Protect Lake Pleasant

[Darin]

Basil_AZ,

Congrats, you are a cunning linguist and a master debater. But unfortunately, I hear only blah, blah, lake pleasant, blah, diving, blah…..A big reason a lot of us love diving is because we can’t hear other people blabber away underwater. We can dive in peace.

I would really hate loosing Scorpion Bay as a dive site. But divers are passionate and committed, we will find another spot.

I don’t care about politics, it frustrates me, and I’d rather be diving. BUT, regardless of what your agenda is or whatever side you’re on, do not attack us; we don’t take kindly to that.

Ok, you’ve made your point. Garrett, if I may, was only asking the tough questions that nobody else was, and obviously, you didn’t like that.

We are all passionate about something. For us it’s diving, for you, it’s politics. The difference is, we don’t get paid for diving.

You want us to like you better? Lobby to get us a dive park. How about Mr. Finch helps us out with a dive park at the lake? Or would that ruin your “Save the Lake” agenda?

I think Garrett was spot on, and he doesn’t have something to prove. You play typical politics. Attack, attack attack, then talk over your opponent until they shut up. You related to any political radio personalities, by chance?

Darin <--- My real name, by the way.

 

[diversteve]

How do we know that? You claim to support our cause and then spend your time attacking me and denigrating my motives. I do now question your motives. You say you understand our strategy which, if successful, will be the only action that will protect Lake Pleasant. But if you understood our strategy you would be joining our cause not trashing our motives.

Possibly that's because you expected people to blindly rally to your cause here and when questioned openly in an open forum, you attempted to so thoroughly confuse the issue that, at least for me, I'm not clear where the "Coalition" currently stands on most of the issues that concern us as divers. Such as whether or not the Coalition does or does not support building a marina at Scorpion Bay - allowing that Mr. Finch was allowed to legally bid in the process.

Except for the legal issues which you've managed to quote repeatedly and often, in your replies - in spite of being asked to address other areas of concern by the original poster. I'm quite clear where the Coalition stands on that.

If in fact you were wronged by the process, then I do support your position and feel that validity of the process should be decided in the courts. Personally I don't have the time to wade through the administrivia to decide if this was the case.

That is absolutely sufficient because, as I said in my second post, the only thing that matters is the merit of my claims. How funny that you have not objected to those claims. How interesting that you continuously make snide remarks about everyone's motives. Not just mine but the coalitions and Mr. Finch's. Well enough is enough.

I'm pretty certain that Garrett entered into posting on this thread with no ulterior motives. From what you've posted I can't say that it appears you can make the same claim. Denigrating him in front of fellow supporters on this board is not a good way to make friends and influence people. Or didn't they teach you that in PR school?

Since you're not a lawyer(your admission - or are you in fact Alan Holcomb?) and have refused to identify yourself, left to our own devices, I think we'd have to speculate that you're either a)Mr. Finch or B)some PR guy hired by him to get his position out into the public to garner support.

Which btw, you're doing a very bad job of here. PR 101 says it's not a good idea to insult the people you're trying to influence.

Instead of helping him with this fight you have chosen to embrace the ridiculous logic of the men who are illegally developing the second marina. And you wonder why I question your motives?

Garrett had no motives before you posted here. So why are you trying to put it back on him. Why is it incumbent on us to support Mr. Finch's position when you won't even clearly state what it is?

Afraid your position won't stand up to public scrutiny?

btw. just in case it's not clear - so far it hasn't....

Are you merely playing the troll?

This is the most illogical and contradictory troll you've posted yet. You posted the original plea for support on this forum and now you accuse one of the people who initially supported your position of being a troll???

I have been upfront and honest with you from the beginning. I have explained my motive for coming to this board. I have explained that I am a member of the Coalition.

Reading through the information on your website and your posts here, It's not even clear what your and Mr. Finch's position is on several important issues. It appears that you are pursuing legal means to stop the alleged "illegal" process that was used for the potential construction of the new marina, yet in fact it remains unclear what would have occurred had Mr. Finch been the successful bidder.

And as Garrett previously pointed out, you've expressed contradictory positions even about being involved in the bid process. I'm not clear at this point whether Mr. Finch did or did not actually bid during this process. And seeking to further obfuscate the issue by protesting that all you're doing is seeking due legal recourse instead of answering questions doesn't help either.

If you're asking for support to stop this process and do not intend to at some future point bid for a future planned marina please CLEARLY state so for the record on the website. Otherwise all supporting your position appears to do is give Mr. Finch and the "Coalition" another chance to develop any new marina.

Since this would impact the divers who use the Scorpion Bay area, I doubt you'll garner a lot of support here.

I have been upfront and honest with you from the beginning.

I see no disclosures on your site of who you are except "a coalitiion of boaters, fishermen etc..." so I'm not going to add my name to the support list for your organization without some more upfront disclosure.

A check of the DNS records for your website shows that you've registered it anonymously using Domains by Proxy, which must mean you did not want to disclose the web sites ownership either. What are you afraid of?

My speculation since you've provided no information to the contrary would be that this is entirely a front for Mr. Finch and the existing marina.

Care to comment on this quote from the Arizona Republic article quoted earlier in this thread?

Yet information from court records and interviews suggests the Protect Lake Pleasant Coalition is actually a proxy for Pensus Group, the owner of the only existing marina at the far north Peoria lake

I have been upfront and honest with you from the beginning.

Not really, if this is your position then why, after REPEATED inquiries here, won't you disclose your identity? Most of us who post regularly here and those who also dive regularly at Lake Pleasant know something about each other. This is the first and only thread that you've posted or responded in which makes your position subject to public scrutiny.

If you don't have anything to hide, please disclose your name and affiliation with the Coalition. Otherwise you're asking us to blindly support your cause, I feel that's not something that even you would do in our position.

If you cannot debate the merits of our arguments or even the opposition&#8217;s arguments then you are just wasting everyone&#8217;s time, unless that is your objective?

Why are you continuing to waste ours??? Go find some drones somewhere else to blindly sign up and contact their Congressman on your behalf. Maybe Mr. Finch's employees might be a good place to start.

And lest you accuse me of supporting the opposing position as you did to Garrett, know that I don't and probably never will dive at Lake Pleasant. I've only ever even been there once about 15 years ago. So I don't have a position or frankly much care whether or not the new marina is built or is of benefit to the area.

 

[shark.byte.usa]

You wrote: "I'm the hypocrite? I'm not trying to conceal any motives."

How do we know that? You claim to support our cause and then spend your time attacking me and denigrating my motives. I do now question your motives.

You mean how do YOU know that, I'd expect you wouldn't but I've certainly been more forthright than you, I have nothing to hide, it's apparent you do. I'd expect that my peers here on this forum and within the local diving community would know I have none. After all I don't own a marina, I wasn't awarded a marina and I am not a politician, nor do I work for any of the above. Can you say the same? I have nothing to gain by a new marina. You question my motives because I've "attacked" your hypocrisy?

You say you understand our strategy which, if successful, will be the only action that will protect Lake Pleasant. But if you understood our strategy you would be joining our cause not trashing our motives.

I understand what you've outlined as your legal basis for shutting down the proposed marina's plans. I do not however see how this will protect the lake from further development and environmental impact. I also question whether your Coalition would exist if Mr. Finch's company was awarded the new marina. IMO it's readily apparent that at the heart of your Coalition this is not about protecting the lake or environmental issues but rather about Mr. Finch's company not being awarded the new marina. I'm not implying that every Coalition member feels this way, or is even aware of Mr. Finch's involvement in the Coaliton because you are certainly not upfront about any of that in your public pleas or website.

And you are right, I do not get your point - it is conspiratorial, illogical and sophistic.

That's apparent. As for conspiratorial the same could be said of your Coalition.

It assumes that our coalition has ulterior motives because we have received financing from the owner of the current marina. That assumes that Mr. Finch does not care about his livelihood. No one cares more about protecting the lake than Mr. Finch and I take great objection at your nasty implications simply because you think he stands to gain more profit if he owns another marina. Mr. Finch honestly doesn't think the way you do - he believes that a second marina will make conditions at the lake more dangerous and will hurt his business.

I think this entire statement pretty much sums up your Coalition's insincerity about protecting the lake but rather to protect Mr. Finch's livelihood and monopoly at Lake Pleasant.

Instead of helping him with this fight you have chosen to embrace the ridiculous logic of the men who are illegally developing the second marina. And you wonder why I question your motives?

Now it's not even about protecting the lake or helping the Coalition, it's about helping Mr. Finch is it? Question my motives all you'd like, as stated previously I have nothing to hide.

I have been upfront and honest with you from the beginning. I have explained my motive for coming to this board.

No I don't think so, primarily saying that you would welcome a new Marina if it was done legally with fair bidding, completely contradicts your first post and your website. Alternatively there are the inconsistencies I've already pointed out in your posts. You can't seem to keep your story straight, liars or people with something to hide seldom can.

I have explained that I am a member of the Coalition. That is absolutely sufficient because, as I said in my second post, the only thing that matters is the merit of my claims.

Apparently it's sufficient to you but doesn't appear to be sufficient to the people you are trying to influence.

How funny that you have not objected to those claims. How interesting that you continuously make snide remarks about everyone's motives. Not just mine but the coalitions and Mr. Finch's.

Your right I haven't objected to the claims that the bidding process, etc. was not done to the letter of the law, I have no basis to claim otherwise, as I've said NO MOTIVE. Yet you take offense to me questioning your, Mr. Finch's and the Coalitions motives when you are in fact trying to influence my and the other members opinions and garner support. Now that's funny.

Well enough is enough. If you cannot debate the merits of our arguments or even the opposition’s arguments then you are just wasting everyone’s time, unless that is your objective?

This is not a political forum, this is an open public scuba diving discussion forum. My responses do not need to be legal briefs as to the merits of either argument. I'm free to express my opinion within the TOS set forth by this forum's owner. If you feel I am wasting YOUR time, feel free to leave, because I'm not going anywhere. As long as your posting on this topic I will make it a point to highlight the insincerity, inconsistencies and hyprocrisy you've already displayed in your posts. That Mr. Anonymous Coalition Shill is my objective NOW!

-Garrett

 

[Dive-aholic]

Garrett, don't even waste your time on this guy. No one, for that matter, should. It's obvious from the posts here that there is one, and only one, agenda here. And none of us support it. Why bother giving this guy the time of day.

Wow, if it's not one thing, it's another in this forum lately!

 

[Basil_AZ]

To the nameless lobbyist named Basil_AZ:

You know, I was going to stay out of this until you attacked Garrett. I've been involved in politics, one way or the other, most of my adult life. On this board, I am a diver like everyone else. I know your kind and I know your tactics. It's a game of tenacity. Garrett is no more a troll than anyone else who has answered your call for politcal action. You have entered a community, asked for support and now you attack the very people you solicited when they are merely asking questions to better understand your cause. This is not right. Garrett is an upstanding participant and long time member of this community. This is not a political bulletin board. This is a bulletin board full of divers. We don't always agree on things. And, that's OK. But, you can't sit here and make "trolling" accusations to these folks when you are the new guy on the block with a single-minded agenda. Your only posts have been in this "now turned political" forum and have no relevance to the diving community or substance to the environmental issues surrounding lake pleasant. We don't know your first name, your last name or if you give one crap about the local scuba community. In my respectful opinion, you're not welcome in our community. If you want to protect Lake Pleasant, talk about the environmental impact of this new marina to our community -- not over the fact that a current marina owner wants to protect his monopoly -- legally or illegally. I think you owe Garrett an apology.

SBers - you have an opinion about everything. So if you agree with me. Speak up!.

First - I didn't attack Garrett - I defended myself and the Coalition against his insults and blatantly wrong insinuations. From the beginning my motives, Mr. Finch's motives and the Coalitions motives were attacked. In great detail I defended our motives. I corrected the illogical and false accusations repeatedly. However, the merit of our claims was never questioned. Therefore, I must assume that everyone on this board agrees with our claims. Great!

Secondly, you and Garrett owe Mr. Finch and the Coalition an apology for lying about our motives. No one is in this to protect a monopoly as I have proven. If we were just in this to protect a monopoly then we would say only those things that inspire an emotional response. See Garrett is upset because I spoke the truth. He did not like the fact that we would ultimately abide by the law and the findings of a proper EIS.

As long as there are people on this board who are willing to lie about our motives, I will defend the Coalition, especially when you utter the same lying rhetoric as those men who broke the law with this second marina.

 

[Basil_AZ]

Basil_AZ,

Congrats, you are a cunning linguist and a master debater. But unfortunately, I hear only blah, blah, lake pleasant, blah, diving, blah…..A big reason a lot of us love diving is because we can’t hear other people blabber away underwater. We can dive in peace.

I would really hate loosing Scorpion Bay as a dive site. But divers are passionate and committed, we will find another spot.

I don’t care about politics, it frustrates me, and I’d rather be diving. BUT, regardless of what your agenda is or whatever side you’re on, do not attack us; we don’t take kindly to that.

Ok, you’ve made your point. Garrett, if I may, was only asking the tough questions that nobody else was, and obviously, you didn’t like that.

We are all passionate about something. For us it’s diving, for you, it’s politics. The difference is, we don’t get paid for diving.

You want us to like you better? Lobby to get us a dive park. How about Mr. Finch helps us out with a dive park at the lake? Or would that ruin your “Save the Lake” agenda?

I think Garrett was spot on, and he doesn’t have something to prove. You play typical politics. Attack, attack attack, then talk over your opponent until they shut up. You related to any political radio personalities, by chance?

Darin <--- My real name, by the way.

Darin - thank you for your compliments. I understand the nature of a group defending their own but I was hopeful that some would be more willing to defend the truth, especially in a matter that affects something you are all passionate. However, I must respectfully disagree with you. I have read and reread this thread and it is clear that I answered all of Garretts questions and answered them honestly. It was the truthful repsonses that Garrett took objection and lead him to denigrating Mr. Finch and the Coalition, based purely upon his own assumptions.

One thing you all must understand is that this is an issue that I am also passionate. When lies are made against me or the Coalition I am going to defend us. Do you think I would still be posting here if your accusations regarding our motives were ultimately true? Also, I do not know how one can talk over another on a BBS? Do you really believe you are being fair? Would you merely prefer that I let those lies go unanswered?

 

[Basil_AZ]

Possibly that's because you expected people to blindly rally to your cause...Such as whether or not the Coalition does or does not support building a marina at Scorpion Bay - allowing that Mr. Finch was allowed to legally bid in the process.

No, I did not expect anyone to blindly rally to our cause, which is why I have always answered anyone’s questions. If anyone is unsure were the Coalition stands on any issue they are welcome to ask. Please reveal to me those questions that I did not answer? As to your question, let me try this:

A. The Coalition does not support the building of a second marina as we believe that it will lead to even more dangerous conditions on the lake.

B. A second marina can be legally built regardless of the Coalition’s concerns.

C. Thus, the Coalition will fight (which is extremely expensive) Maricopa County's development of that marina.

D. To win this fight we need the law on our side.

E. Because of the actions of Mr. Finch we have the law on our side.

F. Because Mr. Finch took those actions people now accuse him of having ulterior motives.

G. Because Mr. Finch supports the Coalition people now accuse the Coalition of having ulterior motives.

H. Regardless, the actions we have taken can have two results.

I. The first result is that the original contract can be declared illegal by the Courts thus nullifying the contract for a second marina. This could potentially end the second marina, as the County would be weary of fighting this fight again.

J. The second result is that the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) would be forced to do an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

K. The Coalition believes that if a proper EIS is done it will be determined that there would be a significant impact on the lake and a second marina will be denied.

L. Since federal law requires an open and competitive bidding process and if the County has to start this process over again we will ensure that the County follows the law.

M. If a new bid is legal, we will insist that an EIS is performed.

N. If an EIS is performed and a FONSI (finding of no significant impact) is issued we will abide by the law. To say otherwise would be hypocritical and hurt our standing with the Courts.

 

[Basil_AZ]

If in fact you were wronged by the process, then I do support your position and feel that validity of the process should be decided in the courts. Personally I don't have the time to wade through the administrivia to decide if this was the case.

I'm pretty certain that Garrett entered into posting on this thread with no ulterior motives...

Well I must not be doing all that bad as you admit to understanding the necessity of our strategy in the Courts. Thank you.

Again, go read the thread. I did not start denigrating Garrett but the opposite occurred. However, I do not care at this point. Blame me if it makes your feel good but remember one thing. You attack my motives and I will hit back. Maybe it was the way I was raised, but my tough Irish dad and Grandad would have me raised no other way. If I lose 'friends' in the process, so be it. However, I do know one thing. People can intuit the truth and in this I place hope.

Since you're not a lawyer...Why is it incumbent on us to support Mr. Finch's position when you won't even clearly state what it is?

Alan is a lawyer and I am not. I have answered the &#8220;who&#8221; question sufficiently so please refer to my previous posts.

By the way, over 300 people joined the Coalition last week alone and many of us are working hard on its behalf.

Its odd how no one likes it when Garretts motives are questioned. It seems my point hit home. Now let&#8217;s be honest, Garrett questioned my motives and I politely defended them. Garrett ignored my responses and then took what I said out of context, twisted the truth and continued to make false accusations. I do not care what your PR101 professor taught you, I take offense at being called a liar and having my comments reposted out of context. When Garrett starts mouthing the same exact accusations as Mr. Scalzo (with Maricopa County) or the spokesman for the Illinois business men who were awarded the Scorpion Bay Marina I have to wonder...

Afraid your position won't stand up to public scrutiny? ....

Well I cannot explain why you are confused, maybe you are only glancing at my responses. Nevertheless, I am happy to answer any question you or anyone has on the merits of our cause

Reading through the information on your website and your posts here, It's not even clear what your and Mr. Finch's position is on several important issues. It appears that you are pursuing legal means to stop the alleged "illegal" process that was used for the potential construction of the new marina, yet in fact it remains unclear what would have occurred had Mr. Finch been the successful bidder.

Based upon the last two bidding processes, it is our conclusion that the County will never award Mr. Finch with that contract. He won the bid in 2002 and yet the County did not award him with the contract. We believe they will do the same again. We are not sure why but we believe the County is still upset over losing the first Marina to the Maricopa Water District.

However, you ask a good question. If Mr. Finch were to win that contract, he would then demand that the BOR performs an EIS. Thus, a proper EIS should then determine that the lake would not benefit from a second marina and Federal law would then prohibit the development of a second marina.

And as Garrett previously pointed out, you've expressed contradictory positions even about being involved in the bid process. I'm not clear at this point whether Mr. Finch did or did not actually bid during this process. And seeking to further obfuscate the issue by protesting that all you're doing is seeking due legal recourse instead of answering questions doesn't help either..

No, I am sorry, but I did not post contradictory positions regarding the bid process. I was quite clear and I took offense at Garrett's manipulation of my comments. As I stated, this is not the first time Maricopa County has tried to develop a second marina. The first attempt was in the 90's and the second attempt was in 2002 (I believe). In this current contract -the one we are trying to stop - Mr. Finch did not bid because he was not allowed by the County to bid, which explains one of our lawsuits. In the other attempts, the County initially tried to exclude him from the bid but was overturned. If it were not for Mr. Finch's action on those two previous times, there would now be a second marina. The fact that there is not a second marina is due SOLELY to Mr. Finch's actions on those occastions.

If you're asking for support to stop this process and do not intend to at some future point bid for a future planned marina please CLEARLY state so for the record on the website. Otherwise all supporting your position appears to do is give Mr. Finch and the "Coalition" another chance to develop any new marina.

The Coalition does not want to see another marina on the lake, period. However the strongest action Mr. Finch can take to ensure that a second marina isn't developed is to see that Mr. Finch is allowed to bid and wins that bid. Why? Because the County will NEVER award him that contract and because the bid winner has stronger cause to ensure that the BOR does an EIS. Yes I know these are legal tactics but tactics, I assure you, that go farther in defeating the County than any other we are aware.

...I see no disclosures on your site of who you are except "a coalitiion of boaters, fishermen etc..." so I'm not going to add my name to the support list for your organization without some more upfront disclosure.

A check of the DNS records for your website shows that you've registered it anonymously using Domains by Proxy...

Regarding disclosing our members, I will look into that. I see no reason why all members&#8217; names cannot be listed on a page of the website and I personally like the idea.

Regarding the DNS registration, I believe it merely commonsensical to use Domains by Proxy as it is the norm for all such political organizations today. I would likely guess that the webmaster thought it routine.

My speculation since you've provided no information to the contrary would be that this is entirely a front for Mr. Finch and the existing marina.

If that were the case then why would Mr. Finch sue the BOR to force them to do an EIS? If he ultimately wanted a second marina then why would he fight to have the lake declared by the Federal Gov't incapable of supporting a second marina? I would greatly appreciate an answer to this question.

Care to comment on this quote from the Arizona Republic article quoted earlier in this thread?.

Can you please tell me which quote you are referring?

...why, after REPEATED inquiries here, won't you disclose your identity? ...If you don't have anything to hide, please disclose your name and affiliation with the Coalition. Otherwise you're asking us to blindly support your cause, I feel that's not something that even you would do in our position...

I have answered this question sufficiently in my previous posts. I have explained my motive for joining the Coalition. This is not about me and I will not allow it to succumb to these personal questions when they serve no purpose. No one here is going to join or refuse to join because they know or don't know my name. Nor should they. We want people who will stand with us on the merits of our cause because we ultimately want people who will devout some time out of their day and help us with this fight as they believe in the cause. If you agree with the merits of our cause then join with us.

And lest you accuse me of supporting the opposing position as you did to Garrett, know that I don't and probably never will dive at Lake Pleasant. I've only ever even been there once about 15 years ago. So I don't have a position or frankly much care whether or not the new marina is built or is of benefit to the area.

Thank you for you honesty and many good questions. Whew - that was a long post! I am exhausted...

 

[Basil_AZ]

Garrett - I would most greatly appreciate it if you could answer these simple questions:

Since you believe this the Coalition is nothing more than a front for Mr. Finch and the existing marina so that Mr. Finch can take ownership over a new marina then why would Mr. Finch sue the BOR to force them to do an EIS?

If Mr. Finch ultimately wanted a second marina then why would he fight to have the lake declared by the Federal Gov't incapable of supporting a second marina?

 

[diversteve]

Can you please tell me which quote you are referring?

I was quoting from the article, not a specific quote within the article: (bold highlight is mine):

Yet information from court records and interviews suggests the Protect Lake Pleasant Coalition is actually a proxy for Pensus Group, the owner of the only existing marina at the far north Peoria lake

From this article:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0225marina0225.html

If you'd care to comment on some of the other allegations the Arizona Republic made in the article regarding Alan Holcomb and his connection to Pensus, I'd like to hear the coalition's position since I feel the Arizona Republic has presented a slanted view - as imo they frequently do.

The Coalition does not want to see another marina on the lake, period. However the strongest action Mr. Finch can take to ensure that a second marina isn't developed is to see that Mr. Finch is allowed to bid and wins that bid. Why? Because the County will NEVER award him that contract and because the bid winner has stronger cause to ensure that the BOR does an EIS.

Maybe it's just semantics, but in the first sentence you claim that the Coalition does not want another marina period.

Then you allude to the fact that Mr Finch would like to be able to bid and win the bid. So if the unthinkable did happen and Mr. Finch won the bid and forced the BOR to do an EIS and the county came back in support of the second marina again - since it already has for Mr. Finch's competition - surely you can see the potential for this scenario to occur - wouldn't that then pave the way for Mr. Finch to either develop the second marina or sell off this suddenly valuable asset to a third party developer?

Forgive me if I'm just a little skeptical that Mr. Finch and Pensus Group, out of the goodness of their hearts would go through the expense of an entire successful bid process - including I'm sure a considerable downpayment or even possibly payment in full of the bid - not sure how that works exactly... What would be the point to all of that? Human nature being what it is, it's what I'd do, business is business...

Why doesn't the coalition just work to prove the invalid nature of the bid and make the courts force the county, BOR, Board of Supervisors and whoever else in involved declare the process closed and state for the record that no new marina should ever be built?

Wouldn't that serve the Coalition's purpose better?

Whew - that was a long post! I am exhausted...

I may not agree with all your answers as I feel some of them show an (understandable) bias but thank you for responding to my post and clarifying many items. Sorry about the length....

My last post on this subject as we could endlessly debate this argument here...I'd appreciate a last response.