Protect Lake Pleasant

[shark.byte.usa]

...this coalition seems to be politically motivated and not in the interest of stopping the marina its self but giving someone else the chance to build it.

Fair Point.

So Basil_AZ, how will this coalition react if successful in stopping the new marina development only then to be faced with the same exact scenario but by your coalition's current financial backer? Will you still then want to "Protect Lake Pleasant"?

I think it's a fair question...Perhaps you could get Mr. Holcomb's response.

-Garrett

 

[Basil_AZ]

Charles - if you don't care that the County is breaking the law that is your right. There are many of us who do care and do not believe that politicians should be above the law. Yes our Coalition is taking on powerful politicians and a huge county bureaucracy but why should that be a reason for you to denigrate us - especially since you say that you agree with our concerns?

As I have said before and will continue to state: Our Coalition has only ONE goal and that goal is to ensure that the law is respected and followed. If you agree with that goal then please join with us.

 

[shark.byte.usa]

As I have said before and will continue to state: Our Coalition has only ONE goal and that goal is to ensure that the law is respected and followed. If you agree with that goal then please join with us.

See that's exactly why I'm having issue with you, your website implies that your coalition's goal is to "Protect Lake Pleasant", when you have just admitted to us in a public forum that your goal is to see ONLY the law be followed. So if the letter of the law is followed, your coalition doesn't have a problem with a new Marina, if the letter of the law is followed it's suddenly not "Too Busy, Too Dangerous, Too Much", it's all good at that point huh? That's certainly the impression I am given based on your posts.

I have no problem supporting a coalition to protect the lake, but that certainly doesn't seem to be your coalition's agenda.

-Garrett

 

[Basil_AZ]

So Basil_AZ, how will this coalition react if successful in stopping the new marina development only then to be faced with the same exact scenario but by your coalition's current financial backer? Will you still then want to "Protect Lake Pleasant"?

That is an impossible scenario you suggest because Mr. Finch does not have the legal right or power to authorize the building of a second marina - only Maricopa County does. If we win this fight and Maricopa decides to do this process all over again then we will insist that the law is followed to the letter.

First, the bidding process must be open and fully competitive. Second the contract must be fully outlined and not changed after the bid is awarded (as they did with this contract). Third, the BOR must do an Environmental Impact Statement to ensure that there will be no significant impact with the addition of a second marina.

As I have numerously stated, if the law is followed, the bidding process is fair and legal, the BOR does an EIS and a FONSI is issued then we will welcome the new Marina to the lake.

 

[AZTEK DIVER]

I am a member of the Coalition who was asked by Alan Holcomb to reach out to different Outdoors groups in hopes of persuading others to join.

There are a number of reasons why one may oppose a second marina.

For me, I am absolutely outraged by the abuses of our elected County officials. The arrogance of these men who think they are above the law truly disturbs me. I hope it would disturb others as well. You know this is not the first time Bill Scalzo, Assistant County Manager of Maricopa County, and County Supervisor Don Stapley have tried to add a second marina. The first two times they also tried to illegally close the bidding process but were slapped down and forced to follow the law. However their tactic is to wait a few years and try their scam again. I believe it is dangerous to have elected officials who have that much disdain for our laws.

During one of the bidding processes Mr. Finch won the bid by more than double of the next bid. Was he awarded the contract? No. Instead they went to a second round of bidding and awarded it to a man who, this time, had a slightly higher bid. Somehow the man knew exactly how much to bid to win the award. Mr. Finch started to investigate this man and he discovered that he was prohibited by court order from borrowing money. However, Scalzo was still content with awarding him the contract. Amazing, yes? It gets worse. The man’s reference was a Manhattan bank. Mr. Finch flew to NYC and, surprisingly, no such bank even existed. So much for the County’s due diligence… The County did not award the contract to the next highest bidder as you probably now assumed but simply tabled to contract.

My parting question is is it rational to assume that politicians would so willingly and repeatedly violate the law if they had nothing personal to gain?

Sounds like you have a political agenda going here, and after you get rid of all the BS about who did what to whom, I read you want the marina, but built by Mr. Finch. From a divers/boaters point of view I don't want the marina at all, it detracts from the beauty of the lake, is just another source of polution, and based on all the other central AZ lakes, it's not needed.

 

[shark.byte.usa]

As I have numerously stated, if the law is followed, the bidding process is fair and legal, the BOR does an EIS and a FONSI is issued then we will welcome the new Marina to the lake.

So by your own admission it's not about protecting the lake at all, you make a lot of statements on your website and then say you'd "Welcome a new Marina"!!!!

Your coalition is a farce and supporters are being misled and deceived into thinking you have the lake's best interests at heart when that is clearly not the case.

We don't like that here, you should go away now, the hole your digging is getting deeper by the post.

-Garrett

 

[Basil_AZ]

See that's exactly why I'm having issue with you, your website implies that your coalition's goal is to "Protect Lake Pleasant", when you have just admitted to us in a public forum that your goal is to see ONLY the law be followed. So if the letter of the law is followed, your coalition doesn't have a problem with a new Marina, if the letter of the law is followed it's suddenly not "Too Busy, Too Dangerous, Too Much", it's all good at that point huh? That's certainly the impression I am given based on your posts.

I have no problem supporting a coalition to protect the lake, but that certainly doesn't seem to be your coalition's agenda.

-Garrett

Because Garrett the law is your, my, the coalition and all American's only recourse to achieve justice. If the law is followed to the letter and the Federal Gov't determines that the lake can handle another marina there is nothing we can do, regardless if we agree with the government's original EIS which determined the carrying capacity of the lake.

It may make you feel good to join a coalition that does nothing but promote a warm and fuzzy message of protecting the lake but unless that coalition has the law on their side they will accomplish nothing. Our coalition intends to win this fight and we have the law on our side. What better ally could we ask for?

Your biggest error is having no faith in the law. We believe that if the law is followed there will not be a second marina on the lake. We are confident that the BOR will not be able to conclude that there would be no significant impact. We believe this because it is mere commonsense. Thus, if you wish to protect the lake because you believe it is too busy and too dangerous then you should join the coalition that actually has the wit and wherewithal to PROTECT Lake Pleasant.

 

[Basil_AZ]

Garrett - I am sorry this is over your head. My hope is that others see the lack of logic in your posts as well. Garrett you can not argue that the law should be followed and then admit that you will fight the outcome if the law is followed. You may have no problems with being a hypocrite but our coalition does. We have one recourse - the law. If we can get the courts to force the County and BOR to follow the law we believe we will win and there will not be another Marina on the lake. However, that is not an absolute. We could win in the Courts and the process could be started all over again where a new marina is legally awarded. What would you recommend we do if that were to occur? Sulk and cry? Oh I know you would found a coalition that has feel-good slogans with absolutely no ability to Protect the Lake. Well you sound like one of those feel-good types of people who accomplish nothing.

If you want to be a member of Coalition that actually has the ability and means to Protect Lake Pleasant then stand with us. If you want to stand by the lake carrying signs saying that you want to protect it knowing that you will have no influence then join with Garrett.

 

[Basil_AZ]

I read you want the marina, but built by Mr. Finch.

John -you read wrong. No where was that said. Neither the coalition nor Mr. Finch want a new marina.

Since so many of you seem to be experts on how this new marina should be prevented, then please inform us how you would stop it. What actions of our Coaltion do you disagree with? What actions would you take?

 

[AZTEK DIVER]

John -you read wrong. No where was that said. Neither the coalition nor Mr. Finch want a new marina.

Since so many of you seem to be experts on how this new marina should be prevented, then please inform us how you would stop it. What actions of our Coaltion do you disagree with? What actions would you take?

I am confused, if Mr. Finch didn't want the marina, why did he bid on it, or was his intent to just prevent someone else from having it?
My guess would be, that you would get much more support from the divers, though there's not many compared to the boaters, if you stood on the side of protecting the lake, and the addition of a concession that's not needed nor wanted by this group. If this marina was necessary, and I don't believe it is, the logical place to put it would be the other end of the lake.