 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
anewman
Posts:660
 | | 11/12/2007 11:34 PM |
 Alert | There has been much discussion about this town needing an identity or a brand. Here are my thoughts on what this town could do:
Look to the history of this town:
Maricopa Wells, Maricopaville, and Maricopa Junction are all names that preceeded the current day Maricopa. Use some of the history of the area to create its future.
Currently Maricopa has no town center- not a recreational park but an area that could be considered downtown or old town similar to Gilbert and Chandler have.
About 1 1/2 years ago 85239 ran an article on UofA agricultural farms growing a latex producing plant and further discussed the benefits of building 'green'.
Most citizens that have moved here want the town to grow and develop but also keep a small town feel.
Here is what I would try to achieve if I was on the city council:
Develop an area to be the town center- this is where the city council would be- a firehouse- police station- a multitude of shops and restaraunts both chain and local small business owners. My vision is a central park area with Retro style buildings surrounding it for a few blocks. Think Santa Fe but more 'modern' old west.
I think something that could set this town apart is to have this entire area built with 'green building' technology but with a rustic Arizona look and feel. Utilize local resources such as Taliesen West and City of Scottsdale to help put this into effect. I am sure there is Federal and State Funding available for building 'green' and there is even the possibility of capitolizing on the media. Think what Maricopa being featured on The Learning Channel or Discovery Channel could do to draw some attention to this community.
The idea of a spring training stadium is great but my vision is for a stadium that would be home to a minor league team and have a deal worked out for several games during spring training. The stadium would also be built green and desert friendly- hybrid grass or even grass turf. A team similar to a Cap Cod league team would help give the town an identity and regular event to attend and draw people from the valley and our neighbors to the South.
Require that all developments commercial and residential be held to a higher enviromental friendly standard. In simple terms- all future homes and businesses be built green.
By developing a town center this town will have an area of focus or identity and by building it with green technology we will develop a brand that will bring additional focus, money, and visitors to our community. This town is in the growing and development phase so a vision of what the town is to be is achievable. There is no old buildings to tear down or renovate. They can be built to look like they were here in the 1800's but be the most efficient as possible.
| |
"The jouney of life is as much in oneself' as the roads one travels"
| |
| | alanf
Posts:1381
| | 11/13/2007 7:43 AM |
Alert | You make some good points. We can actually start from scratch with our little city. It really has no center to speak of. It's old town consists of a gas station/dairy queen, a red barn, Headquarters and Chitwoods? Pretty much everything else is manufactured buildings or double wides. Problem is, where would we put the Town Center except out of the current town. To be successful in the endeavor, I think we need to buy property outside of Old Maricopa and start over. It will mean big big bucks and an airport (yes, we will need an airport.)
I was watching the news this morning and saw that the Reds are looking to AZ for spring training after thier deal in FL fell through. Casa Grande, Tuscon and Goodyear i believe are candidates. Then i thought "why not Maricopa?"
1) No hotels within 20 miles (Harrahs does not count as it's on reservation land and would not benefit Maricopa).
2) No stadium (or funds to build one).
3) Poor transportation system (with zero public transportation).
4) No airport (like the reds would be busing in).
5) No infrastructure to support visitors (let alone the current residents).
6) No sidewalks to walk around on.
7) and it goes on...
A new green face (that sounds wrong, but right) for Maricopa would be an admirable one, and we still are young enough to shift gears (out of reverse into drive). Who knows, maybe somebody that is actually capable of doing something with the council will recognize this great idea. Thanks.
| | | |
|
| | stinkerbell2
Posts:0
| | 11/13/2007 8:48 AM |
Alert | WOW! I wanna move to where you guys are talking about!!! WHY dont you run for city council/Mayor and be in the driving seat??? That sounds like a FABULOUS place to live!! Get er done! | | | |
|
| | ken
Posts:506
| | 11/13/2007 1:15 PM |
Alert | I was on board with the green idea as it probably would be a good selling point for our city, but then I read this part...
Require that all developments commercial and residential be held to a higher enviromental friendly standard. In simple terms- all future homes and businesses be built green.
This would drive future businesses away from locating in Maricopa. No business is going to want to deal with all that red tape. Maybe if you posed it as "suggested guidelines" for building in the city of Maricopa, but more regulation is going to result in less growth.
| |
"Knowledge is often mistaken for intelligence. This is like mistaking a cup of milk for a cow." -- Unknown | |
|
| | alanf
Posts:1381
| | 11/13/2007 2:08 PM |
Alert | | I don't think so ken. Being Green is good for advertising these days. If you build green, your start up costs may be higher, but if done right the backside should play out cheaper. IMO. Might scare away more Circle Ks and Dairy Queens....but I think a Green Santa Fe like city would work. We need our own image, not Ah-wah-tu-kee or Snotsdale. We are Mar-i-cow-pie!!! | | | |
|
| | ken
Posts:506
| | 11/13/2007 2:32 PM |
Alert | I have no problem with the image. I just don't think "requirements" are the way to go as it puts up more government bureaucracy to deal with. If the idea is to grow and stay business friendly and to be green at the same time then setting some suggested guidelines and providing tax incentives for meeting those guidelines would be the way to go. But making the cost of entry higher for a place that needs to attract new development is not a good idea. We should be looking for ways to make the cost of entry as low as possible.
We are already running into issues with the cost of entry. Look at what happened to the Montessori School as well as other places that "were" coming but are no longer. At this point, in the eyes of most businesses Maricopa is still a gamble, not an investment. With a high cost of entry this makes the gamble even bigger. We don't need to discourage growth, we need to encourage it and extra red tape does no such thing.
| |
"Knowledge is often mistaken for intelligence. This is like mistaking a cup of milk for a cow." -- Unknown | |
|
|  | anewman
Posts:660
| | 11/13/2007 4:37 PM |
Alert |
I agree with your concerns about the ability to grow and the limitations this may place on some. However taking on developing a downtown area is not something that small business owners are going to do. This would be a multi million or even a billion dollar project. The money would come from federal funding, investors, and possibly freebies by companies dealing in green building and green technology.
I think slowing the building of houses is something this city needs to look into considering the number of empty houses within the city limits. Empty houses create a negative image for those visiting the area. They represent a good deal to some and a sign of a failing community to others.
My idea is not that all new buildings and homes have to be to the highest level but definetly an increased level. There are plenty of cities already putting these actions in place including Scottsdale, Portland, Milwuakee, and Austin Texas to name a few.
Simple things like natural lighting by using skylights (Walmart did this for their store in North Scottsdale) are investments that provide monthly savings to the store without dramatically increasing building costs. Blown in expanding foam vs. fiberglass insulation is another example.
Look at some of the possible energy and renewable sources within the area:
Although 1 is currently closed there are 2 tire recycling plants which provide sources for green building, rubber playground flooring, etc.
The large landfill to the West and the cow farms provide possible energy sources.
Maricopa also has the potential to develop wind and solar power due to the terrain and consitent enviromental conditions.
I think a downtown area and the city buildings should be built to the highest 'green' standards to provide the example and brand. This area should be highly regulated to ensure there is a proper mix of chain and local business in this area. If the money comes from federal, state, and local funding then the city can own these buildings and set a rent price that is small business friendly.
There are several small towns similar to Maricopa throughout the country that strongly regulate the companies and investors coming into the area. This is done to ensure local businesses can not only survive but flourish.
This may keep some investors from coming but may bring in others interested in making names for themselves in a very unique situation.
| |
"The jouney of life is as much in oneself' as the roads one travels"
| |
|
| | anewman
Posts:660
| | 11/13/2007 4:59 PM |
Alert | ken-
You make some very valid points about the cost of entry.
This is why I think the city needs to set the example and find the resources to create some developments. Think about it- right now we don't have a city hall- a courthouse- a police station- or a real firehouse. How does the city expect to be taken serious and control investors when they are working out of trailers and modular buildings?
Lets suck it up and find some funding to build some real buildings!
Lets not let the buildings be a tempory fix- lets build them so they will be useful and efficient 20 years from now.
Don't build to build- build to develop the community and what it is going to represent.
Yes we need to grow and allow businesses to come in- but lets make sure those business are long term rather than quik investments, add to the culture and brand of the city, and that the business help that brand and culture develop and prosper.
We don't just need businesses- we need good businesses!
Thank you all for listening to me rant- if I thought I had a real chance maybe I would run. | |
"The jouney of life is as much in oneself' as the roads one travels"
| |
|
| | uprvr
Posts:59
| | 11/13/2007 5:58 PM |
Alert | Maybe the city shold adopt something like this as an option with benefits. I know Global Waters facility is LEED certified.
LEED certification provides independent, third-party verification that a building project meets the highest green building and performance measures. All certified projects receive a LEED plaque, which is the nationally recognized symbol demonstrating that a building is environmentally responsible, profitable and a healthy place to live and work.
There are both environmental and financial benefits to earning LEED certification. LEED-certified buildings:
Lower operating costs and increased asset value.
Reduce waste sent to landfills.
Conserve energy and water.
Healthier and safer for occupants.
Reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions.
Qualify for tax rebates, zoning allowances and other incentives in hundreds of cities.
Demonstrate an owner's commitment to environmental stewardship and social responsibility.
| | | |
|
| | ken
Posts:506
| | 11/13/2007 6:24 PM |
Alert | | This is the type of thing I was suggesting. If you want to go green, the city could encourage new businesses to be LEED certified and with the benefits that already come with it maybe the city could knock a percent or so off their taxes. This is about as far as I'd say this little town could afford. If you start tinkering with building codes and the like, you are just becoming part of the problem and not a solution. | |
"Knowledge is often mistaken for intelligence. This is like mistaking a cup of milk for a cow." -- Unknown | |
|
| | 85239
Posts:0
| | 11/14/2007 8:07 AM |
Alert | I think that the "green" topic can be extended and a focus of our city should be to enact processes for Maricopa to become a Sustainable City. The benefits are far reaching. Companies that are looking to the future and not buried in the past understand the benefits of operating in a community that has a plan in place. A healthy environment is attractive and lends itself to economic growth and development.
There are some fundamentals that are necessary for our city to have a sustainable future. These are not my ideas, but I very much support their introduction into Maricopa and feel that establishing a framework for the decision making process is essential to our success as a city.
************
The City of Santa Monica, CA is on the forefront of Sustainability - the following are taken from their Sustainability Plan, which is a great starting point for Maricopa:
-- The City must always seek the sustainable method when making decisions.
-- Our environment and natural surroundings are essential to our quality of life and they must always be a priority.
-- Every decision we make as a city has an impact on the future of our community, environmentally, economically, and socially. As such, each decision must be mutually dependent on each other. This takes an informed and pro-active city leadership and community.
-- The community must be engaged in the process. Awareness, Responsibility, Participation and Education are necessary components.
-- The City must understand its interconnectivity with local, national, and global communities.
-- The most important sustainable measures should be acted on first and sound financial decisions must be made when taking action.
-- A committment to decisions that minimize negative environmental and social impacts.
-- Partnerships among the City government, businesses, residents and all community stakeholders are necessary to achieve a sustainable community.
-- Use of the Precautionary Principle in all activities the city engages in.
The Precautionary Principle requires a thorough exploration and careful analysis of a wide range of alternatives, and a full cost accounting beyond short-term and monetary transaction costs. Based on the best available science, the Precautionary Principle requires the selection of alternatives that present the least potential threat to human health and the City’s natural systems. Where threats of serious or irreversible damage to people or nature exist, lack of full scientific certainty about cause and effect shall not be viewed as sufficient reason for the City to not adopt mitigating measures to prevent the degradation of the environment or protect the health of its citizens. Public participation and an open and transparent decision making process are critical to finding and selecting alternatives.
************
In addition to guiding principles, the enactment of a reporting system and establishment of SMART Goals would be fundamental to the success of any sustainable plan. SMART goals are Specific - Measurable - Attainable - Realistic - Timely.
This is not an easy process and it takes more than just a couple people to get this type of program moving, but the benefits are life-long and could make Maricopa a real diamond-in-the-rough when competing for future economic development. | | | |
|
| | geewiz
Posts:248
| | 11/14/2007 9:28 AM |
Alert | | I think it would be nice to go back to the small town I lived in since I was 12. Lets tear down all those houses built over the last 5 or 6 years and replant the pecan trees and grow the cotton in the fields again. | | | |
|
| | bear down
Posts:57
| | 11/14/2007 9:58 AM |
Alert | | One ? for you 85239...... Why didn't you run for mayor? | | | |
|
| | alanf
Posts:1381
| | 11/14/2007 1:47 PM |
Alert | bear down, unless I'm mistaken, 85239 is running for city council (which is probably more important than mayor).
Great sharing 85239. Only problem is that Santa monica can not be sustainable. When the big one hits, they are history. But if Maricopa can get some realistic guidelines in place, we may still have a chance at being something......or we can become Radiator Springs. Looking forward to great things for Maricopa.
geewiz, unfortunately your desire to go 'back in time' won't happen. We all need to unite in a common and positive direction with achievable goals to make Maricopa a nice city. We won't be going back. Enjoy the ride into the future. | | | |
|
| | geewiz
Posts:248
| | 11/14/2007 6:42 PM |
Alert | | Alan I know your right about not being able to set things right by going back to the sleepy little I more or less grew up in. But you should know your dreams of making this town anything else than what it is now is a fantasy. This town will never be anything but a hodgepodge of of people never agreeing on nothing. | | | |
|
| | stinkerbell2
Posts:0
| | 11/14/2007 7:08 PM |
Alert | | Talk about scratching in some ones sand box meOW!!! | | | |
|
| | alanf
Posts:1381
| | 11/15/2007 9:21 AM |
Alert | Just so all the "Old Timers" remember that it was "Old Timers" that screwed this all up. Not the people that have moved in. I believe it was "Old Timers" that sold off their land to the developers. I believe it was the "Old Timers" that created the original "City Plan" and it was the "Old Timers" that planned on getting rich through Maricopa's projected "Hyper-Growth."
So, it may be a "Hodge Podge" now. And many people may just want to run away. But some of us truly want to see something good come from this mess. And that does not include bulldozing all the manufactured homes and double wides. It does not include annexation unless the majority of the voters decide it is the right thing to do. Please don't jump me for that last line "Citizens Against Annexation." It's just the way the world turns.
All I want is a nice tall glass of lemonade from all of these lemons. Don't be haters. Be problem solvers. | | | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|