Views

Dear Supervisors,

Abandoning public roads is a drastic, damaging, permanent non-solution to a temporary problem. The economic bust, like all the booms and busts before it, shall pass. Roads given up today will never be taken back.

Citizens realize that Santa Cruz County, in spite of its efforts to prepare for the economic downturn, has been hurt financially by the mismanagement and poor policies of the Arizona State Legislature. But, just because there is no money to maintain or improve the roads in Rio Rico at the present time, it does not mean that the County should be jettisoning its responsibilities like a teen-age mother throwing her baby in a dumpster.

Property owners relied on the promise of those roads when they bought property in Rio Rico. The value of those properties will be greatly reduced by the county's abandonment. The owners will be able to successfully appeal to have their assessments reduced, thus reducing County revenues for years to come. Some may successfully argue that abandonment is a "government taking" which entitles them to compensation under Proposition 207. Even unsuccessful law suits will cost the County many thousands of dollars in court costs.

Will we have owners gating their roads, as on Santa Gertrudis Lane? If they have to maintain the roads themselves, wouldn't they be within their rights to charge tolls or deny access completely? You could have property owners on paved sections isolated between private sections with no access to their properties without an easement fight. They could include the County in those legal actions.

More importantly, shirking its responsibilities to its citizens will hurt the entire county. Already some realtors refuse to show properties on the east side of the Santa Cruz River because of the lack of access. Adding road maintenance costs will make many of those properties unsellable, even those not directly affected. Why add to this county's poor reputation?

This should be a time when the County should be looking to make this area more attractive to businesses and residents, not less so. This situation requires that County leaders abandon business-as-usual practices and begin partnering with its citizens to create new solutions for the current problems as well as to lay the foundation for a greater involvement of ordinary people in promoting the development of Santa Cruz County.

This proposal, as well as others put forth by staff who do not live here and will not have to encounter the results on a daily basis, was not developed with enough citizen communication or participation. I encourage you to delay any action on these proposals until you have encouraged and received the contributions of the active citizens who are eager and willing to help come up with ways for this county to survive this present crisis and prevail in the future.

Mike Susinski

Rio Rico