| Author | Post |
|---|
pintail
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 20th, 2009 |
| Location: | San Tan Valley |
| Posts: | 158 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 07:38 am |
|
| bump bump
|
flygad1
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 08:01 am |
|
Pay
A advisory election is allowed by law. It could have been added to the 2010 general election ballot .
at little cost. Don't let these cheerleaders tell you anything else it is the usual bull arguement used to create resentment in the voters.
EF
|
Chad Roche
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 06:23 am |
|
2 cents wrote: As you say Mr. Roche. I could not possibly be correct. I,as are you, am in error.
Say what?
|
payattention71
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 05:43 am |
|
From what I understand a name choice could have and still can be made at any time. It was just so that our zip was changing and our gracious and over eager Supervisor jumped at the opportunity to use this time to help boost his career. If the option to conduct an official vote was too costly, then we could have and still can go about a process that allows enough time to engage enough votes from the majority of the population out here. I am sorry, but 2000 people voted here, that out of 80 thousand doesn't represent a majority. It represents only a minority of people that were able to be reached in time to weigh in on the name options.
I am all for a "re do" if you will, where we the people have a chance to conduct a better voting process as to reach more than only 2000 people. From the rumors I have heard, our zip is changing again in one year. That could give us more than enough time to put together and conduct a well advertised and fair polling for a name. We aren't a city, or even a town yet. We merely are residents in an unicorporated part of Pinal County with a name. That means San Tan Valley is not set in stone.
|
2 cents
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 907 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 02:01 am |
|
| As you say Mr. Roche. I could not possibly be correct. I,as are you, am in error. Last edited on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 02:07 am by 2 cents
|
Chad Roche
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 01:20 am |
|
2 cents wrote: Chad Roche wrote:
there is no possible way that EVERY name that ANYONE could think of could even fit on a ballot. we will never please 100% of the people, only a majority<--which hasn't happened either!!
I beg to differ. The majority of those who chose to voice their opinion in the poll were heard. It may have been conducted improperly, poorly, hastily, based on false information and behind the veil of much smoke and many mirrors but the majority was heard.
2
I know you are partial to the number but 2.5% isn't a majority....
|
2 cents
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 907 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 01:03 am |
|
Chad Roche wrote:
there is no possible way that EVERY name that ANYONE could think of could even fit on a ballot. we will never please 100% of the people, only a majority<--which hasn't happened either!!
I beg to differ. The majority of those who chose to voice their opinion in the poll were heard. It may have been conducted improperly, poorly, hastily, based on false information and behind the veil of much smoke and many mirrors but the majority was heard.
2
Last edited on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 01:07 am by 2 cents
|
Chad Roche
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 11:22 pm |
|
PJ22 wrote: I had seen a couple people mention it on the forums, and one person said it was 'popular' and was wondering why it wasn't included in the first poll. When this latest poll came out I was surprised that San Tan Foothills wasn't included, and wasn't sure what the process was for the inclusion of names. Not that it's a big deal; I feel satisfied with the overall process and would rather have A name than no name at all.
there is no possible way that EVERY name that ANYONE could think of could even fit on a ballot. we will never please 100% of the people, only a majority<--which hasn't happened either!!
|
PJ22
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 164 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 09:28 pm |
|
I had seen a couple people mention it on the forums, and one person said it was 'popular' and was wondering why it wasn't included in the first poll. When this latest poll came out I was surprised that San Tan Foothills wasn't included, and wasn't sure what the process was for the inclusion of names. Not that it's a big deal; I feel satisfied with the overall process and would rather have A name than no name at all.
|
HenryEstes
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 09:05 pm |
|
PJ22 wrote: I was wondering why San Tan Foothills wasn't included?
Do you know of more than one vote for that name?
|
PJ22
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 164 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 07:23 pm |
|
I was wondering why San Tan Foothills wasn't included?
|
payattention71
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 07:22 pm |
|
| i wonder if all names were presented from the beginning and the option to opt out for a name change was clearly defined from the start of polling if these numbers wouldn't have reflected someting different altogether.
|
payattention71
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 07:21 pm |
|
YES FOR NAME CHANGE
1651
85%
NO FOR NAME CHANGE
302
18%
TOTAL VOTES
1953
Breakdown of YES Votes:
Value
Count
%
San Tan Valley
348
21.08%
Bella Vista
254
15.38%
Mountain View
115
6.97%
San Tan Vistas
105
6.36%
Ironwood
76
4.60%
Queen Creek Heights
65
3.94%
Santana
65
3.94%
Ironwood Heights
59
3.57%
Palo Verde Hills
54
3.27%
San Tan Ridge
51
3.09%
Superstition Valley
41
2.48%
Saguaro Valley
40
2.42%
Creekside
33
2.00%
Goldmine
29
1.76%
San Tan Trails
29
1.76%
San Tan Area
25
1.51%
Ocotillo Flats
23
1.39%
Agave
21
1.27%
Ironwood Grove
21
1.27%
Poston Butte
15
0.91%
Bella Verde
15
0.91%
Goldmine Valley
14
0.85%
Acacia Valley
14
0.85%
Valle Del Sol
13
0.79%
Ocotillo Trails
13
0.79%
Skyline
13
0.79%
Cholla Vista
11
0.67%
San Tan East
9
0.55%
Ironwood Vista
9
0.55%
Gantzel
9
0.55%
Johnson
8
0.48%
Desert Vista
8
0.48%
Creekside Heights
8
0.48%
Pecan Grove
8
0.48%
Vineyard Heights
7
0.42%
Primrose Hill
5
0.30%
Carter
3
0.18%
Combs
3
0.18%
Combs Crossing
2
0.12%
Cholla Valley
1
0.06%
King Creek
1
0.06%
Crook
1
0.06%
Bellawood
1
0.06%
Valley Vista
1
0.06%
San Tan Foothills
1
0.06%
Skyline Estates
1
0.06%
Superstition Vista
1
0.06%
Germann
1
0.06%
Dessert Wells
1
0.06%
TOTAL YES VOTES
1651
100%
TOTAL VOTES
1953
BELOW IS A LIST OF THE DISTRICTS & THE OF BALLOTS PULLED FROM EACH
District #
Totals
1
20
2
385
3
93
4
176
5
462
6
119
7
96
8
469
9
133
TOTAL
1953
BELOW IS BREAKDOWN OF VOTES PER REGION
North
698
36%
Central
388
20%
South
867
44%
TOTAL
100%
BELOW IS A BREAKDOWN OF THE VOTES FOR THE TOP 2 NAMES
(TOTAL YES VOTES 1651)
San Tan Valley
%
Bella Vista
%
North
134
39%
45
18%
Central
38
11%
81
32%
South
176
51%
128
50%
TOTAL
348
100%
254
100%
|
Current time is 08:12 am | |
|