2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

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