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.

(Return to Top)

One of the things that we have seen over the last eight years is elected officials failing to do their own homework on the issues of redevelopment. They were assisted in that gross neglect by former City Manager Jan Dolan who chose to follow the "project by project" approval for redevelopment: No plans, no standards, no guidelines and no overall vision for the mature neighborhoods.

It is always interesting to see what organizations Council members and the Mayor belong to outside of their elected positions. Then you ask yourself: If they can participate in conferences and seminars and sit on boards and advisory groups, why do they not bring that knowledge back to Scottsdale for use in current planning and development?

Hello? Are you seven listening or do you just go to sit in and get a free meal, a drink or two, and get another association listed on your resume????

So far in this election campaign the only council candidates and candidate for Mayor talking about issues of concern to residents, particularly those of the mature neighborhoods, are Nan Nesvig, Tom Giller and John Washington.

The print media guys have wrongly dismissed Washington, because he is a write-in candidate. Apparently they are not tuned into to the public concerns about the developments and economic strategy imposed upon the neighborhoods South of Indian Bend Rood.

Height and density are also very important issues to people who live in the areas North of Indian Bend Road, all the way to the Carefree border, just as much as they are to those who live in the South.

If the hap-hazard development dumped on the Downtown, so far, and on neighborhoods along the McDowell and Scottsdale Road corridors is allowed to continue the North Scottsdale residents are going to see an increased financial burden for the whole city. They are also seeing precedent setting development that can undermine future planning processes.

Infra-structure and city services are going to be impacted, one way or the other.

Right now we are seeing the much heralded Waterfront development suffering serious financial setbacks that started long before the current national/international economic upheaval.

The Super Bowl festivities and visitors should have been a financial boon for the Waterfront shops, restaurants and residences.

That golden moment did not happen.

Combine that with the down turn in the real estate business and you have a stagnation mess caused in part by the current administration’s policies and decisions.

Our current Mayor refuses to admit to mistakes and problems and the incumbent Council members are keeping very quiet with the help of the press.

Add the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce to the list, who think they never make mistakes, and you have chaos.

Fact is the whole lot of them could have been in the new "Maxwell Smart" movie as the leaders of that despotic group also known as "Chaos." And yes this group, too, operates under a "cone of silence."

Height and density are issues which Nan Nesvig, Tom Giller and John Washington will speak to; so ask them. Height and density bring traffic flow problems, increased infrastructure impacts – water, sewers, utilities (and we are not up to date on these things), increased needs for social services (the kind of needs Scottsdale has not had to deal with), increased stresses to public safety operations and challenges to the environment from green building to "heat canyon" creation.

Is John Washington the be all and end all of redevelopment? Nope and he would probably tell you that, too. However, he has been an engineer in the aerospace industry, and he can put the pieces of the puzzle together.

Is this an endorsement of John for Mayor? Not yet.

What I would like this to be is a challenge to the other two mayoral candidates to start talking about these important issues, flat out rather than about what they lay claim to as their legacies.

Talk about the mistakes and what they and the City have learned from them.

Talk about the knowledge they have gleaned from all of those seminars and workshops our taxpayer dollars have allowed them to participate in over the years.

Talk about real long range planning.

I don’t think any of us want to attend another forum where candidates tell us how great their accomplishments look on their resumes. We don’t need cheerleaders who cheer for only themselves. We need thinkers with the skills to listen and bring about community consensus.

We do not need closed door meetings with special interests that negate the neighborhoods, displace residents and demoralize the part of Scottsdale that paved the way for the growth Scottsdale has seen and the quality of life we are noted for.

We need leadership that respects the knowledge and skills of the staff that is charged with carrying out policies and procedures.

We need leadership on Council and in the Mayors office that is aware of the entire City.

We need leadership that respects the rights of individual property owners, as well as those of big dollar developers. A leadership is seriously needed that will work for the best of both and not rubber stamp projects that the Planning Commission and Development Review Board approve carte blanche as happens now.

We need a leadership that understands that our General Plan means nothing without an implementation process, and right now we do not have that implementation process.

We need leadership that respects the needs of all residents young and old, new resident and long term residents, hip and old fashioned, luxury loving to those in need.

Actually, right now, we need candidates to have an epiphany and a whole lot of luck and prayers, to get Scottsdale back on track.

Nancy Cantor
Chair, Scottsdale Coalition

At the Council meeting on Tuesday, June 17th, Council Candidate Tom Giller presented a petition to the City Council. This petition will be agendized sometime within the next 30 days.

Here is a copy of the petition:

We, the undersigned citizens of the City of Scottsdale, petition the Scottsdale City Council to refer the issue of allowing greater height and density than is currently permitted by zoning ordinance in Scottsdale to a public vote in the upcoming election.

Last night, the Council discussed a petition requesting that a referendum be placed on the ballot to allow the voters the opportunity to approve, or disapprove, the pending Downtown Plan update. The Council voted 4 to 3 to deny the voters of Scottsdale the opportunity to vote on the issue. (Manross, Ecton, Drake & McCullagh voted against the public vote: Manross, Drake & McCullagh are up for re-election)

Sue Wood   samw1222@aol.com
Tom Giller   tgiller@cox.net

(Return to Top)

~ Indian Plaza Project Downtown

"I really enjoyed meeting with the group in January.  We have reviewed the input we have received over the past six months and have made a number of significant changes to the project:

Feedback has been positive toward the project, but there isn’t any project that can’t be improved by input from the community.  We will continue to solicit input, and hope that you will help us design an exceptional project that the community will embrace.  From a timing perspective, we are planning to submit a formal application for rezoning to the City within the next few weeks and I will keep you informed of the milestones (hearings, meetings, etc.).   

Randy Grant
G & G Consulting, LLC

(Return to Top)

Rick Sodja, CEO of PDG America announced that the former Los Arcos Crossing, now renamed "Centrovida" would be redesigned to become mainly a retail center which the residents have asked for and south Scottsdale desperately needs. To read more, click on the Scottsdale Tribune link below.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/119014

It should be clearly noted here that the article in the Scottsdale Republic on page 18 on Friday June 20^th, is incorrect according to reliable sources we contacted.

(Return to Top)

 ~ Total Lack of Commitment to "Green"……

Sustainability Town Hall, SkySong, June 16, 2008

In 1974 I discovered the horrible truth about solar energy and Arizona. Unfortunately, that "horrible truth" is alive and well even today.

That horrible truth is a total lack of commitment.

We have so many brilliant alternative energy individual experts and savvy businessmen, but we have "no political will" to commit to incorporating "solar energy," in any form, into use in daily life.

For example, let’s look at schools and operating cost. There is no accommodation to assist school districts in converting to solar energy. It was pointed out, by experts from the Arizona State University’s Global Institute for Sustainability, that during emergency situations, when power was down, local schools could be used as shelters IF they had solar generated power.

Now, think about that effort and why can’t Homeland Security assist schools through their Community Emergency Response Team Program that deals with helping local governments train and prepare communities to deal with all sorts of disasters.

Sure school districts should bond for the installation of solar, but in Arizona, the cost is still prohibitive.

I heard nothing at the Town Hall that showed there was an effort to see costs brought down so that the average home owner could install solar power.

Several of us who have lived in the SkySong neighborhood are still mystified by the lack of effort from our Mayor and City Council to see that the SkySong project was as "Green" as the McDowell Village Senior Center. There was no effort put into requiring the SkySong project to incorporate "solar energy." The Ad Hoc Committee that met to oversee the development of the site plan was told, even before the architect was chosen, that it was too costly to go green, use solar or include underground parking.

Scottsdale has one exemplary "sustainable" project and that is the McDowell Village Senior Center. That project came into being because of 500 signatures on petitions to the City Council to reconsider their vote to put a housing development on the Old Smitty’s site. They wanted a center that would set the bar in design and construction for future construction in the McDowell Corridor.

Political will did not step up to carry the day at SkySong or Lowes, or any of the multi-family or single family housing going up in that neighborhood.

Luxury condos in Downtown? Only the Optima Camelback Village ultra-luxurious condos address green design and green materials.

Nothing on the Waterfront is green, residential or commercial. Not even the Main Street condos or the Valley Ho and accompanying condos, not the Third Avenue Lofts, or Z Lofts or X Lofts or the X Ten Wine Lofts, none of them are green.

Yet our General Plan, the policy guide this City uses to approve projects has direction to include "green building and energy conserving" elements in all projects.

The problem is there is no real implementation process to make sure those "green elements" are included.

It all depends on the "Political Will" of the Mayor, the City Council, the City Manager, the Planning Commission, and the Development Review Board.

It might be good to ask the candidates, especially the incumbents, if they are going to address this very important part of the General Plan.

Council Candidates Nan Nesvig and Tom Giller had already committed to this concept long ago and have stated as such. Where are the rest of the candidates on this issue?

(Return to Top)

When was the last time you experienced so many referendums presented to the public for signatures within weeks of one another in Scottsdale?

Now we have referendums working in Cave Creek and Paradise Valley.

When have you seen so many referendums presented during the tenure of any mayor or council?

In numerous discussions with county, state and national politicos, referendums are the direct sign of sick, non-responsive members of any government that needs immediate change.

I think that describes Scottsdale to a "T" don’t you?

Your voice is not being heard in Scottsdale,…… especially in the southern portion of the city. As has been often quoted, the mayor and council have a plan for Scottsdale, you just aren’t part of it.

(Return to Top)

In the June 7^th Scottsdale Activist we ran a story and pictures about a house at 5712 North Granite Reef Road. The house is vacant and the weeds are now as high as the eaves of the roof in the front. We do not want to think about what the back yard looks like, or its eminent fire danger to the neighbors.

Suffice it to say, the yard is an extreme fire hazard, especially as hot and dry as it has become in the last week or so.

This property is owned by CMM Investment Properties, LLC. Their statutory agent is a gentleman by the name of Jason Hunter, according to Arizona Corporation Commission filings, and his office is located at 416 West Secretariat Drive in Tempe, Arizona. CMM Investment Properties, LLC is located at 11619 North 12^th Place in Phoenix, Arizona.

The above mentioned house was tagged by Scottsdale Code Enforcement on May 21, 2008. That would have been on a Wednesday. So, let’s say that the paper citation did not go out until Friday, May 23, at 5 p.m., and that met with a weekend plus it was Memorial Day. Odds are the citation did not get to the "responsible party" until May 28^th.

Well, sports fans, this is June 22^nd, and 24 days have passed and nothing has been done. Well, the weeds have done something, growing with gusto. The so called "responsible parties" are AWOL.

As a member of the Neighborhood Enhancement Commission at the time the "property maintenance ordinances" were written, I can attest to a variety of frustrations dealing with properties like this.

The whole issue from staffing to inspection to citation to enforcement needs to be fine tuned with city action times reduced accordingly and violation fines increased at least triple to stop these things from happening.

Code enforcement is going to become more complicated as we see mixed use developments being built through out the mature neighborhoods. We need to look at the manpower needed for inspection and follow-up and we need to re-examine the time allowed for property owners and property managers to respond. We also need to keep track of property management and their response on behalf of owners. We need to do a better job documenting properties that are owned by parties out of state, whether single family residences, multi-family housing: apartments or condominiums.

When you are dealing with blighted properties such 5712 North Granite Reef Road it is hard not to apply the term "slumlord" to the responsible parties. It is also hard to ignore such properties as dangerous fire hazards at this time of year.

(Return to Top)

Community Council of Scottsdale challenged Tom Giller and Oren Davis to make citizen referendums "mean something" to City Council. They also asked for them to state their positions on the issues during the meeting/forum.

Oren Davis is an interesting man. He often spoke as if his words were rehearsed through a practiced dialogue with prepared one-liners. He "listened" but didn't always "hear" the questions or comments because of his knowledge of city history for the problem behind the question or comment was obviously missing. Almost as if he hadn’t lived in Scottsdale for a while. He was gentlemanly, with a good background in small business experiences.

BUT, when asked if he has ever attended a single Planning Commission or DRB meeting, his answer was: "NO, but I have sat in on a couple of City Council meetings".

"NO commission or volunteer work in city government and no experience to evaluate the PC and DRB, these are major "brain-dead" culprits in the deterioration of our city and major serious negative points for Davis. 

He also stated he is willing to take Chamber of Commerce money if offered.  He had an interview with them Wednesday morning which he described as "very painless".  A member of the audience responded, "Well then, you AREN"T one of us". 

Davis had absolutely no knowledge about the NEC grants (Neighborhood Enhancement Commission) to neighborhoods and had to be told by the audience they had been in existence for almost 2 decades.  He had just proudly described his idea of Neighborhood Block Grants by the city as if it was a totally new idea.  He is obviously out of touch.

Again---how can he run for City Council without doing his homework and having at least some background and knowledge of the city’s history?

Tom Giller was excellent.  He spoke as if sitting across from you at your home coffee table. He really knows his stuff. He LISTENED, then RESPONDED directly to the questions from the audience. No waffling from this guy. He was a "home town boy" and they laughed and verbally responded "Yeah Yeah" with his positions which have been well known and well documented by the local press. 

Tom is very astute when it comes to the problems of Scottsdale and isn’t afraid to tackle them as they come along. He fully understands and strongly promotes the thesis that the city government should be totally responsive and answerable to the citizens which it currently is not.

Oren Davis is a nice and gentlemanly enough guy but has little to no knowledge of the city and how it does or should operate.

Like we said before, it seems as if this guy has been out of the city for a number of years and has no clue as to what’s been happening to the once world class city of Scottsdale. Worse yet, it seems he doesn’t know how to fix any problems which he apparently doesn’t even see as existing at this point in time.

This is a person who should not be elected to the city council until he gets a lot more knowledge of the city under his belt.

Tom Giller was on point and is willing to discuss anything to do with the city and he really knows the history of the city. He listens well and responds directly. He would make an excellent council person based on his depth of knowledge concerning numerous city issues and his strong belief that the city should be responsive to the citizens and voters, not the developers and builders as it is now.

After hearing all of the Council Candidates as they have represented themselves at the Candidate Forums to date, we feel that Tom Giller and Nan Nesvig will represent the voters and citizens of Scottsdale far better than any of the other candidates.

(Return to Top)

~ “Dastardly Dan” of the Legal Profession 

Many of you carried petitions and/or signed petitions to have the Hanover Project [City Council approved] referred to the voters in the September city election.  The proposed project covers almost an entire city block from Indian School Road on the south and Goldwater on the east and 5th Avenue on the north. 

Village Inn, motel units, office buildings and 5th Avenue shops would be removed. The project required a Character Plan Amendment and rezoning to add a rental residential units-business mix.  Additionally, it has buildings that are 5 stories tall.  The bland design, long horizontal walls along Goldwater, out-of-5th Avenue character height and increased density were met with serious citizen complaints.  

More than 3,000 signatures were acquired to refer the rezoning/Ordinance 3767. The developer sued the City in court for certifying the petitions. The City Attorney told the developer's attorney that the city would not contest the challenge.  The judge ruled in favor of the developer citing that the citizens had not properly prepared their Political Committee paperwork title to qualify to collect signatures because it did not clearly state that the signers were not in favor of the Ordinance.  

Pretty ridiculous and petty when the main purpose of the petition was to get it to the voters for a yea or nay vote. 

Everyone who signed the petition as well as  the developer who paid, reportedly, ^$20K or more for thugs to scare residents from signing the petitions, and then untold more thousands to Tom Irvin, attorney and close friend of Congressional candidate Susan Bitter Smith, for the court challenge certainly KNEW the purpose of the petition. 

Why is it that the city council will not allow this to go to the ballot? 

·        Fear of mass rejection?

·        Fear of retaliation for failure to perform?

·        Fear of rejection and removal of political support by the developers and power brokers?

·        Loss of campaign contributions from developers and power brokers? 

Then you have the Dust Ordinance. Another thoughtless action by the council which generated another referendum garnering over 2,000 signatures and again fought by none other than now infamous attorney Tom Irvine who seems of late to handle anything for the current administration or their ilk which might get in the way of what the voters are requesting which very simply was to have a chance for the voters to decide both issues. 

Now, there are more questions than answers and the new ordinance has caused a nasty and economic ripple effect which has reached places and items which the council majority was too ignorant or “full of themselves” to consider prior to their vote. 

It seems that this stupid ordinance will now affect many small businesses, tourist venues, bikers and hikers who use the 20 square mile Granite Mountain area.  

Cave Creek is now fighting the Dust Ordinance also for very good reason.  No government agency can mandate such an ordinance. The only way they can get it approved is by conning the local politicians with money. 

Gee, maybe the citizens have been right all along as we have been reporting for months. 

Could it be that with either the Dust or Hanover issues on the ballot, many more Scottsdale voters would turn out meaning a crushing defeat for the current administration and their total lack of planning, wholesale over-the-top spending, and a total lack of public communication? 

Could it be that “Dastardly Dan” has turned from the reasonable and fair way to practice law to the “dark side” just to find a way, just any way, to “legally” protect his monied and powerful friends and ultimately bring in more money into his firm during these current lean times? 

Could it be that the state of Arizona had no legal basis on which to “require” the city to approve the dust ordinance, but conned them into approving it with the promise of dollars which won’t even cover the costs for the first 2 years of maintaining the provisions of the Dust Ordinance? 

Could it be that Kevin “Loser” Osterman has again been put up as the flunky shill for the incompetent mayor and council majority to do their dirty work? 

What are Manross, Drake and McCullagh afraid of, the loss of campaign contributions? 

How can Susan Bitter Smith, the person who made arrangements for the Hanover thugs, be a serious candidate for Congress—arguing that she will represent the public’s interest.  Who is she kidding? 

How could they have us believe that, once they have taken campaign contributions from developers and power brokers, they can ever represent citizens rather than  the bidding of those same developers and power brokers? 

Think about all of this before you vote in the September elections.

(Return to Top)

In reading the My Turn article in the Tuesday, June 17^th edition of the Scottsdale Republic, David Schmid, the VP of Development for Five Star Development clearly misses the one single point the residents of PV are requiring: very simply maintain the one (1) residence per acre density as required elsewhere in PV and they would be happy with the rest of the project.

Schmid unfortunately adds more drivel and double-talk to the article to attack NIMBY’s and try to confuse the facts and issues while totally missing the actual single point the residents have requested.

He also threatens to cancel the entire project if he doesn’t get the residential portion he wants. Sounds like a spoiled little brat who threatens to pick up his toys and go home if he doesn’t get his way rather than working with the residents as the Yari Brothers are doing in Scottsdale. Would you really think he would do that with all the money already invested in the property? Come on, get real. If he loses the court case, wouldn’t he be anything short of a colossal fool to challenge the court decision?

This is par for the course lately in both Scottsdale and PV. Again Susan Bitter-Smith and her favorite attorney Tom Irvine are deep in the middle of this one too with the same judge. Isn’t her company the one who did the promotion on this project as well as for many other projects in Scottsdale which have come under heavy scrutiny with many being scrubbed because of heavy citizen pressure to keep things within the limits of the current general plan?

She participates in these questionable types of promotions while running for congress, yet expects voters to think she’s fair and impartial? Go figure………….

Hmmmm. Is Judge Peter Swann up for re-election??? Maybe it’s time we got rid of him too?

(Return to Top)

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

Hi John, I saw that you have filed as a write-in candidate for the upcoming Scottsdale Mayoral contest.  LINKS, a local not for profit, is holding a mayoral forum on Wednesday, July 16th at 10 a.m. at the studio of Scottsdale CityCable 11.  I want to take this opportunity to invite your participation.  If you are free on that morning, let me know and I will make sure that you receive all of the pre-forum information.

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

Thanks for the invitation. I'd be delighted to join you.

Thanks again. Looking forward to your forum.

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

Hi John, We are going to have to cancel our forum on July 16th.Thanks for agreeing to be a participant. Hope to have a conversation with you in the future.

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

Subject: RE: LINKS Mayoral Forum

That's too bad! What happened?

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

LINKS receives some funding from the city and their new ethics rules prohibits any involvement in any type of election that may appear to be a future benefit for an organization that receives funds. Even though LINKS cannot endorse per our 501C3 status, the legal team at the city wants to make sure that no lines are crossed. Hope that helps.

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

I was baffled until I read "...the legal team at the city..." Now it makes perfect sense.

It is unfortunate for all of us, because I'm sure your organization would have provided some great points of discussion. However, I look forward to seeing you again whenever that happens!

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

Am forwarding you this message thread between me and (another).

As you may know, (this person) works with the LINKS organization. LINKS was to sponsor a TELEVISED mayoral forum, and (person) invited me.

Obviously, they got some pressure (you can guess from where). Rather than suffering the embarrassment of uninviting just me, 'they' decided to tell LINKS to cancel the event.

So, it sounds like in applying this pressure, the powers that be actually HAVE influenced the election!

As one of those who coordinated the effort to put together the ethics rules, did you or your folks ever anticipate they'd be applied in this manner?

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

Neither the City's Code of Ethical Behavior (Ordinance 3675) nor the City's ethics rules set forth in s. 14-135 abrogate the First Amendment and, thereby, prohibit the sponsorship of a political event.

Obviously the event would have to be conducted in a fair fashion open to all candidates and without endorsements, but there would nothing inappropriate with hosting such an event. This is nothing more than a continuation of the Law Department's attempts to discredit and demean the City's ethics policies. There is no provision in the ethics code or rules to even apply.

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

In case you haven't already heard, Manross cut Nan off during public comment this evening. She accused Nan of stumping, and Robberson backed her up with an opinion that public comment speakers SHOULD NOT refer to themselves as candidates lest the City be accused of using public funds (airtime for Cable 11, etc.) to favor a candidate.

Correct me if I am wrong, but public comment is for the citizens to discuss ANYTHING so long as it is not an agendized item, right?

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

Yes. You are correct. It is called the First Amendment. More reason to fire the City Attorney who, as you know, doesn't think that Council members should talk to citizens.

……..and the saga continues on a daily basis.

We all wonder who Betty Drake really is. She has a business in Scottsdale and has had to recuse herself from voting on numerous occasions because of a possible conflict of interest (she has a community planning company?).

She claims to be a horse person yet votes in lock-step with the mayor, Ecton and McCullagh for a nonsensical Dust Ordinance without a second thought about what will happen to small businesses and rural residents who live on larger parcels of property, raise farm animals, or those who use the 20 square mile area around Granite Mountain for controlled recreation.

We voted her onto the council to provide full representation of the citizenry so there would never be a tie vote on the council. A tie vote would cause anything voted on to be voted down because there wasn’t a majority vote either direction.

Do we want people on the council who must recuse themselves on numerous occasions because of conflicts of interest from time to time? Don’t they owe us their full, undivided attention and votes when required?

How can Ms. Drake claim that she doesn’t have an ethical conflict of interest when she is working on a project of which part is in Scottsdale and the other is in Paradise Valley? She claims she is only working on the Paradise Valley section. Just how do you pull something like that off when the entirety of the project needs to be coordinated almost daily to make competent and coordinated completion a reality?

She also must vote on projects owned by developers and builders with whom she may or has done business with over the years. Could this cause her to favor the developer or builder? Even in the slightest amount? Unacceptable.

She also was not excited about the new Ethics Code which has cramped more than just her "Style" on the council.

We need to elect people to the Council who are unquestionably ethical, doing all work above the table in the light of day, and don’t have to recuse themselves from any vote unless it directly concerns them personally.

Who are the donors to her campaign? Are there any developers, family members of developers, etc. other than "just plain folks" on her contribution list?

Betty Drake is a nice person but doesn’t think or agree with the majority of the citizens.

Could it be time for us to vote her out of office so she can go back doing what she does best: plan communities and other types of developments?

(Return to Top)

The Super Bowl came to town. SouthBridge opened with restaurants and specialty shops. The Arizona Canal landscaping was completed. Yet, for downtown Scottsdale, sales receipts for the first three months of 2008 were down across the board from the same period in 2007.

 ~ Scott Thomas Writes Fiction

We almost fell down laughing after reading the "My Turn" by Scott Thomas entitled "Washington's Campaign pushes single Issue" in the Wednesday, 6-18 Scottsdale Republic "My Turn".

How far off center is this guy Thomas? John Washington is the ONLY mayoral candidate who is making Manross toe the mark on what she is absolutely scared to death to answer. She absolutely HATES having John on the panel because he answers all the questions she won't because he knows the answers and she doesn't. John also points out the fact that she hasn't answered any of the questions posed to her while others have!! He is very well verses in most all city issues and would put Scott Thomas to shame just as he does Manross because Washington would run rings around him with his knowledge of the city.

Thomas also made a serious blunder and let's a Manross secret out of the bag when he calls Washington "A guy who could not afford to run for council...." . Washington might well be able to by and sell Thomas over and over but since when is how much money you have one of the criteria to run for office, unless of course you are Ron McCullagh who has garnered almost 90% of his campaign money from verified developers?

We always thought it was the message, knowledge, ability and the understandable promises made by the candidate. Tony Nelssen ran away with the election 2 years ago for a mere ^$7,500. Richard Thomas lost miserably a few years back after reportedly spending over  ^$100,000 dollars.

The only way Mary Manross has won elections is because she is a good campaigner, but that's all. When she doesn't get her way, she mumbles and fumbles, then pouts and shouts over others showing her weaknesses all over the place in stark  and obvious disarray and she can't find anything to hang on to verbally, whereas she then looks to be a basket case. Look closely next time she's at a forum where she is unable to wrest control away from the moderator. She looks as if she's about to totally lose it right in front of you.

Mr. Thomas would do well to reconsider his article. He'll find she has buffaloed him into oblivion, but she won't buffalo the voters this time; everyone's on to her modus operandi.

(Return to Top)

~Letters to the Editor  

 ~ Disgusted with Manross Attitude

Dear Activist,

My wife and I watched in disbelief at the last Council meeting on Tuesday night, as the Mayor cut off candidate Nan Nesvig halfway through her speech for speaking out about the rights of citizens to have a voice in our city government.

It was evident to us that Mayor Manross does not want anyone interfering with what she and the City Staff secretly decide about Scottsdale’s future. I hate to tell Mayor Manross, but we elected her to help us become a great city, yet she has disappointed us with her power hungry tyrant like attitude.

She has no real concern for our rights as citizens. We were thankful that candidate Nesvig spoke about the subject of Council’s obligation to serve the public and to listen to the citizens.

I hope that others understand that the Mayor and the incumbents, Drake and McCullagh, are all singing from the same sheet of music: they don’t care about what the citizens think – they only care about themselves. This is no way to run a city like Scottsdale. We need to remove all three of them from office.

Tom Visco
Resident of Scottsdale

(Return to Top)

 ~ O’Connor Should Move On

I think it’s incredulous that our apparently crazy Mayor, Councilwoman Betty Drake and Transportation Director Mary O’Connor think that residents are going to walk and ride bicycles all over Scottsdale year round.

With the current temperatures hovering near or above 110⁰, you could shoot a 6" cannon ball down any sidewalk or bike path with a howitzer and nary hit a bike or a pedestrian within miles. This will be the case as long as temperatures are over about 90⁰ which is the majority of the time in Scottsdale. At the same time, motor vehicles will be shoved into narrower roads to accommodate the bike lanes and wider pedestrian walkways.

Oh yes, there are the kooks out there who would ride their bikes anytime just to say they did. There are also those who cannot get a drivers license, some with nefarious backgrounds who ride bikes.

Those with any brains and care about the health of their bodies would never stress their bodies to that point.

Isn’t it time we canned O’Connor and replaced her with someone who can figure out that Scottsdale residents WILL NOT give up their cars to walk or pedal anywhere?

We’ll be voting out Manross, Drake and McCullagh in September so they’re already becoming "non-entities".

E Slocomb
Scottsdale

(Return to Top)

~ Major Manross Faux Pas

Mayor Manross,

You should be ashamed of yourself.  To quote you directly from your lecture to John Washington (at an earlier council meeting), "you should be ashamed of yourself".

On the weekly meeting notice and agenda document distributed at the Council meeting, it is clearly stated

"Public Comment. This time is reserved for citizen comments regarding non-agendized items." 

Please have the records department supply me with a copy of the document that says "no candidate for political office may speak about himself and his or her values during Public Comment time".

Susan Wood
Scottsdale

(Return to Top)

~ The Recollection

Back in the early 1990s, the McDowell Sonoran Land Trust was looking for convincing facts to get the businesses and citizens in Scottsdale to support the idea of preserving the McDowell Mountains. 

One day I ran into a developer from Newport Beach California.  He told me that he had traveled to Scottsdale to help in this preservation effort.  He explained that any tourism destination, such as Scottsdale, must protect the romantic allure that causes tourists with disposable income to come to this destination. 

This is increasingly important with the dramatic increase in air fares that our Country is experiencing.  He confessed that he felt guilty about his role in destroying the romantic allure of Newport Beach and Balboa Island.  He had made tens of millions back in the 60s and 70s building dense packed homes along the coast.  In hindsight he couldn't believe that the Newport Beach city staff had fallen victim to his hype about dense packed homes. 

In the process Newport Beach lost its romantic allure and tourism fell off like a stone.  Hotels that sold for in excess of $70 million dollars in the 60s could not find a buyer for even $6 million.  Many of the related businesses that relied on tourism experienced a similar severe downturn.  Taxes on homes in the area increased dramatically to make up the loss of taxes formerly generated by the now defunct tourism business. 

Why do I relate this story?  It bears repeating as we consider height and density limits in downtown Scottsdale.  There are developers who look hungrily at the downtown area, seeking to raise the height limits and increase the density of the downtown. 

They argue that this represents intelligent and necessary growth.  Bear in mind that they are motivated by the same desire of the fellow from Newport Beach that he now feels so guilty about.  His desire was to sell a lot of dense packed homes and reap a huge profit. 

He was successful but in the process he destroyed Newport Beach as a tourism destination. 

Should we, the hospitality oriented businesses and citizens of Scottsdale, fall victim to what happened in Newport Beach? 

Let's not kill the goose that lays the golden egg!

John J Nichols
Scottsdale,
jnichols13@cox.net
Former Vice Chairman
McDowell Sonoran Land Trust
Former Commissioner
McDowell Sonoran Preserve Commission

(Return to Top)

~....Merrill's Answer to Nichols

Dear Mr. Nichols,

I am in receipt of your letter below from a member of the city council and must say I am dumbfounded by the late interjection from people in positions such as yourself and the preserve.  It has been expressed to me many times over the last 5 years from residents of the north that the only section of the city that really has a clue as to what is going on in this city and under its present leadership is the southern residents.

I was sitting on my couch this Fathers Day watching the 108th US Open as I read your letter of a story of a developer and thought to myself how many times it has been that I have relayed the same countless scenarios that you have written about and wondered to myself where some of the groups such as yours have been in the issue of not just height and density, but also the loss of tourism and the damages that the present leadership has inflicted on this city.

I also stopped to wonder as I read about the rattlesnake design for a portion of the desert discovery center and had to wonder if the city and its residents who have paid for much of the preserve had all lost their minds to not speak out against such stupidity, as well as the now conversation about placing an entertainment venue for the "arts" people in our preserve. 

Another interesting thing that happened before I read your letter was the front page story of Arizona Republic with the leading line of "Population Counts were far off mark" and shows the tell tale signs of developer sway to over inflate a city councils ego of what they could become instead of what they already are and how changes of their visions have destroyed destinations such as Scottsdale.

I guess the fact of failing downtown developments like the waterfront that sits nearly empty and with no signs of life along with some of the others like the Main Street development, the X Lofts, the 3rd avenue development, and even the Valley Ho do not ring a bell with our present leadership that we made huge errors in the future of our city and it is quite disappointing to people like me who have lived here all of our lives to know that you can not make this band of clueless morons understand that what at they have been doing is going to be the destruction of this city and what it was.

Don't get me wrong Mr. Nichols, I am not one of the anti growth groups and every city needs growth to some degree and also some change but the issue is we need to grow sensibly and we need to maintain our assets to make people want to continue to come here. 

Which Way Scottsdale made the clear point that the city was in danger of losing our uniqueness and for the last 8 years our council has done everything they can to make sure that we do and that is the bottom line.

Stories like yours are great and I have sent many of the same types of scenarios and stories to our council over the last 6 or more years and look where it has gotten us. I suggest that people in your position take a different approach like the south will come this election and that is to remove everyone we can on the council and elect people who actually do understand these issues and are not tied to the developers coat string, or wallets.

If you want to instill the change to keep us from becoming another one of those stories, I would suggest you get the Northern voters off their un-informed butts and make them see the reality that if they keep voting people like Manross into office you have no hope of keeping Scottsdale what it has been since the late 1800'S which was a tourist destination.

It is going to take people like yourself and others over 4 years to turn the city back into the right direction, but that will only work with one factor being the major one, regime change.

These stories do no good to make our elected leaders understand as they seem to be off in their own little world and the only thing that will reverse this course of insanity is indeed the city coming together and removing the problem, our present leadership and where they think we should go as opposed to the residents desire of what they want the city to be in the future.

Hope you had a great Fathers Day, as well as the rest of you in this response.

Respectfully,
Michael Merrill
Chairman, Citizens for Responsible Redevelopment

(Return to Top)

 Dust, Schmust; Who Needs the Dust Ordinance??

So the politicians say this dust cloud was man-caused??

Since it has been determined by meteorologist across the valley that we have begun our monsoon season the following major problems will be solved:

 

1. Illegal Immigration

2. Dumping sex-offenders back into society

3. No Federal funding for our highways

4. The Cave Creek School Board will disappear

5. No more dust fines

 

What happens? A dust storm will come...we all get valley fever...we all die...any survivors move to New Mexico.

Connie Baddgor & Christine Bohrer
Scottsdale

(Return to Top)

  Living in the Land of Oz

 ~Do you wonder why we lose in court all the time in Oz?

Okay Ozites I have come to the conclusion yet again that we are wasting taxpayer’s money by leaps and bounds in regards to our legal staff and their leader.

On the 17^th of this month the ignorant three ring circus was yet again in session and yet again our illustrious and quite clueless Mayor showed yet again her stupidity and audacity by interrupting a speaker from the floor and none the less that it was Nan Nesvig who she decided to interrupt with some cock and bull story about the use of the public podium as a political campaign area. Needless to say if anyone was watching the meeting they could have easily noted that Nan was there to speak on the height and density issues as well as he lack respect for residential input by the council majority.

Now, clearly over the years of election drama in this city, it can be noted that in those many years there have been many candidates that have come to the podium to speak to the council and also to mention that they were a candidate for office and the most recent one to come to mind on many occasions is that Joel B person. Now Joel has mentioned many times like others running for office that he was a candidate for office and yet Mary the Fairy never interrupted him when he made those remarks.

So why would Mary now interrupt a speaker and of all speakers Nan Nesvig?

I mean really, this council has made it clear that they do not want people to know who is running for office by the sign ban or as we like to refer to it, the Incumbent Protection Act that Ron "the Craven Weasel" McCullagh finally got passed.

Well Mother Mary’s contention was that it was illegal to make these political speeches from the podium because it was broadcast over cable channel 11 which in turn is paid for by the taxpayers and the real chap in Mary’s hide is that she cannot do it as she is already an elected official and would place her in violation of state election laws and we all know if the Queen herself cannot do it than no one can ( oh really, listen more closely next time she speaks).

Well then our illustrious moron of a mayor asks the city attorney about the issue and that is once again where the fun begins.

Yes our dear legal eagle even made mention of the use of public amenities to further ones campaign during an election season and she rang all the bells and whistles of her stupidity when she stated that it may be better if the person speaking would not mention she is a candidate for office . Too bad our great legal mind of the city does not seem to comprehend what the law really says, the law says the city can not use these resources to "influence the outcome of an election" and it says nothing of mentioning that you may be a candidate for office.

Here is the "legal eagles" direct quote:

Excuse me, did this women ever attend a law school or has she ever figured out how to read the laws of the state or is she as clueless and roped in as her boss the Mayor? Has she ever gone to a class on public speaking?

I would love to hear our dear legal mind of brilliance tell me one section of state laws that she can refer to or give me that says that a candidate for office would not be allowed to go to the podium and make comments as Nan did that night, and again I would love to hear just what laws our legal mind was referring to when she stated that "it is getting close to crossing the line."

What line? If it were an already elected official using the podium to make his speech that would be one thing under the conflict of interest laws but there is nothing in any law in the books that says that a candidate running for office may not make mention of that during a perfectly legal 3 minutes of public comment.

Remember that public comment is the time that "any person" may come down and make comments to the council about any issue or any thing they want as long as it is not an agenda item.

Now our legal eagle in charge stated that "we cannot use public money to influence an election" and she also states that this is a legal requirement and again I would ask that our legal brilliance show where in the state laws it makes this statement under election laws. There are laws about this under the special taxing districts and it is also found under 9-500.14. Use of city or town resources or employees to influence elections; prohibition;

So, while you are at the podium making your comments to the governing body or even the ignorant three ring circus in this case, and even if you mention that you are a candidate for office but are still making a point to an issue such as Nan did regarding height and density along with the fact that she also mentioned how unresponsive our elected leaders are to the matter at hand, Nan never violated any laws, the city violated no laws and our legal eagle is as dense as the day is long and could never defend her comments or actions in court once someone showed the video of what actually transpired.

The fact is that Mary the Fairy does not want Nan around in the election and she surely does not want to have such an intelligent and caring person on the Dais with her. So in the usual Manross fashion she decides to interrupt the 3 minutes of public testimony from Nan and never has stopped anyone else from doing or even spoken out against it before, just to try to keep Nan from doing what everyone else has done for many years at our council meetings and that is letting people know that they are running for office.

There was no campaign speech and Nan was speaking to an issue, as did Tom Giller earlier, that was not on the agenda which again was height and density issues as well as a lack of action on behalf of our present majority of nitwits to come to the public and discuss these issues.

When did that become a political speech that was about the candidate and their platform? Now that would have been illegal and should have been stopped but I guess our legal eagle has yet to figure out that part of the law.

Maybe someone should point out to the Queen of the Dais that she herself has repeatedly and continually violated the open meeting laws and maybe the legal eagle should sit her boss down and explain those violations to her, but then again someone would have to explain it to our legal eagle also.

It is with a heavy heart we pass along to our readers the loss of a good friend and silent activist named Paul Reich.

Most of our readers will not know who Paul was or how nice of a guy Paul was. As a member of the Scottsdale Coalitions Steering Committee and one of the original members of the Coalition, Paul was loved by all.

Paul’s great love was always the Chaparral Park and his continual commitment to making sure the city kept the park clean and groomed for everyone to enjoy. I remember his e-mails to the council where he would constantly ask the city to do something about the continual amount of garbage that the users of the park would just throw on the ground. Now Paul was not the type to just ask the city to do something about the issue and I know that when he took his daily walks in the park he would carry a garbage bag and stop and pick up what others would just throw to the ground.

Paul was always active with the Coalition and you would see him on occasions at city council meetings when there was an issue he cared about or took an interest in and he was always willing to put his name on a public comment card to give to a speaker who needed more time to present their arguments to the city.

I wish I would have taken my friend up on the last time he asked me if we could do lunch at our favorite watering hole and I will remember that I told him we would have to reschedule that lunch to now realize that we have no chance to catch up on city politics and have a laugh about our elected leaders.

Paul passed away Thursday night and I know that there are many in the Coalition who will miss him along with his friends and family and one of the biggest places that will miss him will be his beloved Chaparral Park.

Michael Merrill
Brutal Critic
F8713@aol.com

Halfway through my speech, I was interrupted by Mayor Manross who admonished me for making what she called "a political speech". She further declared my speech out of compliance with Scottsdale’s rules for Public Comment.

A quick check of those rules and confirmation of them with the City Clerk revealed that there is actually no such rule for political type speeches in Scottsdale.

Public Comment is just that – public comment – and one can say or do anything they wish with their three minutes in front of the City Council so long as it is not derogatory or illegal. This is an individual’s First Amendment right.

Mayor Manross’ comments concerning my alleged political stumping were referred to our City Attorney, Deborah Robberson, for additional comment, at the meeting. Ms. Robberson attempted to clarify the reasons why my speech might skirt the lines of political stumping, and she concluded that I was not actually in the wrong by speaking in front of the Council. I was permitted to continue with my speech to conclusion.

My purpose for speaking in front of Council was not political in the least. The intent was a simple one: to bring to light the City Council’s poor listening skills with regard to our citizens and businesses and also to request that the Council consider the citizens’ petitions with an open mind, and in accordance with what the city website preaches regarding open government standards. These standards include the City’s Ethics Code, which establishes a "mindset of openness." After all, our Mayor and Council are elected officials, appointed by the citizens of Scottsdale, to serve the citizens and businesses of Scottsdale. Their goal should not be to foster their (Council’s) own personal agendas or those of deep-pocketed lobbyists or special interest groups. Their goal should be to serve the public’s needs. My speech was not, in any way, shape or form, political stumping for votes. I was speaking in support of the necessity of a voice for our citizens and businesses. Mayor Manross would have realized that, had she allowed me to complete my speech without interruption.

Scottsdale has a habit of cutting our citizens and businesses off at the knees when it comes to hearing their side of the story at the government level. Council’s alleged agenda with regard to development or progress in Scottsdale does not always jive with that of our citizens and businesses, yet our elected officials won’t deviate from their plans to accommodate those who will be affected by their decisions. I believe this to be a travesty and a clear, direct breach of duty on their part.

Tuesday night, I took my licks like a big girl in front of Council because the message to the public was clear: Mayor Manross and the Council Majority feel threatened by the mere thought of our Scottsdale’s citizens and business owners speaking out against "their plan" for our future. Why else would they so adamantly vote against letting those who live and work in Scottsdale, those who, without a doubt, matter the most, have a voice?

Nan Nesvig
Candidate, Scottsdale City Council

(Return to Top)

The latest basic Information is out for the current slate of candidates for the upcoming election.

Click on the link below to see the list as provided by the Scottsdale City Clerk.

http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/elections/2008CandidateListing.asp

(Return to Top)

 ~ Council and Mayoral Candidates Information

(Return to Top)

 ~Old Butch

John was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young layers (hens), called 'pullets,' and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs.

He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced. This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing. Now, he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report by just listening to the bells.

John's favorite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen, but this morning he noticed old Butch’s bell hadn't rung at all!

When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, could run for cover.

To John's amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one.

John was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.

The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the No Bell Piece Prize but they also awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well.

Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at Sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention.

...the bells are not always audible.

 (Return to Top)

 ~Why We are Paying So Much for Gasoline!

Thanks to the environmentalist lobby and its influence on Democratic and Liberal Republican legislators in Congress, the U.S. has, for decades, been prohibited from drilling for oil in places that we know contain billions of barrels of proven reserves.

Check out this map:

All of the "NO" zones are places where the U.S. , thanks to the Democratic Party, the liberal Republicans, and the environmentalists, is prohibited from drilling for oil or natural gas.





But wait, it gets better.

*** China, Cuba , Canada and others continue to drill off our shores where US companies are not allowed to drill because of Democratic and Liberal Republican policies!

Yes, that's right. China and Cuba are actively exploring oil fields 50 miles from Key West , Florida while U.S. companies are barred from working in this area because of U.S. policy . So, instead of allowing the most environmentally responsible companies to operate there and increase our domestic supply, China , who has a dismal environmental record, is preparing to suck our close, lucrative oil reserves dry.

Unbelievable!

Note the sudden increase in price at the pump under the "new" congress (We're now at about ^$4.25 a gallon).

This isn't to say the Bush Administration did everything right, but weren't we promised by the "new" congress that things would get better?

Investor's Business Daily recently explained just how irresponsible the Democrats have been on the energy crisis. They lay into what they consider to be the worst Congress ever for...

~ Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as President Bush noted, estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from this source alone -- enough for 27 million gallons of gas and diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay through the nose at the pump so your representative can raise campaign cash.

~ Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. hasn't built one since 1976, yet the EPA requires at least 15 unique 'boutique' fuel blends that can be sold in different areas around the nation. This means that U.S. refinery capacity is stretched so tight that even the slightest problem at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price spikes. Congress has done nothing about this.

~ Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants -- the same as a decade ago -- producing just 19% of our total energy. (Many European nations produce 40% or more of their power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power plants are expensive -- about $3 billion each. But they produce energy at $1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35 for natural gas.

~ Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity. So by proposing 'windfall' and other taxes on energy companies plus tough new rules, Congress only makes our energy situation worse.

These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission -- all while India , China , Eastern Europe and the Middle East are adding more than a million barrels of new demand each and every year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand growing 40% by 2030, including a 28% increase in the U.S.

Americans who are worried about the direction of their country, including runaway energy and food prices, should keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing a new president.

We'll also pick a new Congress.

(Return to Top)

 ~ Cantoni Confab

If you read this and don’t agree that the proposed arrests for fraud should be made, then the likely explanation is that you are either brainwashed, ignorant of the facts, a patsy, or in cahoots with the crooks. Or maybe you have the brain of a head of lettuce.

Alternatively, if you have a real brain but don’t become angry enough to take action after reading about the fraud, then you probably don’t love your country or your children and grandchildren.

I’m not referring to the arrests yesterday of Wall Street hedge-fund traders who were paraded by the FBI in front of TV cameras in a "perp" walk. Essentially scapegoats, they are accused of fraud for not telling investors the truth about the plummeting value of sub-prime mortgage investments.

I’m referring to the crooks and liars who are engaging in far, far greater frauds -- frauds that are destroying the country from within, robbing children, stealing nest eggs, and pitting one generation against another. With absolutely no hyperbole, I’m speaking of the White House, the Supreme Court, the Federal Reserve, and Congress, including the two presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain. They should be paraded in handcuffs in front of TV cameras.

I’m serious about this, and trust that you will be, also.

If the United States is truly a nation of laws, then the people who make the laws, enforce the laws, and interpret the laws should at least be held to the same legal standards as Wall Street traders. A case could be made that they should be held to higher standards, given the power and trust that you and other citizens have bestowed on them. But I’d settle for the same standards, as that would be an improvement over the current lack of accountability.

Before you pooh-pooh the idea of putting the nation’s pooh-bahs in handcuffs, please read the following examples of their massive frauds.

- There is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund. It has been purloined and spent on other things. Can you imagine what would be done to the executives of Fidelity Investments if they were to pillage the mutual funds under their control and pretend that everything was hunky-dory? Members of Congress would be grandstanding in front of the TV cameras, asking for their heads.

- Social Security and Medicare are textbook Ponzi schemes, in which early investors are paid off handsomely with money from later investors until the pyramid schemes collapse from unsustainable payoffs. At current payoff rates, each American under the age of 18 will be stuck with a bill of over $700,000 to pay the entitlement benefits of those who got into the schemes before them. Do you hear members of Congress railing against this fraud?

- Not only has the Supreme Court not done anything to stop the foregoing illegal schemes, but the justices have ruled that it is constitutional and just for the government to engage in the fraud and renege on promises. The movie Judgment at Nuremberg shows what should be done to jurists who go along with an unjust system to gain power and prestige.

- Past and present governors and chairpersons of the Federal Reserve know that if something is not done about the nation’s profligate spending and cataclysmic deficits, they will have no choice but to print money and debase the dollar, thus imposing a hidden and insidious tax on Americans, especially those who save money and thereby provide the capital for economic growth. Yet the governors and chairpersons speak in euphemisms about the situation instead of taking a principled and public stand against it. They are aiding and abetting the crooks and should be treated accordingly.

- At root, the sub-prime mortgage mess was caused by government policies, programs, and agencies, as well as by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are quasi-governmental corporations that cooked their books and, in one case, paid a disreputable CEO $90 million. That CEO, instead of being put in handcuffs and paraded in a perp walk, became an advisor to Mr. Change, Barack Obama.

 Mr. Change is the same guy who wants to engage in fraud by increasing the capital gains tax from 15 percent to 20 percent. Why is that fraudulent? Because the tax is levied on "gains" from inflation instead of on only real gains. For example: Suppose that a $100,000 investment increases in value over a year to $104,000, not from a real gain but from inflation of four percent -- inflation caused by the government. In terms of purchasing power, the investor has the same amount of money at the end of the year that he had at the beginning of the year. Ah, but then Mr. Change takes 20 percent of the $4,000, thus leaving the investor $800 worse off. Mr. Change describes this injustice as social justice, proving that it’s easy to fool people with lettuce for brains.

There are scores of other examples, but the foregoing should be enough for you to answer this closing question: Do you think that the crooks in government should be treated the same as crooks on Wall Street, or do you have the brain of a head of lettuce?

An author, columnist, and 80 percent vegan, Mr. Cantoni eats a lot of lettuce and can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

(Return to Top)

~ Information You Can Use

Just click on the logos below to go to these websites.

Send our Brave Troops "Something from Home", Click on  Links below.

Gathering of  Eagles Website was launched 2/9/07. Click on the Logo above for more information on how they are protecting America's Memorials.

~ UPDATE!! A "Must See" for All Americans

Every American should check out all of these websites to learn more about what the American population is about to have to deal with.

This is NOT for Children.

I don't normally allow anything but Scottsdale information in the Scottsdale Activist but after receiving many emails about this and viewing it, I think that it's imperative that every adult at least look at what's offered here if for  nothing more than their own education and to have everyone stop and think about the future of our country. Click on the link below,

 www.obsessionthemovie.com

If you don't have Adobe Flash, install it from the bottom of the page that comes up after you click on the link above. You should be able to view all available links within the main page.

The website below is of great interest as seen from a Lebanese point of view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8fa9yKQeTY

The website below gives some history of Terrorist attacks:

http://patriotfiles.org/civilizationcalls.htm

This website tell you what REALLY happened:

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened

(Return to Top)

~ Arizona Tax Revolt

~ Prop 13 Arizona

(Return to Top)

~ View Past City Council Meetings

We can now access the city council meetings by clicking on the following link:

If you have any problems, check your firewall and other safety features which could block access to the city site.

~Continuing Light Rail Information

The Scottsdale Citizens Transportation Study Committee invites you to view their website for more questions and answers at  www.norailforscottsdale.com .

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

Simply click on the links below to get all the information you'll ever need concerning Light Rail.

     Goldwater Institute Report

     American Dream Coalition

    The Public Purpose

If you have any questions about light rail, send them to editor@scottsdaleactivist.com and we'll get the answers to you as soon as we can.

(Return to Top)

 

~ For Continuing Information on Photo Radar,
Click on the Logo below.

(Return to Top)

 ~Are Red-Light Cameras Fair to Drivers?

These modern-day robocops make ticketing easier and can be huge moneymakers for local governments. But critics question their accuracy and fret over privacy issues.

Click on the link below , then scroll down to read the article:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/AreRedLightCamerasFairToDrivers.aspx

(Return to Top)

The Scottsdale Activist is very pleased to announce an effort on the behalf of the residents and taxpayers of the city of Scottsdale to promote open, honest and accountable city government. The Scottsdale Legal Defense Fund (SLDF) has been created to take legal action to hold the City accountable when its actions are contrary to state law, the City Charter, City ordinances or the public interest.

The most necessary ingredient to make the SLDF work will be confidential contributions from concerned Scottsdale citizens who are willing to help their community.  By contributing, we can change the way City Hall does business and insure that our tax dollars will be spent wisely.

No funds from the SLDF will or can be used for any political purpose.

Contributions shall be kept confidential as permissible by law and can be made in any Washington Mutual Bank to account number 3114165786 for the Scottsdale Legal Defense Fund. Branch locations are listed below. Contributions are not tax deductible.

The SLDF has retained the law firm of Miller LaSota & Peters, PLC, in connection with the patently illegal action taken by the Mayor and Council appointing the most recent Scottsdale City Attorney, while ignoring the residency requirement of the Scottsdale City Charter even though the new City Attorney’s contract (according to Scottsdale Republic reporter Laurie Roberts) requires that she reside in Scottsdale.  The City Council action was based on a legal opinion which was reportedly rendered during a closed door Executive Session of the City Council by a subordinate to the then acting City Attorney, who was subsequently appointed to the City Attorney position by a vote during a public City Council meeting. The opinion has been requested as a public document under state law, but the City has not yet provided it. The SLDF will take other appropriate legal actions based on the conduct of the Mayor and Council.

Washington Mutual Bank Locations at which contributions to the SLDF can be made are:

72^nd & Shea                    7337 E. Shea Blvd #120                480-609-8524
Hayden & Chaparral     7908 E. Chaparral # C-113            480-949-0069
Horizon                            14854 N Frank Lloyd Wright         480-614-6660
Scottsdale Ranch          10155 E. Via Linda Blvd #131       480-767-2060
Kierland Village              6501 E. Greenway Pkwy #133     480-315-2905

There are many other branches throughout the Valley.