| Author | Post |
|---|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 492 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 16th, 2007 10:14 pm |
|
| Bambi, the key word in the committee is "advisory" committee, not "decsion making" committee. Sandi has no business telling developers to go talk to the "BLC" even thouhg some of these knuckleheads are on these committees, they are not "the committee". The developer should have been told that Sandi will have her "advisory" committee look into things and get back to her so she can make the decsion. Sorry I do not feel the way about her as you. SHE NEEDS TO GO as does the opther two. We need more supervisors representing our areas, three just isn't going to cut it. A spoke with Sandi a couple weeks ago about getting on a committee, hopefully I will be bumping one of the BLC thugs out of a seat soon.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 16th, 2007 02:59 pm |
|
| Yes, Pipeman. I do think Sandie is a fine person with good character. I think if we had more people on the Board, representing a better cross section of qualified residents,we would have better decisions being made perhaps. Until that happens, one can ask the powers that be to be placed on committees, including that citizen's advisory committee, which only has 3 people on it representing our area, of which 2 are BLC members representing only rural needs. Need more people on that committee. Time for those that have served on it for the last ten years to give it up to others. That's the way you change things. That's the democratic way! Everyone should have an "opportunity" provided to them to serve their local government. So, go to Sandie and ask to be placed on that committee. Everyone....go to her and ask to serve on that Committee. I will be the first to email her with that request. Come on board!!!!
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 492 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 16th, 2007 05:25 am |
|
was just a double post that was deleted.
Last edited on Sun Sep 16th, 2007 05:26 am by pipeman
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 492 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 16th, 2007 05:25 am |
|
10. That there are negotiations being made with Developers by the Better Living Coalition, on behalf of the County and it's residents in Area 1b (our area) and that said Coalition states publically that they represent the interest of us in the San Tans, (Gordon stating they are indeed still in business as the BLC, contrary to remarks to the contrary on various sites, including ignorant bloggers statements. He also admitted it was he who was "brokering" this "trade"). This Coalition is the same coalition that negotiated the SanTanFlats zoning case, and others on Hunt Hiway. And, as a result of that discovery, that the homeowners in attendance have disclosed to this organization their private email addresses for future notifications of interest to us, so as to be kept in the Loop, and is not to be used for any other reason or purpose, nor is this act to be construed as "joining" their organization, and that said emails are to be kept confidential and not passed on to others. This does not eliminate the County's responsibility to notify us, nor does it give this Coalition exclusive right to pass on a vote of acceptance or rejection to the County on our behalf, without written approval from that person. I was made aware at the meeting by the County, that Mr. Brown and Mr. Rosebrook, both BLC members, comprise 2 of the 3 residents out here that have been representing us in Area 1b, for the past several years, on the County's Citizen Advisory Committee, in addition to their BLC input. Consequently, I have suggested to the County, that a better and more fair cross section of Area 1b residents is necessary in providing an accurate assessment of our needs out here, and that the rotation of residents in various committtees would stop any future long term biased input, representing a small faction.
Well, well, well. The truth finally comes out hey.... but wait Bambi, I thought we were all told that the BLC disbanded a while ago... Well, I guess this just means that the next election will need to find Sandi Smiths butt voted out of office. To think we have a women in there that let's a group of people such as the BLC have a say in what happens where, when that is her job... Sorry Bambi, I know you kind of changed positions on Sandi, but that just tops it with me. I will do everything in my power to gather enough people to vote her butt out. It is time to strip the power away from the BLC. No wonder they are so anti-city as they know that they would lose all of their stroke around here.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 15th, 2007 06:54 pm |
|
cc wrote: Bambi wrote: Meeting with County
Meeting with Pinal County regarding PZ-PA-003-07....20 acres. From low density to Rural. Proposed non-major(?)Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Remax 2000 Office. 10 a.m. Friday, September 14th, 2007. Remax office is located in the commercial strip center in Copper Basin, off of Hunt Hiway.
Both the County Planning Director, The Hydrologist (for water runoff) and the Developer of the proposed project will attend to explain the proposals.
Bambi, Some of us had to work, can you recap please.
It turned out to be a very good meeting with about 25 people, plus the County. It was very informative, so we got alot of things accomplished.
I am going to give you the outcome via my subsequent email below that I just sent to all of the attendees.
Hello to All my Neighbors:
Thank you all so much for attending the meeting yesterday. I personally feel I have acquired enough information at this pont to make an informed decision for this "first" step of change. That information being:
1. The Devlopers intent, history and caliber of the homes he intends on building on this site.
2. That said developer indeed is going to do a subdivision, so he will be held accountable via the subdivision process, which one can find on the the County's website. This includes engineering on site that will prevent flooding to downstream residents.
3. That this Developer has been made aware of these runoff problems.
4. That the County has been made aware of these runoff problems.
5. That there is NOT any litigation currently transpiring between the County and a Bonanza Ranch homeowner, as the County had previously said, which paves the way to allow continual discussion about this matter. That the County engineer plans on meeting with the Bonanza Ranch residents on this matter.
6. That the Developer is seeking his zoning on his own, and is not part of this trade, as first announced.
7. That the other property previously identified as the "trade" is suited for SR zoning, and is currently zoned GR; the owner of those properties is seeking rezoning as a means of preservation and that we, his neighbors, approve of that kind gesture for the public's good; Thank you Mr. and Mrs. Perry.
8. That the Developer plans on building only single level homes and ones of great stature, keeping in line with the present mentality of improvement of lifestyles out here.
9. That the announcement of Comprehensive Plan Changes, and their ramifications, be they MINOR or MAJOR, should be announced to the entire public out here in the future, by the County, thru news agencies and/or direct mail.
10. That there are negotiations being made with Developers by the Better Living Coalition, on behalf of the County and it's residents in Area 1b (our area) and that said Coalition states publically that they represent the interest of us in the San Tans, (Gordon stating they are indeed still in business as the BLC, contrary to remarks to the contrary on various sites, including ignorant bloggers statements. He also admitted it was he who was "brokering" this "trade"). This Coalition is the same coalition that negotiated the SanTanFlats zoning case, and others on Hunt Hiway. And, as a result of that discovery, that the homeowners in attendance have disclosed to this organization their private email addresses for future notifications of interest to us, so as to be kept in the Loop, and is not to be used for any other reason or purpose, nor is this act to be construed as "joining" their organization, and that said emails are to be kept confidential and not passed on to others. This does not eliminate the County's responsibility to notify us, nor does it give this Coalition exclusive right to pass on a vote of acceptance or rejection to the County on our behalf, without written approval from that person. I was made aware at the meeting by the County, that Mr. Brown and Mr. Rosebrook, both BLC members, comprise 2 of the 3 residents out here that have been representing us in Area 1b, for the past several years, on the County's Citizen Advisory Committee, in addition to their BLC input. Consequently, I have suggested to the County, that a better and more fair cross section of Area 1b residents is necessary in providing an accurate assessment of our needs out here, and that the rotation of residents in various committtees would stop any future long term biased input, representing a small faction.
11. And last, but not least, a quick overview of the Pinal Partnership Meeting by Char Wester, where the Governor has advised us to meet and work collectively in solving our problems outhere, as time is of the essence.
The meetings purpose was achieved: To inform the nearby residents of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment's reason and objective, and the players involved, so that we the residents and property owners that will be impacted by this change, can make a clear and informed decision and consequently send a vote of approval or disapproval to the Board of Supervisors, before their meeting this coming Wednesday. Email your position to Sandie.Smith@co.pinal.az.us and state that this is for the 20 acre parcel only and not a "blanket" approval for other sites.
I hope we can set up some monthly meetings out here, perhaps at the Park, to discuss, plan and review events out here, and also to be made aware of the progress of zoning changes and development in our area, and last but not least, to establish some friendly comeraderie amongst us.
That was the email I sent out to the attendees. That which is in red was not sent and is for your information only. Maps, plats, pictures, videos, were all provided for the public's viewing. A map of Area 1b, was provided also. That map can be found in the General Plan on the County's Website.
Hope this helps.
|
cc
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 214 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 15th, 2007 02:45 pm |
|
Bambi wrote: Meeting with County
Meeting with Pinal County regarding PZ-PA-003-07....20 acres. From low density to Rural. Proposed non-major(?)Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Remax 2000 Office. 10 a.m. Friday, September 14th, 2007. Remax office is located in the commercial strip center in Copper Basin, off of Hunt Hiway.
Both the County Planning Director, The Hydrologist (for water runoff) and the Developer of the proposed project will attend to explain the proposals.
Bambi, Some of us had to work, can you recap please.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13th, 2007 11:34 pm |
|
gk wrote: Anne,
Is this blasted crap site some of Van Sickles work? He has a habit of purchasing properties, splitting them and then selling them to his friends and they sell them back to split again.
If you go to the south end of Gary Rd and make a right at El Pedragal and drive down to the west end you can see some of the mountains that he has destroyed and wildcat subdivided.
Best be careful directing the public to the west end of Butte Creek Blvd. Lots of roadwork/utility installation going on back there. Rd. is barricaded.....private property. Residents living on all the mountainsides would not appreciate it. Just a word of advice Geno. Where Gary ends, you will soon see a Gate. Reasons for that.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13th, 2007 11:10 pm |
|
Anne,
Is this blasted crap site some of Van Sickles work? He has a habit of purchasing properties, splitting them and then selling them to his friends and they sell them back to split again.
If you go to the south end of Gary Rd and make a right at El Pedragal and drive down to the west end you can see some of the mountains that he has destroyed and wildcat subdivided.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13th, 2007 10:24 pm |
|
Meeting with County
Meeting with Pinal County regarding PZ-PA-003-07....20 acres. From low density to Rural. Proposed non-major(?)Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Remax 2000 Office. 10 a.m. Friday, September 14th, 2007. Remax office is located in the commercial strip center in Copper Basin, off of Hunt Hiway.
Both the County Planning Director, The Hydrologist (for water runoff) and the Developer of the proposed project will attend to explain the proposals.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13th, 2007 10:03 pm |
|
I drove by Anne's rental and home. I didn't take pictures. I have a real hard time publishing pictures of people's residences or other properties, unless I'm marketing them for sale or have their permission. Just goes against my grain I guess. I tried but my conscience got the best of me. So, you will have to see for yourself. It's public information.
But, she is just west of those pictures she took of another owners land and published on here for his abuse of hillsides. If you have Google earth, you can zero in on it. Just use the road designations to find it. Ivar and Bryce Trail. You'll see the mountain side that is cut out, looking north.....at the West end of Daniel Rd. She's is just west of it, or I should say her rental is. And, that is alot of water flowing down that mountainside she is on, looking for the path of least resistance.
Now, I drove by the Zoning change board to look closely at the proposed land use change picture. Now, it is clearer, but not clear. The subject case is PZ-PA-003-07. Now they have overlaid this on a 2006 comprehensive plan. Next to the site, on the east, is zoning case PZ-C-002-02(1) which appears to be Devlopmental Sensitive and low density (3.3 acre min.), but I noticed that someone is advertising 1.25 acre lots on the land. To the West of the site is PZ-C-002-02(1), which are/were 3.3's also. Now these could be old zoning cases. It doesn't say, and I can't find a site on the County's website that would render that information, so will find out tomorrow.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13th, 2007 09:45 pm |
|
Black Jack wrote: Bambi, This Friday meeting, is it open to the public and if so, can you please post the time and location. Thanks.
Yes indeed it is open. The more the better. I want the County to see us...who we are and what we believe in. I want them to notice that there are indeed competent people out here and that we want to be kept abreast of future "changes" or "additions" as they "arrive" as opposed to when they have already been negotiated and approved for the next step by those who represent other factions out here. We want to see them "during" the Concept Review Process. I would like a good cross section of residents....urban and rural, as what we do will effect you below us, in terms of runoff.
David Kuhl is the Director of Planning and Development and a former Planner and a darn good one too. He is approachable and intelligent. I would like to take him for a drive in the area, as he lives in Gold Canyon. Give him an eye opener.
Please come fellow residents/neighbors, one and all. This is a work/study session, based on first hand information from the sources.....Developer and County. An opportunity to ask them questions. See ya there.
|
azsunshine
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 402 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13th, 2007 09:25 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote: JJohnson wrote:
Bambi,
I would appreciate if you could verify this infomoration and provide pictures. I am not sure what all of this means because I don't live in that area nor do I travel up there. I am just more concerned about hypocracy of people that appear to have decision making roles of our area.
I am also not sure what the end solution is because damage can not be undone in most cases but surely the credibility of these people should be put into question.
Did Ms Reed know what she was buying?
Did Ms. Reed purchase with an intention (good or bad) that we are not aware of?
Has Ms. Reed improved the land ecologically since purchasing?
What has Ms Reed done to mitigate the hypocracy factor?
Al Gore claims to buy carbon offsets to rationalize his use of SUV's, private jet travel, and monstrous houses with utility bills that are more than double the average US household income. Al Gore's rationalization does not pass my smell test because of the abject hypocracy.
If Ms Reed has rehabilited the property by re-vegetating and mitigating flood issues after purchasing then maybe she deserves a pat on the back. But if she says that she has made the area better by imposing restrictions on others to justify her problems then I have a real issue with her.
Maybe Ms. Reed can explain this in detail for us?
JJ
Dear JJ:
I bought the property for my daughter and her family around 1995. There was an existing mobile home on the property. My daughter is not really the out-doorsy type and the myriad of snakes, scorpions, and other desert dwelling, unfamiliar creatures, prompted her family to move within a few short months. As many know, this area featured some pretty rugged living back in the 90's.
About ten years ago, I rented it to a local gentlemen who wanted to remain close to his children after a divorce. He has remained my tenant since that time.
I intented to build my personal residence on that lot one day. I was gone off and on during 2004 and when my mother had a major stroke in late 2004 I travelled to California to care for her. I did not return until mid 2006. When I did, I learned that the property to my east, formerly on Bryce Trail, had been altered to look as it does in the previously posted photos and that Daniel Road had been extended, altering the originally recorded subdivision and preventing road improvements I had hoped were imminent. I was very disappointed to see what had happened in my absence.
I have made no alterations to the grading on the lot. I did not affix the mobile home, believing that one day I would build there. There was always a run-off problem but the modifications to the lot pictured and fences constructed along the east side of Bryce Trail have compounded the problem tenfold and created a potentially dangerous situation to my tenant, other neighbors and perhaps more significantly to any visitors who are not familiar with what is now a wide single lane of access to several properties, bordered on both sides by fences. Rural Metro assures me that they would be able to reach the house in the event of an emergency but I still question adequate access exists as even non commercial vehicles are challenged for access, particularly in the rainy season. Neighbors with heavy grading equipment have frequently been helpful, removed debris and filled in newly created washes that prevented access.
As for the hypocrisy factor, JJ, I have been accused of a number of shortcomings but I am pleased to report that hypocricy is not one of them.
Come to find out ARS33-422, concerning recording disclosure affadavits, and ARS11-809 have been recently modified. I have yet to study these revisions and whether they will address what I see as one of the greatest problems facing our area, and many other scenic areas throughout Arizona.
As my schedule is booked solid for the next couple of days, I will not be able to respond to any questions until this weekend.
Regards,
Anne
Does Owner Occupied taxing status apply to a 10 year rental?
|
Black Jack
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 137 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13th, 2007 07:30 pm |
|
Bambi, This Friday meeting, is it open to the public and if so, can you please post the time and location. Thanks.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13th, 2007 06:20 pm |
|
Ms. Reed,
I am sure you are busy and may well be a very upstanding citizen but I feel that I am competent to determine whether you meet my stadards of hypocracy or not. Answers to the proceeding questions and explanations or refuting of Bambi's claims will help in my decision making process. I will await your answers over the weekend.
JJ
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13th, 2007 05:49 pm |
|
I'm confused. You stated earlier that you acquired the property in 1992. Your chain of title shows back to 04 only, showing Johnsons as owner (your kids ?), with a quit claim transfer in 99. Now, even though you have a tenant living there, it is still your property and your responsibility to maintain it.
That means you do live on Bonnie, as I thought at first. But it shows you purchased Bonnie in 03, from the same people as you sold to on the hillside site......all thru quit claim deeds?
Well, this is all public information. It stills shows you own hillside property, and you have made no improvements or provided any remedys.... Other than to blame your neighbors for the problems at hand. Now, lets take a look at your Bonnie property. If it's of the same character as your Hillside property, then we will have at least established a pattern here.
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13th, 2007 05:04 pm |
|
JJohnson wrote:
Bambi,
I would appreciate if you could verify this infomoration and provide pictures. I am not sure what all of this means because I don't live in that area nor do I travel up there. I am just more concerned about hypocracy of people that appear to have decision making roles of our area.
I am also not sure what the end solution is because damage can not be undone in most cases but surely the credibility of these people should be put into question.
Did Ms Reed know what she was buying?
Did Ms. Reed purchase with an intention (good or bad) that we are not aware of?
Has Ms. Reed improved the land ecologically since purchasing?
What has Ms Reed done to mitigate the hypocracy factor?
Al Gore claims to buy carbon offsets to rationalize his use of SUV's, private jet travel, and monstrous houses with utility bills that are more than double the average US household income. Al Gore's rationalization does not pass my smell test because of the abject hypocracy.
If Ms Reed has rehabilited the property by re-vegetating and mitigating flood issues after purchasing then maybe she deserves a pat on the back. But if she says that she has made the area better by imposing restrictions on others to justify her problems then I have a real issue with her.
Maybe Ms. Reed can explain this in detail for us?
JJ
Dear JJ:
I bought the property for my daughter and her family around 1995. There was an existing mobile home on the property. My daughter is not really the out-doorsy type and the myriad of snakes, scorpions, and other desert dwelling, unfamiliar creatures, prompted her family to move within a few short months. As many know, this area featured some pretty rugged living back in the 90's.
About ten years ago, I rented it to a local gentlemen who wanted to remain close to his children after a divorce. He has remained my tenant since that time.
I intented to build my personal residence on that lot one day. I was gone off and on during 2004 and when my mother had a major stroke in late 2004 I travelled to California to care for her. I did not return until mid 2006. When I did, I learned that the property to my east, formerly on Bryce Trail, had been altered to look as it does in the previously posted photos and that Daniel Road had been extended, altering the originally recorded subdivision and preventing road improvements I had hoped were imminent. I was very disappointed to see what had happened in my absence.
I have made no alterations to the grading on the lot. I did not affix the mobile home, believing that one day I would build there. There was always a run-off problem but the modifications to the lot pictured and fences constructed along the east side of Bryce Trail have compounded the problem tenfold and created a potentially dangerous situation to my tenant, other neighbors and perhaps more significantly to any visitors who are not familiar with what is now a wide single lane of access to several properties, bordered on both sides by fences. Rural Metro assures me that they would be able to reach the house in the event of an emergency but I still question adequate access exists as even non commercial vehicles are challenged for access, particularly in the rainy season. Neighbors with heavy grading equipment have frequently been helpful, removed debris and filled in newly created washes that prevented access.
As for the hypocrisy factor, JJ, I have been accused of a number of shortcomings but I am pleased to report that hypocricy is not one of them.
Come to find out ARS33-422, concerning recording disclosure affadavits, and ARS11-809 have been recently modified. I have yet to study these revisions and whether they will address what I see as one of the greatest problems facing our area, and many other scenic areas throughout Arizona.
As my schedule is booked solid for the next couple of days, I will not be able to respond to any questions until this weekend.
Regards,
Anne
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13th, 2007 04:16 pm |
|
....concerned about the hypocrisy of people who have decision making roles for us out here? Welcome aboard. Misinformed, biased input will produce biased conclusions, which have nothing to do with remediation for all...only gratification for some. We're having some real problems out here now, based on that input, and we all need to put a stop to it. And if revealing motivations and character analysis' will stop it, then that's what will happen.
My house has been burned down; my car stolen; my kids in a wreck on Hunt; theft in one of my homes; graffitti on my fences; my granddaughters exposed to a child predator in a school bus; My taxes have doubled; All out here and within the last month..... so I think I can withstand a bit more torture, but not much more. I'm promoting change, and that promotes resistance.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13th, 2007 03:40 pm |
|
Bambi,
I would appreciate if you could verify this infomoration and provide pictures. I am not sure what all of this means because I don't live in that area nor do I travel up there. I am just more concerned about hypocracy of people that appear to have decision making roles of our area.
I am also not sure what the end solution is because damage can not be undone in most cases but surely the credibility of these people should be put into question.
Did Ms Reed know what she was buying?
Did Ms. Reed purchase with an intention (good or bad) that we are not aware of?
Has Ms. Reed improved the land ecologically since purchasing?
What has Ms Reed done to mitigate the hypocracy factor?
Al Gore claims to buy carbon offsets to rationalize his use of SUV's, private jet travel, and monstrous houses with utility bills that are more than double the average US household income. Al Gore's rationalization does not pass my smell test because of the abject hypocracy.
If Ms Reed has rehabilited the property by re-vegetating and mitigating flood issues after purchasing then maybe she deserves a pat on the back. But if she says that she has made the area better by imposing restrictions on others to justify her problems then I have a real issue with her.
Maybe Ms. Reed can explain this in detail for us?
JJ
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13th, 2007 03:02 pm |
|
Oh My Word!!!
I never knew exactly where you lived before Anne, but now I do. You are a result of a land split, and you are positioned on a hillside, with a strong incline...appears to be over 15% grade. This I am only retrieving off the Pinal Assessors site....Map: 509 Book 14. I think I will take a drive afterall.... It appears yu back up to the Park. Is this correct? If so, then......
You are indeed close to that site dug out of the mountain via the pics....you're both hillside lots! You both had to dig out of the mountain to place your homes on it....and if you didn't do the digging, you still bought a hillside lot that was dug out of the mountainside, bordering the Park for all to see and you state you are still "working" on it...would that include adjusting the slope at all by adding things for your horses? Like creating Flat Land from slope land, for their stalls? Like those further south of you are doing on Bryce Tr. and Royce....using heavy equipment to flatten their land for their horses benefit, changing the flow of the washes? If you made any adjustments, then you altered the flow of water below, and had to flood someone out. And if you didn't, then the guy who dug it out of the mountainside, altered the flow, and you accepted it by purchasing the land on a hillside. Your water runoff runs south, toward Judd, then east.. And I thought you were against hillside lots. What a Discovery!
The two people who adamantly dislike the intrusion of homes and the disturbance of the hillsides, both own a home on a hillside/hilltop. Interesting.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13th, 2007 02:14 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote: Dear Bambi:
So, am I to understand that you cannnot recognize the reasons that the majority of Pinal residents oppose this practice? Were you unfamiliar with this stated public position or did you just choose to disregard it?
Are you speaking as a San Tan resident, or, as a realtor who has historically brokered many projects for these wildcat landsplitters?
You should be pleased to know that most of the 70 acres of GR zoned land (now zoned SR) that was exchanged for 20 acres of SR (now zoned CR1A) is in your area. You won't be seeing mine-like sites on that 70 acres of hillside lots. Or, perhaps you prefer to view an eroding pile of rubble instead of the ancient Sonorran desert environment?
Please respond.
Thank you,
Anne
Anne: I am searching for that 70 acres that these Developers own that you state that I will be pleased to know it's in my area. And how did the zoning already get changed to SR and the 20 to CR1A, without public input? I believe you are jumping the gun. The Developers names are Mission Properties Development, LLC. Only one ownership comes up under that name, and that is of the 20 acres. Is it under a different name? This 20 is a result of a split (note 014&split)
http://www.pinalcounty.org/assessor/search/resdata.aspx?Book=509&map=19&parcel=014&split=B&chk=0&s=1
As I p.m. you last night, and after reading these posts over, I would like you to attend the meeting on Friday, so you too can hear what the County has to say about this "trade". Obviously, you have already been privy to the negotiations, but an update will help your perspective perhaps. That way, there will be no conflict. You can also address your hillside issues, and speak to the public and residents about your "side" and reason for allowing that 20 acres next to them to downsize to 3 dwelling units per 3.3 acres, from the present zoning of 1 dwelling unit per 3.3 acres.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13th, 2007 01:27 pm |
|
that is a huge cop out ... One could rephrase your post as follows .. "I bought my house a long time ago so I have been here long enough for the rules to not really apply to me. Plus I don't care about money so look the other way when judging my property but those damn greedy developers should have pristine looking properties". Once again I am not judging your property or your passion, just your hypocracy.
JJ
Last edited on Thu Sep 13th, 2007 01:27 pm by JJohnson
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13th, 2007 12:33 am |
|
Dear Bambi:
I bought a home that was available in 1992 when I moved out here to start my horse ranch. I will be the first to admit that it is a work in process, but, each year I get closer to the goal. Nothing fancy, but the horses never minded and neither did I. Horses were my passion and I gave up the big fancy house in favor of the more relaxed rural lifestyle.
May I reiterate my values, money's nice, but it isn't everything...
Regards.
Anne
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 10:22 pm |
|
gk wrote: Anne,
Is this the work of Mr. Van Sickle....the notorious land splitter, wildcat subdivision blaster?
Oh yes; it's Gene entering the picture. The one who is anti small lots, but no where is he defending that stand on keeping large lots in the 20 acres. Just like Anne, he is pointing fingers at people who followed the law, to the extent it was written, and calling them names and making slanderous remarks about them. Cheap shots.
There will be a house there some day, and the land will be cleaned up, not left there as shown. Private Property rights. If you don't want it to happen, then make a law stopping it, but until then, it is their right and they are in full compliance with Pinal County's Ordinances. And I and the County do not condone it, but nor do we disapprove of it until the property law affecting it is in place.
Now that land has been sitting that way for at least 2 years, thanks to economic conditions and other situations. Your pics are close up, but you live on Bonnie, not Daniel, where the hillside is....about 2 miles away maybe. What have you done to bring about change in the law governing hillsides Gene and Anne?
Gene...your house in the back is on a hillside...on the top. That too is discouraged...hilltop homes. Will you be tearing it down so it will be more pleasing to the eye for the rest of us and in compliance with building codes? Yes; we need a picture of that one too. I'll bring the picture of my home out here too, just to be fair. Maybe I should bring pics of the homes built on the slope in the front rurals, above SanTanFlats. Those people are out of compliance too according to your rules of order Anne. Those are hillside homes, plain and simple. Lots of cutouts up there too. Because you live on flat land doesn't give you the right to insist that everyone else does too.
Now, lets take a peak at your property Anne, only I won't post them on here out of courtesy to yu. Let's see if your lot produces eye sores. I will have those pics at the meeting for people who have been slandered by you to view. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Let's see if you are in compliance and since you won't give the answer, I will. Let's see if your lot is "pleasing to the eye."
Oh, by the way.....that 20 is a Comprehensive Plan Change, like I said earlier; not a simple zoning change. The meeting will also include the County Hydrologist to educate us on runoff out here. That's the way you solve problems. Greet, Meet, discuss, understand, develop rules and guidelines, then make it happen.
Now I have work to do and so does the County, to prepare for that meeting.
oh yes. jj. your posts tell me you are informed and not quick to judgment.
Last edited on Wed Sep 12th, 2007 11:31 pm by Bambi
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 09:49 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote: Dear Bambi:
CCR's are not worth the paper they're written on without a homeowners association to enforce them. It is not within the Counties scope of authority to enforce CCR's. Perhaps Mr. Kuhl would be willing to educate you on this this topic at your meeting.
Regards,
Anne
Well, here we go, one by one: The homeowner will bring an attorney to enforce it. It has happened many times out here, and the County does what the attorney says. David will back me up on that on Friday, as I just spoke with him and we will be addressing these issues.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 07:26 pm |
|
Not a realtor or developer ... Just a retired business owner (but do we ever really retire? That is another story, in and of itself). Needless to say I do believe in following rules but I don't blame people for making money either. Rules are to be followed and courts do the interpreting not rogue individuals.
JJ
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 07:23 pm |
|
Anne,
Is this the work of Mr. Van Sickle....the notorious land splitter, wildcat subdivision blaster?
|
OZ
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jan 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 563 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 07:16 pm |
|
JJohnson writes;
Not sure what I am looking at ... Seems to be a section on the mountain that looks newly carved ... I would imagine it will take a few years to weather and re-vegitate.
Gosh, you need glasses not to see the side of the Mountain blasted out. What are you a realtor? "Oh..it will just take a few years to weather out" What an attitude you have. Your writings all imply to me that you are somehow connected to a Realtor or a developer.
Those pictures are a tragedy.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 07:09 pm |
|
Please don't misunderstand my comments for not agreeing that there is a problem. I just think that you are misguided and blaming the wrong people. I am quite sure that these landowners followed the law or I am sure you would have filed a suit.
JJ
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 06:59 pm |
|
| Well, I'd be interested to know if anyone can understand my concerns regarding this practice?
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 06:57 pm |
|
| More erosion of "building pad". Gee I wonder why it's still not developed! Attachment: P1010447.JPG (Downloaded 86 times) Last edited on Wed Sep 12th, 2007 06:58 pm by anne.reed
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 06:54 pm |
|
| Here is a picture of more damage to native flora Attachment: P1010450.JPG (Downloaded 88 times)
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 06:51 pm |
|
| Here is a picture of watershed damage to natural flora. Attachment: P1010456.JPG (Downloaded 91 times)
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 06:49 pm |
|
| Here is a picture of the damage to the road and it's potential danger. Note, see tire tracks within inches of this abyss. Attachment: P1010457.JPG (Downloaded 91 times)
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 06:47 pm |
|
| Here is the view of the hillsides without "enhancement", to my west. Attachment: P1010455.JPG (Downloaded 92 times)
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 06:46 pm |
|
| Here is a picture of the "enhanced" view after alteration by lotsplitters,to my east. Attachment: P1010448.JPG (Downloaded 91 times)
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 06:40 pm |
|
| Here is a picture of the building pad erosion on that lot. Attachment: P1010445.JPG (Downloaded 92 times)
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 06:40 pm |
|
Not sure what I am looking at ... Seems to be a section on the mountain that looks newly carved ... I would imagine it will take a few years to weather and re-vegitate.
JJ
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 06:37 pm |
|
Dear Newszappers:
A picture is worth a thousand words. Here is a picture that was taken several blocks away from the property we're discussing.
AnneAttachment: P1010460.JPG (Downloaded 93 times)
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 06:34 pm |
|
Dear Bambi:
CCR's are not worth the paper they're written on without a homeowners association to enforce them. It is not within the Counties scope of authority to enforce CCR's. Perhaps Mr. Kuhl would be willing to educate you on this this topic at your meeting.
Regards,
Anne
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 05:18 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote: JJohnson wrote:
There you go again with assuming that you are correct in this case. The law is the law until it is rewritten. Seems to me that you knew (or should have known) the potential for these issues when you purchased you property. I can feel empathy for you but not sorrow. If these folks are breaking the law then they should be prosecuted but I have not seen any accusations at this point.
Please don't blame the state for not coming to your rescue at the expense of someone else. These folks have probably invested alot more than you have in their property. To that point they have equal rights to their enjoyment even if you call it greed. There is no law against greediness despite its ugly conotations. Greed is responsible for many of the things we enjoy in the USA.
JJ
Dear JJ;
Oh, yes, I did realize the potential for these issues. All I needed to do is look around me to see that GR zoning, which does not even recognize recorded CCR's, is fodder for potential abuses. I have consistently made, and continue to make, every effort to see this ineffective legislation overturned.
No, as a matter of fact, the Bonanza Highlands area was bought for $1,500 to $3,000 per acre. For the most part, running water to the property vacinity and blading a dirt road through the desert were the extent of the improvments. For their efforts these speculators often received 1000% profit after holding the property for a couple of years, and those who purchased the property are still suffering the consequences of their selfish ambitions. (And don't think for moment that these profiteers didn't know the probable consequences of their actions in advance.)
Love of money has been recognized as the root of all evil for at least 2000 years. Disregard for the welfare of others, for personal gain, is hardly a 21st century dilemma but has been a societal affliction since mans origin. It seems to me that one's position on this issue speaks to that persons' most basic priorities. What is more important, what is right or what is profitable. This is not to say that right and profit cannot coexist because they can, and do. Ideally, there would be a blend between the two interests. I don't believe that my success can accurately be measured by my balance sheet and income statement, but, by these tangible items and a healthy measure of honesty and compassion for others.
Regards,
Anne
JJ. Sometime, when you have a chance, or maybe even on Friday if you would like to come to the meeting, I will educate you on the History of Bonanza Highlands; who owned it; who surveyed it; what happened to it after it came out of Bankruptcy; who took it over; what plans evolved as a result......and so on. Her history is warped. There was no selfish ambitions motivating those owners. They basically "saved" that area from further deterioation by placing CCR's on it.
GR zoning v.s. CCR's. Its the Law of the Land, that the most stringent of the two laws, is the law that is enforced, whether it be the zoning of GR or the CCR's. In Chandler Heights Ranches, they have GR zoning. But, the CCR's only allow for 2 acre lots and GR allows 1.25 acre lots. The County will issue a deed on the GR zone and a building permit on it also, but only if no one comes forth to enforce the CCR's, as all these subdivision out here, except for Bonanza Ranch, are lacking HOA's to enforce the rules. If someone comes forth to object and demand the CCR's are the rules to apply, then County will back up the CCR's....Been done already.
Warped advice Anne.
And, You still haven't stated that you are in compliance with your property use, as you again point the finger at those you think are abusing the system and out of compliance. Must I research it myself and post it on here for you to come forth with honesty? Why the delay? Could it be you are not in compliance. Oh yes, you live in Chandler Heights Ranches.....are you on 2 acres? Is Gordon?
Answers please so we can all form an opinion on your statement's validity and accuracy.
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 04:57 pm |
|
JJohnson wrote:
There you go again with assuming that you are correct in this case. The law is the law until it is rewritten. Seems to me that you knew (or should have known) the potential for these issues when you purchased you property. I can feel empathy for you but not sorrow. If these folks are breaking the law then they should be prosecuted but I have not seen any accusations at this point.
Please don't blame the state for not coming to your rescue at the expense of someone else. These folks have probably invested alot more than you have in their property. To that point they have equal rights to their enjoyment even if you call it greed. There is no law against greediness despite its ugly conotations. Greed is responsible for many of the things we enjoy in the USA.
JJ
Dear JJ;
Oh, yes, I did realize the potential for these issues. All I needed to do is look around me to see that GR zoning, which does not even recognize recorded CCR's, is fodder for potential abuses. I have consistently made, and continue to make, every effort to see this ineffective legislation overturned.
No, as a matter of fact, the Bonanza Highlands area was bought for $1,500 to $3,000 per acre. For the most part, running water to the property vacinity and blading a dirt road through the desert were the extent of the improvments. For their efforts these speculators often received 1000% profit after holding the property for a couple of years, and those who purchased the property are still suffering the consequences of their selfish ambitions. (And don't think for moment that these profiteers didn't know the probable consequences of their actions in advance.)
Love of money has been recognized as the root of all evil for at least 2000 years. Disregard for the welfare of others, for personal gain, is hardly a 21st century dilemma but has been a societal affliction since mans origin. It seems to me that one's position on this issue speaks to that persons' most basic priorities. What is more important, what is right or what is profitable. This is not to say that right and profit cannot coexist because they can, and do. Ideally, there would be a blend between the two interests. I don't believe that my success can accurately be measured by my balance sheet and income statement, but, by these tangible items and a healthy measure of honesty and compassion for others.
Regards,
Anne
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 04:14 pm |
|
There you go again with assuming that you are correct in this case. The law is the law until it is rewritten. Seems to me that you knew (or should have known) the potential for these issues when you purchased you property. I can feel empathy for you but not sorrow. If these folks are breaking the law then they should be prosecuted but I have not seen any accusations at this point.
Please don't blame the state for not coming to your rescue at the expense of someone else. These folks have probably invested alot more than you have in their property. To that point they have equal rights to their enjoyment even if you call it greed. There is no law against greediness despite its ugly conotations. Greed is responsible for many of the things we enjoy in the USA.
JJ
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 04:05 pm |
|
JJohnson wrote:
Lets not forget about Prop 400 (I think that is the number). It allows property owners to sue the county, in this case, for lost value due to a change in zoning. If those land owners are no longer allowed to develop their properties then the county may owe them for lost revenue. I would hate to find out that I paid money to protect your personal views due to the poor planning by the same person.
JJ
Perhaps I have a case... Interesting that Prop 400 allows property owners to sue the Counties when it is State lawmakers that refuse to revisit the land split issues. What's up with that?
Regards,
Anne
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 03:49 pm |
|
| | |