A Pima County valuation study regarding a proposed landfill in Marana has confirmed what nearby residents say they’ve known all along: A 40-foot-deep landfill—with refuse allowed to go up to 200 feet high—could drastically harm the value of their homes and community.
Pam Ruppelius, who lives in a subdivision near the proposed landfill site, says property values were discussed at the Feb. 24 Marana Planning Commission meeting, at which the commission voted to rezone the site as industrial, which could pave the way for landfill development. The private landfill project is being pursued by DKL Holdings, represented by Tucson attorney and lobbyist Michael Racy.
Ruppelius says Racy presented results from an appraisal done by Southwest Appraisal Associates, which made it seem like a landfill’s effect would be negligible—but Racy has not released the study to the neighbors as they’ve requested.
However, the Pima County study, done by senior property appraiser Brian Johnson of the Pima County Assessor’s Office, concludes that being close to a landfill greatly “depreciates residential property values.”
The study, released on March 12, looked at sales in four subdivisions near the Tangerine Landfill and the Los Reales Landfill which were developed in the previous 10 years. The study states that although the economy needs to be taken into consideration, it doesn’t help that, for example, Gladden Farms also shares a road with the Tangerine Landfill.
“The traffic mix of large waste haulers and commuter cars, as well as families traveling to and from shopping, as well as the close proximity to the landfill, has diminished the desirability of this location,” the study states.
The Rancho Valencia subdivision, near the Los Reales Landfill, is in a similar position, which “makes (the) Rancho Valencia subdivision a less desirable location,” according to the study.
The study states: “In the case of the proposed Marana Regional Landfill, the negative impact of economic obsolescence would be imposed after (the neighbors’) properties were purchased. Since the local residents purchased their homes with the existing zoning … they could be negatively impacted at a greater rate of depreciated value than the subdivision properties used in this study,” the report states.
The study is only part of the information the county is gathering in preparation for the April 6 Pima County Board of Supervisors meeting. At a meeting in early March, the supervisors voted 3-2 to send a message to the Marana Town Council that plans for the landfill were moving too fast.
Neighbors and advocates have used another landfill development as an example of what should occur: the Durham Regional Landfill project in southern Pinal County.
During the early March supervisors’ meeting, Republican Supervisor Ann Day voiced concerns about comparing the Pinal County project to the proposed Marana landfill. Day alluded that something unethical could be going on between Pima County and the Durham project.
She drew attention to Ron Asta, a former supervisor who now works with CPE Consulting. The company represents the Durham landfill and worked closely with Pinal County officials on rezoning and the landfill agreement with the county. Asta has also been a vocal critic of the Marana project, which would compete with the Durham landfill on collections from northwest Pima County.
It also troubled Day that after the supervisors voted to approve the resolution to the Marana Town Council, the next vote focused on renewing the contract for a countywide manhole count. The company doing the count: CPE Consulting.
“This firm has had that contract for a number of years,” Bronson said in response to Day’s comments. “What’s incoherent are Supervisor Day’s comments.”
Asta told the Tucson Weekly that he was asked to get involved in the Marana project by John Kai, who wanted Asta to talk with neighbors who oppose the landfill. John Kai’s brother Herb Kai, is a Marana Town Council member who owns part of a parcel where DKL wants to build its landfill. John Kai is against the project, while his councilman brother supports it, although Herb Kai told the Weekly he’ll recuse himself from voting when the matter comes before the council.
Ruppelius says neighbors don’t care about competing landfills; they just want to protect their neighborhood and water. Supervisors Bronson and Richard Elías seem to get it, she says.
Elías pointed out that the Marana landfill allows for a height of 200 feet of refuse, which is taller than the 11-floor county building where the supervisors meet.
“That would destroy our neighborhood,” Ruppelius says.
Racy claims there is too much misinformation being spread around about the Marana landfill proposal—and he says much of that misinformation is coming from Asta.
Asta counters that if any misinformation is being spread, it’s being released by Racy.
“This project is on a fast track,” Asta says. “There has been no plan amendment process, and they haven’t had to go through as many hoops as we did for the Durham landfill. … I’m being singled out as a competitor with Marana, but I’m just pointing out what’s true—that we had to do much more before the (Pinal) County even rezoned the property.”
According to Pinal County Assistant County Manager Ken Buchanan, the process took 24 months before rezoning took place. The rezoning process for the Marana project took only several months.
Buchanan says that after the rezoning process, the county and CPE put together a development agreement.
“(CPE is) going through these (agreements) as we speak,” such as acquiring a road for access and the construction of four transfer stations.
Asta says the process also included talking to nearby communities and working with the Picacho Peak State Park ranger’s office and park advocates. Height was an issue, which is why the Pinal County landfill was approved at 90 feet, he says.
“I have never seen a project of this magnitude,” Asta told the board of supervisors regarding the Marana proposal. “I know we did do it correctly (in Pinal County).”
This article appears in Mar 18-24, 2010.
Gosh, you don’t think Pima County’s on going dispute with Marana over the sewer system, and who owns it, is what’s behind the County’s meddling in this do you? Take a peek behind the curtain and I’m certain you’ll see Chuck H. pulling on the levers.
Pima County’s dispute with Marana has nothing to do with this. Not that I wish to defend anything Chuck H. does, but Pima County’s involvement in this project was at the request of the neighborhood coalition against the landfill. DKL Holdings, Inc figured they’d railroad this project into existence and we’d just sit back and accept it. There are several issues at stake in this of which property values is only one of them. How’s about a 400 acre, 250 foot tall landfill 2000 feet away from your back door?
This landfill will be located with in 2,000 feet of the Silverbell West subdivision. I’m sure Racy will promise the community a bridal path across the 175 feet tall dump when it’s completed, he’s very good with the blarney.
Our neighborhood has done alot of research about all of the issues concerning the landfill. There is absolutely no question about the negative impacts it will have for all of pima county should this dump go thru. There is no misinformation, because I have seen all the negative myself and have seen no positive outcome from the proposal, even for the Town of Marana, if they lose Airport funding because of it. They will lose alot of jobs and economic growth from a great big DUMP!
Gears-I’m not defending the landfill. I’m criticizing the use of public funds to take sides in another government’s affairs. I’m a county taxpayer and I don’t have dog in this fight. If the neighbors want a report on how the landfill devalues property then by all means pool your money and buy one. Having been on the receiving side of Pima County’s land use decisions, and their impact on my house, I can testify that there’s not a magnanimous bone in that body. And I’m sorry but I can’t believe that Pima County doesn’t see an opportunity to stick it to Marana here. If Marana had rolled over on the sewer issue I doubt if Chuck and his 3 horsemen on the BoS could not care less about this.
retrorv-Didn’t mean to imply you were defending the landfill. Just wanted to make sure that people knew this issue was more than just a p***ing contest between the county and the TOM. Basically there isn’t much the county can do to stop the process other than press the issue on permits and make sure the developer has all of his i’s dotted and t’s crossed. They’re pretty much limited to an advisory capacity. We’re just hoping that combined, our coalition group and the county, we can put enough pressure on the developer to take the feasability out of this project.
Obviously I would not want to live “2,000 ft” away from any landfill! Hell, I wouldn’t want to live a mile or two near one either; therefore I can understand the concern of property values and other negative impacts on the current housing market and surrounding conditions. I have been a home owner before, I get it. However, what I do not understand whatsoever is how everyone near a landfill in other parts of town (i.e. Los Reales and Tangerine Landfills) now want to jump on the bandwagon and put in their two cents. This article states that these were developed over a ten year period?? Maybe re-zoning and expansion..yes…but not created after these new subdivisions were built! Get real. Funny, I remember during the housing boom in the “late pleasantness era” not too long ago, everyone and there brother was buying homes and selling homes (overnight real estate experts all of a sudden!) and the money was being exchanged hand over fist! Included in all of this were these new subdivisions sprouting up along the I-10 east corridor with the mountainous Los Reales Landfill as a scenic backdrop! I remember thinking: “What the hell…who the hell???”, etc.. Not to mention nine out of ten of these were probably sold to people who had no business financing a $200,000 house on a $25,000 per year job (and we blame banks! Do the fucking math folks!). At any rate I hear complaints about loss of property value, NOW? The damn landfill was there ALREADY! The trash was there stinking, ALREADY! Hell, I-10 poses more of a hazard than the landfill! But don’t worry, I’m sure that’s next. As for Marana, I’m happy to hear that this is being fought on the front side of the deal..I tend to agree with “Retrorv” on this situation. I will part with this..not that this is what Marana has said or stated..but remember one thing: The next big idea or great thought for development that gets thrown out there and actually gets acted on, don’t turn around and cry when they build it…in your backyard!
Hmmm. I don’t remember any homeowners from any of the sub-divisions located near other landfills saying anything about land valuation. What this article did not do is post the entire study done by Brian Johnson of the Pima County Assessor’s Office. This study makes a comparison of property value declination based on different sub-divisions located by Los Reales and Tangerine landfills. While taking into consideration the economic conditions related to falling land values these sub-divisions, this study showed valuation loss at differing rates. The sub-divisions that experience most of the landfill related traffic experience a larger percentage of devaluation than a comperable sub-division. What people could or could not afford when they bought their homes has nothing to do with the actual values. That is a Sub-Prime issue that garners a different argument. The value of land lies in what people will pay for it. You can appraise land at any value you like but if no one will buy it then it is worthless.
BTW, it is better to not write anything and be considered illiterate than to write something and remove all doubt.
One must wonder what made this piece of property ideal for a dump? In the Pima County 1992 report on possible sites for a new landfill, sites were disqualified if they “… were in an incorporated area; if the land was a park, forest, or Indian Reservation; all land in a 100 year floodplain; all land within 1 mile of a major watercourse; land with grandfathered water rights; all land within 10,000 feet of an airport runway; all land within 1 mile of active wells in the Tucson Water well fields; mountain areas and areas with rocky outcrops; all areas with more than 10 persons per section or within 1 mile of an area with more than 50 persons per section.”
The Marana site will be in an incorporated area once annexation is done; is between the east and west branches of the Brawley Wash (a major water course); is in a 100 year floodplain; has grandfathered water rights; is practically on top of active Tucson water wells; is just west of the Marana Regional Airport; and is within 1 mile of areas with more than 50 persons per section. Six outta nine is BAD!
So, what made this site so attractive to the Marana Town Council? Mmmm– Does the fact that Michael Racy, spokesman for DKL Holdings, is a paid lobbyist for the Town of Marana? Oh, and we mustn’t forget that the Vice-Mayor just happens to own this piece of fallow farmland. And is it a coincidence that the Vice-Mayor also owns land that, along with adjacent State Land (currently used for grazing), is up for annexation by Marana as a site for a solar power plant just west of Marana High School? My, My, My…Has Vice-Mayor Kai discovered a full-proof means of lining his pockets?
Guess we County land owners better find out if the Vice-Mayor owns land near us? We, too, could wake up one morning to find out we have been annexed with a tire or computer recycling plant, or a maximum security prison, or a sand and gravel pit, or who knows what right next door. Yikes, the stuff of nightmares!
Has anyone considered the implication of Prop 207? Could cost someone alot of dough.
Proposition 207 exempts the following categories of regulation from the compensation/waiver requirement: (1) laws intended to protect the public health and safety (e.g. building codes, health and sanitation laws, transportation and traffic control, solid and hazardous waste regulations, and pollution controls); (2) law that “[l]imit or prohibit the use or division of real property commonly and historically recognized as a public nuisance under common law”; (3) regulations required under federal law; (4) regulations of adult businesses, housing for sex offenders, liquor, and other undesirable uses; (5) laws necessary to establish locations for utility facilities; (6) laws that “[d]o not directly regulate an owner’s land”; and (7) laws enacted before Proposition 207.