CCIPRA

is the "Cochise County
Individual and Property Rights Association"

This page was updated on November 10.
CCIPRA's monthly bulletin was mailed out October 16.

For more information, email HERE
or phone Kelly Savage 234-7086 or Helene Jackson 642-1760

CCIPRA exists to oppose realtors and developers, and their government enablers, who want to make money by taking away your individual and property rights.

CCIPRA is one of several groups in Cochise County's "rural revolt" responding to years of domination by urban-oriented realty and construction interests.

CCIPRA really appreciates The Cowbelles of Douglas! (The Cowbelles are interesting people with an interesting history; look 'em up.)

Here's a link to our friends at Voters For Rural Values

Here's a page that talks about Cochise County in a very personal way:  http://noseyparkernews.com/

Here's a very interesting site:
http://www.freewebs.com/brianpcc/index.htm

* * * * *

A "rural revolt" triumph:  Smith Ranch Rejected Two To One!
To get about 10,000 votes for Smith Ranch, Diamond Ventures spent between $400,000 and $500,000 dollars -- roughly $45 per vote.  Voters For Rural Values, and the other "No On Proposition 400" groups and individuals, spent about $17,000 and got about 22,000 votes -- roughly 77 cents per vote.  Per vote, Diamond Ventures outspent the "No On Smith Ranch" forces almost 60 to 1, yet Diamond Ventures still lost 2 to 1!

Why such a disastrous defeat?  Because Diamond Ventures treated Cochise County residents like dirt, while the "No On Smith Ranch" forces appealed to the self-reliance and pride that make Cochise County so special.

Thank you Cochise County, for holding to your traditions!

The 21,000 voters against Smith Ranch should congratulate themselves, and so should all the organizations which fought against Smith Ranch.  But the fight must continue against all the other private companies, and the county cabal, who want to run Cochise County as a bedroom suburb for Tucson.  The exploiters won't stop trying just because of what happened to Smith Ranch, and the big-development faction in county government (especially the Planning & Zoning Department) will keep on trying to advance the exploiters' private agenda.

CCIPRA will be in that fight, and we hope that all over the county people organize -- organize in the smaller towns, and organize in the valleys and plains where people are spread thinly over large areas -- organize informally, and organize by going the extra mile to form a Political Action Committee -- organize to fight any exploiter who tries to ruin their area, and organize to fight every "public servant" who would enable the exploiters to build housing tracts that will drain what is left of the county's water.

* * * * *
Upcoming Concerns
CCIPRA, along with the editor of this page, is getting pretty tired of the Cochise County Attorney's Office failing to do its job.  Attorneys assigned to advice agencies at public meetings leave during meetings; ignore or evade questions asked by agencies; advise agencies to violate the law to advance agenda items that the attorneys approve of; give incompetent advice; and so on.  The elected county attorney ignores complaints about his staff, so complaints will be made to the Attorney General and the appropriate agencies for attorney discipline, from the boss on down.  Look for names and details soon, in these pages and other media.  It's time for the Cochise County attorney to start respecting the law.

* * * * *

UPCOMING GOVERNMENT MEETINGS

Tuesday, November 14
is the next Benson Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
and the next County Board Of Supervisors meeting (9 am)

Near the beginning of the Tuesday Board Of Supervisors meeting, Carl Robie, county Water Conservation Officer, will present an "update regarding rural water use study."  This will probably concern putting meters on rural wells, not so much whether the county needs the information (solid numbers are always better than good guesses, but how much is an X% increase in precision worth) as whether the benefits of such a project outweigh the problems (maintenance, getting an unbiased sample of rural wells, should we delay Y years to get that X% increase in precision?)

Also on Tuesday, November 14, the Supervisors will have a work session (3 pm) on "Cochise County’s recycling efforts and next steps."

On Tuesday, November 28, the Board Of Supervisors' regular meeting may consider the "Sierra Vista Subwatershed Overlay District" which the Planning & Zoning Commission improperly considered on November 8; see the narrative below.

* * * * *

RECENT GOVERNMENT MEETINGS

A 2-fer County Planning & Zoning Meeting Wednesday November 8

At 4 pm, a work session to "Permit exemptions for owner-occupied single family residences."  The issue was, how much can you spend on improving your home without being required to get a county permit? The P&Z Commission had been considering raising the amount from $1000 to $2500 or even $5000, so had instructed the P&Z Department to present information about whether to calculate the dollar level based on what you actually spent, or based on "fair market value."  The Department P&Z wasn't up to the job, so gave up and recommended dropping the dollar test, in favor of complete exemption from permits for certain kinds of repairs, which would include most regular maintenance.  For once, the Department's inability to do a job may benefit Cochise County residence.

At 5 pm, the regular meeting.  Item 2 was Docket R-06-06 -- the same Sierra Vista Subwatershed "Overlay District" which the Commission defeated at its last meeting, in October.
06-06 was raised by an "out of order" motion
When 06-06 came up on the agenda, Commissioner Lee Basnar moved to "re-initiate" it.
    Basnar apparently meant a motion to reconsider.  If you Google "motion to reconsider," you will get about 790,000 hits; if you Google "motion to reinitiate," you will get 3 hits -- one of them a plain error, and the other two mere awkwardness in language.  (At a break in the meeting, I asked Basnar if he had really meant to say reconsider; he moved away and mumbled something that I think was grudging agreement, but I can't be sure.)
    Basnar voted for 06-06 when it was defeated in October.  That is, Basnar was on the losing side.  However, a motion to reconsider can only be made by someone on the winning side of a vote.  A loser can't move to reconsider, because then losers would move to reconsider every vote.  So Basnar had no right to make the motion.  However, Chairman Martzke took no notice of this at the time.
    The deputy county attorney assigned to advise the Commission at this meeting was Britt Hanson.  Hanson's duty, when he saw a motion made by an ineligible person, was to immediately advise Martzke of the problem.  However, attorney Hanson either did not know the correct procedure, or did not care, because he sat silently.  The motion obtained a second, and was passed, and the Commission went on to discuss 06-06.
    Later in the meeting, when the public was allowed to speak, I pointed out that a motion had been made by somebody ineligible to make the motion.  I noted that the rule was in the manual of parliamentary procedures adopted by the Commission.
    After public input was over, Martzke asked attorney Hanson to advise him on my issues.  I want to give Martzke credit for this, because I don't recally any previous occasion when the Commission has sought advice from its attorney in response to my questions.
    Hanson's advice was that P&Z regulations allow motions to reconsider -- but that wasn't in dispute.  My issue was, can a person who voted on the losing side make such a motion?  Instead of giving an answer -- which would have had to be, No -- Hanson evaded the issue, and the Commission let him do it.
    During a break in the meeting, I discussed the problem with Martzke.  Martzke then said something new:  that Basnar's motion was seconded by Commissioner Brofer, who voted on the winning side of 06-06 at the prior meeting.  The implication was that the error in letting Basnar make the motion was harmless because it was seconded by a person who could have made it.  I did not have a ready answer for that, so I moved on.  But later, the proper response came to me:  Brofer is used to seeing the Commission ignore the rules, and he has learned to "go along to get along."   But if the system were different, and the Commission worked to stay inside the law instead of ignoring it, Brofer could assert his rights, and there is no doubt that his decision-making would be affected.  However people vote when they are used to a corrupt state of affairs, they vote differently in a cleaned-up system.  Brofer's "going along" here is not an indicator of what he would do if the system were cleaned up.
    I also talked with Hanson directly.  After he finished his non-response to Martzke, and sat down, I went over and asked him why he hadn't spoken to my actual objection.  He said he was listening to the Commission, and would answer me later.  When the meeting took a break, I went out in the lobby and asked him again.  His answer was NOT that I was wrong about the law; it was that the Commission was certain to approve 06-06, and therefore . . . , he trailed off.
    The clear implication is that Hanson is not going to obstruct the Commission with quibbles about the law.  My feeling is that what people who want to impose their will despite the law see as quibbles, people who are being imposed upon in violation of the law see as protection.
    I asked Hanson if the law didn't come first?  He said that he had no more time, and walked out of the building.  However, he stopped outside to chat with a small group, so he clearly did have time.  I went outside and asked him if he didn't have a professional responsibility to the Commission?  He asked -- facing the small group, not looking at me -- why didn't I just get a law license for Arizona?  His audience laughed.  I answered -- talking to him, not the group -- why didn't he just use the license he had?  He began to walk away toward the parking lot.  I stated that an attorney who advises his client to violate the law is committing malpractice, and should be reported.  He didn't dispute it.
    And he didn't return to the meeting, so the Commission had no legal advisor for the second half of the meeting.  It's unlikely that he'd be hired to advise the Commission for an entire meeting, but I don't want to speculate on why he left.
 
Why was 06-06 up for another vote at the first meeting after it was defeated?
Judy Anderson, current head of the Planning & Zoning Commission, is the applicant for this measure (the first time around, the P&Z Commission was the applicant).
    Immediately upon seeing that 06-06 was back on the agenda after being defeated, I emailed Anderson asking what her authority was for getting a vote on a dead item.  She didn't answer, but her deputy Mark Apel said her decision was made at a backroom meeting of P&Z staffers just after 06-06 was defeated, and that there is no written application because it would be silly for the Department to apply to itself.  However, backroom decisions aren't a good substitute for the law, and the regulations require a written application no matter who the applicant is.
    After Apel told me Anderson was applying Regulation 2204, but weeks before the November 8 Commission meeting, I asked attorney Hanson to verify what Apel said.  Just as he did at the later meeting, Hanson evaded the issue.  Hanson said he wouldn't give me advice -- though I didn't ask for any advice, just for facts, and every lawyer knows the difference between stating a fact and giving advice.  Hanson also wouldn't provide me any facts; he said he doesn't like how I would use them.  In other words, Hanson, an attorney feeding at the public trough, has a political test for providing services to the public.  (I emailed Hanson's boss, the county attorney, about this; no answer.)
    At the meeting, I brought up Anderson's failures to follow her own regulations; there was no response from the Department.  Later, when Chairman Martzke asked attorney Hanson to respond to the issues I raised, Hanson made no response to this point, although he had about two weeks' advance notice to research it.
Did Judy Anderson have standing to "revive" 06-06?
P&Z staffer Mark Apel said, when I asked him about two weeks before the meeting, that Anderson had the right to apply under Regulation 2204 like any "interested person."
    Under P&Z Regulation 2204, "A property owner or authorized agent of a property owner desiring a text amendment to the Zoning Regulations or . . . zoning district . . . shall [file] a properly completed application in the manner prescribed by these Zoning Regulations.  Any interested person may apply to amend these Regulations in a similar manner."
    Anderson doesn't appear to be an "interested person."  At law, an "interested person" is usually someone who has a direct financial interest, and that's what it means elsewhere in the P&Z Regulations.  Section 2204.01A requires an applicant to state her "interest in the amendment;" that can't mean "Tell us how much you care."  Section 2204.02B3 gives examples of agents for a "real party in interest," and all the examples relate to property ownership.  Therefore, Anderson doesn't have standing to apply under Regulation 2204.
    I raised this argument at the meeting.  When Chairman Martzke asked attorney Hanson to answer the issues I raised, Hanson didn't respond to this one.
Does Judy Anderson have the right to violate her own regulations?
Even if Anderson's fascination with 06-06 did make her "interested" in the eyes of the law, Section 2204 would still require her to apply "in a similar manner" to a property owner or owner's agent.  Besides an actual application, the regulations lay many other requirements on applicants, and Anderson was ignoring them.  Within Article 22, Section 2203 requires a pre-application meeting with staff; Section 2203.C.1.  An applicant must notify, and maybe meet with, nearby property owners; Section 2203.C.2.  A "Citizen Review Report" must be prepared after a lengthy process; Section 2203.C.4.  There's a fee; Section 2204.01.D, 2204.02.G.  A docket number can be assigned only after an application is "completed in conformance with Section 2204;" Regulation 2205.  The county must give elaborate notice; Regulation 2206.  And so on.  The more you look at the Regulations, the more Regulations you find Anderson ignoring.  (For the Regulations, see http://www.co.cochise.az.us/P&Z/P&Zarticle/Article22.htm  )
    I raised this point at the meeting.  When Chairman Martzke asked attorney Hanson to answer the issues I had raised, Hanson didn't respond to this one.
Trampling on the public in a totally different matter
On November 2, a CCIPRA officer emailed a letter to every Commissioner, and to the Department.  Department staffer Mark Apel had solicited such a letter and promised to respond in detail.  The letter distilled the concerns of many citizens.
    Here's the letter:
        On October 11, the Commission’s tie vote defeated Docket number R-06-06, the proposed Sierra Vista Subwatershed Overlay District.  Docket R-06-06 is dead, according to the Bylaws.  But Judy Anderson put  Docket R-06-06 back on the Commission agenda for November 8.  This time, Anderson, not the Commission, is the applicant.  Anderson has revived the dead item without following the regulations that govern all applications, by anyone. 
        The County's Comprehensive Plan requires an applicant to “complete the public participation process . . . before any amendment is presented to the Board."  A Citizen Review Process, along with a long list of other required procedures, is in Zoning Regulations Article 22, which Mark Apel says is the legal authority that Anderson is following.  The Citizen Review Process is supposed to "ensure that the citizens . . . have an adequate opportunity to learn about applications that may affect them."  At the October 11 meeting, Commission confusion and public uneasiness about the Overlay were apparent.  The Department has clearly not explained the Overlay to anyone's satisfaction; late in the meeting, two Commissioners even said that Docket R-06-06 is only a plan, though Mark Apel says it is not a plan, but is regulatory.  One Commissioner suggested delaying a vote until January to get more public input.  Yet Anderson has rushed ahead, in violation of her own regulations, and with no plans for more meetings with the public.
        There is no good cause for such a rush by the Department.  The permanent harm caused by ignoring the law must far outweigh any temporary good from any particular regulations.  Docket R-06-06 will apply to all development within the SV Subwatershed, and affect the “60% of County residents [who] live in this subwatershed” -- good reasons to take the necessary time to let the Commissioners and the public understand the item. 
        For now, it is important that the Commission keep the Department inside the law. 
        If and when Docket R-06-06 legally comes before the Commission, several questions should finally be openly and fully answered.  Probably every citizen who looks at the measure will have additional questions -- it took me several days to read all information about the docket -- so my list of questions is not complete.  But here are the biggest issues that this one citizen sees:
        Our Comprehensive Plan says that all subdivisions, multi-family residential, and manufactured home park developments of one acre or larger, "shall . . . minimize overall water use through . . . drought-tolerant landscaping, low-flow fixtures, re-use, water harvesting, deed restrictions and other water conservation methods."  Our Subdivision Regulations recommend that water conservation measures be included in CC&Rs (covenants, conditions, and restrictions), shown on plats, and enforced by homeowners' associations and by the P&Z Department, when it issues permits.  Also, our Subdivision Regulations require drought tolerant plants, timers on irrigation, rainwater harvesting and reuse, and minimal turf; and, in common-use buildings, gray water diversion, re-circulating hot water pipes, water efficient washing machines, and hot water pipe insulation.  Almost every item on the Overlay docket is already in the regulations, so why is an Overlay District necessary?  Minor changes to present regulations would accomplish everything of substance, without imposing another whole set of rules on Cochise County citizens. 
        Our Comprehensive Plan says the County will try to "decrease water use through incentives, education, and various zoning mechanisms."  One citizen asked “Can incentives be implemented?" and suggested reduced building permit fees or reduced taxes.  But the proposed Overlay has nothing but regulations -- no incentives or education.  The County cares enough about education to distribute Water Wise pamphlets, so why is education left out of the Overlay?
        The Department's slide show said "Gray water plumbing in new residential construction (not applicable to factory-built or MH)."  However, no ”factory-built or MH” exception appears anywhere else in the Department's notices.  Would the District exempt these structures from the gray-water plumbing requirement, or not?  Shouldn't the Overlay proposal be clear, here and elsewhere?
        The District would favor rezoning "if a private voluntary transfer of development rights is affected."  If a developer purchases 1000 acres with no water, and trades it for higher density development where there is water, how does that conserve water?
        The District would require "new Subdivisions to have a water provider in lieu of individual wells."  However, what is good for water companies is not necessarily good for water conservation.  As citizens have often pointed out, using a water company has not been shown to result in less water use.  In the public input before October 11, a citizen noted that "just the opposite has actually been shown:  households on individual wells in RU-4 zoning use far less water, even with large amounts of livestock, than more densely-populated subdivisions served by a water company.  Fewer households per acre = less water use.  This needs much more discussion before becoming the Law of the Land."  Another citizen noted that "the requirements will use more power, and somewhere in the production of electricity, water is used."  Another citizen noted that a water company adds millions to development costs, which encourages high-density developments to get enough consumers to repay the costs.  When citizens have such concerns, why doesn't the Department respond, instead of rushing ahead?
        People must spend a lot of money to meet the requirements proposed by Docket R-06-06.  A gray water system costs $500-$2000.  Hot water on demand costs $400.  Each rain sensor costs $20-$30.  A two-stage evaporative cooler costs $3500, about $2500 to $2800 more than a prohibited old-fashioned cooler.  The extra requirements add at least $3420 to the cost of a house.  It's understandable that businesses want people to have to buy the extras, but people may not have the money to buy what the businesses want to sell.  Don't the people matter?
        Another citizen noted that "Fort Huachuca will not be closed because of how much water it uses. . . .The fort is much too valuable an asset to the US Govt for something like water usage to be the number one reason for closure.  The community and its leaders need accurate and up to date facts before passing judgment on any institution, installation, or individual."  Is the Department using the 'Fort-Huachuca-might-close' threat to impose regulations that will generate more fees and fines - and control - for the Department's benefit?
        Our Comprehensive Plan says "overlay districts are a way, with community support, to tailor site development standards to meet an area's needs," and "Effective public involvement may increase the length of the process but can yield more widely accepted proposals with fewer objections."  Why should these considerations be forgotten?
        Please take the time to do this right -- to make the Department follow its own Bylaws and regulations, and give  the public and the Commission time to get their concerns addressed, before you vote on the Overlay -- if it comes to you again legally. 

At the meeting on November 8, each Commissioner had a copy of that letter.  Then the strangest thing happened.
    During the 4:00 work session, Mark Apel brought up that letter and said he wanted to respond to it.  Chairman Martzke stopped him as being out of order, and said that the responding to the letter would be in order at the regular 5:00 meeting.
    But during the 5:00 meeting, the letter was never addressed.  To repeat, Apel had specifically solicited that letter, and promised to respond to it in detail.  It's one more example of the Department breaking its promises and failing in its duties, and the Commission allowing that to happen.  Must every citizen plan on having to go to the Board Of Supervisors to get decent treatment from the lower levels of government?

Ultimately, the Commission passed 06-06, which is now set to go before the Board Of Supervisors on November 28.
The November 7 County Board Of Supervisors Meeting

The Board approved "a Work Session request to discuss: 16-month rotation of Board Chairmanship; amending Resolution 05-20 requirement for a majority vote to approve scheduling Work Sessions; explore the possibility of holding evening meetings of the Board of Supervisors."
    CCIPRA must compliment Supervisor Paul Newman for finally requesting this work session; better late than never.  The disenfranchised voters in his district need all the help Newman can give them, in getting fair and equal treatment from the county.
    Rotating the chair every 16 months would make each Supervisor chair for 1/3 of their term; this rotation would have prevented the harm that resulted from the previous chair's extended reign.
    The requirement for prior majority approval of a work session would give each supervisor equal power to work on his or her constituents' problems; the requirement was aimed specifically at squelching Supervisor Newman, and has disenfranchised the residents of his district, despite the "one person, one vote" rule in the Constitution.  His constituents can only get their concerns to the Board if a Supervisor from another district allows it.  'Tain't right.
    Board meetings in the evenings -- and on weekends too, for that matter -- would let people with day jobs, or who can't drive at night, attend once in a while.
    The time of the work session hasn't been set.  If you can't attend in person, you can still let your Supervisor know what you think.  The Board phone is 432 9200, and the Supervisors' email addresses are

-- Pat Call - pcall@co.cochise.az.us
-- Paul Newman - pnewman@co.cochise.az.us
-- Richard Searle - rsearle@co.cochise.az.us

Also, the agenda included Item 15, to "Adopt Resolution No. 06-119 granting a water franchise for Northern Sunrise Water Company, Inc.," and Item 16, the same for Southern Sunrise Water Company.  Both water companies are linked to Judy Gignac, Pat Call's biggest contributor and campaign manager, so Call has a conflict of interest, and should neither discuss nor vote on these items.  Under the law, Call doesn't get  to weigh his self-interest against his public duty, he simply must not discuss or vote on these items.  But he did.  One of the items was approved, the other was tabled for a future date.

The October 24 Board Of Supervisors Meeting:
THE SUNSITES HOUSING PROJECT LOSES!
WELL DONE, NEWMAN AND SEARLE!

Supervisors Paul Newman and Richard Searle, and the public, all won at the Board meeting on October 24.
    Newman voted against a housing tract that a developer wanted to put into Sunsites.  The community opposition was overwhelming, and opposing to the housing tract made good sense.  When Newman explained his vote, he emphasized "Smith Ranch" and the incredibly negative public reaction to it.  Newman voted for "Smith Ranch" when it passed, and he was determined not to make the same kind of mistake again.
    Chairman Searle deserves public applause too, because he did a great job of chairing a meeting which was both very large and very polarized, and when he explained his thinking, his analysis was so fair that it could have been used by someone on either side, right up until the final vote.  Even a supervisor who disagreed with Searle's conclusion could have used his analysis to frame the issues.  Searle set a new standard for chairing the Board.
    Well done, Paul Newman and Richard Searle!


The September 25 meeting of the Benson City Council
 -- Nobody on the Council would second a motion to annex 695 acres recently bought by the "Development Funding Group."  The Group, according to its mission statement and self-profile, speculates in land, aiming at the quickest possible turnover and profit, by means including "working with local governments to change the use."   The Group asked Benson to annex its 695 acres, but didn't say what it wanted to do with them.  It's easy to predict, based on the Group's own brag sheets, that it wants to throw up a ticky-tacky housing project as fast as possible, saddle Benson taxpayers with the burden of providing the services, then take its profits and scurry away -- more of the real estate developer mentality that USED TO run Cochise County, before the rural revolt got rolling.  Refusing to second the motion set an example that county boards and commissioners should follow.
 -- Benson's Planning & Zoning director, Linda Weiland, got her head handed to her on a platter when she tried to an end run around Benson's Planning & Zoning Commission and other government officers.  The Commission had voted 4-0 to delay considering certain matters, including items which might allow Diamond Ventures to nullify the November election by proceeding toward annexing the "Smith Ranch" development.  On September 19, despite the 4-0 vote, Weiland sent a memo to Benson's mayor and city council, implying that she and the city attorney, Ann Roberts, both wanted to proceed with some "minor amendments."  But the next day, attorney Roberts disagreed:  "I have said all along that I think they would be major amendments if we do move forward with them [and] the city's best course of action would be to include all the proposed changes under the major amendment process."  According to an article by Thelma Grimes, the mayor agrees; and at the September 25 meeting, Weiland's distortions and position were rejected.  This is not the first time that Weiland has flubbed on the facts; when she worked for the county, she diddled with dollar data in a presentation to the Board Of Supervisors -- without telling the Board that she had changed the numbers.
The September 13 meeting of the County Planning & Zoning Commission
-- Bachmann Springs got approval for its tentative plat, but perhaps not as easily as expected.  The author made a statement during the Call To the Public; here's the written version:
    "At a recent Board Of Supervisors work session, the Board was very cold to a Bachmann proposal that amounted to the county paying about $4 million to the developers if the project fails!  Good idea for Bachmann, bad idea for the public.
    "Scam or not, this housing project wouldn't fit into Cochise County under any circumstances.
    "Bachmann Springs is intended to be an exclusive oasis for the very rich.  It's isolated even by Cochise County standards.  Its ads, in magazines given away in premium seats on airplanes, gloat about its being "a community of a select few."  A three million dollar house will be downscale.  You know there'll be private security, and the public won't be welcome.  Once it's built, what jobs will Bachmann Springs offer to locals?  Pool boy, dog walker, lady's maid? -- just what Cochise County parents want for their kids.
    "Then there's the waste of water.  It's not just a golf course and swimming pools, the kind of thing that Pima County is beginning to shut down.  It's worse than that.  A Sierra Vista Herald article about the Bachmann Springs hotel says "A doctor in Salzburg, Austria, is developing treatment modalities that will include homeopathy, ozonation and oxygenation therapies" -- and even custom enemas!  But -- it gets worse -- the developers of Enema Acres even plan to bottle and export their spring water!
    "The tract apparently doesn't have enough water for all this silliness, so the tract may use water from outside systems.  What crust, to waste and sell our water, while the rest of us are pushed every day to conserve.  At Bachmann Springs, they might as well shove our water -- wait, they will.
    "Why should this public body approve any plat allowing activities that treat the public with such contempt?"
    Bachmann Springs' own presentation came later in the meeting.  It didn't address any of the issues raised during the Call To the Public, and when Chairman Martzke asked for some Commissioner to make a motion to approve the plat, nobody spoke up.  Time stretched out.  Almost a minute went by.  Finally, a commissioner, I don't remember who, made a motion to approve the plat.  After more delay, the motion was reluctantly seconded.  Only two Commissioners who voted against the plat -- Karen Corey and David Walters -- but hooray for them!  Perhaps it's not to late for them follow up on any doubts they have about Enema Acres.
 -- At the end of the meeting, the Commissioners discussed having separate email addresses for the public to use, so that the public could send messages which the P&Z Department would not see.  This issue was raised during the Call To the Public, at the beginning of the meeting, by a CCIPRA member.  Good for her, and good for the Commission, for responding.  As of October 16, it appears that the bureaucrats at the Department are stalling on this; a followup will be posted.  -- followup as of November 8:  still no progress.

* * * * *

GOVERNMENT MEETINGS IN GENERAL

Here are websites showing the schedule and agendas of county meetings generally.

-- For the Board Of Commissioners:
http://www.co.cochise.az.us/ccwebsite/Calendar.asp

Except on holidays or other unusual circumstances, the Board meets the first four Tuesdays of each month.  In other words, not on any 5th Tuesday. The Planning & Zoning Commission meets the second Wednesday of each month.  There are lots of special meetings, of course, and you just have to look at the Calendar for them.

-- For the Planning & Zoning Commission:
http://www.co.cochise.az.us/ccwebsite/PNZCalendar.asp

-- For Cochise County government in general:
http://www.co.cochise.az.us/ccwebsite/Default.asp

Some Planning & Zoning Commissioners may soon have individual email addresses, so that you can communicate with them without the P&Z Department reading your message.  If this is set up, it is likely that the Commissioners will ask the public to use the email subject line to identify the email as concerning P&Z business, and also that the Commissioners will want to know, when a person makes a comment about a pending issue, if the person actually lives in the area affected by the issue, or is not personally affected but wishes to express an opinion.

If you go to a meeting of the Board Of Supervisors or Planning & Zoning Commission, and want to say something, here is a link to information that may help you:
http://littlebigdog.net/calltopublic.htm

And here's a link to a page about the Open Meeting Law, which governs how any public body must conduct its business in public or behind closed doors:
OML here


* * * * *

A PLANNING & ZONING HORROR STORY IN 3 PARTS
(THE HORROR IS CONTINUING; NO RESOLUTION YET)
Chapter 1:  The Shining On
    In March, William Jakobek, a resident of Cochise County, went to the county Planning & Zoning offices in Bisbee about some work he wanted to do on his property, including adding a concrete driveway connecting to the public right of way.  The person at the Planning & Zoning desk brought up Diane Cratsenberg, a right of way specialist who was NOT in Planning & Zoning, though this was not stated at the time, and they talked at length.  In April, following Cratsenberg's advice, Jakobek filled out his application for a permit.  He submitted it to the Benson office, which called the Bisbee office several times, then said everything was in order, accepted Jakobek's application and payment, and told him that a permit would issue in about a week.
    However, no permit came.  Instead, Jakobek got a letter which said there would be another $65 fee for review and inspection of the right of way improvement after it is done.  Until the matters in that letter are resolved, Jakobek has also held off making improvements to his house, because he would be acting without a permit.  With the recent torrents of rain, this has not helped his house.
    The $65 fee was a surprise to Jakobek.  When he talked with Cratsenberg, she said that no additional Right Of Way application was necessary.  She did not mention any fee to review and inspect the driveway work after it was done, and county guidelines allow the fee only if the permit IS required.  Under the county's own rules, the $65 fee is not justified.
    After receiving the letter, Jakobek had several conversations with "permit coordinators," and on August 1 with Judy Anderson.  No one at the Planning & Zoning department would give Jakobek a writing, until Anderson -- and hers basically said "We're right, you're wrong, give us the money."
    On August 8, Jakobek made a statement to the Board Of Supervisors.  Mark Apel shortly came in and talked to Jakobek.  Just after the meeting, Apel and Jakobek both talked with Supervisor Searle, who tried to influence all parties toward reaching an amicable solution.  Later that day, after contacting several county employees, Apel emailed to Jakobek that "Since your proposal to do improvements in the right of way was part of the original building permit, no additional Right of Way application was necessary."  Under the county rule of "no application necessary, no fee assessed," this means that Jakobek didn't owe a fee.  However, Apel's email went on to add that "upon receiving your check for $65, we will amend your building permit to include those right of way improvements."
    In other words, P&Z wants an extra $65 to amend the permit to include an item that's already included.
    Huh?
    Nobody in P&Z would answer Jakobek in writing until Judy Anderson did -- and now Mark Apel is stuck trying to justify what she said, which is nonsense.  That's below Apel; he is one of the best and brightest staffers at P&Z, and he is not in the habit of making illogical arguments.  And it's unfair to Apel, too; his boss Judy Anderson should have to justify what she said, he shouldn't be stuck with the impossible job of justifying her nonsense.
Chapter 2:  The Parable of Jakobeb
    At the Board Of Supervisors meeting on September 5, Mr. Jakobek read his own statement during the Call To the Public, and the author followed up with a statement substantially as follows:
    "Remember the Old Testament parable of Jakobeb, who wanted to pave his front walk?  A Roman expert said no special permit was needed, and Jakobeb was glad, since Roman law said 'if no permit is needed, no fee shalt be charged.'  Then undertrained intruders demanded 65 shekels more, yet said not why.  So Jakobeb did beseech the Elders, and lo, a minion investigated, and said 'Your proposal was part of the original permit, so no additional application was necessary' -- but the minion was loyal to his boss, so added 'send 65 shekels and we will amend the permit to include what it already includes.'
    "That parable is strangely close to Mr. Jakobek's story.  Planning & Zoning, also known as the department of 'fines & fees,' is again trying to use words to magically make obvious blunders disappear, just as P&Z's head tried to do when it was caught persistently violating the Open Meeting Law, and just as a former P&Z employee tried to do when she was caught giving phony numbers in a report to the Board.  Until the recent reorganization of the Board, P&Z became used to doing whatever it wanted, because its leadership was in the real estate clique that controlled the Board.  But now the Board has new leadership, and rural folks no longer accept urban misrule.  Now is a great time to educate P&Z employees that when they're on a wrong course, just find a better course.
    "In the novel The Caine Mutiny, Captain Queeg ruined his career because he ignored some good advice to:  'worry a little less about making mistakes, and a little more about doing the most sensible and useful thing that occurs to you in any given circumstances.'
    "Surely it's sensible and useful to let Mr. Jakobek build his walk as the P&Z expert said he could, and as his permit already allows.  And in general, who wouldn't cheer if the Board motivated county employees to worry less about covering up mistakes, and more about acting sensibly and usefully?
    "Let's hope this current fuss encourages a new guidance campaign from the Board, to end P&Z's years of arrogance toward the public.  There's a saying, 'Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future.'  People will forgive P&Z a lot if P&Z becomes reality-based."
Chapter 3:  Not the End
    After the Board meeting on September 5, Supervisor Searle again tried to get all parties to reach a satisfactory resolution.  However, it is not within the power of a Supervisor to order a county employee to do what is right, so Searle may have done what he can -- officially.  P&Z's leadership would, if prudent, begin to treat the public better, though.
    P&Z staffer Apel also conferred again with Searle & Jakobek.  Mr. Apel is usually very logic- and fact-driven; at least, I have never seen him get agitated when he is basing his statements on fact and logic.  I suspect he knows in his bones that when your position is well founded, you never have a reason to get upset while asserting it.  On September 5, however, Mr. Apel became quite agitated, more than I have ever seen from him.  Eventually, he handed Mr. Jakobek off to the staffer -- not in P&Z -- that Mr. Jakobek first talked to.
    She at first appeared to be very hostile to Mr. Jakobek's position, and argued that the matter had gone on far too long, and taken up far more county employee time than it was worth.  That argument always cuts both ways, of course, since EITHER party to a dispute can always say "I give up, this just isn't worth it."  After several minutes, my far-better half, and Mr. Jakobek, both noted that it seemed unfair to value county time so highly, while taking no account of the aggravation to Mr. Jakobek.  The discussion then moved to more productive issues.  Eventually, when this employee discovered that she had not realized a crucial fact until just that point in the discussion, I think she understood how thoroughly confused the situation is.  At that time, my only real point came into play:  that if everyone is so thoroughly confused by the application of county rules to this situation, then it is unfair to require Mr. Jakobek to follow county rules.  Everyone is, of course, held to know the law; but when the law's words are so confusing that knowing the words doesn't lead to an understanding of their meaning, then a person shouldn't be penalized for not being able to solve the confusion beforehand.
    In other words, a good resolution of the situation would be to let Mr. Jakobek proceed as the expert originally said -- without taking this as a precedent for any other situation -- and also to change the county rules so that they can be understood, and therefore can be enforced.
    What will happen now remains up in the air.  When it is resolved, a report will follow up.  Still up in the air as of September 23.  Amazing.
    Meanwhile, if you have experienced similar high-handed treatment from P&Z, you could email your story to mpj@vtc.net .  CCIPRA members and friends already know that sticking together pays off.  This can be another example.

* * * * *

ONGOING ACTION ITEMS:

Some remaining business in Cochise County's fight to save rural living:

-- 1, restoring equal rights to every Supervisor, as far as being able to get discussion of items at Board meetings.  On November 7, the Board voted to have a work session on this subject.

Cochise County has three supervisors, representing three districts. One district is around Sierra Vista, another is generally the northern part of the county, and District Two, now represented by Supervisor Paul Newman, is generally the southeast part of the county, including the Sulphur Springs Valley.

At a Board meeting on April 26, 2005, the other two Supervisors voted against Newman, and in favor of a new rule: no item can be discussed by the Board at a work session, unless at least two supervisors agree beforehand in a separate meeting. This is part of Resolution 05-20.

Under 05-20, the concerns of Newman's district need never be considered. The other supervisors may agree to hear the concerns of Newman's constituents, but only as a matter of grace -- voters in Newman's district have no right to be heard.

Diluting the vote of Newman and his constituents appears to be unConstitutional, but we won't know that unless Newman sues. Also, the Board appears to have violated Arizona's Open Meeting Law (follow this link) in passing 05-20, but Arizona's Attorney General will have to issue a ruling on that.

However, the County attorney advising the Board, Charles Irwin, did issue a letter memorializing the advice he gave to the Board in executive session, and that letter shows the low quality of advice that a majority of the Board chose to accept.

-- Irwin argued that because the Board of Supervisors can pass rules in general, it can pass this rule in particular. Well -- if a grocer threw food into your shopping cart saying "you can eat food in general, so you can eat this particular food," you would conclude that the grocer was an idiot.

-- Irwin ignored a lawsuit that Newman cited because its underlying facts were not identical to ours -- but then Irwin relied on two other cases which also have facts different from ours. If a grocer knocked a can of ravioli out of your hands yelling "starch is bad for you!" then shoved a can of rice at you shouting "eat this, it has a lot of starch!" you would conclude that the grocer was an idiot.

-- The two cases which Irwin cited don't even stand for the principle behind 05-20. If a grocer knocked a can of ravioli out of your hands yelling "starch is bad for you!" then shoved a can of Pepsi at you shouting "eat this rice, it has a lot of starch!" you would conclude that the grocer was an idiot.

It's time to end this discrimination against Newman and his district.

 

-- 2, getting real solutions to our water problems, instead of delaying more.

On July 10, the Board had a work session about a possible study to find out the actual usage people put on rural wells. The study would cost over $100,000 and take 3 years, which wouldn't start until lots of practical details were ironed out.

The Board barely touched on why such a study is needed, but apparently the Board wants to be able to win if a builder brings a lawsuit against water usage limits imposed on new construction. Also, Washington DC may decide to close Ft. Huachuca if housing tracts around it use more water than ranchers and farmers have been using.

I think that if the Board goes ahead and hires the study, every voter who takes a stand on either side of the issue will end up hating the Board.

I'm just looking at the numbers, using the same approach as a May 19, 2006, report entitled "Upper San Pedro Basin Challenge," which was delivered to the State Water Advisory Group. This report is already part of the Board's thinking.

For Cochise County water companies that serve only homes, data from the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona show average usage of 90 gallons/day/person. In calculating that average, I omitted the companies with the heaviest and lightest usage.

The San Pedro Basin report says 104 gallons/day/person. I think that number reflects an error in multivariate analysis, but my argument is actually stronger if you use the 104 gallon figure for water companies.

For wells on RU4 parcels, the San Pedro Basin report took 312 gallons/day as a person's average water use. Some RU4 parcels are larger, but that too makes my argument stronger.

Using the numbers that make my case in the weakest way: when you subdivide RU4 land for individual houses, an average person requires 1.15 acres in order to get 90 gallons/day. Putting a person on less land draws water more intensively than when the parcel was an undivided RU4. An average family, of 2.6 people, needs 3 acres.

If the actual RU4 water usage is double the San Pedro Report estimate, a family still needs 1.5 acres. If the actual RU4 water usage is less, a family needs more than 3 acres. The point is, any figure the study may realistically produce requires lot sizes too big for high-volume building.

Putting homes on big lots will drive down the builders' profits. And if builders continue using small lots while the study proceeds, there'll be lawsuits -- and when the study comes out, the builders will lose. They'll hate the Board.

Nor do people opposing big housing tracts want the study. To them, it's just a way to let builders make profits while the Board puts off trying to find a real solution to the water problem. These people will hate the Board while the study eats up 3 years, and they'll hate the Board more when the study ends and proves they were right all along.

So the Supervisors will end up hurting no matter how the study turns out. The Supervisors' self-interest requires NOT waiting for another study.

Their self-interest coincides with the public good. Don't do the study; find a rational basis for limiting water usage based on what people using water companies use, not on what RU4 well-users use. If a builder litigates, the builder will have the burden of proof to show that the basis isn't rational; that's where the Board wants the burden to be. But to get this done, the Board needs absolutely new ideas. Getting this done may turn out to be their toughest job. That's another reason for them to start, without any delays for a pointless study.

The July 15 Sierra Vista Herald reports on a study entitled "Hydrologic Requirements of and Consumptive Groundwater Use by Riparian Vegetation along the San Pedro River, Arizona." It shows that the riparian areas alongside the San Pedro River use a lot more water than we thought. This is not usage by people, but by "wild vegetation." These numbers don't change the estimates of how much water people use, these numbers just show that cutting back on human water usage, instead of dithering about decimals, is what we need to be doing.

 

-- 3, taking care of the backlog of items from Newman's district.

Newman should be asking to bring these backlogged items up.

 

-- 4, regularizing the rotation of the Chair, so that every Supervisor gets a turn during his 4-year term.  On November 7, the Board voted to have a work session on this subject.

It's nice that we have rotated the Chairmanship, but let's make sure it keeps rotating. A Supervisor shouldn't have to politick for the Chairmanship, he (or she, someday) should be able to focus on constituents' needs.

 

PERPETUAL ACTION ITEM:

You should be able to give input to any of the supervisors, and they should treat you with respect. After all, their base pay is about $60,000 a year -- 4 or 5 times what many hard-working people in rural Cochise County earn in a year.

The Board address is Bldg. G, 1415 Melody Lane, Bisbee AZ 85603, (that's also where the supervisors meet), and you can contact the Board

----- by phone, at 432 9200

----- by EMAIL, at
---------- Pat Call - pcall@co.cochise.az.us
---------- Paul Newman - pnewman@co.cochise.az.us
---------- Richard Searle - rsearle@co.cochise.az.us

Here's where the Planning & Zoning Commission meets:
----- Building G, at 1415 Melody Lane in Bisbee

You can mail the P&Z Commission at
----- Building E (not G, but E!)
----- 1415 Melody Lane, Bisbee AZ 85603

You can contact the P&Z Department
----- by phone at 432 9240
----- by email at PNZ@co.cochise.az.us

The county should give each Commissioner an individual email address, the same as for Supervisors.  The way things are now, all email to Commissioners goes through the Department first -- and I'm not sure I want Judy Anderson to have access to my emails to Commissioners.

SOME CCIPRA CONCERNS: 

The Board Of Supervisors approved illegal acts, resulting in illegal fees, by Planning & Zoning

Cochise County "Planning & Zoning" includes the P&Z Department and the P&Z Commission. The Department is county employees; the Commission is 9 people, 3 appointed by each Supervisor on the Board Of Supervisors. The Department proposes rules to the Commission, and if the Commission approves them, the Department then proposes them to the Board Of Supervisors. Nothing takes effect until the Board approves.

At the February 8 Commission meeting, the Department proposed a new series of four letters and fines on citizens building without a permit. For the 1st letter, the fine would be $25. For a 2nd letter, $100. For the 3rd, $200. For the 4th, $400. (The Department calls the 1st letter a notice of violation, the 2nd letter the 1st letter, the 3rd letter the 2nd letter, and the 4th letter a notice of hearing.)

Of course, a citizen may choose not to obey the Department's letters, for good reasons, that Department bureaucrats don't understand. For example, at the February 8 meeting, a citizen asked about fines and fees for building a simple dog shelter. Two P&Z staffers answered, and contradicted each other. Citizens shouldn't have to jump to obey orders written by confused, incompetent, or malicious bureaucrats.

However, P&Z wanted the fines specifically to PUNISH citizens who respond to a P&Z order within the time allowed by law, but not fast enough to satisfy Department bureaucrats. P&Z Commissioner Corey asked "why aren't we charging [the public] more and why can&rsquot we do it daily?" Corey exclaimed "I DO want to be punitive!" Other P&Z people echoed Corey's sentiments. When a County attorney explained that the law wouldn't let an administrative agency punish people, Corey said "That's not what I wanted to hear." Then the attorney immediately relapsed into talking about punishment -- Freudian slip city.

The law also requires that fees be attributable to, and go toward the expense of, a specific service to the public, AND that a fee not exceed the cost of the service. An example would be a small fee for providing copies of filed documents.

But on February 8, the Department said it wanted the fees to pay for new employees -- that is, for future bureaucratic overhead in general. Worse, the Department even inflated its costs -- for example, claiming it takes an employee 15 minutes to find a lot on a county map, and 3 minutes to choose one name from a list of four. Worst, the Department wanted fees exceeding the inflated costs: a $25 fee for $18.50 of inflated time, $100 for $84.77, $200 for $179.86, and $400 for $375.06 of inflated time.

Amazingly, the Commission knowingly approved fees that were illegally large, even after Department employee Weiland said "our county attorney says that in the case of a surcharge, it needs to be exactly equal to the price it costs the county to provide the service."

Then the Department took the illegal fees to the Board Of Supervisors for final approval. On April 4, the Department made its pitch -- but increased the claimed costs, so that the corresponding fees were now less than the costs, and did not break the law. BUT THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT TELL THE BOARD THAT IT HAD CHANGED THE FIGURES.

A citizen blew the whistle. Supervisor Newman asked the Department to explain. The answer lasted three and a half minutes, and incoherently strung together a dozen or more subjects ranging from salaries to the Bell Curve. It was a classic example of a liar, caught pants down, trying to explain away the facts -- and amid the verbiage, the Department admitted inflating its costs to match the fees it wants to charge.

Yet the Board approved the Department's fees, and the public is stuck with them -- until public pressure makes the Board re-examine its approval of illegalities.

 

In Cochise County Zoning, Whatever Isn't Allowed Is Prohibited

In the Cochise County Zoning Regulations, Article 3, Section 307, states:

"Any use not permitted in a district, either as a permitted use or as a special use, is specifically prohibited from a zoning district."

Somehow, "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 all the officials should be removed
from their position at the public trough,
and the laws they pass should be rewritten
to follow American ideals
and the Constitution.