Laserfiche WebLink
JAN - 2 2002 <br />TOWN OF <br />PARADISE VLY <br />INDEPENDENT <br />Paradise Vly, AZ. <br />Cir: 6,000 weekly <br />Resolves to becolne. involved in Town . issues <br />Eead~r challenges other residents to do the .same <br />: ,. I • • .' • " ' ' ' <br />Thirty years ago, when we . <br />first moved to Paradise Valley, I · <br />frequently reassured out-of-state <br />catalogue companies we ·did <br />indeed have sidewalks and mail <br />delivery. <br />My parents, staid Easterners, <br />considered our name of Town of <br />Paradise Valley to be. "frivo- <br />lous," possibly even sacrile- <br />gious. . · <br />We have lived on the,. same <br />street in the same house since <br />we arrived. The palm trees my <br />husband used to trim using a <br />small ladder now sway gently, <br />towering giants against bright <br />blue skies. <br />We saw the camels on Lincoln <br />Drive move out, replaced· by <br />houses and humans who wanted · <br />to enjoy this wonderful commu- <br />nity we call Paradise. <br />We watched the Town Hall <br />grow from a small building into <br />JAN .. ~ ~996 <br />TOWNOF ._,_ <br />PARADISE VL Y <br />INDEPENDENT <br />Paradise Vly, AZ. <br />Cir: 6,000 weekly <br />a modem <;omplex to meet the. <br />growing needs of all the people <br />who elected to live in Paradise. · <br />What I did ·not do was get <br />. involved in any way with the <br />leadership of the Town. <br />Although I always · vo~ in <br />state and federal elections, I <br />paid scant attention to our local <br />government. <br />After all, the Town did not <br />directly provide schools, fire <br />protection or trash collection. <br />' What impact could the local <br />Town Council make,on my fam- <br />ily or my neighbors? · <br />· Thanks in 'part to the Town of <br />Paradise Valley Independent, I <br />have begun to recognize that <br />local government is important to <br />the present and future of or <br />Town. <br />Reading this weekly publica- <br />tion presents me with a better <br />understanding of the issues that <br />may very well impact my fami- <br />ly and the place I call home. <br />How can I get involved? <br />While I admire the courage of <br />the run for public office, I do not <br />wish to do that. While I could I <br />attend every Town Council <br />meeting, my schedule does not <br />allow it. <br />Yet I do want to have some <br />input, even in a small way, ·on <br />decisions that will alter the <br />future development of my com- <br />munity. <br />· A group of residents have pre- <br />sented a new option. They are <br />organizing a citizen's forum for <br />people who live· in Paradise <br />Valley. <br />They represent no single <br />viewpoint or position but will <br />provide the opportunity for resi- <br />dents to voice their opinions as <br />well as learn about the issues on <br />the table for the Town Council's <br />consideration. <br />My resolutions for 2002 <br />. include the following: I will <br />read the Town of Paradise .Valley <br />·Independent regularly; I will <br />attend the January 9th initial <br />meeting of the citizen's forum <br />and I will utilize the information <br />. it provides to make inforined <br />decisions when I vote in local <br />elections. · <br />Those of us who love this par- <br />adise have the responsibility to <br />keep up-to-date on what is hap- <br />pening. · , . <br />We moved here becaus<e the <br />Town is very special. <br />It is up to all of us to nurture <br />the unique characteristics whic,h <br />made us come here in the first <br />place. <br />Judith Austin Kunkel <br />'(owri of Paradise Valley <br />.New Qrainage project IGA on supervisors' Jan. 3 agenda <br />By Wendy Miller · <br />Independent Newspapers <br />Will the third time be the <br />cha·m for the Doubletree Ranch <br />RoJd Regional Drainage <br />Project? Or will it be three <br />strikes and you're out? <br />officials from Maricopa County <br />review the intergovernmental <br />agreement a third time, in this <br />· case, the Board of Supervisors at <br />their Jan. 3 meeting. <br />$11.2 project, in which the <br />county would pay 70 percent of <br />the drainage project and the <br />Town 30 percent. <br />the project," said board. member <br />·Shirley Long. "I feel insulted <br />this has come back to us again."· <br />The drainage project was <br />designed to carry storm runoff <br />from the Phoenix Mountains to <br />the Indian Bend Wash via <br />underground culverts down <br />Doubletree Ranch Road. <br />1997 to share the project costs. <br />The Board of Supervisors has <br />the final say over issues consid-. <br />ered by the advisory board. · · <br />How its members will vote <br />Jan. 3 is difficult to predict for <br />many reasons. They include: I) <br />the project's rocky history, and <br />2) the IGA that will be present- <br />Either · way, proponents and <br />opponents of the project are hop- <br />ing for some resolution after <br />The heavily-debated project <br />was twice turned down in 2000 <br />by the Maricopa County Flood <br />Control Advisory Board. <br />On Feb. 23, FCAB members <br />voted 6-0 to pull out of the <br />On May 23, the project went <br />again before the advisory board, <br />much to the chagrin of some <br />members. The advisory board <br />voted 4 to 3 against recom- <br />mending its approval. . <br />"I can't justify the money for <br />Paradise Valley and the coun- <br />ty entered into an agreem(!rit in See. IGA, Page 2 <br />ed Jan. 3 is a revision of the one <br />voted down earlier and may be <br />more favorable to supervisors. <br />IIi a letter to the Paradise <br />Valley Mayor Edward Lowry <br />dated June 27,2001, Supervisor <br />Janke Brewer stated that, "I am <br />riot inclined to place this pro- <br />posed IGA onto the Flood <br />Control Board of Director's <br />agenda over the loud objections <br />of the Maricopa County Flood <br />. Control Advisory Board." <br />On October, however, Ms. <br />Brewer told the Independent <br />that "a new proposal which <br />seems to be much more appeal- <br />ing to everyone" was under con- <br />sideration. · <br />. The revision, which will be <br />presented at the Jal}. 3 meeting, <br />changes the cost-sharing to <br />60/40, with the county picking <br />up the greater share. Additional <br />changes were being examined <br />by the Independent as press <br />time approached. <br />While interested parties are <br />eagerly anticipating closure of <br />the project, some opponents are <br />upset by the timing. <br />"It is totally inappropriate for <br />Supervisor Don Stapley to put <br />the Doubletree project on the <br />Maricopa County Board of <br />Supervisors' agenda before even <br />being elected chairman (of the <br />Board of Supervisors). The tim- <br />ing of this, when we were all <br />involved with the holidays, is a <br />deliberate unconscionable polit- <br />ical act against residents of the <br />Town -an action taken to try <br />to shut down the overwhelming <br />opposition," said Liz Clendenin, <br />a long-time Town resident and <br />member of the Concerned <br />Residents for the Preservation <br />of the Town (CRPT). "We might <br />expect these kinds of political <br />machinations back on the <br />Potomac but they have no place <br />here in the Town. · <br />"Is this the kind of political <br />environment we can expect from <br />the lobbyist hired by the Town? If <br />it is, it is a sad day indeed for the <br />residents of the Town. The town <br />council owes its residents better," <br />she continued. "It will be inter- <br />esting to see what the council <br />does in the event that the supervi- <br />sors do approve the IGA. Is the <br />From Page 1 <br />rumor true that the mayor plans <br />to have it on the Jan. lO town <br />council agenda?" <br />If approved by the board of <br />supervisors, the town council <br />has the authority to place the <br />IGA on its agenda as early as <br />Jan. 10, providing it gives a 24- <br />hour public notice. <br />"We don't set the board of <br />supervisors' agenda," said Vice <br />Mayor Dan Schweiker. "There's <br />only a vocal minority against' <br />the project, a handful of people . <br />who represent themselves to be <br />larger than they are. We'll just <br />have to wait and see. <br />"If it is going to be on the <br />agenda on the third, that's excit- <br />ing. We want to move forward <br />with the road," he added. <br />JAN 0 7 2002 <br />THE TRIBUNE <br />NEWSPAPERS <br />Mesa. AZ <br />Cir: 106,228 Dly <br />Not a time to do nothing <br />about P.V. flood control <br />W ater is at the very core of the history of the arid <br />. . . Southwest And during the past 150 years, <br />controlling nature's overflows has at times been as · <br />important as making sure we have enough ... <br />Although water here is scarce, when it rains, our <br />alkaline soil doesn't accept much water to soak into the <br />earth; it runs off and collects into Washes-that can <br />become raging torrents of briefly biblical proportions. <br />Some folks in Paradise Valley-some ofthem <br />long-time residents-don't recall or don't understand <br />this. They plan to battle a $10.3 million flood-control <br />project the Maricopa County Flood Control District says <br />is vital to protect 180 homes from strong runoff from <br />nearby mountains 3.!1d foothills. · <br />Unlike the massive Desert Greenbelt plan fot; mostly <br />uninhabited areas of north Scottsdale that was correctly <br />voted down by Scottsdale's council, at issue in Paradise <br />Valley is an area that is already populated, an area where <br />·structures have already been damaged by previous <br />floods in 1972 and 1992. ·. <br />Statements signed by 83 neighbors in the area stating <br />their homes have never been flood-damaged is like a <br />petition against stepped up police patrols saying one has <br />never had his house broken into, or one against a new · · <br />fire station because one's home has never burned down. <br />Here the public good....,.... and the protection of the <br />public treasury from post-diluvian damage claims - <br />justifies the cost and outweighs some inconvenience and <br />affronts to aesthetics, which is the burden of the <br />opponents' 'arguments . <br />. :.: If disgruntled residents who oppose the plan can offer <br />practical, affordable and more aesthetically pleasing <br />alternatives, more power to them. But doing nothing is <br />.. not a realistic option. <br />)