Annexation challenged > FORUM > 85239.com Maricopa Arizona (AZ)

Subject: Annexation challenged

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 2 of 8

Author

Messages

mrwonderful User is Offline

Posts:276

07/02/2008 7:54 AM	Alert
Marion Mahone and Will where are you for comment?

*--*

Posts:33

07/02/2008 9:51 AM	Alert
Does anyone really think the challengers of the annexation didn’t know they could be held liable and possibly face potential counter lawsuits if they loose? The question I would have is can the annexation area people also file lawsuit against the challengers and organizers (all 6 that Azcowgirl spoke of) if they loose, due to false claims, loss of profits for the developers as they have to sit on hold, etc.? Azcowgirl - Do you really think that one land owner has more or less rights concerning their land then the next just because they live there or do not live on their land? Or is a developer/investor verses resident? That way of thinking comes across as very uninformed. Why don't you "6" challengers list every "180+" yes vote parcels you are "challenging" and then state which one of your 1 through 4 items from ARS 9-471 F applies per petition individually that you claim is the reason why they are filed illegally? Without this information how can any of us form any opinion other than your group is just making up false issues with malicious intent in regard to these petitions instead of it being fact, just to cause problems for the 51% that said yes to the annexation. Stand your ground with facts and prove you are correct for the public opinion to form as you think it should if you are truly confident in your position. You and mrwonderful need to stop attacking others personally. That appears to be simply an attempt to shift the focus of this debate from you not presenting the facts you are being asked for and avoiding to answer the hard questions. If you are so right on this issue, there shouldn't be a problem with a rational debate of the facts. It should not matter how new or how often one post on this forum, as we all watch and respond with opinions on whatever level is comfortable with us individually. So, who are you to project with your statements that you are superior because a user has posted or not posted in the past, or even chooses to post at all. That appeared to be purely an attempt to devalue another poster who obvious has legal facts you do not have.

Azcowgrl

Posts:88

07/02/2008 10:06 AM	Alert
Posted By -- on 07/02/2008 9:51 AM Does anyone really think the challengers of the annexation didn’t know they could be held liable and possibly face potential counter lawsuits if they loose? The question I would have is can the annexation area people also file lawsuit against the challengers and organizers (all 6 that Azcowgirl spoke of) if they loose, due to false claims, loss of profits for the developers as they have to sit on hold, etc.? Azcowgirl - Do you really think that one land owner has more or less rights concerning their land then the next just because they live there or do not live on their land? Or is a developer/investor verses resident? That way of thinking comes across as very uninformed. Why don't you "6" challengers list every "180+" yes vote parcels you are "challenging" and then state which one of your 1 through 4 items from ARS 9-471 F applies per petition individually that you claim is the reason why they are filed illegally? Without this information how can any of us form any opinion other than your group is just making up false issues with malicious intent in regard to these petitions instead of it being fact, just to cause problems for the 51% that said yes to the annexation. Stand your ground with facts and prove you are correct for the public opinion to form as you think it should if you are truly confident in your position. You and mrwonderful need to stop attacking others personally. That appears to be simply an attempt to shift the focus of this debate from you not presenting the facts you are being asked for and avoiding to answer the hard questions. If you are so right on this issue, there shouldn't be a problem with a rational debate of the facts. It should not matter how new or how often one post on this forum, as we all watch and respond with opinions on whatever level is comfortable with us individually. So, who are you to project with your statements that you are superior because a user has posted or not posted in the past, or even chooses to post at all. That appeared to be purely an attempt to devalue another poster who obvious has legal facts you do not have. From azcowgrl.............. first off........... you need your facts straight. Had you read the previous posts and or the challenge, you would see that we didn't challenge 180+ petitions, we challenged some signatures and posted the ones we challenged, so get it straight!! We filed a suit and the facts speak for themselves, I dont have to prove a darn thing, read the docs read their doc filed, what a mess . If you all are worried about paying a thing you wont have to pay unless we win!!! thank you for your support!!!!! Thank you sincerly Mr. Wonderful, the truth will prevail!!!

*--*

Posts:33

07/02/2008 10:53 AM	Alert
Thank you for pointing out I was correct in the debate of facts "only" which is still not occurring. I posted, quote: Why don't you "6" challengers list every "180+" yes vote parcels you are "challenging" and then state which one of your 1 through 4 items from ARS 9-471 F applies per petition individually that you claim is the reason why they are filed illegally? I apologize for the miss understanding. I intended to ask you to list which "ones" you were challenging of the "180+" yes votes and why. You state: "we challenged some signatures and posted the ones we challenged, so get it straight!!" .....and which particular post were those signatures listed for all of us to see??? Sense you are "apparently" a part of the "challenge", as you have already stated: "so gues you read the documents so well you skipped right over my name correct, great review fact finder!!" .....I can only assume Azcowgirl that you are one of those who signed??? It is apparent you are still attacking to shift the focus instead of answering to facts only. In addition, all tax payers will have to pay no matter who wins so your statement: " If you all are worried about paying a thing you wont have to pay unless we win!!!" .....makes no sense.

*--*

Posts:33

07/02/2008 10:53 AM	Alert
Azcowgirl - Do you live in the city or in the annexation area?

mrwonderful User is Offline

Posts:276

07/02/2008 11:19 AM	Alert
Phantom: I just reviewed the petition and the signatures, all two hundred plus pages of them. My real estate attorney is curious as too the third party justifying the and verifing the signatures and viable owners? We understand you got some of your information from the County, and other unkown sources. Fax copies are unacceptable in this matter per ARS statute. Please advise need to submit faxed copies as original documents? Your documentation and numbers seem to lack creditibilty and mathmatical accuacey.

mrwonderful User is Offline

Posts:276

07/02/2008 11:32 AM	Alert
Phontom: -- I think your id is worse than being named "SUE".. OK Why are you questioning residency in/out of the city and annexation area? I own property in the city and have no vote on any city actions, how many people in the annexation live elsewhere? What are you questioning, Also you might check with Judge Sulley about faxed copies, I recently had a case dismissed because I brought a faxed transmittal showing ownership. He dismissed and we had to START OVER. He stated oiginals are accepted only.

*--*

Posts:33

07/02/2008 1:11 PM	Alert
mrwonderful - Could you please post your definition so all who are readiing your post will better understand your meaning of "third party" in your statement "My real estate attorney is curious as too the third party justifying the and verifying the signatures and viable owners?" Are you referring to the 3 out of the total 6 that Azcowgirl refers to in her post when she states: "The one that filled out the challenge cover page with name for CAA was and is not a legal property owner...therefore having no right legally or other to sign a court document to challenge, that is why VALID property owners did so." Or are you referring to Azcowgirl stating: "6 made a decision for many". But only three signatures are on the challenge itself?? Therefore, you are agreeing that the 3 out of the 6 making decisions for many Azcowgirl is referring to as "not a legal property owner" or "having no legal right" would be "the third party justifying the and verifying the signatures and viable owners?" .....as you claim "your" real estate attorney was questioning?

*--*

Posts:33

07/02/2008 1:19 PM	Alert
mrwonderful - please stop contacting me privately. Any facts that need to be discussed should be done through the public forum for all to view.

fuego

Posts:54

07/02/2008 2:53 PM	Alert
Here's an observation: Both fuerstenwalde1 & -- spelled the word lose incorrectly as loose. Coincidence or no?

fuerstenwalde1 User is Offline

Posts:22

07/02/2008 3:13 PM	Alert
lol, apparently it just seems we are both poor spellers.

chessman

Posts:250

07/02/2008 3:20 PM	Alert
Posted By DesertDweller on 07/02/2008 6:51 AM ...scurries off to the concession stand for a bucket of popcorn and a 44 oz. coke. Wait up...... I'll get a bucket too. It isn't unreasonable to have citizens question the actions of the government. That is the way our system of government was designed. No matter how this turns out, the problem started when the former council rushed a decision based on just over 51% agreement. That leaves 49% of the landowners who are angry. What did they expect? If they had voted to wait and try again at a later date what would it have hurt? If they had waited until they could get something like an 80% signature rate then none of this drama would be unfolding right now. Now tell me what the city gains from this annexation that couldn't have waited until next year.

This message was composed entirely of 100% recycled electrons; minimum 35% post-consumer content.

*--*

Posts:33

07/02/2008 3:21 PM	Alert
That is what I get for reading and referring to post prior to posting my own.

fuerstenwalde1 User is Offline

Posts:22

07/02/2008 3:25 PM	Alert
Chessman: Thank you very much for your thoughtful observation. Personally, I don't think that the 80% would have made any difference, because the amount of folks that didn't sign is very small. I think we would still have this debate. Just wanted to say thanks for being constructive. Now, I'm going for the popcorn and soda. Have a great 4th.

*--*

Posts:33

07/02/2008 3:27 PM	Alert
chessman - you are so totally correct. There would of always been a percentage of angry landowners who ended up with something they did not want.

fuerstenwalde1 User is Offline

Posts:22

07/02/2008 3:28 PM	Alert
Hey , thanks for copying the smiley! At least everyone is pleasant today.

fuerstenwalde1 User is Offline

Posts:22

07/02/2008 3:28 PM	Alert
Hey , thanks for copying the smiley! At least everyone is pleasant today.

*--*

Posts:33

07/02/2008 3:29 PM	Alert
You are welcome.....

chessman

Posts:250

07/02/2008 3:32 PM	Alert
Yep the remainder would have still been mad, but there wouldn't have been much ground for the challenge to stand on

This message was composed entirely of 100% recycled electrons; minimum 35% post-consumer content.

*--*

Posts:33

07/02/2008 3:54 PM	Alert
chessman - can you explain why is it being viewed as a rushed decision when it was a 13 month process? I am just trying to better understand as it seems there are a lot of specific questions that have been asked over the last couple of days that are not being answered. All that is being posted in return is personal attacks and veiled threats, being accused of being the staff from the city, and accusations of those posting being the same person. But no direct questions answered. Can you help all of us who are looking for answers better understand?

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 2 of 8

Forums > General Discussion > General Chat > Annexation challenged

ActiveForums 3.6