| Author | Post |
|---|
Marine1
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 46 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 15th, 2008 03:19 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote: Dear Thouse:
Based on the above statements, are we to understand that you would not seek to enforce, but to allow a zoning applicant to misrepresent his business intentions and dishonor his public commitments to the community and to the BOS?
Regards,
Anne
Based on your comments, are we to understand that you cannot comprehend that STF is NOT in violation of any zoning requirements? If they were, the county would be citing STF for zoning violations instead of wasting our money going after them based on an antiquated no dancing law. Last edited on Sat Mar 15th, 2008 11:14 pm by Marine1
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 15th, 2008 03:17 pm |
|
Hi Anne. Hopefully Todd will respond to your question.....but I suggest he refrain until you have answered the questions below:
I would like you to respond to mine that I asked earlier. Are you posing this question as a member of the Greater San Tan Coalition or for the Better Living Coaltion or for whom?
Have you attempted to contact people on here via private messages, to solicit them to this secret organization?
If Gordon is indeed Team Leader, then can you convey the message to him that we would like him to come on here and speak to us about this new organization he is forming and what it's mission is? Will he be acting on the people's behalf? Will people serve via elections or appointments? Please pass on to him that discussion is what the Queen Creek candidates did on here when they were forming groups to promote their ideals....they came on board to tell us, and disucss their mission.
What's yours?
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 15th, 2008 03:07 pm |
|
Hi All:
I'd like to know why Todd House, who lives in Gold Canyon, did not support the incorporation of his area, but, has continued to support incorporation of our area?
So, my question is twofold: First, why did Mr. House oppose incorporation of Gold Canyon? And second, why did he try to effect incorporation in the San Tan Corridor?
Regards,
Anne
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 15th, 2008 03:02 pm |
|
Thouse wrote:
You brought up some very interesting questions. you say that Dale and his son are owed an apology, you are right but; that would have to come from the people responsible for this problem. I would cease actions against STF as soon as possible, and hope we dont get sued for actions by the previous supervisor. This committee that you talk about ie Gordon B will have no effect on what happens in the area, anymore than anyone else will have. I do not and will not join the good old boys, and the will of all the people will be heard and not just the old guard. you will have as much input as anyone. You can ask anyone that knows me I am a very fair person. San Tan ,Im afraid may have lost its chance to incorporate, but I would be in favor of it. We need to come together and heal the pain of being overlooked for so long, so I would listen to imput from all sides.
Dear Thouse:
Based on the above statements, are we to understand that you would not seek to enforce, but to allow a zoning applicant to misrepresent his business intentions and dishonor his public commitments to the community and to the BOS?
Regards,
Anne
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 15th, 2008 02:45 pm |
|
Your words are well taken History. But, I took the comparison to Conn. as the "vastness" of the reach....population had nothing to do with my perception of what he said. Vastness/Expansiveness of responsibility as compared to managing a local concentration was my comparative analysis.
Knock down discussions?.....already happened. Calls to 911. Calls via secret messages and setups by the opposition. Mudslinging to it's highest degree. Personal attacks; Meanness and distortions of the truth; false information; Media news all over the valley, daily. People standing in roadways to have petitions against Incorp., flipping you off if you don't sign.
But no one sat across from one another to discuss this in a civil manner. Just like this new Coalition being formed has not come forth to discuss their intentions, but forming in secret to disucss them, with those of like mind. Contacting people on here thru private messages to bring them on board for that new Coalition? You have to do some profiling to get to the place where you can pick and choose. That breeds distrust and alienation....it already has. Openess is necessary, thru the whole process.
And if you want to see some of that ugliness of lies and deceit done in the 04 incorp. attempt, come on over to my place and I'll show you how that group that resisted that incorp. attempt and slammed the innocent to gain favor and push their agenda, thru emails circulated, full of lies and news articles portraying it as a form of megalomania by their leader...a complete falsehood.
The people do not want to go thru that ugly scene again....thus apathy. Unless the next attempt at "change" down here is done in the open and started in the open, with the intent to involve the masses, and to have those discussions in a civil manner, it will just be another waste of time and money, with more aggravation than I can take this time around.
I'd like to ask you a personal question....in the open. Are you a member of the past group that fought incorporation? Have you been approached by this Santan Coalition, with co-leaders, Brown and Malpass? What is your opinion of this method used to acquire members and their mission statement, assuming they have one?
thank you.
|
History_101
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 180 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 15th, 2008 02:10 am |
|
Once again AJ what you say sounds good and to the average person reading this blog they may be in agreement with you; however, what you are proposing is not within the purview of the supervisors.
The mission statement for the board is concise and could be construed as vague. It is as follows:
Mission Statement
“The mission of the Pinal County Board of Supervisors is to provide Pinal County constituents assistance in obtaining services that are available through Pinal County Government. The Board of Supervisors is the governing and policy-making body of Pinal County and is empowered by law to perform acts necessary to fully discharge its duties as the legislative authority of county government.”
The supervisors DO NOT become actively involved in incorporation efforts as they are the ones that end up approving or disapproving such events when they become before them. For that reason alone is why they stay detached from incorporation events.
It is up to the residents to hold meetings, bring those in favor of incorporation and those who oppose it together and hold actual knock down drag out discussions as to why or why not the area should be incorporated.
It is easy to say, “Let’s incorporate” but doing the required steps to bring such an event before the people is a long and drawn out process. If done correctly, it could take several years, not several months like has been tried in the past. A rush to incorporation is a sure fire way to fail. Just look at the past attempts and learn from their mistakes.
I’ll be the first to agree that we need 5 supervisors NOW; however, to compare Pinal County to Connecticut is like comparing apples to oranges. They may be similar in size, but that is about all one could say they have in common. What really makes them different is the population. Connecticut is far more populated then Pinal County will ever be. The current population of Pinal County is what warrants having 5 supervisors, not its size.
I’ll also agree both QC and Florence only sees the commercial tax base as the treasure box at the end of the rainbow. But I believe to get to that treasure box they must come through populated areas. I also believe cities must remain contiguous, not selectively selecting areas they want or don’t want and also not creating county islands in the process. The annexation process is very well spelled out in state statutes so don’t get too excited when you hear the term cherry pick.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 275 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 14th, 2008 07:54 pm |
|
Irregardless of any individual’s position, the next county supervisor should make it a priority to round table with leadership of both the incorporation and anti-incorporation movements to discuss the merits and drawbacks of incorporating the San Tan area.
If the group remained divided, the supervisor might chose to stay uncommitted to either course of action.
If the group can reach an agreement toward incorporation, a discussion should follow regarding the extent of the region seeking incorporation. With proposed boundaries defined, the supervisor and select members of the joint group should then sit down with leaders from neighboring communities to negotiate border agreements that would be acceptable to the existing communities should the voters approve incorporation.
If these actions are completed prior to a vote on incorporation, the outcome is likely to be much more successful if pursued.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 14th, 2008 06:54 pm |
|
I was over on the QC site, reading their posts, and I came across this topic, which made me feel "good"...confident might be a better word. Why?
I read where the poster expressed her concerns about an issue that bothered her. I then read on where a Councilperson from QC, addressed those concerns. And look how she addressed it. Look how that Town reached out for involvement and confidence in it's people.
Notice how leaders stepped in to give guidance and directions on how to achieve success. Look at the programs, the incentives, the overall general attitude of helping the residents of that town get involved and contributing to the well-being of the town.....with invitations, programs and open arms....all a part of local self-governance. Look what we're missing out on.....by being so huge and expansive.....the size of Connecticut. Town leaders doing what they were voted in to do. Govern and manage growth by involving the local residents.
http://www.newszapforums.com/forum27/55612.html
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 275 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 14th, 2008 06:10 pm |
|
JJohnson wrote: they don't want our neighborhoods ... Huge expenses. What they want is to cherry pick our commercial centers for their sales tax value.
Yep, I can absolutely agree with that - which is almost worst case scenerio for you - you end up shopping at what were your stores which are now in their corporate limits and paying their municipal sales taxes, while recieving no benefits in return because your homes are still in the county.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 14th, 2008 05:50 pm |
|
ajBookchin wrote: I am also curious… from someone else’s point of view… why do you believe neighboring communities are (or are interested in) preventing incorporation of the San Tan area???
I might be wrong, but I expect each is interested in annexation of your neighborhoods. I see no other benefit to a neighboring community blocking your attempts to incorporate, which would still result in higher taxes for those annexed areas. Although now, instead of paying new taxes to support your own community, you would be paying new taxes to support Queen Creek, Florence, or… Mesa?!?
What you might see in the near future, is Q.C. annexing the Hunt/Ellsworth area, based on requests by the owners along that runway. Many have told me (since I have been accused of fratenizing with the owners who are public enemy number one out here, as they are not residents, so therefore have no voice), that Queen Creek is willing to listen to their voices, and they have much more confidence in them than they do in all these people out here claiming to be spokesmans for the County...which is the people they thought.
.. these owners/ people are looked down upon and frowned upon, by angry residents who think they should not have any rights, other than to pay their taxes and give away 70 ft. of their land for their benefit (roadway)...to give up the highest and best use for the land, for their benefit...to place on the land what others want them to place on their land....to build what they want; how they want it built; where they want it built......isn't it great living in America, where freedom rings?
....this is not me speaking...this is the owners on Hunt speaking to me, and asking me to convey it to the people. When these good people, hard working regular joes like you and me...blue collar people some... show up at meetings in government public buildings, they are frowned upon, as I am, for sitting with them. We are called out as being investors only(me working with them) and should not have a say. We are the enemy.....because of our choices, which are all Constitutional. That's how your commercial inquiries are treated. they run the other way. They are afraid to be confronted publically by anger and hate.
So, Queen Creek will eventually take those people, as they are money makers for their Town, and during these hard times, they are looking for money makers....after all , Q.C. supplies the domestic water to these properties already....bringing value to them. We have an image of non-cooperation out here, and now we're often referred to as Q.C.'s "blight" area, that's out of control.
So, Mr. forthcoming Supervisors (as no women are currently running); what's your take on this mess? And what's your solution? Will we once again, lose our potential commercial/revenue to outsiders, because it's taking us years to figure out what to do with that area? And will you allow the spot zoning to continue? Or will you insist it be masterplanned by professionals?
Last edited on Fri Mar 14th, 2008 05:53 pm by Bambi
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 529 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 14th, 2008 05:00 pm |
|
| they don't want our neighborhoods ... Huge expenses. What they want is to cherry pick our commercial centers for their sales tax value.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 275 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 14th, 2008 04:00 pm |
|
I am also curious… from someone else’s point of view… why do you believe neighboring communities are (or are interested in) preventing incorporation of the San Tan area???
I might be wrong, but I expect each is interested in annexation of your neighborhoods. I see no other benefit to a neighboring community blocking your attempts to incorporate, which would still result in higher taxes for those annexed areas. Although now, instead of paying new taxes to support your own community, you would be paying new taxes to support Queen Creek, Florence, or… Mesa?!?
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 14th, 2008 02:55 pm |
|
I used to be able to go the the County's website and go to Jobs, and find a Supervisors position listed there, but the new site doesn't list it....maybe I'm missing it.
I would think it's a full time position, but probably not tied to a set number of hours worked....rather it should be based on accomplishments.
And yes, if we had more supervisors giving input, then we have better decisions. I was told, so this is heresay, that when a district super. gets his case, he basically tells the other super. how to vote on it. and visa versa. time saving i'm sure, but not a way to run a government. So my question to Mr. Synder and Mr. Ruiz is how much do you know about our problems in the San Tans? What caused you to vote the way you voted? Why is it always a majority?
Last edited on Fri Mar 14th, 2008 03:01 pm by Bambi
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 275 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 14th, 2008 02:43 pm |
|
The very first paragraph of “Choices for Unincorporated Communities in Arizona” reminds me that the next board of supervisors should move to increase the size of the board.
It is frequently noted that Pinal County is about the same size as the state of Connecticut. Given this frequently cited fact, I was curious to learn how many state representatives the constituents of Connecticut are provided. From Wikipedia:
"The General Assembly is a bicameral body consisting of an upper body, the State Senate (36 senators); and a lower body, the House of Representatives (151 representatives)."
Wikipedia also indicated that the state of Connecticut’s 2000 population was 3,405,565; doing the math, we discover that each member of the House of Representatives represents approx 22,500 citizens.
If Pinal County maintained a similar ratio of constituents-to-representatives, our county board would consist of 12 supervisors, not 3, not 5, but 12! I would argue that an acceptable minimum for our board should be 9 supervisors.
I have two questions someone could likely answer faster than I could look them up…
1) Are county supervisors officially considered full or part time positions?
2) What is the current salary of a county supervisor?
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 14th, 2008 02:30 pm |
|
#6 on your list History.....Q.C. 's planning area extends only to Thompson Rd., not Gary Rd.
#8 on your list......Queen Creek's new council members, of which I have spoken to a couple, want responsible people in power to manage our growth....if that means becoming a city....they will allow it. They are experiencing and have experienced the lack of oversight by our area's leaders, which has lead to inadequate infrastructure and groups forming to manage growth their way, but instead has held back our progress....that all flows over into their Town, making our problems their problems....they want that stopped, and I don't blame them.
QC can't afford to take us over at this point, so they want us to get our act together and as a majority, form into "something" that can succeed in expressing the "will of the people" and progress will follow...
....that's not happening....it's secret coalitions that are once again forming, with secret agendas. Therefore, they will not/or should not command recognition from any government, until the will of the people has been expressed thru elections....those are the ones who will represent us.
When we started up the Optimist Club or the Gilbert Promotional Corp.....we were "out there" trying to solicit people into our group; holding events and parties; telling everyone we know to come aboard and join us in thie endeavor and good cause. That's how you form a coalition...you get out there into the public's eye and open your arms to all. Thats Democracy. Engage the all the People.
In the meantime, it's the Supervisors we are looking for, on this Topic, and we have only heard from....one: Todd House. Where is Gordon's man, Bryan Martyn? Where is Gordon? Where is Anne? Come to this forum, just like every single person who ran for office in Queen Creek did on the Q.C. Forum. Express your views to the people and talk to us on here, as Todd has been doing.
I will contact the Media and see if we can put together some good questions that the contestants can answer, if they are too timid to come on here. Timidity does not work well in public office. You better be "out there" for our needs, not hiding behind your desk. Another Leadership quality.
|
History_101
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 180 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 14th, 2008 01:59 pm |
|
AJ,
It is an informing piece of documentation.
Pipe,
You are making assumptions without taking into consideration reality.
1) You are correct in one sense of the word that planning areas don’t mean anything, but what you are not taking into consideration is the current city limits of surrounding cities.
2) Incorporating cities MUST obtain permission from any and all cities that are within 6 miles of their proposed boundaries.
3) During the first incorporation attempt the incorporation committee was able to pull their proposed boundary back away from Florence to get around this requirement. Today, that option doesn’t exist anymore.
4) Florence’s city limits during the first incorporation attempt was at Attaway Road. Even pulling back to where they did left some question as to if it met the 6 mile requirement.
5) Today, Florence’s city limits are at Franklin Road. Six miles west from Franklin Road puts you at Bella Vista. So what are you going to do, incorporate everything west of Bella Vista if Florence says NO to a proposed incorporation resolution?
6) Planning areas DO show a cities interest in an area. With Florence and Queen Creek extending their planning areas up to Gary Road says something.
7) I must agree with Mr. House that the time to incorporate into a stand alone city has been overcome by events in the San Tan area. Like it or not, that is reality.
8) I believe Florence will NOT give an approval on an incorporation resolution and I base my position on statements I’ve heard from Florence government officials. I’m not even sure if Queen Creek would give an approval at this point in time. You must remember there is a new Mayor and several new City Council members in Queen Creek and there may even be more after this upcoming election and they all have a different philosophy then what was there in the past.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 275 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 14th, 2008 01:54 pm |
|
History_101 - Thank you for the link. I've downloaded a copy and will give it a read.
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 518 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 14th, 2008 05:26 am |
|
someone who claims to not know what they are talking about but wants to learn has sure learned FAST as this is the correct answer.
The extended planning areas do not mean a thing when it comes to us incorporating. sure we would need their permission, just as we would have needed it last time... Nothing has changed, their planning areas have no bearing on the matter at hand.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13th, 2008 11:39 pm |
|
History_101 wrote: ajBookchin,
Research is a wonderful thing. It appears you have much to learn about incorporation and the other aspects of city government to include HURF, LTAF, local taxes and etc. I suggest you start with the following link and become familiar with the different types of government available in Arizona and other terms associated with same.
http://publicadmin.eller.arizona.edu/docs/pubs/Choices_for_Unincorporated_Comm_AZ_May2001.pdf
"Self-governance stimulates the interest of people in the affairs of their neighborhood...having common interest in such services such as health, public protection, fire protection, water...services which bind the people of the area together for a common purpose, and where the people are acquainted locally and mingle in business, social, educational and recreational activities."
Above, are various excerpts I pulled from that publication.
That was a very good publication with some very interesting information in it. Thank you for posting that History.
I was going over the alternatives to incorporation they provided, including Councils and Coalitions. I read up on one Coaltion operating in Pima county, and are elected by popular vote by the area residents. They influence decisions by the County Government on behalf of their people wishes.
I also read about ADOBE, the Coalition in Gold Canyon, who are also elected, and not only influence decisions, but manage the growth. I noticed where they have meetings where the Supervisor attends.
I like elected officials....not appointed.
If a coalition is going to be formed, or has been formed already, or a council, all the people need to be made aware and approve of this move. And, if the intent is to represent the will of the people and enfluence County decisions, then Elections should place people in those positions of power....not appointments.
As mentioned, it would serve as a stepping stone to Incorporation perhaps, or it may flounder. I believe the bottom line is MONEY. Increased money for Increased Services. Who is willing to pay and who is not?
|
History_101
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 180 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13th, 2008 10:32 pm |
|
ajBookchin,
Research is a wonderful thing. It appears you have much to learn about incorporation and the other aspects of city government to include HURF, LTAF, local taxes and etc. I suggest you start with the following link and become familiar with the different types of government available in Arizona and other terms associated with same.
http://publicadmin.eller.arizona.edu/docs/pubs/Choices_for_Unincorporated_Comm_AZ_May2001.pdf
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1943 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13th, 2008 09:42 pm |
|
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.
That is true but the new minicipality would have to get an OK vote from other municipalities.
Florence has already given the thumbs down to incorporation in the past. Would they again.......don't know, but it's something else that would have to be overcome.
Was “Hurf” a typo? If not, I’m not familiar with that phrase.
Highway User Revenue Fund
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.
You mean higher taxes.......not likely! Additionally a great deal of the property here is already owned by developers and a lot of it has already been platted.
And yet its been done before – Maricopa incorporated less than 5 years ago.
It has been done, but you simply cannot compare Maricopa to here. The main driving force behind Maricopa was a long time farming family who owned a lot of the land, and had the benefit of a large line of credit from a local bank. They also incorporated before a lot of construction was beginning and had the benefit of development and impact fees prior to the real building boom.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 275 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13th, 2008 09:25 pm |
|
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.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1943 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13th, 2008 08:45 pm |
|
You may not completely understand the situation here.
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.
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.
Things like Law enforcement, liabilities, insurance, legal, infrastructure, land and everything else involved is extremely expensive.
It's a lot easier said than done.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 275 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13th, 2008 07:47 pm |
|
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.Last edited on Thu Mar 13th, 2008 07:47 pm by ajBookchin
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 275 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13th, 2008 05:06 pm |
|
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.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1943 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13th, 2008 05:06 pm |
|
What about the biggest issue about incorporation.
How would it be funded? Impact and development fees are going to be much harder to come by.
|
Marine1
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 46 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13th, 2008 05:03 pm |
|
ajBookchin wrote:
If the county does not assess impact fees on commercial development, how should new infrastructure be funded??? Should the county only assess impact fees on residential properties? Should the county wait to make infrastructure improvements until enough funds are generated through sales taxes?
AJ, I guess I should have been a little clearer in making my statement. I'm not opposed to the county collection impact fees for commercial development. The problem I have with commercial impact fees in Pinal is that they are so high. The highest in the state, if I'm not mistaken. Badly needed commercial development is not being built due to the fees the county is charging.
Last edited on Thu Mar 13th, 2008 05:05 pm by Marine1
|
Thouse
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13th, 2008 02:32 pm |
|
| Bambi, Queen Creek has taken a large portion of land to the north, Florence has taken a large area to the east, and even Apache Juction has planned for area. You must get permission from any Incorporated city to ask for Incorporation, and I dont know if they would be willing to do that now. But I would back any effort to try. I work long hours at my job, and when Im elected I will work long hours for you, I would have to quit my current job. I am willing to come and talk to anyone who wants to listen, as long as its at night.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 275 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13th, 2008 02:29 pm |
|
THEWORKER wrote:
i have heard that the impact fees charged in the San Tan area are larger than other areas,? Is this true??? Why should the youngest, most vibrant area of Pianl County be getting choked to pay for the older decaying areas that already have infrastructure??
If the county is using these funds correctly, they are invested in the area where they are collected. In this case it should stand to reason that the San Tan area might have some of the highest impact fees as it is the region in need of the most investment, especially at the county’s expense. Many other developing areas are within incorporated municipalities who collect their own development impact fees and subsequently pay for developing infrastructure. Impact fees from the newest developments in the county should not fund renewal in the “decaying” areas, but neither should our “decaying” areas fund new development – development should be self-sustaining.
Marine1 wrote:
What kills me is the fees the county is charging for commercial development. Commercial development and the resulting sales tax dollars are what the area needs, yet the county seems to be trying to discourage commercial development with such high fees.
If the county does not assess impact fees on commercial development, how should new infrastructure be funded??? Should the county only assess impact fees on residential properties? Should the county wait to make infrastructure improvements until enough funds are generated through sales taxes?
How would you propose funding infrastructure improvements in the San Tan area, specifically the improvements needed to just catch-up???
One more thing – if I were a resident of the San Tan area, I would only elect a county supervisor who supported incorporation. San Tan should have an opportunity to define itself, which will not be possible if planners in Florence maintain responsibility for planning. Additionally, as long as the region remains unincorporated, it faces annexation threats from neighboring communities. One look at this map should have every area resident fighting for incorporation – http://www.cityofmesa.org/maps/pdf/citymap.pdf. Marine1, as those sales tax revenues grow…
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 518 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13th, 2008 05:51 am |
|
Bambi wrote: I like your inclusive attitude and your willingness to help us heal....we're pretty disjointed at this point. Why do you think we may have lost our opportunity to incorporate? If we have, would you be in favor of a community council or other local entity, and if so, would they be appointed or?
Would you be willing to come to our area, the San Tans, to visit your constituents on a minimum monthly basis, and make yourself available to them in the evening on that day too?
Your profession takes many hours of your day. How will you handle that if you become Supervisor?
We have two main locations that will need your attention....the SanTans and the Ironwood area. I hope I can urge some residents to post their concerns for those areas.
Thank you for your response.
Bambi, great questions and great that you mentioned our fellow neighbors who have been screwed as we have.
Todd, I do think Dale does deserve an aoplogy, but I never said it had to come from you "IF" you are elected. But it does need to come from the county as they are the ones who used the bullcrap law and put undue expenditures of our tax dollars to fight this unholy war. I do also feel that Ed and his wife shoudl also apologize, but we all know that will NEVER happen. I also feel that we the tax payers should receive an apology for our tax money ($200,000.00 +) being wasted.
You say that Gordon and his bunch will have no more effect in the area than anyone else has. I like the answer, but how would you go about implementing this. Gordon seems to have free reign of the county building and to department heads. How are you going to stop it? What about Gordon and his running mates on all the advisory committees. Would you be willing to clean house and start fresh with representation from all areas of this area? (example: 2 from Johnson Ranch, 2 from Skyline, 2 from Rancho Bella Vista, 2 from Copper Basin, 2 from San Tan Heights, etc...).
You said that you feel San Tan has lost the chance to incorporate, what would make you say that? Because of the increased planning areas of surrounding towns? They do not have any jurisdiction over unincorporated areas in the county.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13th, 2008 03:41 am |
|
I like your inclusive attitude and your willingness to help us heal....we're pretty disjointed at this point. Why do you think we may have lost our opportunity to incorporate? If we have, would you be in favor of a community council or other local entity, and if so, would they be appointed or?
Would you be willing to come to our area, the San Tans, to visit your constituents on a minimum monthly basis, and make yourself available to them in the evening on that day too?
Your profession takes many hours of your day. How will you handle that if you become Supervisor?
We have two main locations that will need your attention....the SanTans and the Ironwood area. I hope I can urge some residents to post their concerns for those areas.
Thank you for your response.
Last edited on Thu Mar 13th, 2008 03:44 am by Bambi
|
Thouse
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13th, 2008 02:31 am |
|
| You brought up some very interesting questions. you say that Dale and his son are owed an apology, you are right but; that would have to come from the people responsible for this problem. I would cease actions against STF as soon as possible, and hope we dont get sued for actions by the previous supervisor. This committee that you talk about ie Gordon B will have no effect on what happens in the area, anymore than anyone else will have. I do not and will not join the good old boys, and the will of all the people will be heard and not just the old guard. you will have as much input as anyone. You can ask anyone that knows me I am a very fair person. San Tan ,Im afraid may have lost its chance to incorporate, but I would be in favor of it. We need to come together and heal the pain of being overlooked for so long, so I would listen to imput from all sides.
|
THEWORKER
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 42 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 12th, 2008 03:56 pm |
|
| Had I been a marine I would say a simple "semper fi" however as an ex-army I say "Your right Brother, thanks for the service"
|
Marine1
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 46 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 12th, 2008 02:18 pm |
|
I agree with you that the STF case needs to be thrown out before any additional taxpayer money is wasted. I also agree that any agreement drawn up between "Stan the Man" and developers should be null and void as he was obviously not acting in the best interest of the county or it's citizens
Regarding impact fees, below is a link to the county's impact fee schedule. It's a large document, so give it time to download. Page 26 shows the actual fees being charged. The San Tan area is IFA 1. What kills me is the fees the county is charging for commercial development. Commercial development and the resulting sales tax dollars are what the area needs, yet the county seems to be trying to discourage commercial development with such high fees.
http://pinalcountyaz.gov/Departments/DevelopmentServices/Documents/Downloads/Impact%20Fees/Development20Impact20Fee20Annual20Report20FY20062007.pdf
|
THEWORKER
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 42 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 12th, 2008 12:08 pm |
|
| I would like to make note that I do not think that The next Supervisor should apologize to Mr. DB The County's people did not atack him just the Power Brokers that choke it now did and an apology would be dropping immidiately any actions against him (D.B.)and the STF (action is louder than words). As for the headache that is attacking this guy let him take the charge in any civil court matter he chooses (LET THE RUDE PEOPLE SPEND THEIR OWN $$$$ NOT OURS ) Also I do not believe that the "passes" given by the Mr Grifis are legal binding, I believe that the next Supervisors have a responsiblity to ignore, tear up and re-issue these passes. In other words we should not let the Developers think they are going to get away with out the just dues to the County and our infrastructure.. We should do an ouside audit of these past Supervisory administrattions, sweetheart deals and just stand up and say NO, THIS WAS WRONG AND WE NEED TO CORRECT IT AND IF THEY DO NOT LIKE IT THEY CAN SEE US (THE COUNTY) IN THE THE COURTS and Also i have heard that the impact fees charged in the San Tan area are larger than other areas,? Is this true??? Why should the youngest, most vibrant area of Pianl County be getting choked to pay for the older decaying areas that already have infrastructure?? We need jobs and by making businessmen pay $$$ thru the nose and not working with them will not bring them. THIS WHOLE COUNTY NEEDS TO TURN OUT EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAL THIS YEAR. and ANY CANDIDATES WHO CAN NOT SEE THE DAMAGE DONE TO PINAL COUNTY AND ARE WORKING WITH THE DEVILS THAT CREATED THE PROBLEM are part of the problem as well
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 275 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 11th, 2008 10:28 pm |
|
Taking a deep breath…
One of the road projects which should be aggressively pursued is the AZ802 Gateway airport freeway. This would greatly improve access in and out of the southern portion of the Ironwood Drive area much better than the existing improvements to that right-of-way. Whoever is elected county supervisor should push very hard for that first mile between the county line and Ironwood Drive – we can build the eastern portion later as needed.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 11th, 2008 09:37 pm |
|
AJ: Please remember that Stan Griffiths stole our money earmarked for infrastructure.....not just in taking the cash, but also by giving gifts known as "passes" on their responsibility to the people's safety. They didn't have to add the needed infrastructure on Hunt Hiway, along their subdivision boundaries, thanks to the County. Only Larry Miller has produced what a Subdivisions responsibilities are to the development he is building "for the people." Wide paved roads; turning lanes; sidewalks; street lights for safety. And above and beyond that, Larry has widened Thompson Rd., the western side of his property, with additional roadway and sidewalks, drainage and even a bicycle/jogging path.
He is to be admired for his well done development known as San Tan Heights.
Now, regarding John Shields. He called me from my email to him. He is not running for office......yet anyway. He is testing the waters. I guess that if you pick up a "package" at the County to run for office, your name is recorded, and thus given out as a person who is running......a person who is considering running. It may be the same for Mr. Silvas. They might have just picked it up for someone else....who knows?
Anyway, John is a man of my age, and has just retired. He is very intelligent and experienced and lives in J.R. He was a publisher and editor of major newpapers. He oversaw up to 1000 employees in his venture. He knows politics and knows how to run a "business" which is running a County "business." So, he will contact me once he decides...or make an announcement...then we can "explore" him more and his beliefs.
Well that's two out of the possible 4 running for this district that have contacted us. Two to go.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 275 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 11th, 2008 09:36 pm |
|
“the county MUST share in the responsibility for the mess they created.”
I understand your point of view, but can you accept that I am frustrated because “I” did not create the mess, I wasn’t even an Arizonan when the mess was initiated, I avoided the mess when I had an opportunity to partake, and yet I will have to help fund cleaning up the mess.
It does help folks like me that there are folks like you who seem to be interested in a solution that includes incorporation. An incorporated community can assist the county in resolving the infrastructure problems and contribute to funding – you have to admit that the residents have so far avoided paying directly for development since those impact fees were not collected.
And as an AJ resident, I have already funded more than my fair share of the Ironwood Drive improvements as our city contributed funding to the roadway within our municipal boundary – so I’m being taxed twice for a portion of the same road, a road I never use, that wouldn’t have required improvements at this time if not for the development down south – therefore, please forgive me if I’m a bit bitter about the situation.
|
Marine1
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 46 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 11th, 2008 07:52 pm |
|
AJ,
I'm all for personal accountability. However, as tax paying citizens of the county, we have the right to expect certain services from the county. One such service would be the creation of and maintenance of adequate roads and infrastructure to allow for the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic.
It was Pinal county who issued thousands of building permits without collecting a single impact fee. It was Pinal county who was "blindsided" by the growth after issues all of those permits.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking to the county to be our savior and solve all of our problems. I'd much rather be a stand alone city and deal with our problems ourselves. But, while we are still unincorporated, the county MUST share in the responsibility for the mess they created.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 275 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 11th, 2008 05:11 pm |
|
How is it not their fault???
When I moved to Arizona a few years ago, I considered purchasing a home in the Hunt Highway corridor. We drove part way out there one Saturday, far enough to realize just how far from no where the area was and that the roadway infrastructure was inadequate. As a result, we considered investing in a home under these circumstances a poor choice.
Consumers have choices!!! No one forced any individual to move to the Hunt Highway corridor where it was obvious that the infrastructure was inadequate. Therefore, having made the decision to make that investment, the residents should shoulder an additional burden for correcting the lack of infrastructure.
I applaud the residents seeking incorporation; it would provide the region with mechanisms to address their particular issues. I strongly believe that pulling county funding for improvements might motivate those individuals creating obstacles to incorporation to re-evaluate their position.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 11th, 2008 04:46 pm |
|
Thanks for your observations. Unfortunately, it's not the people's fault, so they should not be punished. It's a local movement and those involved in that movement have connections that have stopped that process twice....and are still attempting to promote alternatives, which is taking up valuable time and creating huge backlogs of progress in the attainment of our goals....infrastructure included.
Self centered motives from a minority, yet supported by powerful entities in "Core" places.....a recipe for starting and stopping just about anything they want.
Does that define Democracy or does it define Tyranny, which is a rigorous position of governing, exerted by outside forces?
Just who are those forces? Just what is going on here and by whom? Come out Come out, from wherever you are. Tell us who you are and what you are attempting to do on "our behalf." At this point in time, you don't have our permission to act in our stead, so you're thoughts and ideas are your own and don't represent us....if you wanted to represent us, you would be "Out There."
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 275 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 11th, 2008 04:21 pm |
|
| Pinal County should not provide any additional funding to remedy infrastructure related issues in the Johnson Ranch area until the local residents assume some responsibility for their own region’s problems through incorporation.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 11th, 2008 02:06 pm |
|
Thouse wrote: Bambi, thanks for the chance to answer some questions being asked about the San Tan, Johnson Ranch area. I believe that the San Tan Flats situation is one that is completely out of control. They should leave the buisness alone, and let people dance, and drop the suit filed against them.It is a complete waste of taxpayer money, and use of Short staffed Sheriffs dept. WE have bigger problems than dancing, and we should concentrate on other problems. I work 14 hour days ,and only have a short time at night to answer questions. Please post a new question for tommorrow and I will answer as soon as I can, I look forward to hearing some interesting feedback. Bear with me as I am farily new at this blog stuff.
Hi Todd. Thank you so much for caring enough about us in the Johnson Ranch area, for lack of a better description, to come on here and attempt to answer our questions. A good indication of one of the assets of a good leader: Courage.
Besides Pipeman's question, could you take a look at the Questions below in the first post on this topic, that I wrote to Bryan about our area's problems. Could you try to give us your diagnosis of our problems and the remedy you will devise to cure it?
Thanks again for having the decency, interest and courage to come on this public site and try to answer our concerns in a town/oops area, you don't even live in, but will have responsibility for, if you win the election. Thanks for "thinking" about us.
Last edited on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 02:07 pm by Bambi
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 518 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 11th, 2008 04:47 am |
|
Thouse wrote: Bambi, thanks for the chance to answer some questions being asked about the San Tan, Johnson Ranch area. I believe that the San Tan Flats situation is one that is completely out of control. They should leave the buisness alone, and let people dance, and drop the suit filed against them.It is a complete waste of taxpayer money, and use of Short staffed Sheriffs dept. WE have bigger problems than dancing, and we should concentrate on other problems. I work 14 hour days ,and only have a short time at night to answer questions. Please post a new question for tommorrow and I will answer as soon as I can, I look forward to hearing some interesting feedback. Bear with me as I am farily new at this blog stuff.
Todd, thanks for the response to this question but........ you say the suit should be dropped. should is a broad word. 1.Would you personally see to it that it is fact dropped? 2. how would you then deal with the one neighbor who has brought all this trouble and additional costs onto us tax payers? You need to remember that this neighbor is one who Sandie has given free reign over this area of the county for some time. I don't think he will let this go away lightly, unless of course there is something foro him in it. I hope you are not willing to make a deal with the devil on this. Not only does the suit need to be dropped, but I feel that Dale and his son are owed an apology for the financial lose to their business as well.
Question for Tuesday:
the BLCand/or San Tan Pride, or should I say certain members have been given control over this area to negotiate zoning deals with developers, land owners and the likes. What are you going to do to stop this madness with private citizens doing the job that the Supervisor and/or Pinal Count P&Z dept should be doing? What are you going to do about certain members of the BLC and/or San Tan Pride having access to county offices and department heads to have their noses in business where it does not belong?
|
| |