Does this sound like a developer’s friend?

Dear Editor:

I am writing this letter in support of Sal DiCiccio for City Council.

One year ago I and a few hundred neighbors became aware of the possibility of the Lakes at Ahwatukee Golf Course being closed and the property being developed into town homes.

We were alarmed at the possibility of town homes on the golf course for several reasons. Population density in our neighborhood would increase dramatically. Traffic during the morning rush, which is already a problem because of a nearby high school, would become a nightmare. Property values would be negatively affected by the increased density and associated problems.

Sal’s opponent has stated that Sal is on the side of developers. Well, let me set the record straight from our experience. Sal came to our assistance immediately upon being contacted about the proposed golf course development to assist us in fighting this proposal. He has attended several meetings of neighbors who have banded together to fight the development. Sal offered counsel as to the steps we should be taking to protect our properties. He has arranged for representatives of the mayor’s office to attend meetings to listen to our concerns. Sal has pledged to continue to work with us, his constituents, as we battle the town home proposal.

This certainly does not sound like someone who is in the developer’s pockets. It does sound like a councilman who addresses concerns of his constituents and works with them toward finding an equitable solution to their concerns. It is the kind of person I want representing me on the City Council.

Please support and vote for Sal DiCiccio for District 6 City Council.

Ben Holt


Peace prize?

Dear Editor:

Isn’t awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama quite like awarding an Oscar to an actor who only read for the part?

Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize because he is a “Europeon” socialist shill. The “Europeons” can’t compete so they must try to make the rest of the world as inefficient and helpless as they are.

Obama will probably also be awarded a Gold in the Olympics, in the teleprompter event.

Jim Thompson


Guns and alcohol don’t mix under new law

Dear Editor:

In response to Fred Barlam’s letter from Oct. 9 (“Don’t mix guns and alcohol”), I couldn’t agree more. Guns and alcohol do not mix. That is why the new law reinforces the existing prohibition against consuming alcohol while carrying a concealed weapon. It was illegal to drink and carry a firearm before Oct. 1, and it still is.

Allowing people who are not drinking to carry a concealed weapon in a place where drinking is allowed does not pose any greater risk to the general public.

In fact, I would contend an opposite point: any establishment that opts to prohibit legal concealed weapon permit holders from carrying is putting their patrons at risk. As the saying goes, “When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.”

Don’t get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for our police force, but how many more Virginia Tech-type massacres will it take for those with an irrational fear of firearms to realize that it is not law-abiding citizens who are the problem? Bad guys break laws, and the police can’t be everywhere at all times.

I, for one, will definitely remember which members of the Legislature voted to allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves next time I go to vote. Thank you John Huppenthal and John McComish. And shame on you Rae Waters, for voting against my right to defend myself.

Jeff Kolb


Criminals will ignore the ‘no gun’ sign at bars

Dear Editor:

Referring to the title of Fred Barlam’s letter in Oct. 9 (AFN) “Don’t mix guns and alcohol,” I couldn’t agree with you more. But you are assuming the law-abiding CCW permit holder is doing the drinking.

Fact is, if the finger-printed, background checked, Arizona State tested, Concealed Carry Weapon permit holder properly concealing a weapon is found to be under the influence (even slightly) of alcohol, they are subject to criminal prosecution and revocation of their CCW permit. Those of us, who have gone through the legal procedure to use the Second Amendment freedom allowing us to defend ourselves, know better than to jeopardize that privilege by carrying our weapons into a restaurant and recklessly consuming alcohol.

Your comment suggesting “sane” people to not frequent establishments not allowing concealed weapons could potentially be your worst nightmare. Now with this new law, a legitimate CCW permit holder, who regularly carries a concealed weapon, will not be allowed to enter an establishment displaying your precious “No Firearms Allowed” sign.

Wake up sir! Guess what, the violent criminal who is up to no good will ignore that sign.

So now, you and your family can happily sit at your (new) favorite restaurant with a false sense of security. But, in a worst case scenario, the criminal in the booth to your left still has his weapon and the lawful CCW permit holder to your right does not. You ALL are at this criminal’s mercy if he decides to shoot up the place.

I’ll admit I paint a very grim worst case scenario, most likely never to occur. But honestly, in which establishment would you really rather be if this situation ever developed? The one allowing CCW permit holders or the one restricting CCW permit holders? I guarantee you the unlawfully armed criminal will frequent the latter.

I know you and your fellow Democrats envision a world of equals without guns and violence where we can all sit around and sing “Kum-ba-Yah.” REALITY CHECK: there are violent criminals ready to take advantage of you in a heartbeat. And, yes, they are even in this community of Ahwatukee.

Are you really content to be a passive victim?

Mark Brown


What’s the big deal?

Dear Editor:

I don’t think people will ever get it. I am referring to Kim Epstein’s comments (“Bicyclists also have responsibility,” AFN, Oct. 2). The tone of her letter vented rage. Her comments of “are you kidding me?” What’s the big deal?

Does a mom and her child not have the right to ride down the street for exercise? You know those baby buggies do not work well on sidewalks either. If Epstein was more concerned with “Share the road” than “are you kidding me” maybe she might have just gone around the mom and given her the 3 feet she’s due by law.

When runners stop running the same direction as bikes travel in the bike lane, drivers learn to share the road with bicycles and cyclists learn to obey the traffic laws as if they were driving a car we will be walking in circles for progress and education. I have teamed up with YIKES ID from Los Angles and started a bike safety program, check it out at my Web site.

Steve Donaldson

Founder of C.A.R.D


Can we trust ADOT?

Dear Editor:

I’m stunned that the Arizona Department of Transportation never made a presentation to the Gila River Indian Community regarding placement of the South Mountain Loop 202.

ADOT claims that the Gilas flatly rejected any proposals. Now we have learned that this is simply not true: “Put freeway on reservation,” Arizona Republic; “Councilman wants alternative to freeway,” AFN; both on Oct. 6.

At various HOA meetings and at the meetings held at Desert Vista over the years, ADOT made reports regarding the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway. In those presentations ADOT frankly stated that the Gila River Indian Community flatly rejected placement of a freeway on the reservation.

ADOT has failed the citizens of Ahwatukee Foothills, and other communities who are faced with the specter of the highway. Perhaps failure rests with previous ADOT managers or state leaders. Regardless, this failure serves no purpose but to malign good people.

The Gila River people have been falsely portrayed as intractable and superstitious. Ahwatukee as a community has been falsely portrayed as spoiled NIMBYs for opposing a freeway rivaling the Jersey Turnpike, and citizens in the West Valley are painted as desperate for development at any cost.

ADOT’s failure has fostered a toxic atmosphere of acrimony between communities.

In retrospect, was ADOT’s behavior intentionally designed to encourage rancor for expedience sake? If so it borders on criminality and begs the question, “What’s next?”

Does ADOT expect us to now accept what it says at face value, are they really providing honest answers?

How can we trust that the 202 is not a truck bypass as claimed?

How can we trust that students can withstand a toxic spill or survive a wreck when the highway is adjacent to Kyrene de los Lagos Elementary School?

How can we trust that new railheads planned at Picachio Peak won’t increase truck traffic?

What are the real reasons the highway won’t be below grade as in every other residential area in the region?

ADOT has a duty to serve, to that end they have failed. Leaders at ADOT and the state must demonstrate their leadership and courageously demand integrity in the process.

This singular issue transforms a highway debate into a battle against a reckless state agency. ADOT  has made itself truly villainous.

What they need do now is present an honest and real proposal to the Gilas.

I urge all to contact and to visit

Michael Hinz


(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.