| Author | Post |
|---|
Ted
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 282 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 07:07 pm |
|
Am I the only one who saw humor in the fact that GK put a post on here saying that people who are anti-BLC are out of touch politically, and then exactly 5 minutes later, puts up a post in which he is still singing the praises of Ron Paul?
Shine on, you crazy diamond!
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1917 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 06:45 pm |
|
jj......so those are your demands to allow a person to be a supervisor in Pinal county.
Unrealistic and unworkable.
4) Involvement by members of the public must be made in a public forum. No meetings are to be scheduled by any employee of the county with the citizens without public notice and full details posted at least 5 working days prior to that meeting. I would fully encourage video or audio taping and posting on the county website.
5) Gordon Brown and any other member of the BLC's names must be removed from all rolodex's at the county. NO EXCEPTIONS.
6) The new supervisor must be in support of moving all meetings to evenings to accomodate the voice of the working stiffs in our area.
7) The new supervisor must be committed to immediately open a local office with regular and frequent hours.
jj........you are out of touch and are starting to sound a lot like a bank robber that got caught.....OK, these are my demands!!!
Now here is my demand! jj is to be removed from PInal County, NO EXCEPTIONS!
Silly, isn't it?
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1917 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 06:16 pm |
|
You might want to check the math and decide how many votes he will loose for you against how many he will gain for you.
There are a very few rabidly hateful people on this forum that talk a very lot and do very little. The hatred and the animosity they bring to the table is devisive and completely unwarranted from adults.
The few vocal voices of hate are on this forum, and they feed off of the hate of each other
Yes, Bryan and Ted, you may lose some of their votes, but as the poster of this quote said...........
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 524 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 03:51 pm |
|
Any cozy relationships with the BLC or any of their members automatically disqualifies them in my book. I feel that the BLC has had free reign for far too long. The times have changed and we now have an opportunity to right some wrongs.
Any candidate looking for my vote and support must pledge the following:
1) They will suppport a 5 supervisor board
2) They will instruct planning and zoning to not rely on the word of any individuals. All negotiations must be done by the members of P&Z. Input may be sought by area residents but the decisions must be made by the elected officials.
3) Any zoning change or request to be brought before the BOS will have one simple question asked. Were negotiations conducted by anybody other than the elected officials. If others were involved then the process must be started over.
4) Involvement by members of the public must be made in a public forum. No meetings are to be scheduled by any employee of the county with the citizens without public notice and full details posted at least 5 working days prior to that meeting. I would fully encourage video or audio taping and posting on the county website.
5) Gordon Brown and any other member of the BLC's names must be removed from all rolodex's at the county. NO EXCEPTIONS.
6) The new supervisor must be in support of moving all meetings to evenings to accomodate the voice of the working stiffs in our area.
7) The new supervisor must be committed to immediately open a local office with regular and frequent hours.
|
dale
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 20th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 57 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 03:34 pm |
|
To Mr. House and Mr. Martyn,
Thank you for the open-ness and honesty in being willing to come to a public forum and discuss your views. To tell you the truth, that is more than I have seen in years from Sandie Smith.
I like the fact that Mr. House has said that all people will have equal access to his office. I am disturbed by the close relationship that Mr. Martyn seems to have with the BLC and with Gordon Brown. It looks like if he is elected, it will just be more of the same.
Mr. Martyn, I urge you to seriously reconsider this stance. I know that for me and many people that I know, our vote this November will be based on who is the least attached to Gordon Brown and the BLC. You might want to check the math and decide how many votes he will loose for you against how many he will gain for you. I would suspect that when you do, you will find that a close association with the BLC will put you on the loosing end in an election.
|
Marine1
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 46 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 03:10 pm |
|
Mr. Martyn,
I first want to thank you for taking the time to read and respond to questions that have been posted on this forum.
As you can see from reading these posts there is quite a bit of mistrust with regards to the people and organizations you have aligned yourself with. It is my opinion that this mistrust stems from the fact that these people and groups have for so long operated under a veil of secrecy. As they have publicly stated, they have taken it upon themselves to act on the behalf of the greater community. This has been done without consent from the community or public input.
I have no problem with a group of people who choose to organize and pool their resources to advance their cause. As a former Marine and Gulf war vet, I deeply appreciate the fact that they put their time and effort into creating the memorial for a fallen brother. However, I do take exception to the fact that a very well organized and connected group of people have the ability to act on behalf of the community without having received the authority to do so by the community.
My questions to you are 1)When you stated in your e-mail to Bambi "If a group of individuals demonstrates the desire and ability to effectively self govern, they should have the opportunity", does this include a self-appointed group of people who have the time and resources to accomplish a common goal? 2)Does this mean that this group should have the ability to act on behalf of the public without any type of authority being given to the group by means of an election? I understand that you consider Gordon Brown to be a friend and you hold the BLC in high regard. 3)How can you assure the rest of us that our voices will be heard as well? 4)Would you be willing to maintain an office in the area and hold meetings at night or on Saturdays when the rest of us who work during the day can voice our opinions on matters of public interest?
Again, thank you for taking the time to participate in this public forum.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 275 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 02:25 pm |
|
Black Jack wrote: ajBookchin wrote: I do not want to pay county taxes to fund the chip-sealing of John Doe’s road because the county does not fund the maintenance of my road.
You lost me here aj. First I’m not sure where you reside so that makes it a bit difficult. However if you reside within one of the developments, the county does fund the maintenance on the road/street you live on. Once a street is completed, the county assumes responsibility for the maintenance.
I live in Apache Junction; therefore, the county does not fund the maintenance of the street in front of my home although I pay the same county taxes as residents who live in unincorporated areas. But, I do agree with Anne that residents outside my community pay our city sales tax when they shop in our store without receiving any direct benefit in return. Like I said before, the reliance on revenue from sales taxes complicates fair taxation at the local level.
Black Jack wrote:
I know you’ve made some prior postings that you don’t want to pay taxes for a library you don’t use. Well, I don’t want to pay school taxes either because I have no kids. Isn’t this the same rationale?
I don’t frequent the Apache Junction library much either; but I do support my library. My argument is in regards to the locality of revenue and spending, not the purpose of the spending. I simply believe that the Apache Junction library should be fully funded by revenue generated within Apache Junction. I believe it to be fact that we are always much more responsible when spending our own money.
As an example – Apache Junction recently spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to “dress-up” a freeway interchange. This project was funded by “federal” dollars. I am very certain we would never have proceeded with such a project using local funding – it would have been irresponsible. That is my argument with regard to library funding – money spent locally should be generated locally.
As for school funding… I do believe in the societal benefit of public schools and therefore believe that we all benefit from educating future citizens. Besides, you might view it as payback – I know I was educated in a public school financed by others when I was a child. We could certainly debate the existing problems related to school funding and the inability of our schools to achieve high standards, but this would probably be a topic for another thread.
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 07:05 am |
|
BryanMartyn wrote: Mr. Pipeman,
Thanks for your courteous reply. I'll look more closely at the J Curve issue. I think it's only fair to explore both sides. I believe both parties have been accused of poor behavior. Nonetheless, your advice/caution is appreciated.
As far as San Tan Flats, I couldn't agree with you more when you say we need to put this behind us. The monies expended are ridiculous. I've already admitted to not knowing all the details of the pending litigation. The assumption of possible zoning violations stems from the belief that there could be little else to warrant legal recourse. If no violations are present, why has the county chosen to expend money and resources while exposing itself to intense ridicule and scrutiny? This doesn't pass the common sense test. Why would an elected official get in the middle of something so unpopular with little or no foreseeable benefit to anyone? To be completely honest, I'm trying to figure out how the Supervisor became involved in the first place. Last time I checked, the Supervisor didn't handle violations of laws or zoning ordinance. That would be the Sheriff or the County Attorney.
Mr. Pipeman, I may not garner your vote. But rest assured, I do value your opinion and I'm sure to seek your sage advice for the foreseeable future.
Sincerely,
Bryan
Bryan, I appreciate the fact that you are willing to delve into the curve situation. I find it funny that all signatures on the petition were from people who did not loive in this area and alot of them were not from this state. why then did the county accept the petition?
The only thing the county is going after Dale for is the no dance ban. As previously stated, the county noise ordinance was recentl enacted, although it is needed, it is funny that it came at such a time as the STF prolem started. The county did go after Dale for not enough parking spaces, which he corrected. There is mention of bright lights violating the dark skies. Nowhere is there a law regarding dark skies, only suggestions to keep lights low. The county tested the noise coming from STF only to find he was not in violation there. A berm was mentioned by a poster on here, of that I am not sure. Nowhere has it been addressed of any zoning violations, just the no dancing. The only explanation for Sandie to get involved is because a family that contributed to her campaign and helped raise money complained to her and called the Sheriff nightly.
Bryan, how am I to take it when you said you may not garner my vote? Are you saying that you will not attempt to make me feel differntly or help me see a light at the end of the tunnel? What will you do when evidence is presented about certain people and their unethical actions pertaining to this area. Will you stand behind their actions and continue to support them?
I disgaree with your response pertaining to a Supervisor not answering questions regarding incorporation. We are not asking for your direction, we are asking for your support. Your support would take extra tax burden off the county by us becoming our own city and taking over the fincial responsibility for our services. This is a win-win for the county, it's residents and our area. Are you saying that you can't support lessening the county tax burden by supporting us?
Thank you for your openess to these questions.
|
BryanMartyn
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 06:28 am |
|
Mr. Pipeman,
Thanks for your courteous reply. I'll look more closely at the J Curve issue. I think it's only fair to explore both sides. I believe both parties have been accused of poor behavior. Nonetheless, your advice/caution is appreciated.
As far as San Tan Flats, I couldn't agree with you more when you say we need to put this behind us. The monies expended are ridiculous. I've already admitted to not knowing all the details of the pending litigation. The assumption of possible zoning violations stems from the belief that there could be little else to warrant legal recourse. If no violations are present, why has the county chosen to expend money and resources while exposing itself to intense ridicule and scrutiny? This doesn't pass the common sense test. Why would an elected official get in the middle of something so unpopular with little or no foreseeable benefit to anyone? To be completely honest, I'm trying to figure out how the Supervisor became involved in the first place. Last time I checked, the Supervisor didn't handle violations of laws or zoning ordinance. That would be the Sheriff or the County Attorney.
Mr. Pipeman, I may not garner your vote. But rest assured, I do value your opinion and I'm sure to seek your sage advice for the foreseeable future.
Sincerely,
Bryan
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 05:20 am |
|
Bryan thanks for your comments. Even though you posted that Gordon is a friend of yours, I would suggest that you dig into past actions and practices of him and those he associates with, you just may find that in fact that an association is like laying with dogs. Read up on the J Curve and what Bambi posted regarding that subject. (when she gets the peition size increased so it is readable, then we all will see for ourselves what is fact).
One has to assume from past practices that when one hears about meetings with developers and their lawyers, ones thought process will go into high gear. I must admit, that you have a blackmark with me as well as with others having Gordon working for you after the mess that man and his associates has created for our area. Make me/us feel differently and help me/us see the light at the end of the tunnel if you are interested in my/our vote. Gordon is not admired as highly as you suggested by the masses in the community or thoughout the county building. I would suggest that you start here in the blogs to see what people say and think. (well I am sure Sandie give him glowing marks)
I agree that working with developers is very vital to our area as well as the rest of the county, just as long as they are not allowed to run roughshod over any area as they have in the past. The next Supervisor will have to deal with the past trangressions of our current one and will have to take the heat for the mistakes and unethical decisions made and allowed by her and others and the San Tan Flats lawsuit needs to go away. There are no zoning violations as you suggested, only an old law brought out of the root cellar to appease Sandies friends. This is a nightmare to this area, as well as a waste of our tax monies. There has been $200,000.00 + wasted already and it will get more expensive for us tax payers, then when the county loses (and they will) it will be for what??? To appease a campaign contributor and nothing more. You claimed there were zoning violations, please inform us as to what you believe these violations are....
Thanks for the comments, keep reading and keep posting.
|
BryanMartyn
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 04:39 am |
|
Mr. Pipeman,
Thanks for your comment. I appreciate your insight. Although I wouldn't equate my association with any San Tan Area group as akin to laying with dogs, I do understand there is more history to the groups than I am aware of. As a rule, I give the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Over time, the true personality of an organization/individual comes to light.
You asked about my association with Jordan Rose. I’m very familiar with Mrs. Jordan Rose. I know her as a very talented lawyer and advocate for the future development of Pinal County. As with any lawyer, or individual for that matter, we don't see eye-to-eye on every issue. The trait that I most appreciate in her is the commitment to responsible growth of our community.
As a candidate with the priority of economic development, it is incumbent upon me to know the individuals that can bring the kind of businesses into our county that we so desperately need. Our tax burden, poor infrastructure, and transportation nightmares will remain until we bring more revenue-generating entities into the county. Jordan Rose is one of those individuals who can assist in our future.
Mr. Pipeman, I'm happy to address the developer stigma that is most likely next in your line of thought. To insist that developers may run roughshod over the county is understandable. Some developers in the past were given too much flexibility. Those days are gone. It is not correct to assume those past practices will remain. My priority has been, and will always be, to the healthy development of the county and the betterment of its citizens.
I believe that open, honest dialogue with developers is critical to the future of the county. Developers must know that they are accountable. Their practices must be consistent with the wants/needs/desires of both the citizens and the communities of Pinal. They must know that the treatment they receive will be commensurate with the treatment they give. Developers must know that we share the responsibility for the success of the community.
The county’s job is to provide an atmosphere that allows predictable and profitable building. The developers job is to be committed to, not just their project, but to becoming a vibrant, contributing part of the community.
I will seek out and work with those who can help our county reach its nearly unlimited potential. To exclude dialogue with developers is to handicap our growth and ensure the continued struggles I spoke of earlier.
Know that I’m cognizant of the fact that developers have a poor reputation. Likewise, know that I will not tolerate practices/behaviors inconsistent with the wants/needs/desires of the citizens of Pinal County. We must move forward. Open dialogue with mutual respect is paramount.
Thanks for your question.
Sincerely,
Bryan
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 04:17 am |
|
Black Jack wrote: ajBookchin wrote: I do not want to pay county taxes to fund the chip-sealing of John Doe’s road because the county does not fund the maintenance of my road.
You lost me here aj. First I’m not sure where you reside so that makes it a bit difficult. However if you reside within one of the developments, the county does fund the maintenance on the road/street you live on. Once a street is completed, the county assumes responsibility for the maintenance. A prime example is several years ago during a heavy storm, a street in Johnson Ranch was washed out. This part of the development had been completed for a year or so and it was the county that repaired the street not the developer. I know you’ve made some prior postings that you don’t want to pay taxes for a library you don’t use. Well, I don’t want to pay school taxes either because I have no kids. Isn’t this the same rationale?
Black, aj lives in Apache Junction. What he has posted thus far makes alot of sense. Go back and read all his posts and you will see where he is coming from and the sense he is making. Pipeman
|
Ted
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 282 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 03:50 am |
|
gk wrote: You know, for what it is worth, there were a proper number of signatures received. It is just that Sandie Smith conveniently threw out about 400 of them for unexplained reasons so that the number dropped below the required amount and coincidently, the outcome matched up perfectly with the outcome that Gordon Brown and friends wanted.
that is a butt faced LIE! ted....you lie with such ease and so frequently that it appears that you have a very serious truth problem.
If you had the slightest degree of integrity ......well, never mind.......that's "IF'
Many of the names were thrown out because they were collected illegally by Mr. Fish, the signer did not live in Pinal County, there was no voter registration listed for the person signing and unreadable signatures. There were other irregularities also that occured. THEY FAILED TO COLLECT ENOUGH VALID SIGNATURES!
If you knew how to use a telephone you could have called the county to find out details, as some of us did. It's a matter of record.
Than why was there never a solid explanation given by the county as to why those were thrown out?
There was a valid explanation given out......you just didn't know how to use a telephone
And for the record......ted, you are a liar!
Gene,
I have called the county as a matter of fact on this, and I was not content with the answer I was given. I am not saying for a fact that something illegal or even ethically questionable was done. I am just saying that I am suspicious. And when I see the county's other actions, like with San Tan Flats I am more suspicious. And when I see the over the top reaction that people like you give to the suggestion of impropriety by Pinal County I am even more suspicious.
|
Black Jack
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 137 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 02:24 am |
|
ajBookchin wrote: I do not want to pay county taxes to fund the chip-sealing of John Doe’s road because the county does not fund the maintenance of my road.
You lost me here aj. First I’m not sure where you reside so that makes it a bit difficult. However if you reside within one of the developments, the county does fund the maintenance on the road/street you live on. Once a street is completed, the county assumes responsibility for the maintenance. A prime example is several years ago during a heavy storm, a street in Johnson Ranch was washed out. This part of the development had been completed for a year or so and it was the county that repaired the street not the developer. I know you’ve made some prior postings that you don’t want to pay taxes for a library you don’t use. Well, I don’t want to pay school taxes either because I have no kids. Isn’t this the same rationale?
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1917 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 02:14 am |
|
You know, for what it is worth, there were a proper number of signatures received. It is just that Sandie Smith conveniently threw out about 400 of them for unexplained reasons so that the number dropped below the required amount and coincidently, the outcome matched up perfectly with the outcome that Gordon Brown and friends wanted.
that is a butt faced LIE! ted....you lie with such ease and so frequently that it appears that you have a very serious truth problem.
If you had the slightest degree of integrity ......well, never mind.......that's "IF'
Many of the names were thrown out because they were collected illegally by Mr. Fish, the signer did not live in Pinal County, there was no voter registration listed for the person signing and unreadable signatures. There were other irregularities also that occured. THEY FAILED TO COLLECT ENOUGH VALID SIGNATURES!
If you knew how to use a telephone you could have called the county to find out details, as some of us did. It's a matter of record.
Than why was there never a solid explanation given by the county as to why those were thrown out?
There was a valid explanation given out......you just didn't know how to use a telephone
And for the record......ted, you are a liar!
Last edited on Tue Mar 18th, 2008 02:21 am by gk
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 01:23 am |
|
ajbookchin: Like some others on here have demonstrated; I like your critical thinking skills...(disclaimer: former teacher). If I had a coalition for discovery purposes, you'd be on it. Thank you for your input....good questions on your side too Anne.
Last edited on Tue Mar 18th, 2008 01:24 am by Bambi
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 275 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 10:35 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote:
How long should John Doe pay taxes to Pinal County until he becomes eligible to have his road chip sealed? If this opinion became the norm, wouldn't anyone who buys a home or land in the County be foolish? ... Are you suggesting that the County should also abandon us?
Your point illustrates how current methods of taxation are a mess. I do not want to pay county taxes to fund the chip-sealing of John Doe’s road because the county does not fund the maintenance of my road. But, you’re correct that when John Doe buys dinner at a restaurant in my community, he does fund the maintenance of my road when he pays our city sales tax.
Having grown up where local sales taxes were extremely rare, I find this method of funding public budgets to be a bit chaotic. I strongly believe that money spent locally should be generated locally. I should directly fund the resurfacing of my street and John Doe should directly fund the maintenance expense of his street. Because the associated expense would be large, it makes sense that we pool our resources to spread the costs over time; I just prefer these associations to be as reasonably small as possible – Pinal County is not a sufficiently small enough association in my opinion.
anne.reed wrote:
Every acre of urban sprawl once existed as County land. How could we dole out the benefits in an equitable manner? Is diversity in population to be valued, or, should every neighborhood have the same houses, the same lot size, and the same demographic? Should cities be a place where residents feel a kinship, or, should they be run like corporations with exclusive focus on profitability?
Diversity should be valued – that’s the great thing about having individual municipalities rather than everyone falling under the direct jurisdiction of the county. I would fear sameness if the county planned every acre – fortunately it does not. This means that we can govern and plan one way in Apache Junction with our community’s values and goals in mind, while Florence will govern and plan with their values and objectives in mind.
Ideally, to protect open space, I would prefer to restrict “urban” development to existing municipalities. Of course, it might be a bit late to implement this approach to development.
anne.reed wrote:
I don't have the answers to these questions. But, I'd love to hear any suggestions you might offer.
I do not have the answers either… my problem is equity, what’s fair??? And, I’m absolutely open to conversation; I strongly feel that we have reached a point where we must re-evaluate our relationships with one another and how government functions (should function) in that context.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 524 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 08:42 pm |
|
Here is my suggestion Anne. Pave it yourself. All of us in the subdivisions did it already. The developer paved all of our roads in our neighborhoods and passed the expense along to us when we purchased. The fact that you chose to be your own developer in a rural area does not entitle you to a free pavement job in your neighborhood. I paid for mine and you should pay for yours. After that I also believe that it is the job of the county to maintain those roads which are publicly accessed. Gated communities should maintain thier own roads since they are not publically accessible.
Stop your whining Anne. You chose your lifestyle so live with it now. If the EPA comes in and says that your road must be paved then the county should only front the money for you and your individual/personal taxes should be raised accordingly to facilitate a repayment. Mine should not be affected.
If you want to enjoy Queen Creek's amenities then you should sell and move to Queen Creek.
Last edited on Mon Mar 17th, 2008 08:46 pm by JJohnson
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 08:27 pm |
|
ajBookchin wrote:
anne.reed wrote:
Are you talking about our area, or Gold Canyon, when you speak of collecting impact and development fees? One problem with impact and development fees is who'll be entitled to them? Didn't Maricopa run into problems collecting fees on projects that were already in the pipeline when they incorporated?
Your area or Gold Canyon. I do understand the problem with entitlement for previously approved projects; and I’ll admit, I do not have an answer for that. I also do not have many details regarding Maricopa’s incorporation or problems they have experienced related to incorporation.
anne.reed wrote:
Have you found the County's disbursement of funds to be improper?
No, but I haven’t been looking either.
I agree that improved roadways can benefit the entire county; however, county government should only fund and maintain those roadways which are critical to county transportation, not the street in front of John Doe’s house.
See… given a choice between less (or no) municipal government OR less county government, I would choose less county government – much less county government.
How long should John Doe pay taxes to Pinal County until he becomes eligible to have his road chip sealed? If this opinion became the norm, wouldn't anyone who buys a home or land in the County be foolish? Recent trends show that municipalities are not willing to supply services or infrastructure to unincorporated areas (annex rooftops). So, if Counties only maintained and funded roads critical to County transportation, residents of unincorporated areas should be allowed to elect annexation into adjacent cities, at their option, to gain services. For that benefit, they should have to pay the same taxes as the municipal resident. (Not that I think this will ever happen... We know it won't). I have had a Queen Creek address for 20 almost years, I've shopped in their stores, paid their sales tax and eaten in their restaurants. Yet, I have no say in Queen Creek matters affecting my future. Are you suggesting that the County should also abandon us?
Every acre of urban sprawl once existed as County land. How could we dole out the benefits in an equitable manner? Is diversity in population to be valued, or, should every neighborhood have the same houses, the same lot size, and the same demographic? Should cities be a place where residents feel a kinship, or, should they be run like corporations with exclusive focus on profitability?
I don't have the answers to these questions. But, I'd love to hear any suggestions you might offer.
Regards,
Anne
What then should County residents
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 275 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 07:41 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote:
Are you talking about our area, or Gold Canyon, when you speak of collecting impact and development fees? One problem with impact and development fees is who'll be entitled to them? Didn't Maricopa run into problems collecting fees on projects that were already in the pipeline when they incorporated?
Your area or Gold Canyon. I do understand the problem with entitlement for previously approved projects; and I’ll admit, I do not have an answer for that. I also do not have many details regarding Maricopa’s incorporation or problems they have experienced related to incorporation.
anne.reed wrote:
Have you found the County's disbursement of funds to be improper?
No, but I haven’t been looking either.
I agree that improved roadways can benefit the entire county; however, county government should only fund and maintain those roadways which are critical to county transportation, not the street in front of John Doe’s house.
See… given a choice between less (or no) municipal government OR less county government, I would choose less county government – much less county government.
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 07:02 pm |
|
ajBookchin wrote:
gk wrote:
You may not completely understand the situation here.
No, I may not entirely, but I’m interested.
gk wrote:
Florence has moved it's planning area to the west, and the six mile limit puts it right at Bella Vista Rd. AJ has moved or is moving it's planning area south, and Queen Creek has moved theirs south, which does not leave a lot of area.
Planning areas do not represent corporate limits – because a community extends its planning area does not guarantee that city annexation rights. Also, communities sometimes have overlapping planning areas; this is likely to be the case with Mesa and Apache Junction in the Pinal County area east of Gateway Airport.
gk wrote:
A large majority of the homes have already been built, and with the economy and mortgage mess many more that were planned are not being built. For a city to be successful you have to be able to fund it. Hurf and development fees are not going to do it.
Was “Hurf” a typo? If not, I’m not familiar with that phrase.
gk wrote:
Things like Law enforcement, liabilities, insurance, legal, infrastructure, land and everything else involved is extremely expensive.
The present budget for Apache Junction is $30 million. Not too expensive I guess. I should think despite the economic problems that residents in your region possess a little more disposable income than mine, so generating revenue for your budget should be a little easier. Additionally with that disposable income, comes a larger number of retail outlets. An incorporated San Tan region could generate enough funds – if interested. Finally, further income would come from the state’s shared revenue system.
gk wrote:
It's a lot easier said than done.
And yet its been done before – Maricopa incorporated less than 5 years ago.
HURF-Highway Users Revenue Fund (state shared)
Maricopa got caught up in the hype the League of Towns and Cities was selling at that time and I think they're paying for it now. Our situations were similar then, but, I'd rather have our problems than the ones that they face.
Regards,
Anne
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 06:55 pm |
|
ajBookchin wrote:
As for impact and development fees – the region would benefit as incorporated communities can assess their own fees and subsequently guarantee to invest the funding locally. At present, the county chooses how and where to spend the dollars they collect.
As for any cost to incorporate… I’m doubtful there is much cost associated with the actual incorporation; the real cost would be involved in establishing new infrastructure like government buildings. If I wanted good information, I would look for someone in the City of Maricopa to discuss the topic with as they just recently incorporated.
Are you talking about our area, or Gold Canyon, when you speak of collecting impact and development fees? One problem with impact and development fees is who'll be entitled to them? Didn't Maricopa run into problems collecting fees on projects that were already in the pipeline when they incorporated? Also, before such fees can be collected, costly and time consuming studies to estimate the actual impact end-users will have on resources and demand for services must usually be completed. There's also the expense in getting an interim census completed.
Have you found the County's disbursement of funds to be improper? I think building roads is everyone's short term priority if they're from this area. In the long term, economic development for Pinal County is of critical importance to Pinal residents. (Drive south and east to work instead of north and west). Better schools and a local community center round out my top three hopes.
As you say, new infrastructure and assuming services previously offered by the County would be the most costly considerations for citizens.
Regards,
Anne
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 06:29 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote: No Pipe:
I don't recall every getting indignant at any post made by Gene.
Anne
what are you ranting about now??? I never said you were getting indignant on a post made my Gene. Why would you even think I said that, as I as well as others know you are friends.
What I said to JJ was that yes, it is true that you called 911 at a incorpration meeting
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 06:06 pm |
|
ajBookchin wrote:
I am not someone with authority, but I believe that Apache Junction would agree to the incorporation of neighboring communities if we could reach agreements on our final municipal boundaries.
As I understand, we perceive Mesa’s planning area encroachment into Pinal County as a threat to the future financial well-being of our community. Mesa claims to be interested in protecting flight paths for Gateway airport while their true motivation is likely focused on securing the real estate along the proposed AZ-802 in an effort to amass potentially lucrative sales tax revenues from that area. As long as Mesa poses this threat, we must keep our options for alternate annexations open.
Also, as I understand, Apache Junction has expressed interest in negotiating a southern boundary along the final route of the AZ-802, I thought I had read somewhere (EVtribune?) about preliminary discussions with Queen Creek to include some sort of revenue sharing between the communities along the AZ-802. I wouldn’t see why we wouldn’t consider a similar arrangement with an incorporated San Tan.
In fact, if Apache Junction can positively stake claim to annex land to the AZ-802, I expect we might soften our reluctance to accept an incorporated Gold Canyon – possibly.
I think you're right on target about Mesa's interest in AZ-802. That potential sales tax revenue is what's got everybody "lovin'" our area and claiming planning rights from every direction.
Anne
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 04:55 pm |
|
History_101 wrote: I’ve heard the BLC set up booths on Thompson and on Gary stopping cars on maybe several occasions obtaining signatures on petitions of those that did not want to be a part of the new city and don’t quote me, but if I remember correctly I was told they collected over 200 signatures. In 2004, I don’t know what the population was out there, but that seems to me to be a fairly high number. These petitions were supplied to the incorporation group yet they chose to ignore them. Yes, it was Mark that was at the meeting I spoke of. So if I understand this correctly, the blame is on the BLC for fighting to keep the rural areas out or is it the incorporation committee for fighting to keep the rural areas in. It seems to me there is enough blame to go around; however, that was the main reason for the fight. I guess they never thought to annex the rural areas after incorporation occurred. Had they given a little to get a little maybe they could have had it all in the end. Can’t speculate on that now.
Here are the petitions for the J curve and the rezoning case for Lot 22, which was a zoning case for a Veterinarian, which they defeated as a result of this petition. I'm not sure both petitions will come across as I attached them to a file and they came out very small. I might have to do this again later on....rather have one of my kids do it.
Notice the sigs and addresses.....most are from out of state, yet I received these petitons from the County as a matter of their public records of which they based their decisions on. This is a petition that they say has the sigs of the Rurals who live in the San Tans, of which not one signature is from the Rurals.....not one! In fact, not one signature can I find from anyone who lives in Pinal county.
Read up Bryan. Then tell me you still want them on your Team.
Attachment: CCF03172008_00002.JPG (Downloaded 180 times) Last edited on Mon Mar 17th, 2008 05:07 pm by Bambi
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 04:31 pm |
|
No Pipe:
I don't recall every getting indignant at any post made by Gene.
Anne
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 04:16 pm |
|
Ted wrote: anne.reed wrote:
Dear Ted:
These are outrageous accusations and I personally hope that they will be publicly refuted in the legitimate press. The signatures that were not accepted, were thrown out by a department totally independent of Sandie Smith, or the BOS. These 400 signatures were discounted before anyone even looked at the tactics used to collect the balance of the signatures (which would have probably eliminated most of the rest of them).
One day, abusing your right to free speech will come back to bite you.
Anne
Anne,
Than why was there never a solid explanation given by the county as to why those were thrown out? I know that you are not an objective observer here but does anyone else think that this was a suspicious occurance?
As for your indignation on 'abuse of free speech', did you also happen to get similarly indignant when Gene Kilber repeatedly used his free speech rights to proclaim that the US Government orchestrated 9/11?
And for those new to this forum, this is a really good place to point out that for Anne Reed, when she does not get her way in public conversations and is not listened to, she retaliates by calling 911 emergency. This actually happened and has many witnesses.
Hey Ted, nice to see you again. I for one would not be surprised if this is not the case as it sure does not add up. Who is to say that the "illegal" signatures were obtained from the incorporation team with their knowledge. Who is to say that "some group" (wonder who that is) did not rally all the rest of the little cowboys and girls to sign the petition knowing full well that their signatures woudln't count. I would lay blame on the incorp team for not checking to make sure that all who signed were registered voters of Pinal and living in the area.
Yes JJ, the 911 story is not a story, it is a fact.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 524 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 04:08 pm |
|
And for those new to this forum, this is a really good place to point out that for Anne Reed, when she does not get her way in public conversations and is not listened to, she retaliates by calling 911 emergency. This actually happened and has many witnesses.
Anne,
Is this true? If so please explain. If it was not you then maybe a little background ifo on this subject is in order.
|
Ted
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 282 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 04:03 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote:
Dear Ted:
These are outrageous accusations and I personally hope that they will be publicly refuted in the legitimate press. The signatures that were not accepted, were thrown out by a department totally independent of Sandie Smith, or the BOS. These 400 signatures were discounted before anyone even looked at the tactics used to collect the balance of the signatures (which would have probably eliminated most of the rest of them).
One day, abusing your right to free speech will come back to bite you.
Anne
Anne,
Than why was there never a solid explanation given by the county as to why those were thrown out? I know that you are not an objective observer here but does anyone else think that this was a suspicious occurance?
As for your indignation on 'abuse of free speech', did you also happen to get similarly indignant when Gene Kilber repeatedly used his free speech rights to proclaim that the US Government orchestrated 9/11?
And for those new to this forum, this is a really good place to point out that for Anne Reed, when she does not get her way in public conversations and is not listened to, she retaliates by calling 911 emergency. This actually happened and has many witnesses.
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 03:57 pm |
|
Bambi wrote: Here is Bryan Martyn's email in answer to questions posed to him by me. The same questions I posed to Mr. House. I am very grateful that he has responded to us so that we may know and understand his position. Thank you Bryan. Those that want to respond can do so...I have his email address on here in another post.
Bambi,
My apologies for not responding sooner. We are having some Outlook issues with the email.
As far as your questions, I’m happy to address those with which I’m familiar. I truly appreciate you providing a venue for the dissemination of ideas throughout the community. I must be honest with you though. Blogs are notorious for indiscretions on the part of both sender and replier. It’s all too easy to make accusations without responsibility. Having said that, I appreciate your openness and I’m happy to respond.
Your first question about the zoning practices along the Hunt Highway is surely valid. The current Pinal County Comprehensive Plan doesn’t accurately represent the current flow of development. The current comp plan is more than a few years old and it’s very difficult to predict the most appropriate location for development that is literally years away. To that end, the county has the flexibility to change zoning on a case by case basis to accommodate the needs of a particular community. The key to the process is public involvement. As zoning issues arise, Planning and Zoning must take into account a number of issues that include: impact on the community, impact on the county, is it consistent/compatible with the current comp plan, can it be supported by existing/future infrastructure, and does it make fiscal sense relative to possible county expenditures. Â
As far as the cars/yard sales along Hunt Highway, I personally don’t think they should be there. Although I agree with the right to commerce, the safety of the issue is more critical. Hunt Highway is busy enough without traffic jumping on and off the road to get to some side-of-the-road sale. I also believe side-of-the-road commerce is inconsistent with the image the citizens of Queen Creek and the Johnson Ranch Area would like to communicate. This is not Taiwan. The community is a vibrant, thriving area with beautiful shops with business owners that take pride in their storefronts and the quality of their merchandise. The bottom line is, I think we’re better than that.
San Tan Flats is an issue that I don’t know enough about. I know there are zoning issues and County/Owner agreements at play. I’m discouraged by the negative press the County is receiving and I hope the issue is resolved sooner than later. As far as the restaurant itself, I’m a big fan. Mr. Bell has a fantastic business model that provides quality food, entertainment, and service to the community.
As far as incorporation, I think it unwise for a potential Supervisor to comment directly on the issue. Given the current law, the Supervisor will have some say in the final outcome of any incorporation effort within the County. On a more philosophical note, I believe this country was founded on the principal of self rule. If a group of individuals demonstrates the desire and ability to effectively self govern, they should have the opportunity. Â
I’m not sure how you’re defining “ruralsâ€. I believe you’re referring to open space and agriculture. As a member of the Superstition Area Land Trust board, I believe open space preservation is vital to the lifestyle of our county. We share some of the most beautiful landscape in America. It is incumbent upon us all that we responsibly manage our open space. Â
You’ll need to be more specific on the blight issue. Blight is a big deal in all communities. Unfortunately, blight is often in the eye of the beholder. As a small government believer, I disagree with eminent domain on principal. Â
The drainage issue is huge in your area. I’ve had the opportunity to talk to a number of residents in the Adobe Dam Road area. In fact, I have a video of kids actually surfing Adobe Dam Road following a recent storm. There appears to be little doubt that errors have taken place at the County level. Obviously, if the County made a mistake, the County should fix it. As far as Adobe Dam Road, there may be some viable solutions. I hope to have the opportunity to influence the outcome.
The BLC and Gordon Brown are two different issues as far as I’m concerned. I’ve met/worked with members of the BLC and they are stalwarts in the community. I’m not a member of the organization and I’m not familiar with their agenda or mantra. I do know that they were fantastic with the dedication of the Nathan Marten’s Memorial. I was honored to work with Arizonans/Americans that cared so deeply for my fellow military brothers and sisters. I have nothing but positive comments about the members of BLC that I worked with. Â
Gordon Brown is a friend of mine. I worked with him on the Marten’s Memorial and he was stellar. I know Gordon has worked within the San Tan community for years and is very well thought of at the County. I’ve never witnessed anything but a man of integrity and genuine concern for his community. As a man committed to the future of our county, I asked Gordon to help with my campaign in the San Tan area. I don’t believe you’ll find a harder worker and a more candid person in the county. Well, Bambi, you might be as candid… I’m not going to apologize for recognizing the qualities of Gordon Brown. I’m honored to have his help on my campaign; just as I’d be honored to have your help. Â
Bambi, the issues are too great for us to let differences of opinions drag us down. We all need to move away from the personalities and concentrate on the issues. You, personally, bring a wealth of experience and passion to the issues that affect us all. It would be irresponsible to allow a conflict of personality to impede the progress so paramount to our community. I beseech your comments/advice/candor/commitment relating to the issues of our community. And I promise to try and keep you and Gordon form sitting next to each other…
Thanks for the opportunity to write.
Brian, we respectfully request that you respond in open forum. I realize you had computer problems, but please, "open forum"
You say that Gordon is a stellar guy??? Yes he is for his wants and desires as well as for those who are his buds. He is not stellar when it comes to this community as a whole. Don't get me wrong we are proud of the war memorial, even though it is in a park that belongs to Town of Queen Creek (Thanks Sandie for that too)
Where do you get that there are zoning issues with San Tan Flats" That is not true. Dale has taken care of the parking issues, the county has tested the noise and he has not violated that (nice how we got a new noise oridnace because of this---way to go BLC) he is not violating any dark skies, as there is no law, just a suggestion. The only thing the county has him on is the "no dance haa law" that they had to blow the dust off when they took that out of the cellar just to appease Sandi Smiths goon squad.
Now you are telling us that you have Gordon (which means the BLC will back you as well) standing up in your corner in this bid for office. Wow are yo0u sure you really want to do that? You are a gambling man, must really not want that position. If you lay down with dogs, you wil get ticks.
Now answer this, is it true that you have met with lawyers (Rose?? ) which is a lawyer for developers?
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 03:50 pm |
|
Ted wrote:
pipeman wrote: Todd, you hit the nail on the head. They can use the not enough valid signatures all they want. It was due to "special interests" as you stated. Sandie and the gang... what a nightmare for this area. The reign is almost over....
You know, for what it is worth, there were a proper number of signatures received. It is just that Sandie Smith conveniently threw out about 400 of them for unexplained reasons so that the number dropped below the required amount and coincidently, the outcome matched up perfectly with the outcome that Gordon Brown and friends wanted.
In light of San Tan Flats, we have to keep in mind that it is not out of character of Sandie Smith and the BOS to do ridiculous things so that they can give out a ruling consistent with what the Redneck Mafia (aka BLC) want.
Dear Ted:
These are outrageous accusations and I personally hope that they will be publicly refuted in the legitimate press. The signatures that were not accepted, were thrown out by a department totally independent of Sandie Smith, or the BOS. These 400 signatures were discounted before anyone even looked at the tactics used to collect the balance of the signatures (which would have probably eliminated most of the rest of them).
One day, abusing your right to free speech will come back to bite you.
Anne
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 03:34 pm |
|
| Ted. I am speaking about the "petition" that was used to show the Incorp. group that the "rurals" did not want to be a part of the incorporation....those 200 signatures. What do you know about that petition? Last edited on Mon Mar 17th, 2008 03:35 pm by Bambi
|
Ted
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 282 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 03:30 pm |
|
pipeman wrote: Todd, you hit the nail on the head. They can use the not enough valid signatures all they want. It was due to "special interests" as you stated. Sandie and the gang... what a nightmare for this area. The reign is almost over....
You know, for what it is worth, there were a proper number of signatures received. It is just that Sandie Smith conveniently threw out about 400 of them for unexplained reasons so that the number dropped below the required amount and coincidently, the outcome matched up perfectly with the outcome that Gordon Brown and friends wanted.
In light of San Tan Flats, we have to keep in mind that it is not out of character of Sandie Smith and the BOS to do ridiculous things so that they can give out a ruling consistent with what the Redneck Mafia (aka BLC) want.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 03:25 pm |
|
Here is Bryan Martyn's email in answer to questions posed to him by me. The same questions I posed to Mr. House. I am very grateful that he has responded to us so that we may know and understand his position. Thank you Bryan. Those that want to respond can do so...I have his email address on here in another post.
Bambi,
My apologies for not responding sooner. We are having some Outlook issues with the email.
As far as your questions, I’m happy to address those with which I’m familiar. I truly appreciate you providing a venue for the dissemination of ideas throughout the community. I must be honest with you though. Blogs are notorious for indiscretions on the part of both sender and replier. It’s all too easy to make accusations without responsibility. Having said that, I appreciate your openness and I’m happy to respond.
Your first question about the zoning practices along the Hunt Highway is surely valid. The current Pinal County Comprehensive Plan doesn’t accurately represent the current flow of development. The current comp plan is more than a few years old and it’s very difficult to predict the most appropriate location for development that is literally years away. To that end, the county has the flexibility to change zoning on a case by case basis to accommodate the needs of a particular community. The key to the process is public involvement. As zoning issues arise, Planning and Zoning must take into account a number of issues that include: impact on the community, impact on the county, is it consistent/compatible with the current comp plan, can it be supported by existing/future infrastructure, and does it make fiscal sense relative to possible county expenditures. Â
As far as the cars/yard sales along Hunt Highway, I personally don’t think they should be there. Although I agree with the right to commerce, the safety of the issue is more critical. Hunt Highway is busy enough without traffic jumping on and off the road to get to some side-of-the-road sale. I also believe side-of-the-road commerce is inconsistent with the image the citizens of Queen Creek and the Johnson Ranch Area would like to communicate. This is not Taiwan. The community is a vibrant, thriving area with beautiful shops with business owners that take pride in their storefronts and the quality of their merchandise. The bottom line is, I think we’re better than that.
San Tan Flats is an issue that I don’t know enough about. I know there are zoning issues and County/Owner agreements at play. I’m discouraged by the negative press the County is receiving and I hope the issue is resolved sooner than later. As far as the restaurant itself, I’m a big fan. Mr. Bell has a fantastic business model that provides quality food, entertainment, and service to the community.
As far as incorporation, I think it unwise for a potential Supervisor to comment directly on the issue. Given the current law, the Supervisor will have some say in the final outcome of any incorporation effort within the County. On a more philosophical note, I believe this country was founded on the principal of self rule. If a group of individuals demonstrates the desire and ability to effectively self govern, they should have the opportunity. Â
I’m not sure how you’re defining “ruralsâ€. I believe you’re referring to open space and agriculture. As a member of the Superstition Area Land Trust board, I believe open space preservation is vital to the lifestyle of our county. We share some of the most beautiful landscape in America. It is incumbent upon us all that we responsibly manage our open space. Â
You’ll need to be more specific on the blight issue. Blight is a big deal in all communities. Unfortunately, blight is often in the eye of the beholder. As a small government believer, I disagree with eminent domain on principal. Â
The drainage issue is huge in your area. I’ve had the opportunity to talk to a number of residents in the Adobe Dam Road area. In fact, I have a video of kids actually surfing Adobe Dam Road following a recent storm. There appears to be little doubt that errors have taken place at the County level. Obviously, if the County made a mistake, the County should fix it. As far as Adobe Dam Road, there may be some viable solutions. I hope to have the opportunity to influence the outcome.
The BLC and Gordon Brown are two different issues as far as I’m concerned. I’ve met/worked with members of the BLC and they are stalwarts in the community. I’m not a member of the organization and I’m not familiar with their agenda or mantra. I do know that they were fantastic with the dedication of the Nathan Marten’s Memorial. I was honored to work with Arizonans/Americans that cared so deeply for my fellow military brothers and sisters. I have nothing but positive comments about the members of BLC that I worked with. Â
Gordon Brown is a friend of mine. I worked with him on the Marten’s Memorial and he was stellar. I know Gordon has worked within the San Tan community for years and is very well thought of at the County. I’ve never witnessed anything but a man of integrity and genuine concern for his community. As a man committed to the future of our county, I asked Gordon to help with my campaign in the San Tan area. I don’t believe you’ll find a harder worker and a more candid person in the county. Well, Bambi, you might be as candid… I’m not going to apologize for recognizing the qualities of Gordon Brown. I’m honored to have his help on my campaign; just as I’d be honored to have your help. Â
Bambi, the issues are too great for us to let differences of opinions drag us down. We all need to move away from the personalities and concentrate on the issues. You, personally, bring a wealth of experience and passion to the issues that affect us all. It would be irresponsible to allow a conflict of personality to impede the progress so paramount to our community. I beseech your comments/advice/candor/commitment relating to the issues of our community. And I promise to try and keep you and Gordon form sitting next to each other…
Thanks for the opportunity to write.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 01:49 pm |
|
This is going to be a great week. I feel it in my bones.
I'm putting together something of interest for all. Based on information received on here, I am able to connect some dots. I just love those connect the dots puzzles. I used to play them right along with my kids. Great mental exercise | | |