PROPERTY RIGHTS AREN’T JUST FOR DEVELOPERS

Tuesday night, the City Council approved a Special Election for May 17^th that will cost Havasu taxpayers $138,000.  The City Council had several other options, but chose this expensive alternative. 

During the City Council public hearing , the City Attorney repeatedly and aggressively halted public comment as attempts were made to communicate why this ordinance for annexation should be repealed.   (See the video at http://lakehavasucity.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=3.) 

Apparently in the City Attorney’s mind, the comments were not relevant to the agenda item.  We disagree.

Sadly, the ordinance was not repealed, a Special Election was scheduled and now it will be up to the voters of Lake Havasu to overturn this ill-advised annexation ordinance.

We believe the annexation ordinance should be overturned for many reasons.  These are just a few of the comments that were not allowed to be heard at the City Council meeting on Tuesday:

1)   The roads to access this proposed RV development are private roads that are owned and maintained by the Refuge Homeowner’s Association.  The golf course owner is provided an easement to use these roads for “golf-related purposes” only, not for the purposes of an overnight RV campground/Motor coach Resort.   This issue is in the midst of litigation at this time.  Check back for an upcoming posting on this item for more details.

2)   During the initial development of The Refuge in 2001, negotiations between the original Developer and the County resulted in resolutions and final plat map statements that the central feature of the Refuge subdivision is an 18-hole professional golf course and provided that, in order to ensure that the golf course remain an enduring feature of The Refuge, 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 issue is in the midst of litigation at this time.  Check back for an upcoming posting on this item for more details.

3)   During the initial development of The Refuge subdivision, the County and the Developer worked alongside The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure the development would not increase burdens on the Wildlife Refuge’s water and protected species (see Posting below on “Frivolous Lawsuits”). The Aldridge’s plan appears to completely disregard any of these agreements and commitments to protect the environment. This issue is in the midst of litigation at this time.  Check back for an upcoming posting on this item for more details.

4)   The business plan outlined by the Aldridges has not been scrutinized or evaluated independently to provide any assurance to the City that they will actually deliver on their promises.  In fact, on every page of the Aldridge’s website, they state that they cannot assure that what they say they are going to do will, in fact, be done.  In other words, they cannot be held accountable to any promises they are making, whether it is revenue or jobs.

5)  The dismantling of a regional asset (An Arnold Palmer Signature Golf Course) and replacing it with recreational vehicles and a sub-standard golf course.

It is our intention to provide more information on this website over the upcoming months to help you to understand some of the complexities that are involved with this annexation.  We have our work cut out for us.  The Aldridges have hired an expensive public relations firm that specializes in spinning stories and “putting magic dust on words”. This is the PR firm that put the spin on increasing AZ taxes that won the vote but left taxpayers scratching their heads, so they should not be underestimated.   Already, the Aldridges are flooding the community with promises of jobs and revenue and goodness and trying to discredit the opponents of their plan.  The politics of persuasion. 

These projects with lofty promises of goodness are hard to pass up.  But as you have seen in many of the past City projects, they don’t always turn out the way they are promised.  How many of these grandiose projects have NOT delivered and have actually turned out to be a liability for the City?

We have been told that we are “fighting a losing battle” taking on “fat cats” who are “well-connected with City Officials”.  We’ve been told “it’s in the bag so why fight this?”  

Why fight? Contrary to what our City Council may believe based on statements they made at Tuesday's meeting -  Property rights aren’t just for developers.  They are for the PEOPLE too.  And if we don’t stand up for our personal rights then we will all lose. 

Gather the facts, listen to the data, when you read the lofty promises, be sure to also read all of the associated disclaimers and ask yourself:  Does this make sense for the City?  Does this business plan really hold water?  Does it matter that this land had governmental restrictions that disallow what the Aldridges are proposing? 

IS THIS THE RIGHT THING TO DO?