 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
mrwonderful
Posts:276
 | | 07/03/2008 8:02 PM |
 Alert | Why does the city have the right to collect "yes" petitions and validate them without a third party to deem results official and untainted? They stressed over and over you can own 1-50 parcels, but you still only count as one vote towards the 51% needed. Now go to the county recording and count the actual double and triple petitions with the same name they counted. Good try since they were short, but the challenge will finally come up with the right numbers. | | | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2562
| | 07/03/2008 9:37 PM |
Alert | Here is the link to the petition on the Recorder's web site:
http://pinalcountyaz.gov/Departments/Recorder/Pages/DocumentType.aspx
Click on "View PDF" in the upper right corner. There are 210 Pages. I went through the first 20 and found multiple duplicates. | |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| | *--*
Posts:33
| | 07/04/2008 7:59 AM |
Alert | I too have reviewed these docs very closely and there are actually personal friends of mine that are claimed to be married making their separate parcels community property (who have their petitions being challenged). Which in FACT they have been divorced for over 20 years and have nothing to do with each other's business or ownership of anything. Therefore, the claim of them being duplicate signatures is totally FALSE! That is just one example of many of false claims I have found. The duplicate signatures appear to be for record keeping purposes only - if that is an acceptable way to state it - as the petitions for multiple ownership of parcels are signed.....I agree with that......but in the "numbers" they were only counted as "ONE". I also see landowners who own land personally, but also have an interest in land within a totally separate entity such as an LLC. My understanding of the law is it "has to be" counted as a separate entity petition, as the Feds themselves view it as such. That is why there are docs of organization to establish such status. Therefore, by law it is even viewed as seperate from personally owned property. It appears that maybe there is some miss leading of facts on the challenging side from what I can see. And I am strictly basing that on the legal status as individually owned parcels and/or on a business level status, of several of those who signed that I know personally. As well as, running the numbers in a condensed parcel format against the signatures that are being called duplicated yes votes being counted as only "one". I guess we will see in the end....... | | | |
|
| | azcarcarrier
Posts:310
| | 07/04/2008 12:55 PM |
Alert | | If you look at the challenge paper work you can see all the irregularities isolated, instead of vague and wondering statements. I have done a cross check and they are panning out as duplicate signatures, ie; husband/wife husband only/wife only on and on. The best way I see is too log all parcels, legal owners, find multiple owners, tag their properties (1) vote . Then we have the problem of husband and or wife both signing a petition for the same parcel number, thus ending up with a 2 for 1 count. Very unprofessional considering access to the petitions were refused by city staff for validation purposes. | | | |
|
| | chessman
Posts:250
| | 07/04/2008 5:42 PM |
Alert | I expect there are some signatures that were tallied incorrectly, but some of the challenges in the filing will fail in court. If a person owns two parcels then that person counts as only one signature. His/her name will show up twice in the city's documents because they also need a tally of individual properties for the 51% of assessed value part of the law. It stands to reason that there would be a couple of hundred signed petitions in order to get 164 owners and 51% of the land value.
The part of the suit against the city that will fail is the challenge to the LLC owned parcels. If that owner who owned two parcels owned them through two LLC's., then each LLC will likely be counted individually. Typically a business entity is treated as its own, regardless of who owns it. The LLC and its assets could be sold and the title to the land would not change. The LLC owns the land no matter who owns the LLC. | |
This message was composed entirely of 100% recycled electrons; minimum 35% post-consumer content. | |
|
| | mrwonderful
Posts:276
| | 07/04/2008 9:39 PM |
Alert | Chessman you only need 51% of parcel numbers in the annexation for passage, and you need 51% of assessed valuation of parcels for the annexation measure to pass. If you looked at the petitions splitting husband and wife for the same parcel number is invalid. LLC status involved very few parcels, ie: the Arkansas LLC"s seem to raise a little question, I feel the county attorney or AG's office should clerify this issue. You must not be aware of another copy from city staff showing a totally different set of numbers, names, and changes. It no way matches what they filed with the county, but released. | | | |
|
|  | chessman
Posts:250
| | 07/04/2008 10:17 PM |
Alert | | All I'm aware of is the legal documents that were filed with the county. In the end the courts now have the responsibility to review what has been filed. Without the challenge to the annexation there isn't any significant review or oversight. I don't care so much what the outcome is, as I care that the outcome is accurate and legal. Most of the arguments in this thread are biased by emotions concerning the final outcome. Both sides of the debate will twist and spin all aspects of the annexation to support the end they are trying to accomplish. When the annexation affected me and my property I was just as involved in the fight. As a neighbor watching the disagreement I only want to know that the law was followed and that courts are there to make sure that everything proceeds legally., | |
This message was composed entirely of 100% recycled electrons; minimum 35% post-consumer content. | |
|
| | 1diamundintheruf
Posts:63
| | 07/05/2008 8:55 PM |
Alert | | Geeeezzz.....can't we all just get along? Where's the love? | | | |
|
| | mrwonderful
Posts:276
| | 07/05/2008 10:59 PM |
Alert | | It is the law, figure your city staff and council out and we may all be further ahead. I have no problem with a legal and just accounting of the petitions. To do what was done is totally off the chart of acceptance. Someone needs to be held responsible for the actions taken by the city staff and/or council. When they acknowledged a mere 18 to 20 percent approval for the original plan, then change and find another 30 percent approval rate, sorry, talk to a few experienced election consultants and find out the real truth. | | | |
|
| | *--*
Posts:33
| | 07/15/2008 8:45 AM |
Alert | According to the City's response filed on July 7th, it appears that "the law" that mrwonderful speaks of has been grossly miss understood by the CAA and the three who chose to sign, along with all their supporting followers. Not to mention, their accusations against the city and staff being grossly misrepresented to the public by them, with not presenting "the law and "all" the facts" correctly, and avoiding answering all the questions asked of them directly on this forum. Those who try and practice law without the education, expertise, or knowledge of legal council on an issue, such as this challenge and response displays on the Petitioner’s part, need to stop wasting other people's time and "tax dollars". This challenge appears as strictly an attempt to feed the challenger's own egos, as they try and convince others that they have some importance of sorts, just trying to be known. What a sad existance that must be. | | | |
|
| | JoeMan
Posts:65
| | 07/15/2008 2:19 PM |
Alert | | We all knew it would turn out that way! | | | |
|
| | fuerstenwalde1
Posts:22
| | 07/15/2008 2:19 PM |
Alert | I do hope that the City is able to recoup their attorney fees.............. wonder what the wives/girlfriends are thinking right now. That should settle this thing once and for all. Anyway, when the trail gets here, the questions that have been asked will HAVE to be answered. tut, tut............... | | | |
|
| | JoeMan
Posts:65
| | 07/15/2008 2:21 PM |
Alert | Again, we all know how it will turn out. So many uproars on this forum wind up to be nothing. Yet, no credit is ever given back to the city.
Tells me a lot about some. | | | |
|
| | alanf
Posts:1582
| | 07/15/2008 2:42 PM |
Alert | Posted By *--* on 07/15/2008 8:45 AM According to the City's response filed on July 7th, it appears that "the law" that mrwonderful speaks of has been grossly miss understood by the CAA and the three who chose to sign, along with all their supporting followers. Not to mention, their accusations against the city and staff being grossly miss represented to the public by them, with not presenting "the law and "all" the facts" correctly, and avoiding answering all the questions asked of them directly on this forum. Those who try and practice law without the education, expertise, or knowledge of legal council on an issue, such as this challenge and response displays on the Petitioner’s part, need to stop wasting other peoples time and "tax dollars". This challenge appears as strictly an attempt to feed the challenger's own egos, as they try and convince others that they have some importance of sorts, just trying to be known. What a sad existance that must be.
So what I get from this is they need to change their group's name from CAA to CAA CAA? Because that's what they produce. Is that about what everyone is saying? 
| | | |
|
| | *--*
Posts:33
| | 07/15/2008 3:28 PM |
Alert | JoeMan - you are absolutely correct! alanf - you said it so well! And now where are all the CAA supporters, with their stance of the "law and so called facts"? Azcowgirl and followers have obviously taken a painful hit on their claim of being so "right" with the real facts being public knowledge now. As we haven't heard a word from them sense the City's response was filed for all to view  | | | |
|
| | chessman
Posts:250
| | 07/15/2008 3:50 PM |
Alert | | Can you post a link to what the city filed? | |
This message was composed entirely of 100% recycled electrons; minimum 35% post-consumer content. | |
|
| | fuerstenwalde1
Posts:22
| | 07/15/2008 4:24 PM |
Alert | Joeman, etc., you are right!!!!!!!!!!!! No one has given credit to the City. Hoo Rah to the City. I asked for the answer via public records request. I have said many times, the City has always responded quickly, ethically, and cordially to me on many, many occasions. I look forward to the City being vindicated. I have felt so bad for them, with folks calling them names, etc. | | | |
|
| | mrwonderful
Posts:276
| | | Azcowgrl
Posts:88
| | 07/15/2008 5:42 PM |
Alert | Well, good afternoon all!!! I have not posted a response because you are not "interested parties"" this does not concern you!!! Heard that somewhere before?????
I have oh yeah it was the city's claim as to why the filing was invalid. The people that challenged the petition, own property and reside in the area are not interested parties (according to the city in their response), therefore (they claim) invalidating the filing???Well the easiest statment that is factual is owners are the most interested party and the only interested party, not the city and also the interested parties are not interested in paying your tax increase or the new bond proposed of 65.5 million for 2 parks and a library. Do the math and see how much each of you will pay at the estimated 33,000 people...leave us out!!!!
The facts are still the same, the court will decide and you can attempt to provoke other responses out of me, what a joke you all are. Not only that but a waste of time. Almost 30 days and 2 law firms to file that.
Over and out...
Oh By the way.... I dont have followers, just good friends and neighbors!!!! WE DON'T want your F'in city!! | | | |
|
| | *--*
Posts:33
| | 07/15/2008 6:25 PM |
Alert | Azcowgirl - How do you dare say "this does not concern you!!!" to us that are posting and reading with concerns? It most definitely concerns us!! We ARE the property owenrs and tax payers that reside within the city limits and/or land owners within the Annexation area! We ARE the ones your ignorance is directly effecting! Even though you will not answer the question asked of you several times directly for all to see, we know: YOU DO NOT LIVE IN THE ANNEXATION AREA OR THE CITY LIMITS! You have stated your self that you ARE NOT a legal land owner in the annexation area. And, you have not once said you own land or property within the city limits when asked repeatedly to justify your stance. Therefore, the only other conclusion any one can come to is that you live out side of the city limits as well, in the county. Which is exactly correct. So.....just how do "you" justify your part in how our city is run or "our tax dollars" are spent, as you try and tell us "this does not concern us"??? ? Furthermore, who are you to even speak of the bond being proposed and/or who uses or wants to use the parks and library when you do not live in either the city or the annexation area??? | | | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|