The folks who fought the city of Tucson for access to public records as part of an effort to prevent the sale of the El Rio Golf Court to Grand Canyon University are having a community forum on Sunday, Oct. 20, from 2 to 4 p.m. at the Woods Library, 3455 N. First Ave., just south of Prince.
From a letter that went out today from forum organizers:
Dear Friends:
Our purpose is to share with the community what we have found (so far) with our lawsuit, public records request, to hear from others who have had similar issues with the City, and to try to forge a united way forward in order to protect the public interest in the face of a large and powerfully deceitful bureaucracy and political structure that conducts business behind closed Executive Sessions, and through shadowy public/private partnerships like T.R.E.O. and the Downtown Partnership. We have invited representatives to speak from groups such as the West University Neighborhood Association, the Neighborhood Infill Coalition, Broadway Corridor, and others.
…
Back Ground
Last May, in response to an attempt by a majority of members of the Tucson City Council to sell the publicly-owned Trini Alvarez El Rio Golf Course, a diverse group of people organized to prevent this sale to a private, for-profit entity that would have replaced over 100 acres of valuable urban green space with large concrete and steel structures for what is ostensibly an on-line diploma “educational” institution.
Calling ourselves the “El Rio Coalition II” (in deference to the grass-roots movement in the early 1970s which successfully forced the City to create Joaquin Murrieta Park and the El Rio Neighborhood Center, while maintaining the golf course,) we reached out to a number of inner-city neighborhood associations and various social activist and environmental organizations for help in our struggle to preserve our publicly used and personally treasured green space. Many people lent their support, and encouraged us to continue to “fight city hall.” Even when the Mayor and Council voted 5-2 to move forward with the negotiations that could have led to the loss of the golf course, we stood strong and united and the City officials indicated they would acquiesce to community demands to drop the plan (without acknowledging it was a bad idea to begin with). Soon after, the private entity—Grand Canyon University—found another site for its campus.
Some who were not part of the El Rio Coalition assumed that our battle was then over, that we had won, that there was no further need to engage in a continued fight with the City. But there were too many unanswered questions about the proposed El Rio deal for us to just declare victory and go home. Questions such as:
Why was the City even considering giving up this particular valuable and well-used piece of property? Were other public parks considered for sale as well? When did the Mayor and Council publicly approve such a policy?
Who was G.C.U. and why did they want over 100 acres of public land for their program, rather than pursuing acquisition of private land? What, exactly, were they looking for and why did the City feel that El Rio could provide them what they needed?
Who initially proposed this deal, and for whose benefit? What were the specifics? What analysis was done in terms of an appraisal of the site and how would the sale benefit the people of Tucson?
What are the real profit and losses of the municipal golf program, and why was only El Rio being singled out? Why was council member Romero telling us that she was trying to save El Rio while voting to sell it? Tucson Regional Economic Organization (T.R.E.O.) was heavily involved in the El Rio-GCU matter. What role did Mayor Rothschild play, as a Board member of T.R.E.O., in the sale?
And finally, why was the City refusing to answer our questions or to make available to the public documents that the public by law has a right to review and obtain?
The last issue listed—the lack of transparency and the refusal to provide documents that the City is legally obligated to make available to the public—forced us to sue the City for the documents. The judge ruled in our favor and directed the City to release all the documents/ However, to this day the City has continued to refuse to provide the public records that have been requested. The City has allowed some documents to trickle out, and just what we have been allowed to see has been shocking. Not only was the proposed destruction of El Rio a bad idea in terms of the damage it would have done to the surrounding residents, but from a business sense it became painfully obvious that if the Council had not been forced to retreat they would have been responsible for a massive rip-off of our public resources—in the range of tens of millions of dollars.
Other revelations included the fact that the City directed the appraisers to determine El Rio’s worth based on a falsehood: that the golf course—which contains hundreds of trees, grass, ponds; which supports diverse wildlife and birdlife; has water, electric, telephone, and sewer lines, and buildings—should be appraised as a “vacant, unimproved lot!” We also found out that the City was planning to propose a “renters tax” on any new dorms constructed on the site, a new tax that the Council has never publicly voted on but which was going to be secretly imposed.
When about a dozen of us met with the Mayor and his staff, he assured us that the golf course was no longer on the auction block, so we asked him to rescinded the vote to sell the property. This has not been done. We then watched with consternation as this Mayor and Council betrayed their promises to the community to preserve the Ronstadt Transit Center—they are now “exploring options” for its use as more retail development. So we remain very concerned about how the city does its business and how they continue to deceive the public.
We know that the only way to stop the City from making more back-room deals is to shed light on the problem. And in that regard, we are inviting you to our first public forum.
With warmest regards,
El Rio Coalition II<
This article appears in Oct 17-23, 2013.
God forbid that a run down golf course could not be converted to an operation that might provide jobs. Oh, maybe they do not need jobs in that neighborhood.
There you go, shill. Lord jobs over the community. Threaten them should they demand any oversight.
Oh. And let’s get those jobs from “Grand Canyon University” in exchange for tens of millions of dollars of public resources. Brilliant.
Standing-room only crowd at the forum! A highlight was attorney Bill Risner’s presentation, where he presented documents and communications showing that City of Tucson officials falsified both the appraisal of El Rio, and the economic impact report of GCU.
Thank God that there are still citizens in Tucson who are willing to stand up for transparency and accountability, and who protect all of us from these types of smoky back-room deals. Bravo to the El Rio Coalition!
Dear Ms. Mahaney:
Thank you for sharing your comments with me, which frankly I find quite puzzling.
You state that you wish “the deal” [the sale of the Trini Alvarez Golf Course to Grand Canyon University] “would have gone through” which you claim “would have preserved the property for bird wildlife” and would “promote clean air.” You state that you live in the El Rio neighborhood, but I must ask: have you actually seen the golf course, which consists of 114 acres of green space with over 100 mature trees, beautiful grass courses, and several water ponds? How you conceive of replacing this with a massive campus with concrete and steel as something positive for wildlife is beyond me, but their was once a national politician who claimed trees cause pollution so I suppose some people can believe anything even when objective reality obviously indicates something diametrically different. In fact, I must say, of all the arguments I have heard in favor of developing the property — “golf is just a rich mans game…” or “we need the jobs at all costs, even to the environment…” I have never heard anyone ever express the opinion that this deal would actually be GOOD for the environment. At my age, I do not get surprised easily, but if nothing else you have succeeded in doing so with your … ah…, unique perspective.
Be that as it may, an examination of this “deal” reveals a massive rip-off of the taxpaying public — even if one thinks concrete and steel structures are better for wildlife than grass and trees. A proponent of increased traffic congestion as a good element for improved air quality, but who nonetheless can read, should be able to see the fact that City of Tucson staff and elected officials lied not only to the public but in court under oath as well. Even someone who may prefer the sounds of cars and trucks in their neighborhood over the sounds of birds and the wind whipping through the trees should still be shocked that the City tried to sell the property under market value by creating a false appraisal of the property’s actual worth in violation of the State of Arizona’s Gift Clause law.
If you “have intimate knowledge of the operations of the city golf course” as you claim, you should then be aware that El Rio Golf Course has been charged much higher rates for water than the other municipal courses, and that the dubious figures the city once used to bash El Rio’s financial losses were based on additional factors not taken into consideration: such as the loss of revenue by eliminating the driving range, a broken air conditioning system in the clubhouse during the hottest months of the summer, and the dumping of older golf carts and other equipment from other golf courses on to the additional burdens of El Rio.
Finally, your assertion that this development would have somehow “increased property value” is almost as perplexing a statement as your contention that this development would be good for wildlife. I would suggest that most people would prefer living next to 114 acres of green open space rather than what was proposed, but perhaps all the millionaires around the Tucson Country Club, Starr Pass, Dove Mountain, etc., all have it wrong. Why they chose to live out among natural beauty instead of the wonders of industrial parks must be quite a mystery to you. Indeed, you may want to check with any real estate agent, as I am sure you would get a great “deal” by selling your house in the El Rio neighborhood for something closer to an industrial zone. Perhaps you could find something still available in the airport fly zone or adjacent to a large manufacturing facility that is more accommodating to your special needs and desires. I sincerely wish you good luck with that. Really, I do.
In the meantime, for now at least, El Rio Belongs To The People. Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of your neighbors — as well as many others who care about protecting our public green space for future generations — intend to keep it that way.
City of Tucson Citizens Seek Stronger Voice in City Government
Compiled by Ruth Beeker
Fall 2013
The Neighborhood Infill Coalition (NIC) sponsored 3 workshops during Summer 2013 for concerned residents to grapple with a major question: How can Tucson citizens gain a more meaningful voice in City of Tucson decision-making? Forty-eight participants brainstormed and edited 4 guiding principles:
This WE Believe
People have a right to be involved in decisions which affect them and their community.
True community involvement is dependent on: timely notice, transparency, accuracy, access to information, opportunity for input and balanced consideration of the facts.
Trust in City government, which is essential, is built on open, honest, respectful, equitable and inclusive processes and procedures.
Residents have a right to a basic Quality of Life which includes an expectation that government will be responsible for community health and safety, will honor our history and will respect our sense of place.
The entire document, This WE Believe, is posted on the Neighborhood Support Network website: http://neighsupport.net. Click on “Neighborhood Infill Coalition-Summary of Summer 2013 Meetings” in the left column.
As a follow-up to the summer meetings, groups of citizens are exploring how to organize to have a more effective way to insure the above principles are met. Two new options are being studied:
1. Form a coalition of those special interest groups which already exist There are a number of citizen groups already in the City, such as El Rio Coalition, Neighborhood Infill Coalition, Core BaNC, Broadway Corridor, Bus Riders’ Union, Ward3Alliance, Downtown Neighborhoods and Residents Council, Neighborhood Support Network. If groups such as these could form an alliance independent of City government, the citizens’ voice could be greatly amplified.
2. Request City of Tucson to form an official Board, Commission or Committee to address Neighborhood Concerns Topics which particularly impact city residents would have its input prior to going to Mayor and Council for approval.
Follow-up Event for All City Residents who Wish to Be Involved
Saturday, Nov. 16, 2013 Citizen Coalition Formation-Scottsdale Experience at the Ward 6 Office, 3202 E. 1st St. 2:00-4:00
Scottsdale citizens and small-business owners have formed an advocacy group, Coalition of Greater Scottsdale (COGS), which has a strong independent voice in City of Scottsdale decision-making. Its chairperson, Sonnie Kirtley, has graciously agreed to come to share their experience with Tucson citizens who are interested in gaining such a voice in the City of Tucson government.