Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The City Council got a standing ovation when it voted, 7-0, with two members absent, to pass the resolution. But it won't have much practical effect. The resolution was written to protect the only substantial contract Seattle has with an Arizona company. That's a $106,000-a-month contract with American Traffic Solutions, which operates the city's 29 red-light cameras.

The proposal could affect investments and contracts worth as much as $52 million, including contracts for airport, harbor and trucking services, according to a report from the city's chief legislative analyst. That report recommends the council consider suspending travel, cutting contracts and refraining from making any new ones with Arizona-based companies.

But Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who co-authored the resolution, said it would be impractical to cancel most of those deals and only about $7 million to $8 million in city contracts probably would be affected.

"US Airways is based in Arizona and they certainly fly in and out (of Los Angeles)" and it would hardly be feasible to end those flights, Hahn said before the council vote.

Hahn said the Los Angeles boycott also won't affect the city's Department of Water and Power, which has wind farm and nuclear energy contracts in Arizona.

AZGrizFan wrote:Seattle:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... ycott.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The City Council got a standing ovation when it voted, 7-0, with two members absent, to pass the resolution. But it won't have much practical effect. The resolution was written to protect the only substantial contract Seattle has with an Arizona company. That's a $106,000-a-month contract with American Traffic Solutions, which operates the city's 29 red-light cameras.

Los Angeles:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... 12-ON.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The proposal could affect investments and contracts worth as much as $52 million, including contracts for airport, harbor and trucking services, according to a report from the city's chief legislative analyst. That report recommends the council consider suspending travel, cutting contracts and refraining from making any new ones with Arizona-based companies.

But Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who co-authored the resolution, said it would be impractical to cancel most of those deals and only about $7 million to $8 million in city contracts probably would be affected.

"US Airways is based in Arizona and they certainly fly in and out (of Los Angeles)" and it would hardly be feasible to end those flights, Hahn said before the council vote.

Hahn said the Los Angeles boycott also won't affect the city's Department of Water and Power, which has wind farm and nuclear energy contracts in Arizona.

Maybe WE ought to cut those contracts and tell them to pound sand. They can go get their power somewhere else....or suffer brownouts...

dbackjon wrote:And not let them have our excess water.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:And not let them have our excess water.

I like the way you think.

dbackjon wrote:And not let them have our excess water.

dbackjon wrote:And not let them have our excess water.

houndawg wrote:

dbackjon wrote:And not let them have our excess water.

That's like Kansas barring you from hiking in their mountains.

AshevilleApp wrote:

houndawg wrote:


That's like Kansas barring you from hiking in their mountains.

Well put.

dbackjon wrote:And not let them have our excess water.

AZGrizFan wrote:

AshevilleApp wrote:
Well put.

Yep, very funny. And horribly wrong and uniformed as well. But, that describes dawg to a tee...why should he change and learn the actual FACTS about something?

houndawg wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: Yep, very funny. And horribly wrong and uniformed as well. But, that describes dawg to a tee...why should he change and learn the actual FACTS about something?

Awwwww, sweetheart, I didn't mean it in a bad way; now your panties are all in a twist.





All your waters are belong to California.

dbackjon wrote:

houndawg wrote:

Awwwww, sweetheart, I didn't mean it in a bad way; now your panties are all in a twist.





All your waters are belong to California.

Nope. Arizona is currently not using all of it's legal allocation of Colorado River water. California is using the excess amount, under permission from us. Turn the spigot off.

Arizona, because it gets 99% of the Salt/Gila system water, is fine, water-wise. SoCal is dependent on water shipped in from long distances.

In addition, in a year like this, where more water is flowing down the Salt and Gila Rivers than we have storage capacity, that excess is flowing into Mexico, fulfulling US Treaty obligations, allowing more water to be stored in Lake Mead.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I love the Salt River....................

dbackjon wrote:

houndawg wrote:

Awwwww, sweetheart, I didn't mean it in a bad way; now your panties are all in a twist.





All your waters are belong to California.

Nope. Arizona is currently not using all of it's legal allocation of Colorado River water. California is using the excess amount, under permission from us. Turn the spigot off.

Arizona, because it gets 99% of the Salt/Gila system water, is fine, water-wise. SoCal is dependent on water shipped in from long distances.

In addition, in a year like this, where more water is flowing down the Salt and Gila Rivers than we have storage capacity, that excess is flowing into Mexico, fulfulling US Treaty obligations, allowing more water to be stored in Lake Mead.

mainejeff wrote:I heard that some Arizonans are boycotting Disneyland.........to that I say GOOD! The place is too effin crowded anyway!