Editorial: Method is ugly, results are the same
A wise man once said, "Don't start a food fight if you aren't willing to take a pie in the face."
It would be difficult to use the fight over a Wal-Mart in Prescott Valley as the basis for a classic Western script, because it's nearly impossible to tell the good guys from the bad guys.
This past spring when the Prescott Valley Town Council approved the rezoning of land near Glassford Hill Road to allow construction of a Wal-Mart store, Local 99 of the United Food and Commercial Workers, which doesn't like Wal-Mart's labor policies, formed Protect Prescott Valley to take the issue to a referendum.
That gave rise to Friends of Prescott Valley, Yes on 400. The matter went to referendum in March, and voters favored the Wal-Mart 66 percent to 34 percent.
Immediately after the election Protect Prescott Valley complained that Friends of Prescott Valley, Yes on 400 violating campaign finance reporting requirements. Town Attorney Ivan Legler agreed and sought to fine the committee $30,000. The committee settled for $22,500 then filed a complaint that Protect Prescott Valley also violated the reporting requirements.
Legler agreed again and proposed a $10,000 fine. Attorneys for Protect Prescott Valley have offered to pay $754.35. Legler declined, and now the matter appears headed to a July 12 hearing in the Civic Center.
Getting a Wal-Mart in Prescott Valley is reminiscent of some of the worst Arizona Diamondback games. The intended result may occur, but it's not pretty.