Hello
How Are You
My you look pretty
Wow
I'm Bored
Daring
regal
fasiticated
poise
happy
love
beauty
Friday, November 7, 2008
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Rezoning issues draw Safford Council debateBy Jon John
Two rezoning requests presented as a first reading agenda item drew lengthy discussion from the Safford City Council at its meeting March 24.The first zoning request was to rezone approximately 7 acres located at the southwest corner of 20th Avenue and 26th Street from general commercial to multifamily residential
Two rezoning requests presented as a first reading agenda item drew lengthy discussion from the Safford City Council at its meeting March 24.The first zoning request was to rezone approximately 7 acres located at the southwest corner of 20th Avenue and 26th Street from general commercial to multifamily residential.
Commonwealth Capital, a development corporation based in Columbus, Ohio, asked for the rezoning so it could build 64 “market-rate” apartments on the site. The company would leave empty a small area adjacent to 26th Street for commercial purposes.
Planning and Commun-ity Development Director Pete Stasiak told the council the rezone had passed the Planning and Development Committee and gave it a favorable review.
Stasiak said there was, however, an issue about water drainage that was brought up at the Planning and Zoning meeting.
He said Commonwealth Capital would like to have the water drain through pipes that would take it under 20th Avenue and into the retention pond behind Freeman Dam.
Stasiak said Bill Konopnicki, who is a state representative from Safford, voiced his opposition to the rezoning at the same meeting.
Konopnicki owns 56 acres directly to the east and south of the project that he has platted for a 168-lot upscale subdivision called Vista Grande. Phase one of the subdivision is under construction.
Stasiak said the Vista Grande subdivision does the same thing with its water drainage, sending it under 20th Avenue through pipes and into the retention pond.
Mayor Ron Green asked if allowing more water to drain behind the dam might result in overfilling it.
Stasiak said the water already runs down the area and most of it ends up in a ravine behind the dam.
Special Projects Manager Robert Porter said the increase of water into the watershed would be insignificant. He said the increase by both fully constructed developments would be less than 1 percent of the area’s capacity.
Don Griffith with Commonwealth Capital passed out an informative packet to the council members and went over his project.
He said his company has developed many projects in the Southwest where there was a need for market-rate housing. Griffith believes Safford is severely lacking the type of upscale market-rate apartments his company builds.
Griffith’s plans include 64 two-bedroom, two-bath apartments with 978 square feet of living space in eight buildings. Each unit will come with a number of features, and on-site amenities include a swimming pool, playground and a community building with a club room. Griffith says the apartments will rent for about $800 to $850 per month.
As far as drainage goes, Griffith said his project would do a better job than any commercial project.
“The drainage from a project such as this that still has a significant amount of grass and green areas would aid in draining this property a great deal better than if it was done as a commercial, hard surface, no green space product,” he said.
Mayor Green asked what, exactly, Konopnicki’s concern was.
Stasiak said he was worried that an apartment complex might lower the worth of his own subdivision, but Stasiak said the complex would look a lot better than any commercial entity the land is already zoned for.
“I think this is a much better-looking project than if you had 9 or 10 acres of commercial projects sitting on that corner,” Stasiak said. “(That’s) a lot of asphalt and buildings with air conditioners and those types of things on top of it.”
Another first reading rezoning issue raised the eyebrows of the councilors.
Stasiak presented a request from a developer to rezone a little more than 26 acres from a planned unit development to a mobile home development district.
The land owner, Rob Merrill, wants the rezoning to build a manufactured home community on permanent foundations. The site was previously rezoned from agricultural-residential to planned unit development.
The site is located off Hollywood Road, north of the Copper Canyon I subdivision and east of the Sunrise Village RV & Mobile Home Resort.
Merrill owns about 50 acres stretching to the Gila River but is planning to develop only the southern 26 acres. According to Stasiak, the southern 26 acres are not in the flood plain.
Mayor Green said he had personally seen a house completely underwater in the proposed site area during a flood in 1968.
“It looks to me like, if we had that same water situation here, this whole thing would be underwater,” he said. “I really question putting these homes in that place because I’ve been there when that’s all underwater.”
Stasiak reminded the council the area had already been rezoned for a planned unit development and that the Federal Emergency Management Agency flood plain maps show the area to be outside of a 100-year event.
Green asked what the city’s liability would be if it allowed the homes to be built and they were flooded.
City Attorney Johnny Guthrie said as long as the city goes by the FEMA maps it would not be liable for flood damage.
See Sunday Courier issue for story on the Downtown charette story.
Two rezoning requests presented as a first reading agenda item drew lengthy discussion from the Safford City Council at its meeting March 24.The first zoning request was to rezone approximately 7 acres located at the southwest corner of 20th Avenue and 26th Street from general commercial to multifamily residential.
Commonwealth Capital, a development corporation based in Columbus, Ohio, asked for the rezoning so it could build 64 “market-rate” apartments on the site. The company would leave empty a small area adjacent to 26th Street for commercial purposes.
Planning and Commun-ity Development Director Pete Stasiak told the council the rezone had passed the Planning and Development Committee and gave it a favorable review.
Stasiak said there was, however, an issue about water drainage that was brought up at the Planning and Zoning meeting.
He said Commonwealth Capital would like to have the water drain through pipes that would take it under 20th Avenue and into the retention pond behind Freeman Dam.
Stasiak said Bill Konopnicki, who is a state representative from Safford, voiced his opposition to the rezoning at the same meeting.
Konopnicki owns 56 acres directly to the east and south of the project that he has platted for a 168-lot upscale subdivision called Vista Grande. Phase one of the subdivision is under construction.
Stasiak said the Vista Grande subdivision does the same thing with its water drainage, sending it under 20th Avenue through pipes and into the retention pond.
Mayor Ron Green asked if allowing more water to drain behind the dam might result in overfilling it.
Stasiak said the water already runs down the area and most of it ends up in a ravine behind the dam.
Special Projects Manager Robert Porter said the increase of water into the watershed would be insignificant. He said the increase by both fully constructed developments would be less than 1 percent of the area’s capacity.
Don Griffith with Commonwealth Capital passed out an informative packet to the council members and went over his project.
He said his company has developed many projects in the Southwest where there was a need for market-rate housing. Griffith believes Safford is severely lacking the type of upscale market-rate apartments his company builds.
Griffith’s plans include 64 two-bedroom, two-bath apartments with 978 square feet of living space in eight buildings. Each unit will come with a number of features, and on-site amenities include a swimming pool, playground and a community building with a club room. Griffith says the apartments will rent for about $800 to $850 per month.
As far as drainage goes, Griffith said his project would do a better job than any commercial project.
“The drainage from a project such as this that still has a significant amount of grass and green areas would aid in draining this property a great deal better than if it was done as a commercial, hard surface, no green space product,” he said.
Mayor Green asked what, exactly, Konopnicki’s concern was.
Stasiak said he was worried that an apartment complex might lower the worth of his own subdivision, but Stasiak said the complex would look a lot better than any commercial entity the land is already zoned for.
“I think this is a much better-looking project than if you had 9 or 10 acres of commercial projects sitting on that corner,” Stasiak said. “(That’s) a lot of asphalt and buildings with air conditioners and those types of things on top of it.”
Another first reading rezoning issue raised the eyebrows of the councilors.
Stasiak presented a request from a developer to rezone a little more than 26 acres from a planned unit development to a mobile home development district.
The land owner, Rob Merrill, wants the rezoning to build a manufactured home community on permanent foundations. The site was previously rezoned from agricultural-residential to planned unit development.
The site is located off Hollywood Road, north of the Copper Canyon I subdivision and east of the Sunrise Village RV & Mobile Home Resort.
Merrill owns about 50 acres stretching to the Gila River but is planning to develop only the southern 26 acres. According to Stasiak, the southern 26 acres are not in the flood plain.
Mayor Green said he had personally seen a house completely underwater in the proposed site area during a flood in 1968.
“It looks to me like, if we had that same water situation here, this whole thing would be underwater,” he said. “I really question putting these homes in that place because I’ve been there when that’s all underwater.”
Stasiak reminded the council the area had already been rezoned for a planned unit development and that the Federal Emergency Management Agency flood plain maps show the area to be outside of a 100-year event.
Green asked what the city’s liability would be if it allowed the homes to be built and they were flooded.
City Attorney Johnny Guthrie said as long as the city goes by the FEMA maps it would not be liable for flood damage.
See Sunday Courier issue for story on the Downtown charette story.
Friday, April 4, 2008
LEGISLATION ISSUES
Fri, Apr 04
This is your Legislative Update for April 11, 2008.
The Sheet Metal Workers Union filed a ballot initiative to require sellers and real estate licensees to provide, among other things, a 10-year home warranty for workmanship (a warranty that is NOT even available for older homes). These ballot petitions, referred to as “The Homebuyers’ Bill of Rights”, are currently on the street and are gaining signatures.
SB1176 PURCHASER DWELLING ACTIONS; DEFINITIONS clarifies the definition of "seller" in statutes pertaining to dwelling actions (civil suits brought by buyers of a dwelling unit against the seller for defects in design or construction) and changes it to exclude the real estate salesperson or broker who provided services in connection with a sale or resale of a dwelling unit. Basically, this would remove real estate licensees from the requirement to provide a 10-year warranty for workmanship – a product that is not even available for older homes.
AAR is proactively moving this legislation through the legislature. It passed out of the Senate 25-0 in favor and has passed out of the House Commerce Committee on March 26th.
As many of you are aware, especially members living in rural districts and their local communities, there is substantial concern around the ongoing efforts by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service to revise the current inventory of public roads traversing national forests in Arizona.
This is a growing problem across the country as the Forest Service is planning on closing down a large portion of the public access and rights of way in many of our national forests.
Less than 18 percent of our state is held privately. The local economies of some of our towns and cities are interdependent with the variety of uses on these public lands, including tourism, therefore resident and visitor access through existing public rights of way is a critical secondary infrastructure that we cannot afford to lose.
Also at issue is a considerable amount of confusion regarding private inholdings within the National Forest that property owners may no longer be able to access without violating the new closure provisions of the draft U.S. Forest Travel Management Rule.
SB1264 RIGHTS OF WAY; PUBLIC LANDS is a bill sponsored by Senator Karen Johnson to assert Arizona’s existing rights of way and those if its counties and local communities because of the potential economic impact to nearby private property owners and the local businesses in communities across the state that are adjacent to these forests.
AAR feels that the potential economic impacts are not receiving sufficient attention in the Forest Service’s application for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The bill is being heard this morning by the House Natural Resources and Public Safety Committee. AAR sent a letter to the members of this committee stating its support of the bill on behalf of our more than 45,000 members statewide.
For years past legislative efforts have always tried to make the seller and/or the REALTOR® responsible for providing and disclosing water adequacy information; putting them in a possibly litigious position in explaining water adequacy. HB2270 WATER SUPPLY; DISCLOSURE is another water supply disclosure bill but this one is a proactive effort by AAR to place water supply status disclosure on the accurate party-The Water Provider This legislation will require the water utilities to provide, in writing, the water supply status to buyers within 3 business days if requested.
This bill passed out of the Senate Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday.
The ADRE has received a request from an outside vendor asking that the department provide him a list of the email address for every real estate licensee in the state of Arizona. To date, the ADRE has not provided the vendor with this information.
AAR is concerned about SPAMMing amongst other issues if this list is provided to an outside vendor. AAR has therefore added an amendment to SB1232 REAL ESTATE DEPT; BUSINESS BROKER DESIGNATION to prohibit statutorily the delivery of licensee email addresses to any person or entity other than a court of law or other government agency or for a legitimate government purpose.
This is your Legislative Update for April 11, 2008.
The Sheet Metal Workers Union filed a ballot initiative to require sellers and real estate licensees to provide, among other things, a 10-year home warranty for workmanship (a warranty that is NOT even available for older homes). These ballot petitions, referred to as “The Homebuyers’ Bill of Rights”, are currently on the street and are gaining signatures.
SB1176 PURCHASER DWELLING ACTIONS; DEFINITIONS clarifies the definition of "seller" in statutes pertaining to dwelling actions (civil suits brought by buyers of a dwelling unit against the seller for defects in design or construction) and changes it to exclude the real estate salesperson or broker who provided services in connection with a sale or resale of a dwelling unit. Basically, this would remove real estate licensees from the requirement to provide a 10-year warranty for workmanship – a product that is not even available for older homes.
AAR is proactively moving this legislation through the legislature. It passed out of the Senate 25-0 in favor and has passed out of the House Commerce Committee on March 26th.
As many of you are aware, especially members living in rural districts and their local communities, there is substantial concern around the ongoing efforts by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service to revise the current inventory of public roads traversing national forests in Arizona.
This is a growing problem across the country as the Forest Service is planning on closing down a large portion of the public access and rights of way in many of our national forests.
Less than 18 percent of our state is held privately. The local economies of some of our towns and cities are interdependent with the variety of uses on these public lands, including tourism, therefore resident and visitor access through existing public rights of way is a critical secondary infrastructure that we cannot afford to lose.
Also at issue is a considerable amount of confusion regarding private inholdings within the National Forest that property owners may no longer be able to access without violating the new closure provisions of the draft U.S. Forest Travel Management Rule.
SB1264 RIGHTS OF WAY; PUBLIC LANDS is a bill sponsored by Senator Karen Johnson to assert Arizona’s existing rights of way and those if its counties and local communities because of the potential economic impact to nearby private property owners and the local businesses in communities across the state that are adjacent to these forests.
AAR feels that the potential economic impacts are not receiving sufficient attention in the Forest Service’s application for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The bill is being heard this morning by the House Natural Resources and Public Safety Committee. AAR sent a letter to the members of this committee stating its support of the bill on behalf of our more than 45,000 members statewide.
For years past legislative efforts have always tried to make the seller and/or the REALTOR® responsible for providing and disclosing water adequacy information; putting them in a possibly litigious position in explaining water adequacy. HB2270 WATER SUPPLY; DISCLOSURE is another water supply disclosure bill but this one is a proactive effort by AAR to place water supply status disclosure on the accurate party-The Water Provider This legislation will require the water utilities to provide, in writing, the water supply status to buyers within 3 business days if requested.
This bill passed out of the Senate Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday.
The ADRE has received a request from an outside vendor asking that the department provide him a list of the email address for every real estate licensee in the state of Arizona. To date, the ADRE has not provided the vendor with this information.
AAR is concerned about SPAMMing amongst other issues if this list is provided to an outside vendor. AAR has therefore added an amendment to SB1232 REAL ESTATE DEPT; BUSINESS BROKER DESIGNATION to prohibit statutorily the delivery of licensee email addresses to any person or entity other than a court of law or other government agency or for a legitimate government purpose.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
LEGISLATION ISSUES
Tue, Mar 25
We are now 71 days into the 2008 legislative session and 1,369 bills have been introduced. Of those bills, AAR is actively tracking and monitoring almost 250 real estate-related bills.
Like last year, 2008 is seeing a ‘deluge’ of water legislation as well as all of the usual subjects: HOA legislation; tax legislation; State Trust Land reform; among many others.
Here is a round up of just a few of the bills that AAR has been working diligently on this session for you.
HB2141: HOME SALES; WATER SUPPLY DISCLOSURE would require real estate licensees to investigate and disclose residential water supply determination for city water PRIOR TO ADVERTISING any residential property. It also requires the supply status information be on ALL forms of advertising from signs and forms to the MLS and everything in between!
AAR spent more than four weeks in hearings and stakeholder meetings explaining our opposition to the bill which was that the legislation would basically make sellers and REALTORS legally responsible for disclosing a city’s water supply status. In Arizona, water supply status information is difficult to find if it is available at all. Additionally, properties developed prior to 1973 have no supply determination. Properties developed after the 1973 law require water supply disclosure to the first purchaser only; Water supply records are not kept for resale disclosure.
After AAR’s advocacy efforts, sellers and REALTORS will no longer be responsible for disclosing water supply status. The bill will now require subdivisions to record their water supply designation for every new subdivision in non-Active Management Areas.
HB2270 is another water supply disclosure bill but this one is a proactive effort by AAR to place water supply status disclosure on the accurate party-The Water Provider! This legislation will require the water utilities to provide, in writing, the water supply status to buyers within 3 business days if requested.
HB2611: HOAS; REAL ESTATE SIGNS is a bill that, if passed, would effectively negate all of the positive steps forward made with last year’s passage of SB1062. HB2611 was sponsored by Lucy Mason on behalf of a developer because REALTORS’ signs are falling over, laying on the ground or are otherwise in violation of last year’s legislation.
AAR went and met with the developer and Rep. Mason and the legislation has been dropped by Rep. Mason. That being said, while the legislation is dead now, it is likely to rear its ugly head again next year.
If REALTORS don’t maintain their signs, fines are likely against the seller and the ADRE may also start receiving complaints against licensees for failing to maintain their signs.
Three bills HB211, HB2642 and HCR2053 if passed would have placed a sales tax on commission and real estate transfers. One bill included a 3 ½% transfer tax and a 3 ½% commission tax so a real estate transaction would give 7% to the state! The good news? All of these bills have been successfully opposed and are dead! The bad news? As you all know, the current financial year deficit for the State of Arizona is $1.2 billion and forecasters are expecting a 2009 deficit of $1.7-1.9 billion. That’s right folks--BILLIONS! Having no money to spend is making the legislature very unhappy! Now is when they start looking for new sources of revenue income. Now is the perfect time for them to consider a real estate transfer tax!
The time is now then to make a permanent prohibition on real estate transfer taxes! AAR has started a ballot measure to constitutionally prohibit cities, towns, counties or the state from enacting a real estate transfer tax. Signature gathering is underway and we need to collect 245,000 valid signatures by July. Information on the ‘No New Tax on Our Homes’ campaign is available on RALLiNOW.com. If you are interested in gathering signatures, please visit the campaign website at: http://www.nonewtaxonourhomes.com and you can request a petition.
We are now 71 days into the 2008 legislative session and 1,369 bills have been introduced. Of those bills, AAR is actively tracking and monitoring almost 250 real estate-related bills.
Like last year, 2008 is seeing a ‘deluge’ of water legislation as well as all of the usual subjects: HOA legislation; tax legislation; State Trust Land reform; among many others.
Here is a round up of just a few of the bills that AAR has been working diligently on this session for you.
HB2141: HOME SALES; WATER SUPPLY DISCLOSURE would require real estate licensees to investigate and disclose residential water supply determination for city water PRIOR TO ADVERTISING any residential property. It also requires the supply status information be on ALL forms of advertising from signs and forms to the MLS and everything in between!
AAR spent more than four weeks in hearings and stakeholder meetings explaining our opposition to the bill which was that the legislation would basically make sellers and REALTORS legally responsible for disclosing a city’s water supply status. In Arizona, water supply status information is difficult to find if it is available at all. Additionally, properties developed prior to 1973 have no supply determination. Properties developed after the 1973 law require water supply disclosure to the first purchaser only; Water supply records are not kept for resale disclosure.
After AAR’s advocacy efforts, sellers and REALTORS will no longer be responsible for disclosing water supply status. The bill will now require subdivisions to record their water supply designation for every new subdivision in non-Active Management Areas.
HB2270 is another water supply disclosure bill but this one is a proactive effort by AAR to place water supply status disclosure on the accurate party-The Water Provider! This legislation will require the water utilities to provide, in writing, the water supply status to buyers within 3 business days if requested.
HB2611: HOAS; REAL ESTATE SIGNS is a bill that, if passed, would effectively negate all of the positive steps forward made with last year’s passage of SB1062. HB2611 was sponsored by Lucy Mason on behalf of a developer because REALTORS’ signs are falling over, laying on the ground or are otherwise in violation of last year’s legislation.
AAR went and met with the developer and Rep. Mason and the legislation has been dropped by Rep. Mason. That being said, while the legislation is dead now, it is likely to rear its ugly head again next year.
If REALTORS don’t maintain their signs, fines are likely against the seller and the ADRE may also start receiving complaints against licensees for failing to maintain their signs.
Three bills HB211, HB2642 and HCR2053 if passed would have placed a sales tax on commission and real estate transfers. One bill included a 3 ½% transfer tax and a 3 ½% commission tax so a real estate transaction would give 7% to the state! The good news? All of these bills have been successfully opposed and are dead! The bad news? As you all know, the current financial year deficit for the State of Arizona is $1.2 billion and forecasters are expecting a 2009 deficit of $1.7-1.9 billion. That’s right folks--BILLIONS! Having no money to spend is making the legislature very unhappy! Now is when they start looking for new sources of revenue income. Now is the perfect time for them to consider a real estate transfer tax!
The time is now then to make a permanent prohibition on real estate transfer taxes! AAR has started a ballot measure to constitutionally prohibit cities, towns, counties or the state from enacting a real estate transfer tax. Signature gathering is underway and we need to collect 245,000 valid signatures by July. Information on the ‘No New Tax on Our Homes’ campaign is available on RALLiNOW.com. If you are interested in gathering signatures, please visit the campaign website at: http://www.nonewtaxonourhomes.com and you can request a petition.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Vote "Yes"on "No New Home Tax" Initiative
What is a Real Estate Transfer Tax?
A real estate transfer tax is a state and/or locally assessed tax on real property that is typically assessed
according to the sales price of real estate property when transferred from one party to another. Transfer
taxes in other states range from .001% to 2.2%. Typically, once the tax is initiated, the rate can increase to
meet future legislative enactments.
Why are Transfer Taxes Proposed?
Transfer taxes once authorized can be assessed for a number of reasons including a new source of tax
revenue to balance a government’s budget due to over spending.
Problems with a Transfer Tax
Causes Double Taxation. Governments already collect taxes on your property based on the
property’s value. This new tax would unfairly cause a second tax to hit to your home or property.
Damages Equity. Since the tax is assessed against the total value including the amount you owe
on your mortgage(s), the overall equity earned by the seller is decreased.
Burdens the Real Estate Market Further. In an already burdened housing market where people
struggle to sell homes, the overall higher costs will only increase the difficulty to initiate a
successful sale, not to mention making it less attractive for business recruitment to the area for
commercial real estate.
Punishes the Home Owner. People who move from one house to another should not be punished
versus those who remain; in fact this is considered discriminatory and harms access to the real
estate “American Dream.”
Lower Incomes Most Impacted. This tax imposes the higher tax burden on lower income
households that typically spend a larger percentage of their income on their home.
Solution!
Support the “No New Home Tax” initiative, which will prohibit the double taxation of real estate in
the State of Arizona.
A real estate transfer tax is a state and/or locally assessed tax on real property that is typically assessed
according to the sales price of real estate property when transferred from one party to another. Transfer
taxes in other states range from .001% to 2.2%. Typically, once the tax is initiated, the rate can increase to
meet future legislative enactments.
Why are Transfer Taxes Proposed?
Transfer taxes once authorized can be assessed for a number of reasons including a new source of tax
revenue to balance a government’s budget due to over spending.
Problems with a Transfer Tax
Causes Double Taxation. Governments already collect taxes on your property based on the
property’s value. This new tax would unfairly cause a second tax to hit to your home or property.
Damages Equity. Since the tax is assessed against the total value including the amount you owe
on your mortgage(s), the overall equity earned by the seller is decreased.
Burdens the Real Estate Market Further. In an already burdened housing market where people
struggle to sell homes, the overall higher costs will only increase the difficulty to initiate a
successful sale, not to mention making it less attractive for business recruitment to the area for
commercial real estate.
Punishes the Home Owner. People who move from one house to another should not be punished
versus those who remain; in fact this is considered discriminatory and harms access to the real
estate “American Dream.”
Lower Incomes Most Impacted. This tax imposes the higher tax burden on lower income
households that typically spend a larger percentage of their income on their home.
Solution!
Support the “No New Home Tax” initiative, which will prohibit the double taxation of real estate in
the State of Arizona.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
