| Author | Post |
|---|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1453 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 08:52 pm |
|
You and I seem to understand the same lesson from the New Deal.
The scenario you mention can happen. A depression, theoretically, can be
so bad that a new and "improved" New Deal may be quite impossible.
Who knows?
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 07:03 pm |
|
flyrep wrote: Good questions AJBook. We should not go on as we are now. We should end
corporate welfare and find a way to phase out programs for the needy as
they operate now. Some type of authentic reform is needed. If there is
a depression worse than the 1930s all bets may be off. There may be no
money for the feds, state, and county to pass out. It seems that the Federal
Reserve couldn't have damaged the dollar any more if they tried and the feds
have a $9 trillion debt. Not good.
I agree with you about eliminating corporate welfare.
Actually... I'm very fearful that if the economy worsens to the point of the depression or something close, that a vocal minority of the struggling will push the country further towards socialism - many (most???) of the social programs we have today originated from the depression era, if I remember my history correctly.
|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1453 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 04:17 am |
|
Good questions AJBook. We should not go on as we are now. We should end
corporate welfare and find a way to phase out programs for the needy as
they operate now. Some type of authentic reform is needed. If there is
a depression worse than the 1930s all bets may be off. There may be no
money for the feds, state, and county to pass out. It seems that the Federal
Reserve couldn't have damaged the dollar any more if they tried and the feds
have a $9 trillion debt. Not good.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2259 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 12:26 am |
|
ajBookchin wrote: I've never noticed - not that I've been in the hospital much, but are patients charged sales taxes on goods and services rendered at a hospital???
I can only speculate on this but I would assume that meals and other items used by the patient and served to the patient via the hospital, are exempt from sales tax, as they will be charged to the patients bill. But meals and items "purchased" would include sales tax, whether purchased by the patient or by a guest.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 11:44 pm |
|
I've never noticed - not that I've been in the hospital much, but are patients charged sales taxes on goods and services rendered at a hospital???
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2259 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 08:56 pm |
|
Well, Queen Creek met last night and agreed to annex Banner. The paperwork has begun.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 05:07 am |
|
What about social welfare programs???
Should we continue business as usual???
Should we eliminate existing welfare programs altogether???
Should we provide "safety net" type programs - something that might assist a family at their darkest hour??? Or should we solely depend on non-profits to meet all the needs of our citizens in every situation???
Should we shift funding welfare programs to programs that assists citizens with job placement??? Possibly training and education if required or most beneficial???
What do you think???
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 05:02 am |
|
History_101 wrote: Now correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this new hospital slated to go in west of Ironwood and north of Combs? If that is correct, that area is within QC’s planning area. Please see page 21 at this link. http://www.queencreek.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=869
What you are saying is all well and good, but how do you expect the county or for that matter, if San Tan was a city, to encroach within another cities planning area? I don’t see the logic. Now maybe the county could entice them into another location within Pinal County with some sort of deal they can’t turn down, but remember, all these deals cost us residents in one way or another. Remember the next to nothing impact fee deal?
Actually... I EXPECT my city to encroach upon the planning area of another - planning areas can overlap.
Mesa has extended its planning area into Pinal County as well along the area of the proposed AZ802 Gateway Freeway, and if my community does not dispute and extend our planning area into this same region I will be outraged - in fact, I'm not sure what we are waiting on...
|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1453 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 04:24 am |
|
| Fair enough Pipeman.
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 437 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 03:55 am |
|
flyrep wrote: Pipeman,
The sheriff should let the FBI do whatever they like in our county? I don't
want to put words in your mouth. Please clarify? Was Sheriff Mack wrong for
standing up to the Justice Department when they tried to force him to carry
out their Machiavellian plan known as the Brady Bill?
Fly, then don't put words in my mouth. I never said a sheriff should let anyone (FBI, CIA, DEA, SSA ) do whatever they want in the sheriffs county. The sheriff is top dog in their own county and that is something that Phil Gordon and the Phoenix chief of police needs to understand. Sure sheriffs don't like to enter into city boundries, but they can if they must.
When I said the two things the sheriff is required to supply, I was referring to aj post of this Law enforcement (officers, detectives, courts, prison…) and your response of this I'd add posse to the law enforcement list. so please don't try to make this into something it isn't.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2259 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 03:34 am |
|
Marine1 wrote: History_101 wrote: Bambi wrote: Here's a role of County Government, and correct me if I'm wrong. We should be looking for sources of revenue to get us out of the financial abyss we are in. We should be "soliciting" revenue. Here is a source of revenue......Banner Hospital. Why are we "allowing" them to annex into Queen Creek? They state our impact fees are too high for them ($11.5 million), whereas Q.C.'s is only $4.5 million. But, Q.C. has a construction sales tax they charge, and that would amount to an additonal $10 million charged Banner, totaling $14.5 million. Pinal doesn't impose a construction sales tax.
That makes our fees better. But, I'm disappointed to read in the newspaper where Sandie says to Banner Hospital........"We're helping Banner determine which is better for the hospital" "We're fine looking into which way is better for them.""We want whatever is best for Banner Hospital"; ....no we don't. We want whats best for the taxpayers of Pinal County. We should be fighting to keep them. And if they go, Q.C. wants all the commercial next to it. There goes more revenue.
Q.C. is meeting about it on Wednesday. They will negotiate with them. What will we do to keep them? We should be at the negotiating table, doing all we can to keep them and the commercial next to them. We stand to loose millions of dollars in revenue. Cities compete for this revenue. Most governments compete for revenue. We should give them an offer they can't refuse to keep their future revenue and that of all the commercial up to Ironwood, and including Vestar to the North of them.
If we were a city, this would never have happened. We'd be competing.
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this new hospital slated to go in west of Ironwood and north of Combs? If that is correct, that area is within QC’s planning area. Please see page 21 at this link. http://www.queencreek.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=869
What you are saying is all well and good, but how do you expect the county or for that matter, if San Tan was a city, to encroach within another cities planning area? I don’t see the logic. Now maybe the county could entice them into another location within Pinal County with some sort of deal they can’t turn down, but remember, all these deals cost us residents in one way or another. Remember the next to nothing impact fee deal?
Actually History, the Banner site is just south of Combs road at Ironwood, which is just outside QC's planning area.
I think this situation is a sad statement about the inability of the current BOS to run the county.
History. How do I expect the County or a city to encroach upon another cities planning area?Planning areas? good gestures planning over someone elses property, with things you want to see on their property and with hopes of working together with the owner of that property to achieve those things, but it has no legal impact on Pinal, nor does any other planning area for that matter. You can't encroach upon your own property.
I just hope someone is negotiating with Banner that's on our side.................
This is why we need our own Economic Development Committee, to bring in industry which equates to revenue, and that's whether we become a city or stay county. It's just good business. I'm assisting Eloy in doing that now. You have to go out and solicit these big industries and developers, as they won't come to you. They often go thru State Agencies, and we're not on their list of possibilities.
Last edited on Thu Apr 17th, 2008 03:53 am by Bambi
|
Marine1
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 45 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 03:08 am |
|
History_101 wrote: Bambi wrote: Here's a role of County Government, and correct me if I'm wrong. We should be looking for sources of revenue to get us out of the financial abyss we are in. We should be "soliciting" revenue. Here is a source of revenue......Banner Hospital. Why are we "allowing" them to annex into Queen Creek? They state our impact fees are too high for them ($11.5 million), whereas Q.C.'s is only $4.5 million. But, Q.C. has a construction sales tax they charge, and that would amount to an additonal $10 million charged Banner, totaling $14.5 million. Pinal doesn't impose a construction sales tax.
That makes our fees better. But, I'm disappointed to read in the newspaper where Sandie says to Banner Hospital........"We're helping Banner determine which is better for the hospital" "We're fine looking into which way is better for them.""We want whatever is best for Banner Hospital"; ....no we don't. We want whats best for the taxpayers of Pinal County. We should be fighting to keep them. And if they go, Q.C. wants all the commercial next to it. There goes more revenue.
Q.C. is meeting about it on Wednesday. They will negotiate with them. What will we do to keep them? We should be at the negotiating table, doing all we can to keep them and the commercial next to them. We stand to loose millions of dollars in revenue. Cities compete for this revenue. Most governments compete for revenue. We should give them an offer they can't refuse to keep their future revenue and that of all the commercial up to Ironwood, and including Vestar to the North of them.
If we were a city, this would never have happened. We'd be competing.
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this new hospital slated to go in west of Ironwood and north of Combs? If that is correct, that area is within QC’s planning area. Please see page 21 at this link. http://www.queencreek.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=869
What you are saying is all well and good, but how do you expect the county or for that matter, if San Tan was a city, to encroach within another cities planning area? I don’t see the logic. Now maybe the county could entice them into another location within Pinal County with some sort of deal they can’t turn down, but remember, all these deals cost us residents in one way or another. Remember the next to nothing impact fee deal?
Actually History, the Banner site is just south of Combs road at Ironwood, which is just outside QC's planning area.
I think this situation is a sad statement about the inability of the current BOS to run the county.
|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1453 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 01:52 am |
|
Pipeman,
The sheriff should let the FBI do whatever they like in our county? I don't
want to put words in your mouth. Please clarify? Was Sheriff Mack wrong for
standing up to the Justice Department when they tried to force him to carry
out their Machiavellian plan known as the Brady Bill?
|
History_101
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 168 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 01:49 am |
|
Bambi wrote: Here's a role of County Government, and correct me if I'm wrong. We should be looking for sources of revenue to get us out of the financial abyss we are in. We should be "soliciting" revenue. Here is a source of revenue......Banner Hospital. Why are we "allowing" them to annex into Queen Creek? They state our impact fees are too high for them ($11.5 million), whereas Q.C.'s is only $4.5 million. But, Q.C. has a construction sales tax they charge, and that would amount to an additonal $10 million charged Banner, totaling $14.5 million. Pinal doesn't impose a construction sales tax.
That makes our fees better. But, I'm disappointed to read in the newspaper where Sandie says to Banner Hospital........"We're helping Banner determine which is better for the hospital" "We're fine looking into which way is better for them.""We want whatever is best for Banner Hospital"; ....no we don't. We want whats best for the taxpayers of Pinal County. We should be fighting to keep them. And if they go, Q.C. wants all the commercial next to it. There goes more revenue.
Q.C. is meeting about it on Wednesday. They will negotiate with them. What will we do to keep them? We should be at the negotiating table, doing all we can to keep them and the commercial next to them. We stand to loose millions of dollars in revenue. Cities compete for this revenue. Most governments compete for revenue. We should give them an offer they can't refuse to keep their future revenue and that of all the commercial up to Ironwood, and including Vestar to the North of them.
If we were a city, this would never have happened. We'd be competing.
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this new hospital slated to go in west of Ironwood and north of Combs? If that is correct, that area is within QC’s planning area. Please see page 21 at this link. http://www.queencreek.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=869
What you are saying is all well and good, but how do you expect the county or for that matter, if San Tan was a city, to encroach within another cities planning area? I don’t see the logic. Now maybe the county could entice them into another location within Pinal County with some sort of deal they can’t turn down, but remember, all these deals cost us residents in one way or another. Remember the next to nothing impact fee deal?
|
starleen
Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 01:42 am |
|
This seems like a business tactic on Banner's part to fire up some competition between TOQC and Pinal for the best financial future for Banner, and I can't fault Banner for doing so. It does seem like Pinal is lying down and rolling over - You'd think they'd be ready to compete with TOQC for the long term prospect of a valuable community asset, by offering exceptions to the impact fees.
I talked to a local Pinal custom home builder who mentioned the new impact fees - he doesn't intend to shoulder that burden; the expense will just go right onto the asking price of the homes he builds.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2259 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 12:37 am |
|
Here's a role of County Government, and correct me if I'm wrong. We should be looking for sources of revenue to get us out of the financial abyss we are in. We should be "soliciting" revenue. Here is a source of revenue......Banner Hospital. Why are we "allowing" them to annex into Queen Creek? They state our impact fees are too high for them ($11.5 million), whereas Q.C.'s is only $4.5 million. But, Q.C. has a construction sales tax they charge, and that would amount to an additonal $10 million charged Banner, totaling $14.5 million. Pinal doesn't impose a construction sales tax.
That makes our fees better. But, I'm disappointed to read in the newspaper where Sandie says to Banner Hospital........"We're helping Banner determine which is better for the hospital" "We're fine looking into which way is better for them.""We want whatever is best for Banner Hospital"; ....no we don't. We want whats best for the taxpayers of Pinal County. We should be fighting to keep them. And if they go, Q.C. wants all the commercial next to it. There goes more revenue.
Q.C. is meeting about it on Wednesday. They will negotiate with them. What will we do to keep them? We should be at the negotiating table, doing all we can to keep them and the commercial next to them. We stand to loose millions of dollars in revenue. Cities compete for this revenue. Most governments compete for revenue. We should give them an offer they can't refuse to keep their future revenue and that of all the commercial up to Ironwood, and including Vestar to the North of them.
If we were a city, this would never have happened. We'd be competing.
Last edited on Thu Apr 17th, 2008 12:39 am by Bambi
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 05:11 pm |
|
JJohnson wrote: I think this is a tough subject because I think it should be extremely limited but the county has branded itself as more than that. They have acted like they are the only answer to the vast county. The few towns that exist are mostly old and there is a resistence to embrace change. It is almost like they want to forget that people actually live here now. It is really odd tome that they would not want to bring about order to the chaos. If they would embrace local control through municipalities they could go back to thier rural roots and maintain the image in the remaining vastness. The folks are coming and they really don't have a clue what to do for us so they go into denial and start new projects county wide that are better suited for local areas.
If they are going to continue to not support local control through municiplaities then I will demand the higher level of services through the county. Sorry guys, that is what we expect here.
This is what I would like to see reversed - Pinal County government should provide minimimal services, allowing for strong local municipal governments - government should be closest to those represented - this is what makes strong municipal government and weak county government the best approach - imho.
American government should appear as a typical pyramid - the most influential and costly layer of government should be at the local level with scope and cost being reduced as the level of government becomes more distant from the citizens represented; today, government in America is beginning to look too much like Tempe's city hall !!!
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 418 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 02:26 pm |
|
I think this is a tough subject because I think it should be extremely limited but the county has branded itself as more than that. They have acted like they are the only answer to the vast county. The few towns that exist are mostly old and there is a resistence to embrace change. It is almost like they want to forget that people actually live here now. It is really odd tome that they would not want to bring about order to the chaos. If they would embrace local control through municipalities they could go back to thier rural roots and maintain the image in the remaining vastness. The folks are coming and they really don't have a clue what to do for us so they go into denial and start new projects county wide that are better suited for local areas.
If they are going to continue to not support local control through municiplaities then I will demand the higher level of services through the county. Sorry guys, that is what we expect here.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 02:15 pm |
|
I'm curious... why is there so little (no) interest in discussing this topic???
Does anyone come here to debate issues regarding Pinal County or should this forum be renamed to the Hunt Highway Public Issues Forum??? Seems like those are the threads that get the most traction.
I would expect that Hunt Highway residents would be interested in this debate - how would the Hunt Highway area be affected if county government functions were greatly reduced as I would promote???
Would a properly restrained county government compel the Hunt Highway corridor to incorporate to provide any services no longer offered by the county???
What should county government look like???
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 437 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 11th, 2008 04:56 am |
|
| actually I believe the only thing a sheriff must maintain by law is a jail and to serve warrants
|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1453 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 11th, 2008 04:54 am |
|
I'd add posse to the law enforcement list.
I'd also mention that the sheriff can assert himself or herself
if the feds start getting too uppity or tyrannical for the good of
free citizens of the county. That is what Sheriff Mack did in the 1990s
and Wyoming Sheriffs are starting to reaffirm that they are the number on
law enforcement or peace officer in the county. There might also be
something related to the unorganized militia in a time of invasion.
I heard that the posse would force men to fight forest fires here in the past
and that would be totally wrong. Forming volunteer units for certain
emergencies would be appropriate.
http://infohack.newsvine.com/_news/2007/02/24/584050-wyoming-sheriffs-put-feds-in-their-place
http://constitutionallawenforcementassoc.blogspot.com/
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 10th, 2008 07:32 pm |
|
What should be the responsibility of county government???
I have:
Law enforcement (officers, detectives, courts, prison…)
Construction and maintenance of *county* roads (county roads are trunk routes that provide access between communities – all other roads not within a municipality should be funded by impact fees and assessments of properties along the particular right-of-way)
County (regional) parks and open space (although I would support employing a quasi-private agency for this purpose which would collect fees from supporters and users)
Limited planning (most development should occur within incorporated municipalities – county planning should be focused more on coordinating the efforts of local municipalities along with managing the use of rural areas outside municipalities)
What else should be added to this list – or removed???
|
Current time is 07:20 pm | |
|