6 responses so far ↓

• 1 Jeff Reich // Aug 18, 2009 at 5:03 pm

  Question: Is the State Trust Land located north of the community of Superstition Mountain considered a part of Superstition Vistas?

• 2 John Bulno // Aug 31, 2009 at 7:53 am

  Have you given any thought as to the added heat from all the concrete that will be added to the valley. Night temps are at high “lows” in the valley during the summer, and storms stay away from the valley because of the heat bubble. Most of the commercial property around Supersititon Springs Mall is vaccant and yet you developers still want to destroy the remaining desert that we have. Thank God for the national forest, or you would have your sights set on them as well.

• 3 Shareen Goodroad // Sep 2, 2009 at 10:50 am

  After studying all 4 models, there is no way that these plans represent anything original, new, interesting or visionary in the way of land use planning or construction. Except for maybe all the solar panels depicted on the roof tops, this is exactly what the sunbelt developers have been doing since the 60’s & 70’s. Where is the vision for this “city of the future”? All I see is more of the same: Boring, linear and hot concrete canyons and another huge taxpayer boon doggle! All this from the valley with the worst air quality and public educational system in the nation!

• 4 Michael Kean // Sep 2, 2009 at 11:24 am

  Scenarion Rollout-Feedback
  I strongly agree with all three questions and applaud the vision of long range planning.

• 5 Jenny // Sep 2, 2009 at 2:55 pm

  I agree John! This will be a disaster, our economy is terrible right now and they want to build MORE homes when there are already tons of foreclosed ones? I moved out to the Queen Creek area to be away from the big city life and am lucky to be in one of the neighborhoods that borders the state land and we love it! Now these geniuses want to destroy the beautiful desert we have on the plan that more people will move out here? Plus, what about the ranchers that have leases on the state land? they are barely surviving now, let alone once their lease is taken from them. This is ridiculous!

• 6 Debbie // Sep 8, 2009 at 2:55 pm

  So where is the scenario that says a minimum of one home per acre, minimal retail, high tech/high pay jobs (focus on bringing in “green” companies, etc. Minimal impact on the desert, require at least 50% of the land to be open/undisturbed. Of course you’ll never see that because the money-grubbing developers couldn’t walk away with huge profits while leaving the ashes of what used to be a beautiful desert in their wake.