Recent town council meetings have involved discussions, sometimes heated discussions, about a document known as the “Annexation Agreement.” Its formal title is “Development/Annexation Agreement.” This summary reflects the Annexation Agreement’s (“AA”) history, the parties to the AA, who benefits under the terms of the AA, and the importance of the AA to maintaining the entire town’s desert rural character and unique tourist appeal.
During the early stage of negotiations for the town’s purchase of the Spur Cross Conservation Area (SCCA) the then Mayor Tom Augherton and council were also in annexation negotiations with property owners living in Area 96-1, a county island area of properties generally located east of the creek and along the west side of Spur Cross Road, and stretching from the north boundary of Cahava Ranch Road to the southern boundary of the proposed SCCA. As reflected in 1997 Town Council Resolution No. 97-11, the negotiations between the town and Area 96-1 residents culminated in a formal contract referred to as the “Development/Annexation Agreement.” The agreed term of the contract was set at twenty-five (25) years, making it due to expire in the year 2022. A copy of the AA is available through a FOIA request at Town Hall.
Unlike a town council-enacted ordinance or policy which is subject to at-will modifications, revocation, or full repeal at any time by any sitting council, the AA is a formal contract. Any modification, revocation, or full or partial repeal of a formal contract must be by mutual agreement between the parties, or ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Because it is a formal contract, some type of “consideration” between the parties must be reflected in the AA’s language. In most contracts “consideration” involves an exchange of money. Under the AA, however, no money was exchanged. Instead, the town received the county island identified as Area 96-1 into its boundaries and the residents received the town’s contractual promise to maintain the county island’s existing desert rural character and low-density zoning during the term of the AA, or twenty-five years.
The “intent” of parties must also be reflected in a contract’s language. The intent of the town and Area 96-1 residents is set forth in the “Recitals” section of the AA and reflects both parties’ reason (intent) to enter into the contract as their mutual “desire to preserve the existing desert and rural character of Annexation Area 96-1 and the Property.”
In support of this mutual “desire to preserve the existing desert and rural character of Annexation Area 96-1” the parties agreed that the “watercourse known as Cave Creek which flows through Annexation Area 96-1 provides a significant natural resource that should be preserved and protected.” One of the processes agreed to and by which the goal for preservation and protection of the creek was to be accomplished, is contained in Section “L” of the AA. That section states, in part: “The Town further believes that the construction of bridges or other improved road crossings of Cave Creek between Cahava Ranch Road on the south and the southern boundary of the Spur Cross Ranch property on the north as part of the extension of a public road system providing continuous, uninterrupted vehicular access to areas west of Cave Creek would for the term of the Agreement be inconsistent with these natural resource protection goals and the desert/rural character of Annexation Area 96-1.”
Another provision affirming the town’s intent to ensure the preservation and protection of the creek is recited in Section 2.2.1 of the AA. This section states, in part: “During the term of the Agreement, the Town shall not, either independently or in concert with any other government, special district or private person or entity, plan, promote, design or construct any new bridge, improved dip-crossing or similar improvement, or accept the dedication of such improvement, which accomplishes a crossing of Cave Creek so as to link or extend any existing public road providing continuous, uninterrupted vehicular access over or through Cave Creek on that reach of Cave Creek in the Annexation Area 96-1 between Cahava Ranch Road and the south boundary of the property known as Spur Cross Ranch.”
The desert rural protections included in the AA benefit the whole town and all Creekers, which is the reason why this intent by the parties to “preserve the existing desert and rural character of Annexation Area 96-1” was written into the AA.
Additional desert rural protections in the AA to “preserve the existing desert and rural character of Annexation Area 96-1” for the benefit of the town and all Creekers holds that:
1. Spur Cross Road shall remain a two-lane road during the term of the AA. (Section 2.4.1.)
2. Morning Star Road shall remain a two-lane road during the term of the AA. (Section 2.3.1.)
3. Morning Star Road shall not be extended west of Old Stage Road during the term of the AA. (Section 2.3.6.) That section states: “The town shall not plan, design, acquire right-of-way (by dedication, purchase or condemnation) or improve, whether independently or in concert with any other government, special district or private person or entity, a public roadway providing continuous, uninterrupted vehicular access on the alignment of Morning Star Road west of Old Stage Road.”
4. Morning Star Road is not to be included as a fully improved thoroughfare under the town’s General Plan during the term of the AA. (Section 2.3.5.)
5. Honda Bow Road between Spur Cross Road on the east and Cave Creek on the west shall not become a continuous, uninterrupted vehicular access road during the term of the AA. (Section 2.2.2)
Continued preservation of the existing desert and rural character of Area 96-1 is imperative to maintaining and preserving the entire town’s desert rural character and unique tourist appeal.
Spur Cross Road is the only road leading into SCCA and, is therefore, the visual gateway for visitors as they approach their intended destination, SCCA. Because visitors to the SCCA provide the town with much needed tourism revenue, any development/improvement issues concerning Spur Cross Road must be viewed in the context of how the development/improvement will affect the visual gateway leading into SCCA.
Imagine what this visual gateway to the SCCA would look like to tourists should Spur Cross Road be developed/improved and become a four-lane road … with stop lights! You don’t have to imagine. The widening of Spur Cross Road to four lanes has been in the development stage since before the ink was dry on the AA. Funding aside, the AA is all that’s preventing this development/improvement from happening.
Not only do the desert preservation measures in the AA prevent the widening of Spur Cross Road, the desert preservation measures in the AA are also preventing the widening of Honda Bow Road and Morning Star Roads to four lanes, and the building of a bridge over the creek to create an east-west commercial corridor connecting 26th Street to Morning Star Road and Spur Cross Road.
The town’s purpose for an east-west connection over the creek is not only to provide quicker access into town for residents living west of the creek, it is to provide quicker access into town for all residential and commercial traffic west of the creek that seeks to circumvent traveling on Carefree Highway.
To date, residential and commercial development west of the creek has been limited by virtue of the fact that there is no east-west bridge connection over the creek. Any breach of the AA would allow an east-west crossing over the creek between 26th Street and Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads. This breach will increase traffic on both sides of the creek. The constant vehicle and delivery truck noise, increased air pollution, and the loss of dark skies that will occur when an east-west connection across the creek is built will result in the irreversible destruction of the town’s desert rural character on both sides of the creek.
Because of the AA’s importance in preserving the desert rural character enjoyed by residents on both sides of the creek, and as the visual gateway experienced by tourists traveling to SCCA, a debate on whether to extend the AA, breach the AA, or let it expire in the year 2022 is certain to become the political focal point in coming mayoral and town council election cycles.
During one particularly contentious town council meeting involving the AA early in 2014, and where the threat of de-annexation by Area 96-1 residents was voiced if the council were to breach the AA, the town council voted 7-0 not to breach the AA. This 7-0 vote, however, is not reflective of the present town council’s recognition of the importance of the AA to maintaining Cave Creek’s desert rural character. The 7-0 vote is merely the present council’s recognition that their breach of the AA would subject the town to litigation with the potential that Area 96-1 residents could decide to de-annex from the town if a court of competent jurisdiction were to rule that the town breached the provisions in the AA.
When the AA expires in 2022, there will be nothing to prevent any sitting town council members from proceeding with the building of a bridge over the creek and building a four-lane, east-west commercial corridor connection between 26th Street and Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads.
DISCUSSION RE: ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
The decisions to annex Area 96-1 and purchase SCCA were decisions which benefited the whole town, not just certain people in certain areas of the town. The decision about whether to let the AA expire under its own terms, extend the AA beyond the year 2022, or allow the town to breach the AA must be decided by the whole town, not just the town council.
What would happen if a court of competent jurisdiction ruled that the town breached its contractual obligation to Area 96-1 residents under the AA?
A breach of the AA could happen in many forms. It can be a direct breach or an attempt at an indirect breach. For instance, an indirect breach could occur should any sitting town council (before expiration in 2022) breach the AA by cloaking the breach in a decision to build an east-west corridor over the creek claiming it was a necessary health and safety issue for the town. A direct breach could occur should any sitting town council vote to amend, for example, the Cahava Springs developer’s application and allow the 230+ home development access over the creek and onto Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads rather than only onto 26th Street as originally approved.
Though this blog discussion is not limited to any specific breach scenario, assume that the town council breached the AA and allowed vehicular traffic from the Cahava Springs development over the creek and onto Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads.
SIDEBAR: This is not a far-fetched scenario. One of the provisions in the 2/14 Freeman settlement proposal would have breached the AA to accommodate the Cahava Springs developer with an east-west creek crossing. After the council grudgingly rejected the Freeman settlement proposal because it violated the AA, Councilman Durkin openly expressed his deep concern that the residents of Area 96-1 were denying the developer his private property rights under the U.S. Constitution by invoking the provisions and protections in the AA. Councilman Durkin’s expression of concern about the developer’s constitutional property rights vs. the property rights of Creekers was quite startling given that, prior to his election to council, he was active in denying the property rights of the developer of the boutique resort known as Enchanted Canyon.
A decision by the town council to re-route the traffic from the Cahava Springs development over the creek and onto Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads would put the town in a precarious litigation position because the town is not only required to perform its contractual obligation prohibiting creek crossings as recited in the AA, it is also required to defend the AA against any litigation resulting from a breach.
In other words, under this litigation scenario, the town (council) would be in the position of defending itself against the breach it created. And, Creekers, of course, would be paying the legal bills.
Under any scenario, if a court of competent jurisdiction were to rule that the town council violated its contractual obligation to Area 96-1 residents, one of the remedies available to Area 96-1 residents would be to de-annex Area 96-1 from the town, i.e., remove the Area 96-1 annexed land from within the official boundary of Cave Creek. (Area 96-1 generally comprises the stretch of properties east of the creek and along the west side of Spur Cross Road from the north boundary of Cahava Ranch Road to the southern boundary of SCCA.)
What would happen if a court of competent jurisdiction ruled that the re-routing of vehicular traffic over the creek and onto Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads does not constitute a breach of the town’s contractual obligation under the AA?
Except as an indirect breach using a claim of “health and safety,” such a scenario is hard to imagine because of the town’s recognition of and agreement to adhere to the AA’s provisions and prohibitions when initially signed in 1997 and again when approving the Cahava Springs developer’s application.
In or around 2005, the then-sitting town council approved the Cahava Springs developer’s application to build 230+ homes on the hill on the west side of the creek. Because of the provisions in the AA prohibiting crossing of the creek and widening of Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads, the town council’s 2005 approval of the Cahava Springs development was conditioned on the developer’s agreement to route development traffic onto 26th Street and down to Carefree Highway. (26th Street becomes 24th Street and eventually connects with Carefree Highway to the south.) For a number of undisclosed reasons, the developer has only recently undertaken efforts to begin construction of these 230+ homes.
If a court of competent jurisdiction were to rule that the town council's re-routing of vehicular traffic over the creek and onto Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads was a health and safety issue and therefore did not constitute a breach by the town of its contractual obligations under the AA, that ruling would be tantamount to an immediate and complete dissolution of the entire AA.
Would a breach or dissolution of the AA and re-routing of vehicular traffic over the creek and onto Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads preserve and protect the desert rural character of the neighborhoods on the west side of the creek?
Absolutely not. In fact, the AA is the only thing preventing the residents living west of the creek from experiencing an increase in residential and commercial vehicular traffic on their streets.
Evidence gathered by Area 96-1 residents establish that, since the signing of the AA in 1997, the town has been in discussions with various developers and other entities to secure right-of-ways and other necessary titles for the town’s eventual development of an east-west, four-lane thoroughfare and bridge crossing between 26th Street and Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads. The constant monitoring of town council meeting agenda items has, thus far, prevented approval of construction of an east-west thoroughfare over the creek. However, for the town to even be involved in any type of development discussions during the term of the AA is a violation of the AA.
The re-routing of Cahava Springs traffic over the creek and onto Morning Star and Spur Cross roads will increase traffic on both sides of the creek and irreparably destroy the desert rural character in the neighborhoods on both sides of the street.
Clearly, to keep vehicular traffic at a minimum in all our neighborhoods, and to preserve our town’s desert rural character, the efforts by residents on both sides of the creek should be the pursuit of a united vision of what’s in the best interest of the whole town, not just certain people in certain areas of the town. The whole town loses when Creekers fight against each other instead of uniting to fight for the good of the whole town.
Isn’t it in the best interest of the whole town if the AA is used to keep Cave Creek unique and attractive to tourists and for future generations of Creekers?
If the AA is allowed to expire in 2022, there will be nothing to prevent any sitting town council from approving the widening of Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads to four lanes and the building of a bridge over the creek at the intersection of Morning Star and Old Stage Roads to secure an east-west residential and commercial corridor connection between 26th Street and Morning Star/Old Stage and Spur Cross Roads.
Should the AA be allowed to expire under its own terms?
Should the AA be extended beyond the year 2022? If so, for how many years?
Should the town council be allowed to breach the AA?
Does the development of an east-west, four lane thoroughfare comport with the open space vision held by Creekers?
Should traffic from the Cahava Springs development and other points west of the creek be allowed to cross over the creek and onto Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads?
Do you believe that the desert rural character which exists throughout Cave Creek can be preserved if a bridge is built over the creek and Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads are widened to four lanes?
Do you think that an east-west connection, the building of a bridge over the creek, and the widening of Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads and 26th Street to four lanes each is in the best interest of the whole town?
Share your thoughts, questions, or comments below. Just remember the rules: Be nice … be honest … or be deleted.
(All social media links are not currently active. To leave a comment or read the comments of others please use "Comments" button.)
During the early stage of negotiations for the town’s purchase of the Spur Cross Conservation Area (SCCA) the then Mayor Tom Augherton and council were also in annexation negotiations with property owners living in Area 96-1, a county island area of properties generally located east of the creek and along the west side of Spur Cross Road, and stretching from the north boundary of Cahava Ranch Road to the southern boundary of the proposed SCCA. As reflected in 1997 Town Council Resolution No. 97-11, the negotiations between the town and Area 96-1 residents culminated in a formal contract referred to as the “Development/Annexation Agreement.” The agreed term of the contract was set at twenty-five (25) years, making it due to expire in the year 2022. A copy of the AA is available through a FOIA request at Town Hall.
Unlike a town council-enacted ordinance or policy which is subject to at-will modifications, revocation, or full repeal at any time by any sitting council, the AA is a formal contract. Any modification, revocation, or full or partial repeal of a formal contract must be by mutual agreement between the parties, or ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Because it is a formal contract, some type of “consideration” between the parties must be reflected in the AA’s language. In most contracts “consideration” involves an exchange of money. Under the AA, however, no money was exchanged. Instead, the town received the county island identified as Area 96-1 into its boundaries and the residents received the town’s contractual promise to maintain the county island’s existing desert rural character and low-density zoning during the term of the AA, or twenty-five years.
The “intent” of parties must also be reflected in a contract’s language. The intent of the town and Area 96-1 residents is set forth in the “Recitals” section of the AA and reflects both parties’ reason (intent) to enter into the contract as their mutual “desire to preserve the existing desert and rural character of Annexation Area 96-1 and the Property.”
In support of this mutual “desire to preserve the existing desert and rural character of Annexation Area 96-1” the parties agreed that the “watercourse known as Cave Creek which flows through Annexation Area 96-1 provides a significant natural resource that should be preserved and protected.” One of the processes agreed to and by which the goal for preservation and protection of the creek was to be accomplished, is contained in Section “L” of the AA. That section states, in part: “The Town further believes that the construction of bridges or other improved road crossings of Cave Creek between Cahava Ranch Road on the south and the southern boundary of the Spur Cross Ranch property on the north as part of the extension of a public road system providing continuous, uninterrupted vehicular access to areas west of Cave Creek would for the term of the Agreement be inconsistent with these natural resource protection goals and the desert/rural character of Annexation Area 96-1.”
Another provision affirming the town’s intent to ensure the preservation and protection of the creek is recited in Section 2.2.1 of the AA. This section states, in part: “During the term of the Agreement, the Town shall not, either independently or in concert with any other government, special district or private person or entity, plan, promote, design or construct any new bridge, improved dip-crossing or similar improvement, or accept the dedication of such improvement, which accomplishes a crossing of Cave Creek so as to link or extend any existing public road providing continuous, uninterrupted vehicular access over or through Cave Creek on that reach of Cave Creek in the Annexation Area 96-1 between Cahava Ranch Road and the south boundary of the property known as Spur Cross Ranch.”
The desert rural protections included in the AA benefit the whole town and all Creekers, which is the reason why this intent by the parties to “preserve the existing desert and rural character of Annexation Area 96-1” was written into the AA.
Additional desert rural protections in the AA to “preserve the existing desert and rural character of Annexation Area 96-1” for the benefit of the town and all Creekers holds that:
1. Spur Cross Road shall remain a two-lane road during the term of the AA. (Section 2.4.1.)
2. Morning Star Road shall remain a two-lane road during the term of the AA. (Section 2.3.1.)
3. Morning Star Road shall not be extended west of Old Stage Road during the term of the AA. (Section 2.3.6.) That section states: “The town shall not plan, design, acquire right-of-way (by dedication, purchase or condemnation) or improve, whether independently or in concert with any other government, special district or private person or entity, a public roadway providing continuous, uninterrupted vehicular access on the alignment of Morning Star Road west of Old Stage Road.”
4. Morning Star Road is not to be included as a fully improved thoroughfare under the town’s General Plan during the term of the AA. (Section 2.3.5.)
5. Honda Bow Road between Spur Cross Road on the east and Cave Creek on the west shall not become a continuous, uninterrupted vehicular access road during the term of the AA. (Section 2.2.2)
Continued preservation of the existing desert and rural character of Area 96-1 is imperative to maintaining and preserving the entire town’s desert rural character and unique tourist appeal.
Spur Cross Road is the only road leading into SCCA and, is therefore, the visual gateway for visitors as they approach their intended destination, SCCA. Because visitors to the SCCA provide the town with much needed tourism revenue, any development/improvement issues concerning Spur Cross Road must be viewed in the context of how the development/improvement will affect the visual gateway leading into SCCA.
Imagine what this visual gateway to the SCCA would look like to tourists should Spur Cross Road be developed/improved and become a four-lane road … with stop lights! You don’t have to imagine. The widening of Spur Cross Road to four lanes has been in the development stage since before the ink was dry on the AA. Funding aside, the AA is all that’s preventing this development/improvement from happening.
Not only do the desert preservation measures in the AA prevent the widening of Spur Cross Road, the desert preservation measures in the AA are also preventing the widening of Honda Bow Road and Morning Star Roads to four lanes, and the building of a bridge over the creek to create an east-west commercial corridor connecting 26th Street to Morning Star Road and Spur Cross Road.
The town’s purpose for an east-west connection over the creek is not only to provide quicker access into town for residents living west of the creek, it is to provide quicker access into town for all residential and commercial traffic west of the creek that seeks to circumvent traveling on Carefree Highway.
To date, residential and commercial development west of the creek has been limited by virtue of the fact that there is no east-west bridge connection over the creek. Any breach of the AA would allow an east-west crossing over the creek between 26th Street and Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads. This breach will increase traffic on both sides of the creek. The constant vehicle and delivery truck noise, increased air pollution, and the loss of dark skies that will occur when an east-west connection across the creek is built will result in the irreversible destruction of the town’s desert rural character on both sides of the creek.
Because of the AA’s importance in preserving the desert rural character enjoyed by residents on both sides of the creek, and as the visual gateway experienced by tourists traveling to SCCA, a debate on whether to extend the AA, breach the AA, or let it expire in the year 2022 is certain to become the political focal point in coming mayoral and town council election cycles.
During one particularly contentious town council meeting involving the AA early in 2014, and where the threat of de-annexation by Area 96-1 residents was voiced if the council were to breach the AA, the town council voted 7-0 not to breach the AA. This 7-0 vote, however, is not reflective of the present town council’s recognition of the importance of the AA to maintaining Cave Creek’s desert rural character. The 7-0 vote is merely the present council’s recognition that their breach of the AA would subject the town to litigation with the potential that Area 96-1 residents could decide to de-annex from the town if a court of competent jurisdiction were to rule that the town breached the provisions in the AA.
When the AA expires in 2022, there will be nothing to prevent any sitting town council members from proceeding with the building of a bridge over the creek and building a four-lane, east-west commercial corridor connection between 26th Street and Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads.
DISCUSSION RE: ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
The decisions to annex Area 96-1 and purchase SCCA were decisions which benefited the whole town, not just certain people in certain areas of the town. The decision about whether to let the AA expire under its own terms, extend the AA beyond the year 2022, or allow the town to breach the AA must be decided by the whole town, not just the town council.
What would happen if a court of competent jurisdiction ruled that the town breached its contractual obligation to Area 96-1 residents under the AA?
A breach of the AA could happen in many forms. It can be a direct breach or an attempt at an indirect breach. For instance, an indirect breach could occur should any sitting town council (before expiration in 2022) breach the AA by cloaking the breach in a decision to build an east-west corridor over the creek claiming it was a necessary health and safety issue for the town. A direct breach could occur should any sitting town council vote to amend, for example, the Cahava Springs developer’s application and allow the 230+ home development access over the creek and onto Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads rather than only onto 26th Street as originally approved.
Though this blog discussion is not limited to any specific breach scenario, assume that the town council breached the AA and allowed vehicular traffic from the Cahava Springs development over the creek and onto Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads.
SIDEBAR: This is not a far-fetched scenario. One of the provisions in the 2/14 Freeman settlement proposal would have breached the AA to accommodate the Cahava Springs developer with an east-west creek crossing. After the council grudgingly rejected the Freeman settlement proposal because it violated the AA, Councilman Durkin openly expressed his deep concern that the residents of Area 96-1 were denying the developer his private property rights under the U.S. Constitution by invoking the provisions and protections in the AA. Councilman Durkin’s expression of concern about the developer’s constitutional property rights vs. the property rights of Creekers was quite startling given that, prior to his election to council, he was active in denying the property rights of the developer of the boutique resort known as Enchanted Canyon.
A decision by the town council to re-route the traffic from the Cahava Springs development over the creek and onto Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads would put the town in a precarious litigation position because the town is not only required to perform its contractual obligation prohibiting creek crossings as recited in the AA, it is also required to defend the AA against any litigation resulting from a breach.
In other words, under this litigation scenario, the town (council) would be in the position of defending itself against the breach it created. And, Creekers, of course, would be paying the legal bills.
Under any scenario, if a court of competent jurisdiction were to rule that the town council violated its contractual obligation to Area 96-1 residents, one of the remedies available to Area 96-1 residents would be to de-annex Area 96-1 from the town, i.e., remove the Area 96-1 annexed land from within the official boundary of Cave Creek. (Area 96-1 generally comprises the stretch of properties east of the creek and along the west side of Spur Cross Road from the north boundary of Cahava Ranch Road to the southern boundary of SCCA.)
What would happen if a court of competent jurisdiction ruled that the re-routing of vehicular traffic over the creek and onto Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads does not constitute a breach of the town’s contractual obligation under the AA?
Except as an indirect breach using a claim of “health and safety,” such a scenario is hard to imagine because of the town’s recognition of and agreement to adhere to the AA’s provisions and prohibitions when initially signed in 1997 and again when approving the Cahava Springs developer’s application.
In or around 2005, the then-sitting town council approved the Cahava Springs developer’s application to build 230+ homes on the hill on the west side of the creek. Because of the provisions in the AA prohibiting crossing of the creek and widening of Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads, the town council’s 2005 approval of the Cahava Springs development was conditioned on the developer’s agreement to route development traffic onto 26th Street and down to Carefree Highway. (26th Street becomes 24th Street and eventually connects with Carefree Highway to the south.) For a number of undisclosed reasons, the developer has only recently undertaken efforts to begin construction of these 230+ homes.
If a court of competent jurisdiction were to rule that the town council's re-routing of vehicular traffic over the creek and onto Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads was a health and safety issue and therefore did not constitute a breach by the town of its contractual obligations under the AA, that ruling would be tantamount to an immediate and complete dissolution of the entire AA.
Would a breach or dissolution of the AA and re-routing of vehicular traffic over the creek and onto Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads preserve and protect the desert rural character of the neighborhoods on the west side of the creek?
Absolutely not. In fact, the AA is the only thing preventing the residents living west of the creek from experiencing an increase in residential and commercial vehicular traffic on their streets.
Evidence gathered by Area 96-1 residents establish that, since the signing of the AA in 1997, the town has been in discussions with various developers and other entities to secure right-of-ways and other necessary titles for the town’s eventual development of an east-west, four-lane thoroughfare and bridge crossing between 26th Street and Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads. The constant monitoring of town council meeting agenda items has, thus far, prevented approval of construction of an east-west thoroughfare over the creek. However, for the town to even be involved in any type of development discussions during the term of the AA is a violation of the AA.
The re-routing of Cahava Springs traffic over the creek and onto Morning Star and Spur Cross roads will increase traffic on both sides of the creek and irreparably destroy the desert rural character in the neighborhoods on both sides of the street.
Clearly, to keep vehicular traffic at a minimum in all our neighborhoods, and to preserve our town’s desert rural character, the efforts by residents on both sides of the creek should be the pursuit of a united vision of what’s in the best interest of the whole town, not just certain people in certain areas of the town. The whole town loses when Creekers fight against each other instead of uniting to fight for the good of the whole town.
Isn’t it in the best interest of the whole town if the AA is used to keep Cave Creek unique and attractive to tourists and for future generations of Creekers?
If the AA is allowed to expire in 2022, there will be nothing to prevent any sitting town council from approving the widening of Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads to four lanes and the building of a bridge over the creek at the intersection of Morning Star and Old Stage Roads to secure an east-west residential and commercial corridor connection between 26th Street and Morning Star/Old Stage and Spur Cross Roads.
Should the AA be allowed to expire under its own terms?
Should the AA be extended beyond the year 2022? If so, for how many years?
Should the town council be allowed to breach the AA?
Does the development of an east-west, four lane thoroughfare comport with the open space vision held by Creekers?
Should traffic from the Cahava Springs development and other points west of the creek be allowed to cross over the creek and onto Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads?
Do you believe that the desert rural character which exists throughout Cave Creek can be preserved if a bridge is built over the creek and Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads are widened to four lanes?
Do you think that an east-west connection, the building of a bridge over the creek, and the widening of Morning Star and Spur Cross Roads and 26th Street to four lanes each is in the best interest of the whole town?
Share your thoughts, questions, or comments below. Just remember the rules: Be nice … be honest … or be deleted.
(All social media links are not currently active. To leave a comment or read the comments of others please use "Comments" button.)
RSS Feed