Pima County & District Supervisor Push Campo Abierto Access Issue to CFSD & LPPOA
Despite the fact that CFSD has maintained all along that they have the backing of Pima County, District 1 Supervisor Ann Day and County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, both have now made it clear that the discussion is not within their jurisdiction nor do they wish to be involved in the issue of the CFSD Early Childhood Center ("ECC") and access to/from Campo Abierto, a private road owned by the La Paloma Property Owners Association ("LPPOA").
The reason CFSD wants (or as they would argue "needs") all these access points is simple. The original Land Use plan for block 24 (the CFSD ECC site) was residential. In the 1994 condemnation case, the use became an Elementary School; in 2006 it changes to child care center and who knows what else. This is the problem.
CFSD has maintained the position that they have the right to access Campo Abierto -- despite an agreed to 1' no access easement on the east side of their property (parcel 1081203607 commonly called "Block 24"). And despite the fact that they bought their way out of the LPPOA CC&R's (PAID $20,000 to NOT be a member in 1994), maintain they have membership privilges to Common Area "A" - of which Campo Abierto is a part. As they say, "membership has its' privileges" and CFSD decided long ago they didn't want to be a member and paid money to exit the membership.
There is good evidence that after the original 1994 Condemnation case and resultant Stipulated Judgment filed with Pima County, there was an agreement to file such an easement. CFSD attorneys (the law firm of DeConcini, McDonald, Brammer, Yetwin & Lacy) failed to file the agreed to easement.
Additionally, CFSD maintains they have the right to access from Sunrise and two access points on Skyline (the stipulated judgment gave them one access point on Skyline which they are now using).
CFSD have also claimed from the get go, to have have the backing of not only Pima County, but District 1 Supervisor Ann Day. See the attached letters and draw your own conclusions. (Click on "Day, Kamerzell & Huckelberry Letters" link under this article). It has taken considerable time and effort to refute these claims. The letters do not support the CFSD position.
This also raises questions about the real intent in the development of Block 24. It would be very difficult to believe that a 436,000 sf parcel would only contain a 12,000 sf child care facility (phase 1) and an additional 8,000 sf facility (phase 2), along with parking and vehicular access roads. No, a reasonable person could not conclude that those are the only plans for Block 24.
So why then did CFSD supply a flawed traffic study to Pima County that contemplated only the 1st 120 "students" and staff of 25? What about their stated intentions of 80 additional "students" and 25 additional staff?? CFSD has also publicly state they have no funding for Campo Abierto access. One has to wonder about the real intentions of CFSD.
CFSD definition of "Students": young pre-school children between the age of 2 1/2 and 5.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) definition of "Student"
stu·dent /ˈstudnt, ˈstyud-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[stood-nt, styood-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
1. a person formally engaged in learning, esp. one enrolled in a school or college; pupil: a student at Yale.
2. any person who studies, investigates, or examines thoughtfully: a student of human nature.
Draw your own conclusions.
In summary, LPPOA is in no way against what CFSD wishes to do with their property, only that they not infringe on the rights of the adjacent Common Area "A" of LPPOA and its membeship.
There are many individual members of the La Paloma Property Owners Association to thank for gaining the attention of our County Administrator, Chuck Huckleberry and District 1 Supervisor, Ann Day in bringing out the truth of what is going on with CFSD and Block 24. There is still more to learn.
Thank you all & stay tuned to www.lphoa.net for new developments.