| Author | Post |
|---|
pintail
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 20th, 2009 |
| Location: | San Tan Valley |
| Posts: | 158 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20th, 2009 10:53 pm |
|
what a joke for a voting process! who is counting the votes? is anyone certifing it? it would add a great deal of validity to this process if it was on the ticket in November.
Vote "No Change"
Last edited on Sun Jun 21st, 2009 06:26 am by pintail
|
pintail
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 20th, 2009 |
| Location: | San Tan Valley |
| Posts: | 158 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20th, 2009 03:56 pm |
|
This whole issue doesn't pass the smell test. There is not a good justification for picking a name inside of 1 week. The excuse that people/businesses need to change check stock, letter heads etc... is wrong. A smart person will wait until April of 2010 and change all items. My bigger concern is the length of time it will take Mapquest, Google and GPS systems to catch up with a name change.
If a true consensus is wanted for a name change that could lead toward incorporation then we should put both items on a ballot in November of 2010.
|
QCStacy
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20th, 2009 06:03 am |
|
I don't have time to read this entire thread, but I just want to say that this whole thing is freaking me out because the decision has to be made so fast. I like the name Bella Vista. While I agree that the community should have say, I'm really worried that one of those whacked choices will end up being our name. Santana, Arizona??? Johnson, Arizona???
I moved to Queen Creek, Arizona. I feel like this all started because of the City of Queen Creek trying to disassociate themselves from us, and I don't really want our name to change because THEY think we're undesirable. Give me a break, City of Queen Creek. You're not that great; get over yourselves.
|
pcresident
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 22nd, 2009 |
| Location: | San Tan Valley |
| Posts: | 178 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19th, 2009 09:26 pm |
|
pipeman wrote: JulieB, you are correct these two scenerios are exactly the same. I did not choose my words carefully. What I was trying to convey was, the INTENT is different. These two in no way, shape or form can be compared.
Don't get me wrong, I respect that people are speaking up and voicing their concerns. Maybe this is what this community needed to wake people up to get off their duffs and finally get involved. Now I just pray that the 79/80 thousand peole get out and exercise their desires to be involved in the naming process, and that there are more of them who want a name vs. them who want to remain the same (no name, no recognition, no outside and inside involvement for that matter, etc..) Julie you know they are out there, you know there are many, and who I speak of.
One thing I urge everyone to keep in mind, Tisha, the person leading this charge (for GSTAC of course) is one of those people who do not want a name for this area and wants this area to remain exactly as it is. I am voting, but only to make sure my vote goes against remaining the same. You can count on all of GSTAC voting to remain the same, most of the rurals voting to remain the same, as well as many other communites that will be allowed to vote as several of them have considered themselves Queen Creek for so long, as well as several considered themselves Florence for so long. And as usual, you can count on many people not taking the time to exercise their right to be involved.
It is scary what we are up against and just keep in mind, you may not like the names on the ballot, many may not like the name that wins, or we just may end up not having a name at all.
How are the votes going to be counted, who is going to be doing the counting, is it going to be done in open forum, is there going to be an outside entity overseeing the counting. How do we know we will get the true accurate results? These are things that I would sure like to know.
We should do exit polling. Not asking what name they voted for, but if they voted for a name at all.
I saw some of the names before they took them off gstac's site last night. There were quite a few I could get behind.
Last edited on Fri Jun 19th, 2009 09:27 pm by pcresident
|
pipeman
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19th, 2009 09:21 pm |
|
JulieB, you are correct these two scenerios are exactly the same. I did not choose my words carefully. What I was trying to convey was, the INTENT is different. These two in no way, shape or form can be compared.
Don't get me wrong, I respect that people are speaking up and voicing their concerns. Maybe this is what this community needed to wake people up to get off their duffs and finally get involved. Now I just pray that the 79/80 thousand peole get out and exercise their desires to be involved in the naming process, and that there are more of them who want a name vs. them who want to remain the same (no name, no recognition, no outside and inside involvement for that matter, etc..) Julie you know they are out there, you know there are many, and who I speak of.
One thing I urge everyone to keep in mind, Tisha, the person leading this charge (for GSTAC of course) is one of those people who do not want a name for this area and wants this area to remain exactly as it is. I am voting, but only to make sure my vote goes against remaining the same. You can count on all of GSTAC voting to remain the same, most of the rurals voting to remain the same, as well as many other communites that will be allowed to vote as several of them have considered themselves Queen Creek for so long, as well as several considered themselves Florence for so long. And as usual, you can count on many people not taking the time to exercise their right to be involved.
It is scary what we are up against and just keep in mind, you may not like the names on the ballot, many may not like the name that wins, or we just may end up not having a name at all.
How are the votes going to be counted, who is going to be doing the counting, is it going to be done in open forum, is there going to be an outside entity overseeing the counting. How do we know we will get the true accurate results? These are things that I would sure like to know.
|
nunya
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19th, 2009 06:51 pm |
|
JulieB wrote: It's NOT any different. The only reason it's different for you is because you're on the "Bryan Team". It's still a small group of people making decisions for 80,000+ residents. Just because you're on US and not a THEM in this scenario doesn't make it ok. I don't want "200 people from various HOA meetings" deciding a name for us anymore than I want GSTAC to.
Look, I don't want GSTAC involved anymore than you do. I'm well aware of what they're up to. However, if Bryan would have gone about this the right way and put it out to vote to everyone like it should have been (without all the secrecy) I don't think GSTAC would have been able to get a hold of it like they did. The way it went down, it's 1 small group against another. If it had been put out to everyone, GSTAC would be a spit in the ocean.
Thanks Julie. My thought exactly.
|
nybrian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 314 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19th, 2009 04:36 pm |
|
JulieB wrote: pipeman wrote: JulieB wrote: Pipeman,
I have been her for awhile and know all of the history. Still, the way this name "assignment" is going does not sit well with me at all (and I LIKE Bella Vista!)
As far as I'm concerned, the way Bryan is going about this is exactly how GSTAC would. Two wrongs don't make a right.
And if this does go to vote (and I firmly believe it should . . . just because I elected Bryan to represent me does not mean he gets to me each and EVERY decision solely based on his preferences) is GSTAC really strong enough to impact a vote put out to 80,000 people? I think you're giving them more credit than they deserve.
Hi JulieB, long time no hear,
I never said I liked the way this happened and I made that known to Bryan. But what if Bryan never started this, would this be going on? Would the biggest complainers be out there trying to do something constructive for our community like gather signatures for a name? No they wouldn't. You know full well that most people out here do not get involved in anything. Bryan started it, yet now we have GSTAC ending it. Remember the old days around here, remember the BLC mentality? Well its the same game, just under a different name.
Do you and everyone else realize that this vote is not just voting on a name for our community, IT IS ALSO ABOUT VOTING ON WHETHER WE SHOULD REMAIN AS WE ARE NOW. On top of that, they are going to allow those who do not reside in the boundaries as well as local business owners who do not live here vote on a name for us. You know I think GSTAC is a joke and pretty useless, but the way they are going about this and the way they have things set up is what gives them the power. Who is going to tally the votes for a name and votes to remain the same? They were pretty slick the way they made sure to have people who did not live here sign the petition for incorpration knowing full well those names would have to be thrown out, thus keeping incorpration from going to the polls. This is a, this could happen scenerio and I certainly hope that I am wrong, but I so strongly want our community to have a name that I am not willing to take that gamble with those yocknocks at the wheel.
The way Bryan went about this and the way GSTAC goes about what they do are 2 different thigns. Bryan did this for "US". GSTAC does what they do for "THEM". There is no comparison.
It's NOT any different. The only reason it's different for you is because you're on the "Bryan Team". It's still a small group of people making decisions for 80,000+ residents. Just because you're on US and not a THEM in this scenario doesn't make it ok. I don't want "200 people from various HOA meetings" deciding a name for us anymore than I want GSTAC to.
Look, I don't want GSTAC involved anymore than you do. I'm well aware of what they're up to. However, if Bryan would have gone about this the right way and put it out to vote to everyone like it should have been (without all the secrecy) I don't think GSTAC would have been able to get a hold of it like they did. The way it went down, it's 1 small group against another. If it had been put out to everyone, GSTAC would be a spit in the ocean.
Thank you, someone who maybe explained it the way I was hoping to.
|
JulieB
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19th, 2009 04:29 pm |
|
pipeman wrote: JulieB wrote: Pipeman,
I have been her for awhile and know all of the history. Still, the way this name "assignment" is going does not sit well with me at all (and I LIKE Bella Vista!)
As far as I'm concerned, the way Bryan is going about this is exactly how GSTAC would. Two wrongs don't make a right.
And if this does go to vote (and I firmly believe it should . . . just because I elected Bryan to represent me does not mean he gets to me each and EVERY decision solely based on his preferences) is GSTAC really strong enough to impact a vote put out to 80,000 people? I think you're giving them more credit than they deserve.
Hi JulieB, long time no hear,
I never said I liked the way this happened and I made that known to Bryan. But what if Bryan never started this, would this be going on? Would the biggest complainers be out there trying to do something constructive for our community like gather signatures for a name? No they wouldn't. You know full well that most people out here do not get involved in anything. Bryan started it, yet now we have GSTAC ending it. Remember the old days around here, remember the BLC mentality? Well its the same game, just under a different name.
Do you and everyone else realize that this vote is not just voting on a name for our community, IT IS ALSO ABOUT VOTING ON WHETHER WE SHOULD REMAIN AS WE ARE NOW. On top of that, they are going to allow those who do not reside in the boundaries as well as local business owners who do not live here vote on a name for us. You know I think GSTAC is a joke and pretty useless, but the way they are going about this and the way they have things set up is what gives them the power. Who is going to tally the votes for a name and votes to remain the same? They were pretty slick the way they made sure to have people who did not live here sign the petition for incorpration knowing full well those names would have to be thrown out, thus keeping incorpration from going to the polls. This is a, this could happen scenerio and I certainly hope that I am wrong, but I so strongly want our community to have a name that I am not willing to take that gamble with those yocknocks at the wheel.
The way Bryan went about this and the way GSTAC goes about what they do are 2 different thigns. Bryan did this for "US". GSTAC does what they do for "THEM". There is no comparison.
It's NOT any different. The only reason it's different for you is because you're on the "Bryan Team". It's still a small group of people making decisions for 80,000+ residents. Just because you're on US and not a THEM in this scenario doesn't make it ok. I don't want "200 people from various HOA meetings" deciding a name for us anymore than I want GSTAC to.
Look, I don't want GSTAC involved anymore than you do. I'm well aware of what they're up to. However, if Bryan would have gone about this the right way and put it out to vote to everyone like it should have been (without all the secrecy) I don't think GSTAC would have been able to get a hold of it like they did. The way it went down, it's 1 small group against another. If it had been put out to everyone, GSTAC would be a spit in the ocean.
|
San Tan Jeff
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 6th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19th, 2009 04:10 am |
|
lol good times
j
|
pipeman
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19th, 2009 03:48 am |
|
pcresident wrote: Of everything I've read on this, this is what bothers me the most:
"Tisha Castillo, president of the San Tan Area Chamber of Commerce, said she's not even sure a name change is in order."
Said by the person who is said to be taking up the vote- doesn't seem very impartial.
here's the article: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/18/20090618queencreek0618.html
Glad to see that I am not the only one seeing the big picture here.
|
pipeman
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19th, 2009 03:47 am |
|
JulieB wrote: Pipeman,
I have been her for awhile and know all of the history. Still, the way this name "assignment" is going does not sit well with me at all (and I LIKE Bella Vista!)
As far as I'm concerned, the way Bryan is going about this is exactly how GSTAC would. Two wrongs don't make a right.
And if this does go to vote (and I firmly believe it should . . . just because I elected Bryan to represent me does not mean he gets to me each and EVERY decision solely based on his preferences) is GSTAC really strong enough to impact a vote put out to 80,000 people? I think you're giving them more credit than they deserve.
Hi JulieB, long time no hear,
I never said I liked the way this happened and I made that known to Bryan. But what if Bryan never started this, would this be going on? Would the biggest complainers be out there trying to do something constructive for our community like gather signatures for a name? No they wouldn't. You know full well that most people out here do not get involved in anything. Bryan started it, yet now we have GSTAC ending it. Remember the old days around here, remember the BLC mentality? Well its the same game, just under a different name.
Do you and everyone else realize that this vote is not just voting on a name for our community, IT IS ALSO ABOUT VOTING ON WHETHER WE SHOULD REMAIN AS WE ARE NOW. On top of that, they are going to allow those who do not reside in the boundaries as well as local business owners who do not live here vote on a name for us. You know I think GSTAC is a joke and pretty useless, but the way they are going about this and the way they have things set up is what gives them the power. Who is going to tally the votes for a name and votes to remain the same? They were pretty slick the way they made sure to have people who did not live here sign the petition for incorpration knowing full well those names would have to be thrown out, thus keeping incorpration from going to the polls. This is a, this could happen scenerio and I certainly hope that I am wrong, but I so strongly want our community to have a name that I am not willing to take that gamble with those yocknocks at the wheel.
The way Bryan went about this and the way GSTAC goes about what they do are 2 different thigns. Bryan did this for "US". GSTAC does what they do for "THEM". There is no comparison.
|
San Tan Jeff
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 6th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19th, 2009 01:43 am |
|
It's 5:45 and I just talked with Tisha. The apparatus is up but actual voting is not happening. She is still working on it. I'll get an email when it's up and post here.
|
pcresident
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 22nd, 2009 |
| Location: | San Tan Valley |
| Posts: | 178 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19th, 2009 12:32 am |
|
| It doesn't seem like there is going to be any REAL transparency here.
|
nybrian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 314 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19th, 2009 12:21 am |
|
From the GSTAC website:
Online voting will begin by 5pm, June 18th, for the current issue of an area NAME CHANGE.
If you are currently a member of GSTAC or have registered on this site, please simply login to your account and click YOUR DETAILS to submit your ballot.
If you do not remember your password, please click the LOST PASSWORD link under the login box to retrieve it.
If you have not created an account on this website before, please click the REGISTER link under the login box to start the voting process.
If you have any questions or comments please click the CONTACT US link on the website and submit your question/comment via email.
|
pcresident
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 22nd, 2009 |
| Location: | San Tan Valley |
| Posts: | 178 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 11:58 pm |
|
Last edited on Fri Jun 19th, 2009 01:52 am by pcresident
|
pipeman
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 11:07 pm |
|
I just received confirmation on my assumption.
GSTAC held a meeting today at the Copper Basin YMCA regarding the name situation. Of course there was a reporter present.
GOD HELP US NOW.
|
PJ22
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 164 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 08:39 pm |
|
You know, and even if people weren't educated, it really gripes me when educated people look down on uneducated people. I'm fortunate to have a masters, and I wouldn't dream of looking down on someone who doesn't have a degree of any sort. I feel very blessed that my parents expected me to college after high school, so that I never questioned it. I'm blessed that I could go on from there. It disgusts me when people are not grateful for the education they received and instead use it as a "pi$$ing contest". They forget that Bill Gates and Michael Dell were college dropouts.
I truly think those ignorant and ugly comments say more about those posters than it does about the folks that live in the GSTA.
Coming down from my soap box...
|
2 cents
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 907 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 07:53 pm |
|
Effort underway to promote 'Bella Vista' community identity
By MARK COWLING, Editor
June 18, 2009
Map courtesy of Pinal County
This map shows the new ZIP codes taking effect next month in the Johnson Ranch area, which the U.S. Postal Service now recognizes as Bella Vista.
With almost 80,000 people, Bella Vista has 19,000 more people than Flagstaff, and would be by far the largest city in Pinal County.
If it were a city, it would be the biggest in Pinal County.
The sprawling area between Florence and Queen Creek has boomed over the last 12 years with little more than their schools, churches and YMCA to give these new residents a sense of belonging.
"A lot of them are questioning why they moved here," Bryan Martyn, Pinal County supervisor for District 2, observed this week. "They have affordable housing, but not a lot of amenities. The majority drive to Maricopa County to work. ... It's important for this community to have something to rally around."
Numbering almost 80,000 people, they could be a political and economic force if they were somehow together. But ask them where they live and you hear various responses such as "Queen Creek," "Johnson Ranch" or the name of their subdivision.
This could begin to change next month with the new ZIP codes and the postal service's agreement to recognize the mailing address of "Bella Vista, AZ." (ZIP codes story on page 7).
Martyn would like to help Bella Vista find its identity and reap all the benefits of being a true community, whether or not it ultimately decides to formally incorporate as a city or town. "Incorporation is down the road and that's something for the community to decide, if that's the way they want to go," Martyn said. But if a committee forms and wants to pursue incorporation, there could be a question on the ballot in November of 2010.
The area the county considers Bella Vista covers 67 square miles. The western border excludes the foothills areas, which in the past have not wanted to be included in incorporation efforts. On the east, the border will exclude the area south of Judd Road and west of the Union Pacific rail line, which the town of Florence is interested in annexing.
Bella Vista also abuts the border of Queen Creek, and touches a corner of the city of Mesa. Florence and these other communities would all have to approve any incorporation effort, but a unified community of Bella Vista will benefit all its neighbors, Martyn said.
Why wouldn't Martyn, as a county supervisor, merely wish for all these people to be proud residents of District 2?
"They (would) still live in Pinal County's District 2," Martyn said, but "... I have a passion for this community. It's my job to help the community."
Building from the middle out
The vicinity of Gantzel Road between Combs and Bella Vista roads provides a key opportunity for developing a downtown and light industrial area to create jobs and give the community a greater sense of identity. It also has the advantage of being approximately in the center of Bella Vista.
"We'll build the community from the middle out," Martyn said. He hopes the county can offer incentives such as expedited permitting and flexible zoning to encourage the development of this area. The downtown could include higher-density housing, a theater and cultural activities, "to give the community something they can associate with."
The area has the advantages of an abundance of land, a rail line, power lines and water, all important to industry, Martyn said. The northeast border might include the future Arizona 802 Williams Gateway freeway, if the southernmost option is ultimately chosen. "The ingredients are there for a successful community," Martyn said.
He said he's telling developers not to build a Blockbuster store, but the infrastructure to attract "head of household-income" jobs, so Bella Vista residents can work where they live.
The area already has rallying points in three new high schools in or close to the Bella Vista area, Martyn said. "They're definitely on their way to becoming a community." He will ask for the Florence district's new Poston Butte High School, on Gantzel Road north of Bella Vista Road, to be renamed Bella Vista High School.
Meanwhile the new Banner Hospital is weighing whether it wants to be annexed into Queen Creek, but "my wish is that it will stay in Bella Vista," Martyn said. "It's something for the new community to rally around."
Florence supportive
Steve Johnson with the San Tan Area Chamber of Commerce could not be reached for comment earlier this week. But Florence officials were supportive of the idea.
"The town is willing to support the activities of the residents in that area," Jess Knudson, assistant to the town manager, said.
Town Manager Himanshu Patel said the Town Council has not yet offered to take a position on Bella Vista incorporation because the concept is still in the early stages. But with the area's development and population, "some level of local control and governance is critical for public services."
Patel said he anticipates Florence will provide information as it has done before to an incorporation committee on how the town operates as a business, and "what it takes to run a city, or in our case, a town."
He noted some will oppose incorporation because of the taxation that could be expected to cover a new layer of government. But it's up to the voters whether the new city or town implements a property tax or sales tax, and what level of services will be provided. "That will determine the cost," Patel said.
If anyone believes that his county taxes will go down once he's in a city, that is a myth, Patel added.
Five years ago, the Florence Town Council voted 5-2 not to support the incorporation of San Tan, Knudson said.
Martyn and Sheriff Paul Babeu recently visited HOAs in the area to promote the community and asked what they would like to be called. Some still liked the name San Tan, which was promoted in an incorporation effort years ago. But Martyn pointed out there is already a Santan in the Gila River Indian Community. Simply calling the whole area "Johnson Ranch" didn't generate much enthusiasm.
Names of local flora, like Ironwood, Ocotillo and Mesquite, drew more favorable reactions. Names that alluded to groves, such as the pecan groves that historically grew in the northern area, were popular in the north but not that much in the south, Martyn said.
Bella Vista, after Bella Vista Road which runs east-west though the middle of the area, seemed like a good compromise, and "we started pushing Bella Vista," Martyn said.
Martyn and other Bella Vista supporters hope to have an event in the fall to promote the idea of community.
©Casa Grande Valley Newspapers Inc. 2009
More to chew on.
Last edited on Thu Jun 18th, 2009 07:56 pm by 2 cents
|
pcresident
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 22nd, 2009 |
| Location: | San Tan Valley |
| Posts: | 178 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 07:46 pm |
|
PJ22 wrote: That article was interesting for two reasons: the first is that Bryan said he spent TWO MONTHS polling people, yet it seems the word did not get out to the majority of the residents.
The second is all of the comments to the story. Wow. A lot of ignorance. My neighbors and I all like it out here because the mountain is close by, we can actually see the night sky, we get a nice breeze, and it's quiet. You can't that smack in the middle of Gilbert or Chandler (which those are nice communities if your commute time is the most important thing).
Do some of those people not understand that 20 years ago the Mesa Airport was 'out in the country', 'away from everything', 'in hillbilly land'? I'm just speechless at all of the ignorant comments to that story. Do those people really not understand that Phoenix will continue to grow and development will most likely continue eastward? New areas go through growing pains; they don't just spring up into an established city overnight.
We like it out here; we're employed, educated, have all of our teeth, and chose to live well within our means. (if you browse the comments on that story, my post will make sense)
The comments disgusted me, too. Just the heaps of incorrect information!!
Especially since our demos state that we are a largely educated area.
|
PJ22
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 164 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 07:38 pm |
|
That article was interesting for two reasons: the first is that Bryan said he spent TWO MONTHS polling people, yet it seems the word did not get out to the majority of the residents.
The second is all of the comments to the story. Wow. A lot of ignorance. My neighbors and I all like it out here because the mountain is close by, we can actually see the night sky, we get a nice breeze, and it's quiet. You can't that smack in the middle of Gilbert or Chandler (which those are nice communities if your commute time is the most important thing).
Do some of those people not understand that 20 years ago the Mesa Airport was 'out in the country', 'away from everything', 'in hillbilly land'? I'm just speechless at all of the ignorant comments to that story. Do those people really not understand that Phoenix will continue to grow and development will most likely continue eastward? New areas go through growing pains; they don't just spring up into an established city overnight.
We like it out here; we're employed, educated, have all of our teeth, and chose to live well within our means. (if you browse the comments on that story, my post will make sense)
|
pcresident
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 22nd, 2009 |
| Location: | San Tan Valley |
| Posts: | 178 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 05:50 pm |
|
Of everything I've read on this, this is what bothers me the most:
"Tisha Castillo, president of the San Tan Area Chamber of Commerce, said she's not even sure a name change is in order."
Said by the person who is said to be taking up the vote- doesn't seem very impartial.
here's the article: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/18/20090618queencreek0618.html
|
JulieB
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 04:38 pm |
|
Pipeman,
I have been her for awhile and know all of the history. Still, the way this name "assignment" is going does not sit well with me at all (and I LIKE Bella Vista!)
As far as I'm concerned, the way Bryan is going about this is exactly how GSTAC would. Two wrongs don't make a right.
And if this does go to vote (and I firmly believe it should . . . just because I elected Bryan to represent me does not mean he gets to me each and EVERY decision solely based on his preferences) is GSTAC really strong enough to impact a vote put out to 80,000 people? I think you're giving them more credit than they deserve.
|
nybrian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 314 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 03:41 pm |
|
I have not been here for nearly as long as many of you, so I don't know nearly as much about the problems that have been faced in the past. But for me to support this I need 2 things.
1. A public vote on a name.
2. Someone to guarantee me that the area on Hunt Highway will benefit from the incorporation. The way I see it the Hunt Highway corridor has the only revenue producing retail. It also has the fewest needs---only two north-south roads to maintain. I love the Ironwood corridor, almost moved there. In many ways it is superior to Hunt as far as access to Phoenix area. But drive around and look at the needs for roads---how many roads will need to be paved, how many bridges will be needed (I heard they are fixing the one bridge, but is it a band-aid or a true fix?).
I want to eventually have incorporation here. I just don't want it to be dictated to me without looking at several options that may exist.
|
2 cents
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 907 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 03:19 pm |
|
Pipe, you were once one of the greatest proponents of incorporation, what is different now. I don't see that you and nybrian are that far apart. Symantics more than anything else. And what are the ramifications you speak of? I think that if you two just discussed the incorporation thing in a gentlemanly fashion you would both see that you are talking about the same things, just approaching from a slightly different angle.
martyn had a map of Bella Vista, what about looking at that and figuring out something smaller say, omitting the southerly third from the incorporation? Do some cherry picking. Figure out where your revenue is coming from today and where your liabilities are today. Do you really need 80K people? Perhaps grand is not the most ideal idea. As nybrian suggested, perhaps something smaller is more desirable. Omit those who have been thorns to the process from the process, GSTAC & gang.
Think about it gentlemen, I think you can come up with a viable plan. I'd put my 2 cents up against a doughnut hole.
2
|
nybrian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 314 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 01:56 pm |
|
| Without a doubt I'd prefer it to what is going on now.
|
pipeman
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 07:15 am |
|
nybrian wrote: pipeman wrote: nybrian wrote: Why is this so difficult? If we are to incorporate it will need to be on the ballot. Why can't there be two questions:
1. Should we incorporate?
2. Whether or not we vote yes or no on question one we are going to call this area a name. Please choose among the following: Then list about 5 choices.
That's my entire problem with this process. It feels as though it is being pushed upon us without due process. I have no doubt that Mr Martyn thinks he is doing what's necessary, but he is not. Let's take a little more time to get this right.
It is not simplistic as you claim.
There were boundaries drawn up for the area to be named, correct? Those outside the boundaries were not to be included and use the name, correct? Yet with this group of yockels putting this voting thing together is going to allow people who do not reside within the boundaries as well as local business owners whom do not reside within the boundaries to vote as well.
Do you not understand that all the whinning, bit@*ing and moaning may just very well kill the possibility of us even getting a name, let alone the perfect name you are all looking for. Did you not read, "as well as an option to keep things as they are". Do you have the slighest clue as to who these people are that is putting this bullcrap vote together? Do you realize who is behind this vote and the real reason for it?
What you are being told is just a smokescreen. It's the wolf in sheeps clothing.
Well, I'm going to give you reality that not only looks simplistic but is simplistic---the way this is being handled is going to do more to damage us getting a city than anything the 'bad guys' have ever done. I don't like being pushed around, manipulated with false deadlines, and told that it's 'now or never'. We could do this the right way or the current way, and by doing it the current way we are causing a huge amount of argument that could be handled by a simple vote. Note, I didn't say we shouldn't have an identity, I said it should be handled by more than the 20 or so people who comment on this board. I see a lot of people who complain about the boogeyman (gstac, johnson) not being run democratically, but the group pushing this is no better.
Put it on a ballot and let us all vote for the winner. As much as I may not agree with the winner at least I will know that the majority did. Not rocket science.
Reality? The only reality here is you haven't the slighest clue as to the "possible ramifications" that this vote you so desperately need might do to us. Its obvious that you have no idea of the boogeyman or what he is capable of.
I am done, so go have your vote. I will take and live with whatever name comes out of this, IF ONE EVEN DOES, ya just never know the outcome because the boogeyman is invloved.
Below is a list of communites that GTSAC says can vote. More than half of these communities are not within the boundaries. Do you really want those not living here chosing a name for the community? Well haev at it, let your voice be heard.
Whitewing Northern Johnson Ranch
Solera
Greens I & II
Canyon Rock
Equestrian Manor
Sterling
Southern Johnson Ranch
Johnson Ranch Phase I
Estates
The Springs
Northern Johnson Ranch
Solera
Greens I & II
Canyon Rock
Equestrian Manor
Sterling
Southern Johnson Ranch
Johnson Ranch Phase I
Estates
The Springs
Bonanza Ranch
Bonanza Ranch
Solera
Greens I & II
Canyon Rock
Equestrian Manor
Sterling
Southern Johnson Ranch
Johnson Ranch Phase I
Estates
The Springs
Goldmine Equestrian
Rurals
Borgata
San Tan Heights
San Tan Shadow
Skyline Ranch
Morning Sun Farms
Rancho Bella Vista
Johnson Ranch Phase II
Lakeview Gardens
Stonegate, Rosewalk
Fairways I, II & III
Lariat
Legends
Mustang Ridge
Ponderosa
The Links
The Crossings
Stagecoach Pass
Gallery I, II & III
Masters
Arabian Trails
Horseshoe Canyon
Riding Stables
Torrey Park
Rodeo Ridge
Superstition Views
Bella Vista
Bella Vista Farms
RV Park
Skyline Estates
Copper Basin
Quail Run
Sonoran Villages
Dobson Farms
Magma Ranch
Ocotillo Verde
Caballero
Silverado Ranch
Circle Cross
Trilogy
Ware Farms
Pecan Farms
Pecan Creek
Pecan South
Home Place
Laredo Ranch
Castlegate
Ironwood Crossing
Ocotillo Trails
Taylor Ranch
Cambria
Ocotillo/Kenworthy
Meadow Vista
Wayne Ranch
Moonshadow
Magic Ranch
Oasis Magic Ranch
Last edited on Thu Jun 18th, 2009 08:20 am by pipeman
|
nybrian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 314 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 07:02 am |
|
starleen wrote: nybrian wrote: Well, I'm going to give you reality that not only looks simplistic but is simplistic---the way this is being handled is going to do more to damage us getting a city than anything the 'bad guys' have ever done. I don't like being pushed around, manipulated with false deadlines, and told that it's 'now or never'.
Put it on a ballot and let us all vote for the winner. As much as I may not agree with the winner at least I will know that the majority did. Not rocket science.
Oh sure, put it on a ballot and waste more taxpayer money. And if GSTAC is involved in the opposition - well, there ya go. The old guard trying to run the show for the new sheeples.
You don't like being pushed around? Look up the chain of command a bit and put your energies elsewhere than a name of a region. While you're debating semantics, the Feds are leading you by the nose ring into a new world order.
How bout leaving the federal stuff for the other threads?
|
starleen
Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Coolidge |
| Posts: | 679 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 07:00 am |
|
nybrian wrote: Well, I'm going to give you reality that not only looks simplistic but is simplistic---the way this is being handled is going to do more to damage us getting a city than anything the 'bad guys' have ever done. I don't like being pushed around, manipulated with false deadlines, and told that it's 'now or never'.
Put it on a ballot and let us all vote for the winner. As much as I may not agree with the winner at least I will know that the majority did. Not rocket science.
Oh sure, put it on a ballot and waste more taxpayer money. And if GSTAC is involved in the opposition - well, there ya go. The old guard trying to run the show for the new sheeples.
You don't like being pushed around? Look up the chain of command a bit and put your energies elsewhere than a name of a region. While you're debating semantics, the Feds are leading you by the nose ring into a new world order.
|
nybrian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 314 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 06:36 am |
|
pipeman wrote: nybrian wrote: Why is this so difficult? If we are to incorporate it will need to be on the ballot. Why can't there be two questions:
1. Should we incorporate?
2. Whether or not we vote yes or no on question one we are going to call this area a name. Please choose among the following: Then list about 5 choices.
That's my entire problem with this process. It feels as though it is being pushed upon us without due process. I have no doubt that Mr Martyn thinks he is doing what's necessary, but he is not. Let's take a little more time to get this right.
It is not simplistic as you claim.
There were boundaries drawn up for the area to be named, correct? Those outside the boundaries were not to be included and use the name, correct? Yet with this group of yockels putting this voting thing together is going to allow people who do not reside within the boundaries as well as local business owners whom do not reside within the boundaries to vote as well.
Do you not understand that all the whinning, bit@*ing and moaning may just very well kill the possibility of us even getting a name, let alone the perfect name you are all looking for. Did you not read, "as well as an option to keep things as they are". Do you have the slighest clue as to who these people are that is putting this bullcrap vote together? Do you realize who is behind this vote and the real reason for it?
What you are being told is just a smokescreen. It's the wolf in sheeps clothing.
Well, I'm going to give you reality that not only looks simplistic but is simplistic---the way this is being handled is going to do more to damage us getting a city than anything the 'bad guys' have ever done. I don't like being pushed around, manipulated with false deadlines, and told that it's 'now or never'. We could do this the right way or the current way, and by doing it the current way we are causing a huge amount of argument that could be handled by a simple vote. Note, I didn't say we shouldn't have an identity, I said it should be handled by more than the 20 or so people who comment on this board. I see a lot of people who complain about the boogeyman (gstac, johnson) not being run democratically, but the group pushing this is no better.
Put it on a ballot and let us all vote for the winner. As much as I may not agree with the winner at least I will know that the majority did. Not rocket science.
|
nybrian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 314 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 06:27 am |
|
I'm not sure if anyone has been paying attention, but many HOA's in the area are currently going through a crisis---out of money, trying to raise rates, homeowners walking away. There is NO WAY a vote for incorporation is going to pass. And this is coming from someone who has generally supported the idea of incorporation over the last year.
If there is a chance that our taxes would go up the vote is going to be no. People are done, and getting us to vote to pay more money is not going to happen.
And..................I know I posted this before, but why the need for such a large city from the start? Casa Grande---about 38,000 population. Marana, about 32,000. Maricopa, about 34,000. These are all bedroom communities in the outskirts---why not a more manageable town that can grow naturally rather than a giant town that will cover areas with varying needs?
|
Living in Arizona
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 63 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 06:21 am |
|
pjbjljb wrote: Marine1 wrote: I like the name Bella Vista(Beautiful View). I really don't see how it sounds like a retirement community.
I'm not too keen on San Tan Vistas as I think the name San Tan is way too overused in areas outside of our own.
For those that don't like Bella Vista, how about some suggestions without the name Queen Creek or San Tan in the name.
How about Mountain Vista, Buena Vista, Mountain Ranch?
There is a retirement community with the name Bella Vista in Mesa. Plus there is an area of Sierra Vista named Bella Vista. And we have Rancho Bella Vista in our community. If we don't want to be named after San Tan or Johnson Ranch, I think we need to add "any other housing development" to that list. There were plenty of name suggested in the other forum. I like Malpais Hills or even Copper Hills, if you look at the satellite image of the area, you can see the turquoise oxidation, it's quite beautiful.
So there is one retirement community with the name Bella Vista. I really don't see what the big deal is. It sounds like some feel we need to check to see if any of the other names are connected to a retirement community before we proceed. As far as I'm concerned that train has left the station , there are far more important reasons for name consideration than "There is a retirement community with the name Bella Vista in Mesa. "
|
pipeman
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 06:12 am |
|
nybrian wrote: Why is this so difficult? If we are to incorporate it will need to be on the ballot. Why can't there be two questions:
1. Should we incorporate?
2. Whether or not we vote yes or no on question one we are going to call this area a name. Please choose among the following: Then list about 5 choices.
That's my entire problem with this process. It feels as though it is being pushed upon us without due process. I have no doubt that Mr Martyn thinks he is doing what's necessary, but he is not. Let's take a little more time to get this right.
It is not simplistic as you claim.
There were boundaries drawn up for the area to be named, correct? Those outside the boundaries were not to be included and use the name, correct? Yet with this group of yockels putting this voting thing together is going to allow people who do not reside within the boundaries as well as local business owners whom do not reside within the boundaries to vote as well.
Do you not understand that all the whinning, bit@*ing and moaning may just very well kill the possibility of us even getting a name, let alone the perfect name you are all looking for. Did you not read, "as well as an option to keep things as they are". Do you have the slighest clue as to who these people are that is putting this bullcrap vote together? Do you realize who is behind this vote and the real reason for it?
What you are being told is just a smokescreen. It's the wolf in sheeps clothing.
|
PJ22
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 164 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 05:55 am |
|
You're right; I've been here less than a year. I've seen the references implying that they have an ulterior motive/agenda, but didn't know what it was. So, if our area doesn't incorporate then they retain more power and control? Just trying to understand the dynamics because I tend to favor incorporation.
|
nybrian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 314 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 05:37 am |
|
Why is this so difficult? If we are to incorporate it will need to be on the ballot. Why can't there be two questions:
1. Should we incorporate?
2. Whether or not we vote yes or no on question one we are going to call this area a name. Please choose among the following: Then list about 5 choices.
That's my entire problem with this process. It feels as though it is being pushed upon us without due process. I have no doubt that Mr Martyn thinks he is doing what's necessary, but he is not. Let's take a little more time to get this right.
|
pipeman
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 12:36 am |
|
7HenryEstes wrote: PJ22 wrote: I've seen a lot of references to GSTAC but I know nothing about them or the history of any issues with them. How can I find out what all of these references are about?
You can start by visiting their web site: http://www.ourgstac.com/
This list is from some time ago and may be out of date. I do believe it was accurate at the founding of GSTAC.
Greater San Tan Area Coalition core members
Co-chairs
Gordon Brown: local resident and community activist.
Jack Malpass: founding member and former president of the San Tan Area Chamber of Commerce.
San Tan Area Chamber of Commerce board members
Tisha Castillo: Owner of MyBizNow.com.
Bob Dailey: Chamber treasurer, owner of Visiting Angels.
Jason Foster: Chamber president, owner of Farmers Bureau Financial Services.
Steve Johnson: State Farm Insurance agent.
Developers
Jay Gold: with Miller Holdings, LLC, the company that developed the Wal-Mart Supercenter on Hunt Highway.
George Johnson: developer of Johnson Ranch.
Steve Tomita: vice president of Omega Management, the company behind San Tan Heights.
Brian Tompsett: executive with George H. Johnson International and with Johnson Utilities.
Harold Christ: Principal Partner of Pyramid Community Developers, the company behind Gold Canyon Ranch and Copper Basin.
PJ22, this is what I was talking about when I said there are more important things to fight against. Look at the names, look at the titles. Might I add that lmost all of these people do not even live in our community, yet they want to represent us to make sure our voice is heard. Our voice has never been heard with these yockles. If you never heard of them, then I take it you have not been out here long.
|
pipeman
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 12:28 am |
|
pcresident wrote: nunya wrote: Q.C to see controversial ZIP code change
Pinal County Supervisor Bryan Martyn has said he submitted such a request to change the name of the outlying areas to Bella Vista to correspond with the ZIP code change. However, there is currently controversy over the name Bella Vista, so whether it sticks is in question.
I saw that. I think Bryan had a good idea, just went about it not in the best way because of the time constraint. I think it sucks that it's turned into grandstanding by the local special interest group to keep things the status quo
BINGO........ if you read the little blurp in the emails from Trisha, she said, "as well as keeping things as they are"
This is GSTAC driven, as if they have allowed our voices to be heard. What a flippin joke.
|
pcresident
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 22nd, 2009 |
| Location: | San Tan Valley |
| Posts: | 178 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 09:32 pm |
|
nunya wrote: Q.C to see controversial ZIP code change
Pinal County Supervisor Bryan Martyn has said he submitted such a request to change the name of the outlying areas to Bella Vista to correspond with the ZIP code change. However, there is currently controversy over the name Bella Vista, so whether it sticks is in question.
I saw that. I think Bryan had a good idea, just went about it not in the best way because of the time constraint. I think it sucks that it's turned into grandstanding by the local special interest group to keep things the status quo
|
nunya
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 09:30 pm |
|
Q.C to see controversial ZIP code change
Pinal County Supervisor Bryan Martyn has said he submitted such a request to change the name of the outlying areas to Bella Vista to correspond with the ZIP code change. However, there is currently controversy over the name Bella Vista, so whether it sticks is in question.
|
HenryEstes
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 08:17 pm |
|
PJ22 wrote: I've seen a lot of references to GSTAC but I know nothing about them or the history of any issues with them. How can I find out what all of these references are about?
You can start by visiting their web site: http://www.ourgstac.com/
This list is from some time ago and may be out of date. I do believe it was accurate at the founding of GSTAC.
Greater San Tan Area Coalition core members
Co-chairs
Gordon Brown: local resident and community activist.
Jack Malpass: founding member and former president of the San Tan Area Chamber of Commerce.
San Tan Area Chamber of Commerce board members
Tisha Castillo: Owner of MyBizNow.com.
Bob Dailey: Chamber treasurer, owner of Visiting Angels.
Jason Foster: Chamber president, owner of Farmers Bureau Financial Services.
Steve Johnson: State Farm Insurance agent.
Developers
Jay Gold: with Miller Holdings, LLC, the company that developed the Wal-Mart Supercenter on Hunt Highway.
George Johnson: developer of Johnson Ranch.
Steve Tomita: vice president of Omega Management, the company behind San Tan Heights.
Brian Tompsett: executive with George H. Johnson International and with Johnson Utilities.
Harold Christ: Principal Partner of Pyramid Community Developers, the company behind Gold Canyon Ranch and Copper Basin.
|
jdz212
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 07:52 pm |
|
| For most people I don't think the name is the problem, even though I personally can't stand Bella Vista. The problem, and what's making everyone nuts, is that they were not informed in a timely fashion. At least with the zip code change everyone received a letter. A little blurb in that letter saying "by the way your city name will change on the same day" would have been helpful. Even a sign on Hunt Hwy and other main roads would have gotten word to most of the residents. Government is supposed to work for us, not push things down our throats when we're not looking.
|
jdz212
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 07:35 pm |
|
| I've been looking through the USPS rules and reg's. I haven't been able to find any regulations concerning what a town or city can be named. The only regulations are concerning what the USPS can name the post office in a town or city. So the whole "USPS won't allow" city names aspect may not be true.
|
PJ22
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 164 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 06:17 pm |
|
I've seen a lot of references to GSTAC but I know nothing about them or the history of any issues with them. How can I find out what all of these references are about?
|
pcresident
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 22nd, 2009 |
| Location: | San Tan Valley |
| Posts: | 178 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 06:02 pm |
|
PJ22 wrote: I haven't seen anyone say that the name has to be something that 80,000 people agree on. Again, what it comes down to is: were people surprised by a name; did they know this was happening; did they feel like their voices were heard. It's a process issue; have a good process and people will be okay with the results (after all, I'm sure not everyone voted for Bryan, but they're not on here complaining because the process was fair). But anecdotally it seems the majority of people had no idea our area was deciding on a name.
Some people like to make judgmental statements, such as "there is a lot more...to fight against...", yet you are on here discussing this issue rather than focusing on those more important issues. If you truly think there are more important issues, don't waste time on this issue. But at the same time, don't tell others what is or is not important. I have an issue with the process; having my voice heard as a taxpaying citizen is very important to me. And I agree with another poster that once we choose a name, it's doubtful that the name will be changed down the road.
Now, I do think it is helpful when people can give an explanation such as the one you outlined above. It helps answer the other poster's question of 'why the hurry'. I'm all for being business friendly and would like our area to be business friendly.
It seems like there is a battle for control going on with GSTAC. I agree that we should be able to vote on a name, since we are the ones who'll live here. I think that the name definitely needs to change, as the time for status quo is over- we have 80,000 people and we are still growing. I commend Supervisor Martyn for, at least, attempting to unify us behind a name- that is not queen creek.
All due respect to those that think the rest of Pinal should have a say- they don't live where we live and won't have to live with any name that is picked- same thing with the Supervisor. It's the same reason that QC won't annex us- because they would, immediately, become the minority in their own town- a town they built for the last 20 years.
Hopefully, in 20 years we can look back and feel GOOD about the outcome of all this squabbling. Get a proper vote together- with transparency. I think that there should be, at least, 1 representative from each housing development (a homeOWNER) and rural area in the proposed boundaries that should count these votes. Not just behind the cloak of GSTAC.
|
PJ22
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 164 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 05:50 pm |
|
I haven't seen anyone say that the name has to be something that 80,000 people agree on. Again, what it comes down to is: were people surprised by a name; did they know this was happening; did they feel like their voices were heard. It's a process issue; have a good process and people will be okay with the results (after all, I'm sure not everyone voted for Bryan, but they're not on here complaining because the process was fair). But anecdotally it seems the majority of people had no idea our area was deciding on a name.
Some people like to make judgmental statements, such as "there is a lot more...to fight against...", yet you are on here discussing this issue rather than focusing on those more important issues. If you truly think there are more important issues, don't waste time on this issue. But at the same time, don't tell others what is or is not important. I have an issue with the process; having my voice heard as a taxpaying citizen is very important to me. And I agree with another poster that once we choose a name, it's doubtful that the name will be changed down the road.
Now, I do think it is helpful when people can give an explanation such as the one you outlined above. It helps answer the other poster's question of 'why the hurry'. I'm all for being business friendly and would like our area to be business friendly.
|
pcresident
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 22nd, 2009 |
| Location: | San Tan Valley |
| Posts: | 178 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 05:49 pm |
|
Lovethisarea wrote: pcresident wrote:
I was looking at the USGS site that Bob posted the other day and found some very interesting things:
1. I didn't know there was a Booger Canyon in Pinal County- makes Bella Vista seem livable.
Hahahahahaaa...... 
That made me laugh, too. A friend asked, if when you die in Booger Canyon, do you get buried at Booger Canyon cemetary, and have your services at Booger Canyon Funeral home?
|
Lovethisarea
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 05:45 pm |
|
pcresident wrote:
I was looking at the USGS site that Bob posted the other day and found some very interesting things:
1. I didn't know there was a Booger Canyon in Pinal County- makes Bella Vista seem livable.
Hahahahahaaa......
|
pcresident
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 22nd, 2009 |
| Location: | San Tan Valley |
| Posts: | 178 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 05:30 pm |
|
I was looking at the USGS site that Bob posted the other day and found some very interesting things:
1. I didn't know there was a Booger Canyon in Pinal County- makes Bella Vista seem livable.
2. A variant on Poston Butte that I love: Apparently Poston Butte was named several things prior to becoming the name used today. My favorite is Primrose Hill. I think it ties to the history of the area really well.
My other suggestion is "The Shaft", AZ (j/k)
|
Bambi2
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 02:39 pm |
|
Thanks Bryan for coming on board to post your explanation. It's better for everyone when one can defend their own position on an issue. You can deal with the rebuttals more effectively. It definitely lends more credibility to the discussion, imo, than having others defend your position on these sensitive matters, so your efforts to post your explanations on here and to engage in the debate (over these names) are greatly appreciated.
|
Lovethisarea
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 12:30 pm |
|
It also said in that email to email in name suggestions! If you have a suggestion make sure you email it! I emailed...
San Tan Foothills
Goldmine
Goldmine Foothills
I wonder how many of those are "allowed" by USPS. Who should I contact at USPS and ask....
|
flyspy007
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 16th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 122 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 11:37 am |
|
Roadrunner AZ! Beep Beep don't forget your toll money!
Pinal Independent.
|
Current time is 04:25 am | Page: 1 2 3 4   |
|
|
|