You are on page 1of 2

From: Rick Thompson, Refuge Homeowner

Date: May 17, 2010


Subject: WIN, LOSE OR DRAW

No matter how the vote turns out this evening, this particular “conditional application” by
the Aldridges for annexation is a moot point. The cold, hard, real-life facts are the recent
case-law coming out of Glendale Arizona prohibits LHC from going forward with this
particular annexation until the courts have made a judgment on the pending lawsuit
against the City for zoning improprieties.

Among the issues to be decided is whether or not the City Council violated the State-
regulated mandate that prohibits a city from going against its own General Plan without
first making a formal amendment. No one from the city, including the City Attorney,
denies that this happened. In that particular attorney’s opinion however, this “violation”
was permissible, well, because, ahhhh, mmmmm, well because…period! An analogy
here would be if someone ran a red light, and admitted doing so, but then claimed it was
okay because of ahhhh, well, mmmmm, “well your honor its okay, `cause I was in a
hurry.”

Of course this isn’t going to fly because there are no excuses that mitigate the fact that
at the very moment the Council voted to approve the Aldridge’s application, that
required amendment had not been made…period. There is a very real irony here,
however.

Should the NO side prevail and win the vote this evening, the Aldridges would be free to
file a new application with the City and start the process all over again. And, of course,
the City Council could then properly amend their General Plan, thus freeing them up to
move yet again on a partial annexation of those same, precious, 49 acres.

On the other hand, should the YES side prevail in this vote, the Aldridges and their
friends on Council are pretty much stuck with each other while these 49 acres continue
to remain in the County for what could be years awaiting the above-mentioned
adjudication.

At the end of the day, because this referendum vote was so rushed and hurried by the
Council, critical mistakes were made thus causing very important balls to be dropped.
Those mistakes however still can’t cover up the fact that the planned RV Park, in and of
itself, was never going to happen because of standing restrictions that run with those
very same “precious 49 acres.”

Besides the fact that the City Council just threw away around $200,000 of taxpayer’s
money for a meaningless vote, the final reality is, a “NO” victory will provide a quick end
to a very bad idea. But a “YES” victory—for the folks hosting their “trailer-trash” party
(their term, not ours) tonight—will provide a long, slow-drip and even more expensive
end to a very bad idea.
As almost a postscript here, anyone who hasn’t read the Judge’s findings regarding
Aldridge’s two major motions from yesterday’s decision should do so immediately.
(http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/55581564?access_key=key-ewywo5936grwgmcq6zd
) What you will find is: yesterday was not a good day for the Aldridge cases. Both their
motions went south on them, one of which involves the HOA roads. These are the very
same roads the Aldridges have been touting publicly that they have total and complete
access to. These “touts” have come, as everyone knows, to a chorus of “Frivolous
lawsuits…every one of them…FRIVOLOUS"…Hmmmmm!!

Few things can show just how far off-key the Aldridges, Sonny Borrelli, Judy Selberg,
Don Clark and all the others who parroted this “FRIVOLOUS” charge were than the
Judge’s own words when he wrote: “The court finds numerous GENUINE FACTUAL
ISSUES are still in dispute…” (emphasis mine).

Now, there are invariably different ways of interpreting counsel’s legal verbiage but
three words that never-ever will amount to “Frivolous lawsuit” are the words “…genuine
factual issues…” coming from a judge of record. This shows of course, when the
Aldridges and their minions made these charges against the “Just say NO side” they
were spinning (which is a politically correct way of saying lying) something that really
does need to be taken very seriously. And that something is the law itself.

As for the law and its servants: the past few days have not been kind to City Attorney,
Paul Lenkowsky. After what appears to have been a major gaff late last week by
Lenkowsky—this is the one where he wrongly accused the NO side of campaign
improprieties—and the subsequent orchestrated "leaking" of that accusation to both a
news-outlet (run by an ex-Councilman) and the Aldridges (who promptly
screamed “foul”) it was suggested by Council-woman Nyberg, in an open Council
meeting last night, to remove Lenkowsky from his post.

The truly pathetic thing in all of this is none of it needed to happen. The Aldridge’s
ridiculous charges of frivolous lawsuits could have gone unnoticed; the Mayor and his
merry band of part-time politicians with their bizarre campaigning for a meaningless vote
would not have occurred, and most importantly over $200,000 taxpayer dollars would
not have been wasted, if only the Council would have heard our pleas to put this Special
Election off until after the courts have had a chance to do their job. But, sadly, they did
not do that.

Win, lose or draw - the annexation, as it sits right now, cannot move forward. So now
the question is: what on earth will they do next?

www.RefugeAnnexation.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pages/Vote-NO-on-Refuge-
Annexation/179189828792072