Scottsdale Activist #165

True to his word, as he always has been, right or wrong, Henry has removed the signs on his property on Pima at Happy Valley Road based on a promise he made publicly that if Mary Manross was defeated in the election he would remove the the obnoxious signs (but not the Kokopeli's or art work).

Thank you Henry, we sincerely appreciate your efforts and the keeping of your promise!!

I am the on staff LEED AP for the Scottsdale Epicenter and recently responsible for the community outreach regarding our proposed zoning request. I think it is too bad that information is being passed around that is un factual at best.

First, I want to comment that not one single person showed up to our open houses. Not one! Secondly, I would like to address a few of your points in your newsletter, and if time allows, I will address all of them. When we leased this property, we had no idea of the magnitude of the drainage problems that plagued this site and the sites below us caused by the developments upstream from our site. To this date, we have spent upwards of a few hundred thousand dollars trying to rectify a very serious flooding problem that we did not cause but have to fix.

There is no view corridor being lost whatsoever. If you had been at the hearing that lasted until 12:30am the next day like I was, you would have seen the visual study we did that was so lengthy, we were actually asked to stop showing the photos by the commission members. Our proposed hotel heights are sandwiched between 130 foot power poles, a 25’ elevated freeway and set back on the property to the point where they won’t affect any view corridor. Also, in exchange for this height, we agreed to lower our existing right to one single story on Bell AND increase our open space. Did I mention that this piece of the property is 40 feet lower than the other end? I didn’t see any of these facts mentioned in your article.

Without city incentives? Since when is employment, commerce, and all the related revenue from this not a city incentive? What about our impact fees, our entitlement fees, our permitting fees? Our ability to increase the viability of the hospitality for West World? What about the fact that this corner with its amenities will give people that work in our offices and other nearby offices a place to eat and run errands without getting in their cars? Oh, and the park, did you tell your readers about the park that will finally be provided? Our project will provide the city and the community jobs, revenue, and vitality. Currently, the vacant, power pole ridden, 125 acres lot does none of this. Right now it gives Bell a substantial flooding problem and plenty of dust.

Have you read the study data from the Greater Airpark Community? I have. To ask that all progress be halted in the meantime while a study is taking place doesn’t seem that practical of advise for a City with diminishing income sources. Should the Commission and Council just put a moratorium on all development activity while a study takes place? If you read the data that the study has acquired, you may come to the conclusion that the Commission and Council is doing generally what will be asked of them, which is to judge a project on its merits.

You mentioned that "ALL existing development on the southern side of E Bell Rd complied with the 36 foot limit". But what you failed to mention was that there is greater height all around us on higher elevations than our property and so far no one’s life has been lessened or property values been diminished. Which you can’t say the same with the effects of this cataclysmic economic crisis that is projected to get a lot worse before it gets better.

And lastly, you mentioned, the camel’s nose under the tent. We have our property rights like you have yours. We are given a governmental process from which to make requests. Making one request does not guarantee another nor does it stifle our right to access the process as we deem appropriate. That is the purpose and the function of the Commission and the Council to look at each request on its merits and decide from there. Who’s good does it serve to accuse someone of using their inherent rights that each and every one of us have?

While I applaud your efforts to create a cohesive stance with your readers, I think it is rather un forthright to leave out relevant information with which your readers can make an education decision.

It’s again obvious that the DRB, Planning Commission and City Council couldn’t care less about the history, citizen feelings, citizen suggestions, or what it will cost the taxpayers.

Sadly, I predict Lane follow in the footsteps of Manross by approving this project which doesn’t deserve to be approved before the General Plan Update for the Airpark is approved. Again, business as usual: possible graft, ignorance, favoritism and apparent corruption still abounds in Scottsdale.

The "diminishing resources" Clute talks about are all courtesy of Jan Dolan under Mary Manross who didn't have a clue as to what they were doing and have cost this city hundreds of useless millions of dollars, need I say more? I am totally disgusted with the operation of this city and pray that Lane, Klapp and Borowsky can somehow figure out what has gone so dreadfully wrong and fix it, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

When you say that we threw our weight around, I assume you are not referring to the over half of a year of everyone’s time and energy, countless of tens of thousands of dollars we have spent on consultants, the ^$150,000 dollars of art that we are now obligated to provide for the Bell gateway, and the 85 plus ADJACENT residents and local nearby businesses that either signed a petition, sent emails, or wrote letters supporting our project.

So did the City staff and the Planning Commission and now the Council finally listen to its citizens? Finally, they did.

If you had been at the hearing, you would have seen the height studies. The DC Crossings ALREADY had a higher height on a higher piece of ground. The West World tent is ALREADY over 80 feet tall. The Perimeter Center is ALREADY over 50+ feet. AND our hotels will be on dirt that is 40 feet LOWER than the north end. Oops, I forgot to mention those pesky 130 foot high power poles that will exist adjacent to the proposed hotels. I am not sure where airport safety comes into play here but these are the facts.

I personally participated in the sustainability portion of the Airpark Study. At no time was this study intended as a tool to halt all development activity while its data is compiled and interpreted and put into a plan. Can you imagine the implications of halting all activity for several years? In contrast, most of the comments stated in this data wants Council to look at projects individually and not blanket out dated ordinances on everything.

If anyone would like to know the full scope of our project instead of hearing it through Ari’s hysterical headlines regarding "angering residents" my doors are always open. My phone number is 480-348-0300 and I will spend as much time as needed to fully explain our project.

Well, well, well. Jim Lane, our Mayor elect has fallen at the very first hurdle.

His vote in support of extra height on the Epicenter project was a complete sellout (it was always expected that, as usual, Manross, Ecton and McCullagh would be in bed with the developers). This is a very bad omen for the future. 56 ft height in North Scottsdale is neither wanted nor approved by the citizens of this city.

The Solis Project vote looks like a done deal as well with Lane falling over himself to support that as well in January.

And what are they going to use as justification - none other than a report by David Roderique, the ex city employee (gone less than a year, is that ethical?) who never bothered to do a discounted cash flow analysis on the SkySong boondoggle (if it had been done of course it would have shown that it was the worst investment of taxpayer money that this city has ever made).

Keep alert folks, our problems are far from over, they may be only just beginning.

Well, we could have predicted the outcome of the Epicenter vote. Lane folded just as we hoped he wouldn't. The community supported him hoping he would pay more attention to the citizens, so much for honesty and caring. The big surprise, better late than never, was Betty Drake voting against the project. Thank you Betty, finally….

This developer is taking full advantage of the stupidity and failure to properly plan on the part of the city planning and inspection staffs which have become very costly and useless in their current configuration. The entire Planning and Inspection Services management team needs to be replaced with competent, qualified people ASAP as most members are under qualified in my educated opinion (many years as a planner in another state). The City council is just as guilty or maybe more so because they don't listen to or care about the city or the citizens, just who they can please who will fill their campaign coffers in the next election or refill those from which they overspent during this election.

It is incumbent upon City Manager John Little to make sure that all of the storm water impact studies are completed a promptly as possible.

All contributors to the Activist have long noted the problems that would occur, and have occurred, when the Desert Greenbelt Flood Project was abandoned.

If those studies are not done, there will be wider spread negative repercussions including the Indian Bend Wash Flood Control Channel further down stream.

Once again the City leadership - Manross, Dolan, Ecton, McCullagh and cohorts have been and continue to be AWOL.

The full court press is on to validate Solis and the SRP move when in reality it cannot be honestly validated in the eyes of the taxpayers.

The Scottsdale Republic is trying to glorify the unwanted project to help get it some traction or approval and acceptance by the public, probably to no avail.

The property where Solis is projected to be built is the smallest parcel of property Mark Madkour has ever developed for this class of resort. Why did he decide on such a small parcel.... or did he is the REAL question isn't it?

The question he has refused to answer over and over is very simple: Are you or do you, Mark Madkour, your company or any partners thereto plan to continue to "assemble" properties between Camelback and Chaparral and the canal and Miller Road anytime in the future, near or distant? This would make sense being that the current property is too small to build the kind of resort-condo-retail development he is famous for building. The above scenario is what is being whispered valley wide but Mark flat refused answer the question saying that it's not germane to the current project or process. That to me smacks of dodging the question big time!!

But does it make sense for Scottsdale to allow the decimation of historic neighborhoods to accommodate a developer through assemblage, or cost neighbors in yet another historic neighborhood to pay the price because of the installation of a distribution station that could easily be fit within the bounds of the current Solis project, solely because of the wants and whims of a multi-millionaire, his partners and their greed?

To say it would cost millions to run new power lines under the canal banks may be correct but the figure is far from hundreds of millions as the article intimates and those costs must be absorbed by the developers needing the added power.

SRP has said publicly that the power needs are as near as 10 to 12 years away or as long as 25 years away AND that all depends upon how dense the city will allow the area adjoining the canal banks to be built (also subject to infrastructure improvements and additions). A lot can happen in that length of time but the canals and the levies which hold them will still be owned lock, stock and barrel by SRP which means that the only property needed to be "ripped up" between 68th Street and east of Scottsdale Road to add another power corridor would be owned Fee Simple by SRP.

Unless of course, the city of Scottsdale is so stupid as to allow building or development ON the canal banks which would be a financial disaster. HELLO!!! Scottsdale IS NOT San Antonio with a river running through it folks, it's a glorified dad gummed irrigation ditch called "The Waterfront" which makes many tourists laugh!!

The numbers Roderique, Berry and others are throwing around don't wash for me either based upon sound economic models, both current and historical.

The still bigger question to me is of serious ethical significance which compounds the problem: Why was David Roderique PAID or hired gratis as a consultant when our understanding of city practices is that any employee, appointed, hired or elected by the city of Scottsdale MUST WAIT ONE YEAR from leaving the service of the city BEFORE being allowed to participate in any manner in any development project within the city limits of the city of Scottsdale and openly admit it???

Mr. Roderique was still working for the City of Scottsdale when the project then known as WaterView was brought forward. He was part of the problem when it comes to advanced planning and infrastructure planning.

He should know costs, because he should have been working with the City planners and engineers to make sure that all infrastructure was upgraded as part of redevelopment, the Downtown Plan Update and the South Scottsdale Area Planning and the Airpark Update. He left in the middle of all of it because he of the city's "glass ceiling," so he said.

There has been no long range plan or planning for the canal bank that includes residential to the capacity that has happened. Residential was never to be located or built on the canal banks!!

Yes, Scottsdale is in a serious financial and Planning mess. It just seems like there is no end to the messes that are being inflicted upon the residents of the neighborhoods in South by non-caring, non-articulate, non-qualified, and non-educated city staff and elected officials.

~State Mandated Smart Growth Not being Followed

As we wind down 2008 here in Scottsdale and we review the vast slate of "community planning," which right now is a knotty problem for us, it is wise to remember that as one of many cities in Arizona, we are required to follow the Smart Growth Plus Act mandated by the Legislature.

A lot of people do not know what that is or what it requires of city government and staff. Well, here is an explanation taken from the Arizona Department of Commerce Smart Growth website:

What is Smart Growth?

Growth itself is neither positive nor negative, but the cumulative effects of population growth, its patterns and form have long-term social, environmental, and economic consequences.

Smart growth is a continuous planning process to guide the preservation, development, or redevelopment of a neighborhood, community, or region to promote the goals and ambitions of its residents. Quality of life, infrastructure, and land use are typically key considerations in the process. Smart growth communities prudently manage and direct their growth-strained resources to assure an economic future consistent with their goals. In addition, smart growth informs economic development efforts by providing a framework to coordinate investments and policies.

Smart growth is guiding growth in ways that result in vibrant communities, strong economies, and a healthy environment. Smart growth means adding new homes, schools, businesses, jobs and infrastructure to Arizona’s economy in ways that make sense and promote balance. Smart growth enhances the communities where we live, without over-burdening our transportation and infrastructure systems, polluting our air and water, or depleting our open spaces and magnificent natural landscapes. Smart growth embodies qualities that make communities great places to live and give them a sense of place – walkable neighborhoods, recreational amenities, historic spaces, vibrant downtowns, choices in transportation, jobs, and housing, prudent investments in capital facilities and infrastructure and opportunities for diversity and citizen involvement.

Around the country, communities are striving to implement new practices of land use development that will maximize investments while also preserving natural lands and critical environmental areas, protecting water and air quality and reusing already-developed land. In turn, the resulting higher quality of life in many of these communities makes them more economically competitive and creates more business opportunities that improve the local tax base.

The Smart Growth Network developed a set of ten principles that reflect the new ways that many communities are positively affecting land use and development:

1. Mix land uses
2. Take advantage of compact building design
3. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices
4. Create walkable neighborhoods
5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place
6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas
7. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities
8. Provide a variety of transportation choices
9. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective
10. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions

So why put this in the Activist? Whether the Activist stays or goes, development in Scottsdale will be lead by redeveloping in and around the mature neighborhoods. Soon those newer neighborhoods in the North are going to be looked to for redevelopment options. So what happens now as we do the advanced planning for South Scottsdale and the Downtown Area which sits smack in the middle of South Scottsdale, will definitely impact every other neighborhood in Scottsdale.

So far the whole thing is nothing to write home about.

Yes you get a lot of complaints from this site about the tunnel vision of the Planning Commission and they deserve it a man. Sorry guys, but you really need to look at the whole General Plan as part of your thought process, not just the stipulations provided by staff, which you find easy enough to ignore anyway.

We don’t pay planning staff to dream up the recommendations they provide you. Those people have educations in community planning and they understand the trends and the laws, don’t blow them off.

It would be good for developers and their staffs to remember that, too. Now matter how you look at it taxpayers pay for new development starting with the planning staff. So don’t take their recommendations so lightly. They are the voice of the people.

Staff needs to remember that, too.

This all brings us back to advanced planning. This not something developers are happy about. They prefer to go on the project by project process.

Whether the project is a good for the surrounding area is not important to them. The want projects to go based solely on the merit of the project.

The design, the site plan, the use, it does not matter if it abuts a residential neighborhood and creates traffic and noise 24/7 that the neighborhood has never had to endure before.

This philosophy and method of development is strongly supported by the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce because it brings business. Forget the residents, citizens, and taxpayer’s quality of life.

We have a new Mayor and two new council members coming on board in January 2009, but this guarantees nothing new.

There are openings on the Planning Commission and those spots can be, should be, filled by people who are knowledgeable and accepting of the process of community participation. We need Planning Commissioners who understand and respect the history of Scottsdale, how to preserve the essence that West and who know how to apply the Smart Growth principals to the whole of it.

There are no special requirements for holding a seat on the Planning Commission. You might think there are because all we have seen sitting up there are developers and architects. They have a very narrow viewpoint that seldom if ever includes the interest of the community.

Keep your eyes and ears peeled. Scottsdale has in the past offered many opportunities for residents to learn and keep up to date on what is going on in their neighborhood. They have provided classes at SCC on planning and development and they have the Neighborhood College program. These programs give you the ground work to build a strong neighborhood voice, based on facts and not on political promises and buzz words. Scottsdale residents are the only ones that can preserve the quality of life for all in Scottsdale.

(Return to Top)

~….When & Where was the Public Informed or Advised on THIS one???

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/131566

Open letter to Connie Padian of the Planning Department:

Here we go yet again, so here are the questions which need to be answered ASAP:

Who personally (firm & specific names please) did the public outreach?

1. Who paid the bill on the outreach (names and firms please)?

2. When was it done (dates, places and times please)?

3. Is a list available of who, when and where those considered the "public" were contacted?

4. Is there a packet with ALL information on the projects given to the "public" available to all who ask?

5. Where would one find ALL of the information that has been offered to the city planning staff concerning this project?

6. Does the city or planning department keep a complete file on ALL projects proposed for city approval?

7. If not, why not?

8. When was this plan brought to light for the city, then to the public and by whom?

9. How was the public notified?

10. Where and when were the "public" outreach meetings held if held at all?

Ladies and gentlemen, all we’re asking for is to be allowed to judge the project for ourselves before it’s set in stone as it was the normal practice of the Manross Administration.

We're not opposed to new revenue coming into the city, we just feel that we need to be allowed to have a say and give input into how the plan is set up and priorities established.

We were hoping that the voters, by changing 2 council members and the mayor, gave the city staff and the council a mandate of sorts concerning the ongoing improvement and developments within the city.

Under Manross, we were never informed or involved until after the fact or it hit the newspapers (as this one did) and we would really like to be informed from day one so we too can be part of the process.

After all, we do pay the taxes which pay all of your wages and supply the subsidies requested.

(Return to Top)

~ Lane and Borowsky Hold Fund Raisers

http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2008/11/28/20081128sr-debtparty1129.html

We all know where Mary Manross got her money and how but it was never really revealed. Still more expected smoke and mirrors stuff.

We also know Jim Lane had to match her bankroll in some way to stay in the race to unseat her for the sake of the city and its survival.

Do I condone the debt fundraiser? NO!! If it had been done voluntarily by the citizens instead of known "Master Peddlers of Influence" in Scottsdale, it would be a different story. Will Jim Lane voluntarily divulge the names and amounts of ALL the contributors, dollar by dollar, to wipe out his debt? I would hope so for the sake of openness, honesty and to preserve his integrity.

Lisa Borowsky on the other hand is a sad story of apparent mass misrepresentation and a total failure to be up front with the electorate concerning her qualifications, reported legal and federal tax problems which ARE the direct business of the voters she will represent.

Her reported problems should have all come out during the campaign but was held close by the Scottsdale Republic and her handlers (including her questionably unethical election and now transition team which reportedly included and still includes Lamar Whitmer) because the Scottsdale Republic endorsed her and others were afraid it would be called 'Mud Slinging" and help her even more if her problems were exposed. It would seem that Lisa reportedly has serious legal and financial problems which Daddy cannot fix this time.

We all agree and predict that Lisa will be forced to resign her seat under pressure from many sides including Federal IRS and Educational Grant problems within 18 months if not a lot sooner based on the city requirements to hold office.

The Borowsky situation vividly points out the total lack of knowledge, research and laziness on the part of the voters who looked at the glitz and glamour portrayed in the slick and expensive mailers instead of what Lisa's historical record and vision was for Scottsdale based on her contributions to and participation in Scottsdale issues over the years. She hasn't attended a City Council meeting, even after she was elected!!

By the way, where exactly are Lisa’s law offices actually located??? Could they be located in a small bedroom in her residence??

Just another sad saga in the election history of Scottsdale and the nation for that matter of late.

(Return to Top)

~Tired of Solicitor Phone Calls?

Check this out.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/12/tsramendments.shtm

We're told it could eliminate even more unwanted phone calls.

(Return to Top)

~ Letters to the Editor

letters@scottsdaleactivist.com

~More Complaints on Code Enforcement

C'mon George, we've had enough of Raun Keagy's excuses and blaming the other regime for his ineptitude. And frankly you've covered for him way too long.

He is the top boss, he was the director and he was the manager, he can't blame all the problems on his other bosses, as worthless as they may have been and he's got to start being accountable for the downward spiral of code enforcement ever since he took the reins.

(Malcolm) Hankins is a joke and should have been fired long ago.

Michelle Bruce should have been fired long ago for her special events (reportedly doing work for her private company on city time) and Carriage Trails issue.

Eric Allen who is a senior inspector who goes home daily for two hour lunches.

The new staff isn't trained won’t make personal contact and they have no clue about what to enforce.

Keagy always passes everything off to Planning if there is an enforcement issue, see the mini storage issue you had this week.

Staff is to be A-political, something Keagy could never grasp he has his head so far up someone backside to protect his retirement that he'll do nothing for the citizens and do whatever for his current boss.

Keagy is the problem and you've given him way too much slack every time there's an issue.

A very concerned and disappointed citizen
Scottsdale

(Return to Top)

~ Living in the Land of Oz

~ An Answer to Jody of Epicenter

Dear Jody,

I got an e-mail from the editor asking if anyone wanted to take a shot at responding to your letter and I thought it would be a hoot to be the one to reply to your letter.

First of all, you must remember this is a website that posts both sides of an issue for anyone like yourself who would like to write in and take a shot on being on the pro side or con side of an issue. As this site is such a fair and reputable place to read happenings this is why you will see your letter posted in the Activist, no editing, and in full.

We cannot say that you will agree with my perspective of the issue, but you may always feel free to submit another letter in response.

There is a reason that no-one showed up to your open houses and you just have the wrong perspective of why this happened. You see, here in Oz, we as residents and people who care about our city and how it grows, and have we been involved with planning and development of the city for countless, thousands of hours. Hours which have been invested in being beaten to a pulp for the last 8 years.

Under the rule of a mad dictator named Mayor Manross and her side kick, former city manager Jan Dolan, along with a partially brain dead council that can’t define Smart Growth Plus that is state law. We are tired of giving input to a bunch of self serving Neanderthals who never listen to a word we tell them and the perfect recent examples are the Downtown Plan Update and the South Scottsdale Community plan. You see we say one thing to them and they come back with an update and tell us we said something else and you should really see how this works if you want a great laugh (they don’t do this up north of course, just down here in the south where they think we are too stupid to figure it out). Personally I tend to have a drink or two before I have to go to one of these things.

Another perfect example was a recent Planning Commission meeting where one of the commissioners asked Howard Myers "what happened to the packed Kiva on these school issues up North?" Howard responded with the truth and that was "people don’t feel the need to come down here anymore because the city never listens."

You will have to forgive me if I tell you that I really don’t care about your drainage issues as you should have done your homework before you leased the land. Personally, I would think that if you lived here long enough or even knew anything about our city, you, as am LEED AP (Leader in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional) would have seen this coming a mile away due to the flood/wash drainage problems in the North since before 2000. But, like I said, we have a dictator and a partial council with mad cow disease.

It is not all the citys fault either though as you developers got away with murder by having your own engineering reports whisked through planning and our crack staff reviews (if they ever got reviewed) causing part of the problem, also.

Not to say our crack dictator and our cracked partial council are also not to blame for this when they killed the drainage greenbelt plan back in 2000 which spelled out that the area was in deep crappola come rainy season.

I guess if you knew about the city before you bought the land you would have known we already have homes and streets up North flooding and here just recently a developer successfully sued us for over 100K for this exact issue.

Personally, my theory on this issue is that the city did this for the purpose of making the land un-appealing for buyers because even though she is a "Mad Dictator" she is not a stupid one.

About those view corridors you mentioned, while I refuse to go to a planning commission meeting as it is a useless task to try to talk with a board made up of developers doing work in the city and making recommendations for approval of projects. I see that as an ethical problem.

I did however see you Tuesday night at the council meeting and you may remember me as the one who spoke in opposition about the re-zoning for the animal hospital and when I went home I watched the presentation by my friend John Berry. Personally, I agree with your assessment about the view corridor however my opinion is also a bit skewed as I see the South now getting a good laugh at our Northern friends because they kept electing these idiots back to their seats while they massacred the zoning laws to do what they did in downtown and the South.

If you know your history of this city you would know that the south is the most heavily populated and densest part of the city, but we cannot seem to get up and out vote the North. It was great to see you help us out here with the other side of the facts that may not have gotten printed however that is what the site is about and would probably be the reason why you are responding.

Tell me Jody, is it also not true that this is just a small parcel of the 100 acres you leased? What will you ask for when you come back to develop the other part of the parcel?

Trust me on the incentives issue as if that was even attempted you would have lost my support in a heartbeat and we would have combined forces North and South to stop the incentives just like the Dial building. Again I will agree with you on the points you make about the benefits of what the project will provide in services for West World and other planned projects like the Desert Discovery Center. I even love the fact that last night you also committed $150,000.00 for a public art entry feature.

Sorry but you cannot sell me on the issue of people not getting in their cars as that is just wrong to try to use that old jargon on us. Have you seen our million dollar transportation plan and did you know that our Mad Dictator gave away all of our revenues to other cities for their traffic plans and light rail?

As for that tiny little park you speak of I guess I don’t have to remind you of the big open space that we call the preserve to go and play in, and we do have other larger parks in the area. The Northern greenbelt wash would have been nice for residents, also.

You see we think large here in Scottsdale about open space and if I am not mistaken your open space was considered to be mostly parking space by Betty Drake. Betty also knows I have issues with the citys guidelines about what can be considered open space and my friend John Berry and I have had this conversation before. I mean really, how you can consider a pool area open space when the pool is private and open space is supposed to be a public benefit and though I am not sure if you will have a pool, or if it is considered part of your open space, I am referring to other projects, too.

By the way, do you have a pool and is it part of your open space calculations?

Is it open to the public? See what I mean about the issue of open space and how the city guidelines are a bit skewed in that matter?

I have read the Greater Airpark Study results and I do agree that certain types of development and advance planning should not be stopped, but should certainly scrutinized by our leaders, and present expectations from those studies should be considered.

Again, I am a bit skewed on this issue of development for the previously mentioned reasons, but my concerns are more in the South than the North and as the council for a change took the right action the other night by denying the up-zoning and approving the text amendment, every area cannot be considered the same and sometimes in certain issues like redevelopment with no plans yet of how we will do this, the city should move at a slower pace and take all considerations into light. Again we go back to the issue of a cracked council and mad dictator.

A city with diminishing income source you say? Surely if you had a clue of the history of our budgets and the process you could easily understand that our money issues are brought on by a council, mayor, and staff administration that is a bunch of drunken pirates ( I say pirates because we do not want to diminish the character of sailors.). Not to ever say we do not welcome new revenue, but the seasoned people of Oz know better than to fall for that ploy.

Come to understand our budget and spending habits under this leadership and then talk to Craig Clifford and ask him if he has not been warning the city of the issue of what we take in and what we pay out and how the council had better get a grip on the spending issue. Craig has been telling our leaders this for the last 6 years and has fallen on the deaf ears of our partial council of brain dead leaders. Then you can come back and try that line again.

Now, this comment of judging a project on its merit is not the councils fault that there is serious actual evidence of the developer being the bad egg on this matter. You come to a planning and council meeting and ask them to approve your "conceptual" plans and what we see, if we like, we approve. However, the developer goes back and seeks those silent amendments from our crack DRB people and you can also get other changes approved by the zoning administrator with just his signature and discretion and nobody is the wiser.

Until of course your project is finished and looks nothing like the conceptual plan we approved.

You see we have a larger distrust in this city of developers than we do of our council in this matter, and this was also stated clearly by Councilman Nelssen and Councilwoman Drake, at the council meeting. So, don’t go sliding down a slippery slope on that comment as I could bury you on that issue alone.

So will your conceptual plans be what we see on your site or will we have another one of those issues to add to the list?

Our readers are very well aware of the height issues and where some of it can be, and we also understand the issue of the city having the right to go up to, I believe 86 feet in West World. Maybe you have not noticed our illegal tent, or at least was illegal until the city decided to get a permit for it (after they built it) and also comply with the fire codes (after it was opened to the public and held events), which is another reason we do not really trust our council on height and density issue decisions.

You also left out the point of the businesses around you that have actually exceeded your height, and I thought we should point that out also.

Your last point Jody seems to be a bit snotty as we all know that people have property rights and we are a big advocate of those rights, but you also forget that we have zoning laws and land use policies along with a partial council of half brain dead participants. A DRB of nitwits, and a Planning Commission that is comprised of all developers and we in this city all know this.

We also have the right to object to your request for your property when you try to change the zoning that was put in place there "for a reason".

The same as you sling half truths in your letter, this site may have also left out some points, and the bigger difference is we know our readers and we know they will form their own opinions on an issue and we give them the links to the city pages for them to go to decide for themselves. However, we love to have letters from the other side of an issue so lets not be snotty, and I would be careful challenging our readers educational values as they have the ability to ask questions and follow links and read for themselves about a project or issue and again we applaud you bringing forward your facts on the issue for our readers to take note of.

The reality is Jody, all of the people who put this site together with just their volunteer hours, and trust me when I say we all do a lot of work for free, are people who know "the history of this city" and what has taken place. From when much of that land up there was owned by council members and re-zoned to their benefit all the way to the dirty politics of hiding in the shadows and who is pulling strings behind closed doors.

My last two points about this letter from Jody are simple ones, and I will try to make them quick.

First of all Jody should not beat up on the website or its editor or even people like me who write columns as it appears that her letter points more to the last posting by COGS (Coalition of Greater Scottsdale) and their remarks about the project and the call for people to write to their elected leaders (we still have that right also as a free country).

This site allows other organizations to post numerous things on this web page as a way to let people know of meetings and issues and they are not affiliated with the web site or the editorial staff. Just the same as we provide many links and postings for other activist groups and news outlets that provide links to their sites.

I think your objections are geared more to the COGS posting than they should be with the web page or editor, don’t you think? This is why your letter will be posted here, too, as we believe in fair play, but don’t beat us up for running a web site that is free to everyone.

Secondly, Jody I would like to re-iterate the issue of questioning our reader’s educational standings and their ability to seek further information about an issue. You see we have a majority of readers who are developers, bankers, lawyers, doctors, council members past and present, community activist who have great knowledge about the issues of development and redevelopment, city employees, police officers, firefighters, travel agents and even just those pesky concerned citizens; and the wonderful thing about all of these people is that they are educated enough to form their own opinion on an issue and or project and on occasion they do not agree with some of our positions either. Heck for that matter I do not always agree with the editor of this web site and we have done battle on opposing views on this web page on numerous occasions.

In conclusion Jody I want you to know that I supported your project for numerous reasons and to say that we only told one side of the story is not correct as I wrote about this project on more than one occasion on this site when it was first announced, and while we may have stated different reasons for that support it was nice to have your points in there as well, even if some of them did not fly with me either.

Let’s play nice with the new folks………….

Well, as the editor and I have disagreed on issues in the past on this site I can see we will again disagree this time around about playing nice and being positive with the new council make up.

Note to the Editor: Phooooooooey on you!

I mean really, do you think we should be playing nice or keeping up the heat? I see no change in the matter of how this city is going to be run and let’s take a look at the facts still in play.

New Mayor, still brain dead in the field of planning and development, but more so in the aspect of redevelopment and who does that effect since he basically voted the Manross line most of the time. Yep, you got it, us in the South who are slated to be redeveloped by these people without a clue. I would have preferred we kept Drake as at least she can see piss poor development standards and practices and we might have had a prayer at making a difference in these matters for what they have planned.

Councilwoman Klapp is not going to be a great help in my opinion, however I will reserve that judgment until we see what she supports and how she responds to the community. The only bright hope with her is that maybe we can get another form of districting on the ballot as she knows darn well we need to get this done and I am hearing the drums beat again for the districting call.

Councilwoman Borowsky, now this one just plain scares the hell out of me! I find the Arizona Republic lacking in there duties to have not informed the readers of this city to the issue of the IRS liens. Another thing that scares the hell out of me is the fact she floated a bill of $80,000.00 to get elected to a council seat and this stinks to high heaven of a setup.

Why would anyone spend this kind of money to get elected to a city council seat if there was not an evil intent behind the action? Enter the picture of another person I would not trust any farther than I could throw him and his first name is Lamar. Could we also see another person with evil intent who would have had a hand in this matter and a first name of Dewey?

We still have Ron McCullagh of the Manross bred "craven weasel sect" in power. Just because you voted for the denial of the last issue I brought forward regarding the up-zoning of a property down the street from me does not mean we are going to be taking long walks in the moonlight Ronnie boy. I still believe you are the epitome of a true politician who will stab you in the back while talking to you face to face. (Look what you did with SkySong.)

And then we have Wayne Ecton, great guy on the personal side and a lovely wife with plenty of spirit. Wayne has recently been acting weird by voting and talking positively about issues of the city that residents are concerned about, but how long will that last, since he has spent so many years now fighting against us as well as voting against us?

Sorry Mr. Editor but I am not going to play nice until I find out if some of these people have gotten a clue from the results of the last election; and for that matter I just do not feel like playing nice just yet after we have been screwed over for the last 8 years.

Michael Merrill
The Brutal Critic
F8713@aol.com

(Return to Top)

~ COGS Alerts

The Coalition of Greater Scottsdale, a citizen and small business owner’s advocacy organization particularly concerned with "consistent land use policy and protecting our unique quality of Scottsdale life" provide the following information. More information is available on their website at http://cogsAZ.org

Editors Note: We would sincerely like to thank the COGS organization and their officers (especially Sonnie) for all the work and research they do for us to keep all of us informed. Most of the information comes straight from city sources or others who are "in the know".

~City Councilwoman-elect, Suzanne Klapp

will be our guest at the 6:30 pm, Thursday, December 11th COGS meeting. She will arrive promptly at 6:30 pm and must leave by 7:30 pm. It will be another informal conversation with her similar to our discussion at the November meeting with Mayor-elect, Jim Lane. This is an opportunity for your one-on-one dialogue on topics that are important to you and your neighborhood. DON'T MISS THIS open-to-the-public MEETING. Location: Granite Reef Senior Center on the NW corner of McDowell Road and Granite Reef Rd in Room 8 (follow the meeting signs). Other agenda items include discussion on some proposed text amendments for Planned Regional Centers, Outdoor Merchandise Displays and R1-7 text amendments (see below).

~From our Neighborhood leaders:

There is confirmation of another Solis project related meeting --this one more specific to the Scottsdale Terrace, Villa Monterey and other adjoining neighborhoods to the main hotel complex project. It will be Saturday morning, December 13th in the Performing Arts center. Details will come later in the Coalition of Greater Scottsdale e-Newsletters on Monday.

CORRECTION: Pat Lamer informs us that the December 13th meeting is NOT specifically for the Villa Monterey, Scottsdale Terrace and other nearby Solis project neighborhoods. Those neighborhoods have REQUESTED such a public outreach meeting for their concerns but to date nothing has been scheduled by either the developer or the city officers. If you want further details on the Performing Arts location meeting this coming Saturday from 9 am to 11 am, please check with Pat Lamer at patlamer@msn.com who is the organizer of the December 13th meeting.

~A Planned Regional Center (PRC) Zoning Ordinance

text amendment is proposed that would allow parcels of less than the currently required minimum of 25 gross acres to have 20 gross acres minimum. This would allow more mixed use development in the city. The city is conducting Open House/public outreach on Wednesday, December 10th from 5pm to 6pm at One Civic Center at 7447 E Indian School Road. (This is due north of the City Hall and across the street.) A second Open House is scheduled for Monday, December 15th from 6 to 7pm at the Arabian Library at 10216 East McDowell Mountain Ranch Road. If you attend the December 10th and give us your feedback at the COGS meeting the next evening.

~Phases II and III of the R1-7 text amendment for single family homes

related to carport conversions to garage, main building additions into the backyard area, front yard patio additions and , accessory buildings like storage sheds and side yard setbacks are being proposed. Three COGS members met with a city staff person last week and received more specifics on what is proposed and how it will affect our older family neighborhoods with the typical lot size. We will give you an update at our Thursday meeting.

~Epicenter

parcels 4 and 5 received their upzoning request from the sitting City Council on a 4 to 3 vote. They propose a 56 foot hotel which changed the 36 foot maximum currently on the parcels. Councilman Tony Nelssen could not get the developer to state that he WOULD BUILD THE PROJECT AS PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

Councilman Nelssen cited previous city experiences where the final structures were not what the Council had approved. Some examples would be SkySong’s ho hum design and the Dial Corporation’s new headquarters on the 101 Loop. He voted "NO" along with Councilman Bob Littlefield and Councilwoman Betty Drake.

For the Coalition of Greater Scottsdale Board of Directors

Sonnie Kirtley, Chairperson
e: cogsAZ@cox.net Check out our website: www.cogsAZ.org

(Return to Top)

~Shout and Spout ~

shoutandspout@scottsdaleactivist.com