County's east-west corridor study begins

Courtesy of Pinal County

November 22, 2011 - 3:52 pm

County's east-west corridor study begins

A public meeting for input on an east-west transportation study will be held in Maricopa on Dec. 8. Courtesy of Pinal County.

Pinal County, in cooperation and coordination with the cities of Casa Grande and Maricopa, is initiating a study to examine new transportation routes that provide connectivity through western Pinal County. Transportation goals include new high-capacity roadways that can handle the projected east-west travel demand within the area.

A parkway with restricted access is one concept being examined as part of the study. The study will investigate corridor options within Pinal County that could pass through portions of Maricopa and Casa Grande.

A large study area has been identified and public input is essential as the county and cities develop concepts to address the projected travel demand. The corridor may also pass through private property, land under the jurisdiction of the Arizona State Land Department, Bureau of Land Management, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, or other jurisdictions.

The county and cities are encouraging members of the public to participate in the study by attending one of the scheduled meetings in Maricopa or Casa Grande. The meetings will provide an overview of the study, present the environmental and engineering processes and schedule, allow attendees to ask questions and provide the opportunity for public input on the study.

The meeting in Maricopa will be held from 6 to 8 p.m., Dec. 8, at Maricopa Unified School District Administrative Building, 44150 West Maricopa-Casa Grande Highway.

Representatives from the county, city personnel, and study team members will be on hand to answer questions. The comments received from these meetings will be used to help identify critical issues to be addressed in the environmental assessment.

Individuals with disabilities may request accommodations, such as a sign language interpreter or alternative documents, by calling 602-560-1692 or faxing 602-253-1202. Requests should be made as early as possible to allow time to arrange accommodations.

People who cannot attend the meetings can provide input via email at pinaleastwest@jacobs.com.

To view a larger map, click here.

- Have a story idea? Please email it to News@InMaricopa.com.

Comment

Sort by

134 comments

I'm willing to wait to see the proposals, but just from the study area map, it looks like you'd still have to drive to Casa Grande to hit the 10. The map seems to rule out any direct route from Maricopa to the freeway.

I am curious as to how you would bring I-10 closer to Maricopa? This is an east/west study, not a north/south one. There is a lot traffic between Maricopa and Casa Grande, granted not as much as goes north but the roadways are much more restrictive.

I'm not suggesting bringing I-10 closer...I was hoping for an alternative route to I-10...

Alsos there are many ways to "get out of maricopa". It just depends on where you want to go. You can use Moble road till it ends and go north which will put you on the far west side of Phoenix. You could go south on 347 to get to I-8 and go either direction. You could use M/CG highway to Val Vista, cross I-10 and go north to end up on the far east side of phoenix (ie Gilbert/queen creek) You can also go north on 347 to Riggs, go left and end up on the West side of Phoenix.

There will never be another North/South built out of Maricopa other than 347. It just does not make economic sense.

Smith-Enke actually runs into an Indian Rd that takes you directly to I-10...It's just blocked off currently...

I have to agree with Candelaria4Council, it would have been nice to have another way to get to the I10. It is something Salt River would have to sign off on I would think and that mite be why we don't see that on the map. maybe this Will change in the future but for right now lets just get this moving in the right direction.

Salt River is involved in this venture already...I'll refrain from passing judgement until I see the full scope of the plans.

Salt River? Who is that?

lol...you got me, Flocci. I meant the Gila River Indian Community...I went off his comment without thinking about it. Thanks for catchin that!

Thomas--What are your opinions on the Maricopa Regional Transportation Plan update and how it fits in with CAAG's Pinal county transportation plans? Do you think the latter has adequately represented Maricopa in regards to transportation issues?

I can only speak to the MRTP, as I haven't read the county's plan. I think our plan is over ambitious and pushes the scope of government. They plan the project based on census numbers from 2000 showing exponential growth with estimates equivalent to more than 5x the current population within the next 18 years. They also base a lot of their planning around a robust system of public transportation. Read the strategic plan sanctioned by the state...they want us out of our cars and into buses.

Push the scope of government? How so? Please don't go Rick Perry on us. He did a number in Tejas.

Thomas the report is based on 2006 population and employment conditions. This is a big difference from whatever 2000 report considering the population of the town back then was about 1,000 residents.

* meant to say the year 2000 report that you read.

I would encourage everyone to read up on the idea of "Smart Growth" that has been sent down by directive from Washington. They want us to live in small, walkable villages...stacked up on each other in multifamily dwellings. People would be dependent on public transportation to go anywhere beyond their neighborhood. The city is mandated by the state economic department to implement these design features. They want to get away from detached housing and yards to prevent urban sprawl.

Although I haven't specifically read the counties plan, I know the general idea is to weave Maricopa into a suburb of a Casa Grande metroplex that would serve as a growing point to extend north and south to Phoenix and Tucson, respectively.

But the population projections start at 2000, incorporating an unsustainable growth curve.

That's why they pushed the bus system in this city even though they drove around empty most of the time...They were abiding by state mandates to promote and encourage people to ride the bus.

Maricopa a suburb of Casa Grande? I never heard of a suburb in AZ that will have a larger population than the city it is connected to.

Truth is majority of Maricopans work, shop and commute to the burbs in Phoenix. Maricopa is also located in the Phoenix MSA.

That is the plan, Flocci...to make CG a hub between Phoenix and Tucson.

I agree...that's why I'm not all that interested in spending money to improve the MCG. It's lightly traveled as it is. If the county would like to take that on with the money they already get from us...more power to em. I don't think I'd support an increase in taxes to fund it.

I'm willing to see what the plan entails but I'm of the opinion that we need direct freeway access to truly realize the city's potential.

I'm also curious to know if you read up on Smart Growth, Flocci. I'm assuming you would have taken the opportunity to skewer me, if you disagreed with my assessment that it's a power grab by government.

Thomas-- You can't argue logic with an illogical person.

Also if you read the MRTP, the study group scores the most cost-effective and least disruptive avenue of development to be the least desirable, because it doesn't adhere to smart growth initiatives.

Look how they score a base network to the other various options, and then look at the criteria they use to pick the most expensive one.

So I'm being illogical by deducing that government wants to determine the economic output and our lifestyles from a state document that directs the city to implement changes that will determine our economic output and our lifestyles?

Come on, Flocci. You don't see an inherent problem with government determining what kind of houses we live in and what means of transportation are available? You don't see a problem with politicians social engineering our communities?

Thomas most of the smart initiatives are guidelines. Would you rather someone like you with no experience making these near term decisions that would affect the growth of the city for decades to come?

Smart growth directive from DC? How about you start with Arizona's smart growth scorecard. Not just urban villages.....

As far as cost effectiveness goes Did you take into account the grants, funding or other monetary means?

So the answer to my question on whether you want government bureaucrats centrally planning development and the economy is a yes. You don't trust the judgement of the citizens and private individuals of Maricopa to determine their own way. You'd prefer some bureaucrat to design a utopian society based on public spaces, public transportation, priviledged businesses, and crowded living conditions. Just trying to clarify your argument for you...am I correct in these assumptions?

Thomas -- My answer would depend on the people making the decisions. If people like you - no experience in planning and implementation - were making the decisions ...then yes I'd rather the government help out with guidelines.

Smart growth is directive from DC, encouraged by enormous grant offers...that never materialized, by the way. Why else would the state government be trying to implement these guidelines? Arizona's smart growth initiatives mirror those put out by the EPA.

Did you even read the report, Flocci, or are you just still trying to test my knowledge? The report spells out how much each will cost taking grants into consideration. It also has a matrix of the determining criteria and how each proposal was scored.

The total cost of the preferred design is over a quarter of a BILLION dollars over the next 8 years. The report uses a population estimate of 247,000 by 2020.

So then you agree with my assessment that you would rather have "experienced" bureaucrats making those decisions for individuals, especially if those individuals offer differing views about what constitutes freedom, correct?

It makes sense to connect to the nearest overpass for the straightest route to keep the cost down, right?

Widen the MCG Hwy to two lanes on both sides, including dedicated left turn lanes at some of the busier turns. Widen and connect Bowlin Rd to MCG to alleviate some congestion at MCG-347. That will better connect neighborhoods south of the tracks to Casa Grande or even just to the local Wal-Mart. This can push back the need for a grade separation at MCG-347 several years.

Bring or send those ideas to the meeting so we can get the ball rolling before they spend our tax dollars on something less beneficial. This road deal is the best thing I've seen to promote economic activity and growth.

I've set it in my calendar to attend.

If you actually took the time to read the Maricopa and Pinal county transportation reports you would already know MCG is planned a a six lane expressway.

That's great, but is it planned as a restricted access high capacity highway? Where can one get an issue of the report you are talking about? Thanks!

Restricted access high capacity highway? LOL

City, county and MAG and CAAG websites. So far the ideas the candidates have are already planned.

Sorry, I'm new to the area and not sure what this part of the world considers restricted access:)

It's no problem since you're not running for office. Where are you from?

I'm from the Mid-West and bring good conservative values, how about you?

I'm from NJ. I come from a long line of Mafioso's who are now all in jail. Lost the family, fortune and lifestyle... but not my humor.

I now spend my days smoking pot, drinking limoncellos and taking methadone....paid for by you guys.

I do know from my limited time spent here that we need another good route to take in case of a man made or natural disaster. Look what just happened up on the I10 recently and fortunately they had a few options?

There are other ways out of the city. Biggest problem is Maricopa is land locked.....I don't see many alternative routes in the near future. But it's always nice to talk about them.

Thanks.....Are there any defined emergency routes? That might be something to bring to the meeting.

Not sure. Back to the Indian reservations for a second.....it is very difficult to get Gila River to agree to build a freeway on their land. The issue is the ownership of land. Each parcel of land is owned by many different people from many different families. All have to agree to allow freeways on their piece of land.

This is why it will be very difficult for ADOT, Phoenix and Maricopa county to build the 202 extension on GRIC land.

Wonder if they understand the concept from a movie and quote from it: "if you build it they will come" LOL

Good explanation on why Maricopa doesn't have many roadways out of town. Have you thought about being on a committee or running for office? It appears you have caught on quickly that most of the candidates ideas are either rehashed ideas or just plain old junk.

Ben-- I believe in long, prolonged derangement of the senses in order to obtain the unknown.

I would just like to add that this seems like a fine community with great potential to get things right and or better but probably will not come without a few growing pains.

Thomas - After chatting with you these past few days, I am positive you would not be a good fit for a seat on the city council.

Just a few reasons....First the bonds....you want a requirement for a two-thirds majority to pass any referendum or initiative that raises taxes, along with a 75 percent voter turnout threshold.

Problem - this is a state law and you would not be able to change this unless you could set up a "majority rules" initiative. If you get enough supporters statewide..cont'd

.....2nd reason - you are confused about a recreation facility and a recreation center...they are not the same as you would have us believe in some of your posts. You also fail to understand the city budget. An example would be the Parks and Rec or as you hopefully know by now...community services department which you believe funds are ballooning after the bond was passed.

How do you make these assumptions without obtaining a detailed budget from the city?? You can't!

I understand the budget all too well...you are making a vague reference to an admitted flippant use of terms on another post to imply ignorance on my part and detract from the point I made on that very thread.

The spending for community services, which was already supporting the library and Picana Park in2010, increased 125% in 2011, with no new park or facility. Where's the wisdom in the dramatic increase in spending, when revenues are down from the previous year, even after increasing tax?

We need someone on the city council with an understanding of business, finance and government. All areas you are lacking in...for now.

Can you direct me to the state law that prohibits localities from instituting policies that pertain to voter turnout or majority requirements?

If that is the case...the state may find it interesting that the city is "cost-cutting" by eliminating open polling and relying on a mail-in ballot process for city primaries, based on 3/4 of the turnout for past elections.

On a side note...it's nice to know the city is cost-cutting on elections but handing out grant money like candy.

Didn't you vote in 2008? Prop 105???

That was a failed amendment to the Az constitution that would REQUIRE a proposal like mine on a state level. It didn't bar municipalities from determining their own requirements.

Failure of that proposal did not bar municipalities from instituting their own, and neither does the Az constitution.

Thomas --the city of Maricopa is NOT a charter city. Therefore, the city abides by state and county voting regulations and laws.

It doesn't matter if Maricopa has a city charter because municipal bonds fall under state laws.

I never said it was...Flocci, brought up the idea of a charter city...

And no where in state law and county law does it bar local municipalities from imposing double majority requirements.

The law you are referring to was a citizen initiative to change state law to require double majorities, statewide. The rejection of that law does not preclude individual municipalities from enacting their own policies.

I'm talking about floc statement about the city abiding by state and county voting regulations. He/she is correct but I also mentioned municipal bonds fall under state laws.

Since the municipal bond fall under state laws floc was correct to point out the Arizona Majority Rules Proposition. That would be the only way to change the voting on the bonds in Arizona.

.I proposed a double majority on all future proposals that raise the tax rate.

I offered a double majority vote to determine the use of the funds already borrowed. If that's not possible, I'm okay with that. I still would like to see a vote to gage public sentiment 3 years after the fact, given the current economic circumstances.

*guage * lol sorry...typin fast...

Elections cost money. If you can't change to majority vote and you can't change the bond why would you want a public sentiment vote?

Your saying that I can't change the voting requirements to reflect a double majority on public bonds...I'm not disagreeing with you. My proposal was on attempts to raise taxes. Bonds are only one avenue of funding requiring taxes. I don't think spending on tax payers credit with the hope of better days is wise, nor would I propose to build future projects with borrowed money.

Is it not possible, with a simple majority, to allow voters to decide a new direction for publicly borrowed funds?

First issue -- the bond. The bond that was passed by the voters was a general obligation municipal bond. It is backed by the full faith, credit and taxing powers of the city. Meaning if the city defaults, the tax payers are stuck with the payments, including interest.

Most of our property taxe rates are not up for a vote. Examples would be the fire district, electrical district, Pinal county flood, library, etc.

I really don't understand what vote you are trying to push for.

Well, I can tell you that at no time have I questioned the obligation to pay back the bonds, so I'm not sure why you even brought that up.

I understand that they were bought as general obligation bonds not having to be specifically earmarked for parks and recreation, as they were originally billed. Council can apparently decide where those funds go on their own. The only vote Ive proposed was to see where people would prefer the money spent.

Not all tax increases are up for votes, some are.

Thomas - Property taxes that are up for vote are bonds and overrides for school districts. In Arizona, majority of taxes are levied through special districts which have authority to levy taxes or assessments on the general public usually in the form of taxes or assessments on property, and may borrow money to finance their operation, secured by their general taxing power, and are governed by elected boards of directors.

Therefore you can't propose a double majority...for tax increases.

What you are trying to do with the bond is called "refunding bonds" the issuer will refinances the outstanding bond issue by issuing new bonds in the amount sufficient to cover principal, interest and call premium of the old bonds. The new bonds are called "refunding bonds." And the outstanding obligation being refinanced are "refunded bonds."

Mostly this is used for refinancing or stretch out the term of the debt..

Refunding could also be used to remove a burdensome or restrictive covenant imposed by the terms of the original debt.

I understand this is what you want to do...change the "scope" of the bonds. A big problem is that what I mentioned above can be done if the bonds were revenue bonds. Problem is the bond you are talking about were GO bonds.

To summarize, you can not propose a double majority vote and you can not refund the bond since it is a general obligation bond.

Lisa...I understand that you cannot propose a double majority on bonds. You are making your case on the assumption that the city must operate by borrowing and then taxing. The city did not start deficit financing until 2010. I propose we do not go down that route.

I've never talked about refunding the bonds...merely redirected the funds, as council has done to shore up the budget. I would like to eliminate enough spending so that deficit financing is not necessary in the future.

Upon researching pertinent sections of the Az Constitution, I came across Art 9, Sec 8.

"No county, city, town, school district, or other municipal corporation shall for any purpose become indebted in any manner...without the assent of a majority of the PROPERTY TAXPAYERS, who must also in all respects be qualified electors, therein voting at an election provided by law to be held for that purpose

Was there an effort to ascertain whether the people voting for the bond were property owners?

I should also point out that it doesn't say the majority of property taxpayer who show up to vote...it says the majority of property taxpayers that are qualified to vote.

Thomas - you can not redirect a bond. The term is refunding the bond for revenue bonds. If you read my comments, it explains in detail what you can and can not do with GO bonds.

Thomas - you bring up a valid point about the Arizona Constitution. However, this point has been argued in court many times over the last 40 years. Each time it was ruled unconstitutional.

You have to understand most investor protections and other rules regulating bonds issued by states, cities, and counties or their agencies to help finance public projects or for other public policy purposes are handled on a federal level.

Are you suggesting that Federal law trumps the state constitution in regards to the financing capabilities of local municipalities?

On what grounds? Can you refer me to any case history that supports your claim? Why would the Az Constitution not be amended to bring it in line with Federal law?

And if Council is barred from using the park bond for any purpose other than building parks, why was 20 million borrowed with only about 7 million going into the capital fund towards a park in 2010?

Thomas part of being a responsible, educated adult is having the ability to research and find answers. You should do your own research into the court cases. One place you can start is on the Cornell University's law school website. (big hint for you)

Questions about the city council should be answered by the city council members. According to your posts you have had no communication with them. I suggest you make some calls and send out some emails. Most will answer questions you have.

I posed those questions to you, Lisa, because you represented yourself as knowledgeable about the subject.

You said that court cases have been decided...I merely asked you to cite one.

As far as asking council about the park bond being used to shore up the budget, worry not...I'll find out what I need to know.

Thank you for your input, Lisa. I hope your holiday was wonderful!

Thomas You won't lean anything if all the answers are handed to you. Due diligence........

*learn

I would argue that my research of the law of the land is doing due diligence.

We are debating whether the vote for the bonds was properly carried out and legally binding since it looks unlikely that this was a vote restricted to property taxpayers, as demanded by the constitution of the state of Arizona.

I cited law. You stated their was countermanding federal cases. I asked you to cite something specific, as I have done all along.

You now shy away from debate in order to educate me?

I would actually love to be wrong about this, Lisa. The possible uncovering of such a tremendous breach of public trust is a very scary prospect, indeed. If you can show me a flaw in my argument, I would really appreciate it.

I like to think of debate as not only a way to advance a cause, but to learn from others, as well. It's unfortunate that most of us feel unable to have rational discussions about things of important nature, dear to our hearts, for doing so may cause discomfort.

Thomas muni securities are governed by federal law. I have given you all the necessary tools (including a website) for you to research the information more thoroughly. It is up to you to take the next step and learn from your erroneous statements in your opinion pieces and comments.

If you would like to "debate" AFTER you did your research let me know.

Lisa- some people are used to being handed everything. So I'm going to give Tom the name of the court case. Smith Vs. Smith.

The various rules covering investors are governed by federal law. Election rules governing elections are a matter of state law, so long as they don't run counter the constitution of the United States. Again, Lisa...I offered a counterpoint to your argument. If you can cite a case, please do so. If you cannot, I understand.

Flocci, the only reference I can find to "Smith v Smith" is a child support case out of Ohio. I searched Supreme Court cases and found no such reference.

Thomas you should add gullible to your campaign traits. LOL

Lisa I found 4 or 5 cases. Can I just tell Thomas? He has a problem with researching answers.

floccinaucinihilipilification-- no please don't tell him. (at least for a little while) A good politician or professional should be able to do his own research for information. Especially when I gave him the website!

It's what separates the men from boys.

LOL! You two are very funny...

Don't worry about it. I'll be speaking to a "professional" who will be able to address my concerns. ;)

I'll find out what I need to know.

My thanks to you, Lisa. Our debate has shined a light on some very important subjects that require addressing. Hopefully, all questions of impropriety will be proven to be a misinterpretation on my part and will require no further action.

And as promised, I found out what I needed to know. ;)

You are correct, Lisa. I found the cases that you were referring to.

I must side with the dissenting opinion in those cases, but clearly the city can levy an ad valorem tax on property with the assent of a popular vote, including people that don't have true standing to decide the issue.

Again, I thank you for your input. And your's too, Flocci! :)

Lisa, just as an aside. I'd like you to read the second to last paragraph of the first part of the decision delivered by Justice White in City of Phoenix vs Kolodziejski. Specifically, the paragraph in which White concedes that people may lose their property and prognosticates that "risk of future economic collapse that might result in bond obligations becoming an unshiftable, unsharable burden on property owners is (in)sufficiently real."

I can see a point of challenge. Do you agree?

Upon performing due diligence, in regards to my worthy antagonist, may I say that I am humbled and honored to have such an esteemed member of the profession willing to take the time to address misconceptions/mistakes in my argument. As, you can probably tell, Lisa, I come from the ideology of original intent. I have not studied law previously, but I consider these types of discussions a benefit to my understanding of current principles at work.

I must admit, I am disheartened at the extent to which Roman civil law procedures have been used to distort the underlying English Common Law doctrines and the original intent of the founders. I do not think, however, this trend is irreversible, especially in the light of the current economic and political climate.

Again, Lisa, I am truly humbled that someone of your stature, has taken an interest in my positions and is willing to help me with the finer points. Thank you, Your Honor. ;)

and why aren't you addressing my other points on this board?

Can you confirm that you prefer "experienced" bureaucrats to plan the lives of all Maricopans, especially when people like me, who have a different definition of freedom, want to have their say?

Can you also provide the rationale for supporting a quarter billion dollar plan that's based on pop. numbers of 247K within 8 years, proposed by what you consider more "experienced" and "educated" people currently in government?

I applaud Mr. Candelaria for taking the time to run for city council. But I don't think he is ready to take on such a large responsibility. I wish you luck in your future endeavors.

Thank you for your consideration. I appreciate the input of all, especially those that voice their specific concerns about my positions..

Could I trouble you for your rationale, or are you content to state your opinion without further explanation?

I agree with many of your positions but don't feel you have an understanding of local and state government to move us in the right direction. My opinion is you have too large of a learning curve.

They are looking for rational candidates who are not stuck in a single (extreme) mindset and can listen to and understand other peoples concerns. Look what we got when the media hid and would not mention how extreme our current president is before he was elected and how he was raised by a family of Marxists?

Thank you for clarifying.

I agree that I have much to learn, but at the same time, I feel as aptly qualified as any currently running.

Although I may lack specific knowledge pertaining to established procedures of how our bureaucracy operates, I believe I offer a way going forward that eliminates the need for so many procedures in the first place.

I also believe I offer an ideologically consistent alternative for those tired of politics as usual.

Again, I appreciate your consideration.

Get - I make no bones about my political allegiances. I am a libertarian conservative, who believes in limited government. I hide nothing about my positions.

I can listen to people's concerns, but if their desires run contrary to the ideals of limited government authority, then all I can offer is a reason why I wouldn't support it.

This goes back to the notion of compromising principles to achieve political ends...as I've said before. I'm not interested.

Right...some are using their experience on council as a reason to vote for them when in actuality they have very little or no business or leadership experience like yourself.

For the most part our system works very well, especially when you take the corruption out......and money is usually the problem.

Unfortunately, I see our current system as broken and morally bankrupt.

For it to work, as people think it should, would require an unbroken line of civil saints elected to office. The corruption you loathe is inherent in a system that relies on power of authority to achieve it's will. Crooks and charlatans will always be attracted to power. Limiting government to a narrow set of functions discourages those that would use the force of government to accomplish their hearts desire.

I know I'm not looking for an extremist or someone ate up with their own ideology that they wouldn't be able to accomplish anything of value or importance to the voters.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. I make no apologies for being ideologically consistent and dedicated to founding principles.

You need more experience or 1) list your accomplishments and jobs since high school. 2) Do you think you will be able to downsize our local government?

I haven't been involved in local politics or committees. So none. :)

I'm offering a set of principles that I don't see articulated.

I also don't see anyone else with the testicular fortitude to openly delineate their political philosophy and rigorously defend it against all detractors, as I have.

Yes, I believe I can, especially looking at a budget laden with waste and giveaways.

If you prefer a "professional" politician, I totally understand. Thank you for your consideration.

What books or articles do you read? Do you take them with wherever you go? LOL

I can forward a reading list, if you like.

I do take them everywhere I go, in my consciousness...I actually absorb what I read. That's the beauty of learning :)

I wasnt implying that you don't absorb what you read...

reading my comment back, I could see how one would construe it that way, but to denigrate your ability was certainly not my intention.

I believe we need a limited but enough government to protect our liberties and defend us. There are a couple things government is good at: 1) having a military ready and able 2) taxation....LOL

Government is necessary to create laws and regulations as long as they don't infringe on our liberties.

I agree...I haven't proposed eliminating all taxes or any ability of government to perform it's necessary duties.

I have said all along that I believe the central role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. For local governments, their role includes providing needed infrastructure to accomodate growth and commerce. My views on enabling taxation for recreation speak to my defense of an individuals property rights.

Government is necessary...but we should bind it down with rule of law.

Life, liberty, property, and the necessary infrastructure for ease of movement and commerce.

That is my position.

Nice points Mr. Candelaria, I was going to post that Government should not infringe on the Natural Rights that are given to all people. Yes, we should have laws and regulations, but not infringe on these Rights. We are free to what we choose for life and property as long as it does not harm another person or property.

Good luck on your run!

Interesting...........will there be any public debates before the election? I think they should be televised also.

By the way there is nothing wrong with some professionalism....you wouldn't want an amateur performing surgery on you or defending you in court so why would we want amateurs managing our finances, lives and government business?

I agree, unfortunately, I believe we have too many professional managers ready to plan out our lives and spend our money, and not enough professional civil servants dedicated to preserving liberty and private property.

I'm sure there will be...

?.... Be what??.... more career politicians? :).....we will have to figure out how to get back to our basic needs and make sure (the majority) everyone is understanding that our government credit card is maxed!

I'm sure there will be debates. :)

The sad thing is, until the park bond vote...the city maintained no debt...they just increasingly spent a lot of money taken from the people...

Now, because of the housing market crash, they are deficit financing the increases in expenditures. About 10 million of the $20M they borrowed against the bonds was used to shore up the 2010 operating budget. They counted the borrowed $20 million as revenue and listed it as "investment income."

Check out the question on your other post/ article please.

This comment section is sooo long and self important I simply couldn't read it all. However, back to basics. As a citizen that does not claim to be a political muse or guru, I am encouraged at the idea of improved, real transportation options. Here is what I think (for anyone who cares to listen to my simple citizen-only opinions). Right off the bat, I don't like the idea of being considered a suburb of CG. A 6-lane expy., going East West? What about North South?

What about North/South? where will the expressway lead? IMHO, someone needs to deal with GIC and attempt to un-landlock us. We NEED a grade separation at JWP and the train. I understand this is an ADOT issue, but for goodness sakes, someone needs to get it done! I obviously have alot of questions and not sure if anyone here can answer them, butthese are the issues that concern me. As for the government attempting to change the housing style here .... we are too far from anything to be