OV citizens deserve accurate facts re: budget
We on the Oro Valley Town Council are stunned by inaccurate reporting (Voices, “Oro Valley needs to review its budget,” March 23, 2011) regarding the financial state of our local economy and our attempts to weather the storm of the last five years.
We are working diligently to keep Oro Valley on a solid footing, nurturing business interests with a commitment of steady and reasoned growth to help us pay the bills and retain our core services. We’ve drawn bioscience and clean business to us. We’ve planned for the preservation of our town by passing the Environmental Sensitive Land Ordinance, ensuring protection for the continued beauty surrounding our homes.
We are now actively engaged in a budget process that will involve cutting the town budget for a third straight year. Contrary to what you read in the newspaper, the town manager has not submitted a budget, no decisions about taxes have been settled, old arguments about how we pay for our safety are not valid, and no promises of pay raises for town employees have been made.
In the history of Oro Valley, political squabbles inspired by spin have prevented facts from getting in the way. We ran for this office to help the town evolve, knowing that the economy and politicians, generally, did not have wind at their backs.
We urge patience while we work to get us through this tough time. Then, judge us by what we do, not by what others say we’re doing.
Vice Mayor Mary Snider and Councilmember Lou Waters, Oro Valley
Likes Zinkin’s thinking about Oro Valley budget
Regarding the letter published on March 23 from Mike Zinkin (“Oro Valley needs to review its budget”), in our last election, Mike Zinkin was defeated by 16 votes.
In his letter he challenges the town council to examine ways to reduce cost and cites specific means to do so. This is in sharp contrast to the current approach, which assumes that costs are a given, and the budget problem is solved by raising taxes. If the council would direct all departments to reduce their spending by 3 percent, I think we would have a balanced budget.
Yes, I voted for Zinkin, as I felt that he would have a realistic approach to our budget problem. I wish that 17 other voters had seen things my way.
Chuck Davis, Oro Valley
We all need to learn how to serve better
I would like to respond to an article (“Melvin should better serve Pima County,” March 23, 2011) sent in to The Explorer by Mr. Vavra. In that article, statements are made implying that State Sen. Melvin voted as he did on SB 1621 as “political payback to Sheriff Dupnik for his outspoken remarks concerning the tactics and vitriol used by our representatives in Phoenix.” Statements of this nature border on what I would personally consider as vitriol. What proof does Mr. Vavra have regarding that statement?
Sen. Melvin can explain his motivation and reasoning for his vote on SB 1621. I would also like to remind Mr. Vavra that it was an election that placed Sen. Melvin in as a senator of Legislative District 26.
The extreme unhappiness that Mr. Vavra shares and comments for recall would certainly require hard proof indicating that Sen. Melvin was not fulfilling his obligations as state senator. Also, on many occasions, I have written senators and representatives of both parties and received comments back. I do not always agree with many of our elected officials but I respect them.
I am confident if Mr. Vavra took the time to write to Sen. Melvin that his questions and assumptions would be addressed. I am also confident that Mr. Vavra is very aware of his rights as a citizen to engage in this activity.
If Mr. Vavra has not communicated with Sen. Melvin, then shame on him. If he has and Sen. Melvin has issued no response, then and only then can you place shame on him.
Bob Black, Oro Valley