The inability to become aroused over any of the choices for president put forth by either party in the 2008 election year.

(Return to Top)

Beginning when finally available on line from the city website, I all started going over those reports in strictly a cursory manner to see if there were any glaring errors or omissions. Based on that initial quick look, Councilman Ron McCullagh’s report stood out like a sore thumb so I sent the following letter to the Scottsdale City Clerk.

Interestingly enough, the portion of the website which displayed all of the Campaign Finance Reports mysteriously "went down" soon after my complaint against McCullagh was filed. Could it be that staunch McCullagh supporters Jan Dolan or Mary Manross and company or possibly others ordered that portion be purposely or shall we say "accidentally" shut off from the public to keep it out of the Scottsdale Activist and other publications because of what those reports divulged what they didn’t want out for public consumption?

======================================================

31 January 2008

Ms. Carolyn Jagger,
Scottsdale City Clerk

Re: Formal Complaint concerning Campaign Finance Report Irregularities

I am very puzzled that after just a very quick and cursory review of the CFR's, I find that Ron McCullagh's stood out from the rest for the following reason.

Of the 116 listed donors on the 12 pages currently available on the city website for the McCullagh CFR, 90 entries did not list either occupation and/or employer of the donor.

That count does not include those who are listed as retired.

I would like to file a formal complaint against the McCullagh Campaign to force the disclosure of the missing information or for the donations to be returned immediately for failing to fulfill the legal requirements. My understanding is that the information is required by election law and I also strongly suggest that the McCullagh Campaign be fined accordingly because as a seasoned campaigner, the McCullagh Committee should know well the rules and follow them to the letter.

Question: If a person is retired but receiving a direct income from a former business or occupation, are they required by law to report that as an occupation or employer?
 
I will be performing a thorough investigation of all CFR's over the next weeks to make sure all candidates are following the rules as required by Election Law as I know them.

Respectfully,
 
George C. Knowlton
Scottsdale
480-326-2475
fixscottsdale@hotmail.com

====================================================

I feel that it’s very necessary for the voters to actually see from where and from whom all the campaign financing is being derived.

I strongly suggest that candidates who are heavily financed by developers, builders or commercial realtors having a financial stake in the city decisions need to be scrutinized far more carefully and aggressively than those who receive campaign donations from everyday citizens who care about their city but not the possible financial rewards or possibly anticipated favors of sorts associated with those larger donations from known movers and shakers.

On that basis, the Scottsdale Activist staff will provide a complete review, critique, and a legible copy of each candidate’s ’08 Campaign Finance Report starting with that of Ron McCullagh. Of course we’ll have to wait for Ron to actually fill out his forms properly because 90 of the 116 donor’s boxes didn’t have employer or occupation listed.

McCullagh answered the press with a very lame "It was just an oversight", when in reality it was a very easy way to basically hide that information until he was caught and forced by law to provide it; very sloppy and unprofessional in our humble opinion and an excellent reason for continued heavy scrutiny of McCullagh’s campaign finances, his campaign propaganda, and who his supporters really are.

We have posted McCullagh's current CFR here for you to see, click here

After we receive the complete copy of the reworked McCullagh Campaign Finance Report, we will attempt to list who these big spenders are, what they do for a living, what state they live in, and our opinion as to why they made the donation.

If the Candidates have nothing to hide, they should welcome this added information to the process. If they rail against the information being made public, they will either try to hide it by using shills as donors or pretend like it’s no big deal. We’ll be looking heavily at the shill factor as well. The internet is a wonderful thing!!!

Over the next few weeks, you will now have the complete picture of who, what, when, where, and why about every candidate, in our opinion, before you vote at the next election. This will allow you, the voter, to determine on your own who could be crooked and who isn’t based on the information we provide for you to learn from.

It should be noted here that the smart, or those who some call "smart and cagey" such as Manross and Drake will hold back allowing or taking donations until after the first reporting period which just ended. This allows them to "hide" their donors until they have their campaigns well underway so those donors cannot take back their donations should it become too uncomfortable, bad for business/reputation, or "politically incorrect" to support said candidates.

We will repeat the complete process again when the new reports come out at the end of June, ’08.

George Knowlton, Editor
480-326-2475
fixscottsdale@hotmail.com

(Return to Top)

 ~ Questions for Candidates

Keep those questions coming!!  We have quite a few but need more to cover issues that are constant over the last 7 years including the Preserve, Eminent Domain, Height & Density, and the original Scottsdale.

(Return to Top)

~Campaign Contributions Tell the Story

Scottsdale’s troubled and devious political waters run deep, deep within the pockets of developers, political insiders, and some Chamber members apparently.  On Thursday, the first round of 2008 Council and Mayoral candidate financial disclosure reports was posted to the City’s website.  My My My what a tangled web they weave…

Ron McCullagh was the big campaign contribution winner with more than ^$23,000 in contributions from 116 individuals. These are just the contributions that he’s owned up to at this point in time and it took him since March of ’07 to get these donations.  Ron must have suffered serious amnesia (or maybe writer’s cramp) when he completed his reports, as approximately 90 of his 116 contributors lack requisite LEGAL information on the report namely the individual’s employer and occupation.

Since Ron seems to have forgotten some of these very important pieces of information, we thought we’d help him out…Ron, perhaps you’d like to amend your report to include this info which just scratches the surface of his donors…

Virginia Korte…Board of Directors, Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce, and South Scottsdale commercial land owner.

Jim Pederson, urban shopping center developer and ran for US Senator against Kyl,  He was also Chairman of the Arizona Democrat Party.
 

Eneas Kane and Karrin Taylor reportedly the president and vice president of DMB development, the developers of “One Scottsdale” at Scottsdale Rd and the SR 101 Freeway who wanted a ^$50 million dollar subsidy from the taxpayers.

Steve Evans of the infamous SkySong and ASU Foundation who has given us nothing but taken ^$120+ million dollars of taxpayer dollars and still climbing with no repayment schedule or high end operation on the horizon.

Linda Milhaven of Wells-Fargo

David Barnett …City of Scottsdale Planning Commissioner and bank representative; What?? Is this a legal and ethical action for an appointed city representative to actively participate in a city election? We think not!!

Geoff Beer, worked as development advisor for Starwood during the Waterfront project, Board of Director’s for the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce, South Scottsdale

These are just a few of Ron’s friends…developers, Chamber buddies, and what? A Planning Commissioner?  Is David Barnett up for another term on the Commission? 

Coming in at a not-so-impressive second is Joel Bramoweth, with ^$20,000+ of interesting contributions one of which was from ousted councilman Kevin Osterman (we thought Kevin moved to Tennessee)!  Oh my!  The remainder of Joel’s contributions were from real estate developers, land owners, real estate agents and some close personal tennis friends (that part is OK).  We feel it’s sufficient to say that we can guess with some educated conclusions that Joel’s apparent direction is no surprise; Development. No wonder Mary Manross supports his election.  Another puppet for her court of fools.

Jim Lane has approximately ^$7,000 with some questionable donations even though  he gave back one received from Henry Becker because of Henry's threat to attempt a recall of Littlefield and Ecton. He has held off taking any major contributions until after the January 31 filing date past.

Mary Manross has not reported but about ^$4,500 in contributions which has been engineered by her campaign to hide the big donors until the next reporting date at the end of June ’08.

Suzanne Klapp had about ^$7,700 in campaign contributions, ^$5,000 of her own personal money, as well as heavy hitter Republican alliances which we’ll probe into later in the month.  We are sure that the Chamber will pony up many dollar$ for their own candidate of choice in next round of reports. 

Betty Drake posted no contributions whatsoever.  Betty may just be the smartest of the incumbents as we expect that Betty’s contributions will be quite similar to Ron’s as both are apparently supported by Bitter-Smith, Berry, Legarde, Manross and company.  Betty, of course, will undoubtedly have an array of urban developers in her next report.

Nan Nesvig had a little more than ^$2,200+ in contributions, primarily from non-establishment citizens. She has stated publicly that she will not accept contributions from developers or builders.  Nan has always professed that she has no ties to developers or political insiders and owes none of them favors.  This proves her desire to be a candidate of and for the citizens and for a positive change in the direction for our city. 

Lisa Borowsky just filed her Statement of organization and opened her PAC; she does not show any campaign contributions and has not discussed issues or made any campaign statements of note to date. We believe that Lamar Whitmer, her apparent advisor, waited until now to have her file a PAC so that the public does not know who her contributors or platform are until the next reporting period, June 30, 2008.

Richard Mueller shows about ^$40 dollars in contributions from himself and hasn’t provided any information to tell anyone where his interests are and what he plans for the city.

It is not hard to follow the money trail to understand which candidates will attempt to have benefactors buy the candidate’s way onto the City Council to hopefully do the benefactors bidding. 

If you’re looking for honesty and ethics in a candidate, you need only look to those who are not connected to the big money developers, builders, Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce, and establishment insiders. 

The others will merely be future mirror images of what we’ve dealt with in terms of incompetence and shortsightedness for the last four years.  At least this current batch of incumbents are very predictable and they need to be stopped from regaining office before they totally ruin Scottsdale.

(Return to Top)

 ~ "New" Scottsdale Centrovida: A Bad Joke??

Here we go again, new name same old dog & pony show with no real changes.

Los Arcos Crossing, a DOA (Dead On Arrival) development, has been resurrected as "Scottsdale Centrovida" by developer Rick Sodja and his attorney Lynne Legarde and strongly but, in our opinion, improperly promoted by Susan Bitter-Smith’s company Technical Solutions.

After answering angry citizens who said there apparently was a "Public Open House" on the "new" project "Scottsdale Centrovida" which excluded the vast majority of concerned neighbors in the area, any of the southern Activists, and practically everyone, but realtors, developers, builders and city staff, we decided we needed to report what we have been told by those contacted by Technical Solutions which is owned by Susan Bitter-Smith and her husband Paul Smith.

According to the neighbors who were contacted, if you listened to Technical Solutions and Bitter-Smith, you would think this was a totally new and innovative development that was just now seeing the light of day and is the absolute panacea for the southern portion of the city.

Guess what? The majority of the neighbors who have contacted us and who listened to the Technical Solutions presentation were very angry and want the entire project stopped in it’s tracks despite what supposed "positive" things Bitter-Smith and company have said about their (the neighbor’s) responses.

They feel they have again been sorely misquoted, misled and not given the entire picture of this "redevelopment". Their strongest objections are with the height (60 feet) instead of 36 feet, the taxpayer financed streets and infrastructure reaching into the failed SkySong, and the huge number of rental units (525), and townhouses (70), and the total lack of any real tangible retail entities including eateries. It seems to them as just another smoke and mirrors, dog and pony show al la the Manross/Dolan consortium style of bait and switch.

They have also heard that the market replacing Basha’s (which will reportedly close in April) will be the new British entry into the American food market field, Fresh and Easy (parent company being Tesco of UK which is reportedly now in financial trouble also) which isn’t the full service market the residents are looking for or expecting either.

We have been very surprised and even more disappointed in Bitter-Smith who is an Arizona native, a long time Scottsdale resident and politician, and is married to Paul Smith, an assumed co-partner in Technical Solutions. Bitter Smith is also a former Scottsdale City Council member and former vice mayor of Scottsdale. She has both an undergraduate and graduate degree from Arizona State University and is a past president of the ASU Alumni Association. In addition, she serves as the honorary chair of the ASU MBA Alumni Association, past chair of the Walter Cronkite Foundation, a director of the Morrison Institute of Public Policy which authored "Which Way Scottsdale", and the past chair treasurer of the Arizona First Amendment Coalition.

Susan’s aspirations are apparently to attempt to be elected to Congress in the near future by those same residents living in close proximity to the "Scottsdale Centrovida" and SkySong projects.

Gee, might one see the direct connection of Susan Bitter-Smith with ASU & ASUF and support to and for the floundering SkySong project through the newly proposed "Scottsdale Centrovida" to help the Manross/Dolan consortium (including ASUF & ASU) "save" SkySong from imminent failure to achieve it’s original, high expectations and high tech center (with retail) promised to the residents?

Our quickly growing disappointment with Susan Bitter-Smith stems from her apparent attacks on the citizens of south Scottsdale through her continued support of excessive and unwanted height and density being worked through city staff by Bitter-Smith, zoning attorney Lynne Legarde, and another long time friend and zoning attorney John Barry by "button holing" individual members of the Planning Commission and the DRB on an individual (not commission) basis as necessary to get their projects pushed through to final approval by the Council Majority.

We know that Bitter-Smith will see "red" when she reads this, and she definitely will read it, so we ask the following of her and Technical Solutions to clear up any misconceptions or misrepresentations we or the neighbors might have about the project "Scottsdale Centrovida".

We feel strongly that Bitter-Smith, Technical Solutions, developer PDG America and Rick Sodja, and his legal representative Lynne Legarde will not answer any of these questions directly because the answers will very pointedly verify the comments and absolute worst fears of the neighbors who called us concerning the project stating that the entire project has been totally misrepresented to them in their minds.

The failure of Susan Bitter-Smith and Technical Solutions to accurately represent the details of her projects and fully involve neighbors in the planning process is inconsistent with her representations that she cares about Scottsdale and its citizens. One can only conclude, therefore, that she puts her projects and the monies derived from those projects far ahead of the people and the city she claims to love so much and apparently wants to represent in Congress.

The Scottsdale Activist doesn’t ask questions for which it doesn’t already have the answers, in most cases.

George Knowlton, Editor
480-326-2475

Election campaigns are very hard to finance and expensive to run unless you agree to accept money from developers, builders, and other organizations of means who are also very much into asking favors of some sort from those they support.

With that said, Please help support those who won’t accept those contributions with strings by giving a dollar, ^$25, ^$50, ^$100, or any amount up to the maximum ^$390 per donor to the candidate of your choice based upon the above information.

If elected, these people make less than ^$18,000 per years for their service to the city for working sometimes up to 50 hours per week.

To get the good, visionary, independent and knowledgeable people on our city council, we each need to give them the financial support they need to succeed in this election over those heavily financed by the developers, builders, and other organizations of means who will try to bury the competition so their "pets" can prevail.

If they haven’t posted their campaign information on our website, ask them to do so and then their addresses will be fully available for all for contributions.

This election is up to each and every one of us if we really want the change we've all talked about.

We need to contribute, then vote.

~ Spring Cleaning or Just Clean House?

It is that time of year when my mom and Grandmother would start talking about Spring cleaning. Usually they were suffering from "cabin fever" being closed in with kids with colds while the snow and sleet covered the streets and roads in our Cincinnati, Ohio, community.

Well, we don't have snow and sleet in Scottsdale, but we do have the deluge of out of towner’s partying in our streets, on our sidewalks and pretty much anywhere they can park an empty glass, empty can, and other party throwaways and unmentionables.

Don't get me wrong. They can be tolerated for a while because their dollars will be needed in our tax coffers to pay the Manross/Dolan legal bills and court costs for all of the law suits that have occupied City time over the last couple of years. Law suits that will see Scottsdale in court well into 2008, and probably beyond for all we know.

When government does business in secret, no matter what it might be, it spells trouble. And boy do we have trouble. Trouble that the Mayor and a few Council members do not seem to be concerned about because they are apparently too blind and ignorant to see much of anything except campaign dollars from builders, developers and establishment types who probably don’t even live or pay taxes in Scottsdale. Time to clean house??

Where ever tax dollars are spent to benefit the community, especially dollars that go outside of City offices and department, to non-profits there needs to be clear understanding of how those dollars are used and by whom.

For example the Human Services Department goes through a well designed process as to how much and where City dollars go to provide services such as emergency home repairs, assistance to senior citizens for housing repair, emergency shelter provisions, etc. Residents can see who asked for funding, what their financial status is, how much they ask for and how it is to be spent.

Any time City dollars go outside of the management of the City similar processes should be followed, whether it is the Cultural Council, the Sonoran McDowell Mountain Conservancy or any other organization.

Nancy Cantor
Chair, Scottsdale Coalition

(Return to Top)

Isn't it obvious from information herein that the GM of Neighborhood Services simply will NOT enforce the law fairly and evenly with respect to Auto Dealers? 

Enough of the wiggle, washy, avoid the facts response. These people are truly inept and incompetent.

Why can't he just say we have not and will not issue a citation to Van Chevrolet, what is he hiding? Did he get a sweet deal in exchange for no enforcement? 

Bumbling keystone cops!.

Shelly

--Forwarded Message Attachment—

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:09:40 -0800
From: shellystevenson

Subject: RE: RE: complaints

To: RKeagy@Scottsdaleaz.Gov

Thank you, however the two complaints were really different in nature.

FLW property:  illegally scrapped and no DR or native plant permits. What is status regardless of a few employee cars from surrounding dealerships parked there?

The Greenway Hayden loop had Van Chevrolets new cars parked and stored within a fenced in area with no Use permit or temp fence permit. Why wasn't Van Chevrolet cited or the owner of that property? 

What is that status?

Shelly

========================================================

"Keagy, Raun" <RKeagy@Scottsdaleaz.Gov> wrote:

From: michelle Stevenson 
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 7:50 AM
To: Evans, Denee; Keagy, Raun
Cc: Hankins, Malcolm
Subject: RE: RE: complaints

Thank you Denee.

8445 is the vacant parcel along FLW and Northsight that was illegally scraped and had bushes and trees graded, correct? --Correct 

They now have cars there too? -- Staff observed several vehicles parked on the vacant lot--hence the No Parking/ No Trespassing signs.

And the Greenway- Hayden property has the Van Chevy overflow inventory stored on it --Correct--16275 N. Greenway-Hayden Loop

Can you clarify who received the citation? Citation was to issued to FIVE B INVESTMENTS INC, owner of 8445 E. Frank Lloyd Wright. 

And which cars you are referring too?  See above. 

Thank you for getting involved Mr. Keagy, I will share this with those who are as concerned as I am.  

Many citizens criticize the city thinking they should have bought the full tract now in the hands of Toll Brothers in 2002. On the other hand, some say it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny in some minds.

There are also discussions about the spending on SkySong, Hualapai, and the 80 acres at West World among other spending fiascos engineered by the "3 Monkeys" Manross, Dolan, and Robberson.

The State Trust Land Auction took place in 2002, the year after the attacks of 9/11. Tourism reportedly was down significantly in this market that depends on people arriving by air. That single event sucked the air out of sales tax revenue. The city was forced to make significant budget cuts. Employees, under city manager/city treasurer Jan Dolan, received no pay increases.

How would the Citizens of this city felt and spoke about it if the council had spent an eight-figure sum from the general fund on a land speculation purchase? It well could have been vicious and escalating criticism.

The State Land Trust Department refused to split the tract in two for the auction, so the city would have had to bid for the whole thing. If the city leaders decided to ignore the criticism and go to the auction anyway and bid appropriately, could they have been successful? And at what cost?

Toll Brothers opening bid in 2002 was ^$34 million knowing full well that they had deeper pockets than the City of Scottsdale and could trump any offer by the city. The city still would have had to force condemnations proceedings to get the land, but now it would be forced to start at a much higher figure than ^$89,000 an acre. Undoubtedly, the critics of this spending pattern would be screaming for administrations blood. Just for giggles, let's say the city somehow outlasted Toll Brothers and bought the property for ^$50+ million. In that time of economic austerity, the critics in 2002 could have possibly decided that ^$50+ million was a better deal than a possible ^$82 million.

As it turns out, city leaders were in a no-win situation. They could not have won by bidding in 2002. They didn't win by going to trial. The only winner is Toll Brothers, which earned a 145 percent return on an investment on land it never had to touch, while selling homes averaging ^$1.15 million on what its attorney described as "crummy" land.

Being that some citizens are pragmatists and acknowledge that the above argument may have some good points, the explanations are not justifications for this administrations lame and inexcusable actions.

It is the same logic that will cost the City ^$15 million of taxpayer dollars on the Hualapai deal Screw-Up and ^$80 million on the West World 80 acres. For Hualapai, Dolan and Manross wanted to get the land on the cheap, secretly signing an expensive 10 year lease without City Council approval (illegal and unethical), built on the land without owning it and got outbid because the lease increased the value of the property it wanted to buy and the city stupidly announced the maximum bid they would be making publicly.

What prudent business man or organization wouldn't buy three little ugly detached pieces of land that could be used only for the Hualapai plant for ^$6 million when it had a ^$10 million dollar signed and sealed, State Trust Land approved lease on it?

One of the critical problems with Scottsdale is that it is awash in money so city leaders didn’t and still don’t bother to manage it well. Manross and Company celebrated the "fact" that our property tax rates were dropping considerably, but failed to tell us that our property taxes would actually increase a whopping 20+ %. Why didn’t Manross mention that increase in her "State of the City" address? We don’t think we need to answer that because the answer is as plain as the nose on "Mother Mary’s" face; Administration Greed.

On the West World 80 acres, they just wanted to make sure they didn’t lose their back up parcel for the land needed for West World, but for the amount the city paid? We think not. Because of the price they paid for the land, it is now unsaleable unless the city takes a huge loss (50%).

The 9/11 problem didn't keep the City from buying Los Arcos and putting more than ^$120 million into the 200 year "eater" property in 2004. It certainly didn’t stop the building of the expensive roundabouts and other traffic calming means while the city infrastructure was going downhill faster than a snowball headed for hell. So, although the above argument made a weak but valid defense, Manross and Dolan have been cut an enormous amount of undeserved slack considering their utter failure to perform by that very weak argument.

Dolan, Manross, and the Council are charged with the responsibility of making tough decisions and having visionary foresight, which they did not and have not done in this case and many others.

We witness employees getting fired all the time for making decisions that have far, far less impact than the current administration at City Hall has on the city’s future, or worse, with no explanation at all.

Our expectations for our city leaders are very high, but we don't think inappropriately so because we claim to be a World Class City which a plethora of bars and Fashion Square don’t justify with all the other negative and secretive things going on behind closed doors. The Super Bowl and FBR Open are windfall tax revenues and will never again reach the levels reached in ‘08. Barrett-Jackson sales were short 20% of last years Auction and the FBR Open will have a similar experience even though the audiences are larger because of the increased security and police action costs.

When you hold prestigious high corporate or political office, your responsibilities are far more than ceremonial or just mere decisions of the moment; your actions have far reaching consequences and there should be the same amount of accountability which Scottsdale hasn’t been allowed to see in over 7 years.

In the cases of SkySong, Hualapai, West World, and the Toll Brothers property, the negative consequences and poor spending decisions are in the hundreds of millions of dollars which in most cases are not recoverable, even over time.

Unfortunately, because of the constant financial miscues and spending screw-ups of the Manross-Dolan administration with Robberson as their legal "Yes" person, the reaction by the weary citizens will simply be: "Oh well, another screw up. What do you expect from these ‘3 illiterate Monkeys’?"

Sadly, some uninformed citizens and many in the media fall into the same lethargic trap that the laissez faire Manross/Dolan administration and the establishment of the City falls into: Nobody is held accountable for the failures and then they blindly excuse mediocre leadership, no matter what the cost.

Welcome to the ’08 Elections.

(Return to Top)

We received notice of this problem and thought it important enough to bring it to you with some serious questions to be asked of the city and American Traffic Systems, the company who operates the photo radar units for the city (below the letter from Pat Dodds).

Subject: Dismissals of Shea Blvd. photo enforcement citations

In case you receive any inquiries on this subject, police found that a photo enforcement camera on Shea Boulevard was malfunctioning last month and ATS has corrected the problem.  There were 589 drivers who received citations produced by the faulty equipment.  They are receiving notices of dismissal, and 35 who paid fines or driver school fees are receiving refunds. 

The problem surfaced last month when Scottsdale Police received complaints from motorists traveling through the Shea/120th Street enforcement site. Motorists maintained the cameras flashed while they were traveling at speeds below the activation limit.  

Police investigated and noted a significant increase in citations issued for December at that location. Police informed ATS and the cameras at that site were shut down.  The error affected one lane of eastbound traffic on Shea Boulevard at 120th Street from Dec. 12 to Jan. 4. The camera in that lane was activating when vehicles passed by traveling slower than the programmed limit of 11 mph over the posted speed. 

The camera was recalibrated and is working correctly today. ATS is increasing the frequency of site validations and closely monitoring the number of activations at each site. 

While many of the citations were stopped before being issued, 589 citations were processed and mailed by Scottsdale City Court. 

Those drivers are receiving notices that their citations have been voided and their driving records corrected.  If they paid fines or traffic school fees, they are being reimbursed.   

All other citations during the flawed period have been dismissed. 

Please let me know if you have any questions about this. 

Pat Dodds,
City Public Relations

We know that most, if not all police departments who use radar speed recording units require their officers to check the calibration of their radar guns with a special tuning fork every time they come on shift to make sure the radar units are correct. Some are even required to run another test at mid day in the summer.

Our questions are as follows:

We feel it’s imperative for the integrity of the system that the calibration schedule be changed to a minimum of a weekly check for every camera on the system. Anything less than that leaves the city and ATS open to legitimate court challenges due to the lack of proper service and calibration checks.

(Return to Top)

 ~Letters to the Editor  

Yesterday, I received a tiny magnetic "Emergency Preparedness" booklet in the mail.  A accompanying letter from Scottsdale's E. Lorenzo Jones notes he is "Director" of Homeland Security.  Funny, the Fire Department org chart lists him with the title of "Emergency Management Officer."  Was he promoted without the website being updated?

(see http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Assets/documents/fire/OrgChart071214.pdf )

A preparedness booklet it a nice idea but I wonder how many senior citizens will have problems manipulating the miniature pages and reading the undersized type.  Could Lorenzo have used a smaller font?

How much did the City spent on this project?  My guess is if it were sent to every household, I am figuring in excess of ^$150,000.

I think there are better ways to spend money preparing citizens for emergencies.   Like, what are they doing to prepare businesses?  Or, how about an active volunteer CERT or Fire Corps program like most of our neighboring cities have? 

Just what are they thinking?  Is there a plan?

A concerned Scottsdale citizen

(Return to Top)

 (Return to Top)

I would like this opportunity to thank George Knowlton, editor of the Scottsdale Activist, for being the first person to catch and report our illustrious council member Ron McCullough violating State campaign finance laws by not exposing who and what entities are funding his campaign for re-election.

The bigger question is "what is Ronnie the Weasel promising these people so they will give him money?"

Can it be that developers are trying to keep Ronnie the Weasel on the council since he is developer friendly or is it a must for Ronnie the Weasel to seek these people out with promises of agreement to the projects they want to build in Downtown because residents will not support him?

I mean if you think about it, what exactly has Ronnie the Weasel even done in his four years in the council other than ban political campaign signs and further violate the First Amendment of the Constitution?

Could it be that Ronnie the Weasel does not want people to find out who is supporting his campaign because it will look all to clear that he indeed supports the destruction of the city by bad development or is it that maybe some residents will realize he is a supporter of government growth?

Your right, I cannot stand Ron the Weasel because that is exactly how he looks and acts, just like a little weasel that is two faced and back stabbing the public at every turn he can get, as long as he can do it without anyone catching on to him.

Yeah Ronnie Boy, like I believe your lies to the paper when you got caught cheating that you were more focused on the finances and it was just an oversight. You know as well as I do that filing your reports is so easy any fifth grader could do it.

You add up what you collected and place on the line that says totals collected and then you add up your deductions of what you have spent and to whom and for what and then place that total on the line provided, not rocket science there you buffoon.

Residents and voters should take a very close note of this issue as if he is lying and unwilling to expose who is supporting him, how the hell can you trust him representing you the voter and taxpayer when he is in with the developers and Healthcare peoples pockets?

Don't be so danged blind and look at his picture if you can stand the nausea it creates and tell me that he does not have all the traits of what he really is, a weasel in disguise as a caring public servant elected to represent you and your city not the developers and those who loved condemning half of downtown for their "medical campus".

If he does not want you to know who is financing his campaign, then do you think he will tell you why he supports bad development and Light Rail?

Michael Merrill
Vote NO on Ronnie the Weasel.

Councilman Nelssen was right to bring this up and the issue should be pursued. The obvious option, to me anyway, that was not discussed on January 8, 2008 was this – eliminate food tax completely i.e. all 1.65%, increase sales tax on all non food items (i.e. everything else) by just enough to bring in the $9.4m required.

The net effect is no increase in the overall tax rate i.e. non food + food but this definitely benefits the poorer elements of the population who spend a higher % of their income on food for home consumption. No business costs will be incurred either by this proposal.

So, if the sales tax on food for home consumption is abolished then the rate on all other items needs to be raised by 0.12% to 1.77% i.e. the total rate would become 8.07% (i.e. 1.77% + 5.6% + 0.7%). This is based on Mr. Clifford’s assumption of 7% of income being spent of food for home consumption. This would still compare very favorably with the current Phoenix rate of 8.3%.

The comparisons made by staff in the past with other cities have always been misleading because the food element was never considered.

Regards,
Graham Kettle
Scottsdale

 (Return to Top)

Okay, the City should understand how very carefully they are watched by people like me when it comes to planning and the way they practice to deceive. They should really get better at it if they are going to keep playing these games.

Nope, we are not talking about the games going on in the Valley this weekend; we are talking about the Downtown Plan Update.

I mean honestly, they should know that I know people who have been involved in the process and that I talk with them about what has transpired during their meetings. And what the city has posted as opposed to what actually happened.

Trust me, I have lived here longer than most, and learned a long time ago, and even at times when "good old Herb" was running the joint, that if you really want the truth about what is going on, never go to City Hall for truthful answers. That is where the "three ring circus resides," and has done so with no clue what the hell is going on behind their backs.

Again, though Bob and Tony know damned well what I am talking about and Tony more than you think, because I know exactly what he is asking for when the staff plays dumb during Council meetings.

Just this week I decided it was time to check back in with the City website to review the postings of comments of the Land Use element for the General Plan update only to note that all of a sudden things were being proclaimed that did not fall in line with the initial set of responses from those attending the first public meetings. It appeared that something was completely out of whack with what I know residents and merchants think about the present development of the Downtown area and their views of what downtown should be in the future.

Could this be Scottsdale's Future according to the developers, Planning Commission, the DRB and our current Council Majority?

It was notable that all of a sudden there were comments stating that participants were claiming that Downtown needs light rail and there was a new consensus that height and density needed to be promoted. The comments that participants in focus groups stated were just the opposite. Confused yet?

You know what else was funny, was that the first round of meetings totaled an entire 8 pages back in September. Then all of a sudden, in the middle of December, a month well known for holiday time to be spent with family and friends, leaving only the hardcore activist who would even consider attending a meeting during the Christmas Holiday, the 8 pages of responses managed to increase to a total of 17 pages, double the amount of the first meeting of the Downtown Vision which showed that residents were not at all enthused with the City actions regarding a vision that was held solely by Ron McCullagh, Betty Drake, Wayne Ecton, and "Mary, the Queen Mother, Manross."

I found that completely amazing considering the fact that only 6 people showed up for the Land Use meeting. So, I contacted 2 people I knew who attended the meeting and asked them how things got so changed around from the first meeting for visioning? This I asked in the email that I sent out:

Personally, I believe that there has been some hanky panky going on with these new results, when the past results (still taken in 2007 Focus Group process) showed something different. Those earlier comments said the City needed to stop the way they are trying to develop downtown.

Any insight you may to this "all of a sudden change" would be appreciated.

This was the response I got from one of them as the other is out of town for two weeks. I have not included the persons name as they are still attending meetings and I want to make sure they remain unknown when they go to the next meeting:

Now, I would hope everyone who reads the Activist will understand just what we are up against with the hired consultants and staff because the Council sure as hell does not!

They think we are all liars and making up stories about how the consultants and staff act, and how things actually get presented to these morons (the three ring circus).

Then they all fall in line with what they think people are actually saying, when in reality they are not saying anywhere near what consultants and staff are reporting back to them.

It is also about time that our friends to the North take notice of these issues and quit blabbering about supporting people like McCullagh, "the clown" and Betty, "the Clueless" and most importantly, Mary, "the freaking lair and promoter of destruction in Oz."

Again and as usual I can prove outright that staff is lying to the Council about what residents really think about many issues. It is one of the reasons I do not attend the meetings any longer, but instead ask people who are attending to update me with what the City spews out in one meeting and then throws in the garbage. Then they come up with what "a someone" is telling them the Council should hear. The worst part is the Council is stupid enough to keep buying into it.

This is one reason I advocate the removal of all the members of the DRB and the Planning Commission as they are just as responsible for these blunders. I personally believe that some of these people are actually part of the group twisting what is really being said by residents.

Let’s face it, as they, the Planning Commissioners and Development Review Board members are all developers and architects and many of them do business here in the City. They are making Oz what "they" think it should be, not what the residents think it should be. I say fire all of them and the Council and let’s start from scratch to fix this nightmare of developer power and greed that is destroying this city!

Hell you can also read the facts for yourself.

http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/downtown/updates/Resources.asp"

We, again, would like to point out another little glaring problem with facts from another person who attended the recent PUD meeting held at the Granite Reef Senior Center this week, also held by the same city department involved in the Downtown Update and known as "advanced planning".

Now, just to refresh the PUD issue, it is the text amendment to the zoning ordinance being brought forward to the council in short order, before the election.

The team of "advanced numb nuts" want us to allow developers to assemble smaller parcels, commercial and/or residential (coming to a neighborhood near you) and then put big ass projects on those little parcels and tell us they are easier for developers to build.

As it is now in Oz, you cannot place big ass projects on little parcels because our present zoning does not allow them on anything under 10 acres. It is expensive and time consuming for developers to try to buy out all the properties in a 10 acre square.

Even better with PUD zoning is the fact that all the architecture is noted as "California egg beater," and the project would not even have to come to the council for approval, just the DRB and the Planning Commission. So much for "architecture".

Also funny is that again, the staff is working to take away the power of Council as they continue to work at destroying Oz.

I mean who needs the hassle of having to have the Council vote on projects and zoning? This, again, really does no good to all the residents who object to the projects that the "Three Ring Circus of Oz" has already been approving under other zoning with "amended stipulations and plan amendments after construction begins".

One of the things that gets me is how the heck "advanced morons" can go to the Planning Commission to get their "okie dokie" in public meetings that are recorded and state they are looking to adopt PUD for the Downtown area one day, and then go to a community meeting and deny what you said on the record! They tell residents that Downtown is not in the plan, but everything from McDowell to Tempe on Scottsdale Road and possibly Hayden is where you want to apply it.

Oh yeah, they also confirmed one of my other accusations when they stated that it would be applied to the Airpark, too. Thanks for the clarification. S

So, the question that remains is, where it would be applied in the City and even though I think it was stated in the "Oz Repugnant, "it could be applied throughout the city" as was stated at the Planning Commission meeting by the "advanced numb nuts".

Another interesting fact regarding PUD development, is its other name, Transit Oriented Development, and how this "zoning tool" has been used to promote the concept of what is called Boomburgs.

In a book titled, "The Rise of America’s Accidental Cities" by Robert E. Lang and Jennifer B. LeFurgy, there is an in depth look at what most of you do not realize.

Mesa Arizona, Chandler Arizona, Peoria Arizona, Gilbert Arizona are all considered "Boomburgs" and have one form or another of PUD development or as stated in the book, "transit oriented development" where the cities are well known for: Much higher crime rates than we have here; Massive burdens to city services’ Higher taxes; Increased transportation problems and the list goes on.

Here were a couple of comments from the book that should rattle your nerves if you live here and cannot figure out that the city is planning to make the South and Downtown the new Boomburbs of Arizona. Just remember all of these cities have some very large budget problems at this point in time.

"Boomburbs takes a different approach." Lang and LeFurgy look at, "the curious way most sprawl happens, fast-growing suburban conglomerations outside traditional urban cores like Mesa, AZ," and they declare it "a new kind of urban form, worthy of deeper analysis if not appreciation over scorn." (Deeper analysis? They, Mesa, are broke and tried passing a property tax 2 times and failing, while giving up millions in tax revenues to subsidize the "Waterpark" development by none other than a Scottsdale Developer)

"The term "boomburb," a Lang invention, is defined as "an incorporated suburban city with at least 100,000 inhabitants, outside the core of their region, and characterized by consistent, explosive population growth since 1970." The 54 "boomburbs," identified by the authors, accounted for "52% of America's growth in the 1990s for areas with 100,000 to 400,000 residents. Thus, Mesa is now bigger than Atlanta, St. Louis, Minneapolis, and Miami, and North Las Vegas is bigger than Salt Lake City. In terms of population, political Strategists should be more concerned with how it plays in Peoria, AZ, than in its Illinois namesake."

Continuing, "While "exurban" expansion even further from any city center has been on the rise, in places like Pasco County, FL, "boomburbs" are the face of sprawl in the 21st century. They reach a kind of critical mass, albeit over many square miles, and as a settlement Phenomenon these "accidental cities" have been understudied". "

The authors do a good job describing how many housing developments have become quite dense, with smaller lots, constrained by geography and water supplies." And, "Many "boomburbs" are now facing the condition of being built-out, and, thus, are looking at infill development and alternative transportation systems like light rail, along with transit-oriented development." Continuing, "The unanswered question is whether the "boomburbs" phenomenon can simply go on and on. Conditions promise to be much more perilous if, in the years ahead, some new version of Mesa, in the scrub pinelands of central Florida or the farm fields of California's Central Valley, dwarfs the old Mesa in size."

Now if anyone cannot see what is going on in Oz, and exactly where advanced planning is going, along with the misfits and idiots who are running this city, including the DRB and planning commissioners, then I think the perfect example would be seeing the Desert Discovery Center in North Scottsdale. It is zoned for PUD with housing placed on the top 4 floors. There will be a few hundred residents in your back yard looking into your house and yard, while having a much better view of what was once your view of the preserved mountains.

For those who always claim to be fiscally unchallenged it means watching the City go broke just like all the other "boomburbs" that surround us. Places that we would never move to even if they do have the hockey arena and a football stadium.

These are comments from an attendee of the last PUD meeting and please note that this person is of very high intelligence and familiar with "city double speak.":

Well there we have it yet again Ozites, staff is lying and sure as hell does not want the truth out there and don’t expect to ever hear anything like this coming from our illustrious media outlets.

Like my dear friend, Airport Bob will tell you, and you really should listen, "the City does have plans for your community. It is just they do not include you."

It has been clearly pointed out once again. You will have no say in what happens.

I already know exactly what the city is planning for Downtown and the South, but by the time most of us catch on, it will be way too late and all will be scratching their heads wondering what the hell happened as you wait for your light rail car, called desire.

Depressing huh?

Michael Merrill
F8713@aol.com