I am very concerned of the nature of this application as well as its location in the new Senior Center complex for a multitude of reasons that the city council will have to consider.

Below I had already stated our concerns regarding the amount of Liquor Licenses in our vicinity and the problems that our community has endured over the years from their presence in a community setting.

I am also dismayed by the amount of robberies that take place on regular occasions from the mini-marts we have in the area, the easy access for criminal activities from the freeway and the crime that hits our areas from the Indian Reservation.

The application of "Temptations Cafe" by name and the mention of the issue in the application of one of the managers or part owner ( I have not been able to figure out the Husbands role in this business) who at one point was running a "swingers" club in Phoenix is something that has to be brought to attention and moved into the light of this matter.

My understanding of the "swingers" clubs is that it was a place where people would swap partners, married or not, for the most part for sexual activity.

The applicant is seeking a Beer/Wine license instead of a Restaurant license which under the laws has certain requirements that the applicants license is not subjected to.

There is no requirement for food sales and in theory can sell alcohol all day and night and never even need to provide any food service or maintain a 40% food sales over liquor.

There is also a problem with this by the fact that State law does not require such establishments to notify the State or the City if it intends to stay open past what the stated hours would be which in this case is a closing by 11 PM.

Another issue that Randy Grant confirmed with me while meeting on another issue also brought to light that the city cannot add any stipulations on this business to make assurances to the community that none of the problems we believe could occur from this establishment can be handled by the city leaving us in the community no alternatives for recourse if these activities did start taking place.

While I am not saying that the intent of the business applicant is to open another type of swingers club in this location it has to be considered that it is possible that the former patrons of the old establishment may decide to come to this establishment to try to continue such activities covertly, and is not something that is unheard of happening.

While it is the ultimately the State and City Councils call on the approval or denial of this license, our community stands firm in it's concerns over this applications location, background, type of license request, and amount of liquor licenses already in the surrounding area of a residential community, that we ask the council to consider very strongly in their decision.

While a nice place to eat in the area would be a nice thing to have and the applicants menu does look appropriate, there are to many other concerns and possible problems that could occur under the circumstances which leaves the city hands tied to do anything about it under the current license request and we would prefer to see the applicant move to a series 12 license and some types of stipulations provided regarding closing times.

Respectfully,

Michael Merrill
Citizens for Responsible Redevelopment
Scottsdale

(Return to Top)

  ~ Commissioner Barnett Replies to Oct 14 Editorial

Thanks very much for your editorial on the "One Scottsdale" proposal.  I noticed that you mentioned comments that I made that I believe need some clarification.  The quotes in the paper were taken from comments in the public forum, and not in interviews, and were obviously snippets of a longer conversation.  You are absolutely correct in mentioning that the Planning Commission is working for the citizens of Scottsdale and not the Mayor, Council, staff or developers.  I have always voted my heart and even during that particular meeting, I voted against staff on some abandonment's in the northern part of town that I personally believe are necessary to preserve until the area has established traffic patterns. 

In particular, during the meeting on "One Scottsdale", I did make some very kind comments to the developer primarily in response to their extensive community outreach.  Over time, DMB has garnered the support for "One Scottsdale" in the local community which included more than 3000 residents of Greyhawk, Scottsdale Healthcare and Discount Tire - all of which are the immediate neighbors of the project and are most affected by the increase in traffic, etc.  Following their lead, I think that the Planning Commission did take into account the community response to the project.  In fact, at the hearing and in the packet there were a limited number of detractors including less than 10 that showed to discuss their opposition - Bob Vairo being one of them.  For a project this size, I was quite surprised at the lack of opposition.   Additionally, as you may be aware, three of the Planning Commissioners that voted in favor of the project live in or near the project and I assume are approached on a regular basis by other neighbors, both in support or opposition.  To say that we did not take into consideration the comments of the community I believe is incorrect.

My comments in total paralleled your comment that Scottsdale has an "originality, individuality, and uniqueness of this fine city" - my comments alluded that DMB has helped make Scottsdale the place that we are all proud to call home.  I can think of no one developer that has had as much influence on the city than DMB in their projects or their extensive community activism and support, both personal and corporate, for our other non-profits around town.   If DMB was in charge of the city projects, I am quite confident that they would come up with more interesting proposals than light rail up Scottsdale road and a mediocre response to citizens request for zoning code variances, redevelopment, etc.  I believe that if DMB was in charge, they would adequately fund the planning department to be proactive, and not reactive.

Additionally, I think you have misinterpreted my support of the project for favoritism.  Favoritism implies that I have done something improper in granting my vote for the project.  Support of something that I believe will add to the city in terms of quality of place is different than doing someone a favor.  I agree with the project just like you disagree with the Planning Commission vote.  Neither my opinion nor yours implies that we are doing anyone a favor - either for DMB or for your supporters.

I can be reached at home at xxx-xxx-xxxx should you wish to talk more about this case or anything else that may be on your mind.

Again, thanks for your work in keeping everyone involved in the process.  I look forward to seeing you soon.

David Barnett, Scottsdale Planning Commission Member
Scottsdale

Editors Note:

I was very pleased to receive the above letter from Mr. Barnett. I did call him as he offered and we had an excellent conversation which covered a number of subjects and I have to say, I'm convinced that Mr. Barnett has his heart in the right place for Scottsdale and he will do his best to make sure that Scottsdale AND it's citizens as a whole will get the best for the least with the least amount of controversy. I applaud him for coming forward to send me the letter rather than slinking away the way many do to protect themselves or someone higher on the ladder who may not appreciate what was said.

With all of that being said, I still do not agree that the taxpayers need to part with another ^$50 million dollar subsidy to support the richest developer in the valley unless it comes back to the city with interest, and not from sales tax revenues. That is something Mr. Barnett and I did not discuss because it has absolutely nothing to do with, nor within the parameters of the Planning Commission jurisdiction.

(Return to Top)

~ Screwed by the Treacherous Trio Still Again? 

Doesn’t it seem that once again, Scottsdale residents have been "had" by ASUF (ASU Foundation) and our Mayor, City Manager,  while being fully supported by the City Attorney? 

As recently reported by the Scottsdale Tribune, Community Services of Arizona, Inc., a not for profit housing agency, is purchasing 8-10 rental properties located on the north side of Belleview St. on the southern perimeter of Skysong.  These properties will be rehabilitated and converted into a high quality "mixed income" rental development instead of the low income subsidized housing we were lead to expect. 

Community Services of Arizona (CSA) is run by Brian Swanton, President and CEO of CSA who was formerly employed by the City of Scottsdale City Housing Office. He reportedly resigned from the city apparently because of conflicts with members of the "Treacherous Trio".  

The purchased properties are a dilapidated eyesore, no question about that.  No potential Skysong tenant who viewed these properties in their present condition would be interested in signing on at Skysong. SkySong just lost another high end lessee, Quicken Loans, to a north Scottsdale location for what in mind are obvious reasons. 

But here's where it gets interesting.  ASUF clearly has a problem with the current condition of these buildings, and the high turnover tenant population.  ASUF could purchase the buildings, and raze them - but why use their money when you can use someone else’s – like the taxpayers? 

Around the same time (April 05), the City alters its annual Community Development Plan for 2006/07 (7/1/06-6/30/07) to allow for Community Development Block Grant money to be used for ACQUISITION of existing rental properties or real property.  Previously, CDBG money was used in Scottsdale exclusively to further homeownership opportunities for low and moderate-income Scottsdale residents. 

Then, on 6/22/06, Manross signed a contract with CSA, without the council’s knowledge of her signing nor the contents of the contracts, granting CSA $750,000 of CDBG money for rehabilitation of rental units on Belleview Street. 

These serious questions beg Straight, Honest Answers: 

Why should we care? – Here are two answers plus more questions to that complex question; Citizens should care for four important reasons. 

It’s time the "Treacherous Trio" pulled their cards out from under the table and lay them wide open on the top of the table, in the light of day, and in front of everyone. Next in the honesty process would be for the staff to arrange for some legitimate public input through multiple outreach efforts, and for the "Treacherous Trio" to stop trying to be the know-all, be-all, go-to people for the developers instead of for the citizens and city council of Scottsdale who they supposedly represent. This situation needs to be fully rectified before ANYTHING more is finalized with  a signature by our mayor. 

If Manross and Dolan, cannot accomplish this simple task, and if Robberson cannot stop being the "enabler" for the "blackwater" deals of Manross and Dolan, all three should resign their positions and move on.

(Return to Top)

~ Links to CSA Contracts (Repeated by Request)

Below are the signed CSA contracts as on file with the City of Scottsdale, Click link to open:

         SDOC 1965                                     SDOC 1966                                     SDOC 1967

(Return to Top)

Article 5 of the City Charter ("Appointive Boards and Commissions") provides at §1 that "[t]he council may by ordinance create, change, and abolish boards or commissions as in its judgment are required, or as are now or hereafter provided by law and may grant to them such power and duties as are consistent with the provisions of this charter."   Pursuant to that grant of express authority, Article V of Chapter 2 ("Administration") of the city's Revised Code provides for different boards and commissions, each of which is to be made up of residents.  They are generally allowed to choose their own chairperson, establish their own rules and regulations, and are principally directed to make recommendations to the council within its substantive area of appointment.

State statute allows municipalities to establish boards and commissions; but, with the possible exception of the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment, those entities are not required by state law.  Their existence in Scottsdale is wholly voluntary and is at the pleasure of the city council.

Under the City Charter, the City Attorney is not directed to provide legal advice to these appointed boards, commissions, and committees even though appointed boards, commissions and committees are a city entity chosen by the city council and are part and parcel to the city government. Wouldn’t one assume that the boards, commissions and committees were protected by the city attorney?

Instead, Article 4 §4 of the Charter provide that:

 "The council shall appoint the city attorney who shall be the chief legal advisor of all offices, departments and agencies and of all officers and employees in matters relating to their official powers and duties.  It shall be his duty to perform all services incident to his position as may be required by statute, by this charter or by ordinance.  He will serve at the pleasure of the council."

The Charter specifically distinguishes between "offices, departments, agencies, officers and employees" on the one hand (Articles 3 and 4) and "appointive boards and commissions" on the other hand (Article 5).   Thus, the Charter cannot reasonably be read to require that the City Attorney serve as the "legal advisor" for appointive boards and commissions yet there is a city legal advisor at almost every meeting of those entities.

The city's Revised Code (§2-116) provides that:

"The city attorney shall act as the legal counselor and advisor of the council and other city officials, and as such shall give his opinion, in writing, when requested.  He shall draft all deeds, contracts, conveyances, ordinances, resolutions and other legal instruments, when required by the council.  He shall prosecute and defend all suits, actions or causes where the city is a party, and shall report to the council, when required, the condition of any suit or action to which the city is a party."

There is nothing in the Code or Charter that defines members of boards, commissions or committees as "city officials" for this or for any other purpose yet they are appointed by the city council and sworn to uphold and follow all federal, state, county and city rules and regulations.

The language above merely provides for permissive legal advice "when requested" rather than for explicit commands whether sought or not.  The term "officials" is undefined in the Code but clearly derives from the related terms "offices" and "officers," both of which are clearly distinct from "boards and commissions" in the Charter and the Charter supersedes the Code.  State law doesn't deal with this issue at all.   There is, therefore, no obligatory legal foundation supporting the practice of having the City Attorney's Office serve as the legal advisor to citizen boards and commissions.

It appears the same city attorney who is giving "citizens" advice will be responsible for processing a complaint.  If that is not enough, what about a city employee filing a complaint against a "volunteer citizen committee member"?  Wouldn’t it follow that because boards, commissions, and committees are an integral part of the city government, they should be represented and protected by the same city attorney? Wouldn’t it also  follow that if the defendant in the action described above felt that representation by the city attorney would not be in the defendant’s best interest, the city should pay for legal council of the defendant’s choice?

Does this important subject need more explanation and public exposure to eliminate some of the apparent "grey areas" which appeared in this discussion which are apparently dictated by the mayor, city manager, and city attorney? I certainly feel it does.

(Return to Top)

 ~ Boards, Etc. Under Severe Unseen Pressure

It's very important for the citizens and voters of Scottsdale to understand that only two of the many boards, commissions and committees utilized by the city of Scottsdale are mandated under state law. All of the others were generated through need  which is determined solely by the Mayor and City Council with very strong input from the city manager's office. 

It would appear from their actions and what they DON'T say is that our illustrious mayor and city manager would love to dump the Bond and Budget Committees so that they can have even more control over the spending of taxpayers money. This is the same reason they didn't want a City Treasurer as required by the City Charter, and thanks to Councilman "McOsterman" the council voted not to have the city treasurer. They always seem to have an answer why we don't need those controls  yet the mayor, city attorney and the mayor's "set" council majority with the approval of the city attorney are spending this city into oblivion and eventual bankruptcy or much higher taxes.

This is the reason they are pushing hard for much higher density in the southern portion of the city: More revenue for them to spend, to Hell with the cries of "Foul" from the residents of the area saying that portion of the city is dense enough already. There's no way the northerners would allow such stupidity!

If they don't like what the boards, commissions and committees come up with, they just find a way to have the council vote it down or now, maybe eliminate the entity. This is putting extreme pressure on these volunteer entities to perform as the "Treacherous Trio" expect them to perform. Many entity members are now starting to bow their backs in opposition to these not so veiled threats.

It's also very obvious that there are people who are being appointed to entity after entity even though they are working for the city as contractors or have contracts directly with the city by operating an operation of some kind for the city. This is wrong and these people should not be asked nor allowed to serve on any volunteer entity at any time because it is a definite conflict of interest. Some I've talked to are afraid to refuse to serve for a deep fear of possibly losing their lucrative contracts.

We feel it's time to have a specific procedure for choosing ALL volunteers for any board, commission, committee or any other volunteer position whether it's one person or 20. This procedure would

• include a public announcement of the open positions available allowing reasonable time for applicants to apply,
   

• "vetting" the applicant by the Human Resources Department to make sure they meet all of the qualifications and requirements, and making sure there are no possible conflicts of interest with their current occupation, and
   

• additional "vetting" by the public being made aware of the applicants with written comments only by the public to be considered by the council before an applicant can be qualified for an appointment vote.

Would the procedure reduce the number of volunteers? Maybe, but it's much more likely that those who feel the panels are "Stacked" or "Seeded" as scores feel they are now,  would be more inclined to volunteer when they know that they're not working with or against a "Stacked" deck.

Let's get serious here. There are over 250,000 people living in Scottsdale and there must be enough qualified residents whom don't have any conflicts of interest who could serve if they knew that everything was to be done on a level playing field without pressure from the elected body or staff to do as they want, not as the citizens want.

Do we really need a mayor and city manager backed up by the city attorney wielding hidden but very heavy hammers over the heads of these volunteers who are just trying to do a good job for the citizens? We don't think so.

(Return to Top)

Headlines in the Friday Tribune tell of the expected delays in the city park at Greyhawk due to increasing costs. So, instead of the city allowing the moving of necessary money from transportation to the parks department to continue the plans for having a park for all citizens to be able to enjoy, we see the continued nonsensical installation of traffic circles, roundabouts and "traffic calming devices which are costing the citizens literally millions of dollars for installations and maintenance.

These taxpayer dollars could be much better spend on parks and other things which are far more important than causing traffic congestion in areas where these types of "Street Furniture" are totally unnecessary.

Why is it that the Director of the City Transportation Department, in full concert with the City Manager, continues to spend millions on these ridiculous installations and force a continued annual drain on the city budget for maintenance and repair of these installations? Does the strong possibility that the only explanation can be super egos or lack of attention to the views and needs of the taxpayers?

We need the parks, especially in the north to help alleviate the pressure on the other city parks, especially those in the central areas of the city. We have waited patiently for these parks to come into existence and now we’re being told there will be even more delays?

Please!!! Move enough money from the Transportation Department to the Parks Department to get this park finish as soon as possible. I think the Manross bureaucracy needs to open their eyes and see some of the stupidity going on where taxpayer monies are concerned.

Immediately STOP building roundabout’s, traffic circles, and traffic calming devices and finish the parks in progress and update all of the others.

Do something right for a change!

(Return to Top)

Item #24 of the proposed Consent Agenda of the November 14^th City Council meeting is listed as follows:

We think this is a very interesting development being that it had been noted in the Transportation Meetings that there was no intent on putting a transit facility at the ASU site. 

Here we go again with even more Manross, Dolan, and O’Connor "Blackwater" planning. 

When will this unbridled spending and underhanded planning ever stop? 

(Return to Top)

 ~Light Rail Information (repeated by request)

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

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

     Goldwater Institute Report

     American Dream Coalition

    The Public Purpose

(Return to Top)

~ Home of the Week

 ~ Questions?

Many readers have asked why we don't expose those nasty, ugly rundown trashy properties we wish City Code Enforcement would cite and force to cleanup. We feel that it is much better to show the examples of homes that show pride of ownership rather than those trash piles and filth holes we all know about. If you have one of those "nasty" homes in your neighbor hood, email  rkeagy@scottsdalaz.gov  giving him all of the pertinent information including address, and you don't need to leave your name, unless you want to be contacted.

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

 ~Another Beauty!

Pride of Ownership in what's now considered Southern Scottsdale is spreading like wildfire. These Hallcraft homes are all well built solid brick homes and continue to age, renovate extremely well and easily maintain their resale value.

This is another home thought of as a 'Plain Jane" until you look at the entire layout and the way it's been meticulously maintained. This is the perfect home for the part time residents. It sports lots of desert landscaping and irrigation in not necessary on this property due to the xeriscape front yard.

There are many wonderful and beautiful neighborhoods within the city of Scottsdale. Do yourself a favor and take the long way home sometime and see what other home owners are doing to improve their neighborhoods. How does your home compare?

If you know of an outstanding home which you feel should to be honored by having the picture displayed in the Scottsdale Activist, send the address to editor@scottsdaleactivist.com .

We have been asked why we don't include homes in HOA controlled subdivisions. We are looking for exceptional homes in areas where the homeowner has to be the driving force behind the beautiful home, not the HOA rules and regulations. We would definitely look at any home in a HOA controlled area that is exceptional and owner maintained rather than by a lawn or landscape service, but so far, we haven't been advised of any that meet that criteria.

(Return to Top)

 ~ View Past City Council Meetings

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

http://scottsdale.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=3

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

(Return to Top)

Once again, resident Mike Merrill is on the mark. 

We asked for housing that would accommodate residents who have lived in the area for years and who are now on fixed incomes and want to remain in their old neighborhood, close to amenities they need and are familiar with, as well as access to services and near long time friends.

That did not happen.

We asked for a nice restaurant to sit down and have a good meal, in safe and pleasant surroundings. Well, this does not look like what the community had in mind.

There are too many bars in close proximity in this area. Please don't make the mistake of adding another Bar and increasing risks to all who live, work and play in the area.

Very Sincerely,

Nancy Ann Cantor
Scottsdale

(Return to Top)

 ~ Public Art System is Badly Flawed

The system we now have to choose public art is badly flawed. Our art erroneously calls itself public. It is private in the extreme. Those choosing the art are not representatives of anyone but themselves ; they don't represent you nor the people of Scottsdale.

Witness the new water treatment facility on McDonald just east of Hayden. It is dismal beyond description: appropriate only for Halloween. It is an insult to the neighborhood, to be avoided if at all possible and a slur on the City of Scottsdale. They represent their own individual tastes, and neither know nor attempt to find out the tastes or preferences of the people of Scottsdale. The funds are public funds, the purpose is public and the choices, by definition must be public.

If the aim of the present system is to avoid public debate, it achieves that completely.

Council should create a 5 person commission to serve for one year only, accountable to council, the only qualification being they are residents of Scottsdale and registered voters. They would be required to nominate three separate offerings of art for each project, which would then be put to public vote at the next election: one piece to be chosen or all three rejected.

Result: Public art reflecting the taste of the public of Scottsdale, instead of the whims of a paid hack who doesn't know and couldn’t care less.

Sincerely,

Charles Poston,
Scottsdale

(Return to Top)

 ~ World Class Ultra High Tech Dental Lab?

I hope most of you took note of the October 16 report in the Business Section of the Arizona Republic that Scottsdale is vying to host Midwestern University's future dental clinic, and has offered SwanSong as a potential site.

How much more proof do we need of the collapse of the technology center concept?  First rental units are added to the site (supposedly "market rate", whatever that means).  Then a desperate attempt to land Dial headquarters fails when Dial's CEO predictably states to the media that its employees reside in north Scottsdale and north Phoenix, and have no intention of traveling to south Scottsdale. Then Quicken Loans chooses north Scottsdale over SwanSong. Now SwanSong is offered to a private dental clinic, probably at a fire sale rate.

Well, at least the students at Midwestern will have rental apartments nearby - those same apartments that ASU Foundation loudly assured us will not become student housing.  And if they can't afford these units, maybe they can qualify for the low income units to be developed by CSA right behind SwanSong on Bellevue Street.

A. Arnold
Scottsdale

(Return to Top)

~ Will you Ride the Taxpayer Trolley?

We all know that light rail fails the public policy sniff test because of its obscenely high cost and the near-apocalyptic traffic congestion it will create.  There's also another factor to consider:  Ridership. 

What evidence exists that anyone will actually ride the Taxpayer Trolley? 

Scottsdale residents aren't using the public transportation we already have.  Do you think they'll pay considerably more to ride a train with even fewer scheduling options?  And how much will taxpayers be required to cough up to subsidize the huge cost of operating these low-occupancy, mobile money pits?

No doubt, another taxpayer-funded transit study will address these concerns. 

Can't wait.  How 'bout you?

Charles Peters
Scottsdale

(Return to Top)

After the Scottsdale Tribune recently reported on the plans of Community Services of Arizona (CSA) to develop low-income housing on Belleview St in South Scottsdale, utilizing Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) given by the Federal Government to Scottsdale;  Mayor Manross delivered an e-mail, dated September 28,2006,to her fellow council members.  Most of the Mayor's assertions in this e-mail appear to be directly contradicted by the terms of a written contract between CSA and City of Scottsdale  (COS) entered into and signed by Mayor Manross on June 22, 2006 (Subrecipient Agreement 2006-047-COS).

The Mayor stated:  "This is the first time I am aware that a ...non-profit corporation has indicated a strong interest in creating a comprehensive revitalization strategy for Belleview Street."

However, the above Agreement (Exhibit A, Scope of Work), defines the Program as "acquisition of land and buildings for provision of affordable housing'", specifically acquisition of at least 8 units of multi-family housing which will provide affordable rental housing to low-income households.  The Agreement further states "properties are expected to be acquired in the 85257 zip code".  Of particular interest, the Agreement notes that this is a new use of Community Development Block Grants (CDGB) in Scottsdale, as CDGB funds have  previously been used to further homeownership opportunities for low and moderate income Scottsdale residents.

Mayor Manross stated in her e-mail:  "I was told...that funding for this proposal came...in the form of CDGB funding allocations of approximately $825,000.

The Agreement, which the Mayor signed, specifically provides for $750,000 of CDGB funds to be utilized by CSA.

Mayor Manross stated in her e-mail: "CSA"s plans are preliminary only".

However, the Agreement, signed by Manross, states in the Schedule of Implementation that property acquisitions are to be completed by October 31, 2006 - just days away.

Of great interest, it appears that public notice and citizen input requirements of Federal Law may have been violated by CSA and City of Scottsdale.  One of the appendices to the Agreement contains a written certification by CSA that CSA has "Met the citizen participation requirements" of Federal law.  These requirements are many, including issuance of public notifications and  "community hearings at all stages of the community development program".

Scottsdale's $130 million subsidy of Skyflop is apparently not enough to ensure the success of this failing "technology center" project.

An additional $750,000, in the form of Federal housing money granted to Scottsdale to aid low-income persons, was recently diverted to a not for profit housing agency, known as CSA, for the purchase and renovation of 8-10 blighted rental properties sitting, JUST COINCIDENTALLY, on the southern perimeter of Skysong, on Belleview Street.

ALSO JUST A COINCIDENCE, Scottsdale amended its Annual Community Development Housing Report for the 2006/2007 grant year to allow the federal funds diverted to CSA, known as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), to be used for the purchase of existing rental properties to "preserve affordability".  Previously, CDBG money was used in Scottsdale to furnish home-ownership opportunities for low-and middle-income Scottsdale residents.

ALSO JUST A COINCIDENCE, Brian Swanton, President and CEO of CSA was formerly employed by the City of Scottsdale City Housing Office.

Why should we care?  First, because this $750,000 in Federal money which will be used to improve the southern border of Skyflop and benefit the ASU Foundation in its desperate attempts to obtain commercial tenants at Skyflop, but which will do nothing whatsoever to "preserve the affordability of rental units", could have been put to far better use in Scottsdale.  Secondly, it seems that public notification and citizen participation requirements of Federal housing law have been violated as our City once again conducts its business in secrecy.  

Michelle Aubert
Scottsdale

(Return to Top)

(Return to Top)

~THE CORRECT WAY TO FORWARD E-MAILS

These are excellent rules of etiquette for using an email system.

A friend who is a computer expert received the following directly from a system administrator for a corporate system. It is an excellent message that ABSOLUTELY applies to ALL of us who send e-mails.

Please read the short letter below, even if you're sure you already follow proper procedures.

Do you really know how to forward e-mails? 50% of us do; 50% DO NOT.

Do you wonder why you get viruses or junk mail? Do you hate it? Every time you forward an e-mail there is information left over from the people who got the message before you, namely their e-mail addresses and names. As the messages get forwarded along, the list of addresses builds, and builds, and builds, and all it takes is for some poor sap to get a virus, and his or her computer can send that virus to every E-mail address that has come across his computer.

Or, someone can take all of those addresses and sell them or send junk mail to them in the hopes that you will go to the site and he will make five cents for each hit. That's right, all of that inconvenience over a nickel! How do you stop it? Well, there are several easy steps:

• When you forward an e-mail, DELETE all of the other addresses that appear in the body of the message (at the top). That's right, DELETE them. Highlight them and delete them, backspace them, cut them, whatever it is you know how to do. It only takes a second. You MUST click the "Forward" button first and then you will have full editing capabilities against the body and headers of the message. If you don't click on Forward" first, you won't be able to edit the message at all.
   

• Whenever you send an e-mail to more than one person, do NOT use the To: or Cc: fields for adding e-mail addresses. Always use the BCC:(blind carbon copy) field for listing the e-mail addresses. This is the way the people you send to will only see their own e-mail address. If you don't see your BCC: option click on where it says To: and your address list will appear. Highlight the address and choose BCC: and that's it, it's that easy. When you send to BCC: your message will automatically say "Undisclosed Recipients in the "TO:" field of the people who receive it.
   

• Remove any "FW :" in the subject line. You can re-name the subject if you wish or even fix spelling.
   

• ALWAYS hit your Forward button from the actual e-mail you are reading. Ever get those e-mails that you have to open 10 pages to read the one page with the information on it?

• By Forwarding from the actual page you wish someone to view, you stop them from having to open many e-mails just to see what you sent.

Have you ever gotten an email that is a petition? It states a position and asks you to add your name and address and to forward it to 10 or 15 people or your entire address book. The email can be forwarded on and on and can collect thousands of names and email addresses.

A FACT: The completed petition is actually worth a couple of bucks to a professional spammer because of the wealth of valid names and email addresses contained therein. If you want to support the petition, send it as your own personal letter to the intended recipient. Your position may carry more weight as a personal letter than a laundry list of names and email address on a petition. (Actually, if you think about it, who's supposed to send the petition in to whatever cause it supports? And don't believe the ones that say that the email is being traced, it just ain't so!)

Some of the other emails I hate include:

Before you forward an 'Amber Alert', or a 'Virus Alert', or some of the other emails floating around nowadays, check them out before you forward them. Most of them are junk mail that's been circling the net for YEARS! Just about everything you receive in an email that is in question can be checked out at Snopes. Just go to  www.snopes.com .

It's really easy to find out if it's real or not. If it's not, please don't pass it on.

So please, in the future, let's stop the junk mail and the viruses.

Finally, here's an idea!!! Let's send this to everyone we know (but strip my address off first, please). This is something that SHOULD be forwarded, so do it.

Amen!

~ Just for Giggles 
 

Two guys were working for the city works department. One would dig a hole andthe other would follow behind him and fill the hole in. They worked up one side of the street, then down the other, then moved on to the next street, working furiously all day without rest, one guy digging a hole, the other guy filling it in again.

An onlooker was amazed at their hard work, but couldn't understand what they were doing. So he asked the hole digger, "I'm impressed by the effort you two are putting into your work, but I don't get it, why do you dig a hole, only to have your partner follow behind and fill it up again?"

The hole digger wiped his brow and sighed, "Well, I suppose it probably looks odd because we're normally a three-man team. But today the guy who plants the trees called in sick."

(Return to Top)

The waiter says, "Sure Friend, coming right up." He gets the Indian a tall mug of coffee.

The Indian drinks it down in one gulp, picks up the bucket, throws the manure into the air and blasts it with the shotgun, then walks out. Four days later the Indian returns. He has his shotgun in one hand and another bucket of manure in the other. He walks up to the counter and says to the waiter, "Coffee please."

The waiter says, "Whoa, Friend, we're still cleaning up from the last time you were in here. What the heck was all that about, anyway?" The Indian says, "I'm in training for an Executive Management job.... drink coffee, shoot the BS, and disappear for a few days."

(Return to Top)

~ Here & There

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

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

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

(Return to Top)

~TRAFFIC RESTRICTIONS IN SCOTTSDALE

Oct. 19, 2006

The following is a partial list of road construction projects and traffic restrictions taking place in Scottsdale Oct. 20-29. For more information, contact mphillips@ScottsdaleAz.gov

74TH STREET RESTRICTIONS
** 74th Street will be completely closed south of McDowell Road to north of Belleview Street from midnight Sunday, Oct. 22, through midnight on Oct. 27 to permit sewer line work. The suggested detour route is Miller Road. Access will be provided for traffic entering bank and commercial center on 74th Street and McDowell.
** Lane closures in both directions will take place at times on 74th Street at Shea Boulevard from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. daily starting Monday, Oct. 23, through Nov. 17 to permit utility line work.

PRINCESS DRIVE AT SCOTTSDALE ROAD
The westbound curb lane on Princess Drive at Scottsdale Road will be closed from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. daily through Oct. 27 to permit road work.

90TH STREET AT HELM DRIVE
Lane closures in both directions will take place at times on 90th Street at Helm Drive from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. daily through Nov. 16 to permit utility line work.

BROWN AVENUE, CAMELBACK ROAD TO SHOEMAN LANE
Brown Avenue will be completely closed from south of Camelback Road to Shoeman Lane from 10 p.m. Sunday, Oct. 22, to 8 a.m. Monday, Oct. 23, to permit concrete work.
During those same dates and hours, Shoeman Lane will be completely closed from Scottsdale Road to Buckboard Trail.

INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD AT 75TH STREET
The westbound curb lane of Indian School Road at 75th Street will be closed from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. daily starting Monday, Oct. 23, through Oct. 26 to permit utility work.


68TH STREET, SOUTH OF INDIAN SCHOOL
North- and southbound traffic will be reduced to one lane on 68th Street, south of Indian School Road, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday, Oct. 23, to permit crane access.

60TH STREET, NORTH OF WESTLAND DRIVE
The southbound curb lane on 60th Street, north of Westland Drive will be closed from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. daily starting Tuesday, Oct. 24, through Oct. 29 to permit asphalt work.

SHEA BOULEVARD, 85TH PLACE TO SCOTTSDALE ROAD
The westbound curb lane on Shea Boulevard from 85th Place to Scottsdale Road will be closed from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. daily through Oct. 27 to permit utility work in manholes.

OTHER SCOTTSDALE ROAD RESTRICTIONS
** The northbound center lane on Scottsdale Road at Gold Dust Avenue will be closed from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday, Oct. 23, for utility line work.
** The northbound center lane on Scottsdale Road at Chaparral Road will be closed from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. daily through Friday, Oct. 20, to permit utility line work in manholes.
** The intersection of Scottsdale and McDowell roads will be reduced to one lane in each direction from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. nightly starting Monday, Oct. 23, through Oct. 27 to permit work on water lines.

PINNACLE PEAK ROAD, BETWEEN 81ST AND 83RD STREETS
Traffic restrictions, including lane closures, will take place at times on Pinnacle Peak Road between 81st to 83rd streets through October to permit work on a sewer line project.

PIMA ROAD RESTRICTIONS
** The southbound right-turn only lane on Pima Road at Thompson Peak Parkway will be closed from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. daily through Monday, Oct. 23, to permit work on utility lines.
** Southbound Pima Road is reduced to one open lane, from Via de Ventura to Inner Circle Drive, through October to permit road work.
**Northbound Pima from Thompson Peak Parkway to north of Haulapai Drive will be reduced to one lane from 5:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. daily through October to permit road widening.
For more information on the project visit:
http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/capitalprojects/proj_report.asp?proj=S2104&status=S2104

CACTUS ROAD RESTRICTIONS
** The westbound curb lane and the eastbound center turn lane on Cactus Road at 108th Street will be closed from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Oct. 20 to permit work on utility lines.
** The westbound curb lane and the eastbound center lane on Cactus Road at 102nd Street will be closed from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. daily through Nov. 6 for work on utility lines.
** The westbound curb lane on Cactus Road at 100th Street will be closed from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. daily through Nov. 6 for work on utility lines.

HAYDEN/CACTUS ROADS INTERSECTION
The Hayden Road/Cactus Road intersection is reduced to one lane in all directions through November to permit road improvement work. As part of this project, Redfield Road from 79th Street to Hayden Road is restricted to one lane in each direction through November.
For more information on the Cactus Road widening project, visit:
http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/capitalprojects/proj_report.asp?proj=S2103&status=S2103

HAYDEN/McDOWELL ROADS INTERSECTION
The northbound curb lane on Hayden Road and the westbound right-turn only lane on McDowell Road will be closed from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. on Monday, Oct. 23, to permit road work.

HAWKNEST ROAD AT 86TH PLACE
Short sections of Hawknest Road will be completely closed from roughly 86th Place to 87th Street from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily through Monday, Oct. 23, to permit sewer line installation. Flaggers will be directing traffic in the area during closures.

HIGHLAND AVENUE AT SCOTTSDALE ROAD
The westbound curb lane of Highland Avenue at Scottsdale Road will be closed through Monday, Oct. 23, to permit road work.

CAMELBACK ROAD, 64TH TO 68TH STREETS
Traffic will be reduced to one lane in each direction on Camelback Road from 64th to 68th streets through Nov. 11 to permit street improvements.
More information on this project is available at:
http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/capitalprojects/proj_report.asp?proj=S0301&status=S0301

DOWNING OLSEN DRIVE, EAST OF PIMA ROAD TO 89TH PLACE
Downing Olsen Drive will be completely closed to traffic from east of Pima to west of 89th Place through early December for work on water lines. The recommended alternative route is 94th Street south to Bell Road.
More information on this project is available at:
http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/capitalprojects/proj_report.asp?proj=S2104&status=S2104


EXETER BOULEVARD, WEST OF 66TH STREET TO EAST FO 64TH STREET
Exeter Boulevard will have restrictions, including a complete closure at times, from west of 66th Street to east of 64th Street through Wednesday, Oct. 25, to permit utility trenching.

(Return to Top)
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are many other branches throughout the Valley.

Proposition 100; Bail for undocumented immigrants

– Would give Judges the authority to deny bail to illegal aliens when there is convincing evidence that they've committed a serious felony, class 4 or higher or Aggravated DUI.  Recognizing they pose a great flight risk and are already in violation of federal law of entering and remaining in the U.S. Illegally. We have thousands of illegal aliens that have committed serious crimes and fled to Mexico and the Mexican Government has refused to extradite them back to the U.S. (25 people killed each day by illegal aliens; 13 by DUI and 12 by stabbings and shootings). 

Proposition 101; 2006 Taxpayer Protection Act

- Would amend the Arizona Constitution to require, beginning in 2007, that counties, cities, towns and community college districts determine their primary levy limit based on the actual tax levy in 2005. This proposition would be a step forward towards controlling liberal governments by limiting the ability of a municipality to tax its citizens by basing the municipal tax increases on the previous year’s collections.  Even further, some municipalities have a maximum allowable tax levy growth of 21.6%, which is outrageously high.  This proposition would limit that growth to 8.3%. 

Proposition 102; Standing in Civil Actions

- Would amend the Arizona Constitution to prohibit an illegal alien from being awarded punitive damages in the courts of Arizona. This is a proposition that I worked on as part of my larger immigration reforms.  It was my intention to protect the rights of legal U.S. Citizens by not allowing frivolous law suits brought by illegal aliens to result in punitive damage awards.  We have to ensure that our judicial system is not allowing those who break the law profit at the expense of U.S. Citizens. 

Proposition 103; English as the Official Language

- English must be designated the official language of the state of Arizona. Like President Theodore Roosevelt once said, "We have one language here, and that is the English language, and we intend to see that the [assimilation] crucible turns our people out as Americans. Former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm wisely observed that "a nation needs a common language just as it needs a common currency." A common language promotes unity and understanding among the citizens of a nation. By making English the official state language we provide an even greater incentive for all immigrants to learn English, apply for citizenship, and become empowered and productive Americans, (this referendum is Official English not English Only makes appropriate exceptions for trade, tourism, communication purposes, emergencies, etc.) By making English the official language, we also eliminate the wasteful spending used to translate millions of state documents into hundreds of languages.  

Proposition 104; Municipal Debt

- Would amend the Arizona Constitution to allow incorporated cities and towns to exceed their debt limit by up to 20% for: public safety, law enforcement, fire and emergency service facilities, streets and transportation facilities. This proposition plain and simple opens the door for municipalities to potentially increase taxes.  It would allow cities to incur additional debt to pay for certain services.  This debt will have to be passed on and paid for by its citizens through increased tax rates.  

Proposition 105; State Trust Land Reform

- Would amend the Arizona Constitution to allow urban state trust land to be conveyed to a county, city or town for permanent conservation, and up to 400,000 acres of rural state trust land to be conveyed for permanent conservation to the county in which the land is located. All provisions are dependant on Arizona voter approval in November 2006 and the US Congress must amend the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act by 12-31-08. This proposition streamlines the process for selling and leasing State Trust Land, without creating any unneeded bureaucracy.  The money created from these transactions exist for the sole purpose of benefiting Arizona’s schools. 

Proposition 106; Conserving Arizona’s Future

- Would amend the Arizona Constitution to permanently conserve and protect 690,000 acres of land and provide a classroom funding stream though improved planning and management of trust land. All provisions are dependant on Arizona voter approval in November 2006 AND the US Congress must amend the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act by 12-31-08.  This is a proposition that might as well have been written by the Sierra Club.  The measure creates a new bureaucracy designed to grant environmentalist an enormous amount of trust land as low cost.  The more land that is granted to the environmentalist will directly correlate with a decrease in funds for the education community. 

Proposition 107; Protect Marriage Arizona

- Would amend the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as only consisting of the union of one man and one woman, and would prohibit the state and its political subdivisions from creating or recognizing any legal status for unmarried persons that is similar to that of marriage. This proposition protects the sanctity and tradition of marriage the enactment of this proposition would also ensure that independent cities or towns could not infringe on the moral will of the voters by enacting an immoral definition of marriage. 

Proposition 200; Arizona Voter Reward Act

- Would amend state laws to establish a voter reward random drawing every two years with a first prize of $1M or more. Voters who cast ballots in the primary or general elections will be eligible to win and the money will come from the Arizona Lottery and private donations.  This is an absurd measure that equates the civic duty of voting with the media ploys used on television games shows like "Who wants to be a Millionaire."  Voting is a privilege and right granted to each citizen of this country.  We should not patronize nor trivialize our civic duty. 

Proposition 201; Smoke-Free Arizona Act

- Would amend state laws to prohibit smoking in all enclosed public places and places of employment.  Prohibiting smoking in all public and private businesses establishment tramples the private property rights of the business owners.  The founding fathers viewed the right to own private property as one of the most important issues protected by the Constitution.  A government should not have the right to take the legal act of smoking and make it illegal to do on ones private property.  

Proposition 202; AZ Minimum Wage Act

- It would impose a state minimum wage of $6.75, and would create a new politically appointed "Commission" to oversee minimum wage and employment practices in AZ, which would have no term limits and wouldn’t be accountable to the legislative branch or the voting public.  The Commission would have full access to all records of any employer.  It would grant any labor union or special interest group the power to access employment records.  

Proposition 203; First Things First for Arizona’s Children

- Would amend state laws to use an increased sales price (an additional $.80) on tobacco to provide funds for early childhood education for children ages 0-5. This proposition is a further expansion of all day Kindergarten, an issue championed by Governor Napolitano.  This proposition would create a new source of revenue for state subsidized daycare.  The new source of revenue would be in the form of tax increases amounting to more than $188 million per year. 

Proposition 204; Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Act

- Would amend state laws to provide six years for the state to adopt more human practices regarding pigs during pregnancy and calves raised for veal.  This forces the agricultural community to adopt nonsensical standards regarding the way that they raise there privately owned life stock. This is an initiative pushed by out-of-state animal-rights activists, which would ban common practices used by livestock producers to house breeding pigs and veal calves (even though there is no veal production in Arizona), and subject farmers to as much as $20,000 in fines and six months in jail. 

Proposition 205; Your Right to Vote

- Would amend state laws to provide that all registered voters automatically receive a mailed ballot from the election official before every election and that a limited number of county-wide polling places shall remain open on election days for on site voting. This proposition is an attempt to circumvent the voter enacted and protected standards established by Proposition 200.  This is achieved by eliminating almost all polling places thereby negating the need for legal citizens to present identification when voting.  Mail in ballots are currently readily available to any registered voter who requests that they be sent this paper work.  Why would we want to make it more difficult for the already small percentage of people who do vote to do so? 

Proposition 206; AZ Non-Smoker Protection Act

- This smoking ban proposition is less costly for business owners and tobacco consumers than Prop. 201, because it would allow smoking in bars and does not include a tax increase.  It recognizes private property rights.  Signs must notify patrons and employees where smoking is permitted.  Still prohibits minors in smoking areas.  

Proposition 207; Private Property Rights Protection Act

- Would amend state laws to define public use and declare that the public benefits of economic development, including increased tax revenues and employment, shall not constitute a public use. This proposition is an effort to protect Arizona citizens from infringement and regulatory taking of private property like recently happened in Connecticut.  In that case the state government stole private property from its citizens for the purpose of increasing its tax base.  This proposition on the most basic of levels protects the rights of private property owners from the unlawful takings of land by dominating governments and additionally protects these owners from government facilitated attempts to diminish the value of private property.  

Proposition 300; Public Program Eligibility

- Would amend state laws to require recipients of certain state-funded services to be legal residents in the United States and would direct the entities that provide these services to report on the number of people who applied to participate and the number who were not eligible for those programs due to their non-legal status.  After the back door veto of 2004’s Proposition 200, by Governor Napolitano and Attorney General Terry Goddard, this proposition would once again allow the voters to demonstrate there willingness to protect social services by ensuring that only legal U.S. citizens have access to tax payer funded services. By offering these services to illegal aliens, it increases the burden on our state programs and robs our own citizens of services they’ve paid for with their taxes.  Above all, free state services for all takes away the incentive for illegal aliens to become citizens and legitimate members of American society. It is vital that we spend our tax dollars on helping Arizonans and not aid and abet illegal aliens. 

Proposition 301; Probation for Methamphetamine Offenses

- Would amend state laws to prevent a person convicted of drug charges involving methamphetamine from being eligible for probation under the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act of 1996.  This proposition recognizes the methamphetamine epidemic that has swept the nation and closes loopholes currently available for those individuals convicted of methamphetamine related drug offences.  

Proposition 302; State Legislators’ Salaries

- Would authorize the Scottsdale Unified School District Governing Board to adopt a capital outlay budget which exceeds the District’s capital outlay revenue limit by not more than ^$11,800,000 per year for seven (7) years.

shoutandspout@scottsdaleactivist.com