| Author | Post |
|---|
J&JFarms
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 371 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 06:36 am |
|
Ed Dison wrote: J&JFarms wrote: Ed Dison wrote: How many of these kind of people are running around town? What if someone mistakes one these people for an intruder? Well I guess they are considered intruders..................
Ed Dison
There is an agenda, shared by a select few, that is to use all means possible to impact the private property rights of others.
There is no right to inflict undue economic harm upon another private citizen.
I remember a simple parable about glass houses...
Do you notice the pattern I'm seeing? The circle only sends one out at a time on the blogs.
They are known. They are trying to force their vision of AJ upon the citizens without the benefit of a public vote.
How can so much power be intrusted with so few?
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20th, 2009 02:51 pm |
|
Going through my old paperwork and found an unlimited supply of receipts for fencing dated in the early 80's, before 1985. Wonder if I'll need these for anything?
Ed Dison
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20th, 2009 02:47 pm |
|
J&JFarms wrote: Ed Dison wrote: How many of these kind of people are running around town? What if someone mistakes one these people for an intruder? Well I guess they are considered intruders..................
Ed Dison
There is an agenda, shared by a select few, that is to use all means possible to impact the private property rights of others.
There is no right to inflict undue economic harm upon another private citizen.
I remember a simple parable about glass houses...
Do you notice the pattern I'm seeing? The circle only sends one out at a time on the blogs.
|
J&JFarms
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 371 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19th, 2009 08:44 am |
|
Ed Dison wrote: How many of these kind of people are running around town? What if someone mistakes one these people for an intruder? Well I guess they are considered intruders..................
Ed Dison
There is an agenda, shared by a select few, that is to use all means possible to impact the private property rights of others.
There is no right to inflict undue economic harm upon another private citizen.
I remember a simple parable about glass houses...
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 03:54 am |
|
How many of these kind of people are running around town? What if someone mistakes one these people for an intruder? Well I guess they are considered intruders..................
Ed Dison
|
J&JFarms
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 371 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 08:23 am |
|
MikeW wrote: Ed
Were you are incorrect is that I took the pictures of the worst violations, in my opinion, to the code compliance people. I wanted action taken. I still have copies if you care to see them. I did not try to hide anything.
As to the councilman, if I remember correctly the comments were made during Nov or Dec of last year, when boarding was first brought up at council. I was in the audience.
I have rescued dachshunds for 25 years and know a little about taking care of animals. IMO, keeping a filthy area for the abnimal is not love or care.
AS far as horses, I have no opinion except the need for sanitation and clean food and water. I could not care less if you have one or fifty as long as they are properly taken care of.
Mike,
You have no authority to be working as a liason for the enforcement department. If they took photos from you then they have solicited you as their agent. At that point in time any violation of the ARS that you, or anyone else in your group, have committed will expose the city. Any further action that you take, that may violate any person's civil rights, property rights, or the ARS, of which the product is photos or information forwarded onto the Code Enforcement Department is further exposure to the city.
Remember, a use fee applies...
U.S.C. Title 18 sec 241&242; U.S.C. Title 42 ss 1981,1982,1983, 1985 & 1986.
Last edited on Wed Jun 17th, 2009 08:24 am by J&JFarms
|
J&JFarms
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 371 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 08:11 am |
|
MikeW wrote: About the councilman, He stated from the Dias that he knew of 15 legal and 40 - 45 ILLEGAL boarders but would not divulge their names. He swore to uphold the laws of AJ and the state. At a minimum, his actions constitutes malfeasance, IMO.
He sits at P&Z meetings and FUMES if something is said that he doesn't like, even though his being there is improper. The letter that called for a "show of force" and contained his name and address, made him a joke!
He CLAIMS to love horses but HE told me in Village Inn that he only cleans their stalls once a week. The horse has to stand in its own filth for a week!!! THAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LOVE IN MY BOOKS!!!
I have no stand on horses, I like seeing them in town and the area, but there does need to be some regulation.
Heresay and Conjecture. Cleans the stalls once a week? Was that person aware of said conversation with you? It seems a bit fanciful that someone would a) treat any animal that way, b) admit it to someone with a public agenda against them, c) present such a claim given their position within local horseman's associations.
Are you familiar with the word Libel?
|
J&JFarms
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 371 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 08:03 am |
|
MikeW wrote: ED
How about a councilmen that is working for 15 people instead of the 30,000+ that he swore to represent?
If one council person finds a particular action to be overly restrictive, intrusive, limiting to private property rights and/or a potential liability to the city, their opposition to the action maybe seen by some as favoring a select few, but in reality those that benefit are many. In other words, just because you don't agree, doesn't mean the rest of the 37,000 residents are inline with you.
MikeW wrote: ED
Pictures?
By the way, the CITIZENS of AJ are the only ones that should voice an opinion about AJ laws. NOT someone that dosen't even live in the city!!
MikeW wrote:
AJ Voter
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! There are a lot of violation in this town, I have brought pictures to code compliance and get little action, I also presented them to council at CTTP. I will help in anyway possible, come by the store, I have a digital camera and will use my car.
Tread very lightly in your selective enforcement of code violations. Unless you are a city official, and even then your capacity is limited, any action that you take upon yourself to inflict undue financial hardship upon another could be viewed as harassment, or worse. Proper use of the law in response to such actions is not a threat, it is nothing more than a responsible use of the law in defense of individual rights. The ARS are pretty clear, best not be taking photos over fences or through windows. But hey, if you come on by, make sure you read the signs. A use fee applies.
MikeW wrote:
IF a person DOESN'T live in the city, they can and should offer ADVICE, but NOT THREATS!!
Since I live in the city, can I threaten? Seriously though, I'm not sure why you and your spouse get so fired up about horse boarding. You claim to have no dog in the horse boarding issue, yet you sure seem to have aligned your self with the other side. It is okay to say you are against it, but don't try to portray yourself as some great impartial animal welfare advocate.
Last edited on Wed Jun 17th, 2009 08:25 am by J&JFarms
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 07:20 am |
|
MikeW wrote: Ed
Were you are incorrect is that I took the pictures of the worst violations, in my opinion, to the code compliance people. I wanted action taken. I still have copies if you care to see them. I did not try to hide anything.
As to the councilman, if I remember correctly the comments were made during Nov or Dec of last year, when boarding was first brought up at council. I was in the audience.
I have rescued dachshunds for 25 years and know a little about taking care of animals. IMO, keeping a filthy area for the abnimal is not love or care.
AS far as horses, I have no opinion except the need for sanitation and clean food and water. I could not care less if you have one or fifty as long as they are properly taken care of.
MikeW, YOU wanted action taken? Shouldn't that be up to code compliance? Do I want to see your pictures? No, but a private citizen may want a judge to see YOUR pictures of THEIR private property.
As to the councilman, HE will answer this one for you.
MikeW, what do dachshunds have to do with horses? Whats an "abnimal"? I've been around dogs and horses all of my life. This one you can answer through YOUR own research, I suggest you start with Apache Junction Animal Control, I've already educated them on this subject.
Do you know anything about "livestock sanitation"? In your own words, explain "clean food". And you do have an opinion, from the start of this whole boarding issue. A stand and many opinions, uneducated opinions.
And care? Yes you do care MikeW, you've indicated this to everyone here, many times. "Why should these people get what others (you) can't have". "Why do I have to have a kennel license for my dogs, and they can have unlimited horses with no requirements", "I can't even let my brother-in law stay in our rv, but they want camping", need I go on?
Ed Dison
Last edited on Wed Jun 17th, 2009 07:30 am by Ed Dison
|
MikeW
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Apache Junction |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 15th, 2009 06:39 pm |
|
Ed
Were you are incorrect is that I took the pictures of the worst violations, in my opinion, to the code compliance people. I wanted action taken. I still have copies if you care to see them. I did not try to hide anything.
As to the councilman, if I remember correctly the comments were made during Nov or Dec of last year, when boarding was first brought up at council. I was in the audience.
I have rescued dachshunds for 25 years and know a little about taking care of animals. IMO, keeping a filthy area for the abnimal is not love or care.
AS far as horses, I have no opinion except the need for sanitation and clean food and water. I could not care less if you have one or fifty as long as they are properly taken care of.
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 15th, 2009 05:29 am |
|
Ed, the show of force letter that Mike W. claims is his way of communicating the informational flyer that went out. Well whatever it was in one's mind it must have attained it's purpose because it woke up a lot of citizens, especially the phones at city hall. Again one man's perception of what a purpose is, does not constitute another man's right to do something. If it made anyone look silly, right now it's a department that regulates these fence codes, they can't even make up their minds as to what is compliance or not, so I hear. Later all, stay safe.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 15th, 2009 03:52 am |
|
MikeW wrote: About the councilman, He stated from the Dias that he knew of 15 legal and 40 - 45 ILLEGAL boarders but would not divulge their names. He swore to uphold the laws of AJ and the state. At a minimum, his actions constitutes malfeasance, IMO.
He sits at P&Z meetings and FUMES if something is said that he doesn't like, even though his being there is improper. The letter that called for a "show of force" and contained his name and address, made him a joke!
He CLAIMS to love horses but HE told me in Village Inn that he only cleans their stalls once a week. The horse has to stand in its own filth for a week!!! THAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LOVE IN MY BOOKS!!!
I have no stand on horses, I like seeing them in town and the area, but there does need to be some regulation.
MikeW, I can't answer for the councilman in question, but will forward your comments and opinions as written here to him. All I can give here is my opinion.
I know I've heard and seen your comments on the blogs about "ILLEGAL boarders", Superstition Horsemen's Association having a secret list, even the number 40, but I don't recall the councilman in question stating anything about it from the bench, if you will provide the date, I will go back and watch the video on the website. Having knowledge about code violations hardly constitutes malfeasance, and remember you also took an oath, just as the councilman, and just as I did. YOU stated YOU take pictures of code violations, so this makes YOU knowledgeable, just as the councilman, just as I, just as many other people, including city officials, and you state this constitutes MISCONDUCT or UNLAWFUL ACTS? You want him to divulge names? I'm growing very concerned as to who you think you are MikeW.
P&Z meetings? Being there is improper? I guess our vice mayor, our county supervisor, and few other officials are guilty also. With as many of the "ethics codes" being violated at these P&Z meetings, it's no wonder they were not shut down by the State of Arizona. FUMING? A lot of people were and still are MikeW, well not as bad, and bolstered as you at the occasional council meeting.
What "letter" are you referring to? "A show of force"? His name and address? Made him a joke? PLEASE post that one here, I don't recall that one either.
Do you have some sort of misconception that the City of Apache Junction is run from the Village Inn, by "the circle?
You? Horses? Regulations? Cleans stalls once a week? By your statements you seem to be very concerned about these issues, this is considered a stand.
As I stated before, I can not answer for the councilman you speak of, I'll wait to hear his comments on your statements, then I can comment further.
Ed Dison
Last edited on Mon Jun 15th, 2009 05:21 am by Ed Dison
|
MikeW
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Apache Junction |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 11:23 pm |
|
About the councilman, He stated from the Dias that he knew of 15 legal and 40 - 45 ILLEGAL boarders but would not divulge their names. He swore to uphold the laws of AJ and the state. At a minimum, his actions constitutes malfeasance, IMO.
He sits at P&Z meetings and FUMES if something is said that he doesn't like, even though his being there is improper. The letter that called for a "show of force" and contained his name and address, made him a joke!
He CLAIMS to love horses but HE told me in Village Inn that he only cleans their stalls once a week. The horse has to stand in its own filth for a week!!! THAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LOVE IN MY BOOKS!!!
I have no stand on horses, I like seeing them in town and the area, but there does need to be some regulation.
Last edited on Mon Jun 15th, 2009 12:22 am by MikeW
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 10:31 pm |
|
MikeW wrote: Ed
About the sign issues in town. I HAVE voiced my opinion that our WHOLE sign ordinance needs to be revised. As to our old location, we were caught between the owner wanting to upgrade the facade and later being almost alone in the center. We had no signage except a banner for almost 18 months. Personally, I think A-frames cheapen the area, but I am will to hear both sides of the issue and abide by a consensus.
A lot of our city ordinances need to be revised or scraped. We have been a city for over 35 years but we still have hold-over rules from before we were incorporated.
MikeW, your side stepping issues, comments in your own hand. That seems to be common place with "the circle". You made a comment about a councilman, I commented back, now it's your turn. I was using the sign issue in comparison to your comment, I wasn't looking for your views on the sign issue. But we do agree that the city needs to take a look at the outdated codes/ ordnances.
Ed Dison
|
MikeW
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Apache Junction |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 08:26 pm |
|
Ed
About the sign issues in town. I HAVE voiced my opinion that our WHOLE sign ordinance needs to be revised. As to our old location, we were caught between the owner wanting to upgrade the facade and later being almost alone in the center. We had no signage except a banner for almost 18 months. Personally, I think A-frames cheapen the area, but I am will to hear both sides of the issue and abide by a consensus.
A lot of our city ordinances need to be revised or scraped. We have been a city for over 35 years but we still have hold-over rules from before we were incorporated.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 03:08 pm |
|
MikeW wrote: ED
How about a councilmen that is working for 15 people instead of the 30,000+ that he swore to represent?
MikeW, regarding this comment. Let's apply this same councilman to the "A frame sign" issue. I know at your old location you had "extra signage", at least on the Meridian side of the complex. Now how many businesses are located in Apache Junction? Let's just use the figure of 300. If this same councilman supports this issue, maybe with lots of enthusiasm, is he now only working for 300 people instead of the 30,000+ he swore to represent? In a city of 30,000+ people, when making laws and codes for businesses, it is impossible that all 30,000+ people benefit, or can apply them for their use. Is it this councilman's fault there are only 15 like businesses that these proposed codes apply to? Would you still have a problem if there were 500 of these like businesses? Think about this for a moment. Our Pinal County Supervisors are helping the businesses there by enacting a temporary 120 day ordinance allowing banner signs to help boost business in these tough economic times, and they do allow "A Frame signs" already. We on the other hand put this issue on the back burner. Will there still be businesses to benefit from this if they are allowed in the future? Is this business friendly?
I know I've heard this comment from a few people, " why should we cater to 15 people". Well my question could be, in regards to the "A Frame sign" issue, "why should we cater to 300 people". With this attitude, does Apache Junction look friendly to those who want to start a business here? Jealousy, personal agendas, and closed minds are really hurting this city. Step back and really take a good look MikeW, think about this with everyone in mind, not with just the "few". To be a good politician, you should have an open mind, look at the overall picture, no personal agendas, and listen to all, not just the "few" who's perception of the way things should be, are their own. Sometimes things are a fight and have to be pushed. Politics are like boxing MikeW, you walk to the ring friends, do the best you can to win the round, walk together friends afterwards and get a cup of coffee.
Ed Dison
Last edited on Tue Jun 16th, 2009 01:23 am by Ed Dison
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 01:43 pm |
|
MikeW wrote: When there are stacks of rubbish or cars on blocks for months, YES I take pictures! NO ONE should have to live next to a dump!! Our code compliance people should be pro-active and not re-active when there is a complaint. I live in AJ and my wife has a business here, I want to see our city flourish.
I have never tried to silence you or anyone else that speaks the truth! I will always ask questions and object when I think something is wrong.
ENFORCEMENT, something we agree on. I also want to see the north side of the city flourish as a RURAL community, it can be done. Congratulations on moving your business inside the city limits, it fits perfect with the small town, main street flare. Look up Fredricksburg, Texas, this would fit very well here. Keep the HOA's and the malls to the south, this would give people the choice of rural or city living. In researching some of the present city codes, I find a lot of them are hard to enforce because of the way they are written. Just changing the penalties from criminal to civil will help with enforcement. I'm a firm believer in personal property rights, with neighborhood consideration. When I moved here, I really thought I was done with the "Political Arena", could semi-retire, and just enjoy "the rural lifestyle", this is certainly not the case.
I feel Apache Junction is my home, even if I live just on the other side of the line. When I see or hear something that just doesn't seem right, I will be involved. It seems almost anything looked into here has a glitch. Truth, scenarios, views, laws, legalities, opinions, solutions, is what I provide. I will and do investigate issues without fear of retaliation. I doubt you were ever informed upon your acceptance to the board, of any city or state laws that apply to not only elected officials, but to appointed officials as well. Government on any level, run on personal agendas will never flourish or prosper, and only leads to division and infighting, sound familiar? Taking laws into one's own hands may lead one to violate those laws they are trying to uphold. Put pressure on the city to enforce, rather than bringing them what to enforce. Selective enforcement has it's own set of penalties to those who choose this option, and could prove to be very costly. As suggested, do yourself a favor, look into the the laws, city and state.
Ed Dison
Last edited on Sun Jun 14th, 2009 03:57 pm by Ed Dison
|
MikeW
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Apache Junction |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 03:50 am |
|
When there are stacks of rubbish or cars on blocks for months, YES I take pictures! NO ONE should have to live next to a dump!! Our code compliance people should be pro-active and not re-active when there is a complaint. I live in AJ and my wife has a business here, I want to see our city flourish.
I have never tried to silence you or anyone else that speaks the truth! I will always ask questions and object when I think something is wrong.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 03:25 am |
|
MikeW wrote: AJ Voter
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! There are a lot of violation in this town, I have brought pictures to code compliance and get little action, I also presented them to council at CTTP. I will help in anyway possible, come by the store, I have a digital camera and will use my car.
Pictures?
Ed Dison
Last edited on Sun Jun 14th, 2009 03:26 am by Ed Dison
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 11:50 pm |
|
MikeW wrote: ED
Pictures?
By the way, the CITIZENS of AJ are the only ones that should voice an opinion about AJ laws. NOT someone that dosen't even live in the city!!
Well lets see MikeW, I have an Apache Junction City business license, I hold a board position, just like you do with the City of Apache Junction, my mailing address is Apache Junction, although my property sits just outside the city limits, but then again a community is a community, if the city of Apache Junction has it, I buy it here in town, I'm Chairman of Superstition Horsemen's Association, representing the horse community in Apache Junction, and I'm considering buying 2.5 acres of land off of Wikiup, in fact I'm going to make an offer next week (if they accept my offer, what excuse will you come up with to silence me then?). I've had people from Apache Junction take pictures of my property(I know they are from the city, because I ran their license plates), which makes me feel even more a part of the community. I'm sure if I lived inside the city limits, I would have a constant flow of traffic in front of my house, complete with camera flashes going off to the point of violating the "dark sky ordinances", and code enforcement parked around the corner waiting for a violation to occur, at least this is what my perception is, based on what others have had to endure after speaking out. So I can and will voice my opinion when ever I feel the need, and have the support of many. You, like a few others in town would like nothing more, than for my silence, good luck. As far as threats, it's all in how one's perception of the english language is MikeW, if you would do a little research, as I suggested, you would have noticed I was referring to State laws, and they do cover cities, appointed officials, ect. Are you banning me from speaking of those also? Now back to you and your photography service......
Ed Dison
Last edited on Sun Jun 14th, 2009 02:48 am by Ed Dison
|
ddhawkins1
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 11:28 pm |
|
Mike try websters dictionary , it gives great explanations of words and terminology and none of it is threating.
dd
|
MikeW
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Apache Junction |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 10:52 pm |
|
| I guess we perceived the words differently. Such is life!
|
ddhawkins1
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 10:49 pm |
|
So Mike , Just bringing up or mentioning the Attorney General or the mention of a lawsuit is a threat? Gosh everyone on the forum could have a problem if thats the case. All that was brought up was an address should you need one! I personally found it very nice that Ed helped you out with that.
dd
|
MikeW
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Apache Junction |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 10:00 pm |
|
| PLEASE re-read the ones that mention the Attorney General and law suites.
|
ddhawkins1
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 09:18 pm |
|
Mike--------------They can and should offer advice, well thats real nice of you to allow them the option! Even without a degree I can tell the difference between a suggestion and a threat, no where on any of these blogs do I see a threat from anyone , do I see humor, concern, frustration, minor rage , yes
But no Threats.!
dd
|
MikeW
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Apache Junction |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 08:39 pm |
|
| IF a person DOESN'T live in the city, they can and should offer ADVICE, but NOT THREATS!!
|
ddhawkins1
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 07:44 pm |
|
Mike- does Ed pay city taxes? State taxes? Does he live in pinal county ? Does he pay property taxes? Seems to me any one who does all of the above should have a say!!!!!!!!!!! You have a over budget city hall, library etc. that several thousand others helped pay for besides the business owners of Apache Junction! everyone has the right to voice an opinion.
dd
|
MikeW
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Apache Junction |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 04:56 pm |
|
ED
Pictures?
By the way, the CITIZENS of AJ are the only ones that should voice an opinion about AJ laws. NOT someone that dosen't even live in the city!!
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 03:02 am |
|
MikeW wrote: ED
How about a councilmen that is working for 15 people instead of the 30,000+ that he swore to represent?
Mike W, This is where to send your complaint, along with your evidence. This is where I send mine, and all pertinent evidence. Now if you will answer a question, why are you trying to shift the spotlight away from yourself to someone else? This is about, in your own hand, unethical behavior by an appointed city official, You. Would you like to explain your statement regarding pictures? A word of advice, you may want to spend some time studying some of the laws regarding your suggested behavior, you could be violating quite a few of them.
Ed Dison
Reports of corruption or illegal activity by city officials should be sent in writing to the Arizona Attorney General's Office.
Arizona Attorney General's Office
Criminal Division-Fraud and Public Corruption Unit
1275 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602.542.5025
602.542.4085 FAX
Last edited on Sat Jun 13th, 2009 05:48 am by Ed Dison
|
MikeW
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Apache Junction |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12th, 2009 10:47 pm |
|
ED
How about a councilmen that is working for 15 people instead of the 30,000+ that he swore to represent?
|
ddhawkins1
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 10th, 2009 05:19 am |
|
Ed you copy and paste  hope that helps
dd
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 10:03 pm |
|
katy8520 wrote: Sooooo - who oversees these board members to insure they don't step outside the bounds of their positions? Maybe we need to start a new thread on this topic as it would apply to other things besides "Shannon's Fence." Or would a topic such as this be considered "taboo?"
Sorry, I don't know how to move paragraphs from one thread to another, but wanted to show that we have some "loose cannons" on these boards and commissions that should be removed for obvious reasons. If the State gets involved, the penalties range from a class 2 misdemeanor, to a class 6 felony depending on the circumstances and evidence. ARS has provisions for city officials, both elected and appointed, and the State Attorney General's Office has been consulted. Let's hope the proper city officials take notice and take care of the situation before it gets that far, as it seems to be out of hand already. What's a good topic to put this under? If someone could tell me how to move paragraphs around, I'll put together the thread on this issue.
Ed Dison
Last edited on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 02:04 am by Ed Dison
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 04:32 pm |
|
| Sooooo - who oversees these board members to insure they don't step outside the bounds of their positions? Maybe we need to start a new thread on this topic as it would apply to other things besides "Shannon's Fence." Or would a topic such as this be considered "taboo?" Last edited on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 04:51 pm by katy8520
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 06:29 am |
|
MikeW wrote: Katy8520
You should drive through Kentucky, three board fences is just about all you see. Please check with the PD to see if there have been any horses that jumped a 4' 6" fence and were wandering the streets. I don't doubt you, just a question. Also the property line starts at the center point of the road, everyone gives the city an easment for roads.
More misinformation, from those whom sit on our boards and commissions.
Ed Dison
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 8th, 2009 11:55 pm |
|
Advisory board members should conduct business and operate in a manner that is free from intimidation, hostility, or other adversity. Harassment of any sort-verbal, physical, visual-including intentional and unwarranted action, by any advisory board member is prohibited and is considered a violation of the Code of Ethics.
Ed Dison
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 8th, 2009 11:14 pm |
|
MikeW wrote: AJ Voter
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! There are a lot of violation in this town, I have brought pictures to code compliance and get little action, I also presented them to council at CTTP. I will help in anyway possible, come by the store, I have a digital camera and will use my car.
This coming from a board member with the City of Apache Junction? At what point is one's privacy compromised? How many of these "self appointed code enforcement officers" do we have on our streets? Do any of these board and commission members that do this realize what their violating? Are we going to see a large number of letters from the city to fence owners before anything is decided?
Ed Dison
Last edited on Mon Jun 8th, 2009 11:47 pm by Ed Dison
|
cheese1951
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28th, 2009 11:02 pm |
|
| I have called P & Z and building and I asked if the ordinance was a safety issue. They could not say yes and didn't know why the rule was 4.5 feet, other than that is quite normal everywhere. Jeff, we need to get ordinances that make sense AND that the city can enforce (which this one they won't).
|
cheese1951
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28th, 2009 10:59 pm |
|
| why can't you put up horse corral fencing to do the same thing? It isn't permanent and can't be questioned. I have had 4.5 fences and my horses never once tried to go over them.
|
cheese1951
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28th, 2009 10:57 pm |
|
| Regarding fences (and other ordinances). As stated many times, the front yard fence is mandated at 4.5 ft high. You can only go to 6 ft at 40 ft from end of easement. You only need a permit if it is going to be over 6 ft anywhere. The city will not pursue this very much, since it is a criminal offense and the courts usually make the burden of proof on many things so difficult the city can't get a conviction. The ordinance is 1290. Yes, many yards have fences in the front area (40 ft of easement) that are over 4.5 ft. But unless a complaint is filed, they will not do anything. And code compliance usually won't do anything, anyway. The city is trying to decriminalize most of these ordinances ( and I hope they accomplish this ), in order to have a better chance of enforcement. Whomever made these ordinances (fences, unlimited amount of vehicles in front yard and others) never thought this through and it is a total waste of taxpayers money in enforcing these ordinances. This city needs to start writing laws/ordinances that they can enforce through the courts (or not) or quit writing useless ordinances. Waste of time, money and just upsets the community.
|
ShannonFlynn
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 396 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27th, 2009 07:26 am |
|
Christa_Rizzi wrote: flyrep wrote: I spoke of the lockers way before three years ago. At least one employee gave
us an estimate of toward the end of the year and look at us now. Squeaky wheel
gets the grease or justice sometimes. No problem Katy. I just want that
ordinance dead as a door nail. We shall see.
Ask Doug Coleman about the gun lockers and how long the issue was on the table...
ShannonFlynn Posted: Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 01:33 pm
"The next two years will be enlightening! "
"There is no team this time. Count on it. "
"I will have everything in black and white for the next two years with anything I am working on."
" Anyone wanting to know about what I know can do public records here in Aj.
I also have items from other means as well."
"The recall was never done to WIN! It was done to prove a point. "
ShannonFlynn Posted: Wed Mar 18th, 2009 03:15 pm
"As for the lockers, sister they are here and will be put in. "
Everyone knows Shannon is attempting to build a resume for her next run at city council...sorry you get no credit for the lockers ...it had nothing to do with you..
The lockers have been here long before Shannon brought it up at CTTP this past March...
It is a decent jester to try volunteering at Boys and Girls Club though..
The 6' fence issue must be decided on it's own ...unless the city is going to grant favoritism for your violation.
If you get amnesty then so should any other person with any violation..weeds, vehicles, trash what have you..
Christa Rizzi
Who said anything about me running in two years? You must know something I don't.
The lockers are in as they should. Get over it. Please.
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27th, 2009 05:21 am |
|
flyrep wrote: I spoke of the lockers way before three years ago. At least one employee gave
us an estimate of toward the end of the year and look at us now. Squeaky wheel
gets the grease or justice sometimes. No problem Katy. I just want that
ordinance dead as a door nail. We shall see.
Ask Doug Coleman about the gun lockers and how long the issue was on the table...
ShannonFlynn Posted: Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 01:33 pm
"The next two years will be enlightening! "
"There is no team this time. Count on it. "
"I will have everything in black and white for the next two years with anything I am working on."
" Anyone wanting to know about what I know can do public records here in Aj.
I also have items from other means as well."
"The recall was never done to WIN! It was done to prove a point. "
ShannonFlynn Posted: Wed Mar 18th, 2009 03:15 pm
"As for the lockers, sister they are here and will be put in. "
Everyone knows Shannon is attempting to build a resume for her next run at city council...sorry you get no credit for the lockers ...it had nothing to do with you..
The lockers have been here long before Shannon brought it up at CTTP this past March...
It is a decent gesture to try volunteering at Boys and Girls Club though..
The 6' fence issue must be decided on it's own ...unless the city is going to grant favoritism for your violation.
If you get amnesty then so should any other person with any violation..weeds, vehicles, trash what have you..
Christa Rizzi
Last edited on Thu Apr 30th, 2009 07:24 pm by Christa_Rizzi
|
concerned4aj
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 485 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27th, 2009 01:25 am |
|
i was going to throw in my 2 cents like Katy asked. A lot of people think a front yard should not have a large fence or any fence. that is why in most of our new devlopments the HOA and CCR have a no front fence rule. I really don't care one way or another, but even if we killed this, a lot of people are stuck with the HOA and CCR about it. ok, maybe that was 4 cents.
and Flynns, you do have to take in being "grandfathered" like the Dietz's property. that is why we have code officers, they research all this prior to sending out notices, do they make mistakes, of course, that is why we have a judge. plus your logic of "other offenders" should let you off the hook doesn't hold water. alot, I mean alot, of people speed every day, should we stop enforcing speed limits? its like all of our rights, we have to do it in the scope of the laws of the land. I can enjoy my rights and as long as they don't interfere with others rights. if you have 50 people living on a street and 40 of them do not want to see ugly yards, fences that make a home look like a prison, then do the 10 over come the majority?
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27th, 2009 12:25 am |
|
| Christa - you are absolutely correct. I will rephrase my statement. We all know now that some of the 6' fences may be in violation of current ordinances and others may be in compliance depending on the circumstances. Yes, I am aware of the code violation you mention and I'm sure the City will handle it at the time of their choosing. It is my opinion that the 6' fence issue should not be handled as an item on it's own. Where it pertains to the Horse Boarding Facilities, we are talking about a small number of properties and they are deemed commerial operations. Where it pertains to part of the "Front Yard Codes," we are talking about a large number of private residential properties. I don't feel we should intermingle commercial and private residential property requirements in the same ordinance. Just my opinion. Others might disagree with me. Either way, the City will work it out and some people will be satisfied with their decision and others won't.
|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2404 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26th, 2009 11:16 pm |
|
I spoke of the lockers way before three years ago. At least one employee gave
us an estimate of toward the end of the year and look at us now. Squeaky wheel
gets the grease or justice sometimes. No problem Katy. I just want that
ordinance dead as a door nail. We shall see.
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26th, 2009 10:10 pm |
|
katy8520 wrote: There are many, many, many 6' fences in our community. Most of them are in the General Rural Zoning areas where people have a variety of animals and most of them are of the chain link type that you can readily see through. Other people have them for a "sense" of security (whether real or imagined.) All you have to do is drive the streets in these areas and you can see them everywhere. We all know now that these fences do not comply with current city code. There are a variety of reasons why people went ahead and put them up anyway and this was discussed by Council Members at the last City Council Meeting.
Since the fence issue affects so many people in our community, I would like to hear what you all think about it. Without referring to any individuals who may or may not be in violation of the current ordinance, could some of you please throw out your logical reasons why you would or would not be in favor of changing the city code to allow the 6' tall fences. Thank you.
No, we don't know this. There are circumstances that may make these legal according to the ordinance. Until each is looked at they may very well be in compliance
Part of the problem here is there is a fence that is a violation and a complaint has been filed yet the violation remains. It's a whole new ball game once a complaint is filed. The city has no choice but to act on the complaint.
The 6' fence issue must now be segregated and decided on it's own.
If the city grants amnesty in the case with a complaint are they going to do the same for other sorts of code violations as well....
Christa Rizzi
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26th, 2009 09:52 pm |
|
| Flyrep - sorry, I've obviously been misunderstood. I was not insuinuating that your mentioning a council member without a name was inappropriate. I was merely trying to generate some conversation and was asking that specific individuals, whether it be the council person, your wife, or neighbor Joe down the street be left out of my question. I am simply asking for people to throw out their logical reasons why they would or would not be in favor of approving the 6' tall fences.
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26th, 2009 08:46 pm |
|
flyrep wrote: I beg to differ Rizzi. It is a stupid ordinance and I hope to see it out of here.
By the way, nice try with the gun lockers, but that was coming and I knew vicory
was assured. This fence deal is not over. Trust me.
Katy, I think that mentioning a council member without a name is perfectly
appropriate. My wife's name in on the title of this tread. Thank you.
The gun lockers had nothing to do with you. I spoke with city staff, the lockers have been in the works for over three years, long before Shannons comments at CTTP ....no credit to you or your wife..
Correct the fence deal is far from over and tying your violation with items on review created a huge set back for the "horsey" people trying to move forward with reasonable ordinances.
If I were one of these people who worked so hard for over a year getting this before P and Z, I'd be a tad upset with you..
The 6' fence issue is cleverly on 3 agends
Now the 6' fence issue must be segregated and decided on its own to be fair..
The ordinance is common in many cities and reasonable..
Christa Rizzi
Last edited on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 09:59 pm by Christa_Rizzi
|
Rick Dietz
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 13th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26th, 2009 07:53 pm |
|
| Flynn, this happens to be MY fence you are talking about. My fence has been here since the late 60's, early 70's, which was way before Apache Junction became incorporated and WAY before we purchased this property! It's not like I had this fence installed within the last few years, so I am Grandfathered! When we build our new home and put in a new fence, it WILL be constructed per the City ordinance! Why don't you check your facts before you attack me! We have been told that someone we know saw your wife come and take pictures of our property! As she has stated during CTTP that she has documented over 200 properties in violation of the 4 1/2 foot limit. I think it's a shame that you and your wife have pulled down 200 residents of our community, in order to help you get off the hook. Why don't you just man up and take care of YOUR problem, instead of bringing everyone else down!
|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2404 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26th, 2009 07:23 pm |
|
I beg to differ Rizzi. It is a stupid ordinance and I hope to see it out of here.
By the way, nice try with the gun lockers, but that was coming and I knew vicory
was assured. This fence deal is not over. Trust me.
Katy, I think that mentioning a council member without a name is perfectly
appropriate. My wife's name in on the title of this tread. Thank you.
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26th, 2009 06:36 pm |
|
There are many, many, many 6' fences in our community. Most of them are in the General Rural Zoning areas where people have a variety of animals and most of them are of the chain link type that you can readily see through. Other people have them for a "sense" of security (whether real or imagined.) All you have to do is drive the streets in these areas and you can see them everywhere. We all know now that these fences do not comply with current city code. There are a variety of reasons why people went ahead and put them up anyway and this was discussed by Council Members at the last City Council Meeting.
Since the fence issue affects so many people in our community, I would like to hear what you all think about it. Without referring to any individuals who may or may not be in violation of the current ordinance, could some of you please throw out your logical reasons why you would or would not be in favor of changing the city code to allow the 6' tall fences. Thank you.
|
Current time is 07:49 am | Page: 1 2 3 4   |
|