Report on the news that matters to your community and don't let us miss a beat. Send in your stories and photos.
My Recent Comments
What a piece of fiction! This article blames budget shortfall on the high cost of employees and building parks and doesn't mention at all the $100 million Cubs stadium or the fact that the Riverview developer keeps all the city taxes paid there. It's hard to increase tax revenues when a major shopping area (with many relocated stores and restaurants) pockets them and calls it a "rebate". How can the city of Mesa "rebate" to a developer something that purchasers paid? Cut the corporate welfare and Mesa would be much better and services be reduced again.4 months ago
My children are both adopted and their original birth certificates have been sealed by the state of AZ. There is no way they could meet this bill's requirements with the revised birth certificate that have been issued. Does the legislature ever think through their unintended consequences? Jan Brewer needs to veto this stupid bill or I'll have to tell my kids that they aren't good enough to run for office in AZ!Apr 15, 2011
It's hard enough to staff the polls without having people causing unnecessary confrontations. Why does this tea partier think she's above the law? Candidates are identifying themselves as part of the Tea Party so it's clearly electioneering. Therefore, it's illegal - read Arizona Revised Statutes - and what part of illegal doesn't she understand?
But most of all let people vote in peace without the hoopla of electioning. We have that 24/7 on the TV and calling our phones. We certainly don't need that in the balloting booths.Nov 1, 2010
If candidates support the tea party agenda and many are actually identified as tea party candidates, how can wearing a tea party shirt not be electioneering.
It's hard enough to get people to man the elections without people intentionally making it difficult. This opens the door to more confrontations at the polls and how does that uphold the citizen's right to vote? I do not understand why this person and the Goldwater Institute want to undermine the privacy and security of the polling place?Oct 23, 2010
This is a poor idea at a terrible time. Cubs want a new stadium but at the same time say they will help find another team for the existing Hohokam stadium. If it's good enough for another team, then why isn't it adequate for the Cubs? This is a "made up" problem and there is no reason the Cuns NEED to leave or change stadiums. They just want something new at the expense of Mesa. And in addition to the new stadium, let's throw in cheap retail space that they won't have to pay property taxes on etc.
Secondly, no details are included in the proposition wording so the amounts CAN be changed at whim and everything is non-binding on the Cubs. Wouldn't most people want agreements like that but I guess only a select group actually get them.
Leave the money in the enterprise fund and spend it on improving the utility infrastructure which benefits the tax payers and utility payers of Mesa.
This is wrong in so many ways. Just vote NO.Oct 23, 2010
Elite Colleges, or Colleges for the Elite? Legacy students versus afirmative action article
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/opinion/30kahlenberg.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=generalOct 16, 2010
If we eliminate afirmative action to encourage minorities to enter college we should alsoinsist that "legacy" students be eliminated. More "legacy" students get into top universities than afirmative action candidates. How else do you think George W Bush got into Yale? He admitted he didn't have the grades etc from high school. So level the playing field for everyone.Oct 16, 2010
Mesa isn't sending the Cubs packing - rather the Cubs are threatening to leave. The Cubs want a new stadium and it's stated that they'll "assist" in finding a new team. If the stadium isn't adequate for them, how do they convince another team that it's a great stadium to use? Why would a team come to AZ to play in a stadium rejected by another team. Wouldn't the same problems exist for them? Except that it proves that is no real problem with the stadium at all.
This whole situation makes no sense unless you realize that the Cubs want yet ANOTHER way to make revenue and expect the City of Mesa to provide it. It's not so much about the stadium as it is about getting retail space cheap for "Wrigleyville" with land provided by Mesa (and thus no property taxes). Greed, pure and simple greed. Vote NO! Oct 9, 2010
Vote NO! This is a $99 million dollar solution where there is no real problem other than the greedy Cubs are jealous of newer stadiums and want a new one too. Oh, and throw in leased land so the Cubs can make more money on retail without paying property taxes.
The existing stadium is only 13 years old and the Cubs want a new oone. So how can we expect them to stay 30 years in a new stadium? They'll be back extorting us in no time! I guess the prop number of 420 is appropriate because you must be smoking something if you think I'll vote for it.
Cubs can either stick with their exisiting stadium or leave. I don't support corporate welfare for a company paying their employees milions to play in a subsidized stadium while little leagues and youth soccer leagues are charged by the hour to rent poorly maintained fields from the City of Mesa.[sad]Oct 5, 2010
I'm sick of having car washes and bake sales because people can't afford medical care while large corporations are given huge tax breaks and subsidies.[sad]Oct 1, 2010