Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Hearing popular support for a Mayoral campaign

TUCSON -- I've been hearing a lot of support for running for Mayor, I'm happy to report.

I'm talking with key people, and plan to make a decision by mid-April or sooner.

I'll be meeting with political activists and speaking at 6 and 8:45 pm Thursday 3/22 at The Shanty, 401 E. 9th St. Everyone is welcome.


Kralmajales said...

Dear Daniel:

I am curious about your campaign and know that you are on the planning commission. I wanted to know your position on the Neighborhood Protection Zone proposal that was created in response to the growth of mini-dorms in our inner city neighborhoods.

As you know well, R1 Single Family Resident Zoning has not worked. Developers have skirted the code for years making R1 virtually identical to R2. This plan finally would give some real zoning protection to neighborhoods who advance it.

Many of us are concerned that even our Democrat dominated council is now more worried about that the developers think than we do.

I don't want to be disappointed again.

What is your position on this proposal?

DRP said...

The Planning Commission vetted this proposal in detail. Most comments from the public were in favor, with very little comment from developers. The Commission passed it along to Council with a positive recommendation.

If the Council has concerns, they may want to remand the issue back to the Planning Commission for further review and possible revision.

I am generally supportive, although I still have questions on implementation details like the 25% support requirement.

Kralmajales said...

Hi Daniel:

The 25% support requirement, as you know, has been blown completely out of proportion. That is only to start the process of neighborhood hearings and the plan to begin. A plan that could include developers and others at the table.

What no one is saying about the 25% requirement is the power imbalance. Many of the neighborhoods, like University, Jefferson Park, and others have a dominance of absentee rental owners. It would be very difficult to get them to sign such a petition. Others are, in fact, elderly and shut in, and others are students. Having a higher level of requirement would be unworkable.

Finally, please be careful when you hear developers plead fairness. They are repeat players with the planning department and council. They have the money to hire people to organize for them and to send paid staff to meetings. Those in neighborhoods, no mattter what people say, are volunteers with very little time, money and effort to put forth.

They meet on Saturdays, evenings, and do their best to fight of these parasites of our neighorhoods.

Some of them have done their best to represent us under extremely difficult conditions and have worked hard to build this process. They have been empowered but we need help, the developers that profit off of our neighborhoods, with no concern about us at all, do not.

I am thrilled you recommended the proposal. Please don't fall prey to what this soundbite argument by them about fairness.

There is no room to compromise on this. We have waited for years with no help from the city. This is the rare chance to do the right thing.

Remember also, they generally live in subdivisions that are granted exclusive zoning rights.

Why can't I buy a house in their neighborhood, destroy it, and put up a trailer? The county and city won't let me.

Dont let them.

x4mr said...


I added your blog as a link at my place. If you are willing, would appreciate the same on your list of links to local blogs.

Also, at the risk of inviting a floodgate, which would probably be a good problem, I would encourage you to have your blog profile include an email address. You could use a gmail or whatever, but allowing the public to contact you directly occurs to me as a good move.

DRP said...

Done. Somehow it got turned off, so thanks for letting me know so I could fix it.

I may be contacted by email directly at roundriver(at)gmail(dot)com.

quazi said...

Don't wait too long to decide to run. People are thinking that Mayor Bob is a shoo-in. Besides, Rodney is picking off all the good campaigners.

quazi said...

Many agree that the NPZ is a good idea, but the 25% likely won't fly when applying Citywide. The remaining 75% would end up fighting City Hall if they didn't like the proposal. Only 25% needed to petition a proposed NPZ would make it vulnerable to 207 challenge. A compromise would be 51% needed to file a petition for a NPZ. The City doesn't want to end up in court. I agree with you that 25% isn't enough to get the plan before the City.

Anonymous said...

Once again the 25% myth has come into the light of day. Let me make this as clear as I can for you. If a neighborhood would like to set up a NPZ it would take 25% of that neighborhoods population to start the process. That is all the 25% is about! The argument that opponents of the NPZ use is that this so called 25% is going to control what will happen for all of the city. This is NOT TRUE.

If the neighborhood has sufficient support it must follow a rezoning process. This require full notification of all property owners with in 300 feet of the proposed NPZ along with a number of public hearings.