What about safety?
Saw the “subversive” picture of the person vandalizing the prop sign on the front page of The Explorer.
Has the mayor printed any pictures of the 200-300 drivers at First and Oracle, every a.m., that run the red light turning right? The answer is no. So much for safety of our community. Why? Not sure.
Off the cuff, I would say he doesn’t care.
Editor’s note: The cover photograph on the Nov. 1 edition of The Explorer was submitted by the Oro Valley Police Department.
Not my Oro Valley
Did you know that 43 years ago, before Oro Valley became a town, our founding fathers promised there would never be a property tax—ever?
I know that times change, and those on our current town council believe that an expanded Naranja Park with additional sports fields and a playground is important to our town, and I don’t disagree. This would be a lovely amenity for our town, and when we can afford it, we should provide it. Since 2008 (the last time we voted down a bond plan) the town has been developing the park on a pay-as-you-go basis, and that’s how we should continue its development.
I’m assuming that most of us who want to do any kind of home remodel, save money for it, and proceed with that remodel as we can afford it. We don’t ask our neighbors to help pay for it. It seems that this council just decides the town needs something and is totally willing to spend our money to make it happen. Consider the sales tax increase to pay for the community center. The community center purchase was not a bad idea, but the town couldn’t afford it, and now we are finding out that it is a way more expensive proposition than we were led to believe.
I’m concerned that the Naranja Park will be the same type of situation, and frankly, I don’t want a property tax, which I was told would never be imposed on my home for a park I will probably never frequent. And the town calling it a “secondary property tax” is a joke. The operative words are property tax! Has the town discussed using fields of the Amphitheater school district? The town is considering what to do with all the golf courses it now owns. Can one of them be used as fields—has that even been contemplated?
So my question comes to be—why not have the people who think this park enhancement is such a great idea pay for the park with a users’ fee? There are still some folks on fixed incomes who cannot afford paying for the burden of playgrounds and sports fields that they will never use. That truly is taxation without representation.
Editor’s Note: This letter was shortened to fit the word count limit.