~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 9^th 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 1^st 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 68^th 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 68^th 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 9^th 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 86^th 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 5^th Avenue parking garage that got the past Queen Mother in a tizzy with me during a council meeting. I brought to light that the 5^th 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 2^nd 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 8^th and August 12^th 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 23^rd….has now postponed that until their August 25^th 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 5^th or 6^th 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)

 

www.ScottsdaleCitizen.com Scottsdale Election News and Information