| Author | Post |
|---|
Ted
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 282 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14th, 2008 01:51 am |
|
| Nice poll, but I have to admit I trust this one about as much as I trusted the polls a few months ago showing that 90% of the people are planning on voing for Ron Paul.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 03:44 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote: Dear Bambi:
The Eloy project sounds exciting! Congratulations.
I'm confused by the statistics listed in the poll results. Can people vote more than once? If you look at the total votes the percentages don't add up.
I haven't voted on this poll for a couple of reasons.
1) I fully support self governance
2) Becoming a city is not an option-resolutions unavailable
3) We are in need of additional services but there are more practical ways to achieve our objectives-flood control, education and burying all utilities would be my highest priority
4) Code violations should be enforced in subdivisions and in the rurals
Regards,
Anne
The poll only allows you to vote once...but not for just one item. Newszap has set up options and one of them is multiple choice. Now, this will not prevent people from signing up as other ficticious characters and voting, but I doubt that this is the case. Just take these polls with a grain of salt. It's the research of these items to determine their validity, which was the greatest reason I put this poll on here. Do another poll with the items you are concerned about. you have some good points to be made, that should be added into the mix. That's how we arrive at what works....discussing it. And yes indeed, code violations should be enforced in the subdivisions....sorry.
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 518 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 03:32 pm |
|
| On alast note, you said you wanted to implement a county use tax. Well when the medical facility wanted to come to the j curve, why was it vetoed? That is another peace of the pie that we could get if a county use tax was in place. Where is the logic in that? Where is the logic in keeping that are zoned residential? Would it be proposed that if someone from outside the county of pinal would then have to pay a special tax to build a house there? Where is the logic??? I certainly do not seen any. Last edited on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 03:34 pm by pipeman
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 518 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 03:31 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote: Dear Pipe:
Like you, I wish that greater discretion had been used, and hope that it will be used, to control growth. However, since master planned communities and most of the land within the proposed boundaries of the proposed City of San Tan were recorded in the mid nineties there was nothing left to control by the time the incorporation bid was attempted in 2003.
Believe me, I am not a "status quo" kind of gal. I've even talked to some about trying to enact a county use tax for commercial enterprise within our (the Johnson Ranch/San Tan Foothills) boundaries. ( Logic being, if cities want to build in our area and tax us, we should have the right to recoup those costs for the betterment of our area) This is totally unconventional, and so far, no one has been able to come up with any solutions except special district adoptment.
To me, it is particularly egregious when the taxes collected will be spent in a different county entirely (if Queen Creek annexes the Gateway Project). Yes, the road improvements associated with the development would accrue to Pinal and it's residents but what about the sales tax? The County will get it's taxes either way but how can we, the residents of this area, and the people who will be paying the tax (without representation), be assured that our taxes will be used to meet our needs?
Regards,
Anne
Anne, I am very happy to hear that you are not a "status quo" kind of gal... The county ise tax sounds like a great idea as you wrote it, but of course I am a research kind of person and would have to look furthure into that idea before I would even consider jumping on board with that. But to recoup taxes recovered by cities outside of our county sounds like a plan, such as with TOQC wanting to build resorts and such around the Mountain, although that would go back to Pinal and the good Lord only knows what they would do with the money, as we have seen they have not invested into our area, other than beefing up patrol. Yes, it would be bad for others to get taxes that should righfully come to us.
Anne, that is the problem, I know Pinal will get the taxes, but I can not and will not be rest assured that the taxes will be used to meet our needs. By the way, who's needs are you referring to, I hope it is just not those of you in the rurals.
I realize that planned communties were in place before tha incorporation attempt and that they would not have had control to collect fees, etc... But there is alot of state land that will be going on the chopping block soon and we need to be able to control that growth and keep it out of the counties hands. Sorry if you are a Sandie fan, but she failed this area badly. That can not happen the next time around.
You stated in the below post that you are all about self governance, well let me tell you that special taxing districts is only limited self-governance. Limited is not what we need, we need total control or it will all be for nothing, just a big waste of tax dollars and peoples time.
The county has not done anything for this area, they let it get totally out of control and if we as a city don't control it, it just will ot happen. Taxing districts only control so much, what about what they don't. It's about the control, total control.
|
azcats_01
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 03:17 pm |
|
Oh, I get it now. I thought you were saying people could vote over and over again as many times as they want, when in fact you meant each person can vote for more than one of the available options. I thought you could only make one choice before so I now chose all options that apply, in my opinion.
anne.reed wrote: Yes, I noted that fact. I appears there is a yes or no to a city vote, and another sub poll.
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 02:57 pm |
|
| Yes, I noted that fact. I appears there is a yes or no to a city vote, and another sub poll.
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 02:56 pm |
|
Dear Pipe:
Like you, I wish that greater discretion had been used, and hope that it will be used, to control growth. However, since master planned communities and most of the land within the proposed boundaries of the proposed City of San Tan were recorded in the mid nineties there was nothing left to control by the time the incorporation bid was attempted in 2003.
Believe me, I am not a "status quo" kind of gal. I've even talked to some about trying to enact a county use tax for commercial enterprise within our (the Johnson Ranch/San Tan Foothills) boundaries. ( Logic being, if cities want to build in our area and tax us, we should have the right to recoup those costs for the betterment of our area) This is totally unconventional, and so far, no one has been able to come up with any solutions except special district adoptment.
To me, it is particularly egregious when the taxes collected will be spent in a different county entirely (if Queen Creek annexes the Gateway Project). Yes, the road improvements associated with the development would accrue to Pinal and it's residents but what about the sales tax? The County will get it's taxes either way but how can we, the residents of this area, and the people who will be paying the tax (without representation), be assured that our taxes will be used to meet our needs?
Regards,
Anne
|
azcats_01
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 02:47 pm |
|
It would appear that the poll is only counting 16 total votes, so each percentage is calculated with 16 in the denominator instead of the 36 that have voted so far.
anne.reed wrote: I'm confused by the statistics listed in the poll results. Can people vote more than once? If you look at the total votes the percentages don't add up.
Regards,
Anne
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 02:31 pm |
|
Dear Bambi:
The Eloy project sounds exciting! Congratulations.
I'm confused by the statistics listed in the poll results. Can people vote more than once? If you look at the total votes the percentages don't add up.
I haven't voted on this poll for a couple of reasons.
1) I fully support self governance
2) Becoming a city is not an option-resolutions unavailable
3) We are in need of additional services but there are more practical ways to achieve our objectives-flood control, education and burying all utilities would be my highest priority
4) Code violations should be enforced in subdivisions and in the rurals
Regards,
Anne
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 518 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 02:30 pm |
|
Anne, I have researched the benefits of incorporation on Maricopa. I also directly spoke with all of those that I know, citizens and office holders and they are estatic that they did what they did. Period. The benefits outweigh the costs, especially when it comes down to this godforsaken county.
Special taxing districts are not what we need. We will still be under the counties chopping block. What is going to happen on the next wave of housing? The county is going to let it get out of hand again as it seems as though they do not know how to control growth. With a city government, which would be smaller than the county, we could control growth easier. The county has more than just our area to spend their (our) money on, so we are not the counties only concern. If we were a stand alone city, we would "only" be concerned about our area.
To understand all of this, one does not need to be an economic genius, as there is a pie and only so much money in the pie. Under the county we are only a small portion of a piece, while as and under our own city, we are the whole pie.
The pros outweigh the cons by far. Plus, we would have or council and mayor right in our area who would "KNOW" the struggles we citizens go through eveyday, inlike the way it is now under Sandies and the counties watch.
Taxing districts? Come now... why pay extra taxes, without the extra revunue; shared and otherwise. Does not reasonable fiscal sense.
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 02:08 pm |
|
pipeman wrote:
anne.reed wrote: Dear Pipe:
To restate my prior position on incorporation, a 2% sales tax revenue would not justify the assumption creating and funding our own police force, our own roads maintenance, our own town council, mayor and staff, and all the expenses associated with operating a city. My position was not taken on behalf of the Foothills, exclusively, but on behalf of the whole community. You don't need to agree but please don't misstate my position or take comments out of context.
Do some research, check out what's going on in Maricopa, the other area that was blitzed for incorporation at the same time we were courted. They chose to incorporate and now they are experiencing the consequences of their choice. Fewer services at a greater cost.
Anne, as I have stated before, I have done the research. DO you really believe that people get on here and speak without first doing research? Maybe some do, but I am not one of those people. We all sop in other towns/cities because of the lack of things out by us (even though it's getting better) so we all pay the tax elsewhere. I as well as others would rather the taxes we pay go back to us to fund things we need. You keep talking about the 2% only that is not enough to fund operational costs. I agree that would not be enough, but it is a start to add to shared revenue, a % of criminal fines/court costs, etc.. these are just to name a few things. It just appears that you twist the truth around to fit your ideaology to try and scare people. Anne, I am very close with many residents of Maricopa as well as many of their council and empolyees and I have never heard such a thing come out of thier mouths.
So, Pipe, how has the incorporation gone for the city of Maricopa? Does your research indicate, as mine does, that the costs associated with incorporation can prove too great a burden to offset the benefits?
I would have no objection to additional taxes if I believed it would truly benefit our area. Taxes for additional services could still be implemented by district if we had a firm idea of the services we'd like to implement and the majority of residents agreed with the need and were willing to fund them. These could be collected by Pinal County on our behalf and disbursed in accordance with our wishes.
You probably know the time lags inherent in the development process. Most of the commercial development that is already in place in our area, plus, much that is still in the pipeline was already in the works at the time of the effort to incorporate. Commercial development follows rooftops, (profit potential). The entrepreneurial types are always looking for an untapped stream of revenue. I heard that our Walmart turns it's inventory faster than any other Walmart in the nation. Not sure if this if a fact. In any case, success breeds competion.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 01:41 pm |
|
2 cents wrote: Has the effort to incorporate ever gone before the voter?
it's never made it that far. Sigs on petitions are the only evidence of "voter" participation, and they were insufficient.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 01:39 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote: Dear Pipe:
To restate my prior position on incorporation, a 2% sales tax revenue would not justify the assumption creating and funding our own police force, our own roads maintenance, our own town council, mayor and staff, and all the expenses associated with operating a city. My position was not taken on behalf of the Foothills, exclusively, but on behalf of the whole community. You don't need to agree but please don't misstate my position or take comments out of context.
Do some research, check out what's going on in Maricopa, the other area that was blitzed for incorporation at the same time we were courted. They chose to incorporate and now they are experiencing the consequences of their choice. Fewer services at a greater cost.
Hi Anne. Nice to hear from you again....enjoyed seeing you at the Optimist Event. Thanks for coming and showing your support.
Now.....I am volunteering as a member of the Eloy Economic Development Committee. I am just beginning to go thru the "building of a city" with these guys, as they have so much vacant land, it's like starting all over. As I go thru this process, I will be learning first hand how to build this city. I have appointments scheduled with State and local people who have engaged in this process before, among other things. We're looking at over 500 sq. miles. I offered my services to the County, but have never been invited or asked to participate, so I'm volunteering for Eloy.
Let's just see how it goes and what's involved. Yesterday I discovered that they took out a bond for improvements a few years ago, and the way they are paying it back is thru their sales tax revenue....which is over 9%. The people wanted the improvements, but hated the increase, but had to decide if they wanted to remain as they are...stagnant...or go forward and progress to a higher standard of living; so they agreed to "allow" this to happen. Once the bond is paid back, the sales tax will go down again.....the additional revenue lost from that 9% tax, will be compensated from the additional infrastructure that was provided which brings in more users who pay more revenue into the Town's coffers. It's a cyclical event.
I just thought I'd share that with you as I will share these discoveries as I go along. I have another meeting on Friday. I will hear about the impact of the Decades Project coming to their town. I will say this. It is an "exciting experience." and extremely fulfilling to assist in "building a City".
|
2 cents
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 153 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 12:16 pm |
|
| Has the effort to incorporate ever gone before the voter?
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 518 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12th, 2008 04:52 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote: Dear Pipe:
To restate my prior position on incorporation, a 2% sales tax revenue would not justify the assumption creating and funding our own police force, our own roads maintenance, our own town council, mayor and staff, and all the expenses associated with operating a city. My position was not taken on behalf of the Foothills, exclusively, but on behalf of the whole community. You don't need to agree but please don't misstate my position or take comments out of context.
Do some research, check out what's going on in Maricopa, the other area that was blitzed for incorporation at the same time we were courted. They chose to incorporate and now they are experiencing the consequences of their choice. Fewer services at a greater cost.
Anne, as I have stated before, I have done the research. DO you really believe that people get on here and speak without first doing research? Maybe some do, but I am not one of those people. We all sop in other towns/cities because of the lack of things out by us (even though it's getting better) so we all pay the tax elsewhere. I as well as others would rather the taxes we pay go back to us to fund things we need. You keep talking about the 2% only that is not enough to fund operational costs. I agree that would not be enough, but it is a start to add to shared revenue, a % of criminal fines/court costs, etc.. these are just to name a few things. It just appears that you twist the truth around to fit your ideaology to try and scare people. Anne, I am very close with many residents of Maricopa as well as many of their council and empolyees and I have never heard such a thing come out of thier mouths.Last edited on Tue Feb 12th, 2008 04:56 pm by pipeman
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12th, 2008 04:17 pm |
|
Dear Pipe:
To restate my prior position on incorporation, a 2% sales tax revenue would not justify the assumption creating and funding our own police force, our own roads maintenance, our own town council, mayor and staff, and all the expenses associated with operating a city. My position was not taken on behalf of the Foothills, exclusively, but on behalf of the whole community. You don't need to agree but please don't misstate my position or take comments out of context.
Do some research, check out what's going on in Maricopa, the other area that was blitzed for incorporation at the same time we were courted. They chose to incorporate and now they are experiencing the consequences of their choice. Fewer services at a greater cost.
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 518 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12th, 2008 04:25 am |
|
| well it hasn't been up that long. But just wait and come back tomorrow or in the next couple of days. You will see that the BLC and their band of thugs have drug everyone they know on here to vote against incorporation and/or to keep the rurals out. They are afraid of change... Well as one of them put it (Anne to be exact) if you become a city, there are alot of us rural folks who shop in town and we would them be subjected to pay the 2% tax you would put in place. As if they don't pay it when they drive to Queen Creek and buy stuff or any other town/city for that matter.
|
starleen
Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 281 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12th, 2008 04:19 am |
|
Done that.
Not many voters. This is such an informative blog, with so many viewers, I wonder why there are not more voters.
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 518 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12th, 2008 04:03 am |
|
| Starleen, don't forget to vote above and make sure you click the correct box.... That would be number one if you was awondering.
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 518 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12th, 2008 04:01 am |
|
| Shoot, you must mean Sandie and her BLC, San Tan Mnt Pride crew then, cause that's the only blight I seen round these parts. Well except for some illegal dancing.
|
starleen
Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 281 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12th, 2008 03:50 am |
|
Blight: any cause of impairment, destruction, ruin, or frustration.
Take a drive east on Combs to Schneff, south to Skyline, east to N Surrey, north to "Blight" ( I mean Rolling Ridge).
Or look south of STF.
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 518 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12th, 2008 03:16 am |
|
| the poll mentions blight. where is this demon I want to know???
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 518 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12th, 2008 01:55 am |
|
| I never said "you" and I can't say how many people went to her home. If memory serves me right her last name was Denton or something of that nature. Poor lady probably had the bejeezus scared out of her with that mob coming over. I wonder if they pulled a shot gun on her as well?
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1943 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11th, 2008 08:45 pm |
|
I agree with both sides needing to be heard but
You people went to her house 10 deep to talk her out of it.
Whi is this group of 10 people that strong armed this old lady. I can tell you that I went to no ones house, nor anyone on the BLC that I know of.
Who were this group of 10?
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 518 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11th, 2008 08:42 pm |
|
what about the one woman in the foothills that wanted to become part of the ciity. You people went to her house 10 deep to talk her out of it. Don't you think that many people talking with an older lady would scare her to do what they want? That sir is strong arming. The truth was not told by your group, nor was the entire truth said from the pro side (that I will admit) that is the way it works in the political arena.
I do not need to re-read the site as I read it then and I have re-read it. If someone was on there that you people did not agree with you all ganged up on that person and would not let them get a word in. Remember what you did to santanman? Remember how he was booted off because he kept emailing and you people did not like what he was saying.
I have told you in the past and I am telling now. I am all for equality and both sides stating their case, but it needs to be on equal ground and both sides need to be truthful
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1943 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11th, 2008 08:24 pm |
|
Then you need to re-read it.
Sean made accusations and his false accusations were addressed and the truth was given. I see no one trying to "strong arm" anyone into anything. There are always two sides to an issue, and Sean made the first statement, and left un responded to it would somehow become truth.........as so many of the false accusations and outright lies have become true thru repetion
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 518 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11th, 2008 08:09 pm |
|
I do not see that site as the BLC telling it straight with facts pure and simple when I read it then or when I re-read it now. What I see are a bunch of people trying to strong-arm folks into believeing what the BLC wants them to believe. Look at some posts from Kristen and some from Ed, they are pretty down right rude and condescending if those that posted did not see their views.
Now I hear that Bryan is already trying to team up with Sandie and the rest of the goon squad so IF he gets into office he will still be surrounded by the BLC goon squad. Well people we need to stay on the Supervisors arse to make sure what has happened under Sandies watch does not happen with the next one. Sandie is going bye bye, the BLC needs to ride right along with her. Oh wait that's right, we were told that they had disbanded a long time ago... Foolish me.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1943 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11th, 2008 05:39 pm |
|
Thank you for posting that Bambi because it does show the truth of what the the BLC was giving out.
Facts!! Pure and simple!
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11th, 2008 02:57 pm |
|
This should assist you in understanding what we are still going thru today; the players involved and the reasons why we are still "stuck" in yesterday.
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/nonewcity/message/1991
You decide. You're in control. But read before you vote in the Poll.
thanks.
|
Current time is 08:44 am | Page:   1 2 3 |
|