It would appear that SRP might have had second
thoughts about real public input into their distribution station move,
but don't hold your breath too long over the thought. We pray they have,
but we'll see.
With all of the problems, projects and decisions that
our City Council needs to make, it's time for a change in how any items
are added to the City Council Meeting Agendas, consent or otherwise.
We have seen the "Agenda" information handed to the
council members in notebooks as much as 4" to 5" inches thick and many
times no less than 24 hours before a meeting.
The City Clerk says this information is available ten
(10) days prior to a meeting unless it is something thrown in at the
last minute. But, if no one knows the agenda, how would they know to ask
for the information??
This was a favorite and constantly used ploy of the
prior administration to keep both the council and the public in the
dark. What sane, even super human in their best condition and without
distractions can effectively assimilate 4" to 5" inches of information
in what really amounts to an 8 to 10 hour period prior to a meeting?
Nobody I know!!!
The rule should be changed to make any and all
information the City Council needs to understand and investigate, and City Attorney to verify
as legal within the bounds of the City Charter and other laws and
ordinances which apply, available in it's entirety, without exception
(absolutely no last minute additions), and in their respective boxes at city hall
no later than five (5) working days prior to the council meeting. There
should also be an email or phone call to each council member advising
them of that availability.
The only allowable exception would be a "city
emergency" that could not wait, and then it's review would have to be
allowed by the affirmative vote of a super majority of the council with
public input allowed. If it was deemed by members not to be the
emergency it was purported to be, the council has the option to stop any
discussion as would the City Attorney. The prior administration used
this ploy to ram things through to get immediate action on the issue
instead of having to wait 30 to 90 days as required.
This also gives the citizens and the council members
the time necessary to ferret out the needed information to make an
intelligent and solid decision on what amounts to mainly critical
financial decisions which are being made which many time affect
generations of citizens.
There have been far too many decisions made by
councils over the years where an issue was put on the agenda just 24
hours before the meeting with the actual information being handed to the
council members just before the meeting. How can anyone make an
intelligent decision in just a few minutes which will cost the city
millions.
This city council needs to eliminate, once and for
all, any and all possibilities for ANY railed or overhead wire
transportation system in or on any street or roadway within the city of
Scottsdale. They have failed to totally close the door for reasons no
one can understand unless they want the door kept open which will cost
all of them the next election.
After listening to all the clamor of what should be
cut and why, we wonder how many capital improvement projects can be
cancelled temporarily until the economy returns.
It's very obvious that we need curb, sidewalk and
gutter repairs far more than we need neighborhood entry islands,
roundabouts, street furniture, speed tables, or speed humps/bumps.
Especially when we only have one (1) two (2) man crew to handle all
sidewalks, curbs and gutters city-wide!
When Dolan left Menlo Park, they tore out all but two
(2) of the eleven (11) traffic calming devices she prized so highly and
spent taxpayer money to install. It's time Scottsdale tore out all or at
least most of theirs too.
The annual cost seems to be unavailable and we have
asked Mary O'Connor and the Transportation Department many times for the
annual dollar value of replacement, upkeep and repair cost on these
things without ever getting an answer back from them.
We do know that the amount of time and money spent on
those operations is extensive and could be used much better somewhere
else, especially in these tough times.
When any of these nonsensical objects is destroyed or
if it will cost more to repair it than tear it out, it should be torn
out which will enhance future savings and increase safety, believe it or
not!
Monies saved should be targeted to renovating the
entire sidewalk, curb and gutter systems in the city. Currently, the
crew is simply applying a glue-like substance to any cracks which looks
like hell and doesn't do anything to stop the wear and tear. In same
cases, it becomes even more of a tripping hazard.
We don't need traffic calming, we need quick, easy
and economic ways to traverse our city with our vehicles. We're tired of
having certain people trying to force us out of our cars instead of
facilitating a better street system to reduce costs. Personally, I will
NEVER give up my vehicle because it is the most economical and quickest
way to get where I might need to go.
~COGS
Corner
The Coalition of Greater Scottsdale,
A citizen and small business owners’ advocacy
group
www.cogsaz.org
e-mail cogsaz@cox.net
AN ANNUAL FEE OF $50,000 WILL BUY YOU A
CONFERENCE CHAIR AT A MEETING WHERE:
(1) they discuss and make decisions on light
rail tracks that you don’t have,
(2) they determine future light rail routes
that your citizens haven’t voted to support,
(3) they give you a 3% voting share to
whimper an opinion while the Phoenix gorilla’s single % will
out-vote all other city participants combined.
This expensive chair is rented from the
Metro/light rail group. We have until the fiscal year deadline of
July 1 to withdraw or pay up for another year. Who says that
"sitting and listening" is cheap!
We urge our City Council members to WITHDRAW
from the Metro/light rail group. Our city already holds
long-time memberships in regional planning with Valley Metro and the
Metropolitan Association of Governments. How can a $50,000 chair be
justified during a period of cuts in staff and services in the
struggle to achieve a balanced budget?
Withdrawal now won’t forever lose that conference
chair opportunity. You can bet that the Metro/light rail group will
have Scottsdale’s chair waiting---they can’t afford to stop
courting Scottsdale. Our city is THE DESTINATION CITY of the
valley.
IS CITY ATTORNEY ROBBERSON ON HER WAY OUT ?
A delivered citizen petition gives the City Council 30 days to
respond to their request. The list of
grievance is long and factual. Click on the link below to view the
June 9th video. Select the Public Comment speaker, Sharon
Obberitter.
http://scottsdale.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=15&clip_id=1165
WHAT DECISIONS WERE MADE AT THE 6/9 COUNCIL
MEETING that may affect you ?
Planned Unit Development (PUD)—a new zoning
district approved 5-2
Affects parcels of half acre to 25 acres
city wide
Provides the incentive of mixed uses
(i.e. business retail on the first floor and residential
living above) where not available in the current zoning on
the land
Provides building height to 48 ft plus
10 foot roof top mechanicals
Provides flexible building standards
Focuses on in-fill property and
revitalization properties
Council members Ecton, Borowsky and Klapp
wanted heights to 72 feet with City Council approval.
On the final vote, only Borowsky and Klapp voted no to the
48 foot base building limit.
PUD parcels will most likely back to
existing residential districts—across a 20 foot alley. Then
PUD requires a 20 ft set back of the building from its
property line. –that is about nine adult steps forward.
Prime target roads are McDowell, Thomas,
Indian School, Scottsdale Rd, Oak, Earll, and Roosevelt in
southern Scottsdale. Northern parcels are not excluded.
Single-family residential R1-7 Phase II Text
Amendments
—continued to another
meeting date by Council vote.
Private homes on lots 7,000 sq ft
minimum are affected
Allows carport enclosure for garage
or living facility
Allows for adding structure to the
property line (with written permission from the
adjoining neighbor). The adjoining property must
forever keep a 5 foot obstacle-free easement on THEIR
property side.
Allows for accessory buildings closer
to the main house and property line
Allows for garage entry from the
public alley and sets the garage height and distance
from the property line
Concern: There is no requirement that
carport enclosures/garages/ or home additions must match
the standards/design/character of the neighborhood. The
city attorney rules that the City Charter does not allow
staff to control design on a single family residence.
Councilman McCullagh requested that the staff research HOW
it can be done. Other Council members agreed.
Downtown Character Area Plan –approved 5-2
(This concerns the approximate 800 acres of the
original city)
City boundaries were expanded to include
3 large parcels
Civic Center boundary was expanded
Some Type I (low profile) areas were
increased for height and density to Type II
Topic policies were written to act as
guidelines (i.e. Character Design, Mobility )
Concerns: Downtown merchants presented a
petition to City Council that they want guarantees in writing
that Scottsdale Road would not be narrowed. Councilman
Littlefield wanted a Task Force of business owners to "examine,
evaluate, and vet" the proposed Downtown Plan prior to final
acceptance. His motion was withdrawn for lack of support.
Merchants described failure to include them in the original
draft work and requested involvement in the
implementation-action plans. Stay tuned…
Got time? Got expertise? Get nominated and serve
on a city Board or Commission !
More
than 200 volunteers provide advice to the city through serving on a
board or commission. ONCE a month—that is the time commitment. Go to
the city website for more information on what is available. http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/boards.asp
For the COGS Board of Directors, Sonnie Kirtley,
Chairperson
www.cogsaz.org
To be included in our COGS E-Newsletter Update
and to receive alerts on proposed projects that might affect your
neighborhood, current city issues, and guest speakers at the monthly
COGS meetings just send us your e mail address. cogsaz@cox.net
(Return to Top)
~
Content of Address to the City Council
Good evening Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council;
The signers on the Citizen Petitions offered here
are asking for the immediate removal of City Attorney Deborah
Robberson from office, either by removing her by an affirmative City
Council vote within thirty (30) days, or by her voluntary
resignation to be effective within thirty (30) days from this date.
Either option is to be effective without any extension of employment
time, any continued monetary or other benefits, or any other
compensation to her for any reason.
Reasons for Robberson’s immediate resignation or
firing:
(1) Failure to abide by the Charter Officer
requirement to be a legal resident within the delineated city
limits of the City of Scottsdale. She has publicly called
herself a City Charter Officer publicly many times.
(2) Failure to properly direct the city legal
department to save the city from financial losses; for example,
the failure to stop then Mayor Mary Manross from signing
documents for the Hualapai Water Plant without City Council
knowledge and declared later to be without authority but legally
binding on the city.
(3) Failure to handle city involved or other
generated legal issues in a prompt and prudent manner. One of
many examples being Code Enforcement violations left to languish
until they outdate forcing Code Enforcement to re-cite subject
violators delaying legal action and compliance for up to 180
days.
(4) Failure to support the best legal
interests of the citizens, property owners and taxpayers of the
city of Scottsdale through proper legal investigation and
council knowledge.
(5) Failure to follow, advise, and enforce
Roberts Rules of Order to maintain orderly and properly run city
council meetings. The City Attorney is also the resident city
parliamentarian and should act accordingly.
(6) Directly responsible for the loss of
ten’s of millions of tax dollars due to faulty or needed but
nonexistent legal and ethical decisions such as:
The "Adult Oriented Entertainment"
ordinance debacle and costly public vote,
Hanover: unknown for sure,
Toll Brothers: $50 million
and climbing,
Hualapai: $12 million and
climbing,
The Solis/SRP debate: Unknown,
The current retirement payout
debacle: $9 million over estimates and
climbing with many legal and ethical questions based on
who devised and set up the program including who is an
eligible recipient,
The largest legal staff of any city
in the valley per capita as well as the additional costs
of the outside Law firms hired to handle cases which
Robberson’s staff should be able to handle themselves.
SkySong: $150 million and
climbing without the promised tax revenue, and no legal
"out" for city if every letter of the lease is not
fulfilled,
All of the above, plus many more incidents begged
for legal and ethical oversight which was never forthcoming from the
City Attorney or her office.
Need I go on ladies and gentlemen?
There is also a letter attached which I won’t
read that speaks for itself.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this
critical matter.
(Return
to Top)
~
More on Robberson
This is a compilation of complaint letters
received by the Scottsdale Activist from citizens, former employees,
and current employees concerning the demeanor, actions, and lack of
expertise concerning the actions or lack thereof of City
Attorney Deborah Robberson over the last few years.
To whom it may concern:
I have watched City Attorney Deborah Robberson
for a number of years from both sides of the fence so to speak.
She must go for the following reasons:
She is not a resident of Scottsdale as
the Scottsdale City Charter requires. The city once annexed
and deannexed Dick Bowers home from PV when he was City
Manager. One of her then associates in the city legal
department opined that the City Charter didn’t apply to her
position so that she wouldn’t have to move to Scottsdale as
required when appointed city attorney.
She continually receives her legal
direction from Planning employees. Frank Gray used to boast
that he knew more about the legal aspects than Debbie. Kroy
Ekblaw routinely tells his inner circle that he advises
Debbie repeatedly on city Planning matters.
She seems very unstable, her budding
political aspiring husband Foster is straining their
relationship and she is seen outside her office pacing back
and forth on her cell phone yelling at him. A Major
distraction for anyone.
Her former colleague Amy Lieberman,
former asst city attorney (as well as others) have no
respect for her and she has told others Debbie is a poor
city attorney.
Her (Debbie's) lack of real, educated,
and independent thought on matters dealing with employee
issues; Fisher sued and won, and she’s always siding with
long time employees who are part of the "E" team which is a
real hazard for taxpayers and citizens.
She cannot make a firm and timely
decision when settling risk management cases thereby
prolonging decisions until its too late costing the
taxpayers even more money (look at Code Enforcement and
other legal issues).
She is supposed to be the City
Parliamentarian, yet fails to bring out of line discussions
to a halt, or call for a vote when necessary. There have
been many incidents where the former mayor didn’t call for a
vote when it was required and Debbie never said a word to
correct the situation leaving the issue legally in limbo and
a liability on the administration and the citizens. It would
appear that she doesn’t prescribe to or practice Roberts
Rules of Order.
Someone should do a check on what the city has
paid out for late or unanswered legal actions during her tenure
which must be astronomical I'm sure.
Thank you
(Return to Top)
~
Property Owner Harassed by Code & City
Attorney
Richard A. Funke, a long time resident, builder,
and taxpayer, is trying to create a sorely needed and wonderful
one-of-a-kind, single level, and historical real estate project in
downtown Scottsdale (See design & picture below). The heart and soul
of the development is the restored historic Charles Miller home. The
latest additions are two homes that were originally owned by the
Paul’s Hardware family.
The Miller home and another were moved on the
site without any issues from the city. Foundation permits were
issued by the City. Without getting into the dozens of demands made
by the City, many of which were admittedly legitimate according to
Funke. Funke spent months and tons of money complying with those
demands as requested to only have things changed at the last minute.
Was that fair in any way? We think not!!
For reasons only known to them, Code Enforcement
took Funke to court for, among other bogus issues, not having the
permit they required, even though he was doing everything he could
possibly do to obtain just as they had previously required him to
do.
Could it be that Councilman Wayne Ecton, who
lives on the third floor across the street from the project, had
more than plenty to do with Code Enforcement and the city legal
department taking this action? It is on the record he voted against
the project at Funke's zoning hearing and in addition he tried hard
but failed to have a dozen deed restrictions recorded on Funke’s
property.
Why was Ecton, as a sitting City Council person,
allowed to vote on a reasonable, conforming, and legal action that
directly involved him less than 300 feet away? The City Legal
Department lead by the incompetent City Attorney Robberson decided
there was no reason for Ecton to recuse himself? What?? Was that
ethical under ANY condition? We think not!!
Could it be that Ecton had other plans under the
table on the sidelines for the properties which could have been put
into play if Funke was forced to give up? Was this a personal
vendetta against Funke by Ecton? Kind of looks and sounds like it
doesn’t it?
Does anyone remember that Ecton, by his own
public admission, personally had the only water supply cut off to an
entire town in Africa when he worked for ALCOA to gain their
submission to his demands? Enough said about Ecton’s ethics and
continuing penchant for personal and demanding control??
After jumping thru all the hoops as fast and as
financially able as possible, Funke submitted his application for
the foundation permit as requested. What happened? The very next day
he is told no foundation permit would be issued, only a full blown
building permit will be accepted. Nothing like last minute notice
when this "minor" detail could have been announced in advance. Seems
like Ecton has his tentacle style fingers in this unnecessary and
very costly disruption clear up to his eyeballs doesn’t it? Could
Good Ole’ Boy Wayne really be a cantankerous old wolf in sweet
little sheep’s clothing? Based on the above, you decide…….
Funke has accepted that demand and is close to a
new submittal. Due back in Court for not having the foundation
permit by a set deadline, a city staff attorney who shall remain
unnamed but obviously is without a clue about what he was doing,
couldn’t care less that the City has refused what it has itself
demanded.... a simple foundation permit!!!
Could the concept of "bad faith", "unethical
actions", and "contempt" apply anywhere in this debacle? You bet,
they all apply and we have an excellent idea who is spearheading the
opposition!!!!
Those who have seen or heard about Funkes plans
for Charles Miller Square in downtown at 1st Street and
Goldwater are ecstatic that a downtown property owner would
sacrifice possibly millions in profits to save historic homes and
provide a historic oasis of relief from all the towering buildings
for the visiting public to enjoy.
We think it’s time that City Manager John Little
stepped in and put an immediate stop to the unnecessary and baseless
harassment and allow the project to be finished post haste without
further delay.
If the city attorneys office was even half as
rabid concerning far more important city issues such as bad ethical
practices as they have been on this issue, the city would be a much
cleaner and well kept example of good, fair, and evenhanded
government.
(Return to Top)
~ Scottsdale Republic Finally
Gets One Right!!!
The following half page Scottsdale Republic editorial totally
shocked anyone who read it, then had to do a double take, reread it,
then wipe their eyes to see if they were dreaming.
The Headline was
"Scottsdale needs new city attorney….. Now".
This isn’t an April fools joke or a misprinted headline. Boy!
Robberson must have really screwed up, even in their ultra liberal
minds. It’s fact and you can find it by clicking on the link below!!
http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/SREditorials/55201
They finally said it well for a rare change with an attitude
toward honesty instead of nonsensical fluff and lack of the real
truth!!
(Return to Top)
~Now
We Know Why...But Who Allowed it to Happen?
Residents of Scottsdale's southern neighborhoods
have suffered the loss of shopping opportunities since the Ellman
Cos. decided to let Los Arcos Mall go dark.
There were attempts to do some long range planning holding focus
groups as far back as 1997, to find out what residents wanted for
the area as we began to pursue revitalization.
Something was not right with the effort and
something definitely was wrong when the questions we asked about
bringing stores and businesses to South Scottsdale were met with
silence.
When Ellman tried to accomplish a subsidy to
bring Wal-Mart to the Southeast corner of Scottsdale and McDowell
Roads, The Scottsdale Coalition started digging for information
ourselves.
Recently former Scottsdale City Councilman David
Ortega, in a letter to Scottsdale Coalition Co-Chair, Nancy Cantor,
explained it all so very clearly (see below).
We appreciate his input as we move forward with
trying to shape economic revitalization in South Scottsdale.
The Scottsdale Coalition would like to share this
important information with the readers of the Scottsdale Activist.
Nancy Cantor
Co-Chair for, The Scottsdale Coalition
======================================================
David Ortega’s notes with corroborated
corrections and additions by the Activist Editors:
Key commercial investments are not in the
hands of local governments. In metro Phoenix, billions of dollars of
pension funds and deep-pocket investors are guided by one obscure
sentence not found in any zoning ordinance or municipal General
Plan.
One sentence so powerful it consists of 180, yes,
one hundred eighty words which overrides city boundaries and even
Indian nation domains. It is so viral it marches across the valley
determining revenues and sales tax subsidies.
That one sentence which defies municipal
boundaries, borders on enabling a monopoly.
One edict is so simple it can be tracked on a map
of the valley from Apache Junction to Surprise. It controls the
valley infrastructure down to Arizona Trust Land sales/ leases and
even off-ramps from valley freeways.
Found in the standard Westcor lease, the "New
Locations" restriction (see below) dictates that any store or
affiliate enterprise in a Westcor mall property cannot locate a new
location within a five mile radius. If a store would defy the
covenant, the off-site store would have to pay rent to Westcor.
Taking a map of metro Phoenix, marking with a
compass at ten mile circles at Westcor malls will illustrate the
power of the "New Location" restriction. Between the gaps lie
Arizona Mills, Kierland and Arizona Biltmore, which was acquired by
Westcor. Any developer attempting to violate the provision is
financially slaughtered by this Westcor Covenant.
Look at the influence in Scottsdale.
Since 1985, I have been aware of the 180-word
restriction, so in 1969 I was skeptical that the Scottsdale Galleria
was approved for 400,000 of new retail within 500 feet of Fashion
Square. The Galleria had to bring new entries to Arizona by
necessity. What happens when a 400,000 sq. ft. retail center opens
next to Fashion Square? It went belly-up in 16 months, losing $130
million.
The Waterfront, located across from Fashion
Square was approved in (1989) consisting of 400,000 sq ft. of
retail, 400,000 sq ft of office space and 300.000 sq. ft. of
condo/hotel. Waterfront sat for 17 years knowing that building
400.000 sq. ft. of retail would be financial suicide. In 2000 when
the Galleria converted 400,000 sq ft. of failed retail into 400,000
sq. ft. of office space, the Waterfront shelved the 400,000 office
component at the Waterfront.
With retail and office components dead,
Waterfront settled for 50,000 sq. ft. office space and 60,000 sq.
ft. of retail and 400 condominium units. Commercial zoned property
bowed to residential use.
Further down the road, Ellman Companies acquired
Los Arcos for an arena/mixed-use project to be funded by sales tax
from 400,000 sq. ft. of retail. Ellman soon discovered little retail
interest, since Los Arcos is only 3.6 miles from Fashion Square.
When the numbers didn't work Ellman waltzed to Glendale for a
freebie arena, subsidized by taxpayers there.
Stuck with Los Arcos, Ellman tried to sell a
Wal-Mart, with a hefty $200M (Actually was corrected to
$37.8M) tax subsidy to bail him out. When the voter
referendum killed the subsidy, Ellman sought a buyer for his $13M
investment.
Scottsdale jumped at the chance to subsidize ASU
for $110M (Actually now at more like $150M)
for an office and retail uses at Los Arcos. By paying Ellman $43M
(over twice the Fee Appraised value of $18 to $21M),
Ellman was able to take $30M to finance Westgate in
Glendale. Scottsdale exported $30M in taxpayer dollars
(by the Manross Administration) to develop retail a Glendale.
Today, Scottsdale searches for answers to the
McDowell Corridor. There is no option for major retail because of
McDowell is within five miles of Fashion Square.
One sentence, controlling new locations, gets the
last laugh. No city vote or referendum can unravel it.
What happens when municipalities choose to offer
tax subsidies to developers who have restrictive covenants which
create a virtual monopoly in that city?
Are city tax subsidies tied to a developer with a
virtual monopoly actually restricting free commerce in that city?
Is it legal to participate with or enable a
virtual monopoly?
At some point, city officials racing to subsidize
developers need to realize that tax dollars are scarce in good and
hard economic times. Perhaps some developers have already built-in
enough advantages without asking cities for more.
In Scottsdale, tax subsidies to Fashion Square,
with 275 stores and scores of affiliates, have handicapped and
eliminated attracting business to south Scottsdale. Individuals and
investors are prohibited from investing in alternate businesses in
original Scottsdale perhaps there is little net gain with subsidies
after all.
Here are the controlling sentences and
paragraphs:
B) Operating Days and Hours. Recognizing
that it is in the interests of both Tenant and Landlord to
have regulated hours of business for the Shopping Center,
Tenant agrees that commencing with the opening for business
by Tenant in the Premises and for the remainder of the Lease
Term, Tenant shall be open for business daily, and shall
continuously so remain open for business during all hours on
all days that Landlord i its sole discretion shall determine
that the Shopping Center shall be open for business to the
public Notwithstanding any provision of this Lease 10 the
contrary, in addition to any and all other rights and remedy
of Landlord whether hereunder or at law or in equity, for
each day that the Premises is not open during the hours that
the Shopping Center is open to the public, whether or not
any such closure has been consented to by Landlord, Tenant's
Percentage Rental Sales Level shall be reduced by one-three
hundred sixtieth (1/360) Landlord shall not be obligated to
open any mall area so that Tenant may conduct business
except on those day and hours when (a) at least one (1)
Major Department Store in the Shopping Center shall be open
for business or (b) at least fifty percent (50%) of the
number of mall tenants in Landlord's portion of the Shopping
Center shall have given reasonable advance notice to
Landlord that they desire to be open for business. Tenant
further agrees to have all of its show windows appropriately
dressed and decorated and its window displays, exterior
signs and exterior advertising displays adequately
illuminated continuously during all hours that any mall area
shall be open to the public. It is agreed, however, that the
foregoing provisions shall be subject, as respects any
business controlled by governmental regulations or labor
union contracts in its hours of operation, to the hours of
operation so prescribed by such governmental regulations or
labor union contracts, as the case may be.
C) New Locations. If, during the Lease
Term, Tenant or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries or any
person, corporation or other entity controlling or
controlled by Tenant, directly, or indirectly operates or
owns any similar type of business within a radius of five
(5) miles from the location of the Premises, then Landlord
at its option, in addition to any and all other rights or
remedies it may have whether hereunder or at law or in
equity, shall be entitled to obtain injunctive relief
prohibiting such conduct or it may elect to either terminate
this Lease or to include the "net sales" of such other
business (determining "net sales" of such other business in
the same manner as Net Sales are determined under this
Lease) in the Net Sales transacted from the Premises for the
purpose of computing the Percentage Rental due hereunder,
and Tenant shall furnish to Landlord statements of :he net
sales of such other business and pay the rental due by
reason thereof in the same manner and at the same times as
required by Article 5. Notwithstanding any other provisions
of this Lease, if Landlord elects to include he net sales of
such other business in the Net Sales under this Lease, then
this shall be Landlord's only right or remedy with respect
to such violation so long as Tenant renders the required
statements and pays the additional Percentage Rental
promptly when due. The restriction referred to in this
Paragraph C shall not include or apply to any other
businesses owned or operated by Tenant on the date this
Lease is executed by Tenant nor shall it include or apply to
any business which might result from a merger of Tenant with
another entity.
So, What Now??
The Scottsdale Activist offers the following
suggestions:
In other words ladies, gentlemen, and fellow
Scottsdale citizens, we have been had by our own city government’s
hell bent greed to add sales tax revenue at any cost, not realizing
the huge, long term ramifications which can bury the city.
Because of the failure of the City Attorneys
office to mention that and by allowing the restrictions, our city
government, city legal department, and Westcor have almost
totally eliminated the ability to increase the city sales
revenue on the remaining open areas of the city because of the
"Covenants Not To Compete" required by Westcor and other major
developers.
Where were our City Attorneys??
Who has been in Westcor’s pocket on this one??
You REALLY might want to ask who received
campaign monies from Westcor and/or their associates and other
partners, right?? I’m sure you won’t be surprised with whose names
come brightly into focus…. And you all know who they are, I’m sure!!
These developers would have come to the city of
Scottsdale anyway due to our world stature had our "brilliant" city
government stood up to them and refused to give them a five (5) mile
radius emanating from the center of any proposed development. Those
areas could have been held to two (2) to three (3) miles without
affecting the income of Westcor and could have vastly increased the
sales tax revenue by releasing areas such as Los Arcos.
You could assume that no city wouldn’t have that
kind of control. Well, you’re wrong. Any city has that kind of
control if they are an affluent, world wide vacation, convention,
golf, or winter destination.
With this revelation, which the Scottsdale
Activist has warned about for over three (3) years, we feel that
Westcor, in good conscience and fairness should;
Purchase the entire McDowell Road
corridor at a fair market price and develop it within the
current zoning to thirty six feet (36’) providing what the
citizens have been asking for including the revenue lost by
their Covenant Not To Compete OR,
Immediately reduce all existing Covenant
Radius rules to two and a half (2.5) miles on all
developments in or abutting the city of Scottsdale without
allowing covenants outside Scottsdale to extend into our
city limits. By reducing the radius, they could be allowed
the Right of First Refusal to develop other areas such as
the McDowell Corridor without further Covenants.
This could possibly be accomplished by
having those who have accepted campaign monies from Westcor
to be the front men/women in this vitally needed effort.
If Westcor refuse to do so,
and our city government refuses to pursue such an agreement,
Scottsdale citizens could boycott any and all Westcor Shopping
centers within the Salt River Valley. In addition, you can kiss the
Scottsdale you know and love "Good Bye" because Scottsdale will just
be another Ho Hum second rate city with nothing to offer.
(Return to Top)
~
General Plan or
Outrageous, Illegal Joke?
What is the General Plan? In Scottsdale, Arizona
it is defined thusly:
First things first: The City Council should
have never been allowed to vote on these major changes to the
General Plan because the law and City Charter clearly state that
these kinds of changes must be approved by a vote of the people, not
the council. Another major screw-up on the part of our "brilliant"
city attorney.
The City Council Should rescind it's vote
on this subject immediately!!
The General Plan is a legally required statement
of goals and policies that work as the primary tool for guiding the
future development of the city. It is an expression of our
collective vision and direction for the future of Scottsdale and how
we want future growth and the character of the community to occur
over the next 10-20 years.
Remember the term "guide." It is a guide, not
gospel and you had better believe that it is a document not too many
managers or staffers care to really scrutinize because it cramps
their style as well as their personal (or more correctly,
developers) wants and goals. We have zoning laws and regulations,
ordinances and state mandates to review and update them
periodically.
We have some excellent city boards and
commissions that function because of the various elements contained
in the General Plan but, they never are allowed to see the whole
document and don’t know how one element relates to others.
Don’t be looking for staff to help them figure it
out either because it would upset the secret plans of the staffers
(developers). The outrageous statement by 2 senior staffers last
Tuesday night while answering Councilmen Nelssen, McCullagh, and
Littlefield as to why they couldn’t follow the directions of the
city council was a very telling and reverberating slip of the
tongue, providing an extremely clear view into the attitude and
disrespect toward the city council and taxpayers by some senior
members of the city staff. Could this also be the attitude of new
appointee, formerly form Phoenix, David Richert as an assistant to
the City Manager?
Developers lovingly and happily wallow in the
fact that City Council, boards and commissions do not understand the
General Plan and they do take serious advantage of it. The smirks on
the faces of developers who left the Kiva at City Hall following the
passage of the Downtown Plan Update were most telling.
Be prepared for an onslaught of projects that
will expand the Downtown boundaries still more putting even more
pressure on all existing single family and multifamily residential
neighborhoods in the South Scottsdale Community Planning Area.
Projects that will strain the infrastructure – water, sewers,
electric, safety, traffic, etc. (that we have not reviewed for
future needs), will sail through with a wink and a nod with probable
strong pushing behind the scenes by Richert, and the constant
pushing by the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce that is well
known for being against the local residents, their wants, their
needs, and the safety of their neighborhoods
First impacted will be the neighbors in the 68th
Street and Camelback Road area. This is the same neighborhood that
has been torn apart by the "Waterview/Solis Let’s Move the SRP
Substation Blues." Now, RAIT a company out of Pittsburgh, PA, that
bought the Orchidtree property, is partnering with local developer,
Ryerson Co., and they have been waiting for the opportunity to put
that property to use under the "expanded boundary option in the
Downtown Plan Update." Luxury senior housing will be included in the
mixed use project, because, are you ready for this????? They claim
we do not have enough luxury senior housing in Scottsdale!!! Who’s
kidding who here?? The Lofts and a number of other similar very
upscale projects are vacant and have been apparently inhabited by
the homeless from time to time until the city forced them to be
fenced for security reasons.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch houses, the
residents to the South of Orchidtree and to the West of 68th
Street, have been waiting, and waiting, and are still waiting for
the South Scottsdale Community Planning Area document to be
completed to see how their neighborhoods, on the fringes of
Downtown, will be addressed. (Sorry people, the way David Richert
and his staff are seemingly playing favorites with developers; this
project will be approved before the SSCPA document is done.)
In other words how is the Downtown, which sits
smack in the middle of the South Scottsdale Community Planning Area,
going to fit into the midst of residential neighborhoods when
boundaries (bringing taller buildings, retail/commercial businesses
and more densely built projects and increased traffic closer to
their homes and daily life) are allowed to be expanded?
Don’t look for too much help from the new city
council members. They do not live in our southern neighborhoods and
they do not care about or moreover understand the quality of our
daily life, especially if it endears them to the business community
and developers who supported their election campaigns.
Shall we discuss the value of voting Districts
again to solve some of these problems?
Many of the things going on today in the way of
Advanced Planning should have taken place several years ago when we,
at least we the people, knew that developable, open land had all but
disappeared.
Remember the General Plan, read it on line, go to
the library and read it or get a copy of it from City Hall, but
remember just reading it is not enough. It has to be used in all of
its elements to provide a sound revitalization for South Scottsdale
respectful of our quality of life, too.
When the Downtown Plan Update was presented to
the City Council on June 9th many questions were left
unanswered.
Questions that the community needs answers to
regarding increased building height and density:
What kind of urban heat environment are
we creating by increasing building height to 5 stories, or
the proposed eight stories, in Downtown? What about the
single family residential areas where the boundaries of
Downtown are going to be allowed to expand?
Before we bring more high-rise condos on
line shouldn’t we know what kind of impact they will have on
the surrounding community, sewer, potable water, and energy
consumption for heating and cooling?
How many of our new luxury condominium
developments in Downtown meet or exceed LEED standards as
promised and how were they required to show they meet the
LEED and Green Building guidelines?
What steps is Scottsdale taking to deal
with the current air pollution issues South of Chaparral
Road?
Has Scottsdale done noise/decibel studies
along Scottsdale Road south of Indian Bend Road? Hayden
Road? Pima Road? How does Scottsdale keep track of noise
pollution? Why doesn’t the city have an enforceable noise
ordinance?
What steps will the developer have to
follow so that all members of the
community will know well in advance what is being proposed
in the expanded areas?
Will the Neighborhood Enhancement
Commission be allowed to hold a public hearing and review
the plans intended for the expanded areas before they are
approved by staff to go to the Planning Commission and the
Development Review Board and Council as has been the
practice pre-Manross/Dolan?
The public has been bamboozled and misled about
who was allowed to contribute to the Downtown Plan Update. When
citizens were allowed to supposedly provide input, why was their
input negated or totally ignored after the first Downtown Plan
Update was submitted to Council? That was a serious slap in the face
to the public at large.
Sometime over the winter hidden from the public
eye, serious but secret changes were quietly made to both the
Downtown Plan Update document and the Planned Unit Development (aka
PUD) document, in form and content by staff members and others who
made their attitude and distain to the public and the City Council
well know last Tuesday night.
The Downtown Merchants Association, whose people
and their businesses and properties provide the highly prized and
needed sales tax revenue that runs the city will be directly
impacted were not informed about some serious up-zonings that were
added to the update. They too were slapped across the face by an
apparently non-caring staff.
No one sitting on our City Council, the Planning
Commission, or Development Review Board, who is personally involved
or invested in the Downtown or who has family involved with or
invested in Downtown should be voting on this plan or the projects
that will come up in any area where they live or have a business.
We supposedly have a strong Ethics Code in
Scottsdale which was dodged often by the former administration with
the help of an incompetent but crafty City Attorney, because it
apparently does not apply to City Council members. No part of it,
including the Conflict of Interest Statement that all board and
commission members must sign is apparently not utilized at all by
the City Council. We have to depend upon their sense of integrity
and personal honor.
That was brought home vividly when Councilman
Ecton was allowed by City Attorney Robberson to vote on certain
parcels and plans which he can hit within a feeble stones throw from
his downtown penthouse, er condo. Another egregious example seems to
have happened on last Tuesdays vote on the Downtown Plan when
another council member did not recuse him/herself when family
properties or businesses reportedly were affected directly by this
council members vote.
Shame, SHAME! on both Council Members (you know
who you are!!) for their lack of honesty, fair play, and strict
observance of required ethical practises.
(Return to Top)
~Definitions
Every Citizen Should Know
Planning and Zoning Terms and Definitions
A couple of years ago The Scottsdale Coalition
Steering Committee asked staff in the Planning Department to sit
down with them on a couple of Saturday mornings to go over the
planning and zoning terms that are used in Scottsdale and give
examples of how they are applied.
Since the Planning Department is hell bent on
amending zoning before the South Scottsdale Community Area Plan is
finished, we figured it might be a good idea to share some of the
terms that you are going to be seeing and hearing about a lot more
often as revitalization of southern Scottsdale rolls out.
We have added comments and references throughout
so that you know what is important.
Pay close attention to anything in bold type,
underlined. If anything is in red your attention is needed.
If you have any questions let us know. Let the
City know your concerns by contacting staffer Kira Wauwie,
480-312-7898, kwauwie@ScottsdaleAZ.gov
Feel free to print these pages out and hang them
on the fridge. Plaster them on the walls in the "reading room" or
even the tool shed. When you or your neighbors undertake a
remodeling project or add on to your house you won’t be caught off
guard. Or if a mixed-use PUD project seeks approval across the alley
you can better understand what is going to be your new neighbor.
Accessory Buildings (Accessory Use): As
defined in the Zoning Ordinance: Shall mean a use customarily
incidental, related, appropriate and clearly subordinate to the main
use of the lot or building, which accessory use does not alter the
principal use of the subject lot or building or adversely affect
other properties in the district. A garage or storage shed could
fall into this category. (We are
going to be talking about this a lot as the amendments to the R1-7
zoning ordinances are worked on.)
Acre-feet
: A volume of water
one-foot deep covering an acre of land. This term is often used in
defining storm or drinkable water storage capacity.
Adaptive Reuse (as defined in the glossary of
the 2001 General Plan): Developing a new use for an older building
or for a building originally designed for a special or specific
purpose. This is particularly useful as a technique for preserving
older buildings of historic or architectural significance. It also
applies to the conversion of special use structures, such as gas
stations, train stations, or school buildings that are no longer
needed for their original purpose.
Affordability (Housing)
: Housing that
can be rented or purchased by a household with entry level or
"workforce" income.
Air rights: Selling/marketing of air space
that can be used for development.
Alley
: A narrow service way, usually
unpaved, that provides means of public access not intended for
general traffic circulation typically located along rear property
lines. Alleys are often used for utility access, garbage or trash
pick-up, and maintenance.
(Allowing garages in backyards will allow garage entrance from the
alley.)
Ambiance
: The character or tone of
an area, as determined by building scale and design, amount and type
of activity, intensity of use, location and design of open space,
and related factors that influence the perceived quality of the
environment.
Amenity (as defined in the 2006 Design
Standards & Policy Manual): A natural or created feature that
enhances the aesthetic quality, visual appeal or makes a particular
property, place or area more attractive or satisfying.
(This is another one that will be
talked about a lot as we begin to see infill projects, including
Planned Unit Developments with mixed-use, residential over
retail/commercial.)
Arterial Street
: A major road mainly
serving through-traffic, not local neighborhood traffic. Arterials
take traffic to and from freeways and other arterials and provide
access to adjacent properties.
As-of-right: Allowed use as defined by the
Scottsdale Zoning Ordinance.
Assemblage (as defined in the 2006 Design
Standards & Policy Manual): The combination of 2 or more existing
lots or tracts of land into a single lot or tract of land.
(Been a long time coming on this
one. No one wanted to discuss assemblage, except for Mayor
Drinkwater because he knew what the southern residential and
business neighborhoods would have to do in order to accommodate
future growth. Smaller lots need to be merged to create enough space
for developers to consider them worth of their time.)
Berm: (as defined in the 2006 Design
Standards & Policy Manual): A ridge of material formed on the outer
edge of the trail tread that is greater in height than the center of
the trail tread. (If you have
seen a yard that is watered by irrigation the ridge of land around
the yard to hold the water in the yard is a berm.)
Bicycle Lane
: A separate lane on a
roadway that is reserved for bicyclists and marked off by lane
striping.
Bikeway
: A corridor designated for
bicyclists. Bikeways include bicycle paths not part of a vehicle
roadway and bicycle routes.
Bonus Zoning: N/A(Specific terminology
not used in Scottsdale planning and development vernacular, BUT in
some districts, i.e. the Downtown, ESL, the city grants flexibility
in development standards, etc. if the property owner achieves some
city identified objectives, i.e. connected open space dedications,
etc.) (Be aware that while this
is not available now, it does not mean it cannot be kicked into play
in the future.)
Buffer
: An area of land separating
two distinct land uses that acts to soften or mitigate the effects
of one land use on the other. Often the buffered area is undeveloped
open space, landscaped areas, fences, walls, berms, or any
combination of these things. (This term is going to be very
important when dealing with infill, PUD projects.)
Building Restriction Line (The most
comparable terminology [both of which are included in the 2001
General Plan glossary] is Buildable Area: The area of a lot
remaining after the minimum yard and open space requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance have been met.
Building Scale
: The relationship of a
building, in terms of building mass, to other nearby and adjacent
buildings.
(Important when
designing a building addition or enclosing a carport.)
Building Envelope Technique: A technique for
building and construction, which disturbs a minimal area of the
buildable part of a parcel.
Capital Improvement
: New or expanded
public improvements that are relatively large size, expensive and
permanent. Some common examples are streets, public libraries, water
and sewer lines, and park and recreation facilities.
Central Business District (CBD)(As
defined in the 2001 General Plan glossary): Major commercial
downtown center of community. General guidelines for delineating a
CBD are defined by the US Census of Retail; specific boundaries are
specified by the community. Usually, containing major retail uses
governmental offices, service uses, professional, cultural,
recreational, and entertainment establishments and uses; residences,
hotels and motels; appropriate industrial activities; and
transportation facilities. (Keep
an eye on this one because it will be heard as we address the
Downtown Plan Update expanded boundary areas.)
Channelization
: The straightening
and/or enlarging or deepening of a watercourse for the purposes of
storm runoff control.
Character Area Plan
: Middle part of
the three-level General Plan structure that provides specific
planning and design proposals for a defined sub-area of the city,
smaller than citywide general planning, but larger than Neighborhood
Plans.
Character Area Study:
The process of
crafting a Character Area Plan involving research background
information and reports, public involvement, and creating guidelines
and implementation strategies.
Clustering/Cluster Development
:
Essentially any development approach that locates buildings in
limited areas on a site and results in a more compact arrangement of
buildings on a property. This allows the remaining land to be used
for open space and creates larger blocks of connected open space in
lieu of smaller, individual portions.
Collector Street
: Roadway that
"collects" and "distributes" local traffic to and from arterial
streets, and provides access to adjacent properties. (Watch for this
term as it will play a part in discussions of the Planned Unit
Development/infill projects in southern Scottsdale.)
Community Character
: The character
of our community is complex and diverse. Each neighborhood setting
holds an important image that when grouped together complete
Scottsdale's identity as single community. Urban, suburban, rural,
and native Sonoran Desert characters provide a broad pallet of
experiences and expressions each offering a unique opportunity for
an elegant composition. It is the value of quality and the pride of
the citizens that unify all of these rich expressions together as a
community. It is the city's leadership responsibility to oversee
connections, transitions and blending of these characters to be sure
that our community comes together to create a unified composition.
(Neighborhoods in southern
Scottsdale built by Hallcraft, Staggs, Cox, Allied, Cavalier and
Bullock all have a definite character and while updates are
important designs should be taken in context with the existing
housing and those that exhibit the best designs that have been
completed; and that take into consideration the deed restrictions.
Staff does not want to address this though the General Plan and NEC
Goals and Purposes support this. See Contextualism/Context.)
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) (as
defined in the 2001 General Plan glossary): Grant program
administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). Grants must primarily be used to benefit low-income
households with emphasis on housing and public improvement projects.
Community Development Corporation (CDC):
Scottsdale does not have any CDCs although we are aware there has
been community interest in creating one. Phoenix has several active
CDCs. The State of Arizona defines CDCs as a non-profit entity that
works within a specific area on improving housing. There are state
and federal guidelines for CDCs.
Community Facilities District
: A
designated area of the city with specific boundaries that is
assessed the costs of specific improvements, including: street
paving, sidewalks, crosswalks, curbs, gutters, culverts, bridges,
fire hydrants, sewers, power lines, water lines, and street
lighting. The purposes for which community facilities may be formed
rests with the County Board of Supervisors and Arizona State Law.
Community Facilities Districts are developer driven and paid for by
the homeowners through additional property taxes. A community
facilities district usually has a 25-year term.
Compatible
: Capable of existing
together without significant conflict or ill effects.
Contextualism/Context: Identification of
the surrounding character, topography, development pattern, etc.
(Important to older neighborhoods.)
Deconstructivism: N/A (Terminology not used
in Scottsdale planning and development vernacular.) It was and
architectural trend (not widely utilized) that featured unfinished
construction (interior and/or exterior).
Demolition Neglect: Section R105 Permits
in the 2003 International Building Code, requires any owner or
authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair,
move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure,
or to erect, install, enlarge, alter repair, remove, convert or
replace any electrical, gas mechanical or plumbing system, the
installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any
such work to be done, shall first make application to the building
official and obtain the required permit. An example of neglect is
when the property owner decides to vacate existing buildings and let
them deteriorate.
Density or Net Density (as defined in
2001 General Plan glossary): The number of housing units per acre of
land, excluding roads, natural watercourse and drainage easements,
and other dedicated rights of way.
Development Review
: Community oversight
conducted by the Development Review Board. Is an important means of
scrutinizing proposed projects and there related functions. It
should be used with new development, redevelopment, and related
activity.
(Very important to
watch this process as this process does not follow the
same hearing process that is required when projects go through the
Planning Commission.)
Down Zoning: A reduction in the
intensity/density from the current existing zoning.
Downtown Urban Design and Architectural
Guidelines:
1986 City Council approved document
intended to provide a framework for the design of buildings and
public spaces in Downtown Scottsdale.
Dwelling Unit (DU)
: A house or
apartment that is a separate and independent housekeeping unit,
occupied or intended for occupancy by one household.
Easement (as defined in the 2001
General Plan glossary): The right to use property owned by another
for specific purposes, such as access to another piece of property,
conveyance of storm water, or other transmission of utilities (i.e.
overhead or buried power lines).
Element
: A component of the General
Plan dealing with specific topics like open space or land use. State
law requires each Plan to include fifteen elements, although the
elements may be organized in a number of ways. Scottsdale's General
Plan contains twelve elements that cover all of the topic areas
required by State Statute.
Eminent Domain: The right of a government to
appropriate private property for public use, with just compensation
to the owner.
Envelope/construction envelope (as defined in
the 2001 General Plan glossary): One or more specified areas on a
lot or parcel within which all structures, driveways, parking,
decks, walks, and improved facilities are located. Underground
utilities may be located outside the construction envelope.
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Statement (EIS)
(as defined in 2001 General Plan glossary): An informational
document that provides decision makers and the public with
information about the effects a proposed project or other major
private or governmental action is likely to have on the environment,
ways these effects may be minimized, and alternatives to the
proposed project.
Floor Area Ratio (as defined in the 2001
General Plan glossary): A measure of development density expressed
as the amount of building floor area divided by the development site
land area.
Footprint (building) (as defined in the
Zoning Ordinance): Shall mean the building areas occupied by a
single tenant and associated tenant spaces having common access
within the confines of the primary use. The building footprint does
not include outdoor activity areas, basements or floor areas above
the first floor level.
Frontage
: The part of a lot that
touches a road, street, or watercourse; it is often described as a
specific amount, such as "60 feet of frontage".
Gateway
: A point along a roadway at
which a motorist or pedestrian gains a sense of having entered the
city or a particular part of the city. This impression can be
imparted through such things as signs, monuments, landscaping, and a
change in development character, or a natural feature.
Gentrification: Displacement of original
residents; or when an area experiences demographic and social
change.
Grandfathered: A pre-existing
use/condition that is exempted from current zoning regulations
.
Groundwater
: Water under the earth's
surface, often confined to aquifers, capable of supplying wells and
springs.
Groundwater Recharge: The process of
infiltration and percolation of rainwater, or treated wastewater,
from land areas or streams through permeable soils into water
holding aquifers that provide underground storage.
Growing Smarter Plus
: 2000 State
Legislation that revised some of the considerations of the Growing
Smarter Act. Growing Smarter Plus required an additional new
element, redefined major amendments to the General Plan, and
required that General Plan adoptions be ratified by a public vote
after City Council approval.
Growth Areas: Areas of the community that
best accommodate future growth allowing an increased focus on
creating or enhancing transportation systems and infrastructure
coordinated with development activity.
Growth Management: Techniques used by
the government to control the rate, amount, location, timing, and
type of development.
High Technology
: An economic sector
composed of a broad range of activities, including development and
production of computers and office machines, communications
equipment, semi-conductors and electronic components, aerospace and
military vehicles, computer services, research and development
laboratories, and scientific instruments.
Impact fees: A development fee structure that
is based on covering the costs associated with new development, i.e.
the provision of infrastructure needed to provide city services to
the development. In Scottsdale there are water/sewer impact fees.
Improvement District
: A
designated area of the city with specific boundaries that is
assessed the costs of specific improvements, including: street
paving, sidewalks, crosswalks, curbs, gutters, culverts, bridges,
fire hydrants, sewers, power lines, water lines, and street
lighting. The purposes for which improvement districts may be formed
rests with the City Council and Arizona State Law. Improvement
districts use bond funding and all improvements financed with ID
bonds must ultimately be owned by the city and located within public
easements or rights-of-way. An improvement district usually has a
ten-year term and the property owners make semi-annual payments on
the interest, and annual payments on the principal (billed directly
from the city). There is a prepayment penalty if the bond is paid
off at any time during the duration of the improvement district.
Incentive Zones N/A in Scottsdale: A
designated geographical area in which properties are eligible to
receive tax credits, financing, and/or other incentives.
Infill (as defined in the 2001 General Plan
glossary): Development of individual vacant lots or "leftover"
vacant properties within areas that are already developed and have
access to urban services and infrastructure.
Infiltration
: The process through
which water travels from the ground surface through soil to the
aquifer.
Infrastructure (as defined in the 2001
General Plan glossary): Public services and facilities, such as
sewage disposal systems, water supply systems, other utility
systems, streets and roads, fire house, police station, parks and
schools, etc.
Inverse condemnation (law.com): The taking of
property by a government agency which so greatly damages the use of
a parcel or real property that it is the equivalent of condemnation
of the entire property. Thus the owner claims he/she is entitled to
payment for the loss of the property (in whole or in part) under the
constitutional right to compensation for condemnation of property
under the government’s eminent domain right. Example: The City of
Los Angeles widens a boulevard and thereby takes the entire parking
lot of the Busy Bee Market. The city offers to pay for the lot, but
the Busy Bee Market claims the market has lost all its business
since no one can park and wants the value of the entire parcel,
including the market building.
Land Assembly
: Consolidation of
separate adjacent parcels under one ownership in order to facilitate
larger-scale developments. The City has a Neighborhood Assemblage
policy to help guide land assemblage. (Very important as we pursue
revitalization adjacent to single family or multi-family residential
neighborhoods in southern Scottsdale.)
Livability:
The balance of elements
of the physical environment that contribute to the physical, social,
economic, political, and emotional well-being of residents.
Live/Work/Play relationship: Land use
relationships where the places that people live, are employed, and
recreate are in close proximity to each other to reduce travel
distances.
Local-serving Economic Services: Economic
activities with a primarily local market, such as retail stores and
personal services; contrasted to "basic" economic activities such as
manufacturing and wholesale trade.
Local Streets: Roadway that provides access
to adjacent properties in a neighborhood. Not intended for through
traffic or heavy traffic loads.
Locally Unwanted Land Use: Though not used in
Scottsdale’s vernacular, typically refers to uses that are
informally considered undesirable, not in keeping with the desired
character. (Do we want to think
about something like this for Scottsdale????)
Market-rate Housing
: Housing that is
offered for rent or sale at fair market value without any
consideration of standards for determining affordability.
Master Plan/Comprehensive Plan: The
Scottsdale General Plan is a statement of goals and policies that
work as the primary tool for guiding the future development of the
city. It is an expression of the community’s collective vision and
direction in the year/time it is adopted. It represents a snapshot
in time and is intended to be updated as the community continues to
refine/refocus its vision for the future. On a daily basis the city
is faced with tough choices about growth, housing, transportation,
neighborhood improvement, and service delivery. A General Plan
provides a guide for making these choices by describing long-term
goals for the city’s future as well as policies to guide day-to-day
decisions.
Mini-park
: Small neighborhood park
of approximately one-half to two acres.
Multi-Neighborhood Center
: Retail
shopping centers or districts that serve more than one neighborhood
with a diverse mix of uses, including retail, service, office, and
residential.
Neighborhood
: A part of the city
defined by distinct characteristics that may include distinct ethnic
or economic characteristics, housing types, schools, or boundaries
defined by physical barriers such as major highways and railroads,
or natural features, such as rivers. Neighborhoods are often
self-defined by the residents or by homeowner associations in a
neighborhood.
Neighborhood Beautification: Refers to any
of a number of efforts or programs aimed at improving the visual
quality of a neighborhood, including improved landscaping, signs,
streets, painting, and building facades, as well as community
clean-ups.
Neighborhood Plan:
A neighborhood
plan is a guide that provides a framework for future decision
making. It contains broad statements about what residents would like
to have happen and principles they would like to see followed. It
also contains recommendations for strategies on how to reach goals
and generally represents the consensus of the neighborhood.
(According to our current General Plan adopted in 2001, we are
supposed to have neighborhood plans and character area plans through
out the City. We don’t. We have six planning areas and only
the Downtown Planning Area is complete.)
Noise
: Any undesired audible sound,
especially one that is loud or disagreeable.
Noise Compatibility:
The relationship between land uses and ambient noise levels; for
example, residential uses are considered to be less compatible with
high noise environments than industrial uses.
Off-peak
: Not being in the period of
maximum use. For traffic, this generally refers to the weekday
periods before and after the morning and evening commute hours,
typically 9 AM to 3 PM and 7 PM to 6 AM.
Off-street Parking:
Parking that is provided outside of the right-of-way of a public
street, typically in a surface parking lot or parking structure.
On-street Parking:
Parking that is provided within the right-of-way of a public street,
typically in designated parallel or diagonally striped spaces
adjacent to moving traffic lanes.
Open Space
: Any parcel or area of
water or land that is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open
space use for the purpose of
(1) the preservation of natural
resources;
(2) the managed production of resources;
(3) outdoor recreation; or
(4) public health and safety.
Desert Preservation Task Force definitions:
Meaningful Open Space:
Open space which due to its size, function,
visibility, accessibility and/or strategic location is a community
amenity or resource. Open space which can be accessed or can be
viewed by the public. Open space which serves to protect a
significant ecological area. Meaningful Open Space is divided into
three categories: accessible desert open space consisting of public
use areas and public access areas; visual desert open space
consisting of mountain and desert conservation areas, wash corridors
and street setbacks; and desert character open space consisting of
restored areas such as detention basins and drainage channels and
improved areas such as parks and golf courses that have a desert
character.
Natural Area Open Space: Areas of undisturbed
natural desert with no man-made improvements and approved
re-vegetated areas.
Developed Open Space: landscape areas, turf
areas, parks, golf courses and other recreational facilities
(excluding any associated buildings.)
Open Space (Common): Land within or
related to a development that is designed and intended for the
common use or enjoyment of the residents, not individually owned or
dedicated for public use.
Overlay/Overlay Zone or District (As
defined in the 2001 General Plan glossary): A method used to apply
provisions in a specific area, which supplement the standards of the
underlying or base zoning. An
overlay zone might restrict certain uses or allow higher densities
than would be permitted in the same zone in other parts of the city.
The Environmentally Sensitive Lands district is an overlay zoning
district. (Important to remember in conjunction with "infill".)
Planning Commission
: Seven member
commission responsible for reviewing and making recommendations to
the City Council on proposals for development, the subdivision of
land, amendments to zoning, land use studies, the annual Capital
Improvement Program, the General Plan, and other development
regulations.
Potable Water: Water that is suitable for
drinking or cooking purposes.
Public Art
: Sculpture, painting,
murals, and other forms of artwork that are placed in public spaces
or in public view to enrich and add visual interest to the built
environment.
Public Art Committee (PAC): Committee of the
Scottsdale Cultural Council responsible for advising the city in
matters pertaining to the quality, quantity, scope, and style of art
in public places, and for acquiring and siting permanent works of
art, specifically outdoor sculpture.
Public Hearing: A meeting of a Board,
Commission, or the City Council that has been announced and
advertised in advance and is open to the public, with the public
given an opportunity to talk and participate.
Public Notice: The advertisement of a public
hearing in a newspaper of general circulation, and through other
media sources indicating time, place, and nature of the public
hearing and where the application and documents may be inspected.
(The city is required to send
notices to residents within so many hundred feet of a proposed
project. You can sign up to get notices for anywhere in the city by
calling the Planning Department. Especially, important to South
Scottsdale neighborhoods.)
PUD/Planned Unit Development: A Planned
Unit Development, or PUD, is both a type of building development as
well as a regulatory process. A PUD is a designed grouping of varied
and compatible land uses, such as housing, recreation, commercial
centers and industrial parks, all within one contained development
or subdivision.
PUD zoning ordinances are intended to encourage
innovative and responsive design in developments that often include
a mix of both residential and nonresidential uses. Scottsdale has
recently approved this concept.
Setback (As defined in the 2001 General Plan
glossary.): The distance between two points such as a property line
and a structure. (Changes are occurring in a big way as the city
amends the R1-7 zoning language; especially the idea of zero side
property line building additions. This one is huge and troublesome,
ignoring deed restrictions on southern Scottsdale single family
homes in mature neighborhoods.)
Regional Center
:
A commercial activity center of citywide and regional significance,
with a mix of shopping, offices, and some housing.
Recharge: The addition
to, or replenishing of, water in an aquifer.
Sense of Place
: The characteristics
of a location that make it readily recognizable as being unique and
different from its surroundings and that provides a feeling of
belonging to or being identified with that particular place.
Signage (As defined in the 2001 General Plan
glossary.) General term referring to public and private signs and
their design attributes.
Site Plan Review: Review of a site plan,
which identifies the location of buildings/structures (including
height, area, setbacks and mass), open space, circulation
(access/egress, internal traffic circulation, parking loading and
service and pedestrian) and typically includes elements related to
architecture, design, landscaping and relationship to adjacent
properties. (As we proceed with
revitalization incorporating infill projects this is critical for
all residents to see and question.)
Spot zoning: A provision in a general
plan which benefits a single parcel of land by creating a zoned for
use just for that parcel and different from the surrounding
properties in the area. Example: Ina a residential neighborhood
zoned for single-family dwelling with a minimum of 10,000 square
feet, the corner service station property is zoned commercial. Spot
zoning is not favored, since it smacks of favoritism and usually
annoys neighbors. An existing commercial business can be
accommodated by a "zoning variance" (allowing a non-conforming use
for the time being) or a "grandfathered right to continue a use
existing when the zoning plan was adopted and which will terminate
if the building is torn down. (law.com)
Street Furniture (As defined in the 2001
General Plan glossary.): Those features associated with a street
that are intended to enhance the street’s physical character and be
use by pedestrians, such as benches, trash receptacles, kiosks,
lights and newspaper racks.
Street Trees
: Trees planted in
medians or along sidewalks in the public right-of-way that are
intended to enhance the visual quality of a street, provide shade,
absorb pollutants and noise, and provide habitat for urban wildlife.
Streetscape
:
The combination of
individual design elements that give character to the street
frontages of the city. Some examples of these elements are
landscaping, street furniture, lighting, and sidewalk design.
Streetscape design plays a major role in setting a standard of
quality and innovation for other design issues.
Superfund: Federal Superfund law created to
provide funding and regulatory authority for the study and cleanup
of contaminated sites throughout the United States. The EPA directs
the cleanup of these sites. Scottsdale has one Superfund site - the
North Indian Bend Wash site - where trace amounts of industrial
chemicals were found in two Scottsdale drinking water wells in 1981.
The affected wells were immediately shut down. The EPA identified
the companies as potentially causing the contamination and
determined that a long-term cleanup effort would be required.
Tax Abatement: Provision of tax relief based
on an approved set of criteria/regulations.
Tax Credit: Scottsdale’s planning and
development process, typically established through a development
agreement where the city agrees to waive sales tax, construction tax
or development fees at a capped amount. This is sometimes referred
to as an incentive. The oversight for most of Scottsdale’s incentive
programs is coordinated via the Economic Vitality Office.
(We
will probably be hearing about this in more depth, too.)
Traditional Neighborhood Development Overlay:
TND, also known as "new urbanism", "neo-traditional" or
"village-style development", includes a variety of housing types, a
mix of land uses, an active center, a walkable design, and often a
transit option within a compact neighborhood scale area either as
infill in an existing developed area or as a district scale project.
The goal of TND development is to mix/combine uses in a compact area
to achieve a high quality neighborhood.
(The Scottsdale Zoning Ordinance
does not include this district/tool at this time.)
Traffic Calming
: Measures that make
permanent, physical changes to streets to slow traffic and/or reduce
volumes; also can include education and enforcement measures to
promote changes in driver behavior.
(These are appearing on southern
Scottsdale neighborhood streets in the form of speed humps, speed
bumps and speed tables, round-abouts, street planters, etc. and
getting cost information for these projects is impossible. It is
costing the city in the neighborhood of $80,000 to take out what was
put in, in just the last 12 months at Granite Reef Road and Oak
Streets due to drainage problems not considered.)
Transit-Oriented/Pedestrian Friendly Development:
Development that includes compact, mixed use development
patterns with facilities and design that enhance the environment for
pedestrians in terms of safety, walking distances, comfort, and the
visual appeal of the surroundings and are usually focused around a
major transit access point. The elements that support transit and
pedestrian activity are generally the same.
Transition
: A change from one
development density to another or from a preserved area to a
developed area.
Urban Character Types: These contain
higher-density residential, non-residential, and mixed-use
neighborhoods. The districts include apartments, high-density
townhouses, commercial and employment centers, and resorts. Urban
districts should have a pedestrian orientation with shade, activity
nodes and small intimate developed open spaces that encourage
interaction among people. Scottsdale includes the following
examples: Downtown is a highly functional mixed-use center,
containing areas of different densities and architectural styles
that emphasize regional and specialty retail, office and
residential/hotel uses.
The Resort Corridor consists of
concentrations of major resort facilities along Scottsdale Road near
Downtown. A variety of tourist accommodations, quality office,
specialty retail, recreation uses including golf courses and tennis
courts, employment, and compatible high amenity residential
neighborhoods are all components.
Employment Cores are primary employment centers for the city.
Freeway Corridor/Regional Core will be a dense mixed-use
employment core that includes a number of region-serving offices,
retail, and hotel uses. This core will include more than a million
square feet of regional and community retail centers. Employment
along the freeway corridor will be second only to the Downtown
District in intensity and positive impact on the City's economic
development.
Suburban/Suburban Desert Character Types
contain medium-density neighborhoods that include a variety of
commercial and employment centers and resorts. A wide variety of
recreational and leisure opportunities are integrated into the
fabric of these districts.
Activity Centers include major mixed-use
areas that are smaller than the employment cores, but larger than
neighborhood centers.
Tourism/Recreation Areas are major open space
and recreational amenities located at the Central Arizona Project
corridor. Facilities include the TPC golf courses, Princess Hotel,
Westworld Equestrian Park, and Taliesin West. Sensitivity to
surrounding neighborhoods is encouraged. Resort Villages are
concentrations of major resort facilities. A variety of tourist
accommodations, quality office, specialty retail, recreation uses
including golf courses and tennis courts, employment, and compatible
high amenity residential neighborhoods are all components.
Rural/Rural Desert Character Types contain
relatively low-density and large lot development, including horse
privilege neighborhoods and low-density resorts as well as areas
with particularly sensitive and unique natural environments. These
districts provide a rural lifestyle that includes preservation of
the desert character. The identity and natural desert character of
this district should be strengthened and maintained by preventing
encroachment of nonconforming uses and architectural styles,
protecting open spaces and vistas, encouraging conservation of
desert vegetation, building low profile structures, discouraging
walls, and limiting road access. Environmentally Sensitive Lands
and Native Desert Character Types. These districts include areas
defined by the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance (ESLO)
overlay-zoning district. Most of these rugged areas should
ultimately be preserved as natural open space, and all areas will
follow the regulations of ESLO. The McDowell Sonoran Preserve is
located in these areas.
Desert Districts include areas of all
character districts with the identifying title "Desert." They
include areas with significant environmental amenities or hazards.
Special care should be taken to minimize the impacts of development
in these districts. Any development in these districts will follow
the ESLO guidelines.
Mountain Districts include the McDowell and
Continental Mountains and the mountainous regions of north
Scottsdale. This area is characterized by steep mountainsides;
boulder features, mountain peaks and ridges, and incised washes.
Viewsheds
: The major segments of the
natural terrain which are visible above the natural vegetation from
designated scenic viewpoints which are shown on the ESLO Special
Features maps.
Vista Corridor
: A major open space
corridor which follows major watercourses or other features as
identified on the General Plan and which protect major wildlife
habitat, protect distant views, separate land uses, and provide
links for trails and paths.
Wash
: Usually a watercourse that
flows during flood events or intermittently. Washes are important as
wildlife corridors and habitat.
Wastewater Recycling
: The practice
of using highly treated effluent from a wastewater treatment plant
for landscape irrigation and other non-potable purposes.
Water Resources
: Term used to
collectively describe groundwater (aquifers), surface water (bays,
rivers, creeks, oceans, etc.), precipitation, and water supply.
Watercourse
: A lake, river,
creek, stream, wash, arroyo, or other channel over which water flows
at least periodically. "Watercourse" includes specifically
designated areas in which substantial flood damage may occur.
(Return to Top)
~
Retirement Package or Stealthy Pay-Back?
Pardon us if we just don’t get this whole
buy-out/retirement thing going on in this city. Or do we?
It now seems to be ending up as a taxpayer
financed fiscal fiasco possibly built just for the payback to
"friends" of the prior administration.
Are we wrong? Was the City Council and City
Manager hoodwinked by Neal Shearer and company? A $9
million dollar difference? We think so!
Come on folks, we agree that a retirement
incentive program was a nice gesture and well deserved by many BUT,
the amounts given to certain incompetent goldbricks, brown-nosers,
and butt kissers is totally out of line and an act of thievery on
their part in our minds.
Could it be said about these actions that
Scottsdale doesn’t have a competent and professionally trained Human
Resources Director or Department?
Isn’t that department supposed to make all of the
legal decisions and advisements for hiring, firings, and retirements
based on budgeting and other successful retirement models?
Shouldn’t there be a total overview by the city legal department and
City Attorney to protect the city and the taxpayers and as a checks
and balances for the HR operation?
What qualifications, besides a basic knowledge of
Arizona labor, wage and hour regulations are required to be the
director of the Human Resources Department? Did Neal Shearer or any
member of his staff have any College degrees, professional
certifications and annual update classes, or qualifications
pertaining to Human Resources?
We thought that the HR Department Director or
Manager was supposed to be the "go to" person for all things
dealing with personnel and should be trusted implicitly by all to do
the right things fairly for the employees as well as the taxpayers.
Are we right? If so, what happened as our "bank" was being robbed?
But then we got to thinking; since a buy-out is a
legal, contractual agreement between the employee and the company
(this time the company is the city) shouldn’t the City Attorney’s
office be required to review in detail those contracts individually
to make sure that they were what the City Council asked for to begin
with? There are different levels of employment in the city. Were
these differences taken into account or did the "Friends" of the
prior administration get the biggest cut of the pie?
Why wasn’t the Scottsdale Retirement Package
based upon that of the Arizona State Employee benefits who are only
allowed to build a specific maximum number of days or hours of sick
time, vacation time and comp time no matter how many years they
serve?
Could it probably be because pay-backs to the
"Friends" of the prior administration was the basis for this entire
fiasco?
Could it be that the "special few" got what they
wanted which meant to be fair, all others who really deserved a
package got the same thing?
We feel it would be fair and appropriate
for the City Council to dismiss Neal Shearer and a few others
immediately for malfeasance and disallow any retirement package to
any of those involved in the generation of the Retirement Plan based
on their malfeasance and selfish actions.
(Return to Top)
~Drinking Water: A
Problem in Scottsdale?
Safe drinking water, as every Arizonan should
know, is a very precious commodity.
Believe me when I say that we do not know enough,
or pay enough attention to water availability, me included.
Fact is I have not thought about it much, even
though my family home was on 86th Street, South of Thomas
Road. Smack in the center of the TCE plume that came to be known as
the "Indian Bend Wash Super Fund Clean-Up Area."
A couple of weeks ago I was watching my, soon to
be five year old, grandson staring at a glass of water. When I asked
what he was doing he said he was looking for the "luters."
Luters? "Could you possibly mean "polluters," my
love?" By jingo Grammie got that one right and we talked about why
he was looking which got me thinking.
Always dangerous: Never more so this time.
What do we REALLY know about our drinking water
and the processes and procedures that are supposed ensure water
quality for consumption?
July 2008: George Knowlton and I took a tour of
the Hualapai Water Campus with Marshall Brown, General Manager of
Water Resources, following reports of hazardous materials spill at
the Water Campus. We reported on that in the July 2008 Scottsdale
Activist, but we need serious and direct answers to the following
questions because of another apparently serious situation which has
come to light which reportedly included
falsified test results from May 2008 through December 2008 (see
report below).
If this had been a private
water company, the chance of criminal charges against those
falsifying the tests could be possible.
Who oversees the Water Quality
Division?
What is the step by step procedure
for daily water testing?
Who does the testing and what are the
qualifications to be a "tester"?
Where do the tests go?
Are the tests verified? By whom?
How many people look at the data and
how soon after the lab data is produced?
Is the lab in house or are they sent
out and how are they reported back?
Who writes the reports? Who reviews
the reports?
How often are these reports sent to
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality?
How often does staff meet to review
operations?
What constitutes violation of State
and Federal water quality guidelines?
Has Scottsdale recently (within the
last 12 months) violated those guidelines?
How does Water Operations report to
the City Manager and City Council when problems arise or
violations occur?
How much has Scottsdale paid in fines
in the last five years? In the last year?
How many people are employed at the
Water Campus?
What is the chain of command?
What is the investigative process
when a violation appears to have occurred and who
conducts the investigation?
Attached are a series of city correspondence
concerning another situation which is contained in the
correspondence.
We don’t know yet what the full ramifications are
or what the real problem is at this point in time if any, but we
felt every citizen needed to know of what we have been made aware.
Has the problem been solved?
Has a fool-proof multi-tiered procedure been put
in place to guarantee that this could never happen again? If not why
not?
Have the employees and oversight managers been
either fired or demoted? If not, why not?
When Nancy Cantor and I visited the plant last
July after the "spill", we surmised from what we saw and heard, that
they were short on staff due to financial restraints put on them by
the city budget office. We were also assured that everything is
under control and cannot happen again. We never verified that
information due to other issues that seemed more pressing at the
time.
Money should NEVER be a deterrent to excellent
drinking water quality and control and the budget should never be a
controlling factor into the quality of our drinking water, police
protection or fire protection. These are life sustaining services
and MUST NOT be compromised under any conditions. If capital
projects need to be put on hold to finance the above 3 services, so
be it.
We will get back to you with answers to the above
questions, if we ever get them.
Below is the correspondence we received:
(Return to Top)
~Living in the Land of Oz
Welcome back to the insanity that is ALL OZ and I
am so sorry that I resorted to asking the editor to put together
another edition for the readers after l who do dearly miss this
publication; so I hear all the time. And, to his lovely wife I
extend my apologies for taking him away from the relaxing yet
frustrating break from the Activist.
With that said, and, again, my deepest apologies
to his wife (and mine), I say lets get this baby started as I have a
lot to vent and I am sure this is going to get edited to death. Feel
free to ask for the "unedited version"!
Our new Council Members and the City Manager-----
Okay, I respected the idea of giving this group
time to settle in and get accustomed to the issues of the city. BUT
it has clearly shown in my past articles that I hit the nail on the
head so many times the nail could have never survived. Hell neither
did the hammer or whatever I was driving the nail into.!
We have a new Queen Mother on the council, and
she is the ultimate target of my aggression in this article. Any
upcoming elections or anything else involving this city, that this
woman, who is supposed have a legal mind, is attached to we will be
all over. She is stupid and ignorant of the city issues as was her
predecessor Mother Mary during all the years she served the city.
I mean honestly Ozites, this is the same person
who spent 80K to have a seat on the council that pays a mere 30K!!!
So, if you cannot figure out the obvious fact that she is a shill
for someone or some group, than you need to quit reading this as it
may make you a bobble head. If you voted for her than you should be
beaten to a pulp with the stupid stick!
Wow, news flash folks, the chick cannot even take
care of her own finances as publicly noted in the media, but she is
now a vote on your purse strings with the city budget and the city
check book.
What idiot would embark on solving our city’s tax
problems, while floundering with personal financial problems of
mounting tax debt, as it was clearly reported after the election by
the Oz Repugnant; if there was not some ulterior motive or handling
by someone?
Did anyone notice that she wanted to include the
language from a well known land attorney of the city to the PUD
zoning case and "rumor" has it that there may be some "co-mingling"
of more than thoughts going on in this issue?
Did anyone notice that during the last council
meeting that this vixen of ill-logic used a move that I had only
seen used once before in the city, in the style of amending a
motion?
Did anyone notice that the city attorney herself
had to refer to the book of Roberts Rules of Order and "she still
got the final ruling on how to proceed wrong?"
So, the question is, who put this very obscure
rule in play and what was the ultimate motive? I only know of two
people and two groups who would have understood this rule and
coached her in how to use it. Individuals would have been Lamar
Whitmer or a person who recently ran for Congress and lost. As for
groups, the only two that come to mind are the obvious ones, the Oz
Chamber of Horrors or an old coalition of some downtown land owners
who have been trying to screw people over since the 1990’s and
include the likes of Fred Unger and a few others.
Honestly, the chick ain’t that bright Ozites!!
She could have never pulled that off without the support of Klapp
and the Chamber and that is where my money rests! For once the rest
of the council caught on that the city attorney was wrong and the
Borowsky/Klapp move failed by a vote of 5 to 2.
And what about Mrs. Klapp, a mere business owner
with again no clue about planning and development in this city, and
who had the freaking nerve to vote on the side of the "new wicked
witch" siding with staff over the planning commissioners
recommendations?
I mean honestly Suzanne, the Planning
Commissioners are appointed citizens who are supposed to work with
residents and come to solutions and make recommendations for the
council based on community input and the zoning ordinances. For once
the Planning Commission actually listened and worked hard on the PUD
issue only to have you try to tell them that city staff knows
better. And that the Planning Commissions work and time with
residents to reach a conclusion on the issue of height is not
warranted or needed as staff knows best.
In the best interest of Ozites who did not catch
this item on the agenda, I would like to say on their behalf
(especially those who I know would support this same conclusion)
that you can kiss my royal patoot which upon reflection should look
just like yours for trying to pull such an ugly act against the
residents of Southern Scottsdale. More on this issue in a minute.
Now what can you say about John Little? Well, if
you were me, and in the mind set of many other people, you would
know this is not going to be nice. The reality is, I really don’t
care who wants to pop-off at the mouth about what I am going to say
as I have said it before, and still say it again: John Little is
not, and never has been qualified to hold the position that we so
graciously gave him, with such little thought and sheer ignorance by
the full "council of whimsical idiots" who did not heed the warnings
long ago.
Don’t get me wrong and I will make it clear again
that John is a very nice person and I like John, but the fact is, he
is not cut out for the position he was given. Should have never
gotten the position, and I really don’t give an Oz rats patoot as to
what anyone says on this matter. They are too blinded by past
friendship, they overlook the facts; and his butt should have been
canned over the retirement debacle; PERIOD!
What? Do you think Johnny come lately is not the
type of person to cover his butt and lie to a council? Well, then
think back to the issue of the 5th Avenue parking garage
that got the past Queen Mother in a tizzy with me during a council
meeting. I brought to light that the 5th Avenue parking
garage was designed with no way to get out or turn around when full.
Remember I displayed the city’s own renderings which clearly showed
that there was no plan for people to be able to get out once the
garage was full. I also showed Johnny boys letter to the council in
which this design expert stated that the issue was just a punch item
list and nothing to worry about. He basically and whole heartedly
lied to the council.
If anyone has been to the top of the garage you
should be able to clearly see how screwed up this got after this
revelation. So I have enclosed a picture of how we, the city, fixed
this supposed punch list item and you can all get a good laugh,
because the only way to have fixed it properly would have been to
get rid of a minimum of 10 parking spaces at roughly 32K a piece, or
more.
I could go on about Johnny boy and his ties to
the Oz Chamber of Horrors and what he did with the Downtown Group,
but the list is long and the pages on this publication do not allow
for such a lengthy history of Johnny Boy Little and his band of
thugs. You can trust me when I tell you he is not as innocent and
loving as many of you may think, hence his last title of Snidely
Whiplash that was bestowed on him by downtown merchants who had to
deal with him.
Playing with their PUD ---
Okay, that just sounds wrong huh? It should since
this is the "new planning tool" and like I told you all before, this
zoning is a throw back to the post WWII era of zoning with a couple
of modifications (1949). It will really not promote or produce
anything but chaos and more losses in the Southern section of the
city.
Face the facts Ozites of the South! It is clear
that over all the years of pissing and moaning by divided councils
and an idiot mayor with her cronies, there is nothing the city can
do to revitalize the area; it will work itself out in time.
Oh crap, I can already hear the rants of one Lisa
Haskell and her band of half witted HOA members screaming bloody
murder that we need more retail. They refuse to understand that in
order for this to happen that there would be "assemblage" of certain
parts of neighborhoods just to make space for what they want; and it
is just not going to happen. Besides, there are Covenants Not to
Compete we have to contend with that your city government allowed
without knowing what they were doing.
By the way, just how bad can it be on McDowell as
there have been recent improvements in the area? There is a new
restaurant that has a really high end look and hefty prices that
some of these whacks have been screaming for: and it is called
Avalon or something like that. Then we recently have the opening of
a resort style Spa across from General Dynamics and in time and on
its own with a little nudge from the city, things will shake
themselves out for the corridor.
The PUD zoning in itself was one big freaking
joke as the past rulers of the city wanted to promote
"revitalization" by allowing higher, denser buildings along the
corridors of McDowell and Scottsdale roads on smaller parcels. Of
course the city stated that they had to meet certain criteria to be
able to obtain added height and we have seen how that has worked out
over the last 5 years or so. So, why would the city show that you
could have a half acre parcel and still be able to build some type
of mixed use project that by city standards could allow for it to
possibly go to 72 feet?
Okay, those of us who have been at this for a
period of time with the city understood that there had to be some
give and take on the issue of height. The Planning Commission heard
this community input and decided that it should be capped at 48 feet
with a 10 foot mechanical enclosure for the roof top which tops out
to 58 feet. During the Planning Commission meeting on this, which I
think was the third try by staff, the Planning Commissioners capped
the height at what the community agreed on which was the 48 by 10
suggestion. So, what happened next is astounding as staff decided
that they would submit "their own suggestion on height" which was
opposite of the Planning Commission 6-0 vote for the cap of 58 and
raise it to 72 feet? Staff even showed the slide that showed the
COMMUNITY SUPPORT element!
Wait a minute and back the freaking Oz Trolley up
here for a minute! When the hell did it become staffs position to
try to overrule a commission recommendation to the council?
Are these not appointed boards of residents of
the city who volunteer their time and are appointed by the council,
and if so, then where the hell does the Planning staff come off with
a stunt I have never seen pulled in all my years in Oz?
Wait!!!! It gets even better Ozites as when a
certain council member of Oz who was perched in his high chair under
the big top asked the question of "where this 72 foot suggestion was
coming from", and staff made it clear that it was coming from none
other than whom? Say it loud and say it proud Ozites like staff did,
DEVELOPMENT INTERESTS.
Okay, so when did we hire staff to promote "the
developers dream" program against what our own residents and
homeowners, as well as business owners, found as a middle ground?
Well, let’s just say we hired this pompous Jackass from Phoenix as
our Planning Guru and I am not sure what we should name him so let’s
just stick with the "Pompous Jackass of Oz Planning" and leave it at
that for now.
Oh, but wait Ozites, we have not completed the
fun yet as it gets even better and shows just how out of freaking
control staff has gotten under the Director of the Emerald City,
Snidely Whiplash and now the Pompous Jackass of Planning.
I mean really, how the hell could Johnny Boy
Little miss the obvious implications and just plain wrong policy to
have let the planning department put that in the agenda item?
Anyway, one of our other council members made a
motion that got a second that requested three things.
Strike the Zero foot set back for side
yards.
Something else like Height.
The requirements or language to PROTECT
the community from the negative impacts that will come by
approving this as it is presented.
And you know how that went off with staff????
Well not to mention any names because even I did not know who this
Bozo was, but she stated that they were not able to accept this
amendment at this time. Of course that set off responses from not
only one who I will not refer to as a Craven Weasel (this time), but
also from another veteran of actually listening to the community,
Airport Bob. I damn near fell out of my chair laughing when these
two made it clear to planning staff that they were not concerned
about "what they (staff) could accept" and one referred to it as
Mule Dung. Hell Bob, I would have been offended too!
The Downtown Plan
Okay, I am trying to make all of this short and I
really hope that all of you have been reading this stuff over the
years and remember some of it. I have to say that my head is still
spinning from the last council meeting to the point that I am not
getting in all the technical stuff that should be noted, but how
about this one:
The staff stated that the Downtown Plan Update,
which appeared as the Downtown CHARACTER PLAN UPDATE
was NOT in violation of a CLASSIFICATION OF A MAJOR GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT and our illustrious City Attorney concluded
this as fact.
Well, guess what Mrs. Robberson? Such stupid
mistakes like this are why the City Council should fire your candy
butt! How can you say that the elements of what was proposed never
qualified as a major general plan amendment?
Look at the changes put forward Ms. City
Attorney, and tell me that not only did we hit the required three
elements, but in fact if you really look at the plan you would see
an easy 5 elements that constitute the grounds of a general plan
change. Just for horse puckie and giggles you moronic bonehead one,
notice that one of the major ones was the expansion of the Downtown
Boundaries.
I mean really, what schmuck reviewed this entire
plan is the question that our council should be asking, since they
were all too stupid to figure out that they just got lied to, and
screwed over and again leaving residents and taxpayers holding the
bag for what may well become a major lawsuit against our city!!!!!!
Come now council, how many of you have figured
out how many elements just got redirected right out of the General
Plan from your vote? What loose language got past your freaking lips
again???? Read what you just approved in a little more depth along
with the laws that cover it, then rescind your vote!!!!!
Again, we got to hear the stupidity of a majority
of council members and at the head of the list was the "New Queen
Mother", followed by another idiot called the "Craven Weasel". You
know, I almost considered taking Ronny Boy’s title away after the
downtown issue because he finally caught on with the R1-7 and PUD
issues and voted with the community interest on those issues however
he screwed the pooch with his motion and voted for the downtown plan
update.
So, what was my issue with that plan, you may
ask?
Well, the issue was about postponing the issue
until a task force was to review the "loose language" that is in the
plan and I kept hearing the Queen Mother stating that it would take
too long to put together. That shows how stupid she really is since
there is already a group that was formed two freaking years ago that
is still active. Since, I did a public records request to the city
for the idiots e-mails for another reason I came across a host of
e-mails from downtown merchants and the apparent "autoreply she sent
them.
Note the merchants e-mail addresses were removed
as well as their names for their own protection from the city who
loves to retaliate against people and we all know this to be truth
and not fiction.
================================================
From: Borowsky, Lisa M [mailto:LBorowsky@scottsdaleaz.gov]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:27 PM
To:
Subject: RE: reconsideration of vote
Hi Mike (Fernandez),
Thanks for your e-mail. I appreciate
your input but don't follow how the approval of the current DT Plan
turns downtown into a "ghost town". Intially, I thought a task
force was a good idea specifically because I thought the proposed
DTP was very vague. This changed for the following reasons:
First, I thought it would be important to organize a task force as
quickly as possible in an effort to get their input with a quick
turnaround. When it became clear that the process would take a
minimum of six months, it raised concerns for me since this DTP has
been in the works for SO long. Second, I was pleased to learn
that anything in the proposed DTP having specific consequences, i.e.
the narrowing of Scottsdale Road, would require council approval.
When it was more clearly explained that the DTP was intended to be a
visioning document only, with no real expectation of specific
implementation (again w/o Council approval), I believed it was
appropriate to approve the current version. To be clear, I
generally agreed with the content of the proposed DTP's content-with
the exception of the Scottsdale Road concerns identified above.
My only objection was that it was vague.
I believe a task force can still be organized
to take the DTP further to implementation. However, at this
point, I can't justify reconsidering my vote on the DTP. I
remain committed to the DT Scottsdale merchants and am available for
any further input or discussion you may have on this issue.
Thanks, Lisa
===============================================
From: Michael Fernandez
Sent: Thu 6/11/2009 3:01 PM
To: Borowsky, Lisa M
Subject: reconsideration of vote
Last Tuesday you voted against a motion by
Councilman Nelssen to place an item on the council agenda to form a
Downtown Task Force to review the General Plan. It is common
knowledge that the last city appointed task force saved our downtown
and paved the way for what you see today.
The sales tax revenue generating small
businesses of downtown Scottsdale found out Tuesday that our input
at city hall is no longer desired. Hopefully, it was not your
desire to turn downtown into a ghost town. I wish you
would reconsider your vote of last Tuesday and vote to approve the
Task Force. Working together, we can create an even greater
downtown and save everyone involved a lot of headaches and
heartache.
Thank you for your reconsideration,
Michael Fernandez
=============================================
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 10:30 PM
To: 'Borowsky, Lisa M'
Subject: RE: DT Plan
Thank you for your time and email.
Our group was disappointed because the DTP has
been in the working process for almost two years and the bulk of the
PROPERTY OWNERS AND MERCHANTS have been left out of the process.
Merchants approval for what happens is fine but the ones who own the
properties are there with or without tenants. How many times
did I ask if a direct mailing or outreach to smaller property owners
had done so they would be included………………………….ENDLESS. The
answer was it is in the newspaper, on the website, etc.
If after expressing for two years "Where are
the property owners and more small merchants" with the best response
being "we will be working with them after the plan is approved"
isn’t a warning shot then I don’t honestly know what is. There
are too many holes in this plan and important elements were not
clearly spelled out i.e. Scottsdale Road for one. Because
councils, mayors and staff change, the narrowing of this street is
really left opened for interpretation from the city. Where are
the updated guidelines for the older districts? This should
have been part of the DTP not still sitting in a black hole
some place.
Including the Buckboard Trail parking lot in
type 2 opens up to a developer wanting 5-7 stories right in the
heart of Old Town which, needs to be protected if one wants their
cities history to remain. Already a developer has tried
to buy the Pepperwood Building – including the parking lot for
their project. Can’t you just see a 5-7 story
building looming over Old Town. Wouldn’t the citizens love
that move.
While large developers are important they need
boundaries as well. Some come forward with good projects.
Others just say they are going to build but really want an upzoning
to dump their property.
What was approved is half a Downtown Plan
leaving the small businesses and property owners out who are here
year in and year out. It is long overdue for the city to be
inclusive not exclusive to the development community.
We would have appreciated your support to
include the stakeholders but much to our dismay after two years they
are still left out. A task force should and needs to be put in
place to fine tune the DTP and it is not too late to make this
correction occur. We are therefore requesting the DTP be
brought back for a tune up with a task force in place.
My best to you
========================================
From:Borowsky, Lisa M [mailto:LBorowsky@scottsdaleaz.gov]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:15 PM
To:
Subject: DT Plan
Hi :
I wanted to explain why my vote changed
re: postponing the vote on the DT Plan until a Task Force got a
chance to "vet" the document. First, I thought a task force
would be appropriate but I also thought it would be important to do
that as quickly as possible. When it became clear that the
process would take a minimum of six months, it raised concerns for
me since this DTP has been in the works for SO long. Second, I
was pleased to learn that anything with specific consequences, i.e.
the narrowing of Scottsdale Road, would require council approval.
When it was more clearly explained that the DTP was intended to be a
visioning document only, with no real expectation of specific
implementation (again w/o Council approval), I believed it was
appropriate to approve the current version.
I wanted to make sure your group understood
where I was coming from with my decision. I remain committed
to the DT Scottsdale merchants and am available for any input or
discussion you may have.
Thanks, Lisa Borowsky
==============================================
Having an already prepared statement for all the
people who were going to write her and tell her how much they
despise her reminds me of none other than her predecessor Lame Duck
Mother Mary. Her reasoning makes no sense what so ever and the truth
is she had already committed to constituents that she would support
the task force and then changed her mind with no good reason that
she has come up with, so far.
Could it be that her family owns property or a
business that could benefit from her vote? If that could be found to
be true, shouldn't she have recused herself from the discussion and
vote from the get-go?
We already know why Ronnie the "Craven Weasel"
voted the way he did and that is because he has hated any aspect of
Downtown groups. Those of you who know the history of Ronnie Boy
verses Downtown will know that.
What can we say about Wayne other than he is
still just plain nuts in some aspects and this again was one.
The bottom line is that Lisa went back on her
word, and in Oz "we know how to deal with people like her" and she
better have a HUGE boat load of money come next election cycle or
her butt is gone in a heartbeat. People have already begun the issue
of plotting to remove her from the council in the next election and
I intend on supporting that effort.
In support of our friends up North---
Well, here we go again friends, the city in all
of it’s infinite wisdom would like to change some things about the
Scottsdale Airport and they want to allow bigger and more dangerous
planes flying over the northern section of the city and I have to
wonder what idiot comes up with these things? Is it just to see who
they can piss off and how fast they can do it?
Have we not already had enough with the issue of
the airport noise and resident complaints and did we not just get
everything calmed back down with all sides?
What flipping idiot decided to bring this forward
as they should be taken out and horse whipped, tied to a cactus and
then covered in honey.
I whole heartedly support the efforts of those
communities and residents who will be fighting to get this load of
BS defeated.
In conclusion---
Well Ozites, there is a whole lot more I would
like to say, but editing would kill the fun of the colorful language
and vocabulary I have.
I don’t think we are done with issues to be
posted in the future as I think the Scottsdale Activist is going to
be busy again, so maybe I will talk to the editor and see if his
wife will let us compromise with one article per month. I will also
pray for George as I just found out his wife found the key to the
gun cabinet now and bringing this up could be ugly for him.
Ozites, I suggest you hold on to your hats
because we already lost our wallets to the council and expect things
to start getting heated again as we still have a clueless and out of
touch council with anything involving "redevelopment".
Here is the final question that you should ponder
and maybe ask the council about, too. Since we are in the mode of
redevelopment in nearly all areas of the original Scottsdale
boundaries, why have they still not brought back the "Redevelopment
Board"?
Remember that this was, and still is on the books
of this city. It should be an active board, yet the city claims it
is disbanded. If it is disbanded then why the hell would we not
"band them back together"? The council wants input on redevelopment
and suggestions on how that could be done instead of always relying
on the city staff or the Chamber of Horrors who have no vested
interest like residents and merchants do.
The Brutal Critic
Michael Merrill
(Return to Top)
~ Letters
(
Letters@Scottsdaleactivist.com
)
~ It’s Not Over with SRP/Solis!!!
The 2007 Grand Deception surrounding the SRP
Substation move continues in earnest today. "The Legacy of Deception
Continues"
The Dolan, Planning & Zoning (Gray, Cummins &
Gawf) and select members of the past city council were staunch
supporters of the "Behind the Scenes" scheming with the developer
Madkour to move the SRP substation off the current site to selected
location at 68th & Indian School Rd. The city was delirious with
potential of tax revenue from the developer's proposed project and
the removal of the "eye sore substation" from that location.
Throughout 2008, SRP continued to take a strong
stand in denying their desire or need to move their substation and
even that turns out to be much less than forthright. In March of
2008 Dick Hayslip of SRP met with representatives of our group to
state repeatedly that SRP didn't need to move the substation but,
displayed detailed engineering drawings of how the 3 transformer
(bay) installation was designed to fit in the tiny location at
Indian School & 68th street. If we had been awake, we would have
seen that for SRP to have gone that far as to create a design like
that it had to have been after giving the developer the go ahead to
purchase the land to offer a free exchange. We were too anxious to
believe that SRP was a honest and forthright company and were blind
to the obvious.
Today, after having had assurances from the SRP
Board that there would not be a move of that substation without a SRP
sub-committee review and evaluation and the full Board of
Directors voting to do so and only AFTER we were allowed to make
personal testimony to those groups to possibly change their
decision, we find SRP proceeding with attempts to involve the
neighbors in a design review of their site plan.
Clearly, even if SRP votes to accept the land
exchange it will take some two years to reach the point of
constructing an enclosure for the unit. Yet, we now find SRP
conducting meetings that would indicate they have already accepted
the relocation site and are attempting to claim they have
surrounding neighbors approval by getting their inputs for the
design.
How blind and naive we were all along. We gave up
over a year and a half of our lives and to no avail.
My email to Ms Debbie Vaske of SRP is shown below
and her response to that is included.
You may use any of this that is of interest to
you.
Pat Lamer
================================================
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:11 PM
Subject: Tomorrow's Stakeholder Group meeting
Please respond back to me if you plan on
attending tomorrow evening’s meeting. Both Doug and Laurie
will be bringing some of their most recent drawings for review.
I am anxious to see what they present!
Sandwiches and snacks will be provided.
As a reminder, below is the meeting location information.
Second Stakeholder Meeting, Thursday, June 11,
2009, 5:30 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
First International Bank & Trust, 6840 East Indian
School Road, Scottsdale AZ 85251
Parking is available in the bank parking lot. We’ll meet in
the conference room on the 2nd floor. Enter the
bank on the east entrance by the parking lot.
==============================================
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 1:44 PM
Subject: Attending Your June 11 Stakeholder Group meeting
TO: Ms Terrill Lonon, Please copy and distribute to the
President and members of the Board.
Thank you.
TO: Ms Debbie Vaske,
I absolutely will not be attending your meeting
Thursday evening.
There is no way that I can in good conscience
allow you to proclaim to the world around you that by virtue of the
fact that the surrounding neighbors who had steadfastly opposed the
relocation of the substation are in attendance at your meeting this
would indicate acceptance or approval the Indian School & 68th
street site.
After attending the first meeting and having to
endure your aggressive and abrasive demeanor in not only rejecting
two additional attendees but, your personal rebuke to me in trying
to present the purpose of my attending your meeting in the first
place. The Bull Dog driver approach certainly begs for some
sensitivity training before being allowed to facilitate a meeting of
this nature where two years of resentment and anger have festered.
That you and Patricia DiRoss made the
statement in the last meeting that the SRP Board President and Board
Members encouraged you to hold these meetings and invite the
surrounding neighbors to attend and participate in a design
consideration is completely contrary to our understanding and is
difficult to believe.
We had been given to understand that before SRP
accepts the land exchange our neighborhood representatives would be
allowed to address the Sub-committee that is to review the proposal
and then the full Board before their vote on the issue. Clearly
there will be another 2 years before the actual installation of
equipment is complete and a wall can be in the construction mode.
Your meetings are premature and unwarranted.
We also find it extremely difficult to believe
that the Board would request that the neighbors proceed with or
participate in any discussions relative to the site design since
that is illogical and incomprehensive in any concept of due process
where it will take at least two years to develop.
If in fact the President of the Board, Mr.
Williams and other board members did sanction and encourage these
meetings, then it is even more disappointing to think that Mr.
Williams would lack the professionalism and integrity that should
have dictated he personally reach out to the surrounding neighbors
and indicate that was his intent. I sincerely hope Mr. Williams that
Ms Vaske misspoke and that the SRP Board has more professional
integrity, responsibility and character than this would indicate.
I would find it more believable and in character
for the Executive Staff to have driven this issue without the
knowledge or concurrence of the Board. However, nor one bit of this
issue from the very beginning has lived up to my previous perception
of SRP in being the Shepard of the Valley Farmers and residents.
How Sad.
Pat Lamer
==================================================
Subject: RE: Attending Your June 11 Stakeholder Group meeting
Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009 2:23 PM
Pat,
I am in receipt of your email.
I regret that we cannot meet amicably at the table to discuss
possible enclosure and landscape designs for the proposed substation
via our Stakeholder Group. I will continue to send you
mailings and you are welcome to rejoin the group at any time in the
future.
Debbie
(Return to Top)
~Robberson a Disgrace
Deborah Robberson, in the opinions of scores of
citizens, has sadly been a disgrace from day one when being falsely
installed as a Charter Officer through a misplaced and
misguided opinion by one of her city legal department colleagues,
who should also resign or be fired. Robberson claimed she wasn't a
Charter Officer until after her appointment, but has publicly called
herself a Charter Officer ever since. All 6 comments under the
Scottsdale Republic article called for her to leave, apparently one
way or the other.
http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/SREditorials/55201
The only reason she was appointed was because the
prior administration needed a rollover puppet in the legal
department so no one would stop their pillaging and burning of a
once wonderful, World Class city.
Did you notice how Deborah had to run out of the
Kiva to get Roberts Rules after the petition to remove her was read?
Did you notice that the book looked like it had
never been previously opened and the pages were stiff as a board
as she tried to open it to make a decision which was totally wrong
anyway.
Did you notice that she didn't even know where to
look for the needed ruling providing an embarrassing, long, pregnant
pause, on City TV no less?
She has been totally unprepared and
unprofessional under most circumstances.
When an officer makes a motion and another asks
to add an amendment to that motion, the motion maker has the choice
to agree or disagree with the amendment. Before anything else can
move forward, that motion needs to be addressed and cannot be added
to or abridged by yet another amendment without the expressed
permission of the original motion maker and the original amendment
maker. The secondary amendment by Councilwoman Borowsky should have
been disallowed according to Roberts Rules under the above
circumstances unless the original motion maker and original
amendment maker had rescinded their original motions and
amendment in full.
City Attorney Robberson needs to be fired without
any further delay, monetary or other compensation, or lingering
benefits allowed under any condition.
Times up; Move on Ms. Robberson without looking
back. You've already had a free ride for too many years in
Scottsdale.
We had an extremely qualified, strong, and
impressive candidate from Tucson on two separate occasions before
Robberson but the prior administration was extremely fearful that
such a strong and independent candidate would rain on their parade
and put a stop to their questionable and secret actions without
regard for the citizens which have turned out to be very costly
to the taxpayers to say the least!
I strongly disagree with the suggestion for an
elected City Attorney because we would be stuck with them for four
(4) years instead of having them serve at the pleasure of the City
Council for an undetermined period of time. I have seen elected City
Attorneys who were worse that Robberson, if that's possible, because
it became a highly politicized position which is very undesirable.
Money could easily "buy" the position of city
attorney (Boy, have we seen THAT recently) which would make the
developers, movers and shakers ecstatic and giddy with
uncontrollable glee!
Any candidate for City Attorney needs to be fully
vetted by both the City Council AND the citizens by the citizens
being allowed to ask pertinent, relevant questions of the candidate
during a public forum without time limits after their resume and
backgrounds have been queried. The only caveat would be that any
citizen would be allowed only one (1) five (5) minute period for
their pertinent and relevant verbal questions. Verbal instead of
written questions should be the only form of questions because a
City Attorney needs to be able to think on their feet quickly and
correctly.
Any candidate who would not be willing to be
subjected to such a vetting, would not be one we the citizens could
trust.
The successful candidate needs to be allowed to
be independent within limits as does the City Treasurer and City
Auditor or any Charter Officer.
Say "Good Bye" Debbie!!!
"Old Pioneer"
Scottsdale AZ
(Return to Top)
~Proposed Scottsdale Airport Changes
INFORMATIONAL ONLY.
SUBJECT TO WRITER'S OPINION OF WHAT WAS SEEN AND HEARD:
Feedback and passing on to your neighbors is encouraged
Scottsdale Airport Advisory Commission Meeting- June 10, 2009
Nick Luongo who has been walking around many Scottsdale locations
in the past few weeks…protesting this increase in weigh limits…was
right outside the Terminal Building when I arrived and had his signs
prominently displayed for all to see. No mention was made of him
during the entire session that went on inside!!!
This meeting was started at 6PM by Chairman Rosen. There were
somewhere between 40-50 people in attendance at this meeting.
Two items were listed on the "Agenda"
o Bren DeRaad from the
Scottsdale Convention & Visitors Bureau spoke about how
he feels the Airport, in general, impacts his group. His
was a short and "to the point" talk.
o Rick Kidder, of the
Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce then spoke, at length
about the Airport and the Airpark (for some reason he
seems to think they are connected…fact is that the
Airpark is the largest commercial zone in Scottsdale and
only a very small portion of businesses located there
have anything to do with what happens at the airport)
§
At the end of Mr.
Kidder’s "talk" one of the Commission members
then asked Mr. Kidder his thoughts on the
subject of the evening (Airport Strategic
Business Plan)
·
A member
of the audience (me) then simply asked
how Mr. Kidder could be asked his
opinion about something that was not
even presented yet! Evidently common
sense prevailed and Mr. Kidder was asked
to stay around and offer his comments
after the subject was presented.
·
My
openness in questioning this process was
not viewed very favorably by the
commission members and they seemed very
agitated for somewhat the rest of the
meeting. When you see someone sitting
with their "arms crossed in front of
them" for most of the meeting….well….we
all know how "open" and "communicative"
that person will be!!
Normal business was then conducted such as approval of minutes,
etc.
The "Regular Agenda" was then opened with a presentation by Scott
Gray ( I believe his title is "Airport Director"…but not sure)
o Mr. Gray gave a simple
and "to the point" presentation and tried to explain why
the "Commission" changed the numbering of the Scenarios
making them different than the "Consultant’s Report".
o The inference was that
the "general public" would not understand that:
§
Scenario 1 and
Scenario 1A were actually different
·
tTherefore they changed the numbering to
keep Scenario #1 as Scenario #1 and
·
CHANGED
Scenario 1A to Scenario #2.
·
That
meant that Scenario #2 (Consultant’s
Report) was now Scenario #3 and
·
Scenario
#3 (Consultant’s Report) was now
Scenario #4.
§
Wasn’t this
"nice" of them to make it "totally
understandable" now? J
J
J
§
Simply said…at
this point of this article…..
·
ONLY
SCENARIO #1 (Excluding 1A) is the least
detrimental to Homeowners and Residents
of Residential developments that totally
surround the Land-Locked Scottsdale
Airport (SDL) -- (My opinion and
comment)
o Mr Gray then showed a
very interesting chart that showed the "public response’
to the online survey conducted through the Airport’s
Website (http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/airport/AirportSBP.asp)
.
o These were the results
so far from that survey:
§
163 total
responses
§
110 favored
Scenario #1 ONLY (Exclusive of 1a)
§
32 favored
Scenario #1a (now numbered Scenario #2)
§
6 favored
Scenario #3
§
11 favored
Scenario #4
§
4 favored
"NONE"
o
(My comment) Thanks
to those that did the survey and hopefully many more
will voice their opinion (that doesn’t mean the
Airport or this Commission or the City of Scottsdale
will listen….but at least you have the opportunity
to express yourself on this subject via this means)
o
Mr. Gray then
expressed the recommendation of the Airport Staff
relative to this issue.
§
He noted that
their recommendation was that the Airport
Advisory Commission NOT make a decision this
evening and delay it until after the July 8th
and August 12th Airport Advisory
Commission meetings TO ALLOW FOR MORE PUBLIC
INPUT. (This, in my opinion, was a very good
suggestion….but remember like I said
above….. this doesn’t mean the Airport or
this Commission or the City of Scottsdale
will listen….but at least you have the
opportunity to express yourself on this
subject via this means)
§
The
City of Scottsdale had originally intended
to discuss this subject on June 23rd….has
now postponed that until their August 25th
session.
If you wanted to speak (for three minutes only) at tonight’s
meeting you had to fill out a comment card and wait for your name to
be called.
I was about the 5th or 6th speaker called
and I spent my 3 minutes outlining the following:
o
Scottsdale Airport is
a LAND-LOCKED Airport because previous
City of Scottsdale Governments decided that they
wanted the tax base that residential development
provided and allowed that development completely
around Scottsdale Airport. That was their choice and
we all knew that the Airport was there when we
invested our money and purchased our homes near this
Airport.
o
I reiterated that
most of us are not "Close the Airport"
supporters, but simply ask the Airport to continue
being a "good neighbor" and respect that they are
land-locked" and work very hard to co-exist within
the situation in hand "as it is". This is considered
a "reasonable request"
o
FACT:
Back when we first relocated to Scottsdale, the
weight limit at the Airport was 60,000 LBS!
o
FACT:
Then they got it raised to 75,000 LBS (supposedly to
keep up with the "technologies")
o
FACT:
They now want to raise it to 100,000 LBS to
accommodate (estimated as less than 1% of the total
Airport traffic) the larger jets that are above
75,000 LBS when fully loaded.
§
Remember….when a plane lands at Scottsdale
Airport it has depleted most of its fuel
therefore it can probably meet the 75,000 LB
current restriction. However, when
the plane departs, and if it is going a
very, very long distance (perhaps
to Germany – Chairman of Henkle (Dial-Corp)
J
J ….Rick
Kidder mentioned this…not me!!)
then that plane needs to get topped off well
over the 75,000 LB limit. That means that
you now have a plane taking off from
Scottsdale Airport…fully loaded with jet
fuel….over thousands of Homeowners and
Residents of those Residential Developments
that, according to the "Experts" that were
there….was a totally "safe" operation.
Wow!!! Mind-boggling isn’t it!!
o
Remember also that
these planes that know they are (or will be) in
excess of the 75,000 LB weight limit at Scottsdale
Airport now presently go to Sky Harbor Airport ,
Deer Valley Airport, Glendale Airport, or even
Phoenix/Mesa Airport. Those airports ARE NOT
LAND-LOCKED and have longer and multiple runways for
the operation of their facility.
§
There was
even a comment made by a gentleman that owns
an airplane (doesn’t fly it himself) that
uses Deer Valley Airport for a number of
reasons….but primarily because the JET
FUEL IS QUITE A BIT CHEAPER AT DEER VALLEY
THAN AT SCOTTSDALE AIRPORT!!!
§
Wow…another common sense approach.
Use a facility that doesn’t have the 75,000
LB restriction AND be able to get your
needed jet fuel at a more reasonable price!!
Amazing….but we wouldn’t want to let LOGIC
get in the way of the folks at Scottsdale
Airport and the Airport Advisory Commission.
o
It is worth
mentioning here that during Rick Kidder’s (Chamber
of Commerce) talk he said, quite distinctly,
"Scottsdale’s residential communities are nearly all
built out" (or words close to that…meaning is the
same). This has been well known for years that
"undeveloped parcels of land" in Scottsdale are
nearing their end. Once built out it will be more
important than ever that Scottsdale does everything
it can to insure the best "Quality of Life" for it
Homeowners and Residents! Controlling what size
airplanes utilize Scottsdale Airport and how much
fuel they are loaded with at take-off is but a very
small….but very important step that can be taken to
continue that "QUALITY OF LIFE" issue.
o
Another important
point to remember:
§
This issue is
all about "MONEY"………….!!!!
§
The
businesses that are part of Scottsdale
Airport knew what the weight restrictions at
the airport were when they decided to set up
shop there!
§
Now they want
to go after the maintenance fees and jet
fuel sales that are going to neighboring
airports…..simply because "we are
Scottsdale" and "we want that revenue"!!!
§
The last time
I looked….we were all residents of
Arizona…..and each Airport being mentioned
has their own plusses and minuses AND all
the others are not in a LAND-LOCKED
POSITION…WITH A SINGLE RUNWAY"!!!
o
Another thing I heard
quite a few times was that additional noise that may
occur and the increase of frequency of flights
(planes) will not cost the Homeowners and Residents
anything!!! These are NOT "no-cost" issues….they
affect the overall QUALITY OF LIFE of those affected
by the Airport Operation. That’s COST!
The meeting lasted about 2 hours with about 10-15 speakers in
total.
Most were either pilots or those connected to businesses that
serve the airport.
There were only about 3 or 4 (including myself) that spoke out in
opposition to anything beyond Scenario #1 (and yes….there was even a
gentleman from Ironwood Village that said he had studied the issue
and was in favor or increasing the weight limit from 75,000 LBS up
to 100,000 LBS. He certainly is entitled to his opinion…and I mine)
At the end of the speakers session, the Commissioners then were
allowed to recall certain speakers to "elaborate or clear up" any
misunderstanding. It was somewhat funny to see how most of those
recalled (without any time restrictions at all…at this point) were
those in favor of increasing the weight limit. (pilots, those
involved with business ventures that support the airport) I tried to
convince the Commissioners to recall me for "clarification" so that
I could speak without a time limit…but none would do that! (Oh well)
At the conclusion of the Commissioner discussion a motion was
made and approved to table this issue until after the July and
August AAC meetings and just before discussion at the Scottsdale
City Council.
o
I guess that’s the
best we could have hoped for this evening.
o
I highly encourage
all readers of this "opinion piece" to go to the
Scottsdale Airport website (noted above) and voice
your opinion.
o
I highly encourage
those of interest to consider attending the next AAC
meetings to voice your opinion.
o
(NOTE) a few times
during the evening it was mentioned that very few,
if any, homeowners and residents that were in
attendance this evening…ever attended an AAC
meeting. Having sat thru this 2 hour session….I can
honestly say…." I think I know why"!!!
NOTE: How
sad it is to see how some simply are more concerned with those that
"might come here" as opposed to supporting those that "are
already here"!!
AGAIN, PLEASE NOTE:
These are simply my observations and comments and reflect no
official position.
Thanks for reading. Your comments are most
appreciated.
If you received this email and would like to be
deleted from the list, simply respond and ask to be deleted.
Regards,
Bob Popow
bobpopow@cox.net
Ironwood Village Homeowner and Resident
(Return to Top)