December 7 - December 13, 1995


No Support For Tax

To the Editor,
Regarding The Skinny item "Impact Fee Update" (Tucson Weekly, November 9), I thought it appropriate to correct, once again, Emil Franzi's inaccuracies.

The article included a reference to real estate transfer taxes (in lieu of impact fees) which said, in part, "This brilliant proposal would place a de facto impact fee on everybody's house. And we're told the land speculation wing of the Tucson Board of Realtors, led by Bill Arnold, was ready to go along."

To begin with, there is no "land speculation wing" of the Tucson Association of Realtors, nor was the Association (or myself) "ready to go along" with the implementation of such a tax. The Realtor organization has successfully defeated the enabling state legislation which would provide for such a tax each time it has raised its ugly head. You may recall the statewide campaign we organized several years ago which prevented the legislation from being adopted. I do not foresee a day when the Realtor organization, or myself, would ever support such a tax.
--Bill Arnold

Franzi replies: Great! Now, since you dislike realistic impact fees, how do you plan to pay for all the infrastucture the valley needs as a result of that wonderful growth you support?

White Folks Fight Back

To the Editor,
As an avid reader of The Skinny, I usually find myself agreeing with the writer(s), whomever they may be. However, the article titled "Anal Retentive Ranch" (Tucson Weekly, November 16) was nothing but offensive. I am certain that the writer thereof was not as informed about the subject as he or she usually appears to be about the topics covered, and I was extremely disappointed that the Tucson Weekly found the article worthy of publication.

I am a resident of Continental Ranch. I purchased my home there after reading the entire text of the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions ("CC&R's") which govern that subdivision. Further, the purchase of my home in Continental Ranch was based on my desire not to have the value of my property diminished by blowing trash, neighbors with excessive weeds, broken-down cars or RVs parked on the streets, and other eyesores which are prohibited by the CC&Rs.

I am certain that anyone with a complaint about the CC&Rs which govern Continental Ranch is either 1) a homeowner that neglected to read the CC&Rs prior to purchasing in Continental Ranch, or 2) a person who does not even live in the subdivision. As I am equally certain that the writer of the subject article is a person who fits into one category or the other, I have neither respect for him or her nor tolerance for the opinions voiced. However, I do have a suggestion for that writer. If the author falls into category 1), he or she should either move out of Continental Ranch or quit whining. On the other hand, if the author falls into category 2), he or she should mind his or her own business and leave the residents of Continental Ranch alone. Most of us are happy with the restrictions with which we agreed to comply.

I am a Tucson native, as are many of my neighbors. Not all residents of the subdivision are California transplants, nor are we all white. Continental Ranch is not a community of racial or geographical separatists. While it may be "damn serious work being a white person in this day and age," the author ought to give more thought to the responsibility which he or she bears as a journalist than to the racist, inaccurate remarks employed.

Finally, if the writer(s) of The Skinny wish to gain any credibility, and if they really wish to be as bold as they attempt to be every week, I suggest that they identify themselves and provide some foundation for the opinions expressed. If the satire which they publish in that column is accurate and true, I would think they would publish it proudly, not anonymously.
--Roger H. Contreras, Esquire

The Die Is Cast

To the Editor,
It was with ironic amusement that I saw the top die on your cover "Chairman Of The Board" (Tucson Weekly, November 16) appeared to have two sides with one spot, which would favor the numbers 2, 3 and 4 against the numbers 8, 9 and 10.

Upon reading the Franzi diatribe, I realized Don Diamond doesn't need gaffed dice in his pocket to bust into the game when he has gaffed (altered to produce a specific result) politicians already. The average Joe can rumble two identical adjoining spots, but not always two joined-at-the-hips policy makers. Perhaps we don't need local politicos when a good honest pit boss would do. Do you want a job, Emil?
--James Hartley


To the Editor,
Just a few words thanking you for your really great newspaper. I am also really grateful that you have been publishing the syndicated column of Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon. I hope you will continue to do so.

They represent a remarkable group called FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) and also publish a terrific magazine called Extra, which I find a real gem. Keep up the good work!
--Francis Farley

Chamber Mad

To the Editor,
I had to laugh out loud upon reading Jeff Smith's "Crime Time" (Tucson Weekly, November 22). I have often thought he was a pompous blowhard, but his hypocrisy was showing in this article. I consider myself a liberal, but I do believe in the death penalty. If someone takes a life, they should die also. Why should someone have a second chance when their victims don't have the same option? They will be put to death humanely while most all victims die by savage methods. Jeff, the self-proclaimed "humanist" and "spiritual being," opposes doing away with scum such as this, but he could "cheerfully gut-shoot the bastard" who rips off his precious 54-inch Sony and various tools.

It just proves my point and my argument for the death penalty. It is easy to play the part of a forgiving soul who believes there is some good in everyone, as long as the crime was committed against someone else unknown to you. How many people feel "forgiving" when it was someone dear to them or even an acquaintance?
--Ken Klauss

Right Thoughts

To the Editor,
You should encourage Jeff Smith to vent his conservative yearnings. With "Crime Time" (Tucson Weekly, November 22), his diatribe against burglars, he is revealed as a frustrated liberal who would be much happier on the right.

Just think what it would do for the improved credibility of your paper, and the new targets he would have. He could aim his sights at the swill which came out of the mouth of Jesse Jackson on Donahue recently. Jesse is just another burglar eager to spend public money and to dupe black people for his personal aggrandizement. Even Barbara Kingsolver has revealed herself as a friend of burglars recently on the News Hour on PBS. Her talk of "community" is just a disguise for her socialism, without a word about personal responsibility or fraud and waste. Just get on the public dole, and open your legs so all the taxpayers have to open their wallets.
--Alan Dorset

Got something to say? Click here to write to Mailbag!
General Tucson Weekly Mailboxes
Tucson Weekly Staff Mailboxes
DesertNet Staff Mailboxes

Contents  Page Back  Last Week  Current Week  Next Week  Page Forward  QuickMap

December 7 - December 13, 1995

Weekly Wire    © 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth