Ever wonder why you always hear that a ridiculous project is in the "best interest of the City and its citizens" but that statement is never actually qualified to any great extent? That’s because it’s clearly not in YOUR best interests – it’s in their best interests. By their interests, we mean the select few personal agendas of those who gallantly run our great city. How unfortunate are we that a few crazy individuals with persona agendas run our lives!

Take for instance the support Wayne Ecton had for the onslaught of downtown Scottsdale condos. Particularly, how he whole-heartedly supported Main Street Plaza building off of Goldwater. Ecton now calls this place "Home Sweet Home" at reportedly quite a reduced rate as compared to others who have purchased condos in that complex. Then there was the Waterfront project – the twin towers which loom large over our downtown area and block our ever-popular views of Camelback Mountain from numerous angles. Another John Berry/Susan Bitter-Smith team project. Sold to the Council in exchange for their vote and some hefty campaign contributions to their last set of elections I’d bet. Take a look at the elected officials campaign records. Both Berry and Bitter-Smith are welcome financial supporters. Berry and Bitter-Smith are at the forefront of numerous projects throughout the City.

Then perhaps we should take a look at the Code Enforcement woes we are experiencing with Fred Unger’s properties. Mr. Unger is a bonafide slumlord, yet the City looks the other way when issues surrounding his properties are brought to their attention. And they even make concessions for him which a normal citizen would surely never get. All this because Unger is a personal friend of many Manross associates. Truth be known.

Situations like this occur every single day in the City of Scottsdale. Our governmental leaders all have a stake in the outcome of what happens to our City yet they put their personal agendas ahead of common sense and the true best interests of our City in an effort to secure their own futures. The best way to understand how this happens is to just look at their past contribution records which are all public and available from the City Clerk’s Office. Then look at the projects and how they have voted. 9 out of 10 won’t bite the hand that feeds them, especially when they know that re-election is on the horizon.

As an average citizen, I find this corrupt manner of doing business in our great city to be abusive in the worst way possible. Change is imminent. As citizens, we should be aware of leadership voting records on key, critical issues that touch our lives everyday.

With the above knowledge, we should base our future choices not on who puts on the best campaign but by how those candidates have acted on issues in the past. Ask yourself – has this Council member had the City’s best interests in mind when they have voted? Most of the time, your answer will be a rather loud and repetitive NO! Vote accordingly.

(Return to Top)

 

 ~ 2008 Scottsdale Elections... Update

According to the Scottsdale Republic, there are three probable candidates for mayor in the 2008 Election. Mayor Mary Manross, College President Art DeCabooter, and Attorney Jim Derouin. Councilman Jim Lane had originally shown some interest but has been rather quiet of late and would be much more successful if he ran again for his own seat on the council.

We reported this same thing a number of weeks ago but have kept silent in respect for the possible candidates. The cat is now out of the bag so we feel free to comment on the upcoming election and it's process.

There are many serious things to take into consideration when electing a new mayor as well as council members and one of the biggest is who are the possible candidates aligned with politically, personally and business wise, as well as what they stand for personally concerning their relationship with the everyday citizen of this fine city. Being that we only know of one new candidate who we feel is qualified to hold the position of councilperson, we'll leave that discussion for another issue.

Concerning the mayoral position and remembering that the election is for non-partisan positions, do we want the same old run of the mill type politician who is fully connected to major political organizations in the city such as the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce, and other organizations who are heavily connected to the political process? Or, do we want someone outside of that defined circle who is articulate, well educated, a proven leader, and someone who knows the law, the political process inside and out as well as the way meetings and the city should be run in an open manner?

Having just started looking into the process and who would best fit the criteria which is necessary to solve the mountains of problems which have been created in Scottsdale over the last seven years plus, we feel we need to elect someone outside the current plethora of city government tag-a-longs, unqualified wannabe's, city favorites, and political "advisors" including most who have their personal priorities and agenda's rather than those of the citizens and taxpayers at heart.

We need someone who is not a professional politician or attached at the hip to the political process and doesn't conform to that label. We need someone who doesn't want to be a career politician, but instead, a person who has the ability to clean up the nasty mess  we're in and retires a winner 4 years after being elected so more new blood can take over what's been put into place.

Although it is very early in the process, and even though he has not committed to anything, In our humble opinion, Jim Derouin has all the necessary qualifications to do exactly as we have outlined  above. 

We have great concerns about the DeCabooter political connections and his connections to the problems with the financial issues at the College. Art is a wonderful, well liked, and highly respected man but we are rather skeptical that he could well be a male counterpart to Mary Manross and her personal goals. Art and Mary have worked together on many issues over many decades and share a very similar ideology for the city. Scottsdale cannot stand 4 more years of that kind of omnidirectional, rudderless, spendthrift, and incompetent leadership. We will need a strong, no nonsense mayor who knows how to lead and get things done. One who can control the council and bring them together as one which Manross has never been able or even wanted to do. Her goal was to get the four votes she needed to complete her legacy come hell or high water, citizens be damned. Even Frances Young apparently no longer supports Manross and her off the wall ideas and actions.

Let's start considering someone who will say what he'll do and then do as he says. Derouin has always supported and promoted a completely open, approachable, and fiscally conservative government from his early days in Wisconsin to his continued commitment to that goal in the 23+ years he has resided in Scottsdale and plied his trade in the legal profession in the valley.

Derouin has a long record of being extremely ethical, honest, and dedicated to the city of Scottsdale and what's best for the citizens of this city, not the developers, builders and others who could figuratively rape, pillage, and burn the financial and general plan basis of the city to fill their own pockets with the profits of their work if allowed to do so.

Derouin is fully aware the developers and builders have a very important part in the progress and redevelopment of this city, but he also understands that the zeal to compete in a closed and secret system needs to be quickly eliminated so as to take into consideration the compassion for the needs and opinions of the citizens as well as the financial and the "Green"  health of this city through open public negotiations and public input.

Jim is also very much aware that the city management and legal staffs need to be redirected to a more user friendly and efficient status so that the citizens know what's going on long before it's past the point of no return as it seems to be now. If the current Senior staff cannot accommodate the open form of government, we're sure he would gladly accept their resignations immediately and appoint qualified people to replace those leaving.

We will continue to update you as things progress. Everyone needs to really start to seriously analyze everything going on in city government from the major Jan Dolan screw-ups and heavy spending, to the failure of Code Enforcement to do their jobs for whatever reasons, to the apparent favoritism being shown to select people doing business with the city, to the way the planning department, Planning Commission and the DRB are currently configured, to the huge number of legal staff necessary to keep the city from getting into legal problems due to the incompetence within the department .

We think it's time for a major house cleaning, don't you?

(Return to Top)

 

~How Scottsdale Expertly Wastes Money!

I was reading an article on-line the other day about how we, as individuals, waste money. That got me thinking…my few Starbucks lattes every month aren’t breaking the bank, but wow – the City of Scottsdale, there’ s a wasteful institution if I’ve ever seen one! Let’s examine how the City of Scottsdale expertly wastes money"

How is our City so deeply entrenched in this much of a mess? The answer is simple…we trusted Jan Dolan with running our City.

Jan both runs our city and manages our money. Jan is an absolute expert at wasting our City’s money.

Solution: Jan must go. 

Our City Council and City Staff hasn’t done much in the past four or more years to evoke a positive status amongst the Scottsdale residents, but now they have a chance to do so. The small HOA community of Villa Monterey is threatened by the apparent power of our decision makers to strike them down, or mow them down, in the name of transportation with the widening of Chaparral Road. What if our esteemed governance did the right thing, for once? Do they have the ability to act on the behalf of the people of Villa Monterey and not focus on their own personal agendas? Many think not.

The real question is not whether to widen Chaparral Road, it is whether our City’s leaders have the best interests of the residents in mind or their own selfish transportation motives. While addressing the public a month or more ago, Mayor Manross told the citizens that she "had no intention of widening Chaparral Road or taking away the homes which border along that road" in the name of transportation. But recently, the Staff’s comments have sounded more like "let’s wait and see what the transportation consultants come up with in terms of Chaparral Road". Can anyone guess what that might be? The consultants were given a mandate to fix Scottsdale’s transportation problems, regardless of what that entails. Make no mistake, that mandate will be followed. It had better be followed if the consultants want to be paid!

Many good ideas as to what should be done with Chaparral Road have been floating around Scottsdale. My favorite idea is to block off the road in both east and west directions at the intersection of Miller Rd. Create Jan Dolan roundabouts at each end to provide opportunity for turnaround as you approach the light at Miller. Add a resident-only gate east of the light at Miller Road which utilizes card key access for the neighborhood. Then tell Council and Staff (and the consultants for that matter) to figure out a way, other than to mow down a row of homes in this HOA, to alleviate our traffic woes in Scottsdale. Destruction of an established neighborhood area is not necessarily an answer to the problem but it seems to be one that our City’s leaders have no problem utilizing in desperate times. Have you ever heard Staff recommend a solution that actually favors residents? No! And you probably won’t hear it anytime soon, if ever!

Just once, I’d like to see the Council and Staff have the decency to say – these people in Villa Monterey have a right to their homes, their lives and their peace. They should be able to get out of their driveways and access their homes without threat of being hit by passerby vehicles.

But as most things go, our City’s leaders fails to favor the residents more than 90% of the time, which doesn’t give much hope to the individuals who own homes along Chaparral Road. The Council and Staff member agendas are personal, and lack regard for those individuals who actually reside and pay taxes in this beautiful city.

Our leaders have an opportunity here to redeem themselves, to hold their heads up high and to say to the general public that the little people of Villa Monterey and neighborhood preservation DO matter. Bet me that they don’t stand up for those little people, however. Bet me that they turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the needs of the residents, then happily move on to collect their paychecks at the end of the week.

The issue here is concern for our Villa Monterey residents and as we well know with Council and Staff, tigers rarely change their stripes. Sadly, I guess the residents should start packing.

(Return to Top)

~ So You Thought We Had Condos For Sale……….

Some people believe that the Scottsdale City Council and Staff have a method to their madness. We have never actually believed that there was a plan short of providing carte blanche to developers and letting the subsequent disastrous aftermath work its way out.

Our thinking was affirmed just this past week when we discovered a link to the Optima/Camelview condo build out project.

Optima/Camelview project (two build outs) was "sold" to the gullible City Council by premier showman John Berry (who represented the developer in this matter) as a luxury condo complex which would entice and attract high end buyers. These residents, of course, would want all the things the city was planning to offer:

Build and they will come, said Jan Dolan, Manross and company, and so it was. The developer was given carte blanche, streets were included in mass transit reworks to accommodate all the new residents within these two complexes and a new lifestyle was beginning to take root in Scottsdale. We were all planning for the influx of the Optima/CamelView group.

Imagine my stunned surprise and shock when the link above said it all:

Could it be that Optima/CamelView is going to be a huge FLOP? In this trying and difficult housing economy, is the developer seeing the writing on the wall? These condos aren’t going to sell at the asking price are they?

So, enter Strategy #2:

Maybe we should call them apartments, rent them at prices that will cover our debt load, give us a loss for a tax write off, and voila, at least we meet your own self-fulfilling prophesy? You know, the one that you, the developer, promised Jan Dolan when the sly wink sealed the deal…there will be people to back up the density requirements and yes, then we will NEED mass transit on Scottsdale Road for non-taxpaying transient renters as the quality goes down hill and the maintenance of the property declines because of the reduced revenues.

This should be a great big red flag for anyone out there that further development of high priced condo complexes will eventually result in blighted areas otherwise referred to as slums, cheapened rentals, foreclosure properties and the downfall of Scottsdale as a World Class Destination city. Thank you Jan Dolan, Mary Manross, the Council Majority, and of course John Berry!

And why? Could this happen because of greed, incompetence, and stupidity? What in the world were the City Council and Jan Dolan thinking? We don’t as the city of Scottsdale, have what it takes to attract that kind of money, at least for the long haul do we? Granted we have a few visitors who throw around substantial wads of cash. But let’s be realistic here; they usually don’t want to invest a few million in a condo that they really don’t want to live-work-play in 24/7 - especially in the heat of summer 7 months of the year overlooking an irrigation canal called the WaterFront which can get very stinky in the summer heat! And worse, the developers knew that when they took the gamble of "selling" these monstrosities to the Council and Dolan.

Why is it that only the outsiders can see the forest for the trees? You never plan mass transit around "potential" density. First comes density then comes transit - not the other way around. NO excuses. Now what we have is a disaster waiting to happen without the properly sized and renewed infrastructure to handle the loads it will handle.

Oh, they’ll be able to rent these apartments, but they won’t be able to justify mass transit or the millions they have set aside to pay the consultants to tell them how to control traffic which won’t permanently exist from the Optima and CamelView complexes!

Does this sound familiar? This could just possibly be the biggest boondoggle, next to the Multi-Million dollar Hualapai water plant scandal, that Dolan, Klingler, and company have committed in their history of their Scottsdale employment.

We can see it now: ASU students joining together in teams of 6 or 8 so they can afford to rent these high end condos to be able to walk to the local upscale bars to drink themselves into oblivion, then try to walk, stumble, or even crawl, back to their upscale condo and puke their guts out all over the upscale carpets and wood flooring for a few hours without thoroughly cleaning it up, only to be repeated again the next evening…. and the next… and the next, you get the picture don’t you?

Great scenario isn’t it?

(Return to Top)

In 1997 the city of Scottsdale adopted a downtown plan that included various road modifications to emphasize the galleries and other retail in the area which was hurting financially due to lack of public access and continuity. The realignment of Marshall Way and Indian School Road was part of that plan. This was done for one single purpose, that being to create a smooth flow of pedestrian traffic from the popular and vitally important 5th Avenue to Main Street, not just for the Art Walks, but for regular day and night retail activity.

Fast forward 10 years later and what do we get? High rise development to the north (for which the city never replaced the aging infrastructure) and now claim the need for a water booster station for back up pressure for those buildings.

Where to place said non-taxed and non-income generating pumping station? Well Ed Gawf and Frank Gray, who we pay a combined base annual salary of a whopping ^$300,000, picked one of the most expensive, accessible, visible, and prime pieces of land in downtown Scottsdale as the "perfect" location for 4 pumps and motors. And these guys claim to be expert land planners???? If they were employed in the private sector they would have been unceremoniously fired years ago.

With the cost of condemnation, off site improvements, and some " Public Art ", I would estimate the taxpayer Investment in this once promising retail site which is now projected to be an ill-conceived, and non-conforming project to be in the area of ^$4,000,000 which doesn’t include the pumping station at an approximated additional ^$6,000,000 for a total of over ^$10 million taxpayer’s dollars!!! I had a building and additional land condemned under separate eminent domain actions to support the retail potential of this site, not a pumping station.

There are no less than five potential sites out there, two owned by the City, which would, in the big picture, be millions of dollars less than using the now proposed site.

Why didn’t the developers place and pay for this required pumping station on their own property in the first place? Should we ask who paid whom in this fiasco? Could this be considered to be a secret ^$10 million dollar "back door subsidy" to the developers?

If this ridiculous misuse of this prime piece of retail land downtown is approved by the City Council, I guess we can brag that Scottsdale has the most expensive 4 pump water pumping station in the country, maybe in the world!

Knowing how wrong this choice is, Ed Gawf and Frank Gray concocted a phony site plan to present to the city council for approval in order to eliminate my simpler, less expensive, and much more workable alternative conforming plan (check the city records for verification).

Once pulling off their fast, non-public approved switcheroo, they immediately ignored the phony site plan they received council approved for and initiated their own private plan eliminating the possibility of any retail space left for development which was the original intent of the condemnation of numerous properties including mine at the onset in 1997.

Topping it off, Frank Gray lied twice on the record at both the council meeting and at the DRB meeting just this week. He stated that I was opposed to any retail being developed on this site which the record will show that I stated exactly the opposite on numerous occasions!!

Very interesting given the fact that they were sitting on a plan I submitted which included my land next door. In that plan was a city requested 150 car public parking facility as well as 6,000 square feet of retail space where they now want to place 4 pumps and motors with ZERO retail and Minimal parking!

With ^$3.2 million dollars which was actually budgeted to build the parking facility, Ed Gawf arbitrarily rejected my workable plan without legitimate reasoning and shifted the designated funds to who knows where. I believe that because of the phony, deceptive, and misguided on-record decisions by Frank Gray and Ed Gawf, the city of Scottsdale could possibly have serious ethics and expensive legal issues facing them if their plan is approved by the city council.

I have approximately 125 signatures of business and real estate owners directly impacted by this negative and non-conforming use and the signatories have all objected to it strenuously.

I found it interesting that on April 15^th, there was a story in the one of the local newspapers regarding a citizen protest. One lady made two phone calls to the city complaining about the future placement of a single speed bump on her street. I will quote the best part....  " An engineer working on the project  told her it was too late to do anything. So she and her husband called the City's web site and then called an assistant to the mayor. That was enough to put the project on hold".

Putting this in a proper perspective, the council decision this coming Tuesday should be a no brainer. This ill conceived, obviously non-conforming project should be stopped in it’s tracts, then either have the pumps moved to a location within the properties of those requiring the pumps, or by requiring the owners of the high rises to supply their own pumping stations, and yes, on their own properties.

Now if you want the bragging rights for the city of Scottsdale having the most expensive 4 pump and motor water booster station on the planet at over ^$10 million dollars, then it is one heck of a good use of our tax dollars.

A primary question that most ask is:

Activists, activists; Blast them and the questions they ask. Even worse, blast the fact that they expect their elected leaders to think ahead in order to answer those questions.

For those who feel that no questions should have been leveled at the Hayden Condos project, perhaps they can answer the questions, and concerns that the Planning Commission and the City Council did not think about.

For example, when was the last review by the Army Corps of Engineers, for the area of the Indian Bend Wash Flood Control Channel south of Shea Boulevard regarding the impact of infill projects proposed for the area as part of redevelopment?

Or how about the fact that the Planning Commission and Planning staff are reviewing and amending the land use language for the area of Scottsdale built while it was still under Maricopa County jurisdiction, before it was annexed into Scottsdale? How will these changes impact property values and property rights for neighborhoods in what is now called the Old Scottsdale area?

The Old Scottsdale Area includes all neighborhoods south of Indian Bend Road, which should have been undergoing Neighborhood Area Planning starting in 2002 when citizens voted to amend the General Plan and include Neighborhood Area Planning. So far only four neighborhoods have accomplished such planning and they are not in the Old Scottsdale Area.

Activists believe that knowledge is power and staying on top of current issues and policy developments is critical to being an effective advocate for the quality of life that we have come to enjoy through out Scottsdale.

Some of us believe that keeping ourselves and our neighbors informed builds a stronger community. Unfortunately, many of our elected officials turn their backs on this advocacy and choose not to even inform themselves.

It then falls to staff to try to figure out what the leaderships wants to do or even should do as a natural course of action. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Responsible citizens and officials need to ask many questions, sometimes over and over again, to make sure good policies and procedures are implemented.

In 2003, the Scottsdale Coalition asked the Mayor, Council and City Manager to take a serious look at long range planning for redevelopment that must impact mature neighborhoods and the infrastructure (traffic and transportation, sewers, water, utilities and open space), as our community was forced to look at higher density residential and commercial development.

Our Mayor, Council majority and City Manager refused to even think about doing that choosing to take projects on a project by project basis.

Now we must deal with the sewage problems in the Waterfront area, water pressure problems to the new condominiums in the Downtown area, traffic congestion that will worsen north of Camelback Road, along Scottsdale Road, and the ongoing saga of Chaparral Road congestion.

As the activists have pointed out, our leaders became complacent, as master planned communities governed the rapid growth of Scottsdale over the last 25 plus years.

Developers did Scottsdale’s planning.

Questions from activists are important and the answers need to be available for citizens who care about where they live now and in the future.

Nancy Ann Cantor, Co-Chair
Scottsdale Coalition

(Return to Top)

 
~ Council Corner

~ Density Does Not Make a City Healthy

Recently several letters have appeared in the local papers attacking me for my opposition to increases in height and density in Scottsdale.  The writers of these letters want you to believe that increased height and density and mass transit somehow qualify as "progress" and are necessary for Scottsdale to remain economically viable.

Don’t be fooled by this self-serving special-interest rhetoric. Urbanizing Scottsdale will not make our city richer, it will make it poorer, both in dollars and in the deterioration of our quality of life.

The next time you hear someone claim that a denser, more crowded Scottsdale is a good thing, ask yourself, "Whose interests are being served here?"  Certainly it is good for the developers, whose profits will be increased when they can cram more people on a particular parcel.

But how does a denser, more crowded Scottsdale benefit those of us who live here?  It certainly does not increase city sales tax revenues.  None of those new condos will generate a dime of sales tax revenues for the Scottsdale city treasury.  Even those projects that include some retail do so only on the bottom floor, which means that they generate no more sales tax revenue than the city would have received from a one-story project on the same site.

But those multi-story projects do impose more costs on both the city treasury and on the residents of Scottsdale.  Some of these costs are subjective, such as loss of views and the inconvenience of increased traffic congestion.  But many costs are a direct drain on the city treasury because of the increased demands that these dense projects put on our infrastructure and on city services such as police, fire and sanitation.

Scottsdale’s other big revenue generator is tourism.  Does anyone really believe that our desirability as a tourist destination will be enhanced by transforming Scottsdale from a unique place of beautiful open vistas into just another urban landscape? 

Increased crowding will hurt Scottsdale’s tourism, not help it.

The bottom line is that increased height and density make Scottsdale less economically viable, not more.

If you do not believe that increased crowding represents decline instead of progress just ask the residents of Villa Monterey near Chaparral Road who are fighting to keep the city from uprooting them from their homes and destroying their beautiful community in order to accommodate more crowding in Downtown Scottsdale.  They can tell you exactly how much unchecked growth really costs.

The claim in this letter that those of us who oppose more crowding are somehow enemies of South Scottsdale is not only flat wrong but is more special-interest hogwash. The proponents of a denser, more urban city are the ones who declared Downtown Scottsdale as "blighted" in the 1990s, a designation that I campaigned (successfully) to reverse.  The "pawn shops, check cashing stores, blighted properties and affordable housing" that the letter writer decries are there because the same special interests the letter writer defends hope to drive property values down.  This allows them to assemble land more cheaply and to pressure residents and the City Council to accept taller, denser development. We who oppose this trend are the ones who fought for better code enforcement and better city services in order to prevent special interests from purposefully blighting neighborhoods. 

Making Scottsdale more crowded is not "progress," its bad government. Good government is managing the growth that is bound to occur so that it happens without overtaxing our infrastructure, straining city services and eroding Scottsdale’s quality of life.

Scottsdale residents should expect no less from their City Council.

Councilman Bob Littlefield
 bob@boblittlefield.com

(Return to Top)
 

Mary O’Connor,

As you see I also read what Mike and Nancy Cantor write. I was never asked what the plans were for this area nor were  a lot of our neighbors who have been here as long as we have (1961).

I have asked for a year or more to have some of the cars removed on 87th as you turn from Hubbell or Dianna Dr. and go north (left): That is a hazard, and one of these days someone is going to get it. Also, how many cars are you allowed for one dwelling?? These people have as many as 8 at a time. That's from about 6 at night ‘til the morning hours.

Mike has asked, some of the neighbors on Hubbell have asked, I have asked, all we get in response is "oh, it's okay" NOT ! And don't think the slow stop signs are doing anything either. We have them flying down Dianna and Hubbell, nary a policeman is ever around.

I realize they have better things to do but we pay taxes just like everyone else.

Thank you for your time

Mrs. Wm Wyatt
Scottsdale

(Return to Top)

I have been asking, for the last several weeks, what kind of planning and design process takes place before these traffic calming devices are a reality.

My son has complained about the round-about at Oak and 69th St. for the last two years. He lives just south of that intersection. Who thought to put that there right in the middle of a "dip" that carries run-off when it rains?

One of the reasons that the Neighborhood Enhancement Commission was created was to make government more user-friendly. Even though it is there we still have problems with the communications from government to the citizens in Scottsdale.

While there may be north, south and east, west access streets for the Scottsdale Estates area, to tell residents that they must, in essence "turn right here left and go north before you can go south," is not a solution to the problem.

I ask these questions, because whatever process is/was used, should be just like the NEC's process when speed bumps are requested by a non-organized neighborhood, street lights or anything else.

Here we are back to long range planning and good government.

Listen up dear elected officials and City manager, we are getting very tired of slap-dash projects and people getting riled up because residents dare to question and are exasperated by the indifference and the attitude at City Hall.

Nancy Cantor
Scottsdale

~Eldorado Bar -- Lose Grandfather Clause or Close

Dear Mr. Gawf,

Last year I reported this bar to the city for conducting work with out permits.

I told you what their intent was then, it was to expand the bar to an area the city said was just storage with a leaky roof.

I countered that with the issue of them trying to expand the floor plan and add more seating, you said I was wrong so now I want to hear what the excuse is going to be.

As you know I am well aware of the rules for liquor licenses and I am assuming that we really do not need to go into the codes themselves. The issue is , by law, if you change your floor plans, or you expand your bar, then you must get permits passed to do this:

To Wit:

4-207.01. Submission of floor plan required; alteration of licensed premises; ingress and egress to off-sale package sales in on-sale licensed premises

B. No licensee shall alter or change the physical arrangement of his licensed premises so as to encompass greater space or the use of different or additional entrances, openings or accommodations than the space, entrance or entrances, openings or accommodations offered to the public at the time of issuance of the licensee's license or a prior written approval of the licensed premises, without first having filed with the director floor plans and diagrams completely disclosing and designating the proposed physical alterations of the licensed premises, including the addition of a drive-through or other physical feature to the licensed premises that allows a customer to purchase spirituous liquor without leaving the customer's vehicle, and shall have secured the written approval by the director. This subsection shall apply to any person to person transfer of the licensed premises.

You must also lose your grandfather clause regarding obtaining a conditional use permit.

Please note the pictures below!  This is being done as we speak!

Please note the patron already sitting in the apparently newly opened expansion of the bar in the first photo.

Apparently it is no longer storage as the city and the bar owner claimed to me last year.

I have seen no request come to the city for this activity and I have noted no public outreach process to the neighborhood.

I am highly ticked off at the moment Ed as I knew this was coming and the city never did a damn thing to stop it the first time and I am tired of bars doing whatever the hell they want when they abut a residential community.

Please update the council and myself on this issue.

Michael Merrill
Scottsdale

Late Friday, I received the following from Raun Keagy;

Mike:

A Stop Work Order was issued yesterday afternoon (Friday) for this location.  The owner stated that they have plans in the city for review, but admitted that they jumped the gun and began work without a permit.  They indicated that a portion of the area was to become an outdoor area to accommodate the new requirements for patron smoking.

The Building Dept. will asses them a double fee for their permit for beginning work without a permit.

Since this is the second time they have done this within one year, our "repeat violator" process is in place and Code Enforcement will issue an automatic Citation.

Planning staff will look at the issue of expanding the public area and will address the Conditional Use Permit question.

Raun

……..and Mike’s reply:

Thanks Raun for the feed back and please note the section below as it does not matter if he has plans already in with the city to some degree as he also must have plans submitted to the State for the enlargement of the floor plans.

It is also my understanding that under the circumstances of increasing the size of the establishment since this square footage was never part of the floor plan, (remember, this was a storage area as the city and the bar claimed last year, and it was not open to the public) he will be required by the city to obtain a conditional use permit with all the rules that the Downtown or any other bar is required to go through.

Is that correct?

If you placed a stop work order there, who will be monitoring the issue of that area not being used by the bar for customers until it is in compliance with all permits, and codes?

Since this was done illegally, what stand is the city going to take in making sure it is closed and remains closed until all the issues are worked out?

Since the adoption of the smoking ban I would also like to hear from the state authorities regarding as to whether this can be classified as a patio for smoking as there was an article in the paper today about the first violator of the smoking ban law. I do not see the state saying this is an appropriate patio for a smoking area.

Since I knew this was coming a year ago and the city also knew it was going to happen I will be on the record as of right now in telling you that I will oppose any expansion of this bar.

Thanks,
Mike

~What Sign & Blight Codes?

Dear Council Members,

Please see if you can answer the following questions.

We paid millions for new street scaping down McDowell and boy did it look good until this.

Questions are ;

• how much longer is this going to look like this and where the heck is the streetscape?

• Where is the Bus shelter that used to be there or when the hell are we going to get another one there?

• Who plans and co ordinates this stuff and why the hell is it always me that has to bring this stuff to your attention?

• Why are the weeds so high?

• Why is the South Bound Hayden lanes landscaped and McDowell not?

Lets continue with the issue of Code Enforcement and the issue of how we have no preferential treatment .

You just slapped the crap out of merchants in the airpark about their signs, but the city will do nothing about the signs for their pet projects like below.

This should make the airpark folks happy as these signs are already illegal by codes and have been out there on MCDOWELL for as long as I can remember since the place opened.

Funny how all these "little" inconsistencies seem to pop up huh?

(Return to Top)

 

~ Dolan/O’Connor Team Blows Off Costly Problem

Well folks I have had it with this crap from the city and I am tired of always having to fight these people whose wages we pay in the way of our taxes.

All of you are well aware of the issue by now and today’s response from Mary O'Conner is the last straw. (see below this letter)

Now it is time for a stand from this abusive policy the city has taken against the southern residential communities and I am not holding this any longer to just the island by my house but we are going out to other areas these damn things are in and have been hit and we are going to sign them on to have theirs removed also.

Note a comment someone emailed to me below. 

 ~Several days ago something very large hit the entry island at 110th and Mountain View.  Two large Palo Verde trees were destroyed and the reflective caution signs were broken off at ground level.  Unfortunately the mess was cleaned up before it could be photographed.  These islands are a safety hazard to every vehicle on the road.  They obscure views and are dangerous.  These islands were installed by the City over the objections of the neighbors. 

I guess the city would prefer to make this a fight so I intend to make it one for them!

Regards,
Mike Merrill
Scottsdale

O’Connor’s Lame Reply to Merrill’s original complaint

Subject: FW: 87th/McDowell median island
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:04:38 -0700
From: MOConnor@ScottsdaleAz.Gov
To: f8713@aol.com
CC: CityCouncil@ScottsdaleAz.Gov; jdolan@ScottsdaleAz.Gov; egawf@ScottsdaleAz.Gov; KWeiss@ScottsdaleAz.Gov; JREGISTER@ScottsdaleAz.Gov; JShultz@ScottsdaleAz.Gov; PPorell@ScottsdaleAz.Gov; ccstaff@ScottsdaleAz.Gov

Mike, 

Staff has cleaned up the medical waste you identified, and improved the reflective and other signage at this location.   We are using the same residential/business boundaries for outreach regarding possible elimination of the island as those used prior to construction of the island.  Residents north of Oak have the option of entering/exiting to Thomas on 87th St or traveling west on Oak to Granite Reef and traveling south to McDowell, albeit around another island located next to the Sr. Center, if they want to avoid the island on 87th St to get to McDowell.  

This week, staff from Citizen and Neighborhood Resources made contact with business owners located south of the island.    All business owners contacted have no objection to the island remaining. The same staff also made contact with 64 owners/renters in the single family and multi family units located on Coronado, Forest,  Hubbell, Dianna, Holy, Cypress, 87th Way, 87th Pl , and 87th St .   Sixty (60) like the island and want it to remain; two (2) want it removed, both located over 500 ft away;  and  two (2) don't care if it stays or is removed. The mix of people contacted ranged from original owners to those who have been less than a year in their residences.  We will be mailing a notice to the remaining properties located in the quarter section adjacent to the island asking them if they want to keep the island or remove it.

Mary O'Connor

Mike’s response to Mary’s note above:

 Dear Mary,

You want a fight then by God I will be happy to give you one.

What questions were asked of the supposed residents?

Were residents informed of the continual damage to the island because of a stupid placement?

Were residents and "parents" informed of the dangers of the blind spot where their children get dropped off by a school bus and also picked up? Better check your SUSD route.

Don' give me the crap about the senior center as that is a straight street and not an island on an "S" turn.

And what the hell kind of attitude is this Mary as spelled out in your note ,

"Residents north of Oak have the option of entering/exiting to Thomas on 87th St or traveling west on Oak to Granite Reef and traveling south to McDowell, albeit around another island located next to the Sr. Center, if they want to avoid the island on 87th St to get to McDowell."

What, now that you placed this stupid thing in the middle of the road it is my understanding that by your comments that if we do not like it we need to find another way around it because you folks are too pig headed and stupid to notice the problem and remove it? 

I would really love to hear the community reaction to this comment Mary as I do intend to do our own "public outreach " and inform the residents of not only your comment that if you do not like it than find another way around it  besides the fact that we were here long before your stupid island was!

Great, I see you contacted all the "renters" around the site in question Mary but let me remind you of something, we are HOME OWNERS, not renters and we pay our taxes so you will have to excuse the hell out me if I take a totally pissed off approach to the chicanery that you are trying to pull here.

Let me remind you that Council Members have looked at the mess and happen to agree that it is in a stupid location.

There are no businesses located south of the island Mary as it is all residential, so explain that to me?

What is the ratio of who you contacted as to who owns and who rent Mary?

I want to know how many of the 64 were renters and how many were owners.

Here is the BIG thing you folks seem to forget.

Don't walk into the community and tell us how we are supposed to exit and enter because of your screw up, we all use this street and you have absolutely no business going to the renters of an area who could not give a crap.

Now this is going to take on a whole new light since you seem to forget the people you work for and the petition will be presented to the council to remove it, however I am going to go and explain to the residents what has been going on and a copy of your comments and lets see who has the higher numbers of not only residents who own, but  residents who are going to be a bit ticked off now.

It will not be at the next meeting as I intend to show you how you do public outreach without holding back and actually informing people about the issue.

Michael Merrill
Scottsdale
F8713@aol.com 

 

Editors Note:

Like Merrill, I would like to see the actual questions that were asked as well as the results as written by those who were supposedly polled.

The way a question is written and the background given with the question makes a huge difference in the way an answer is given and therefore interpreted. The tanks on Cattletrack are a prime example of that kind of situation.

I’d bet:

The city either doesn’t have or won’t release the questions or the residents answers, and

They never did the number of inquiries they claim they did, and

The questions need to be asked of those who use the streets, not just the residents in the immediate area, and

There were never any public discussions or public input about these spendy and very costly to maintain objects of Dolan and O’Connor’s admiration and fascination.

These objects are nothing more than a secret effort to congest traffic even more which has been proven and reported over and over again nationally which is the actual but secret goal of the Dolan/O’Connor efforts as determined by transportation experts. They are there to discourage drivers from using the streets closest to their homes but instead to use the major thoroughfare which uses more fuel and emits more pollution.

Citizens from Ms. Dolan’s former city where she was employed as city manager, Menlo Park CA, have reported that all but 2 of the "Street Furniture" items she had installed have since been totally removed due to heavy maintenance costs and heavy neighborhood rejection.

Enough said???

It is time to change from REDNECK  humor to TRUE  AMERICAN  Humor!

Only it isn't seen as HUMOR, but the correct way to LIVE YOUR LIFE!  If you feel the same, pass this on to your True American friends.  Y'all know who they are...

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:   It never occurred to you to be offended by the phrase, "One nation, under God."

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You've never protested about seeing the 10 Commandments posted in public places.  

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You still say "Christmas" instead of "Winter Festival."  

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You bow your head when someone prays.

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You stand and place your hand over your heart when they play the National Anthem.

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You treat Viet Nam vets with great respect, and always have.

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You've never burned an American flag.

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You know what you believe and you aren't afraid to say so, no matter who is listening.

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You respect your elders and expect your kids to do the same.  

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You'd give your last dollar to a friend.

If you got this email from me, it is because I believe that you, like me, have just enough TRUE AMERICAN in you to have the same beliefs as those talked about in this email.  

God Bless the U  S  A  !  Amen

AND PLEASE, DO NOT FORGET TO SING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM IN ENGLISH.

(Return to Top)

By Craig J. Cantoni

May 1, 2007

Two bans went into effect today in Arizona. The first is a ban on smoking in most public places and in private bars and restaurants, except Indian casinos. The second is the only law of its kind in the nation: a ban on busybodies.

The second ban was a backlash against the first ban. "We’ve had too many busybodies move into the state from California, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, New York, and Canada," said State Representative John Smith (R-Prescott), the original sponsor of the bill and the great-grandson of settlers. "Until they arrived, Arizona was a state where consenting adults could do whatever they wanted on private property as long as they didn’t harm their neighbors."

The Arizona chapter of Proboscis has promised to challenge the busybody ban on constitutional grounds. Chapter President I.B. Nozee said, "The Bill of Rights clearly gives people the right to stick their noses in other people’s business."

The ACLU has expressed concern that the law will result in profiling. It claims that police departments have made plans to find busybodies by stopping anyone driving a Volvo, Saab or Prius, or anyone with a "Hillary for President" bumper sticker.

Rep. Smith denied the claim. "There are more foolproof ways of identifying people who want to remake the world into their image. Just look for people who are self-righteous, sanctimonious, narcissistic, smug, arrogant, and holier-than-thou. In other words, look for people who look like Al Gore."

Smith also denied that the law was a partisan attack against Democrats. He claims that the law would prohibit Senator John McCain (R-AZ) from bars and restaurants. "I can’t think of anything more irritating than eating a steak and hearing McCain say that the use of steroids by professional baseball players is a federal issue," said Smith.

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and the Arizona Association of Realtors have joined Proboscis in trying to overturn the ban. They have estimated that busybodies now make up three-quarters of the state’s population, and that the state’s economy would be devastated if they were banned from bars and restaurants. In a joint press release, the two groups said, "Arizona is no longer the wild west. Representative Smith has seen too many John Ford movies starring John Wayne."

The Salt River Indian Community also dislikes John Ford movies and opposes the busybody ban, saying that busybodies will be great for business at its two casinos near Scottsdale. "We expect record crowds as the result of smoking being prohibited everywhere but Indian casinos," said the tribe in a message sent by smoke signals.

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

(Return to Top) 

(Return to Top)

~ Information You Can Use

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

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

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

 ~ Prop 13 Arizona

(Return to Top)

~ 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.