Action Needed: Schultz Pass Rd Development- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 70 of 70
  1. #1
    My other ride is your mom
    Reputation: Maadjurguer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,329

    Action Needed: Schultz Pass Rd Development

    Folks,
    Mayor Evans wants to put the Schultz Pass parcel back on the City Council's agenda for discussion of building a medium density housing development on the land. This issue was brought up a year and a half ago and was abandoned after much public outcry and 2000+ signatures collected opposing the development. The issue is now back. I would urge you to write the Flagstaff City Council at [email protected] and and ask them to "vote NO on any development of the parcel on Hwy 180 and Schultz Pass Road". This will take a minute of your time if you copy/paste that quote and send the email. The Facebook group opposing this action is found here:

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/1918777725010809/


    Help us save Schultz from development!
    Action Needed: Schultz Pass Rd Development-schultz.jpg Action Needed: Schultz Pass Rd Development-schultz1.jpg




    Last edited by Maadjurguer; 2 Weeks Ago at 11:44 AM.




  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,768
    Whatever happened to the concept of green space? Not everything the city owns needs to be developed.

  3. #3
    My other ride is your mom
    Reputation: Maadjurguer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    Whatever happened to the concept of green space? Not everything the city owns needs to be developed.
    Please send an email to the council and let them know your opinion. I find it especially interesting that they want to re-open this issue when there is a high-density development for student housing being considered at JW Powell and Lone Tree in which the local residents oppose the development, but are willing to take medium density affordable housing over high-density student housing...and that parcel is significantly larger and more appropriate a location!




  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jdcatnau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    815
    This is what Flagstaff is becoming. I do feel for those that live in Cheshire. Shoot, I just read there’s more student housing coming along JW Powell and Lone Tree. Plus I received a letter a couple months ago from Marriott about a hotel going in on Lone Tree. There’s money to be made in development and it’s obvious that’s what this town is going to do.

  5. #5
    My other ride is your mom
    Reputation: Maadjurguer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    Quote Originally Posted by jdcatnau View Post
    This is what Flagstaff is becoming. I do feel for those that live in Cheshire. Shoot, I just read there’s more student housing coming along JW Powell and Lone Tree. Plus I received a letter a couple months ago from Marriott about a hotel going in on Lone Tree. There’s money to be made in development and it’s obvious that’s what this town is going to do.
    Yup...that student housing you refer to is the one I described above. Please write the council and let them know your feelings. Last time this issue came up, we were successful in creating enough outcry that we got the council to back down.




  6. #6
    The .05 percent
    Reputation: sinatorj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    915
    Email sent. This town is way too concerned with cramming unwanted housing projects down its citizens throats.

  7. #7
    My other ride is your mom
    Reputation: Maadjurguer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    Quote Originally Posted by sinatorj View Post
    Email sent. This town is way too concerned with cramming unwanted housing projects down its citizens throats.
    Thank you for your support!




  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rynomx785's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    611
    Man, the blows keep coming. The City of Flagstaff obviously doesn't realize that they are sitting on potential MTB Gold that has the potential to be a world renown destination.

  9. #9
    The .05 percent
    Reputation: sinatorj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by Maadjurguer View Post
    Thank you for your support!
    Self serving I know. I worked my ass off to afford to live in Cheshire. Call me an asshole , but i dont feel a low income rental project is fitting. Something called pride of ownership.

  10. #10
    My other ride is your mom
    Reputation: Maadjurguer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    Quote Originally Posted by sinatorj View Post
    Self serving I know. I worked my ass off to afford to live in Cheshire. Call me an asshole , but i dont feel a low income rental project is fitting. Something called pride of ownership.
    I hear you, I did the same in terms of holding off on living here until I knew I could support myself here. I also totally support affordable housing solutions for this city and realize the impact that the raising home prices has on folks trying to live here. With that being said I believe this specific parcel is inappropriate for the following reasons:

    1) The size of the parcel - This is the smallest parcel being considered around town (3 acre tract) and it has a main natural gas transmission line running right through it. Because of that, the amount of housing that would be able to be placed here is extremely limited (18-28 units on 3 acres) and does not begin to solve the problem of affordable housing for Flagstaff other than create a signature political issue that Mayor Evans can foot-stomp

    2) Inappropriately located and zoned - This site exists on the boundary of the City of Flagstaff and private land/FS land. As such, having mid-density housing units in the middle of low density residential and natural space is incongruous with sensible zoning considerations. These considerations have been hotly debated within the city for years and is a major issue that the city continues to struggle with. Placing medium-density housing units here, but not elsewhere in the core of the city where folks have desired a medium density residential buffer from commercial and high density development is inappropriate.

    3) This field is an icon for the cities natural beauty - Take a look at pictures from the City of Flagstaff website, other organizations websites which do business in Flagstaff, etc. What you find almost universally is one or more pictures of this parcel in full summer splendor. The amount of folks who park here and take pictures are not limited to Flagstaff residents, but tourists alike. The "Welcome to Flagstaff" sign sits on this property....does a multi-story housing project belong in this field? I don't think so!
    Last edited by Maadjurguer; 01-29-2019 at 08:09 AM.




  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,768
    I suspect the homeowners in Pine Canyon feel the same way about the proposed development at JW Powell and Lone Tree. Just say'n. The NIMBY thing is all over.

    I think we fight this tooth and nail but be mindful that the much larger piece of open land behind the city-owned parcel is privately owned. A rather large Flagstaff family that apparently has no interest in selling but who knows what will happen in the future.

  12. #12
    The .05 percent
    Reputation: sinatorj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    I suspect the homeowners in Pine Canyon feel the same way about the proposed development at JW Powell and Lone Tree. Just say'n. The NIMBY thing is all over.

    I think we fight this tooth and nail but be mindful that the much larger piece of open land behind the city-owned parcel is privately owned. A rather large Flagstaff family that apparently has no interest in selling but who knows what will happen in the future.
    ...and I have no issues with that. 3 more "Hubs" already on books. 2 on Butler and Miltown. This shiz gettin out of control. We have sold our souls to Phoenix in the name of NAU housing.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jdcatnau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    815
    I would just keep the Hub experience in the back of your mind. The developer was going to settle on a three story structure but the neighbors tried to resist the structure from being built. Developer owns the land and after the delays in construction the developer builds the monstrosity of what the Hub is now. To add to it they only have half the amount of parking spaces needed.

    I would like to help the cause, but due to the fight last year the city was considering moving affordable housing near me, granted I already live close to city subsidized housing. Flagstaff is funny, all hippy until you take away my damn view!

  14. #14
    My other ride is your mom
    Reputation: Maadjurguer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    Quote Originally Posted by jdcatnau View Post
    I would just keep the Hub experience in the back of your mind. The developer was going to settle on a three story structure but the neighbors tried to resist the structure from being built. Developer owns the land and after the delays in construction the developer builds the monstrosity of what the Hub is now. To add to it they only have half the amount of parking spaces needed.

    I would like to help the cause, but due to the fight last year the city was considering moving affordable housing near me, granted I already live close to city subsidized housing. Flagstaff is funny, all hippy until you take away my damn view!
    I would still urge you to write that email if you have not already. This site is different from the HUB in that the site is city owned, not developer owned.




  15. #15
    parenting for gnarness
    Reputation: chollaball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,240
    public records requests, study campaign finance reports, follow the money. Run for office.
    YES to Scottsdale Prop 420
    Our Preserve, Our Taxes, Our Vote

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    258
    How dare you think that you deserve to live in a nice area due to your hard work. This is America. We are all equal. Everyone should be able to enjoy what you have. Who are you to have something someone else can’t afford. Where is the justice and equality in that?

    Don’t worry too much. We all might start enjoying equality in two years.

    Besides you guys up there are already ahead of the game with your minimum wage law. Soon the city will be taking land to develop low income housing. Everyone should be able to enjoy living in one of the best places in the country. And not being able to afford it shouldn’t be a reason not to.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bones2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    406
    Done, thanks for bringing it to our attention.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bones2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    406
    This is the response I got - promising

    “A year and a half ago, I voted to keep the Shultz parcel (city-owned triangle at Shultz Pass Road and Highway 180) as open space. I do not see any reason to change my position.

    I will also point out that the land just north of the city-owned parcel is privately owned and could be developed, within the existing zoning designation, when the owner sees fit.

    Jim McCarthy”

  19. #19
    The .05 percent
    Reputation: sinatorj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by Bones2 View Post
    This is the response I got - promising

    “A year and a half ago, I voted to keep the Shultz parcel (city-owned triangle at Shultz Pass Road and Highway 180) as open space. I do not see any reason to change my position.

    I will also point out that the land just north of the city-owned parcel is privately owned and could be developed, within the existing zoning designation, when the owner sees fit.

    Jim McCarthy”
    I got same response verbatim. Canned?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bones2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    406
    Quote Originally Posted by sinatorj View Post
    I got same response verbatim. Canned?
    Of course, but at least he has not changed his position

  21. #21
    The .05 percent
    Reputation: sinatorj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by Bones2 View Post
    Of course, but at least he has not changed his position
    Good point

  22. #22
    My other ride is your mom
    Reputation: Maadjurguer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    I got the same and so did several others I know. It's a positive sign...Jim is usually respinsive to communications which is great.




  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Maadjurguer View Post
    Folks,
    Mayor Evans wants to put the Schultz Pass parcel back on the City Council's agenda for discussion of building a medium density housing development on the land. This issue was brought up a year and a half ago and was abandoned after much public outcry and 2000+ signatures collected opposing the development. The issue is now back. I would urge you to write the Flagstaff City Council at [email protected] and and ask them to "vote NO on any development of the parcel on Hwy 180 and Schultz Pass Road". This will take a minute of your time if you copy/paste that quote and send the email. The Facebook group opposing this action is found here:

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/1918777725010809/1921588624729719/


    Help us save Schultz from development!
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	schultz.jpg 
Views:	61 
Size:	366.7 KB 
ID:	1235458 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	schultz1.jpg 
Views:	75 
Size:	125.9 KB 
ID:	1235459




    For what it's worth, I think the concept of the city building more project housing is not a good one, but opponents of this particular development are either ignorant or engaging in deception. The big yellow field of flowers is not the city parcel. The big yellow field of flowers is the adjacent private parcel. Look at the county parcel viewer to see where the property line is: https://gismaps.coconino.az.gov/parcelviewer/

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,768
    Quote Originally Posted by mbr4527 View Post
    For what it's worth, I think the concept of the city building more project housing is not a good one, but opponents of this particular development are either ignorant or engaging in deception. The big yellow field of flowers is not the city parcel. The big yellow field of flowers is the adjacent private parcel. Look at the county parcel viewer to see where the property line is: https://gismaps.coconino.az.gov/parcelviewer/
    Not entirely true and that GIS link isn't much help either. The parcel is to the right of the sign. The first pic is taken while standing within or at the edge of the parcel. Same field except for a wire fence dividing the two. Not sure what's deceptive about wanting to preserve perhaps the most iconic view in Flagstaff.

    What they should really do is create a pullout with a paved parking lot for all the folks making camera stops or taking their High School Senior pics.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    Not entirely true and that GIS link isn't much help either. The parcel is to the right of the sign. The first pic is taken while standing within or at the edge of the parcel. Same field except for a wire fence dividing the two. Not sure what's deceptive about wanting to preserve perhaps the most iconic view in Flagstaff.

    What they should really do is create a pullout with a paved parking lot for all the folks making camera stops or taking their High School Senior pics.
    It's absolutely deceptive to take a picture of the field of flowers and act like that's what's getting developed when it isn't. I'm not sure that I agree that the sign is integral to the iconic view, but one can certainly make that argument. Here's the way I see it:
    Action Needed: Schultz Pass Rd Development-pretty-flowers.jpg

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,768
    I get the point you are trying to make but it's one big field to me. The city-owned parcel is filled with weeds now because they roto-tilled it when surveying the plot for development. Granted I have a bias because I have lived across Fort Valley Rd from that plot for 22 years but it's all the same field to me.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    I get the point you are trying to make but it's one big field to me. The city-owned parcel is filled with weeds now because they roto-tilled it when surveying the plot for development. Granted I have a bias because I have lived across Fort Valley Rd from that plot for 22 years but it's all the same field to me.
    But the reality is that it's not one big field and people should probably be aware that the part they actually care about is owned by Stilley Properties, LLC rather than pretending it's the whole field that the city wants to build on, as the folks running that Facebook group are doing. Seems to me like it would be a lot more productive to lobby the city to try and buy the pretty part before Stilley Properties, LLC decides to put townhomes on it. Heck, the city could charge people $5/head to take pictures in there to help offset the millions of dollars it's going to cost to buy it.

  28. #28
    My other ride is your mom
    Reputation: Maadjurguer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    Quote Originally Posted by mbr4527 View Post
    But the reality is that it's not one big field and people should probably be aware that the part they actually care about is owned by Stilley Properties, LLC rather than pretending it's the whole field that the city wants to build on, as the folks running that Facebook group are doing. Seems to me like it would be a lot more productive to lobby the city to try and buy the pretty part before Stilley Properties, LLC decides to put townhomes on it. Heck, the city could charge people $5/head to take pictures in there to help offset the millions of dollars it's going to cost to buy it.
    According to members within that FB group, they have talked with the Stilley's and they have no intention of selling it. No ignorance or deception here as we are not pretending that it's the whole field the city wants to build on. We have been clear with overheads, city plan descriptions and diagrams shown on the facebook site that the property we are talking about is the 3 acre parcel you show above. That city owned parcel is full of flowers in the summer...here's a picture which shows that and the barbed wire fence. This is taken from that Facebook page.
    Action Needed: Schultz Pass Rd Development-flowers.jpg

    That fence you see with the bikes leaning up against it is the only thing that divides that the city parcel in question and the Stilley property...but as rockman said, it's pretty transparent when you look at the city and Stilley property taken together.

    Bottom line, if you put up 18-28 units on that 3 acre city owned parcel, the view is gone from the street and from the public. So, having said all of that, do you support keeping that parcel open? If so, would you please consider writing council? It's on the agenda for May 7th and we sure would like your support on this issue!

    Action Needed: Schultz Pass Rd Development-field-sun.jpg




  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Maadjurguer View Post
    According to members within that FB group, they have talked with the Stilley's and they have no intention of selling it.
    Since they have a dialogue going on perhaps they should approach them about a conservation easement with the city for that particular area because "no intention" of doing anything is not reassuring.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maadjurguer View Post
    So, having said all of that, do you support keeping that parcel open? If so, would you please consider writing council? It's on the agenda for May 7th and we sure would like your support on this issue!
    Well I'm torn. I'm more than a bit disgusted by the rampant NIMBYism of longtime Flagstaff residents who got in while it was cheap decades ago and now want to pull up the ladders for everyone after them. I think opposition in this case has some merit but I dislike the general trend so much that I'd prefer to stay out of it, particularly when I also see the argument being made against this particular development that it doesn't "fit the character of the neighborhood" which is a polite way of saying "put the poors out by the Purina factory where I don't have to see them." Also, that's a lovely picture in front of the mailboxes, but if the proposed projects were already built I'm about 90% sure they would not be in that frame.

  30. #30
    My other ride is your mom
    Reputation: Maadjurguer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    Mbr4527 - I hear you on the NIMBY thing. For the record, I moved here in 2015. Perhaps I can clarify the "character" issue. I have not talked to a single person in the meat spaces who is making this about socio-economics....that's coming from the interwebs where folks like to troll. Rather, the "character" comment is directly related to the rural/open space interface with low density residential. Adding a medium density housing unit is something we feel is inappropriate in this location. It's simply a zoning issue.

    Thanks for your thoughts...and don't let the trolls get you down. We're trying hard to keep all discussions positive, but ultimately we can't control the vitrol that sometimes infects the comment spaces.




  31. #31
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Maadjurguer View Post
    Mbr4527 - Adding a medium density housing unit is something we feel is inappropriate in this location. It's simply a zoning issue.


    It's also the proverbial foot in the door to higher density housing in the future.
    "These things are very fancy commuter bikes or really bad dirt bikes, but they are not mountain bikes." - J. Mac

  32. #32
    Meatbomb
    Reputation: Phillbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,308
    Pave it all....Next thing you know they will have bike parks and artificial snow on the peaks...

  33. #33
    The .05 percent
    Reputation: sinatorj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by mbr4527 View Post
    Since they have a dialogue going on perhaps they should approach them about a conservation easement with the city for that particular area because "no intention" of doing anything is not reassuring.

    Well I'm torn. I'm more than a bit disgusted by the rampant NIMBYism of longtime Flagstaff residents who got in while it was cheap decades ago and now want to pull up the ladders for everyone after them. I think opposition in this case has some merit but I dislike the general trend so much that I'd prefer to stay out of it, particularly when I also see the argument being made against this particular development that it doesn't "fit the character of the neighborhood" which is a polite way of saying "put the poors out by the Purina factory where I don't have to see them." Also, that's a lovely picture in front of the mailboxes, but if the proposed projects were already built I'm about 90% sure they would not be in that frame.
    I would have less of an issue if this was a for purchase development. As it sits it is a rental community. Low income Rentals lack the pride of ownership that comes with home ownership. The parcel is small, oddly shaped and must accommodate a 36" natural gas line and accompanied easement. It does not fit the character of this location. When I attended the last round of council meetings we were presented with 4 other much more logical alternative sites, however our mayor is dead set on projects with a peak view. Btw, resident since '99. Worked hard, made good choices, was not given a home.
    Flame away.

  34. #34
    I am Walt
    Reputation: waltaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,743
    Quote Originally Posted by sinatorj View Post
    Worked hard, made good choices
    How’s that for a concept?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Ride more; post less...

  35. #35
    The .05 percent
    Reputation: sinatorj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by waltaz View Post
    How’s that for a concept?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Also forgot to add personal accountability. Seems to be a foreign concept these days...
    Make Flagstaff RAD Again.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jdcatnau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    815
    What the Shire should be upset about is how there’s only one street to get out there. Yeah there are back roads through the neighborhoods, but they still dump you out to Fort Valley/Humphries. That traffic is atrocious.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,344
    We need the word to get out on the Fort Tuthill snow tubing park.

  38. #38
    slower than you
    Reputation: rockychrysler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,185
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    Whatever happened to the concept of green space? Not everything the city owns needs to be developed.
    i live pretty much next door to this parcel, and the el paso transwestern pipeline runs below that piece of ground, i'm pretty sure... i have long been curious how it's been deemed fit for development given that fact. thot it wasn't permissible to build atop those big gas lines... even if it is, it's still never a good place to be when those el paso co. gas lines blow, this new mexico family would tell you that, if it weren't for the fact that they were basically instantly atomized when their local el paso line went explosively thermal without warning during their campout back in 2000: https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96090&page=1

    otoh, all these ugly nimby attitudes sure come across as being, well, pretty damn ugly-nimby, imho. as a resident of this neck of the woods, i'm not stoked to consider an even more congested hwy 180 than we already deal with basically year-round these days, but if there's one thing FLG needs more of it's affordable housing for real working people (and fewer fancy gated neighborhoods for the outta town gentry). and we need 'em pronto. so, if not there then where?

    last point: imagine if the nimbys out in hart prairie had won back when. the az trail would have forever gone disconnected across the western slope of the peaks. man, that would have sucked. ever since then, i've always tried to check myself if my biases start to wander in the direction of nimby. i just don't wanna be like that.
    "May your trails be winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view." - Ed Abbey
    http://rockychrysler.com/

  39. #39
    My other ride is your mom
    Reputation: Maadjurguer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    Here's an update: Received a reply from McCarthy and he does not see a way to support building on this parcel at this time. I also received a note from Shimoni which was a bit more circumspect, but he is open to listening to those who oppose building here. He will be at Firecreek Coffee on Monday, FEB 18 at 6pm to hear from constituents if you feel so inclined. I will be there as well as many others from the group opposing development on this parcel.




  40. #40
    My other ride is your mom
    Reputation: Maadjurguer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    So Coral has now moved up the discussion on the agenda, with a private executive session to discuss the topic, not open to the public. She states she wants transparency, yet pulls this move. Make your voice heard!




  41. #41
    My other ride is your mom
    Reputation: Maadjurguer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    Status Update: Final Ordinance language has been submitted to the city and Petition Signature packets are now official to get this ordinance on the ballot. We are printing up the official packets and will be ready for signatures here shortly. Save Schultz Meadow PAC has been formed and paperwork has been filed with the State of AZ so we can start fundraising. Specific Ordnance language below...I will be hitting up you Flagstaff peeps for signatures...PM me if you're interested in signing - must be registered to vote in the state and be a City of Flagstaff resident. I will also be planning to be collecting signatures at the Y once we get trail access back and the weather warms up. Here is that language to give you a peek if interested:


    AN ORDINANCE SETTING ASIDE, PRESERVING, AND
    DESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 3.06 ACRES OF SPECIFIC
    CITY-OWNED REAL PROPERTY, AS OPEN SPACE FOR
    PASSIVE PARK PURPOSES, WHICH PROPERTY IS COMMONLY
    KNOWN AS “SCHULTZ MEADOW,” GENERALLY LOCATED AT
    FORT VALLEY ROAD AND SCHULTZ PASS ROAD (COCONINO
    COUNTY ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 111-02-001C), AND
    PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES,
    SEVERABILITY AND AUTHORITY FOR CLERICAL
    CORRECTIONS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

    RECITALS:
    WHEREAS, the City of Flagstaff Open Spaces Commission unanimously voted in
    April 2017 that the Schultz Meadow has open space value; and
    WHEREAS, the Schultz Meadow provides a buffer as an iconic gateway into
    Flagstaff, has significant scenic value, has recreation and possible ecological value, and
    provides connectivity to the nearby Flagstaff Urban Trails System; and
    WHEREAS, the acquisition, provision and development of parks, trails and open
    space are goals set forth in Chapter V of the Flagstaff Regional Plan; and
    WHEREAS, preservation of real property as a passive park is considered a form
    of open space in the 1998 Flagstaff Area Open Spaces and Greenways Plan; and
    WHEREAS, open space makes a significant contribution to the well-being of the
    citizens of the City of Flagstaff, defining the Flagstaff region’s quality of life, protecting
    biodiversity, improving environmental quality, influencing future economic impact,
    protecting historic and cultural resources, and functioning as a land resource, recreational
    destination, wildlife habitat and transportation corridor, as set forth in the 2015 City of
    Flagstaff Open Space Strategic Plan; and
    WHEREAS, the City maintains an interest in enhancing the beauty and
    recreational elements within the community, and open space for passive-park purposes
    contribute to those efforts;

    ENACTMENTS:
    NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF
    FLAGSTAFF AS FOLLOWS:

    SECTION 1: Dedication.
    The portion of real property owned by the City of Flagstaff as described in the attached
    “Exhibit A” (the “Property”) and incorporated by this reference is hereby set aside,
    preserved and designated as open space for passive park purposes.
    SECTION 2: Zoning.
    The appropriate process will occur for a rezoning of the property to the zoning best
    reflective of the designation of the property as open space.
    Section 3: Exceptions.
    Any ordinance or other act of the City Council attempting to transfer any interest in the
    Property as described in Exhibit A for any purpose other than open space is contrary to
    the purpose of this initiative ordinance and the intent of the voters. The City Council may,
    however, transfer an interest in the excepted property to the State of Arizona, a political
    subdivision of the State, the Federal Government, or a non-profit corporation or public-
    service corporation, so long as the interest granted is subject to the restrictions described
    in this section.
    SECTION 4: Limited Uses and Improvements.
    The property being incorporated by this reference shall be open space for passive park
    purposes with improvements consistent with the “Neighborwoods” category of Open
    Space as outlined in the 1998 Flagstaff Area Open Spaces and Greenway Plan. Any
    other use is inconsistent with the purposes of this Ordinance and the intent of the voters.
    Further, the City shall not construct, nor permit construction of, any new buildings, roads,
    motor-vehicle trails, or other improvements on the Property.
    SECTION 5: Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances.
    All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance or
    any part of the code adopted herein by reference are hereby repealed.
    SECTION 6: Severability.
    If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance or any
    part of the code adopted herein by reference is for any reason held to be invalid or
    unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall
    not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
    SECTION 7: Clerical Corrections.
    The City Clerk is hereby authorized to correct typographical and grammatical errors,
    errors in punctuation, and errors in word choice to this ordinance. Further, City Staff is
    hereby authorized to make any necessary clerical corrections to the physical description
    of the property to properly identity the Property as described in the attached Exhibit A and
    intended to be the object of this Ordinance.
    SECTION 8: Effective Date.
    This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following passage of the Ordinance.

    EXHIBIT A
    DESCRIPTION

    Consisting of 3.06 acres, more or less, of specific City of Flagstaff owned real property
    located at 3500 North Fort Valley Road, lying at the Northwest corner of North Schultz
    Pass Road and North Fort Valley Road, Coconino County Assessor Parcel Number 111-
    02-001C, more particularly described in the below legal description:
    The part of the Northeast quarter of Section 5, Township 21 North, Range 7 East, of the
    Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Coconino County, Arizona more particularly
    described as follows:
    BEGINNING at a point on the North line of said Section 5 from which the Northeast corner
    of said Section 5 bears North 89o 21’ 08” East a distance of 290.84 feet;
    THENCE 180.46 feet along the arc of a curve which is concave to the Southeast and
    which has a radius of 568.67 feet, a central angle of 18o 10’ 54” and a long chord which
    bears South 49o 30’ 07” West a distance of 179.70 feet to a point of tangency;
    THENCE South 40o 24’ 39” West a distance of 249.61 feet;
    THENCE South 84o 29’ 29” West a distance of 34.47 feet to a non-tangent point of
    intersection with a curve which is concave to the Southwest;
    THENCE 215.45 feet along the arc of said curve which has a radius of 1643.95 feet, a
    central angle of 07o 30’ 33” and a long chord which bears North 55o 34’ 48” West a
    distance of 215.30 feet to a non-tangent point of intersection with a curve to the left;
    THENCE 410.95 feet along the arc of said curve which has a radius of 1626 feet, a central
    angle of 14o 28’ 50” and a long chord which bears North 69o 01’ 31” West a distance of
    409.85 feet to a non-tangent point of intersection with a curve to the left;
    THENCE 124.07 feet along the arc of said curve which has a radius of 1625.95 feet, a
    central angel of 04o 22’ 19” and a long chord which bears North 75o 54’ 27” West a
    distance of 124.04 feet to a non-tangent point of intersection with the North Line of said
    Section 5;
    THENCE North 89o 21’ 08” East a distance of 1013.44 feet along said North line to the
    POINT OF BEGINNING.




  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,768
    Count me in.

  43. #43
    The .05 percent
    Reputation: sinatorj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    915
    Yup, Me too. Registered voter.
    Make Flagstaff RAD Again.

  44. #44
    parenting for gnarness
    Reputation: chollaball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,240
    How many signatures do you need?
    Are you absolutely sure that you don't need to be registered to vote IN Flag?

    Who will be reviewing your sigs? If the States, things got a lot harder than if the City.

    We also did some number crunching on the risks of dupes, invalids. I'll share with you offline.

    We had a guy sample our first 2000 or so signatures and attempt to validate vs. voter rolls. His work paid big dividends into our training, probably saved us hundreds or more in rejections.

    We were also at trailheads, libraries, schools, grocery stores, gyms, parks. Many spots were not actually with permission. I can go over for you what is and isnt allowed, and how.

    Finally, it is worth the time (actually, essential) to train your collectors and give them feedback. We ended up with a 17% rejection rate, even with 20% of our sigs coming from paid people. That is unheard of, but, was due to us using dedicated volunteers.
    YES to Scottsdale Prop 420
    Our Preserve, Our Taxes, Our Vote

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reamer41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    840
    I’m not a Flag resident, but nice work!
    --Reamer

  46. #46
    My other ride is your mom
    Reputation: Maadjurguer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    Chollabunz.....will have to pick your brain when I get back from a week Scuba diving in Bonaire....what a country!




  47. #47
    slower than you
    Reputation: rockychrysler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,185
    A worthwhile read for anyone inclined to believe that a preserving a meadow filled with weeds, and an admittedly grand view of the peaks, is really what the Schultz Meadow PAC group is all about.

    https://www.propublica.org/article/h...rdable-housing
    "May your trails be winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view." - Ed Abbey
    http://rockychrysler.com/

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rynomx785's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    611
    I can't really blame people that have worked hard to get to where they are for not wanting low income housing to get built in their neighborhood.

  49. #49
    The .05 percent
    Reputation: sinatorj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by rockychrysler View Post
    A worthwhile read for anyone inclined to believe that a preserving a meadow filled with weeds, and an admittedly grand view of the peaks, is really what the Schultz Meadow PAC group is all about.

    https://www.propublica.org/article/h...rdable-housing
    You forgot about the Largness pond home to the picturesque headwaters of the Rio De Flag and home to the endangered Rio Brown Trout.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,768
    Everything is a compromise. Do we give up all possibility of green space so we can fill out every developable corner of land for affordable housing? Some places make sense more than others.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rynomx785's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    Everything is a compromise. Do we give up all possibility of green space so we can fill out every developable corner of land for affordable housing? Some places make sense more than others.
    Don't be racist. LOL

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,768
    Quote Originally Posted by rynomx785 View Post
    Don't be racist. LOL
    I don't follow but yes, I am prejudiced about unbridled development in this town.

    Or, the 2000 homes and 3,000 feet of commercial space being planned at the S. Rim entrance to Grand Canyon National Park.

  53. #53
    slower than you
    Reputation: rockychrysler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,185
    Quote Originally Posted by rynomx785 View Post
    I can't really blame people that have worked hard to get to where they are for not wanting low income housing to get built in their neighborhood.
    And thus the generational cycle of privilege, gentrification and perceived entitlement perpetuates itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    I am prejudiced about unbridled development in this town.
    I disagree, Rockman, and further contend that everything about *affordable* working class development in this town is thoroughly bridled.
    "May your trails be winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view." - Ed Abbey
    http://rockychrysler.com/

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,768
    Quote Originally Posted by rockychrysler View Post
    And thus the generational cycle of privilege, gentrification and perceived entitlement perpetuates itself.

    I disagree, Rockman, and further contend that everything about *affordable* working class development in this town is thoroughly bridled.
    City Council is establishing a new affordable housing commission. I suggest you get involved if you are not already.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rynomx785's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    I don't follow but yes, I am prejudiced about unbridled development in this town.

    Or, the 2000 homes and 3,000 feet of commercial space being planned at the S. Rim entrance to Grand Canyon National Park.
    The article he posted the link to insinuates that it's a racial issue.

    "I think the vestiges of our racial past are far from over,” said former Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who left office in early 2019 after eight years and regularly butted heads with General Assembly members who wanted local officials to have even more authority over housing decisions. For minority residents striving for safe and affordable housing, the state has “denied the opportunity that we allowed white middle-class aspirants to access,” Malloy said."

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rynomx785's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by rockychrysler View Post
    And thus the generational cycle of privilege, gentrification and perceived entitlement perpetuates itself.
    Maybe you can turn you garage into affordable housing for a poor family if you feel so strongly about it.

  57. #57
    slower than you
    Reputation: rockychrysler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,185
    Quote Originally Posted by rynomx785 View Post
    Maybe you can turn you garage into affordable housing for a poor family if you feel so strongly about it.
    I believe the aforementioned parcel is designated to become affordable housing and that there is a difference between this and subsidized low-income public housing, to which it seems you're alluding. By definition...

    Affordable housing: housing which is deemed affordable to those with a *median* household income.

    Subsidized, low-income housing: publicly subsidized housing intended to provide decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.

    One more definition for ya, Ryno...

    NIMBY: a person who objects to something perceived as unpleasant in their own neighborhood, especially while raising no such objections to similar developments elsewhere.
    "May your trails be winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view." - Ed Abbey
    http://rockychrysler.com/

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,768
    Go ahead and turn it into a race war or NIMBYISM but for a lot of folks I think they find the parcel an iconic piece of the flagstaff landscape and simply wish for it not to be developed.

    Personally, I think the city-owned land directly across hwy180 next to FALA school and the townhouses would be a suitable location for affordable housing.

    As for the "entitlement" comment I find that amusing given your recent posts in the Dry Lake Hills closure thread. But hey, it's just a discussion forum and I think you partly post to offer a counterpoint and to make people think.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rynomx785's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by rockychrysler View Post
    I believe the aforementioned parcel is designated to become affordable housing and that there is a difference between this and subsidized low-income public housing, to which it seems you're alluding. By definition...

    Affordable housing: housing which is deemed affordable to those with a *median* household income.

    Subsidized, low-income housing: publicly subsidized housing intended to provide decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.

    One more definition for ya, Ryno...

    NIMBY: a person who objects to something perceived as unpleasant in their own neighborhood, especially while raising no such objections to similar developments elsewhere.
    I don't live in Flag and I object to destroying iconic green space by building a bunch of tract homes whether they are affordable or subsidized. Once the green space is gone, there is no getting it back.

  60. #60
    The .05 percent
    Reputation: sinatorj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by rockychrysler View Post
    I believe the aforementioned parcel is designated to become affordable housing and that there is a difference between this and subsidized low-income public housing, to which it seems you're alluding. By definition...

    Affordable housing: housing which is deemed affordable to those with a *median* household income.

    Subsidized, low-income housing: publicly subsidized housing intended to provide decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.

    One more definition for ya, Ryno...

    NIMBY: a person who objects to something perceived as unpleasant in their own neighborhood, especially while raising no such objections to similar developments elsewhere.
    Rocky, how do you tolerate the Nimbyism and other crimes of humanity in our state? I mean, keeping our borders safe with a wall, keeping renegade MTB Rs out of the forest, not giving the projects an iconic view. These all seem like utter crimes against humanity and I would reccomend you relocate to California in order to escape further persecution.
    C-Ya

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,344
    I would love to be able to buy in Cheshire but I doubt that will ever happen. I don't make real money and I probably never will. Money doesn't drive me in any sort of way. I'm cool with that.

    Even if the proposed housing development was something I could afford I would rather see the parcel left as open space. That being said I'd much rather see it be left as open space than being occupied by 2000+ square foot McMansions. Those would really muck up the view imo.

  62. #62
    The .05 percent
    Reputation: sinatorj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by raisingarizona View Post
    I would love to be able to buy in Cheshire but I doubt that will ever happen. I don't make real money and I probably never will. Money doesn't drive me in any sort of way. I'm cool with that.

    Even if the proposed housing development was something I could afford I would rather see the parcel left as open space. That being said I'd much rather see it be left as open space than being occupied by 2000+ square foot McMansions. Those would really muck up the view imo.
    Shouldn't you be building on Heart Trail?

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jdcatnau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    815
    Maybe with more housing near the shire you all can get another road to get you back into town. Why anyone wants to deal with that traffic on Humphrey’s and Fort Valley just boggles my mind.

  64. #64
    My other ride is your mom
    Reputation: Maadjurguer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    So, I'm a part of that group that is opposing development on the parcel. I have petitions for anyone who would like to sign...can make it easy and meet you somewhere or you can head to the farmers market every Sunday where we will be collecting signatures. Let me make something absolutely clear to all here, and to Rocky. This PAC is about saving the space, period. It's not about separating people and does not take a position on affordable housing.

    As for the article that Rocky linked and his comments...I agree with the article to some extent and can see how its a factor in this country in some areas. But I don't feel it's applicable in this specific case. I'm personally hurt by any insinuation that this is a racial thing. I live in the development across from the parcel, and this kind of talk, here and in city council meetings is hurtful and divisive. Let me say it again...it's hurtful and divisive. In my neighborhood, we have folks from an astonishing variety of backgrounds...and none of them are filthy rich as some have said. We have night-nurses who operate as sole income providers. We have teachers. We have LEOs. We have a locomotive engineer for the railroad. We have folks that work for the USFS and NWS. We have public defender's for the county. We also have folks that work in the local bike shops here in town. We have folks of all different racial backgrounds. We have folks that have immigrated here and are first generation Americans.

    Any insinuation, accusation or whisper campaign that this is about race, NIMBY-ism or "mine, not yours" economics is simply driving to the lowest denominator found in partisan politics. I challenge you Rocky to have a conversation with me over a beer or a coffee regarding this point. I don't need you to agree with me about whether the city should build on this land or preserve it. But I do need you to understand that this is not some ploy to keep those who don't have, away from those that do. I should know, because for a time....I did not have and there's not a day that goes by that I don't think back to how bad things went for me a while back.

    This is personal for me..and what follows has nothing to do with the PAC or it's position on this issue - what follows is my own opinion. I know that some of you know this, but for the benefit of others...10 years ago, I lost every bit of financial stability I had. I lost my savings, my wife got sick and passed away, I lost my house and I even lost my dog...all of this happened in the span of about 4 months. 2011 can suck it! I could not find a job for the better part of two years. And so I got by working a low wage job in a bike shop until I finally found another job. I lived with my dad off and on, I bounced around and stayed with girlfriends (when I could keep one), rented mother in law suites for low rent from friends...and I also spent about half my time sleeping in the forest, up on Schultz Pass, out by Bismark, or any other place I could stare at the stars after a long day of riding bikes. Even when I had a place to call my own, I could not stand being inside of 4-walls...and so I bounced around, trying to change the scene and forget. I even sold everything I had that was not bike related or ski related. Everything I owned fit in my truck and a small u-haul trailer which I then placed in a storage unit.

    My credit was destroyed just trying to stay afloat, after never having missed a bill, a mortgage payment or any other kind of payment for the entirety of my life. But I was whole because I still had powder skiing and bike riding to keep my mind focused on what really mattered. I wrote about this and photographed my way through all of this as a way to stay busy. On my many trips up to Schultz, I would ride by the homes that I now live in and thought what a great place to be with an amazing view of the flowers in the field...if only there were a way. I had given up on trying to gain back what I once had. I had resigned myself to be a vagabond and just get by. After the shock of all I had lost, I figured the universe wanted me down...so I found enjoyment and freedom in that condition. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times....

    I lost any sort of professional ambition I previously had and I even lost confidence that I was ever capable of that again. But then I met a wonderful woman and fell in love. This also coincided with re-entering the workforce in a profession I once held. I have to say it was extremely difficult for me to move my mind back into that space where I once had been so comfortable. Meeting my now wife was part of that...she believed in me, even when I did not. We decided to buy a house...and we got very lucky...a house opened up where we now live and we jumped on it.

    I was able to contribute some savings for the down payment based on what I was able to rebuild after hitting the bottom, but I was completely unable to qualify for the home so she had to do it by herself except for the savings which I gifted her. I consider myself very lucky, but I also know that I am now driven by a fear of how quickly things can go south in the economy, and in a persons life. I understand what it is like to have the bottom drop out. And so I've squirreled away anything extra I've made since then so that when it happens again (because it will), I will be better prepared.

    I realize that I may be coming across as some kind of "pull yourself up from your bootstraps conservative", but I'm really not...I'm about as liberal as they come. I support initiatives to promote affordable housing - but to me that means so much more than just building some units here and there. It needs to be a holistic approach which includes business incentives to grow the economy and provide for more to do in this town than recreation and service jobs (outside of FMC, Purina and Gore). But that also means preserving things in this area that make it so special...which brings me back to that field.

    I've posed in those flowers with my bike, year after year since I can remember. I've done so in good times and in bad. I'm not the only one who has had this experience. I've seen weddings there, impromptu band jam's....you name it, I've seen it. The common denominator is that this field is a draw for lots of folks and is something that we feel must be preserved. It's available to anyone who can walk up to it and snap a picture. There are more appropriate places to build some units to provide median income housing. If that seems like Machiavellian code to you...then so be it....it's not my fault you're of a limited mind. But don't tell me that as a "have", I don't understand the "have not's".

    Sorry for the rant - like I said, this is personal.




  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rynomx785's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by Maadjurguer View Post
    Any insinuation, accusation or whisper campaign that this is about race, NIMBY-ism or "mine, not yours" economics is simply driving to the lowest denominator found in partisan politics. .
    Agree completely. The race card getting thrown around to push an agenda happens far too much.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,344
    Quote Originally Posted by sinatorj View Post
    Shouldn't you be building on Heart Trail?

    Project starts on the 11th! Stoked!

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,344
    Quote Originally Posted by jdcatnau View Post
    Maybe with more housing near the shire you all can get another road to get you back into town. Why anyone wants to deal with that traffic on Humphrey’s and Fort Valley just boggles my mind.
    With the closing of Wing Mountain snow play area and the opening of the snow play area at Fort Tuthill it's rarely that bad. If you live out there you can generally avoid the Milton shit show by hiding out on the west side. The west side is the best side.

  68. #68
    slower than you
    Reputation: rockychrysler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,185
    {looks like my reply got lost in yesterday's server migration. the following is an attempt to recreate it}

    Quote Originally Posted by rynomx785 View Post
    Agree completely. The race card getting thrown around to push an agenda happens far too much.
    Haven't thrown the race card, Ryno. Merely the privilege card. But don't feel too badly, most of us don't recognize the privilege cards we hold. It's a thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maadjurguer View Post
    ...like I said, this is personal.
    I'm sincerely sorry for all the sadness you've endured, Maad. And I also truly understand the attachments we form to places, especially those that have helped us to heal from our individual traumas.

    Despite its meaning to you, however, this parcel is a leftover, the sole undeveloped, oddly-shaped piece of ground on one corner of a busy state highway intersection, just three scrawny trees and probably 40 metric tonnes of invasive nonindigenous seasonally noxious weeds. Nevertheless, it's located across the street from a thousand other non-descript tract homes, (one of which is mine, too) and proximal to reliable public transportation, several excellent bikeways and paths, easy access to public lands, shopping, good schools, emergency and healthcare services, and a host of other local amenities, popular attractions, and vital services. It's an ideal place to locate affordable middle income homes where the owners will live year round and likely integrate themselves into the fabric of our economy and community just like you and I have.

    I can only hope that you and the other members of the Schultz Meadow PAC will see the value of this parcel in terms of the greater public good, rather than as a plot of ground you are intent on preserving on behalf of yellow flowers and precious memory.
    "May your trails be winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view." - Ed Abbey
    http://rockychrysler.com/

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rynomx785's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by rockychrysler View Post
    {looks like my reply got lost in yesterday's server migration. the following is an attempt to recreate it}



    Haven't thrown the race card, Ryno. Merely the privilege card. But don't feel too badly, most of us don't recognize the privilege cards we hold. It's a thing.
    You may not have directly thrown it but the article you shared the link to did. I am certainly privileged to live in this awesome country that we live in that allows all of us to make something of ourselves if we so choose.

  70. #70
    My other ride is your mom
    Reputation: Maadjurguer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    Rocky.....I'm cool, you're cool - we're all cool. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the issue itself. As for any other items that get thrown out there as to the reasons why a person is on one side of the issue or the other, that's something I will vigorously defend.

    Maybe you and I should go ride bikes some day




Similar Threads

  1. Construction on Schultz Pass Road
    By Licketysplit in forum Arizona
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-17-2016, 05:58 PM
  2. Couple of crashes on Schultz pass trail - Flagstaff, AZ
    By CactusJackSlade in forum Videos and POV Cameras
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-30-2011, 08:43 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-07-2011, 12:44 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-13-2008, 12:58 PM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-25-2005, 08:16 AM

Members who have read this thread: 182

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.