Preserve Completion: Korte vs Smith

From today’s Scottsdale Republic. First, Virginia Korte [who has never in my recollection argued for fiscal responsibility…and in fact stood by silently while the City Council gave away millions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize professional golf, polo matches, and advertising subsidies for auto dealers on McDowell Road]:

We must assess costs of preserve

Recently, a group of citizens criticized five of our seven City Council members for wanting to study the long-range costs of maintaining and operating the McDowell Sonoran Preserve before the last parcels of land are purchased. Mayor Jim Lane and Council members Suzanne Klapp, Linda Milhaven, Dennis Robbins and I are simply being fiscally responsible.

It is hard to believe anyone would be critical of the Council for trying to ensure that your taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.

Here are facts to consider:

  • We have preserved about 30,165 acres of the original 34,165 within the Recommended Study Boundary, approximately 88 percent. In 1994, the McDowell Mountain Task Force knew we could not draw a “fixed” boundary.
  • The unprotected 4,100 acres are located primarily along Pima Road.
  • Bonding capacity for the preserve tax is $63 million. Future improvements total $28 million. $35 million will not go far in purchasing 4,000 acres.
  • We rely heavily on the non-profit McDowell Sonoran Conservancy to provide maintenance and programming in the preserve. The MSC does not receive any city money. Relying on a volunteer organization to help maintain a $750 million asset may not be a sustainable long-term business plan.

With insufficient funding to purchase the remaining 12 percent of the RSB and an inadequate long-term plan to manage and maintain our $750 million asset, I believe it is time for discussions regarding our signature community treasure, the McDowell Sonoran Preserve.

I chaired the first McDowell Mountain Task Force in 1993. I campaigned for passage of all five voter-approved proposals to fund the preserve. After more than 20 years of work to create this community gem, I believe it is fiscally responsible to evaluate how we are going to sustain it.

Virginia Korte is vice mayor of Scottsdale.

Now, David Smith:

Don’t ignore voters’ Preserve wishes

Last month, I had the pleasure of joining many fellow citizens for a dedication of the Jane Rau Interpretive Trail at the Brown’s Ranch Trailhead.

Only 10 days later, a most curious thing happened in the Kiva at City Hall. In a split decision, the Scottsdale City Council voted to agendize for discus­sion at a future meeting “… a possible moratorium on future land acquisitions …” for the preserve until some ques­tions are answered.

It all began with the argument we needed to prepare for the future liabil­ities of maintenance and reinvestment (which, by the way, dismissed any thought that citizens, through the vol­unteer McDowell Sonoran Conservan­cy, might shoulder this obligation in the future, as they have in the past). Others “piled on” with additional arguments for why we should stop purchasing land for preservation: … “The next pieces will be too expensive!” “The state has no more matching money!” “We need to better assess our bonding capacity!”

One council member summed up the majority attitude with a sneak preview of their future dis­cussion: “It makes sense for us to stop!”

For council mem­bers who claim to “listen to the citizens” they seemed surpris­ingly tone-deaf to the most articulate, pre­cise and compelling set of directives ever given by Scottsdale voters. To even consider dealing with a future liability by stopping all preserve-land pur­chases and squirreling the tax revenues away in an endowment fund or using it for some other project is wholly at odds with the wishes of citizens — if not blatantly illegal.

The 2004 Preserve ballot measure (which passed 55 per­cent to 45 percent) provided, unambig­uously, that preserve sales-tax reve­nues were “to be solely used for the general purpose of acquiring land … and constructing improvements there­to, for the McDowell Sonoran Pre­serve.”

David Smith. a former Scottsdale city treasurer. is a candidate for City Council.

You may also like

4 Comments

  1. Do I smell another rat here? Is it possible that land on Pima Rd. would be a whole lot more valuable to developers for future residential or commercial development? Is it possible this land will be sold to those same developers with scam attorneys that seem to convince certain city council members that high rise apartments are good next to the airport? Time will tell if the Preserve increases in size or more developments take over on that valuable land. It appears the developers are the Winners in Scottsdale not the concerned citizens.

  2. I don’t know whether to laugh, shake my head in disgust, or cry at anything that Korte spouts off about. It’s hard to believe anyone would vote for her. Smith is right; it probably would be illegal to stop the Preserve since the voters approved it in 2004.

    Now they are going to cut the school day back on Wednesdays to save money while at the same time they spend $380,000 on a horse sculpture for WestWorld. Fortunately the voters are wise to this bunch at City Hall so Korte and company can forget getting the voters’ support of their silliness.

    Remember Gerry Rafferty and Stealer’s Wheel? “Clowns to the left of me; jokers to the right. Here I am back in the middle with you.”

  3. The City does not fund schools. Who will take care of this incredible city asset when the current volunteers age out. I don’t think it hurts to stop and ask questions before its too late to adjust. It’s time for the citizens of Scottsdale to realize we have a luxury brand that needs maintenance. Our quality of life is not free. In days gone by we were a Community of Yes. Let’s preserve, maintain and grow with a managed vision. The cynical no will get exactly what you wish for, no maintenance, no managed growth and no vision.

    1. Scottsdale has “managed growth.” It’s called the 2001 General Plan, one of the best municipal general plans ever written, and the state requirements were modeled after it.

      Unfortunately, the mayor and city council have mostly “managed” to circumvent it through hundreds of conditional use permits, zoning concessions, amended development standards, and other “incentives” for which the citizens have essentially received nothing except for noise, blight, ten-thousand new and cheaply-built apartment units, and lagging property values.

      Trying to equate “growth” to economic success and to school funding is a big part of what caused the school override to fail.

Leave a Reply to John Washington Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *