Let me give you another reason why Godsey is not a candidate to be trusted.

He has on his website, a comment that you can't trust the city, because they only give you half the story. Yet Godsey is doing the same thing.

I talked with several of the other council candidates about the City/Candidate meeting that was this past Monday. It was open to the public, I wished I would have gone.

Anyway, a couple of the council candidates said, regarding the mayoral candidates, that Godsey did not ask one question on his own. Mayoral Candidate Smith asked many good questions, the city would answer, THEN Godsey would join in with follow-up questions.

I'm sorry, but when I heard that, I knew... I want a mayor who will be able to think of the right questions on his own. Not only follow ups to someone else's questions.

Also, they said that Mayoral Candidate Smith asked the city if they had considered a Communication Plan. According to those who were there, the new city manager, told the transportation director, a communication plan would be an excellent idea. They (the council candidates I spoke with) said the new city manager also said, if any candidates has good communication ideas, the city would listen. He also said that they currently use the media and their website. But the point being, the city manager did say 1) that a communication plan was a great idea (Smith's idea) and they were open to other suggestions.

However, if you read Godsey's website, he makes it look like the topic of communication was his question, when in reality, he was asking follow-ups to Smith's. He also makes is sound like 'town halls' are Smith's only communication idea. He doesn't tell you that a communication plan is a plan that has many, many different aspects to it, such as communication to media, televised communication, website communication, pre and post event communication, etc.

See Godsey is only giving you a piece of the whole story. That was all I needed to hear to make my decision.

You continue to blast the city and COH about this land deal and yet there is nothing questionable about it.  The land owner only wanted to sell it to a non-profit because they would get a tax write-off for the difference between what they bought it for and what they sold it for.  This is perfectly within El Dorado Holdings rights. 

The city never had the chance to buy it out right because the city is not a 501(c)3 non-profit organization and as such, charitable contributions to the city are not tax deductible.  Rather than blast everyone involved in this deal, COH should be commended for coming up with such an innovative plan that helps provide services to this city and helps further their congregation at the same time.

Sinbad, I tend to be pretty critical of some of the things that the city leadership has done, but after hearing the specific details about the park deal and how it came about , I don't see anything that's unethical about it or wrong with it--as Ken is saying.  I think that the city got it right by finding a sensible and practical solution to the problem of acquiring the land for park use.

Here is a statement right out of the Monitor to support what JoeMan is saying:

"Mayoral candidate Tony Smith fired a number of targeted questions at staff members, as did Michael Godsey, who is running as a write-in candidate for Mayor. Smith brought up the idea of a communications plan, which Godsey piggybacked with his own concerns about the lack of communication."

I was told as well that Godsey piggybacked and never asked an original question of his own.

Here is another statement right out of the Monitor:

"Godsey challenged Finance Director Roger Kolman with the idea that impact fees should be reduced to stimulate the local economy. He contended that something is better than nothing and empty houses or commercial buildings weren't producing any sales tax revenue for the City."

I was told that Godsey only asked this question, AFTER Smith asked if impact fees were driving developers away. When Kolman replied that commercial impact fees are high, and may cause a disadvantage, he also stated that there were many other aspects that a developer looks at to decide whether to come to Maricopa. He listed several things such as cost of land (which is less expensive in Maricopa) and a few other elements. Basically, at this point, impact fees were not a deterrent for economic growth in Maricopa, because we have other things in our favor.

I looked to see if Godsey was going to revise his statement on his website with that new information and as of yet, he hasn't. That also supports JoeMan's statement on how Godsey is only telling you half of the information you need. See a pattern here?

This is an important topic, so I made a few calls myself. I don't know if I called the same council candidates, but I talked with two.

I also find it interesting, and figure Godsey must have posted this, 'On the topic of communications, it was not brought up by Mr Smith originally. Mr Billingsly had just shared some encouraging projects that he is working on so I inquired why we do not share this information with the citizens.' before golf_rules posted the evidence from the Monitor.

The piece from the Maricopa Monitor, says something totally opposite of what Godsey says.

I was there!  I think the 85239 stated it correctly above.  It was heated, but neither took things beyond pointing out his opponent's weak points.

It's actually getting to a point of funny now with Mr. Godsey's website.  He used the word 'attacked'.  Mr. Godsey, if you can't stand the same 'heat' you dish out, you better get out of the kitchen now.

Seriously, Mr's Godsey's website is full of attacks on Mr. Smith.  Misquoting Smith's points, plans, etc.  Mr. Smith's website is free of any slams to Mr. Godsey.  I was glad Mr. Smith did point out the obvious weaknesses of Mr. Godsey.  I would have been disappointed if he hadn't.

Mr. Smith pointed out Mr. Godsey's lack of any city government experience and he pointed out Mr. Godsey's lack of leadership in the community.  He has been in Maricopa for 1.5 years and has yet to be on any boards or lead anything.

Mr. Smith pointed out Mr. Godsey's negative approach to communication.  He said there is a right way to communicate and a wrong way.   Mr. Smith then held up a flyer that Godsey had handed out to the redevelopment area residents.  That flyer as well as another one had come to Mr. Smith in the mail from senior citizens afraid because of Godsey's flyer.  The flyer asked 'Where are you going to live, when the city takes your land?'  These senior citizens were afraid that their land was going to be taken tomorrow.  Is that the type of Mayor you want, communicating to seniors or anyone in that way?  Not me!  The redevelopment district is not even about eminent domain.  Get a clue, Mr. Godsey.

In the end, Mr. Godsey felt he needed to support his idea of reducing impact fees.  Only two other council candidates support that idea.  Why, because it means we go without some capital projects (like library, roads, city hall, etc) or we raise our taxes.  That is a fact, and Mr. Kolman did say that during the candidate/city meeting last Monday.  I verified that through one of the media that was present.

I would say that Godsey bombed out.  You may not like Smith's approach to pointing out his opponent's weaknesses, but I think it's better than hiding behind your website doing the same thing.