Learning Curves To the Editor, I have been following Jim Nintzel's recent coverage of the recent issues involved with the Amphi School District and its Board ("Owls, Howls And Scowls," Tucson Weekly, December 11 ; "Raising Trouble," December 18 ). It appears that major blunders have been made by the Board and Superintendent Robert Smith in the purchase of school sites and other matters. For starters, the Amphi Board nearly approved the purchase of a school site adjacent to La Cholla air Park near the take-off and landing areas. If it hadn't been for the FAA and alert parents, the school would have been built in a very dangerous area. Apparently Superintendent Smith, with access to expertise in such matters, did not exercise due diligence. Furthermore, the site sold several months later for one-third less than the price the Amphi Board proposed to pay for it. Obviously they were willing to overpay for the land. But why? Another fiasco is the purchase of the Newmont Mining property located on Desert Sky Road just south of Oro Valley Country Club. The Amphi Board consummated the deal after information was available concerning possible asbestos contamination, as well as radioactive contamination on the property. A lawsuit is underway after a cleanup crew worker became ill and required hospitalization from alleged possible radioactive contamination. The district never clearly disclosed the purpose for purchasing this property. They will now likely be selling it, if the voters approve, and most probably at a loss. Next item is the high school site purchase on Shannon and Naranja Roads, just west of Oro Valley. There are three large washes on the site, pygmy owl habitat, and numerous lawsuits plaguing the property. The district bought it without an appraisal for nearly $40,000 per net acre after deducting the wash areas that are unusable. Land in the area mentioned at time of purchase was selling for much less per acre. The overcrowding problem of the present high school has not been solved. Indications are that it may be several years before the new high school is a reality. Lawsuits and decisions from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are pending. Proper planning and management techniques could have headed off most of the major problems facing the district. For his contributions in solving the "problems" of Amphi School District, Superintendent Smith has been given two raises totaling about 8 percent by the Board in less than two years, and additionally has had his contract extended and received bonuses, while the teachers in the district were told to tighten their belts and received practically no raises. Amphi School District, one of the richest, has been pleading poverty for years. How can that be, with the tax base supported by Sun City (2,400 homes with no children), the Tucson Mall, the Auto Mall, and all the new developments in the area? Smith's salary is now $95,000 base, plus benefits of at least another $20,000. In comparison, data published recently in The Arizona Daily Star indicates the following salaries: Governor, $75,000; Secretary of State, $54,600; and State School Superintendent, $54,600. According to the Amphi School Board, Smith must be doing a fine job to deserve a salary nearly twice the amount of what the State School Superintendent is making. What do you as taxpayers think about it, since it is your children's education and your money? --Rudy Roszak Stamp Out To the Editor, Thank you for "Hunger Pains" (Tucson Weekly, January 8 ). I think it still remains important to ponder on why many needy people do not choose to take food stamps. My three-year-old daughter and I fit the needy mold of almost every person I know--college educated, working for $8 an hour, and living from paycheck to paycheck. While I could point out the irresponsibility of fathers and child support, that is a lengthy and fruitless battle. While I qualify for food stamps, I came to an important and weighty decision not to apply for them. Since becoming a mother, I was relying on them on and off for about one to two years. However, when the new welfare laws began, the Department of Economic Security workers seemed to become less of social workers and more of people who wanted to push you out of the welfare nest. Although I understood the attitude, it was nonetheless humiliating to be treated as a sub-human being. I have a fond memory of trying to get out of the doors for work one morning when an investigator from D.E.S. showed up asking if he could look through my closets for men's clothes. This really shocked me, but worse--he was carrying around my food stamps ID picture! Wait a minute--they tell you it's for the supermarkets. Hmmm, am I a criminal? Countless times D.E.S. has cut my food stamps as well as my friends' without any notice. They always claim to have notified you. Who is telling the truth? Some poor woman who can't even feed her children, or the government? Okay, I admit it. My pride is sometimes more important to me than a full refrigerator and I'll bet this statement holds true for others. Thanks to the Salvation Army and the Community Food Bank, my daughter and I had food one very difficult month. These agencies give help where needed; but more importantly, they leave the poor with the few ounces of dignity they still have left. So, I ask you, Tucson. Why are the hungry still hungry? --K. M. Gardner Median Score To the Editor, Concerning the two newspaper vendors killed by autos in the last six months, I have a few questions that are left unanswered by the scant news coverage of these events. I realize this is a very touchy subject when it comes to the editorial boards of the Star and the Citizen. 1) According to "journalist" Linda Witt, who handled the story for the Citizen, the latest Tucson Newspaper Inc. pseudo-employee killed was, "Mr. White, 43, of a general delivery address." This seems to be a rather obscene euphemism used to avoid mentioning that many, if not most, of the folks who sell the newspapers are homeless. Witt, when questioned, said this terminology is Citizen news policy; then she changed her story, and said that is what the TPD calls "them" these days. Regardless, everyone sort of "knew," and eventually, when asked what this new term means, she said, "Homeless." 2) Relating to the first newspaper hawker killed in the line of duty six months ago, it would seem that the taxpayers of the City of Tucson are about to be socked with a $10 million claim against the city for failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent vendors from selling from the median. Why is not the employer--TNI and their "counselors" who drive their hawkers, along with the product they have for sale, to their respective corners--being sued? Why no lawsuit against the Citizen, the Star, Gannett and Pulitzer? I hardly think that taxpayers should further subsidize TNI for the "final operating costs" of burying and taking care of what any reasonable person would deem "TNI's liability." Furthermore, for allowing the liability to exist to the taxpayers, I think Mayor George Miller, and any City Council member who went along with this cheap labor scheme, should be impeached. Tucson stands to lose more money via this lawsuit than if the incorporation of Casas Adobes were to rightfully be recognized. Amazing! 3) What are the emergency service costs, ambulance charges, autopsy fees (if any) and burial expenses associated with the newspapers' two latest circulation-related deaths, and who is paying these costs? 4) Considering the first vendor was killed while on the median, and presumably because TNI claims to make their hawkers always wear their orange safety vests, does the proposed city median ordinance, endorsed by TNI and Larry Aldrich (the president of TNI), offer any additional safety? Were the now-dead newspaper hawkers wearing the orange safety vests when they were killed? 5) Do the hawkers sign an agreement or a contract that not only eliminates their rights to minimum wage, health insurance, benefits, but also holds TNI, and the Citizen and the Star harmless in the event of injury or death? 6) If a hawker were merely struck by a car, dragged and somehow lived but was paralyzed, would his or her lifetime of care again become the responsibility of Tucson taxpayers? 7) What has TNI, undeniably their employer by any reasonable standard, done to compensate the families, if any, of the dead vendors, or pick up any of these related costs and liabilities? --Jim Kalenian We Want Letters! Thrilled by our brilliant insights? Sick of our mean-spirited attacks? Need to make something perfectly clear? Write: tucsonweekly@tucsonweekly.com

Home | Currents | City Week | Music | Review | Books | Cinema | Back Page | Archives

		© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth