Interview with Refuge Homeowners

Listen to Refuge property owners talk about the annexation, the pending lawsuits and why it is important to vote NO. This is also available on iTunes.

http://www.havasucitypodcast.com/

Please share this link with your friends!

We Apologize for Our Opponent's Behaviors

We apologize to our supporters for the inappropriate actions and behaviors of members of the YES campaign.

Clearly they feel they must resort to intimidation, harassment, retaliation and vindictive threats to get votes.

Thank you for standing firm.

TENT HAS BEEN RED-FLAGGED

The temporary permit for the Tent (aka "the pavilion") expired yesterday.

This morning, Desert Hills Fire officially "red tagged" it, which means that it cannot be occupied for any purposes other than construction or deconstruction.

The Aldridges have applied for a PERMANENT permit with the County, but that will only be granted if and when the tent meets all of the appropriate fire code requirements.  This would include proper ingress and egress for emergency vehicles (need to have a road first -- the HOA is standing firm on not giving permission to use the HOA roads), installing a sprinklering system inside the tent, providing an appropriate hydrant system with appropriate water volume, etc. 

According to the Fire Department, non-compliance with this order (as in letting anyone into the tent who is not a contractor or sub-contractor) would be a CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

Lake Havasu City Violated AZ State Law & General Plan with Refuge Annexation Agreement

Lake Havasu City Violated AZ State Law and General Plan with Refuge Annexation Agreement

Ø  The proposed Refuge Annexation and Agreement between the City of Lake Havasu and City Center is in violation of Arizona State Law and the Lake Havasu City General Plan.

Ø  Refuge property owners had previously filed a complaint against LHC for zoning irregularities. That has been amended to include the violations of the General Plan and filed in Mohave County Superior Court.  

Ø  The City’s General Plan stipulates that the land to be annexed is classified as “Resort Residential” that specifically “does not allow RV Resorts or mobile home parks”.   The zoning for the parcels and the Annexation Agreement allow for an RV Park.  This does not conform to the General Plan and is in direct violation of its own classification. 

Ø  The City’s annexation of the parcels for use as an RV Park violates A.R.S. §9-462.01(F) as it is inconsistent with the General Plan, inconsistent with the City’s Future Land Use Plan, inconsistent with the goals of said plans and is contrary to the established policies of the City. 

Ø  The General Plan prohibits "RV Resorts or mobile home parks" in areas defined as "Resort Residential," the granting of conditional use permits to City Center for an RV park, and the City's expressed intent to grant such use permits, would violate Section 14.44.050 if acted upon as intended. 

If the City truly believes they can operate outside their own General Plan, a plan that is a LEGAL MANDATE, what does that mean for YOUR neighborhood?

Could they approve an RV Park, a racetrack – or ANYTHING ELSE – right behind your home with a simple majority vote of the City Council?

VOTE NO   

Did You Know #20

Are you aware that Refuge property owners who oppose the RV development have been banned from the clubhouse and golf course?

Did You Know #19

Did you know that this tent with the exposed air conditioning units and porta-potties is the "upscale pavilion" that the Aldridges are so proud of.... 

The property owners have stringent regulations about the design and construction of their homes; they cannot have a satellite dish exposed, they cannot leave an RV in their driveway or on the street.  They have to ensure that all home designs are consistent with the environment and meet certain criteria to "blend in".  The golf course owner apparently does not have to abide by the same rules. 

So this is the kind of "upscale" feature that the Aldridges believe will turn this area into a "destination resort" -- one of the top THREE in the country?   You be the judge...

If this is any indication of the quality of what the Aldridges are bringing into this community, is there any wonder why the homeowners are concerned?

VOTE NO AND STOP THIS DESTRUCTION BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE

PLEASE JOIN US!

... for two upcoming events:

• Thursday, 4/28 - The Street Party at Desert Storm!
• Tuesday, 5/3 - 7:00 p.m. at Grace Arts Live Theatre - Information Meeting!

We're looking forward to meeting you and talking about this annexation.  We'd love to hear your thoughts and answer any questions you might still have.

Did You Know #18

If the City Council really could just approve ordinances and zoning changes without following the rules of their own state-mandated General Plan, what does this mean for other neighborhoods in LHC?

Could they just change the rules and put an RV Park or a DRAG STRIP (or anything else for that matter...) in YOUR backyard?

City Violates AZ State Law and General Plan with Refuge Annexation Agreement

After thorough legal and factual research, one of the most respected planning and zoning law firms in the state of Arizona has concluded that the proposed Refuge annexation and accompanying Agreement between the City of Lake Havasu and City Center is in violation of Arizona state law and the Lake Havasu City General Plan 2002 ("General Plan").

The Phoenix law firm of Beus Gilbert has substantiated this conclusion by filing an amended complaint in Mohave County Superior Court, a copy of which has been submitted to the Court and served to the City. The complaint is public record and is available for review (RefugeAnnexation.com).  The voters in Lake Havasu City have a right to consider this information prior to casting their ballot for the May 17^th Special Election.

The ongoing litigation mentioned here is in the form of a lawsuit directed at Lake Havasu City for alleged zoning irregularities. The challenged zoning at the center of the lawsuit was put in place by the City to accommodate a “partial annexation” application conditioned on specific zoning that allows for the development of an RV subdivision where golf course land now exists.  

The General Plan, enacted in 2002 and updated in 2008, stipulates that the land to be annexed is classified as “Resort Residential” and specifically provides that the Resort Residential classification “does not allow RV Resorts or mobile home parks”.   

The zoning for the parcels and the Annexation Agreement allow for an RV Park.  Specifically, in the Annexation Agreement, the City acknowledges that City Center intends to subdivide the parcels for the development of an RV Park and that the City does not object to such use.  This does not conform to the General Plan and is direct violation of its own classification. 

The City’s annexation of the parcels for use as an RV Park violates A.R.S. §9-462.01(F) as it is inconsistent with the General Plan, inconsistent with the City’s Future Land Use Plan, inconsistent with the goals of said plans and is contrary to the established policies of the City. 

Further, as the General Plan prohibits "RV Resorts or mobile home parks" in areas defined as "Resort Residential," the granting of conditional use permits to City Center for an RV park, and the City's expressed intent to grant such use permits, would violate Section 14.44.050 if acted upon as intended. 

Even with such restrictive language so clearly spelled out in the General Plan, City Officials approved rezoning of the questioned property in such a way that actually promotes the construction of a RV Park.  The larger questions remain as to why the City would rush this annexation as well as the costly election instead of waiting until the legal issues were resolved.   

Click the attached link for an article in today's News-Herald about this new development:

http://havasunews.com/articles/2011/04/22/news/doc4db101c46c4e5834238988.txt

PLEASE JOIN US ON MAY 3RD

Please join us on May 3rd at 7:00 p.m. at the Grace Arts Live Theatre (2146 McCulloch) to learn more about the Refuge Annexation. 

No RSVP necessary, everyone is invited! 

Letter to the Editor, 4-19-11

http://www.scribd.com/full/53348623?access_key=key-290ziqkkl4inowhk78rw

·    Click the link above for Today's Letter to the Editor that hit the nail on the head:

 ..  "...if it passes... no one will really know who pays what till long after the  election, after it is too late".

    The $138K election and the $32K (and running) in unreimbursed staff expenses are just the tip of the iceberg... 

PROTECT YOUR POCKETBOOK -- VOTE NO

Visual of Refuge Area To Be Annexed

Click below to see a diagram of the entire Refuge area.
http://www.scribd.com/full/53258483?access_key=key-1uagg831xijkzyeslgl9

This will help you to understand how the private roads (those roads that are owned and maintained by the property owners - NOT the golf course owner) provide the only real access to the area that is scheduled to be annexed.

Additionally, you'll see on the inset map of the RV subdivision how those first four holes of the golf course  (that area that has been designated as an open space buffer between the homes and the Wildlife) will be transformed into a high-density RV Park abutted right up against the Refuge Wildlife area. 

Good for Havasu?  Think again....

VOTE NO

Did You Know #17

... that this annexation is NOT for a golf course?  And that it is NOT for any of the homes in the Refuge?

This annexation is for a PIECE of a golf course that is planned to be converted into an RV Park.

If this annexation goes through, the City would be getting another RV Park.

And that's assuming that the Aldridges and the City prevail on all of the pending lawsuits.  If they DON'T prevail, it's likely that no RVs could even be parked there... and THEN what does the City have? 

A piece of a golf course that isn't a golf course and isn't an RV Park.

THIS IS TOO RISKY -- VOTE NO

Did You Know #16

The Aldridges are promising jobs to LHC.

The other two times they promised jobs, all of the employees ended up getting laid off.

We've been told that one of those times, the employees showed up for work and found the doors chained.  Not even the courtesy of a notification that their jobs were gone.

Great track record? 

Maybe a great record of taking the profits and moving on to the next project.

Is that what we want for The Refuge?  Can the City afford to get involved?

Did You Know #15

Regardless of how wonderful the Aldridge plan may sound to some people, we believe that what they are attempting to do is simply NOT LEGAL. 

We believe that the process the City has used to approve this annexation is NOT LEGAL and that the actual development that the Aldridges are planning is NOT LEGAL.

Vote NO to keep the City Council from involving Lake Havasu taxpayers in an illegal and costly action. 

LETTER TO THE LHC TAXPAYERS

http://www.scribd.com/full/52979039?access_key=key-8qgj5pprznbwpov9lby

Did You Know #14

Protect Our Wallets!

The City has stated that it will cost $2,000 per year for governmental services to support this partial annexation.

That would be approximately $4.00/year per person for all services including public safety. Does that make sense? Do we really believe these numbers? 

We can't afford to take on yet another pet project that will end up costing us taxpayers much more than what we are being told.

VOTE NO

 PROTECT OUR WALLETS!

Did You Know #13

THE "NO RISK" WAY

The Aldridges tout how much money they have invested in the Refuge community. 

Consider this: The Refuge property owners collectively have invested approximately $20 to every $1 the Aldridges have invested and that ratio is constant if the community is built out with homes as it was originally designed.

Either way, the Refuge community will bring dollars and jobs into the City. 

Without Annexation:  The City has an opportunity to regain a regional asset of a daily-use Arnold Palmer Signature Golf Course that is marketed to over 300,000 golfers nationwide along with a gated community of high-end homes.  All at NO RISK to the City.

With Annexation:  The City has an opportunity to have another RV Park and a shortened "no name" golf course.  The costs and risks to the City are unknown but potentially significant and long-term.

TAKE THE "NO RISK" WAY

 VOTE NO ON REFUGE ANNEXATION

Did You Know #12

WE CAN'T AFFORD THIS....

The Mayor told the taxpayers that this annexation would be “no cost to the City”.  Really?

Did you know that already, the City Attorney’s office has racked up over $32,000 in attorney’s fees for work performed in support of the Refuge Annexation, and the City Attorney continues to spend at the rate of $1,500 to $2,000 per month? 

Compare the City’s definition of cost to that of ours.  The City considers it a cost when doing some type of construction for a project like this annexation, but they do not consider it a cost when it is spent by their City Attorney for his services, or other staff members who are embroiled in this project.

Regardless of how they report it in their books, the burden of these costs fall directly onto our shoulders as taxpayers. 

So how much is this annexation really costing us?

VOTE NO – PROTECT YOUR WALLET

Loren Bergh Addresses the Lake Havasu City Council on March 8, 2011

Mr. Bergh, Lake Havasu City resident and taxpayer, questions the methods and motivation used by the City council, in particular Mr. Sonny Borrelli in regard to the special election for Refuge annexation.

Did You Know #11

Further Sub-Dividing a Master-Planned Subdivision?

During the initial development of The Refuge in 2001, negotiations between the original Developer and the County resulted in Recorded Resolutions and Final Plat Map statements ensuring that the golf course remain an enduring "central" feature of The Refuge and that the lots within “the recorded Final Plat” could not be further divided.   

The Aldridge’s plan to replace approximately 50 acres of the championship golf course with a newly-created subdivision is inconsistent with these original agreements that run with the land. 

This is one of the components of the current lawsuit that is pending against Lake Havasu City that was filed by Refuge property owners.

For details on these Resolutions - go to "Documents" tab and review the Exhibits Document (page 79 of 121).

Did You Know #10

"TRUST US"

Since the Aldridges "indemnified" the City for legal fees, our Council claims they are not at all concerned that the City (i.e., the taxpayers) may be on the hook for any legal fees.  They see it as "not their problem".

But what happens if the Aldridges go bankrupt, as they threaten on their website? There is already one lawsuit specifically against the City and more will probably follow if this annexation goes through.

Who will be left holding the bag? Taxpayers?

First the Aldridges tell the City "Trust Us".  Then the City tells us "Trust Us". 

Who do we trust?

Vote No, this annexation is filled with way too many questions....

Refuge Property Owner Speaks Out

Refuge homeowner, Monica Ball, shares some of the concerns of the property owners.

See that beautiful golf course in the background of the video? With the exception of the pool and that "gorgeous" circus tent, this oasis was NOT created by the Aldridges, much as they'd like for you to believe they did. 

This is what they bought and plan to bulldoze to convert into an RV Park/Entertainment Center.

 http://www.blip.tv/file/4949588

Did You Know #9

TRUTH?  ROTARIAN VALUES?

Did you know that the Aldridges continue to promote the LIE that a "small but vocal minority of people oppose them"? 

The Aldriges know FULL WELL that the majority of property owners oppose their plans for annexation and for the RV Park development, but they continue to spread falsehoods.

How do they know?  For starters, read our MythBuster #1.  It's long, but the history is long. 

The bottom line is that the ONLY official survey that was conducted within the homeowner group showed overwhelming opposition (68% opposed, 15% supportive and the remaining 17% neutral).  EVERY election of HOA board members, including a recall showed the same thing.  In the most recent election in 2/11, 68% voted for the  candidate who was openly opposed to the plans, with the remaining votes for the candidate who was openly supportive.

The Aldridges know this.  We know this.  Read the history on our MythBusters tab and you will know it too.  And oh - don't forget to check out our newest posting under "Other's Views" for a letter from a former Rotarian about "truth".  Jerry Aldridge is a former President of the Rotary Club... he knows better.

And while you are at it, check out our "Documents" page for a resolution recorded by the Refuge POA (Property Owner's Association) stating their opposition to the annexation and redevelopment on behalf of the majority of the property owners.

Small but vocal minority?  That's just not true.  And the Aldridges know it.  How does THAT fit in with the Rotary Club values?