Good Golly Gee. They should really set up a category under ... well I guess it would be named Silly Stupid Stuff That Nobody In Maricopa really cares about!

But then again, you guys probably are entertained by playing cow pie frisbee and watching I Love Lucy tapes from the corner Indian Store!!!

Keep your tax money and your acreage. Just stop posting....PLEASE!!!

alanf - will you please edit your post and take a few of those faces off?  It is really messing up the format of how the forum is displaying.

A few less faces won't make your post any less of  an opinion. 

Thank you.

Chessman:

Prudent Council question:  That was a question that was asked not only before, but also during the council meeting that ratified the annexation.  They were aware that the majority of the landowners wanted to be annexed.  As far as the lengthy annexation process goes, I can tell you that we are gone out of town quite a bit.  We were not notified until October about the annexation.  I think that may explain that portion of it for you. 

Since the docs are on public record for review, I don't believe that there is a 'hanging' chad.  I have looked at them, and counted the 1,2,3 potato 4......lol.  I know that the City welcomes anyone who wishes to look at the records.

I'm not sure of the foregoing process either.  This annexation "challenge" is not only costing us taxpayers money in legal fees in regard to the legal fees with the City, but also folks that are having to pay the impact fees  to the County, rather than letting them go into the much need City coffers.

As far as the 49%, it is interesting to note that only 3 people challenged the annexation.  There were alot of folks against this annexation, until we all asked the questions, got the answers from the folks that counted, (City,County, State officials), State Statutes. As a matter of fact, my husband contacted his attorney's to verify all information received from the three sources. There were alot of half truths going on. 

Regarding the question of why is this important right now?  First I will give you my personal opinion, and then reiterate the City position as I understand it.  Many people said that Goodyear's intention to annex us was not a possibility.  If you remember the 10,000 acres that Goodyear annexed last year, it was in the realm of possibility.  Then, it was said that they will come no further...............well, the annexation application to annex 3,000 acres, including, but no limited to the Lufthansa Airport happened just a few weeks ago.  That is important on several levels.  We have all agreed that Maricopa needs jobs and help with Transportation.  Our Maricopa Tribal Communities are not helping the City to resolve these issues.  That was made clear on the joint talks regarding Phoenix Regional.  Maricopa HAS to have an airport  sustain itself.  That is great not only for the residents, but also the business owners, and last but not least the City.   Having said that:

The Cities official position regarding the importance of annexation as I understand to be has been consistent and intended for sustaining our own population.  With gas continually going up, we WANT our homeowners to stay in town.  That's how I understand it. (doesn't make it right)  Please everyone, check things out for yourself.

I love hearing  questions, as they are questions that all of us need to hear, acknowledge, and learn the answers to together.  I appreciate your concern.

Azcowgirl - once again you did not answer the direct questions. Your defensive and attacking manner makes you appear as though you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, avoiding specific facts and questions just to shift the focus.

It makes following your post difficult to determine what group you claim you are a part of      ......the three that signed or as one of the others who organized this that  you stated:   "is not a legal property owner...therefore having no right legally or other to sign a court document to challenge"      .....that you sent the message was "6 making the decision for many", by not answering the direct question to begin with, and now claim was the city council.

Once again, the direct questions you are avoiding are:

1. Is your name that you claim was on the document somewhere, as you state:    "so gues you read the documents so well you skipped right over my name correct, great review fact finder!!"      (the question)......are you one of the those who signed the document as a legal land owner or one with no legal rights?

2.When you stated:    "we challenged some signatures and posted the ones we challenged, so get it straight!!"      (the question).....and which particular post were those signatures listed for all of us to see???

3. (the question).......Do you live within the city or the annexation area?

4. The valid point that arose in a receint previous post that you did not address:    "As far as the 49%, it is interesting to note that only 3 people challenged the annexation."    (the question)......why is it only 3 if there are so many angry landowners as you claim?

5. And the newest question that comes to my mind as I review what you call a "mess", is:    (the questsions).......If the landowners that "signed" the challenge, actually own "their" property as a joint owner of sort "legally", why aren’t the "legal names/signatures" of the other owners of those exact parcels signing????     Does "half the legal owners of those particular parcels" want the annexation and half don’t?     Or does the other half just not want to be in a position of being liable up against all the other annexation area people, and/or developers in terms of potential lawsuits for tax dollars being wasted on this, false statements, and cost of delays???   

I numbered the questions to assist you in answering each one directly.  Please be as to the point, specific with facts, and clear without angry, defensive personal attacks when answering the questions above so all who are viewing and posting can better understand your purpose.  Thank you.

chessman - thank you for being so respectful in your responses to others and answering question directly and specifically.  It shows mature debating.

If I were avoiding you, I never would have responded to you!! but I think i'm done with you after this.......
now....
Boy are we nosey??....and I'm not angry, not with someone as petty as yourself, that is a waste of time. I'm going to answer your questions again hope you pay attention "fact finder".....

Point to make....You sure are concerned with who I am!!!! wonder why????? if you paid that much attention you would know

Yes.................... there you go....review the previous posts for your answers, they are there if you pay attention. The docs list the challenged signatures and reasons as to why!!! if you in fact review/ed them...you would know this.

Want my address? so concered with where I live? tell me your info in a PM n I'll tell you mine...I swear! don't take this as a threat as you previously claim, it's not, we just want to be left alone and I'm answering your demand for mine ,you have harrassed me for my info, with unjustifiable reasons, which can be taken as a threat, just your opportunity to get it. You've only demanded it numerous times.
This is not about me, by any means.....it's about alot of people....if so many are for annexation y so many duplicate signatures and not 51% of owners/valid signatures.. without duplicates? Where are your people that are "for annexation"? I explained our position on that too.

Arizona Statutes state the rules and regulations as to multiple property/parcels owners not me or any resident of any area.....so direct that question to them!! or to the city as to why they didn't follow the statute.

Once again, this is not the first time the city has filed a signed petition for annexation with duplicate signatures, which is not legal. So, the questions you present are completely irrelevant. Again.....it costs no one money if they win!! These are not my words...they are filed facts with the pinal county recorder and available for viewing via the web!!!! those are facts. Match the Duplicates with the ARS codes and you have an invalid filed petition!! Simple see.

This is not a you and me thing so get over it. I'm saying again....if they have their numbers THERE IS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT!!

Thank you for your time, your concern is appreciated.

Azcowgirl - Why is asking you to simply clarify "your" very own statements so difficult for you?  As you accuse and twis it into being something it is not. 

Once again you did not answer the direct questions. Your defensive and attacking manner makes you appear as though you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, avoiding specific facts and questions just to shift the focus.

Mrwonderful, if you have something to say, go ahead and say it in public. I have nothing to hide and neither should you. Unless you are afraid to call me a jerk in public. So, no need to PM me as I'll just copy and paste.

Quoted from PM yesterday:

jerk status

Sorry Alan you are a real piece of work,  I would do exactly what you said, but we have tried to work with your no brainer city staff, thus this result.  Sorry to tell you, but you Mr. Maricopa citizen are going to pay for the financial loss accrued by the annexation screw-up.  Many people tried to talk and work out the differences, but it was all of nothing.  All the information is on county records so go do your due diligence.   Pretty sorry for them to be this blaten towards non city residents. 

You were specifically asked as to respond to your statements in the above post. 

I did not miss the name of CAA on the caption page.  I am assuming that you are the Head of CAA? 

Now, let's examine what that means.  It means that you do not live, or own property in the annexation area.  It also means that you do not live in Maricopa.  It also means, that you had no legal right to be on the document itself, per my first observation, being correct again.  So why was the name of CAA on the caption heading, per your own quote of the statute.  No one has asked you for any personal information.  It was only to attempt to ascertain whether you had any valid, legal right to your angry responses.  We can all agree to disagree regarding certain points.  You are out of the melee, my darling.

You have proven the point of not all the information being available on this forum on this point.

Regarding your statement that not three people made this decision, I simply have asked repeatedly who the all knowing six were.  If you were in fact referring to the City Council vs your organization, which once again you are not in the City, nor annexation area, then please just state so. The six councilman who voted for the annexation, voted with 51% of the peoples vote, which is exactly what they were elected to do.  To vote the wishes of the majority of the people.  Our constitution does in fact work.

In your ' challenge', the statute (thank you for providing it for us) says specifically that the owner shall be deemed the owner of the last assessment. Knowing that you are in fact knowledgeable of the statute would make you liable for filing a false document.

Lastly:  I know that multiple parcel holders signed for all their parcels.  If you own two parcels, they signed for both parcels, but it was only counted as one vote, per the statute. (one potato, two potato, three.............)

You continually spout that you are concerned regarding your horse property.  Per the state statute, no one can take away your designation without your approval.   Fear tactics have been used throughout this annexation process.  The bottom line is, that the City of Maricopa has adopted the same standards as the County.  If you are in compliane with the County, then you will be in compliance with the City.

You state that the City has made this mess of housing developements, highways and transportation.  If you are in fact CAA, then you KNOW that the County had approved all these subdivisions prior to the City even becoming a City.  Another tactic used by CAA.  The City has inherited these issues, and did not create them.  Go see for yourself the number of building permits actually issued by the City. 

It seems that instead of addressing the questions raised to you by your own statements, you respond with angry degaratory comments.  It makes me think that you are intentionally 'leading people to believe'.  If this indeed is your handiwork, please let the citizens of this great town know it was you and not hide behind the cloak of innuendo and scare tactics.

It is important, for folks reading this forum to understand the agenda of those challenging the annexation and ignoring the will of the majority of the people.

Thank you.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. 

I was confused about the tabulation also, before I went to City Hall and asked how it was done.  I think that with some constructive interaction, this could have all been avoided.

Thank you for your refreshing and thoughful responses.  As you can see, I don't have the answers, and am looking for them.

Once again you did not answer the direct questions.

Your defensive and attacking manner makes you appear as though you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, avoiding specific facts and questions.  

Just to shift the focus from you not clarifying "YOUR" own statements.

Fernie: I have spent over two hours looking at all 207 documents filed by the City of Maricopa.  Duplicate actions on signatures, name switching, parcel duplications, Calif. doc's, signature with no parcel numbers, on and on.  Please explain why a city with quote top quality, experienced staff would put something like this out is amazing.   I see these actions as merely a case of "stuffing the ballott box" to get it done, who gives a sh_t....  When I look back at the final month and the persons involved I am not to surprised.  I guess the best solution is do nearly the same thing Florida had too validate it's election results.  One City Representative/One Challenge Attorney/One Pinal County Court Judge to oversee and finalize the actual count.

Wow....what confusion Azcowgirl has created with not answering the questions directly and clarifying her statements when asked.

In Azcowgirl's post she states:   

Posted By Azcowgrl on 07/01/2008 3:52 PM
The name does actually appear on the documents, to the fullest extent the law will allow. 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.

And now Desert Dweller - you are saying:    CAA, regardless of who the principals are, has a legal right to challenge the petition especially in light of the numerous discrepancies.  And...."The way not to do that is to criticize and condemn the CAA group for excercising their right to challenge the annexation.

My question is........Why is Azcowgril saying that she put her name on the challenging docs as representing CAA but states CAA has "no right legally or other to sign a court document to challenge?" 

Aren't you two saying the total opposite as to what is legal and what isn't concerning CAA and the challenge?