| Author | Post |
|---|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2790 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 29th, 2008 05:46 pm |
|
It only appears that Mr. Dotson comes on here and presents his views, then waits perhaps for another opportunity to answer questions. I have waited long enough....since April 15th for his answer.
It has been brought to my attention, that George Johnson has been asked to be a part of this organization....OurGSTAC. What is their reason for asking him to participate?
I would like to know if GSTAC intends on taking in this Big Bad Wolf, as a member of that Organization? If so, they will be indulging in a conflict of interest in my opinion. How can you work with a public service provider that is and has been derelict in his duties to the people? Find me one person who likes the guy and his service. Will you speak to him, as a forming group that wants to represent us, regarding the stench and disease ridden area by Pecan Creek? Will you ask him to remove the sludge and ecoli and hepatitis that is infested in it? Will you do this for the people, if you have indeed attempted to contact him to join your organization?
That will lend alot of credibility to your ability to represent us in the future, in my opinion. I do know for a fact that some of your members read these blogs, so I know you will receive this message. thank you.
|
azsunshine
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 427 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 11:42 pm |
|
bobdotson wrote: Dear Readers and Bloggers,
I think it time to comment first on Bryan Martyn and then on GSTAC.
I think it important to share my measure of Bryan Martyn.
I can't claim he considers me a close friend, but have come to think of him as a friend, and it is though our sharing a common experience in national service, that I'm certain we consider each other family.
I can't say I've known him all my life, but I know that though common experience of us both having chosen to serve our great nation in uniform for most of our adult lives, that I can say with confidence that I know the man.
I can't say I have been a long time witness of the compassion buried deep within him, but I have personally witnessed him give great comfort to families that have endured the ultimate sacrifice through the loss of one they cherished to the tragedy of war.
I can't say I know his politics, but I can bear witness that I know him a patriot, in every sense of the word.
I can't say he has shared with me his views on nurturing our youth, but I have witnessed him lift my own son into a noble action that my son would not have considered without Bryan Martyn's direction and encouragement.
I can't say Bryan Martyn and I have conversed on topics of integrity, justice, stewardship, public responsibility, trust, accountability, or leadership, but I can say that I know Bryan Martyn position on all these things, through more than his sworn oath to protect and preserve our constitution, but in his putting that oath into action risking his life in the face of our enemies as a combat vet in Desert Storm, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
As you can see, there's not much I can say about Bryan Martyn. However, it is my measure of this man, that I am thrilled that such a man, a selfless native of Arizona, has indicated his willingness to continue to serve and has stepped forward, willing to serve us, and is a man, a leader, I am willing to have serve me.
These thoughts are all mine, and have not been coordinated with, or endorsed by Bryan Martyn. If you think that you might like to see the name of such a man appear on this fall's ballot for District 2 Pinal County Board of Supervisors, feel free to contact me to learn how you might help make that happen.
And now I would like to share some thoughts on GSTAC.
Community organizations need to begin somewhere, and as they have in the past, with all of the past failed attempts at organizing this community, it usually is a group of like minded citizens that get together and start talking about how to get things rolling. These groups have not been government run, ordered, or sanctioned, nor are they bound by ARS public meeting requirements. They have been private citizens, exercising their constitutional right to freely associate with whom they wish. Once these private groups cross into the realm of incorporation, annexation, or formation of a tax district, then the ARS public meeting requirements come into play.
So, at this point the GSTAC CORE team is just a bunch of private citizens freely associating with whom they choose, and are free to disclose any part of their activities or ideas they desire, with whom they desire.
I feel fortunate that the GSTAC CORE team thought of me, a resident in Unincorporated Northern Pinal County (UNPC), as someone they thought might be interested in their proposition, and valued my input enough to invite me to the first meetings for people that were not on their CORE team.
At those meetings, the GSTAC CORE team made it clear to those that attended, that GSTAC currently has no moral or any other authority to speak for anyone in the proposed boundary area, other than for the consensus of ideas that the GSTAC CORE team might achieve, and representing only themselves. So, acknowledging that constraint, GSTAC CORE team has identified several approaches to legitimizing GSTAC as a vehicle to representing common interests for the GSTAC proposed boundary population. They are seeking endorsement and recognition by other NGOs and interested governments. The will eventually be seeking formal non-profit status. But probably the most important thing that they have proposed, is that once the initial Extended Visioning Team is identified, which will consist of resident volunteers from each proposed district, people willing to step forward to volunteer for a short period, that high on the GSTAC list of priorities, recognizing the need to have the community embrace the 'representative' nature of the organization they desire to achieve, will be holding district elections to replace early Extended Visioning Team and CORE members with those that can be considered truly 'representative' of their respective districts. It will be those 'elected' representatives' that will set the agenda and priorities for GSTAC, not the GSTAC CORE team. The GSTAC CORE team has not proposed any agenda, or position and are just facilitators trying to get the greater UNPC moving in a direction that could be considered 'community'.
The GSTAC CORE team currently has no power, because the power is held by the people, and with the GSTAC CORE team approach, assures that the power remains with the citizens of UNPC. That is the way it is and should be. There is no secret conspiracy like some might imagine, and the only thing to fear, is the status quo that could result if GSTAC fails.
I intend to support the GSTAC initiative, and I encourage all in UNPC to do so as well, or if not, to at least step back and give GSTAC a chance to see what it might achieve. If the principles the GSTAC CORE team have stated up front are adhered to, the citizens of UNPC will be the benefactors.
Respectfully,
Bob Dotson
San Tan Foothills (The Rurals)
Not in Queen Creek, Az 85242
Help me understand please. What I get from this is that currently they only represent themselves but in the future they will hold elections (at all levels?) and then be representatives to our area--then will they have a moral obiligation to adhere to some kind of what? Really trying to crasp what you are trying to say. Thank you.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2110 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 11:39 pm |
|
I agree with your assessment of Brian Bambi. He is not a yes man, and does not just tell you what you want to hear.
Leadership skills...absolutely. Family man, open honest and very determined. And like you said he is approachable by all. He would be a valuable asset for Pinal county and ALL of it's residents
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2790 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 11:21 pm |
|
Bob. You are to be admired for your observations of Bryan. He is indeed a fine man. He's also to be admired for his leadership abilities. I have met both candidates running for Supervisor of our District and have listened to what they have to offer us here in the San Tans. I've observed them; checked out their history; listened to them. After my evaluations, I decided that Bryan was indeed the best candidate for our area. Reasons?
He's young and has a family, so can represent the majority and identify with their needs, without any conflict; He's intelligent, so I feel he can figure out the "mess" we are in and solve it; He has good leadership qualities, that will raise our confidence level back up to a less stressful condition; He's unbiased....look, he met with me. We discovered we think very much alike and seek the same things for our families; He has excellent plans to facilitate the bringing of industry and retail into our area that will bring us the needed revenue to climb out of this abyss; He's proactive; pro open space; pro preserving our natural legacys, by his involment in the Superstition Vistas project.
So, he was "grilled over" by myself, Char and Amy G., and I think we came away with the same feeling....he's our man. So, we plan on holding a big event here to promote him and win the vote for him. Sometime end of May or beginnning of June. He will tell you what he' all about and then he will go around and talk to you on an individual level. We have to be sure to vote the right guy in office, or we will have another 4 years of ?..............
Now, the part about the GSTAC. We are not a member of that organization, nor do we plan on becoming a part of that Coalition. It's nice that you were invited to attend the meeting....we (3 or 4 of us that belonged to the Chamber) had asked a year ago to be a part of this, and were not invited. But that was yesterday. We are forming our own loose knit group, who will pursue the options of incorporation, so we can keep our revenue in our area to be used for our benefit, and place people in places of power who are elected by the majority of local residents. Self Determination is a qualilty that is difficult to extinguish, expecially in the young. We have promised Bryan and ourselves, that we will remain focused on our objectives, and not interfere with the Coalition. If we don't meet our objective, then we will still have a separate voice, as a group of "loose knit" residents, who desire to convey our needs directly to the Decider....Bryan, as he will listen to "single" voices as well as Coalitions, and give just as much credance to them, if they are "right".....just the way it's set up now with Sandie, where we email and go direct to her.
So, having said that, I wish the Coalition well on their venture. Let the people decide for themselves which direction they want to go. In the meantime, we will be on an Exploration journey for self determination. If we make it, then wonderful. If we don't then we accept that too. Join us if you like, as this will take some time to accomplish. Check with Amy G. on her site; http://www.SanTanEvents.com She is the Administrator of that site. Or go to Char's site; http://www.oursantanfoothills.org and catch us there. We're all on the same page.
Last edited on Tue Apr 15th, 2008 11:24 pm by Bambi
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 595 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 05:40 pm |
|
While this group may not be required to do anything by law they will not have any moral authority if they are percieved as secret or biased. So far they have been both so they do not have my confidence. I have yet to hear a single member of this CORE team that has a different view away from Gordon Brown.
Without confidence you will not get my support.
|
bobdotson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 20th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 26 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 04:23 pm |
|
Dear Readers and Bloggers,
I think it time to comment first on Bryan Martyn and then on GSTAC.
I think it important to share my measure of Bryan Martyn.
I can't claim he considers me a close friend, but have come to think of him as a friend, and it is though our sharing a common experience in national service, that I'm certain we consider each other family.
I can't say I've known him all my life, but I know that though common experience of us both having chosen to serve our great nation in uniform for most of our adult lives, that I can say with confidence that I know the man.
I can't say I have been a long time witness of the compassion buried deep within him, but I have personally witnessed him give great comfort to families that have endured the ultimate sacrifice through the loss of one they cherished to the tragedy of war.
I can't say I know his politics, but I can bear witness that I know him a patriot, in every sense of the word.
I can't say he has shared with me his views on nurturing our youth, but I have witnessed him lift my own son into a noble action that my son would not have considered without Bryan Martyn's direction and encouragement.
I can't say Bryan Martyn and I have conversed on topics of integrity, justice, stewardship, public responsibility, trust, accountability, or leadership, but I can say that I know Bryan Martyn position on all these things, through more than his sworn oath to protect and preserve our constitution, but in his putting that oath into action risking his life in the face of our enemies as a combat vet in Desert Storm, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
As you can see, there's not much I can say about Bryan Martyn. However, it is my measure of this man, that I am thrilled that such a man, a selfless native of Arizona, has indicated his willingness to continue to serve and has stepped forward, willing to serve us, and is a man, a leader, I am willing to have serve me.
These thoughts are all mine, and have not been coordinated with, or endorsed by Bryan Martyn. If you think that you might like to see the name of such a man appear on this fall's ballot for District 2 Pinal County Board of Supervisors, feel free to contact me to learn how you might help make that happen.
And now I would like to share some thoughts on GSTAC.
Community organizations need to begin somewhere, and as they have in the past, with all of the past failed attempts at organizing this community, it usually is a group of like minded citizens that get together and start talking about how to get things rolling. These groups have not been government run, ordered, or sanctioned, nor are they bound by ARS public meeting requirements. They have been private citizens, exercising their constitutional right to freely associate with whom they wish. Once these private groups cross into the realm of incorporation, annexation, or formation of a tax district, then the ARS public meeting requirements come into play.
So, at this point the GSTAC CORE team is just a bunch of private citizens freely associating with whom they choose, and are free to disclose any part of their activities or ideas they desire, with whom they desire.
I feel fortunate that the GSTAC CORE team thought of me, a resident in Unincorporated Northern Pinal County (UNPC), as someone they thought might be interested in their proposition, and valued my input enough to invite me to the first meetings for people that were not on their CORE team.
At those meetings, the GSTAC CORE team made it clear to those that attended, that GSTAC currently has no moral or any other authority to speak for anyone in the proposed boundary area, other than for the consensus of ideas that the GSTAC CORE team might achieve, and representing only themselves. So, acknowledging that constraint, GSTAC CORE team has identified several approaches to legitimizing GSTAC as a vehicle to representing common interests for the GSTAC proposed boundary population. They are seeking endorsement and recognition by other NGOs and interested governments. The will eventually be seeking formal non-profit status. But probably the most important thing that they have proposed, is that once the initial Extended Visioning Team is identified, which will consist of resident volunteers from each proposed district, people willing to step forward to volunteer for a short period, that high on the GSTAC list of priorities, recognizing the need to have the community embrace the 'representative' nature of the organization they desire to achieve, will be holding district elections to replace early Extended Visioning Team and CORE members with those that can be considered truly 'representative' of their respective districts. It will be those 'elected' representatives' that will set the agenda and priorities for GSTAC, not the GSTAC CORE team. The GSTAC CORE team has not proposed any agenda, or position and are just facilitators trying to get the greater UNPC moving in a direction that could be considered 'community'.
The GSTAC CORE team currently has no power, because the power is held by the people, and with the GSTAC CORE team approach, assures that the power remains with the citizens of UNPC. That is the way it is and should be. There is no secret conspiracy like some might imagine, and the only thing to fear, is the status quo that could result if GSTAC fails.
I intend to support the GSTAC initiative, and I encourage all in UNPC to do so as well, or if not, to at least step back and give GSTAC a chance to see what it might achieve. If the principles the GSTAC CORE team have stated up front are adhered to, the citizens of UNPC will be the benefactors.
Respectfully,
Bob Dotson
San Tan Foothills (The Rurals)
Not in Queen Creek, Az 85242
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2790 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 01:48 pm |
|
Once again, thank you for your good contributions. One thing about me, I like to make things happen. Good things mind you. Children come first; adults second.
Now, having said that, let's continue on this journey of discovery.
Regarding Florence? Already on that. Have already had some meetings, more on the horizon. Problem in the Past? Too much harrassment from the no city group impacted their decisions. Won't have that again, as the coalition has said they will not interfere in the incorporation process.
Q.C.? Gave us their permission already.
Mesa, Gilbert; my old hometowns. Piece of cake.
The county? all possible candidates have said they will not interfere.
Who's left?
Someone said they saw in the paper I was running for Supervisor. Not true. I am not running for supervisor. I only picked up a packet to find out just what is in the packet, as signing up for it is the only way to discover that.
|
History_101
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 185 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 11:23 am |
|
Bambi wrote: I know it will be a "struggle" I know there are pitfalls out there. But we are still in the "discovery" period. We are exploring. Yes, we want to be a "city" in the "loose" definition of the term, but what is involved getting there is what has to be explored and analyzed. That comes before the assessment in my opinion. If it's not feasible, why go the distance?
And it's not just me. In fact it's the desire of the younger crowd. I am only here to advise them, and to point the direction during their period of discovery. It's up to them to pursue it, if they decide to. It's normal to seek self governance, so let them proceed.
Bambi,
It has been said before and I’ll say it again, it is easy to say let’s incorporate into a city; however, there are many legal requirements that must be first met even before the first signature can be obtained on a petition.
The largest hurdle you have to overcome is obtaining resolutions from towns/cities within 6 miles of your proposed boundaries. Specifically, the law states that no territory may be incorporated, unless certain conditions are met, if it is located within:
1. Six miles of an incorporated city or town having a population of 5,000 or more; or within
2. Three miles of an incorporated city or town having a population of less than 5,000 as shown by the most recent Federal census.
The county board of supervisors does not have jurisdiction to take action upon a petition for incorporation in an urbanized area unless each city or town within the three or six mile vicinity has passed a resolution approving the proposed incorporation.
What this means is you’d have to have an approved resolution from Gilbert, Mesa, Queen Creek and Florence. Now Gilbert and Mesa would probably be a slam dunk and maybe even Queen Creek; however, Florence won’t be that easy. The six mile line from the Florence city limits comes all the way up to Bella Vista so there is no way to incorporate anything east of Bella Vista without a Florence approval on a resolution. You must also understand Queen Creek and Florence has put most, if not all, of the San Tan area into their “Planning Areas”. This means there is some interest coming from those towns/cities for that area. Florence is currently in the process of annexing a part of Magic Ranch. They are coming west and over time, they will annex up to Gary Road which is all within their planning area. Yes, the residents do have a choice and that is, 1) become part of Florence or 2) remain unincorporated. That will be your only choices.
So, before you get all excited and stir up the tribe, a telephone call to Florence might be in order asking how they felt about a new stand alone city taking over some of their planning area. If they have no objections, you’re home free but if they show objection, you’d just be beating a dead horse to even try to continue. JMO
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2790 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 02:30 am |
|
I know it will be a "struggle" I know there are pitfalls out there. But we are still in the "discovery" period. We are exploring. Yes, we want to be a "city" in the "loose" definition of the term, but what is involved getting there is what has to be explored and analyzed. That comes before the assessment in my opinion. If it's not feasible, why go the distance?
And it's not just me. In fact it's the desire of the younger crowd. I am only here to advise them, and to point the direction during their period of discovery. It's up to them to pursue it, if they decide to. It's normal to seek self governance, so let them proceed.
|
History_101
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 185 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 02:13 am |
|
Banbi,
Again, gk has it correct. Mr. Farrell and Mr. Buss spoke before several venues about their incorporation effort. They stated they had talked to 8 different areas that were trying to incorporate and none of the 8 had been successful. If you remember, Arizona City just tried again not to long ago and it to failed. There must be a reason for all of the failures. One of the main reasons Maricopa City incorporated was to improve public safety. They indicated it would take up to 2 hours to get a sheriff on site after a call was placed. With the location of Maricopa City that could have been true. Actually after incorporation the number of officers available decreased in that area. Another reason was to improve the roads in and out of the city. Well, to date, and I believe they incorporated in 2004; nothing has changed with regards to roads. Much like nothing would immediately happen in the San Tan area either. Maricopa City had hoped to get impact fees from the developers, but do you remember the agreement the builders have with the County? Well, they didn’t get what they were expecting and it almost bankrupts them. They were banking on 600 new building permits per month and we all know today that number might be at 60 or less for that area.
Bambi if you are considering an incorporation effort, have you thought about the funding necessary for such an adventure? Funding an incorporation drive is a formidable task. Donors and those organizing the drive are responsible for all costs incurred before incorporation, and these costs are not refunded after the city or town successfully incorporates. While the cost of funding an incorporation drive can vary widely, be prepared to incur the following costs:
• Attorney-related costs
• Engineering-related costs, such as for drawing boundaries
• Fees to the county recorder's office for lists of registered voters
• Costs associated with obtaining budget estimates and other community assessments
• Costs associated with flyers and pamphlets publicizing incorporation
• Costs associated with dinners, coffees, and other informational public meetings
Incorporation drives are governed by Arizona’s political campaign contribution laws, which require that reports of all contributions and expenses be made available to the general public.
Have you done a Community Assessment? Before starting an incorporation effort, it is important that the unincorporated community conduct a thorough community assessment. While there is no legal requirement to conduct a community assessment, the decision whether to incorporate should be a well-informed one. The information accumulated during this step can later be used to justify support for or opposition to incorporation, and to inform voters. If the community does incorporate, then this information can be useful to the first town council.
What to include in a community assessment:
• Analyze the reasons both for incorporating and for not incorporating.
• Analyze any past efforts to incorporate or change governmental forms and boundaries.
• Decide where the boundaries will fall.
• Analyze the community’s characteristics, strengths, weaknesses, and major issues.
• Analyze existing services and governing arrangements.
• Estimate potential revenues.
• Estimate potential expenditures, including what services the town wants to provide and how they will be provided.
• Analyze alternatives to incorporation: status quo, county formation, annexation, special districts, community councils, and colonias.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2110 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 01:55 am |
|
Bambi,
You really can't compare Maricopa to this area as far as incorporation goes. At the time they were talking about Incorporation some of us were attending those meetings. What I came away with was the Incorporation may be best for them. An entire situation. It made sense for them to Incorporate, but it is different here.
Maricpoa incorporated before the building boom and was able to initiate development fees right out of the gate. We don't have that option
The driving force behind Maricopa Incorporation was a guy that was part of a long standing family renchers and they held land there. Also as he told us he had started with a line of credit from a bank, due to connections with his ranching family history.
There were other reasons why incorporation made sense for them, but we cannot compare to their situation.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2790 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 01:45 am |
|
More good information. thanks. Now where can I find an entity, that could analyze data, to ascertain whether it is a viable option or not. I am a layman, as yourself. I would think that a "think tank" exists that is capable of analyzing this and responding. No money for studies, so must look to agencies for advice. Have lots of people lined up to discuss this with, but need as much input as possible to make an informed decision. And the input should be published so all can view it and decide. This is an excellent venue, as is my own site, to disperse this information and studies.
It's for our benefit, so it behooves us to research and understand and share that understanding with the residents.
|
History_101
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 185 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 01:16 am |
|
Oh, sorry. Colorful, well that's gk.
For incorporation:
• Local control over the provision of services
• Local representation: a city or town council will be more responsive and more accessible because it will be closer
• Preserve the community’s identity
• Greater control of growth and land-use through planning and zoning powers
• City or town will receive state-shared revenues directly
• Eliminate the threat of annexation or other boundary intrusions from surrounding cities and towns
• Better representation in regional issues, as well as better representation in county, state and federal governments
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2790 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 12:28 am |
|
Thank you History for your input. Very good information to digest. Keep it coming. I'm personally not in a huge hurry. Doesn't hurt to throw in what benefit one would get from incorporating, if you choose to. I love to learn. And didn't you say you were a part of the incorporation movement, and if so, why did you join them?
I'd like to discover if apathy was also a factor in Maricopa's incorporation process, and if so, how they handled it. I really think that the City of Maricopa will be a pretty good comparison of what's in store for us, but won't know for sure till I talk to them. Q.C. has stated annexation is not a option. I personally don't want to annex into any other cities. Now, we're back to the status quo.... County government, where our hard earned tax dollars and revenue will be shared with everyone.
....by the way. I was not referring to Gene's list. I was refering to his....let's say choice of colorful words to describe people.
|
History_101
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 185 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 10:54 pm |
|
Bambi wrote: Oh Gene. What would we do without you? And you're way of expressing yourself...LOL.
I'm glad you brought up Maricopa. We are having several meetings with those who are giving us insight into becoming incorporated. I imagine this will continue, until we have gathered enough information to make an informed decision. I will include your "colorful" imput to take into consideration. And now, I will seek Maricopa's advice.
I would welcome other's input as to why they are against it. I pretty well know all the reasons for it, but certainly we have to explore both sides.
Thank you.
Bambi,
You might get LOL out of what gk posted; however, he has a valid point on most of what he said. Here is some more.
Against incorporation:
• Increased taxes. All 88 incorporated cities and towns in Arizona adopted a sales tax after incorporating, typically 2 percent or 3 percent. In addition, more than half of the cities and towns adopted a primary property tax, and more than a quarter adopted a secondary property tax.
• Inadequate revenue base with which to operate a city or town, in relation to population and service needs. For example, if the community is a bedroom community; that is, a community in which residents live but commute to a larger, urban city or town for jobs, shopping, or entertainment, it may lack a sufficient revenue base. In this case, being annexed to the larger, urban city or town may be more preferable. Also, a community with a small, dispersed population and limited growth potential may experience a high cost for services in relation to its population.
• Duplication of costs: paying twice for services, once to the county and once to the new city or town.
• More bureaucracy because of additional layers of government. Some also argue that this makes government more accessible to special interests.
• Community is small and part of a larger metropolitan area. Incorporation could result in duplication of services, a lack of coordination in dealing with growth and growth-related issues, and a lower level of services than could be received if the community was instead annexed to an existing city or town in the metro area.
• Community is rural in nature and wants to incorporate to control higher density growth. Incorporation could actually encourage unwanted growth and urbanization.
• Community lacks political experience and leadership, has low levels of public participation, and lacks a community identity. This may be discovered after beginning the incorporation drive. For example, does the incorporation drive have weak leadership or lack community participation? Do residents tend to identify with a larger, metropolitan area?
• Incorporation will adversely affect surrounding communities.
• Fear of the unknown. Examples include uncertainty over who will govern the town and what decisions they will make, what services will be provided, and what taxes will be levied.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2790 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 10:37 pm |
|
Oh Gene. What would we do without you? And you're way of expressing yourself...LOL.
I'm glad you brought up Maricopa. We are having several meetings with those who are giving us insight into becoming incorporated. I imagine this will continue, until we have gathered enough information to make an informed decision. I will include your "colorful" imput to take into consideration. And now, I will seek Maricopa's advice.
I would welcome other's input as to why they are against it. I pretty well know all the reasons for it, but certainly we have to explore both sides.
Thank you.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2110 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 10:26 pm |
|
Bambi,
Keeping personalities out of it I found many reasons that I believed Incorporation would be less than expected and even worse than County Government
1. I hear that people locally need to be representing the community by election so that the needs of the community are acted upon. The people that usually run for these offices are not the best representatives. You only have to look as far as Queen Creek to see persons that represent their own personal wishes above the town. Look what we have to chose from for PResident. A habitual liar who does not know truth from a lie and carries more baggage than a rail car. A senile old war monger who will likely die in office or get us into more eternal war. A closet Muslim who hates whites and has a gay history which will influence his decisions. IS THIS DEMOCRACY AT WORK??? And no matter who would be elected for a town council someone, somewhere will find fault with them and still continue on with the bickering and fighting
2. There is limited land available for growth and infrastructure. Where would the government reside? A Mormon church? a School Cafeteria, a temporary double wide that someone will donate the land space to use until the city is able to do something. Developers are sure not going to donate land for that. The majority land has been platted, uses have been planned for and there is no room for growth to the south, the west, the north or the east. Also much of the land has issues with fissures, water runoff and just plain not enough water in the water table to support growth. An yes....this is George's fault.
3. A city cannot just go out and build roads any where they want to. They would have the exact same issues as the county has, money, right of way etc. No net gain on roads
4. I believe that the county would be in a much better position to attract manufacturing and severly needed jobs than a city could.
5. We would experience a steep loss of law enforcement. A city could not afford to take it over for many years and in the meantime they would have to contract with PCSO for law enforcement. What that means is the we would all have to pay extra for what we currently have from the county. And to afford they would have to contract fewer resources.
4. Most everyone already has trash pickup, parks, trails, water, sewer etc. A city would have to purchase those if they wanted to provide them. Florence found out how futile that would be.
THere are many reasons and it would take more time and space than I have now to present those, but the bottom line is................WHAT CAN WE REALLY EXPECT A CITY TO GIVE US, THAT WILL COST A WHOLE LOT MORE THAN WE CURRENTLY PAY, THAT WE DON'T ALREADY HAVE
I KNOW THERE ARE ALL OF THOSE FEEL GOOD REASONS GIVEN FOR A CITY.......LOCAL REPRESENTATION, CREATE YOUR OWN FUTURE, ACCOUNTABILITY ETC ETC..................BUT HOW DOES THAT REALLY AFFECT THE REALITY OF THINGS?
BTW - Maricopa now recognizes that the party is over for them. Once given as a prime example of what a city can do is now facing many probelms and issues.
Last edited on Mon Apr 14th, 2008 10:31 pm by gk
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2790 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 10:22 pm |
|
azsunshine wrote: dansjensdad wrote: Holy Cow!!
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/113659
Is that a diss coming from dansjensdad towards Brown? Whats next? Are you going to come out and say secret non public meetings for a year is BAD and non elected representatives are also BAD?
This comment obviously came from someone who "thinks" they know something about some relationship I have with Mr. Brown.
Not disrespectful? Not smartass remarks? Right...
Never mind then.
Damn I am such I liar today. Your right--I did think you had a relationship with Brown--my "thinking" came from an earlier post by Bambi in which she posted an email from Brown in which dansjensdad was a receiver--sorry if I was wrong. Relationship or not, I wasn't the one being disrespectful of someone's language use. Sorry if you find that to be a smartass.
Ben. He's talking about the email that I posted on here that you received along with others, when you were still with the BLC.
This is a communication problem gentlemen. Let's go forward. Ben is no longer with that group. He seeks the same as we do.....the truth.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 595 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 10:12 pm |
|
| Call me dense or old-fashion but I did not read that into the remark myself. What I saw was someone commenting on a person percieved to be a friend of Gordon's and possibly turning on him. By the way I agree 100% of your comments about Gordon. He seems to think that he can use wierd analogies and big words to impress us. I think it just makes him look like a blowhard
|
azsunshine
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 427 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 09:55 pm |
|
dansjensdad wrote: Holy Cow!!
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/113659
Is that a diss coming from dansjensdad towards Brown? Whats next? Are you going to come out and say secret non public meetings for a year is BAD and non elected representatives are also BAD?
This comment obviously came from someone who "thinks" they know something about some relationship I have with Mr. Brown.
Not disrespectful? Not smartass remarks? Right...
Never mind then.
Damn I am such I liar today. Your right--I did think you had a relationship with Brown--my "thinking" came from an earlier post by Bambi in which she posted an email from Brown in which dansjensdad was a receiver--sorry if I was wrong. Relationship or not, I wasn't the one being disrespectful of someone's language use. Sorry if you find that to be a smartass.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2790 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 09:42 pm |
|
Now Gene. You know who Ben is. I know who Ben is. But others don't on here. No need for you and I to get into this.
Now, I have tried to research community council's effectiveness, and I keep getting steered to Europe or Australia and Scottland. I found one operating in Anchorage, but under the municipality and the other government bodies of elected officials. They also belong to a national organization of community councils, who oversee them. Will this one incorporate this overseerer, by belonging to their organization and who will pay the dues?
Gene. If you want to fight a city, you have every right to do so. Clean fights are the best, but resistance is to be expected.
What I asked you was for advice. I seek not to hear about their conflict of personalities, but what was researched or discovered, that caused you to not want to become a city? share that with us, that's all I'm asking. Tell us what you discovered that is causing you to be so adamant about not becoming incorporated?
Last edited on Mon Apr 14th, 2008 10:19 pm by Bambi
|
dansjensdad
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 09:38 pm |
|
Holy Cow!!
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/113659
Is that a diss coming from dansjensdad towards Brown? Whats next? Are you going to come out and say secret non public meetings for a year is BAD and non elected representatives are also BAD?
This comment obviously came from someone who "thinks" they know something about some relationship I have with Mr. Brown.
Not disrespectful? Not smartass remarks? Right...
Never mind then.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2110 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 09:35 pm |
|
Actually I gave my name, address and phone number on here several times in the past. And that ted goof always repeats it at his every opportunity.
And there is not a pissing match about who is known or not.....it is a simple issue of personal conviction for your beliefs.
For all anyone knows.......you and pipe and ted could all be the same person holding a grudge because their city failed to be a reality. Who knows?
Last edited on Mon Apr 14th, 2008 09:37 pm by gk
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 595 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 09:22 pm |
|
gk wrote: Ben,
It seems to be a case on here of................I want to say what I want to....but I don't want to be associated with my comments. I don't know the guy, who is that jerk?
A simple lack of conviction, or a way to stew the pot without being responsible
gk,
Although I know what your real name is I still have no clue who you are either. And your name is not known because you have advertised it. It is because there are folks on here that know you and your reputation. You too are hiding behind a psuedoname.
Please folks do not let this degrade into a pissing match of who is more or better known. This is about issues that we are concerned about.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2110 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 09:16 pm |
|
Ben,
It seems to be a case on here of................I want to say what I want to....but I don't want to be associated with my comments. I don't know the guy, who is that jerk?
A simple lack of conviction, or a way to stew the pot without being responsible
|
azsunshine
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 427 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 09:13 pm |
|
dansjensdad wrote: azsunshine wrote: Holy Cow!!
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/113659
Is that a diss coming from dansjensdad towards Brown? Whats next? Are you going to come out and say secret non public meetings for a year is BAD and non elected representatives are also BAD?
To paraphrase Bart Simpson:
"I'm Ben Lowe. Who the hell are you?"
This is the last time I will respond to an anonymous smartass (and I'm being kind to use the word "smart").
I also find it very interesting that there are so many unknown individuals that DEMAND accountability from the few that are willing to put their names "out there".
I may have said somethings that is a little too close to home for some people on here( this and I guess the issue about property taxes) but never ever have I been disrespectful or called someone names. This coming from an unknown individual that tries to show restraint. Funny how some other posters with real names step so low as to call names.
I guess if wanting an election for the Core members makes me demanding-so be it. Doesn't make me a bad person. Status quo is better than this. At least the elected officials we can vote for. Now we will have a group that will represent them selfes as the "majority" with out even a vote. Besides, the only one on here that I was asking questions to was gk--and I have never DEMANDED anything from him--just conversations and different points of view.
One more thing and that is all I am going to say--If you didn't want someone to comment on your posting on the internet---why did you post it on a BLOG?
Ok I lied one more thing... I could care less about Browns choice of words or his choice of use of the English language....I care more about the ideas and impact its going to have on our community.
Last edited on Mon Apr 14th, 2008 09:34 pm by azsunshine
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2110 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 09:13 pm |
|
I forgot......
if you want to try to incorporate.....go ahead. I just don't think it will be under the GSTAC flag. Again........I may be wrong.
By the same token........if myself or others feel that Incorporation is not the answer then it is only natural to expect opposition to incorporation.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 595 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 09:10 pm |
|
dansjensdad wrote: I also find it very interesting that there are so many unknown individuals that DEMAND accountabilty from the few that are willing to put their names "out there".
Anonymity is the nature of these blogs. It is a new tool for us to communicate our views and opinions. I suggest they listen to our message and not just shoot the messenger. I have every right to whine (as GK describes it) or complain whether you know me or not. What difference does it make to you anyways? Is my opinion worth less because you don't know me? What if I gave my whole name and you still did not recognize it? Does that mean it is still meaningless?
Personally I have no idea who Ben Lowe is. To me it does not matter. Ben Lowe or dansjensdad has an opinion to be expressed and should be heard. I also find it interesting that you used dansjendad as your name on the news comment. I saw nothing about Ben Lowe but the comment had the same impact on me regardless.
Last edited on Mon Apr 14th, 2008 09:24 pm by JJohnson
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2110 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 09:09 pm |
|
Bambi,
They have stated that they do not take a stance on incorporation or no incorporation.
That is in their purvue as I understand it. I may be wrong.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2790 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 09:06 pm |
|
gk wrote: Bambi,
I would be very surprised if anyone from GSTAC tried to converse on this forum. It always.......ALWAYS degrades into a venom spewed argument that does nothing but piss people off!
Personally, I think it would be a mistake for any one of them to try and converse on this forum. There are a lot more people involved in the community than visit this hotbed of hatred
jmoo
Then ask them to come on the new forum. http://www.oursantanfoothills.org No one will harass them there. It has not happened yet, nor will it happen. Your thoughts are yours to post freely, without fear of downgrading reprisal. But, it provides for give and take. Not just giving.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2790 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 09:02 pm |
|
gk wrote: And that is another reason I am not a part of GSTAC.
I think the idea of Incorporation is a bad one.
Explain your comment please. Help us see the pitfalls, so we can determine how to overcome them or if they can be overcome.
If it is not the will of the GSTAC to interfere in the efforts of incorporation, and it is not their intent to be a legislative governing body, then why not work hand in hand with those that desire incorporation? GSTAC states they will work hand in hand with the other legislative bodies, so I'm sure they are not precluding a city council.
Ask them gk.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 595 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 08:55 pm |
|
gk wrote: And that is another reason I am not a part of GSTAC.
I think the idea of Incorporation is a bad one.
But this status quo is a better option?????
|
dansjensdad
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 08:54 pm |
|
azsunshine wrote: Holy Cow!!
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/113659
Is that a diss coming from dansjensdad towards Brown? Whats next? Are you going to come out and say secret non public meetings for a year is BAD and non elected representatives are also BAD?
To paraphrase Bart Simpson:
"I'm Ben Lowe. Who the hell are you?"
This is the last time I will respond to an anonymous smartass (and I'm being kind to use the word "smart").
I also find it very interesting that there are so many unknown individuals that DEMAND accountability from the few that are willing to put their names "out there".
Last edited on Mon Apr 14th, 2008 08:58 pm by dansjensdad
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2110 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 08:50 pm |
|
And that is another reason I am not a part of GSTAC.
I think the idea of Incorporation is a bad one.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2790 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 08:34 pm |
|
gk wrote: I think you are misunderstanding the entire idea of GSTAC.
As I understand it all of these players are involved, (not to determine your destiny) but to participate in an entirely new idea. I really hate the term"thinking outside the box" but maybe that is just what this is. A new way of doing things.
Everyone that is involved in all segments of the community cooperating in a common forum to adress the issues that affect us all. This may be the absolute best way for people to understand ALL of the issues inviolved in a community. HOw many people really understand where the developers, the county, the businessmen and the organizations are all coming from? What affects them! What moves their thinking! My personal opinion is that this is by far the very best opportunity for everyone to understand where the other one is coming from, what drives their decisions. Hopefully if will foster a better cooperation from all of the players involved to move things forward faster, more efficiently and more fairly.
All of these players will need to work with the other at some point in any thing that goes forward, ie Developments, county transportation, permits, placating the organizations, the businessmen etc. It's a new and novel idea......Work together at the beginning!
How can this be wrong??? So what you don't like Gordon or George Johnson or whoever........the fact of the matter is that they are still going to be there, you can't exclude them from the community.
I respect the GSTAC mission and all of it's participants, I only wish that I could be so open to participate. But I won't be complaining
Geeze.....your writing was much less intimidating than your last post. Makes we want to use light print.
How can it be wrong to include these developers and utility owners you ask?. Not wrong to include them. Wrong in having them on board in the beginning as "appointed" parties in the brain storming and "putting together" of what is representative of the People....not those out of towners who serve them. Their motives are purely profit motivated. I've been at those tables where developers and the people meet, and they are always on two different pages.
How dare these Developers tell us that they have planned for our future growth and development? And what kind leaders would allow that to happen? What we used to call a few years back, bedfellows.
All you're doing is creating another layer of a quasi government, as you have stated in your website....a voice for 46,000 people. A city can be that voice, with elected officials from the very beginning. And a city is what the younger people are going to attempt, to make sure that you honor those words in the website...."the GSTAC does not preclude any efforts by others, to incorporate." So, do not interfere with us and we will not interfere with you. That includes going to other cities and entities to talk them out of our proposals. It was done before. But not again. The People are going to be the Founding Fathers of this Area......not a group of developers, businessmen and utility company owners.
Pass that on to them would you please gk. thank you.
Last edited on Mon Apr 14th, 2008 08:39 pm by Bambi
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 595 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 08:29 pm |
|
gk wrote: Bambi,
I would be very surprised if anyone from GSTAC tried to converse on this forum. It always.......ALWAYS degrades into a venom spewed argument that does nothing but piss people off!
Personally, I think it would be a mistake for any one of them to try and converse on this forum. There are a lot more people involved in the community than visit this hotbed of hatred
jmoo
So those of us with the guts to ask questions are to be avoided? Because we demand response and acocuntability we are to be left out of the process? And then they wonder why we are so mistrusting and angry?Last edited on Mon Apr 14th, 2008 08:30 pm by JJohnson
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 595 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 08:28 pm |
|
It appears that this was formed to appease the devlopers then. Is that really in the best interest of our community? Developers are pros at what they do. They can afford the high priced lawyers and public spokesman. I really don't care what the developers have to say at this point. I say we design our community around what the residents desire. After that we let the developers in to see how they will contribute to our goals. This is completely backwards and only serving the benefit of the developers. We will once agian get left holding the bag. History is getting repeated here again.
Jack and Gordon need to press the reset button and get a better representation of the community then step out of the process afterwards. If they are not willing to do this then it tells me they are in this for personal advantage.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2110 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 08:22 pm |
|
Bambi,
I would be very surprised if anyone from GSTAC tried to converse on this forum. It always.......ALWAYS degrades into a venom spewed argument that does nothing but piss people off!
Personally, I think it would be a mistake for any one of them to try and converse on this forum. There are a lot more people involved in the community than visit this hotbed of hatred
jmoo
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2110 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 08:17 pm |
|
I think you are misunderstanding the entire idea of GSTAC.
As I understand it all of these players are involved, (not to determine your destiny) but to participate in an entirely new idea. I really hate the term"thinking outside the box" but maybe that is just what this is. A new way of doing things.
Everyone that is involved in all segments of the community cooperating in a common forum to adress the issues that affect us all. This may be the absolute best way for people to understand ALL of the issues inviolved in a community. HOw many people really understand where the developers, the county, the businessmen and the organizations are all coming from? What affects them! What moves their thinking! My personal opinion is that this is by far the very best opportunity for everyone to understand where the other one is coming from, what drives their decisions. Hopefully if will foster a better cooperation from all of the players involved to move things forward faster, more efficiently and more fairly.
All of these players will need to work with the other at some point in any thing that goes forward, ie Developments, county transportation, permits, placating the organizations, the businessmen etc. It's a new and novel idea......Work together at the beginning!
How can this be wrong??? So what you don't like Gordon or George Johnson or whoever........the fact of the matter is that they are still going to be there, you can't exclude them from the community.
I respect the GSTAC mission and all of it's participants, I only wish that I could be so open to participate. But I won't be complaining
|
|
| | |