News

Print this story | |

Comment (No comments posted.) |

Rate |

Text Size

Guest Comment: Question 2 a waste, abuse of democracy

By Jerry Pulliam and Karen Geores

Published: Saturday, February 24, 2007 10:55 PM MST

Question 2 on the Sahuarita ballot is an unfortunate example of the abuse of our initiative process.

Tucson developer Bob Sharpe put Question 2 on the ballot not because of public outrage about the way the town handles wastewater management. Nor did he do so after exhausting his other options to have his viewpoints heard by the town.

Mr. Sharpe had a personal grievance with a wastewater planning decision. Over the course of two years of public meetings that dealt with this issue, Sharpe failed to register his concerns despite having 18 opportunities to do so.

Sharpe shunned numerous opportunities to constructively discuss the issue with the town or heed the warnings of various community members and statewide leaders about the negative impacts of such an initiative. He simply decided to have his way at the ballot box, and appears to be spending whatever it takes to win.

‘Public participation’

Sharpe claims that his wastewater initiative is a “public participation” initiative. We, too, believe that public participation is an essential part of our democracy. But a close look at Question 2 reveals that it actually is not about public participation at all.

Almost 8 out of every 10 signatures gathered to place Question 2 on the ballot were gathered by paid circulators. Six out of seven of these paid circulators are Sharpe employees.

As of the latest financial report, the Yes on 2 Campaign had brought in $19,000 by the New Year, all of it from Sharpe’s company. To date, they have spent that and thousands more on misleading mailers and vicious attack ads.

Every mail piece, yard sign, newspaper ad and phone call supporting this campaign has been paid for by Sharpe. And his chief spokesperson stated at a recent community meeting that Mr. Sharpe was prepared to spend whatever it takes to win this election, citing $39,000 as a “small price to pay.”

The only spokesperson for the Yes on 2 Campaign outside of Sharpe himself is his senior vice president, who lives in Tucson—near Sharpe’s home—and works out of Sharpe’s Tucson headquarters.

If Question 2 passes, Sharpe will have succeeded in drastically limiting competition to his own development interests in Sahuarita.

The question is: With no outside donors, no apparent volunteers, and a huge financial stake for Sharpe’s company in the outcome, is this really a “public participation” initiative?

Or is Question 2 a huge and costly waste aimed at protecting one company’s interests at the expense of the whole town?

Property values could really suffer if the wastewater initiative passes, setting up our town for a future of unnecessary sewer plants in each new development, some within a mile of one another, in addition to a proliferation of private septic tanks. It will surely hurt property values for every homeowner in Rancho Sahuarita and all over town.

Sharpe misled Rancho Sahuarita residents when he circulated the original petition, promising they would have a vote on future expansions of the wastewater plant.

This is not true. Question 2 gives voters NO vote on any expansions to the plant. Sharpe has perpetuated this myth in mailings from the Yes on 2 Committee.

Expansion already scheduled

The truth is the plant is already scheduled to expand for many years to come just to meet the needs of Sharpe’s own development, regardless of what happens with Question 2.

If Question 2 passes, it would waste scarce town resources on unnecessary elections and potentially unnecessary new sewer plants, not to mention the likelihood that it would lead to litigation because it appears to violate the Federal Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Act calls for regional wastewater planning and management in order to ensure public safety.

Who would pay the bill for the likely litigation if Question 2 were to pass? We, the taxpayers, would.

Furthermore, Question 2 would harm our natural environment.

Imagine a multitude of smaller, less efficient and smellier wastewater plants, and a proliferation of private septic tanks on nearby land.

Question 2 means waste

By mandating that we do NOT make the most efficient and effective use of our existing wastewater treatment resources, Question 2 opens us up to a future in which we waste energy, waste land, and lay waste to our natural environment.

Question 2 also wastes the goodwill that we have developed over the years here in Sahuarita. Since we incorporated as a town, we have welcomed many new developments large and small, including Bob Sharpe’s Rancho Sahuarita. We are excited for what the future holds for our town.

However, this initiative, and the manner in which Sharpe has pushed his agenda, suggests a future rift in our town between Rancho Sahuarita and everyone else.

Question 2 would lay a dangerous precedent by establishing one set of rules for Rancho Sahuarita and another for the rest of town. We do not want that.

We, the Citizens United for Sahuarita’s Future, believe very strongly that Question 2 is wrong.

Our coalition includes more than 100 Sahuarita residents and business owners from all walks of life who have come together to oppose this initiative because we know that it is dangerous, costly and wasteful. We must defeat it.

Please Vote NO on Question 2.

Sahuarita residents Jerry Pulliam and Karen Geores are, respectively, chairman and vice chairwoman of Citizens United for Sahuarita’s Future.

The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily this newspaper’s.


Editorial: Strong candidates line up for GRV board		Cultural Calendar

Article Rating

Reader Comments

The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of gvnews.com.

Submit a Comment

We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.

Return to: News « | Home « | Top of Page ^

Today's Weather

Green Valley, AZ