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.

The issue is that during the council meeting, when you had a clear opportunity to bring this up (something you obviously feel pretty strongly about) before it was a done deal and in a public forum with those who made the decision present, you sat by quietly and said nothing about it, instead waiting until the next day to say negative things about it on your website.  This is playing Monday-morning quarterback after the fact--after choosing not to act during the window of opportunity when your actions might have actually had an impact.

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."

Man, not even mayoral candidates realize that arguing on the internet is a bad idea... 

An experienced manager knows that management by committee rarely works. There are times when community input is helpful, but this wasn't one of them. The state legislature wisely excluded negotiations for real property from the open meetings law and did so for a very good reason: putting your cards out on the table before a deal is constructed causes speculation, price fixing, and usually results in a higher price for the municipality.

The role of the City Council is to review and approve or disapprove these deals based upon their individual merit, not to hold elections each time a decision comes before them. Council meetings are open so that citizens can voice their support or concern. Typically, if there is more discussion than appropriate for a single meeting, a schedule for community input is established. In this case, the only opposition was in the form of inappropriate outbursts from Robbie Olson. 

I think the point here is that you had an opportunity to voice your concern in the appropriate forum at at the proper time and you chose not to.  Telling us how you feel about it now accomplishes nothing.

In this case, the Planning Department did their job correctly and effectively. The PRL Director did an outstanding job throughout the process. There was never any nefarious dealing involved, only the unfounded accusations of such.

Even though you feel that their minds were made up, look at what not commenting has done for you. Sometimes, tilting at windmills is a good thing.

Still haven't heard from the man who started this thread.  Azcarcarrier, what's your excuse for not speaking out publically when given the opportunity?

You had plenty of time to prepare your message.  It's not like this was a last minute addition to the council agenda like you've always complained about in the past.

I have not spoken on this topic at all, the reason is simply that I have nothing to say, period! I don't know how I feel about the situation and am waiting for the final details to be publicly stated somewhere, by the City, the Church or Whoever else has valid information as opposed to inuendos, half-truths and gossip.

Having said that, Mr. Godsey, whether the council had already made their minds up or not, you had a duty, better yet, obligation to the citizens to stand by your word and be a voice for us. Even if the deal was done months ago, you still had an opportunity for your opinions, feelings and thoughts on the situation to be put on record, period! You did not seize that moment because, as you say, " the fact is the decision for this was made a long time ago, the council vote was a formality". Well then, your opinion being stated publicly on behalf of the community's "out cry" should have been a formality as well. At the very least, it would be on record and would stand as something binding and legal for you to run your campaign on, no?!

When someone is running for a publicly elected office they should seize every single opportunity to make their positions known. In fact, you should go out of your way to find ways to make opportunities to put your positions out there. Based on this incident and your following comments, I will not be voting for you sir. I want a leader who will STAND UP and SPEAK when necessary!

Carpe Diem, Godsey, Carpe Diem.

Please advise me when the COH group produces an appraisal , thus validating the sale price, and the actual amount of land purchased by the city? Is the said property 10 acres or less?  Is the city paying for easments and public right away already establishments?

People have asked why I did not speak, I filled out a card, but was never called to the podium, I guess the Robbie and Will show preempted me.   Oh well I still gained some knowledge of the unusual practices of the City and Council. Just have the powers to be answer the above questions and I think this giant puzzle that is missing quite a few pieces will become clearer soon.

Bear Down:  Did Robie Olson clear up the question you asked me . 

Golf Rules I hope you read my response to the Forum for why I didn't speak.

I would appreciate an opportunity yet to ask and "receive" some sort of logical answer from parties involved in this fiasco.  I felt Rusty Ackers should of spoke to the council and concerned parties up front and truthful.  But once Robie and Will got going it sure got seconded and adjorned quickley.  I felt that the staff and council should answered his question about the premium since they have represented it as a joint project.  I now see the joint requirements on the two parties, church walks away a happy camper, money in their pocket and a 10.00 a year parking lot, that who knows what capital costs the city will encure for this obligation agreed too.   Buying a NOTHING DOWN REAL ESTATE VIDEO and getting the city to fund 2/3rd's plus sure looks questionable.  I buy a piece of Land, take title accordingly, and then sit down and make a marketing move as too what to do with it.  But not have ownership and going after the city for funds prior to closing is crazy.  Rusty can rest assured that I will have someone at the recorders office next friday afternoon just waiting to confirm the deal.  I sure hope the city is not on the hook for origination fees, appraisal cost, etc.  Oh that's right the city purchases real estate without appraisals.  I think the Peed property is sitting at a negative value based off of original purchase price.  -35%

Yes, I read it and I think that your answer is the biggest piece of cow crap I've smelled in Maricopa for a while. Someone as passionately against this purchase would have spoke up and demanded a RIGHTto speak. Someone as aggressive as you would not have let that happen.

I know you own lots and lots of land and I believe you have your own personal agenda and are far from an innocent victim (not resident since you don't live in the city).

For a man who has done so many land deals, I find it very difficult to understand why you insist on calling the difference between what the church paid and what the city paid a premium. In fact I'll call it questionable why you use that term. And interestingly, Olson use the same term.

If El Dorado Holdings sold the land, under value to the church, and the church sells it to the city, under value but slightly higher, I'd call that good stewardship of their assets. Any entity that owns land should be able to sell it for what it's worth. Even if it is a church. Who would begrudge a church the ability to do that? That doesn't make sense.

Even if the church sold it at full value (which they didn't) and made more money, what exactly is wrong with that?

You have other motives for what you say and do and anyone who thinks you don't is a fool.

You stand to make a lot of money off the land you own. Anyone who doesn't know that about you probably ought to realize that. It certainly explains some things.