Ours is a new business we opened the day after Thanksgiving. We have spent a considerable amount in advertising to let the residents know about our small but unique gift shop. We also had put out a small open sign mounted on a Childs colorful sawhorse. On April 16th Rick DeStefano from the building safety/zoning enforcement dept. came in our shop and informed us that our little sign was in violation of city ordinances. I asked if there were any areas in front of our store we could put it and he said nowhere. I immediately brought it in. Later that evening, driving through town I saw that several other sandwich signs were still up. We requested a copy of the town ordinances and regulations pertaining to signage, from Steve Boyle and he promptly e-mailed it back to us, and had said there was to be a meeting at town hall regarding this issue on 4/24/08 to discuss changing the sign ordinances. I Requested by e-mail twice an explanation why others were allowed to have their signs out and we were singled out about ours. To date we haven't received an answer. We went to the town hall meeting and found that this issue wasn't even on the agenda. At the beginning of the meeting when other subjects other than what was scheduled could be addressed, Pat VanPelt and I took turns at the podium and asked for an explanation. Bill Cowel who chaired the meeting not only didn't offer any explanation but summarily dismissed us with "we will look into it". When asked if we could put our sign back out as long as everyone else was allowed to, we were told "no" again without explanation to the obviously glaring bias against us. We have not checked to see if signs were still out since the meeting, but this has gone beyond the issue of the signs, and we will find out what action to take until we get an acceptable explanation and who initiated this against us.

Pat VanPelt, and Jacqueline Parent, Owners of Trail West Merchants.

========================================

PROP 13 ARIZONA: GOOD FOR YOU THE CITIZENS !

Residential taxation in this State is based on creating "confusion"   so that the process can not be understood and, therefore , can not be contradicted by intelligent logic or appeal.
It's a numbers game that enables the State to create as much residential tax revenue as it wants to.
It's a mish-mash of measurements and exceptions and conveniences made to befuddle understanding.
It purports to be clear and exact when, in fact, it is unclear , inexact and purposely confusing.

It is ever changing
--------it is unlimited
   --------It is full of exceptions
       --------future rates are totally discretionary
            ----------and, valuations are subjective and periodic.

Prop13 Arizona will rid us of all of this absurdity, in one sensible people's initiative. It will:

     -----set a defined and lower valuation on all residential
           and commercial property in the State by a simple
           formula...the 2003 valuation of the property

-----tax residential at 1/2 of 1% of that valuation and
commercial at 1% of that valuation

-----eliminate overrides and taxation on home
improvements

-----not allow or provide for exceptions

-----define and set limits on future tax rates
(to be no more than a 2% yearly increase)

     -----be clear and predictable and measurable.

Earlier this year, the Legislature originated a bill that essentially copied, to the letter, what Prop13 Arizona will do when passed. They hoped to derail Prop13 Arizona before it got off the ground by offering their bill which.in effect, would negate the need for a citizens bill. Let us do it for you, taxpayers. We know what's best for you.
    That bill hung around the legislature as "bait", if you will, all spring but never got out of the chairman's desk drawer. Everyone on the inside knew it wouldn't, as did any person that's worked with legislatures before. They weren't about to cut off the fat cat that fed their spending sprees and excesses.
    By all accounts, and by admissions from reliable legislative sources, Arizona's finances are worse than any other time in our history. Right now Nepolitano is set to veto a massive tax reduction passed by the legislature.
    If there's a solution, you can be sure the taxpayers will not be consulted and their pocketbooks will suffer considerably.
     Prop13 Arizona is all that's left to us to try and put a halt to out -of-control spending and massive tax hikes because of what we liken to malfeasance in office by all too many elected officials. Mind you, our elected officials representing the Sun Cites are not involved in this opinion. We have talked to most of them and heard their frustrations on the manner in which the Legislature tried to derail Prop13 Arizona and how State spending
seems to be impossibly out of control.

Ask for Prop13Arizona...find Prop13Arizona ...and sign it as quickly as you can . We only have a few more months to make it happen.

Cliff Cowles, President
North West Valley Taxpayers Assn., Inc.
623 / 977 - 8769

=============================

Letter To The Editor : Amnesty...alive and thriving! Here's an update.

Behind closed doors in Washington they are still trying to push an amnesty package thru the Congress. With 80% or more of the voting populous against amnesty, they keep at it. As we speak they are putting together a 5-yr. Amnesty Plan.

Their objective is to crush our American work force by importing millions of cheap labor bodies. In so doing, they also crush our population with family members by the millions. They stretch our tax burden beyond belief.

Then they create instant citizenship for this huge mass of bodies that finally destroys what's left of our American values and traditions. We are suddenly a United States of Foreign Nationalities, in gigantic debt The is, however, some good news .There are several bills being presented to the Congress right now that would straighten out part of the mess immediately, For example, HR 938 would end Chain Migration. No longer could foreigners be able to call in any and all members of their families. HR 1430 would end the Visa Lottery program. that each year allows about 50,000 foreigners of any description to enter this country with no criminal checks or time limits, ala 9/11 types. HR 4065 is another bill to end the Visa Lottery.

HR 133 is a long overdue bill to reform the birthright citizenship granted to any baby born in this country, despite it's parental heritage, criminal or foreign.

Three other bills are trying for the same reform , HR 1940, HR 4192 and S1269. So, we still have a few Patriots left in Washington who are trying to do the right thing. It seems, however, that for every Patriot there are at least 2 in the Congress that oppose their efforts....our efforts.

Cliff Cowles, President

N.W. Valley Taxpayers Assn., Inc

623 / 977 - 8769

=====================================

STOP PAYING LOBBYISTS :

Letter To The Editor:

Lobbyists on parade ! Right now as we speak. Demanding to use OUR taxpayer dollars to pay for their lobbying costs. What say we? And, there are some of our elected officials that say that's OK and perfectly proper because we elected them and that confers a right to them to make any weird decision that they wish. .

Witness Meg Cahill, from Tempe, who commented to that affect. Or Bob Blendu of Goodyear who is afraid the flow of information will stop if we stop paying for the lobbyists input.

How about the flow from your constituents, Bobby?

What say you, taxpayers? Linda Gray has introduced SCR 1009 to stop paying lobbyists to do their dirty deeds. And dirty they are! They literally bombard the legislature each January with bills they write, (1274 and counting this year) most of them representing the wish lists of small in number minority groups. The result is a huge pile of manure facing the legislators. Most of the stuff unneeded and unwanted by the electorate that have to pay for it. ( Imagine this multiplied a thousand times in Washington)

Can you imagine the thousands of wasted hours trying to sort thru the muddle to find just one worthwhile writing and then, the thousands of wasted hours of subsequent committee work trying to justify the manure. SCR 1009 would help do away witha lot of that. Of course, it would also deflate the egos of many in the Legislature that think their work is a devine order. A second unexpected reward would be that the legislators would have to actually think up the manure themselves and that could be embarrassing..

Is it time to jump aboard the SCR 1009 express and help Linda win this one ?

Cliff Cowles, President

North West Valley Taxpayers Assn., Inc

623 / 977 - 8769

=================================

PROP 13 Additional Information:

Marc Goldstone, Chairman of Arizona Tax Revolt, continues making unfounded statements about Prop 13 Arizona’s initiative language. I can assure your readers that Senator Jack Harper’s proposed change to the Arizona Constitution follows our Prop 13 Arizona initiative language and that it has not been “reworded” as Goldstone says. Comparing SCR1003 subsection (4) with Prop 13 Arizona’s proposal demonstrates that there were no changes made.

Prop 13 Arizona’s initiative language was reviewed and approved by an Arizona Constitutional Attorney and SCR 1003 was approved by Legislative Counsel.

Although Goldstone holds himself out as a “tax expert,” I challenge his credentials since he was professionally an engineer. I know tax experts, and they have various degrees in accounting and law, most have a CPA, and have spent their careers in the field of taxation. Goldstone has not experienced any of these precursors to being properly labeled a “tax expert.”

How ironic that Goldstone has such grave concerns that the Prop 13 Arizona volunteers are wasting their time. In 2006, Goldstone attempted to get a property tax initiative on the ballot. He filed C-04-2006, Arizona Tax Revolt, with the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office on February 16, 2006. After Arizona Tax Revolt volunteers spent time and donors spent money on the initiative effort, Goldstone had to scrap everything and start over with C-05-2006 filed on April 11, 2006. Turns out Goldstone wrote the initiative himself and it had 10+ pages of legal problems as outlined by a tax organization’s attorney. The Stop Taxing Our Property Committee, of which I was a member, tried working with Goldstone for a matter of weeks and severed the relationship. We have all chosen not to work with Goldstone again.

Goldstone does have something right however; Prop 13 Arizona has no provision for the taxpayers to approve tax increases or indebtedness. His Arizona Tax Revolt does contain such and therefore allows for increased taxation and more money to be borrowed. Arizona’s system currently has such a provision which permits what is often less than a 5% voter turnout to give us the current indebtedness and budget overrides that have contributed so heavily to our property tax problem. Not only that, but his measure permits taxation up to 1% of value whereas Prop 13 Arizona permits taxation up to only ½ of 1%. Although I am no engineer, I know ½ of 1% is less than 1% which means that Prop 3 Arizona will reduce our property taxes to a greater degree than will Goldstone’s measure.

Respectfully,

Lynne Weaver

Prop 13 Arizona, Chairman

www.Prop13Arizona.com

Chairman@Prop13Arizona.com

====================================

Rebuttal to "Legislator Joins Support of Prop13"

Dear Editor,

Senator Jack Harper is a good man. He recognizes that citizen initiatives dealing with the “hot button” issue of property taxation should at least be considered by the legislature.

In response to Weaver’s political spin, should her measure survive committee review the legislature will be considering a modified version of the Prop 13 measure which the legislature reworded to correct several of the legal language problems previously identified and disclosed to Weaver by this property tax expert. These very same problems remain uncorrected in the petitions Weaver is asking you to circulate. For proof, compare the wording of SCR1003 subsection (4) and Weaver’s measure. How can Weaver ask you to waste your time and effort gathering signatures on measures that will never be allowed onto the ballot? Is it arrogance, blissful ignorance, a desire for fame and fortune, or are they doing this intentionally to scuttle needed property tax reform?

What saddens me most is that there are a lot of good folks counting on property tax reform who are or will soon be in danger of losing their homes. They deserve real property tax reform not window dressing or a system that will be ruled unconstitutional due to taxing two properties of equal value at different tax rates as weaver proposes. Sure Prop 13 California has been deemed constitutional, that is because among other things they had only one tax cap for all. They also had provisions for increasing revenue with a 2/3 vote. Two tax caps are a very different story. Weaver proposes to implement a system in violation of the equal protection provision of the US Constitution, in addition it also has no provision for the taxpayers to approve when desired tax increases or indebtedness.

So if you want property tax reform, the time is now to join the Arizona Tax Revolt by filling out the “volunteer form” at http://www.ArizonaTaxRevolt.ORG then do your part to gather signatures assuring our levy and valuation rollback measures their rightful place on the November ballot.

Respectfully Submitted,

Marc Goldstone, Chairman and Chief Architect

Arizona Tax Revolt

4090 Yucca St.

Bullhead City, AZ 86429

(928) 754-8305

===========================================

Citizens must stop out-of-control property taxes

By Lynne Weaver

Opening your property tax bill has become an anger-provoking experience of late, thanks to speculators who drove property values to record highs before leaving town.

Adding to the misery, most taxing districts didn’t adjust their tax rates in order to keep your bill from going sky high. They just smiled and kept the windfall tax revenues.

The end result and the impact on ordinary people’s lives is nothing short of distressing. An 82 -year-old man whose property tax bill went from $500 to $3,500 in one year.

Another man who paid $6,000 in sales tax on his mobile home followed by a $2,000 property tax bill. Vacant land with a $135,000 assessed value suddenly shot up to $2.1 million with no adjustment after going through both steps of the appeals process. A teacher’s aid with a one-year tax increase equal to 100 hours of her pay.

Our property tax system is broken. It always was, but the speculators made us look at it and study it and decide to get rid of it.

Your neighbor sells to a foolish buyer at an unrealistically high price, then you and everyone else in the neighborhood have to pay higher taxes.

When the sale was made and that home turned over, the cost of providing government services did not increase even one cent. But you were all penalized with higher taxes.

Now that the speculators are gone and prices are falling, you’re still paying those higher taxes.

Adding to the pain, your valuation lags two years behind reality so while foreclosures are popping up in your neighborhood, you just learned the assessor thinks your house is worth more money.

Enough already!

Prop 13 Arizona, a citizen’s initiative, rolls back valuations to 2003 or purchase price after December 31, 2003, limits total tax to one-half of 1 percent of valuation for all residential property and 1% for all other real property, limits valuation increases to 2 percent per year, and eliminates exceptions to the tax cap.

It copies the tried and true principles of California’s famous Proposition 13 with its 29 year track record of success. Prop 13 Arizona simply establishes a fair and equitable system of valuation and limits taxation.

It still provides plenty of tax revenue to the government, just not unlimited tax revenue or unlimited increases. We each must live within our means and so must the government.

We are a volunteer organization working smarter to get our initiative on the ballot. It’s hard to find places where volunteers are allowed to collect signatures so we put our petition on our Web site at www.Prop13Arizona.com.

You can print your own petition, have your family sign it, maybe a few neighbors, and mail it to us. Or, you can get the ordering instructions from our Web site, and have Kinko’s print your petitions for pick up at their closest location anywhere in the state.

When California voters passed Prop 13, it kicked off 10 years of government fiscal responsibility and unprecedented economic growth. Prop 13 Arizona will help our economy too, by attracting businesses and their workers to our new and improved tax friendly climate.

Lynne Weaver is Chairman of Prop 13 Arizona. She can be reached at Chairman@Prop13Arizona.com via e-mail.

Wickenburg volunteers, please contact Paula Hartwell at 928-684-9018.

================================================

AIRPORT & HERMOSA RANCH

In response to an allegation by Maria Langer in an e-mail to you dated 23
March 2007 concerning my involvement with runway at Wickenburg Airport and
Hermosa Ranch Situation:

I have been actively involved in bringing the Hermosa Ranch Situation to the
attention of the AOPA.

On 9 November 2006 at the AOPA Meeting in Palm Springs, CA I spoke to Stacy
Swigart, Airport Support Director of AOPA, concerning the Hermosa Ranch
Situation. Subsequently, on her advice I have spoken to or written Dill
Dunn,Vice-President of Airports for AOPA, John Collins, Senior
Liaison-Airports for AOPA and Stacy Howard, Western Regional Representative
for AOPA concerning the Hermosa Ranch situation.

Many of us in Wickenburg, pilots and non-pilots, are concerned & involved
in the Hermosa Ranch Situation.

Dennis Tryon AOPA Representative to Wickenburg Airport - E25

Wickenburg, AZ

==================================================

THANKS FROM IRAQ :

Thanks for putting the facts out there, I'm tired of the biased junk that the wickenburg gossip....er I mean the wickenburg sun puts out. Being in Iraq, it's hard to hear about the important stuff goin on back home. Thanks.

Paul Knutson

====================================================

THE WALL :

Would like to personally thank you for your support of The Wall!

I was Chairman of the Committee which brought the Wall here to White City, Oregon this past August 2006. It was a great experience for all.

Please tell all who are in charge of the Wall that I send my very best, and Thank You.

Bill Reichard
Vietnam Veteran

======================================================

HARD WORKERS WANTED

Dear Editor,

"Without immigrant workers, your life costs you more" This is concerning the decline of immigrant workers due to the strengthening of our borders. I read your article on the issue, however my opinion is one that I haven't seen touched on as of yet. I think that the our rising cost of living isn't what we should really be upset about; but rather the fact that since we have become so accustomed to letting migrant workers have the menial jobs, we ourselves have gotten lazy. There was once a day when everyone did their own fair share of work. I was not part of that generation, though I do envy them. I have worked in factories, on construction crews, in maintenance, retail, and low end mechanics. In those situations there would ordinarily be one out of ten people that held their own in the workplace. Fifteen years ago I do remember the cry of the blue collar saying that "They're takin' all our jobs!" The drive to work and be proud of a good job has depleted in such a manner that instead of supporting your family in every way possible they instead take an easier way out with well fare, or unwillingly give their job to a migrant worker that will work three times as hard as they would. We as Americans have gotten so caught up with other people doing our dirty work that we have become so materialistic we wouldn't know what to do if we had to work in our own chicken factories or pick our own peaches. I fear that folks will not change concerning their work habits. It's going to take something as socially disastrous as the depression to straighten the degradation. Cut down immigrant workers and see what happens. Those who can't afford will get a second job, work harder to keep the one that they have, and learn that food on the table is more important than a new ipod or the newest video game. It would do my generation good.

Allie Morrow

======================================================

THE PRINTED MEDIA AND FACTS :

Informed or uninformed by who's standards is that determined ? In a world of only printed media you are limited as to what facts you can find out yourself. The facts that the printed media wants you to know are printed. Their interests or friends interest will be presented as informed knowledge. They will inform you of what they want you to know.

If your views are different and regardless are based on a fact, that the printed media ignores. You therefore are uninformed.

With the internet media, if you want further information just Google Search the topic and become more informed. Check public records yourself. More are available every day. Don't rely on only one source of a weekly publication.

Wickenburg facts : 1)Many citizens talked to the City Town Planner, Planning and Zoning Commission, Mayor and the City Council members and were ignored. examples : (Wickenburg Ranch, Country Club, etc, etc,).

2) A short time limit for the public to talk was set at meetings to prevent debate. (3 minute)

3) Referendums were ignored , even after they were passed by a majority of voters. (Democratic Rule )

4) The right to vote on some referendums has been denied at all costs through technicalities, even though soldiers died for the right for you to vote. Thus avoiding Democratic Rule.

5) Developments have been approved before deciding the road infrastructure to handle the upcoming traffic. (highway 93).

6) Citizens voted in record numbers for three new council members. The status quo has been unacceptable. The Fox has been guarding the Hen House.

It is our opinion, based on the above facts that the citizens of Wickenburg have every reason to be wary of the changes that the City has approved or are considering for approval.

People in Wickenburg do not want to live in Surprise. We have informed you to facts. For further information you can Google Search right HERE.

WickenburgNews Editorial Board

=====================================================

HERMOSA RANCH CONSIDERATIONS

Dear Editor;
          I am very concerned about the Hermosa Ranch development plan that has been approved by both the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Town Council. Well-informed, knowledgeable citizens have stood up at these meetings and voiced their concerns about the houses being built so close to the airport's runway. The response they have received reflects that our elected officials approved this project without investigating critical issues.
      I have been flying for over 35 years. I am a captain with a major airline and have more than 20,000 hours of flight experience flying everything from small Cessnas to Boeing 767's.   I believe I have a little more knowledge than the average person when dealing with this subject. From what I have seen and heard, the developer in question believes that, since the homes he is going to build are not all located in the direct extended centerline of the runway, he should be allowed to build there. The town in turn, has bowed to him, approved his development application and not listened to citizens' concerns. The developer has threatened to sue the town to get what he wants.
          Let's take a look at a very real scenario that could potentially occur here….. a small twin-engine aircraft takes the runway at Wickenburg Airport for takeoff. The pilot pushes the throttles forward for takeoff and the aircraft accelerates. The aircraft becomes airborne at approximately 75-80 knots. Until the aircraft is able to accelerate to the airspeed where the rudder and ailerons become effective (approximately 100-110 knots), if one of the engines should quit, that aircraft will have a tendency to twist around the good engine (resulting in a turn). On a hot summer day, if the airplane is carrying a lot of weight, it essentially is almost uncontrollable for the first 15 seconds or so of flight if it loses an engine. Those homes lie directly within the first 15 seconds of flight.
          In the event of an accident, any good aviation attorney who represents the survivors will take a good hard look into what happened. Among the first things he will want to know is why the town allowed houses to be built so close to the runway. Was the town warned that their approval of the project would potentially make them liable in the event of an accident? Did the FAA approve the placement of this project?
          If the town is afraid of a lawsuit from this developer, they should keep in mind that, in the unfortunate event of an airplane accident, that suit will be peanuts in relation to a lawsuit brought by the survivors. I believe the town is being very short-sighted in their approval of this development. By approving and allowing this project to continue they are exposing the town to future lawsuits that will cost each and every one of us dearly. I respectfully ask the Town Council to re-examine this issue.

Jim Ferman

Pilot, Wickenburg

=====================================================

THE MAYOR'S CONFLICT :

Why don't you just ask what the "substantial" conflict is? Here is the
truth, not slanted, nothing to hide.

Mayor Badowski discovered, only after the Hermosa Ranch project was
challenged by Maria Langer, that his daughters and their spouses hold,
in total, a 3.6% investment in the Hermosa Ranch project. This interest
is in the form of an LLC interest, and does not represent a material
portion of the net worth of either family. The LLC interest is
non-voting, non-management, and in no way has any power or direction in
the Hermosa Ranch project. It is simply an investment.

After an inquiry to the Arizona League of Towns & Cities about the
potential of a conflict, the Mayor discovered that a greater than 3%
interest is the threshhold for "substantial." He was subsequently
advised that this happens frequently, and was advised of the proper way
to handle the matter; declare the conflict, excuse himself from the
vote, and re-vote.

The fact remains that the mayor was not aware of his children's
investment in this project when he originally voted for it, and
therefore his vote was not tainted. When he discovered the potential of
a conflict, he did as advised and disclosed the potential for conflict.

The simple truth is that the project was voted again, with unanimous
approval, sans Mayor Badowski.

Dean S. White

====================================================

WHAT A GREAT IDEA !

What a great idea for a Wickenburg News Blog. This is one way people can express themselves to others on topics that might concern or affect them. Hopefully people will join in the discussion and an annual Wickenburg Common Cause Conference will result.

Thanks for another good idea.

Richard Wertz

=====================================================

FINAL WICKENBURG

ELECTION RESULTS

"CERRRTAINLY "

===================================================

Mayor Limits Public Input at Council Meeting

by Ron Aungst Author Photo

as reported on KBSZ-AM radio

The beginning of last night’s Common Council meeting was not as rambunctious as one might have anticipated. Mayor Ron Badowski saw to that. He made an announcement at the beginning of the “Call to the Public” which comes near the beginning of the meeting. The “Call to the Public” is a period set aside during which members can address the Council. The Council has put the two limitations on comments made during this period:

The speaker cannot speak about any item on the agenda.
A fairly new rule allows each citizen speaker only three minutes to make his or her point. The town does provide a clock to keep time for the speaker and the Council.

Badowski added what is probably a temporary new rule last night. That announcement was that he would not allow any political speeches during the “Call to the Public.” Only one person tried to speak — and he was immediately shut down by the Mayor. Ray Johns wanted to speak about his continuing legal struggle with the town over his proposed referendum. Johns’ concern was probably not what the Mayor was trying to prevent. He was shut down anyway.

===================================================

Concerns about the school override vote.

This weeks Sun (Nov 1, 2006) contained an article about the proposed 7 year property tax override that provides just enough information to be troubling. It includes this statement:

The cost of the override will be shouldered by real estate taxes only, meaning that only homeowners will have their taxes increased, not those who live in a rental home or apartment.@

Based on this statement, one of the following is likely true.

1. The tax falls only on owner occupied single family homes and all commercial and residential rental properties are exempt. I believe that this is very unlikely but if its really true the override should be rejected since such a tax would be patently unfair and even predatory given the demographics of this town.

2. Far more likely is that tax actually falls (as it should) on all taxable real estate including commercial and residential rental properties, in which case the Sun=s statement that renters will not have Atheir taxes increased@ may just be an attempt to influence renters with children in the school system to vote for the override thinking they will get a free ride at homeowner expense. If so, this is deliberately misleading since the rental property owner will have to pay the increase, and it is more likely than not that the tenants= rent will increase to at least cover the tax or even more given the natural entrepreneurial tendency to treat every justifiable cost increase as a profit enhancing opportunity.

Once we get a handle on the latter issue we will have to address the larger issue of just why we are being asked to approve a 7 year override when the biggest needs we now have are current - like is fixing some leaks and buying a school bus and miscellaneous local expenses. The Sun article goes on to say that the cost of the override will eventually decrease Aas the amount is shared with the growing number of homeowners in the Wickenburg District@ This sounds good until you read the school district=s own projections. A handout at the recent Chamber of Commerce sponsored economic summit shows total number of school busses unchanged at 6 between 2000 and 2008, and enrollment in Wickenburg schools actually declining slightly from 1509 in the 2000/1 school year to the current 2006/7 school year. These are our kids whom we want to support with our tax dollars. But do we want even more of our tax dollars diverted to subsidize west valley growth? The same handout shows that by 2011/1!
2, (the 5th year of the override), the school district population will more than triple to 7,476 and headed for over 20,000 by 2016 when the district will need 72 school busses. The vast majority of this growth will occur not here but in areas already incorporated into valley growth magnets like Buckeye.

It may be technically correct to assert that the cost of this override will be Ashared@ by those new homeowners in Buckeye. However, readers need to understand that to the extent that those new homeowners in Buckeye are younger and have more children in school than current Wickenburg taxpayers, it is a certainty that the benefit of this tax override in the next few years will shift disproportionately to them. I=m all for supporting our local schools but is this 7 year override the way to do it? And should we sit idly by and feed the beast as the Wickenburg Unified School District dissolves into the Wickenburg Memorial School District of Greater Buckeye?

Our local officials tell us that to get better schools we need more rooftops. I had to chuckle the other day when passing through Laveen, that sleepy little town with acre plus house lots, horses and alfalfa fields where I almost bought a house 3 years ago. Those fields have been transformed into rooftops in the last 3 years thanks to Pulte Homes and the other usual suspects. Stuck in a 15 minute traffic jam, I had plenty of time to snap this picture. Is this what we want for our school children?

John Cote
Wickenburg

====================================================

" POLITICS AS USUAL "

by CHRIS BAND

CANDIDATE FOR WICKENBURG TOWN COUNCIL

I now know what is wrong with the public discussion this election season; there wasn't any, except for the November surprise by Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Richardson with an unsubstantiated fact attack on 3 candidates. Mr. Fletcher was allowed the publication of statements founded on error, misinformation and exaggeration and Mr. Richardson distributed a flyer founded on error, misinformation and exaggeration. There are perhaps 100 explanations, most political, but it boils down to this; ATTACK ADS SEEM TO WORK!!!! They are an act of desperation!!! They want you to believe that you can't trust anyone anymore and they try to present untrue statements as a good reason.

The most recent attack on me and my associates is shameful, and an act of desperation on Mr. Fletcher’s and Mr. Richardson’s part in an attempt to persuade residents to vote for the candidates they support. Those candidates are also supported by the Chamber of Commerce, which in most if not all cities takes a stand of neutral, non-endorsement.

I am old enough and self confident enough to accept true criticism, but this is an act of desperation that cannot go unchallenged. I will not lend credence to Mr. Fletcher’s and Mr. Richardson’s statements, except to defend myself by saying their allegations are untrue. I stand behind my career and accomplishments as I presented them to the public and I will not stoop to their level of POLITICS AS USUAL!!!!! This is one of the very reasons I decided to run for office.

The Wickenburg Sun has presented shallow, skewed and untrue comments as presented by Mr. Fletcher. The Wickenburg Sun has fallen into the habit of treating the public as if they are unable to make moral and factual decisions without the paper and its’ biased content. All candidates should be given moral and factual parity!!! Perhaps the newspaper staff in the future (as they should) will become arbiters of public discussion. Maybe they will pick up the obligation of the 1st amendment to try and determine the truth of a matter; perhaps then, Wickenburg politics will return to small town values. A newspaper has one obligation and one only; to print the truth as far as humanly possible and comment on the truth as candidly as humanly possible.

All we want as candidates is to have simple accounting of political promises un-kept by the present administration and the promise of a better future without uncontrolled growth and feared condemnation. There is an old saying, "Those who control the numbers control the town". It is time for a change!!!

I pledge again to the voters and citizens of Wickenburg that if elected on November 7th, I will support the public in a fair unbiased manner and present truthfulness on all matters. I will represent your views and I will never stoop to desperation politics.

I place my faith in that you as informed citizens can determine which candidates are worthy of your TRUST!!!!!" Please vote for Chris Band, Jim Ferman and George Wilkinson.

Chris Band

Candidate for Wickenburg Town Council

====================================================

Thanks for being there....

I am SOOOO pleased to find an alternative for news from Wickenburg! I cancelled my subscription to the Sun today after reading this weeks propaganda rag....I will support all the businesses listed on your site and will avoid to the point of boycotting those who support the Sun. Thanks again..

C Wagoner

=========================================

CENSORED!

A LETTER TO THE EDITOR THAT THE WICKENBURG SUN REFUSED TO PUBLISH*

(SO IT WAS RUN AS A PAID AD IN THE WICKENBURG SUN )

The plethora of letters in the Wickenburg Sun newspaper last week, disparaging all candidates for town council who don’t have long records of public service, and Wickenburg Sun publisher Kevin Cloe’s royal loosening of editorial restrictions on letter writers, hint at a closing of Establishment ranks in this town against outsiders. Conveniently just before the elections!

As someone who feels after nine years of residence still an “outsider” amid this group, this disappoints me.

Although it’s my own fault in that I don’t have the surplus energy to build even a short record of public service, the implied exclusion is upsetting.

Why must Wickenburg’s town council be occupied only by people with long records of local public service (aka local business owners)?

Don’t the Jim Fermans and other “outsiders” (he’s lived here only 17 years) have a right to be heard as council members representing others of their kind?

If Wickenburg’s illustrious Establishment of people with long records of local public service could be counted, I’d bet they wouldn’t add up to more than 100. The rest of us belong in the silent majority of this town’s 6,000-plus population.

Why don’t we, like Jim Ferman, have a right to be represented on council? The implication of the letter writers is that we don’t, and that council members need a public service “pedigree” that the Establishment could support before they may run undisparaged for their lack of a record of public service.

Well, to quote Patrick Henry, “give me liberty or give me death!” I will vote for Jim Ferman, Chris Band and George Wilkinson (all of whom I’ve never met or even spoken with) and anyone else who might help balance the council membership. Wickenburg doesn’t need a pedigreed, “royal” Establishment as its council. It should represent the majority, in addition.

James G. Dickinson

Wickenburg

* This letter was submitted by email to the editor of the Wickenburg Sun at 8:54 p.m. on Thursday, October 12, after the Sun’s official deadline earlier that day had passed. It comments on the newspaper’s extraordinary spread that week of one-sided letters favoring the current council – a spread that bumped Mr. Dickinson’s letter to editor on annexation and an unknown number of others which would normally have appeared that week, to the following week.

The editor replied by email, saying she rejected it because a letter on another topic by Mr. Dickinson had already been positioned in the newspaper that was to go to press the following week, and the Sun’s policy of one letter per writer per month would mean that the new letter would have to wait until after the election.

Mr. Dickinson asked that his new letter replace the old one. The Sun’s editor refused, saying it was too late since the page had already closed.

As a publisher himself, Mr. Dickinson saw this as nonsense, since modern software allows last-minute changes of this kind with great ease. The editor did not respond to this argument, making it apparent to Mr. Dickinson that the above letter had been censored in its entirety be-cause it could influence the election in favor of those who oppose the current council, which apparently is supported by the Sun.

Footnote: This ad in the Wickenburg Sun was paid for by Mr. Dickinson in protest at his letter being censored. Since the letter was written, he has talked with Mr. Ferman for the first time.

==========================================================================

==================================================================================

REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP CALLS

FOR BADOWSKI'S RESIGNATION,

===================================================================================

YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS SCREW YOUR

RIGHT TO VOTE

SENT TO :Honorable Jan Brewer

Secretary of State

1700 W. Washington

7^th Floor

Phoenix, AZ 85007

Reference: Referendum documents and ARS 19-101A

Dear Secretary Brewer,

We in Wickenburg have just experienced a most unfortunate event. To resolve our problem requires your help. The problem has to do with ARS section 19-101A. We need your help to clarify what is required to meet the legal requirement of (“Insert a description of no more than one hundred words of the principal provisions of the measure sought to be referred.”) that is given in the ARS. The key word is “insert,” and what legal definition this connotes. Here is what happened:

The Wickenburg Common Council passed an ordinance to rezone a developer’s parcels.
This action was highly controversial and many voters objected to the action.
An official referendum form was obtained from the Town Clerk to bring the rezoning decision to the voters of Wickenburg. The Town Clerk carefully advised the referendum petitioner how to fill out the form and how to obtain legally signatures in support.
The referendum was oversubscribed by signatures and turned in to the Town Clerk in the allotted time frame. Because there is no space on the referendum form to insert the description, the description was typed on a piece of paper that was stapled to the referendum form. The Town Clerk for past referendums had used this procedure as the Wickenburg Town Attorney advised the Clerk that stapling the description to the petition would not invalidate the petition. We might add that the Town Clerk is very meticulous about observing all legalities.
The referendum was approved by the Town Clerk and forwarded to the Maricopa County authority for signature verification.
The referendum was returned to the Town Clerk with the county ok.
The referendum petitioner was notified that the referendum was legal.
The developer hired a Phoenix law firm to find out how to negate the referendum.
The law firm notified the Town, and the Town Attorney, with the following words: “The legislature expressly required referendum proponents to ‘insert’ the description on the face of the petition, not include the description as an attachment. The description was not inserted into the petition in violation of the statute.” “Therefore, the petitions are invalid.”
The Town officials had a discussion with the Town Attorney. The Town Attorney said that this aspect of the ARS has never been tested in court and therefore this is a gray area for the Town.
Evidently on the basis of this advice, the Mayor told the Town Clerk to invalidate the referendum petitions. We understand that the Mayor said that the developer would sue the Town and was of the opinion that the petitioner had no money and therefore would not be in a position to sue.
The Town Clerk notified the petitioner that the Town rejected the referendum petitions.
Despite a display of great unhappiness by townsmen and women at the Council meeting on Monday night, the Town refused to rescind its action. The referendum stands canceled with no possibility for any petitioner to issue a new one. The developer has won over the rights of the Wickenburg voters.

Would you please have one of your very senior staff comment on this matter. One of us contacted the Secretary of State’s office to investigate. He was rudely treated and could find no one in a position of knowledge who could help clarify this situation. Because of this unsuccessful attempt, we are writing directly to you in the hope that someone can give us specific information.

In addition, to avoid a repetition of this very unfortunate situation, we request that the relevant language of ARS 19-101.A be revised to say what is actually meant.

We ask if there is any record of other submissions to Maricopa County, or to other counties, or to the State of Arizona that used a description stapled to the referendum document? If so, was the petition legal?

Is there any reason why stapling is not legal? It would appear that there is latitude for municipalities and counties to modify the State form to accommodate needs.

One would have thought that if “insert” is required to be legal then the ARS language would have read that the description shall by typed and inserted into the document by retyping the entire document to accommodate this. Or to provide on the document space for 100 words to be typed. Or alternatively, words to the effect that stapling the description to the document is prohibited.

Those of us in Wickenburg who have been disfranchised by our Town officials would be very grateful if this problem could be addressed as soon as possible and an answer provided. As I shall be out of town for an extended time, would you please have the answer sent to me by email and to Mr. Westerman by the U.S. Postal Service.

Sincerely,

Adrian Richards Raymond Westerman

Wickenburg, AZ 85358

Cc: Wickenburg Town Clerk

Mr. Ray Johns

Mr. J. Ferman

Jan Brewer

Secretary of State

State of Arizona

Dear Adrian & Raymond:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Town of Wickenburg referendum that you are involved with. Secretary of State Jan Brewer has asked me to respond to your letter

Your letter asks several questions regarding legality of the Town of Wickenburg’s decision to reject the referendum petitions filed. Our office has no jurisdiction over city and town election matters and therefore is not in a position to comment on the issues you raise in ;your letter. Moreover, the information you ask involves legal questions that we are unable to answer. You may wish to contact you own legal counsel regarding you specific questions.

I deeply apologize if someone of my staff did not treat you with courtesy and respect. If you know whom you spoke with, please let me know. With respect to you suggestion for amending the statutes, ;you may wish to bring that to the attention of you legislators.

Thanks you again for taking the time to write.

Sincerely,

Joseph Kanefield, State Election Director

====================================================================================

===================================================================================

WICKENBURG SUN TELLS IT THEIR WAY :

Dear Editor,

I recently read an article on the Web site of the Wickenburg Sun from October 4 regarding a zoning change for Hermosa Ranch. I was shocked by the information it contained and the failure of the Wickenburg Sun to provide all of the facts.

The Sun reported that the Town Council, including Mayor Ron Badowski and Councilman Phil Richardson, voted to approve a zoning change that would allow more than two houses per acre on land previously zoned for one house per acre. It did not report that Jerry Diddy, the developer, contributed money to both Badowski's and Richardson's campaigns.

Can someone explain to me why Badowski and Richardson are voting on a zoning change that would benefit one of their campaign supporters? This is a clear conflict of interest. Yet the records show that Badowski and Richardson have consistently voted in favor of zoning changes that benefit their campaign supporters. Further, it is a conflict of interest for Richardson to vote on ANY rezoning issue. As a real estate professional, he stands to benefit from any zoning decision that increases Wickenburg's roof count, as this rezoning so obviously does.

The article also made it clear that the town council was not sufficiently addressing valid concerns put forward by Wickenburg residents -- something that didn't surprise me in the least. One of these concerns, stated by council candidate George Wilkinson, pointed out the proximity of Hermosa Ranch to the Wickenburg Airport. Doesn't the Town Council know that its Airport Sponsor agreement with the FAA requires it to limit airport-area zoning to "compatible" uses? That approving zoning for houses close to the airport can cause the town to lose airport funding -- including the millions of dollars the FAA is supposed to pay for recent airport improvements? I don't think Wickenburg taxpayers want to foot that bill if the FAA pulls funding due to Wickenburg's violation of its agreement.

And there are people out there who think Wickenburg doesn't need an Ethics Policy? The press is reporting again and again that campaign contributions and lobbying payoffs are corrupting politicians. Yet when it happens right here in Wickenburg, the Sun neglects to report it.

Sincerely,

Maria Langer

Wickenburg, AZ

============================================================================

Importance of an Editorial might be misleading :

aka: Newspapers don't float

Newspapers tend to write their editorial page based on an opinion from an individual, or a group of individuals ( an Editorial Board). These sections of paper tend to make their opinion the largest sized article in their publication, as if to give them more weight and importance. In their eyes you should think their way. Question not.

They can tell you the world is flat and that snail mail is faster than E-mail. Even that printed newspaper is the way of the future. Question not.

They have had a captive audience for 73 years. Those days are over and also remember, " Preaching is for Sunday".

Question them. Question us. Question all.

Wet Newspaper Always Sinks

Wickenburgnews.com Editorial Board

NEWSPAPERS IN DECLINE

THE FACTS!(

==================================================================================

THANK YOU !

You have a very nice publication ... I am very impressed!

Bette Blu

Mayer, Arizona

===================================================================================

RESPECT REFERENDUM RESULTS ;

There is something seriously wrong with our Democratic process when the majority vote is ignored. The ignoring of the results of a referendum, allows minority groups to call the results “misunderstood”, because they did not like the results.
Whether or not, you do not like the ability of voters to file a referendum by using a small percentage of the voters. The blatant fact remains, that the entire voting community has the option to vote on the issue . The prior Proposition 421 was presented two years ago to all registered voters, and voted on by over 67% of the voting public, and it did not pass. It case anybody forgot ! IT DID NOT PASS ! History is based on facts.
HELLO ! Democracy in action. This is why our soldiers, have given their lives for our country. Of course, one has the freedom to express their opinion, but at some point it sounds like SOUR GRAPES.
Suggestion: Recognize the majority vote on a Referendum or issue, and maybe save some ink, and help unite our town.
Thought: Is the reason for trying to stop the current Referendum because they are afraid the majority of voters will NOT Vote, for high density housing AGAIN ?

Wickenburgnews.com Editorial Board

===================================================================================

ETHICS PROGRAM NEEDED FOR WICKENBURG

On May 2, 2006, the Scottsdale City Council approved a comprehensive Public Service Ethics Program, which establishes ethical standards for city officials and employees. Highlights of the program include:

1. A policy statement that "honesty, integrity, fairness...are hallmarks of public service. Use of one's office or position for personal gain or inappropriate influence will not be tolerated."

2. Creation of conflict of interest standards and procedures.

3. Creation of standards for accepting gifts.

4. A section on Open Government and Open Meeting laws.

5. A section on preserving public documents.

6. A section pertaining to undue influence on subordinates, and

7. A comprehensive complaint procedure for any person who believes a city official has violated the code of ethical behavior.

Under the Code of Ethical Behavior, the Mayor and council must take ethics training within 30 days of being sworn into office and annually thereafter. Additionally, they are required to sign a "Code of Ethical Behavior" document and fill out a "Personal Interest Disclosure Form" to reveal conflicts of interest. Violation of conflict of interest laws may result in various sanctions, including criminal penalties, personal financial liability, cancellation of contracts, public embarrassment and removal from office.

On May 15, 2006, I presented this ublic Service Ethics Program to Wickenburg's Town Council and asked them to place this on a future agenda as a consideration for Wickenburg. They Mayor responded that the council would place it on an agenda if they agreed it should be addressed.

Residents of Wickenburg should demand implementation of an ethics program similar to Scottsdale's program, to avoid ethical issues of preferential treatment, conflict of interest and favoritism by our Town Council. Many large employers have such programs in place, considered as the cost of doing business. Implementing a strong ethics program may also help prevent lawsuits against the town because a complaint procedure is built into the program.

The future of Wickenburg is at stake. It is not acceptable for our Town Council to continue making decisions based on their own personal interests. Interested citizens can access the Scottsdale ethics information at www.scottsdaleaz.gov. Click on Mayor, Council and Government under Browse by Topic. Click on Agenda and Documents (City Council). Click on May 2, 2006, the last item.

Donna Abbott

ALSO, Submitted to the Wickenburg Sun May 22, 2006

===================================================================================

CHRONOLOGY OF THE RAY JOHNS PETITIONS FOR A REFERENDUM WITH QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS by Adrian Richards

Sequence of Events

The Wickenburg Common Council passed an ordinance to rezone a developer’s parcels.
This action was highly controversial and many voters objected to the action.
An official referendum form was obtained from the Town Clerk to bring the rezoning decision to the voters of Wickenburg. The Town Clerk carefully advised the referendum petitioner how to fill out the form and how to legally obtain signatures in support.
The referendum was oversubscribed by signatures and turned in to the Town Clerk in the allotted time frame. Because there is no space on the referendum form to insert the description, the description was typed on a piece of paper that was stapled to the referendum form. The Town Clerk for past referendums had used this procedure as the Wickenburg Town Attorney advised the Clerk that stapling the description to the petition would not invalidate the petition. We might add that the Town Clerk is very meticulous about observing all legalities.
The referendum was approved by the Town Clerk and forwarded to the Maricopa County authority for signature verification.
The referendum was returned to the Town Clerk with the county ok.
The referendum petitioner was notified that the referendum was legal.
The developer contacted a Phoenix law firm to find out how to negate the referendum.
The law firm notified the Town, and the Town Attorney, with the following words: “The legislature expressly required referendum proponents to ‘insert’ the description on the face of the petition, not include the description as an attachment. The description was not inserted into the petition in violation of the statute.” “Therefore, the petitions are invalid.”
The Town officials had a telephone conference call discussion with the Town Attorney. The Town Attorney is understood to have said that this aspect of the ARS has never been tested in court and therefore this is a legal gray area.
Evidently on the basis of this advice, the Mayor told the Town Clerk to invalidate the referendum petitions. We understand that the Mayor said that the developerwould sue the Town and was of the opinion that the petitioner had no money and therefore would not be in a position to sue.
The Town Clerk notified the petitioner in writing that the Town rejected the referendum petitions.
Despite a display of great unhappiness by townsmen and women at the Council meeting on Monday night, the Town refused to rescind its action. The referendum stands canceled with no possibility for any petitioner to issue a new one. The developer has won over the rights of the Wickenburg voters.

Questions and Comments

A. Since the Wickenburg Town Attorney had advised the Town Clerk that stapling the referendum description to the official form would not invalidate the petitions, why did the Mayor apparently only react to the information contained in letters from the developer's attorney rather than information obtained from the Town's attorney?

B. Why was the Mayor so anxious to avoid any possibility of a lawsuit from the developer, when no written threat of a lawsuit evidently has been made? According to the Town Manager, he has not heard of any threat of a lawsuit by the developer.

C. Why did the Mayor so speedily instruct the Town Clerk to invalidate the petition after receiving the letters from the Developer's attorney and after talking with the Town's attorney?

D. Town officials have refused to say what information was obtained from the Town's attorney that caused the Mayor to act so hastily; however, we understand that the Town’s attorney only advises the Town and does not make recommendations.

E. What is the incentive for the Mayor to support continuously the developer and not consider the desires of the voters? After the vote on referendum 421, he said that one should listen to the voters. Later he indicated that he favored a second referendum that would clarify the voter’s wishes. Now he has squelched this opportunity. Is he afraid that the voters would reject the Council’s action?

F. It is understood that there is only one piece of evidence that governs the potential legality of the Mayor's decision. That is the word "insert" regarding attachment of the referendum description to the referendum document. To have done what the Town Clerk advised the petitioner was not illegal. There is nothing in the Arizona Revised Statues indicating illegality. If the word "insert" is tested by an Arizona Court, the decision could be either legal or illegal. But to date this has not been done. One wonders why the developer was so anxious to have the referendum petitions invalidated at the cost of disfranchising the voters of Wickenburg out of their legal rights?

One of the primary functions of zoning is intended to be the preservation of existing neighborhoods according to the Wickenburg Town Planner. Preservation of the neighborhood that surrounds the Wickenburg Country Club Estates will be by keeping the existing R1-35 zoning, which is strongly supported by almost all owners of the surrounding properties and the town’s people by their vote on referendum 421.

The Developer has confirmed recently that he is a resident of Utah. His Utah Company, owner of the Wickenburg Country Club Estates, appears insensitive to the adverse affect on the spaciousness of the Wickenburg Lifestyle by having the property rezoned from the existing R1-35 to R1-12. Although the Wickenburg Town Council supported this project, we believe this was not appropriate because the process of approval by the Council made a mockery of participatory democracy.

====================================================================================

MORE AND MORE READERS :

Nice doin'
is the message this first-time reader conjures.
Robert Schneider, Congress.

=============================================================================
Thanks Wickenburgnews.com

Just a quick note to tell you how much I enjoy reading Wickenburgnews.com. The Local News section is a welcome change from the Wickenburg Sun. I share Robert Hipman's concerns about the roundabouts and encourage everyone to voice your concerns to ADOT using the weblink provided in his article. Also, Jim Ferman's comments are especially relevant as they pertain to the Town Council's complete disregard for the wishes of the people.

This is evident in Mr. Zerby's recent letter to the Wickenburg Sun, where he states that anyone who doesn't provide a solution "is part of the problem". My, how his views have changed since his comments when he first took office!

This Town Council needs to go...watch for continued discussions regarding recall.

Donna Abbott

Wickenburg

=====================================================================================

Thanks Wickenburgnews.com

Just want to let you know we appreciate a new edgy source for news in the Wickenburg area. For too long, many events have just been painted over, or under reported. You differently have me as a reader. and I will tell many others. Keep up the good work.

Todd Smith

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terms of Responsible Journalism:

Wickenburg has been so fortunate to have a newspaper for many years in the Wickenburg Sun. With so many different topics regarding the future of Wickenburg, it might be a great time to define the terminology used by the journalistic world, according to the dictionary.

1. Journalism: reporting news for media: the profession of gathering, editing, and publishing news reports and related articles for newspapers, magazines, television, or radio and the internet. Biased one-sided, self-severing information is that journalism?

2. Democracy: Free and equal representation of people: the free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government, often practiced by electing representatives of the people by the majority of the people. Failure to represent the majority results in a Referendum.

3. Referendum: Vote by whole population on issue: a vote by the whole of an electorate on a specific question or questions put to it by a government or petition drive. Since when is there an “unfair referendum” process in a Democracy? When? When a small self-serving group wants to deny the Democratic process it is called “ unfair”. Their goal is to keep the majority rule out of the equation, thus serving the minority group.

4. Zoning: Separate area with particular function: an area regarded as separate or kept separate, especially one with a particular use or function. Protection of existing zoning is the responsibility of the government, the elected officials. Failure to represent the majority, results in Recall.

5. Recall: Dismissal from office by vote: the dismissal from office of an elected official by a popular vote, or the right of the electors to do this. Denial of this process is the dreams and wants of a closed society, not a Democracy.

So what does Recall and Referendum have to do with the zoning of property? EVERYTHING!

WE ARE STILL PRACTICING DEMOCRACY !!

It is the goal of the Wickenburgnews.com to be fair and balanced and represent all of the voters of our great area. WELCOME TO WICKENBURGNEWS.COM

========================================================================================

Thresholds

A quiet town -Wickenburg was a town that represented the last remnants of a genuine to live simply, in a natural environment where there is more open space than people. This is what Wickenburg use to be.

But not anymore. Now people and developers are changing Wickenburg. They complain about low density. They want affordable housing, but the developers offer high end homes. They are the kind of people who love the star-filled desert evenings, but then put up a 20 foot high mercury vapor light in their driveways. These are the kind of people who actually decide to marry someone, so they can completely change them into something more suitable.

Many in the Wickenburg area don't want to live in cities with smoothly paved roads and light pollution spilling from every driveway and strip mall. They don't want to live in dense environments where getting from point A to B is a matter of speed.

Many of these people don't enjoy light pollution or car alarms. They don't follow the frenzied need to haul-ass up and down the roads.

Frankly, I don't want to hear all the whining about the rural country being, well, country. All the comforts and sensibilities of urban life are plentiful in urban areas, about 25 miles from Wickenburg.

I guess it is not enough for me to simply stand up and say "NO" without a need to win or be right. So to those people and developers who have arrived to set up camp in our community, the answer out my way is "NO". You can't have a strip mall on US 93. You can't pave Scenic Loop Drive. If you don't like the wat Wickenburg is, you can check out the urban wonderlands to the southeast of us.

Richard Wertz

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TALK WICKENBURG This is an on-line discussion forum with the purpose to discuss issues, inform and seek solutions to keep Wickenburg a great place. All topics regarding Wickenburg and the surrounding area are welcome

Have a Wickenburg news story?

Letters to the editor?

e-mail info@wickenburgnews.com

SPONSORS