Road closures

Since this Council, with the exception of Mark and I, have voted that the present Town Manager, in his sole discretion can continue to provide free parking  for biker's on the Citizen's public streets so that Biker Bars can profit from subletting the required parking to out of Town concessionaires who have a notorious history of not reporting sales tax income to the Town, and  since our Trenk/Glassman holdover Town Manager, in my experience, has evidenced no interest in engaging the solidarity, and volunteerism of resident citizens of this Town, but rather has adopted and is furthering at every turn a narrow "Biker Town" vision for Cave Creek; You, and the rest of this community,  just need to accept the fact that it has been decided by a Majority of this Council that this issue is now  a "non-council" matter. Specifically, it has been decided that this is not a policy decision that should be brought to Council. Yes Citizens continue to die on our streets, traffic jams are awful, but that is apparently viewed as necessary collateral damage that naturally occurs in furthering the "Biker Town" vision for Cave Creek that our Town Manager and the Majority of this Council apparently support. The only credible survey ever done on this issue confirms that 85% of Cave Creek residents think it is wrong to use our streets for long term parking for bikers, but Council and our Trenk/Glassman holdover Town Manager were and are aware of that survey, and apparently have decided that profit for  a bar owner, in balance, is more important than the resident's right to efficient safe travel on our public streets. Simply put Mark and I were out voted, this Council has spoken loud and clear, not only that the situation is fine, but that it should not come back to Council as it is not a "Policy matter". As my vote reflects, I strongly disagree, but this is a democracy and the Majority rules. While I can express my thoughts on what is right, fair, and in the best interests of the Town, I must accept the decision of my colleagues who view this as an issue that they must leave to sole discretion of the Town Manager. I hope this helps explain why this will not be placed on a Council agenda given the Majority of this Council's vote interpreting the Manager/Council form of government. 

Steve LaMar
Cave Creek Vice Mayor

Mayor and Council Members

Apparently the Cave Creek bars are the only thing that matter to you.  Thanks to all of you except Vice Mayor LaMar and Councilman Lipsky, who voted against the road closures, Cave Creek was an absolute traffic disaster for us residents, an art show and many small businesses again this weekend.  You don’t seem to understand that the residents of Cave Creek matter as well.  What makes Cave Creek special is the diversity, not just the bars.  The residents are important, the small businesses are important, the art community is important, the open space is important, the horse community is important.  We are all important.  So why are the bars allowed to cause such horrific traffic congestion? Is it because you think they are special?  Their parking lots are crowded with vender tents that do not pay for permits or taxes but simply pay big bucks to the bars. The town residents have shown strong support for the bars as witnessed by the outpouring of support for the Buffalo Chip after the fire. So shouldn’t you cause the bars show equal support for the town residents?  Perhaps a novel approach would be for the bars to use their parking lots for parking and find some other location for their vendors and overflow parking that do not cause road closures. 

I was told several years ago the largest sales tax comes from a gas station and not the bars. Now I can only assume that Walmart has probably changed that but my question is why are the bars not paying more sales tax if they are so busy and so important to the town?  Have there ever been audits to answer that?

Every other organization and business that plans a special event has been required to arrange for parking other than in the street.  Why are the bars and motorcycles an exception?  It is past time for this council and this town manager to manage things for all the citizens and not just for 3 or 4 bars.

Melanie Williams
Cave Creek

Carefree’s Future Matters

Friends of Carefree, there was another Executive Session at 4 p.m., followed by the open/public Council meeting at 5 p.m.

There was no mention of the earlier Executive Session, and the regular monthly Council meeting was another expeditious affair lasting just 40 minutes.

Items 1 - 5, Consent Agenda:  All items were related to routine town business (meeting minutes, bills, financial reports, event permits, etc.), approved 7 – 0.

Item 6, Call to the Public:  No one spoke.

Item 7 Current Events:  None noted.

Item 8, Foothills Foodbank Presentation: Executive Director Pam DiPietro provided the council and audience with an overview of the Food Bank services.  The organization was founded in 1988 by members of various community churches.  Initially 90% of services supported Hispanics and only 10% for Caucasians.  Today that reality has changed, currently with 20% Hispanics and 80% Caucasians being served by Food Bank services.  The 400 volunteers serve 3,000 families (637 new in 2015) with over 41,000 individuals receiving food.  90% of the food is donated, predominantly by area supermarkets.

Services go well beyond food distribution.  They assist with the SNAP program (food stamps), health care, job search, one-time financial assistance, and vouchers for gas, pharmacies, and thrift stores.  They partner with numerous other organizations and are planning a 2,000sf addition to their facility.  Donations for that addition are still short by $100K.  For a more comprehensive version of this presentation, feel free to listen to the Town recording when it becomes available.

Item 9, Transaction Privilege Tax Ordinance:  The ‘Privilege’ Tax is probably better known as the Sales Tax.  As a result of changes to the State Model City Tax Codes, Carefree 2012-2014 Tax Code amendments need to be adopted - this was the ‘First Reading’.  Another ‘reading’ is necessary before the Council can take action.  A second part of this agenda item involved approval of a Resolution declaring the Carefree Tax Code Changes a public record.  Approved 7 – 0.

Item 10, Open House Signs: The Amendment of Town Code, Section 11-3-3 relating to permits for Open House signs was approved 7 – 0.  Item A was amended and items B & C were removed.  Essentially the permit fee for Open House signs was eliminated.

Item 11, Elections:  This Resolution authorizes the Town Clerk to conduct the Primary Election (08/30/16) and General Election (11/08/16) as Mail Ballot Elections.

Approved, 7 - 0.

Item 12, Town Council Updates:  The Splash Pad is now open; Gateway footer construction will begin early May; Investigation into having the Sun Dial electrostatically painted is underway; Two new dedication plaques have been purchased for the Sun Dial acknowledging the contributions of K.T. Palmer and the Carefree Kiwanis Club; The Liberty/BMSC agreement is another step closer to final approval, with Scottsdale agreeing to process Carefree material - ACC is expected to provide their final approval soon; The ‘slurry seal’ for some area roadways affected by the Bicycle lane project will commence in a few weeks.

Council Chambers Update – [Because the town-purchased building at 33 Easy Street (proposed future home of the Council Chambers) is being leased to Ed Lewis for 1 – 2 years, temporary space is needed when the town lease in the Post Office building expires in June.  Last year the town declined to pursue a lease extension.]  Gary Neiss provided an update.  Previously he had stated that a deal was imminent with the Lutheran Retreat at low cost/no cost to the town.  However, when it came to putting the deal in writing the Retreat backed out, citing schedule conflicts and prior commitments.  Local churches, the Carefree Resort, and other facilities were then contacted.  Mr. Neiss said that the churches would not be a good fit (no explanation given) and that discussions with the Resort were ongoing, as well as with the YMCA and PV Community College.  Councilman Farrar pointed out that the Y and PVCC were not in the Town of Carefree.  Mr. Neiss responded that they were not that far outside of Carefree.  [They sure aren’t centrally located, especially from the east side of town, a mere 5 – 6 miles from my home]

MCSO Lt. Ryan Baranyos, addressed the council to announce the MCSO Citizen Academy beginning this Saturday, and continuing every other Saturday for a total of 4 sessions.  Only 26 seats remain available, so if you are interested you must visit soon to sign up.  You can view the MSCO Citizens Academy flyer in our Archives.

Item 13, Adjournment:  The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:40PM.

Respectfully submitted by
Jim Van Allen and John Traynor

Giving south Scottsdale a bigger voice and a vote, a better way to govern all of Scottsdale

It’s been more than ten years since a resident of south Scottsdale served on the Scottsdale City Council. This isn’t a criticism, but it is a reality. There is a way we can change that reality.

I am proposing a “hybrid” district system. Under this scenario, residents in defined south, central, and north Scottsdale districts would each select their own council members. In addition three members will continue to serve at large. The mayor as always will serve at large.

I really believe this gives us the best of both worlds. Three council members from three districts tasked with focusing on the issues impacting three distinct parts of the city. Meanwhile we will have the other three council members and the mayor focusing on the city as a whole.

Since I proposed this idea the response has thus far been extremely positive. My goal is to give south Scottsdale, as well as central and north Scottsdale, a better, more distinct voice in city government. This is not a criticism of the current council, which has done a good job of serving these three distinct parts of the city.

What we have here is an opportunity to go from good to great. While it is one thing to study and speculate on how to serve south Scottsdale, it’s another to have someone who lives in south Scottsdale at the table making the decisions. The same theory applies to north and central Scottsdale.

I have always considered myself a reformer. I like to think we have helped transform city government into an entity that operates more efficiently and with greater transparency while at the same time being more responsive to the needs of our residents.

This district system is a logical extension of that mindset. More importantly, it’s an effort to swing wide the doors of Scottsdale City Hall to residents who care deeply about their neighborhoods.

There would be a lot of work to be done. A council appointed citizens committee would help us create the district boundaries. This is not a top down proposal.

If this gets to the ballot and if voters approve, we could start seeing this change as soon as 2018.

As I seek a third term as Mayor of Scottsdale, it would be easy to stay the course and hope for the best. But that’s not my way of doing things. What motivates me is to make Scottsdale a better place, a special place; a place where all voices are heard.

I refer to Scottsdale as the best city in America not because I hope it to be true, but because I know it to be true.

I also know that if we can give south Scottsdale, and indeed all of Scottsdale, more of a role in governing our city we will move from better times to the best of times.

Jim Lane
Scottsdale Mayor


When men are not gentlemen?

What happens when men are not gentlemen?

When the Republican race for the "Keys to the White House" started I was very impressed with the entire list of the 17 Conservative candidates.

Although unfortunately my positive impression was short lived.

Very soon into the campaign the "suicide" attacks started.

Conservatives attacking other Conservatives. 

Week after week, I was stunned by what some of these politicians were saying about players on their own team.

We must wonder, are they really this arrogant -or- is there something more sinister at work here?

These men are NOT being smart, and clearly these men are not being Gentlemen!

In recent days it has reached a new low, with disrespectful attacks on each others wives.

Like bullies on the playground in a disgusting display of childish mudslinging.

The painful lesson we may soon learn from these candidates is...

When men are not Gentlemen, they are not only taking the "Keys to the White House" from each other, they are essentially giving the "Keys to the White House" to a woman who is no Lady.

Shawn Murphy


Fellow Christian,

A group of atheists just filed a federal lawsuit claiming that our national motto, "In God We Trust," is unconstitutional.

They claim that by including the Lord's name on currency, the U.S. Government is discriminating against them.

Do you agree with the atheists who filed this lawsuit?

This may seem like a silly question to you, but just ten years ago, asking people if it was constitutional to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman would have seemed silly as well.

These atheists want do the same thing the "gay rights" movement did. They want to overturn hundreds of years of American tradition and impose their liberal ideology on our great nation.

One of the plaintiffs in this case even argues our national motto hurts him "... because he is forced to bear on his person a religious statement that causes him to sense his government legitimizing, promoting and reinforcing negative and injurious attitudes not only against Atheists in general, but against him personally."

In other words, these Atheists claim they are being discriminated against, so God has got to go!

You see, the Atheists and their allies in this administration believe that if they can whip up enough fake public outrage over this "discrimination" they can convince a court to rule in their favor.

They did it with marriage, and now they're trying to do it with our national motto.

That's why we need to know how many Americans really believe printing "In God We Trust" on a dollar bill constitutes discrimination.

We need to show the media, our government, and the courts where the American people really stand.

In their lawsuit, the Atheist plaintiffs even refused to spell out GOD. They spell the Lord's name, "G-d."

They actually claim that even seeing the word "God" on an official legal document is painful discrimination.

Should we give in to this pressure from the Left? Should we let this precedent be set?

Should the U.S. Government remove God from our money? Yes or No?

Visit to take the one question survey, and please urge everyone you know who is concerned about the future of our nation to do the same.

Thank you, and God bless you.


William Armstrong
U.S. Senator (CO – Retired)
President, Colorado Christian University


The Trump wrecking ball

Trump could win the Republican nomination, but lose to Clinton in the general election. He might severely damage the Republican Party, and adversely impact Republicans in Congressional and state races. His un-American campaign of political violence and hooliganism is reminiscent of 20th century Nazi and Communist dictators.

In the Republican primaries Trump is averaging 35 percent of the vote. If Trump was up against one other candidate, polls show he might get another 10 percent of the vote. History reveals primary candidates receiving less than 50 percent of the vote will lose the election for President.

The U.S. electorate comprises 26 percent Republicans, 30 percent Democrats, and 44 percent Independents. Polls show Trump garnering 70 percent of the Republican vote, or 18 percent (30 percent voting other); 5 percent of the Democratic vote, or 1.5 percent; and 40 percent of the Independent vote, or 18 percent, giving him 37.5 percent of the total vote. Clinton will receive few Republican votes; 95 percent of the Democratic vote, or 28.5 percent; and 60 percent of the Independent vote, or 26 percent. This gives Clinton 54.5 percent of the total vote, Trump 37.5 percent, and the remaining 8 percent are write-ins or blank ballots.

It is a Trump Wrecking Ball. The integrity of the Republican Party and the dignity of the Presidency is at stake.

Donald Moskowitz
Londonderry, New Hampshire


Employees Matter

TO: Don Sorchych, Editor, Sonoran News
FROM: Rick Murray, Chief Executive Officer, Arizona Small Business Association
DATE: March 31, 2016
RE: Letter to the Editor

Arizona’s economic success in recent years can be attributed to our pro-business environment, fiscal conservatism and common sense approach to government regulation. But it is Arizona employees that make and keep businesses strong, their skills and productivity are the foundation success is built upon.

Despite Arizona’s right to work laws and current low rate of unionization, Arizona employees and businesses are increasingly exposed to big labors stranglehold on the workplace and economic growth. For too long, federal statutes have equated employees with unions and ceded worker’s fundamental rights to the labor organizations claiming to represent them. Labor organizations are ramping up recruitment efforts in our state and fighting to maintain their influence in Washington, the interests of their members and potential members have fallen by the wayside.

That is why Congress must pass the Employees Rights Act.

This legislation would increase accountability by union leaders to members and allow employees to make the choice of whether to join, remain with, or leave a union by requiring a recertification vote whenever more than 50% of the workforce turns over. Federal statistics show a mere 7 percent of today’s workforce actually voted for their own union because certification was achieved decades before they were employed. In addition, certifying unions using public card checks rather than a secret ballot vote leaves employees vulnerable to intimidation and threatens the integrity of the certification process.

In surveys, union members by 81 percent approved of the requirement that unions receive prior approval from its members before spending their dues on politics. To be clear, this legislation does nothing to hinder the right to unionization, but sets some basic rules to ensure fairness. Employees will continue to have the right to benefit from collective bargaining and other union benefits if they so choose. The Employee Rights Act guarantees employees greater transparency, enhanced accountability and a strong democratic process which ensures employees are treated as the valuable asset they are within Arizona’s economy.

Arizona Senator John McCain, Congressmen Trent Franks, Paul Gosar and David Schweikert are a few of the prominent co-sponsors of S. 1874 / H.R. 3222 The Employee Rights Act and should be commended for their support and taking a stand to guarantee the citizens of Arizona and our county their right to work.

Rick Murray, Chief Executive Officer,
Arizona Small Business Association


Ted Bundy had an IQ of 145 and was a presidential delegate for Nelson Rockefeller!

Over and over we hear the media questioning the IQs of those who are supporting Donald Trump. Well in 1968 serial killer Ted Bundy,with an IQ of 145, was a delegate for the moderate presidential candidate Nelson Rockefeller.

The media never questioned the average IQs of many who voted for Barack Obama.  But now they are questioning the IQs of those who are supporting Donald Trump. Why is that important now?  Is the media suggesting an IQ test to vote when they don't seem to care if illegal aliens are voting? Certain left leaning people with a "higher IQ" could not comprehend that when you let in un-vetted refugees from an ISIS infected region, it is suicidal. This "moral high" ground will ultimately lead to the deaths of innocent Americans of every IQ. This "higher IQ "group was incapable of observing the cause and effect of the total chaos in Europe from the recent influx of un-vetted Muslims.

If Trump survives to get elected and finishes even one term, the party will be over for the leeches who have been profiting from the labors of all races of all IQs.

When Trump releases the 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report and Hillary Clinton's emails, we will see the connection between Saudi Arabia and the take down of the World Trade Centers in NYC , a stand down of our air defenses, the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi, the civil unrest in Syria and money going to the Bush's and the Clintons. You will see the first audit of the Federal Reserve which is a private entity with NO oversight. You will find out why Goldman Sachs wants Ted Cruz's wife to be the first lady.  If it takes people with IQ's at least as high that elected Obama to elect Trump I'm will be elated. This is our last opportunity to elect someone who was not hand picked by the Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group usually select the ultimate two candidates you get to vote for president and they really don't care which one wins. That is the reason they have thrown everything including the kitchen sink at Trump. They can't afford to have him win. We can't afford to have him lose. Considering what happened to JFK,  Trump must be considered to be the bravest man in the world!


Joseph DuPont
Towanda, Pennsylvania


Energy Bill Would Strengthen U.S. Economy and Global Energy Security

Let's be honest: The future of the U.S. economy is bleak. A new report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development predicts that the U.S. economy will grow only 2 percent this year -- a downward revision of the already anemic 2.4 percent growth predicted late last year.

Fortunately, some Washington lawmakers are trying to turn this dreary forecast around. A bipartisan group of U.S. senators is working to pass an energy bill that would allow the country to export more natural gas. That would create thousands of jobs and generate billions in economic growth, while improving U.S. leverage in international energy markets.

The United States is enjoying a historic energy boom. Domestic natural gas production has increased 42 percent since 2005 and is on pace to jump another 39 percent by 2040. According to one report by the U.S. Energy Information Association, the country has enough sources of natural gas to meet the country's needs for at least the next 80 years.

With this ample supply, many companies have turned their attention to the export market. But before companies can begin new liquefied natural gas projects (gas is transported in liquid form), they must submit an application to the U.S. Department of Energy.

Right now, though, the Energy Department isn't required to decide on liquefied natural gas applications in any specified time frame. Today, about 30 applications still awaiting approval. The Department has been slow walking some requests since 2012.

That's downright ridiculous.

Consider an application for one export facility in Texas that has been pending for 49 months. If accepted, the project would support nearly 45,000 new jobs and produce exports valued at up to $45 million every single day.

A project in Georgia could create over 1,000 jobs and support exports valued at nearly $8 million per day. And one in Louisiana could employ 1,000 Americans and bring in $17 million daily.

Overall, easing restrictions on natural gas exports could create nearly half a million jobs and add $73.6 billion to U.S. GDP over the next 20 years.

Exporting LNG would also help ease geopolitical tensions. Take Russia, a big natural gas exporter, which has repeatedly shown its willingness to threaten supply disruptions to obtain political concessions from dependent neighbors. If the United States could sell more natural gas to European countries, we could limit Russia's grip on our allies in the area.

Without knowing that LNG permit applications will be considered in a timely manner, companies won't invest in the jobs and facilities required to liquefy and export the gas. And other countries won't consider America a reliable sellers. Simply stated, they'll look for their gas elsewhere.

Thankfully, for the first time in nine years, the Senate is serious about passing legislation that would expedite the process for LNG exports. It would require the Energy Department to make a final call on project applications within 45 days of the completion of an environmental review – a reasonable standard by any measure.

Now, Congress must get it passed. This legislation would open up thousands of jobs and billions in economic growth while improving international security. Congress must move forward on sensible energy policy right away in order to ensure a brighter economic future for the United States.

Drew Johnson
Taxpayers Protection Alliance