Tea Party of Scottsdale, AZ
Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values: Personal Freedom, Economic Freedom and a Debt-Free Future


 

 

My Response to Councilwoman Korte's Promotion of the DDC @ Gateway Trailhead

Everything that the promoters have described can be accomplished w/o tearing up Preserve Land - we have lots of property already zoned for development - much of it contiguous to the desert.  An ideal placement would be next to the Butterfly Farm/Aquarium - one stop tourist destination.  Closer to the Preserve is the NE corner of 101 & Pima/Princess or a logical location in the commercial development across the street from Gateway.

The entire approach to the DDC, alone, raises questions about the legitimacy of the project.  They are trying to present the Gateway location as a ‘fait accompli’  to discourage any discussion of alternate locations and to focus on the ‘amenities’.  Their attempt to justify the size & scope of the DDC - amphitheater, auditorium, museum, classrooms, gift shop, cafeteria, etc.- as one of the “amenities” the voters approved in a Bond election is just ridiculous.

They are trying to pretend that this is just a study committee - they just don’t 

know now how large it will be….just what are the chances it will be less than the former 30 acre proposal?  Especially, now that they want to have an outdoor amphitheater for nighttime events.  They claim that an architect has yet to be chosen - what are the chances that it will not be Vern Swaback?

If it is a legitimate benefit for the residents of Scottsdale - why did you not place it on the ballot with the Bonds?  We approved the Bonds to Preserve the land - why are you afraid to submit the DDC @ Gateway to the voters?  Why only two public forums - April 20 & 21 until the fall when it was obvious that both audiences adamantly opposed what you are trying to manipulate through?

While I was drafting this e-mail, Doug answered a survey call with the final question having to do with the DDC - the survey presented the DDC as being built on 10 acres of 30 acres and later states it will be funded by a grant from ASU & the Bed Tax - no mention of additional funds that will be needed.  This phrasing is obviously designed to elicit positive responses - is this another dishonest approach of the promoters?

Finally, the McDowell Sonoran Conservancy originally stated they they were taking no position on the DDC, then it was revealed as a “Partner” and Dan Gruber identified as a MSC volunteer and one of the Presenters.  Yesterday I resigned as a MSC Steward, Class 15, because the management is censoring any negative comment or discussion by, with, or to, Stewards and the MSC appears to be complicit in the current dishonest approach.  I cannot in good conscience be part of either censorship or duplicity.   I attended the Steward Forum on the DDC and the majority of the Stewards attending opposed the Gateway location.  

Why such an overbearing, heavy handed, manipulative & disingenuous process that is obviously intended to force construction on the Preserve?  Who stands to gain?  Whose pockets are being filled?  There is absolutely nothing honest in this procedure.

I trust that the City Council will consider the next election and the voters’ wishes and stand up to whatever ‘Special Interest’ is behind this effort.

Sincerely,

Patricia M. Shaler

Do you like this post?

Showing 3 reactions


posted about this on Facebook 2016-04-25 19:52:24 -0600
My Response to Councilwoman Korte's Promotion of the DDC @ Gateway Trailhead
@TPScottsdale tweeted link to this page. 2016-04-25 19:52:20 -0600
published this page in Scottsdale City Council & DDC 2016-04-25 19:52:06 -0600