Homeless in Arizona

In the "Odd Couple" TV show Tony Randall played nut job Felix Unger.

Tempe home survey yields new code enforcement

Survey: Aesthetically, Tempe homes fall short

Tempe home survey yields new code enforcement

By Dianna M. Náñez The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:21 PM

Hoping to evaluate homes that might not violate city code but still are regarded by city inspectors as having an unappealing “aesthetic value,” Tempe recently surveyed 640 residential properties and found that not one of the city’s four ZIP codes averaged even an “OK” rating.

Results were presented at a City Council strategy session, according to a May 7 public staff report.

About 25 houses received the coveted perfect rating.

Tempe’s scoring of each home for aesthetic value ranged from 1 to 3, according to the staff report.

A 3 rating equated to: “That looks good. I like that. I’d live there.”

A 2 rating equated to: “I’ve got no opinion. It’s OK.”

And a 1 rating equated to: “That looks ugly. That looks boring.”

Tempe reported that the citywide average for “aesthetic value” is 1.74.

Some residents were uncomfortable with the city conducting a subjective rating. The Arizona Republic asked them to weigh in on the survey. [What's next, are we going to have "beautiful home cops" in addition to messy yard cops??? Are the royal rulers of Tempe going to come up with a silly dress code for Tempe residents??? Maybe they will even let us dress down on weekends???]

Hollie Schineller, who has lived in Tempe for more than a decade with her husband, Freddie, and their children, took issue with the aesthetic-value rating. Schineller lives in a house south of Baseline Road where the survey said there were fewer issues with code-enforcement violations.

“An aesthetic value on anything, I think, sounds really subjective,” Schineller said. “Something that is aesthetically pleasing can be completely offensive to somebody else.” [Yea, so subjective that the jackbooted thugs on the Tempe City Council shouldn't even be thinking about it!!!!]

Neighborhoods north of Baseline in Tempe were found to have more issues, which the city said it would address by adding at least three temporary code-enforcement inspectors to monitor those neighborhoods for code violations.

Tempe City Councilman Kolby Granville, who spearheaded efforts to deal with residential code enforcement, said that the aesthetic value was not used as part of the scoring system to evaluate problem neighborhoods. [Well then why was it used jerk!!!!]

Rather, it was used to determine whether there are issues at homes that might be unappealing but not in violation of city code. The city may find that changes should be made to the code to improve neighborhoods’ aesthetic value. [Oh no!!!! I guess we are going to have "beautiful home cops" in addition to messy yard cops???]

For example, Granville said that people who own their home do not have to landscape it per city code. They can have dirt instead of a lawn, as long as it has no weeds, he said. [Tempe City Councilman Kolby Granville sounds like a nagging mother in law instead of a public servant who pretends to protect our rights!!!!]

Proof elected officials can't be trusted???

State attorney argues legislators can ignore voter-mandated education funding law

Last this is a damn good example of why we need the Second Amendment, which is our right to keep and bear arms. The politicians and government bureaucrats can't be trusted to obey the Constitution and the "people" need to have some means to force them to.

Source

State attorney argues legislators can ignore voter-mandated education funding law

Posted: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 1:26 pm | Updated: 2:16 pm, Tue Jul 23, 2013.

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services | 0 comments

PHOENIX — Legislators are free to ignore a voter mandate to boost education funding each year to account for inflation, an attorney for the state told the Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Kathleen Sweeney, an assistant attorney general, conceded voters did approve the inflation adjustment in 2000, and she also did not dispute that the Arizona Constitution prohibits legislators from repealing or altering voter-approved laws.

But Sweeney, seeking to allow the Legislature to disregard the 2000 law, told the justices voters had no constitutional right to enact the funding mandate in the first place.

That brought a somewhat surprised reaction from Chief Justice Rebecca Berch. She pointed out it was the Legislature that put the inflation adjustment provision on the ballot in the first place.

"They got the voters to vote on their bad language,'' she said. “And now they're trying to disavow their bad language.''

Sweeney did not exactly contest the question of whether lawmakers essentially had pulled a fast one on voters, getting them to approve a law that had no legal standing.

"Perhaps, your honor,'' she replied to Berch.

And Sweeney gave essentially the same response to a query by Justice John Pelander, who asked if she was arguing that the 2000 vote was "a fruitless, useless act.''

The fight most immediately affects whether lawmakers are required to annually adjust education funding.

That 2000 ballot measure boosted the state's 5-percent sales tax by six-tenths of a cent. It also requires the Legislature to increase funding for schools by 2 percent or the change in the gross domestic price deflator, whichever is less.

Lawmakers did that until the 2010 when, facing a budget deficit, they reinterpreted what the law requires. The result is that, since then, schools have lost anywhere from $189 million to $240 million, depending on whose figures are used. Don Peters, representing several school districts, filed suit.

Legislators did add $82 million in inflation funding for the new fiscal year that began July 1 after the state Court of Appeals sided with challengers. But they are hoping the Supreme Court concludes that mandate is legally unenforceable.

The outcome of this fight has larger implications — and not only for future education funding. It also could set the precedent for what voters have the right to tell the Legislature to do.

Sweeney argued there are limits, despite the constitutional right of voters to approve their own laws and despite the Voter Protection Act that shields these laws from legislative tinkering.

She said the 2000 measure sets the formula for increasing state aid — and then tells the Legislature to find the money from somewhere. Sweeney argued that infringes on the constitutional right of lawmakers to decide funding priorities.

Justice Scott Bales pointed out the inflation formula is a statute. He said while it was enacted by voters, it should have the same legal status as a law approved by legislators themselves.

"Do you think the Legislature can simply ignore statutes providing that it shall do certain things?'' he asked.

"Yes,'' Sweeney responded.

Peters disagreed.

"The statute that requires inflation adjustments is the law,'' he told the justices. “The Legislature has to obey the law like all the rest of us.''

And Peters said the constitutional Voter Protection Act precludes the Legislature from altering that law without first asking voter permission.

"Therefore, it must do what the statute required unless the people change it,'' he said.

Pelander questioned whether there are limits on what voters can tell the Legislature to do. Peters responded that the Arizona Constitution gives voters broad powers to make their own laws as long as those measures do not "offend'' other state or federal constitutional provisions.

"So they can do pretty much anything they want to,'' Peters told the justices. “And that includes giving instructions to the Legislature.''

Peters acknowledged the Supreme Court has previously said a law approved by one Legislature cannot bind future lawmakers.

But he argued that, as far as voter-approved laws, all that changed in 1998 with enactment of the Voter Protection Act.

"That balance of power is different,'' Peters said.

The justices gave no indication when they will rule.

Peters acknowledged after Tuesday's hearing that he could win his legal argument and still have a problem.

The high court could rule that lawmakers cannot ignore the 2000 law. But the justices have consistently refused to actually order the Legislature to find the additional dollars to fully fund the formula.

That could result in a situation where schools get the higher per-student funding as the formula requires, at least until the cash appropriated by the Legislature runs out. But Peters said he doubts lawmakers are willing to endure the wrath of voters if schools need to shut their doors before the end of the school year.

Is it time to end the war on drugs????

Tempe home survey yields new code enforcement

Tempe home survey yields new code enforcement

By Dianna M. Náñez The Republic | azcentral.com Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:09 AM

Tempe is relying on a recent survey of 640 residential properties as the basis for a new approach to residential code enforcement that will focus code inspectors on violations in neighborhoods north of Baseline Road.

According to Tempe officials, the survey showed that houses in that region had more potential code violations than ones south of Baseline.

But the locations of the properties north of Baseline remain a mystery because Tempe has not decided whether to release the taxpayer-funded database. Invoking the state Public Records Law, The Arizona Republic requested the survey Tuesday, but as of Thursday, the city said it had not decided whether to release the study to the public.

Tempe spokeswoman Nikki Ripley said Tempe needed time to discuss concerns the city had about releasing addresses of potential violations noted in the survey, which was managed by Tempe workers.

The city declined to make Lisa Collins, Tempe’s interim community development director, available for comment.

Councilman Kolby Granville spearheaded the plan to study Tempe’s blighted residential and commercial properties through his and Councilman Joel Navarro’s committee for neighborhoods and education.

Collins and Tempe Code Enforcement Manager Jeff Tamulevich handled the public survey of residential properties, Granville said.

Last week, a Tempe news release touted the new approach to code enforcement. It spotlighted the survey and money in the city’s proposed budget to hire at least three temporary residential-code-enforcement inspectors, who would focus on “proactively seeking out and resolving code violations at homes north of Baseline Road.”

Residents have long complained that houses rented by the scores of Arizona State University students who live in Tempe are rundown eyesores used as moneymakers for property owners who do not live in the neighborhood.

During the economic downturn, many of the homes were left vacant because of foreclosures, joining undeveloped commercial lots with overgrown weeds and dead foliage in blotting the city’s neighborhood landscape.

Rundown properties and city budget constraints in the wake of the recession made for the perfect storm. Tempe had mounting code violations and fewer inspectors to deal with the problem.

In an e-mail Wednesday to The Republic, Collins wrote that cost-saving measures that began in 2009 depleted the ranks of the Tempe Code Enforcement Division. Before the staff reductions, there were 13 full-time and six temporary part-time code-compliance inspectors, Collins wrote. Today, there are seven full-time and one temporary part-time inspectors, she added.

Granville said he hopes the new staff will help Tempe make up lost ground on blighted properties, which he believes would raise property values across the community.

“Our goal is if you drive a neighborhood, at what point do you think, ‘I’d live here,’ ” he said. “It’s not ‘Leave It to Beaver’ land; it’s not perfect. But it’s the way I’d expect my neighbors to maintain their community.

The taxpayer-funded survey seemed the best way to analyze the Code Compliance Department’s problems so that if money is spent it would be directed efficiently and effectively, he said.

“To arrive at a new standard to be applied citywide, code-enforcement staff undertook an extensive survey of existing properties across Tempe,” according to the news release. The goal was to analyze the existing condition of Tempe residential properties, and Tempe could evaluate the overall condition of such sites, Granville said.

Tempe studied 640 of the 31,620 single-family residences in the city, according to the city news release. Granville said that home addresses for inspection were selected randomly.

Each house was inspected for Tempe’s six most common code violations: weeds, dead vegetation, unregistered vehicles, illegal parking, lack of building maintenance and debris visible from the street.

Tempe found 409 residences with at least one code violation. But the city did not issue citations on any of the homes, Granville said.

Granville said that Tempe established a scoring system to evaluate the extent of each violation, ranging from 1 to 5, with 5 being no violation and 1 being the worst violation.

Tempe also rated each home for aesthetic value, ranging from 1 to 3. A 3 rating equated to: “That looks good. I like that. I’d live there. A 2 rating equated to: “I’ve got no opinion. It’s OK.” And a 1 rating equated to: “That looks ugly. That looks boring.”

According to Tempe public records of the May council strategy session where the survey was discussed, the aesthetic value was rated because “it was recognized that a property could have no violations of the Zoning and Development Code or City Code, but still be an unappealing property.”

The best possible score a home could receive was a 30 for no violations.

The citywide average of all the scores was 27.52. Scores north of Baseline averaged from 26.34 to 26.70. Scoring south of Baseline averaged from 28.29 to 29.31.

Granville said that the city has recommended a goal of reaching a ZIP code average of 28.25.

“Staff will attempt to achieve that goal in part through proactive code-enforcement patrols over the next year by supplementing existing staff with the requested new staff, if approved,” according to the Tempe news release.

Granville said that without the survey, Tempe would not have the data to realize that the majority of code violations were in areas of Tempe north of Baseline. That realization, he said, helps Tempe target money to where it will make the biggest difference.

South Tempe residents will still have code-enforcement officers but the focus would be on neighborhoods with bigger blight problems, he said.

“For me personally, I don’t want Tempe to take on the role of an overzealous homeowners association,” he said. “What I want us to do is make sure that neighborhoods take care of their property enough so that it doesn’t affect the property values of their neighbors surrounding them.”

Granville said the plan is for Tempe to conduct the residential-property survey each year to determine whether neighborhoods are improving.

------

Tempe code violations

Tempe Councilman Kolby Granville walks a neighborhood near University and McClintock drives and calls in a possible residential code violation.

At a glance

Here are the homes with at least one code violation found in a Tempe survey of 640 residential properties. The information, broken down by ZIP code, was provided by Tempe City Councilman Kolby Granville.

>> 85281: 101 of 127 homes surveyed.

>> 85282: 184 of 229 homes surveyed.

>> 85283: 90 of 165 homes surveyed.

>> 85284: 34 of 119 homes surveyed.

Selectively enforcing the graffiti laws in Tempe???

Source

Tempe Councilman Granville suggests system for evaluating graffiti response

By Harmony Huskinson The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:41 AM

Councilman Colby Granville said that while the Tempe Police and Public Works departments do an excellent job of responding to reported graffiti, areas of the city with low responses remain an issue.

“It’s no help to the residents to say, ‘Had you called, we would have fixed it,’ ” Granville said at Tuesday’s council Neighborhoods and Education Committee meeting.

Therefore, he said, the city should develop a system in which the levels of graffiti are measured, and then an “acceptable level” of graffiti is determined.

Next, the City Council would approve a system in which city workers or volunteers would remove graffiti in problem areas and maintain this acceptable level across the city.

Granville and City Councilman Joel Navarro agreed that a specific question about graffiti should be added to the city’s customer-satisfaction surveys and more information should be gathered from self-reports.

But they will discuss Granville’s proposal with the rest of the council in a strategy session where members will discuss whether graffiti should be statistically sampled.

Tempe Police Chief Tom Ryff said the city does proactively address graffiti because several departments work together to combat it. He added that these departments use tracking systems to compile graffiti data, which would be a problem in Granville’s proposed system.

The city released a 311 app on Jan. 14 in which residents can report graffiti. It has been taking 311 phone calls for graffiti since January 2011. The 311 systems have increased graffiti responses and removal, said John Osgood, deputy director of Public Works.

In 2012, there were 1,140 reports of graffiti in Tempe, the majority in alleyways and public rights-of-way.

Councilman Joel Navarro said he does not see the need for graffiti removal as immediate, adding that graffiti calls have dropped dramatically.

“It’s a lot of resources going out there, to do what?” Navarro said.

Navarro said that before the council takes any more action against graffiti it should measure the success of the 311 app. Navarro added that if this proposed system was implemented, he is not sure who would patrol city areas for graffiti.

Granville said the council would discuss those details in a strategy session.

“I’m not even trying to get rid of (graffiti). I’m trying to decide what an acceptable amount is and how we get to the acceptable amount, because I don’t think we’re at the acceptable amount,” Granville said.

The committee also discussed its actions against loud ASU fraternity parties in residential neighborhoods and the emergency-response system in local schools.

More messy yard laws in Tempe????

Tempe proposal would ensure vacant-land owners maintain property

By Dianna M. Náñez The Republic | azcentral.com

Thu Mar 7, 2013 9:12 AM

Tempe landowners who have allowed weeds and dirt to overrun their vacant lots soon could be forced to plant a few flowers and clean up the city eyesore.

Councilman Kolby Granville discussed his proposal during a council strategy session last week to amend the city’s zoning and development code to target certain undeveloped properties with fines and financial incentives.

The change would target vacant land, including sites zoned for commercial, residential or industrial development, in high-density areas, such as downtown.

Granville said that improving the look of vacant lots would benefit businesses and people in those pockets of the city where landowners have allowed undeveloped property to deteriorate.

The idea was brought before the council after being hashed out over the past few months in Granville and Councilman Joel Navarro’s Neighborhoods and Education Committee.

Large vacant lots should have a minimum border of landscaping to maintain the quality of the neighborhood, Granville said. He argues that reducing the eyesores in regions like downtown would decrease vacancy rates and increase rents.

“I don’t want Tempe to be the flea market of development,” he said. “Ultimately, the success of Tempe is the quality of the product we provide to developers, and by having the most livable attractive city we can, we are providing a higher-quality product.”

The goal is to create an incentive and cost-effective mechanism for landowners to improve their properties, while allowing the city to fine developers who refuse to maintain their lot.

Under the proposed code, lots are considered high density in the city’s General Plan if they are in areas that have a projected density of 26 or more dwelling units per acre. Vacant lots in these areas that are considered deteriorated would be deemed nuisances.

To encourage the landowner to improve their property, under the proposal, the $344 fee for a landscaping plan would be waived. Additionally, when the vacant lot is developed, Tempe would reduce the development fees by as much as 50 percent, not to exceed two times the amount paid for landscape improvements.

If the proposal is approved under the existing nuisance code, which is handled by code-enforcement officers, it would be a civil sanction with a maximum fine up to $2,000 per day for each property, Interim City Attorney Judi Baumann said.

During the economic downturn, deteriorated vacant lots have created a ghost-town effect on entire blocks, Granville said. He suggested the proposal may spur private-public partnerships if landowners work with non-profits to build temporary community gardens.

The proposal drew criticism from some council members who were concerned that the city may be punishing landowners who have not been able to develop their properties because of the down economy.

“Is this good business?” Navarro asked interim Community Development Manager Lisa Collins, who presented the proposed code and zoning changes at the strategy session.

Collins said that Tempe has about 167 acres of private land that would potentially be affected if the changes were approved. The city owns about 33 vacant acres that would need to be improved under the proposal, she said.

Collins said that the city does not currently have a mechanism to force developers to maintain their vacant lots.

“If this ordinance were in place, these people would be required to do something or have a non-profit do it for them,” she said.

Councilman Corey Woods said he wants to ensure that fines do not discourage development. However, he argued that the proposal is worth further study because it would “protect the people who live here and pay taxes” and deserve to have their city maintained.

The council agreed to have city staff analyze how much revenue, under the proposed changes, Tempe would lose in development fees, the budget for landscaping applicable to city-owned land and the extent and type of landscaping that would be acceptable to improve vacant lots.

Corporate welfare at Tempe Town Lake!!!!

Corporate welfare at Tempe Town Toilet!!!!

1) A large part of the time the park is not open to the public, but used for events to raise money for the royal rulers of Tempe. And these events are expensive to attend and most of the working class people that live in Tempe can't afford to attend the events, despite the fact that these people were forced to pay for Tempe Town Toilet with their hard earned tax dollars.

2) These events cause huge traffic jams and parking problems in the downtown Tempe area

3) When these events are concerts they routinely keep people awake late at night in the entire downtown area, and as far north as Roosevelt Road in Scottsdale which is also Continental Drive in Tempe. I am not sure how far south the concerts can be heard.

Also check out:

Source

Tempe to weigh revising Town Lake plan

By Dianna M. Náñez The Republic | azcentral.com

Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:10 AM

The Tempe City Council took a leap of faith more than a decade ago when it sank $44.8 million into building a 2 1/2-mile-long lake in the desert.

The council hoped that risking the debt to create high-profile waterfront property would pay off in the long run for Tempe, then a landlocked city desperate for new development.

But 14 years after the lake opened in 1999, city finance officials say Tempe is faced with a reality check that Town Lake is far from reaching the city’s development goals.

Tonight, the council is expected to consider revising a financing plan for Town Lake.

City finance officials have said the revised plan would give developers a financial break on their share of costs tied to the man-made lake [i.e. - stiff us taxpayers with the cost], make private development more affordable [i.e. stiff us taxpayers with the cost] and, ultimately, advance Tempe’s plans to secure sufficient lakeshore private development to ease the hefty public costs of maintaining Town Lake. [now the last phrase certainly is an oxymoron - give tax dollars private developers to lower the cost to taxpayers - now that's an impossibility - the more we give them the more it costs us]

But critics argue that taxpayers have long carried the financial burden for private lake development.

The new plan offers no guarantee that economic breaks for developers will actually spur construction, argue Joe Pospicil and Art Jacobs, two longtime Tempe residents who regularly question city finances and criticize lake expenses.

If approved, the revised plan also would shift the burden of paying for a new west-end lake dam, which the city has estimated will cost at least $37.4 million, to Tempe taxpayers, freeing developers from sharing the expense to replace the dam. [That a fancy way of saying give boatloads of our hard earned tax dollars out in corporate welfare rich corporations - the rich corporations that give bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions to the members of the Tempe City Council]

Approval of the city proposal would mark the second time a Tempe City Council, aiming to drive development, has tweaked the original 1995 lake-financing plan in favor of developers. The first was in 1997.

Mayor Mark Mitchell said he believes the proposal merits more time in the public realm so that council members may gain sufficient community feedback. [Translation - he wants to make it look like the taxpayers approve of the members of the Tempe City Council giving boatloads of our cash to the rich corporations that gave the members of the Tempe City Council bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions]

But it remains to be seen whether Mitchell’s colleagues agree that the council has a responsibility to arrange future forums for the public to question and comment on the proposal.

As of Monday, the proposed changes were included on the agenda for today’s council meeting.

The finance proposal is not set for a two-hearing process, which would have allowed for public comment at the first hearing and then required a vote and a second opportunity for public comment at a future council meeting.

That means the council could choose to approve the revised Town Lake financing plan with little opportunity for public input.

But before the council agenda was posted on the city’s website Friday, Mitchell said he still had questions about the financing plan.

“When we initially developed the lake, we had a plan, but it’s a working document,” he said. “We might change it, we might not. (But) we’ll have enough time to thoroughly review (any formal changes).” [translation - we know how to run your life better then you do, but if we screw it up don't blame us]

Mitchell said he expects staff today to merely explain the long-term impact of the proposed changes. [That pretty simple Mayor Mitchell, you and the other royal members of the Tempe City Council will be giving our hard earned tax dollars out as corporate welfare for years to come to corporations that give you bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions]

The proposed finance changes were triggered by an economic reality check, Roger Hallsted, the city finance analyst for the Rio Salado Community Facilities District, told The Arizona Republic.

“From all of our original projections, (we were) thinking really by about this time ... the lake would be built out,” Hallsted said.

Tempe’s goal is for private development on 120 acres to generate assessment fees covering 60 percent of annual operations costs. [So us taxpayers will be forced to pay for 40 percent of the developers costs]

But a Republic analysis last year revealed that in the 13 years since the lake was filled, private development still only covered about 20 percent of operation and maintenance costs, well below the 60 percent envisioned in the original city plan. [So in stead of us taxpayers being stuck with paying 40 percent of the developers costs, we are stuck with paying 80 percent of the developers costs - if you ask me us taxpayers are getting screwed on this deal]

Tempe taxpayers have and continue to pay the majority of the $2 million to $3 million in annual costs for operations and maintenance as well as most of the bill for the $44.8 million in original construction costs. [translation - us taxpayers are getting screwed - also did you know that the city of Tempe spends more on Tempe Town Toilet, aka Tempe Town Lake then on all the other parks in Tempe combined???]

Private investment has spurred construction of about 24 acres of condos, high-rise office and commercial space around the lake. Town Lake supporters blame the recession for slower-than-expected development. [Well why didn't the freaking geniuses on the Tempe City Council figure out this??? I guess they were too busy taking bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions from the rich developers]

The proposed changes to the financing plan are aimed at making land surrounding Town Lake more attractive to private development, Hallsted said. [yea, like giving then 10 times as much corporate welfare as originally planned]

If the council approves the changes, Town Lake developers would pay less toward their share of payments for the original construction costs. [And us taxpayers get screwed again and will have to make up the difference]

The proposal emanated from Tempe’s Enhanced Services Commission, Tempe Finance Manager Ken Jones said. [It sounds more like it came from the developers who will be getting the corporate welfare if you ask me!!!!]

The commission includes representation from Jones; Town Lake developers; Nancy Hormann, the president of the group that manages the downtown Tempe district; and Arizona State University, which owns and is attempting to develop acres of lakeshore property. [yes I was right, it did come from the developers who will are getting the corporate welfare!!!!]

A Republic review of public records from the commission meetings shows that commission members have spent the past year discussing development and maintenance plans for the lake.

At a January meeting, Jones asked for “the logic behind asking the council to cover the cost of replacing the dams,” according to public records of the meeting. [If you remember it was the idiots on the Tempe City Council who get screwed on the damn. The accepted a worthless ORAL 30 year guarantee on the damn, which failed after 10 years causing us taxpayers to get stuck with the replacement costs]

Hallsted said shifting the cost of the dams from being a shared debt with private developers to a taxpayer-only-funded cost is the result of the original rubber dam deteriorating years earlier than expected. [yea, like I just said]

“These new dams, at $38 million to $50 million, if we were to put that in at the true cost, just the (Town Lake) infrastructure replacement budget would have gone from $531,000 (annually) to $2 million,” he said.

The city had to face facts, he said, that it would have to shoulder the dam’s cost rather than “bankrupting every single (lake) property owner,” Hallsted said. [f*ck you!!!! bankrupt the developers for making dumb decisions, not the taxpayers. Or let the members of the Tempe City Council pay for the whole thing.]

The commission questioned whether it’s “more expensive to build at the lake than anywhere else in the Valley” and whether the city was “willing to offer an incentive to level the playing field,” according to public meeting records. [Well maybe the idiots on the Tempe City Council should not have build the lake, since it is a money losing experience]

The commission recommended a plan that would lower an annual “holding fee” of sorts that developers pay until they build on their lake property. [translation - make the taxpayers pay more of the developers expenses - i.e. more corporate welfare for the rich corporations building stuff on Tempe Town Toilet]

If the revised plan is approved, that fee would be reduced from the current 5 percent to the rate of inflation, which is currently 2.2 percent, Hallsted said. [which the Tempe taxpayers will pay]

The financing proposal also includes lowering the annual interest rate developers pay over the 25 years they are allowed to pay back their share of lake construction. [again, which the Tempe taxpayers will pay]

The current interest rate is 5 percent, and the proposal would lower it to 3.64 percent, Hallsted said. He added that the proposal calls for the council to make the rate reduction retroactive to July 1, 2009.

If the council approves rolling back the fee, developers that have built existing commercial and residential development at the lake would receive credits on biannual debt payments they are currently making. [and us taxpayers will be stuck with even bigger bills. Of course the members of the Tempe City Council will get to keep the bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions they accepted from the developers of property at Tempe Town Toilet]

While critics worry that taxpayers are funding too much of the cost for Town Lake, Hallsted reasons that the revised plan will establish a realistic financing plan for the lake and encourage development that will help pay a greater share of the lake’s annual operations and maintenance costs. [why expect the developers to pay for their costs, when they can give small bribes, oops, I mean small campaign contributions to the Tempe City Council members who will stiff the taxpayers with the bill]

“The key thing,” he said, “is being fair to the citizens, but try to make it more enticing for developers to come in.” [translation - the key to this is SCREWING the taxpayers and forcing them to pay the developers bills]

Joanna Allhands thinks Tempe Town Toilet will be a disaster

Also see:

Tempe Town Toilet
and
Tempe Cesspool for the Arts

Joanna Allhands | azcentral opinions

Posted on July 30, 2013 3:12 pm by Joanna Allhands

Incentives for Tempe Town Lake? Yeah, because that worked so well before

Truth: Tempe Town Lake development has never met its financial expectations. It doesn’t generate anywhere near the revenue necessary to cover the lake’s significant operational costs.

Truth: Over time, it’s smart to re-evaluate the city’s approach to speed lakeside development — even more so after a prolonged economic downturn. We must ensure that deals are fair to residents and enticing for businesses.

But is offering incentives the best way to do that? I’m skeptical, and Tempe residents should be, too. Let’s not forget:

– The previous City Council set a policy not to offer incentives unless they were for specific uses, such as historical preservation and environmental cleanup. That was under former Mayor Hugh Hallman, and I get that things are different now. But so different as to abandon that policy? I need convincing.

– Tempe has a poor track record of incentives and development deals, particularly when it comes to the lake. The city was embroiled in lawsuits and failed deals in the lake’s early days, which took years and cost millions of dollars to resolve. Do we really want to go down that road again, especially without specific performance expectations from businesses that receive the incentives?

Let me be clear: I was skeptical of plans city leaders floated to fund replacement Town Lake dams solely with land sales and private development. There just isn’t that much land left to produce the kind of cash we’re talking about.

But I’m equally skeptical of plans to have businesses pay less, if anything at all. Not so long ago, lakeside land at Mill Avenue and Rio Salado Parkway was named the Valley’s most desirable.

Has the market really changed so much that that’s no longer the case without giving businesses a financial break? Maybe. But I’d like proof.

Tempe OKs controversial lake plan

Tempe City Council sells out to special interest groups

Well it's a little bit more complex then that. A $1,000 bribe, oops, I mean $1,000 campaign contribution to a Tempe City Councilman will get you $1 million in corporate welfare if you want to build something on the Tempe Town Toilet, which they call Tempe Town Lake. No I didn't document that, that's just my estimate of how corrupt the Tempe city government is.

The members of the Tempe City Council that sold us out to the developers are: Mark Mitchell [His daddy is former Tempe Mayor Harry Mitchell and Congressman Harry Mitchell, I think his brother is Robert Mitchell, a Tempe cop I sued in Federal court for false arrest and civil rights violations], Onnie Shekerjian, Robin Arredondo-Savage [yes I think she is related to convicted crooked Tempe City Councilman Ben Arredondo], Shana Ellis, Kolby Granville [he seems think he is the nut job neat freak Felix Unger of the Odd Couple and seems to be on a crusade to rid Tempe of messy yard criminals], Joel Navarro and Corey Woods

Source

Tempe OKs controversial lake plan

By Dianna M. Náñez The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:56 AM

The Tempe City Council voted Tuesday to revise the city’s Town Lake financing plan to offer greater incentives for developers. [translation bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions in exchange for millions of dollars in corporate welfare]

The plan was unanimously approved despite a small window for public review and little opportunity for public comment on changes that would shift millions of dollars in lake costs to taxpayers. [That because the crooks on the Tempe City Council want as little media coverage of this theft as possible]

Early Tuesday, Tempe resident Ron Tapscott, a member of a city neighborhood association, sent Mayor Mark Mitchell and the council an e-mail pleading on behalf of taxpayers for a delay on the vote.

“I strongly encourage you to postpone a decision on this matter until it has been discussed and considered with community input,” Tapscott said.

Mitchell had earlier pushed to postpone a vote and allow input from taxpayers and businesses.

“This is something that’s important,” he said. “We’re going to have plenty of opportunity for (public) engagement.”

But Tuesday, Mitchell shifted his position and voted with the rest of the council to approve the changes.

The mayor asked Tempe Finance Manager Ken Jones to clarify the plan and note that it would not directly increase residents’ taxes nor delay improvements to community parks. [Those numbers are usually done using "politician math" which any 5th grader will tell you isn't the same math the rest of us use. "Politician math" can be call math that uses smoke, mirrors and lies to justify the users points]

Jones contended the developer incentives were “clarifications” to the lake finance plan. ["clarifications" my *ss, they are just more corporate welfare]

City finance officials have said the revised plan would give developers a financial break on their share of costs tied to the man-made lake and make private development more affordable. [That's government double talk that says the revised plan will make the TAXPAYERS pay the developers BILLS] The goal is to advance Tempe’s plans to secure sufficient lakeshore private development to ease the hefty public costs of maintaining Town Lake, finance officials said. [That's an oxymoron. Stealing money from the taxpayers and giving it to the developers isn't going to reduce the taxpayers costs. In fact it's going to increase the taxpayers costs. It's just smoke, mirrors and lies from the city of Tempe to cover up this outrageous corporate welfare]

While the plan was pushed as a solution to spur development that slowed as a result of the the Great Recession, the incentives for developers would come as the Tempe and national economy are improving.

Today, Tempe and state leaders were scheduled to attend a celebration in Tempe to mark the beginning of construction on Marina Heights, a $600 million project touted as the state’s largest office development.

Developers unveiled renderings of the 2 million-square-foot project that city leaders have boasted would drive Town Lake commercial and residential development.

Town Lake critics say that taxpayers have long carried the financial burden for private lake development, and the new plan offers no guarantee that economic breaks for developers would actually spur construction.

The revised plan would shift the burden of paying for a new west-end lake dam, which the city has estimated will cost at least $37.4 million, to Tempe taxpayers, freeing developers from sharing the expense of replacing the dam. [Again, when the damn was built the royal rulers of Tempe got screwed with a ORAL 30 year guarantee on the damn. When the damn failed 10 years after being built the guarantee was worth as much as the hot air that it was created with.]

Developers would pay a lower annual “holding fee,” which they typically begin paying when they build on their lake property.

The financing proposal also includes lowering the annual interest rate that developers must pay over the 25 years that they are allowed to pay back their share of lake construction.

Tapscott counted himself among the many Tempe residents who have endured community-service cuts. Under the revised lake-financing plan “substantial costs will be shifted to Tempe residents,” he wrote to council members.

Some Tempe residents have criticized the city for shifting millions of dollars to the Town Lake dam costs from spending that was approved by voters in a past bond election for community parks.

“The Alta Mira (Goodwin Park) neighborhood has diligently worked to improve our park, acknowledging the effects of a restricted city budget,” Tapscott wrote. “We sacrificed hours of master planning and hopeful expectation to accommodate the loss of city revenues from the economic recession.”

Mesa parents arrested for unsanitary home

Source

Mesa parents arrested for unsanitary home, police say

By Matthew Longdon and Jason Sillman The Arizona Republic-12 News Breaking News Team Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:25 PM

Two Mesa parents are behind bars accused of allowing their three children to live in an unsanitary home covered in roaches and rotten food, according to police documents.

Police arrested Kari Fredenburg, 43, and Shawn Fredenburg 43, Monday night at their home near Main Street and Recker Road.

The officer went to the home after someone reported the living conditions and found rotten food on the kitchen counters, in the fridge and all over the floor. There were roaches running around maggots on the ceiling and bathroom toilet had not been flushed and was full of mold, according to the Mesa report.

Police say the parents and the two younger children, ages 10 and 13, slept on one mattress on the floor in the living room while the oldest boy, whose age was not listed, slept on three couch cushions in the home’s only bedroom. The officer reported that there were torn-up mattresses lining the walls of the bedroom as well as animal feces. The boy told the officer he had the room all to himself because he was the oldest child, according to the report.

The parents knew of the home’s unsanitary condition and felt it was OK for the children to be there, police said.

Child Protective Services took custody of the three kids, police said. The parents are each facing three counts of child abuse, a class 4 felony.

Kolby Granville - a Felix Unger on the Tempe City Council???