 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
CliffinAZ
Posts:405
 | | 02/20/2008 5:49 PM |
 Alert | Posted By Sinbad on 02/20/2008 3:10 PM
MaryMan...
you have to remember that having a Silver Tounge isn't always a good think.. Nice try on spinning it.
"Silver tounge devil"....you know what I mean now?
My vote for mayor is up in the air...that's all. As much as you people think that I am bashing Smith, he still looks to be the stronger runner.
With that said.................
"Back to this COH city deal!!!!"
(lol.. jK)
Sinbad, referring to Godsey's silver tongue, MaryMan's post only had bad things to say about it. Read the post again--I think you're both on the same page about this one. (Unless you're objecting to the positive statement's about Smith's work with P&Z).
| | | |
|
| | MaryMan
Posts:12
| | 02/21/2008 6:34 PM |
Alert | Posted By MaryMan on 02/21/2008 6:27 PM on a different thread, but relative here as well. Subject: Godsey's thoughts on the park land deal. Ok, did I miss something?
Mayoral Candidate Godsey says this:
"I have received several emails from worried citizens because of recent developments in the city. At the last city council meeting, the topic of the Community of Hope land purchase was voted unanimously to approve despite an outcry from the public for more information."
Did I miss the public outcry? Public OUTCRY? Shouldn't that be like a roomfull of people speaking out against the approval for the purchase of the land?
There was one man. A crazy one, at that. Does one man make a public outcry?
Godsey was there. He didn't speak out! He didn't speak out!  Doesn't he claim to be the candidate to speak out and represent the people? Where were you Tuesday night Godsey? It was your opportunity to shine and you failed the people. But you can go to your website and claim that everyone else failed. If this alone does not tell you something about this candidate, you are missing something big. Where were you on your opportunity to prove your dedication to the people of Maricopa?
Unless of course Robbie was your spokesperson? Is he the person who spoke for you and the public? Are you connected? Will you take a lie detector test to prove you are not? | | | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2549
| | 02/21/2008 8:57 PM |
Alert | Sinbad, it wasn't up to the city. The developer did not want to sell to the LDS. I don't know why. They just didn't.
I dunno, what bothers me is when a mayoral candidate contributes to the hysteria. There has been no public outcry. There has been only the ranting and rambling of one person, Robbie Olson, and based upon what he has inaccurately portrayed, a couple of followers. No public outcry. Mr. Godsey, if you plan on developing policy based upon the poorly researched blithering of someone like Olson, and you consider that some sort of mandate from the constituency to be acted upon, then I really hope you never get any closer to the double wides than Tortosa. | |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| | godsey
Posts:27
| | 02/22/2008 8:00 AM |
Alert | Desert Dweller,
With all due respect, I do not know Mr Olson and have never spoken with him unless he is azcarcarrier, in which I responded to one question from him on this forum and thats it. There has been a public outcry for more information, not an outcry against the deal, but for information regarding the deal and that is all I have stated. In fact if you look at what I have posted, I have indicated it may very well be a nice and generous offer by the church but has been overshadowed by the lack of information released about the deal. I understand there are privacy issues involved in real estate deals, but that was even more reasons for the city to wait until the church closed on its deal with the landowner and then made its intentions clear. I have not come out for or against the deal itself but I have come out against the way the deal was handled. I simply do not have a good feeling about a deal that has so many questions unanswered and the perception among many of being "shady". If the questions are answered satisfactorily I would more than likely support it. 3-way deals happen in real estate all the time but given the POSSIBLE conflicts-of-interest it was a dangerous thing to do. The city should have waited until the church closed on escrow and then made the details of a secondary deal more public. Thats all I am saying. | | | |
|
| | LampLiteSniper
Posts:463
| | 02/22/2008 8:10 AM |
Alert | Truthfully I think people should strike the fear of God into Politicians who want to run for office, knowing that some people may be voting from the rooftops could change the mind of scumbag politicians and possibly they could do the right thing for the community for once instead of lining their own pockets. | | | |
|
| | golf_rules2
Posts:0
| | 02/22/2008 8:45 AM |
Alert | Posted By TheSmokingGun on 02/21/2008 11:31 PM
Godsey is a Monday Morning QB. Nothing more, nothing less. amazing he didn't speak.
Posted By CliffinAZ on 02/22/2008 12:25 AM
Yes, as MaryMan said it's amazing that he would complain about the city going through with it on his website after the fact, when he was at the meeting himself and didn't say anything. You'd think that he would speak out about something he had an issue with. The fact that he didn't--and only noted that he had a problem with it after the deal was made--is a pretty damning demonstration of weak leadership behavior from someone aspiring to be the next mayor, to say the least.
-----------------------
Weak response that you've given above Godsey. I totally agree with CliffinAZ. "a pretty damning demonstration of weak leadership behavior from someone aspiring to be the next mayor"
| | | |
|
|  | golf_rules2
Posts:0
| | 02/22/2008 8:55 AM |
Alert | btw, on the article, Godsey says:
"as a Mayoral candidate, I did not support it."
So, he did not support it, but he didn't speak out at the meeting when he had the perfect opportunity! What's with that? | | | |
|
| | TheSmokingGun
Posts:0
| | 02/22/2008 10:00 AM |
Alert | he has now removed that quote from his web page.
Golf writes: "btw, on the article, Godsey says:
"as a Mayoral candidate, I did not support it."
So, he did not support it, but he didn't speak out at the meeting when he had the perfect opportunity! What's with that?" | | | |
|
| | godsey
Posts:27
| | 02/22/2008 10:06 AM |
Alert | No, you are correct, I did not speak to the council about this matter. Fixing the current council members that have met no other interests in the city besides their own is not my goal, replacing them is. The current administration has already proven to most, that community input goes largely ignored. The decision on this deal was made long before any of us ever brought up the topic, the vote on Tuesday was merely a formality. Rarely does the council respond to a call to the public or to comments raised, they merely listen politely. Speaking out at this council has proven to be a waste of time.
| | | |
|
| | godsey
Posts:27
| | 02/22/2008 10:34 AM |
Alert | | For the record....I am NOT against the expansion of the park. I believe Marty McDonald has done a great job and have told him so. I am NOT against the COH church for their willingness to sell land to the city. For the city to buy land appraised at $80,000 for $70,000 is a good deal. What I have said is I AM against and do not support the manner in which the deal was handled. It was a deal that because of conflict-of-interests with city officials, needed to be handled more appropriately so the appearance of wrong-doing or a "shady" deal was addressed. My opinion is, the city should have waited until the church had closed escrow and then presented their intentions based on the facts. | | | |
|
| | JoeMan
Posts:64
| | 02/22/2008 11:59 AM |
Alert | Nice cover attempt, Mr. Godsey. You still had the opportunity to voice your opinion and you didn't.
AND for the record, you did say you were against it. I know you're getting yourself into a big loop of lies here, so for your memory, see your comment posted by you on this article:
http://85239.com/NEWS/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?mid1=430&&ArticleID=3146
Here let me help and copy your quote:
"Yes this was a unanimous vote to approve and no, as a Mayoral candidate, I did not support it."
| | | |
|
| | godsey
Posts:27
| | 02/22/2008 12:19 PM |
Alert | | My memory is quite fine. I was not opposed to the deal itself but I was and still am opposed to the vote that took place and the manner in which the deal developed. I cannot explain it any simpler to those few people blasting me without purchasing "Hooked on Phonics" books for them. Im sorry for your misunderstanding of things. | | | |
|
| | golf_rules2
Posts:0
| | 02/22/2008 12:57 PM |
Alert | Add, bashing constituents to his list!
Mr. Godsey, you did not make your post on your website to make a statement about mistrust created by the current council. Otherwise, you would not have mentioned Mr. Smith since he is not part of the current council.
You made your statement for the sole purpose of creating potential political gain. You are basically insinuating that Mr. Smith is lying about having no involvement in the negotiations with the city on this land purchase, by asking for a sworn statement. That's what's wrong about you. So far, the person who looks guilty is you.
You were asked by Maryman, if you are partners with Robbie Olson. That's a good question. You were also asked if you would be willing to take a lie detector test proving that you are not. You haven't answered yet. | | | |
|
| | golf_rules2
Posts:0
| | 02/22/2008 1:07 PM |
Alert | Posted By godsey on 02/22/2008 12:19 PM
My memory is quite fine. I was not opposed to the deal itself but I was and still am opposed to the vote that took place and the manner in which the deal developed. I cannot explain it any simpler to those few people blasting me without purchasing "Hooked on Phonics" books for them. Im sorry for your misunderstanding of things.
Since you mentioned 'those few people blasting you', let me ask, does a few people blasting you on this forum qualify as a public outcry? I ask because that's the same thing we saw regarding the park land deal, 'those few people blasting' on this forum. I haven't seen any other evidence of a public outcry.
Since you used the term 'public outcry' and we didn't see any at the city council meeting, I'd like to better understand your definition of a public outcry. | | | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|