Relative to the council packet, I will take you on your word. This is something that’s been brought up by multiple posters. At least you got a chance to set the record straight.

It was not my intention to offend you. I always try to make an effort to see that what I post deals with issues and not personalities. I think that the worst thing that can happen to a community is that people stop caring about government and accept whatever they’re told without question. Political leaders should be able to withstand criticism, both warranted and not and both criticism and rebuttal should always be directed to the issue and not the person. Many of us get the feeling that the City government does not respond well to criticism and responds by being defensive or even vindictive.

Many of the things that are questioned now deal with a perception by the people that the city government doesn’t communicate with them, doesn’t listen, acts without regard for public input or concern. There are conflicts of interest and deals that, on the surface, appear to be self-serving.

It is critical that city government work to erase this perception of impropriety. Perception has a way of becoming reality in the mind of the spectator and the perception of a corrupt or incompetent government will act as much to deter development as a lack of shovel-ready development sites.

On MA Maricopa: It could be said that relative to the September 2007 opening, the city was only required to “make its best efforts” which, of course it did. I am sure that this language was carefully put into the agreement because there are two parties to a contract. The city did its part and, in fact, went way beyond what was required, and MA Maricopa did not.

I don’t believe that MA Maricopa had a case. MA Maricopa failed to perform, not the city. The city NEVER was obligated to make sure they opened in August of 2007 – nobody in their right mind would ever be a party to such an agreement on the part of the City. There was a provision to “work with the developer” but no guarantees of a project timeline. Again, MA Maricopa failed, not the city.

A degrading e-mail? I don’t know what was in it, but usually those sorts of things are handled with an apology, not a two million dollar payoff.

Nevertheless, I think most people who are not privy to all of the information that you and city staff are have a big question: Why not litigate? Even if the City’s chances to prevail weren’t absolutely 100%, at least let the facts come out and be reviewed in a judicial setting before giving away two million dollars of the taxpayer’s money. Of course there is staff time and legal cost, but it certainly seems to beat just throwing in the towel right off the bat. Even if the City were to lose in court, they are insured for this type of thing, right? And, of course, there is always the chance that the City would prevail. This is what I mean about the perception of impropriety.

On her blog, I believe Kathy Hall accurately summed it up in saying, “In my opinion, either the Council has been bamboozled into thinking that there is a legitimate legal claim here or there is some financial reason, undisclosed to the public, that MA Maricopa should be subsidized. The claim itself reads like a letter from a scorned lover, with an abundance of highly-charged words that overly dramatized the situation. But they won without a foray into court; something that had been predicted by a high-level City official before the claim was made. Hmm...”.

So, my question is, why did the council vote to give MA Maricopa all the improvements, zoning, and purchase easements on land that wasn't even a part of that Development Agreement they claim was violated?

Do you believe that by voting for this settlement, the Council effectively took away the "rights" of the surrounding property owners and the general public who didn't get a say in the zoning change via the public input process?

Kelly, 

On your website you state “Alternate routes to the Valley would require approval from the Gila River Indian Community and that would take decades and dollars we don’t have”.  

And in a response to a poster in this thread, you state “With Ak-Chin Casino to the south, Gila River is not going to allow better transportation to a competitor. That is why we need to increase our efforts in Economic Development and ease the stress on our only route to I-10". 

Don't you think that you're putting the cart before the horse?  Don't you  think Economic Development will increase, not decrease, traffic on the 347?  Won't many of the employees of firms that locate here never live here, choosing instead to keep their homes in Chandler and other valley cities and commute to their jobs here?  And won't the new businesses need dependable roadways to get timely delivery of products, supplies, equipment, raw materials, etc.?  And likewise, won't they need to deliver their products and/or services to their out of town customers without the inevitable delays that occur when there is only one way in and out of town?

Have we met with ADOT and the Gila River Indian Community and discussed whether there is any way that Smith-Enke can be extended to I-10?  And if so, can Maricopa taxpayers accelerate the project by paying part of the cost?

Thanks in advance.

Sorry, for all the comments, it's just that I sometimes wonder if people are really taking the time to get all the facts.  So often, the same topic is covered over and over.