Mr. Smith I have two reaons to not vote for you.  I'm sorry to have to use such filthy language on this website but the reasons are:  You're Mormon and you're a Republican.  Sorry, but the truth must be told!!

I had hoped that such religious bigotry had ended with the election of JFK. Sad to see that the haters are still with us. On a previous post you called yourself a liberal democrat.It seems that you are "liberal" only if people are on your approved list of religions. How very, very, liberal of you. What next, set up camps for the extermination of members of religions that you don't approve of?

 Lurky Loo, I was thinking the same thing....

Tony, thanks for looking into the question for me. Drummer, I think he has shown that he's willing to admit when he doesn't know something (which is saying a lot about a man) and is willing to research an answer rather than giving incorrect information.

Posted By Jason on 02/20/2008 2:31 PM

If you read my post again, you will note that I did not say that it's not useful to examine a candidates principles, I have no idea where you got that from my post. I said that ,to state that the very name of a religion is filthy is bigotry. For an example, review some of the German comments about filthy Jews in the 1930s.

Posted By Jason on 02/20/2008 6:14 PM
I still think you're taking the comment too far. I don't think there is anything wrong with saying that you don't agree with some of the basic principles of a religion and, why would you vote for someone whose principles you don't agree with? 

He did not say that he disagreed with the religion, he said that Mormon was a filthy word. You can disagree with the teachings of a religion all you wish, calling a religion filthy however is crossing the line. It's bigotry pure and simple. I am not a Mormon, I can only wonder what Mormons feel when they read such comments.

Posted By Jason on 02/20/2008 6:49 PM
How do you know that she meant that Mormon was a filthy word? What if she just meant Republican?

However, whatever the case, I respect and support your efforts to keep insults and appeals to emotion out of the discussion.

Even if she meant just Republican and not Mormon as well (which I doubt). I am saddened. There was a time when Republicans and Democrats could disagree and debate the issues of  the day without undue acrimony. I always assume that those who disagree with me on public issues are wrong but honorable and well meaning  Now too often on both the national stage and on this forum, a rational debate deteriorates into invective. Glad to see that you agree with this last point.

I'm in complete agreement with both of you on this.  The increasing acromony (or lack of basic civility) within our political parties themselves is a reflection of what's happened to people in this country in general, and I think it moves us backwards.

Mr. Smith, I thank you for answering all of the questions (well, all of the serious questions anyway) that have been posed here. I have another question about something that has been concerning me. In another thread, someone made note of a Washington Post article that actually painted Maricopa as a ghost town full of foreclosed and empty houses. That's obviously an extreme exaggeration, but there's a grain of truth that can be seen by just looking at the number of foreclosed and empty houses within the subdivisions here. I know that in my own subdivision, there are multiple ones on most blocks (and some folks are saying that MOST of the houses on their blocks are empty).

In response to one of the posts on this thread, you noted there are actually new housing starts. This is actually quite alarming to me rather than being a source of comfort. I'm concerned that we're adding new subdivisions when the ones we already have are obviously rife with foreclosures and vacancies (one needs to just look out their window to see the truth of this...)--a situation that can't be good for our neighborhoods and property values. I'm also considering the fact that in the current Phoenix area real estate market, the supply of available houses has outpaced the demand to the point where we'd need several months of heavy buying--the better part of a year I believe--before housing demand is anywhere near supply in the valley. And this gap seems to be widening rather than closing. 

It seems that given this situation, building more houses when we obviously can't fill the ones we have would be absolute suicide--making it much harder to fill the vast number of houses that are already empty within the existing subdivisions. It's going to be hard enough to fill those homes, given that unlike the situation a couple of years ago, there's now a massive supply of available, relatively low-cost homes closer to where most people work (a big concern to many especially given the price of gas).  Do you plan to control/limit the number of new housing permits, or let the building run rampant for the sake of revenue.  I'm concerned that the latter approach would have pretty devastating effects on property values--and directly on the neighborhoods (given all the bad things that can happen to/within vacant homes).

My Response:

Maricopa will not become a ghost town. People have been moving to the Greater Phoenix area for over 50 years and will continue to do so for the next 50 years. This is especially true since the Baby Boomer generation is reaching/has reached retirement age. Maricopa will continue to be an obvious choice for them.  Maricopa is a very unique market, unlike almost any other in the Phoenix area. Most areas (Chandler, Mesa, etc.), do not have the available land to keep building new homes.  

The city is issuing approximately 150 building permits per month. This is revenue into the General fund. In addition to basic city services, revenue into the General Fund pays for things like Police and Firefighters, parks, libraries, etc. These are important services for those of us who haven’t left town. The bad news is that these additional homes add to the glut of homes already on the market hurting the re-sale market. Unfortunately, it will probably take a couple of years to "burn off" this inventory. Being associated with the local food bank, I’m fully aware there are a significant number of homeowners in extreme financial distress as a result of this situation.

It is tempting to want government to step in and help control traditionally free-market situations (ie. regulating the number of building permits issued). Seldom do these actions accomplish the results intended.  Therefore, as tempting as it may seem, controlling building permits would probably cause more harm than it does good.