Report on the news that matters to your community and don't let us miss a beat. Send in your stories and photos.
My Recent Comments
“I think in 1985 the people who voted for the freeway system were looking into the future,”
and, not being clairvoyant, totally failed to understand how this portion of the project would be corrupted by those interested in the massive amount of money to be made by tearing down mountains and houses and schools and churches to place the road on a path that is 100% wider and 200% louder and 500% more polluted and 70% less valuable than they voted for. They didn't even vote for this, they voted for a whole freeway system, and all they saw to vote on was a map of the entire region with a loop on it, no details about what trouble each segment would cause, no indication that this small corner of the map would be disastrously misplanned and eventually rushed into production.
I'm not sure why an "Environmental Impact" statement cares at all about the creation of economic opportunities as a benefit. That shift in the meaning of "environment", from concerns about pollution and wildlife and water and a fragile ecosystem to hyping the benefits for the pockets of a few business owners - which will primarily be large construction companies and national chain stores, not local entrepreneurs - is indicative of how corrupt the planning has become. The report isn't an honest evaluation of impact, it's a sales brochure, gauged to alter public perception and state justification to meet the developer's expectations.
That vote in 1985 has lost its validity over time. This is no longer about the will of the voters and is now all about eminent domain, the ability of the government to force individuals to suffer damage against their will, and the ability of financially powerful parties to warp government decisions to maximize and hasten their own profit.
As the man once said, all they're doing is collecting the pound of flesh we bargained to pay.8 months ago
When the freeway was proposed, it was envisioned as similar to other freeways in the valley, which at the time were 4-lane everywhere but downtown. Now the plan is for 8 lanes in a space that could barely hold them. The only reason to build 8 lanes is that the planners now envision enormous traffic volumes at the highest of freeway speeds. This isn't what was "approved by voters" when this was undeveloped dirt, it's a massive increase in the scope of the project.
The Pecos alignment is jammed against major powerlines that were built without the freeway in mind. There is no discussion of the risk that the foundations of these giant towers carrying hundred-kilovolt electric wires will be destabilized by construction and traffic, nor of the increased risk of collision.
The city councilman representing Ahwatukee reportedly has a major conflict of interest, as he is personally financially committed to developing a large parcel of land at Pecos Road and 40th Street. How does he justify supporting the Pecos Road alignment with a straight face?
Why, again, have upcoming meetings scheduled by ADOT been scheduled so as to avoid allowing working residents of the area to be present for the entire meeting? All of the evening meetings run from 4-7 pm on weekdays. The only weekend meeting is in Komatke, which is a couple of miles directly, but since there is no direct through-road, it's 30-40 miles of driving for many of the Ahwatukee residents most affected by the alignment decision. This is reminiscent of similar discussion meetings several years ago that ADOT scheduled to discuss the building of this road, which they somehow justified holding in Benson. Why is ADOT deliberately avoiding discussion while pretending they are being open?
A few weeks ago I received a robocall which started with a gushing endorsement of the freeway as "creating 30,000 jobs", among other sophistry, before asking for an opinion. Unfortunately I wasn't at home and couldn't respond via my answering machine. I checked the number from the caller-ID and it traced back to a builder's association, i.e. a builder's lobby. The chosen alignment increases the cost of building the freeway by up to a billion dollars, and it is in the building industry's best interest to make it as expensive as possible to construct. So it's no wonder they are pushing for a hasty decision based on skewed rationale and push-polling to minimize the effect that negative opinion would have. Has there been any independent, objective polling of the people most likely to be harmed by this road? Or has all the opinion-gathering been based on manipulative statistical methods?9 months ago
Jim, again you put the "dis" in Cognitive Dissonance.
I re-read Griffin's letter, and he doesn't say there is a linear relationship between guns and crime, he says Lott's unqualified statement implies only a linear relationship.
And I'm not sure how you got from his "differential equation" to "DIFFERENCE EQUATION", but I bet there was spittle flying when you modified it.
Keep up the good work.
P.S. It's worth noting here that the word "state" in the 2nd Amendment is not the word "nation" only because of the fears of the southern states that once the Constitutional ban on laws banning slavery ran out in 1808 the federal government would disarm the slave patrols, which at the time were the militia pressed into doing something useful with their militia training and duty time, that being hunting down runaway slaves and going from slave quarters to slave quarters searching for weapons to confiscate... So there's a pretty heaping helping of hypocrisy in the way the 2nd Amendment came to be what it is. It's anachronistic. Almost nobody needs a gun to hunt to survive any more; and they're far more dangerous in the home than they are helpful in protecting the home; and they're completely useless against the government, which, if you're doing your job as a citizen, won't even get the idea to try to seize you or your property illegally; that's why we created democracy and it works, and the weapon you need there isn't a gun it's a lawyer. It's about time we repealed the 2nd Amendment and let the states decide whether to allow gun ownership within their borders, and let the Congress, President, and Supreme Court decide how to regulate trafficking in weapons across state and national borders. And we get to elect them (and they get to appoint the rest), so insisting that we need the 2nd Amendment to prevent tyranny is admitting you don't trust democracy at all.Feb 11, 2013