Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Another blog follower sent me copies of the paperwork filed with the Glendale City Clerk by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club on June 6, 2014. I was originally informed that it was a referendum packet but that information was incorrect. It is an initiative effort. Below are copies of the first page of the Statement of Organization of a Political Committee (PAC) and the Application for Initiative or Referendum Petition. The PAC has until July 3, 2014 to gather the necessary number of signatures, 10,434. I suspect they will have no difficulty in collecting not only the requisite number of signatures but many more. 

The text of the Initiative is as follows: “Adopting the Glendale Taxpayer Protection Act of 2014, which amends the Glendale City Charter, Article VI, Section 7, by decreasing the transaction privilege tax rate, as defined in the art, by seven-tenths of one percent (.7%), with such decrease taking effect August 1, 2017, and requiring a supermajority vote of the council to increase the transaction privilege tax, effective upon passage and proclamation of the act.”

The supermajority provision to increase the sales tax rate means that 5 out of 7 councilmembers would have to approve any increase.

The packet was taken out by Scott Mussi, Executive Director of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and the Committee Treasurer is Timothy La Sota, an attorney with the firm of Tiffany & Bosco.

Applicationandlanguage_Page_1

Application for Initiative

Untitledattachment00020_Page_1

Statement of Organization

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

 

 

 

 

 

One of my many followers sent me this link:  http://www.macrumors.com/2014/06/06/apple-others-2-million-each-super-bowl-50/.  Apple, along with other Bay area tech companies, Intel, Yahoo and Google, has given their Super Bowl Host Committee $2 million in cash and other unspecified services to offset San Francisco Bay area taxpayer costs of hosting Super Bowl 50.

Hey Apple…could you spare a little more and gift Glendale $2 million in cash to offset the taxpayer costs of hosting our 2015 Super Bowl?

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club visited Glendale City Hall today, June 6, 2014 and made a beeline for the City Clerk’s office. What for, you say? It seems they have taken out a referendum packet on the issue of council’s decision to make the temporary sales tax increase permanent. Don’t be surprised if Glendale’s voters get to weigh in on the issue this fall.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Summertime at the Koi Pond

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 5, 2014
Posted in fish pondKoi pond  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Pond merge 2a

The other day I realized that I had not slowed down enough to provide an update on my Koi pond. The last time I posted on it was 6 months ago, in December of 2013. A lot has happened since then.

I’ve taken out all of the Yerba Manza. I discovered that it is just too invasive. Even though the original plants were still potted and submerged they send out runners – scads of runners – that seek rocks and other potted plants. The runners will even go over the edge of the pond into anything beyond. As a result the Yerba Manza was beginning to crowd out other plants and the need to cut off the runners was becoming a monthly chore. In their place I have decided to try some Spider Lilies and Cardinal Flowers.

At the beginning of May we reinstalled the shade cover over the pond. It continues to do its job but I have found that the material itself has stretched due to winds that buffeted it up and down. Right now it is very saggy. When we take it down in the fall we will resize it to take out some of the slack.

IMG_5682We finally broke down and purchased a Laguna Brand, 55 watt, UV clarifier/sterilizer light. It’s rather large – about 5 feet in length. The external 4 barrel filter system continues to do its job but it simply could not keep up with the tremendous algae bloom that occurs in Arizona with intense daily sunlight and temperatures of 90 to 100+ degrees. The light has only been in operation for a little over a week but the difference in water clarity is amazing. It seems to get rid of the smallest algae particles that are suspended in the water and that simply flow through the 2 regular pond filters. We placed it in-line, above ground with the external 4 barrel filters. As a result the water clarity has improved tremendously.

The water clarity is so good we are able to see the fish anytime, day orfeeding night. We have 4 under water pool lights and we can see the Koi grazing at night among the pebble bottom and the potted plants. It is really so nice to sit by the pond whenever the mood strikes and watch the Koi.

I ordered and received one of those Styrofoam rings with netting to introduce floating plants into the pond. I wouldn’t get another. The Styrofoam breaks too easily and it continually floats toward the filter system. I found myself moving it away from the filter several times a day. I finally had enough of it and removed it. So much for that gadget.

We have new visitors to the pond – snails – itty, bitty, tiny snails. We think they came in one of two ways: either on a plant I ordered over the internet or on the feet of the many birds that visit the pond. Either way, they are in the filters…everywhere. This past week I received some Assassin Snails and immediately dumped them in the pond. It seems an Assassin Snail’s mission in life to eat other snails. I hope so. I guess we will find out soon enough.

IMG_5729Our other visitor is a cane toad. He appeared one night about a week ago. We surmise he came in on our irrigation system or else, bird legs again, but as an egg. Cane toads are nocturnal. This one is a juvenile, maybe 6 to 8 inches long. I read that they can live for 10 years and grow to 2 feet in size. He’s not afraid of humans and will even let us touch him. He’s a very calm, little fellow.

Our greatest problem seems to be the heron that nests somewhere on our street. Our street is made up of one acre lots, irrigated. There is no curb, gutter, sidewalks or street lights. It is a dark, cool oasis in the midst of urban living and we love it and apparently, so does the heron. We think it visits the pond in the middle of the night. The only way to confirm it is to stay up all night or get a night vision, motion detector camera. I think the camera will happen sooner than staying up all night for many nights to confirm the heron.

We know it is taking fish and when it doesn’t take them it has wounded several Koi mortally. It seems to prefer Koi that are white or nearly all white in color although a few orange Koi have also disappeared. Just as the water clarity has improved for our visual enjoyment it has also allowed the heron to spot its prey more easily. We have lost more fish in the past month than in all of last year. Not a happy scenario. I will continue to research the best deterrent to this fellow’s dining regimen. 

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Caitlin McGlade, a reporter for the Arizona Republic, has a story on June 4, 2014 regarding a debt that IceArizona allegedly owes to the PR firm of Rose+Moser+Allyn (RMA). Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2014/06/03/coyotes-owner-sued-deal/9942991/ . The PR firm has filed suit in Maricopa County Superior Court,”arguing that the team stiffed them on nearly a quarter of a million dollars.”

It seems that in August of 2013 after IceArizona had successfully secured the $15 million annual management arena contract from Glendale, it wanted to forestall any type of Coyotes referendum effort that would lead to an election on the issue. IceArizona hired RMA and promised to pay a base fee of $25,000, provide two front row tickets to eight hockey games per season and pay $250,000 over five years as a sponsorship fee to the Scottsdale Polo Championships (an event owned by the PR firm). It appears that the IceArizona check for the base fee of $25,000 bounced. It also appears that IceArizona is not disputing the facts of the deal but rather is claiming that there was a caveat that the polo sponsorship was supposed to bring value to IceArizona and it has not done so. That appears to be the basis of their reasoning for reneging on the $250,000 sponsorship fee.

What is interesting is that this deal was a “handshake” deal agreed to by all parties verbally and in email exchanges. Don’t you think RMA’s first clue that there might be problems with IceArizona would have been the bounced $25,000 check?

Didn’t RMA realize that IceArizona’s modus operandi appeared to be reliance upon everyone else’s money but their own? After all, the IceArizona owners put comparatively little of their own money up to buy the team. Instead they took out huge loans from Fortress Investment Group and the National Hockey League. IceArizona is in debt up to its eyeballs and the interest on that debt is being covered by Glendale every year in the form of the $15 million payment for arena management. Glendale has been directed by IceArizona to send the money directly to its lenders.

This suit promises to be fascinating but ugly. Rose+Moser+Allyn is a smart and saavy PR firm that has the capability to do a lot of damage to IceArizona’s reputation (such as it is). You would think IceArizona would settle out of court. If that happens RMA would be well advised to get a Cashier’s check or better still, cash.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

On May 27, 2014 the Supreme Court issued a ruling on a tribal immunity case, Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community. Here is the link to their decision: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/michigan-v-bay-mills-indian-community/

It was a narrow case with a decision rendered on one specific issue. In a five to four decision the Supreme Court held that Michigan’s lawsuit against the Bay Mills Indian Community to stop a tribal casino operating outside of Indian lands was barred by tribal sovereign immunity.

Its decision appears be limited to the specific facts involved in this case.  Tribes that rely on this decision to engage in off-reservation commercial activity now know that they may not be able to rely on the Bay Mills decision for broad immunity, especially if an aggrieved plaintiff has no other remedies available. 

The decision reinforces the loophole that states can sue tribes for illegal gaming activity on Indian land but they can’t sue them for the same activity on off-Indian lands. Whether and how this decision applies to principles of tribal sovereignty involving future off-reservation commercial activities remains open, and one area that the Court purposefully left open.  Indian Tribes throughout the country did not gain an outright win with the Court’s opinion.

Michigan remains able to deny a license for an off-reservation casino. If the tribe went ahead with the project anyway, Michigan still retains the right to sue tribal officials to stop the gaming activity and, if necessary, invoke its criminal laws.  In addition, any state can still seek a waiver to allow lawsuits for off-reservation gaming activity as part of their compact with a tribe regarding on-reservation gaming.

This decision does not speak to the unique Arizona v. Tohono O’odham situation. It’s effect upon current litigation is questionable at best. In other words, this decision does nothing to advance or deny either side’s position on the proposed casino in Glendale. It is still expected that Rep. Trent Franks’ bill, HB 1410, will be voted up or down in the US Senate this summer.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

%d bloggers like this: