Budget considerations

Mayor, thank you for the courtesy of your reply, although it was unnecessary. 

Since you were kind enough to share certain information I feel compelled to point out a few flaws in what appears to be an overly optimistic outlook.  The first can be brought into focus with simple arithmetic.  The Town of Carefree will not actually begin to save $50,000 a year until 2046, assuming that you spend $1.5 million from reserves in 2015.  It will take 30 years just to break even on the funds expended.

The next misconception noted is also fairly straightforward.  I suspect it is obvious to every homeowner in Carefree who has observed For Sale signs on a neighbor’s property for years.  Simply because one engages a broker, or agent, does not guarantee a sale.  I wish Mr. Klemp well, but a betting man would probably wager with the odds, considering Mr. Klemp’s target in our market setting.

Last, but surely not least, one cannot blindly accept recommendations of that Long Range Financial Committee, considering their lofty projections of revenue growth – never realized.  It should be remembered that a member of that committee, a councilman for many years, made a very similar forecast of compounded revenue growth when he projected how Carefree would pay for free fire protection.  A look at past budget results clearly destroys that myth.


John Traynor
Resident of Carefree

From: Mayor David Schwan
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 10:01 AM
To: 'John Traynor'
Cc: Kandace French - Town Clerk
Subject: RE: Budget considerations

Thank you for your email.

Ray Klemp, the owner of 100 Easy St., has engaged the services of a broker to fill the space currently occupied by the Town with a microbrewery.

Moving out of 100 Easy St. will save Carefree $50,000 per year. This was a recommendation by the Long Range Financial Committee in 2012.

Mayor David Schwan
Town of Carefree, Arizona

Dear Mayor Schwan and members of the Carefree Town Council

As a former Council Member and 19+ year resident of Carefree, I remain interested in the town and its well being.

Realizing that my opinion is one of a non resident, it may carry little weight in your deliberations.  I only ask that you read it and decide what’s best for Carefree using your personal intellect.

Being among those that received an unfair and unwarranted branding from the ignorant and foolish, otherwise known to many as the GOBs, I can say, doing the right thing sometimes is difficult and unpopular, however there is only one way to do it.  In my learned experience, the stewardship of town resources falls very high on the list of your responsibilities, so much so that the imprudent expenditure of funds, especially reserve funds, can result in a disastrous long term effect.

I have been reading recently about the expansion of the current Town Hall to incorporate Council Chambers and community rooms into the existing footprint at 8 Sundial Circle.  I also see that an expenditure of $1.5 million has been allocated in the FY 2015 budget.  The town by exercising its option to extend the lease on the former Municipal Court and current Council Chambers until 2021 makes sense for a number of reasons.  Some of them are obvious, even to a casual observer.  A few are, with the 5 year extension at their option, the town has no pressing need for new space, community rooms are available in the fire house, which are used how often, by who, the cost of the current extension is modest and manageable, and if the need arises the space can be easily modified to accommodate other uses, such as community rooms. 

I believe that depleting the town’s reserves in a time when the retail sector of Carefree has not exhibited consistent, positive growth in the face of a somewhat improving economy, an abundance of empty store fronts that continue to litter the town with little short term relief for the land owners, and the town’s need to continue investing in its roads and funding the Rural/Metro fire agreement, only one without giving diligent consideration to the future would expend any new financial resources for an unnecessary building.  I believe exercising the option to extend the lease at the agreed terms and then, only if necessary, make tenant improvements to the extent the facility could accommodate multiple uses along the lines of “community rooms.”  The reserve fund should be maintained at the highest practical level until such time as the cash receipts show significant midterm improvement.

On the other hand, an investment (Public-Private Partnership) in a worthy project that assures the town of a new additional revenue stream is another topic for deeper discussion and one that I believe should take first place on a to-do priority list.  This public-private partnership may include partnering with current property owners to upgrade their buildings for example to include a no interest payback feature over a period of time.

I believe the town MUST increase its revenue stream before it drains any funds from reserves without the assurance of improved revenue coming as a direct result of the expenditure.

The recent selling of naming rights of the amphitheatre should serve as something that sounds and feels good, however, the question, “what has it done to enhance the appeal of Carefree to businesses, visitors, entertainers or simply attracting revenue,” remains to be answered.

I appeal to your sense of responsible leadership and good stewardship by thinking through this matter before committing to something that has the potential to cause long term and unnecessary harm to the town’s finances.  I have every confidence that you will make the right decision.


Peter Koteas


The indignant Mr. Trenk

The ethically challenged Adam Trenk now has real problems with a recall election looking very likely. He first desperately fought the idea of a recall knowing full well he had no record to run on. Now that Cave Creek Caring Citizens have collected and submitted plenty of signatures for a recall election, this angry little fellow accuses them of ‘petition fraud’, whatever that is. This accusation is from the guy who illegally and fraudulently signed a dead man’s name to their petition and then publicly bragged about it. This has him pending action from the Arizona Bar based on further investigation. The real bad news for him now is that he has no choice but to run on his record. Unfortunately the Thorstenson/Trenk slate (Monachino, Durkin & Spitzer) has a magnificent record of dishonesty, secrecy, hiring unqualified employees at exorbitant salaries, irresponsible wasteful spending on non-budgeted software and trinkets, acquiring huge legal liabilities and costs, and abandoning the trail system – just for starters. Good luck, boys!

Bob Williams
Cave Creek


To all who were so kind

To those of you who were so kind as to send a message to the city council on the moratorium they wanted to impose on future land acquisitions for the Preserve, a big thank you. The messages did have an impact and I believe we have at least four council members who will not support the moratorium, Littlefield, Phillips, Robbins, and Klapp.

I would like to ask you to respond to those council members who indicated they would NOT support the moratorium and just thank them for the consideration and commitment to honor the voter mandate to acquire land for the Preserve. In your response, please emphasize that we need even the threat of the moratorium removed so the current acquisition can take place as scheduled. This acquisition is important because it includes the NE corner of Pima and Dynamite that has always been designated to be a major trail head into the northern Preserve.

As for the other three, including Korte, Milhaven, and Lane, their position on a moratorium on land acquisitions has no defense. We have in excess of $70 million left in bonding capacity, and even if the current acquisition takes place, there will still be $40 to $50 million left, more than enough to build more trail heads, more trails, and even put some aside for maintenance if the voters approve that.

Currently, none of the Preserve tax money can be used for maintenance, so even if the council should decide some money needs to be put away, they would have to go back to us voters to approve that. All of the current trail heads and trails cost about $15 million and that covers over 80 percent of what would need to be built. Furthermore, there are no other parcels we can go after now, so that remaining money isn’t going away soon, giving the council all the time they want to “study” the issues.

The numbers, and current status of the remaining land, simply do not justify halting the acquisition to give them time to study the maintenance requirements. We will try to make these points clear in the coming weeks.

Again thanks to all of you who wrote the council; you have made a difference.

Howard Myers


Bundy ranch

To: Hemraj Jain
Sent: 4/16/2014 7:39:40 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time
Subj: RE: Bundy Ranch Controversy

Your approach only works with an honest government that upholds the law, which we clearly no longer have.

I refer you to the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

The United States Supreme Court ruled in Marbury vs Madison that laws repugnant to the Constitution are automatically null and void. That was to prevent bad laws from being exercised while waiting for an often delayed Supreme Court review. Marbury vs Madison reserves to the people the right to determine for themselves if a law is Constitutional or not.

So, under Marbury vs Madison, the law the BLM claimed to have on their side to seize the Bundy property in the 1930s was null and void, as it clearly violates Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution. Attempts by the reavers at BLM to rustle the Bundy cattle are therefore a criminal action under color of law and Bundy and his associates have every right to defend their property with force of arms.

I will give you another U.S. Supreme Court decision, which is John Bad Elk vs United States, Which held that when government acts illegally, the people have a legal right to defend themselves, up to and including the use of lethal force.

I would prefer we have an honest government and a court system that would uphold the Constitution, but we do not. Just on the NSA spying issue alone the government is violating the Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments. The U.S. Government is murdering people around the globe, including Americans, without due process, targeted by drones in countries we are not at war with. The government is using torture to secure politically expedient confessions. And we all recall that whopper about Saddam's nuclear weapons used to trick us into invading Iraq. I dare anyone to show me anywhere in the Constitution where the government is authorized to lie to the people to start a war of conquest!

Again, from the Declaration of Independence ...

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Michael Rivero, Peace Activist and Talk Show Host
What Really Happened

-----Original Message-----
From: Hemraj Jain Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 2:11 AM
Subject: Re: Bundy Ranch Controversy

Dear Sir

If what you say (about Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, known as the Enclave Clause and the Homestead law) is correct and if Bundy moved the Courts in time to secure his rights under these laws and if even then ultimately Bundy the victim was persecuted and harassed by all the organs of State (including Judiciary) then who so ever is supporting Bundy in this fight is barking at the wrong tree.

Instead, people of America should be told from various forum that ‘Rule of Law’ is being violated by all the organs of State (including Judiciary) and there should be a concerted effort by all especially by people’s elected representatives (the Members of Congress) to discipline all these organs of State (including Judiciary even by impeachment, if necessary) in the interest of restoring ‘Rule of Law' in USA.


Hem Raj Jain

Author of ‘Betrayal of Americanism'

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:57 PM, WRH <wrh@whatreallyhappened.com> wrote:

The Bundy Family purchased all of that land in 1877, only to have it seized by the government in the 1930s. This violated Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, known as the Enclave Clause, which limits the Federal Government to owning land ONLY for Federal Buildings and military installations, NOT seizing millions of acres of private and public lands to be sold to corporations or pledged as collateral on out-of-control government borrowing.

Then there is the Homestead law, which says ownership of the land belongs to those who have lived on the land and developed it, which the Bundys have done in an unbroken chain since 1887.

The BLM does not have legal jurisdiction as the land in question is actually under state control.

In 1993 the BLM arbitrarily reneged on the grazing rights, limiting the number cattle Bundy could graze on the land which had originally belonged to him, ostensibly to protect the desert tortoise, which the BLM is itself euthanizing today due to budget cuts at their conservation center. This sudden limitation would have ruined the Bundy Ranch, so Cliven Bundy took the matter to court where the case dragged on for twenty years until the LM obtained a court order which they decided to enfor4ce without allowing Bundy enough time to appeal.

The government is in the wrong here on several levels.

-----Original Message-----

From: Hemraj Jain
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:42 PM
Subject: Bundy Ranch Controversy

Dear Sir,

Can some one enlighten the readers of your esteemed news paper on a point of law about ‘Bundy Ranch Controversy’?

If Rancher Bundy from Nevada was not paying monthly grazing fees to authorities then why were his cattle allowed to graze on government (public) land for absurdly long time of over two decades which increased, in a legally objectionable manner, the arrears of grazing fee (including fines etc) to such unbearable huge amount of more than $ 1 million that it necessitated (in order to recover the arrears) the rounding-up of Bundy's cattle by Law / Fed government / BLM?

Yours truly,

Hem Raj Jain
Pennington, New Jersey


The rule of law?

Apparently if we don't worship Barack Hussein Obama II in everything he proposes we are called racists by the media. The fact that Obama was elected in the first place is proof that the majority of Americans are NOT racist.  I would have enthusiastically voted for Alan Keys or Dr. Ben Carson without reservation. It is a matter of questioning the motivation of an angry president and first lady doing everything they can to take down America, as we knew it, verses men or women of substance who actually contributed to society. The sad part of all of this that G.W Bush was selling us out to the Federal Reserve/Goldman Sachs/GMO crowd too. But I doubt G.W. Bush enjoyed taking America down as much as Mr. Obama is. His father would be very proud of him.  It is revealing to see Obama ignore the millions of illegals swarming across our borders while trying to eradicate the last productive cattle farmer in Southern Nevada to keep the Chinese solar farm people happy! And Obama and Holder talk about the "RULE OF LAW"?


Joseph DuPont
Towanda, Pennsylvania


A second letter to America

By watching the daily news one can clearly see that America is getting farther away from God and still headed straight towards God’s judgment and ultimate destruction. Too many in America have said “there is no God.”

One of the many reasons Americans have reached such a low point of unbelief, is because they were brought up in school systems which teach man’s false idea that every living being started from a single cell and evolved into millions, or even billions, of species, including humans. Some have theorized humans evolved from ape like beings.

But how a person, who is composed of 200, or 300 trillion highly specialized interrelated cells, can believe that it all started from a single cell, should be beyond belief. Actually, the single cell theory of evolution only proves Man’s folly.

First, Man totally dismissed God’s legitimate claims that he, God, created Heaven and Earth and everything in them including the first man, Adam. Second, Man refused to believe the documented biblical history of God dealing with mankind on Earth, where God again and again, demonstrated and proved his awesome supernatural powers.

Among these demonstrations of power, were turning the rivers and waters in Egypt into blood, parting the Red Sea while millions of Israelites crossed on dry ground, and then drowning the very large pursuing Egyptian Army. After that God proved himself again and again by providing food and water for forty years while His chosen people wandered in the desert.

In the Word of God, the Holy Bible, God showed his chosen people that he had complete control over Earth and the Heavens, because, he wanted them to be witnesses to the rest of the world. He wanted the people of the world to believe in Him so they would not perish.

This world would be a much better place if people believed in the Living God and followed his just commandments. We would love each other like the brothers and sisters that we are, because, we are all His children.

God gets no pleasure in his children going to hell. It is a great tragedy that so many in America are rejecting God and his Son, Jesus Christ, who died for our sins on the cross. Accepting Jesus and his sacrifice is a must to go to Heaven.

America must return to God.

Manuel Ybarra, Jr.
Coalgate, Oklahoma


Who owns Cave Creek?

It seems to me that the town of Cave Creek is at a crossroads where the citizens must decide just how they want the town to develop. I came here forty years ago when it was just a quiet desert area in Maricopa County and home to a diverse group of artists, ranchers, suburbanites, a few bars, coffee shops, merchants and some old-timers. Since historic Cave Creek wasn't a legal town, the residents were on their own after they recognized the need for some community services. To provide for this need, they created the Cave Creek Improvement Association. People participated who lived in areas scattered around Black Mountain.

By the time I joined the group's board, they had created or planned a library, an ambulance service, a fire-fighting group, a cemetery, and various working committees. The point I want to underline is that this was a totally volunteer group consisting of a variety of people with different life styles but all with a love of the desert. They also had the skill and desire to make things work as a residential community. Even when the town was formed, this spirit of cooperation continued. There have been bumps along the way, but with civility were smoothed out.

Now there seems to be a threat to this spirit of cooperation (a respect for our varying life styles). A group of restaurant/bar owners seem to see Cave Creek as only a vehicle for the profit produced by increasing tourism. They want the image of our town to suggest a movie version of the West (in a very crude way). To promote this myth, we now have corrals along Cave Creek Road that facilitate bull riding, a fake Spanish Bull Run, and a promise of more rodeo-like events. The real Cave Creek rodeo grounds are in the desert outside of town.

Added to these events, they have encouraged hundreds of motorcycles with no place to park. So to assist this lock of hog parking, the town's staff generously closes off half of Cave Creek Road for their special events. Civic events I can understand, but commercial use is a different issue. Last year we even had an old car bashing event involving sport teams preferences. And today as I write this rant, the town is being decorated with hundreds of beer ads and even a huge tiger blow-up thing on a rooftop.

In regard to all signs and advertisements, the town some years ago gutted the then strong sign ordinance and did not enforce what was left. Even a strange advertisement was allowed where the feed of a proud buffalo and a longhorn steer is placed on top of a pink horse trailer (accessed by a ramp).

It is obvious that I am unhappy with the way the town core has been allowed to develop and hope that the majority of residents agree with me - and do something about it. But it won't be easy. Since I couldn't believe that the town's staff and council would allow the above activities and facilities, I studied both the previous and latest Town of Cave Creek Zoning Code for the facts. Much to my surprise I found the majority of what I am objecting to (in my non-legal view) is O.K. That is, facilities for animals was allowed in the commercial town core and the strict square footage limits on signs (sometime in the past) was quietly deleted. If you combine these significant leniencies along with the lack of sign enforcement, you get the anything goes carnival we have today. Again, it won't be easy to return to the balance of life styles that our residential area has always enjoyed. I would suggest that we can't keep expanding this present carnival area without a traffic and parking gridlock on Cave Creek Road. And further creating a negative image for the town. We have put what most towns have in their backyard in our front yard.

I have my point of view but a more democratic process needs to be initiated to find out how all the residents of Cave Creek would like to see the town evolve. Let's also find out from the new town manager, the mayor, and any council members existing or newly elected, to state publicly their view on growth and any ordinance changes necessary to create that future.

Fred Linn Osmon
Cave Creek

Fred Osman is a retired architect who designed our first area library, medical clinic, bowling alley (now Cartwright's) and other buildings and houses. He is also a former college professor and a military veteran.