| Author | Post |
|---|
Bill Pearson
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 149 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 02:22 pm |
|
Hey gang, great conversation, and it is one of the things that makes Sun City special. Yes, we have rules, but they are easy to follow and are not too onerous. Del Webb built us a community, and then we made it work. Since it's founding countless numbers of volunteers have shaped our history. Each of us has that responsibility, that right.
One of the first attractions for me was the self-governance aspect. Virtually every facet of Sun City living is keyed by volunteers, by people who want it to continue to make it a great place to live.
I'll say this as a resident (and not a member of the SCHOA board of directors); we walk our dogs daily and i see minor violations of the CC&R's. I ride my golf car almost exclusively while staying within the walls, and i see even more things technically in violation. I do not write them down and turn people in. Most barely rate a second glance.
That said, when a property falls into disrepair, when conditions begin to affect the value of the community or when there are out and out violations (under age for example) that could impact us all, we have a duty to respond, to call and report. And, Winterguy is right, getting along with your neighbor is important because when we get called on a violation, we have an obligation to respond.
I am like so many others living in Sun City...we love it here. We want it to remain a great community where it looks good, feels good and we care about one another. How does it get any better than this?
|
Winterguy
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 06:21 pm |
|
Most violations, such as hanging out laundry, will be ignored unless or until someone complains. So, it pays to stay on good terms with your neighbors. This is true almost everywhere, not just in Sun City.
This is not true of some HOA's that have really active compliance people. I know of one owner who got a letter because they had a drip tube with no plant by it. Oh no, they could not just remove the drip tub. The HOA required them to plant a plant. It seems if a plant dies and is removed it must be replaced. In this case, any plant would do. Other HOA's go so far as to tell you what plants you can have in your yard.
That is one reason we chose to live in Sun City. The CC&R's are reasonable and only designed to protect our property values, not to harass us and tell us how to live.
Sure wish we could get everyone to understand that, but I'm probably preaching to the choir.
|
SunCityFan
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 05:26 pm |
|
| The house east of 111th on Caron is in the Rancho Estates. Not covered by the SCHOA deed restrictions. Reference Bill Pearson's earlier post on that subject.
|
corvettest
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 04:40 pm |
|
Interesting to read these....................our neighbor on one side just built a garage that's (almost) larger than their house and our neighbor on the other side has always hung out their laundry. We have no wall between us; it's not bothered any of the neighbors, I guess. Neither has the huge new garage but some people have complained. I imagine they don't even live nearby.........just complainers.
They went through all the "hoops" and got all the permits; it's legal. You pretty much have to have a corner lot, though.
Yesterday I was driving around looking at Open Houses and I saw a huge RV parked on a lot. They had an RV gate. There is STILL a house for sale just east of 111th on Caron that has an RV pad and he told me we could keep our big RV right there. The ad also says you could build a guest house on the lot.
|
SunCityFan
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 01:12 pm |
|
| An addition can be as large as you want it to be. As long as it falls within County setback and lot coverage rules you will be able to get a permit, and SCHOA will have no problem with it.
|
SPY HUNTER
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 79 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31st, 2008 07:48 pm |
|
Thanks for to info. on the restrictions Bill. By the way 2JPs the cabinets I want to install will be under the roof line at the back of building.
THE SPY HUNTER
|
Winterguy
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31st, 2008 06:14 pm |
|
I've seen a few of these that look much worse than a well built free-standing shed, but I suppose it is in the eye of the beholder.
The recent information is the kind of 'clarification' we need. Thanks Bill.
|
2JPs
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 92 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31st, 2008 06:06 pm |
|
"For those without walls to hide them, they can attach "sheds" to the house using the same materials as their dwelling and painting them the same color as the house. There are hundreds of homes that have added necessary storage using this method."
I think there there is an added restriction to this that the attached storage must be under existing rooflines.
|
Bill Pearson
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 149 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31st, 2008 02:38 pm |
|
Sorry guys been busy. The pre-sale inspections have been going on for the last several months. We are still working out some glitches. One of the local realtors raised several concerns and we want to sit with him and talk about his issues. We feel it is important to get buy-in from the real estate community.
Rancho Estates has a seperate set of CC&R's. I've never read them but i know the history of that developement was to allow residents to have horses (and horse barns), and now large garages are commonplace. If it is not in Rancho Estates, then the shed will be illegal and the whole point of the Buyer Protection Plan is that realtors and sellers know in advance the shed has to come down.
Even more bizarre in the CC&R's is the fact sheds are illegal, but garages in the back quadrant (and that meet all set-back requirements) are legal. We are seeing a smattering of garages being built and if they meet all the conditions of the CC&R's there is nothing we can do about them.
Another nuance of the CC&R's is that a walled back yard where violations can't be seen make them non violations. Much has been made about clothes lines; but if there is a six foot block wall that screens the clothes line from view, it is okay. Hence the answer to your question Spy Hunter is those cabinets, if screened from view by the wall make them acceptable. For those without walls to hide them, they can attach "sheds" to the house using the same materials as their dwelling and painting them the same color as the house. There are hundreds of homes that have added necessary storage using this method.
We think once the Buyer Protection Plan has the kinks worked out it will be the best solution for some of the violations that have been grandfathered.
|
Winterguy
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30th, 2008 08:41 pm |
|
Just out of curiosity, when do the pre-sale inspections of homes start?
In a case like the storage shed cited below it is going to be very unfair to the buyer if he has to tear down the shed that was featured in the ad. Is there any way the realtor can be held liable by the buyer or SCHOA? Is there any way to penalize the realty firm if they fail to mention a condition that violates the CC&Rs?
|
bmw1
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30th, 2008 07:46 pm |
|
2JPs: I doubt that’s the case here; the home is listed for $119,000. The ranchettes go for a lot more than that. Unfortunately, the home has a sale pending, so no address is given in the ad.
|
SPY HUNTER
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 79 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30th, 2008 06:11 am |
|
I to noticed the same ad about a shed in the backyard it was listed as pending by man and wife relaters their names are Roger and Elizabeth Parish . The office # is 623-584-1844 and work for Ken Meade Realty. Maybe SHOA should call and see if new owners were told about the rules regarding sheds. The ad says nothing about lot size. that leds to a question I have about putting up cabinets on my back patio wall. The patio is 38' X 12 and is covered. My lot is large it is 19,810 sq ft and has no other houses behind it,and is surrounded by a 6ft wall and do not think my neighbors on ether side would be bothered by them or even see them. Dose anyone know the regulations about that if so reply. Maybe Bill P. knows. The cabinets would be attach to back wall of what is the 2 car garage not the side of the house.
 THE SPY HUNTER
|
2JPs
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 92 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30th, 2008 05:07 am |
|
This very well could be a legal outbuilding. Many of the homes just west of 111th and south of Peoria Avenue have lots that are large enough to have storage buildings. Many of these ranchettes are multi building properties and many used to have horses. Not many other areas of Sun City have lots that are the size that would legally fit a 12 x 20 structure, but it's not impossible.
|
bmw1
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30th, 2008 04:59 am |
|
I happened to notice a Sun City residence listed in today’s Parade of Homes that has, among other features, a 12 x 20 storage building in the backyard. Kind of shows how hard it is for SCHOA to enforce the CC&R’s when Realtors are playing up illegal structures in order to sell homes!
|
Bill Pearson
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 149 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 27th, 2008 02:03 pm |
|
One of the best things about the SCHOA meeting the other day was President Tomich allowing for comments from the audience and allowing residents to air their opinion. Typically that is reserved for after the business meeting and all votes have been cast. This was democracy at its finest.
The consensus was that the clarifications went beyond explanation and were in fact additions. Several examples were stated: From roof lines to trimming tree heights to arches, residents saw this as exceeding our authority. The point was hammered home; if you want changes or additions you needed to bring it to a vote before the community at large.
One of the commenters made an interesting suggestion. He stated as Sun City evolves perhaps the CC&R's should be updated. It is a matter we have discussed at length. I know many of the board members would like to see them better fitted to the current needs of Sun City but that task is massive. If we could simply have a referendum vote of the residents it would most likely happen. Unfortunately the history of the organization is tied to voting each sub-division and there is over 50 of them.
My thanks to the residents who came and expressed their thoughts. We also appreciated hearing from those who sent in emails or made comments in the newspaper. Ultimately our goal at SCHOA is to represent the best interests of Sun Citians and when you participate, it becomes far easier.
|
Bill Pearson
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 149 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 09:58 pm |
|
Hey WG sorry you missed the meeting. It was well attended and lots of comments from the crowd. The new Clarifications were voted down and should be a dead issue going forward.
Regarding your thoughts on a more proactive approach, we passed the Buyer Protection package last month and had more discussion this month. Several Realtors expressed concerns and we will be contacting them to help the program become more effective. I think it is a great idea for sellers and buyers to better know what is going on before a transaction is completed.
The walls on golf courses can be more than 2 ft, but the materials are limited. If you have played Willowcreek, you have seen along the 10th fairway the original Del Webb models and the fencing they used. Hopefully anyone living on a golf course contacts SCHOA to ask what the limitations are.
Finally, our membership services committee has been working on ways to reach out to new owners. Nothing is in concrete yet but several good ideas have been suggested.
|
Winterguy
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 07:12 pm |
|
Oops! I missed the board meeting today.  One question I would have liked to ask: What are we doing to prevent violations? Is there any proactive aspect to compliance or is it strictly reactive? (I guess that's 2 questions).
The reason I ask is there seems to be a lot of construction going on around the area and some of it is clearly in violation of the CCRs. I don't particularly agree with the golf course lot back wall restrictions, but they do exist. Yet, a brand new wall is being built at Aqua Fria and Sumerset that 'appears' to be in violation of the 2 ft restriction. Point is, it seems unfair to allow these sorts of things to be built and then charge them with a violation at some later date. It is not as if they are trying to hide anything, it is out there for anyone passing by or golfing to see. I'm sure, when it is finished it will be a very attractive addition to Sun City. This brings me to my next point.
Should some of the CCRs be looked at to see if they need to be updated. Using the example above, there are many walls along our golf courses that are not in compliance. Perhaps this restriction is not as important as it was once deemed to be. Because I live near Bell Road, I would like to see the hedges grow as tall as possible along the wall to provide a sound barrier. I realize any changes would require a vote, but if a change is reasonable I think reasonable people would vote for it.
'Nuff said.
|
Bill Pearson
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 149 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 02:09 pm |
|
Hey Winterguy, thanks for your comments; they couldn't be more on point. One of the reasons the clarifications approval has taken this long is we don't want to cross over the line. Clarifying is wholly different than adding to.
The hedge problem you cited (and others like it) is one our compliance folks are trained to deal with. While they aren't out looking for issues, when they get a call, do an inspection and see a neighbor with the same violation, they should write it up. We try to be fair and flexible, but there is never a perfect world in dealing with these matters.
The new policy on addressing violations will help us work more closely with residents and will keep these matters internal longer before being turned over to an attorney. Our goal is to give people adequate opportunity to correct a violation, not run up expensive cases and legal fees.
As far as the clarifications, we are getting closer to agreement. They will be discussed at the monthly meeting on Tuesday the 25th of March at 9:00 AM; hopefully you all can make it to SCHOA's offices for that meeting.
|
Winterguy
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 08:50 pm |
|
Rules are good. If we didn't think so we would not be members of SCHOA. The CC&Rs are the best tool we have to avoid our community from decaying.
That being said, we must be very careful that we do not create new, never intended restrictions in our attempts to clarify or better define the rules. From what I have seen, SCHOA has been fairly responsive to correcting those issues that seemed to cross over that fine line.
We must also be careful to assure the regulations are enforced in a fair and impartial manner and keep the enforcers from being overzealous in their actions. What do I mean? I know of one enforcement action where an individual home owner has been required to trim the Oleander hedge along the Bell Road wall to a height of 6 feet. At the same time the contiguous hedge of a neighbor is well over 8 feet tall. Is this fair and impartial? Does an enforcer have the authority to order someone to trim their Palm tree? Can they at the same time ignore a neighbors tree that is in the same condition? I don't see that addressed anywhere in the regulations. Is this a compliance officer getting carried away with his or her authority? These CCRs are a powerful and useful weapon. As with any weapon we must be very careful that it is used properly and for the purpose it was originally intended. Perhaps we need to also clarify the limits of the enforcer's authority. Are they authorized to trespass on a property to find a violation that cannot be seen without doing so?
As you can see, there are lots of issues that need to be considered. I think the pre-sale home inspection is a great idea for keeping properties in compliance. I hope there will be an opportunity for a seller to get an inspection early enough to make the corrections needed and/or challenge them, perhaps even before the propery is placed on the market.
Bill, thanks for your informative responses on this forum.
|
Bill Pearson
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 149 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 03:14 pm |
|
Hey SP, i wish it were that clear. Tom Stolt is correct in the story; we are not able to change the CC&R's without a vote; but we can clarify what is in them. As you can imagine, that is a very fine line.
Obviously there are those who would love to see no rules, but that won't happen. Our goal is to insure new owners know what those community standards are and when they buy a house, the previous owner gets it in compliance at the point of sale. The vast majority of Sun City residence and owners are more than willing to keep their properties looking good and working with us. It is a rare handful (and all too often investors with no interest in ever living here) who show willing disregard for maintaining their property as they agreed to when they bought into the Sun City lifestyle.
|
SPY HUNTER
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 79 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 08:17 pm |
|
I think the board is only trying to help lot owners understand the rules of compliance that are on the books not change them. I also think there are a few who don't want the majority of owners to know the rules so they can continue to disregard the compliances and not get reported.
THE SPY HUNTER
|
Bill Pearson
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 149 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 04:50 pm |
|
Thanks Rusty for the continuing coverage on this topic. As you can see there are legitimate disagreements regarding the clarifications. Hopefully we will have them ironed out by the regular board meeting on March 25th. We made some headway last Friday, but there is more work to be done yet.
|
RustyBradshaw
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 53 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 03:05 pm |
|
Board takes stab at CC&Rs
By Rusty Bradshaw
Independent Newspapers
The Sun City Home Owners Board of Directors will again address proposed clarifications to the community’s CC&Rs when it meets next week but some residents believe the board does not have the authority to make changes.
The HOA’s compliance committee proposed in November 20 clarifications to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the board’s consideration. The board did not consider the proposal until January when it decided to tabled the matter to allow time to communicate the changes to homeowners.
The board meets 9 a.m. Tuesday, March 25 at the SCHOA office, 10401 W. Coggins Drive.
Tom Beeson, board member and chairman of the compliance committee, said the proposals were made to help SCHOA officials enforce the CC&Rs. The proposed changes can be viewed in the Public Issues Forum at http://www.newszap.com.
“Our CC&Rs are very vague,” Mr. Beeson said. “They are six pages long and only four of those are very pertinent.”
He said other HOAs — such as Anthem and Sun City Grand — are much more detailed.
However, some residents believe the board has no authority to make any changes to the CC&Rs without approval of homeowners in a public vote.
“The Sun City Homeowners Board proposal to move forward on the proposed 20 ‘clarifications’ to the CC&Rs without owner approval is not within the provisions of the 1998 Declaration,” Sun City resident C.M. Bennett stated in a letter.
He stated under amendments (paragraph 18) in the 1998 declaration of CC&Rs, voter approved by homeowners, it is clearly laid out how the CC&Rs are to be amended.
“It is clearly stated the CC&Rs may be ‘amended in whole or part, at any time by a majority vote of the then Owners of the lots covered hereby.’” he stated.
Thomas L. Stolt, a former SCHOA board president, agrees. He calls the clarifications a ruse and claims they are additions to the declaration.
“It took a mandatory vote of all Sun City residents and three years to complete the 1998 revision,” he stated in a letter. “So it is not much of a surprise that the board would like to make changes without so painful a procedure.”
Mr. Beeson said attorneys with Ekmark and Ekmark, who reviewed the document, claim they are not changing anything in the 1998 declaration.
“They say everything is as it should be,” he said.
Echoing the sentiments of SCHOA Board Member Bill Pearson during the Feb. 19 board meeting, Mr. Bennett said attorneys also included a caveat that they could not guarantee the clarifications would hold up in court.
“That sounds like an invitation to a court challenge,” Mr. Bennett said.
Mr. Beeson argues the attorneys’ caveot does not mean the clarifications are not proper.
“No lawyer can guarantee anything 100 percent,” he said. “A court can look at our CC&Rs and if they find them reasonable they will hold up.”
He added delaying the clarifications is creating a backlog of compliance cases and more.
“I am frustrated and the whole compliance committee is frustrated,” Mr. Beeson said.
The committee presented drafts of the clarifications to board members in November and again in December and each time the committee received no feedback, according to Mr. Beeson.
Mr. Bennett claims the board has done little to inform the public about the proposals, However, consideration of the matter was tabled in January specifically to allow homeowner review of the proposals and the document was available on the HOA Web site.
“Residents should have an opportunity to be part of this decision,” Board Member Ben Roloff said in the January meeting. “We should give these (proposals) the widest possible distribution so residents can get a look at them before we con sider them again.”
Post your opinions in the Public Issues Forum at http://www.newszap.com. Lead News Editor Rusty Bradshaw can be reached at 623-445-2725 or rbradshaw@newszap.com.
March 5, 2008
SCHOA tables clarifications
By Rusty Bradshaw
Independent Newspapers
The Sun City Home Owners Association Board of Directors got two of three proposals to streamline the enforcement of covenants, conditions and restrictions, but a third proposal was put on hold.
In its Feb. 26 meeting, the board approved a compliance policy and a buyer’s protection plan. But proposed clarifications to the CC&Rs were, by a 4-3 vote, tabled to the next board meeting, 9 a.m. Tuesday, March 18 at the SCHOA office, 10401 W. Coggins Drive. Some board members opposed approving the clarifications because they contend they do not clarify the CC&Rs, but rather add language to them.
“This is not clarifying, you are adding to them,” said board member Gary Bourne. “You can’t add to the CC&Rs without a vote of the people.”
The board’s compliance committee recommended 20 clarifications (visit http://www.suncityhoa.org), ranging from the age restriction to the height of trimming trees. The board had the recommendations at its January meeting but decided to get the document out to residents to receive input before taking a vote.
Board member Tom Beeson believes the clarifications are ready for board consideration and do not represent changes in the CC&Rs. He said the compliance committee has a backlog of about 80 cases waiting for board action on the proposed clarifications. He added SCHOA’s attorneys gave the clarifications the green light.
“We (compliance committee members) and the attorneys believe the clarifications are ready to be approved by the board,” Mr. Beeson said.
Mr. Pearson disagrees.
“The lawyers say they are reasonable, but they cannot guarantee they will hold up in court,” he said during the meeting.
He added residents buy in Sun City because the CC&Rs are not complicated or too restrictive. He also suggested SCHOA was trying to enforce the “clarified” CC&Rs before they were board approved. He cited a pending compliance issue in which a resident built a 12-foot arch and was being told to take it down to eight feet, the standard in the clarified CC&Rs.
“We have no ability to tell people to take it (arch) down, yet we are doing that,” he said.
Mr. Pearson resigned as SHOA’s public relations committee chairman because of the clarifications.
“I did not believe I could, in good conscious, justify this,” he said.
He also said in conversation with Ms. Meyer Feb. 24 she indicated she resigned in connection with the clarifications.
“She was pretty well distraught over what we are going to vote on today,” Mr. Pearson said.
Ms. Meyer confirmed the conversation and said “distraught” was a good descriptive word, but said her resignation was more because she was more of a behind-the-scenes type of worker. She said she loved SCHOA and the people involved with it, and wanted to continue to volunteer where she could.
“I just do not feel that I have the personality to make decisions like that,” she said. “I’m a good secretary, but not a great leader.”
Board member Walt Patterson also said he disagreed with new restrictions in the clarifications. He cited the proposed requirement to trim trees in front yards to 36 inches off the ground.
“If we allow that, what’s to stop it from being applied to the back yards,” he said. “If I can get my rake under the tree, that should be OK.”
Mr. Beeson said the 36-inch standard was taken from Arizona Fish and Game Department standards.
There was much less argument in approving the buyer protection plan, designed to identify CC&R violations when a home is put up for sale to increase awareness to potential buyers of possible problems. The plan requires sellers and their agents disclose CC&R violations to prospective buyers and, if that is not done, allows the HOA staff to provide the disclosure.
“This is the most proactive thing this board can to do avoid problems during the sale of homes,” said board member Stuart Manville.
The compliance policy sets out specific steps for addressing violations, including reporting violations, documenting complaints, investigation, up to six letters requesting compliance and a hearing. The policy also allows for cost of recovery fees of $100 each following a third, fourth, fifth and sixth letter on non-compliance, and an appeals process.
Mr. Pearson was concerned about the assessment amount and asked how the amount is established.
“Every violation involves a different amount of time,” said Bob Tomish, board president. “A lot of research is put into this after the letters go out.”
Compliance officer Bill Szentmoiklosi said there were multiple things involved in investigating complaints, in addition to administrative tasks.
“Sometimes the cost is more than 100, sometimes it is less,” he said. “We are not required to document every expense, a court will look at whether the cost was reasonable.”
Post your opinions in the Public Issues Forum at http://www.newszap.com. Lead News Editor Rusty Bradshaw can be reached at 623-445-2725 or rbradshaw@newszap.com.
|
Current time is 03:14 am | |
|