Don Sorchych My ViewMAY 26, 2010

HB 2154

Bookmark and Share

I received volumes of correspondence and phone calls regarding HB 2154. This was a bill sponsored by Rep. Nancy Barto R-Dist. 7.

Barto drew parts from a California law to construct HB 2154 and she claims it passed the house with 43 votes. Much like the recent federal bills, it appears no one read it. According to our analysis it was poorly drawn anyway, which meant if it was passed there were many arguable points.

canfield cartoon
The good news is the bill was locked up in Republican and Democrat caucuses and died there. The bad news is, according to real estate interests, Barto insists she will offer it again in next years’ session.

Ahem, that assumes she will make her bid for a senate seat which is anything but certain and if the public knows what they are dealing with they will look elsewhere for an affirmative vote for a senate candidate.

Barto asked those who inquired to “stay tuned’ while she “negotiated” with realty lobbyists. Meghaen Duger of the Arizona Association of Realtors had appeared in Sen. Harper’s R-Dist. 4 committee opposing HB 2154, while Barto argued for Senate committee passage.

According to those involved with Barto, she acquiesced to their complaints by offering to make the state-wide bill applicable to Cave Creek only. That, of course is not legal, but shows Barto’s lack of respect for, or knowledge of, the law.

And she thinks she should be a senator writing our laws?

She isn’t qualified or suitable to be in the legislature. Barto was once the chairman of LD-7. In that position she gathered proxies, allegedly for another person, but used them for herself to get into the house.

She made a deal with Rep. Ray Barnes, R-Dist.7, saying she respected his seniority and she would stay in the house while Barnes, term limited, would run for the senate.

Then, with at least 13 proxies Barto was nominated as one of three candidates sent to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors from which they would appoint a replacement for Senator Jim Waring who resigned to run for Shadegg’s congressional seat. Imagine her surprise when the board chose Ed Bunch instead of her.

How about her promise to Barnes? She must have believed the supervisors would appoint her when she gave what now is clearly an empty promise, as she is running for the senate against Barnes, Brad Buch and Robert Green.

What ethics this woman has.

Maybe Sonoran News hasn’t been kind enough to her and her clear vendetta is an attempt to get even.

The screwee in this election is Barnes and you can sign his petition at our office. In the meanwhile we are gathering information about this election and may offer a forum. Let us know what you know and what you think about a forum.

Today, if a neighbor takes you to court over such matters, the instrument granting the easement may include maintenance language or there may be a separate document that speaks specifically to maintenance on which the judge bases his/her decision.

It is reasonable to assume there will be differences in the wants and needs of the people sharing an easement. Sometimes the differences relate to the home state, city, or neighborhood from which the people hail. If your neighbor from California, New Jersey or wherever wants to pave your dirt road, thank God an Arizona law does not exist that says the neighbor can pave it and you have to pay your share.

It takes a long time for some people to become Creekers. Some never get there. Bringing with them notions they should have left behind makes life in Cave Creek challenging for the rest of us.

For those of you all over Arizona who live on a private road, Barto’s HB 2154 would have placed the statute, instead of your current constitutional rights, in your face. If you live on a private road a neighbor could decide to improve the road, place a bridge on the road or whatever else he chose to do and you would have to pay their invoice to them or they would take you to court. Since it would be the law, thanks to Barto, you would lose and have to pay. It wouldn’t matter whether you agreed with what your neighbor wanted or if you could afford the payment. You would have no choice!

So today, when you buy a property which involves a private road and get a decent judge you can count on the documents to protect you. If Barto’s bill had passed you would have had an obligation you may not have been able to afford and may have lost your home
Her bill was like invoking a statutorily mandated HOA on any citizen living on a private road.
I am told her argument is that it isn’t fair if a property owner doesn’t share the cost of road maintenance. For a woman who claims to be a devout conservative, the “fairness” of anything is a liberal code word. Think about the so-called “fairness doctrine” that proposes to destroy talk radio.

If you live on a road and do your own maintenance that creates a road you are satisfied with and do not, like your neighbor, have visits of garbage trucks, Fed Ex, UPS and a humongous horse trailer … if you don’t care about tons and tons of quarter minus to have a smooth road … why should you be forced to pay for a road you don’t want or need?

I have talked to people here and all over the state and have yet to hear a person that thinks Barto’s bill is anything they want or need but the reasons not to follow her lead are many and varied.

Barto is the so-called public servant who needs to be retired from public service. This agenda-driven politician doesn’t deserve votes or contributions.
Tell her goodbye and good riddance!