AZ Rep Article; Developers Back Lord


link to AZ Rep Article; candidate donations0001

Want to know why some candidates just can’t stop spending your money?

Just read Eddie Trevizo’s article in today’s AZ Republic.

Did you see last week Goodyear City Council voted UNANIMOUSLY to spend $600,000 of YOUR money to pave 3/4 of a mile of dirt road in Mobile?  I wonder which developer owns options on THAT land?

Advertisements

17 Responses

  1. That was to get grant money
    Frank is on that committee
    Not tax dollars

    • This is the only possible comment in the 4 on this topic that may be credible, the rest are all name calling.
      so, PJ… prove your comment that this was for grant money. Present some evidence that this is so. What I have seen so far in council meetings is when a few years from now the CM asks for the money and someone questions it he will say, “it’s in the 5 year plan” and then there will be a unanimous vote for it.
      And PJ, are you saying you are in FAVOR of spending $600k for 3/4 mile pavement that is 50 miles away with 23 residents?
      And you are backing which candidates? Why don’t you let all the readers know the answer to both of those questions before you go any further. Show us no spin now, please.

      • The Council and City Manager think it is a good idea to pave the streets. Dust is pervasive problem in Maricopa County and may even jeopardize the F-35 coming to Luke. You are way off, saying there are only 23 residents in Mobile. There are 87 families with 70 registered voters; 20 Rep;8 Dem, 3 LBT and 26PND’s. (Rechack your figures)

  2. Howard Howard Howard before mouthing off you need to get your facts straight. Pj1941 is 100 % right and you well let’s just say less than 100%. Howard just because you write your own article doesn’t mean that it is fact. Bullies annoy me and are the reason we have metal detectors at doors. You whine but do nothing to change things. This blog is not changing anything except making you look like a fool. One last thing, your Wendy Freeman claims to have gone to 6 to 10 city council meetings. I have been to all and have yet to see her. I will be looking further into her claims and show that the so called community leader has an issue with puffing.

  3. Hey Cmullins and PJ, lets grab a drink, this Howard guy is way out there.
    He picks his own facts and he is wrong, too bad for the people thaat beleive him they are probably waiting for the aliens to come and do more experiments on them in their trailer parks.
    I know I live pretty near him.

  4. You are so right edger. I really think he is so mis informed and he is leading others down the wrong path. I hope people are not so gullible as to believe his crap. Let’s do a drink, I do have some information that would spotlight this characters lack of well let’s say character

  5. Watch the video and see the presentation made

    • This was not name calling.

      • If the cost is 600,000 which would be paid by the federal gov, GY pays 200,000 now to maintain once the federal pays the 600, 000 we save 200,000 a year. Again Frank is involved in this good job Frank C.

        Dear edgar; The article does not say, nor does Fischbach say that the $200,000 will go away. He just points it out to the reporter and lets her and the reader draw their own conclusions, which in this case you assume he’s going to save the city $200k per year, so it’s a 3 year payback.

        The discriminating reader will ask, “why would one expect $200,000 in road repair to go away by simply paving 3/4 of a mile of dirt road?” In fact it won’t, but Fischbach has tricked you again. He did the same thing replying to my article in the AZ Republic. Changed the subject, misdirected. He’s pretty good at it if you are not listening critically and I believe he knows that being quoted as the “city manager” in the paper and in correspondence gives him a leg up vs what everyone else says who does not have that pulpit.

        Also, see my reply to you about the risks and potential consequences of HUD grants like these.

        I don’t want to discourage you, edgar, keep trying, but you have to read and listen critically in order to understand things better.

  6. this is from the article:
    Also review the tape.
    (here PJ helped you out, have fun at the super bowl pty)
    The program allows Maricopa County communities to specify projects they need and apply for federal grants to fund improvement projects that benefit low-moderate income areas. The vote was a preliminary measure that allows only city staff to look for funding.

    HOWARD, please read the articles first.

    Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/swvalley/articles/2011/02/03/20110203mobile-goodyear-road-upgrades.html#comments#ixzz1DCD0YsMP

  7. Good, edgar, now you’re getting it. Don’t just name call, provide some information that supports your position. And you have. You’ve pointed out that Goodyear is putting the $600k in their 5 year plan so that they can try to get HUD money to help fund the road project.

    I’ve attached below CFR 24 section 91 (CFR stands for Code of Federal Regulations). These are the rules that CDBG applicants agree to abide by in order to receive funds when they make their application.

    In summary, these are HUD based affirmative action grants. Once you start with these, HUD requires annual progress reports on, “actions taken to affirmatively further fair housing, and other actions indicated in the strategic plan and the action plan”. If HUD does not approve your progress in any of these regards HUD can end funding, in which case you have to pay for it yourself. And you don’t get your money for the project up front, you get it after you’ve already spent it.

    I’m not saying there are no good projects to take this risk on with the federal government, but 3/4 miles in Mobile that no one seems to really want?
    As I asked before, which developers own options on property in that area?

    TITLE 24 – HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

    SUBTITLE A – OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

    PART 91 – CONSOLIDATED SUBMISSIONS FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

    subpart f – OTHER GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

    91.520 – Performance reports.

    (a) General. Each jurisdiction that has an approved consolidated plan shall annually review and report, in a form prescribed by HUD, on the progress it has made in carrying out its strategic plan and its action plan. The performance report must include a description of the resources made available, the investment of available resources, the geographic distribution and location of investments, the families and persons assisted (including the racial and ethnic status of persons assisted), actions taken to affirmatively further fair housing, and other actions indicated in the strategic plan and the action plan. This performance report shall be submitted to HUD within 90 days after the close of the jurisdiction’s program year.

    (b) Affordable housing. …..

    (c) CDBG. For CDBG recipients, the report shall include a description of the use of CDBG funds during the program year and an assessment by the jurisdiction of the relationship of that use to the priorities and specific objectives identified in the plan, giving special attention to the highest priority activities that were identified. This element of the report must specify the nature of and reasons for any changes in its program objectives and indications of how the jurisdiction would change its programs as a result of its experiences. This element of the report also must include the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income persons served by each activity where information on income by family size is required to determine the eligibility of the activity.

    (d) HOME. …..
    (f) Evaluation by HUD. HUD shall review the performance report and determine whether it is satisfactory. If a satisfactory report is not submitted in a timely manner, HUD may suspend funding until a satisfactory report is submitted, or may withdraw and reallocate funding if HUD determines, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, that the jurisdiction will not submit a satisfactory report. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2506 0117)

    Read more: http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/91-520-performance-reports-19925452#ixzz1DCUj4SbO

    • This is a passthrough grant not directed directly by HUD, ask Frank. You have wrong info please talk to Frank he knows all about this and has worked very hard.
      200,000 is for regrading see Mobile council meeting tape. If you pave a road you don’t have to regrade it several times a year. I haven’t seen them regrade PC parkway after every rain, because of the pavement.

  8. Frank is on city council. I know that edgar, I just don’t know the guy. You speak like I can just pick up the phone and call the guy when I don’t really know him

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: