It appears that Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll has either intentionally misled voters, or simply doesn’t understand the County’s intended and current use of open lands. In a radio ad, Carroll advises hunters that they should support the open space proposal in the bond package on this year’s ballot.
Carroll’s ad, which is airing everywhere including a large conservative station and a small paid programming station, is paid for by the Campaign to Re-elect Ray Carroll. In his ad, Carroll states:
This is Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll. I am originally from Illinois. Do you know where hunters find deer in Illinois? Michigan and Wisconsin. Guess they could use more open space. So can we. For a few dollars a year, County bonds will add thousands of acres that pay few taxes now – that will allow wildlife to breed and that will allow land to be used by hunters and other outdoor enthusiasts in places that were always fenced off. Please join me in voting yes. Paid for by Elect Ray Carroll.
According to the open space bond material provided by the County: “No County action shall limit access for the recreational purposes of sportsmen lawfully engaged in activities related to the legal taking of fish and game. The County will cooperate with, and accede to the decisions of, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission in all matters relating to game management when advancing the goals of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan through acquisition or conservation of lands.”
The stated goal of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan is “preserving species and habitat;” in other words -breeding yes, hunting no. As a result, the County prohibits hunting on much of its land and as soon as it purchases that land from the Arizona State Trust, it calls the shot, pun intended, on that land.
It could be argued that Carroll meant that hunters will benefit from the breeding that occurs on County lands. If so, he should have made that clear. He did not; instead he leaves the listener with the impression that they will have more land – and animals – for hunting.
The fact is that much of the “open space” is being bought for no other reason than to grab water rights, according to sources. Pima County administrator Chuck Huckelberry knows too well that he who controls the well, controls the growth and the citizenry.
On Sunday, the Avra Valley Coalition, issued a statement taking exception to Carroll’s ad. They note that contrary to Carroll’s apparent claim, hunters are “barred from bringing firearms or bows and arrows into Pima County Conservation open space,” but “that is far from the only misrepresentation in this campaign.”
The Coalition claims that at the October 15 Oro Valley Bond Forum County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, when questioned about the projected amount of the property tax increase, insisted that the interest rate on the bonds would stay low and not rise to the 8 percent allowed in the bond measure. Clearly, Huckelberry cannot make a guaranteed on bonds that will not be paid off until 2043, when the bonds are paid off (if not refinanced) was not explained.
According to the Coalition, Yes Campaign Chair and corporate attorney Lawrence Hecker, when questioned about the $200,000 in large corporate donations to his campaign, stated that there were “hundreds of other smaller, private donors who are in support of this bond.” In fact, the Yes campaign website appealed for small donations during August with a goal of $5000 by Labor Day. However, the Coalition reports that Hecker’s group did not reach that goal.
The Coalition questions Huckelberry’s attack on Supervisor Ally Miller in an October 21 column. Huckelberry found “disappointing” Miller’s honest assessment of some of the bond proposals as “corporate welfare.” At issue is Huckelberry’s claim in The Explorer piece: “The county bond issue provides an opportunity to invest in such activities by investing in the Oro Valley incubator and The University of Arizona Innovation Center. Startups pay rent — local government does not subsidize them — and state law requires they pay property taxes when they occupy a building, even if the county builds it.” The Coalition points out that “The Campus Research Corporation, which runs the UA Tech Park, is a non-profit and pays no property tax, but collects about $12 million yearly from its corporate tenants.” Given that fact, the Coalition states that “Corporate welfare” is not an inappropriate characterization.”
The Coalition reports that the “Yes” campaign website is calling bond opponents “extreme,” “negative,” and “petty.” Those opponents, according to the Coalition “are one out of five Pima County voters classed as seniors who depend on Social Security and will not get a raise while food prices are up a reported 6-1/2 percent. A tax increase for the bonds means an income reduction.”
Over 800 residents of Avra Valley signed a petition opposing any bonds with Interstate 11 money in them. The Coalition says that they signed because the “Sonoran Corridor, earlier labeled I-11 on county maps, could just be an east-west highway linking I-10 and I-19, but it drops south to provide a free highway for a Diamond Ventures planned development, and then west to connect with Huckelberry’s proposed I-11 route through the Avra Valley. The Sonoran Corridor’s $30 million in Prop. 425 was moved up in priority while road repairs were stretched out over 12 years to 2028.”
“We understand that, as voters become more familiar with the bond election and thus more likely to vote no, the Yes campaign feels some desperation.” The Coalition concludes, “But not telling the truth and misrepresenting the facts of the bond measure will take a toll beyond this November 3 election.”
Residents of Pima County have grown accustomed to leaders who do not tell the truth and misrepresent facts, so the question becomes; when will the residents say enough is enough?
Related articles:
Pima Bonds: Is Prop. 425 “Sonoran Corridor” Illegal?
Following The Money: Why Big Business Backs Pima Bonds
Prop. 426 Could Be Pima County Debt Accelerator
Pima County Bond Beneficiaries Concerned With Funding Timeline
Tucson Medical Center Funding “Yes on Pima County Bonds”
Pima County Bond Election – Proposition 430
Pima Bonds Campaign Funders: Donors Or Investors?
Arizona Supreme Court Rejects Pima County Lawsuit, Huckelberry Demands Tax Increase