| Author | Post |
|---|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 01:42 pm |
|
As I read the Pinal County Comprehensive Plan it seems that it is not regulatory in nature so it truely has no teeth. It is merely a suggestion. If these were the things that were intended to be the rules then why are they not adopted into the Pinal County ordinances?
JJ
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 06:51 am |
|
Bambi said"
"Just to remind those reading her post that this was her remark to me. Conflicts with what she is stating in her most recent post, but typical of her "backpeddling" Also, Bonanza Highlands is not a subdivision; it is a survey of the 40 acre parcels that comprise it out there. I am not a partner in that Survey. Once again, she is using wrong information to base her conclusions on and to inform the public about.....and she represents us to the County? That's why I feel we need better representation out here. Legitimate representation of all our needs and wants...not just hers and her mentor.
Since she is so eager to point fingers at everyone else she feels is destroying what she wants out here; what she wants to view for her pleasure; what she wants everyone to own and conform to; lets talk about what she owns out here. Is that up to par and your tenants abode up to par? When one drives by her home, will they be proud of what she is "showing" to the public? Does it "please" our eye? Her lot and home and tenants abode.... Does it conform to ordinances and County standards? Is her tenant abode on her land, which would put her in noncompliance of County Ordinances?
Where is the Ordinance that prohibits hillside homes? Where is the Ordinance that defines the stipulations for building hillside homes, other than the grade? Problem is, there are none, so people will come in and do it the way they see fit. That is not the consumer/landowners mistake. It is the County's for not establishing rules to follow.
When you point that finger, you have four other fingers pointing back at you."
Dear Bambi:
I refer you to the Pinal County Comprehensive Plan for a cursory lesson in Pinal County Planning.
4.2 Land Use Issues
Through public participation activities, the following County-wide land use issues were identified.
Pinal County Comprehensive Plan
A. Protect the natural environment, including scenic views, wildlife corridors, native vegetation, natural and cultural resources, and open space
B. Maintain the visual quality of the natural environment when designing new developments.
C. Encourage quality master-planned communities as an appropriate pattern of development in unincorporated areas of the County
D. Promote and encourage high quality design and construction in all new
development.
E. Discourage development on slopes greater than 15%.
If you would like to review the whole list, I suggest you read the plan.
http://www.co.pinal.az.us/PlanDev/PDCP/files/LandUseElement.pdf
Since a picture is worth a thousand words I took six pictures of the propery adjacent to mine to show the damage to hillside views and adversely effected flora. They are too large to attach on this site but I'll try to get them, and an article about most residents feelings about this practice, in some of the local newspapers.
Regards,
Anne
Last edited on Wed Sep 12th, 2007 07:02 am by anne.reed
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 02:34 pm |
|
JJohnson wrote: anne.reed wrote: I am not surprised to see many of these same lots offered for sale by ReMax, Bambi's team. There is little doubt in my mind that you sold those parcels to the widcat subdividers and may have even encouraged this practice. Anne
This seems a bit close to libel/slander. Is there something to back up these claims?Why the hostility?
JJ
Just to remind those reading her post that this was her remark to me. Conflicts with what she is stating in her most recent post, but typical of her "backpeddling" Also, Bonanza Highlands is not a subdivision; it is a survey of the 40 acre parcels that comprise it out there. I am not a partner in that Survey. Once again, she is using wrong information to base her conclusions on and to inform the public about.....and she represents us to the County? That's why I feel we need better representation out here. Legitimate representation of all our needs and wants...not just hers and her mentor.
Since she is so eager to point fingers at everyone else she feels is destroying what she wants out here; what she wants to view for her pleasure; what she wants everyone to own and conform to; lets talk about what she owns out here. Is that up to par and your tenants abode up to par? When one drives by her home, will they be proud of what she is "showing" to the public? Does it "please" our eye? Her lot and home and tenants abode.... Does it conform to ordinances and County standards? Is her tenant abode on her land, which would put her in noncompliance of County Ordinances?
Where is the Ordinance that prohibits hillside homes? Where is the Ordinance that defines the stipulations for building hillside homes, other than the grade? Problem is, there are none, so people will come in and do it the way they see fit. That is not the consumer/landowners mistake. It is the County's for not establishing rules to follow.
When you point that finger, you have four other fingers pointing back at you.
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 04:51 am |
|
anne.reed wrote:
Dear Bambi:
I approve the downsizing of lots when 20 acres of GR is converted to CR1A, with stipulations, and traded for almost 70 acres of SR.
The truth is, I am sick to death of looking at the mountains blown to smithereens, leaving once pristene Sonorran desert hillsides in giant piles of eroding rock and rubble. I am not surprised to see many of these same lots offered for sale by ReMax, Bambi's team. There is little doubt in my mind that you sold those parcels to the widcat subdividers and may have even encouraged this practice. I doubt any civil engineer would put his stamp on these "building pads", most need retaining walls before any construction should be permitted.
There is plenty of land to sell without trashing the mountains that we all moved to this area to enjoy. There is more to life than profit. No one consulted me before they blasted the the mountain next to my property. It has sat vacant and eroding, blocking the road to my tenants property with every rain, for years now. It is not compliant with the 15 degree rule by Pinal, it is unsightly, and realtors and developers should be held accountable for these gross violations and liable to their neighbors and Pinal County for costs incurred as a result of this practice.
I don't consider this responsible development and I will do all within my power to see that this practice is discontinued permanently.
Regards,
Anne
Why the hostility? Because the State of Arizona has not yet been willing to reconsider it's policy on wildcat land splits. When acreage is purchased with a GR zoning designation it can be split and developed without conforming to standard subdivision requirements. Wealthy profiteers come in to an area, like ours, and buy up large parcels. Next, they split them off as many times as legally allowed to family members, associates and friends. Then, with GR as the underlying zoning, the lots can be split again down to 1 1/4 acres. Lots that are created in this way are not subject to the same scrutiny as legitimate subdivisions and too often, disaster is the result.
Wildcat land splits were established for the benefit of farmers who might wish to deed portions of their farm or ranch to family members. While this practice is perfectly legal, it is more often used to circumvent the Countys subdivision requirements and dupe buyers into buying property that has not been adequately reviewed as it retains the underlying GR zoning which is the least restrictive in Arizona. Consequently, many home owners in our area are faced with serious problems, primarily fissures and flooding, that result from corners cut to maximize profits.
I don't have any idea whether Bambi or Remax facilitated the sale of the lots on Brenner Pass that were blasted, but that is a typical development mode for these wildcatters. Bambi herself stated that she was a partner in the Bonanza Highlands subdivision. It was not Bambi I'm told, but Joyce Hildebrandt and Craig Van Sickle that blasted the lot next door to my rental. It looks like an abandoned mine and can be seen from almost anywhere in CHRU2 and Bonanza Ranch. If it were a mine, it would be revegetated after the mining operations ceased. But it's not a mine, it's a typical example of wildcat subdividing. To someone who's inexperienced it probably looks like a lot to be coveted because the "rubble-pile"/building pad is higher than adjacent properties. It wouldn't be bad if they'd built the house, too, to hide the scarring of the mountain and address run off concerns, but that would have cut into their profits. On the lot next to mine I would bet a retaining wall would be required before a home could be build there. A retaining wall about thirty feet high and 200 feet long. The cost would be astronomical! So is it really a building pad or just a technique used to entice unsophisticated would be buyers? Does the law require any disclosure about hidden costs? No. In Arizona real estate law, it's caveat emptor, buyer beware.
When I was the controller of Presley Development, the developers of Ahwatukee, we developed the land along the back side of South Mountain and I learned how costly it is to install adequate infrastructure in such situations. None of the foothills lots in Ahwatukee have been plagued with flooding or fissures. The same cannot be said for too many of our unfortunate neighbors though they probably paid a comparable price for their land, making wildcat splits an extremely lucrative venture.
If Bambi wants to take this personally I cannot stop her. The truth is, I oppose the practice of wildcat land splits, I oppose circumventing subdivision requirements, and, I oppose the tragedy that is waiting to befall those who buy lots developed by unscrupulous profiteers.
Note, I did not say that I oppose Bambi, or Remax, only practices that give unfair advantage to these careless speculators and the laws that allow it.
Kind Regards,
Anne
PS It would have been to my advantage to leave the SR density on the property near my home. But, I believe all GR zoning should be changed (hence the exchange for SR) to allow greater control of development. CR1A also demands strict compliance to development standards and the lots are only slightly smaller than in GR.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 10th, 2007 08:03 pm |
|
JJohnson wrote: anne.reed wrote: I am not surprised to see many of these same lots offered for sale by ReMax, Bambi's team. There is little doubt in my mind that you sold those parcels to the widcat subdividers and may have even encouraged this practice. Anne
This seems a bit close to libel/slander. Is there something to back up these claims?Why the hostility?
JJ
Good observation JJ. I too would like her to back up her claims against me and Remax. Little doubt in her mind that I sold those particular parcels to wildcatters? Never happened. I sold a 40 about 6 years ago to a guy out there, but have no idea what he did with it, but one thing is for sure, it's not a part of that mountain (80 acres) she speaks of that has been blasted for pads. Does she think she can run my business now and tell me who I can represent and who I can't?
The meeting will not be a lynching but a study/work session. We want that developer out there, as he brings in infrastructure that we need so desperately, so our intent is to work with him on this, but it has to be done correctly and with research on flooding, or more floods will occur. Chances are that developer doesn't even realize he has a large wash on his site, and will be happy once I show him the overhead pictures taken of it. I also have overhead pictures of it taken in 1997, to compare what time and dirt movement has done to the land. Also, he will be given the opportunity to see pictures of the subdivision touching them flooding out from runoff; the same thing will happen to their project too if engineering studies are not done.
Anne best have answers to back up her claims indeed, both against me and Remax and for reasons to approve this sensitive zoning removal, other than for a trade.
Thru the web, I found a site showing the requested amendment to the Pinal Comprehensive plan on June 25, 2002, requesting land designation changes for 2880 acres near the San Tan Rengional Park, from Development Reserve Land use to Development Sensitive Land use. What was the reason? "The purpose of this overlay designation is to provide for single family residential lots of 3.3 acres or greater for each lot...for those primarily in Areas 1, 3 and 4." This land is in 1. Now if it is removed, then it becomes Rural designation, allowing the door to open to bring those lot sizes down to 1 acre. Now to me, that is a major Comprehensive Plan Amendment/change they are requesting, and would require notification to surrounding effected land owners. Didn't happen.
Here's another Event: September 21, 2006; SanTanFoothills Specific Area Plan. Community Solutions Forum.
Residential Deveopment.
Goal: Maintain the Specific Planning Area's thru large lots....large lots, hopefully five acres or more. Well, it's down to acre lots now.
Goal: Manage Building Heights to Preserve Views: Well , they allowed a two story walmart building school to be built smack dab in the view of several owners out here. That has developed into a law suit. County's answer to that is "there is nothing in the zoning ordinance to disallow that from happening." Then why manage the heights if you can't stop it anyway?
Goal: Hillside Disturbance Ordinance: Did the County ever develop one? I told them about the disturbance occuring on the mountain off Brenner Pass, before they blasted, and nothing was done. So, I guess the easiest way out is to just do a trade, rather that to develop guidelines like most cities do.
Goal: Minimize Flood Damage to Structures. What did the County do on this? What mechanism to they have in place to assure this?
Goal: Coordination and Collaboration...work with the County. I asked them to attend the meeting and they said they would look into it. How does one work close when you get answers like that.
Goal: Coordinate with Advocacy Groups in the Area. Who? What Groups? The BLC?
Goal: Develop a leadership body to monitor the implementation of the Specific Area Plan. . Now who would that be? Anyone? Who is monitoring what?
I have spoken to the County and asked them to attend the meeting to give us guidance and answer questions that may develop. Answer is "we'll see about it."Anyone wanting to attend this meeting to help resolve this issue, is welcome. P.M. me for date, time and location.
Studies; Recommendations; Goals; Rules: they're all out there but where? Have these things been implemented already and if so, by whom? Who's minding the Store?
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 10th, 2007 06:20 pm |
|
I still think there is some serious quid pro quo going on here. The developer got what they wanted and Ms Reed and the BLC got their personal property enhanced at the expense of others. How is it that the county does not have to follow state law for open meetings and public notification?
JJ
Last edited on Mon Sep 10th, 2007 06:20 pm by JJohnson
|
needhope
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 10th, 2007 04:11 pm |
|
Wow. Anne you sure laid into that person. sounds to me that they have done some homework on this. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for that letter. at least someone will have to be accountable. Did you guys ask for one too? What kind of study did you do?
From what Bambi is saying, he doesn't sound like a person trying to ruin everything. Sounds like a person who is trying to make everything right and help the neighbors out there. You sound like its just for you. I would sue you if I was Bambi or if you are right, then I would report her to the company she works for for ruining the desert out there and for cheating the neighbors.
Geesum crow.....nobody gets along out there.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 10th, 2007 02:38 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote: Dear Bambi:
I approve the downsizing of lots when 20 acres of GR is converted to CR1A, with stipulations, and traded for almost 70 acres of SR.
The truth is, I am sick to death of looking at the mountains blown to smithereens, leaving once pristene Sonorran desert hillsides in giant piles of eroding rock and rubble. I am not surprised to see many of these same lots offered for sale by ReMax, Bambi's team. There is little doubt in my mind that you sold those parcels to the widcat subdividers and may have even encouraged this practice. I doubt any civil engineer would put his stamp on these "building pads", most need retaining walls before any construction should be permitted.
There is plenty of land to sell without trashing the mountains that we all moved to this area to enjoy. There is more to life than profit. No one consulted me before they blasted the the mountain next to my property. It has sat vacant and eroding, blocking the road to my tenants property with every rain, for years now. It is not compliant with the 15 degree rule by Pinal, it is unsightly, and realtors and developers should be held accountable for these gross violations and liable to their neighbors and Pinal County for costs incurred as a result of this practice.
I don't consider this responsible development and I will do all within my power to see that this practice is discontinued permanently.
Regards,
Anne
Anne.....you go on and on about how everyone else is making life miserable for you and how I as a realtor am promoting this miserable condition, by selling to wildcat subdividers. You and your piped piper leader Gordon Brown, will see very very few days in the near future, that allow you the chance to coerce innocent people into signing a paper for a trade in zoning on a Comprehensive Plan....without notice to the impacted neighbors and without study by the County Engineers
Doesn't matter what you think anymore. I'm organizing people who live out here to withstand that major Comprehensive Plan Change that you and Gordon Brown have promoted to the locals, without notice to anyone else who lives out there. A change to smaller lots that will flood out those below if not engineered right. Lifting the Developmentally Sensitive zoning for 3.3 acre lots, to accommodate acre lots, without further study of the ramifications of that move? Overlaying Rural zoning on more than just this 20 acre site, opening the door for acre lots on terrains that call for engineering and study, but that this County will still give away land splits to. I'm not the one stamping my approval on those land splits. I'm not the one stamping my approval on Changing sensitive zoning. I'm not the one who passed the request in P and Z to allow this to happen.... The County is and you know it.
Did your group do a study on how and where those washes empty into the land below before approving the change? Where is the path of the wash that is dumping so much water into Bonanza Ranch? You told those people it was me who created it. Now, I must back up and show and tell these people, that the County has the stamp of approval based on the research and study by their engineers. One assumes that those in charge will require that. They just did a visual and told us how to mitigate it.....with a canal in the rear of the subdivision, which obviously didn't work.
And the County had the opportunity to stop those pads being built on the mountainside, as I warned them about it. Nothing was done. And I had nothing to do with that problem. No involvement whatsoever, nor did Remax, so you best be careful who you make false accusations about. Destroying my character and Remax's, publicly on here so you can gain recognition and acceptance by people; Telling falsehoods to neighbors out here so they will turn against me. Did you not think that these people would come to me to tell me what you and Gordon are saying "out there about me?" Not very insightful on your part Anne. Thought you were smarter than that. And coming up to me at meetings and asking me to just get along with you, with hugs and warmth, and then you turn and stab me in the back again.
I have nothing to discuss with you anymore Anne, so you will be talking in the wind. Your words carry no weight anymore, as your poor judgments and your poor recommendations to the public and the County, have taken us back to the Stone Age.
Using the same reason and mentality you have used to accuse me of promoting wildcat subdivisions, you and your Better Living Coalition have caused most of those accidents on Hunt Hiway, by your poor decisions and recommendations, which only caused delays and nothings. And now, you are encouraging approval for a developer to have his way on that 20 acres, as he has informed us that the County is not requiring them to do a subdivision plat. Something your meetings didn't discover perhaps? Oh yes, they have a HUGE wash, running thur their land. Wonder where that water will end up once they "don't do a subdivision" which calls for engineering.
The Developer will be asked by us to provide a certified letter from a professional licensed engineer, certifying the storm water runoff and Drainage design, including the calculations of volume and the release rate from his land. Only upon receiving that letter will we consider lifting anything, even though it has already been approved by P and Z, backed up by your letters of approval. The Buck stops here.
If you want to know how this organized meeting of neighbors turns out, read the newspaper soon. It is being held on private property, so your presence and attitude is not welcome. Only problem solvers with good attitudes are allowed.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 10th, 2007 02:01 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote: I am not surprised to see many of these same lots offered for sale by ReMax, Bambi's team. There is little doubt in my mind that you sold those parcels to the widcat subdividers and may have even encouraged this practice. Anne
This seems a bit close to libel/slander. Is there something to back up these claims?Why the hostility?
JJ
Last edited on Mon Sep 10th, 2007 06:16 pm by JJohnson
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Mon Sep 10th, 2007 02:32 am |
|
Dear Bambi:
I approve the downsizing of lots when 20 acres of GR is converted to CR1A, with stipulations, and traded for almost 70 acres of SR.
The truth is, I am sick to death of looking at the mountains blown to smithereens, leaving once pristene Sonorran desert hillsides in giant piles of eroding rock and rubble. I am not surprised to see many of these same lots offered for sale by ReMax, Bambi's team. There is little doubt in my mind that you sold those parcels to the widcat subdividers and may have even encouraged this practice. I doubt any civil engineer would put his stamp on these "building pads", most need retaining walls before any construction should be permitted.
There is plenty of land to sell without trashing the mountains that we all moved to this area to enjoy. There is more to life than profit. No one consulted me before they blasted the the mountain next to my property. It has sat vacant and eroding, blocking the road to my tenants property with every rain, for years now. It is not compliant with the 15 degree rule by Pinal, it is unsightly, and realtors and developers should be held accountable for these gross violations and liable to their neighbors and Pinal County for costs incurred as a result of this practice.
I don't consider this responsible development and I will do all within my power to see that this practice is discontinued permanently.
Regards,
Anne
|
PURESOL
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 07:48 pm |
|
ATTENTION ALL!!!!!
The East Valley Tribune is doing an article on the insane speed limit on Hunt Hwy, slated to be published this Friday...if you feel as strongly as I do on this issue, please email Sarah Boggan at...
sboggan@evtrib.com
She is doing the story and would love more public comments...but HURRY....not much time left...thanks all....
We need to expose the inconsistencies that PINAL COUNTY IS!!!!
|
americana
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 27 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 12:48 am |
|
ALSO SEE PINAL COUNTY ROAD SHOW FORUM
AT NEWSZAPFORUMS
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23rd, 2007 12:23 am |
|
anne.reed wrote: All:
I do not approve of downsizing lots either. However, if trading 20 acres of CR1A for 68.5 acres of SR can protect the hillside lots (in plain view for ALL who live in, or visit, the Foothills) from blasting, scarring and destruction, it is a price worth paying.
Additionally, the CR1A zoning is subject to the Planning guidelines set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. This exchange gave us the capacity to protect and additional 68.5 acres from unregulated development.
Regards,
Anne
You are arriving at conclusions that have not been explored or addressed by those who are most impacted by it. You have stated that absentee owners opinions are not usually taken into consideration. You approve of downsizing lots, because you spoke in favor of this project. You promoted the removal of that delicate Sensitive Developmental Designation, just like you did on the San Tan Flats land. You live on Bonnie Rd; a rd that is North of Judd....not across from the subject site, within the 300 ft....I am, as per a copy of the plat, directly across from the 20 acre site, as per the plat shown on the on- site sign, within the 300 ft. zone. A dark line is drawn around my property indicating the 300 ft. zone. I don't see it drawn around your property or Gordons. Yet, there was no need to notify me or include me and the others cuz we're investors? Encouraging the County to send all potential buyers looking for zoning changes to you and your friends?
After discussion with the County about this, I am meeting with the powers that be on Friday, to put a stop to your type of dangerous mentality out here, and to suggest making corrections in our system down at the County in Florence. I do indeed have equal rights, as per the County Attorney and the BOS, and the Mesa Tribune, and should have indeed been notified. Contrary to your self imposed rules and regulations out here that you and your BLC friends have perpertrated on us, and would like us to believe, absentee owners do have a say. Your attempt at making the 20 acre site be the sacrificial lamb (reducing it from 3.3 to 1 acre), so you can retain the open space near you, within your's and Gordon's views? Kind of a "shifty" move, I would say.
This is not going to be another SanTanFlats error in judgement. You, thinking that the restaurant was only going to be there for the locals, demanding he only put a tiny sign on Hunt, so as not to attract others going by.....poor judgement. Not being clear on how commercial operations operate, so missing key points in the stipulations. You're still trying to maintain exclusive control.
Step aside. There's a new kid on the block.
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 22nd, 2007 09:51 pm |
|
All:
I do not approve of downsizing lots either. However, if trading 20 acres of CR1A for 68.5 acres of SR can protect the hillside lots (in plain view for ALL who live in, or visit, the Foothills) from blasting, scarring and destruction, it is a price worth paying.
Additionally, the CR1A zoning is subject to the Planning guidelines set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. This exchange gave us the capacity to protect and additional 68.5 acres from unregulated development.
Regards,
Anne
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 06:25 pm |
|
Peace to you brother Gene.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 06:23 pm |
|
| fair enough...thank you
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 06:15 pm |
|
Enough to give me rights. I only own 3 acre and a quarter lots, (across from the subject 20) and three 3.3's, in the San Tan Ranches subdivisions, which I tend to favor. That's it. I have 4 kids and tons of grandchildren who will be the future stewards of that land, if I don't have to sell them for financial reasons. I live on one of the 3's, and one of the others is across from your lot in Unit 8, and another in Unit 7.
I represent clients on the 100 listings on our books now, not all out there though. I think I have a voice, and my clients want it to be loud and clear for their behalf also.
et tu?
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 06:04 pm |
|
No, they don't.
I was not clear on just exactly what this parcel and location is. You don't know where I stand and who I support, so don't make those assumptions, and don't lump everything that pisses you off into the "BLC did it" sack.
How much land do you own out here?
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 05:54 pm |
|
gk wrote: unfortunately for you Bambi.......I DO have a say! I lived there for 15 years without electricity and water and only a love for the area to keep me going. I am not an investor. You know as well as I do that the $800,000 thing was for a market check and nothing more. I told you that I had interests in the property for that amount and that I still refused to sell. My honesty with you was complete!
I do have a say and I WILL voice it. I plan on retiring there and building a new home. It is NOT an investment! Out of town investors take a back seat in my book to anyone that is willing to stake their life and heart into an area that they love. Money IS NOT EVERYTHING and does NOT hold any more credence or say than anything else. GREED is the destruction of America and I am tired of others looking out for the welfare of investors.
P.S. I have NO intention of "BACKING OFF!!!!"
Whoa there Kemmasabe........your previous post and the above post just don"t jive in my book.
It's apparent where you stand and who you support.
Happy Happy!
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 05:46 pm |
|
Stand up for your beliefs Gene.
Now that's pretty funny!
AS you well know I am against the downsizing of lots. Once it happens it just gets easier for it to happen next time. Especially in the rural areas. No, I don't like that it happened, but it has. Is it good for the area? I don't think so, but I am not really clear on everything that is involved here.
Bottom line.......I don't like downsizing lots for any reason in this area especially for development, but I don't think it is reasonable for you to go off claiming that the "BLC" did this, did that or did anything. Somehow that tag is used by a couple of people here to blame everything on. That is like lumping you into the label of "realtors" or "Bambi's Team Realty."
I think the P & Z is the proper place to address this and not fly off the handle blaming people that are not even involved.
Just how much damn land do you own out here?
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 05:26 pm |
|
gk wrote: Bambi.....it really sounds like you just want to be the Queen Bee of the area ,and be in the middle of every single thing that happens here. Everyone needs to notify you of anything they do and get your approval.
Talk about a Conspiracy theory....BLC . BLC.......hiding under the bed!!
Gee Gene. How did you come up with that? Sounds like something one of my students would say to another student in my special needs class.
Every single thing that happens? I own land there....you don't think I should have been notified? I'm very involved in my little community out there and have been for 10 years, both as a resident and as a part of my job as a realtor. You don't think I should have a say? Just let Gordon speak for me? You bet I'm going to be more involved in what goes on out there....it's my right as a resident taxpayer, and it's my duty to my neighbors and family to make sure the Stewards of our land and money, are operating democratically and honestly and are forthright and transparent in their dealings with developers and the like.
Stand up and be counted for what you believe is right. That''s America. You appear to want to restrain my opinions, hoping I'll refrain from pointing or revealing perhaps.
What's you say about the reduction in size of the 20 acres from 3.3 to 1? You were adamantly against it in your post to me. Did you voice your opinion? Did you have a "say in it" like you stated you will? Or are you going to cowtow to your BLC friends, who promoted that denser zoning. Stand up for your beliefs Gene.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 05:11 pm |
|
Bambi.....it really sounds like you just want to be the Queen Bee of the area ,and be in the middle of every single thing that happens here. Everyone needs to notify you of anything they do and get your approval.
Talk about a Conspiracy theory....BLC . BLC.......hiding under the bed!!
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 05:06 pm |
|
Well, they passed the approval for the removal of the Developmentally Sensitive Zoning put on that 20 acres by the people thru the Comprehensive Plan. Who was there to help push it through and who's letters of approval did they take from the people?
Well, those investors that own the 3.3's around this parcel, in hopes of them receiving the same thing in the near future; A subdivison that doens't even touch the 20 acre parcel; Another group of investors that surround my land.; But, alas, I wans't notified and have been told on here by a rep of the County that my vote holds no credence anyway, as I am an investor.
Whew. Now, second of all, the word has been put out there that I am against it. Not true. I just want fairness and to follow the law and rules of engagement and be notified and my opinion asked....that was not done.
So, I guess it's time for me to go to the Press, to stop this aggressive move by the BLC to be the spokesman out here for the people. The Pied Piper syndrome. It's time for some revelations to occur, thus removing some people from the playing field hopefully, that are bent on stopping progress or only allowing progress to occur on their terms. Who in their right mind would take advice from Gordon Brown and his followers, that got us into this huge mess at San TAn Flats. What guarantees do you have that he will lead you down the right path this time....what's changed?
Let me tell you of another occurance by the County.....They gave acre lot zoning to a 40 acre site, just down the road from this one. Now, the seller got the zoning, and put it on the market right afterwards, like many develpers do and have the right to do, including the one for the 20 acres. No buyers for the 40. So, he decided to do a land split on it.....four 10's. Sold them, right along with the zoning classification of acre lots, which was tied to a plat and engineered for the development of a subdivision. I asked the County to revert the zoning back to the original, as the engineering was done for the acre lots, and to allow land splits without the engineering for it, will cause more "runaway" runoff of the rain water, and ultimately cause flooding below. They didn't and flooding we had.
Trust their judgement? I think not. I was not notified, so the approval should be voided, but I will not ask that that be done. I will still meet with the developer to look over his plans; quiz him on his intent; research his history; check out his Contractors license with the Registrar of Contractors; and judge for myself if this is a viable project for that spot. If it is, then they have my vote. If not, then we work with him on coming up with a solution with comprimise, that will be a win win, for all of us, including the resident right next door, who was against it. I guess the investors won out Gene, even over the resident next door. What's your take on this change to smaller lots? Are you still behind you buddies?
And who spread the rumor that I am against development out there?.....something that was brought up in the BlockWatch last night. Who's Jason? Not true. I am for planned and intelligent development, not half a.. decisions based on limited knowledge and limited participation by those most effected by it, and the fact that I have 3 lots directly across the street from this project, puts me in that category of participation, I think.
Well, the P and Z meeting was only for the removal of the Sensitive designation....we still have to go to P and Z for the zoning change approval. That's where I"ll be when that time comes, equipped with answers to my research and a workable plan met with the approval of all those effected and concerned out there.
I will let you know when I have the meeting with the applicant and you are all invited to watch the wheels of democracy turn at that meeting. No BLC members are invited....they've already had their meetings. And don't think about busting thru the doors Anne, and calling the cops cuz you can't talk. I won't let that get that far.
Now I've got work to do.
|
cc
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 214 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 05:06 pm |
|
The Mayor will be The Honorable Tom Rankin.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 04:50 pm |
|
| come on Bambi.........that's a cheap shot.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 04:32 pm |
|
americana wrote: Who will the Mayor be?
Treasurer?
City Council?
Serious
You will have to ask Sandie Smith and the rest of the BOS that question as they will appoint them for the interim till there is an election.
I would say that she will probably appoint her friend, Gordon Brown as Mayor, and the members of the BLC and San Tan Pride to fill in the rest of the positions.
|
americana
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 27 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 03:40 pm |
|
Who will the Mayor be?
Treasurer?
City Council?
Serious
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 02:17 pm |
|
You go girl.
I love my kids........even if they aren't kids anymore.
How was your Block Watch Meeting last nite in San Tan Heights. Sorry I couldn't attend as I'm out of town.....next time.
Last edited on Fri Aug 17th, 2007 02:19 pm by Bambi
|
CharWester
Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 12:32 am |
|
After reading this forum it confirms my desire to become a city. We NEED local control for the ENTIRE community. Only those that live in a home very close, unless you are a member of the BLC or??? can make decisions...so that is about 4 or 5 people? Not much of a democracy to me. HELP!!!!!!
I will definitely be attending all the Pinal County Vision Workshops as well as the information workshops regarding the effort to incorporate or not? But, from what I have been experiencing in my community, the place where I am raising my children, attending church and working, we need more local control! Perhaps those living in the rural areas would like to attend our San Tan Hgts Block Watch meeting where Jack Malpass will be discussing a "sense of community". I think it would be beneficial, per Pinal County Deputy, that the rural areas of the San Tans participate in our San Tan Hgts Block-watch meetings. We have them the 3rd Thursday of every month (not September) at 6:30 pm at Mountain Vista School.
Hope to see you there! We really need to behave more as a community and be a little more inclusive rather than secretive. Peace.
|
Ted
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 279 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16th, 2007 09:44 pm |
|
You know, most who know me think I am pretty nice. It is just you who thinks differently.
And speaking of standing by statements, can you please justify your earlier comments insisting that the BLC no longer exists with the fact that the County is telling people now to contact the BLC for zoning issues? Who is lying here? And can you please try to answer using actual logic and clear statements and not just your usual 'crazy guy talking to himself in the street' vitriol?
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16th, 2007 09:35 pm |
|
| you stand by a lot of things ted ..........but most of them are just plain nasty.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16th, 2007 08:32 pm |
|
What do tax records have to odo with anything? Sounds like desperate people that just dig up dirt to get their way. Seems sort of anti-American to me.
JJ
|
Ted
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 279 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16th, 2007 08:30 pm |
|
| Yes, and BLC members (and sympathizers) were searching my tax records when I first started posting here and when I used my last name at the time. So yes, I stand by my statement.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16th, 2007 07:15 pm |
|
same old crap again. Now it's Bambi and ted and maybe a new sidekick jj. Maybe you guys can start a club or something...............
Ted, your crap about tax records is plain crap. As a matter of fact the tax information was given to the reporter by members of the Incorporation group themselves, so STFU!!!
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16th, 2007 06:09 pm |
|
| Be careful Ted speaking to JJ. Gene thinks you are JJ. Now how many people does that make now where GK has accused you of occupying somebody elses body?
|
Ted
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 279 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16th, 2007 05:25 pm |
|
JJohnson wrote: I guess it is none of my business and does not affect me in the least but it does seem fishy to me that there was a county sanctioned meeting that was held in private with limited individuals and the outcome was an agreemtn that was to the detriment of the immediate neighbors (not invited) and benefited the organizers who live in a different area. I don't know Ms. Reed and may have a godly reputation but to an outsider it appears to have potential for wrong-doing.
JJ
You don't know the half of it, JJ. These people have been making secret deals with the county for years and are the cause of most of the problems this area faces. And GK, or Gene Kilber the paranoid conspiracy theorist is actually a respected member of this lot. So that gives you an idea of the mentality and brain power in this group.
Just be sure not to use your real name here, or they will be digging into your tax records as they do with all identifiable individuals who question their way of operation.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16th, 2007 05:16 pm |
|
I guess it is none of my business and does not affect me in the least but it does seem fishy to me that there was a county sanctioned meeting that was held in private with limited individuals and the outcome was an agreemtn that was to the detriment of the immediate neighbors (not invited) and benefited the organizers who live in a different area. I don't know Ms. Reed and may have a godly reputation but to an outsider it appears to have potential for wrong-doing.
JJ
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16th, 2007 03:25 pm |
|
I don't think that Anne was doing that misdeed, as you have speculated. It's just a matter of building the first subdivision out here, which means encountering all kinds of challenges, especially with runoff. Our engineers worked with the County engineers at the time (about ten years ago) in evaluating how to handle the runoff, and both did the best they knew how to at the time. Much has been learned since that might have worked better, but we worked with what we had.
Neighbors, who were landsplitters on Adobe Dam were hit with more runnoff water as a result of our changing around the earth to accomodate houses. So, the county asked us to dig a "canal" in the rear of the subdivision to handle that runoff. We stated that that water will empty into Adobe Dam, and any future houses that will go there. County engineer said no it won't. It cost us an additional $50,000. to build that canal, which indeed ended up empying runoff into the Adobe Dam Rd., thus causing the subsequent complaints. Who's to blame?
Now, let's talk about the positive things that came as a result of that subdivision.....
1. We brought the people water, via a domestic waterline....which by the way, I believe Gordon Brown, who lives across from the subdivision, ended up hooking onto. Your welcome Gordon. That cost us $20. a linear ft., but Gordon zip.
2. We paved Judd Rd., all the way out to Gary Rd., much further than required, but in an exchange with the county that they would finish paving Gary Rd. from Gale Rd. all the way to Judd Rd. Your welcome Gordon and Anne. That cost us over $300,000. and Gordon...zip.
3. Paid into the Superstition Valley Transit Account, about $50,000. for our share of what is owed as a developer, to fund future paved roadways in the County. Your welcome Gordon and Anne..... Well; guess who got that money? Stan Griffith's, felon and former county manager.... in order to pay off his new Dodge Durango, instead of using the funds to pay for the improvement of Hunt Hiway.
So, I don't think that Bonanza Ranch was a fiasco or intentionally led to the demise and flooding of the other neighbors out there that Anne and Gordon want to accuse us of. I see us as bringing necessary infrastruture, including water and power, in an attempt to civilize an area that was basically primitive, thus giving them an opportun ity for a higher standard of living. I noticed Gordon built himself a new home, so he obviously benefited and raised his standard of living as a result of our subdivision. Your welcome Gordon.
Now, Anne and Gordon appear to be handing over a highly desired type of zoning on a golden platter, without the understanding of how these developers work and the ramifications of their plats on the land out there. Where is their experience level to make these judgements? What are the questions that they should be posing to this developer, as most have alterior motives. This lack of understanding of how to handle developers and what the right types of questions to ask them is what got us into this mess at San Tan Flats. Novices setting the stage for our future.
The BLC? Read in the Archives on here about them, or have lunch with me sometime, and I'll fill you in....just not now. And thanks for your keen insight...you sound like you must be older like myself....64.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16th, 2007 02:44 pm |
|
Maybe I am missing something here but seems to me that Ms. Reed sold out the surrounding neighbors of this subdivision in order to protect her own property by providing some sort of protected land in front of her personal property. To me thiss stinks of corruption and should be invsestigated by the county attorney or county elected officials. Can this BLC group (which I still don't know who they are) be trusted to make decisions for all of those residents if they are onlly looking out for themselves? Good thing they are not operating in my neighborhood. I would have a problem with that.
Like I said maybe I am missing something but nobody wants to lay out the whole story. Probably too many skeletons in the closet and nobody wants to draw first blood. I feel sorry for all of those investors that are being treated as 2nd class citizens when they are the ones making all of the infrasturcture investments for the benefit of everyone.
JJ
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16th, 2007 02:19 pm |
|
We don't make public threats to our fellow community members, especially on revealing something that one doesn't even know is true. A threat to make what public? I have protected your disclosures to me and never threatened to use them against you. Why would you do this to me? Create a falsehood to advance your agenda?
You never attended the meetings at P and Z about this subdivision. You never attended the BOS meeting where we were given final plat approval. You weren't there, in fact not one resident from out there showed up, when we had discussions with the engineers and worked with them for their approval. Nor did they show up a the meetings to object. Nor was Gordon Brown there. so why would you state that it was a planning fiasco? Who from the County told you that, cuz that has to be your only source of information?
This is what makes me so angry about your leader Gordon and yourself. That you would create this scenario of falsehoods for publication, without even checking with the person to verify that it happened. That you are way too cozy with the County personnel, your source of much of the information. Now in psychology, that is defined as making the other guy look bad, so the "accuser" will look like the savior. So, by making that old subdivision look like a "planning fiasco" you have undermined my skills of trade, publicly and potentially removed me from the playing field, allowing yourselves as the only players. Defamation. Now that could have consequences on my career. Would you like me to publicize your history? I dare not for your sake, as it would potentially take you off the community playing field, so it's best if you never make a threat again to anyone.
you apologized for making the statement of accusation, but you did not state that it was an untruth. Was it? And name your sources please. This has happened to me many many times by Gordon, spreading falsehoods about my work; using information that only County personnel had access to; and it's going to stop. You state the county had nothing to do with the meeting? They are the ones who referred you guys, called the BLC, to the applicant. Now that in my book is something to do with that meeting....complicity. Your covering up for your friends down there in Cozy Countyville. Not good.
If you and the County are not going to recognize or give credence to the absentee owners out there, and you are indeed working with an absentee owner presently; the applicant who is a developer, and you choose not to consult with us, then I will Return the $hundreds of thousands of donations from those absentee owners that I have collected from them for road Improvement and water extensions out there, safely sitting in an escrow account. Let the residents, the homeowners, pay for it, or go to the County to ask them to pay for it. EPA doens't care who pays....they will just enforce it in the near future......no building permit unless dirt road leading to it is paved, all the way from a County maintained road! Now solve that one without me or your absentee owners missy, while your solving the rest of the communities problems, using the wrong criteria or lack of the correct information or lack of extensive understanding of how these things work together.... draw your conclusions....kinda of like you did with the "Fiasco" you guys and the County created at San Tan Flats, without any of the rest of the communities help or input.
Best change some of those guidelines such as Eleminate street lights? As you know, that encourages vandalism and the citizens want that changed.....did you consult with these high density neighbors? encourage hooking up to a waterline as opposed to wells? what waterline? Only the absentee owners are paying to have that brought in, but not anymore possibly.
Good luck to you guys, as the Better Living Coalition still exists with the support of the County. Nothing has changed. I'm out of here..........
Last edited on Thu Aug 16th, 2007 02:24 pm by Bambi
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 15th, 2007 11:57 pm |
|
Bambi:
I had absolutely no idea that you owned property on Silverdale. Even if I had, I wouldn't have thought to contact you or Char as you are not homeowners.
The County had nothing to do with setting up this meeting. I would be more than happy to meet with the lady who owns the 9,000 sq foot house, or anyone else that's impacted, and discuss this proposal. I feel certain she'd approve of this swap if she knew the whole story. No one has any sinister intent here, we're all trying to make the Foothills a better place to live, work and play.
I think everyone learned a hard lesson on Bonanza Ranch. I'm sure no one intended to build these houses in a flood plane but until Bonanza Ranch, there was nothing there to flood. Our roads were like rivers when it rained so who would worry about flooding in the middle of the desert. I don't want to fight with you Bambi and I apologize for my curt comment.
Regards,
Anne
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 15th, 2007 11:39 pm |
|
All you had to do Anne was pick up the phone and call me or Char. You know how to get in touch with us. Or call the others who own property there, including that woman with the 9000 sq.ft. home. I am disagreeing with the modis operandi that was used for this meeting. If the County does not want to hear from the landowners along Silverdale for our opinions, then they need to state that to us in person.
Now, demonstrate to me how the 20 acres touches CHRU2, as that is what we are addressing here....the 20 acres they plan to subdivide on the NE corner of Silverdale and Pamela, and that is all that I am concerned with.
I developed Bonanza Ranch along with partners, according to the County's guidelines. It was engineered and appro | | |