Re: Mr & Mrs Rust – Arrest report / Town Code § 31.28

John Hoeppner | Cave Creek

To Mayor, Council and Town Manager:

I would hope by now you have read the police report and documents related to the arrest and jailing of Mr. and Mrs. Gary Rust regarding an improperly sized for sale sign – I have reviewed the information and it is troubling for the Town. Here is my summary of the facts presented in the police report (Note - I do not know Gary or Jeri Rust):

1. Anna Marsolo complained via e-mail to the Town Marshal Adam Stein on 8/9/08.
2. Deputy Town Marshal Bobby Hernandez informed Mr. Rust via telephone that the signs did not comply with the ordinance and needed to be removed on 8/11/08.
3. Proper procedure was not followed based on Cave Creek Town Code - § 31.28 COMMENCEMENT OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON CIVIL CODE INFRACTION. Unless I missed something there was no zoning violation citation issued, served and no notice of a zoning violation hearing delivered as required by code.
4. Based on the police report Deputy Town Marshal Hernandez and Senior Inspector R. Esposito seemed to have provoked the incident on 8/21/08 by:
a. Laughing, joking and posing for pictures by the illegal sign.
b. Trespassing – when asked to leave they did not.
c. Theft – taking private property without legal authority.
d. Illegal arrest and detention – ACLU has sued and won on this several times.
5. Subsequest to the verbal exchange between the Deputy Town Marshall and Mr. and Mrs. Rust (after they had gone back inside their business), they were arrested by the Deputy Town Marshall and a back-up team of four MCSO deputies. Mr and Mrs. Rust were charged on 8/21/08 by the Town of Cave Creek for the following crimes:
a. Obstructing a government official.
b. Obstructing a peace officer.
c. Threatening and intimidating.
d. Disorderly conduct.
6. Mr. and Mrs. Rust were handcuffed and held at the Cave Creek MCSO facility at Cave Creek Town Hall then transported to the County jail and held overnight for mug shots, fingerprinting and until a $500 bond was posted. The Rust’s have two young children at home that must have been terrified by this incident.
7. Trial was continued on 8/22/08 – This will cost the Rust family $20,000+ in legal fees – I expect the Rust’s will eventually sue the Town – Then we will have to pay. This could end up costing the town thousands in costs and damages.

In my opinion, the town provoked this incident and should now have the courage to do the right thing and stop the prosecution and seemingly persecution of this family immediately. Yes, the sign was too large based on the town’s ordinance. However, law enforcement’s actions in this case should be of concern to all of us. It seems to be an abuse of power and should be corrected. People in the community are talking about this situation a lot and it is not good. If we want to fix our government, the first place to start is right here at home in Cave Creek – right now.

Back to Top

AZ tuition tax credit

Holly Buss | Cave Creek

Regarding the article, “Money first, students maybe: It takes a village to double-dip the whole child,” the reader can see that the ASBA desires to stifle and stamp out its competition by being against vouchers and the tuition tax credit for families with children in private school.

Although the state forgoes revenue when people take the tuition tax credit, the state saves money when students who would have been educated at public expense use the tax credits to transfer to private schools. The remaining students in public school get an increase in per capita expenditures because the property tax, local, county, non-equalized state and federal funding are not affected. This also results in the benefit of a smaller class size in public schools! Cost savings outweigh revenue forgone due to the tax credit because of the large disparity between private school tuition and public school operating costs. Because of less bureaucracy and other factors, private schools offer an education for much less than the cost of public education. The tuition tax credit provides needed educational choice for families and a “win-win” fiscal reality for both public and private school advocates.

Had my 3 children been in CCUSD, it would have cost the Arizona taxpayer an additional $31,935 for one year alone, according to the Goldwater Institute K-12 Funding Index. (This amount is from the Institute’s most recent study in 2004). At the national level, the taxpayer saves $64 billion annually due to children in private schools, according to the Association of Christian Schools.

I would not be able to afford a Christian education for my children if it weren’t for the help of wonderful people who give their assistance by exercising the Arizona tuition tax credit.

Like most private school families of modest means, my children’s tuition bill is far from covered through the tax credit and I am making many sacrifices to afford this education.

Back to Top

Two plus two no longer equals four

George A. Ross LtCol USMC (Ret) | Cave Creek

Obama says he will give a federal tax break to 95 percent of all American income earners. Only 60 percent of American income earners pay federal income tax. The top 5 percent of these income earners pay 50 percent of all federal income tax. The next 55 percent of income earners pay the remaining 50 percent of federal income tax. Finally, the bottom 40 percent of income earners pays zero federal income tax. So, explain to me how Obama will give a federal tax break to 95 percent of American income earners below the annual income level of $250,000 per year. Please recall that the top 5 percent of income earners pay 50 percent of the federal income tax and that group earns $150,000 or more per year. That number is not a typo: it is $150,000 or more per year. Does that mean the top 5 percent will pay all the federal income tax? Does that mean that the bottom 40 percent, who pay ZERO federal income tax, will get an annual check from Uncle Sam? And if so, guess who pays this check along with all the federal income tax?

“From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs.” A verbatim quote by Karl Marx. This is wealth redistribution pure and simple, a key element of the Obama tax plan. Talk about voodoo economics; this is a failure of basic mathematics. At worst this is Socialism. If you exclude this economic system as the answer, it is pandering for votes to an electorate too self indulged to figure it out. Just ask Joe Wurzelbach a.k.a. “Joe the Plumber” and hundreds of thousands of other small business owners how they feel about wealth redistribution. There are serious problems with our economy and very serious threats from abroad. We need serious answers; let’s cut to the chase and start playing the reality game. The root cause is us; yes, us, all of us. We looked greed in the eye and we could not resist. Wall Street is Main Street and who is on these streets? Us, Americans all; Corporate America is us, all Americans; the Politicians, us - each and everyone an American. Upper, Middle and Lower economic classes Americans all looking for the “free lunch.” How many of us have served our nation, volunteered, devoted a few years for the privilege of living here? Statistically the number is insignificant over the past 35 years. A mere handful does our bidding and shoulders the load. We keep looking for someone to blame; well, just look in the mirror. We the people of America are debtors at a far greater rate and amount than the debt being accumulated by the federal and state governments. If we do not grow up and assume the responsibility for our actions we will never solve the serious problems facing our nation, “GOD HELP AMERICA.”

Back to Top

Prop 201 will prolong housing slump

Byron Schlomach, Ph.D, | Director of economic policy at the Goldwater Institute

Arizona's housing market is in a down cycle and Proposition 201, the Homeowners' Bill of Rights, would likely worsen the situation.

Prop 201 would require ten-year home warranties on every new home sale. Buyers could also cancel a purchase deal more than three months after it's signed and get back 95 percent of any deposit. Prop 201 would also encourage lawsuit abuse because builders and homeowners would be required to pay all legal fees, even if a lawsuit was found to be frivolous, and it eliminates alternative dispute resolution options.

All of these measures would add uncertainty for new home builders and current homeowners. Builders would have to insure themselves to cover the lengthened warranty period, to insure themselves against buyers who re-neg, and to insure against litigation sure to be spurred by the creation of these new rights. That means home prices would increase right in the midst of a down market.

Migration to Arizona has fallen as people around the nation are having a harder time selling their homes. Making homes in Arizona more expensive will only make the problem worse and further weaken our economy.

Back to Top

CCUSD Watch e-mail to governing board

CCUSD Watch | |

Dear Governing Board, we noticed with great interest that the following agenda item for Tuesday's meeting: 3.1 Policy of Not Responding to “Anonymous” Submissions (submitted by Lisa Doche) – presented by Ms. Patti Tussey

While we are not big headed enough to believe that this may directly pertain to us, we would like to submit our thoughts on the matter seeing as we are an anonymous district advocacy group.

Frankly, the district’s capacity for accepting, gathering, and acting on input has stunk and has been a large part of the decision for us to start our anonymous discussions. Let’s revisit some of those recent attempts.

• The Superintendent Blog. This was worthless as it took months for any responses to appear and many submissions went unanswered or ignored. The lone answer on the blog was absent of any real substance and ignored the question.
• Survey Monkey. The surveys the district have posted at Survey Monkey have been poorly put together with minimal questions as if the district did not want to put any real effort into gathering results that may not agree with pre-ordained decisions. For example look at the 2007 High School Survey. Outside of demographic questions, there were only on 2 questions and no direct questions on things like, 2 high schools versus 1, costs, amenities desired, academic programs, desire for large/small bond, services desired, expanding versus new build, etc.
• Community Engagement Forums. The district sponsored a wonderful Focus on Education Forum in March of 2006. A great deal of information on deficiencies, challenges, and opportunities was collected at these forums. Awesome! Great Job! Kudos! Now the bad news. Nothing major resulted from these forums. Sure, these items were mentioned in the grand Strategic Plan and some committees were formed but most of these committees failed to even meet in during the 07-08 school year and the plan is probably down the toilet with the change in leadership. Now we hear new forums are being planned. Sigh.
This along with the districts total lack of focus on anything but building a new high school were the largest factors in our decision to start blogging about CCUSD.
Being anonymous, we understand that our ideas and suggestions may not carry as much weight with some. That is fine and a burden that we understand and try to overcome by leading discussions with as many facts and as much thoughtfulness as possible. Many have tried to make us the issue, but we fail to see how saying CCUSD Watch is led by “Mary Smith, 1234 N 48th St, Parent of 2 as BMES “ changes the validity of our arguments or proposals. We feel that we act as an Employee Suggestion Box and we don’t expect the district to unilaterally make a decision on anything we discuss or propose, but we do hope the district and board listen.

CCUSD Watch is not anti-CCUSD, we are not anti-tax, and we have never asked anyone to resign. We moved away from our unilateral blog (which did allow for comments, but not new discussions) and have worked with Tatum Central to have an open platform on district issues where everyone can participate equally. District participation in these discussions would absolutely be welcome, but we understand there are legalities and liabilities that must be addressed. We see no legitimate reason why the district PIO whose job is to respond to the media, cannot directly be involved in providing information and correcting misstatements. Face it, blogging and social networks are the new media and it cannot be ignored. Ask the newspapers about that. Hopefully, this is part of your discussion tomorrow.

One final note, while some of our discussions may be bombastic or filled with satire, if we are substantially incorrect in anything we discuss and the district would like to correct it, feel free. We are big enough to admit our mistakes and make corrections as we have in the past.

Thank you for your time and your service to the district and community.

Back to Top

Be wary of CHANGE

Donald A. Moskowitz | (political Independent) | Londonderry, New Hampshire

As an Independent, I am bothered to see the Democrats blame the Bush Administration for our current economic problems. Two prior Democratic Administrations initiated and promoted unsound and loose economic policies. Currently, the Democrats control Congress and the committees, and they share responsibility for what transpires in this country.

In 1977 Jimmy Carter’s Administration enacted the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which forced banks to make loans to low income borrowers. In 1999 the Clinton Administration pressured Fannie Mae, the nation’s largest underwriter of home mortgages, to CHANGE its credit requirements on mortgage loans it purchased from banks and other lenders. Fannie Mae succumbed to the pressure and diluted its credit requirements. Banks then CHANGED their loan requirements, including no down payments, and made home loans to low income people whose credit would not normally be good enough to qualify for loans.
The seeds were planted for the current economic problems many years ago, and nurtured through a number of administrations and legislative bodies to our current situation. Can we expect more of the same if Obama is elected, and he, along with a rubber stamp

Democratic Congress, allow the proliferation of liberal economic policies?

Over the passage of time the world has taught us to be wary of CHANGE and all the mesmerizing promises made by political candidates.

Back to Top

Pro-Life Democrats

Joseph Pasulka | Southport, North Carolina

In light of recent revelations regarding the illicit national voter registration drive by ACORN, I believe that Democrats should become the Pro-Life Party.

Currently proud to be the abortion party, Democrats sow the seeds of self-destruction. They facilitate the infant murder of potential party members. Thus they now have to rig voter registration in order to maintain membership.

Instead, ACORN could dissuade mothers from having abortions and simultaneously register their pre-born children as Democrats! This would swell the ranks of faithful, reliable party members, so grateful to be alive.

Finally, in order to assuage distressed pro-aborts, the new invincible Democrat Party could actively promote euthanasia of all aging, socially useless citizens who, due to selfish retirement considerations, have become increasingly reluctant to turn over their savings to big government.

Back to Top