« The Star Finally Implodes | Main | Republic Buyout Update »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Two quick points:

First, County Attorney Andrew Thomas ought to look into this situation. The facts, as reported, suggest impropriety and possibly illegality. What unreported facts are there? Has a law been broken?

Second, someone ought to sue the Governor and the Home builders Association civilly, demanding an injunction on any shady trades of official action for cash. It certainly appears as if the public is being deprived of the Governor's honest services in this situation.

Once again Greg points out the absolute ridiculousness of our "statewide" paper. This is a clear example of their unwillingness to print the news when it goes against one of their own. People in other states who have seen the 'agreement' letter are in awe that this is not a front page story. Illegality aside, when the state's top elected official sells us out for some cash...the people have a right to know. This is a prime example of why I don't subscribe to the Republic. Thank goodness for the internet...

Bill is right on. People cut corners all the time, and in this case it would be prudent to remind some of those people they took an oath to act in the public interest. Even if they may not have broken a law. It's been a while, but it looks like Napolitano made a rare mistake, and holy cow is it a big one. Corruption is one thing, but it's always much, much worse when some significant cash is involved. Got AZSCAM?

Howie has already uncovered the scapegoat, if there is to be one..........Dennis Burke. This issue won't stick to the Guv, she has a teflon coating.

If the Homebuilders renege on the 'deal', you can take it to the bank that next session the trial lawyers (with the Guvs blessing) will bring forth all sorts of construction defect legislation, aimed at the Homebuilders.

Why should anyone be surprised that the Guv has taken this tact? Why should anyone be surprised when we know she is blindly ambitious and in dire need of power, control, and jealous of anyone who she perceives as holding those same things in an oppositional position. Oppositional means anyone standing in her way.

She finagled the last state trust land prop (106) to increase the power and line the pockets of the teacher’s union in order to get perceived education support with the public; even though it would have taken millions of dollars out of the pockets of teachers. But, it did endear her to the big money developers (not the same as homebuilders) and The Nature Conservancy. Billions of dollars there. It is always good to have friends with deep pockets when your political expediency is more important than the people you serve.

In a year when she knows individual homebuilders are doing everything to keep from going under, the idea that the association would have any money for a campaign was a no-brainer. So hold a huge stick over them in the form of what equals a tax to builders,…offer to remove it IF…..you sign an agreement to relinquish your rights to disagree with me and make an offering to my favorite cause.

Dispensations come in all flavors. I’m with you, Greg. Hey, HBACA has an obligation to its members but Connie, keep your money.

C'mon guy. Sue the Governor? For a "Secret" deal that was so hush-hush it was reported on every newspaper, TV station - and blog - in the state?

Psonally, I don't like the deal that much. Growth ought to pay for itself. Anyone who's spent time on the streets of Northwest Tucson can tell you what happens when builders shunt the cost of sprawl off on everyone else. Impact fees are a way to make up for that bad public policy.

But the deal is out in the open, and we'll all have to render our judgment. I'll yield to Greg on whether it's an enforceable contract, never haven taken contract law myself.

It appears that this will go on the ballot. I have doubts about whether I'll vote for a one-cent hike in the sales tax, and I have even more doubts that it will win a majority.

But that's why they hold elections - right?

I have voted against every propositon having to do with the state land fund since I have moved here and will continue to do so. I always figure the status quo isn't that bad. No one has ever convinced me that the system is broken. I will be voting 'no' against any prop having to do with the state land trust this November.

(oh, in in case there is smart aleck who decides to craft the prop so that a 'no' means 'yes', I will figure that out - I wasn't born last night !!! - so I will vote 'yes' in that case!)

Very unseemly move by Napolitano. The message she sent is unmistakable - my office is for sale. Don't want your industry in the initiative? Pony up the cash, we'll have the taxpayers cover your share of the roads. Good deal for the homebuilders - a $100,000 donation in exchange for saving how much by not having impact fees? Good deal for Governor. Bad deal for taxpayers.

Voters should understand the state trust lands are not public lands but land held in trust by the state for public schools to help support teacher's salaries and school funding. At statehood the Arizona Constitution had to set aside that land in a legal trust as a protection against private interests. Interests like The Nature Conservancy and Jim Pederson (who has committed millions to pay for the signatures to put it on the ballot), who would take land to set aside but insure the fund that would go to schools is still obligated to pay for the maintenance of the land. So, this hugely rich conservation group and developer gets free trust land set aside, not a dime ever being seen by our schools, and then they don’t have to do another thing. The same money that would go to teacher’s salaries and public schools would now have to pay to maintain those lands but cannot ever reap the benefit.

I wonder how close any of Pederson’s developments or holdings are to any of these set aside lands? Or create lands that now are ripe for development and readily available to a rich developer….?

If that doesn’t sound like the very thing our founders were guarding against, I don’t know what does!

I suggest we start a campaign to expose this and keep it in the news until it sticks. Why not make sure that a "For Sale" sign is always on display at the capitol? Extra points for anyone who can get one up on the 9th Floor.

Greg,

Did you put in a records request for those e-mails? I'd hate to thik you leave the heavy lifting to the newspaper reporters you criticize.

Does the legislature just show up so the GUBERNATOR can humiliate the supposed majority?

The one hundred thousand dollar homebuilder deal is making me very angry.

The Spanish language has a descriptive word that connotes strength. The liberals claim that the GUBERNATOR has a pair.

Geez: you guys should see how they make sausage.

Well done.

However, if you'd watched the utter corruption at the Republic over their coverage of the last attempt to hand state trust land over to the well-connected (Conservancy, DMB, Pederson, etc.)one might say you're well behind the curve.

The same cabal pushing the trust land initiative this time (and the transportation initiative)took their best shot with prop 106 in 2006. The coverage was so dishonest as to be comical.

So, the builders have been taken out of the game and they assume they can get it done without public scrutiny. Perhaps, but if either of these initiatives are analyzed by independent media (understanding that the Republic doesn't qualify) the Governor, the Conservancy, and various other potential beneficiaries of this grab bag of goodies could be in for a humuliation that they won't be able to blame the home builders for this time.

Right on the money, Mark. Let's hope the public is paying attention.

The comments to this entry are closed.