Gila Guy, I agree with your points indeed. 

          The same spending that was based on projections for the city went hand in hand with people who wanted to buy a home based on rapid appreciation and continued low interest rates.
         The same Citizens are involved with this decision making along with voting for other people for city decision making. Instead of bond being used to finance spending for a city, loans were used to finance spending for individuals(yes, a bond is a loan)
          As you mention that a bond is a tax increase in it's very nature, a home loan is an added expense for individuals, too. Just as we are told that future growth will "pay for itself",we(potential home buyers) were told the same thing.
Atleast, that what people wanted to believe. The easy answer for a mortgage person was " Give it a couple of years while your credit improves, your home value goes up, and you get pay raises, then we can refinance. "

        What the mortgage person didn't say was "your credit score is too low, there is no guarantee your home's value will go up, and you don't make enough, therefore I recommend you wait a couple of years to see where you stand because the deal I give you now won't be a good one. It'll cost you more now and you'll get to pay AGAIN for the opportunity to refi assuming everything works out perfectly as we all know they do (NOT)."

           The follow up question would be: "what happens IF things don't go as planned? what's the downside?" I don't belive most people were interested in hearing the answer.(Believe me I tried.) Most people giving the loans weren't going out of their way to provide if not asked first.

           If most people heard the latter, they would have gone to someone who spoke the former. The same was/is true in regards to the city representatives. People do get what they want, but they don't all necessarily take into consideration all the outcomes nor do they necessarily want to. Well, of course when its over then fingers are being pointed at who's to blame,they do. A quick fix is looked into again and the process repeats itself.

          Human nature is a curious thing.

Indeed, but you just mentioned that the Fire District's bonds were done in part through "projected figures" and  that is what I am getting at here.   The point isn't necessarily that the City uses projections vs the County using projections, it is that projected figures are typically inflated beyond all relevance, and are especially convoluted during periods of economic stagnation or recession.  And essentially that's what we have going on here now...we have departments and services which were based on projected populations, and therefore projected income.  That income is not going to materialize as such because the population, commercial growth, and residential dwelling development has not achieved the rate which was expected of it.

The Police Department line is perfectly valid because it is a City entity, and there are already permanent costs associated with it. The particular dwelling they occupy may be temporary, but the cost structure of the department is permanent...itis not going to disappear tomorrow.  The department is here to stay, and the vehicles, maintenance, electronics, records management system, personnel and overtime costs are on us for good.  I value the PD as much as anyone else, I just want to make sure the City is in a position to afford the good folks at the PD without hiking our taxes.  As you remember in Council meetings, there was some talk about increased revenues over time helping to offset the startup costs...but I do not remember much talk about whether the increased revenues over time would be impacted by an economy that had already begun to slow and has quicked its deceleration since then.

And therein lies the problem I am getting at.  Projected income should never be used as a reliable means of assessing revenue because it can't ever be done with certainty.  None of us should blindly accept projected revenue as a certainty merely because Roger Kolman's crystal ball tells us it is so. 

I've lived in several "NEW" communities that grew from a few small housing developments to cities (albeit more like small towns) with significant infra structures, aethetically planned and designed.  After working all day, we would arrive into our "town" glad to call it "HOME".  When And, when we moved to Maricopa we were hoping that our past experiences would have been replicated.  So far, two and a half years into residency, our hopes are dimming.    The roads in and out of Maricopa look like third world roads.   You have some lovely communities (thanks to HOAs...can't believe I just said that!) within a city that doesn't seem to care.  Why are weeds allowed to grow uncontrollably along 347 in front of major businesses; why arn't open vehicles dropping their debri along roadways not being ticketed.  Why does the city allow macabre memorial to exist on roadways?  Why not set up some community standards that will move Maricopa toward a "quality"  town.   Why not initiate  volunteer programs to beautify our town.  Why not set up "donate a tree , donate a bench, ....or whatever else the city needs to make it more asesthecially pleasing.    I know some people want to retain the "rural" flavor...but since when does this equate with slovenliness?  Shouldn't streets be cleaned.   While I don't agree totally with the Post article, I do believe we run the risk of becoming just a way station on the way to Yum if we don't look at other communities and try to emulate what they have done RIGHT....look at Ocotillo, Chandler, for example.