CCIPRA
January 26, 2011
Cochise County
Individual
& Property Rights
Association
For more info,
email HERE and put "CCIPRA" in the subject line
or phone Helene Jackson
642-1760
This page is currently being
reformatted into a source
of articles about political life in Cochise
County.
Please bear with us while this is
finished.
* * * * *
A SAMPLE OF WHAT CCIPRA IS
ABOUT
CCIPRA exists to
oppose realtors
and developers, and their government enablers, who want to make money
by taking away your individual and property rights.
Big subdivision
developers claim
the public can't stop big subdivisions. But citizens defeated
the
giant Smith Ranch in 2006, and in April 2007 the developers pulled the
plug on the Anthem project near Benson. The Bachmann Springs
project has evaporated, and the developer's plans for Sunsites have
dried up. Artificial injection of population into rural areas
is
not inevitable. Rural people can stop big developers if we
organize and fight back.
In Cochise County's
Zoning
Regulations, Article 3 Section 307 says "Any use not permitted in a
district ... is specifically prohibited from a zoning
district."
"Whatever isn't permitted is prohibited" doesn't sound like America.
When government officials
believe
that
if they don't allow it, you can't do it,
and
that you shouldn't mind bad laws being passed,
because
the present officials aren't really bad guys,
then
the officials should be pulled away from the public trough,
and
the laws they pass should be rewritten,
to
follow American ideals and the Constitution.
* * * * *
LINKS TO OTHER CCIPRA PAGES
about a miscellany of topics
Dump the Building Code
CCIPRA's position was last set out in detail in 2009, at
http://littlebigdog.net/DumpTheBuildingCode.htm
Here's a brief summary of CCIPRA's arguments now.
To
get the county supervisors to pass the code, the Planning Department
promised that the code would save lives, cut insurance rates, and pay
for itself within three years, and that a team of citizens and county
personnel would evaluate how well the promises were kept. The
promises haven't been kept.
Financially,
by 2009, the code's accumulated deficit was about $944,000, and growing
by over $400,000 per year. There's no reason to think the
situation has got any better.
Yet
Mr. Vlahovich said in 2004 (when he ran the Planning Dept.; now he's
Deputy County Administrator), to persuade the BOS to vote for the
building code, "The start up cost ... would be $540,000 and the ongoing
cost would come to $400,000 per year. The plan assumed a 32%
increase in permit fees, a 2% annual growth rate, and a 10% increase in
permit activity. Assuming these figures, the plan would pay for
itself in about 3 years and only be subsidized by the General Fund for
the start-up period. Thereafter, the users of the services would
be paying for the services through permit fees."
"Assuming
these figures" -- there's the rub. The County has full control
over fees, but very limited control over permit activity, and no
control over the economy. For about a year after the code was
passed, a rosy view of the world seemed okay; then, as we all know, the
economy turned south.
You
can see how the Cochise County housing market fell apart by looking at
this graph of site-built housing permits from 1996 on:
(The source data are in Note 1 at the end of this section.)
Even
in 2005 and 2006, the peak of the boom, the building code ran up huge
losses. Since then, the drop in permits must mean a corresponding
drop in income from permits -- but fixed expenses don't drop.
Less income, and fixed expenses, lead to disaster.
A
Department employee, now gone, blamed the huge losses on the
"owner-builder opt-out" plan, and on reducing the permits required for
routine home upkeep. But at the time he spoke, fees would have to
jump $412,000 to cover the deficit -- an impossible amount.
Furthermore, the "owner-builder opt-out," and cuts in permit
requirements for routine upkeep, were passed only after they were found
NOT to reduce public safety. Eliminating them would increase fees
with absolutely no benefit to the public. There's no better way
to make County government look worse.
The
rural building code is and always has been a confused, confusing,
unpopular, money-losing mess. In 2004, the code only passed 2-1;
District 2's supervisor voted No. Now District 3's supervisor may
be getting tired of it too. Districts 2 and 3 are about 90% of
Cochise County -- almost all the rural areas. If those two
Supervisors will vote for what's best for rural areas, this 6-year
botch can end. Instead of spending $25,000 more to study the mess
in detail, why not just end it?
Note
1, yearly permits: 1996, 292 permits; 1997, 279; 1998, 265; 1999,
310; 2000, 315; 2001, 261; 2002, 253; 2003, 335; 2004, 394; 2005, 534;
2006, 432; 2007, 216; 2008, 131; 2009, 112; 2010, 122 (through November
2010, so estimate 133 for whole year.) Numbers from the US Census
Bureau; follow the links beginning at
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04/04003lk.html
"Hazard Abatement Ordinance" --
changes about to be made, over 2+! years in drafting
HazOrdWriteupForUpdate.htm
Problems with New Tribes as a neighbor
New
Tribes airport in McNeal, Arizona, has a history of problematic
behavior; and a report about New Tribes child abuse at
boarding schools abroad is out. See
http://littlebigdog.net/New%20Tribes%20In%20McNeal%20Arizona%20Can%20Reform%20Itself.htm
Four stories about border life,
all from CCIPRA's update of 8/15/20:
See
http://littlebigdog.net/RangeOfReality.htm
Bachmann Springs, nka Green Life Springs
Financial
problems dog this plan to put a walled sanctuary for the very rich in
the middle of Cochise County. Is the project worth the time
the County Supervisor keep giving it? See
Supervisor Searle thinks illegal aliens aren't a big problem
In 2005, all three Cochise County Supervisors declared a local emergency because of the border crisis. The
declaration of emergency is still in effect. Now Searle says he never
intended to use the emergency powers. People are being assaulted and
murdered while Searle blows smoke. Will Searle ever consider doing
anything? See
Supervisor English wants to keep all County workers
on the County payroll --
-- or, damn the taxpayers! See
Cochise County's "Envisioning 2020" project
was a wasteful boondoggle
That
truth is inconvenient to the people who liked the boondoggle, so they
make sneak attacks, and run away from defending them. See the
facts at
Cochise County's "Owner Builder Opt Out" (OBOO)
program seems to be safe for a while.
For a basic history up to the last attack on OBOO, see
http://littlebigdog.net/OBOO.htm
"Animal Control Ordinance" wrapup
http://littlebigdog.net/AnimalControlOrdinanceChanges.htm
Some older running sores with County government, including the Open Meeting Law
* * * * *
To get on the list for the CCIPRA email updates, published once a week or more, email
mpj@vtc.net
and put "CCIPRA email" in the subject line. Thanks.
More citizen-based websites are springing up.
It's getting harder and harder for the old "back-room boys" to keep a lid on popular government. For instance:
-- CHARLES TIDD IS ONLINE IN SUNSITES with
http://sunsitessun.com
The
paper is already posting stories. Absolute best of luck to Charles
Tidd! (Disclaimer: The site has a link to "Mike Jackson" -- this
writer. I have no legal interest in the site. I'm recommending it
because that paper is the wave of the future, and can do good things.)
-- JOY BANKS WRITES FOR
http://www.examiner.com
You can go to that site and search for "joy banks" in quotes, or you can subscribe to all of her articles by going to
http://www.examiner.com/x-44832-Cochise-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner?cid=ff_subscription_44832#fragment-3
-- A HARDER LINE ON ZONING, FROM "ARIZONA FACEOFF"
There's a very very very very very very very very interesting website at
http://arizonafaceoff.blogspot.com
An interesting look at the openness of different Arizona county governments is at
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Evaluation_of_Arizona_county_websites
Cochise County shows up sucky as to audits, contracts, lobbying, and
public records in general. By far the best county is Pinal; the
worst is La Paz.
Every county is good with information about
meetings, but bad with information about lobbying. More openness
about lobbying would make Cochise County a standout.
Next to lobbying, counties do worst on
contracts. Only Pima and Pinal do well on contracts. More
openness here would make Cochise County stand out.
One thing for the Supes to consider: making
gummint more open is a lot easier than fighting to keep the old "back
room" system.
PARTICIPATING
IN COCHISE COUNTY PUBLIC LIFE
A link
to Arizona statutes about counties in general:
http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=11
A link to Cochise
County government in general:
http://cochise.az.gov/
A link to the Board Of
Supervisors (BOS) general page:
http://cochise.az.gov/cochise_board_supervisors.aspx?id=224
Contact information
for the BOS
physical address: Bldg. G, 1415 Melody Lane, Bisbee AZ 85603
phone: 432 9200
email addresses:
Pat Call (Dist. 1) - pcall@cochise.az.gov
Ann English (Dist. 2; Chair) - aenglish@cochise.az.gov
Richard Searle (Dist. 3) - rsearle@cochise.az.gov
If you aren't sure who your supervisor is, here are links to maps of their districts:
District 1,
http://cochise.az.gov/cochise_board_supervisors.aspx?id=922&ekmensel=c580fa7b_154_330_922_1
District 2,
http://cochise.az.gov/cochise_board_supervisors.aspx?id=926&ekmensel=c580fa7b_154_330_926_2
District 3,
http://cochise.az.gov/cochise_board_supervisors.aspx?id=930&ekmensel=c580fa7b_154_330_930_3
THE COUNTY WEBSITE HAS BEEN IMPROVED TO BE
MUCH MORE USEFUL TO THE PUBLIC
At http://cochise.az.gov/ , the "Public Meeting Info" at the left side of the page includes several links to other pages. At
there's a calendar with the dates of all BOS meetings for 2011. At
there's a writeup about Arizona's Open Meeting Law (OML). At
the "View Other Public Meetings" tab goes to material
including separate links to Planning & Zoning Commission meetings,
Board Of Adjustment meetings, and "Public Meeting Archives" from 2003
to 2008. At
the "View Legal Notices" tab goes to a list of items that'll be put on the agenda at future meetings. Finally, at
the "View BOS Agendas & Public Notice" tab goes to
two sets of links: "Public Notice" links go to a list of BOS
meetings for the following week, and agenda links go to agendas for
particular meetings. An outstanding feature of the agendas is
that you can click on individual items and get more details.
CCIPRA is happy to see individual access to agenda items -- especially
if attachments are provided online before a meeting.
Most BOS time, by far,
is spent on
Planning issues. Most people just refer to "Planning
&
Zoning," or "P&Z," or some days "Fines&Fees."
There's a P&Z
Department, which is administrative, and a P&Z Commission,
whose job it is to advise the BOS.
A link to the
Department main page:
http://cochise.az.gov/cochise_planning_zoning.aspx?id=302
A link to agendas for
a P&Z Commission meeting:
http://www.co.cochise.az.us/ccwebsite/PNZCalendar.asp
Contact info for the
P&Z Commission
physical address: Bldg. E, 1415 Melody Lane, Bisbee AZ 85603
phone: 432 9240
email adddresses:
the Commission
itself, pnz@cochise.az.gov
Commissioners - COUNTY & private addresses if
available
Ron Bemis - dist2a@cochise.az.gov
Gary Brauchla - dist3b@cochise.az.gov
Duane Brofer - dist1c@cochise.az.gov
- brabec@cox.net
Pat Edie - dist2c@cochise.az.gov
- p_edie_99@yahoo.com
Rusty Harguess - dist3c@cochise.az.gov
- jtauto@vtc.net
Jim Lynch - dist1a@cochise.az.gov
Jim Martzke - dist3a@cochise.az.gov
Cruz Silva - dist2b@cochise.az.gov
- cruz@cox.net
Much of the work of
P&Z, both
the Department and the Commission, is about variances from zoning
requirements. Arizona's Commerce Department puts out a
"Planning
& Zoning Handbook," whose Chapter 8 concerns zoning.
See
http://www.commerce.state.az.us/doclib/smartgrowth/handbook/p&zchapter8.pdf
"Purposes And
Objectives Of Zoning" is the beginning of Chapter 8. It
includes:
"... Overall,
zoning seeks to preserve the planned character of a neighborhood by
excluding uses and structures inappropriate to the area and eliminating
non-conforming uses....
"Zoning should not be used to
"Provide economic opportunity or advantage to one parcel of
property without extending that opportunity to all property similarly
situated
"Artificially increase the
value of land ...."
Variances in
particular are discussed in section 4 of chapter 8, "Legal
Uses." Here's that section, every word of it:
"In Arizona,
variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance are heard and granted
by a board of adjustment. Variances are to be granted only if
special circumstances exist relative to the property's size, shape,
topography, location or if the strict application of the zoning
ordinance would deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by
other property of the same classification in the same zoning district.
"Statutes
require that any variance granted is subject to such conditions as will
ensure that the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is
located. Variances may be granted when the property owner
demonstrates that the application of the zoning ordinance to the
property will create a special property hardship. Both
Arizona
case law (Nicola v. Board of Adjustment, 101 P.2d 199 [1940]), and the
present statute, A.R.S. [Section] 9-462.06(H)(1), prohibit the granting
of "use variances" because they are, in effect, rezonings.
(See
Chapter 5 for a discussion on the role and responsibility of the board
of adjustment).
"The book,
Arizona Land Use Law, concludes that the statutory and case law in
Arizona have established these standards:
"1, A variance may be granted only where there are special
circumstances applicable to the property.
"2, Any hardship that would justify the granting of a
variance
must relate to the use of the land as opposed to the owner. A
personal hardship does not justify a variance.
"3, A hardship which [h]as
been ... intentionally created does not justify a variance.
"4, Need for an 'adequate
financial return' is not a legitimate basis for a variance.
"For cities and
towns, these standards are either in the statutes or have been
established by judicial interpretations. The county enabling
laws
are not as detailed and there is little or no case law in Arizona to
amplify them. But, the four standards listed above have been
solidly established across the country and it is likely that the
actions of county boards of adjustment would be subject to them if
taken to court. Requests for variances that do not meet all
these
standards should be denied."
This writer has been
to many County meetings about variances, but has never heard those
standards considered in the discussion.
>>>
A link to a page with
legal notices from different County departments, including items for
meetings weeks away:
http://www.co.cochise.az.us/ccwebsite/LegalNotices.asp
Ways to avoid the
spirit of the
Open Meeting Law: publish notice in a place that a reasonable
person shouldn't have to look.
A link about
requesting documents from the County, with a form for making document
requests:
http://littlebigdog.net/DocsFromCounty.htm
A link about speaking
at a Call To the Public:
http://littlebigdog.net/calltopublic.htm
The "CODE OF THE WEST" about life in no-man's-land is on the Cochise County website at
http://cochise.az.gov/Default.aspx?id=4104
Good to read before trying to lay city rules on rural areas.
The County Supervisors Association's webpage at
http://www.countysupervisors.org
is always worth a look.
>>
Public
inspection of county documents just became easier
Citizens now are guaranteed
access to public electronic records,
such
as email and files on computers, including "metadata"
A recent Arizona Supreme Court case guarantees citizens access to
"metadata" in electronic documents, and suggests that the easiest way
for counties to provide this information is to provide a requestor with
a copy of the record in its native format. The case is Lake
v.
Phoenix, and the full opinion is online at
http://littlebigdog.net/MetadataRecordsRequest.pdf
The metadata in an electronic document is part of the document; it does
not stand on its own; it is as much a part of the document as the words
on the page. So when a public entity maintains a public
record in
an electronic format, the electronic version of the record, including
any embedded metadata, is subject to disclosure under our public
records law.
Here's a fuller discussion about getting public records:
http://littlebigdog.net/DocsFromCounty.htm
The lesson for citizens' public records requests is clear:
when
you request electronic documents, add a specification that you also are
requesting all metadata about the documents. Here's a form
for a
public records request incorporating that lesson:
http://littlebigdog.net/DocRQ3.txt
ACIPRA, the Apache
County counterpart of CCIPRA, now has a website at
http://acipra.wordpress.com/
It certainly is a lot
better
looking than this site! George Walsh, its proprietor, is a
fireball, and has provided much useful information to CCIPRA.
Both CCIPRA and ACIPRA are more effective because the other exists.
On General Principles:
Here's a link to the Danish cartoons of Mohammed
that caused all the commotion a couple of years ago, that's just
revived again:
