| Author | Post |
|---|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28th, 2008 02:10 pm |
|
Bambi wrote:
anne.reed wrote: Dear 2 cents:
I hope you don't take the criticism dished out on this site to heart. It's refreshing to have a poster who isn't in lock step with the "Bad News Bears".
Regards,
Anne
Yes indeed. The saying is true. Birds of a Feather, Flock together. Inflammatory and disruptive remarks and name calling included to stray us away from our purpose....the same modis operandi. "Plants" on here to stop the progess, not to discuss issues.
Now that's two of ya that will get ignored.....and hopefully by all, as your purpose appears to bring negativity to our arena of Hope which includes ideas of progress and purpose. This type of "restraint" has been around much too long, holding us back with the binds of controversy and roadblocks.
So.... open planning ideas will not be discussed on here about any new things for us on the Horizon by me anyway, as it is always disputed by a few who seek to stop production by stirring the pot of "it won't work" without additional monies and we don't want to pay anymore than we are paying now." And we don't want things to change...stay as they are. That's all I can afford. Stuck in Time. Status quo.
If anyone wants to know of my plans for improvement and progress for us, then they can pm me and ask me to keep yu updated...or better yet, become involved.
This forum topic is for discussion of issues. It keeps going to people's personalities or interjections of slams and putdowns for even having an idea, let along discussing it . Not "arguments" for or against, attempting to work thru the ideas by "debating" them on here, but name calling and fingerpointing to the posters...usually for ones opinion of the County or talk of City.. The Administrator appears to have no control over these types of inflammatory remarks interjected, perhaps bound by his freedom of speech requirements.
So, if the forum allows intentional disruption of discussion and debate of an issue, by allowing, not dissenting views on topics, but trashing of the idea thru character assassinations, then your forced to go "underground." to plan and discuss.
I started this topic to explore the old forum on yahoo....that got deleted by someone in opposition who didn't want the public to view it. Then it went to discussion of a city, and that went down the tubes, so all that's left is to attack the messenger.
So much for staying on topic and discussing our issues.....Diversion/roadblock...hijacking my topic to stop the flow of ideas, leaving us only to take on the defense mode once again. Same thing over and over. Yep...you're right in your statement..."the BLC got the Ball rolling..." and it's still rolling...only it was a steam roller...not a ball, and it's still manned and powered by that loosely knit group of BLCers, with the fuel being supplied by the County.
and another "enabler" is on the horizon.
OK, I already posted my short response to the above comments, but, as I reread them I cannot let your assertions go unanswered.
"Plants"? Get serious! Anyone who refuses to accept your point of view must be a plant? You state this forum is designed to discuss issues, yet, you call for the ignoring or any opposing opinion.
"Open planning ideas will not be discussed on here..."?? Who died and made you webmaster? I agree wholeheartedly that the webmaster should do some housecleaning, but I don't share your opinion on what the outcome would be, who'd be posting and who'd be ignored. Has this site become a private forum for the minority, a "whine-board" for those whose political agendas have been defeated by the majority?
THERE IS A DISTINCT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOPE AND ILLUSION. Failure to recognize reality does not constitute a positive outlook any more than stating the truth is negativity. Without the truth no citizen is prepared to act reasonably in any matters of self governance.
Maybe you're right, we should each claim ownership of our posted topics. I promise not to post on yours if you won't post on mine.
Regards,
AnneLast edited on Thu Feb 28th, 2008 02:12 pm by anne.reed
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28th, 2008 02:00 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote: The poll is confusing, and worse than that, a mute point since Florence has extended it's planning area to Combs Road on the north and Gary Road on the west. A city is NOT one of the options available to area residents.
Regards,
Anne
First and foremost, yes this is a public forum. You have stood behind 2 cents because he stated that the county is lucky to have someone like you, then he personally attacked Bambi and Starleen, yet then you go and say to him not to let personal attacks against him phase him. You can not have it both ways.
Secondly how is the above poll confusing? You get to answer one from #1 & #2, you get toi answer one form #3 & #4, and you get to answer one from #5 & #6. Maybe you just are not liking the results thus far. There is NO mute point here, as JJ said, "never say never"!. Special taxing districts, remaining status quo, or annexing into Florence is not what is an option here.
Thirdly, why have I not hear yet as to how I can get an application, attend a swearing in ceremony, be elected in, or whatever it takes to become an active member of the BLC. I am a member of this community and it was said that this group is open to ALL members of the community.......... WELL HOW DO i get in???
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 524 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28th, 2008 01:37 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote: The poll is confusing, and worse than that, a mute point since Florence has extended it's planning area to Combs Road on the north and Gary Road on the west. A city is NOT one of the options available to area residents.
Regards,
Anne
A wise man once said "NEVER say never!!!!"
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28th, 2008 01:35 pm |
|
The poll is confusing, and worse than that, a mute point since Florence has extended it's planning area to Combs Road on the north and Gary Road on the west. A city is NOT one of the options available to area residents.
Regards,
Anne
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28th, 2008 01:30 pm |
|
Come On Bambi:
This is a public issues forum. It is not intended to be a personal propaganda machine. Citizens, on both sides of an issue, should feel free to express their points of view without fear of attack by other posters.
Let's just lighten up and try to have a meaningful dialogue.
Regards,
Anne
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28th, 2008 01:20 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote: Dear 2 cents:
I hope you don't take the criticism dished out on this site to heart. It's refreshing to have a poster who isn't in lock step with the "Bad News Bears".
Regards,
Anne
Yes indeed. The saying is true. Birds of a Feather, Flock together. Inflammatory and disruptive remarks and name calling included to stray us away from our purpose....the same modis operandi. "Plants" on here to stop the progess, not to discuss issues.
Now that's two of ya that will get ignored.....and hopefully by all, as your purpose appears to bring negativity to our arena of Hope which includes ideas of progress and purpose. This type of "restraint" has been around much too long, holding us back with the binds of controversy and roadblocks.
So.... open planning ideas will not be discussed on here about any new things for us on the Horizon by me anyway, as it is always disputed by a few who seek to stop production by stirring the pot of "it won't work" without additional monies and we don't want to pay anymore than we are paying now." And we don't want things to change...stay as they are. That's all I can afford. Stuck in Time. Status quo.
If anyone wants to know of my plans for improvement and progress for us, then they can pm me and ask me to keep yu updated...or better yet, become involved.
This forum topic is for discussion of issues. It keeps going to people's personalities or interjections of slams and putdowns for even having an idea, let along discussing it . Not "arguments" for or against, attempting to work thru the ideas by "debating" them on here, but name calling and fingerpointing to the posters...usually for ones opinion of the County or talk of City.. The Administrator appears to have no control over these types of inflammatory remarks interjected, perhaps bound by his freedom of speech requirements.
So, if the forum allows intentional disruption of discussion and debate of an issue, by allowing, not dissenting views on topics, but trashing of the idea thru character assassinations, then your forced to go "underground." to plan and discuss.
I started this topic to explore the old forum on yahoo....that got deleted by someone in opposition who didn't want the public to view it. Then it went to discussion of a city, and that went down the tubes, so all that's left is to attack the messenger.
So much for staying on topic and discussing our issues.....Diversion/roadblock...hijacking my topic to stop the flow of ideas, leaving us only to take on the defense mode once again. Same thing over and over. Yep...you're right in your statement..."the BLC got the Ball rolling..." and it's still rolling...only it was a steam roller...not a ball, and it's still manned and powered by that loosely knit group of BLCers, with the fuel being supplied by the County.
and another "enabler" is on the horizon.
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28th, 2008 01:48 am |
|
anne.reed wrote: Dear 2 cents:
I hope you don't take the criticism dished out on this site to heart. It's refreshing to have a poster who isn't in lock step with the "Bad News Bears".
Regards,
Anne
What is Gods name are you talking about Anne. Have you seen the wisenhimer posts written by this poster to Starleen and Bambi. Or do you not consider those to be criticism because he attempted to put you up on a pedestal? Criticism is criticism, it doesn't matter who slings it.
|
2 cents
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 150 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28th, 2008 01:37 am |
|
Dear Ms. Reed,
Thank you. I don't. Starleen is correct though. I should not allow myself to use the same tactics as those with whom I may disagree. I need to pay closer attention to how you respond, kind words and facts.
Thanks again. 2 cents
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28th, 2008 12:08 am |
|
Dear 2 cents:
I hope you don't take the criticism dished out on this site to heart. It's refreshing to have a poster who isn't in lock step with the "Bad News Bears".
Regards,
Anne
|
SHAFT
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 30 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27th, 2008 11:39 pm |
|
| Anne - The City of Maricopa is ONE city out of how many in the country? Why would our fate be the same as theirs? Even if there were bumps on the road during the first few years as a city, it would be worth it in the long run. Nothing great ever came easy.
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27th, 2008 02:34 pm |
|
starleen wrote: 2 cents wrote: Does this mean that you are not going to enlighten us with the answers to your own questions? I am sure that everyone will be less of a knowledgable person without benefit of your wise council.
You are a recent entrant to this forum as am I - but I'm sure you know Bambi's stand on the questions she asks, as do I, from reading her posts. And I am sure you have a clue about her history and standing in the community. Why are you goading? Why the sarcasm and disrespect? She's asking for accountability from elected or candidate officials - she shouldn't need to build a bowling alley to deserve answers.
starleen does this person not remind you of a little gnat that just won't go away. Don't sweat the small stuff star........
|
starleen
Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 266 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27th, 2008 04:10 am |
|
2 cents wrote: Does this mean that you are not going to enlighten us with the answers to your own questions? I am sure that everyone will be less of a knowledgable person without benefit of your wise council.
You are a recent entrant to this forum as am I - but I'm sure you know Bambi's stand on the questions she asks, as do I, from reading her posts. And I am sure you have a clue about her history and standing in the community. Why are you goading? Why the sarcasm and disrespect? She's asking for accountability from elected or candidate officials - she shouldn't need to build a bowling alley to deserve answers.
|
2 cents
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 150 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27th, 2008 12:24 am |
|
Does this mean that you are not going to enlighten us with the answers to your own questions? I am sure that everyone will be less of a knowledgable person without benefit of your wise council.
2 cents
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25th, 2008 03:31 am |
|
AHHHHHHH Bmabi, I see what you mean like this post attached.
Posted: Thu Feb 14th, 2008 07:11 pm
Bravo Anne Reed! No wonder the County has, if they did, relied on your input. You seem to speak with something other than unsubstantiated 'fact', innuendo, second hand hearsay, superfulous rhetoric and, best of all, accusations of causing all of the ills of the word just because you have a different point of view.
Bravo Anne Reed!
It is amazing what you can find out when you research some of archived news articles from that time period. Do a 'city of san tan' sometime.
2 cents
Amazing, just simply amazing.
Last edited on Mon Feb 25th, 2008 03:32 am by pipeman
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25th, 2008 02:59 am |
|
I've learned to ignore 2 cents as his comments are always confusing. His name....he uses the idiom two cents: meaning "my two cents"...perhaps done in an effort to lessen the impact of his contentious statements. Read his earlier posts on this thread. It will "enlighten" you as to where he stands, and what his objective is.
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25th, 2008 02:40 am |
|
| Wow, did someone go bareback today and now their bloomers are all bunched up and cutting off circulation, thus causing this piss-poor attitude?
|
2 cents
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 150 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25th, 2008 12:05 am |
|
Bambi, I'm interested to hear your answers to the questions that you have posed. Please enlighten us. I assume that you have answers that you expect to hear and if you don't hear them then whomever has answered is obviously not going to get your support.
Why don't you build your bowling lane. It's your idea. Put your money where your mouth is rather than demand or expect someone else to do it for you.
2 cents
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24th, 2008 04:20 pm |
|
Thank you Black Jack. Now, I am not very computer savvy, so I rely on those that are. Having said that. Is this a page for his candidacy or a page for himself and his friends on My Space? I see it was started a year or so ago. I notice he is a class act American soldier and one who is interested in higher education, which makes me feel good about him, but I need more info.
Anyway, if I had just spelled his last name right, I would have found him I guess.
I see nothing about his candidacy or his positions on the issues out here. Is there somewhere on his site that I am not noticing I wonder. I see him speak about his beliefs about being an American, but not related to our issues. Am I missing something?
Last edited on Sun Feb 24th, 2008 04:22 pm by Bambi
|
Black Jack
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 137 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24th, 2008 03:58 pm |
|
Bambi,
Try this site http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=201018510
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24th, 2008 02:56 pm |
|
I enjoyed the discussions so much on the QC site regarding the candidates running, I would like to see it happen on here. I loved the questions posed by the posters and the candidates willingness to answer those questions.
Having said that. I wonder if we could do the same thing here for our candidates running from our district....namely Todd House and Bryan Martin.
This is an open request to Angela and Sarah, from the media. Could you pose some questions for us to ask these candidates, regarding their position on our issues here in the San Tans? We need to know who we are voting for and what they stand for, besides just being a paid supervisor.
What is their position on San Tan Flats? What is their position on the J curve controversy? What is their position of commercial versus residential on the Hunt corridor. specifically at Hunt and Ellsworth? What is their position on a Library and how do they propose to bring it to fruition? Their position on becoming a City? Will they "release" us from their grasp, once we decide? What is their position on development and Industry and how do they plan on soliciting it to come here? What is their position on the infrastruture or lack of and how do they plan on solving it? Position on blight and Impact fees? Taxes? And "growth" just in general. What is their position on alot of things that are concerning us? And where are they? Why aren't they out here trying to take our pulse? And who is contributing to their campaigns and how much have they contributed?
First....I invite them on this forum to "talk" to us. I've done this before, and no show...except Ron the Assessor. His website also tells us alot about him. Do the two running for supervisor from Gold Canyon have a website? I've had the opportunity to speak to Todd, although I need to talk more and ask more questions of him. Bryan I have never conversed with over issues.
Last edited on Sun Feb 24th, 2008 03:01 pm by Bambi
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 03:51 am |
|
CharWester wrote: C'mon. It is an option. I am sure they want all of the retail that is coming... But, I guess we will just have to see what the future brings. I am really looking forward to the information sessions that Jack M. from STAC has talked about. When will we see these. 
Char darling, annexing into TOQC is not an option. As your wonderful mother told you, they do not want us. Our only option is to stand up and be our city. Sure TOQC and TOF I would assume would love to have all the reatil, but they do not want the roof tops. I too am eagerly awaiting these meetings to start. Waiting on these meetings has me feeling like me children do on Christmas eve knowing that Santa is coming soon, but that time feels like it will never get here.
Jack.....get these meetings going already will ya. Hopefully the sooner they start, the sooner we can incorporate.
|
CharWester
Member
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 01:37 pm |
|
| C'mon. It is an option. I am sure they want all of the retail that is coming... But, I guess we will just have to see what the future brings. I am really looking forward to the information sessions that Jack M. from STAC has talked about. When will we see these.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 01:12 pm |
|
CharWester wrote: Oh, I'm sorry, I am still new at using this system. I was referring to the poll. Why no mention in the poll of annexation into Queen Creek?
Just ask your mother dear....I started the poll.
Queen Creek has already told us that it is not an option. By putting that in there, we would be distorting the polls objective.
|
CharWester
Member
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 11:00 am |
|
| Oh, I'm sorry, I am still new at using this system. I was referring to the poll. Why no mention in the poll of annexation into Queen Creek?
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 02:00 am |
|
CharWester wrote: WOW! New City or Queen Creek?
Char, please explain as I am not sure what you mean by this statement.
|
CharWester
Member
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 12:38 am |
|
| WOW! New City or Queen Creek?
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 20th, 2008 08:20 pm |
|
Shaft, I do not think anyone could have stated that better than you did. You are absolutley correct in your logic and when the rest of the people can see the same thing that you, I and a lot others do, then maybe we will get somewhere as we are not, nor will ever go anywhere under the control that we are currently under (Pinal).
And where is this blight that everyone is voting on?
|
SHAFT
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 30 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 20th, 2008 04:37 am |
|
Yes amazing.
Can we all just be honest for once? Some people, the BLC-ers or whoever, don't want to live in a city because it means higher property taxes. It all comes down to that. From what I've read, they feel like the county can provide sufficient services with the tax revenue and governmental structure that already exists. Well, maybe they can provide services sufficient enough for them... they're not sufficient enough for me, and frankly every other person who lives in a city or has fought to incorporate their community into a city in the past.
Why is it such a preposterous notion to speak of the benefits of an incorporated city? And to specify, by city, I don't mean New York City or Chicago, I mean an incorporated area with it's own government and budget. I think maybe when people who have lived out for a long time hear "city" they think skyscrapers, crime, graffiti, pollution and noise. No, this doesn't define a city, it defines an urban center and I think we can all agree that NOBODY wants that out here near our beautiful San Tans and pristine Sonoran Desert. Cities exist for a reason: local governance, local representation, local funding. It's the reason why all the populated areas across the country are in cities. Hell, to extrapolate this even further, it's the reason settlers didn't want to be taxed by England! Remember "no taxation without representation" from history class? When the jurisdiction we live in (Pinal county) is approximately the same size as Connecticut and it's governed by ONE small group of people, I'm sorry, we'll never get our fair piece of the pie, our fair consideration, our fair representation. It just seems so simple to me...
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 20th, 2008 01:24 am |
|
SHAFT wrote: The link to the nonewcity blog isn't working...
Shaft, amazing isn't it. One minute it's there, the next it's gone. Guess someone did not want the masses to see just the "REAL" facts of the goings-on of the BLC.
|
SHAFT
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 30 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19th, 2008 01:20 am |
|
| The link to the nonewcity blog isn't working...
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 17th, 2008 04:10 am |
|
Ted wrote: Look, Florence will not be annexing us at all. Will not happen. If they were, they would have started on it already or at least made their intentions known. At the very least, the people running Florence now will not be doing so. No telling what will happen if new people are elected there.
As for them denying another resolution, I realy do not think that is assured. At the time they were making deals with the BLC, who were relatively unknown at the time. Today, I seriously doubt that a government entity would willfully go along with the needs of a group as strongly despised as them.
Ted, I could not agree with you more. That is exactly what I was trying to say but have argued some much on gere lately that I was trying to be dipolmatic about it. I am not so sure that Florence will deny it this time myself, as they know there is a much better group running the show (if that is the direction they are going to take).
H101, thanks for sharing the annexation steps, although I am already aware of what the steps are. But I am pretty sure that we will never see these stpes being taken. It has been said that Florence does not want to annex this area.
JJ, you are right. We are in a worse way than the TOF is themselves and that is saying alot, as that town deos not know if it is coming or going. Not who we want representing this area for sure.
|
History_101
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15th, 2008 10:35 pm |
|
Mr. Pipeman,
No, I just don’t care to comment on the Chamber until it becomes public. What I posted are the supposed steps to annexation. I believe these are the steps Florence or any other city would have to take before annexing an area. It was just for your info so if you see anything like that happening, you will know what is up.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 524 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15th, 2008 08:46 pm |
|
| It would definately have to be presented in a way to show the benefits to Florence for getting some structure to this area. Having thismess we are in now is not doing Florence any favors. Organization is always better than chaois like we have now.
|
Ted
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 282 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15th, 2008 08:29 pm |
|
Look, Florence will not be annexing us at all. Will not happen. If they were, they would have started on it already or at least made their intentions known. At the very least, the people running Florence now will not be doing so. No telling what will happen if new people are elected there.
As for them denying another resolution, I realy do not think that is assured. At the time they were making deals with the BLC, who were relatively unknown at the time. Today, I seriously doubt that a government entity would willfully go along with the needs of a group as strongly despised as them.
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15th, 2008 08:13 pm |
|
History_101 wrote: Mr. Pipeman,
Well, I can’t get back into that web site as it appears to have been taken down, so I can’t verify what you said was posted, but from what I remember, that was not the case. Not worth arguing about it at this point in time. Yes, I’m aware of the Chamber’s actions and that is all I’ll comment on here at this time. Regarding your “Lastly” comment, maybe this will help. I’m not sure if any of these steps have been taken.
Steps Toward Annexation
• First, the city or town will send a request to the county assessor and the Department of Revenue for a complete list of the property owners in the area proposed for annexation.
• The city or town then files an annexation petition with the county recorder. The petition includes an accurate description and map of the exterior boundaries of the area to be annexed.
• At the same time, the city or town files a sworn affidavit verifying that the area proposed for annexation is not subject to an earlier filing for annexation.
• Copies of this filing are then sent to the clerk of the board of supervisors and the county assessor.
• The city or town waits 30 days after the petition is filed to begin circulating petitions for signatures.
• The city or town holds a public hearing on the subject of the proposed annexation during the last 10 days of this waiting period.
• The city or town then has one year after the 30-day waiting period to collect signatures from qualified electors. Qualified electors are those who are registered voters in the area proposed for annexation.
• More than 50 percent of the real and personal property owners in the area proposed for annexation, who also represent more than 50 percent of the assessed value, must sign the petition for the annexation to be successful.
Real and personal property is defined as property that would be subject to taxation by the annexing city or town, as shown by the most recent assessment of the property.
• The petitions are then filed with the county recorder and a copy filed with the city or town clerk.
• It is then at the city or town council’s discretion to pass an ordinance annexing the area. The annexation does not become final until after a
30-day waiting period in which any interested parties may question the validity of the annexation.
H101. yes the site was mysteriously recently taken down. I can assure you that what I posted was from their site (not exact words mind you, but the context is the same). You say it is not worth arguing about it at this point, I say it is not worth aguing at all.
Sounds as though you do not like what the chamber is doing. It is not the start of incorp atempt, it is to seek what is best for our area.
About the lastly, what is it you posted? Are you telling me that TOF is taking these steps? Last I heard they were not interested in annexing this area, has that since changed? As stated, it has to go to the voters before this can happen. From what I have seen and heard, most people do not want to be associated with TOF. So I would lay odds that this will not transpire. Secondly, has the residents of TOF voted on anything pertaining to this? Lastly, as stated things, ideas, leaders and desires change.
|
History_101
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15th, 2008 07:57 pm |
|
Mr. Pipeman,
Well, I can’t get back into that web site as it appears to have been taken down, so I can’t verify what you said was posted, but from what I remember, that was not the case. Not worth arguing about it at this point in time. Yes, I’m aware of the Chamber’s actions and that is all I’ll comment on here at this time. Regarding your “Lastly” comment, maybe this will help. I’m not sure if any of these steps have been taken.
Steps Toward Annexation
• First, the city or town will send a request to the county assessor and the Department of Revenue for a complete list of the property owners in the area proposed for annexation.
• The city or town then files an annexation petition with the county recorder. The petition includes an accurate description and map of the exterior boundaries of the area to be annexed.
• At the same time, the city or town files a sworn affidavit verifying that the area proposed for annexation is not subject to an earlier filing for annexation.
• Copies of this filing are then sent to the clerk of the board of supervisors and the county assessor.
• The city or town waits 30 days after the petition is filed to begin circulating petitions for signatures.
• The city or town holds a public hearing on the subject of the proposed annexation during the last 10 days of this waiting period.
• The city or town then has one year after the 30-day waiting period to collect signatures from qualified electors. Qualified electors are those who are registered voters in the area proposed for annexation.
• More than 50 percent of the real and personal property owners in the area proposed for annexation, who also represent more than 50 percent of the assessed value, must sign the petition for the annexation to be successful.
Real and personal property is defined as property that would be subject to taxation by the annexing city or town, as shown by the most recent assessment of the property.
• The petitions are then filed with the county recorder and a copy filed with the city or town clerk.
• It is then at the city or town council’s discretion to pass an ordinance annexing the area. The annexation does not become final until after a
30-day waiting period in which any interested parties may question the validity of the annexation.
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15th, 2008 05:29 pm |
|
H101, I am going by what was written on the nonewcity blog which was administered by Kristine and Ed (BLC). On the blog, it was stated that although the incers (as the incorporated were called) changed the boundaries and excluded the rurals, that they would continue the fight against incorporation because they had promised thos within the subdivisions that were against it, that they would continue to fight for what was right (not exactly the correct words, but the same meaning). So I am only going on what BLC members have said on their blog.
I agree that the incorpration committee played some dirty-pool, which was unethical and played a huge part in the attempt failing.
If you say you heard the mayor state that, then I can not dispute that. But will investigate that furthure myself. I am sure that you are aware that f the chamber started a visionary committee to see what is best for our area. More information will be coming out soon to involve the entire community. Pinal County was made aware of their formation, so I would have to assume that TOF, TOQC, Gilbert, AJ, Casa Grande, Gila Res. etc.. have been notified as well (but can't say for sure-only assume because this group seems to have their stuff together this time around). All I can say as my opinion only is, decisons change for whatever reason, ranging from joint efforts, future promises, etc.. Also Mayors and councils change. Lastly, TOF extending into the areas they want need to be passed by the voters (may have been, may not have been, I have not dug into that yet...but I will).
Thanks for the response and input.
|
History_101
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15th, 2008 05:11 pm |
|
pipeman wrote: H101, you are way off base and dead wrong in your post. The BLC claimed it was against the incorporation attempt because the rurals were included, yet when the rurals were excluded, they kept on pushing.
Another thing, there is a San Tan city already, even though it is not an actual city, the Gilas call one of their areas, San Tan City. So if there will be another attempt, the incorpration committee better start asking the community to come up with another name. As they mat have to work closely with the Gilas in the future and really do not need to make them mad.
Forence did not approve the attempt before because they did not like those running the committee, they felt they were doing things wrong and underhandidly. You can not sit and say people can bet their bottom dollar that Florence will not give the approval. There is absolutely no evidence to back up your claim. We will know IF and WHEN that time comes.
Mr. Pipeman,
There isn’t much I can disagree with in your post except the BLC as a group did not continue to push against Sean’s effort and was working with Sean to come up with acceptable boundaries excluding the rural areas form the new city. There was at least one working group meeting that took place in QC that I’m aware of plus a continuing dialogue. One could look at this as the BLC working for incorporation.
Then out of the woods (ok how about cactus) it became apparent the original group had started a second attempt without telling anyone and were out collecting signatures on petitions without anyone knowing about it. A second stealth attempt to incorporate without resident participation. Shove it down the throats of the residents without input as it was being called. I probably still have the notice Sean put up on his web site about what was happening somewhere and this is when Sean’s group folded up their tent not to be heard from again.
What you might be confused with is there were some BLC members that resided within the developments that still opposed the city because it was felt there was not a large enough commercial tax base to support it without some type of hefty tax increase being imposed upon all residents. These individuals were just that, individuals that opposed incorporation for what ever reason.
You are correct, there is an Indian community called San Tan and the incorporation committee was made aware of that but continued to push for that name. Had it gone through, I’m sure there would have been a fight with our neighbors to the south.
I also must agree with what you stated in regards to the relationship between Florence and the first incorporation committee. There wasn’t much love lost between them. I can only state what I’ve heard the Florence Mayor say and that was he would not give up one square inch of the land that is within their planning area for any incorporation effort. So until I hear differently, I must go on the words I heard in the past.
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15th, 2008 01:19 am |
|
History_101 wrote: JJohnson wrote: Thanks Anne for confirming what has been said a million times. The BLC single handedly screwed us. You are now admitting that things were done wrong but you stop short of saying that a city would have corrected that. It won't be long before the realities of what could have been done under a city structure become eveident. But your group insisted that then was not the time since it was not needed then. Now you admit that it takes government time to get projects done. Yes it does and it takes time for local government to be effective. Now that the time is right and the city is needed, the political realities make it practicly impossible plus the time lag for that progress still has not started.
Let’s get something straight. If there was any screwing going on, it was coming from the committee to incorporate that was doing it.
If I remember correctly, the BLC opposed incorporation ONLY because the rural areas were being included within the new city boundaries. A bad plan to say the least. Had Gary removed the rural areas on his 2 attempts as he was being asked to do, there would not have been any argument from the BLC and the developments would have probably become a stand alone city known as City of San Tan.
Sean with his breakaway group was trying to do just that, but gave up.
So, if there is any blame to be given, let’s put it where it belongs, right on the committee to incorporate. They failed in both attempts to collect enough valid signatures on the petitions. Had they removed the rural areas and worked just a little harder and wiser, this area just might not still be in limbo. It is too late now as we are in Florence’s planning area and they won’t approve a resolution for incorporation and you can bet your bottom dollar on that.
H101, you are way off base and dead wrong in your post. The BLC claimed it was against the incorporation attempt because the rurals were included, yet when the rurals were excluded, they kept on pushing.
Another thing, there is a San Tan city already, even though it is not an actual city, the Gilas call one of their areas, San Tan City. So if there will be another attempt, the incorpration committee better start asking the community to come up with another name. As they mat have to work closely with the Gilas in the future and really do not need to make them mad.
Forence did not approve the attempt before because they did not like those running the committee, they felt they were doing things wrong and underhandidly. You can not sit and say people can bet their bottom dollar that Florence will not give the approval. There is absolutely no evidence to back up your claim. We will know IF and WHEN that time comes.
|
2 cents
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 150 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15th, 2008 01:11 am |
|
Bravo Anne Reed! No wonder the County has, if they did, relied on your input. You seem to speak with something other than unsubstantiated 'fact', innuendo, second hand hearsay, superfulous rhetoric and, best of all, accusations of causing all of the ills of the word just because you have a different point of view.
Bravo Anne Reed!
It is amazing what you can find out when you research some of archived news articles from that time period. Do a 'city of san tan' sometime.
2 cents
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14th, 2008 11:42 pm |
|
JJohnson wrote:
I prefer to not be the ones paying for Florences huge problems either. We have our own and can solve them on our own. Can't afford to contribute to their too. Just look what Anthem residents are funding to put bandaide fixes on downtown Florence. The only way I would agree to allow Florence to annex is if they agreed to move all of the City offices to our area. We would have to become the center of the town. Common sense says that Florence would not be interested
Florence denied the resolution for incorporation way back in 2003 or 2004. I don't know if they did so because the incorporators appeared shady, because the incorporation plan was flawed or because they already had aspirations for growth to the north and east. One of the council members poked a million holes in their financial projections, it's a matter of public record. You give the BLC way too much credit for the city's demise.
Anthem residents are paying, in part, for their own massive infrastructure. The City of Florence is one of the oldest and culturally rich cities in all Arizona. The downtown area of Florence, (the city that Anthem is in) is in dire need of rehabilitation and when the project is done, it's gonna be awesome! A little pocket of "history" right in the midst of what is planned to be a huge metropolis. They are even considering putting a scenic train route along the base of the mountains to the east. That's some beautiful country.
Personally, I don't think Florence even wants to annex this area. They only extended their planning area along Florence school district lines (east of Gary Road) to get to Superstition Springs and the state trust land, so don't lose any sleep over annexation. No body wants rooftops. Not Queen Creek, not Florence. (Aside: If Queen Creek and Florence don't want to annex this area because it's not profitable to do so, what does that tell you about the feasibility of a free standing city in this area??)
The BLC might have got the ball rolling, but alone, they would have been powerless to stop a well conceived plan.
Regards,
Anne
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14th, 2008 11:03 pm |
|
JJohnson wrote:
Thanks Anne for confirming what has been said a million times. The BLC single handedly screwed us. You are now admitting that things were done wrong but you stop short of saying that a city would have corrected that. It won't be long before the realities of what could have been done under a city structure become eveident. But your group insisted that then was not the time since it was not needed then. Now you admit that it takes government time to get projects done. Yes it does and it takes time for local government to be effective. Now that the time is right and the city is needed, the political realities make it practicly impossible plus the time lag for that progress still has not started.
JJ:
Did I say that? The BLC had nothing to do with creating the problems. I simply acknowledge that rapid growth in a rural county contributed substantially to the dilemmas we now face. I wish people like you, who didn't even live here at the time and have no first hand knowledge of the situation, would just butt out.
Factually, if the incorporation committee(s) had not filled the press with falsehoods their wouldn't have been any reason for the original BLC to publish "Just The Facts", the newsletter that turned public sentiment against their proposal. The promoters sealed their own fate when they tried to ramrod the proposal down the throats of area residents using subterfuge.
In case you didn't know, the petition carriers could not even get 10% of area residents to sign a petition requesting it be placed on the ballot. Many of those who did sign were misled into doing so. Many were not registered voters. The county threw out the petition after these indiscretions were exposed in the normal course of verification.
Summary: The residents of Johnson Ranch, Copper Basin, Magic Ranch and the San Tan Foothills did not elect to put the issue on the ballot. There might very well be a city in this area if the incorporators had not proven themselves to be underhanded. The BLC did not defeat the city, they only exposed the misrepresentations of those who sought to promote it.
Regards,
Anne
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 524 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14th, 2008 09:38 pm |
|
| I prefer to not be the ones paying for Florences huge problems either. We have our own and can solve them on our own. Can't afford to contribute to their too. Just look what Anthem residents are funding to put bandaide fixes on downtown Florence. The only way I would agree to allow Florence to annex is if they agreed to move all of the City offices to our area. We would have to become the center of the town. Common sense says that Florence would not be interested Last edited on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 09:44 pm by JJohnson
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 524 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14th, 2008 09:36 pm |
|
gk wrote: so jj.........did you try to meet with Sandie back then and offer your input?
I did not live here at that time. I have communicated with her other issues. Most times no phone or email response was recieved. It took alot of persistence to get anything out of her ... And yes I was polite and professionalLast edited on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 09:59 pm by JJohnson
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1917 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14th, 2008 09:01 pm |
|
| so jj.........did you try to meet with Sandie back then and offer your input?
|
History_101
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: |