November 10, 2008 - The Sun

"City Concedes Defeat Of Events Center"

Councilman Ross Hieb stated that, "The community has spoken. They're not interested in the center." Hieb went on to say that, "Unless a private venture wants to come forward, we're done."

Well, not exactly done. You see, the city is never done with folks that expose and oppose them, and especially if that opposition is successful. While they profess to be "done" in the sunshine, deep in the dark bowels of One City Plaza they plot retribution and the settling of scores by raw threats and the illicit abuse of authority. Sadly, the Event Center is no exception.

What follows is a letter that was hand delivered by an Arizona Certified Process Server and as can be seen, the "settling of scores" has begun.


Before the good folks in the city attorney's office rush to judgment in their haste and zeal to whack this lowly bearer of truth, perhaps they should visit Section 107 of the United States Copyright Act.

Provisions in the law (ratified by the United States Supreme Court) place limitations on exclusive rights and allows for "fair use" of certain copyrighted work. As it happens, criticism and parody (particularly political criticism and parody) are included in that fair use doctrine. A fact that was conveniently omitted in the city attorney's nasty-gram.

Unable to refute the truths expressed on this website, the city, in typical fashion, has determined to take the low road and harass, badger and bully in order to soothe their specious sensibilities.

My 101 year old Grand Dad had a fitting name, he'd call them -
"Sore Losers!"


They're at it again! The current issue of the day is the attempt by the powers that be at City Hall to build yet another monument to themselves, to be underwritten by the good taxpaying folks of Yuma as the final guarantor.




As with the issue of the Gila Mountain Annexation, the information coming out of One City Plaza is conflicting at best. First, we were told that this wonderful opportunity for our fair city was going to be 100% privately funded with no tax dollars involved. You know, good old Yankee entrepreneurship. That lasted exactly 15 days when we were then told by the President of the outfit promoting the project, that he was soliciting participation from the city (translation taxpayers) ". . . . in order to mitigate as much risk as possible." So, now city government is in the business of mitigating the risks of business. It would seem that the notion of government bailing out risky business deals that have gone south isn't limited to Wall Street.

Further, as with the Gila Mountain fiasco, the attempt is again being made to get us to drop our guard. With calming, soothing tones we are told that approval of the Resolution will only allow continued forward movement on the proposed project and any "subsequent council actions will be subject to referral by the voters." So, if we are not comfortable with the final deal, the good citizens can say no thanks.


This is a tactic that the city of Yuma now makes unabashed use of on a regular basis. Read the wording of the enabling Resolution carefully. The Resolution clearly states that it is a "Legislative Act." That means that once approved, the council can bond and spend up to $60 Million Dollars, and like the final deal or not, the taxpayer's voice has now been muted because all subsequent council actions are (per the Resolution) "Administrative Acts" which are, not surprisingly, not subject to referendum. If the good folks of Yuma allow the Resolution to stand - then you can bet the farm that the Events Center is a done deal.

That is why during the Gila Mountain debacle a local esteemed superior court judge told the council that their problem was " . . . . that the people didn't trust them." TRUST! How can they be trusted when they continue to attempt end-runs around the folks that they supposedly represent with such reprehensible political ploys as "Administrative Acts?"

Employment of such intentionally deceptive (pea under the shell) slight of hand is shameful, but that shameless gang down at One City Plaza refers to it as being "Master Thinkers."

How we evolved to this point I'm not sure, but one of the most disturbing aspects of the arguments advanced by the proponents of the proposed Events Center is the fallacious belief that government has an obligation to make certain that its' citizens are amply entertained. Quoted in an article in the local paper, the chairman of the committee formed to push this risky deal through stated that, "I really want it for me." Yes, she said "FOR ME!" She goes on to tell us that she is not campaigning for the Center as the manager of the local Hampton Inn (a potential direct financial beneficiary of the Arena), but rather as " . . . a young single and social person and my need for entertainment."

That brings us to the much repeated mantra of its a "Quality of Life" issue. Folks, when they trot out that well worn canard the reasoned response is, that if your quality of life is dependent on government providing your entertainment - you need to get a life.

As if trying to form a clear grasp of this issue with all of its potential ramifications (the downward spiral of the economy in general and the resounding thud of Global Entertainment hitting virtual rock-bottom in particular) isn't difficult enough to follow - then add to the equation the "Mendoza Factor" and you have something straight out of the Twilight Zone.

Councilman Raul Mendoza is a public employee, on the public payroll and collecting on one public retirement while earning credit in two more public retirement systems concurrently. Mr. Mendoza is an employee of the Housing Authority of the City of Yuma (HACY, an agent of the city of Yuma), and per the Arizona Constitution and statutes, HACY is also a political subdivision of the state. The document that follows is straight out of an HACY manual:


Employees of political subdivisions are subject to the same political activity prohibitions, and therefore, as can be seen, Mr. Mendoza cannot lawfully hold a "paid" elective office. He has usurped, intruded into and unlawfully holds the public office of city councilman. Indeed, if he cannot lawfully hold office, it follows that he cannot vote. The Resolution that created the chaos that the community is now going through was passed by a 4 - 3 vote. By discounting Mendoza's unlawful vote the count becomes 3 - 3. If those that are charged with insuring that the laws are upheld do their jobs that means the Resolution failed and Global Entertainment and all of the outside money backers can pick up their marbles and go home. I told you it was right out of the Twilight Zone.

With respect to referendums, state law is clear in that the city "shall not use its personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or other resources for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election." Unfortunately for the citizens of Yuma laws, rules or regulations never get in the way of the pompous ruling class down at city hall that know what's best for us.

Very soon Cyber Mayor will post a document showing that Lord Mayor has used personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or other resources (where have we heard that before - oh, yeah, state law) for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election. It is but one example of the unlawful lengths our "dedicated public servants" will employ in order to quash the will of the people.


By now you have seen the Channel 11 news report confronting Lord Mayor with the e-mail that follows. Not surprisingly, in characteristic form the veracity challenged mayor denied any wrong doing. While Channel 11 is to be commended for at least bringing the issue to light, they allowed his eminence too much wiggle-room by not following the money. Without fail, sniffing out the money trail will always expose the baleful underbelly of the body politic.

While Mr. Mayor did not deny that he sent the incriminating e-mail, he adamantly insisted that he was simply providing information. Really? Let's take a look.


"Now is the time for Scott and his group to make their statement by forming the PAC."

Sorry your Lordship, that's not information, that's giving direction. What then, was the result of that direction? That is where following the money trail comes into play. Out of ninety thousand plus people in the great city of Yuma why was that one individual so blessed as to be the solitary recipient? A check of the campaign finance reports shows that the sole beneficiary just happened to have contributed more than two thousand dollars to the "Re-elect Larry" campaign.

Moreover, as a result of that direction, the PAC was indeed formed. And finally, the exclusive e-mail addressee contributed (by way of one of their LLC's) twenty thousand dollars to that PAC.

An interesting side note: the PAC's statement of organization was filed with the city clerk at 3:51 PM on Wednesday, April 16, 2008. The city council did not vote to place the Resolution on the ballot until the meeting at 5:30 PM.

Even more interesting is the change in wording by the city attorney/city clerk. The Referendum circulated and signed by the people clearly states, "Shall Resolution R2008-06 be rescinded?" Meaning a yes vote would have the effect of rescinding the Resolution and thus, no arena - and a no vote would allow the Resolution to stand giving a green light to build their monument to themselves. Now, the effect of a yes or no vote is exactly the opposite.

No doubt, the folks at One City Plaza thought the changed wording would be more to their advantage. However, not to argue that point, how did the mayor's PAC people know in advance what the Prop 400 wording would be (to vote yes or no) when they filed their statement before the council's vote?


To be clear, an Event Arena as proposed may be a welcome asset to the Yuma community, but only if it is a privately funded venture.

As of October 23rd more than $93,500.00 has poured into the effort to make the good folks of Yuma the guarantors of their risky business endeavor. Let them know that they are welcome to bring their project to town, but . . . . . . . . .




Cyber Mayor