The following email was sent to Mayor Francia and members of the Town Council:

TO: Mayor Francia and Members of Town Council:

The Petitioners for the Cahava Springs Revitalization District are three Nevada-based corporations: Cahava Springs Phase 1, Inc., Cahava Springs Development Corporation, and Morningstar Properties, Inc..  On this date I have confirmed with the Arizona Corporation Commission that these three corporations do not exist as Arizona corporations and that none of these three Nevada-based corporations have filed the paperwork required by the Arizona Corporation Commission which allows foreign corporations to transact business in Arizona.  The seriousness of this discovery need not be debated.

Based on the April 16, 2015 ruling by the judge that Morningstar Properties, Inc., is an indispensable party in the Freeman, et. al. lawsuit, I have forwarded this information to the attorney representing Jerry Freeman.

Janelle Smith-Haff

Thursday, April 30, 2015

[email protected]

www.cavecreektownhallblog.com
typo correction: the word "Road" was omitted when typing "Morningstar Road Properties, Inc."  The corporate status was against Morningstar Road Properties, Inc.  jsh 

 



 

Points of Clarification re April 28th Informal Meeting:

There were approximately 150 Cave Creek residents in attendance.  Far more than the mayor expected.  There was no opportunity during the meeting for clarification of certain statements made by Mark Stapp.  Here are a few clarifications:

The unimproved land inside Cahava Springs Revitalization District will be used as collateral to obtain $20-million dollars in bond money.  The bond holders will be repaid using the property taxes collected against owners of property inside Cahava Springs Revitalization District.  However, Mark Stapp owns all the property inside Cahava Springs Revitalization District and has stated that no houses or infrastructure will be built inside the border of Cahava Springs Revitalization District.  The start of infrastructure installation is set to begin June, 2015.  The infrastructure installation is expected to be completed by December, 2015.  All of the $20-million dollars in bond money is earmarked for infrastructure and related expenses.  Within the space of six months Mark Stapp will spend $20-million dollars, and using the property tax money he will assess against himself as sole owner of property inside Cahava Springs Revitalization District, repay the bond holders their $20-million dollars plus interest.

Clarification re: bridge:  Mark Stapp stated that there will not be a bridge connecting Cahava Springs Revitalization District over the creek to Morning Star Road.  In truth, the bridge will be built on the 30± acres of property that fronts the Freeman property, crosses east over the creek, and ends at Morning Star Road.  This 30± acre parcel is not currently part of the proposed Cahava Springs Revitalization District.  However, under the Revitalization Districts statute, Mark Stapp is allowed to acquire that piece of property as part of the Cahava Springs Revitalization District as there is nothing in the statute requiring the properties be contiguous.  And, it just so happens that Mark Stapp’s corporate entity Morningstar Road Properties, Inc., owns that 30± acre parcel.

Clarification re: deeding of infrastructure:  Mark Stapp kept referring to the fact that, after the infrastructure was installed it would be deeded over to the town.  Given that he claims all of the infrastructure is being installed outside of the Cahava Springs Revitalization District’s borders, he is legally required to do this.  However, if any infrastructure was to be installed inside the border of Cahava Springs Revitalization District, there is no legal requirement that Cahava Springs Revitalization District deed any of that infrastructure over to the town.  Only upon approval by the residents of Cahava Springs Revitalization District can the 3-member Board of Cahava Springs Revitalization District deed any infrastructure installed inside Cahava Springs Revitalization District over to the town.  As long as there are bond holders it would be very unlikely the infrastructure could or would be deeded to Cave Creek, as turning over ownership of the infrastructure would diminish the value of the land and it is the land which is secured as collateral for the bond funding. 

Clarification re: “zoning” rights:  The only municipal authority a Revitalization District doesn’t have is the power of eminent domain and the power to enact zoning ordinances.  A Revitalization District does, however, have the power to interpret zoning policy, and the zoning policy of Cave Creek, as it appears in our existing General Plan, is a town-wide DR-43 zone overlay (lot sizes of less than one acre.)  This DR-43 zoning interpretation of our General Plan is what will allow Cahava Springs Revitalization District to reduce the lot sizes to less than one-acre within Cahava Springs without the need to obtain town council approval.

“The Revitalization District is nothing more than a funding mechanism.”  If the Revitalization Districts statute is “nothing more than a funding mechanism,” why does the Revitalization Districts statute require the town of Cave Creek cede all governing authority over the Cahava Springs Revitalization District to the 3-member Board of Cahava Springs Revitalization District?

The council is expected to vote on final approval of the Revitalization District as early as May. 

 

If you hear or if you are told that the mayor and town council members will negotiate terms and conditions with Mark Stapp before final approval of Cahava Springs Revitalization District, and that final approval of the Cahava Springs Revitalization District Resolution will incorporate those terms and conditions, this is not true.  And here is why:  Under the Revitalization Districts statute, only (i) after Cave Creek town council’s approval of the Cahava Springs Revitalization District, and (ii) only after Cahava Springs Revitalization District complies with A.R.S. 48-6805 and A.R.S. 48-6807, and (iii) only after the 3-member Board of Cahava Springs Revitalization District appoints Mark Stapp as one of its Directors and authorizes Mark Stapp with contract binding authority for Cahava Springs Revitalization District can any agreements---written or oral---between the town of Cave Creek and Cahava Springs Revitalization District be lawful and enforceable.

Therefore, as Mark Stapp presently has no statutory contract binding authority on behalf of Cahava Springs Revitalization District, any agreed upon terms between Mark Stapp and the town council are unenforceable—even if the terms and conditions are in writing. 

This is why the mayor and town council’s final approval of Cahava Springs Revitalization District is required to be an unconditional “yes” or “no” vote.

There is also a lot of wrong information being disseminated about Formation Hearings.  Only written objections to the formation of Cahava Springs Revitalization District can be filed for this hearing, and only persons owning or claiming an interest in property in the proposed Revitalization District are authorized to file written objections. Here is how the Revitalization Districts statute reads:

The Revitalization Districts provisions A.R.S. 48-6803 and A.R.S. 48-6804 provide the statutory procedure for giving notice and conducting the Formation Hearing, and A.R.S. 48-6803(A) states that notice of the Formation Hearing need only be sent to “persons owning or claiming an interest in property in the proposed district who object to the inclusion of their land in the district, to the formation of the district or to the contents of the general plan must file a written objection with the undersigned at the following address before the time set for hearing.” A.R.S. 48-6803(B) mirrors the provision of A.R.S. 48-6803(A) as to those persons to who notice is required. Mark Stapp claims to own all property.  The Revitalization Districts statute also states that all testimony and comments to be considered at the Formation Hearing must be submitted in writing, A.R.S. 48-6803(A), A.R.S. 48-6803(B), A.R.S. 48-6804(A) and A.R.S. 48-6804(B). This written requirement is also reflected in Resolution No. 2015-13 which the town council approved on April 20th.   At page 3(F) of Resolution No. 2015-13, it states that “Written objections as provided by the Act may be filed with the Clerk at 36722 N. Cave Creek Road, Cave Creek, Arizona before 5:00 pm on the business day preceding the date of Formation Hearing.” 

Even if the Mayor were to allow Cave Creek citizens to speak at a Formation Hearing, what is the point of a Formation Hearing if final approval cannot reflect and incorporate the concerns of Cave Creek citizens? 

The Formation Hearing is to be held at Town Hall (E).  When the concerns and objections of Cave Creek citizens cannot be incorporated into the final approval of the Cahava Springs Revitalization District, why are Town Hall facilities and employees being used to organize and conduct a Formation Hearing?

Another claim citizens might hear is that the Cahava Springs Revitalization District can be dissolved at any time by the town council since the Cahava Springs Revitalization District was formed under the Resolution process.  This is also not true.  In the normal course, a Resolution can be revoked by a town council at any time for any reason.  But, read as a whole, under the Revitalization Districts statute, the only entity allowed to dissolve Cahava Springs Revitalization District is Mark Stapp via his three corporate entities. Because the Cahava Springs Revitalization District is a municipality unto itself and not subject to Cave Creek governance, our town’s revocation of our Resolution will have no effect on the continued existence of Cahava Springs Revitalization District.  Final approval of Cahava Springs Revitalization District by our mayor and town council gives Mark Stapp, via his three corporate entities, the right to exist as a town within our town in perpetuity, unless he chooses otherwise.

Town councils in other towns and cities in Arizona realize how toxic this Revitalization Districts statute is.  It is time our mayor and town council members realize the same.

Janelle Smith-Haff

www.cavecreektownhallblog.com

[email protected]

Cave Creek citizens:  We still have time to make sweet lemonade from the sour lemons our mayor and town council members have handed us.

The Revitalization Districts statute is so poorly written that it has been very difficult to identify the location of those rights which are inherent in all statutes.  The right to Due Process is one of those rights inherent in all statutes.  The procedure affording Due Process in the Revitalization Districts matter is contained in the A.R.S. 48-6803 Notice provision of the Revitalization Districts statute and identifies the Due Process violation committed by our mayor and town council members in their rush to approve Resolution No. 2015-13.

The approval of a Revitalization District requires two steps: (1) notice of the council’s intent to form a district and (2) notice of the council’s intent to approve the forming of a Revitalization District.  To comply with Due Process, the notice of intent to form a district must be published as a legal notice at least six months before the council’s hearing on approval for forming a Revitalization District.  In this instance, the notice of the council’s intent to form a district and the council’s approval for forming a Revitalization District was combined into one document for one town council meeting conducted on April 20, 2015.

As per the statute, notice of the intent to form a district must be given to all persons claiming to have an interest in the property contained in the Revitalization District and, again, this notice must be published at least six months prior to the council’s hearing on approval for forming a Revitalization District.  Every Cave Creek citizen can claim to have the requisite “interest in the property” by virtue of the fact that 300± acres of open space land and trails in the proposed Revitalization District property was previously gifted to the town by Mark Stapp.  In fact, this was stated by Mark Stapp at the town council meeting.

What the town owns, its citizens own, and therefore its citizens possess the requisite “interest in the property” invoking the Due Process protection that requires six months’ notice of the council’s intent to form a district be given before the council’s approval for forming a Revitalization District. 

Today, and based on the council’s violation(s) of Due Process as identified above, I will be submitting to our mayor and town council members a request for reconsideration and immediate revocation of  their approval of Resolution No. 2015-13.  I urge every citizen to make the same request by either forwarding a copy of this email to our mayor and town council members or by creating your own request.  Here is the contact information for the mayor and town council members: [email protected];  SL[email protected]; [email protected];  [email protected];  [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

This town already spends too much money on legal fees.  It would be reprehensible for our mayor and town council to refuse a request for reconsideration and revocation of Resolution No. 2015-13  and force Cave Creek citizens to sue residents in our own town over a matter which can be cured with their reconsideration and revocation of Resolution No. 2015-13.

Your attendance at the informal meeting on Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 7 pm is more important than ever.  Demand Due Process to save our town.

Janelle Smith-Haff

Saturday, April 25, 2015

www.cavecreektownhallblog.com

[email protected]

Dear Creekers,
   
          It takes two council meetings to pass a town ordinance.  Our present town council has said it will take another year of work before the town’s General Plan will be submitted to us for our vote of approval. Mayoral committees are formed so that an issue can be fully investigated before being decided.  But it took only one meeting and about five minutes of discussion by the mayor and council members to irreversibly and permanently change our unique town.  We won’t see the bulldozers as early as tomorrow, but even when we do there will be nothing we can do to change the course.  Our mayor and town council took that power away from us and, at the same time, made sure that no future mayor or town council will have the power of change, either.

         This will be their legacy.

         I would like to think their hearts were in the right place when making their decision to allow a town within our town, but first a heart must be present, and there is no evidence of that.  One cannot give away the heart and soul of what Cave Creek is and claim to have a heart. There are Creekers who understand how our future is determined by the council’s decision to allow another town to exist within our town.  It is truly sad that no one with this understanding is sitting on our town council.

        Several Creekers attended the April 20, 2015 town council meeting when Revitalization District Resolution No. 2015-13 was approved.  They stood at the podium, asking questions--to which they received no answers--and requesting that our mayor and council members give more citizens an opportunity to express their voice and their choice about such an important issue before they decide the issue for us. After all, what was the rush?  There is nothing in the law which would have prevented our mayor from allowing this to be delayed.  The brave Creekers who spoke in passionate defense of our town and against approval of Revitalization District Resolution No. 2015-13 were subjected to a lack of professional decorum by the mayor and this council that would be neither legal nor tolerated in a work place environment. 

        According to our town clerk Carrie Dyrek, the clock is ticking.  Creekers have less than thirty days to initiate and complete a referendum campaign.  Even a successful referendum campaign, however, will not change the dark and ugly underbelly of Cave Creek politics.  This is what Creekers truly want to change about our town.  And, this is the course those of us who oppose the mayor and town council’s approval of Revitalization District Resolution No. 2015-13 will be pursuing.  

              It is now more important than ever that Creekers attend the informal meeting at 7 pm on Tuesday, April 28th.  We all have many, many questions, but the most important question the mayor should be asked is “Why?”

            See you at the meeting,

Janelle Smith-Haff

www.cavecreektownhallblog.com

[email protected]

April 23, 2015

It has been reported to me that during the recent recall campaign the four challengers promised residents on the west-side that, if they were elected, an east-west bridge crossing over the creek would be built before the expiration of the Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement. 

It turns out our four newest members on the council were right.  If a Revitalization District is approved, Mark Stapp, via his three corporate entities, could build a bridge over the creek before the expiration of the Annexation Agreement without the town being the actual violator of the Annexation Agreement.  However, this scenario makes the more pertinent question being not whether the town council violated the Annexation Agreement but whether members on the town council conspired with Mark Stapp and/or any of his three corporate entities to cause the Annexation Agreement to be violated.  That would be a violation of the Annexation Agreement.

Under the RD statute, infrastructure can be installed outside an RDs border if there is some benefit to the RD.  A bridge is infrastructure and the sole person who will decide the benefit of a bridge is Mark Stapp.  An RD can also acquire property outside its borders if there is a benefit and additional points of ingress and egress for the RD known as Stapp Town could be the claimed benefit. Outside Stapp Town’s border is a 30-acre parcel that extends west across the creek beginning at Morning Star and Old Stage Roads.  It is a perfect site for a bridge and it’s already owned by Morningstar Road Properties, Inc., of which Mark Stapp is President.  It is also one of the three corporate entities that comprise the owners of Stapp Town. 

Stapp Town can acquire the 30-acre parcel as part of Stapp Town. And, even though a bridge over the creek is a violation of the Annexation Agreement, Mark Stapp is not a party to the Annexation Agreement.  Our town council cannot require Mark Stapp’s compliance with the Annexation Agreement because Cave Creek has no governing authority over Stapp Town once it gives final approval of the Resolution.  The western boundary of the Annexation Agreement is where the eastern boundary of the 30-acre parcel begins.  As long as the bridge stops at its eastern boundary within Stapp Town, the town will not have violated the Annexation Agreement.  Yet, there will be a bridge.

Before I close, I want to state a few other things. The RD requires that the infrastructure provide enhanced municipal services inside the border of Stapp Town. These enhanced municipal services must be installed in Stapp Town if any infrastructure is to be installed outside the borders of Stapp Town. Per Mark Stapp, no infrastructure will be installed inside the border of Stapp Town.  Clearly, this town council has foreknowledge of Mark Stapp’s intention to violate the RD statute by not installing any infrastructure inside Stapp Town.  I would like our town attorney to state the legal theory that cloaks this town with immunity or contingent liability protection when this council has foreknowledge of Mark Stapp’s intention to violate the RD and approves the formation of his Revitalization District anyway.  

From the town council’s perspective the benefit to approval is that Cave Creek will be receiving free infrastructure and a bridge across the creek will bring additional development revenue to the town.  However, it’s not free when you give away any part of our town and expose Cave Creek to a future of litigation by residents or by others.

While other residents and I have asked for an informal meeting all I will settle for is a full and immediate revocation of the Resolution by this council tonight.


Janelle Smith-Haff

Monday, April 20, 2015

The following email requesting an informal Town Hall meeting allowing citizens to discuss issues surrounding the proposed Revitalization District was sent to Mayor Francia with copies to the other members of town council on Sunday, April 19, 2015.

EMAIL:

Mayor Francia,

The approval of a Revitalization District within the borders of Cave Creek places this town on an irreversible path. It is incumbent on our elected officials to ensure that their decisions reflect the will of Cave Creek citizens.  To that end, as a property owner and resident of Cave Creek, I am requesting that you schedule an informal Town Hall meeting on this matter and that this meeting occur before the scheduling of the Formation Hearing.  An informal Town Hall meeting will give the citizens of Cave Creek a voice in our future and the ability to be informed on this issue.   It is further requested that this informal Town Hall meeting be live-streamed.  Participation by Mark Stapp would be accepted.

Please advise.

Janelle Smith-Haff

[email protected]

Sunday, April 19, 2015

             Under Cave Creek’s form of government, the mayor has sole control over what issues are placed on the town council agenda.  In March of 2015, the mayor denied the residents of Area 96-1 a town council vote on an extension to the Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement (AA), and now we know why: the AA is not developer-friendly.  On April 6, 2015, under Resolution No. R2015-12, and as a result of its placement on the town council meeting agenda by the mayor, the mayor and town council gave preliminary approval to Cahava Springs developer Mark Stapp and Cahava Springs Development Corporation (CS) to create their own town within the boundaries of our town by establishing a special taxing district on the 1,000± acres that CS owns and which lie within the boundaries of Cave Creek.  By law, this “special taxing district” will be an independent political subdivision, i.e., another town within the borders of our town.  This newly-formed town will not be subject to any governance by our town council. The statute states “Except as otherwise provided in this section, a district is considered to be a municipal corporation and political subdivision of this state, separate and apart from the municipality.” A.R.S. 48-6807(B). (writer’s emphasis.)

        Resolution No. R2015-12 was approved by the town council over the objections of residents in attendance and over the objections of two of the town’s legal advisors.  Mark Stapp, and his legal and financial entourage which were in attendance, assured town council members that approval of the Resolution would not commit the town to anything --- and the council believed them. 

        Their assertion to the town council was not true.

        By approving the Resolution, the town is statutorily committed to completing the special taxing district process.  Under Arizona law the town is obligated to conduct another meeting to give final approval.  The statue, A.R.S. 48-6804, identifies the persons who are allowed to file an objection to the creation of a special taxing district as being “Any person claiming an interest in real property that the resolution discloses is situated in the district or any qualified elector of the district.…”  No Cave Creek citizen is qualified to file an objection under the statute because the Cahava Springs property is wholly owned by Mark Stapp and CS.   Since no Cave Creek citizen is allowed to speak either in favor or in opposition to the creation of another town within our town, the meeting to give final approval can be noted as a consent item on a town council meeting agenda.

            As cited above, the newly-formed town in Cave Creek established by Mark Stapp and CS will not be subject to any governance by the Cave Creek town council. A.R.S. 48-6807(B).  The newly-formed town will have its own 3-member governing board (town council).  Because Mark Stapp and CS own all of the property within the proposed newly-formed town, the three members on the Board in the newly-formed town will be elected by Mark Stapp and CS.  This 3-member Board in the newly-formed town has statutory authority to impose a property tax on the purchasers of the vacant lots in the Cahava Springs development. Despite the recent media claims, Mark Stapp and CS have no intention of building any Frank Lloyd Wright-styled homes or any other styled homes in Cahava Springs. At the April 6th Cave Creek town council meeting Mark Stapp estimated that a 1½ acre vacant lot in his newly-formed town would be assessed a tax on the land of approximately $2,500/year or ±$75,000 over the thirty-year life of the financing bonds.  In addition to imposing a property tax on purchasers of the vacant lots, the newly-formed town has statutory authority to establish, charge and collect user fees, rates or charges against a property owner for the use of any infrastructure or service in the newly-formed town. A.R.S. 48-6808(6).  Despite being inside Cave Creek’s town boundary none of the newly-formed town’s tax revenues will ever be paid to the town of Cave Creek.  Should there come a time when Cave Creek residents are forced to approve a residential property tax to avoid bankruptcy, NONE of the residents or property owners in the Cahava Springs development will be required to pay the Cave Creek property tax.

            The newly-formed town does not have the power to enact its own zoning ordinances.  However, it does have the authority to interpret Cave Creek’s zoning whether through town ordinances or its understanding of the town’s zoning policy as stated in our General Plan. As currently written, Cave Creek’s General Plan contains a DR-43 overlay on all residential properties in Cave Creek.  For this reason it is extremely critical to the future of Cave Creek that DR zones 70, 89 and 190 be put back into the General Plan that is currently being drafted. If these DR zones are not put back into our town’s General Plan, based on the DR-43 overlay zoning in Cave Creek’s General Plan, the 3-member Board in the newly-formed town could reduce the size of lots in Cahava Springs to less than one-acre without having to obtain approval from our town council. 

            There is no financial benefit to the citizens of Cave Creek for the town council to cede its municipal authority over 1,000± acres of land within the town to a developer.  The Arizona statute authorizing Revitalization Districts is entirely for a developer’s financial benefit.

            According to his testimony, Mark Stapp and CS will be issuing $20-million dollars in bonds to pay infrastructure costs.  By his own testimony, $5-million dollars from these bond proceeds will be used to immediately reimburse Mark Stapp and CS for the costs they claim has been spent by them for infrastructure. 

            Unlike other special taxing districts authorized under Title 48 there is no cloak of immunity afforded to towns formed under the “Revitalization Districts” statute.  However, the 3-member Board operating the newly-formed town is cloaked with immunity.  In the event of default on the $20-million dollar bond repayment, who will the bond holders sue to recover their financial investment since the three board members operating the newly-formed town are cloaked with immunity?  In the event of bankruptcy, will the Bankruptcy Court require Cave Creek be part of the bankruptcy proceedings because the newly-formed town is within our municipal boundaries?  As currently written, Title 48, chapter 39 does not provide Cave Creek with any cloak of immunity or other statutory remedy to escape litigation by bond holders, other litigants, or protection in federal Bankruptcy Court.  If the Bankruptcy Court should order the sale of Cahava Springs the law allows another town, city, county or even the State to purchase the property.  In that event, inside the borders of Cave Creek there could be a suburb of a Phoenix or Scottsdale or other municipality. 

            These are some of the many, many unanswered questions and untested issues that our newly-elected town council should have considered before disregarding the recommendation by the two town attorneys not to sign the Resolution.  Despite our town’s multi-million dollar infrastructure investment for water, the newly-formed town will contract with the city of Phoenix for its water services and supplies, not the Cave Creek water system.  Likewise, any homes on the west side of Cave Creek which are currently on wells, adjacent to Cahava Springs, and wish to hook up to a municipal water supply will also be on Phoenix water, not Cave Creek water.  The statue also does not state that the newly-formed town is required to pay for its own police security; although this is a requirement under the law for municipalities such as Cave Creek.

            Unanswered questions and untested issues posed above and in articles written by other Cave Creek citizens are likely the reason that no town or city in Arizona has ever approved allowing a developer to form an independent town within their town boundaries.  Cave Creek would be the first in Arizona. 

            The town of Cave Creek will not survive the kind of financial management that this new council is pursuing.  Without putting too fine a point on the issue, it may even be too late to do anything to reverse the financial management course this new council has charted for the town because of its approval of the Resolution. The authority that citizens have for a referendum challenge is unclear, A.R.S. 48-6806.  A Special Action lawsuit to the Court of Appeals will be a financial expense that Cave Creek citizens --- not the town coffers --- will have to fund, while the town coffers will be paying the legal expenses for the lawyer’s the town council will hire to defend them in the Special Action litigation.  The four newest council members are safe from recall for six months, leaving a quorum in support of a newly-formed town on the council. (A recall of at least four councilmembers is required to affect a quorum.)  Unfortunately, by the time any of these events to stop the formation of Mark Stapp’s town within our town, irreversible damage will have been done to our town by our town council.  The bonds will be sold and Mark Stapp’s town within our town will likely be in existence. 

            Is hoping that the members on town council will perform their due diligence before their final vote the only hope Cave Creek citizens have for our town’s survival? 

            If you wish to further discuss this issue, or you can’t find a copy of the Arizona statues governing Revitalization Districts referred to herein, contact me at the email address listed below. 

            The contact information for members on town council is listed for your convenience.  Don’t delay!  Call them now or send an email.  Tell our mayor and town council members that our town is not for sale to developers!  Mayor Vincent Francia, [email protected], (480) 488-0672;  Vice Mayor Steve LaMar, SL[email protected];  Councilwoman Susan Clancy, [email protected];  Councilman Dick Esser, [email protected];  Councilman Mark Lipsky, [email protected]; Councilman Ernie Bunch, [email protected], (602) 799-0838;  Councilman Tom McGuire, [email protected], (480) 575-1705.

            There are numerous citizens in Cave Creek helping to spread the facts about this issue and the first of their articles will be appearing in the Thursday, April 16, 2015 edition of Cave Creek’s on-line paper www.desertfoothillschronicle.org. 

Be informed. Stay informed. Get involved. Demand the truth.

Janelle Smith-Haff