"Thomas Jefferson said a democracy is dependent on an informed citizenry. I don't care whether it sounds corny or not. It's the truth." -Jim Lehrer
Carefree Truth
Issue #1072, January 8, 2024
Issue #1072, January 8, 2024
Guest Editorial from Mayor Les Peterson: 1/8/24
Lyn,
This is in response to statements made by you and Herbie in your just published Carefree Truth Issue #1071. These statements pertained to criticisms you received for publishing the letter recently received by the Town of Carefree from the State Land Department in response to potentially changing the development restrictions for the 48 acre property across from Carefree Airpark in the proposed Amended General Plan.
I would like to provide an additional viewpoint regarding a few of the points you raised.
Point #1
Statements have been made by those supporting making the 48 acres into an “Open Space or Park” that Carefree is the only or one of the few Arizona municipalities without such a public space. I do not question whether or not another open space area in Carefree would be desirable, but for anyone to state that this would be the only such public space in Carefree is simply not accurate.
The Carefree Desert Gardens in the center of Town, which was once a dusty parking lot, was transformed by a previous Town Council into the focal point for Town activities that it is today. Likewise, the Town has been working for years now, in concert with the Desert Foothills Land Trust, to acquire land in the northern portion of Carefree with an eye towards making it into an open space property for all residents to enjoy. To date, these two entities have acquired over 100 acres on a very efficient basis.
Point #2
It appeared to me from observing the January 2nd Council meeting that the primary purpose of those people offering statements during the Call to the Public portion of the meeting regarding the recent letter which the Town received from the State Land Department were to criticize you and question how you received the letter. From the substance of their comments, I don’t believe that these people had yet fully understood what was being stated in this Letter.
Please permit me to quote from a portion of the subject Letter that I think has an important bearing upon the Carefree revised General Plan currently in development.
“Arizona Revised Statute 9-461.06 (N) states that: In applying an open space element or a growth element of a general plan, a municipality shall not designate private land or state trust land as open space, recreation, conservation or agriculture unless the municipality receives the written consent of the landowner or provides an alternative, economically viable designation in the general plan or zoning ordinance, allowing at least one residential dwelling per acre…”
My understanding of this Statute is that a municipality cannot change the designation of a property, such as to limit it to be open space through restrictive language in a future General Plan document, if doing so would decrease the value of the property and thereby the amount that the State Land Department would receive when the property was sold at auction.
Point #3
I am aware of representations in recent months made by those supporting the 48 acre potential “Open Space” property that they “represent 80% of Carefree residents.” Again, this is simply not accurate. The Town Council and Mayor are the only elected “representatives” of Carefree residents, no other group or individuals.
I don’t dispute that many of the 48 acre “Open Space” group of individuals led the campaign to defeat the fire and first responder coverage in the recent election on the primary basis of “no property taxes in Carefree,” but their voting the same as the majority of other Carefree voters on one issue does not make them the representatives of all Carefree voters in other matters as well.
Lyn, thank you for this opportunity to express my thoughts.
Best regards,
Les Peterson
This is in response to statements made by you and Herbie in your just published Carefree Truth Issue #1071. These statements pertained to criticisms you received for publishing the letter recently received by the Town of Carefree from the State Land Department in response to potentially changing the development restrictions for the 48 acre property across from Carefree Airpark in the proposed Amended General Plan.
I would like to provide an additional viewpoint regarding a few of the points you raised.
Point #1
Statements have been made by those supporting making the 48 acres into an “Open Space or Park” that Carefree is the only or one of the few Arizona municipalities without such a public space. I do not question whether or not another open space area in Carefree would be desirable, but for anyone to state that this would be the only such public space in Carefree is simply not accurate.
The Carefree Desert Gardens in the center of Town, which was once a dusty parking lot, was transformed by a previous Town Council into the focal point for Town activities that it is today. Likewise, the Town has been working for years now, in concert with the Desert Foothills Land Trust, to acquire land in the northern portion of Carefree with an eye towards making it into an open space property for all residents to enjoy. To date, these two entities have acquired over 100 acres on a very efficient basis.
Point #2
It appeared to me from observing the January 2nd Council meeting that the primary purpose of those people offering statements during the Call to the Public portion of the meeting regarding the recent letter which the Town received from the State Land Department were to criticize you and question how you received the letter. From the substance of their comments, I don’t believe that these people had yet fully understood what was being stated in this Letter.
Please permit me to quote from a portion of the subject Letter that I think has an important bearing upon the Carefree revised General Plan currently in development.
“Arizona Revised Statute 9-461.06 (N) states that: In applying an open space element or a growth element of a general plan, a municipality shall not designate private land or state trust land as open space, recreation, conservation or agriculture unless the municipality receives the written consent of the landowner or provides an alternative, economically viable designation in the general plan or zoning ordinance, allowing at least one residential dwelling per acre…”
My understanding of this Statute is that a municipality cannot change the designation of a property, such as to limit it to be open space through restrictive language in a future General Plan document, if doing so would decrease the value of the property and thereby the amount that the State Land Department would receive when the property was sold at auction.
Point #3
I am aware of representations in recent months made by those supporting the 48 acre potential “Open Space” property that they “represent 80% of Carefree residents.” Again, this is simply not accurate. The Town Council and Mayor are the only elected “representatives” of Carefree residents, no other group or individuals.
I don’t dispute that many of the 48 acre “Open Space” group of individuals led the campaign to defeat the fire and first responder coverage in the recent election on the primary basis of “no property taxes in Carefree,” but their voting the same as the majority of other Carefree voters on one issue does not make them the representatives of all Carefree voters in other matters as well.
Lyn, thank you for this opportunity to express my thoughts.
Best regards,
Les Peterson