Below is official information we acquired from city files that shows every City Council member’s votes for the periods 9/2007 through 12/2008 and since 1/2009.

Remember when self-anointed Guru of all newspaper Editors Robert Leger publicly complained that Councilperson Lisa Borowsky votes with Mayor Jim Lane 93% of the time?  Well, the data below clearly shows that Betty Drake voted with then Mayor Mary Manross 96% of the time, Wayne Ecton voted with Mary Manross 93% of the time, and Ron "Craven Weasel" McCullagh voted with Mary Manross 84% of the time!  Isn’t it interesting that "All Omnificent" Robert Leger failed to mention or even consider those facts at any time?

Could it be he never did his homework or any investigation at all on the subject because his and the Scottsdale Republic strings were tied directly to the skirt of one Mary Manross and her pro-developer friends and contributors?

It’s the obvious hypocrisy on the part of Robert Leger when he complains that "Lane is (mis)treating Ecton the way that Manross (mis)treated Littlefield."  The information from the city files above proves that is factually not true;

"All Omnificent" Robert Leger’s supposed infallibly honest reporting, editorial "fleet of foot", and editorial credibility is finally and publicly exposed for what it really is, Yellow Journalism.

Robert Legers supposed credibility and impetus is now properly and publicly exposed for all to see: Extremely biased and driven by the movers and shakers funded by the development community, not by the desires and suggestions of the taxpayers, voters and citizens of Scottsdale, nor by the truth or the facts as they exist in the reality of today’s world.

(Return to Top)

Could it be that the current dust ordinance is illegal and not as represented by the city attorney and the prior administration?

Could it be found that the Scottsdale Dust Ordinance is actually far stricter than required by either the state or county but denied by the prior administration and the city legal department?

Could it be that a certain member of the City Attorney’s office didn’t answer, fully answer, or honestly answer the questions asked by the Judge concerning the new city dust ordinance during the hearing on the Dust Ordinance Referendum?

Could it be that if this attorney had answered the questions honestly and to the best of his ability concerning the charges by the Dust Ordinance Referendum that the Scottsdale Ordinance far exceeded the requirements of both the county and the state laws, the referendum would have been upheld?

Would the Dust Ordinance Referendum have been upheld by the court if honesty and complete answers by the city legal department had been fully offered?

Our short but unfinished investigation concludes that the chance of the referendum being found viable and correct was excellent. In fact it has been learned that the judge had a hard time getting the city attorneys office representative to say almost anything during the hearing.

Apparently, according to the court record, the judge made some comment to the city attorney representative about said attorney’s jaw being wired shut, had lockjaw or something leading to that conclusion on the part of those who have read the case.

You will have to arrange for the city to get the transcript for you so you can read the transcript to find the actual words the judge used and why the prior administration screwed over those who paid for the referendum and those who have to live with the overly stringent dust ordinance currently in effect.

The city and then Manross Administration personnel, apparently prompted by both the mayor and city attorney Robberson told the world that the Scottsdale ordinance was no stronger or more restrictive than the county or state requirements which was an outright, bald-faced lie, or as they would say, an overlooked misrepresentation of fact(?).

This miscarriage of justice and the attorney involved in this sham needs to be investigated by an independent source outside city, county or state governments to find out what the real truth is, and then redraw the Dust Ordinance to comply with the State Law.

Our short investigation shows that the Scottsdale ordinance is far stiffer and far more costly to city property owners than either the county or state laws. Why?

Why did City Attorney Robberson allow this miscarriage of justice to happen?

(Return to Top)

~NAOS/ESLO Plant Restrictions Attacked

The Carriage Hills (La Posada) Subdivision in North Scottsdale is apparently in the process of attempting to overturn or modify the recently updated Plant and tree list authorized for NAOS and ESLO areas and this HOA is knowingly not complying with city ordinances and laws pertaining to said NAOS/ESLO restricted plant list areas.

The city has ruled that the changes the subdivision is asking for are unacceptable and not permitted under the NAOS/ESLO ordinances. The city has also updated the allowable plants but it does not contain the plants and trees the president, board and a few residents of the HOA want approved.

A little history: The approved plant list was in effect long before the subdivision was developed so each property owner should have been made aware of the restrictions through their CC&R’s, written deed restrictions, and other legal paperwork included within in the sale process (of which the Scottsdale Activist has copies) had they been interested in looking at them.

Some residents tell us that the original builder and landscaper strictly abided by the original plant list but some owners defied the ordinance and hired other landscapers to plant the illegal plants and trees anyway with the HOA allowing the practice.

The current President of the HOA is a licensed Real Estate Broker in Arizona and therefore has a legal and fiduciary obligation to his clients, customers, and the residents of the HOA he presides over to follow and enforce the laws and ordinances of the city to the letter. He apparently has not done that to date.

This HOA has ZERO common areas and ZERO community property anywhere in the subdivision which means all land, walls and buildings within the subdivision are privately owned which also means the HOA president and board really don’t have any legal impetus to do anything in the subdivision with out 66% to 75% documented, written approval from all parcel owners as prescribed and outlined in the CC&R’s, articles of incorporation and addendums thereto for the HOA.

This HOA apparently has about ^$35,000 dollars in their treasury: For what if there is ZERO common or community areas or properties within the subdivision?

Now along comes the city to issue violations for the illegal plants which are messy, illegal and a nuisance to many other property owners. Some owners are outraged and the HOA president and board as well as their management company are apparently supporting those few parcel owners even though they have violated the NAOS and ESLO ordinances.

As staunch supporters of the long standing NAOS and ESLO plant ordinances, we feel the HOA president has possibly violated his fiduciary and legal responsibilities to his HOA and could possibly be endangering his real estate broker’s license in the process by not asking for the strict enforcement and compliance with the city laws and ordinances.

If a property owner in the southern portion of the city violate any ordinance controlled by Code Enforcement, they usually have no more than 30 days to clear the violations with a possible ^$2,500 fine assessed after court action. This subdivision has gotten away with non-compliance and blown off the law and ordinances for well over a year!

Not to be out done, the city legal department has dragged their feet on this one as they have on many other Code Enforcement violators so that Code Inspectors have to return to reissue violations so they can continue the legal process to prosecute the violators.

In a letter to the HOA concerning the problem, the city responded with a wishy-washy response as follows:

P Be Green. Please don't print
this e-mail unless you really need to.  

About a year ago I met with the president of the HOA and a rep. from a maintenance company.  We discussed this issue and as I recall I noted that if they wanted to submit a program as a community for review by the City they could.  The program would be reviewed but unless their CC&R's gave the HOA authority to do the work on the lots it would not give them approval to work on any lots.  They would be required to get the permission of a lot owner.  There was never a formal submittal by the HOA to me and I have not seen any submittals for individual properties.  In reading the 8/1/2002 interpretation, (see attached) it gives the indication that a small amount of pruning would not require any City involvement, and based on the current ordinance the use of the term "native plant" is referencing those native plants protected by our "Native Plant Ordinance".  David Pino and I visited the site this morning and determined that there were only two properties where work had been done, lots 13, and 14.  On lot 14 it appears that a substantial amount of pruning was done, and the interpretation notes that substantial pruning require "specific approval" from the City.  The Ordinance makes a similar statement related to the removal of dumping piles and invasive plants.  It appears that most of the larger plants that were removed on lot 14 were desert broom, an invasive plant.  There may have been some creosote also, but I didn't see any indication of Palo Verde, or Ironwoods having been removed from either lot.  As far as distance form a wall for the purpose of painting and repair, historically we have stipulated that walls be built 5 feet away from NAOS easements.  Based on that and the 5 foot clearing allowed for a defensible space I would say that that distance would be the standard we would apply.  The Ordinance does not require "specific approval" from the City for the removal of materials noted as flash fuels for a distance of 30 feet from habitable structures.  We also allow a distance of 20 feet from perimeter walls.  Given all of this it appears that all that was done was not beyond what we allow.  For the purpose of wall maintenance the owners should have received "specific approval", but if it had been done for the purpose of a "defensible area" would we have required "specific approval"?   If you have any other questions let me know.     

From all appearances, the city is refusing to enforce the NAOS/ESLO plant requirements and have done so admittedly for well over a year. Why would Code Enforcement not issue a NOV?

What is it going to take to get this situation taken care of? Where is the legal department on this one?

The Scottsdale Activist has been asking about "This" since 2006

Finally! The "cat is out of the bag," and prowling around South Scottsdale like a feral cat feeding on anything it can find.

A word of caution to the development group, Scottsdale’s past mayors and council members: When residents ask questions and you respond with stony silence, or blow them off with cutting references to paranoia, you set the stage for ample suspicion, serious opposition, along with serious discord.

One of the six points offered at today’s "Discovery Triangle" presentation included "Provide a strong link with public transportation between area cities, recreational and business sites". Gee, could that be a coded reference or demand for Light Rail which the residents, citizens and voters have vowed to totally shoot down when put on the ballot as promised by the city government? It better not be is all we have to say!

We can stop this idea in its tracks if the city council will vote to take any thoroughfare in Scottsdale off any of Transportation Master Plan as has been requested on many occasions.

No citizens know better the need for revitalization in the South Scottsdale neighborhoods, south of Indian Bend Road to the Tempe border, than those residents who live there. Since 1997 they have lived with uncertainty and devolving business and residential neighborhoods.

There have been many false or fake starts on revitalization. False because of a total lack of commitment by leadership and total lack of a plan and lack of the tools to even get the job going, and fake because no one in the prior administration ever was serious about revitalization anyway.

Now the big boys of Arizona politics are coming to play in our yard, and are planning to use our toys and our tax money.

When Martin Schultz, of Pinnacle West, spoke to the Scottsdale City Council, introducing the idea of the "Discovery Triangle Development Corporation," we, collectively almost fell out of our chairs in disbelief. The words were finally spoken in public and on the record, even! Wow! That was a first in many years!

For over three years the rumors have been flowing and the fears have been growing steadily among residents. So far, the residents’ fears are being given credence.

Mr. Shultz is well known to many who have been active in education and funding for schools. Not only is he a lobbyist for Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, whose clients include Arizona Public Service Energy Services, Arizona Public Service Co., Pinnacle West Capital Corp. and SunCor, he is chairman of the School District Redistricting Commission. This last group we will touch on at another time in more depth, but let it be sufficient to say that their approach to dealing with school funding is strongly influenced by big business opposition to increased funding for public education.

While Mayor Phil Gordon of Phoenix has spoke frequently of the "Discovery Triangle" to his community, Mayor Manross nor Jan Dolan, or any city staffer never would acknowledge South Scottsdale was part of the Discovery Triangle area that includes part of Tempe, East Phoenix, the Papago Park, and the National Guard Preserve. This was even though they reportedly knew full well what the plans were, agreed with them, and have been involved with them for a few years.

You cannot live in South Scottsdale, and not realize that there is or should be a reasonable relationship between these entities, but not controlled by anyone but our own city with citizen input and help. South Scottsdale and North Tempe residents have been trying to drill that into the heads of leadership for the last 10-12 years.

Did they listen to the residents who live in the areas affected? No! No! And NO!!

Did they listen to big business and politicians? Hello?? What do you think when you look around town, read the minutes of the DRB or Planning Commission meetings, or read the only scandal sheet left in Scottsdale???

Why should we have expected anything else??? History since the retirement of Mayor Drinkwater tells the sad, one-sided story pretty clearly doesn’t it?

The "economic vitality" of the three cities is closely aligned and dependent upon successful development, or redevelopment as those of us who live here are reminded because living here for 30 or more years allows us the privilege of experiencing strong neighborhoods and quality shopping experiences…… that is until 1997.

Are we, the residents, going to see changes in our neighborhoods? Yes, of course. But in that process, we all need to be involved and not just as token citizens so the government can say we were involved as they did with SkySong and other projects.

We are going to see mixed use infill projects. We are going to see some increased height but not at the heights many developers are demanding if we residents and voters have anything to say about it.

We are going to see increased growth of population; increase in density of people. We are going to see, as a result of those increases, an increase in the needs for city services – water/sewers/storm drains/electrical delivery/social services/parks and recreation areas/streets and traffic engineering/public safety provisions – all geared to serve more people in a smaller space and cost more tax dollars. But, where are those tax dollars coming from if retail isn’t a major part of the formula?

Is this bad? Is this good? It just IS what it is!!

We have gone too far down an ugly road to keep it all from happening thanks to the complete failure of the last administration and the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce over the last 8 years to do anything positive or constructive for the citizens or small businesses of the southern portion of the city.

We should not allow ourselves to be forced to the back of the bus any longer on how this all gets planned and accomplished. There are no official advocates for neighborhoods on our City Council or any of the boards and commissions as they stand today.

Your home in your single family neighborhood, your property values and quality of life need to be respected, and the more of us coming together to do that is the only defense we have.

Major businesses, corporations, developers, and government can pay other folks to represent them and they can afford to pay to air their voices on TV, the radio, and the newspapers. It is part of their jobs which are generally a mere 40 to 50 hour per week.

Residents and small businesses have to give unselfishly of their scarce free time and money, rearrange calendars, write, speak and listen in addition to having a family life, working, going to school, and anything else necessary to survive in this world.

If you do not live in South Scottsdale, chances are you are not giving this plight much attention. May be you should give it some thought because of the proximity of Phoenix, Carefree, Cave Creek and Fountain Hills to YOUR homes and the impacts of their development individually and as a group.

And if you are happy in your home, comfortable in your neighborhood and proud of where you live, think about the folks who live in South Scottsdale and the declining vitality of their neighborhoods; declining because there has been no planning thanks to Mary Manross, Jan Dolan, and their friendly developers.

Think about the threat of having developers and mayors from outside and other towns decide they should dictate what our neighborhoods will look like and how our life style will function.

Over 65,000 South Scottsdale residents are thinking about all of it.

Southern Scottsdale IS an economic force 65,000 strong in the city, but the previous city government and the Scottsdale Area Chamber just allowed what retail we did have to die a slow death through lack of interest and action, so we now have to shop in Tempe, Mesa or Phoenix costing the city of Scottsdale precious sales tax revenue.

We’re willing to help fix the problem. Is the city willing to listen without useless advice from some who haven’t care about anything but their greed or egos for years?

We were excited to see the reported changes and major overhaul of the city organization as offered by City Manager John Little for City Council approval.

We’ll have to wait and see if the deadwood, misfits, and pro-developer "yes people" have been eliminated from the mix before we make any rash decisions about how good and effective the changes will be.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2009/04/09/20090409sr-budget0410.html

(Return to Top)

For over 4 years, neighborhoods in the southern portion of Scottsdale especially, have been trying to have the City Transportation Department listen to their serious concerns about child safety near our schools.

We have finally been able to have a neighborhood meeting on the Mohave School problems where the city promoted their solutions and we thank them for their attention.

These and other possibilities can be seen at:

http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/traffic/86th_St.asp

The presentation by the resident can be seen by clicking here for the problem solving presentation,

http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Assets/images/Traffic+Engineering/86th+Street/Resident-Info.pdf

and here and here for the pictorial presentation,

http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Assets/images/Traffic+Engineering/86th+Street/Resident-Proposed.pdf

It should be noted here that the city added notes to the Proposed Child Safety Pictorial presentation by the resident and close neighbor to Mohave School which may or may not be correct; i.e. saying that resident parking permits on Jackrabbit Road would take Police away from other more important needs while saying nothing about the need already on 86^th Street for Police traffic control, and Valley View Road where "No Parking" signs have been posted but somewhat abused for years. To say that parents are parking the entire length of Jackrabbit road is wrong also. Many cars you see parked on Jackrabbit Rd during the day belong to teachers while the teachers parking lot on the east side of the school is rarely even half full. If the teachers parked in their parking lot, the problem would be reduced by probably at least 15 vehicles.

Prior to the Manross/Dolan administration and former SUSD Superintendent Barbara Erwin, there was an Intergovernmental Joint Committee consisting of appointed officials from the city staff, city council members, and their equals from the Scottsdale Unified School District and local Parent Teacher Organizations.

Between the Manross Administration (Manross and Dolan) and the former SUSD superintendent Barbara Erwin, it was apparently decided the Intergovernmental Joint Committee was not needed and a waste of their time. Simply put, the Intergovernmental Joint Committee allowed public input that Manross, Dolan nor Erwin wanted or would tolerate. Thus began the decade of Scottsdale governmental secrecy.

Prior to his election, now Mayor Jim Lane asked that City Council reinstituted the Intergovernmental Joint Committee which they did. Hopefully Mayor Lane will demand immediate resolve from the Intergovernmental Joint Committee to be very involved with the public, parents, school administrations, and the city government to promote connectivity and consistency within that "quadrangle" of responsibility by all parties.

Included in the above activities of the Intergovernmental Joint Committee, all SUSD Complexes should be allowed to meet with and work with the Committee on any community related issues concerning the schools and the neighborhoods that they serve. The Intergovernmental Joint Committee needs to be continually proactive in this endeavor to be the ultimate problem solving entity giving all citizens and educators a voice with phone numbers and email addresses that are checked and answered at least once daily.

As a point of information, no one on the current Intergovernmental Joint Committee or PTO representatives were informed or invited to the Child Safety meeting at Mohave School by the city. In addition, only about 1/3rd of the residents of the area received cards in the mail advising of the meeting leaving all others in the attendance area in the dark concerning the problem.

We’re hearing that Police Resource Officers will be reduced at many schools. Police Resource Officers are an integral and vital part of the school system visually, socially and educationally.

Their presence at the schools needs to stay at current levels or be increased as necessary to be visible as friends of the students and faculty, not as guards or "big brother" images.

Police Resource Officers on campus help to instill responsibility, respect for the laws we live under, and the heavy responsibility that comes with the enforcement of said laws. They are not there to intimidate, but to educate and instill honesty and trust in the system and fellow citizens.

The presence of Resource Officers on school campuses also proves how "Cops" are valuable, human, compassionate, and approachable by all citizens, young or old, and that they are not to be feared unless laws are broken for whatever nefarious reason.

(Return to Top)

~ Planning & Other Commissions Decisions Questioned

If you have watched the Planning Commission meetings over the last couple of months or been in attendance at Planning Commission meetings you begin to ask yourself just what kind of knowledge does one have to have to sit up there and make decisions on land use projects that profoundly effect the development and revitalization of the whole City of Scottsdale?

Granted, architects, builders and developers bring a basic knowledge to the discussion, but the Palmeraie/Ritz-Carlton project has raised a few questions about whether or not the Planning Commission understands how the Planning Department and the submission process for projects are handled. It also give rise to the issue of whether or not commissioners receive their information packets far enough ahead of time to really study projects in order to ask important questions.

It also begs the question: Why does the planning staff suggest or give tentative approval to situations that are strictly against city ordinances and laws?

We don't know what kind of training process takes place for new commissioners, but it is clear that something is missing. Understanding land use and zoning terminology is important and further understanding how it is applied in Scottsdale is even more critical.

We think that it is odd that such things are not clarified until the commissioners are in the middle of the decision making process during public meetings.

Once again it gives credence to doing a complete review of the boards and commissions to ensure that they communicate regularly between all other board and commissions and have all the tools that they need to make good decisions for the citizens of Scottsdale.

Communication: Isn't that the name of the game if you want to be a winner?

(Return to Top)

We were glad to see the AZ Court of Appeals disallow the use of tax dollars to stimulate or, in actuality allow auctions of tax dollars to the highest bidder without city ownership of equal value, to get builders, developers, or corporations to come to a city.

Let’s see how this one plays out. Cities will have to compete based on availability of services and potential customers instead of how much money they can fleece from the cities.

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2009/04/12/20090412biz-citynorth0412.html

(Return to Top)

Dear Scottsdale Community Member:

You are receiving this email notification because you have expressed interest or directly participated in the Scottsdale Downtown Plan update.

A Final Draft of the Downtown Plan has been posted on the city's web site for the community to review.  Additionally, the Scottsdale Planning Commission will be reviewing, discussing, and potentially making recommendation to the Scottsdale City Council on this Final Draft Plan on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 beginning at the 4:00 p.m..

If you are interested in reviewing the revised Final Draft Downtown Plan please do so at:

http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Assets/documents/Planning/CAP/DowntownPlan/DTComplete.pdf

If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Erin Perreault, Principal Planner at 480.312.7093 or eperreault@scottsdaleaz.gov

Thank you for your continued interest in Downtown Scottsdale.

To Whom it may concern in Scottsdale,

Friends visiting from Michigan this last weekend were enjoying our wonderful weather and were very excited to visit Old Town Scottsdale. They have nothing like this back east and they wanted to experience the western atmosphere of Scottsdale's Old Town. So while eating lunch at the Grape Vine roof dining area we could see the activities below and they thoroughly enjoyed the horse drawn carriage rides and the singing cowboy on his horse Dusty.

They asked me why cars are allowed in this area? They are out of place is this western town. They suggested that only horse drawn buggies, carriages, buckboards and stage coaches with horse drawn trolleys (like Disneyland) be allowed here. Let the people walk or ride in streets with the horses. They could not believe our city masterminds have blinders on and are so short sighted in keeping this old town area as western as the buildings and board walks depict. There are plenty of areas in Scottsdale for upscale developments. My friends can get all that at home. They want different places to shop and eat from back home.

Old Town with the horses and NO Cars would make this area truly a western town. It would take one back in time when things were slower and less complicated. We could preserve the thrill of the Old West spirit that is vanishing in so many towns these days. It would provide opportunities for generations to experience the old west stagecoach ride, touch a horse up close, and ride in a carriage.

I agree with my out of town visitors. Scottsdale has a very special blend of old and new so why can't we keep the Old Town area all western with the special ambiance of NO Cars only visitors and horses the way it should be. That would make our Old Town very special, unique and a tourist attraction different from any other city here. Visitors love the old west. Many have never experienced riding on a buckboard or in a stage coach. Have YOU? Young and old love a hay ride.

We LOST Rawhide to Wild Horse Pass on the Gila River Reservation (Thanks for nothing Mary Manross)so now Scottsdale's Old Town is all that’s left in Scottsdale to be a very unique western experience. With the Goldwater and Drinkwater loops in place, why can't we get back to our western grass roots and go green with Old Town Horse and buggies only, NO CARS?

We the people and tourists can make a difference. Anyone else agree?

All for an ALL Western Town,

From my Michigan visitors and me, a long time Scottsdale resident,

 A. Arnold
Scottsdale

Hi,

We are from Michigan. As tourists we visited Old Town which is such a unique town. However we wish you would consider making it a car free area. It would be so neat to have all horse & carriage, buck boards and trolleys. This would make it truly an Old Western Town which should increase tourism.

Thank you for you consideration,

VB Huell
M Martiny

Hello Scottsdale:

I located your website by accident. I am from Michigan and visit Scottsdale every winter. I always spend a great deal of time (and money) in Old Town as it is so unique and I love the area and the shops.

I think it would be even more intriguing to have no cars, just all horse and carriages, buck boards and trolleys. I believe that these changes would make it a "real" old Western Town and it should increase tourism.

Sincerely,

BW Wilcox 

(Return to Top)

Old hands in the school district are aghast at the recommendation to change the policies about busing kids to our schools. Especially, elementary kids.

Though some of us no longer have kids in school we see nothing good about changing the rules about having kids cross major city streets to get to school .

In the southern area they want kids to cross both McDowell Road and Thomas Roads to get to school. In the past, the policy was that no child was to walk to school if they had to cross such busy major thoroughfares.

It is no less dangerous today than it was 10, 20 years ago. Sometimes it seems more dangerous with people talking on cell phones and exceeding the speed limit while driving and eating, too.

SUSD needs to rethink this policy change or explain what they intend to do to make crossing those streets safer.

And while we are at it.....Hey SUSD what gives with the five gallon buckets with potty seats that were supplied to each classroom? We understand that they are for emergency use should a school go into a long lock-down. OK.............but some questions have arisen and no one seems to have the answers.

So, we will throw the questions out there and see if anybody knows:  What is the shelf life of the chemicals used in these toilets? Are teachers instructed in how to use the buckets and privacy tarps if the need arises to use them? Is anyone in the school district, Scottsdale Police Department and Scottsdale Fire Department trained in their use and in the disposal of any hazardous waste material? What happens if there is a spill in a classroom and is there a decontamination process? Who in the district and at each school is responsible for seeing that these toilets are maintained and ready for use? Should we mention the possible bio-hazards?

It is important to be prepared, but it is equally important to understand equipment that is being used in order to use it safely.

(Return to Top)

~ NO Light Rail………..

To clarify and misconceptions that may be out there based on my Letter to the Editor and printed in the Sonoran News, I want to make it absolutely and perfectly clear that I DO NOT support light rail or any other ground rail system within the city of Scottsdale and absolutely NOT on any city street or city right of way in any way, shape or form.

This has been very evident to the proponents of light rail and should have been very evident and a "given" to others with all the anti-Light Rail ads and articles that were run on a regular basis in the Scottsdale Activist.

A light fixed rail system on the freeways would be a huge boon to all cities as long as it is financed by the entire state and federal funds through a bidding process that would have to be voter approved with all aspects of the costs and tools to pay off the system costs discussed and provided up front prior to any vote.

No transportation system such as I discuss herein will be entertained for years down the road but the discussion needs to start somewhere with it known and perfectly clear that Light Rail will not be tolerated on the streets of Scottsdale.

A couple of readers took serious exception to the ideas in the letter and I’m sorry that they don’t seem to understand the need for alternative ideas, especially in this volatile economic and political climate. That being said, you cannot just say "NO" to something without some other options being made available to those who will shove something down your throat by hook or crook, especially when they have access to far more money than many cities or political activists have.

We have the SRP canal banks, we have state rights of way along the freeways, and we have possible access to reservation land along the canals and Preserve borders which could all be easily donated or licensed to provide the land necessary to put up a privately funded Monorail style system. This system would not use or be supported by any public dollars and could bring much needed business from the light rail terminal near the airport on donated land away from our city streets.

My comments are prompted and based upon the new(?) "Discovery Triangle" project which Phoenix is trying to put together with Tempe and South Scottsdale, which in my early opinion, is using the Scottsdale name as a way to gather support and our tax dollars for the project while giving Phoenix and Tempe some say in how we develop the southern end of our city and gain Light Rail access through the back door so to speak (See #6 of their suggestions in the COGS Corner). I haven't been able to get much information on the project to date but am trying to get solid info for more discussion.

We feel that Scottsdale taxpayers need to seriously and actively look at ways to make Scottsdale again unique WITHOUT using our tax dollars or city streets to accomplish that end while building the income and customer traffic needed for local small businesses in the process in which the Scottsdale Area Chamber hasn’t shown any sincere or real interest. Lip service is their forte, action doesn’t seem to be their modus operandi unless it gains them wealth and press.

You all know very well that the light rail proponents have huge dollars available and will not give up on light rail unless forced to by public opinion. They have tried to marginalize any other type of transportation discussions to gain the advantage. They will do anything to get what they want which would destroy the Scottsdale we know and love.

Our point is simply to publicly suggest a possibly viable alternative to their pointed and subversive actions to get light rail up Scottsdale Road by hook or crook which, as you all well know, "by crook" is the way they seem to always do business. A monorail type system would not destroy anything because it would be an innovative addition that would be built on rights of way away from and not on city streets. It would bring people into the city at the expenses agreeable to the resorts, the owners of the large shopping centers, the reservation casinos, and to the Discovery Center at the McDowell Sonoran Preserve with downtown city and other businesses not spending a dime while increasing their business profits or customer traffic.

This far less expensive and less disruptive proposal would publicly force the light rail proponents dialog away from using city streets and tax money if they really are as interested as they say they are, to increase business traffic into the Downtown and our resort areas.

How can the proponents propose using city streets when there is a publicly proposed viable and more affordable alternative for which the public could easily say;

"Why don’t you light rail proponents use your private dollars for a Monorail style system using the canal banks and freeway rights of way instead of tearing up our city streets and destroying a city being that all of you proponents will be the recipients of a good share of the profits"?

A note that was just forwarded to me originating from John Semmens gives some good information on different approaches and possibilities as follows:

We weren’t really looking at a mass transit system as much as a means to efficiently get airport tourist traffic directly to the Scottsdale downtown and our resorts as well as local residents to the Sky Harbor airport without many delays or unnecessary milk-run stops busses and light rail offers. The SkyTran was mentioned in the Scottsdale Activist well over a year ago with many positive comments and no negative comments. If I remember correctly, John Semmens was against light rail up Scottsdale Road also.

This is the kind of positive public dialog is needed to push the light rail discussion in a positive direction AWAY from using Scottsdale Road or any city street. We don’t want a system that stops at every corner because of the riff-raff that would try to use and abuse the system. The only stops we would like to see from the main terminal at the light rail terminal on SR 202 near Sky Harbor airport would be at the major points of interest such as Papago Park/Phoenix Zoo, Fashion Square (and the Western Museum where the entire downtown area could be accessed by foot or trolley), a central stop convenient to most of the resorts using the trolley system as the people mover, then the Casino, and the Preserve Discovery Center.

To destroy the Light rail ambitions and possibilities of the proponents winning the war, we need to have viable alternatives proposed publicly which are more affordable, more productive, innovative, and do the job they were intended to accomplish without public dollars while generating the interest and curiosity of our dwindling tourist trade.

In addition, once and for all, our city council needs to remove all city roadways from the Transportation Master Plan where light rail could ever be considered an option.

The Scottsdale Trolley System would become the natural connecter between the monorail type system local stops and the local areas not served directly by the monorail, SkyTran, or a similar system.

Someone suggested that public money might be needed as "seed money" to get the project off the ground. The only way it should be considered is;

Is any of this possible?

Only open, public discussion and open mindedness and an agreement to participate on the part of those major businesses who will benefit most will make the any ideas along this line possible.

(Return to Top)

Could it be that the Scottsdale residents, voters and citizens have had enough of City Attorney Deborah Robberson?

That seems to be possible with the opening of a new email address to discuss that problem which has become a very costly to taxpayers in the last few years. According to many, it is time for the citizens to be able to have their say as to whether City Attorney Deborah Robberson is doing her job or "doing" the taxpayers, voters, and citizens instead.

Some of the charges against City Attorney Deborah Robberson include:

Add to the above the failure of her office to properly answer questions in court concerning the Dust Ordinance Referendum, and her failure to obligate the city Planning Department to enforce the city laws and ordinances concerning zoning acreage requirements for mixed use developments.

The email address awaiting your comments is:

Please feel free to offer any resolutions, pro or con, to this ongoing problem you feel are necessary including but not limited to her immediate firing by the city council without a "golden parachute".

(Return to Top)

The decline of McDowell Road started years ago, most notably when stores fled Los Arcos Mall and big-box retailers like a Smitty's grocery and KMart store closed. This was mainly due to owner Steve Ellman and his investor associates thinking they had a good shot and public support at a new location for an arena for the Coyotes hockey team to replace an aging regional shopping center. The voters of Scottsdale approved the arena through two (2) separate elections. The arena and ancillary business additions would have revived the area and kept the Motor Mile and other shopping areas intact and updating.

When the City Council under Mayor Mary Manross drug their feet, Ellman went looking for yet another location for the arena which he found in Glendale. With the arena off the table, Ellman offered the 42 acre Los Arcos parcel as a retail center with WalMart, Sam’s Club and either Lowe’s or Home Depot. Those listed would be the anchor tenants plus many more, smaller businesses and services which again, would have revitalized and saved the area from the decimation of the retail center and Motor Mile.

Because of the request for taxpayer subsidies and an apparent behind the scenes scheme which had probably been in the works for quite a while, an agreement escrowed by Mayor Manross and possibly Councilman Wayne Ecton with ASU President Michael Crow and ASUF, the retail shopping center was replaced with SkySong which brings zero tax income of any kind to the 42 acres for the next 198 years. By public vote, the WalMart deal was dealt its final blow through devious ads and actions, and miscommunications through cooperation by those area corporations and businesses whose greed has now cost them most everything they had.

SkySong, (ASU Scottsdale Innovation Center) the Granite Reef Senior Center, McDowell Village senior apartments, Big "O" Tires, Walgreen’s, and a Lowe's home-improvement store eventually tried to replace the revenue lost by the demise of Los Arcos. But none of them could replace the traffic needed or the tax revenue required to keep the area vibrant and growing even though the residential density is higher and spending dollars are equivalent to many areas of the city.

The decline accelerated last year, when as predicted almost 4 years ago by the Scottsdale Activist, six of Motor Mile's 20 new-car dealerships closed, victims of consolidations, loss of vital traffic, bankruptcies or the lure of more space along freeways. The Los Arcos Crossing shopping center and its Bashas' grocery store also closed, and developers have put on hold plans to replace the site with a mix of housing and restaurants.

Unrealistically high commercial land values fueled by Manross and ASUF paying over twice the appraised value for Los Arcos to Ellman have sped up the demise of the area and stopped the development of other properties.

The conference Saturday will hopefully start to solve some of the planning, investment and other problems we’re all up against in South Scottsdale.

We would like to thank Mayor Jim Lane and his administration for attempting to do something positive former Mayor Mary Manross didn’t have the expertise, vision, intention, or ability to do in her 8 disastrous years of leadership(?).

(Return to Top)

The Coalition of Greater Scottsdale www.cogsaz.net

Mayor Lane organized an economic summit featuring "experts" from ASU's Urban & Metropolitan Studies Program, office/industrial real estate brokerages, the co-author of Phoenix's first General Plan, building mix-use consultants, infill redevelopment experts, an ASU Foundation trustee, two car dealership owners, the Phoenix Business Journal owner, AZ Real Estate School owner, and a member of the Goldwater Institute.  The focus was on southern Scottsdale's McDowell Road corridor from 64th Street to Pima Road. In three break-out sessions, each panelist took 7 minutes to describe their visions/recommendations specific to their field of expertise. Then they responded to questions and recommendations from the audience.

The following are some of those recommendations from the event:

COGS COMMENTS:

Everyone agreed that car dealerships are no longer as successfully marketed in Scottsdale from large lots located away from the freeway. The opportunity to re-invent the land use on these vacant large parcels is an economic opportunity. It is obvious that McDowell Corridor owners will need to work together to realize improved income use and land values in the near future. Identifiable Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce members were ardent spokespersons for greater density, permitting taller buildings, and promoting light rail through Papago Park (where currently a city bus shuttles from the MetroLine to the Zoo and Desert Botanical Gardens) as well as on McDowell Road to SkySong then south to ASU. Their mantra seemed to be coordinated and we can probably expect an organized campaign soon.

Bottom line: We hope that Mayor Lane will host more public meetings on major issues and NOT hire expensive consultants as did Mayor Manross.

This coming Wednesday 4/22, the Planning Commissioners will respond to the latest PUD draft as presented by city staff. E mail cogsaz@cox.net if you want a copy of the MOST RECENT DRAFT of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) proposed for city-wide case-by-case land use.  Are you thinking, "Not important for me to know about"?  Do you live on or live just one street off any collector street in the city?   Well, it is time for you to;

So, what is the impact on your neighborhood:  View? Increased density? Increased height? Increased traffic on your street?  Solar shadows across your home? Property value change? Change in neighborhood character/quality of life?   

Remember, the purpose of the PUD is to provide mixed-use on land not currently zoned for it. It also ADDS the incentive of height greater than recommended by citizen/small businessman for sites outside the Downtown Area of our city.    This mixed use as currently written, permits ALL Planned Regional Center land uses but the "big box" store such as Lowe's, Wal-Mart, etc.

You can attend in city hall starting at 4pm or watch on Channel 11 TV

For the COGS Directors, Sonnie Kirtley, Chairperson Visit our website at

www.cogsaz.net

E-mail us at cogsaz@cox.net if you would like to be added to our E-Newsletter

(Return to Top)

I am an ER nurse and this is the best description of this event that I have ever heard. Please read, pay attention, and send it on!

Diane K. in A

Female Heart Attacks

I was aware that female heart attacks are different, but this is the best description I've ever read.

Women and heart attacks (Myocardial Infarction):

Did you know that women rarely have the same dramatic symptoms that men have when experiencing heart attack …. you know, the sudden stabbing pain in the chest, the cold sweat, grabbing the chest & dropping to the floor that we see in the movies. Here is the story of one woman's experience with a heart attack.

'I had a heart attack at about 10:30 PM with NO prior exertion; NO prior emotional trauma that one would suspect might have brought it on. I was sitting all snugly & warm on a cold evening, with my purring cat in my lap, reading an interesting story my friend had sent me, and actually thinking, 'A-A-h, this is the life, all cozy and warm in my soft, cushy Lazy Boy with my feet propped up.

A moment later, I felt that awful sensation of indigestion, when you've been in a hurry and grabbed a bite of sandwich and washed it down with a dash of water, and that hurried bite seems to feel like you've swallowed a golf ball going down the esophagus in slow motion and it is most uncomfortable. You realize you shouldn't have gulped it down so fast and needed to chew it more thoroughly and this time drink a glass of water to hasten its progress down to the stomach. This was my initial sensation---the only trouble was that I hadn't taken a bite of anything since about 5:00 p.m.

After it seemed to subside, the next sensation was like little squeezing motions that seemed to be racing up my SPINE (hind-sight, it was probably my aorta spasms), gaining speed as they continued racing up and under my sternum (breast bone, where one presses rhythmically when administering CPR).

This fascinating process continued on into my throat and branched out into both jaws. 'AHA!! NOW I stopped puzzling about what was happening -- we all have read and/or heard about pain in the jaws being one of the signals of an MI happening, haven't we? I said aloud to myself and the cat, Dear God, I think I'm having a heart attack!

I lowered the foot rest dumping the cat from my lap, started to take a step and fell on the floor instead. I thought to myself, If this is a heart attack, I shouldn't be walking into the next room where the phone is or anywhere else ... but, on the other hand, if I don't, nobody will know that I need help, and if I wait any longer I may not be able to get up in a moment.

I pulled myself up with the arms of the chair, walked slowly into the next room and dialed the Paramedics... I told her I thought I was having a heart attack due to the pressure building under the sternum and radiating into my jaws. I didn't feel hysterical or afraid, just stating the facts. She said she was sending the Paramedics over immediately, asked if the front door was near to me, and if so, to un-bolt the door and then lie down on the floor where they could see me when they came in.

I unlocked the door and then laid down on the floor as instructed and lost consciousness, as I don't remember the medics coming in, their examination, lifting me onto a gurney or getting me into their ambulance, or hearing the call they made to St. Jude ER on the way, but I did briefly awaken when we arrived and saw that the radiologist was already there in his surgical blues and cap, helping the medics pull my stretcher out of the ambulance. He was bending over me asking questions (probably something like 'Have you taken any medications?') but I couldn't make my mind interpret what he was saying, or form an answer, and nodded off again, not waking up until the Cardiologist and partner had already threaded the teeny angiogram balloon up my femoral artery into the aorta and into my heart where they installed 2 side by side stints to hold open my right coronary artery.

'I know it sounds like all my thinking and actions at home must have taken at least 20-30 minutes before calling the paramedics, but actually it took perhaps 4-5 minutes before the call, and both the fire station and St. Jude are only minutes away from my home, and my Cardiologist was already to go to the OR in his scrubs and get going on restarting my heart (which had stopped somewhere between my arrival and the procedure) and installing the stints.

'Why have I written all of this to you with so much detail? Because I want all of you who are so important in my life to know what I learned first hand.'

Note that I said 'Call the Paramedics.' And if you can, take an aspirin. Ladies,

TIME IS ABSOLUTELY OF THE ESSENCE!

(Return to Top)

In 1872, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. wrote, "A wise man recognizes the convenience of a general statement, but he bows to the authority of a particular fact."

If you’re wise and not a partisan imbecile, you might want to bow to the following facts, or at least read them. They are facts on how the United States compares to other industrialized countries in selected areas. They are important facts to know as the Obama administration accelerates the shift to a bigger, more intrusive, and more redistributionist government -- a shift that has been in the works for decades under both Democrat and Republican administrations. Since the current administration seems to hold the social-welfare states of Europe as a model of what the U.S. should become, most of the comparisons are to European countries.

Many of the facts come from the 2008 edition of The World Factbook, published by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The United States spends 5.3% of gross domestic product on education. Since it ranks low on international tests, especially in math and science, this amount of spending must be low relative to other countries. Right? Wrong! Actually, the 5.3% is higher than the 3.5% spent by Japan, the 3.9% by Hong Kong, the 4.5% by Australia and Italy, and the 4.6% by Germany and South Korea. It is equal to the 5.3% spent by the Netherlands.

Granted, many other nations spend more on education as a percent of GDP, especially Scandinavian countries. For example, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark spend 7.1%, 6.4%, and 8.3%, respectively. However, since the United States has higher per-capita GDP than these countries, its education spending on a per-capita basis is higher than the aggregate percentages suggest. To illustrate: The U.S. has a per-capita GDP of $47,000, versus Sweden’s per-capita GDP of $38,500. (All GDP numbers are expressed in price parity terms to compensate for currency valuations.) Taking these GDP differences into consideration, the U.S. spends $2,491 per citizen on education, versus $2,733 for Sweden.

The current administration and Congress appear to have a goal of reducing GDP growth through higher taxes on capital and increased regulatory and energy costs. At the same time, they want to increase spending on education and social welfare. The two goals are of course in conflict. Cuba illustrates this point in the extreme. It spends 9.1% of GDP on education, but since it has a per-capita GDP of only $9,500, that comes to a measly $864 per citizen.

Other factors come into play in comparing education spending between countries but are beyond the scope of this article. They include birth rates, immigration rates, the age and racial make-up of the population, and the degree to which the government and teacher unions have a monopoly over K-12 education.

On the last point, due to subsidies for private schools, several other countries have a high percentage of students attending private schools. In Belgium, for example, the figure is about 50%, and in the Netherlands, about 75%. In the U.S., only about 10% of students attend private schools. Of course, the Obama administration, the Democrat-controlled Congress, and most state legislatures are beholden to teacher unions, which have the political power to maintain their near-monopoly over K-12 education.

The Gini Index is a generally-accepted way of measuring national income equality/inequality. It uses a scale of zero to 100, with "0" representing perfect income equality and "100" representing perfect income inequality. As would be expected, communist countries have the most income equality, albeit far from perfect equality. At the other extreme, non-communist dictatorships of sub-Saharan Africa have the most inequality.

Per-capita GDP is very low at both extremes, which is a fancy way of saying that a lack of freedom produces an abundance of poverty. This is confirmed by the Index of Economic Freedom, which is published jointly by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal. That index shows that the more economic freedom, the wealthier the nation; conversely, the less economic freedom, the poorer the nation.

The U.S. has a lower Gini score (45) than Hong Kong (53.3) and Singapore (48.1). This means that these two Asian countries have more income inequality than the U.S. Singapore has a higher per-capita GDP than the U.S., while Hong Kong’s is slightly lower.

Not surprisingly, the U.S. has a higher Gini score (more income inequality) than European countries. But it also has higher GDP per capita. Below is a list of selected countries and their corresponding Gini scores and per-capita GDP.

United States (45, $47,000)

Switzerland (33.7, $40,900)

Netherlands (30.9, $40,300)

Austria (26, $39,200)

Sweden (23, $38,500

Belgium (28, $37,500)

Germany (27, $34,800)

The above list is in rank-order of GDP per capita. Thus, the U.S. is highest in per-capita GDP, and Germany is lowest (due in part to its merging with the former East Germany). There is an obvious lesson here, but it will no doubt be lost on Americans who advocate more redistribution. (Note: Norway was not included on the above list, because North Sea oil revenue distorts its economic picture, just as oil revenue in the Middle East gives a distorted picture of prosperity in oil-producing states there.)

Another interesting observation is that all of the European countries above are smaller in population and land mass and much more racially homogenous than the U.S. Could it be that in Western democracies, people are more willing to vote for higher redistribution if they feel "tribal" kinship toward each other? Further study would be needed to answer the question, but since the findings might go against the conventional wisdom about the value of diversity, it is doubtful that a university or the U.S. government would undertake such a study.

It’s also interesting to note that the European countries listed above have higher trade union membership and more inflexible labor laws. This would suggest that unionization results in more redistribution but less wealth.

Americans have been told that a domestic auto industry is critical for continued prosperity. But only eight of the top 50 countries in per-capita GDP have a domestic auto industry. And in the top 20, only one does, the United States. Four of the countries with a domestic auto industry rank 30th or lower in per-capita GDP.

The United States has a much higher birth rate per 1,000 population than the European Union: 14.2 vs. 9.9. As would be expected, the U.S. also has a younger population.

The population growth rate is also much higher in the United States than the European Union: .975% vs. .108%. (The population growth rate considers the net difference between births and deaths, and between immigration and emigration.)

These demographics suggest that entitlement spending on the elderly is even less sustainable in Europe than in the U.S., because there are relatively fewer young people in Europe to stick with the tab. Even so, the entitlement bills are staggering in the U.S. Estimates of unfunded liabilities for entitlements range from $60 to $90 trillion, or $800,000 to $1.2 million for each American under the age of 18.

It’s no surprise that military spending as a percent of GDP is much higher in the United States than in European countries. For example, military spending is about 4% of GDP in the U.S., versus 1.5% in Sweden, 1% in Switzerland, 1.8% in Italy, 1.5% in Germany, 2.4% in the United Kingdom, and 2.6% in France.

The American Right says that Europe is getting a free ride from the United States, militarily speaking. The American Left says that Europe doesn’t need a big defense budget because it doesn’t stick its military nose in other countries. There is probably some truth to both arguments, but it’s undeniable that lower military spending leaves more money for social welfare spending.

U.S. military spending doesn’t seem so high when compared to selected non-European countries. For example, Saudi Arabia spends 10% of GDP on the military, Jordan spends 8.6%, Israel spends 7.3%, Russia spends 3.9%, and Cuba spends 3.8%.

President Obama has announced a plan to build a high-speed rail network, primarily in "blue" states. But according to transit expert Randal O’Toole, high-speed rail is uneconomical, and even in Europe, has not stemmed the growth in automobile and air travel. Writing in the March 2009 edition of Liberty magazine, O’Toole said:

This is a subject that I’ve been studying for 15 years and have concluded that comparisons between the U.S. and countries with socialized medicine are too complicated to draw any definite conclusions, due to widely different measurements, demographics, culture, lifestyle, and diets between countries. Besides, the U.S. healthcare system is not a market system as many Americans believe. It is a Rube Goldberg contraption that was built by the tax code, by state and federal regulations and price controls, by a strange combination of employer-provided and government-provided health insurance, by rent-seeking corporations, and by pleadings by special interests. I have spent a considerable amount of my own time and money in trying to fix the contraption without resorting to socialized medicine, but the vested interests are too entrenched to let a true consumer market develop in medical care and insurance.

There are endless debates on whether government-provided health care is more or less efficacious than market-based healthcare (interestingly, few people have the same debate about food, shelter, and clothing). But since the U.S. doesn’t have a market-based system, the arguments are based on political and economic philosophy and not facts. They essentially boil down to the issue of who should decide your medical treatments and expenditures: you or a government bureaucrat. Either way, someone has to make economic tradeoffs and ration healthcare, because someone has to decide how much a life is worth, how much to save in youth for the infirmities of old age, and how much of personal or national wealth should be spent on healthcare. My bias is that I want to make those decisions for myself and my loved ones. I don’t want bureaucrats and politicians to make them for me.

In closing, my compliments to you. If you read this essay and bowed to the facts, you’re a wise person and not a partisan imbecile.

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

(Return to Top)