Letters to the Editor

Woodland Lake Park will eventually be sold. The Bush administration twice placed our park on a list of excess properties to be sold, and the Obama administration is now looking at the sale of our park as a part of their deficit reduction program. The Town of Pinetop-Lakeside does not have the cash or the borrowing ability to purchase our park, and the purchase should not fall only on the citizens of Pinetop- Lakeside, as they are not the only users of our park. That is why a minimal tax to accumulate funds toward purchasing portions of our park makes so much sense. These taxes will be paid by everyone who shops or dines in town: Town residents, adjoining county residents, and visitors.

Your “YES” vote on the two referendums does not mean you are agreeing to purchase the entire 583 acre park; you are agreeing only to a minimal tax increase (2 cents more for each $5.00 pizza) to accumulate funds to begin purchasing portions of our park. I do not like paying taxes either, but really will any business close its doors because they were forced to add 2 cents to a $5.00 purchase? Are we going to stop buying food or eating out because of these taxes? I don’t think so, and the Town Council will periodically review the taxes and purchases to decide whether or not to continue to collect these taxes.

Ask yourself: Do you want to lose Woodland Lake, the trail around the lake, the ball fields, the ramadas, the playground equipment, the hiking trails, in-Town fishing, and wildlife viewing? Isn’t this really a very small price to pay to secure our greatest community asset for generations to come? You can make a difference and make that happen by voting “YES” on the two referendums.

John Jarchow
Woodland Lake Park Task Force Member
County Resident

To the editor:

I have business interests in Pinetop/Lakeside subject to the sales tax. I support propositions 403 and 404 to help acquire Woodland Lake Park. The park attracts tourism and business to this area.

The upcoming vote on these propositions brings us to a critical juncture in the future of the Park. A 'no' vote will send a loud and clear message to the Forest Service and to congress that the town is unwilling to 'put it's money where it's mouth is'. This will justify what the Forest Service already wants to do and congress is willing to do to raise money--facilitate the sale of the Park to private interests.

A 'yes' vote will step us up to the plate. The Forest Service would lock in a presently low price and work with the town for a long term, financially sound plan for the acquisition of the Park.

Years into the future, when the cost is long forgotten, and our descendants and others are still enjoying the Park and it's facilities, they will look back to this day and say "They did the right thing".

Tom Jernigan
Lakeside

Tax Perspective

Two cents tax on a five -dollar pizza. On a four- hundred- dollar set of tires a tax of one dollar and sixty cents. These examples so beautifully put into perspective the tax dedicated to acquire Woodland Lake Park, that there’s hardly room for improvement.

Nor are better examples needed; witness the eight hundred residents of Pinetop-Lakeside, (shall we dub them the P-L 800?) who signed the initiative. Their tacit endorsement of the tax would seem to make this acquisition issue a slam-dunk.

But there is a well- organized opposition group, opining that we are already overtaxed and stretched too thin. And they predict dire consequences, especially if the economy doesn't recover in a timely way. Struggling economy? Dire consequences? I'll bet the P-L 800 will agree that there is no more "dire" scenario than the parkland being bought by foreign investors.

I'm afraid that the Park's legal protection is only as good as Congress’ fickle attitude regarding the privatizing of public treasures. Then there’s the U.S.F.S mandate to obtain the "most and best". Add these to the very real possibility that our shrinking dollar could put foreign investors at an advantage. This reality makes a tax of four tenths of one percent look like the opportunity of our dreams, rather than the nightmare that some would have us believe.

Why don’t we discuss it further over Pizza? I’ll buy.

Lon Hoffman's recent letter on "political pressure" leading to the Woodland Lake Park ordinances indicates he is among a small group of people who feel entitled to make decisions for Pinetop-Lakeside apart from the wishes of the the overwhelming majority of residents of the community who favor Woodland Lake Park. This group also feels entitled to make up their own "facts."

Remember the signs during the Stonebridge campain promising great jobs if the zoning change was approved? Fortunately, the voters saw through this and realized that a bankrupt developer wouldn't be hiring anyone.

Here are some of the factual problems with the letter: 1) Rather than create a conflict with funding for police, the ordinances separate the funding for the park and other government services to end this conflict. 2) The funds are placed in a special fund for the park and cannot be diverted for any other purpose. The Arizona Constitution protects such special funds. 3) Issue 403 provides for continued funding of capital improvements for Mountain Meadow. 4) Though our federal taxes are used for the park, so are the federal taxes of people who live in Boston and Florida. They are going to have other priorities. 5) The ordinances do nothing to encumber the town. They only establish a small revenue stream (two cents on a $5 purchase) so the town can begin to collect funds to pay for the park.

Please vote Yes on 403 and yes on 404 in the August Pinetop-Lakeside mail-in election.

As the old adage goes: everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Such is the case with Lon Hoffman, who wants voters to believe that “we already own” Woodland Lake Park (WLP). If so, why did he and other Town Councilors commission the University of Arizona to develop a master plan to acquire WLP from the Forest Service? And if this were really the case, why has WLP long been a top strategic goal of the Town, including when he was on the Council? And why did the Bush administration develop 2 proposals 5 years ago to sell WLP to fund the Secure Rural Schools Act? The simple fact is that the Town does NOT own WLP and has limited control to even its developed park with $4 million in improvements.

After making its Townsite Act application in 1987, it’s “put up or shut up time” for the Town – without passage of the 2 funding ordinances, a clear signal will be sent to the Feds that we’re not committed to acquiring even our developed park.

Mr. Hoffman is equally incorrect in asserting that the ordinance to extend the Restaurant & Bar tax will not support further development of the Mountain Meadow Recreation Complex. In fact, this ordinance divides funding between parks operations and open space preservation/urban trail development, parks capital improvements (applicable to Mountain Meadows!), and for the acquisition of WLP. Yet NOTHING in the ordinance requires funding WLP, but it was included to augment the new 0.4% sales tax if revenues ever come up short in satisfying bond debt. If not passed, the Town’s parks operations that support our many festivals and events will be devastated – this is why the Council voted unanimously for extending this tax that is vital to our local economy.

A Good Tax

Nobody likes taxes but how often do we get to decide where our tax money goes? The tiny four/tenths of a cent tax proposed in Proposition 404 will provide dedicated funds for Pinetop-Lakeside to acquire Woodland Lake Park.

This will be a separate fund which will exist ONLY for the purchase of the Park. The money cannot be taken out and used for anything else.

Voting YES commits our town to purchasing and preserving the Park for us, our children and our grandchildren. Future generations will appreciate our foresight in committing to a place in the White Mountains where people will always be able to hike, fish, bird-watch, kayak, and enjoy the peace and beauty of the outdoors.

Please vote YES on 404 and have some say about where your tax money goes.

To the Editor:

The Public Law of 1998 gives the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside exclusive rights to buy Woodland Lake Park from the federal government until the U.S. Congress authorizes another buyer.

The Park has been included on lists of properties that could be sold to fund other federal programs.

When the threat of sale of the Park under the federal Secure Rural Schools Act loomed in 2008, the Town Council commissioned a Master Plan to implement Park acquisition.

Acquisition plans are not completed yet.Woodland Lake Park can be sold to anyone if authorized by U.S. Congress.

Barbara Teague, Lakeside

IT’S ABOUT THE MESSAGE-NOT THE TAX

I am another of those in business who support Propositions 403 & 404. I supervise a restaurant in both Pinetop & Show Low. Everything on the menus at my Show Low store costs less than in Pinetop because of the restaurant & bar tax there. Same is true of Taco Bell, Burger King, & McDonald’s. Guess what? My Pinetop store does just fine & often beats my Show Low store in customers & sales.

I hate taxes. I believe the last thing the government needs is more of your money or mine. If they would spend less on stupid things they wouldn’t need to tax more. I am probably like most people when it comes to taxes-I’m against any & all. Those who oppose 403 & 404 are counting on the fact that people don’t want more taxes & would like to lower any they could. The problem is that in this case, (a rare one indeed) it isn’t about the .04% new or the current one in place. It’s about saving something that helps drive our economy in Pinetop/Lakeside-Woodland Lake Park. The fact is we do not own any part of it. The federal government could sell it at any time.

Sure, we get 1st dibs, but it’s clear we don’t have the funds. The point of this new “tax” is to send a message to Washington-“The people of Pinetop/Lakeside are serious about making an effort to buy the park”. If they see that we are willing to impose a new “tax” on ourselves they will get that message. If we fail to pass 403 & 404 we are sending the dangerous message that we clearly aren’t serious about the park. We cannot afford to send that message! This “tax” is actually committed to something spelled out in the proposition-Woodland Lake Park. When was the last time you got to vote on a “tax” that the government actually had to spend the way you wanted?

The majority of the town supports the effort to save the park. Do not allow those who crave it to be developed sway your resolve to save the park. Vote “yes” on Propositions 403 & 404.