By Don Sorchych | June 25, 2008
• Dust up REF02008-01 is dead
• Consequences of ACLU/MALDEF lawsuit
Although we reported in last week’s Sonoran News Referendum 02008-01 about the PM-10 dust control ordinance would proceed through the process of signature verification, further review by town attorneys yielded no legal way for that to happen.
I was informed Monday afternoon the town clerk’s ruling would stand and further the 10 day appeal period had lapsed and so our referendum is dead.
In the meanwhile, county dust control “inspectors” are having a field day in the Cave Creek town core.
They have cited Harold’s and so Bill Vale and Danny Piacquadio are seriously considering chip sealing their parking lot.
Harold must be spinning in his grave. Customers from the south come here for a western experience, not heat islands like they have at home.
The Buffalo Chip Saloon received their second violation and the inspector told them that “in her experience, only paving the parking lot would prevent future violations.”
Can you imagine a paved parking lot in the beloved Chip? Paving is dangerous for horses and riders and both are frequent visitors to the Chip, again part of the western experience people come here to see, not to mention the ten degree rise in nighttime temperatures that paving will cause.
Then there is the issue of flooding with paving or dust palliatives. Will the county demand the town install storm drainage?
What about the application of decomposed granite which is listed as a suitable method for dust control as listed in the PM-10 county ordinance? Is the inspector saying they didn’t mean it?
Are those who have already relied on the words in the county ordinance, and proceeded with decomposed granite, wasting their money?
We are just seeing the first wave of this unprecedented assault on our constitutional rights. Although the previously mentioned Paragon Foundation encouraged a state-wide initiative, the cost of getting 300,000 plus signatures is overwhelming and volunteers would probably not get it done.
Another distressing factor is the county’s insistence on keeping complainants names secret.
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department Directive has a section called, “Confidential Records.”
1. “Citizen Complaint’s personal information is confidential and will not be released to the public. Any requests for Citizen Complaints should be redacted in good faith before providing those documents to the public.”
There is no legal basis for doing this. The State Open Records law provides for exceptions for confidentiality, and this one just isn’t listed.
We have contacted the attorney referred by the county, but so far have received no response.
However, what does “personal information” mean? I would assume it means home address and such, not necessarily name.
ARS 39-121-02 allows for damages and attorneys fees if the plaintiff “substantially prevails” in Superior Court, which is where we are headed if the county doesn’t cough up the names of complainants against the town and local businesses.
The council decided last week to cave instead of fighting the lawsuit, with a promise to write a similar ordinance which avoids free speech offenses.
I still maintain that active participation by Judicial Watch during the drafting stage of the ordinance may have changed the outcome and I hope council, mayor and the town manager have learned that lesson when drafting the new ordinance.
Given the activist liberal federal Judge Rosemary Silver’s ruling, the town had little choice. But the opening was certainly there to rule the way she did.
In the meanwhile, there is a loitering ordinance but no doubt the town marshal has been told to stand down. Don’t make waves Marshal, don’t provoke the commiesymps that run ACLU.
Now we are gaining increasing numbers of illegals and our unpatriotic, (yes, breaking employment laws is unpatriotic) selfish and lawless citizens are employing them.
Since our past efforts to embarrass those that picked up illegals in some ways backfired, I was going to sit on this for awhile.
How did it backfire? Several anonymous callers and emailers thanked me for disclosing where they could pick up illegals.
Several people had called and asked us to check on the illegals gathering at, where else, the Good Shepherd of the Hills Episcopal Church.
Remember the church sent out a press release writing they had closed their “Day Labor” center. Some cheered. Some were skeptical.
When Judge Silver’s ruling came down an Arizona Republic reporter asked the infamous Fr. Jenks, pastor of the church whether they would reopen, he said, “No.”
He lied, or half-lied because it is now wide open on a come one come all basis. What is different? There is no supervision and no porta potties, so they are using the church restrooms.
Parishioners, watch for those third world diseases!
I stood watch from 8:15 A.M. until 9:45 A.M. on Friday, June 20. Although there were 12 illegals in and out of the parking lot, no one picked up a single “day worker.”
Incidentally about half of them were from Village Apartments, the other half had their own transportation, one with a Sonora license plate and two with Arizona license plates that parked in the Dairy Queen parking lot.
They gave up at about 9:30 A.M. and left.
Saturday was about the same in numbers but there were two pickups in the parking lot (see the front page), and two by appointment through the west gate.
In addition to front page exposure, the pictures will be sent to Sheriff Joe and the web page WeHireAliens.com.
Also ACLU poster boi Hecter Lopez was there doing duty with the gift shop and using a leaf blower throughout the whole parking lot, a clear violation of the PM-10 dust control ordinance. I have about two dozen pictures as proof and will send them as a complaint to the county – no anonymity.
Is the church liable, Lopez, or both?
And will the ACLU leap to their defense? Probably, they are birds of a feather.
Actually Fr. Jenks could have defended them in court if he hadn’t surrendered his right to practice law so he could dodge sanctions.