Well ++**^^%% whatever you go by, lets get a few things straight now, you I guess are a city resident, landowner "unknown" probably a renter should have no say so, or direction in any city action.   Your unqualified staff started this fiasco and finally bowed down and went for a smaller area to jack with.   I feel an annexation action to include your city land acquistions and airport  pie in the sky hope is ok, but too annex in blocks is quite questionable.   Why did your city go to attorney's since they claim everything is above board?  Hell it looks like all you need to do is get a third party too initate a PUBLIC accounting of the petitions.    Have your council and mayor answer why the quick and easy way is so difficult to do.     WAITING 

wELL ==***____---  etc.  how do you justify your city planning dept. having a say in any major land splits, new business zoning changes petitioned for?  Just  a word of advise you take care of your back yard and we'll tend too ours.

I am speaking of deals outside of your current limits and any future, which look real slim.  You need to look at your questionable staff actions from Rick Busse and his joke management performance.  Unfortunately there are still persons in staff that he brought in and have not seen the light of day.

No need to get all riled up. What azcowgrl was stating was so politely proven to be a ridiculous comment (by the city) by the post that followed hers. She stated that the response filed by the City of maricopa claimed the petitioners are not able to file such a claim as they are "not interested parties". She simply said no one within the area are "interested parties" according to the City and they put in black and white. Surely if they do not claim the residents of the affected area "interested parties" then what would make the City residents any more "interested parties" , or other property owners of the area? Do they only claim "interested" when the party signed? That makes no sense. As  previously stated, no tax payers money will be lost if they win.
The city's ordinance 08-05 (which was also incorporated) reads as follows: (quoted) Section 4: "If a person or entity timely files any protest, appeal, referendum, litigation, or other petition challenging the validity or approval of this Ordinance prior to its effective date; or (b) any person or entity timely files any protest, appeal, referendum, litigation or other petition challenging the validity or approval of any development agreement approved concurrently herewith prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, the City Council shall schedule, advertise and conduct a City Council hearing to rescind this Ordinance prior to the effective date of this Ordinanace."
Therefore no stipulations as to whom, why.... No question they have a challenge pending and have broken the law pertaining to thier own ordinance by not scheduling, advertising and conducting the said hearing to rescind said ordinance and signed petition. The one catch is that azcowgrl and the petitioners understand that the Ordinance has not passed nor has it become effective,though the effective date was scheduled to be June 14th 2008 and  hearing to rescind should have taken place as close to that date as possible.The area is still not within the city limits. Though the City had better step up to the plate and admit their wrong doing it will look better on them in the end. They do not have the trust or backing of the current residents of MAricopa and surely will not have that of the residents here by the overtaking of the said area.
The docs have been reviewed and reviewed and reviewed and there is no way that with any of the 3 scenarios or sets of numbers that the city made the 50+%. The bottom line is thier ordinanace does not stipulate a sucessful challenge, etc. just as it is worded it should be taken!

Thank you for your time

I keep hearing Rick Buss.....he has been gone a long time.  In business anything that was approved by a prior management is reviewed before proceeding with that plan.

I want to make something clear here.  The members of CAA-CAA, along with the rest of us that have been in Maricopa for a decade or longer did not have the access to grocery stores, restaurants, doctors,etc., that have been built in Maricopa in the past 5 years. 

I read this forum, and just can't but help thinking (knowing) that these same folks that are making these accusations against the City and Staff, are driving their tale ends to 347 and Smith Enke, buying their groceries, gas, going to the doctor, etc., instead of driving into Casa Grande or Chandler like they used to do. (gas @ 4-5 $ per gallon) 

I understand not wanting to be part of something.  Everyone has that right.  But I also understand that these same people will take advantage of things that they are not paying for.

When I logged on to this site this morning, on the main page, it showed that Walmart pulled their permits................So much for an "inept" City Staff. 

The fact that some members of this forum are accusing the City as posting on this forum are delusions of grandeur.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

The challenge that was filed is in fact the same.  Delusions of grandeur that was filed to waste taxpayers money, instead of accepting their loss graciously.

It was very clear from the filing of the challenge, that the filers were talked into something without all the facts.  I am looking forward to the court hearing, as I hope that the judge makes use of the Arizona frivalous lawsuit statutes to insure that the taxpayers do not fund this ludicrous filing.

CAA-CAA is correct in quoting the statutes.  Good for them.  It is apparent they don't understand either what they filed, nor the consequences thereof.

LOL......thank you for attempting to straighten out the confusion that Azcowgirl creates with her rants on this forum and not answering the direct questions with specific answers.

51% of the land owners signed the petitions in favor of the annexation.

The "few" are the THREE out of the remaining    "49%"   that did not sign a yes petition.

Are those THREE who you refer to in your statement   "but a few to decide for many is unfair."?

Thank you for making my point.

The unfunded liability the city assumed when this annexation was approved is just one of the many reasons the city shouldn't be pushing the airport project.    

I guess the nudist colony feel secure in being a part of Maricopa City, how do you Mr. Mayor Tony Smith feel about these people?  Where does the city statutes and zoning authorize this life style?  I understand it was a special use permit granted by the county , so what's up.  MUSD should refrain from any student transportation needs until this issue is solved.  What type of backgrounds do these folks offer for the community?

OK, I need some help here.  How is the city government responsible for the shopping opportunities that came here?  The grocery stores, and Wal-Mart too for that matter, are here because of market opportunity.  The fact that the city incorporated has little or nothing to with the retail that is here.  Retail followed the market.  As such, implying that the rural areas are enjoying an undue benefit from the city because of retail is rubbish.  Those visits to the local stores bring revenue to the city government, not a burden to the taxpayers.

What city provided amenities do the folks in the outlying areas use that are a burden to the city? 

So what would you do, Joe Man, put gates at all of the entrances of the city and charge us "outlanders" admission to Maricopa in order to use the facilities?  Last time I shopped in Maricopa, I remember paying sales tax.  Weren't you, Joe, one of those in line for the $153K in state money as a result of the 2% increase to the Maricopa City tax base rate?  Who do you think contributes to that $153K?  Yep.  That's us.

Not a day goes by that I don't get someting in the mail from a Dentist, a retailer, or a grocery store just begging me to come into town and enjoy the amenities. You know what?  I don't think I've ever left town getting someting that I didn't pay for.

I used circle k and other available resources since the 1980"s when I was 16 years old!!! Long before your City ever was!!!! AS did so many others.

It is obvious by now with comments on this forum from mrwonderful stating:    "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.   And.... "ALL CITY STAFF HAS TO DO IS GET A VIABLE THIRD PARTY AND COUNT THE SO CALLED 168 WITH MEMBERS OF THE CHALLENGE IN ATTENDANCE",

....and comments from Citizens Against Annexation:   "City Council shall schedule, advertise and conduct a City Council hearing to rescind this Ordinance prior to the effective date of this Ordinanace."

(Ordinance - correct spelling CAA)

....and comment from Azcowgirl:    "Almost 30 days and 2 law firms to file that."

That the comment from ChimneyDuck should of stated: The "Challengers" should have been prepared legally and financially for a challenge.

The understanding I am gathering from this forum is that the challenging side was hoping to get this settled with more of a bullying tactic with the City and threats of the Superior Court.

Furthermore, it is even more apparent by all the previous comments, that the "challenging" side did not like the idea that the City was educated and sophisticated enough to take the time necessary, and know how to follow the correct legal protocol with this issue in response to the "choices of the challenging side" to begin with.

Whom ever side the Superior Court may rule for or against.....the challengers obviously didn't expect to spend thousands of dollars of their own money to try and prove their point and get what they are demanding.

CAA - Interesting how defensive and how quickly you personal attack, as you once again veer from the facts.

Where in anything I posted does it state I take offense to the "direct quotes" of those making the statements?   

I simply copied and pasted your very own direct statements and noted the message your own words radiate.

If this is not the message you intend to send then please speak factual statements only and stop the accusations of who and/or how educated I may be.  That is purely an attempt to shift the focus off the quotes and the facts.

Fact:   Your life style does not change per your zoning with an annexation, as no one can "take away" your "zoning" per State Statute.

As it has been already pointed out in this forum, if you were and/or are in compliance with Pinal County you will be in compliance with the City.  

And.....if you are not, then it should be only expected of you "by your neighbors"  you speak of to do so, out of pure respect for them.

As you stated:   "As I said many times it is not about money, it is about people, a lifestlye, and truth, common sense and so much more."

If you are talking about anti growth issues, because you don’t want others near you, then that is a different issue all together and should be possibly addressed on a different forum all together.

This is Chimneyducks Orignal post (please note quote is Exact, not changed or varied as you did below). "The annexation was passed with such a narrow margin, it's quite understandable that it would be challenged. The city should have been prepared legally and financially for a challenge. Crying foul is a bit much. Follow the legal procedures through to the end, and win or lose, exit gracefully. They are your neighbors after all."

Note:You changed to (and I quote your post): "That the comment from ChimneyDuck should of stated: The "Challengers" should have been prepared legally and financially for a challenge."


(I Quote you again):
"I simply copied and pasted your very own direct statements and noted the message your own words radiate." Variance of original is not a quote. Assumption or interpretation of such is not a quote and so on and so forth.

(quote you again):
"If this is not the message you intend to send then please speak factual statements only and stop the accusations of who and/or how educated I may be. That is purely an attempt to shift the focus off the quotes and the facts."

You varied quotes, not us. You seem to understand shifting focus quite well, would that be from experience?

(Quote you again)
"Fact: Your life style does not change per your zoning with an annexation, as no one can "take away" your "zoning" per State Statute."

To the contrary....They must adopt the current or similar Pinal zoning at the time of annexation, but after the initial any further zoning changes will be dictated by the Municipality. AS per Arizona Law.  Here it is......

9-471. Annexation of territory; procedures; notice; petitions; access to information; restrictions------section-- L. A city or town annexing an area shall adopt zoning classifications which permit densities and uses no greater than those permitted by the county immediately before annexation. Subsequent changes in zoning of the annexed territory shall be made according to existing procedures established by the city or town for the rezoning of land.

You can view the citys Minutes and agendas and see that they have already begun to change the zoning on parcels at table top rd and others, that are not currently within City Limits. These parcels currently hold, transitional or low density and the city has approved or has tenatively approved zoning to commerical/industrial, now how would that not affect the residents living there. They have also been recommending approval for forwards to Pinal for areas outside the annexation area (see pinal & Maricopas agendas and minutes) Which is fact that that impacts, changes or other peoples lives in the area. Pinal has voted no several of those zoning change requests.

We have learned thru your posts and the others many misconseptions of the posting of a portion of your citys ordinance that you do not understand the law or process to which this pertains, so how can you tell anyone that you are correct, that they/we are incorrect and that the above scenarios you stated are true, when they can be see to be in process of change as we speak. Can you explain that? 

Actions, writing (black and white) and laws state a completely different scenario from that of which you are attempting to have people see. The proof is there you just think that most are to ingnorant to find it so they will believe you if you rant sufficiently. The laws are laws and the changes placed by the city are inevitable if annexed and documented to be factual.

Your opinions and statements have been unfortunately no backing and to state what you did in your last post just deminished any credibility you may have had.

When you are willing to listen, I personally invite you to lunch (my treat) to view the docs and see where we came up with what we did. There are no doubts, no questions, just facts, laws on our part, questions only arise at how they believe they came up with the numbers. Just oone look into the Signed Petition and you can't help but see the mess.

So bickering between us is pointless.....It comes down to the numbers and WE ARE CONFIDENT that we have it correct!!!!

Once again......Why are you so hurt or worried if they have their numbers????????????

*--*  all you need to do is get your city staff to validate the signed petitions in accordance with the ARS requirements set forth.  Again why waste money on something so simple to clearly establish a s the truth and only the truth.  Why are you so concerned about the financial cost to the city?  Have  you even thought about how  much money was lost when potential land buyers wanted nothing to do with real estate being annexed into the city of Maricopa?  One buyer even stated he wanted nothing to do any additional taxes on raw land , which is exactly what has happened.     As per his quote  "gee my property is almost 9.5 miles away from downtown, and they want everyone to help pay for all amenities even further away, 3 miles east to Pacana Park.  I will accept what ever a viable group comes up with in going over the petitions.