The behind the scenes arm twisting, half-truth telling, and other wheeling-and-dealing leading to the Pima County Board of Supervisors vote on the Sabino Canyon and Cloud roads rezoning proposal is revealed in emails recently released by the County. The emails reveal that the residents of the area were not only left out of any real discussion, but were dismissed as “elitist NIMBYs.”
The Pima County Board of Supervisors have received over 700 letters in opposition to the planned development just south of East River Road, at the northeast corner of North Sabino Canyon and East Cloud roads. They had received little over 60 letters of support for the “luxury casita” rental project. Despite the lopsided numbers, the Supervisors voted 4-1 in favor of the project on May 6, 2014.
All was not what it appeared to be. The public was offered a pre-scripted drama designed to make Supervisor Ray Carroll the champion of the little man, who fought hard to take on the powers-that-be.
The charade is shattered by the contents of an email sent by Pima County resident David Hoefferle to Supervisor Ally Miller dated May 1, 2014.
Hoefferle begins by praising Miller for her “tenacity” and writes that he believes that it is “because of your strong position it encouraged the Sabino neighbors to move forward even in the face of opposition.”
“Your effort has been noted and appreciated by all the neighbors I have talked with,” writes Hoefferle.
Niceties aside, Hoefferle’s email, obtained through a public records request, reveals the sausage making:
“Because of your involvement, along with that of Chris Monson, Mel Zuckerman, and Bob Villamana, the developers were forced to negotiate. As you remember, in our meeting with Mr. Gugino, he was adamant that he would not budge from 11 11.2 RAC. Ray Carroll met multiple times with me, Chris, Mel and others. He told me that if the homeowners did not except the 130 homes that the other three supervisors would consider the neighbors as NIMBYs incapable of negotiating. He made it appear that he would vote at the 169 if forced to accept an option to Gugino could not make money on such as a 6 RAC.
David Dameron, the Sabino Creek HOA president, without knowing the details, was elated to hear that the final negotiation was agreed at 8.58 RAC. The neighbors lost their clout when the County passed the Comprehensive Plan Amendments opening the door for such in-fill development. While it was a veiled threat, Bob Gugino said Richard Elias would make a motion to approve 196 (not 169) homes just because of the anti-low-income-renter-sentiment among the “elitist” NIMBY protestors.”
The 350+ households who sent letters in protest did so under the encouragement of Katrina McNerney and Sam O’Shaughnessy, with Linda Wahl and Nancy Schwartz being instrumental in their HOA a half mile away.
The homeowners are now recognizing that further protesting will be futile, and have agreed that the compromise while not their preference, was the only way they could live with the project. Again, please accept my sincere appreciation for the emotional support and all you have done on our behalf. I encourage you to recognize, that well this is not the most favorable outcome, that any further effort to fight this will cause our neighborhood more harm than we are currently facing. I strongly suggest that your leading out on the approval of this negotiated plan will benefit the neighbors, and will go a long way to surprising the other county supervisors, requiring them to approve your motion excepting the negotiated agreement.”
Many say that with the allowable height of a future church steeple in the balance, it was imperative that Carroll be hailed the savior for some of the negotiators. Hence, at the Board meeting on May 6, every effort was made to tout the heroic efforts of Carroll, while every effort was made to ensure that rogue residents did not upset the carefully scripted performance.
And an effort was made to stifle opposition. The residents were advised in an email from their neighbors, “We have agreed as the Sabino Joint Neighborhood Committee to show good faith and not drum up more protest.”
So, at the May 6 meeting, after receiving praise from the handful of the development’s supporters, Carroll told the rapt audience, “I just want to reluctantly accept any credit for this,” referring to the defeat of the neighbors, “because I was reluctantly dragged into this.”
Supervisor Ally Miller, District 1, was the lone vote against the unpopular development in her own District.
Miller had made a motion to delay the vote on the premise that residents in opposition to the project had not been given enough time review the terms of the last minute compromise made between developer, Bob Gugino and a handful of unnamed residents, according to a statement Miller released after the vote.
Due to the number of residents who opposed the development and live within 300 feet, a super majority had been invoked. As a result, the development could have been denied with two Supervisors voting against the plan.
Could have been denied, but never really would have been denied. the fix was in, and if you are part of the “in crowd” you can’t be denied for the most part.
If you have ruffled feathers and find yourself in the out crowd, you are out of luck.
Pima County developer Alberto Moore is a perfect example. Moore had his development in Catalina denied just weeks before the Sabino vote, despite wide-spread support of neighbors. the County staff had approved it, but the powers-that-be had not approved of Moore, or Miller, and the Board was going to send a costly message.
That is how it works in Pima County. The sausage making is ugly, and unappetizing.