People that understand that at this moment, spending the time and money for an airport is the least of our worries next to having a structure to call City Hall and working on the transportation issues.

Sinbad, I haven't looked at Hermanson yet, but I will.

I agree with you on your post, with one exception.  Your sentence above.

What I don't think people understand, is that an airport in already 5-10 years off, even if they continue the planning.  If you wait and start later, the pole is so long you may miss the mark and opportunity.  If you can tell a company that the city is pro-airport and in the planning stages, that buys you so much more than if you tell them we are anti-airport.

If the city does this right, they will go through this one phase at a time and a new city council will have an opportunity to check the value at each phase.  It's not an all or nothing situation.  Each phase is brought before the city council.  The construction phase is years off.

The other thing I think people are missing, is that the city council will select the projects to work over the next year.  They can work on several projects at one time, such as city hall/city center, economic development, library, whatever.  They will also prioritize them.

To say 'No' to the current planning phases of the airport, is the same as telling a potential developer or company that is looking at Maricopa who may be interested in an airport, that we don't want them.  I don't think that is a good idea for Maricopa.

Any candidate who is saying 'No' to the airport is short sighted.  They need to get a broader vision or they will kill Maricopa.  Not only with regard to the airport, but with many other projects the city needs to consider.

Posted By Sinbad on 02/08/2008 3:26 PM

Everyone wants more employers who pay well in Maricopa.  More retail, etc would be nice, but that won't pay the bills.  We want employers who pay well.

You would be surprised how many of employers, who pay well, use small airports.  That's the point I'm trying to make.  Sorry if it was confusing.

It's all wrapped up in a big picture.  If our city council doesn't keep the the big picture in focus, guess who loses?  Us!  So, I'll take a big picture council over a small picture council any day.

sorry, double posted accidentally

If silver tongue is what you want, then silver tongue is what you'll get!

I was watching both candidates closely.  I've read the ramblings in Godsey's website.  Whew, ramblings!

I found a comment he made about how he thought Smith did some good things on P&Z, but as far as Godsey was concerned, not enough.

I asked if Godsey had ever been on P&Z to see Smith in action.  The answer: ZERO times has he been to P&Z.

Then I read an article from Kathy Hall in the Monitor last week.  Here is a piece of it:

"Another aspect of the campaign to date that I've found a little distressing, is the comments and assumptions that Smith is somehow part of the old regime, the "good ole boys" or handpicked by the old councilmembers.

While I'm not endorsing any candidates, I find it a grave injustice that this is the public's perception, because I know that none of this is true.

Smith's service on the Planning and Zoning Commission should not count against him, but rather for him.  Time and again, the current Council has rejected the suggestions of P&Z.  The Commissioners have often discussed at meetings the Council reversal of their imposed stipulations on developments.  So, there is certainly not a close connection between anyone on the commission and anyone on the Council."

And this statement is from a person who has been at nearly every P&Z and every city council meeting.  She has also been critical of the council and their lack of action on issues, yet she defends Smith's work on P&Z.

So it is evident to me that the 'Silver Tongue' will say anything necessary to get votes.  If that's what you want, then go for it.