A carpenter sees a nail. It must be hammered. A developer sees open space. It must be filled; profits must be made. Is our town at risk of losing its character?

We are a residential community; 85 percent of our property is residential. By comparison, 65 percent of Scottsdale is residential, 35percent commercial. For Scottsdale, this means more density, less open space. Some want to make us into a mini-Scottsdale. Development at all costs is the theme.

There is nothing wrong with growth and development. But does anyone ask what the long-term cost will be? One council member recently urged filling town-owned open space. Short-term profits are nice (for some), but how will less open space affect our town, redefine what we are and compromise our property values?

Repeating past mistakes, a small collection of council members (Yates and Kavanagh) and Senator John Kavanagh met with Arizona officials about the 1,276 acres of State Trust Land. Who was not involved? Other council members and us, the citizens of Fountain Hills.

Their message to the Arizona officials: We want less open space. We want more density, smaller lots and more people packed into the 1,276 acres.

Is that what we want? Do we want open space converted to high-density use? Do we want to be another Scottsdale?

These decisions should be made by the citizens of Fountain Hills, not a closed clique of developers and their friends who control our town council. We know how that turns out. Remember the lagoon fiasco?

Where are the forgotten members of town council? What are they doing to make sure decisions on these matters are for the benefit of all, and not a select few on our town council who see open space as a nail that must be hammered?