Above is the supposed contact list for the DRB and Planning Commission. If these links fail to work, blame the board members for participating in the super-secret government run my Manross and Dolan.

If you have any questions concerning any planned projects, don't hesitate to contact the ones above who make the decisions.

After reading the comments of the four business leaders in the Arizona Republic Scottsdale Community section on Thursday, May 1, 2008, found it "strange," but not unusual that the four would exclude any discussion of "resident participation."

Many of the people involved with the Scottsdale Coalition have lived in the southern neighborhoods for years and years. (Nancy 47 years, Darlene 46 years, Mike 44, Von Schwartz 47 years, Jim Heather 34 years, Sharon Oberritter 39 years, to just name a few). Those above have served on boards and commissions for the City, work study committees for the city, and planning for the Scottsdale Unified School District. There are at least 400 total members in communications via email and telephone. There are 23 members on the advisory committee and there are twelve on the steering committee. We represent the mature, non-master planned neighborhoods of Scottsdale, most concentrated from Indian Bend Road south to the border with Tempe.

Many have also participated in past Scottsdale planning opportunities like the STEP process, Visioning 2030, and contributed to individual projects like the Granite Reef Village Senior Center.

The Scottsdale Coalition came together, informally, in April 2003, following the announcement that the Ellman Cos. were planning a 24/7 development at the old Los Arcos site that included a Super Wal-Mart, Sam’s Club and Lowe’s.

Not all of the current members were in agreement over that project which would have provided a $37.5 million subsidy to the wealthiest company in the world to do business in Scottsdale. We did, however, share concerns about neighborhood redevelopment/revitalization and economic revitalization for the city.

At about the same time that the Ellman Cos. made their announcement, a report from the Morrison Institute at ASU, commissioned by the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce, the Arizona Republic and several leaders in the business community was released. Called "Which Way Scottsdale," it was an evaluation of the mature neighborhoods of South Scottsdale, past, present and future.

The summer of 2003 this fledgling group put together a presentation and a reception at space donated by the former Sunburst Hotel. Over 500 people residents of the mature neighborhoods and the business community attended that reception to hear all of us "grassroots activists" talk about our neighborhoods, past City studies of those neighborhoods, and our hope for long range planning that must address the necessary redevelopment Scottsdale needs as it continues to grow and be a tourist destination.

At the request/demands of the community, an Ad Hoc Committee was formed to address the site planning for the project. Two members of the Scottsdale Coalition were appointed to the Ad Hoc Committee: Rita Saunders-Hawranek (background in planning and law) and Susan Coykendal (grad student in urban planning at ASU).

Recommendations went to Council in February 2005.

From February 2005, to the present several issues have arisen and the Scottsdale Coalition stayed together to advocate for the mature neighborhoods, address redevelopment/revitalization issues, transportation/traffic issues, community safety issues and education issues.

It is our intention to continue to work with all organizations to address these concerns: Coalition of Greater Scottsdale (COGS), Community Council of Scottsdale, Coalition of Pinnacle Peak (COPP), Citizens for Responsible Redevelopment, One Scottsdale/LINKS, North Tempe Neighborhood Association and several of the smaller neighborhood organizations and Block Watch groups.

We will be creating a voice for pursuing partnerships to find resolutions to all of our residents concerns.

~ Redevelopment – With the amount of developable land running out we are looking at an increase in the number of infill projects to create redevelopment and economic revitalization for the City. These projects will focus on the mature single family, non-master planned neighborhoods south of Indian Bend Rd. with a few between Shea and Cactus Roads. Height and density need to be discussed because of environmental impacts and infrastructure needs.

~ Housing – Quality "workforce/affordable/attainable" housing is scarce and we are seeing the trend to only luxury multi-family housing. Higher density multifamily housing is a given, but how it is created, how much is created and the impacts on the infrastructure (water, traffic, city services and amenities like parks and open space) need to be defined. Condo conversions have created a deficit of affordable housing and a decrease in available rental housing.

~ Transportation – The need to address the increase in traffic through Scottsdale brings the possibility of cutting Camelback Rd. and/or Osborn Rd. to Pima Rd. We are also beginning the study process of widening Pima Rd. South of Shea Blvd. to McKellips Rd. with no guarantee that no widening will take place west of the center line possibly impacting residential neighborhoods in Scottsdale. Mass transportation

Bus routes, trolleys and light rail are also up for consideration, impacting mature neighborhoods and the "Scottsdale Rd. Corridor" the only road allowed to be discussed.

~ Downtown – Redevelopment of Downtown including the revised Downtown Plan yet to be presented.

~ Growing Smarter Plus – With the mandate from the State Legislature to address our General Plan (over all) for sustainability (see AZ Commerce Dept. website)

Scottsdale must evaluate where our community is today and what needs to be done to take the next step and then applying that to long range planning; both land planning and economic planning. Inclusion of green building and energy and water conservation must be seriously discussed.

Scottsdale/Tempe –

They need to take note that the combined organizations represent about 1,000 residents and when you combine those with the 3,000+ people who signed the recent Hanover petitions you get about 4,000 people who will vote, do shop in Scottsdale, dine in Scottsdale restaurants and pay taxes here.

Those 4,000 votes will make or break the next election and the candidates running.

The entry of long time resident Tom Giller in to field of candidates for the City Council election in September presents a great opportunity for those of us who believe that the current majority on the City Council is taking Scottsdale in the wrong direction.  If he and Nan Nesvig were to be elected we could reverse the destruction of Scottsdale’s special character that has marked most of the Council decisions for the last two years.

Unfortunately, electing good candidates to the City Council will not be easy.  With the city elections now being held in September along with the national and state elections the costs to reach potential voters will soar.  The establishment (many of whom are making an excellent living off of the unmanaged, special-interest friendly growth that the current majority on the City Council promotes) will see to it that their candidates are well-funded and have all the resources they need to wage their campaigns.  They will literally be swimming in special-interest money and will get all the free publicity they want from the local establishment newsletters pretending to be newspapers.

That means that this moment of great opportunity – an opportunity to effect meaningful change in Scottsdale city government – is also a moment of great challenge.  That challenge is, will those of us who want to preserve Scottsdale’s special character and our quality of life must be willing to do what it takes to make sure our candidates have a fair shot to win, or will we just sit on our hands and complain about how bad things are?

Nesvig and Giller have proven through their actions that they are willing to work hard to preserve Scottsdale’s special character and quality of life – their leadership on the Hanover referendum is proof of that.  They both represent the kind of positive change that we desperately need on the Council. 

The question is, will enough other citizens care enough to contribute their time and money to help Nesvig and Giller get elected?

The first thing Giller needs is bodies willing to collect the 2000+ signatures he needs to get on the ballot, and he only has until June 4^th to collect them! Nesvig needs more signatures to pad her total in order to insure that she can withstand the inevitable challenge to her petitions.  And, of course, they both need DOLLAR$ to fund the mailers, flyers and cable TV spots required to compete with the well-heeled establishment candidates.

My wife and I have literally put our money where our mouths are – we have written Nan’s campaign the biggest check we can afford, have signed her nominating petition and are gathering more signatures for her. And we will be doing the same for Tom. 

I am urging all of you to do the same for both of them.  Nan and Tom have proven that they are willing to work hard to keep Scottsdale a special place in which to live and they have earned our support.

To help Nan and Tom collect signatures or to make campaign contributions (maximum ^$390 for an individual, ^$780 for a couple, but even a small amount will help) you can contact Nan by phone at 480-368-8701 or by email at nnesvig4scc@aol.com, and you can contact Tom by email at tgiller@cox.net. Even a small portion of your Government Rebate windfall would be greatly appreciated!!

This is a major defining moment in Scottsdale history – the 2008 city elections are crucial to the future of Scottsdale, and that future will be decided by those citizens who make the effort to get involved.  If you want Scottsdale to stay a special place in which to live that we all love you need to actively support good candidates for Council. 

If we let this opportunity to change city government for the better slip through our fingers we may never get another chance.

Councilman Bob Littlefield
bob@boblittlefield.com

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

Hopefully, another embarrassing chapter of the book Becker vs. Scottsdale is in the books with the outcome as dismal and ridiculous as predicted and expected from the beginning.

When Mark Jacoby and his band of gypsies were caught by Nancy Cantor and others sliding the Ecton/Littlefield recall petitions under some other anti-tax petitions at a local Wal*Mart and asking people to sign them while not explaining what they were, we knew that Henry Becker and Jacoby were up to their eyeballs in Umpa Lumpa sticky doo doo.

The only thing gained was a lifting of an eyebrow or two here and there because everyone knew it could never happen anyway. Both councilmen are not that unliked by their constituents for the number of signatures necessary to be collected.

In addition, it was a total turn-off to most, especially in an election year. Mr. Becker has totally strained the patience of the community and those who used to support him to the point that his level of respect within the community has probably reached the bottom of the barrel to hear many speak of his latest off-base adventure. Sadly, Henry is really a nice guy when is ego is in check.

The worst part is that innocent parties, namely our ever accommodating City Clerk and her employees had to come in on their day off to open city hall for Henry and Mark when they knew full well they didn’t have the required signatures. This is really an unforgivable amateurish and childish way to pump up some already over inflated egos just to get something done which didn’t amount to a hill of beans from the get-go.

Henry and Mark, why didn’t you admit the signatures were lacking Friday to save the City Clerk and her staff having to cancel their family weekend plans to come in on their days off for absolutely nothing?

Mr. Becker; why don’t you pick up your toys along with your expensive attorneys and go play in someone else’s back yard for a while so you’ll quit costing the taxpayers of Scottsdale unnecessary tax dollars. We already have to deal with an out of touch Mayor, City Council Majority and City Attorney who have done far too much of that in the last 8 years.

The mayor, council majority and the city attorney just sit back and privately laugh at your antics knowing full well you don’t have the support to be politically dangerous or a political threat to them in any way, shape or form because you are taking the spotlight off their inability to run a city in anything close to an effective manner.

Seriously working together as a team Henry, we could bury the current Council Majority in a heartbeat, but with your actions being described as like a wild Texas bull in a fine china shop, you’re hurting no one but yourself and costing the taxpayers of Scottsdale dollars that should have been spent on something, anything far more important.

Give it a rest Henry and try to get along with you fellow residents for a change.

A nice start would be taking down those ugly (but apparently legal) signs and other "Art objects" which even the winter visitors are tired of seeing while they murmur negative comments about "whomever put the stupid things up" which detract from the beauty of the area. The jokes over Henry, but the joke is starting to be on you!

(Return to Top)

Lesley Wright in her Insider column of 3 may, 08 tries in vain to lump Nan Nesvig, Tom Giller and John Washington into the same tight little group claiming that there is "waffling" going on among them. The waffling is among the other candidate including Manross whom have been rarely seen nor heard except for Joel Bramoweth who has been all over the board vocally on most issues facing the city. You have to give the guy credit for at least getting out there and setting a pace.

Nan Nesvig and Tom Giller are the only council candidates who have been straight forward and steady about what they stand for and their commitment to improve Scottsdale, and their support for Scottsdale resident’s heavy participation in city government is strong and envied by the other candidates whom have not been seen or heard to any degree at all. When in a forum situation, the other candidates seem to gravitate to the Nesvig concept of things which is very complimentary but shows the shallowness and lack of commitment, knowledge of the city, and "city vision" of those other candidates.

Nan Nesvig has clearly "been her own person" and has continued with the theme which she clearly stated two years ago and continues to follow today. In my own words, her theme is simply that height and density have their place but until there is an agreeable General Plan by the public, there shouldn’t be anything built which doesn’t conform to the current General Plan as written. Height and density belong in the current downtown area only and then only to the degree decided by the residents at large with the inclusion of "Green" designs and recommendations. She feels strongly that sustainable quality growth is what is needed and that if properly developed, it will add to the livability of Scottsdale for decades to come without becoming a tax burden on the taxpayers of Scottsdale. Financial concerns are very apparent when you talk to Nesvig and she is very direct on what needs to happen to the way city finances are handled to become transparent and understandable. Hanover was obviously not one of the projects which she considered having sustainable quality nor did it conform to the current zoning, height and density constraints so she openly and boldly fought to stop it.

Tom Giller is a long time city resident also and is new to the scene but has made his mark by saying what he will do, then doing it very successfully. Hanover was a poor council decision and he took up arms and led scores of residents against it and proceeded accordingly to gather more than enough signatures to force a public vote. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, he fully uncovered the disrespect and contempt of Hanover’s Eric Kenney for the voice of the city residents when Kenney filed suit to nullify the Referendum on tiny legalities which would have never come up unless it had been necessary for Kenney hire a high priced lawyer to stop the Referendum process, as the judge then shot down the Referendum for the lack of three little words which was an honest and trivial mistake by the referendum committee. It might have helped if Hanover and Kenney could show the actual plans, renderings and cost breakouts for the project which apparently were non-existent at the time of the city council approval.

John Washington’s roll as a Mayoral candidate seems to be strictly to force Manross and Lane to speak to the issues and to bring out their weak points which he very effectively did at the Chamber forum. Manross is a control freak and wants to control those types of venues and you can look for her to immediately refuse to debate or participate in another forum unless Washington is excluded from participating, and the moderator must ask questions only she has approved. Mark my words on that. Manross is a consummate campaigner but useless and unimaginative as a mayor whether she has total control or not.

As stated above, Jim Lane is a good man but will have to work extremely hard to exorcise himself from the "Mary Light" roll by publicly changing his tune totally on height and density before he can be considered a viable replacement for Manross which is a very sad state of affairs to say the least. Jim may be seen by his close supporters as the one who could handle the mayoral duties properly, but the select few don’t carry an election; the citizens do and their evaluation of the candidate is what really counts isn’t it?.

Should the citizens decide to elect Nan Nesvig and Tom Giller as the new council members, Bob Littlefield and Tony Nelssen will have the necessary 3^rd and 4^th votes to change the face, visions, goals and financial accountability of the majority on the council which will give the citizens back their voice in city government which will signify a new beginning for the city of Scottsdale By And For The People for a change!!!

If we can overwhelmingly elect Nesvig and Giller, the mayoral race is inconsequential.

(Return to Top)

In the Saturday 3 May 08 edition of the Scottsdale Republic, 4 of the 6 respondents felt that height, if necessary, needed to be contained to the current downtown area and height anywhere else was not appropriate.

We already knew that Rick Kidder would vote for height no matter the feelings of the residents and taxpayers because he frankly couldn’t give a damn about what the learned (that’s educated to you Rick) taxpayers and residents want and desire. Why Mickey Greenberg as agreed with height, we have not a clue but she does say we have a knowledgeable planning commission which is a bit far over reaching as far as we are concerned being that they all have a stake in building things the way they want them, not the way the citizens want them built.

The four against height per se were Jim McAllister, Paula Pennypacker, Tom Silverman and Bob Vairo. We think former councilman Tom Silverman hit the nail on the head when he said "Quality growth is the answer to keeping Scottsdale very special". Bob Vairo suggests that citizens should be fully involved in the process and "It’s too important an issue to be decided on a case by case basis".

From all the forums we’ve attended and from the conversations we’ve had with some candidates who actually were willing to step forward and talk about or write about such things to the media, there are only two that agree with that consensus and they are Nan Nesvig and Tom Giller who are both running for city council.

It was nice to see that POP (Preserve Our Paradise) has learned from the unfortunate Scottsdale Hanover Referendum experience and has reportedly done what’s necessary to guard against such a situation as the one HAD encountered.

It’s too bad that a quality and highly respected operation such as the Ritz-Carlton would dirty their hands and reputation by thinking they can roll over the citizens and ordinances of Paradise Valley the way Hanover, Eric Kenney and Tom Irvine figuratively (and apparently legally) ran over the citizens of Scottsdale.

It’s vitally important that the citizens of towns and cities of Arizona stand up for what’s right and what’s outlined in the ordinances, rules and regulations of their towns and cities. There are far too many disallowed and unethical liberties being taken by elected officials and hired or appointed city staffs without the approval of the citizens and without following the rules and regulations purposely put in place by those coming before them who attempted to guarantee future sustainability and reasonable but steady growth of said towns and cities through their City Charters, ordinances, rules and regulations.

Big monied cutthroat developers have come to Arizona because the obscenely huge profits have dried up in many other parts of the United States and they felt they could catch the "Hick Town" governments off guard and ready to give some "handouts" to allow the developers the obscenely huge profits for which they were yearning.

Well, everyone in those "Hick" towns and cities, with the exception of those in the "Hick Town" governments have figured it out and don’t want any part of the developers big money and "hit and run" profit schemes leaving the taxpayers to pay for cleaning up the messes or looking at the ugly, non-green compliant, and densely populated buildings they left behind.

The big problem of course is that the "Hick" governments like the ones in Scottsdale and Paradise Valley only see and drool over the big tax money promised but forget that with that tax money comes far higher costs for infrastructure, streets, parks, libraries and other upgrades whose costs to the city and taxpayers far outstrip the amount of tax monies coming in from the height and density for which the citizens SHOULD NOT be charged, but are under the current Manross and PV Administrations.

Only when the developers are willing to follow the rules, abide by the zoning currently in place and foot the bill for totally upgrading infrastructure city wide to handle their added usage of the current systems, will informed citizens ever consider more density or height in highly restricted areas in either of the two cities.

George Knowlton
Editor, Scottsdale Activist
480-326-2475

~Mayoral Forum a Window into Manross Thinking

The Mayoral Forum sponsored by the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce was interesting to say the least, especially for Mary Manross who thinks she deserves to be elected Mayor again even though she doesn’t allow involvement of the public at large and can’t define her "vision" for our city or seem to be able to put it into words the citizens can understand which should be very simple for any seasoned candidate. Of course without a true, open and honest imagination free of self-interest and the thoughts of a self-generated legacy, future visions for any city by a candidate are impossible.

Don’t forget of course that Jan Dolan is no longer around to give her the words and phrases she needs to use as she has for a number of years, and husband Larry isn’t doing too well either apparently according to sources close to the mayor. All Larry seems to be able to say to people is something like "can’t we all just get along and get on board the Manross express?" Express to where???

When Manross is accused of running a program of a "centralized government" by Lane, he stated "If you are a believer in centralized government planning, you end up with a government-driven vision". Lane also attacked Manross for building up the government and shutting out private citizens from the city’s major decisions which is very factual and well known by the residents who have tried to be involved.

Manross made it very clear when she stated the reason there are conflicts among people regarding the vision and values in the City are because too many new people have entered the political arena that don't have experience and aren't invested in the community like she is. Seems like an excuse to me that cannot be factually supported under any condition by Manross or anyone else. Those most heavily objecting to how Manross runs the city are residents whom have lived in Scottsdale and been politically active for a minimum of 26 years and some as many as 49 years!!

John Washington stated "Experience is something you want in a candidate, but some challenges are brought on by experience", he then pointed out the serious missteps of Manross with SkySong, the Hualapai water plant, (we could add a plethora of other examples here) and a lack of receptiveness to residents which in our opinion is very evident in the large number of organized citizen group meetings she has never once attended during her 2 terms as mayor even when invited. Washington stated, "Experience is important, but it’s not everything".

Manross contends that her keeping citizens/residents outside the process is not enough of a reason to keep her from being re-elected.

Oh Really!! If she keeps the residents out of the process, why should they vote for her when she couldn’t give a rats damn whether they come or go, where their kids play and how their roadways which take them to work are being choked and blocked with "Street Furniture" by an apparently incompetent Transportation Department Director?

All other areas of the United States are widening city and township roadways while Scottsdale is in the process of choking them off to force citizens to take a bus, walk or ride bicycles. This in one of the hottest metro areas of the Nation as far as outside temperatures are concerned, does this sound like an in-touch mayor, council majority and city staff to you?

Lane contended that "They (residents) don’t feel like they’re being heard, they feel like they are being herded". Ask any involved citizen and you will hear exactly that: Manross couldn’t care less about the residents and what they think or she would have been attending citizen meeting like Lane, Littlefield and Nelssen have done consistently since their elections.

Mary Manross and Jim Lane are frequently called "Mary and Mary Light" by most residents because they vote so closely with one another on height and density issues which disturbs those who would like to support Lane. This is a plus for Manross and a big negative for Lane.

Jim Lane needs to quickly distance himself from Manross and about the only way he can do that is to change his position on height and density within the city by the way he votes on height and density issues. The citizens are not going to tolerate anymore excessive height and density until and unless there is a dedicated, public approved plan for the downtown area complete with the way the infrastructure improvements will be paid for (and NOT by the taxpayers).

The mayor seems to always point to the Downtown and the Preserve as the prime achievements of her tenure yet Herb Drinkwater, then Sam Campana shepparded the infant Preserve along during it’s tender years, not Manross as she would always have the residents believe. Those of us who have lived here during the Drinkwater years know better.

Concerning the Downtown area, we think the video on Scottsdale.TV which was shown valley-wide on Channel 5 television Tuesday night at 10 pm tells you how much Manross knows about the "Downtown Entertainment District" which has devolved into the "Devil’s Playground" as described by local Churches and as predicted by none other than long time resident, Activist and "Brutal Critic" Mike Merrill almost 4 years ago. To see the videos click on the link below, then go to "Tuesday" and click on Scottsdale.TV

http://www.kpho.com/seenon5/index.html.

Click on any thumbnail picture there and the accompanying video will play; Be aware they are not even close to "PG-13" rated under any condition. There are many videos available which will shake you to the very core of the decency you expect of your city.

The most negative thing about Mary Manross, Mayoral Candidate is that she cannot articulate what her "Vision" of Scottsdale 2010 or 2015 is let alone 2020 0r 2025. She can’t envision anything by the looks of what has happened under her watch.

(Return to Top)

A funny thing happened on the way to the Fashion Square Mall, the Granite Reef Senior Center and many other places in Scottsdale. The Famous Scottsdale Trolley was there for us and able to detour at any time to any other necessary location or event.

How novel in Scottsdale!!

Try to do that with light rail on Scottsdale Road, or in Phoenix, or in Tempe, or in Mesa.

T’ain’t going to happen here Cowboy, not in these parts anyway.

We love our Scottsdale Trolley and so do our tourists. Any subsidy for the Trolley would be far and away cheaper than laying tract for a fixed rail dinosaur from the last century.

Scottsdale has poured enough money into the MAG transportation fund, al la Manross and company, to allow MAG to subsidize the Scottsdale Trolley city-wide for the next 50 years!!

Welcome to Lite Rail on what used to be Central Ave. Downtown Phoenix and coming soon to Scottsdale Road if Manross & Company are re-elected.

(Return to Top)

~Shame on City Hall

City Hall has embraced massive commercial development. It has chosen to give free rein and to partner with commercial developers who seek to maximize profits at the expense and to the detriment of substantial residential interests. The results have been destination gridlock traffic on our major boulevards and residential streets, destruction of our city’s landscape and the substantial impairment of our quality of life.

If City Hall continues on its present perilous path, the "village city" we cherish will be no more, having been sadly transformed into just one more asphalt high-rise extension of the ??????? corridor.

In our newsletters, we have tried to inform our friends and neighbors, residents all, of the reasons for our deeply felt concerns about the present conditions and future realities we face when confronted by a City Hall that is dismissive of residential interests and has sponsored excessive development. Together we struggle to maintain our quality of life for ourselves and our children.

The stakes are too high for us to permit City Hall to continue to engage in business as usual. We care too much about our city and our way of life to permit an out-of-control City Hall to bargain away our quality of life to the highest bidder. There are times when the formal acts of City Hall become so odious that, after seeking redress, petition and redress over and over, we find it necessary to throw ourselves on the gears of the loathsome City Hall machine to grind it to a halt. Such a time is presently at hand. No longer will we sit idly by and accept City Hall’s faux promises and insincere politically motivated deceptions. We will be deceived no more. We are prepared to act and to change the City Hall pro-development culture and council members who time and again endorse it and who are arrogantly dismissive of residents concerns.

Now, in a most egregious violation of the liberty of discussion, residents, who care enough about issues of public concern and take the time to attend a City Council meeting, are given ??? minutes to present their views with no up and back with any council member. Such is the manner by which Mayor/council member ??????? runs the show. Under ??? rule, there is no colloquy between resident and City Hall, only soliloquy. There is no engagement by the council members, only dismissiveness. There is no City Hall compassionate concern, only arrogant disregard. Instead of listening to concerned residents, responding and giving residents opportunities to reply, City Hall has perverted the time honored "open microphone" period to nothing more than a perfunctory cattle-call designed to cover up City Hall hubris and know-it-all mentality by giving the appearance of an open fair-minded due process public meeting. All the while, council members’ minds are irreconcilably in lockstep, eager to go forward with massive commercial development regardless of public input.

OK Readers, Which city is being discussed in this piece?

Laguna Nigel, CA

Paradise Valley, AZ

Palm Beach, FL

Scottsdale AZ

Beverly Hills, CA

Charleston, SC

Send your guesses to editor@scottsdaleactivist.com Answer next week.

(Return to Top)

 ~Letters to the Editor  

We had two more (2) Letters to the Editor this week which we could not print for legal liability reasons.

As with the four (4) letters last week, we truly regret not being able to print them even though they were apparently factually true in reference to person(s) and/or court case(s) which are reasonably current topics and situations, but it could have put the authors of said letters as well as possibly the Scottsdale Activist in legal jeopardy which none of us can afford.

With that said, we felt the letters had great merit, but were too direct to be printed without possible legal recourse, frivolous or otherwise, from those targeted or discussed.

When writing letters,

• Be careful not to make direct accusations without in-hand facts to back you up in case of a legal challenge by your Target, and you are able to defend yourself legally and financially,
   

• Never call a person or an entity names in writing you wouldn't use on someone you respect unless the names are factual and can be proved without a doubt,
   

• Being strongly disrespectful or using gratuitous or foul language can be grounds for a lawsuit under some conditions, especially from "small minded" people with huge insatiable egos who sue just to be suing,
   

• If you have verifiable facts but cannot reveal from where the facts were received, ask a pertinent question(s) about the subject as you know it/them to be without it being accusatory or direct in nature.
   

• Remember that some people file frivolous and petty, fact-less lawsuits just to cause trouble and temporarily shut down publications and media venues without any true facts or any merit because you hit them hard where it really hurts, and the truth always hurts and infuriates those who don't deal in the whole or complete truth in their dealings,
   

• Remember that corporations, large private enterprises, and some others have far deeper pockets and very high powered attorneys on staff that can turn a period into a comma with just a wink and a few well spoken words, and that's why they paid a pricy retainer.
   

• Pick you battles well with good legal counsel and a bankroll before stepping out on a limb.
   

• ALWAYS know the complete answers to your questions BEFORE you ask them.
   

• Remember that "Money Talks" and many lawsuits are filed because they know their case is extremely weak, but they also know you don't have the financial ability to answer the suit properly.

We again apologize for not printing the letters, but you can see that because of the subject matter, and current threats of lawsuits by a certain select few, now would not be the time to print such letters even though they are on target in our opinion.

(Return to Top)

 ~ Can't Believe It

It is unbelievable how our mayor can go blindly along as if everything is peaches and cream when the world is falling down around her ears.

You would think that Mary would try to at least be honest about what's going on concerning light rail, Hanover and the other projects that are in trouble from what we read in the local newspapers.

E. Slocomb
Scottsdale

You know there are times I love to just shove an issue back down the throats of people like Leger and Scarp. This time it is the issue of Light Rail.

Now remember Ozites, these are the two clueless media editors who, over the last few months, have told certain critics like Michael Fernandez and me, even the Citizens Transportation Advisory Group, that we were "beating a dead horse," and that we won the light rail battle. So we should just sit down and shut up and be thankful we got what we did.

Then on Wednesday of this week in the Oz Repugnant, what article graced the front page of their paper?

Did anyone read the story "Executives Call For Forum On Planning"?

Maybe you missed the beginning of the 4^th paragraph that stated,

So, again I have to ask: Who are these "many" who agree on this issue of light rail that is supposed to be dead?

Well, again we have the same group of people who seem to speak for residents of this city who have already said, "NO."

These guys just do not get it. Brad Casper of Dial, Inc., the same people who wanted more height in the North for their project; and who, also was going to ask for a taxpayer subsidy to help build there grand project.

Craig Jackson, who never has told us what he wants us to pay for to make him happy enough to stay, and to tell you the truth I am getting tired of home boy Craig.

Rachel Sacco of the Scottsdale Convention and Visitors Bureau who is beginning to get under my skin with all the crap she is trying to push on the city. What? Do you really think Manross was not pushed into opening her clueless yap when she wanted the taxpayers to float a bond for tourism? I guess bed taxes are down and she thinks we need to bail them out, too.

I believe one of the issues in the "Which Way Scottsdale" report was that we were in danger of "losing our uniqueness," which I believe we have pretty much killed. Uniqueness that drew tourists and their wallets.

Last, but not least, is Tom Sadvary of none other than Scottsdale Healthcare. My disgust with this outfit runs long and deep, from the time they decided to push the condemnation issue years ago to build their "campus" and stole land left and right from business owners with the city blessings.

One of their most recent feats was to get their bonds issue passed illegally with the use and blessing of the city through the emergency clause, so they could get a better rate before the bottom drops out of everything.

Trust me when I say that even the city attorney would not read the passage regarding what constitutes an emergency according to Arizona Revised Statues when asked to do so by Sir Tony during that session’s Council comments.

These are the "many" who are telling us that we have to have light rail in order for our city to survive. They are the "many" who are not paying for it to be installed, and they are the "many" who are not paying for any of it.

What? Did you believe Leger and Scarp and their stupidity that the light rail issue was dead in this city? Did you?

Maybe you missed the fact that we have a group out there again advocating another sales tax increase to fund another 40 billion in road construction for the state. That it includes another 7 billion for none other than light rail and we still don’t have the first leg of that mess finished yet!

Maybe you missed the important fact that we are already a member of MAG (Maricopa Association of Governments), and that they are the government arm for transportation issues and we already have a seat at the table (Manross is the vice chair of MAG).

And, maybe you missed the point that we are paying 50K a year to have a seat at the table with Valley Metro Rail who is also part of MAG?

Bottom line is if you cannot figure this all out, than you are too clueless to be voting in this election cycle. So do us a favor and stay at home on Election Day as we need a change!

Well, here we go with the stupidity of planning in this city, especially when it concerns projects abutting a residential community.

The case I am speaking of is 13-ZN-2007, Scottsdale East Plaza, 909 North Hayden Road. It is marked as "Item 12" on the city agenda. It warrants being placed on consent because the "planning department" has no issue with it and may not even want it discussed.

What I found really funny, if not totally insulting, is the header which states "goal: Coordinate planning to balance infrastructure".

This is a rezoning from C-S which is Regional Shopping Center District and it is to be rezoned to C-3 Highway Commercial District which is one of the highest and most intense uses for commercial zoning other than, maybe industrial.

This was approved by those Planning Commission gurus, who all stated they did not like this and think it is wrong!

Then voted 3-1 to approve it!

One commissioner even went so far as to state, on the record that this is setting a bad precedent! So, go figure.

Commissioner Barnett also made an ass of himself by stating that this is why we need PUD (planned unit development) in the city! That statement is so far off base someone should have slapped the stupidity out of him when he said that.

Let’s face it, the place is indeed a rat hole of a property and is a measly 3.65 acres. No buildings are going to be demolished, and in fact, they are only doing a face lift to the buildings that exist now.

Six years ago the owner had DRB approval for another face lift for the property, but for some unknown reason the applicant never finished the process and time has expired for that application.

Here is the kicker Ozites, we are rezoning this property abutting residential communities for the SOLE PURPOSE OF BEING ABLE TO ADD A DRIVE THROUGH RESTARANT!!!!!!

In this city where we amend development standards for developers at the drop of a hat, the city cannot amend these standards for the developer to add a measly, lousy drive through restaurant!

So, instead they will rezone the property to one of the most intense uses allowed under commercial zoning.

If you get the chance on May 6^th, and are up for a good and sad laugh, you can watch how much of a "progressive" city we really are as the council will indeed pass yet another blunder in planning and development.

Again, it will happen in the South where the council majority just really does not give a big umpa lumpa turd about you, your community, and your quality of life.

What will happen when this property flips? Just how much more will the land be worth with this zoning so that the present owner can get out from under it?

What can the residents of this area expect in the future when the next owner comes along?

Yep, there is some forward thinking going on in this city folks! So tell me again how you will vote on Election Day?

Now here is an issue I have shied away from for a long time. I do not want people thinking that I am against our Police Chief or that I have an axe to grind with the city police force.

Actually, it is the opposite, but let’s take a look at this crime statistics issue that our beloved Mayor and the media love to trump on.

Thanks to a request from Buckaroo Betty to the police department about crime statistics, which somehow appeared in the paper a week or so later. She forwarded me the information as she and I have recently crossed this path at a Council forum.

Yep, that was the same meeting where Ronnie the Oz Weasel stated that the police departments budget this year is 90 million dollars, which again shows just how clueless the Weasel is. However Betty did a much better job with the question answering with the information that the questioner asked for.

Betty did not fall to the statistics issue where we all know numbers can be abused. She explained that past purchases and beefing up was to get our officers up to realistic standards that allowed them to enhance their efforts safely. She explained that at one point we did not even have computers in our squad cars for officers and now they all have computers.

The fact is our Chief has brought our department into the light with many projects that needed to be addressed.

Again, Betty decided to tell us how village planning committees can help in the process of addressing some of these issues with the police department (so I guess we should ask just where the hell we are with that village planning process Betty as it has been what now, 3 years since you stated it and have shown nothing to the community about it and what it can do?).

Okay let me get to my point because I had to take a long walk on the bookshelf with Yoda when I passed the Star Wars section. Here are the "statistics":

Okay Ozites, stay with me here for a minute and let’s see how the numbers really look.

Beat 1 &2 are my back yard, so take the subject of robbery and what that must cover. You can note that in 2003 it was 10, and dropped in 2004 to 5, but in 2005 it went to 11. So give back any gain and add 1. Now, in 2006 it stayed the same, so no gains there. In 2007, it actually increased by one putting us at an increase.

Now, apply that same math to the rest of the sections and you will get the truth. Over a 5 year period it has not really panned out to be that much of a decrease when you look at the "big picture".

Another interesting thing to see from the city would be the statistics on other crimes not noted here that affect this community, and how it "redevelops" for these bright new days.

What are the numbers regarding other "crimes" like?

You see, there are other crimes that never figure into some of these statistical reports. Crimes and figures that show real ratings for all crime in areas that profoundly plays into the issue of redevelopment for mature communities.

So, it is nice to see that the statistics that are touted here show a decrease this year of 4% across the board for these few categories, but it does not tout an overall picture of criminal activity and there need to be some questions asked by our elected leaders and of our elected leaders.

Five years ago, or maybe longer now, I had a copy of the "man power report" the city had done with RICCO funds. In that report I found the most striking issue to be the fact we have no way to track how much time sworn officers spend doing community patrols. The reality is I still do not believe the city has done anything to track that information.

This is an important issue with me as community policing is the heart of great communities. We in the South are a great community and have been since the birth of this city.

Five years ago we noted that our officers were too few and had little time for community patrols as they went from one emergency call to the next. That came from our own chief’s mouth some years back. So, another question could be. "Are our officers still in this situation?"

Has the Downtown Patrol been completed and fully staffed?

If we now have completed adding a second motorcycle unit for traffic, and we have all these photo radar cameras in the city, why is it you never see one of these squads in the southern communities slowing down the nuts on our residential streets? Are they also running from call to call?

Funny, I ask that question as last week I saw a patrol car with a radar gun, spending time monitoring traffic speeds on Camelback and it made me think why the hell are you sitting here instead of in a community doing that?

Should we just forget the level of policing we had 10 or 15 years ago for communities? We have not kept up with the illustrious planning we are doing in this progressive city for a bright new day?

How many officers do we need to hire for the new downtown housing plans so we do not drop in the number of officer to resident ratio?

Wait, back up the freaking boat, I forgot, Mother Mayor told us, on the record, 5 years ago, that she does not put faith in the numbers of officer to resident ratios. I guess it was one of those "statistics" that she does just not want to use, maybe just does not understand.

Yep, the truth is brutal in this Land of Oz so pay attention!

Michael Merrill
The Brutal Critic
F8713@aol.com

Mack and Zack grew up in the same working-class neighborhood, are the same age, have the same education, earn the same salary, have the same number of kids, and have worked for 40 years in the same construction trade. The only difference between them is that Mack has $1 million in savings and Zack has zilch in savings.

Mack has a million and Zack has zilch, because Mack saved and invested $10,000 a year by living below his means. Mack lives in a much smaller house than Zack lives in, drives a much smaller and more fuel-efficient car than Zack drives, goes out to eat far fewer times than Zack does, and, unlike Zack, doesn’t spend money on lottery tickets, professional sporting events, trips to Vegas, cigarettes, drinks at sports bars, and a big-screen TV and other electronic gizmos.

To stay healthy and save even more money, Mack grows produce in his backyard and consumes far fewer calories, far less fat, and far less alcohol than fat Zack does.

Mack’s savings have been transformed into capital, which in turn has been invested in equipment, technology, productivity improvements and new companies, thus increasing tax revenue for the government, reducing the amount of money borrowed from foreigners, increasing the value of the dollar, and benefiting Zack and other Americans.

In spite of the good that Mack the Millionaire has done for society, Democrats think that it is unfair for him to have more money than Zack. Teaming up with likeminded rapacious Republicans, they want to punish Mack for his frugality and reward Zack for his profligacy. They are planning to raise the capital gains tax on Mack’s investment income and reinstitute the estate tax so that Mack has to bequeath his money to Zack instead of his own family.

Even crueler and more insidious, Democrats and their partners in crime across the aisle want to print money to cover their own profligate political spending, thus reducing the value of Mack’s savings with inflation.

They want to do the same thing to industrious people who have worked hard in K-12 school, invested in their future, obtained a degree in a rigorous discipline, and deferred marriage and procreation until they were ready for both.

Democrats call this fairness and social justice.

Whatever they call it, it is suicidal.

Mack cannot stop the robbers by voting, because Zack and his ilk outnumber savers like him by a wide margin, due to the government punishing savers and rewarding spenders. The latest example was the government bailout of people who bought homes they couldn’t afford.

Mack realized a couple of years ago that he had two choices. One choice was to stop saving and become a moocher like Zack.

The other choice was the moral choice: to grab a knife or other weapon and defend himself and his family against the robbers in Congress.

And that’s how Mack the Millionaire became Mack the Knife.

An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

Mr. Cantoni is an author, columnist and activist who has been involved with healthcare reform. He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

(Return to Top)

No one put more time and effort into the Hanover Referendum than I did. No one was more surprised and disappointed than me with the outcome. While the PAC paperwork, paid and volunteer efforts were not perfect, they were sufficient and the "City" believed our petition effort qualified as one of, if not the best, referendum it had ever received.

While I applaud everyone’s hard work, there just was not the community resources needed to overcome the advantage which goes with having the money. Democracy and justice in America goes to whoever can afford it. While HAD was still trying to collect donations for the last ^$500 in expenses of the petition drive the cost estimated to oppose Hanover's legal challenge was estimated by the attorney we met with to be ^$20K (in retrospect ^$10K was more likely). The City of Scottsdale's Attorney had no interest in standing up for its' citizens or the integrity of their efforts. Barring an appeal, which would be equally expensive, I assume, this fight is over.

While we don't have money, we do have people power. I have been told it costs about ^$20K to run an effective campaign for City Council. 2000 signatures will need to be submitted by June 4th and if the candidate is an "Activist", I would expect a legal challenge which would add to this expense and increase the need for scrutiny of the initial paperwork, an area which I admit shortcomings.

If I had ^$20K to devote to civic causes, I would have spent it on the lawyer to defend the lawsuit brought by Hanover and its team of weasels who obstructed us at the libraries and in the courts. In the absence of these resources, I am left only with HOPE. This is the belief that despite daunting odds that one can prevail if they persevere and share common goals with the community.

I submitted the paperwork to run for City Council on Monday April 28th. My platform is simple, open government which reflects the vision of the citizens, specifically putting the neighborhoods first, focusing on livability and sustainability. We need to keep the moderate density, resort and western heritage that have made Scottsdale the destination for visitors worldwide and home to people who have the right to expect that their neighborhoods are preserved. I oppose light rail and unwarranted density and height increases. Fiscal responsibility is not a goal, it's a mandate.

Thank you in advance for you help,

Tom Giller
Scottsdale

(Return to Top)