Sherrian and Bruce,
Thanks for keeping this forum up, and for taking HMR's silliness head-on.

That said, you should know that I did recently sell my home in 4 Hills to a very nice couple from California. Their names are Peter and Monica, and I'm confident they will be a good fit for the community.

On another note: I was troubled to learn in 2008 that Arizona's Homestead Act Protections do not apply to POAs, HOA's or CID's. Obviously, this was to prevent members from avoiding paying their dues to the association. But, this exemption has enormous repercussions too for members confronted by capricious liens, creditors or tax collectors, too.

As soon as I learned this I struck out to locate another property that has the beauty of 4 Hills Ranch, but that affords vested owners the state's full protections. I am settled in a new Arizona County outside of an HOA now, I avoided third party lienors in constructing my home here, and its status as my "Homestead" is filed at the recorder's office.

Whew! All my bases are covered!

Ancillaries to owning land in Coconino County like property-tax policy, impact fees and permit levies operate under the radar for most county residents. But they are urgencies, not ancillaries, to property owners in POA's because the owner cannot refute them.

I'm writing this to alert my old neighbors to their predicament. If this warning serves to get more of you to attend County B-o' Soops' meetings and to take a keen interest in new taxes in the works, then its mission has been accomplished. Because, short of selling out like I did, you've got to limit these takings before they are enacted, not after.

The best of luck to you and BellWeather Ranch!
-Steve

I submitted a letter to the editors of the Williams/Grand Canyon News for publication this week. I thought I'd reprint it here in case it misses the paper's latest imprint.

Here goes:

"Obviously, folks who visit or reside in the Williams area are happy that it is a pretty place to look at and live in. But, who among them IS truly satisfied with the direction of Williams’ political affairs?

The list of the satisfieds is long but revealing: 1. Federal agencies and state revenuers are satisfied with the revenues afforded by a dependable stream of tourists to the area. 2. Renters in the county who work in Federal agencies, the non-profit industries and state regulatory agencies cannot be roused to object. And 3. wealthy landowners who can afford to pay the tolls they advocate for everyone else are contented. None of these three constituencies can conceive of upsetting the region’s political applecarts.

And who is not pleased, satisfied and contented? The answer is depressingly short: the Williams’ property owner. She is getting pinched between a trifecta of out-of-state initiatives, moneyed land-owners vested in Federal initiatives, and the demands of a renting, unionized civil service in the region.

But, none are as distressed about this as is the land-owner who finds herself inside the territory governed by a Property Owners Association. Her trap is particularly insidious: POA/HOA members cannot assert our Homestead Act protections that allow them to ignore the capricious liens and assessments that sustain portions of the trifecta.

She pays. They ride. Period!

Something’s got to give and signs are it is. There is good news for William’s small lot-owners on the horizon. First, people are beginning to notice the extraneous origins of what passes for local politics in the region. And city government is stepping up, too. Recently Williams’ city council debated the impact of impact fees and property taxes on the area’s development.

While the debate was inconclusive, it demonstrated that some in the city are pondering the longer-term effects of the trifecta on both Arizonans' voting franchise and our pocket-books."

Cheers, Guys! And keep an eye on that penny-loafer wearing class in Flagstaff and Tusayan. It requires constant supervision, because, "when the cat's away..."