Archive for November 11th, 2009

Even if the incumbents (and I count Fimbres in that number) get re-elected, there’s no way that they’ll be able to continue with the Pushme-Pullyou, scattershot approach to revitalization. They’re going to have to scale back, set priorities, stick to them and, most of all, stop trying to be everything to everybody. It’s human nature to want to be generous (and to be liked for being generous), but the days of free spending and pet projects are long gone.

It’s probably not a lot of fun to be elected to office, only to find that you only have three major obligations: maintaining healthy police and fire departments, fixing the streets and figuring out ways to pay for the two aforementioned items. Even if Prop 200 didn’t pass, the budget shortfall will force the council to severely narrow its focus.

(Ms. Abbott is on the left, during one her happier moments)

According to our friends at Let Oro Valley Excel (link on right):

Monday, November 9, 2009

Paula Abbott Resigns From Oro Valley Council–Effective Immediately

Earlier this afternoon, Paula Abbott notified Mayor Loomis that she has resigned from the Town Council effective immediately.

Many of us feel this action was taken seven weeks too late as it was on the night of Sept. 23 that Ms. Abbott joined with Loomis, Carter & Kunisch to terminate David Andrews as our Town Manager.

Paula’s action leaves the town in somewhat of a quandary. Someone will need to be appointed to fill her remaining 7 months, and as things are now, a 3-3 vote on most, if not all potential candidates seems inevitable. We’ll see how that plays out.

As for Paula, she was first elected in 2002 and reelected in 2006. For most of her tenure, she was a lone voice of the people of Oro Valley. Sure, she had her detractors all along the way, but having helped get her elected twice, Paula always had my respect for voting her conscience and usually voting for the best interests of the people.

Did Paula and I agree on every issue? Of course not. I believed some of her votes were wrong, but in a seven year span, would any two people agree on every issue every time? Obviously not.

I would also say this to Paula’s detractors: How many of us could have lasted for that long a time, especially when dealing with other Council Members that treated you with such disdain? Paula dealt with it, although it was never easy.

It wasn’t until Paula saw fit to take the action against David, that was NOT in the best interests of the vast majority of us, that I too became one of her detractors.

Hopefully, now that she is no longer on the Council, Paula will tell us as how and why she joined the other three in terminating David. Some of us already know the answer, but Paula should “come clean.”

Closing on a positive note, I’d like to thank Paula for her seven plus years of service to the community, and wish her our best now that she is once again only a citizen of our community.

Posted by artmarth

Labels: Town Council

She was always a queer duck.  Never returned a call to anyone (constituent or otherwise) ever.  This is a perfect addition to the bizarre world that is OV politics.  Stay tuned, it will get weirder…

At the core of the mini-dorm fight is a national property rights decision that the Supreme Court ruled on in 2005. A city in New London Connecticut decided that making way for a new Pfizer pharmaceutical campus, high end condos and mixed use retail would be better for all citizens and provide an economic multiplyer to the towns coffers.  The only problem was, Kelo happened to own a home right in the middle of the towns multi million dollar project.  The City of New London ultimately took Kelo’s house under eminent domain provisions which are usually used for cities and governments to build roads, utility lines or rail services.

Kelo sued all the way to the Supreme Court. The court ruled 5-4 in favor of the City of New London and Kelo’s home was removed in the name of progress. The back lash over the decision has caused numerous states to enact legislation or run ballot propositions to tighten the laws around private property rights beyond those being interpreted by the Supreme Court.

In Arizona Prop 207 was passed in 2006.  More about various states reactions to Kelo v New London HERE and HERE. Tucson ongoing battle with Mike Goodman over his mini-dorms in the Feldman neighborhood is the states first test of the new Prop 207. Like mini-dorms or not the decision has everything to do with a persons private property rights and how a community can interpret, restrict, expand or regulate those property rights.

From todays WSJ, it appears the big economic engine that sparked the entire argument has decided not to build after all. What remains for now is a dirt lot, similar to the many dirt lots around Tucson that have been left undeveloped due to a stale mate between city leadership, neighborhoods and developers.

The Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London stands as one of the worst in recent years, handing local governments carte blanche to seize private property in the name of economic development. Now, four years after that decision gave Susette Kelo’s land to private developers for a project including a hotel and offices intended to enhance Pfizer Inc.’s nearby corporate facility, the pharmaceutical giant has announced it will close its research and development headquarters in New London, Connecticut.

The aftermath of Kelo is the latest example of the futility of using eminent domain as corporate welfare. While Ms. Kelo and her neighbors lost their homes, the city and the state spent some $78 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other “desirable” elements. Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant, without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation.

That’s especially galling because the five Supreme Court Justices cited the development plan as a major factor in rationalizing their Kelo decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy called the plan “comprehensive,” while Justice John Paul Stevens insisted that “The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue.” So much for that.

Kelo’s silver lining has been that it transformed eminent domain from an arcane government power into a major concern of voters who suddenly wonder if their own homes are at risk. According to the Institute for Justice, which represented Susette Kelo, 43 states have since passed laws that place limits and safeguards on eminent domain, giving property owners greater security in their homes. State courts have also held local development projects to a higher standard than what prevailed against the condemned neighborhood in New London.

If there is a lesson from Connecticut’s misfortune, it is that economic development that relies on the strong arm of government will never be the kind to create sustainable growth.