Thank you for your contributions to this website. If you would like to publish an article or comment, please submit it to our email at: refugepac@hotmail.com. If possible, we'd appreciate comments kept to 300 words or so. And please, let us know if we have your approval to include your name.
(PLEASE CHECK OUR TAB ON THIS WEBSITE CALLED "MEDIA/LETTERS" FOR LETTERS TO THE EDITOR THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER)
May I Impress Upon You To Vote No?
By Jeanne Kentch — Desert Hills Fire District Secretary/Treasurer
I for one cannot wait until May 17. This day will be the last day to hear arguments for The Refuge Annexation. The articles I’ve seen written, the opinions I have seen published, and the words I’ve heard on the radio sometimes make you wonder. The division this creates takes years to heal. The words that are flung to the opposition can be remembered a lifetime. This is very unfortunate for our community, and extremely sad to see.
One of the writers in question has not only flung many verbal insults, but has also tried to incorrectly educate the readers. In the last article the writer copied and pasted city code to try to prove his point. Unfortunately he did not comprehend city code very well by neglecting to see a very important little word that can make a huge difference when it comes to code, law, or the writer’s argument. This little word is the word “may.”
“May” is a small word, but it affects codes and laws tremendously. In this case the writer neglected to see how the code states: “The City Council may, by resolution, call for and convene a special election for the purpose of submitting to the electorate of the city any ballot question arising out of the reserved powers of initiative or referendum.” The code continues to speculate the times this election must take place, if the city did indeed decide to call for a special election. So in essence if the city chose NOT to call for a special election (hence the word ‘may”-giving the ability to choose), then there would be no timeframe at all. All the city had to do is NOT call for a resolution to have a special election.
The little word “may” comes into play so many ways when associated with this divisive annexation. Let me share with you how one little word can affect perceived dialogue through arguments:
The city “may” be wrong in this annexation. Now I’m not saying the city is wrong, nor am I saying they are right; the voters will be choosing this fate.
There “may” be reciprocation through low interest Water Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA) loans, if this project is developed. I’m not indicating that this has or will happen; again, the voters will be choosing this fate.
The city “may” close Fire Station #6 after the 2012 grant funding is over. This could happen, yes. Or it won’t happen, which would be good. I would hope the welfare of the airport, mall occupants, shoppers, and surrounding businesses would be important enough, this time, to keep it open.
The court of law “may” rule in favor of the homeowners; thus, no matter your vote, the annexation will not go through. Only a judge can decide this fate.
I hope I have impressed upon you the importance of one little word: may. So this MAY, please consider the multitude of times the word “may” has been used and how accurate your impression of the dialogue actually is and vote NO!
Jeanne Kentch
Secretary/Treasurer
Desert Hills Fire District
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
5/6/11 - KGem - http://havasucitypodcast.com/2011/05/06/vote-no-side-on-annexation.aspx
____________________________________________________________________
5/5/11 - Rick Thompson - "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!"
5/4/11 - Linda Denovan's Response to Cindy Aldridge:
5/3/11 - Linda Denovan, Realtor
_______________________________________________________________________
4/25/11 - Mat Espinoza, Fire Chief, Desert Hills Fire Department
DHchief wrote on Apr 26, 2011 7:04 AM:
___________________________________________________________________
From News Herald Electronic comments after front page article 4/26 (link in Media tab):
dowens wrote on Apr 26, 2011 8:14 AM:
___________________________________________________________________
4/13/11 - Letter to the LHC Taxpayers from Rick and Sue Thompson
http://www.scribd.com/full/52979039?access_key=key-8qgj5pprznbwpov9lby
_____________________________________________________________________
4/04/11 - From Tim Coltrell - Refuge Homeowner
_______________________________________________________________________
3/11/11 - Letter to the Editor sent to Havasu News-Herald (not yet published) from Loren Bergh, LHC resident:
Editor:
Just follow the money trail and you can be sure someone will laugh all the way to the bank. This Refuge scam, sham, farce was sold to LHC mayor and council "Hook, Line and Sinker" through cronyism of the good ol boys (and girls). Because Mohave County has the jurisdiction of the Desert Hills district and has zoning regulations too stringent for the owner's of the Refuge, a change of plan was needed. The scheme was to create a 49 acre subdivision and have it annexed by LHC. The City Council blindly jumped into this without an independent study of the Refuge owner's promises of revenue and job creation for the people of LHC. Never minding if this was even true what it would take away from the Desert Hills community and Fire Dept. Even though the Fire Dept. would be across the line they would be compelled to respond to the RV park as they are 1/4 mile away.
Now for the Money! 279 RV pads @ $170,000 to $240,000. Estimated cost of the RV park $18 to $25 million. Let's say it would cost $20 million. And I think I am being generous! Use an average of $200,000 per pad and multiply by 279 units would amount to $55,800,000. Yes that's almost $56 million for an investment of $20 million subtracted equals $36 million in profit. The Aldridge's are known business people and I'm sure they see a good thing here where they could just walk away and let LHC hold an empty bag. Of course this is after the taxpayer's loss of $138,000 for the special election to make this happen. But wait!
The voters are not stupid to allow this to happen, when there are at least three law suits pending that may vaporize the scheme.
Loren Bergh
___________________________________________________________________
2/08/11 From Dennis Wilson
02/03/11 From Gary Kramer
LawMan wrote on Jan 27, 2011 7:02 AM: (Comment in Havasunews.com under the article on 1/26/11 on "Refuge Annex Goes to Vote". Reprinted with permission.)
______________________________________________________
(PLEASE CHECK OUR TAB ON THIS WEBSITE CALLED "MEDIA/LETTERS" FOR LETTERS TO THE EDITOR THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER)
May I Impress Upon You To Vote No?
By Jeanne Kentch — Desert Hills Fire District Secretary/Treasurer
I for one cannot wait until May 17. This day will be the last day to hear arguments for The Refuge Annexation. The articles I’ve seen written, the opinions I have seen published, and the words I’ve heard on the radio sometimes make you wonder. The division this creates takes years to heal. The words that are flung to the opposition can be remembered a lifetime. This is very unfortunate for our community, and extremely sad to see.
One of the writers in question has not only flung many verbal insults, but has also tried to incorrectly educate the readers. In the last article the writer copied and pasted city code to try to prove his point. Unfortunately he did not comprehend city code very well by neglecting to see a very important little word that can make a huge difference when it comes to code, law, or the writer’s argument. This little word is the word “may.”
“May” is a small word, but it affects codes and laws tremendously. In this case the writer neglected to see how the code states: “The City Council may, by resolution, call for and convene a special election for the purpose of submitting to the electorate of the city any ballot question arising out of the reserved powers of initiative or referendum.” The code continues to speculate the times this election must take place, if the city did indeed decide to call for a special election. So in essence if the city chose NOT to call for a special election (hence the word ‘may”-giving the ability to choose), then there would be no timeframe at all. All the city had to do is NOT call for a resolution to have a special election.
The little word “may” comes into play so many ways when associated with this divisive annexation. Let me share with you how one little word can affect perceived dialogue through arguments:
The city “may” be wrong in this annexation. Now I’m not saying the city is wrong, nor am I saying they are right; the voters will be choosing this fate.
There “may” be reciprocation through low interest Water Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA) loans, if this project is developed. I’m not indicating that this has or will happen; again, the voters will be choosing this fate.
The city “may” close Fire Station #6 after the 2012 grant funding is over. This could happen, yes. Or it won’t happen, which would be good. I would hope the welfare of the airport, mall occupants, shoppers, and surrounding businesses would be important enough, this time, to keep it open.
The court of law “may” rule in favor of the homeowners; thus, no matter your vote, the annexation will not go through. Only a judge can decide this fate.
I hope I have impressed upon you the importance of one little word: may. So this MAY, please consider the multitude of times the word “may” has been used and how accurate your impression of the dialogue actually is and vote NO!
Jeanne Kentch
Secretary/Treasurer
Desert Hills Fire District
_________________________________________________________________
TO: Lake Havasu City Taxpayers
FROM: Rick Thompson, Refuge Homeowner
SUBJECT: Insider / Outsider
DATE: May 9, 2011
Lake Havasu is a relatively small town with a nucleus of old friends all belonging to pretty much the same business, political, media and even religious organizations and outlets.
If you are among the “insider group” commonly referred to as “The Havasu 100” (or what may be more appropriate these days “The Havasu 20”…) you may not even be aware that there is a danger with this kind of incestuous environment that permeates the very fabric of this city’s business community.
That danger manifests itself when far-reaching business decisions that impact many people (like completely redefining a master-planned community) become based on relationships and friendships. With that, details like business plans, feasibility studies and environmental impact reports are simply not necessary because, after all, the developer is really a “NICE GUY” and of course must “want what is best for the city”.
From the perspective of the “insiders”, perhaps it truly makes sense not to question one another, not to ask deeper questions, not to challenge longer-term ramifications and impact to others when considering grand-scale changes to our community. The relationships are solid, the trust is there, what more is needed?
As we move into the final week of casting ballots either for or against the partial annexation of a 49-acre piece of the master-planned community known as The Refuge, this “insider” (and resulting “outsider”) atmosphere has not just come to light, it has become prominent, at least from the “insider” group. This insider group includes names like the Aldridges, the Clarks, the Selbergs and the Nexsens, just to mention a select few.
Sadly, beyond their argument for just trusting their good buddy who is a “really nice guy”, the insider-side has been left with little more to resort to than personal attacks on their opponents, the outsider-side. This shows up in many ways, not the least of which are the recent attack ads that in one way or another state: “BEWARE: Those OUTSIDERS are just a bunch of LIARS!”
Name-calling aside, what is really going on here? Here’s the situation:
First the Aldridges purchase an Arnold Palmer Signature golf course (a regional asset) and clubhouse/restaurant outside city limits that in a very real sense represent a community asset for the “master-planned community” that was built around it.
They made this purchase having done little or no research into existing restrictions running with this land with an express intent to completely alter the land use in an attempt to go after what may be perceived by some as “easy money”.
Then, when challenged by the County and the property owners after unveiling their grandiose plans to convert a portion of the golf course to an RV Park, the Aldridges run to their friends at the city for cover, requesting annexation of a portion of this land into city limits.
So what happens next? The city council, part of this “inside group” that relies on friendships and common alliances, chooses to take their buddy’s word on what is projected based a very crude business model, conducts no objective study or independent appraisal to determine feasibility and rubber-stamps approval unanimously. You see, what the city is being offered is “just too good to be true”, never-mind the hundreds of letters of opposition they received in the process – those were just from those “pesky OUTSIDERS” who obviously don’t have the city’s best interest at heart…..
But what about those nasty lawsuits? They don’t seem to be going away anytime soon. Actually, they are literally growing in numbers. So, true to the already established insider-outsider form, the insiders brush off these appeals to a higher (outside) authority with one word that is only slightly longer than “LIAR.” And that word is frivolous.
But “frivolous” cuts both ways. At least one of the lawsuits actually came about because of the City Council’s frivolous approach to business-as-usual, such “business” including the trashing of both a master-plan for a community and a General-Plan for a region. And while such promises as “it’s just too good to pass up” may sound like enough justification to throw plans aside, the truth is: to date the “easy money” you keep hearing about has already cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, with potential losses running into the millions. At the end of day, the courts do not take lightly frivolous charges, no matter which side makes them.
Yet, according to many of the “insiders” and apparently some Council members, the courts have already made their findings. Beyond being dangerously misleading however, to our knowledge, this just is not factually true. We could be wrong on this; especially if these “insiders” have some inside information. Or perhaps they are speaking about some finding made late one night at the bar in the Refuge Clubhouse. If that is the case, someone from a higher court should notify them that politics-as-usual isn’t healthy for anybody but a select few (usually the “insiders”) and it is not supposed to work in the courts…EVER. That is not to say it doesn’t happen.
Events over the past months have exposed alliances and close ties with the Aldridges that include no less than the entire City Council, the two local newspapers, the Rotary Club, the Chamber of Commerce, CRBIA, the publicly-funded CVB and certain realtor firms. And let’s not forget that two judges have already recused themselves, one stating that “political tampering” was involved.
Few should find comfort in such unanimity. There is a very real danger here in the blindness that accompanies this kind of incestuous decision making. And this danger shows up in a pervasive environment that promotes schlocky work, a cavalier attitude toward research and poor planning that in its turn fosters uncertainty in investment capital-outlets and overall bad business practices.
With this in mind we can now say positively that the fact that the local government, the local newspapers, and some if not many of the various local business, political, even church organizations all being in lock-step with the Aldridges should alarm the hell out of people.
This “alarm” should spell a no vote, for caution sake, in this partial-annexation election.
_________________________________________________________________
5/6/11 - KGem - http://havasucitypodcast.com/2011/05/06/vote-no-side-on-annexation.aspx
Vote NO Side on Annexation Meeting
I personally attended the Vote No meeting at Grace Arts on McCulloch Blvd on May 3rd. They had several speakers. The main speakers were Sue Thompson, a homeowner in the Refuge and Dennis Schilling. Other speakers were Monica Ball and Tom Graybill, also Refuge homeowners and another gentleman. I didn't get his name.
The meeting had about 75 to 80 attendees. I noticed that the Yes Vote side parked in front of Grace Arts with their vehicles plastered with Yes Vote signs. I don't know if it was a form of intimidation, but I felt a bit of trepidation of a possible confrontation. My fear of that was quelled when I realized there was a law enforcement officer at the door. I knew at that point, this was going to be a peaceful meeting.
When I walked in, I was greeted by a lady who offered me a form to submit questions and offered me some bottled water and cookies. I felt very welcomed at this point and proceeded to enter the venue to listen to the speakers. The speakers were organized in their presentation. I have put in a request for a copy of the video, so we can post it here for our podcast listeners.
Everything was basically explained from the No side including the lawsuit that the Rescue the Refuge group has pending against the city of Lake Havasu. A No vote would make that lawsuit against the city go away, according to Sue Thompson. Sue Thompson also mentioned that there were a total of 8 lawsuits pending in this whole issue on private property. She even mentioned that the Aldridges were personally suing several of the HOA board members and their spouses collectively. Also, these HOA members were no longer welcome at the Golf Course Clubhouse and their rights to golf were revoked indefinitely.
At one point of the presentation, a group of people in the back got up and walked out. I found out later that they were part of the Yes Vote side.
They also showed a video of one of their attorneys, Paul Gilbert, who made it clear that the homeowners do have a valid lawsuit in regards to their CC&R's. For those of you who don't know what the acronym CC&R stands for, it's real estate jargon that means Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions(deed restrictions). Basically, it covers the homeowners' rights when they first purchased their land and home under certain conditions that were advertised to them to get them to purchase their property on this land.
All kinds of questions were asked and answered. The speakers did a really good job answering all of the questions. There were so many, it's hard to recall most of them.
One of the questions I specifically asked, was about the Aldridges indemnifying and paying the legal fees on behalf of the city. This really concerned me as a resident and registered voter of Lake Havasu City. Basically, there is no insurance policy that is paid for by the Aldridges to indemnify the city from any future lawsuits and potential liability for damages. This concerns me so much, especially when the city is currently in a $5.1M deficit and it's projected that it will hit $6M by the end of this fiscal year. Our city definitely doesn't need to be on the hook for any lawsuits.
At the end, I stood up and told the attendees and the speakers, that I was originally a Yes Vote now turned to a No Vote after doing some digging and asking questions about 2 weeks ago. It is my conclusion that as long as there is all of this pending litigation that has not been adjudicated, it makes no sense to vote yes on an issue that our city officials haven't fully researched themselves. According to the No side, our city officials have only taken the word of the Aldridges as to how this is going to be a revenue generator for the city.
Now don't get me wrong, I want revenue generated, but I want it done right and I don't think the city getting sued right now is the right way to go for it's residents. This is my personal view and you don't have to agree, but it's how I feel and that's why I have voted NO because of all of the pending litigation that has not been adjudicated! If a no vote is going to free the city and it's taxpayers from this mess, well then it only makes sense for me to vote no.
What's interesting here is the No side's Refuge residents and Desert Hills residents CAN NOT vote in this election! However, because the Aldridges are registered voters in Lake Havasu City, they can vote. The Aldridges and the HOA need to have their pending litigations adjudicated and then bring the annexation back to the table. I don't see why everyone doesn't meet in the middle and have the whole Refuge, not just the 49 acres annexed? It would be a great revenue generator for the city for sure!
You have until May 17th, 2011 to get your vote in. Please do the research before you vote. Don't go off of rhetoric, go off the facts. Remember there is always two sides to every story.
Have a great week! Remember, if you don't vote, you don't have a voice and you can't complain!
Your Conservative Diva,
KGem
The meeting had about 75 to 80 attendees. I noticed that the Yes Vote side parked in front of Grace Arts with their vehicles plastered with Yes Vote signs. I don't know if it was a form of intimidation, but I felt a bit of trepidation of a possible confrontation. My fear of that was quelled when I realized there was a law enforcement officer at the door. I knew at that point, this was going to be a peaceful meeting.
When I walked in, I was greeted by a lady who offered me a form to submit questions and offered me some bottled water and cookies. I felt very welcomed at this point and proceeded to enter the venue to listen to the speakers. The speakers were organized in their presentation. I have put in a request for a copy of the video, so we can post it here for our podcast listeners.
Everything was basically explained from the No side including the lawsuit that the Rescue the Refuge group has pending against the city of Lake Havasu. A No vote would make that lawsuit against the city go away, according to Sue Thompson. Sue Thompson also mentioned that there were a total of 8 lawsuits pending in this whole issue on private property. She even mentioned that the Aldridges were personally suing several of the HOA board members and their spouses collectively. Also, these HOA members were no longer welcome at the Golf Course Clubhouse and their rights to golf were revoked indefinitely.
At one point of the presentation, a group of people in the back got up and walked out. I found out later that they were part of the Yes Vote side.
They also showed a video of one of their attorneys, Paul Gilbert, who made it clear that the homeowners do have a valid lawsuit in regards to their CC&R's. For those of you who don't know what the acronym CC&R stands for, it's real estate jargon that means Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions(deed restrictions). Basically, it covers the homeowners' rights when they first purchased their land and home under certain conditions that were advertised to them to get them to purchase their property on this land.
All kinds of questions were asked and answered. The speakers did a really good job answering all of the questions. There were so many, it's hard to recall most of them.
One of the questions I specifically asked, was about the Aldridges indemnifying and paying the legal fees on behalf of the city. This really concerned me as a resident and registered voter of Lake Havasu City. Basically, there is no insurance policy that is paid for by the Aldridges to indemnify the city from any future lawsuits and potential liability for damages. This concerns me so much, especially when the city is currently in a $5.1M deficit and it's projected that it will hit $6M by the end of this fiscal year. Our city definitely doesn't need to be on the hook for any lawsuits.
At the end, I stood up and told the attendees and the speakers, that I was originally a Yes Vote now turned to a No Vote after doing some digging and asking questions about 2 weeks ago. It is my conclusion that as long as there is all of this pending litigation that has not been adjudicated, it makes no sense to vote yes on an issue that our city officials haven't fully researched themselves. According to the No side, our city officials have only taken the word of the Aldridges as to how this is going to be a revenue generator for the city.
Now don't get me wrong, I want revenue generated, but I want it done right and I don't think the city getting sued right now is the right way to go for it's residents. This is my personal view and you don't have to agree, but it's how I feel and that's why I have voted NO because of all of the pending litigation that has not been adjudicated! If a no vote is going to free the city and it's taxpayers from this mess, well then it only makes sense for me to vote no.
What's interesting here is the No side's Refuge residents and Desert Hills residents CAN NOT vote in this election! However, because the Aldridges are registered voters in Lake Havasu City, they can vote. The Aldridges and the HOA need to have their pending litigations adjudicated and then bring the annexation back to the table. I don't see why everyone doesn't meet in the middle and have the whole Refuge, not just the 49 acres annexed? It would be a great revenue generator for the city for sure!
You have until May 17th, 2011 to get your vote in. Please do the research before you vote. Don't go off of rhetoric, go off the facts. Remember there is always two sides to every story.
Have a great week! Remember, if you don't vote, you don't have a voice and you can't complain!
Your Conservative Diva,
KGem
____________________________________________________________________
5/5/11 - Rick Thompson - "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!"
Recently, those of us in opposition to the annexation have been accused by the Aldridges, Don Clark, and a select few Refuge HOA members of misrepresenting facts and thus being “liars.” In fact, this is yet another ploy to divert people’s attention away from what they should be focused on, which is the question of legality.
I was recently quoted in the News-Herald (4-14-11) as having said, “All of the stuff they talk about is secondary to the question of whether or not this is legal.” Of course the Clarks and Aldridges know this. And with that, along with their cries of “LIARS” I am forced to the conclusion that practically everything the Aldridges assert, and the Clarks parrot, is in an effort to get people to look away from the fact that re-developers cannot legally force an RV subdivision on residents who literally bought into a “master-planned” community designed, built, and sold around a PGA-ready golf course affiliated with the name of a world-recognized athlete.
The very fact that this contrived partial-annexation needed to be attempted after an abandoned application with the County speaks to my assertion. In the most direct of terms: the attempt to annex only a piece of an already subdivided community is a jurisdictional-dodge and all but the very young and the very naïve should be able to see through a spin-cycle that started with water and ends with the hot air of expedience.
But sometimes even the obvious can be easily covered up with the simple. The fact is personal insults are often more tantalizing—or exciting—than the legal mumbo-jumbo that comes at us in a language most find as tiring as it is foreign. This alone can explain why the Clark/Aldridge strategy has so often turned to villianizing their opponents with tantalizing attacks like: “LIAR!”. This rather simple shift in a subject matter can take a legal focus (“mumbo-jumbo” and all) with a string of “not-withstanding” and “wherefore” verbiage and turn it into a personal mud-bath ripe for a TV reality program.
And so it is with these folks, over and over again, personal attacks replace good sound assessment. Sadly however, if you do take their bait, it is Lake Havasu City that is the loser. And examples of this are everywhere. From abandoned villages to abandoned campgrounds (KOA next to the Refuge) and from an airport without airplanes to a mall without shops, pathetic outcomes to what seemed to be good plans at the time are the rule in Lake Havasu, not the exception. And the reason for such systemic failure, over and over again, has invariably had more to do with a narrow focus directed at the immediate and the personal than it has on very real concepts like being able to actually trust the local authorities to do what they say they will do.
And we should make no mistake, “trust” is exactly what things like master-planned communities and General Plans for regions are all about. In other words these “…plans” provide a kind of assurance to people that what is being represented will actually come to pass. It is not just irony that points to the fact that the Aldridges want to discard a “Master-Plan” by asking their friends on the City Council to disregard their own “General-Plan.” These broken PLANS are no less than broken promises and no amount of: “Liar, liar, pants on fire” diversions will change the pathetic results such ploys invariably produce.
Rick Thompson, Refuge Homeowner
___________________________________________________________________5/4/11 - Linda Denovan's Response to Cindy Aldridge:
Linda Denovan's Fiction vs. Facts
Cindy Aldridge sent out an email blast tonight titled Linda Denovan's Fiction vs. Facts
Cindy stated she wanted to "unspin" my email from earlier today.
She inserted her answers in my email so here you will find each of my original points, her answers and then my response to her.
1) There are 8 separate lawsuits pending before the courts to settle assorted issues surrounding plans for the Refuge. According to the Lake Havasu City attorney in a meeting on January 25, 2011 if these lawsuits prevail the annexation vote is null and void. A video of this council meeting is available.
Cindy:
This is a false statement. There are only three lawsuits total, and only one has anything at all to do with the annexation. That is a lawsuit that has been filed against the City. We believe it is a frivolous lawsuit with no merit.
Fact:
You have apparantly forgotten the FACT that you filed 5 lawsuits against each of the individual members of the HOA and their spouses.
2) The NO representatives at this same meeting requested the issue be tabled until the lawsuits are settled or wait for the next general election. The City Council (all on the yes side) voted for an immediate Special Election at a cost of $138,000. Also on the video mentioned above.
Cindy:
The Mayor and City Council believe annexation sooner rather than later is in the best interest of the community. The sooner the tax dollars start rolling in, the sooner we can recoup the cost of the election.
Fact:
Why they did what they did does not change the FACT that they did it.
3) According to the News Herald's own Truth or Fiction Report neither the mayor nor the city council have reviewed or substantiated the revenue claims which are the basis for the desire to annex.
Cindy:
The Mayor and City Council are not required to delve into personal financial matters when approving an annexation. They are only charged with making sure the annexation brings in more than it costs. Even if the proposed motorcoach resort is never built, this project would be beneficial to the City through the increased property taxes collected.
Fact:
Again the assertation that they are not required to delve into the financials simply confirms the FACT that they did not.
4) The cost to LHC taxpayers ($320,000+) associated with Fire Station #6 after the current grant money runs out in 2012 as detailed in a letter from Desert Hills Fire Chief Mathew Espinoza dated April 25, 2011.
Cindy:
This statement is also false. The expenses of Fire Station #6 are unrelated to the annexation. See the response from Lake Havasu City Fire Chief Dennis Mueller:.... (followed by the actual letter)
Fact:
The FACT is you have two Fire Chiefs with opposing opinions.
5) The validity of taking 4 golf course holes within the gates of a master planned community and converting, redeveloping or further subdividing a subdivision is an issue before the courts.
Cindy:
Various provisions of the CC&Rs ...... (followed by a lengthy copy of actual sections)
Fact:
The FACT is you have two attorneys with vastly different interpretations and the FACT is a court will decide the outcome.
6) Using HOA roads that homeowners pay to maintain for purposes other than golf course access is also under litigation.
Cindy:
We have a court order (attached) issued by Judge Gurtler that confirms we have access over all the roads.
Fact:
The FACT is this is a temporary order and the FACT is this issue IS under litigation.
7) Eliminating a Wild Life Buffer Zone mandated by Mohave County.
Cindy:
This is a false statement – there is no document supporting this claim.
Fact:
The FACT is documentation is available at www.RefugeAnnexation.com under the documentation tab.
8) Banning Homeowners within the Refuge, exercising their constitutional rights to protect their property, from using the golf course is a moral issue that speaks to the character of the current course owner.
Cindy:
Homeowners are not “banned” from using the club, however, this is a private club, like Costco. You have to buy a membership to go in Costco. You also have to buy a membership to belong to this club.
Fact:
The FACT is several memberships have been denied. (Names available on request)
9) Denigrating residents within the community as "wealthy, self-interested, knee-jerk naysayers". Quoted directly from the website home page. Name calling needs no further explanation. (Not to mention the "wealthy, self-interested" comment is definitely the pot calling the kettle black!!)
Also on the website the No Group is referred to as "a small, but vocal (group) of California-based home- and lot-owners" which is reprehensible on two levels. First of all, the 1700+ signatures gathered were Lake Havasu City residents. Voting on issues within the HOA have also consistently supported the NO vote by more than 4 to 1. Secondly, home owners in Havasu are just that home owners. Would anyone care to guess how many Havasu residents actually come from somewhere else? Would anyone care to guess what would happen to Havasu if no one bought a second home here?
Cindy:
(the above item was deleted from her response to me and no answer was given!!)
10) and finally ... the top reason is an open letter to Rotarian's written by Gary Charlebois, past Rotary President, chastising Jerry Aldridge for being unable to pass the Rotary Four Way Test for this project on all four counts.
"Is it the truth?"
"Is it fair to all concerned?"
"Will it build good will and better friendships?"
"Will it be beneficial to all concerned?"
The answer to those 4 questions will give you the answer to my vote.
Cindy:
I would suggest Linda review the above and ask herself:
"Is it the truth?"
"Is it fair to all concerned?"
"Will it build good will and better friendships?"
"Will it be beneficial to all concerned?"
Fact:
THE FACT is I can in good faith answer YES. The FACT is you asked the question rather than answered it.
So there you have it ... my OPINION based on the FACTS I have been able to obtain.
I trust you too will make an intelligent decision based on all the information you are able to gather.
a Denovan
Realtor, ABR
Cindy stated she wanted to "unspin" my email from earlier today.
She inserted her answers in my email so here you will find each of my original points, her answers and then my response to her.
1) There are 8 separate lawsuits pending before the courts to settle assorted issues surrounding plans for the Refuge. According to the Lake Havasu City attorney in a meeting on January 25, 2011 if these lawsuits prevail the annexation vote is null and void. A video of this council meeting is available.
Cindy:
This is a false statement. There are only three lawsuits total, and only one has anything at all to do with the annexation. That is a lawsuit that has been filed against the City. We believe it is a frivolous lawsuit with no merit.
Fact:
You have apparantly forgotten the FACT that you filed 5 lawsuits against each of the individual members of the HOA and their spouses.
2) The NO representatives at this same meeting requested the issue be tabled until the lawsuits are settled or wait for the next general election. The City Council (all on the yes side) voted for an immediate Special Election at a cost of $138,000. Also on the video mentioned above.
Cindy:
The Mayor and City Council believe annexation sooner rather than later is in the best interest of the community. The sooner the tax dollars start rolling in, the sooner we can recoup the cost of the election.
Fact:
Why they did what they did does not change the FACT that they did it.
3) According to the News Herald's own Truth or Fiction Report neither the mayor nor the city council have reviewed or substantiated the revenue claims which are the basis for the desire to annex.
Cindy:
The Mayor and City Council are not required to delve into personal financial matters when approving an annexation. They are only charged with making sure the annexation brings in more than it costs. Even if the proposed motorcoach resort is never built, this project would be beneficial to the City through the increased property taxes collected.
Fact:
Again the assertation that they are not required to delve into the financials simply confirms the FACT that they did not.
4) The cost to LHC taxpayers ($320,000+) associated with Fire Station #6 after the current grant money runs out in 2012 as detailed in a letter from Desert Hills Fire Chief Mathew Espinoza dated April 25, 2011.
Cindy:
This statement is also false. The expenses of Fire Station #6 are unrelated to the annexation. See the response from Lake Havasu City Fire Chief Dennis Mueller:.... (followed by the actual letter)
Fact:
The FACT is you have two Fire Chiefs with opposing opinions.
5) The validity of taking 4 golf course holes within the gates of a master planned community and converting, redeveloping or further subdividing a subdivision is an issue before the courts.
Cindy:
Various provisions of the CC&Rs ...... (followed by a lengthy copy of actual sections)
Fact:
The FACT is you have two attorneys with vastly different interpretations and the FACT is a court will decide the outcome.
6) Using HOA roads that homeowners pay to maintain for purposes other than golf course access is also under litigation.
Cindy:
We have a court order (attached) issued by Judge Gurtler that confirms we have access over all the roads.
Fact:
The FACT is this is a temporary order and the FACT is this issue IS under litigation.
7) Eliminating a Wild Life Buffer Zone mandated by Mohave County.
Cindy:
This is a false statement – there is no document supporting this claim.
Fact:
The FACT is documentation is available at www.RefugeAnnexation.com under the documentation tab.
8) Banning Homeowners within the Refuge, exercising their constitutional rights to protect their property, from using the golf course is a moral issue that speaks to the character of the current course owner.
Cindy:
Homeowners are not “banned” from using the club, however, this is a private club, like Costco. You have to buy a membership to go in Costco. You also have to buy a membership to belong to this club.
Fact:
The FACT is several memberships have been denied. (Names available on request)
9) Denigrating residents within the community as "wealthy, self-interested, knee-jerk naysayers". Quoted directly from the website home page. Name calling needs no further explanation. (Not to mention the "wealthy, self-interested" comment is definitely the pot calling the kettle black!!)
Also on the website the No Group is referred to as "a small, but vocal (group) of California-based home- and lot-owners" which is reprehensible on two levels. First of all, the 1700+ signatures gathered were Lake Havasu City residents. Voting on issues within the HOA have also consistently supported the NO vote by more than 4 to 1. Secondly, home owners in Havasu are just that home owners. Would anyone care to guess how many Havasu residents actually come from somewhere else? Would anyone care to guess what would happen to Havasu if no one bought a second home here?
Cindy:
(the above item was deleted from her response to me and no answer was given!!)
10) and finally ... the top reason is an open letter to Rotarian's written by Gary Charlebois, past Rotary President, chastising Jerry Aldridge for being unable to pass the Rotary Four Way Test for this project on all four counts.
"Is it the truth?"
"Is it fair to all concerned?"
"Will it build good will and better friendships?"
"Will it be beneficial to all concerned?"
The answer to those 4 questions will give you the answer to my vote.
Cindy:
I would suggest Linda review the above and ask herself:
"Is it the truth?"
"Is it fair to all concerned?"
"Will it build good will and better friendships?"
"Will it be beneficial to all concerned?"
Fact:
THE FACT is I can in good faith answer YES. The FACT is you asked the question rather than answered it.
So there you have it ... my OPINION based on the FACTS I have been able to obtain.
I trust you too will make an intelligent decision based on all the information you are able to gather.
a Denovan
Realtor, ABR
5/3/11 - Linda Denovan, Realtor
Here are the top 10 reasons why I voted NO on the annexation:
1) There are 8 separate lawsuits pending before the courts to settle assorted issues surrounding plans for the Refuge. According to the Lake Havasu City attorney in a meeting on January 25, 2011 if these lawsuits prevail the annexation vote is null and void. A video of this council meeting is available.
2) The NO representatives at this same meeting requested the issue be tabled until the lawsuits are settled or wait for the next general election. The City Council (all on the yes side) voted for an immediate Special Election at a cost of $138,000. Also on the video mentioned above.
3) According to the News Herald's own Truth or Fiction Report neither the mayor nor the city council have reviewed or substantiated the revenue claims which are the basis for the desire to annex.
4) The cost to LHC taxpayers ($320,000+) associated with Fire Station #6 after the current grant money runs out in 2012 as detailed in a letter from Desert Hills Fire Chief Mathew Espinoza dated April 25, 2011.
Those are the concerns that are before the voters on the issue of annexation. In addition there are several other issues.
5) The validity of taking 4 golf course holes within the gates of a master planned community and converting, redeveloping or further subdividing a subdivision is an issue before the courts.
6) Using HOA roads that homeowners pay to maintain for purposes other than golf course access is also under litigation.
7) Eliminating a Wild Life Buffer Zone mandated by Mohave County - also in litigation.
On a personal note I am appalled by several more issues:
8) Banning Homeowners within the master planned community, exercising their constitutional rights to protect their property, from using the golf course is a moral issue that speaks to the character of the current course owner.
9) Denigrating residents within the community as "wealthy, self-interested, knee-jerk naysayers". Quoted directly from the website home page. Name calling needs no further explanation. (Not to mention the "wealthy, self-interested" comment is definitely the pot calling the kettle black!!)
Also on the website the No Group is referred to as "a small, but vocal (group) of California-based home- and lot-owners" which is reprehensible on two levels. First of all, the 1700+ signatures gathered were Lake Havasu City residents. Voting on issues within the HOA have also consistently supported the NO vote by more than 4 to 1. Secondly, home owners in Havasu are just that home owners. Would anyone care to guess how many Havasu residents actually come from somewhere else? Would anyone care to guess what would happen to Havasu if no one bought a second home here?
10) and finally ... the top reason is an open letter to Rotarian's written by Gary Charlebois, past Rotary President, chastising Jerry Aldridge for being unable to pass the Rotary Four Way Test for this project on all four counts.
"Is it the truth?"
"Is it fair to all concerned?"
"Will it build good will and better friendships?"
"Will it be beneficial to all concerned?"
The answer to those 4 questions will give you the answer to my vote.
Linda Denovan
The DENOVAN Group at RE/MAX
Melissa McDaniel - Buyer's Agent
Mimi Lundy - Associate Broker
Eva Stewart - Transaction Co-ordinator
wvw.HOUSESINHAVASU.com
928 208 2975 phone
928 855 0081 fax
4/25/11 - Mat Espinoza, Fire Chief, Desert Hills Fire Department
DHchief wrote on Apr 26, 2011 7:04 AM:
" The Letter Not Printed:
To the Editor,
With the closing of the airport fire station last year due to “staffing issues”, it was apparent that the businesses located in their response area, including Havasu RV Resort, Lowe’s, Home Depot, Anderson Chrysler, Wal-mart, and other stores located in the mall area, weren’t enough to warrant keeping the station open. When the staffing issues were resolved with a two-year federal grant, it was apparent that the staffing issues were simply that the city could not afford to pay firefighters.
If the proposed annexation of a portion of the Refuge Golf Course is important enough to keep the fire station open when the grant expires next year, the citizens of the city should realize they will be paying to keep the station open. These costs will come directly from the city budget. If the best projection for increased tax revenues from the proposed business plan of the Refuge is $180,000 per year, the rest of the fire station funding will come from city taxpayers. A fire station can easily exceed over half a million dollars per year to run. That’s at least $320,000 for taxpayers to fund.
With the city looking at a $6 million budget shortfall next year, the city council should seriously consider whether it wants to expand the city’s liability for fire protection and medical aid without a solid commitment to funding the fire station after the grant expiration. That would mean the fire department would be spared cuts in staffing despite the city's economic woes. If the city cannot commit, then it should not continue the annexation process. If the city does commit, taxpayers should know they will pay for it. In the meantime, the Desert Hills Fire Department will lose revenue from its budget if the annexation process is approved.
Mathew Espinoza, Fire Chief
Desert Hills Fire Department "
To the Editor,
With the closing of the airport fire station last year due to “staffing issues”, it was apparent that the businesses located in their response area, including Havasu RV Resort, Lowe’s, Home Depot, Anderson Chrysler, Wal-mart, and other stores located in the mall area, weren’t enough to warrant keeping the station open. When the staffing issues were resolved with a two-year federal grant, it was apparent that the staffing issues were simply that the city could not afford to pay firefighters.
If the proposed annexation of a portion of the Refuge Golf Course is important enough to keep the fire station open when the grant expires next year, the citizens of the city should realize they will be paying to keep the station open. These costs will come directly from the city budget. If the best projection for increased tax revenues from the proposed business plan of the Refuge is $180,000 per year, the rest of the fire station funding will come from city taxpayers. A fire station can easily exceed over half a million dollars per year to run. That’s at least $320,000 for taxpayers to fund.
With the city looking at a $6 million budget shortfall next year, the city council should seriously consider whether it wants to expand the city’s liability for fire protection and medical aid without a solid commitment to funding the fire station after the grant expiration. That would mean the fire department would be spared cuts in staffing despite the city's economic woes. If the city cannot commit, then it should not continue the annexation process. If the city does commit, taxpayers should know they will pay for it. In the meantime, the Desert Hills Fire Department will lose revenue from its budget if the annexation process is approved.
Mathew Espinoza, Fire Chief
Desert Hills Fire Department "
___________________________________________________________________
From News Herald Electronic comments after front page article 4/26 (link in Media tab):
dowens wrote on Apr 26, 2011 8:14 AM:
" So let's see....
It's FACT that this will cost the taxpayers more than the City first told us.... how much more is unknown, but now it looks like more than twice as much at a minimum.
It's FACT that the City didn't do any of it's own due diligence on this plan because it would 1) cost them too much and 2) it doesn't matter to the city if this fails and becomes abandoned.
It's FACT that even though the FIRST assertion from the Aldridges is that this was "all about the water" , it had nothing to do with the water.
It's FACT that the Wildlife Refuge people have an issue with this.
It's FACT that the City had other options but wanted to fast track this for whatever reasons they had -- at the expense of the taxpayers.
And that's just what I remember off the top of my head from reading the two articles.
Good for Havasu? NO WAY!!!!! "
It's FACT that this will cost the taxpayers more than the City first told us.... how much more is unknown, but now it looks like more than twice as much at a minimum.
It's FACT that the City didn't do any of it's own due diligence on this plan because it would 1) cost them too much and 2) it doesn't matter to the city if this fails and becomes abandoned.
It's FACT that even though the FIRST assertion from the Aldridges is that this was "all about the water" , it had nothing to do with the water.
It's FACT that the Wildlife Refuge people have an issue with this.
It's FACT that the City had other options but wanted to fast track this for whatever reasons they had -- at the expense of the taxpayers.
And that's just what I remember off the top of my head from reading the two articles.
Good for Havasu? NO WAY!!!!! "
___________________________________________________________________
4/13/11 - Letter to the LHC Taxpayers from Rick and Sue Thompson
http://www.scribd.com/full/52979039?access_key=key-8qgj5pprznbwpov9lby
_____________________________________________________________________
4/04/11 - From Tim Coltrell - Refuge Homeowner
I am a property owner at The Refuge. I am concerned about a disturbing insinuation that is being made by the Aldridges against the people who oppose their plan.
We are often referred to as "Out of Towners" or "Californians" in a very derogatory tone. It’s as if visitors like myself are viewed with contempt by the Aldridges. They are appealing to one of human nature’s most negative emotions: US versus Them, Locals versus Outsiders.
Wow, if I’d known there was such contempt for visitors who may become locals to the area, I don’t think I would have purchased property in the area. I don’t believe this is a widely held view of the majority of citizens of Lake Havasu City, but it is clearly a view the Aldridges hold and are eager to exploit to get what they want.
I believe us "Outsiders" contribute significantly to the economic and social well being of the Lake Havasu City area. If we are treated with such contempt, why would we want to spend our resources in the area?
Let me ask a simple question, "What would the City be if there were no visitors like those that are referred to in such a demeaning way by the Aldridges?” Isn’t LHC a tourist attraction that relies on the money spent by people who may not live there full time, but contribute so much to the local economy?
It is a shame to see the Aldridges try to use such tactics. Should this scheme pass, maybe the RV'ers who visit would like to know that they are viewed with such contempt by the very people they would be paying.
Maybe they just wouldn't come either. Then where would the City be?
We are often referred to as "Out of Towners" or "Californians" in a very derogatory tone. It’s as if visitors like myself are viewed with contempt by the Aldridges. They are appealing to one of human nature’s most negative emotions: US versus Them, Locals versus Outsiders.
Wow, if I’d known there was such contempt for visitors who may become locals to the area, I don’t think I would have purchased property in the area. I don’t believe this is a widely held view of the majority of citizens of Lake Havasu City, but it is clearly a view the Aldridges hold and are eager to exploit to get what they want.
I believe us "Outsiders" contribute significantly to the economic and social well being of the Lake Havasu City area. If we are treated with such contempt, why would we want to spend our resources in the area?
Let me ask a simple question, "What would the City be if there were no visitors like those that are referred to in such a demeaning way by the Aldridges?” Isn’t LHC a tourist attraction that relies on the money spent by people who may not live there full time, but contribute so much to the local economy?
It is a shame to see the Aldridges try to use such tactics. Should this scheme pass, maybe the RV'ers who visit would like to know that they are viewed with such contempt by the very people they would be paying.
Maybe they just wouldn't come either. Then where would the City be?
Tim Coltrell
Proud Californian AND Lake Havasu Property Owner
________________________________________________________________________________________
4/3/11 - From Gary Charlebois - Refuge Homeowner
4/3/11 - From Gary Charlebois - Refuge Homeowner
As a former Rotarian, a past Rotary President and a Rotary Paul Harris Fellow, I watched the claimed Rotarian Jerry Aldridge, in horror on that October 31, 2009 afternoon. This is the day that Mr. Aldridge introduced his plans to the homeowners of the Refuge. He detailed how he was going to get rid of the Arnold Palmer Signature Course in order to turn that land into a RV park inside the Refuge private gated community. His goal at that time was to sell hundreds of RV spaces for $149,000 or more. He described the chopped up golf course, the 300 seat theatre, the swimming pool and spa, a dog park and RV spaces with campground kitchens. All of these amenities with hundreds of additional people and animals in our peaceful gated community along with their RVs, yet not one honest question to the home owners asking us just how we felt about all of this.
He knew full well but just didn't seem to care that the Refuge property owners bought their homes and lots for privacy on a golf course. He knew that many of us had plans to retire in the Refuge once our working lives and careers were over. Nevertheless, and as cold-blooded as any I've ever seen, Jerry Aldridge let it be known that day, he did not care about any of that. It was now his golf course and he could do whatever he wanted to. Within month, if not weeks, I watched my property value and the property value of my neighbors evaporate with every move he made toward his goal. But even on that, Halloween, Fall Day, I could see my retirement dreams fall away. And with that, I just couldn't take it anymore. I stood up and asked Jerry to recite the Rotary Four Way Test.
He quietly proceeded but not so proudly as just moments before. He said each of the four tests.
"Is it the truth?"
"Is it fair to all concerned?"
"Will it build good will and better friendships?"
"Will it be beneficial to all concerned?"
I challenged him that afternoon, "Does this project meet the Four Way Test?" If you were there, you know how he answered. If not, you've had a chance to watch this guy at work, then you already know, he gauges everything in the world by how it affects him first. Did "we all" benefit more by Aldridge's out-bidding the homeowners for the golf course or less? Before you answer that, who started the rumor, or lie, that no one else had bid on the course? If you figure that one out, let me know will you? And how about number three? That's the one about "good will and better friendship." Do you remember when we all used to meet and hang out down at the club on Friday nights for happy hour. Hell, now there are some of us who can't even look at each other.
But the number one test for good Rotarians is the one Jerry Aldridge should be the most ashamed of. "Is it the truth?" That is the one that jumps up at me every time I see him write that folks like me and Lori are a "small but vocal minority." Simply stated, it is one thing to tell a little white lie, or maybe put a little political spin on some point you are trying to make. But to look into the face of overwhelming numbers of homeowners who over and over again oppose you and deny those homeowners even exist at all...what do you call that? If you are not "vocal" or emotionally incensed then I just don't understand that.
On the other hand, if you really do think Jerry Aldridge is being truthful about this "small but vocal minority" please go to the Myth Buster #1 blog on the referendum website, www.refugeannexation.com and read it. The evidence is as clear as it is overwhelming. Then, after that try going to wiki.answers.com, http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_you_tell_if_someone_is_a_pathological_liar. You can be the judge of just who that describes.
If the Aldridge's plans are successful, it will be at the expense of the Refuge property owners like Lori and I. We will not stay here and watch these vultures destroy what we have built. Many others will leave too!
Why is Jerry Aldridge allowed to still be a Rotarian? Much less even a Rotary President at one point? That is a question for Rotary International. Please read the Refuge Annexation blog-spot if you want to read, "The REAL truths," and not Aldridge propaganda. I believe in the old saying, "What comes around, goes around." Someday we will all be judge by our actions.
I still believe in the guidance of the Rotary Four Way Test. And if Jerry and Cindy Aldridge want to continue as respectable community leaders, they need to take a good look at themselves and what they are doing to their neighbors.
Thank you for reading this posting.
Gary Charlebois is a past Rotarian, a past Rotary President and a Rotary Paul Harris Fellow. Gary is a retired USAFR Master Sergeant where he served as a C-141 Starlifter Flight Engineer during and after Vietnam.
_______________________________________________________________________
3/11/11 - Letter to the Editor sent to Havasu News-Herald (not yet published) from Loren Bergh, LHC resident:
Editor:
Just follow the money trail and you can be sure someone will laugh all the way to the bank. This Refuge scam, sham, farce was sold to LHC mayor and council "Hook, Line and Sinker" through cronyism of the good ol boys (and girls). Because Mohave County has the jurisdiction of the Desert Hills district and has zoning regulations too stringent for the owner's of the Refuge, a change of plan was needed. The scheme was to create a 49 acre subdivision and have it annexed by LHC. The City Council blindly jumped into this without an independent study of the Refuge owner's promises of revenue and job creation for the people of LHC. Never minding if this was even true what it would take away from the Desert Hills community and Fire Dept. Even though the Fire Dept. would be across the line they would be compelled to respond to the RV park as they are 1/4 mile away.
Now for the Money! 279 RV pads @ $170,000 to $240,000. Estimated cost of the RV park $18 to $25 million. Let's say it would cost $20 million. And I think I am being generous! Use an average of $200,000 per pad and multiply by 279 units would amount to $55,800,000. Yes that's almost $56 million for an investment of $20 million subtracted equals $36 million in profit. The Aldridge's are known business people and I'm sure they see a good thing here where they could just walk away and let LHC hold an empty bag. Of course this is after the taxpayer's loss of $138,000 for the special election to make this happen. But wait!
The voters are not stupid to allow this to happen, when there are at least three law suits pending that may vaporize the scheme.
Loren Bergh
___________________________________________________________________
2/08/11 From Dennis Wilson
Regarding the Refuge and it's annexation it seems Jerry Aldridge is asking the City and its citizens to go into business with him. Normally, I would say his business plan and how he risks his money is none of my business. However, his success is based on the assumption that there are million-dollar motor homes circling the city looking for very expensives parking spaces. Before the City risks our water allocation and takes on potential liability, I think it should take a hard look at the business plan and it possibility of failure.
The Outdoor Resort of Palm Springs is a premium, well established RV resort with an 18 holes golf course. I have stayed there on three occasions and have never seen it more than half full. The cost of renting is about on par with a normal RV park because of the vacancy factor. Right now there are dozens of spaces for sale starting at $55K.
Since 2007, most high-end motor home manufacturers have closed their doors or filed bankruptcy, i.e. Monaco, Beaver, Safari, Holiday Rambler, just to name a few. The surviving manufacturers are offering smaller, less expensive coaches because of the declining market - not to mention what could be $5 a gallon diesel prices by summer.
I visited an RV park similar to what Jerry is developing in Moab, Ut. this summer and listened to their sales pitch. They were asking $170K for a space like Jerry. Only about 15% of the spaces were sold and the development had been there for a long time.
My question is, why is the city willing to risk our water and potential libility on a very risky business plan. Moreover, the property to be annexed will be closed to our citizens unless they are members or property owners.
I just don't see the need for the City to take the risk. If its such a good deal, wait until it is developed and sold and then annex it.
___________________________________________________
02/03/11 From Gary Kramer
We own a condo in Havasu but unfortunately only get to spend 2 weeks a year there..... I want to commend you on how professionally and analytically your web site is prepared and the information that you provide... It is easy to become biased when your personal investment in your home is radically being changed as well as the social life you expected at the golf course. Yet your information is very well documented and presented..I hope you succeed with your lawsuits and the election.
_________________________________________________________________________
02/02/11
I have lived in the Desert Hills Fire District for the past 26 years. During these 26 years I have seen several annexations of our County District property including the Mall, car dealers, Home Depot, Lowe's and the Airport, which by the way was an illegal annexation. Now the City and City Center wants to annex more of our precious land into the City. We as Desert Hills District Residents CAN NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. We as residents must band together to try and stop the annexation of more of our property to the City. If the annexation is allowed to take place , not only the residents of the District, but the Fire Department as well stand to LOSE MORE MONEY. We have a very efficient Fire Department and Sheriff's Department working in the District. If they lose any more money it will cut into their budget even more than all the other annexations have. That money is precious to our Fire Department, the Sheriff,s Office and to THE RESIDENTS. nOT ONLY WILL OUR TAXES GO UP, BUT SO WILL THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY. DO YOU REALLY NEED THIS IN YOUR CITY? WILL YOU REALLY BENEFIT THAT MUCH FROM THE REVANUE?
I as a resident of the District, DO NOT WANT TO SEE ANY ANNEXATION OF ANY KIND, BY ANY ONE, IN OUR DISTRICT.
Hopefully the City Council will take the matter to a vote and the people of the City will do the right thing and vote with your heart, not because you like or dislike Jerry and Cindy Aldridge. Read the truth about the matter before you vote.
The City Council has said WE DON'T MEAN ANYTHING TO THEM. THEY THINK WE ARE A BUNCH OF NOBODYS LINING IN THE DISTRICT. THEY ARE WRONG. WE ARE PEOPLE LIVING IN OUR DISTRICT JUST AS YOU LIVE IN THE CITY. I own my home right up the street from the Refuge, I shop in the City and pay City Taxes and pay school taxes just as you who live in the City do.
I hope the City Council will take time to REALLY THINK ABOUT THE ANNEXATION before they make their decision. So far they haven't. THEY HAVEN'T LISTENED TO A WORD WE'VE SAID.
Listen up Mr. Mayor and the rest of your Council, I DO NOT WANT ANY OF THE DESERT HILLS ANNEXED BY ANY ONE FOR ANY REASON.
Judy Moore, Desert Hills Fire District Resident
You may use my name.
I as a resident of the District, DO NOT WANT TO SEE ANY ANNEXATION OF ANY KIND, BY ANY ONE, IN OUR DISTRICT.
Hopefully the City Council will take the matter to a vote and the people of the City will do the right thing and vote with your heart, not because you like or dislike Jerry and Cindy Aldridge. Read the truth about the matter before you vote.
The City Council has said WE DON'T MEAN ANYTHING TO THEM. THEY THINK WE ARE A BUNCH OF NOBODYS LINING IN THE DISTRICT. THEY ARE WRONG. WE ARE PEOPLE LIVING IN OUR DISTRICT JUST AS YOU LIVE IN THE CITY. I own my home right up the street from the Refuge, I shop in the City and pay City Taxes and pay school taxes just as you who live in the City do.
I hope the City Council will take time to REALLY THINK ABOUT THE ANNEXATION before they make their decision. So far they haven't. THEY HAVEN'T LISTENED TO A WORD WE'VE SAID.
Listen up Mr. Mayor and the rest of your Council, I DO NOT WANT ANY OF THE DESERT HILLS ANNEXED BY ANY ONE FOR ANY REASON.
Judy Moore, Desert Hills Fire District Resident
You may use my name.
____________________________________________________________________________________
LawMan wrote on Jan 27, 2011 7:02 AM: (Comment in Havasunews.com under the article on 1/26/11 on "Refuge Annex Goes to Vote". Reprinted with permission.)
"What became clear at this City Council meeting is that the Mayor and the other council members lack a fundamental understanding of Due Process and its connection to a citizen’s right to petition their government.
The subject at hand was a referendum (signed by almost 1700 citizens) having to do with the council’s previous decision to annex a portion of a golf course presently in County area. In what seemed to some observing the open meeting as a tirade the Mayor actually suggested that those involved in the referendum pay the over $100,000 in costs of a special election, that “special election” neither required by law nor requested by the citizens who signed the petitions. Mayor Nexsen even went so far as to analogize his constituent’s petition to that of a car wreck.
No one likes to have their decisions second guessed, politicians being no exception. That said elected officials in this Country have had to live with that reality since before the birth of our Constitution which guarantees its citizens the right to petition their elected politicians. The problem here may well be our Mayor and Council seem to think they stand over the people who elect them rather than at their pleasure.
To complicate this matter there are apparently no less than four lawsuits working their way through the courts, one of which directly involves the Council’s approval of zoning decisions that come along with this annexation. But just as before, the Mayor showed a fundamental misunderstanding in Due Process when he conflated petition/voting outcomes with legal questions before the courts. Ironically the only real connection between votes initiated by the people and litigation against the government, again initiated “by the people,” are to be found in the words “Due Process.” "
The subject at hand was a referendum (signed by almost 1700 citizens) having to do with the council’s previous decision to annex a portion of a golf course presently in County area. In what seemed to some observing the open meeting as a tirade the Mayor actually suggested that those involved in the referendum pay the over $100,000 in costs of a special election, that “special election” neither required by law nor requested by the citizens who signed the petitions. Mayor Nexsen even went so far as to analogize his constituent’s petition to that of a car wreck.
No one likes to have their decisions second guessed, politicians being no exception. That said elected officials in this Country have had to live with that reality since before the birth of our Constitution which guarantees its citizens the right to petition their elected politicians. The problem here may well be our Mayor and Council seem to think they stand over the people who elect them rather than at their pleasure.
To complicate this matter there are apparently no less than four lawsuits working their way through the courts, one of which directly involves the Council’s approval of zoning decisions that come along with this annexation. But just as before, the Mayor showed a fundamental misunderstanding in Due Process when he conflated petition/voting outcomes with legal questions before the courts. Ironically the only real connection between votes initiated by the people and litigation against the government, again initiated “by the people,” are to be found in the words “Due Process.” "
______________________________________________________
NOT IN OUR DESERT! Chuck Hunter
When a misguided predatory developer with a lot of money decides to capitalize on a community of homeowners with a fantastic Golf Course it is a tremendous error in judgment. When a City Government supports the debacle causing harm to the homeowners and adjacent communities that is irresponsibility of the highest level. It can’t happen in this State or Country? Well look again folks – it is in process right here in River City!!
The “Refuge” is a well planned and attractive community built around an Arnold Palmer designed golf course. Economic conditions of the time caused the golf course owner to sell the Golf course. The Aldridge Group bought it to the surprise of the Refuge Homeowners since they were also bidding to assure keeping the golf course as designed. The Aldridge Group has another plan- Convert part of the golf Course into a RV Park which would totally degrade the course and forfeit the Arnold Palmer Design. This totally disregards the restrictions of use established by the original zoning in compliance with Fish and Game Refuge requirements.
The “Refuge” development is primarily a community of upscale homes with affluent homeowners interested in their property values and neighborhood. The Refuge is controlled by a Homeowner Association and a set of Community Rules and Regulations. They own and control the streets and assure consistent standards within the community. The violation of the golf course and imposition of an RV park is not consistent with common sense let alone community restrictions.
Beyond the borders of the Refuge Community are the other nine villages and business areas of what is called the “County.” I reside in one of those sister communities called Sun Lake Village. We are proud of the Refuge as a part of OUR community - sharing the Desert Hills Fire Station and Mohave County Sheriff Station as part of our infrastructure. When a predator developer attempts to ravish a village for personal gain and the City Council becomes an accomplice we are naturally going to support the Refuge. We are also “Lake Havasu City”. Our addresses are Lake Havasu City- Our schools are Lake Havasu City – we support the businesses and in fact own businesses in the “City Limits”. When a Mayor and Council decides to annex a portion of the Refuge it is reprehensible. When they also state “I don’t care about those people” – that is beyond responsible Civic Government.
Beyond the Refuge and the County- There is a City of Lake Havasu that needs to consider the consequences of the predator developer and out of control City Council. The penalties of their actions should be considered. First of all the loss to the School District in revenues should be a civic consideration when the devaluation of Refuge property values deflates the tax base. This could easily exceed the potential income to the city from the RV Park. How about the loss of “City water” provided to the RV Park. What about the city costs to disengage this mess when the contractor walks away after realizing the plan will not work? After all the project has no access to the embedded 50 acres other than Refuge Association roads and the annexation is only for the 50 acres of RV park not the entire golf course nor the homeowners controlled area. That is not something a responsible City Government would buy into nor a developer would consider viable. This could become a Lake Havasu City mistake that will be hard to live down.
So what now- First of all since the petitions were signed and the annexation was stymied for a while the council should realize this is going nowhere. This project is not what was portrayed originally. The Council should reverse their decision and walk away. The Developer should work with the Refuge Homeowner’s Association to restore the Golf Course and find a buyer. Return the Golf course to public use. If neither see the light and continue it will be up to the City Voters to stop this debacle by voting the annexation down and save the Council. If that does not happen- I think it would be obvious for the Refuge to take legal actions. I would expect the rest of the “county” Lake Havasu City residents to support the Refuge fully as this continues. We will be vocal!!
