• Report: #282819

Complaint Review: WAVEYARD - City Of Mesa Arizona - Matt Salmon Former Arizona State Legislator And Congressman

  • Submitted: Sun, November 04, 2007
  • Updated: Tue, November 06, 2007

  • Reported By:Mesa Arizona
WAVEYARD - City Of Mesa Arizona - Matt Salmon Former Arizona State Legislator And Congressman
Dobson Road - 8th Street - Red Mountain Freeway - 202 And 101 Freeways Mesa, Arizona U.S.A.

WAVEYARD - City of Mesa, Arizona Con job by paid political hack Matt Salmon and his political cronies facing Mesa voters November VOTE "NO" smoking deal for the developers, but not for Mesa, prime 125 acres for $10 million worth $65 million, city loaning the developers $20 million in "funny money" at a fixed interest rate of 4.4% over 24 years. popular & profitable public 9-hole golf course will be lost. ripoff to Mesa residents another one of Mesa's shaky backroom politics with the well-connected paid political hack thanks to Matt Salmon former Arizona state legislator & congressman. Mesa Arizona

*Author of original report: More on the "Waveyard" scam ..East Valley Tribune show that others in Mesa, Arizona have their eyes wide open

*Author of original report: More on the "Waveyard" scam ..East Valley Tribune show that others in Mesa, Arizona have their eyes wide open

*Consumer Comment: WAVEYARD is Mesa's latest flawed scheme to "put Mesa on the map."

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

HELP! We are being bamboozled in Mesa Arizona by get-rich-quick con-artists, with the help of a political hack and conned or corrupted politicians, who are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars peddling their "Waveyard" hype to us Mesa voters.

So what's Waveyard? It's Waveyard Development, LLC and a "plan" for our fair city to give away 125 acres of our actively used and well-maintained public Parks and Recreation properties and facilities, located at the confluence of two freeways and a short drive to the airport, to two young inexperienced developers for a pie-in-the-sky commercial water park resort. These city properties were never put out to bid.

The smoking deal for the developers, but not for us, is that the city sells them the property for a pittance to accommodate their proposed commercial venture (which they say will cost them $500 million to develop, but they can produce no proof of prospective investors for their project). Price is $10 million to them, although the property is said to be valued at about $65 million. They then will bulldoze our much utilized public park property and facilities, which includes a popular 9-hole golf course and the county animal shelter/dog pound at that location.

The City of Mesa declared a value of $30 million for this 125 acres but will be loaning the developers $20 million in "funny money" at a fixed interest rate of 4.4% to be paid back over 24 years. Because of that proposed corporate welfare scheme subsidy by Mesa taxpayers, and yet another $1.5 million taxpayer subsidy to the developers for necessary infrastructure, the law requires approval by Mesa voters.

The sales pitch to Mesa voters is for a (fake) ocean type surfing experience, kayaking, scuba diving, whitewater river rafting and various other water sports surrounded by a 4-star resort hotel, a "boutique" hotel, condos, offices, retail shops, etc. of "conceptual" Mediterranean architecture design. We're also being told that this water recreation resort will be an Arizona tourist attraction second only to the Grand Canyon, and that it will attract l.5 to 2 million visitors a year from at least all over the southwest. The city parkland for this wild dream of rich-tourists-in-a-drought-stricken-desert also happens to abut Mesa's sewage treatment plant. Ever present rank sewer odors permeate the air here, something we locals have become accustomed to, but not likely a draw for wealthy tourists in a $250-a-night resort hotel.

This financial insanity, adverse to the taxpayers' best interest, is punctuated by the fact that the City of Mesa is required by the feds to spend at least $9 million to replace the 25-acre adult softball facility land and facility to be demolished by Waveyard, since federal funds were obtained to build it. The 4-diamonds softball complex last year accommodated 392 teams, and 59,470 rounds of golf were played on the popular and profitable public 9-hole golf course.

Only last week a local investigative reporter uncovered the shaky financing, shaky technology (with the much touted untested wave-making machine) and the shaky history of one of the developers. Given also Mesa's shaky, backroom politics with the well-connected paid political hack who came in the back door, this abominable proposal should be turned down by Mesa voters. it's a ripoff. As one local astute pundit put it, if this thing passes, it will be due to the Mesa lemmings who followed the Salmon upstream, against the current of logic. VOTE "NO" on Tuesday, November 6th.

Nancy
Mesa, Arizona
U.S.A.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 11/04/2007 02:40 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/WAVEYARD-City-Of-Mesa-Arizona-Matt-Salmon-Former-Arizona-State-Legislator-And-Congressman/Mesa-Arizona/WAVEYARD-City-of-Mesa-Arizona-Con-job-by-paid-political-hack-Matt-Salmon-and-his-politi-282819. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on WAVEYARD - City Of Mesa Arizona - Matt Salmon Former Arizona State Legislator And Congressman

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author 3Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Author of original report

More on the "Waveyard" scam ..East Valley Tribune show that others in Mesa, Arizona have their eyes wide open

AUTHOR: Nancy - (U.S.A.)

The following letters to the editor published in the November 4, 2007 East Valley Tribune show that others in Mesa, Arizona have their eyes wide open. The Waveyard con job being perpetrated on the city treasury, in violation of Article 9, Section 7 of the Arizona Constitution, is meant to fatten the pocketbooks of a few private land speculators at our expense.



It's gratifying to read that not all voters in Mesa, Arizona are conned follow-the-leader lemmings dutifully swimming upstream to the dam, against the current of logic.



===================

MESA DESERVES BETTER



Most of the "yes" votes are already in the response to an early balloting strategy at Waveyard paid for "free lunches." These ballots were cast without the benefit of two recent, well-researched articles (one in the Arizona Republic and Expert foresees Waveyard engineering problems,published in the Oct. 29 Tribune). Check your Election Publicity Pamphlet. Nearly all of the heartfelt statements were written and paid for by Waveyard. It's important that you counter this effect by going to the polls on Tuesday and voting no.



I've tracked this project for more than a year, attending dozens of meetings and have spent countless hours researching it. While skeptical from the start, I had hoped that some of the problems would be addressed. Instead, more issues arose than were resolved. There's been a constant stream of misinformation and half-truths from both the city of Mesa and Waveyard.



Problems include: Tax-incentive giveaways ($20 million). Low-ball property appraisal ($30 million). Sweetheart loan terms (4.4 percent). City subsidies. Developer inexperience (wireless retail fiasco). Shaky Australian financing. Problem-plagued wave technology. Traffic congestion. Taxpayer paid-for road widening. Neighborhood impact. Declining property values. Displaced park ballfields. Taxpayer paid-for ballfield relocation (another hidden subsidy).



Demolished golf course (lost, not replaced). Riverview Park downsizing (many lost amenities). Destruction of Kleinman Park. Useless 8th Street linear park. Excessive water consumption. Arsenic-laden well water. City well water agreement. Sewage treatment plant odors. Property boundary agreement. Diverted "bed-tax money" (hotel room fees). Unaddressed and unbudgeted public safety concerns (police and fire). Bait-and-switch site plan maps. The last-minute addition of a second hotel and two parking garages. The list goes on.



The color photos in Waveyard's press package may be alluring, but the devil is in the details. While the developer benefits greatly, Mesa sacrifices too much. Vote "no."



Nate Caine

Mesa



===============

WIN-WIN FOR THEM



After reviewing the available information regarding the Waveyard project it appears to me to be a win-win situation for the Waveyard organization. If the proposition is passed Tuesday, the purchase of the land would move forward. Once this is completed, Waveyard effectively has control of the property.



As nearly as I can determine from the agreement, it would appear that they have no obligation to build Waveyard unless they wish to have a $20 million loan from Mesa. If this is correct, theoretically, they could build a few generic water features, add some condos, upscale retail, upscale hotel, maybe some apartments and say "gee, this water park idea just doesn't seem to be working out."



What do they gain? The property, not previously available for sale and acquired at a below-market price at a very desirable location. What do they lose? Nothing. They won't need the loan from Mesa and they won't have to deal with the complexities and risks of developing and operating an unconventional and experimental water park. Perhaps this scenario bears looking into.



Paul Ingle

Mesa



============================

PLANS COULD CHANGE AFTER VOTE



The Tribune's Oct. 28 headline was The Waveyard Question. Mesa: Would you vote for this? There was lots of information describing this. Before we go any further, let's try to define, this. In letters so small that many need a magnifying glass to read it, this statement appears in supporting campaign literature:



Preliminary/conceptual site plan for the Waveyard project. This preliminary/conceptual site plan is subject to further revisions by the developer, review by the Mesa Planning and Zoning Board and approval by the city of Mesa Design Review Board and Council.



Despite all the hoopla money can buy, we don't know what this project will look like because the site plan hasn't been approved and can be changed at any time. The end result may be vastly different from what we see in television ads. Please think about that before you vote Tuesday.



Janie Thom

Mesa
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Author of original report

More on the "Waveyard" scam ..East Valley Tribune show that others in Mesa, Arizona have their eyes wide open

AUTHOR: Nancy - (U.S.A.)

The following letters to the editor published in the November 4, 2007 East Valley Tribune show that others in Mesa, Arizona have their eyes wide open. The Waveyard con job being perpetrated on the city treasury, in violation of Article 9, Section 7 of the Arizona Constitution, is meant to fatten the pocketbooks of a few private land speculators at our expense.



It's gratifying to read that not all voters in Mesa, Arizona are conned follow-the-leader lemmings dutifully swimming upstream to the dam, against the current of logic.



===================

MESA DESERVES BETTER



Most of the "yes" votes are already in the response to an early balloting strategy at Waveyard paid for "free lunches." These ballots were cast without the benefit of two recent, well-researched articles (one in the Arizona Republic and Expert foresees Waveyard engineering problems,published in the Oct. 29 Tribune). Check your Election Publicity Pamphlet. Nearly all of the heartfelt statements were written and paid for by Waveyard. It's important that you counter this effect by going to the polls on Tuesday and voting no.



I've tracked this project for more than a year, attending dozens of meetings and have spent countless hours researching it. While skeptical from the start, I had hoped that some of the problems would be addressed. Instead, more issues arose than were resolved. There's been a constant stream of misinformation and half-truths from both the city of Mesa and Waveyard.



Problems include: Tax-incentive giveaways ($20 million). Low-ball property appraisal ($30 million). Sweetheart loan terms (4.4 percent). City subsidies. Developer inexperience (wireless retail fiasco). Shaky Australian financing. Problem-plagued wave technology. Traffic congestion. Taxpayer paid-for road widening. Neighborhood impact. Declining property values. Displaced park ballfields. Taxpayer paid-for ballfield relocation (another hidden subsidy).



Demolished golf course (lost, not replaced). Riverview Park downsizing (many lost amenities). Destruction of Kleinman Park. Useless 8th Street linear park. Excessive water consumption. Arsenic-laden well water. City well water agreement. Sewage treatment plant odors. Property boundary agreement. Diverted "bed-tax money" (hotel room fees). Unaddressed and unbudgeted public safety concerns (police and fire). Bait-and-switch site plan maps. The last-minute addition of a second hotel and two parking garages. The list goes on.



The color photos in Waveyard's press package may be alluring, but the devil is in the details. While the developer benefits greatly, Mesa sacrifices too much. Vote "no."



Nate Caine

Mesa



===============

WIN-WIN FOR THEM



After reviewing the available information regarding the Waveyard project it appears to me to be a win-win situation for the Waveyard organization. If the proposition is passed Tuesday, the purchase of the land would move forward. Once this is completed, Waveyard effectively has control of the property.



As nearly as I can determine from the agreement, it would appear that they have no obligation to build Waveyard unless they wish to have a $20 million loan from Mesa. If this is correct, theoretically, they could build a few generic water features, add some condos, upscale retail, upscale hotel, maybe some apartments and say "gee, this water park idea just doesn't seem to be working out."



What do they gain? The property, not previously available for sale and acquired at a below-market price at a very desirable location. What do they lose? Nothing. They won't need the loan from Mesa and they won't have to deal with the complexities and risks of developing and operating an unconventional and experimental water park. Perhaps this scenario bears looking into.



Paul Ingle

Mesa



============================

PLANS COULD CHANGE AFTER VOTE



The Tribune's Oct. 28 headline was The Waveyard Question. Mesa: Would you vote for this? There was lots of information describing this. Before we go any further, let's try to define, this. In letters so small that many need a magnifying glass to read it, this statement appears in supporting campaign literature:



Preliminary/conceptual site plan for the Waveyard project. This preliminary/conceptual site plan is subject to further revisions by the developer, review by the Mesa Planning and Zoning Board and approval by the city of Mesa Design Review Board and Council.



Despite all the hoopla money can buy, we don't know what this project will look like because the site plan hasn't been approved and can be changed at any time. The end result may be vastly different from what we see in television ads. Please think about that before you vote Tuesday.



Janie Thom

Mesa
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Consumer Comment

WAVEYARD is Mesa's latest flawed scheme to "put Mesa on the map."

AUTHOR: Mary V. Melcher - (U.S.A.)

Just a few questions about this latest grand scheme for "putting Mesa on the map:"



*What financial security does Mesa have that this project will get finished? It's not unheard of for a company or a project to go belly-up before it is finished. In this case, some rather nice local amenities which are enjoyed by west Mesa residents will be long gone should that occur.



*I find it suspicious that we cannot get a handle on how much water this will use especially since it is precious and rapidly decreasing groundwater which belongs to the citizens of Mesa.



*Have any of the self-professed 'conservative' officials and community movers paused to check the state constitution, which is clear in prohibiting gifts of public assets to private parties?



*If in fact, as Matt Salmon likes to argue, this is a way to make the government operate like a business, then it would seem to me that the land would be sold to the highest bidder who would then obtain financing (presumably at a regular market rate) from a private lender and who would collect all sales taxes due and remit those in their entirety to the city, much as less well-connected businesses do. This is the way business operates in the real world where the rest of us live and invest.



It takes real bald-faced nerve to argue that a well-used and enjoyed taxpayer-owned facility such as this does not produce enough money, so the thing should be turned over in a giveaway deal to a private party. If that were the criteria for city-owned real estate, then surely council chambers would be the first deadwood to go, in favor of putting that space to some useful purpose.
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
X