~ Food for Thought - Take It or Leave It 

I think the police traffic ticket information below states clearly that her nibs, Mayor Mary Katherine Manross was, by law, speeding when she slammed into an innocent party at a SPEED GREATER THAN REASONABLE AND PRUDENT according to the court disposition as seen below. What the disposition doesn’t show is the possibility that one or all of the vehicles involved were total losses after the collision.

Reportedly, per the local press, the mayor stated that she was not exceeding the speed limit. The law sets a maximum speed which is posted for all to see on all streets, highways and byways, but the law also clearly states that you should not exceed a speed which is reasonable and prudent for the current situation, for current weather conditions or existing driving conditions, and the ability of the driver to be fully alert and in total control of the vehicle. Obviously, the officer writing the ticket and the mayor, per the disposition of the ticket, have agreed, in fact, that the mayor was speeding and in violation of that law under one or more of the above reasons.

According to the record below, this case was adjudicated in a Scottsdale Court with the final outcome on December 7, 2007 being that the mayor agreed to pay a fee and attend driving school to fulfill her obligations under the law with no record to MVD or on her driving record. How Lucky!!

The poor innocent victim is still suffering today from the mayor’s recklessness and failure to follow the laws of the State of Arizona or the City of Scottsdale and pay attention to her driving.

The mayor also reportedly claims she was not on her cell phone. Maybe with some help, we can now locate her cell phone records for the date of her accident to see if she was on her cell phone at the exact period of time when her accident occurred. The mayor’s cell phone and the calls she makes, according to our information and possibly the city ethics code or city regulations, are supposed to be of public record because she is a public official. This could get very interesting couldn’t it?

Will we uncover still more probable untruths perpetrated on the Scottsdale citizens and her victim by our less than forthright mayor?

Hmmm, Where was Photo Radar in her case?

Being that this is public record and we were able to easily find it, we felt every Scottsdale citizen should be able to see the truth for themselves, no holds barred! The Scottsdale Activist does not keep public records secret like our illustrious mayor and her staff does on a regular basis. --

The Mayor has always claimed that safety was her main concern and that speed was the reason for the supposed mayhem on the 101 freeway.

Interestingly enough, the vast majority of accidents on the 101 freeway site Speed Greater than Reasonable and Prudent as the reason for the accidents. Even more interesting is that the actual speed during the vast majority of those accidents where the Speed was Greater than Reasonable and Prudent was no more than 45 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour area!

So much for speed being the problem which leaves the only motive for the mayor restarting the Photo Radar on the 101 freeway based purely on greed and money to be poured into the general (slush) fund, and with not one cent for the enhancement of the police department or DPS where it should be deposited.

We have been asked so many times what do we think about the Waterview project proposed for the East Canal Bank north of Camelback Road. We thought we had better say a few words.

First, the residents of the Minnezona neighborhoods and the Villa Monterey neighborhoods and the residents of the smaller condo and apartments nestled on both sides of the Arizona Canal need an apology for having endured so many years with the redevelopment cloud hanging over them.

It has done as much to destabilize the quality of daily life for all of those residents, just as the threat of light rail through the heart of Downtown Scottsdale is doing right now.

Waterview has been created through the process of "neighborhood assemblage." Developers do this with no thought to the residents, whether we are talking about property values or basic shelter. The city does not required them to, so they don't.

But who said life was fair or simple. Back to the project itself.

Since we have not had a chance to talk to anyone head to head and face to face about this project we can only go with our gut.

If you take it that this is not making many of us, many, many of us, very happy, you are right. We can't fully blame the developer, they have simply taken advantage of the City's total lack of attention to Neighborhood Planning according to the General Plan.

The City, thanks to city manager Jan Dolan, has chosen for the last few years to go on a project by project basis. It is easier to get things past people when you wear them down with meeting after meeting, planning jargon, developer jargon and decisions after the fact (think the south bank of the Waterfront and other projects such as SkySong, etc.).

Do we need more luxury condos? How about luxury hotels and five star restaurants?

Has the time come for the business community to look at quality housing for moderate and even low income workers who make the business community businesses successful, so that they can live in the community they serve? Or are we to abandon them to neighboring communities and count on high speed rapid transit to bring them to work?

As the East Valley grows, those workers are able to work closer to home, and transportation though it needs improvement, is not going to replace being able to work closer to home.

Much of what we have said is not directly about Waterview, but Waterview raised the questions.

(Return to Top)

 ~ Mayor Plays Favorites, Yet Again.........

Unbelievably, our infamous mayor had the audacity to publicly break the rules and allow a comment card to be entered AFTER the comment portion of the presentation was already started. Was it for a John Doe citizen or one of her objectors or detractors? No way! It was for one of her most ardent supporters, Virginia Korte, who has supported and pushed every project the mayor (or Chamber of Commerce) have tried to dump on the citizens of this city for years.

Had George Knowlton, Mike Merrill, Michelle Aubert, or other of her most ardent objectors asked for the same privilege, there would have been an emphatic and resounding "NO" or no acknowledgement at all.

We want to very strongly emphasize that the city clerk, Carolyn Jagger, plainly and clearly told Ms. Korte as well as a note to the mayor with the same message stating that her entry was late and could not be accepted. Apparently, Korte insisted and Manross gladly allowed the comment card and called it last and of course it was in favor of the mayor's position.

 ~ City Council Comment Cards Useless

Those who write comment cards at City Council meetings are assured that those cards are read PRIOR to any vote. What a bunch of malarkey! Have you ever seen a council member or the mayor, sans Councilmen Littlefield and Nelssen, read those cards before a vote?  NOPE!! And you probably won't. The council's mind is made up before they hear public comment 90% of the time.

Anyone beginning to believe that a major change is in order?

We were pleasantly surprised to hear Betty Drake take the side of COGS, COPP,  the Scottsdale Coalition, and scores of city activists who have been asking for a much wider scope concerning mass transit but rebuffed by the mayor and Jan Dolan.

Maybe it's finally sinking in that the vast majority of the citizens will not allow ANY railed transportation in the city of Scottsdale unless it's above the roadways on the canals, or on the 101 freeway with "DASH" shuttles to all high use areas.

Maybe it's also sinking in that the residents DO NOT want high density, not even medium density except where it currently exists. No more height variances anywhere in the city except in areas within the immediate area of current structures but not bleeding into residential areas.

Some facts:

(Return to Top)

Mr. Merrill,

The meeting on Tuesday night was a healthy discussion of a very important topic related to our City's future.

As Mayor, my goal has always been to encourage and to allow the broadest possible input on issues.

Ms. Korte filled out a card as the petitioners spoke.  While following procedure and customary rules, I do have to use some discretion.  If that evening you had just filled out a card at that moment, I would have called your name also.

Mayor Mary Manross
City of Scottsdale
3939 Drinkwater Blvd.
Scottsdale AZ 85251
Tel.(480) 312-2433; Fax (480)312-2738
mmanross@scottsdaleaz.gov 

(Return to Top)

Dear Mayor,

You will have to excuse me here, but the fact that you are so full of bull dung and there is not a person in this e-mail that either believes you or even trust you any longer that I have to wonder if you have slipped a gear.

(We will have to excuse two people in that Mark Scarp and Mike Ryan may buy into your lies)

(Virginia) Korte was told by the city clerk she was late and could not speak, you were given a note telling you that she was late and you let Korte speak anyway and to try to tell me that you would give me the same consideration is one of the most blatant of lies you have ever placed in an e-mail.

I mean really Mary, do you think we are all that stupid?

I can tell you now that council members and many staff members as well as those who watched what you did clearly say you were wrong and out of line.

Again, do you really think that we are all that stupid?

Fact is, if it were not for Betty working with Jim to make the language of the issue something more to the acceptance level she wanted, you and your other henchmen would have shot this down in a heartbeat.

Once you realized that Betty was going to get her language, which none of the petitioners were objecting to, you and your henchmen saw the reality and changed strokes and votes in midstream.

Hence the reason no one trusts you , Wayne, and especially "McOsterman" any longer.

Your actions to allow John Washington to begin public comment on the issue of a petition instead of those who submitted the petitions was yet another tell tale sign of your ignorance to procedures or even common sense in how things look to the public when you pull the dung you do.

What? Do you really think that you can lie your way out of yet another perfect example of your arrogance that effects the credibility of the entire council?

Regards,
Michael Merrill
Scottsdale

There have been a lot of letters to the editor about the proposed text amendment that would potentially require a use permit for churches to locate in residential districts in Scottsdale. Unfortunately, most of them are totally missing the issue and leaving readers with the impression that such a change would prevent churches from locating in
residential districts or somehow limit their religious activities.

Such assertions are totally false. For the record, use permits used to be a requirement for any church to locate in a residential district and there was no detrimental impact to churches. However there also was no detrimental impact on neighborhoods they located in either because the use permit provided a way for municipalities to crack down on those few churches who didn’t care about their impact on the local neighborhood.

That is all that is being requested now, to restore those minimal controls to keep ANY non-residential use in residential districts from negatively impacting the adjacent uses. There is nothing about limiting what churches can do unless they venture outside "religious" activities as a few have.

There is at least one church in the valley that has rented out their buildings to anyone who would pay, which clearly would not be allowed in a residentially zoned district were it not for this loophole in the ordinance. We have two churches, next to each other, on Scottsdale Road in North Scottsdale that clearly demonstrate the difference. One is integrated into the community, an asset, a good neighbor, while the other seeks to expand their operations with no regard for their negative impact on the community. In fact it is the outrageous actions of this second church that spurred interest in reinstating the use permit criteria for all non-residential uses on residential property, not just churches.

Right now, there is no control at all, so any church can do anything it wants regardless of the impact on the neighborhood. It is clear that most churches are an asset to a community, and a valued resource, but there are those occasional few that will take advantage of their position, and that is why ordinances are necessary and this change is needed.

Howard Myers
Scottsdale

In 2003 the Scottsdale Coalition came together to address redevelopment at Los Arcos and within the Scottsdale Rd./McDowell Rd. Redevelopment Corridors.

With the referendum opposing the Ellman/Wal-Mart subsidy passed, we began asking the Scottsdale City Council to pursue development of goals/standards/guidelines for revitalization projects that were to impact the mature neighborhoods of Scottsdale, north/south/east/west.

Something that would ensure that proposed projects would be compatible with the residential neighborhoods and the businesses on neighboring properties. 

Some members of the Scottsdale Coalition had helped when the City was required to amend the General Plan according to the State of Arizona's Growing Smarter and Growing Smarter Plus Act. The amendments passed by the voters included establishing Neighborhood Area and Character Area Plans.

We are approaching time to begin reviewing for further amendments to the General Plan in 2011, but we have not done the very important Neighborhood Planning process to the degree necessary.

On the city website you will find the presentation that Assistant City Manager Ed Gawf will provide Council on this coming Tuesday, February 13 at 5 p.m. in the Kiva at City Hall.

This is a very important beginning to establish the guidelines for building heights, density of population, residential over commercial construction, traffic and transportation options, open space requirements, infrastructure needs (sewers, water, electric, natural

gas, phone services) for many, many years to come.

Once again the quality of life that many of us appreciate can be impacted positively through community voice or negatively by silence.

You can either sit on you hands while the city as we know it is destroyed, or have your say and save the city from the doom of High rise, high density, and Light Rail ripping up the heart and soul of Scottsdale.

Please share this email and attached information with neighbors and local businesses, schools and churches.

Best Regards to all,

Nancy Cantor
Co-Chair Scottsdale Coalition
Rita Saunders-Hawrnek
Co-Chair Scottsdale Coalition

By Craig J. Cantoni

I don’t understand why it’s ethical for residents of south Scottsdale to ride free on the Scottsdale Trolley at the expense of residents who don’t ride it. But I’m sure that some leftist reader will enlighten me with claptrap about the common good.

I do understand the economics, however. The annual cost of the Trolley is $800,000, and 240 passengers a day ride it on the route between the Granite Reef Senior Center and the Loloma Transit Center. That comes to $9.13 per passenger. Heck, I’ll charge passengers $8 apiece to drive them in the comfort of my car. I’ll even pick them up at their door and provide free refreshments.

Let’s see: four passengers a trip would come to $32. Twenty-four trips in an eight-hour day would come to $768 per day, or $3,840 over a five-day workweek or $199,680 over a year.

No doubt, if the city licensed jitneys, there would be plenty of people who would be happy to provide the rides for a lot less than that. Oh, I forgot: City honchos don’t like market-based solutions to traffic congestion and public transit, probably because they don’t understand such economic concepts as demand curves and price elasticity of demand.

An oversimplified lesson: If demand decreases with price increases, there is price-demand elasticity. For example, the demand for the Trolley would certainly fall if people had to pay the cost of the ride out of their own pockets.

Here’s an example of inelasticity: Due to the government destroying a consumer market in health care 65 years ago, most consumers don’t pay directly for their health care. Consequently, higher health care prices have little effect on consumer demand.

Thinking that Americans are ignorant of the laws of economics, populist politicians are spouting economic nonsense that the solution to the ever-increasing demand for health care is to make it totally free for all Americans, just like the Trolley is free. Of course, when that fails to stop demand, the government will ration health care, as is the case in Canada and other countries.

It’s beyond me why rationing by politicians and bureaucrats would be ethical, or why Peter should pay for Paul’s health care or trolley ride. Since I understand the economics but not the ethics of free trolleys and free health care, I look forward to being enlightened on the ethics.

___________

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

In response to the Scottsdale Republic’s 1/25/07 editorial Napolitano gives city best possible answer

Turn cameras on, governor says, while statewide plan develops, I suggest the public and state legislature scrutinize the City of Scottsdale’s speed camera efficacy research. It seems that Scottsdale Mayor Manross and Governor Napolitano are just giddy about the ASU research supporting the Australian based RedFlex’s Corporation’s capacity to install speed surveillance cameras statewide.

Additionally, it is ironic that the Scottsdale Republic supports statewide use of speed cameras yet their very own website www.arizonacentral.com has ads displayed at the end of their 1/25/07 Turn Cameras On editorial for companies that help speeders evade the ticket generating cameras - Photoblocker Spray and Phantom Plate. The public needs to know just who will benefit from the statewide speed camera plan and who will take delivery of the hundreds of millions dollars in potential fines?

Outcome-based research is a common occurrence when a stakeholder sponsors a study with predestine expectations. Clearly the published findings of the Scottsdale 101 Speed Enforcement study were predetermined prior to data analysis. Nearly all of the studies conclusive findings were based on flawed data and unsubstantiated estimates. In the report, paid for by The City of Scottsdale, the authors confess the "results are based on small samples."? Any experienced researcher understands that "small sample"? means unreliable conclusions.

For instance the report claims that during the enforcement period (February 22 to October 23) average speeds were reduced by 9.5 mph during "non-peak"? time periods (during peak periods the average top speed on the 101 is close to 9.5 mph). Another imaginary fact reported by the ASU researchers is that as soon as the speed surveillance program ended on October 24^th the number of vehicles exceeding 75 mph skyrocketed by 840%. This colossal upsurge does not pass the common sense test.

What the 101 Speed Enforcement Study does not point out is the size of the six speed measurement zones. The 101 test area includes approximately 13 linear miles (68,640 feet) of paved road with the speed measurement zones totaling only 60 linear feet or about 10 feet for each measurement zone. This line of reasoning begs a couple of key questions. Does the 840% increase mean a universal increase in speed on the 13 miles (6.5 miles in each direction) of the 101? Or does it indicate that drivers stopped braking on October 24^th at each of the six 10-foot speed measurement strips? Without additional unknown cameras measuring speeds before and after each camera location the reports claims of an increase in speeders and the change in overall average speed is inconsequential.

Perhaps even more troublesome is the reports assertion that automobile collisions were reduced by up to 70% plus a $47-million economic accident savings benefit. To conjure up these numbers the report compares the Scottsdale 101 to the Glendale 101 on the far west side of the Valley. The Scottsdale to Glendale comparison is akin to comparing Morton’s to McDonalds. The report’s authors were so squeamish about this conclusion they used disclaimers in their PowerPoint presentation such as "corrects for," "relies on," "accounts for" and "more comparison sites are needed." To validate the claims of accident reduction and economic benefits there would have to be comparative additional data from Glendale’s and several other sections of the 101 regarding vehicle speeds and traffic volume during the same measurement period. The report does not use or have the necessary comparative information, thus rendering these claims and the entire report as dubious.

The State of Arizona and the City of Scottsdale has a responsibly to put forth an honest analysis of their traffic safety initiatives. In my opinion, the 101 Speed Enforcement Study was designed as propaganda to legitimatize the Mayor and Governors support for what is looking like city and state cash generating speed camera scheme. The report that everyone seems to be relying on as the gospel truth needs a closer look. In reality the report as presented has the appearance of a college project and the reports conclusions would be unacceptable in the corporate world.

Additionally, the public relies on the news media for a complete and objective analysis and expects more that just a regurgitation of Scottsdale’s and Redflex’s press releases. Transportation is and will continue to be a significant issue for the Northeast Valley. The public deserves to hear the truth.

John Hoeppner
Cave Creek, AZ

We can not express the joy felt at your request that council revisit the scope of work the existing Transit Study on Rapid Transit, beyond the currently listed Scottsdale Road Corridor.

Clearly, the scope of the existing directive does not cover any alternative North/South routes and, in fact it appears, totally deficient in any East/West routes, or the consideration of alternative methods of bus usage, in any form, as a real alternative.

Even the 2003 North/South Scottsdale/Tempe study emphasizes the need for that to be done at parallel with major North/South Corridor studies. We think it should also be noted that the existing Transit Study, to our knowledge, is or has not yet done the "to and from" work needs studies of the many employees within:

Clearly there are no such pattern studies of how, in fact, our municipal workforce as well as police, fire and school folks get to and from their jobs. We do know that without a more comprehensive look at who goes where and how, nothing proposed for a singular route road study can truly successfully spend taxpayer and business dollars. Again we thank you for your insightfulness and the like recognition expressed by your fellow council members Bob Littlefield and Tony Nelssen.

This is truly a revisit look that we believe should be accomplished at the earliest time possible to insure that Scottsdale receives the best possible results for our entire area.

Sincerely,

Nancy Cantor, Chair
Rita Saunders-Hawranek, Co-chair
Scottsdale Coalition
Scottsdale, Arizona

Now the schools are going to teach Spanish to our children. WHY??

How about taking the time, money, and effort to teach the Mexican children English and forget Spanish. This is America, last time I checked, and English is our legal language.

It is very disrespectful to be shopping while the mothers are speaking Spanish to the children around them.  

We don't have to bend to the illegal’s pouring over our border, or teach our children Spanish so they can understand them.

If the United States is good enough to live in, then speak English.

R. Graham
Scottsdale

(Return to Top)

----- Original Message -----

To: bobpopow

Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:40 AM

Subject: Bike path information

Dear Mr. Popow and other homeowners: 

In investigating the issue regarding the removal of the sidewalk behind your property I have determined that the sidewalk is located on a Bike Path Easement (B.P.E.) that is owned by the City of Scottsdale. The B.P.E. is part of a Bike Path Master Plan for the City of Scottsdale. Reed Kempton works for the City of Scottsdale in the Transportation Planning Department Bicycle Program. Reed is the person that informed me of the B.P.E. and said that it is unlikely that the City of Scottsdale would remove the bike path. I did discuss some other options with Reed to reduce the unauthorized traffic through this area, and we will be looking into these options in the future. These options include the City placing a barrier in the middle of the path to reduce four wheeled traffic and possibly barriers on the side of the path. I am also working with Reed to see if he can attend our next meeting to address any questions you may have. I have attached a map of the B.P.E. for you. 

City of Scottsdale

Transportation Planning: Bicycle Program
Reed Kempton, 480-312-7630 

Brad Lundmark

Certified Arizona Association Manager
AAM LLC
(602) 906-4932 Direct
(602) 870-8231 Fax
blundmark@associatedasset.com

From: Ecton, Wayne
To: bobpopow
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:03 PM

For your info. 

Mr. Ecton:

Why are the employees of Scottsdale not directing their attention to the individual homeowners involved?   Why are they going to attend a HOA meeting and address an issue that only affects five (5) homeowners?  This doesn't seem to pass the common sense test!

These issues are:

Not one employee of the City of Scottsdale has contacted any one of us homeowners. Why not?

The HOA is only looking for ways to insure that they have "NO" responsibility in the issue and cannot be held responsible for anything that this issue affects.

 We expect the City to take this responsibility and addressing an HOA meeting is certainly not the proper way to do this.

Can we expect your leadership as a member of the City Council to work towards seeing that this issue is addressed properly and not "sugar coated" insuring that it gets tossed aside and nothing resolved?

Your assistance in directing this properly within the Staff of the City of Scottsdale would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,
Bob Popow & Petitioners
Scottsdale, AZ

By Craig J. Cantoni

Feb. 7, 2007

The website below is a popular resource for teachers of eleventh-grade American history, twelfth-grade economics, and advanced placement government. It helps to explain why Americans are so ignorant in these subjects and have such a mistrust of markets.

http://www.socialstudieshelp.com

Below are excerpts from the website on various topics. I’ve prefaced each excerpt with the word "Claptrap"? And after each excerpt, I’ve provided a statement of fact, prefaced by the word "Fact."

Warning: If you are an educated person, you’ll be dismayed that any teacher would teach such claptrap.

Claptrap: "Enlightenment thinkers from the 1600's like John Locke, Montesquieau [sic], Rousseau and Voltaire have had a great impact on our government and our political philosophy."

Fact: Rousseau was born in 1712, not the 1600’s, and John Locke, who had the greatest influence on the Founders, influenced Voltaire.

Claptrap: "What did the King expect from his colonies? Gain raw materials, market for goods. This was known as mercantilism [emphasis in original]."?

Fact: Mercantilism was the practice of restricting imports with tariffs and other measures. It was based on the belief at the time that trade was a zero-sum game--that one country gained from trade and another lost. Free-market thinker Adam Smith popularized the term "mercantilism" in the 18^th century as mercantilism was waning, and he explained the folly of the practice.

Claptrap: "The industrial revolution and the great economic success that accompanied it had a wide variety of victims. As we have previously discussed the American public, through the efforts of trusts, became a victim of the elimination of competition. The consumer was not the only victim however. The American worker was also victimized."

Fact: The Industrial Revolution brought about the greatest advance in living standards that the world had ever seen. Yes, it triggered social disruption and dislocations, but it is hyperbole to imply that the American public and workers were nothing but victims, or to suggest that all competition was eliminated by trusts. Actually, contrary to the enduring myth, consumer choices skyrocketed and prices plummeted during the era of trusts and robber barons. To take one example, the price of oil fell dramatically under the so-called trust of Standard Oil.

Claptrap: "America at the turn of the century was at best a primitive place. Technology and industry grew at such a great rate that the government and most citizens were unprepared to deal with its effects. Philosophies like Laissez Fair and social Darwinism combined to create an America that cared little for the downtrodden. Eventually citizens, average people like you and me, arose to condemn these conditions and demand change. The demand for change, or progress, was known as the Progressive Era."

Fact: Only a primitive mind would believe that America was a primitive place at the beginning of the 20^th century. If it was primitive, then the millions of immigrants to these shores must have been living in stone-age conditions in Europe to believe that America would give them a better life. The Progressive era produced such glories as:

1) the federal income tax, which in turn spawned the never-ending growth in government;

2) World War I, which killed 115,000 American doughboys in the progressive notion that it would be the "war to end all wars," but which led directly to the horror of World War II;

3) Prohibition, which criminalized a private matter, spawned organized crime, and was the precursor to today’s failed War on Drugs; and

4) the complete implementation of John Dewey’s progressive notions about government-controlled education, as well as the passage of Blaine amendments in many states to put "Papist" school’s out of business.

Claptrap: "Recently there has been an anti union trend. Many states bar public employees from striking, and there has been a rash of what might be called "union busting," or the attempt to break and destroy a particular union. The single best example of union busting is President Ronald Reagan's firing of the members of PATCO, an air traffic controllers union. PATCO members had been in conflict with management for several years. Since PATCO was a national union they had to deal with several different management structures in states throughout the country. When PATCO struck President Reagan feeling that the public safety was in danger, fired the striking workers and replaced them with military personnel. Many states have also passed laws that prohibit public employees from striking. In New York State the Taylor Law fines workers 2 days pay for every day they are out on strike."

Fact: The problem with the above statement and other statements in the lessons about unions is not that they are false. Rather, it is that they are one-sided. They make no mention of the fact that when unions use coercion or government power instead of just withholding labor, they gain at the expense of other workers and consumers. This is particularly true with respect to public-sector unions, because, unlike companies, the public sector doesn’t go out of business if its cost of labor becomes uncompetitive. Also, curiously, no mention was made of the National Education Association, which, with 3.2 million members, has blocked needed reforms of public education, encouraged wasteful spending, and maintained the government’s monopoly over K-12 classroom thought.

Claptrap: In the 1920's American economic policy was laissez faire. Businesses were left alone and for sometime things appeared to [sic] fine. American businesses reported record profits, production was at an all time high. The problem was that while earnings rose and the rich got richer, the working class received a disproportionally [sic] lower percentage of the wealth. This uneven distribution of wealth [emphasis in original] got so bad that 5% of America earned 33% of the income. What this meant was that there was less and less real spending. Despite the fact that the working class had less money to spend businesses continued to increase production levels.

Fact: The above is one of 10 paragraphs about the causes Great Depression, most of which are just as misleading as the above, and none of which mentions the Federal Reserve’s attempts at raising interest rates in 1928 and 1929. Economists still debate the causes of the Great Depression and whether government monetary policy exacerbated and lengthened it, but you wouldn’t know that from the 10 paragraphs. (For an intelligent treatise on the subject, see A Monetary History of the United States, by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz.)

I warned you at the beginning that you would be dismayed that any teacher would teach such claptrap.

Mr. Cantoni is an author and columnist. He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

(Return to Top) 

(Return to Top)

~ Information You Can Use

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

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

This is NOT for Children.

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

 www.obsessionthemovie.com

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

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

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

The website below gives some history of Terrorist attacks:

http://patriotfiles.org/civilizationcalls.htm

(Return to Top)

~ View Past City Council Meetings

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

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

~Continuing Light Rail Information

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

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

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

     Goldwater Institute Report

     American Dream Coalition

    The Public Purpose

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

(Return to Top)

 

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

(Return to Top)

 ~Are Red-Light Cameras Fair to Drivers?

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

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

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

(Return to Top)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are many other branches throughout the Valley.

~ Food for Thought - Take It or Leave It 

I think the police traffic ticket information below states clearly that her nibs, Mayor Mary Katherine Manross was, by law, speeding when she slammed into an innocent party at a SPEED GREATER THAN REASONABLE AND PRUDENT according to the court disposition as seen below. What the disposition doesn’t show is the possibility that one or all of the vehicles involved were total losses after the collision.

Reportedly, per the local press, the mayor stated that she was not exceeding the speed limit. The law sets a maximum speed which is posted for all to see on all streets, highways and byways, but the law also clearly states that you should not exceed a speed which is reasonable and prudent for the current situation, for current weather conditions or existing driving conditions, and the ability of the driver to be fully alert and in total control of the vehicle. Obviously, the officer writing the ticket and the mayor, per the disposition of the ticket, have agreed, in fact, that the mayor was speeding and in violation of that law under one or more of the above reasons.

According to the record below, this case was adjudicated in a Scottsdale Court with the final outcome on December 7, 2007 being that the mayor agreed to pay a fee and attend driving school to fulfill her obligations under the law with no record to MVD or on her driving record. How Lucky!!

The poor innocent victim is still suffering today from the mayor’s recklessness and failure to follow the laws of the State of Arizona or the City of Scottsdale and pay attention to her driving.

The mayor also reportedly claims she was not on her cell phone. Maybe with some help, we can now locate her cell phone records for the date of her accident to see if she was on her cell phone at the exact period of time when her accident occurred. The mayor’s cell phone and the calls she makes, according to our information and possibly the city ethics code or city regulations, are supposed to be of public record because she is a public official. This could get very interesting couldn’t it?

Will we uncover still more probable untruths perpetrated on the Scottsdale citizens and her victim by our less than forthright mayor?

Hmmm, Where was Photo Radar in her case?

Being that this is public record and we were able to easily find it, we felt every Scottsdale citizen should be able to see the truth for themselves, no holds barred! The Scottsdale Activist does not keep public records secret like our illustrious mayor and her staff does on a regular basis. --

The Mayor has always claimed that safety was her main concern and that speed was the reason for the supposed mayhem on the 101 freeway.

Interestingly enough, the vast majority of accidents on the 101 freeway site Speed Greater than Reasonable and Prudent as the reason for the accidents. Even more interesting is that the actual speed during the vast majority of those accidents where the Speed was Greater than Reasonable and Prudent was no more than 45 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour area!

So much for speed being the problem which leaves the only motive for the mayor restarting the Photo Radar on the 101 freeway based purely on greed and money to be poured into the general (slush) fund, and with not one cent for the enhancement of the police department or DPS where it should be deposited.

We have been asked so many times what do we think about the Waterview project proposed for the East Canal Bank north of Camelback Road. We thought we had better say a few words.

First, the residents of the Minnezona neighborhoods and the Villa Monterey neighborhoods and the residents of the smaller condo and apartments nestled on both sides of the Arizona Canal need an apology for having endured so many years with the redevelopment cloud hanging over them.

It has done as much to destabilize the quality of daily life for all of those residents, just as the threat of light rail through the heart of Downtown Scottsdale is doing right now.

Waterview has been created through the process of "neighborhood assemblage." Developers do this with no thought to the residents, whether we are talking about property values or basic shelter. The city does not required them to, so they don't.

But who said life was fair or simple. Back to the project itself.

Since we have not had a chance to talk to anyone head to head and face to face about this project we can only go with our gut.

If you take it that this is not making many of us, many, many of us, very happy, you are right. We can't fully blame the developer, they have simply taken advantage of the City's total lack of attention to Neighborhood Planning according to the General Plan.

The City, thanks to city manager Jan Dolan, has chosen for the last few years to go on a project by project basis. It is easier to get things past people when you wear them down with meeting after meeting, planning jargon, developer jargon and decisions after the fact (think the south bank of the Waterfront and other projects such as SkySong, etc.).

Do we need more luxury condos? How about luxury hotels and five star restaurants?

Has the time come for the business community to look at quality housing for moderate and even low income workers who make the business community businesses successful, so that they can live in the community they serve? Or are we to abandon them to neighboring communities and count on high speed rapid transit to bring them to work?

As the East Valley grows, those workers are able to work closer to home, and transportation though it needs improvement, is not going to replace being able to work closer to home.

Much of what we have said is not directly about Waterview, but Waterview raised the questions.

(Return to Top)

 ~ Mayor Plays Favorites, Yet Again.........

Unbelievably, our infamous mayor had the audacity to publicly break the rules and allow a comment card to be entered AFTER the comment portion of the presentation was already started. Was it for a John Doe citizen or one of her objectors or detractors? No way! It was for one of her most ardent supporters, Virginia Korte, who has supported and pushed every project the mayor (or Chamber of Commerce) have tried to dump on the citizens of this city for years.

Had George Knowlton, Mike Merrill, Michelle Aubert, or other of her most ardent objectors asked for the same privilege, there would have been an emphatic and resounding "NO" or no acknowledgement at all.

We want to very strongly emphasize that the city clerk, Carolyn Jagger, plainly and clearly told Ms. Korte as well as a note to the mayor with the same message stating that her entry was late and could not be accepted. Apparently, Korte insisted and Manross gladly allowed the comment card and called it last and of course it was in favor of the mayor's position.

 ~ City Council Comment Cards Useless

Those who write comment cards at City Council meetings are assured that those cards are read PRIOR to any vote. What a bunch of malarkey! Have you ever seen a council member or the mayor, sans Councilmen Littlefield and Nelssen, read those cards before a vote?  NOPE!! And you probably won't. The council's mind is made up before they hear public comment 90% of the time.

Anyone beginning to believe that a major change is in order?

We were pleasantly surprised to hear Betty Drake take the side of COGS, COPP,  the Scottsdale Coalition, and scores of city activists who have been asking for a much wider scope concerning mass transit but rebuffed by the mayor and Jan Dolan.

Maybe it's finally sinking in that the vast majority of the citizens will not allow ANY railed transportation in the city of Scottsdale unless it's above the roadways on the canals, or on the 101 freeway with "DASH" shuttles to all high use areas.

Maybe it's also sinking in that the residents DO NOT want high density, not even medium density except where it currently exists. No more height variances anywhere in the city except in areas within the immediate area of current structures but not bleeding into residential areas.

Some facts:

(Return to Top)

Mr. Merrill,

The meeting on Tuesday night was a healthy discussion of a very important topic related to our City's future.

As Mayor, my goal has always been to encourage and to allow the broadest possible input on issues.

Ms. Korte filled out a card as the petitioners spoke.  While following procedure and customary rules, I do have to use some discretion.  If that evening you had just filled out a card at that moment, I would have called your name also.

Mayor Mary Manross
City of Scottsdale
3939 Drinkwater Blvd.
Scottsdale AZ 85251
Tel.(480) 312-2433; Fax (480)312-2738
mmanross@scottsdaleaz.gov 

(Return to Top)

Dear Mayor,

You will have to excuse me here, but the fact that you are so full of bull dung and there is not a person in this e-mail that either believes you or even trust you any longer that I have to wonder if you have slipped a gear.

(We will have to excuse two people in that Mark Scarp and Mike Ryan may buy into your lies)

(Virginia) Korte was told by the city clerk she was late and could not speak, you were given a note telling you that she was late and you let Korte speak anyway and to try to tell me that you would give me the same consideration is one of the most blatant of lies you have ever placed in an e-mail.

I mean really Mary, do you think we are all that stupid?

I can tell you now that council members and many staff members as well as those who watched what you did clearly say you were wrong and out of line.

Again, do you really think that we are all that stupid?

Fact is, if it were not for Betty working with Jim to make the language of the issue something more to the acceptance level she wanted, you and your other henchmen would have shot this down in a heartbeat.

Once you realized that Betty was going to get her language, which none of the petitioners were objecting to, you and your henchmen saw the reality and changed strokes and votes in midstream.

Hence the reason no one trusts you , Wayne, and especially "McOsterman" any longer.

Your actions to allow John Washington to begin public comment on the issue of a petition instead of those who submitted the petitions was yet another tell tale sign of your ignorance to procedures or even common sense in how things look to the public when you pull the dung you do.

What? Do you really think that you can lie your way out of yet another perfect example of your arrogance that effects the credibility of the entire council?

Regards,
Michael Merrill
Scottsdale

There have been a lot of letters to the editor about the proposed text amendment that would potentially require a use permit for churches to locate in residential districts in Scottsdale. Unfortunately, most of them are totally missing the issue and leaving readers with the impression that such a change would prevent churches from locating in
residential districts or somehow limit their religious activities.

Such assertions are totally false. For the record, use permits used to be a requirement for any church to locate in a residential district and there was no detrimental impact to churches. However there also was no detrimental impact on neighborhoods they located in either because the use permit provided a way for municipalities to crack down on those few churches who didn’t care about their impact on the local neighborhood.

That is all that is being requested now, to restore those minimal controls to keep ANY non-residential use in residential districts from negatively impacting the adjacent uses. There is nothing about limiting what churches can do unless they venture outside "religious" activities as a few have.

There is at least one church in the valley that has rented out their buildings to anyone who would pay, which clearly would not be allowed in a residentially zoned district were it not for this loophole in the ordinance. We have two churches, next to each other, on Scottsdale Road in North Scottsdale that clearly demonstrate the difference. One is integrated into the community, an asset, a good neighbor, while the other seeks to expand their operations with no regard for their negative impact on the community. In fact it is the outrageous actions of this second church that spurred interest in reinstating the use permit criteria for all non-residential uses on residential property, not just churches.

Right now, there is no control at all, so any church can do anything it wants regardless of the impact on the neighborhood. It is clear that most churches are an asset to a community, and a valued resource, but there are those occasional few that will take advantage of their position, and that is why ordinances are necessary and this change is needed.

Howard Myers
Scottsdale

In 2003 the Scottsdale Coalition came together to address redevelopment at Los Arcos and within the Scottsdale Rd./McDowell Rd. Redevelopment Corridors.

With the referendum opposing the Ellman/Wal-Mart subsidy passed, we began asking the Scottsdale City Council to pursue development of goals/standards/guidelines for revitalization projects that were to impact the mature neighborhoods of Scottsdale, north/south/east/west.

Something that would ensure that proposed projects would be compatible with the residential neighborhoods and the businesses on neighboring properties. 

Some members of the Scottsdale Coalition had helped when the City was required to amend the General Plan according to the State of Arizona's Growing Smarter and Growing Smarter Plus Act. The amendments passed by the voters included establishing Neighborhood Area and Character Area Plans.

We are approaching time to begin reviewing for further amendments to the General Plan in 2011, but we have not done the very important Neighborhood Planning process to the degree necessary.

On the city website you will find the presentation that Assistant City Manager Ed Gawf will provide Council on this coming Tuesday, February 13 at 5 p.m. in the Kiva at City Hall.

This is a very important beginning to establish the guidelines for building heights, density of population, residential over commercial construction, traffic and transportation options, open space requirements, infrastructure needs (sewers, water, electric, natural

gas, phone services) for many, many years to come.

Once again the quality of life that many of us appreciate can be impacted positively through community voice or negatively by silence.

You can either sit on you hands while the city as we know it is destroyed, or have your say and save the city from the doom of High rise, high density, and Light Rail ripping up the heart and soul of Scottsdale.

Please share this email and attached information with neighbors and local businesses, schools and churches.

Best Regards to all,

Nancy Cantor
Co-Chair Scottsdale Coalition
Rita Saunders-Hawrnek
Co-Chair Scottsdale Coalition

By Craig J. Cantoni

I don’t understand why it’s ethical for residents of south Scottsdale to ride free on the Scottsdale Trolley at the expense of residents who don’t ride it. But I’m sure that some leftist reader will enlighten me with claptrap about the common good.

I do understand the economics, however. The annual cost of the Trolley is $800,000, and 240 passengers a day ride it on the route between the Granite Reef Senior Center and the Loloma Transit Center. That comes to $9.13 per passenger. Heck, I’ll charge passengers $8 apiece to drive them in the comfort of my car. I’ll even pick them up at their door and provide free refreshments.

Let’s see: four passengers a trip would come to $32. Twenty-four trips in an eight-hour day would come to $768 per day, or $3,840 over a five-day workweek or $199,680 over a year.

No doubt, if the city licensed jitneys, there would be plenty of people who would be happy to provide the rides for a lot less than that. Oh, I forgot: City honchos don’t like market-based solutions to traffic congestion and public transit, probably because they don’t understand such economic concepts as demand curves and price elasticity of demand.

An oversimplified lesson: If demand decreases with price increases, there is price-demand elasticity. For example, the demand for the Trolley would certainly fall if people had to pay the cost of the ride out of their own pockets.

Here’s an example of inelasticity: Due to the government destroying a consumer market in health care 65 years ago, most consumers don’t pay directly for their health care. Consequently, higher health care prices have little effect on consumer demand.

Thinking that Americans are ignorant of the laws of economics, populist politicians are spouting economic nonsense that the solution to the ever-increasing demand for health care is to make it totally free for all Americans, just like the Trolley is free. Of course, when that fails to stop demand, the government will ration health care, as is the case in Canada and other countries.

It’s beyond me why rationing by politicians and bureaucrats would be ethical, or why Peter should pay for Paul’s health care or trolley ride. Since I understand the economics but not the ethics of free trolleys and free health care, I look forward to being enlightened on the ethics.

___________

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

In response to the Scottsdale Republic’s 1/25/07 editorial Napolitano gives city best possible answer

Turn cameras on, governor says, while statewide plan develops, I suggest the public and state legislature scrutinize the City of Scottsdale’s speed camera efficacy research. It seems that Scottsdale Mayor Manross and Governor Napolitano are just giddy about the ASU research supporting the Australian based RedFlex’s Corporation’s capacity to install speed surveillance cameras statewide.

Additionally, it is ironic that the Scottsdale Republic supports statewide use of speed cameras yet their very own website www.arizonacentral.com has ads displayed at the end of their 1/25/07 Turn Cameras On editorial for companies that help speeders evade the ticket generating cameras - Photoblocker Spray and Phantom Plate. The public needs to know just who will benefit from the statewide speed camera plan and who will take delivery of the hundreds of millions dollars in potential fines?

Outcome-based research is a common occurrence when a stakeholder sponsors a study with predestine expectations. Clearly the published findings of the Scottsdale 101 Speed Enforcement study were predetermined prior to data analysis. Nearly all of the studies conclusive findings were based on flawed data and unsubstantiated estimates. In the report, paid for by The City of Scottsdale, the authors confess the "results are based on small samples."? Any experienced researcher understands that "small sample"? means unreliable conclusions.

For instance the report claims that during the enforcement period (February 22 to October 23) average speeds were reduced by 9.5 mph during "non-peak"? time periods (during peak periods the average top speed on the 101 is close to 9.5 mph). Another imaginary fact reported by the ASU researchers is that as soon as the speed surveillance program ended on October 24^th the number of vehicles exceeding 75 mph skyrocketed by 840%. This colossal upsurge does not pass the common sense test.

What the 101 Speed Enforcement Study does not point out is the size of the six speed measurement zones. The 101 test area includes approximately 13 linear miles (68,640 feet) of paved road with the speed measurement zones totaling only 60 linear feet or about 10 feet for each measurement zone. This line of reasoning begs a couple of key questions. Does the 840% increase mean a universal increase in speed on the 13 miles (6.5 miles in each direction) of the 101? Or does it indicate that drivers stopped braking on October 24^th at each of the six 10-foot speed measurement strips? Without additional unknown cameras measuring speeds before and after each camera location the reports claims of an increase in speeders and the change in overall average speed is inconsequential.

Perhaps even more troublesome is the reports assertion that automobile collisions were reduced by up to 70% plus a $47-million economic accident savings benefit. To conjure up these numbers the report compares the Scottsdale 101 to the Glendale 101 on the far west side of the Valley. The Scottsdale to Glendale comparison is akin to comparing Morton’s to McDonalds. The report’s authors were so squeamish about this conclusion they used disclaimers in their PowerPoint presentation such as "corrects for," "relies on," "accounts for" and "more comparison sites are needed." To validate the claims of accident reduction and economic benefits there would have to be comparative additional data from Glendale’s and several other sections of the 101 regarding vehicle speeds and traffic volume during the same measurement period. The report does not use or have the necessary comparative information, thus rendering these claims and the entire report as dubious.

The State of Arizona and the City of Scottsdale has a responsibly to put forth an honest analysis of their traffic safety initiatives. In my opinion, the 101 Speed Enforcement Study was designed as propaganda to legitimatize the Mayor and Governors support for what is looking like city and state cash generating speed camera scheme. The report that everyone seems to be relying on as the gospel truth needs a closer look. In reality the report as presented has the appearance of a college project and the reports conclusions would be unacceptable in the corporate world.

Additionally, the public relies on the news media for a complete and objective analysis and expects more that just a regurgitation of Scottsdale’s and Redflex’s press releases. Transportation is and will continue to be a significant issue for the Northeast Valley. The public deserves to hear the truth.

John Hoeppner
Cave Creek, AZ

We can not express the joy felt at your request that council revisit the scope of work the existing Transit Study on Rapid Transit, beyond the currently listed Scottsdale Road Corridor.

Clearly, the scope of the existing directive does not cover any alternative North/South routes and, in fact it appears, totally deficient in any East/West routes, or the consideration of alternative methods of bus usage, in any form, as a real alternative.

Even the 2003 North/South Scottsdale/Tempe study emphasizes the need for that to be done at parallel with major North/South Corridor studies. We think it should also be noted that the existing Transit Study, to our knowledge, is or has not yet done the "to and from" work needs studies of the many employees within:

Clearly there are no such pattern studies of how, in fact, our municipal workforce as well as police, fire and school folks get to and from their jobs. We do know that without a more comprehensive look at who goes where and how, nothing proposed for a singular route road study can truly successfully spend taxpayer and business dollars. Again we thank you for your insightfulness and the like recognition expressed by your fellow council members Bob Littlefield and Tony Nelssen.

This is truly a revisit look that we believe should be accomplished at the earliest time possible to insure that Scottsdale receives the best possible results for our entire area.

Sincerely,

Nancy Cantor, Chair
Rita Saunders-Hawranek, Co-chair
Scottsdale Coalition
Scottsdale, Arizona

Now the schools are going to teach Spanish to our children. WHY??

How about taking the time, money, and effort to teach the Mexican children English and forget Spanish. This is America, last time I checked, and English is our legal language.

It is very disrespectful to be shopping while the mothers are speaking Spanish to the children around them.  

We don't have to bend to the illegal’s pouring over our border, or teach our children Spanish so they can understand them.

If the United States is good enough to live in, then speak English.

R. Graham
Scottsdale

(Return to Top)

----- Original Message -----

To: bobpopow

Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:40 AM

Subject: Bike path information

Dear Mr. Popow and other homeowners: 

In investigating the issue regarding the removal of the sidewalk behind your property I have determined that the sidewalk is located on a Bike Path Easement (B.P.E.) that is owned by the City of Scottsdale. The B.P.E. is part of a Bike Path Master Plan for the City of Scottsdale. Reed Kempton works for the City of Scottsdale in the Transportation Planning Department Bicycle Program. Reed is the person that informed me of the B.P.E. and said that it is unlikely that the City of Scottsdale would remove the bike path. I did discuss some other options with Reed to reduce the unauthorized traffic through this area, and we will be looking into these options in the future. These options include the City placing a barrier in the middle of the path to reduce four wheeled traffic and possibly barriers on the side of the path. I am also working with Reed to see if he can attend our next meeting to address any questions you may have. I have attached a map of the B.P.E. for you. 

City of Scottsdale

Transportation Planning: Bicycle Program
Reed Kempton, 480-312-7630 

Brad Lundmark

Certified Arizona Association Manager
AAM LLC
(602) 906-4932 Direct
(602) 870-8231 Fax
blundmark@associatedasset.com

From: Ecton, Wayne
To: bobpopow
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:03 PM

For your info. 

Mr. Ecton:

Why are the employees of Scottsdale not directing their attention to the individual homeowners involved?   Why are they going to attend a HOA meeting and address an issue that only affects five (5) homeowners?  This doesn't seem to pass the common sense test!

These issues are:

Not one employee of the City of Scottsdale has contacted any one of us homeowners. Why not?

The HOA is only looking for ways to insure that they have "NO" responsibility in the issue and cannot be held responsible for anything that this issue affects.

 We expect the City to take this responsibility and addressing an HOA meeting is certainly not the proper way to do this.

Can we expect your leadership as a member of the City Council to work towards seeing that this issue is addressed properly and not "sugar coated" insuring that it gets tossed aside and nothing resolved?

Your assistance in directing this properly within the Staff of the City of Scottsdale would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,
Bob Popow & Petitioners
Scottsdale, AZ

By Craig J. Cantoni

Feb. 7, 2007

The website below is a popular resource for teachers of eleventh-grade American history, twelfth-grade economics, and advanced placement government. It helps to explain why Americans are so ignorant in these subjects and have such a mistrust of markets.

http://www.socialstudieshelp.com

Below are excerpts from the website on various topics. I’ve prefaced each excerpt with the word "Claptrap"? And after each excerpt, I’ve provided a statement of fact, prefaced by the word "Fact."

Warning: If you are an educated person, you’ll be dismayed that any teacher would teach such claptrap.

Claptrap: "Enlightenment thinkers from the 1600's like John Locke, Montesquieau [sic], Rousseau and Voltaire have had a great impact on our government and our political philosophy."

Fact: Rousseau was born in 1712, not the 1600’s, and John Locke, who had the greatest influence on the Founders, influenced Voltaire.

Claptrap: "What did the King expect from his colonies? Gain raw materials, market for goods. This was known as mercantilism [emphasis in original]."?

Fact: Mercantilism was the practice of restricting imports with tariffs and other measures. It was based on the belief at the time that trade was a zero-sum game--that one country gained from trade and another lost. Free-market thinker Adam Smith popularized the term "mercantilism" in the 18^th century as mercantilism was waning, and he explained the folly of the practice.

Claptrap: "The industrial revolution and the great economic success that accompanied it had a wide variety of victims. As we have previously discussed the American public, through the efforts of trusts, became a victim of the elimination of competition. The consumer was not the only victim however. The American worker was also victimized."

Fact: The Industrial Revolution brought about the greatest advance in living standards that the world had ever seen. Yes, it triggered social disruption and dislocations, but it is hyperbole to imply that the American public and workers were nothing but victims, or to suggest that all competition was eliminated by trusts. Actually, contrary to the enduring myth, consumer choices skyrocketed and prices plummeted during the era of trusts and robber barons. To take one example, the price of oil fell dramatically under the so-called trust of Standard Oil.

Claptrap: "America at the turn of the century was at best a primitive place. Technology and industry grew at such a great rate that the government and most citizens were unprepared to deal with its effects. Philosophies like Laissez Fair and social Darwinism combined to create an America that cared little for the downtrodden. Eventually citizens, average people like you and me, arose to condemn these conditions and demand change. The demand for change, or progress, was known as the Progressive Era."

Fact: Only a primitive mind would believe that America was a primitive place at the beginning of the 20^th century. If it was primitive, then the millions of immigrants to these shores must have been living in stone-age conditions in Europe to believe that America would give them a better life. The Progressive era produced such glories as:

1) the federal income tax, which in turn spawned the never-ending growth in government;

2) World War I, which killed 115,000 American doughboys in the progressive notion that it would be the "war to end all wars," but which led directly to the horror of World War II;

3) Prohibition, which criminalized a private matter, spawned organized crime, and was the precursor to today’s failed War on Drugs; and

4) the complete implementation of John Dewey’s progressive notions about government-controlled education, as well as the passage of Blaine amendments in many states to put "Papist" school’s out of business.

Claptrap: "Recently there has been an anti union trend. Many states bar public employees from striking, and there has been a rash of what might be called "union busting," or the attempt to break and destroy a particular union. The single best example of union busting is President Ronald Reagan's firing of the members of PATCO, an air traffic controllers union. PATCO members had been in conflict with management for several years. Since PATCO was a national union they had to deal with several different management structures in states throughout the country. When PATCO struck President Reagan feeling that the public safety was in danger, fired the striking workers and replaced them with military personnel. Many states have also passed laws that prohibit public employees from striking. In New York State the Taylor Law fines workers 2 days pay for every day they are out on strike."

Fact: The problem with the above statement and other statements in the lessons about unions is not that they are false. Rather, it is that they are one-sided. They make no mention of the fact that when unions use coercion or government power instead of just withholding labor, they gain at the expense of other workers and consumers. This is particularly true with respect to public-sector unions, because, unlike companies, the public sector doesn’t go out of business if its cost of labor becomes uncompetitive. Also, curiously, no mention was made of the National Education Association, which, with 3.2 million members, has blocked needed reforms of public education, encouraged wasteful spending, and maintained the government’s monopoly over K-12 classroom thought.

Claptrap: In the 1920's American economic policy was laissez faire. Businesses were left alone and for sometime things appeared to [sic] fine. American businesses reported record profits, production was at an all time high. The problem was that while earnings rose and the rich got richer, the working class received a disproportionally [sic] lower percentage of the wealth. This uneven distribution of wealth [emphasis in original] got so bad that 5% of America earned 33% of the income. What this meant was that there was less and less real spending. Despite the fact that the working class had less money to spend businesses continued to increase production levels.

Fact: The above is one of 10 paragraphs about the causes Great Depression, most of which are just as misleading as the above, and none of which mentions the Federal Reserve’s attempts at raising interest rates in 1928 and 1929. Economists still debate the causes of the Great Depression and whether government monetary policy exacerbated and lengthened it, but you wouldn’t know that from the 10 paragraphs. (For an intelligent treatise on the subject, see A Monetary History of the United States, by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz.)

I warned you at the beginning that you would be dismayed that any teacher would teach such claptrap.

Mr. Cantoni is an author and columnist. He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

(Return to Top) 

(Return to Top)

~ Information You Can Use

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

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

This is NOT for Children.

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

 www.obsessionthemovie.com

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

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

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

The website below gives some history of Terrorist attacks:

http://patriotfiles.org/civilizationcalls.htm

(Return to Top)

~ View Past City Council Meetings

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

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

~Continuing Light Rail Information

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

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

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

     Goldwater Institute Report

     American Dream Coalition

    The Public Purpose

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

(Return to Top)

 

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

(Return to Top)

 ~Are Red-Light Cameras Fair to Drivers?

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

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

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

(Return to Top)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are many other branches throughout the Valley.