern is the fact that the Big Wash is a wildlife corridor. It connects to the Honey Bee Wash to the north and to the Canada Del Oro River to the south. We walk this area daily and see a diverse amount of wildlife utilizing this area. Just to name a few, as there are too many to mention, are gila monsters, horned toads and at least one pair of desert tortoises. The impact of high density housing will be great in Big Wash and possibly a mistake due to possible flooding risk (one only has to walk down there after good rainfalls to see the changes).
It is hoped the developer and the town of Oro Valley will reconsider the destruction of this area.
Teri R. Dean
Bold prediction by staff meteorologist
Interesting and bold forecast by your staff meteorologist, doubt you have one, considering the monsoon is knocking on the door. Not having at least a slight chance in the forecast, especially next week, is risky.
Oh, by the way, make sure that you and your reporters correctly use the monsoon correctly and not as “monsoons” for thunderstorms.
In OV, there are no backroom developer deals
This letter is in response to “Let’s Deal Straight Up,” June 18.
It is interesting that the editor did not mention the Oro Valley General Plan even once in the editorial. The Kais, prosperous Marana businessmen, were seeking a major amendment to the general plan, ratified by the Oro Valley voters in 2005. All stakeholders, including the Kais, were part of that process. In addition, the general plan process clearly defines the numerous public meetings which are required to take place before a major amendment can even be heard before the town council. Only one such meeting had taken place before the Kais withdrew their proposal.
The editor stated that the neighbors don’t want more neighbors. The current General Plan designation allows 255 homes (roughly three times what current zoning allows for that property) plus a neighborhood commercial area. This hardly constitutes denying the Kais use of their property. The current general plan protects riparian areas, open space, and slopes, and encourages clustering. These were not added by the recent proposal.
Yes, many residents do worry about incompatible uses adjacent to their homes. In fact, industrial / commercial / professional parks often do not want to be adjacent to residential areas. Ventana Medical even sued the town of Oro Valley when they changed the zoning on an adjacent parcel to residential. The purpose of zoning regulations is to ensure that uses are compatible, benefit the community, and reduce conflict. The standards for infill are necessarily more stringent than when developing property with no existing neighbors.
I am very curious as to what the editor means by Oro Valley being surrounded by “relative mess.” Is he referring to Marana and unincorporated Pima County?
When the town of Oro Valley follows the rules outlined in the general plan, it inspires confidence in the residents. Contrary to the feelings of the editor, this experience goes a long way to restoring the faith of the citizens in the processes of government. It allows all sides to be heard in public meetings and dispels the notion that backroom deals with developers are business as usual in Oro Valley.
In the interest of complete disclosure
When I read the article that Mr. McNamara wrote about the Board of Adjustments, I thought it was interesting that he brought a “Political Slant” to the article.
Since he mentioned that I contributed to Mrs. Latas, Mr. Garner and Mr. Gillaspie’s campaign, I would expect that he would have also mentioned that I donated to Al Melvin, Marilyn Zerull and Joe Higgins campaigns as well as volunteer for them. I was also a delegate to the Republican meeting in Phoenix. Previously I volunteered and donated to Randy Graff, David Jorgensen and Al Melvin’s campaign.
When it comes to reporting, I believe it should be complete and accurate. Thank you.
Monitor reader on offshore drilling
A reader of The Christian Science Monitor responds to a Monitor editorial on offshore drilling.
Regarding your June 20 editorial, “Yes to offshore oil, but not now”: Even if the United States outer continental shelf (OCS) were opened today, the Energy Information Administration expects that oil production could not begin before 2018.
The estimates of how much oil and gas are recoverable from the OCS are guesses, not facts.
Projected production figures to 2030 are based on a very unreliable mean of two extreme guesses. Both the Pacific and Atlantic OCS are known to have smaller potential deposits, and an unknown number of them may not be economically feasible to exploit.
Even the paltry benefits from increased production disappear if demand increases unabatedly.
We would do much better to formulate energy policies that address our real problems and forget such meaningless side issues as finding and burning the last remaining little bits of petroleum in North America.