The concerns of our citizens are always on my mind. Why? Because they are most of the same concerns I have.

Every day I will post a new question or idea on this page that I have received to this sites email address and I think most of you will realize that the same questions have popped into your own heads.......

Todays Thought...

I just want to remind everyone to get out tommorrow and vote!

Your choice tommorrow will decide whether we have: 1) a strong, open, transparent, and trustworthy government that we as citizens can be proud of, or 2)  we have 2 more years of "backroom" deals, misinformation, broken city codes, and conflicts-of-interest.

If you desire number one then dont forget to write-in

MICHAEL GODSEY for Mayor!

Here are the differences between Michael Godsey and Tony Smith....

1) Michael Godsey is against the airport.

Tony Smith is for it.

2) Michael Godsey feels our development fees that are 3-5 times higher than every city in the valley are a reason we have difficulty attracting business here that we need and the main reason our commercial rent is so high and driving our small businesses out.

Tony Smith thinks reducing these fees will reduce our city funds and affect projects. Mr Smith is counting money we dont have yet and will struggle to get in the future because of our dowturning economy.

3) Michael Godsey has no conflicts-of-interests He is a Boy Scout volunteer and owns his home, thats it.

Tony Smith is a consultant and claims he has no conflicts and stated in the media he would not accept clients doing business with the city. However; he was on the P&Z board that approved the ethanol plant in town and now is working a contract for them. He is on the leadership of a church that sold land to the city. I dont believe that conflicts-of-interest is somthing Mr Smith can avoid.

4) Michael Godsey is against the recent firings of our Fire Chief and Planning Director and feels the action clearly violated our city code . Michael plans to return these types of important decisions to the council where they belong and require our city manager to keep the council (and the public) advised.

Mr Smith supports our City Manager and his decisions.

5) Michael Godsey feels there are better options for our redevelopment district than declaring it "slum and blighted" He believes there should be a plan to present to the residents rather than a designation that scares them and leaves them wondering of their future.

Mr Smith attacked me publicly for sharing information with the people in the affected area that had requested information from me.

6) Michael Godsey thinks 30,000 citizens can come up with better ideas for our city than a handful of city officials.

Mr Smith thinks he knows whats best.

7) Michael Godsey thinks the city owes it to the citizens to go above-and-beyond the required communication regulations so we can begin to restore the citizens faith in our government

Mr Smith thinks 2 town hall meetings a year  and a couple minor concessions should do the trick to address our citizens concerns

8) Michael Godsey stated at a club meeting, when asked about being a leader, that he preferred to be a representative because we have no representation in this city.

Mr Smith attacked at the candidate forum by misquoting the comment and declaring his opponent doesnt want to be a leader but neglected to share the full story.

8) Michael Godsey thinks

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

IT IS TIME FOR THE CITIZENS TO TAKE OUR CITY BACK!!!!

Mr Smith is right in line with our current administration and supports them. Sure he has made a comment or two about the city falling into a funk or the city should reduce its conflicts-of-interest problems, but yet Mr Smith has them too.

So I ask you to choose tommorrow...

Which candidate do you want representing you!!!

WRITE-IN:

MICHAEL GODSEY

FOR MAYOR

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

In regards to the recent firings of our Fire Chief and Planning Director, Mr Smith is quoted as saying,"In June 2006, an ordinance was passed amending section 3-1-1 of the City code regarding the responsibility and actions that can taken on certain personnel issues. Currently, City Council only makes personnel decisions regarding the City Manager, the City Attorney and City Magistrate. The City Manager has the responsibility for making all other staffing decisions."

Sorry Mr Smith, this is not a true statement. In fact, section 3-1-1 doesnt even apply to these 2 positions and even if it did, it doesnt give the City Manager the power to hire or fire these individuals, but would give him the right to recommend the council appoint/fire them.

Here is what the amendment says and the way it was presented...

An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Maricopa, Arizona, amending section 3-1-1 of “The Code of the City of Maricopa, Arizona” to change the authority to appoint the City Clerk, Director of Finance, Chief of Police and the City Engineer from the City Council to the City Manager and to provide that such officers shall report to the City Manager.

City Manager Buss presented the agenda item.  He stated that Council would still appoint for these positions but that they would be reporting to the City Manager.  He added that these employees would be protected under the merit system. 

And here is what the city code says under section 3-2-1, H-2, under "Duties of the City Manager"...

"All department heads shall be appointed (by the city manager)  subject to radification by the council". Therefore to fire these individuals would also require radification by the council and should be a public process.

Point being, all department heads can answer to our City Manager, but hiring or firing of them or senior staff positions should be a public process controlled by the council and based on recommendations made by the City Manager.

If you want our city to operate in the "public eye" instead of behind closed doors then...

I AM YOUR CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR!!!

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

I decided to leave the previous post up for a bit because it is by far one of the most important issues that our city faces today.

Trust and communication are 2 things that our city cannot succeed without. It has become quite clear to most that the current administration are beyond the point of being able to restore this.

I found some interesting notes in regards to  Ethics Policies from other cities....

"Elected officials are representatives of the people at large. Not to be using their political office to advance private interests"

"Preservation of public trust is critical for the preservation of democracy"

"It is the duty of any city official under the implied ethics of his position to create a persona of responsible, accessible and fair city government"

Does our current administration follow these ethics policies?

If your answer is NO then....

I AM YOUR CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR!!

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

Communication:

I have been speaking out about the importance of communication from our city.

Things like:

1) videotaping every public meeting

2) going above the state minimums on things like the mandated 24 hour advanced posting for agendas giving people time to prepare or research their opinions and present them.

3) Taking the extra time if a conflict-of-interest issue arises to reassure the citizens and present the facts to them to eliminate any rumors.

4) A report from all city departments giving updates on ongoing or upcoming projects on a monthly (or at very least quarterly) basis to promote hope and excitment in our citizens and give them something to look forward to.

5) Meeting with our local media to discuss dedicating a page in their publications to city announcements, agendas, and notices. So those without internet access are not left uninformed.

6) Realizing that the state sets bare minimums on communication statutes but the cities can do more, but not less, and remembering that legal minimums dont always meet moral obligations.

7) Sharing the good news as well as the bad.

8) Restoring trust in our city government 

If these things are important to you then..........

I AM YOUR CANDIDATE!

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

2/21/08

I have received several emails from worried citizens because of recent developments in the city. At the last city council meeting, the topic of the Community of Hope land purchase was voted unanimously to approve despite an outcry from the public for more information. Mr McDonald with Parks and Rec. presented the park expansion for this area when a concerned citizen asked  how much money the church originally paid for the land. It was stated that the church paid $65,300 per acre, not $67,300 as reported on 85239.com, and the city was paying the church $70,000 per acre. The citizen was warded off by Councilman Dunn who stated it was a good financial move because we are paying $10,000 under appraisal. This citizen then attacked Mr Dunn's financial decisions based on the fact Mr Dunn is in bankruptcy. A heated exchange followed with Mr Dunn claiming he was in bankruptcy but is not currently, before a police officer removed the citizen from the podium.

Before the vote, Vice-Mayor Murphree recused himself due to being a member of the church and part of the church finance committee and Mr Smith is a member of the Church leadership team but has recused himself from the discussions. Does this make any citizens feel better about the deal? Me neither.

For those of us that feel communication and trust are a big problem in Maricopa, we just took a HUGE step backward on this deal. The deal may be nothing more than a very nice and generous offer by the church, but if so, it has just been overshadowed by conspiracy allegations.

Here is what I would like to see:

1) A current appraisal of the land value ($80,000/acre appraisal seems high) to see if we really are getting a good deal.

2) A very clear joint agreement on this parking lot lease describing its intended uses and authority over its control. I also would like to see a clear definition and terms of the community center the church is wanting to build.

3) A legal, sworn statement from Mr Smith and Vice Mayor Murphree and any other individual with ties to both parties, stating they have not been a part of ANY negotiations or discussions between the city and the church or any members of either party involved, so that if we discover otherwise we will have legal options. And full disclosure of any discussions these individuals have had with either party. I dont buy the excuse of "I recused myself, so I am not really involved."

4) A timeline of events that lead up to the deal.

5) The city enter into no agreement with the church until AFTER the church has closed escrow. This is where allegations of things like the church using Maricopa tax dollars to pay for closing costs or any other costs associated with settlement, come from. Wait until after the church completes its deal with the landowner.

Once again, progress has been hampered by conspiracy, conflicts-of-interest, and mistrust. Even before the election has taken place, Mr Smith has campaigned against all the conflicts-of-interest issues yet so far Mr Smith has one in regards to the church land deal and has another one by working as a consultant for the ethanol plant. 

Does this path look familiar?

If trust, communication, and representation are important to you, then:

I AM YOUR CANDIDATE!

2/18/08

I have a suggestion to resolve the many rumors and ridiculous comments being made....

I suggest a public debate between myself and Mr Smith. Not a forum, a full blown debate. I suggest certain city staff be on hand to directly confirm or deny comments made during the debate. For example, Mr Roger Kohlman, to address the information NOT shared on the annexation flyer that the city produced in regards to the property taxes, to share with us the amount of non-grant money spent on the airport to date, or to share the opinion he voiced at the meet the staff meeting of being in a revenue crunch right now in Maricopa. Also including Mr Brent Billingsly to share a rundown of all the upcoming transportation projects which are actually very exciting, and Mr Evans to once and for all confirm or deny the question "Is the city planning in any way to use eminent domain in the redevelopment area?" And share a proposed layout of the improvements that will be made to the area. The city says it has a plan, it is time to see it. These are some of the issues that plague the city so it makes sense to hear it straight from the city before we discuss it.

At that point Mr Smith and I will go head-to-head on our view of the issues and the truths will come out. I am talking about a debate where the candidates themselves can ask their opponent questions and have plenty of time for rebuttals. The 90 seconds given to us during the forum wasnt near enough. Mr Smith offered little more than attacks on me at the forum and I believe it cost him votes. There are those that dont want some of the truths to come out which is why I have been attacked.

Some citizens have called for a debate, so lets have one!

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

2/17/08

As usual I have taken a few shots from uninformed people on the 85239 forum who felt the need to comment on a meeting that they didnt even attend. On the issue of Development fees. I have said it before, our development fees are 3-5 times higher than most valley cities. A 100,000 sq ft building will be charged over $1 million in fees in Maricopa whereas the same development would pay an average of just over $300,000 in almost every other valley city.

Mr Smith did  ask Mr Kohlman how the difference was made up if we reduce the fees and Mr Smith asked if we would have to raise taxes or cut back on capital projects. Mr Kohlman did not indicate that was true. Raising taxes was a question by Mr Smith, not a statement by Mr Kohlman as indicated in the 85239 forum.  I pointed out at that point that there is no money to be made up. If we have a "shovel-ready" site but cannot attract a business to it than we are receiving no money anyway. In fact we are carrying the debt required to make it "shovel-ready" to begin with. Mr Smiths question on development fees was strictly to counteract my views on a  topic that I brought up on this site a month ago. I have spoken in-depth with Mr Kohlman at the annexation meeting about this topic.

On the candidate forum yesterday, if someone on the 85239 forum heard that I bombed it then that shows how uninformed they really are and they really should have been there because that certainly isnt the case. My level of applause and support was considerably higher than Mr Smiths throughout the forum and I gathered a great deal of support by many people afterwards, including a former Smith supporter who was turned off by his attacks on me during the forum.  In fact most  members of a local club that Mr Smith belongs to have come out with great support for my campaign. So I can only suggest to those making the negative comments on 85239 that they attend the meetings and hear it first hand instead of sitting on the sidelines and passing judgement on a conversation you didnt hear, because you arent helping your candidate you are actually hurting him.

The support for my campaign has grown tremendously and some of it has come because of the ridiculously uninformed comments being made about me on the 85239 forum. I find them quite empowering and entertaining.  

As for the negative comments supposedly made by 2 council candidates about me, the person on 85239 forum should reveal their identities instead of relying on hear-say, but I doubt these comments were actually made. If a candidate did make them then I encourage them to have the courage to come forward publicly and address the issue or we certainly do not need them on our council and we certainly cannot trust their candor or lack of.  If you cant be up-front with me, you certainly wont be up-front with our citizens.

 I have met the candidates and most of the candidates have been very professional, curteous, and have been very encouraging. I have enjoyed their company and I have a great deal of respect for them and their opinions as long as they are willing to share them and support them as strongly as I support mine. If they arent willing to do that then they shouldnt be running.

If anyone wishes to see for themselves the sources of information I am using I will be happy to share it with them. These sources include minutes from city council meetings, state statutes, FAA documents and several other sources. I can support my sources and my views. 

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

2/15/08

I had already posted today but decided to add to it. In response to a comment made by a citizen on 85239 forum. I wish he had actually attended the "Meet the Staff" meeting this week and heard for himself what was ACTUALLY said. This person states that a few council member candidates told him that I did not ask one question, instead only made follow-up questions. I am afraid that is not the truth. On the topic of communications, it was not brought up by Mr Smith originally. Mr Billingsly had just shared some encouraging projects that he is working on so I inquired why  we do not share this information with the citizens. At that point, Mr Evans responded by saying the city uses multiple streams for ditributing information and is not sure what else could be done, but would listen to ideas if we had any. Mr Smiths "communication" plan was not introduced at this meeting only the suggestion of having a plan. I have read Mr Smiths communication plan that he posted and think he has some good ideas, but I feel they come up short as a solution to the problem.

Also, it was my call for a reduction in the development fees that have hindered our ability to attract commercial development and is the main reason for the high commercial rents that have forced some of our small businesses to close their doors. To date, no other candidate has even mentioned this. Mr Smiths first question was an attempt to combat this theory by asking how our fees compare to area cities. He then followed up by asking if taxes would have to increase to offset lowering impact fees. Which is not the case. I pointed out at that time that if we have a "shovel ready" site but our fees are too high and a commercial development does not come than we are "out" no money, it is not money we had to begin with. I then stated that 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing, dont you think?

It was Mr Smiths attempt to "shoot down" a topic that I brought up a month ago and was the first candidate to do so. I have met with several of the new city council candidates myself and they have indicated their support to my platform on this, and I on theirs as well.

Another question brought up originally by me and never addressed by Mr Smith was directed at our Police Chief in regards to our growing gang and graffitti problem. Chief Melvin was very responsive and concerned and reassured me that the effort to combat this would continue.

I asked several questions at this meeting and can only conclude that the council candidates that indicated otherwise to this citizen making the post, may be part of the existing administration up for reelection that are not very excited about me disrupting their way of doing things.

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

2/15/08

TRUST

It is a small word in size, but a huge word in meaning. I have asked 2 questions at every speaking engagement I have attended and asked for a show of hands.

1) Does the city do a good job of communicating with the citizens?

2) Do you trust our city government?

To this day, not one individual has raised their hand. This is by far the biggest issue we have. I have previously addressed below, many occassions where the city has failed to keep us informed on a project (such as Walmart) or a plan, and other instances where the city just wasnt truthful. Not to say they lied, but they certainly didnt share all the facts with the citizens on some major issues, such as the airport, annexation, the redevelopment proposal, and many others.

A town hall meeting a couple times a year like my opponent is talking about isnt enough. Its an improvement but still falls short. We have to think bigger on this. Constant communication by ways of things like a monthly department progress report on ongoing and upcoming projects or plans from all departments should be widely published and distributed. The city has indicated a reluctance to this in fear that it would create too much anger toward the city if a project or plan doesnt come to life or is delayed or even changed slightly. So instead they wait and notify us citizens when it is a done deal.

To that I say "Are you kidding me?" Most reasonable people understand completely that sometimes "life happens". Plans change for a variety of reasons.  Most people can handle the truth, even if they dont like it. But hiding the truth is not the answer. We are not children that you need to protect. In fact, sharing these updates and soliciting more input will have a positive effect by giving the citizens something to look forward to and showing them that action is being taken to address the issues they are concerned about. Videotaping council meetings is another plus. Publishing agendas for meetings further in advance to give the citizens time to voice their concerns or opinions is another important step. Getting out and asking the citizens is a key. We cannot rely on an open meeting in a building that holds merely 100 or so people to determine the needs of our 30,000+ citizens.

Remember, if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem. That reluctance the city has is part of the problem. There are actually some encouraging things that the city is working on but most people do not know about them.

TRUST..... lets fix this issue first!! 

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

2/13/08

Today I want to address a statement again brought up in a local media source by a citizen. The citizen claims that statements posted on my site are innacurate. One statement in particular is about the use of grant money to purchase land for an airport. This is what the individual says; "I saw that Candidate Godsey provided a list of what can't be done with the grant money for an airport. You need to know that most of what he stated is NOT accurate information. An example; buying the land for an airport. Buying land for an airport can indeed be purchased with grant money."

 I totally agree that land can be purchased with grants and I said that to begin with. I have underlined  and enlarged the section this individual refers to (about half-way down this page) and can only conclude that this person did not read it very carefully or did not comprehend its content. I simply provided a quote from Mr Harris, of Coffman and Assoc. who is from the firm doing our city's airport study.

If anyone has any questions as to where I obtain the information that I provide on this website, I encourage them to just ask. Most things said on this website are not strictly based on my opinions they are direct quotes from; state statutes, city council minutes, feasibility studies, and other verifiable sources that I will be happy to share.

On another note, I attended a "Meet the Staff" event last night where all the candidates were given the opportunity to meet the city staff and ask questions about any department. I left that meeting feeling encouraged in some areas and discouraged in others. I was encouraged by some of the departments' candor and ideas and recognition of the fact that we have to work harder in several areas.

Here is what I found very discouraging...Some future transportation plans and commercial development plans were talked about and were enlightening, but I brought up the fact that "communication" has been poor and most of our citizens are unaware of these "plans" and asked the staff how we could improve communication and keep our citizens updated and avoid rumors. The response was troubling. The city staff did not recognize probably the most important issue we face, trust and communication, as being an issue at all. I was told that with all the newspapers we have here and the city TV channel and its website, the staff felt there isnt much more they could do but if we had any ideas they would be happy to listen.

So I want every citizen to ask yourself these questions. "Do I trust our current city governement?" and "Does the city do a good job of communicating with the citizens?" I suspect the answer to these questions is a distinct "no" in most cases because I have heard this an overwhelming amount of times during my campaign. So here lies the problem. How can we fix a problem if our city staff doesnt recognize it as a problem.....The answer...We can't. It sounds like the city is frequently on a different page than the bulk of our citizens. Its time to change that.

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

2/11/08

In this campaign we have seen many candidates coming out against conflict-of-interests, including my opponent. So when I read the following statements (the first being from a May 2006 City Council Meeting and the second coming directly from Mr Smith) I have to wonder.....

Today I want to talk about another topic that I am in favor of. One that no other candidate has addressed. The creation of a Social Services Department. I am talking about a department initially comprised of 3 sections; child advocacy, elder services, and family support.

Here is how it works. First, Child Advocacy. In regards to education, many of our citizens feel that their children fall through the cracks in our school system. Our kids need advocates, but many parents do not know how to effectively advocate for their children because many schools lead them to believe that they are already doing everything possible. The fact is that we, as parents, and our children have several rights and the schools have several obligations to meet all of our students needs. As the father of a "special ed" child, we have been challenged by the schools many times. Thankfully, I have family members with professions in education in another state that have been instrumental in sharing and educating my family on what rights we actually have as parents that can help our students. Without this support I would have had no idea what obligations the schools have to accomodate my daughter and her special needs because the schools will mostly attempt to make your child "fit" into their program instead of making the schools programs accomodate your child. I am talking about a professional that will fight for your rights and the rights of your child at school. Another area for child advocacy is support for neglected and abused children. Any child in need of an advocate for any number of topics will fall under this category.

Second, Family Support. This section will be responsible for helping families in need, locate the resources that can help them. Single parents, low income families, homeless, hungry, drug addiction, or anything that affects families need an advocate that can point them in the right direction, identify programs that can offer assistance, organize food drives or fundraisers or just be a source of information for those families that have no where else to turn.

Lastly, Elder Services. Most of us either have an elderly family member or know someone who does. Many times our elderly need assistance with a multitude of issues. Maybe a question about how Medicare works, or the benefits and pitfalls of Medicare Advantage plans compared to Medicare Supplements, or a social security question, or one that is struggling and just needs some advice and information on programs that can help, or someone needing hospice care or maybe a local private duty nurse or companion. Our elderly have spent their lives taking care of us and I think we certainly owe them the same in return.

Our city does not have to fund the programs necessary for assistance, there are many other agengies that do that. What I am talking about is a handful of professional, knowledgable advocates that at the very least can point our citizens in need, in the right direction. There is a great deal of federal and state grants, programs, funds, and other assistance available for those that need them but the problem is most people in need do not know about these programs or even know where to start. That is what I envision this department doing. A department whose sole purpose is to share information on assistance programs and support programs to those that need it. Imagine how a department like that could grow. If you or your family have a need of any kind, you shouldnt be held back by the fact that you dont know where to look for the answer.

A Social Services Department will  show you where to look. It is a good and necessary first step in improving the most important issue in Maricopa, our quality of life.

Even one child at a time, or one family at a time, or one elderly at a time, there is hope and we can provide it.

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

Here is the main problem with our city government and those candidates that come out in support of it.  Our city has grown to be one where the citizens have very little faith or trust in our city, and with good reason. The current administration and some of the current candidates are not telling you the truth. They are not necessarily lying to you but they are not giving you ALL of the facts, just the ones that sound good. Here's what I mean:

In regards to the airport, the city wants us to believe that most of the cost is going to be paid by grants and will require minimal investment on the city's part, and therefore be a good economic move for the city. The general statement, may be true, BUT what they are not telling you is most of the grants we are looking at are highly competitive and we may not even get them. The steps and expenses we are utilizing now are mostly prerequisite steps that are necessary to even attempt to qualify for these grants. These grants also often work on the basis of reimbursment.

On the redevelopment issue, the city calms us by stating that we dont have to worry about eminent domain because the state statutes prohibit the use of eminent domain for the purpose of economic development. That is true. The city states that it can only be used for public use like roads or utilities. BUT, what they dont tell you is what the whole state statute indicates. Sec 3 Title 12 Chapter 8 article 2.1 of the state statutes say this:

Public use means ANY of the following,

(i) The possession, occupation, and enjoyment of the land by the general public, or by public agencies.

(ii) The use of land for the creation or functioning of utilities.

(iii) The acquisition of property to eliminate a direct threat to public health and safety caused by the property in its current condition, including the removal of a structure that is beyond repair or unfit for human habitation.

According to the "Policy Brief" from the Goldwater Institute and the Arizona Chapter of the Institute for Justice, dated January 2006, it says that the definition of Public use "Allows the government to obtain property for traditional public uses like roads, schools, and municipal buildings, and problem properties..."

Municipal Buildings, huh? Like maybe a city hall? Or a park? Eminent domain can be used but is being downplayed.

On the issue of annexation. I was at the Saturday annexation meeting and was "misled" by the city along with the rest of the people in attendance. The city claimed at the meeting and in a public brochure, the following, "Residents within the proposed  annexation will receive the benefits of full fire and police services with NO additional tax increase to what you are currently paying."

Heres what they DIDNT tell them. This only applies if you are owner occupied AND zoned residential, otherwise your taxes CAN go up. The basis for the comment is on the fact that Arizona statute says that your primary tax can be no more than 1% of your assessed value and the people in attendance of this meeting were told they were already paying the maximum amount, BUT the secondary tax rate imposed by the city is not capped in this manner and therefore can go up. After hearing 2 ladies at the meeting showing concern about their tax rate, I saw that unless they knew to ask the right questions, then they would easily be misled, not by lies, but by not getting the whole truth. The taxes for those in the annexation area CAN go up, but we aren't telling them that. Instead we are misleading them by giving them part of the information.

Mr Smith makes a comment in his forum thread that even in a downturn, the city still processes a considerable amount of building permits. However, on my street alone, we have several completed but vacant homes, and more than 50 homes that have been completed for more than a year but still remain unoccupied in my neighborhood. Drive around town and notice the large number of "For Sale" signs on existing homes. So issuing permits isnt as encouraging as indicated. Mr Smith states in his recent forum entry that "We are very much off the population pace projected a couple of years ago. We must keep that in mind anytime we look at the various studies and be realistic." But yet he continues to support action taken on these various studies that made these incorrect assumptions. Such as the airport, and mass transit, and development fee study. Which is why I have been so critical of the studies and the action the city has taken. As I stated before the development fee study clearly says that if the assumptions prove incorrect then we MUST recalculate these fees. Our fees continue to be higher than most area cities, in some cases 3 times higher, and our own Finance Director, Mr Roger Kohlman told me Saturday that we are at a distinct disadvantage because of it.

It is no wonder we dont trust our city government. They arent being honest with us. I would venture to say that some of these misleading statements would border on the criminal side, if investigated.

 The citizens need to hear the pitfalls of these projects and expenditures as well as the good things or there is no possibility of informed consent and our citizens will continue to lose faith in our government if we dont stop our current path. I have spoken with several of the new candidates for city council and they are very much on-board with this view. It is the current administration and those candidates tied to it that are on the defensive.

Its time to change....

Its time to trust.....

Its time to get the job done!!!!

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

The comment by an individual with the screen name golf_rules2 on 85239.com about the Maricopa Boy Scout Troop 993 being a "special interest group" that could create a conflict-of-interest for me as Mayor, has been met with not only a strong response by myself as to how ridiculous such a comment is, I also wanted to share a letter sent to me by Mr Gerry Hahn, Troop 993 Committee Chairman and a recognized and distinquished scouter throughout the entire Grand Canyon Council and beyond. Here is Mr Hahns reply:

Dear MIke,

I was reading the thread posted by golf_rules2 on 85239.com and thought I would add a response.

Although the dictionary definition of a special interest group is: “An interest group (also advocacy group, lobby group, pressure group or special interest group) is an organized collection of people who seek to influence political decisions and policy, without seeking election to public office. They are a component of a pluralist democracy.”  I can’t recall the Boy Scouts having sought to “influence political decisions and policy.”  However, you should note that golf_rules2 may be correct.  The Boy Scouts of America may well be a special interest group.

After all, we concerned and devoted volunteers are dedicated to the special interest of providing a positive extracurricular environment and outlet for the teenage male youth of Maricopa.

We have a special interest in educating these young men in the ways of scouting – a world recognized non-profit organization in the positive development of young men.

We have a special interest in providing these young men the ability to conduct outdoor activities under the supervision of trained and experienced volunteers.

We ultimately have a special interest in preparing these young men for adulthood and good citizenship, with the teachings of scouting.

Maybe golf_rules2 might benefit from this sort of special interest activity instead of finding negativity in others who are doing their part and getting involved to try to make a difference.

Yours In Scouting,

Gerry Hahn

Committee Chairman

Troop 993

Thank you, Mr Hahn. I couldnt have said it better myself. For those of you unaware, Troop 993 is our local Maricopa Boy Scout Troop to which I am extremely proud to be a part of. Our Troop has grown from just 7 members as a "start-up" troop in April 2007 to almost 40 boys and an amazing group of parents and leaders to go with it. Whether it be on one of our monthly campouts or many fund raising events that we do, I can speak for many of the parents and leadership involved when I say that we, the adults, learn just as much from this amazing group of boys as they do from us, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart.

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

Today I was happy to see Mr Smith responding to direct questions in the media from citizens. I want to thank him for that. What his answers showed was the simple fact that while we may have the common goal of making Maricopa into a successful city, we certainly have different opinions on how that needs to happen. Here are some of the main differences.

1. Mr Smith stated today that he is in support of a regional airport in Maricopa because he believes it will be a good economical move.

I on the other hand am against an airport. And here's why:

A) My research found that the assumptions made in the feasibility study are flawed and highly inflated in regards to population growth over the next few years.

B) I had a conversation with Mr Bob Jackson, the Mayor of Casa Grande, about the economic impact their airport has had on Casa Grande and asked him if the airport was self-sustaining. He replied that their airport has been there since the '50s but has modern equipment such as an instrument landing system, and plenty of property but he cannot contribute any growth in his city to the airport. He also stated that up to this point the airport has NOT been able to sustain itself financially, but it is getting better.

C) Mr Harris, a consultant from Coffman & Assoc. ( the same people doing our airport study) stated to a group of citizens in regards to a feasibility study for the City of Goodyear's airport in regards to the question "How does the airport acquire land?" and his response was, "Land acquisition is eligible for FAA funding but it is typically reimbursed after the purchase is made."

To summarize, the airport in my opinion is not worth the maintenance costs, purchase and start-up costs (Mr Smith states that the city would have to pay roughly 1.1 million dollars of the initial investment but doesnt state how much the remainder will cost), or the many other costs associated with an airport, in the hopes that it MIGHT create a possible Industrial park around it and attract other businesses. There are other effective ways of doing so. The statement about a few hundred construction jobs that it would create is also misleading to me. Very few construction companies exist here in the city, there is substantial inbound traffic in the morning rush hour  toward Maricopa already. I am quite certain that the contractors awarded this project will likely be from out of town and therefore will increase the inbound traffic congestion that much more.

So my vote for the airport is NO, unless I see some better evidence of its success, in terms of commitments, not hopes from major employers that would be attracted to our city. And also my vote is NO because I see evidence that the majority of the citizens of Maricopa are against it as well, and to me that is what counts.

Check back tommorrow where I will be addressing some other differences of opinion between myself and Mr Smith.

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

Todays thought has to do with statements about me found on a blog in our local media that I thought I would clarify.

Apparently being an Assistant Scoutmaster with our local Boy Scout Troop signifies a special interest group to some. The Boy Scouts are an organization whose sole purpose is to grow responsible young men and encourage them to serve our community and their fellow citizens. I havent seen many troops attempting to acquire any of our land or start a business or attempt in any way to influence any decision the city may make. Their interest lies only in supporting our city in any shape or form it happens to take and developing our young men into the kind of citizens we would be proud of.

As far as my church affiliation goes, my family are members of the Cornerstone Community Church in Chandler. We are not a part of the Church leadership. We are active members and we are there to worship.

In regards to my resigning my current position to become a full-time Mayor. I have no desire to rewrite city codes to redirect power or procedure. I simply mean that I would dedicate my full-time attention to doing every thing I can to help our city grow and become successful.

I do hold a Real Estate Brokers License and 2 Insurance Licenses in another state,and do intend on acquiring them here as well. I did utilize the insurance license to help educate our seniors on a very confusing Medicare Drug Plan. The Real Estate Brokers License was obtained for the sole purpose of acquiring the knowledge of the material that was being presented. I am not, nor have I been an active Realtor. In my opinion, knowledge is power. I also held a Florida Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) certificate for several years, but that doesnt relate to a conflict of interest in regards to our city Emergency Medical Services.

As far as the so-called "puff" statements I have been accused of. I dont regard our gang problem as overblown when just a few days ago, the signs of some of our subdivisions were "tagged", and it certainly isnt overblown that the other day at 10 pm I loaded 2 boys and their bicycles from my neighborhood who came frantically knocking on my door, into my truck to take them home because they were afraid of a group of teenagers that had gathered out by the main road and were threatening them. I dont consider it a "puff" statement to be the only candidate to call for a reduction in our city's development impact fees that are higher than most area cities. The numbers do not lie and it is very easy to understand our inability to attract larger businesses because we are not competitive with other cities. The development fee numbers listed in a previous thought of the day below are published directly from each city. I do not consider it a "puff" statement to point out that  we recently paid over $60,000 to raise those fees even higher and the development fee impact study CLEARLY says that it is based on assumptions of our projected growth of close to 100,000 people with an annual growth rate of 20,331 people per year through the year 2010. The report also says on page 29, "The City should recalibrate its fees sooner if there are significant changes in the assumptions used in the development fee study". These are known as "Facts" not "puff".

I dont consider it a "puff" statement for me to respond against an airport until the basic infrastructure needs of the city are met.

Lets talk about the fact that our Head Start program inquired about bringing a Boys and Girls Club to our city but it was met with uninterest.

The individual making these statements, claims to have spoken personally to me on many issues. I have spoken to many citizens on the campaign trail and every single response I received has been supportive and encouraging. So if this individual did speak with me, and had other thoughts as to my intentions, or statements I had made, they certainly did not attempt in any way to discuss how they felt or make their opinions known to me. I respect everyones opinion, and everyone is entitled to one, but if they felt opposed to what we talked about, or wanted to accuse them as being "puff" statements then I wish they would have said something to me to support how they felt. I have not talked personally to a single person who indicated they disagreed with my views. I encourage everyone to speak out, whether it is a popular opinion or not. So this individual is either being untruthful about speaking with me or was unwilling to share their view with me. I stand behind my thoughts and beliefs and will gladly debate them with anyone face-to-face. If one is not willing to stand behind theirs face-to-face then we end up with a government of mistrust, with rumors and misconceptions running wild as we have now. In my book, if you arent a part of the solution then you are part of the problem. So if this individual wishes to have clarification on my views, wants to share their own ideas with me, or just even wants to tell me that I am "full of it" than I encourage them to contact me directly and not hide behind a screen name. There will be no hard feelings, I welcome the input.  

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

Todays thought is another call out to those seeking public office to drop the politics and tell us their ideas. I have expressed my ideas for many of the hot issues that trouble our city. So this call goes out to Mr Smith. If you are in fact for change, and want to distance yourself from the "same old-same old" government that we have now, then come out and say it. Tell us how you feel about the airport... Tell us one idea you have that will encourage a large employer to move to our area when our development fees are so high that we are not even competitive with most area cities..... Tell us what your opinion is about the studies that are based on our population growth expanding to 150,000 people by 2010. Do you think that is an accurate number? Are you wanting to make decisions based on these assumptions? Because one thing these studies say clearly is that if these assumptions of growth do not happen as expected than the information included in the study MUST be recalculated.

All I ask is this...Come out and say where you stand. If you would have done that to begin with, I probably would be supporting you instead of running against you.

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

Today I want to talk about the unending controversy and look of deception or conspiracy that seems to find its way into most topics of our city. Our city officials are meant to be representatives of our citizens, not the "all-knowing" parental figures that are there to tell us what is best for those things that effect our lives. Whether there are any conspiracies or unnecessary conflict-of-interest issues, or back-alley deals involved or not, is not as important as the fact that we as citizens have so much mistrust for our city government that we feel it necessary to accuse them. This is the problem that needs to be fixed. I have no conflict-of-interest issues other than being a homeowner. And more importantly, I have no special interest groups that I need to satisfy. The only special interest group I have a need to listen to are the citizens of Maricopa. My decisions to vote for or against any measure presented before me need only meet one requirement, and that is: "Is it good for our citizens and our city", and you can believe I will be asking our citizens before casting my vote. I will move to table any issue that shows a sign of conflict, conspiracy, or mistrust from our citizens until the issue is explained fully and accurately and the city's intentions are widely known to you, our citizens. There will be no more guesswork, no more rumors, and no more mistrust.

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

Todays thought of the day goes out to Mr Jim Hull. I learned that Mr Hull has decided to discontinue his campaign for Mayor due to health reasons. My prayers and best wishes go out to him. I applaud Mr Hull for his efforts and desires to make Maricopa into a better place. It took alot of courage to take a stand for what he believes in and more importantly to take the steps he felt necessary to be an active part of the solution. Our city could use more citizens like Mr Hull who are willing to fight for their beliefs. I want to thank him for his dedication and truly hope he continues to let his voice be heard because even if he is no longer pursuing the office of Mayor, he will always remain a valued citizen of our city.

Best of luck to you, Mr Hull.

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

Todays thought is on the topic of the Airport study and our priorities. I am probably one of the biggest aviation enthusiasts. Most members of my family have owed their life in one way or another to aviation. I myself am a pilot, my father is a retired Air Force General, pilot, aviation consultant, and current Professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. My grandfather, also a retired military pilot, even my great-grandfather, a man named Albert Hegenberger, was an aviation pioneer, inducted into the Aviation Hall of Fame in Dayton Ohio and in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum for his historic flight from California to Hawaii in 1927 (the same year as Lindbergh's Atlantic crossing). He was also the inventor of the instrument landing system that aviation still uses today to allow planes to land in poor visibility. The point being, with all of my interests and connections to aviation, I DO NOT see the sense in our pursuit of an airport at this time. Our priorities are the problem. We cannot stretch our resources and attention to cover every "neat" idea that comes down the road when we cannot even meet the basic needs of our citizens right here, right now. If our priorities are put in the right order, such as bringing a major employer to our area, and improving our schools, ridding  our city of its gang problem, attracting youth centered programs and controlling spending and practicing transparency and fiscal responsibility, then things like an airport, mass transit, and other items that we would like to see will not only be feasible at that time, they will be much more effective and easier to implement because they are the next natural step in the process.

We must focus our attention where it belongs because if we fail with any of the top priorities that I mentioned, then the mere thought of an airport, or mass  transit system is a complete waste of time and money because it will fail as well. Things have to happen in a specific order to get this job done and it is time we put our priorities in the right order.

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

Todays thought is based on the confusion regarding our upcoming Walmart. One of the things I have been calling out for is transparency and information regarding our city and our city governments' lack of communication.

Here is what I found out and I wanted to share it with you....I spoke this morning with a very nice gentleman named Josh Rogers with Walmart Realty in Bentonville Arkansas (Walmart Corporate Headquarters). Josh is in charge of the development of our Walmart and those throughout Arizona. Mr Rogers stated that Walmart is excited about coming here, however, there are almost 250 Walmarts scheduled for development. Mr Rogers also explained that these will be done in priority as to population projections, expected growth, our economy, etc. He stated it was very unlikely that even half of these Walmarts would be completed in 2008. Most will be pushed back well into 2009 and 2010. With possible construction delays and Walmarts own analysis of what would be most beneficial to them due to the current economy, he stated that it was very possible that our Walmart in Maricopa could be pushed back as late as 2010 before it is completed.

Updates like this would help our citizens by answering their questions and reduce the amount of rumors and rhetoric that we usually see.

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

Todays question comes directly from Mr Smiths website. Mr Smith asks where have the other candidates been for 5 months? He was campaigning at Founders Day, where were we?

Honestly, 5 months ago, the thought of running for Mayor was far from my mind. Like most of the people I spoke with, I just KNEW that at this next Mayoral election, someone was going to take the bull by the horns and recognize that we were heading down the wrong path. The issues of the city are no secret. Everyone knows them. So it bothered me that with all the issues we talk about, with all the complaints that we hear about our city, that no one stepped up except someone who was already part of our city government as Chairman of Planning and Zoning. Where was the call from the Chairman of Planning and Zoning to make the changes he now says he wants to make? The issues arent new. Now I do give Mr Smith credit for some good ideas that he did address while in that position, including the ridiculous conflict-of-interest issues. He also has some good ideas on transportation and economic growth.  And, if I would have seen or heard the Chairman of Planning and Zoning come forward while in that position and say, "This direction is wrong", or "Our fees are too high", or "We need to change our priorities because this isnt working", or "We are failing because we cannot meet our citizens needs" or any other comment that suggested he was as unhappy about our current path, than I would have never entered the race. In fact I would have supported him. But, I did not hear that. I heard a few good ideas but still ideas that continued down the same path we are on only with a few new "twists". I would have expected the Chairman of Planning and Zoning to be very vocal about our growth and his ideas for change otherwise what it indicates to me and many others is, he supports more of the same. And that is why I entered the race for Mayor.

As for why I wasnt campaigning at Founders day. Even if I was a candidate then, I would not have been campaigning there because I happened to be working all day at Founders Day with our local Boy Scout Troop cooking and selling hot dogs and sausages and again the following day, helping the city clean up the park. I will also be at Stagecoach Days and Community Support Day, but not to campaign, as a volunteer again with the local Boy Scout Troop fundraising efforts.

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

Todays thought is in regards to a troubling resolution passed by our city council in a special meeting held on July 17th 2007. The council unanimously passed a resolution to increase city property tax levies by more than 2.1 million dollars, to a new level of over 6 million dollars. That is a 30% increase. One thing I have been very vocal about is fiscal responsibility. I for one want to know why this increase is necessary and I intend to find out. As mayor I intend to have our city department budgets reevaluated to eliminate the "luxury"  and wish-list items and focus on the items that are necessary. Until our basic city infrastructure is firmly in place, we must practice fiscal responsibility. If an increase in property taxes is necessary, you can be rest assured that all other options have been exhausted. Another reason this bothers me is in large part due to the fact that many of our citizens do not know it is happening. Again, transparency and public awareness is key. Being prudent, employing common sense, and redeveloping a city plan based on reality, and action is the only way we can produce the growth and prosperity we are after.....

I have noticed that there are still no "takers" on my call to the other candidates for straight answers and worth while real-time ideas. I hope they have some. If they do not I encourage all citizens to keep asking until they do. I believe in being open. I believe in being honest. I believe in taking action.

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

Today I want to talk about the growing gang problem in our city. Again I am proud to be the first and only candidate to come forward publicly on this issue.

Our schools and neighborhoods are being terrorized by the growing gang population. One of our big problems is the lack of any form of entertainment or social activities for the youth of our city. I spoke to our local Maricopa Boy Scout Troop (Troop 993, to which I am an Assistant Scoutmaster) last night and was overtaken by their concerns about gang violence in Maricopa. I originally stated that education and this gang problem are a very close second priority. This issue has just been upgraded to a tie with our economic growth as a top priority. Why? Because this is one issue that can be addressed and acted on immediately. No impact studies needed. As Mayor, I will immediately set up meetings with Chief Melvin, school officials and county officials to identify the needs to fight this battle. Whatever resources are required to provide a safe community for all of our citizens (especially our children) I will push for. My message to the gang members of Maricopa is simple, "Get Out! Because the Citizens of Maricopa have had enough and we are coming for you!"

I will encourage all citizens to participate in this fight. Whether it be through neighborhood watch groups, community education, school dress codes or adding to or reassigning our police forces or a combination of all these and much more, I intend to make it happen, and make it happen quickly.

This approach together with establishing a meaningful social and entertainment network for our young adults will solidify the very thing we are going to need to attract the growth to our area, that being, SAFETY and SECURITY for our citizens. Organizations such as Boys and Girls Club and YMCA, complete with a much needed after-school program will be vigorously pursued if I am elected as Mayor of Maricopa.

Together, we can rid our city of these gangs.

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

Today I wanted to share a few facts on development fees. I have been the only candidate to call for a reduction of these fees to attract the businesses we are after. I have compiled a list of how our development fees match up to neighboring cities. All of these examples are based on a 50,000 sq ft building.

COMMERCIAL/RETAIL:

Maricopa - $492,000

Queen Creek - $427,100

Avondale - $411,600

Casa Grande - $318,450

Goodyear - $194,000

Fountain Hills - $283,000

OFFICE:

Maricopa - $238,500

Queen Creek - $217,800

Avondale - $209,500

Casa Grande - $165,350

Goodyear - $150,500

Fountain Hills - $217,000

MANUFACTURING:

Maricopa - $190,000

Queen Creek - $157,350

Avondale - $146,900

Casa Grande - $65,600

Goodyear - $76,000

Fountain Hills - $182,000

Seeing the pattern????

This isnt called "attracting" businesses to our area....

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

Todays thought is simple. I challenge all candidates, both Mayoral and City Council to come forward, not with political rhetoric and promises, but with actual ideas and suggestions for what they intend to do. I did that very thing today on this site. I have looked at all interviews and websites for our candidates and I have been the first so far who has had the courage to drop the "politics" and provide a look into the "action" that I have been talking about. The issues of Maricopa are not in question. Everyone knows what they are. The real solutions however, are very much in question. So lets see who else is willing to step up. Now is the time!

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

Todays thought is on the recent step by Mayor Anderson to seek help from beyond our state borders to address the railroad overpass. Bravo. His idea is exactly what I am talking about. We have to think outside the box on these issues. Any and all ideas for the improvement of Maricopa need to be followed up on vigorously. I give credit where credit is due and I congratulate Mr Anderson on this step.

The other idea today is not so favorable for our current mayor. It is in regards to the recently proposed redevelopment area. Whether redevelopment is necessary is not the issue. The issue is the way it was handled by the city. The city has to be transparent on this. It was unfair to the citizens in the affected area to bring in developers and real estate personnel to their neighborhood and leave them with the sense that their future is in question. It was quoted that the city was not prepared to answer questions about it which left most of the citizens there drawing their own conclusions. I relate this to a doctor telling a patient that they MAY have a terminal illness but they wont run any tests to confirm it for a few months. My heart goes out to the people who now have the additional stress of the unknown.

Its time for a change!

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

Todays thought is based on the new updates on candidate Tony Smiths website. I find it interesting that he deemed it appropriate to address the issues I brought up more directly, only after they were posted on my site.

Mr Smith claims he was the first candidate to open communication channels and be more responsive to our citizens. The day after I announced my decision to run for mayor, flyers were being distributed by my campaign asking for citizens input and ideas and that effort continues today. If you want to be more responsive you have to be asking the questions. So take  a look at whos doing the asking.  

Today I was asked about the city's economic growth and what I would do to help it.

The key to this question has to start with Fiscal Responsibility. My idea for today is to encourage all of you to go to the City of Maricopa website and look at our city financial statements.

But, make sure you are sitting down....

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

A comment was made recently, that I feel recent impact studies we have done were a waste and I took them lightly.

Again this is not the case. Studies can be very useful tools if used correctly.

Being very active in the stock markets I have learned a very important thing...

Things change rapidly and we must adapt to these changes. Our economy, for one is constantly changing. The study in particular that sparked the comment was based on the Transit study. The Transit Study, done at the height of the housing boom projected Maricopa to grow by 50% every year from the years 2004-2010 to an estimated 100,000+ people. Since early to mid 2006 the housing market has crashed violently. Most economists realized that the unprecedented growth had to peak at some point. Due to things like Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARM's) and the promise that refinancing would be easy before your payments went up drastically, many secondary lenders went under which lead to record foreclosures and an even deeper sinking of the housing market.

This trend is expected to continue well into 2010 improving slowly at that point. 

The point is that we can no longer continue to make economic decisions for Maricopa based on information that is no longer accurate.

The economy adjusted.

We have to adjust also......

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

Apparently my comment about the smell has stirred up quite a spark. Some people seem to think I am against the farmers. Some people think that any new idea or plan relates to us spending our tax dollars. This is not what I am talking about.

The quote from me says, "The farmers have every right to be here also, but it is worth looking into."

"Worth looking into" can mean maybe opening up a dialog with the farming community (even those outside our city that still effect us). Maybe there is a system or process that is being done at 5 pm that the farmers might consider doing at 8 or 9 pm when more people are inside their homes. That is just one idea. Free of charge.

Remember...IDEAS dont always mean taxes. Many ideas can be brought forward by simply applying a little time and dedication....

I have both.