Comments on: Mesa Council sends back controversial auto mall ordinance

By: Fair & Balanced

Fair & Balanced — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:10:00 +0000

Dennis, where was the council’s integrity in 2001, when it went ahead and filed a lawsuit against Randy Bailey to illegally take his property? As a matter of fact, you were involved in that whole mess because you were on the council at the time.

By: Be Open & Honest

Be Open & Honest — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:44:43 +0000

Dennis, how about looking into what improvements could be made, such as lowered lighting poles with less lumination, no PA speakers aimed towards the homes so they won’t have to listen to “sales, line 4, parts line 5″ all day long, and how to locate the service department so it’s the furthest away from the homes. I’m not saying a compromise can be reached, but it’s worth looking into with a lot of input coming from the homeowners.

By: Dennis Kavanaugh

Dennis Kavanaugh — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:53:58 +0000

OK: so you would like the council to break a specific promise and commitment made to those homeowners? Where is the integrity in that?

Dennis Kavanaugh

By: ok

ok — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:48:45 +0000

Here we go again. We have property rights, and this is there property and should get what they want………with stipulations. Well, that is how the general public thinks about things. Its my home, boo hooo, on no. You live by a busy freeway with lots of traffic out there. That is going to generate more noise then this dealership. There is a way to work this out and create the right type of plan for the parcel.

Im sorry Dennis K, these two uses can co-exist if they do it right. Your wrong about that.

By: azmesa

azmesa — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:29:11 +0000

“David Ward, an attorney representing Cardinale, said that the site only has access off of East Test Drive and most standalone restaurants tend to locate in areas with other kinds of activity.”
Cardinale bought the land in 2005, FOUR YEARS AFTER the agreement was made. He knew then the restrictions and he SHOULD have known wheter a restaurant would make it or not there (since it is restricted to restaurants). Buyer beware.

By: Al

Al — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:11:41 +0000

I’m sorry, but a deal is a deal. People bought these homes with a 30-year mortgage, in most cases. The original deal should be upheld. If things like this continue to happen, ordinances will have to be passed with homeowner buyouts included. Just think what a mess that would be. It isn’t even 10 years later and already they want to go ahead with what they originally had planned.
Face it. Developers run this entire area. They come in and make their millions and then go home to their palacial estates where there is no congestion, noise, or bright lights. I wonder what they would be doing if someone wanted to do this behind their homes.

By: JIm

JIm — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:23:43 +0000

So, in other words, the car dealers are supposed to take a royal beating on this property because they thought someone would move in??!!? Face it, that little chunk of land is useless for anything but a car dealership.

Just make them turn the lights down at night. There’s hardly a sound issue is the service is away from the residents… the apartment renters.