Tuesday October 6, 2015
Jump to content
Floodwaters trap rescuers October 6, 2015
Did you all get your ballots in the mail today?
This has to be the tops for stupid laws.
There are 4 people on the ballot. They already are the council and no one running against them.
I called the town and they said they had to mail them out no matter that no one is running against them.
If they don't get 50% plus one then we will have another election and one vote will get them in.
Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture?
Oh yes, and this election will probably cost a little over $30,000.
Salary for one fireman ?
Right on! I posted in another string. But, I'm illuminated here to know that the election would need to be repeated is the 50%+1 doesn't work.
Don't these town officials realize that they are spending our tax money frivolously? Remember this fiasco when we are asked to approve another school tax override. BTW, the schools just received a $1.5 million grant, as noted in Friday's Roundup (the 24th).
It is not the town wanting to spend our tax dollars for the election.
It's state law.
Regardless, certainly a waste of money.
It all filters down.
Federal, state, county, towns, and school boards making stupid laws, regulations or whatever.
Lets have one more ballot, get rid of all politicians thier self serving ideas and go back to the Ten Commandments.
I am sure I am opening myself up to abuse here, BUT having said that. I see and hear a lot of complaining yet for all that it seems no one wants to run for office. I did my stint in Pa. as a Mayor for 4 years (I refer to them as the LONGEST 4 years of my life) and while I do not always agree with the elected town government, I give them credit for being in that three ring circus called local politics.
Pat mentioned filter down, it certainly does with local government being the LAST place where the Surge Cleaner (someone will know that) deposits all from above. I can remember being totally frustrated by the inability to properly serve my citizens because we didn't have the funds to do this and that, OR if the funds were available through a "higher power" they came with some many strings attached that it was better to forgo the project. I am remined of President Clinton's "Cops Grant" To my small community (with two full time officers) it sounded like a Godsend. HOWEVER, after examining the rules, we were better off NOT accepting any money, as what sounded SO GOOD on the surface was mostly smoke and mirrors. The same came forefront to me when our councill deceided to try and replace/renovate the towns 50+ year old community pool. The orignal pool was built by the community with volunteers and local contactors donating lots of time and equipment. Ok, there was grant money availble, but first we needed to do a "study." Cost $20,000, about 3/4 of what the pool cost originally. The report came back and if we wanted to partake of "the Golden Goose" (read grant money) the pool rebuiling would cost from $650 K to $1.1 M. Well anyway, I am off the subject. Many times I saw people come on council with one purpose, they either left when that was accompolished, OR left because they found out that in the real world what they wanted to do, they couldn't.
So, I guess if you don't like the way things go, either run for office or make your feelings know tto those who are there. If you run for office God Bless you, you are about to spend the "longest 2 or 4 years of your life!"
It doesn't do any good to make your feelings known and it is hard to talk at council meetings since you only get a minute or two to say anything. If you talk privately with a council member they will agree to anything you say untill you walk away. Been there, done that.
Payson doesn't need local contractors and volunteers, they would rather pay a grant writer and get grants and go by thier restrictions.
I find it facinating that when the town was prospering and jobs were plentiful, the public voices of opposition were screeming bloody murder about growth and change. Those voices rallied and became a majority and voted in officials who would control the growth and change and thus close the door on prosperity. Unfortunately, when those people found themselves in power, they also had to deal with a reality that was changing the high rolling times to something less. I don't think they were prepared for the natural evolution of progress. Had they been more forward thinking, perhaps the downtrend in the ecomony wouldn't have hit us so hard.
In came those who see forward and dream. Those who have a future in mind for the community. Did they come to late? I believe so. Did they try hard to bring back vision and future to our lives?
I believe so. Have they found help? I don't know, but I do know that no one else has stepped up to make it better. I praise those who will continue, and I will reject any further complaints or objections.
I want us to prosper. I want us to move forward. I want us to recover the 10% loss in the working, taxpaying population, so that we can get back on a growing track.
I remember the the 80s when this community lived and died by the summer season and I believe we deserve better than that.
I doesn't matter what shape the rest of the country is in, it only matters what we decide the shape of our community is in and then move forward.
Praise to those willing to serve, elect them by an overwhelming majority and let's get on with it.
I wish some of you would go to the town and really check out how many building permits were bought each year before Mr. Edwards was Mayor. I did a long time ago and he did not stop the building by the limit that was put on them. He also was not the only one that voted. there are seven people sitting there on thier little thrones.
Go get the information and read it !!!
Not certain what this has to do with the primary election but I am taking the bait.I agree with Dan on some bits and pieces of what he said.There is little controversy so there is little interest. What I will disagree with is genuine economic growth does not equate to building houses. See the Las Vegas area and Arizona in general. Growth was strictly based on how many homes you could build. One of the reasons moratoriums and limits tend not to work to control growth since economics, i.e. supply and demand theory are really the controlling factors. The demand for homes was created by this idea that you build and people will invest by borrowing against equity to get in on the action to make money and the supply increased but the demand was artificially created, hence foreclosure after foreclosure, and many people in AZ and Payson in general are completely upside down and have little chance to get what they paid back unless there is some real economic growth. I equate it to Beanie Babies. All these people rushed to buy these things since the demand was strong for investing in them. All of sudden, people decide to sell and what was once $20 is now 20 cents at the local yard sales. People literally spent their extra money on these fuzz balls for investments. The hysteria theory of artificial growth was at play in both beanie babies and in housing.
I agree with Dan that the economic model of depending on summer tourists is a lousy economic growth model. But I also believe just building homes is a lousy economic model.True economic growth can only occur if there are some job creators in the local economy that are manufacturing products or services that bring new money into the area. Whether this is a college or high tech firm, or a revitalize vibrant tourist town, has yet to be determined. I do know that the current economic model of summer tourism is not working and will not work to have any real financial growth. The biggest employers in the area are all government related, schools, town, forest service, excluding medical center. Clearly the schools and town are not in the hiring mode.
If growth is to be based on tourism, then it has to be much more than "gee it sure is pretty outside". Sedona figured that one out and has been able to provide tourist related services that attract more tourists. For example their running event attracted around 2000 people in February and it truly was a "town" event where the chamber and the town officials worked together to make it very special and I suppose if they were like me, they spent many a dollar enjoying themselves. But they have had to cope with dwindling tourists since that spending is discretionary and travel is down.
As far as the Primary, I am happy that there enough to fill the positions so they have my support for putting in the time to manage the town affairs.
We are probably known as the town in Arizona that has the most 'Antique' shops, thrift shops, and veternarians in the state. Oh and the worst looking signs lining the sidewalks and intersections.
What a tourist hot spot.
As for managing town affairs, changing the ordinances that are in place, easier to change them than to enforce them.
ASU is coming to town and it will all be wonderful.
Who won the primary? (:
When do we get the count on how many people voted?
Posting comments requires a free account