| Author | Post |
|---|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 04:34 pm |
|
| Forgot to add that I feel the reason for a person wanting a 6' fence shouldn't matter. It should apply to anyone who wants one whether or not they have animals. It could be: to keep their animals in, to keep other unwanted animals out, they have a pool, it gives them a "sense" of security against prowlers (yes, I know that if a prowler wants in, he's going to get in but a 6' fence would be more of a deterrant(sp?) than a 4 1/2 '.) The reason shouldn't matter - if they want a 6' - let them have it.
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 07:59 am |
|
| Katy you hit the nail right on the head about someone feeling slighted by a fair and reasonable situation. And at the same time you now know what it is like making a decision as a P&z Commissioner. What is good for the goose may not be good for the gander is also correct. So in my opinion I vote to let the home owner decide as long as it looks good can provide safety for you and the entities saying they need a 4 1/2' fence for police and fire to see thru. OOPs I kind of forgot, I'm not on P&Z anymore so just make that my opinion please.
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 07:07 am |
|
"Fair and Reasonable?" What does that actually mean" What's fair and reasonable to one person might not be fair and reasonable to the next guy. You can't be "fair and resonable" to everyone at the same time because someone is always going to be slighted. The citizens of Apache Junction don't realize just how lucky they are in that they can enjoy the privilege of even having their horses inside the City limits. That's the major reason we moved here in that we already knew we could have our horses "right in town." My feelings on the fence issue is that the 4 1/2' rule is not a one size fits all for Apache Junction. Sure, in other cities across America and maybe even some cities here in Arizona, the 4 1/2 ' may be "standard" and "reasonable." But I don't think it's a good rule to impose on every property in our city.
I can see people who live in fancy, upscale neighborhoods not wanting 6' chain link fences in their neighborhoods. And for the smaller properties that are no more than 50' or so across the front, they might look out of place. We don't even have to consider the HOA's because they already have their own rules.
So now we come to the General Rural zoning areas where the horses and other smaller farm type animals are allowed. These lots are mainly 1 1/4 acres and larger. So what's the big deal about allowing them to have the 6' fences if they choose to have them. Exactly what is that extra foot and a half hurting? They are already allowed to have 6' on the sides and along the back. I think it looks worse to have the 6' on 3 sides and then drop down to 4 1/2 on the front. The key being that the front be transparent for whatever reason. I, like many other people, would like to hear some specific, logical reasons from the people who are opposed to the 6' across the front. I guess you can tell that I am strongly in favor of allowing the 6' front fence for those wishing to have them.
I would like to add that it is my opinion that the type of fence doesn't matter,whether it be chain link, iron bars,board, block with bars on top or what have you - as long as the top part is transparent as some people want - let them have their 6' fences. This would come closer to being "fair and reasonable" than anything I've heard so far.
Last edited on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 07:25 am by katy8520
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 04:47 am |
|
Christa_Rizzi wrote: Gina wrote: Christa,
Per Ed Disons , question How do you feel about the Stable issues and what is going on with it, and your opinion on how it should be resolved , In reading the blogsI am under the impression you are in favor of the Stables and that they should be left alone. Am I correct in my assumption?
Gina
Gina, Mr. Dison,
I live in Apache Junction because it's an equestrian friendly community..I want it to remain as such..
I feel they are vital to our local economy, Apache Junctions heritage and rural lifestyle.
I feel we need to preserve our open spaces, rural lifestyle and horse friendly community. Once these are gone there is no turning back...
I believe regulations should be light handed, common sense, fair and reasonable for everyone in the community.
I feel board and council members have a responsibility to be educated and prepared on issues before them, including going into the community to visit locations and talk with citizens.
I feel government should be as least restrictive as possible with emphasis on the rights of private property owners..
Christa Rizzi
Ms Rizzi, a lot of people here in town also share the views you have stated here in varying degrees, but my question to you is about the fence issue specifically. In the thread regarding the stable issues, I ask for your specific view on that also. No offense, your generalization here is "safe", but is not specific to each issue.
Ed Dison
Last edited on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 05:45 am by Ed Dison
|
Lisa D
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 01:43 am |
|
Ed Dison wrote: Lisa D wrote: Ms. Rizzi,
This is childish. Please continue calling me Shannon if you like. It does not hurt my feelings. Having said that Shannon has OPENLY BLOGGED with you on this forum under her own name.
As outspoken as she is I do not think she would need to use "other names". It is clear to me by reading the post between the two of you from time to time she doesnt give a hoot what you think about her. I would bet this is why she is not responding to you on this matter. I almost bank on it.
You are getting too personal on a public forum. We all GET that you do not care for the Flynn's.
Now let's get back to the topic at hand.
Lisa D, let's get to the topic at hand, today is today, let's leave it that way, and not let the past cloud our sight into the future. If we keep bringing up these personal issues with one another, codes and laws will pass while we sit in front of our computers and go back and forth over who did what.................
Ed Dison
I should have let laying dogs lay. You are right. My wrong.
Do we know if all the flyers are out now?
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 01:10 am |
|
Lisa D wrote: Ms. Rizzi,
This is childish. Please continue calling me Shannon if you like. It does not hurt my feelings. Having said that Shannon has OPENLY BLOGGED with you on this forum under her own name.
As outspoken as she is I do not think she would need to use "other names". It is clear to me by reading the post between the two of you from time to time she doesnt give a hoot what you think about her. I would bet this is why she is not responding to you on this matter. I almost bank on it.
You are getting too personal on a public forum. We all GET that you do not care for the Flynn's.
Now let's get back to the topic at hand.
Lisa D, let's get to the topic at hand, today is today, let's leave it that way, and not let the past cloud our sight into the future. If we keep bringing up these personal issues with one another, codes and laws will pass while we sit in front of our computers and go back and forth over who did what.................
Ed Dison
|
Lisa D
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 12:48 am |
|
Ms. Rizzi,
This is childish. Please continue calling me Shannon if you like. It does not hurt my feelings. Having said that Shannon has OPENLY BLOGGED with you on this forum under her own name.
As outspoken as she is I do not think she would need to use "other names". It is clear to me by reading the post between the two of you from time to time she doesnt give a hoot what you think about her. I would bet this is why she is not responding to you on this matter. I almost bank on it.
You are getting too personal on a public forum. We all GET that you do not care for the Flynn's.
Now let's get back to the topic at hand.
Last edited on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 12:53 am by Lisa D
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 12:34 am |
|
Gina wrote: Christa,
Per Ed Disons , question How do you feel about the Stable issues and what is going on with it, and your opinion on how it should be resolved , In reading the blogsI am under the impression you are in favor of the Stables and that they should be left alone. Am I correct in my assumption?
Gina
Gina, Mr. Dison,
I live in Apache Junction because it's an equestrian friendly community..I want it to remain as such..
I feel they are vital to our local economy, Apache Junctions heritage and rural lifestyle.
I feel we need to preserve our open spaces, rural lifestyle and horse friendly community. Once these are gone there is no turning back...
I believe regulations should be light handed, common sense, fair and reasonable for everyone in the community.
I feel board and council members have a responsibility to be educated and prepared on issues before them, including going into the community to visit locations and talk with citizens.
I feel government should be as least restrictive as possible with emphasis on the rights of private property owners..
Christa Rizzi
Last edited on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 12:36 am by Christa_Rizzi
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 11:54 pm |
|
I replied to the posts on this thread addressed me but as you request Mr Dison agreed..
Christa Rizzi
Last edited on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 12:06 am by Christa_Rizzi
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 10:12 pm |
|
Christa_Rizzi wrote:
Lisa D wrote: Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 02:27 pm
"Your crying is getting old. Ms. Rizzi, please cool off and stop all the attacking on the Flynn's. We all get that you do not like them. Please use this forum for something better then crying about the Flynn's."
Really? I never said I dislike the Flynn's ..ask John 
Lisa D wrote: Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 09:50 am
"The Appropriate way? By making someone else deal with your mess? No no no. You leave something that you did knew it was wrong and then moved NOT TO DEAL WITH IT??? "
Care to save some face and retract that?  Your anger is still getting the best of you .."foolish" [img]file://C OCUME~1HP_ADM~1LOCALS~1TempEmoticon8.gif[/img]
Lisa D wrote: Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 09:50 am
"You are not the woman you seemed to be at your meet and greet. That's a shame."
I see lies continue to roll right off your tongue, you were never at the meet and greet. No integrity, none, zip, zero, zilch that's a "shame" [img]file://COCUME~1HP_ADM~1LOCALS~1TempEmoticon10.gif[/img]
Lisa D wrote: Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 10:41 am
"Offensive? Yes. I have taken months of reading " Crista's" rant's on the Flynn's. Yes, I am standing up for them."
Well sunshine put down the keyboard and step away from the computer..[img]file://COCUME~1HP_ADM~1LOCALS~1TempEmoticon11.gif[/img]
___________________________________________________
NewAtThis wrote: Posted: Sun May 31st, 2009 12:21 pm
"I can not take reading anymore of Christa Rizzi's rubish."
Shannon, LisaD,NewAtThis, lovinglife, thinkingoutLOUD, Steve, voter09, flyrep,
Put down the key board and step away from the computer [img]file://COCUME~1HP_ADM~1LOCALS~1TempEmoticon11.gif[/img]
NewAtThis wrote: Posted: Sun May 31st, 2009 12:21 pm
"No way in H_ELL should we have a group of people taking photo's and turning people in."
Of coarse not, how absurd
NewAtThis wrote: Posted: Sun May 31st, 2009 12:21 pm
" Have you noticed your yard lately?
Obviously you have ..We live on a dead end, private road posted "no trespassing". Now we know who the neighborhood spy is [img]file://COCUME~1HP_ADM~1LOCALS~1TempEmoticon4.gif[/img] Thank you for clarifying
NewAtThis wrote: Posted: Sun May 31st, 2009 12:21 pm
"You should be the last person turning anyone in."
I would never reduce myself to that level..Shannon publically stated she has pictures of other violations and you've stated you've seen our property on a private, dead end, no trespassing posted road.. [img]file://COCUME~1HP_ADM~1LOCALS~1TempEmoticon8.gif[/img]
If that's not the pot calling the kettle black. Now, off to weed trimming [img]file://COCUME~1HP_ADM~1LOCALS~1TempEmoticon75.gif[/img]
(laughing hysterically)
Peace
christa Rizzi
Ms Rizzi, I can see that you still seem to have a problem with someone associated with the city's last election. I am asking that you form another topic and leave this topic to those who are truly concerned about this issue.
Ed Dison
|
Gina
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 6th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 07:08 pm |
|
Christa,
Per Ed Disons , question How do you feel about the Stable issues and what is going on with it, and your opinion on how it should be resolved , In reading the blogs I am under the impression you are in favor of the Stables and that they should be left alone. Am I correct in my assumption?
Gina
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 04:06 pm |
|
Lisa D wrote: Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 02:27 pm
"Your crying is getting old. Ms. Rizzi, please cool off and stop all the attacking on the Flynn's. We all get that you do not like them. Please use this forum for something better then crying about the Flynn's."
Really? I never said I dislike the Flynn's ..ask John
Lisa D wrote: Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 09:50 am
"The Appropriate way? By making someone else deal with your mess? No no no. You leave something that you did knew it was wrong and then moved NOT TO DEAL WITH IT??? "
Care to save some face and retract that? Your anger is still getting the best of you .."foolish" 
Lisa D wrote: Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 09:50 am
"You are not the woman you seemed to be at your meet and greet. That's a shame."
I see lies continue to roll right off your tongue, you were never at the meet and greet. No integrity, none, zip, zero, zilch that's a "shame" 
Lisa D wrote: Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 10:41 am
"Offensive? Yes. I have taken months of reading " Crista's" rant's on the Flynn's. Yes, I am standing up for them."
Well sunshine put down the keyboard and step away from the computer..
___________________________________________________
NewAtThis wrote: Posted: Sun May 31st, 2009 12:21 pm
"I can not take reading anymore of Christa Rizzi's rubish."
Shannon, LisaD,NewAtThis, lovinglife, thinkingoutLOUD, Steve, voter09, flyrep,
Put down the key board and step away from the computer
NewAtThis wrote: Posted: Sun May 31st, 2009 12:21 pm
"No way in H_ELL should we have a group of people taking photo's and turning people in."
Of coarse not, how absurd
NewAtThis wrote: Posted: Sun May 31st, 2009 12:21 pm
" Have you noticed your yard lately?
Obviously you have ..We live on a dead end, private road posted "no trespassing". Now we know who the neighborhood spy is  Thank you for clarifying
NewAtThis wrote: Posted: Sun May 31st, 2009 12:21 pm
"You should be the last person turning anyone in."
I would never reduce myself to that level..Shannon publically stated she has pictures of other violations and you've stated you've seen our property on a private, dead end, no trespassing posted road..
If that's not the pot calling the kettle black. Now, off to weed trimming 
(laughing hysterically)
Peace
christa Rizzi
Last edited on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 06:11 pm by Christa_Rizzi
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 03:04 pm |
|
| NewAtThis - Fair enough - just thought maybe I missed something.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 09:01 am |
|
Lisa D wrote: newatthis ~
You took the words from my mouth. I am pleased other see things for what they are.
Loving ~ Thanks for posting.
Ed..... Kick butt. I'll start going to the meetings as well.
Just read letters to the editor in the AJ News on line. Mr P&Z Vice Chairman is an idiot! Talks about codes for rental properties! We already have property maintenance codes!
Ed Dison
|
Lisa D
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 08:59 am |
|
Ed Dison wrote: NewAtThis, P&Z meetings are every 2nd and 4th Tuesday at 7 PM in council chambers, council meetings are 1st and 3rd Tuesday, with work sessions every 1st and 3rd Monday. You can also go to the city website, http://www.ajcity.net. We all need to go to these meetings, to many things are decided that effect everyone, sometimes with very little, if any public input.
Ed Dison
This is one reason I support Shannon. Wrong or right she stand what for the knows is right. That stands for something.
|
Lisa D
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 08:57 am |
|
newatthis ~
You took the words from my mouth. I am pleased other see things for what they are.
Loving ~ Thanks for posting.
Ed..... Kick butt. I'll start going to the meetings as well.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 07:24 am |
|
NewAtThis, P&Z meetings are every 2nd and 4th Tuesday at 7 PM in council chambers, council meetings are 1st and 3rd Tuesday, with work sessions every 1st and 3rd Monday. You can also go to the city website, http://www.ajcity.net. We all need to go to these meetings, to many things are decided that effect everyone, sometimes with very little, if any public input.
Ed Dison
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 07:10 am |
|
| correction and thank you.
|
NewAtThis
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 38 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 05:57 am |
|
katy8520 wrote: NewAtThis - Maybe I've missed something along the way, but where was it said that Christa Rizzi was the one going around taking pictures of people's property. And where was it said that she was actually turning people in. Talking about something and actually performing the act are two different things. Just curious.
I made a statement. I did not say she was. She has stated that she has been on the Flynn's street on this very forum. She has been plan nasty to Shannon when Shannon blog's. There are post that prove this. I'm actively taking a stand. I have seen the traffic and I am getting sick of it.
|
NewAtThis
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 38 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 05:53 am |
|
Ed Dison wrote: NewAtThis wrote: I'm just going to say it.......
I can not take reading anymore of Christa Rizzi's rubish.
Ed seems to me your wasting your time.
I tell you right now if I were ever to see Ms. Rizzi on my street taking photo's the PD would be called in short order. Then she would be served paperwork. No way in H_ELL should we have a group of people taking photo's and turning people in.
In what world are you living Ms. Rizzi? People are losing homes, jobs and such and you want to turn people in for what reason?
At call to the public you state your address. Have you noticed your yard lately? You should be the last person turning anyone in.
You should go to the P&Z meetings, the vice chairman has a bunch of pictures to share. Goes around town on his scooter and takes pictures of possible violations. He has even held up pictures of properties that belong to some our city council members, I and others feel the city should take action and remove him before he gets the city into deep trouble. His latest deal is out of town rental property owners, has a list of all rental properties that may be in some sort of violation, even put it on the agenda for a work session. With him around, who needs code enforcement, or for that matter, city council. As far as the picture takers, my son caught 2 people in a car taking pictures of our front fence. The problem for the picture takers is, my son wrote down their license number, make and model of car, descriptions of both driver and passenger, date and time, and my road is private which means they trespassed to take the pictures, and I don't live within the city limits. Wonder if code enforcement from Apache Junction will show up next.
Ed Dison
I'm going to start going. When are the meetings? The person you are talking about is a REAL problem. Some of the stuff he writes in the paper tempers me.
I live on Acacia and have viewed the traffic that has been going on over at the Flynn's. Last week a couple were sitting in front of an address next to the Flynn's. They parked and stayed there for like 10 minutes. Gray or white truck. I couldn't tell. It was just before sunset last Sat.
There are a number of us that are now actively taking notice. Best way is to record. I understand that's now being done.
Some are getting way out of hand.
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 04:52 am |
|
| It's "Durbala."
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 04:47 am |
|
| Joe Dirbala is resigning from what I heard. Hope I spelled that right. Last edited on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 04:47 am by johnnyk597
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 04:24 am |
|
| Good grief, Charlie Brown. Now we have a bunch of loonies running all around town (and the County) scrutinizing everyone else's properties. They must not have enough to do in their own lives to keep themselves busy. Sounds like things are getting a little out of hand to me. :-) Last edited on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 04:25 am by katy8520
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 02:15 am |
|
lovinglife wrote: New -
I get what you are saying. I have been following this forum for a few months now. The thought sicknesses me.
I was speaking with the city last week and they are saying that it is a class one misdemeanor if people who are reported do not take the 6' to 4 1/2 feet. That really pee's me off.
At this time the city is looking to make code violations a civil offense, and removing the criminal part. I believe this is the hands of P&Z at this time, hopefully it goes through quicker than the boarding issue. This was the case with the animal control regulations, and they did change them to civil penalties, and removed the criminal part. No one on the city council wanted to see anybody have a misdemeanor on their record for not having a leash on their dog.
Ed Dison
Last edited on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 03:28 am by Ed Dison
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 02:09 am |
|
katy8520 wrote: I heard a rumor that one of the members of the P & Z Commission has or is in the process of resigning the position.
One down, two to go.
Ed Dison
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 02:00 am |
|
| I heard a rumor that one of the members of the P & Z Commission has or is in the process of resigning the position.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 01:42 am |
|
NewAtThis wrote: I'm just going to say it.......
I can not take reading anymore of Christa Rizzi's rubish.
Ed seems to me your wasting your time.
I tell you right now if I were ever to see Ms. Rizzi on my street taking photo's the PD would be called in short order. Then she would be served paperwork. No way in H_ELL should we have a group of people taking photo's and turning people in.
In what world are you living Ms. Rizzi? People are losing homes, jobs and such and you want to turn people in for what reason?
At call to the public you state your address. Have you noticed your yard lately? You should be the last person turning anyone in.
You should go to the P&Z meetings, the vice chairman has a bunch of pictures to share. Goes around town on his scooter and takes pictures of possible violations. He has even held up pictures of properties that belong to some our city council members, I and others feel the city should take action and remove him before he gets the city into deep trouble. His latest deal is out of town rental property owners, has a list of all rental properties that may be in some sort of violation, even put it on the agenda for a work session. With him around, who needs code enforcement, or for that matter, city council. As far as the picture takers, my son caught 2 people in a car taking pictures of our front fence. The problem for the picture takers is, my son wrote down their license number, make and model of car, descriptions of both driver and passenger, date and time, and my road is private which means they trespassed to take the pictures, and I don't live within the city limits. Wonder if code enforcement from Apache Junction will show up next.
Ed Dison
Last edited on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 03:40 am by Ed Dison
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 31st, 2009 09:50 pm |
|
| To my knowledge, there has thus far been only one property reported for an illegal 6' fence and it has been told that that property owner has complied and lowered the fence to the required 4 1/2 feet. Anyone know of any other properties that have actually been reported?
|
lovinglife
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 100 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 31st, 2009 09:19 pm |
|
New -
I get what you are saying. I have been following this forum for a few months now. The thought sicknesses me.
I was speaking with the city last week and they are saying that it is a class one misdemeanor if people who are reported do not take the 6' to 4 1/2 feet. That really pee's me off.
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 31st, 2009 08:50 pm |
|
| NewAtThis - Maybe I've missed something along the way, but where was it said that Christa Rizzi was the one going around taking pictures of people's property. And where was it said that she was actually turning people in. Talking about something and actually performing the act are two different things. Just curious.
|
NewAtThis
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 38 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 31st, 2009 08:27 pm |
|
I simply disagree with 6' being the only option for horses. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they are forcing anyone out..you have an opinion so do others..
Christa Rizzi
I SIMPLY do not care if you disagree. I want anyone who wants a 6' fence to be able to have one.
Oh and before you start, I'm NOT Shannon!
|
NewAtThis
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 38 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 31st, 2009 08:21 pm |
|
I'm just going to say it.......
I can not take reading anymore of Christa Rizzi's rubish.
Ed seems to me your wasting your time.
I tell you right now if I were ever to see Ms. Rizzi on my street taking photo's the PD would be called in short order. Then she would be served paperwork. No way in H_ELL should we have a group of people taking photo's and turning people in.
In what world are you living Ms. Rizzi? People are losing homes, jobs and such and you want to turn people in for what reason?
At call to the public you state your address. Have you noticed your yard lately? You should be the last person turning anyone in.
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 31st, 2009 03:21 pm |
|
| Agreed but the city never enforced the ordinance and all of the sudden, Wham they want to enforce it. Chip was asked by the city over 2 years ago to look at this issue and what was needed. Was also asked to put it on hold while he ran for office. Then after his election, the city asked him to continue it and what was the horse communities needs. Let's now give the fencing companies a windfall of work , that way we can help the fed's fix the econmy also. And we must make all the people udse a company in AJ that way we asl ohelp the shop AJ theme. Your turn.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 31st, 2009 03:18 pm |
|
Ms Rizzi, I would like to hear your views on the fence issues.
Ed Dison
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 31st, 2009 09:04 am |
|
johnnyk597 wrote: Gezzzzzzzzzzz that's an easy question to answer, THEY MADE RULES AND FORCED THEM OUT. We are the last city in the valley that's trying to keep our rural atmosphere. Some people here want to make this the next North Scotsdale. Then they can sell off the horse and snowbird propeties for big bucks. See easy answer.
But it's not a new rule..
The 4 1/2 ' fence code has been here for how long? It started in the county before Apache Junction become a city and the city adopted it as many others did....
How did that "force" any horse people out all these years? All of a sudden now the fence code is extiguishing our rural lifestyle? We haven't been scottsdale all these years we've had this code? What changed all of a sudden?
I'm a member of SHA because I want this to remain a horse friendly community with a rural lifestyle.
I simply disagree with 6' being the only option for horses. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they are forcing anyone out..you have an opinion so do others..
Christa Rizzi
Last edited on Sun May 31st, 2009 09:39 am by Christa_Rizzi
|
J&JFarms
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 371 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 31st, 2009 07:31 am |
|
Christa_Rizzi wrote:
Ed Dison,
First I agree turning your neighbor in is rediculous...
Your personal standards and others are not the exact same. Cities have rules across the board to create a quality of life that is reasonable for everyone.
Who decided 6' is whats needed for horses, why not 5' or 7'?
How has the city escaped lawsuits thus far? Are there records of horses clearing fences and causing injury in AJ's history?
Is the city liable for allowing horse back riding along streets if an injury is caused in traffic?
How have other cities escaped horses law suits?
Everything I've read says a horse would have to be highly trained to clear a 5' fence and that most couldn't make it over a 41/2'.
Are people actually going to threaten lawsuits every time they don't get their way?
If the city agrees to 6' and a horse goes through the fence and causes injury is the city liable then?
These are just some things to think about..
Everyone living here is effected by the decisons made and everyone has valid points..
Christa Rizzi
Answers, in order...
1) I believe that horse rescue organizations recommended it anywhere that horses are kept. It also would act as a deterent to outsiders trying to enter.
2) Private Property, Free Range State, who keeps records of any run-away horse?
3) No. No more so that pedistrain or bicycle traffic. On the side of the street, it would be the operator of the automobile responsibility to exercise appropriate and due caution.
4) The frivolity of the concept.
5) highly trained to jump competitively. When scared, that is different. A rescuse horse, or a one that is being broken, is essentially wild and wild animals do bizarre things. Ever seen Deer Fence? You'd get the idea, if you have.
6) It depends. Tresspass or taget a person through the city government, then yes, they should.
7) No. Equine are livestock. The rules regarding them are very different.
Ms. Rizzi,
With all due respect, planning and zoning ordinances are set to restrict the private property rights of citizens. Some of them are needed, some are overly restrictive. The issue at hand is that in areas where horses are allowed, the city is attempting to view the properties the same as a developed residential community. They are not the same. The issue that Ed is presenting is that while the 4.5' rule may be legitimate in a community, on larger parcels the fence restrictions are overly restrictive and unnecessary.
All forms of government should exercise extreme caution when limiting the rights of citizens. This includes private property rights.
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 31st, 2009 06:05 am |
|
| Gezzzzzzzzzzz that's an easy question to answer, THEY MADE RULES AND FORCED THEM OUT. We are the last city in the valley that's trying to keep our rural atmosphere. Some people here want to make this the next North Scotsdale. Then they can sell off the horse and snowbird propeties for big bucks. See easy answer.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 30th, 2009 11:58 pm |
|
Christa_Rizzi wrote: Ed Dison wrote: "What is there to disagree with? If a person feels that they have a need for a fence up to 6 foot high they should be allowed this option. Every study I have come across, with the exception of pasture fence recommendations, and not roadside fencing, recommends 5 to 6 foot fences. This flyer was taken to the city attorney, and he had no legal issues with it. What some are trying to do here is tie this to someone specific that has nothing to do with our notifying the public. Some of, and not all, that sit on the city council do not listen to those who put them there. The mayor doesn't want 6 foot fences in his neighborhood, so who is making the rules for the city? With some of those who sit on council and commissions, whom have such a closed mind and don't listen to the people, are we going to see class action lawsuits, is everything going to be a fight and end up in a court of law? Now, during the recent election, someone was cited for a fence that was over height, has anybody been cited since that time? When was the last time someone was cited before that? With a good attorney, I'm sure the people that had to remove/shorten their fence, would at least be driving a new car by now, compliments of the city."
Ed Dison
First I agree turning your neighbor in is rediculous...
Your personal standards and others are not the exact same. Cities have rules across the board to create a quality of life that is reasonable for everyone.
Who decided 6' is whats needed for horses, why not 5' or 7'?
How has the city escaped lawsuits thus far? Are there records of horses clearing fences and causing injury in AJ's history?
Is the city liable for allowing horse back riding along streets if an injury is caused in traffic?
How have other cities escaped horses law suits?
Everything I've read says a horse would have to be highly trained to clear a 5' fence and that most couldn't make it over a 41/2'.
Are people actually going to threaten lawsuits every time they don't get their way?
If the city agrees to 6' and a horse goes through the fence and causes injury is the city liable then?
These are just some things to think about..
Everyone living here is effected by the decisons made and everyone has valid points..
Christa Rizzi
Ms. Rizzi, HOW does the idea of a fence "up to 6 foot at the discretion of the property owner" take away from any body's quality of life?" Up to "means just that, have you bought any corral fencing lately? What sizes do they come in? Would you like to see an untrained horse go over a 4.5 foot fence? I've seen this on more than one occasion. Have you ever seen a dog go over a 4.5 foot fence? Do I need to perform a circus act at city hall with untrained animals, and 5 foot jumps? The city may not like the competition. If the city officials do not listen to what people bring forth, then is that a democratic form of government? If something is not right, and you exhaust all avenues within the city government, where would you go? Let's say a horse goes OVER a 4.5 foot fence, runs in front of a car, and debilitating injuries occur. The attorney for the injured could take the 52, neatly paper clipped, printed studies that give the recommended sizes of stalls, fence heights, ect, that are on my desk and present them as evidence on their clients behalf, along with the city code stating a maximum 4.5 foot fence height. And? Same scenario except that the horse goes THROUGH a 6 fence (this I've never seen in 47 years, as a horse will normally not try to go over or through something that is at,or above eye level), same studies submitted, with the city code that allows 6 foot fencing(in accordance with national recommended fencing, ect), city not liable in any part. People move to rural areas for what reason? People move to areas that allow horses, because?
Ed Dison
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 30th, 2009 11:09 pm |
|
Ed Dison wrote: "What is there to disagree with? If a person feels that they have a need for a fence up to 6 foot high they should be allowed this option. Every study I have come across, with the exception of pasture fence recommendations, and not roadside fencing, recommends 5 to 6 foot fences. This flyer was taken to the city attorney, and he had no legal issues with it. What some are trying to do here is tie this to someone specific that has nothing to do with our notifying the public. Some of, and not all, that sit on the city council do not listen to those who put them there. The mayor doesn't want 6 foot fences in his neighborhood, so who is making the rules for the city? With some of those who sit on council and commissions, whom have such a closed mind and don't listen to the people, are we going to see class action lawsuits, is everything going to be a fight and end up in a court of law? Now, during the recent election, someone was cited for a fence that was over height, has anybody been cited since that time? When was the last time someone was cited before that? With a good attorney, I'm sure the people that had to remove/shorten their fence, would at least be driving a new car by now, compliments of the city."
Ed Dison
First I agree turning your neighbor in is rediculous...
Your personal standards and others are not the exact same. Cities have rules across the board to create a quality of life that is reasonable for everyone.
Who decided 6' is whats needed for horses, why not 5' or 7'?
How has the city escaped lawsuits thus far? Are there records of horses clearing fences and causing injury in AJ's history?
Is the city liable for allowing horse back riding along streets if an injury is caused in traffic?
How have other cities escaped horses law suits?
Everything I've read says a horse would have to be highly trained to clear a 5' fence and that most couldn't make it over a 41/2'.
Are people actually going to threaten lawsuits every time they don't get their way?
If the city agrees to 6' and a horse goes through the fence and causes injury is the city liable then?
These are just some things to think about..
Everyone living here is effected by the decisons made and everyone has valid points..
Christa Rizzi
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 30th, 2009 10:00 pm |
|
concerned4aj wrote: MrsK2009 wrote: It wasn't really an issue of scaring anyone. My parents are pretty savvy people and they've owned that property since 1969.
The thing that I was questioning is, if a fence was there before the law was in effect, why should anyone have to be bothered with worrying about being told they have to take it down?
I found out that a fence around a pool has to be a MINIMUM of five feet. This is a no-brainer to me. Since, in my parents' case, there is a pool involved, I don't see any problem with their fence, period.
If a property owner had certain conditions beore the current ordinance was passed, I don't see why the owner should have to pay a fee of $200 or whatever to file paperwork with the city "proving" that they are grandfathered. To me, this is a revenue-raising scheme. The grandfather process should not be a burden on the property owner. People who had their fences prior to March 1985 should just have to produce documentation of that without having to pay what I consider to be a "graft" fee.
Old timers will understand this: As much as I hate to say it, I think Joe Saggio was right about some things.
this is my point. ok, they weren't scared. but the city is getting blamed for something that didn't happen. You received a letter from someone and are upset with the city, which has done nothing to you. Right now this is being worked out and some people are trying to get allies. which I don't have a problem with. the problem was the letter made a lot of implications and without very much explanation. What is funny is that I agree with you, Mr. Dison. My home had a 4 1/2 feet fence that would not keep in my 86 pound German Shepard. I had mentioned to a co worker that i was looking for a good fence guy to increase the hight to 5 to 6 feet. He used to work for city code and told me about this code. that was 14 years ago. I thought then that it was a dumb rule and could not figure out why we had a code like that. I ended up putting up a buffer gate to keep the dog in the back yard, leaving the front of my home unprotected. so i agree, this code does not make any since. I just don't like the way this letter was written. I then did not like JohnnyK's attack on Councilman Serdy for stating an opinion. I think it is great that this council will tell you how they feel, then you know where they stand on topics whether you agree with them or not.
What is there to disagree with? If a person feels that they have a need for a fence up to 6 foot high they should be allowed this option. Every study I have come across, with the exception of pasture fence recommendations, and not roadside fencing, recommends 5 to 6 foot fences.Go to Home Depot and look at the oudoor dog runs they sell, how tall are they? This flyer was taken to the city attorney, and he had no legal issues with it. What some are trying to do here is tie this to someone specific that has nothing to do with our notifying the public. Some of, and not all, that sit on the city council do not listen to those who put them there. The mayor doesn't want 6 foot fences in his neighborhood, so who is making the rules for the city? With some of those who sit on council and commissions, whom have such a closed mind and don't listen to the people, are we going to see class action lawsuits, is everything going to be a fight and end up in a court of law? Now, during the recent election, someone was cited for a fence that was over height, has anybody been cited since that time? When was the last time someone was cited before that? With a good attorney, I'm sure the people that had to remove/shorten their fence, would at least be driving a new car by now, compliments of the city. If you really think all of those on council and the mayor, will tell you truthfully how they stand on certain issues, then I have a bridge you may be interested in buying............... Also before I forget, a letter is to someone specific as addressed, a flyer is addressing everyone concerned, try not to confuse the two.
Ed Dison
Last edited on Sat May 30th, 2009 11:08 pm by Ed Dison
|
MrsK2009
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 30th, 2009 09:48 pm |
|
I wholeheartedly agree - 4 1/2 feet seems like an arbitrary number.
The problem with 4 1/2 feet is, many agile young hoodlums can easily get over them and into your yard, and may agile dogs can get out.
Does anyone know how they arrived at 4 1/2 feet? I'm not buying the safety issue. If it was all about safety they wouldn't allow block walls around subdivisions and mobile home parks.
This is what I'm getting at: if you like being told what kind of plants you can have, what kind of lawn you can have, what color you can paint the outside of your house, how high your fence can be, what color your garage door has to be, how long you can leave your trash can out by the curb - then there are neighborhoods with HOAs that will gladly dictate to you how to keep your property.
For those of us who choose to live on property where there are no HOAs, where we can have animals, where we don't have to hear the neighbors talking on their back patio, why can't the code just require that the property be kept clean, healthy and safe, and leave us alone?
|
concerned4aj
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 485 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 30th, 2009 07:50 pm |
|
MrsK2009 wrote: It wasn't really an issue of scaring anyone. My parents are pretty savvy people and they've owned that property since 1969.
The thing that I was questioning is, if a fence was there before the law was in effect, why should anyone have to be bothered with worrying about being told they have to take it down?
I found out that a fence around a pool has to be a MINIMUM of five feet. This is a no-brainer to me. Since, in my parents' case, there is a pool involved, I don't see any problem with their fence, period.
If a property owner had certain conditions beore the current ordinance was passed, I don't see why the owner should have to pay a fee of $200 or whatever to file paperwork with the city "proving" that they are grandfathered. To me, this is a revenue-raising scheme. The grandfather process should not be a burden on the property owner. People who had their fences prior to March 1985 should just have to produce documentation of that without having to pay what I consider to be a "graft" fee.
Old timers will understand this: As much as I hate to say it, I think Joe Saggio was right about some things.
this is my point. ok, they weren't scared. but the city is getting blamed for something that didn't happen. You received a letter from someone and are upset with the city, which has done nothing to you. Right now this is being worked out and some people are trying to get allies. which I don't have a problem with. the problem was the letter made a lot of implications and without very much explanation. What is funny is that I agree with you, Mr. Dison. My home had a 4 1/2 feet fence that would not keep in my 86 pound German Shepard. I had mentioned to a co worker that i was looking for a good fence guy to increase the hight to 5 to 6 feet. He used to work for city code and told me about this code. that was 14 years ago. I thought then that it was a dumb rule and could not figure out why we had a code like that. I ended up putting up a buffer gate to keep the dog in the back yard, leaving the front of my home unprotected. so i agree, this code does not make any since. I just don't like the way this letter was written. I then did not like JohnnyK's attack on Councilman Serdy for stating an opinion. I think it is great that this council will tell you how they feel, then you know where they stand on topics whether you agree with them or not.
|
concerned4aj
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 485 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 30th, 2009 07:37 pm |
|
Last edited on Sat May 30th, 2009 07:51 pm by concerned4aj
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Sat May 30th, 2009 04:40 pm |
|
I agree that passing out the flyers is a good way to get the word out to people who may be affected. So, what kind of numbers are we talking about here. How many flyers have been left at properties that appear to be in violation?
|
MrsK2009
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 30th, 2009 04:39 pm |
|
It wasn't really an issue of scaring anyone. My parents are pretty savvy people and they've owned that property since 1969.
The thing that I was questioning is, if a fence was there before the law was in effect, why should anyone have to be bothered with worrying about being told they have to take it down?
I found out that a fence around a pool has to be a MINIMUM of five feet. This is a no-brainer to me. Since, in my parents' case, there is a pool involved, I don't see any problem with their fence, period.
If a property owner had certain conditions beore the current ordinance was passed, I don't see why the owner should have to pay a fee of $200 or whatever to file paperwork with the city "proving" that they are grandfathered. To me, this is a revenue-raising scheme. The grandfather process should not be a burden on the property owner. People who had their fences prior to March 1985 should just have to produce documentation of that without having to pay what I consider to be a "graft" fee.
Old timers will understand this: As much as I hate to say it, I think Joe Saggio was right about some things.
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 30th, 2009 08:30 am |
|
I don't see anything wrong with passing out the flyer.
I have a little issue with a very small amount of the content but you're right get the word out to those the issues will directly affect..
Christa Rizzi
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 30th, 2009 08:21 am |
|
| It was that way to address the issue to those that could be affected by this issue. And it was delivered by several people. Door to door is about the only way left to get info out anymore as I stated earlier in this post.
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Sat May 30th, 2009 07:10 am |
|
| Thanks, Christa. I was just curious.
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 30th, 2009 07:07 am |
|
| Yes
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Sat May 30th, 2009 07:05 am |
|
| Someone help me out here - I'm a wee bit confused on the flyer issue. How are these flyers being distributed? Is someone physically driving every street in our city and leaving them at houses that have fences taller than 4 1/2'?
|
Current time is 09:16 am | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|