Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

Hold on to your hats, folks. This will be a rather long opinion piece as I have much to say.

I am mindfully aware that one of the prime directives of my job as a councilmember is to represent my constituency…the residents of the Yucca district. Their voice is my voice. They do not possess the power, money and privilege of the pro-Stonehaven contingent. Over 1,000 of my district residents have signed a petition in opposition to Stonehaven’s latest version of its proposed residential plan. These are the people who live in adjoining neighborhoods and will receive the full negative brunt of this proposal. They are the people for whom I speak.

Since this is my last term as a councilmember I possess a precious freedom that no others serving on Glendale’s council may have and that is, complete freedom. I can advocate for and take positions that I believe to be right without fear of retribution when the next election season rolls around. In this context, the opinions I am about to express regarding the Stonehaven application are mine and offered without fear or favor. Some will agree and others will disagree. That is to be expected.

Just as we have all heard of the Washington “establishment” aimed at protecting its power, money and privilege, every community in the country, large or small, has its own version of the “establishment.” Glendale is no different.

Lately, the local Chamber, the local newspaper and the local fire union (no surprise there) have announced their support for the latest iteration of Stonehaven. They all represent elements of Glendale’s “establishment.” The “establishment” circles the wagons when one of their own is in danger for that danger could spread and diminish them as well. All it takes is a well placed phone call or conversation with the “right” people. In “establishment” code it’s a plea for help with the veiled notion that it may be their ox gored next and if they expect reciprocal support, then it’s time to ante up.

Then we have the city’s Planning Department. I understand the tremendous pressure they are experiencing. When the Stonehaven applicants proposed 3,000 square foot lots, the Planning Department made it clear that it could not support the concept for Glendale doesn’t even have a zoning classification for 3,000 SF lot sizes. Hence the applicant’s quick pivot to 4,000/4,500 SF lots for Glendale does possess such a zoning classification. The Planning Department cannot be discriminatory and if it has accepted other projects with 4,000 square foot lots, it must be fair and do so in this case. You will hear the statement from the Planning Department that the Stonehaven amendment is “consistent” with Glendale’s General Plan.

But what you will not hear is that 4,000/4,500 SF lots have never been implemented on such a large scale. Yes, Glendale has seen small tracts of such sized lots and it may be used on small-scale infill projects. Hence the Planning Department’s statement of “consistency” with the General Plan. But it has never, in the city’s history, been used where 44% of a new 365 acre subdivision will have such small lots. It is incumbent upon the Planning Department to show where a subdivision of similar size and scope was permitted with at least 40% of the project consisting of 4,000/4,500 square foot lots. If that is their position I expect them to defend it with some relevant examples.

The pro-Stonehaven contingent is touting their $400 million dollar investment in Glendale implying that we should be ever so grateful. Don’t kid yourselves. They are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. We’ve all seen the term, Return on Investment (ROI). That $400 million dollar investment will reap them a hefty profit (ROI). How much? Only they know but we can assume it is substantial or they wouldn’t be pulling out all of the stops to make it happen.

The Stonehaven proponents also tout the benefit of the connectivity to be derived from the construction of Bethany Home Road between 83rd Avenue and 91st Avenue. In an agreement between the city and the John F. Long Trust Bethany Home Road does not have to be completed until January 1, 2021.  What you don’t hear is that the city will pay $1.2 million for the north half of Bethany’s right-of-way (ROW). Where will this payment come from? From the Development Impact Fees (DIF) paid to the city.  Each home buyer pays DIF as it is incorporated by the developer into the price of each home in this subdivision. DIF is used to improve the infrastructure surrounding the new development in terms of libraries, parks, roads, etc. Not in this case, the DIF will be used to pay for right-of-way. This is precedent setting for historically the city has not had to pay for ROW for a new subdivision.

The applicants like to refer to Stonehaven as an “infill” project. Here are some conclusions from national studies done on infill:

  1. The smaller homes associated with the increased density of the project will generate lower property tax revenues, yet it increases the burden on the city’s cost for the provision of services as the new residents use them.
  2. Existent nearby residents bear all of the costs associated with this new infill development in increased traffic and congestion in local schools even though it may provide a benefit to the community as a whole as the city receives state shared revenue benefits from an increase in population.
  3. There is a negative impact for those properties in close proximity to the new, denser subdivision, but a positive impact for those properties at a greater distance.
  4. Lower income neighborhoods tend to benefit from infill development and higher income areas had property values decline.
  5. Larger projects, such as this one, magnify the negative effects more so than smaller infill projects.

What did the April 16, 2016 approved Stonehaven plan consist of? It was a balanced plan that the adjacent neighborhoods accepted.

  • R 1-5 (5,500 SF lots) on 43% of site area
  • R 1-7 (7,000 SF lots) on 36% of site area
  • R 1-8 (8,000 SF lots) on 21% of site area

Now look at the changes requested in the new proposal.

  • R 1-4 (4,000 and 4,500) SF lots on 44% of site
  • R 1-5 (5,000 SF lots) on 22.4% of site area
  • R 1-6 (6,000 SF lots) on 17.9% of site area
  • R 1-7 (7,000 SF lots) on 16% of site area

As a comparison Rovey Farm Estates built 10 years ago is a subdivision of 300 acres north of this proposed project. It is comparable in many ways and has 800 lots ranging in size from 7,000 to 17,000 SF. More recent subdivisions close by such as Boardwalk Place built in 2010 has lot sizes from 7,000 to 12,000 SF and the newest subdivision still under construction is Catania, with lot sizes that start at 5,000 SF. Yet another new subdivision, Horizons at Camelback, has lot sizes ranging from 5, 750 SF to 9, 179 SF. All of these subdivisions demonstrate lot size diversity but not one of them in west Glendale has lot sizes as small as 4,000/4,500 square feet.

The applicant rationalizes the diversity of small lots as more appealing to millennials. Yet an article in the May 12,2017 Wall Street Journal said, “Outside Las Vegas, Tri Pointe home builders has introduced a new-home design that is specifically targeted to millennial buyers, featuring indoor-outdoor patio areas and deck spaces, as well as a separate downstairs bedroom and bathroom suite that could be rented out to a housemate. Building executives said one challenge is that many are buying first homes later in life, meaning they have higher incomes and greater expectations molded by years of living in downtown luxury rentals.”

Perhaps the most impactful to adjacent neighborhoods and families is increased traffic and overcrowded schools. Before Bethany Home Road is completed in January of 2021 and while Stonehaven is being built out, daily traffic trips on Camelback will grow from its current daily count of 25,000 to over double, 54,000 trips. When Bethany is completed the daily trip count on Camelback will drop to 41,000, considerably more than the current count of 25,000. Similar situations occur on 83rd Ave. and 91st Ave. between Bethany and Camelback. This subdivision will intensify local traffic even with the eventual completion of Bethany Home Road.

Who is most impacted by this traffic increase? The Camelback Park subdivision just east of Stonehaven will bear the brunt as well as the traffic to Sunset Ridge Elementary School. 87th Avenue is one of only two primary entries for Camelback Park residents. Now it will also serve as a primary entry for Stonehaven. I am very concerned for the Camelback Park residents for even with a widened 87th Avenue their ability to get in and out of their subdivision will be aversely compromised.

These very same residents will face other difficulties as a result of Stonehaven. While Stonehaven offers the requisite 15% of park/open space, the applicants emphasize and seem to rely upon the connectivity of Stonehaven to Camelback Park’s 3 acre Pasadena Park, Sunset Ridge’s joint 10 acre school/city park and of course, the 20 year, still unfinished Heroes Park. While Stonehaven has 9.1 acres of community park, the balance of 50 acres of open space includes entryway landscaping, perimeter landscaping, street landscaping and the inevitable retention areas doubling as open space and trails.

Pulte currently has about 20 subdivisions. In one of them, Parkside at Anthem, Florence, the house price starts at $146,990. At that subdivision Pulte is offering a recreation center with indoor rock climbing and an indoor basketball court along with a splash water park, lighted tennis courts and a softball stadium. At its Bella Via subdivision, Mesa, they offer adventure playgrounds, basketball courts, a dog park and an amphitheater. Pulte is offering no such amenities in Stonehaven. Why not?

There is no doubt that the two closest elementary schools, Sunset Ridge and Desert Mirage, will be under tremendous pressure. The applicants have received approval from the Pendergast Elementary School District and the Tolleson Union High School district. Little noted is another common practice usually unrecognized by the general public.  Built into the cost of every Stonehaven home will be a dollar amount that will be donated to the school districts to offset the cost of accommodating new students. Could any school district’s, including these districts, motive for approval of this increased density be the result of this typical practice of a home builder donation per house built? It is quite possible that the Pendergast School district will have to accommodate another estimated 1,000 K-8 students. In the last Pendergast bond issue recently approved by voters there is money to expand Sunset Ridge Elementary School but there is nothing allotted for an expansion of Desert Mirage Elementary School.

Finally Stonehaven proponents emphasize the $40 million the city will derive in taxes. In that amount they even count the utilities tax that we pay on our phone, cable bills, etc. They forget to mention this amount is over the lifetime of the project…10 years or better. They make it sound as if the city will receive this amount in one fell swoop.

However, one interesting factoid I learned many years ago is that roof tops (homes) do not pay for themselves on a long term annual basis. In other words, a city loses about $200 per home annually (that is an old figure. I don’t know the current figure). What does that mean? The amount of annual tax generated per home in sales tax, property tax, etc., does not cover the cost of services provided by a city. That is why the life blood of any city isn’t in roof tops but in its commercial, retail, manufacturing, etc. development for those facilities produce taxes that help to offset the loss caused by homes.

This proposed project does not hold the promise of upgrading Glendale. It reminds me of old, 1970s zoning and planning where the smallest lots and consequently the smallest homes are placed behind or adjacent to commercial development. That’s the promise of the Stonehaven plan for the 4,000 SF and the 4,500 SF lots are behind the proposed grocery store center and the proposed restaurant row.  Can you imagine millennials or seniors wanting to live behind a grocery store or restaurant with the lights, the smells and the noise of delivery trucks an estimated 35 feet away from their property?

This kind of plan also reminds me of the old Maryvale. The only difference being is that at least John F. Long offered the public 6,000 SF sized lots…not lots of 4,000 or 4,500 SF in size. This proposed amendment and zoning does not upgrade our community. This large, 365 acre parcel of land deserves to be developed in a manner designed to showcase living in west Glendale and to which all can point with pride.  How much pride will these 4,000 and 4,500 SF lots and homes evoke 5 or 10 years after they are built?

What do power, money and privilege get? They get their way… at the expense of nearby residents who live in stable communities and who don’t want the increased traffic, school overcrowding, and even more pressure on their scant park system. They don’t want small lots with small homes destined to become a sea of rentals harvesting nothing but lower property values for those residents surrounding it.

What was so terrible about the existing, approved plan of 2016? Nothing with one exception…it isn’t dense enough for the applicants. Do you ever wonder how much an additional 204 homes will raise the profitability quotient for those involved? And is it worth it… to us?

© Joyce Clark, 2017          

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘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 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 material. 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.

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

There are Yucca district residents circulating petitions in opposition to the Stonehaven residential plan that will be heard before the Planning & Zoning Commission on Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 6 PM at City Hall in the Council chambers. I have been asked to provide information about the proposal:

2016 city council approved Stonehaven plan. Now add applicant’s request for another 300 homes.

  • The applicants, John F. Long Trust and Pulte Homes have submitted GPA 17-01 and ZON 17-01. It will be heard by the citizen Planning & Zoning Commission on May 18, 2017.
  • The land is about 365 acres located between Bethany Home Road to Camelback Road and from 83rd Avenue to 91st Avenue. The land is currently being farmed.
  • There is a plan for this land that was already approved by Glendale’s City Council in 2016. The density of that plan is 1,100 homes on lots ranging in size from 5,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting more density (more homes) on smaller lot sizes.
  • Their application asks for an increase (more density) in the number of homes from an approved 1,100 to 1,406 homes.
  • Their request asks to reduce lot sizes from a minimum of 5,000 SF to 4,000/4,500 SF and to reduce the largest lot sizes of 8,000 SF to 7,000 SF.
  • If approved 45% (nearly half) of the project would be on the minimum lot sizes described above (4,000 SF and 4,500 SF).
  • The applicant proposes to develop an 8 acre park within the subdivision. This equals .02% of the total 365 acres. No additional open space has been identified by the applicant.
  • Typically a developer will provide 10% to 15% of a planned subdivision for parks and open space. This applicant has not done so. For this project parks and open space should be a minimum of 36 acres (that is 10% of 365 acres).
  • It is estimated that the construction of Bethany Home Road would not have to be completed until 2021 per an agreement between the John F. Long Trust and the City of Glendale or…until 200 homes are sold and the design for Bethany must be submitted and when 475 homes are sold, construction of Bethany must begin (per the agreement).
  • Until Bethany Home Road is completed additional traffic pressure from this new subdivision will increase traffic on 83rd Avenue, Camelback Road and 91st Avenue.  
  • With new residents and no Bethany Home Road, we can expect average daily traffic loads of an estimated 54,000 vehicles on Camelback Road; 28,000 vehicles on 91st Avenue; and 33,000 vehicles on 83rd Avenue (statistics provided by applicant).
  • If this proposed subdivision is approved the Pendergast Elementary School District will experience the addition of an estimated 759 (conservative estimate) new K-8 students with a need for 25 new classrooms (at 30 students per classroom).
  • The two closest elementary schools that will experience the pressure of 759 new students are Desert Mirage at 8600 W. Maryland and Sunset Ridge at 8500 W. Missouri.
  • Typically a residential developer will donate $1000 per home to the affected school district virtually assuring that the required approval assuring no detrimental impact from the school district will be granted.

© Joyce Clark, 2017      

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘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 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 material. 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.

Would you like to attend a FREE spring training game at Camelback Ranch this month?
As your Yucca district councilmember I have 14 free tickets for each of the following games:

Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 12:05 PM

Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 1:05 PM

Monday, March 20, 2017 at 1:05 PM

Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 1:05 PM

Sunday, March 26, 2017 at 1:05 PM
 
  • The tickets will be distributed to a non-profit organization, i.e., church group, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Kiwanis, Rotary, Glendale Ambassadors, Habitat for Humanity, etc.
  • Some members of the group must be Yucca district residents.
  • Groups of adults are welcome.
  • If the group is comprised of minor children, there must be 1 adult for each 3 children.
  • In order to be eligible please share a recent community-oriented activity in which your group participated or organized.
  • First come, first served.
Please contact Councilmember Clark via email at either of these addresses: clarkjv@aol.com or jclark@glendaleaz.com
What a great way to spend a spring afternoon!
This gift is just a small token of my appreciation for all that you do in support of our community.
Councilmember Joyce Clark
Yucca district, City of Glendale

ALL ARE WELCOME!

MY SPECIAL GUEST IS GLENDALE’S VICE MAYOR IAN HUGH

People always wonder and ask what a councilmember really does. Over the next four years of my term as the Yucca district councilmember I may be able to provide you with some answers. I was reelected as the Yucca district councilmember in August of 2016.

After the formal city council acceptance of the Canvass of Votes I began to receive phone calls and requests for meetings. Prior to officially taking office on December 13, 2016 I spent several hundred hours in October and November preparing for office and participating as a councilmember elect.  Since the beginning of October I have had approximately 30 luncheon meetings with community stakeholders, city staff and city councilmembers; more than a dozen “coffee” meetings primarily with residential development interests; and attended more than a half dozen city/community events from HOA annual meetings, to an COG airport open house to the Glendale Christmas parade.

As councilmember elect I began receiving council material for voting meetings and workshops. I spent hours reviewing the material and firing off memos to the city manager and staff asking for answers to questions I had as councilmember elect.  I also personally attended city council voting meetings and workshops on Tuesdays prior to taking office.

Much time was spent reconnecting with various stakeholders and rebuilding positive relationships with them. Another chunk of time was used to bring me up to speed on various city and Yucca district issues by meeting with city personnel. Yet more time was used to prepare for council meetings and to attend various city events.

I suspect since councilmembers are usually seen only on Glendale’s Cable 11 TV, most people think that is all that they do. Not true. It’s a major time commitment with irregular work hours. A simple lunch meeting can easily take 2 hours if you include travel time. A city function such as a public community event or a neighborhood meeting will also consume several hours and many are evening events. The same can be said for a formal council meeting or workshop. Preparation time for council meetings and workshops can easily take a day or more, especially if a councilmember requires meetings or communications with various city staff for further clarification on issues.

A city councilmember has three major responsibilities: to make decisions regarding the city’s public policy on a potpourri of issues; to represent the interests and points of view of Glendale’s residents, especially one’s district constituents; and to represent the leadership of Glendale not only at city functions but at local, regional, state and national venues and organizations.

To accomplish all of these responsibilities each councilmember has access to two taxpayer-funded budgets. The first is a Professional Development budget of $18,000 annually. These funds may be used for trips such as the state or national League of Cities and Towns annual meetings. The money can be used for dues/membership fees to organizations and or activities a councilmember needs to connect to the community, such as the local Chamber of Commerce or the WestMarc Annual State of the State Dinner. This budget can be used for subscriptions to publications such as the Phoenix Business Journal. These are activities that enhance the councilmember’s effectiveness and would not be an ordinary activity or expense as a private citizen. Lastly it can be used to support the ordinary functions of the office such as business cards, letterhead, a computer or tablet or activities such as contributions for flowers for a memorial service of a prominent Glendale personage.

The second councilmember budget is a District Improvement budget of $15,000 annually. It is to be used for minor infrastructure improvements within the councilmember’s district. It can be used in parks to plant trees, do minor repairs to park equipment, repaint park equipment. It can be used to make neighborhood improvements, such as repair of subdivision monument signage. It can also be used for examples such as landscape improvements to a public element within a subdivision or installation or repair of curb, gutter or sidewalks. Some councilmembers have used these funds to make contributions to non-profit organizations or to sponsor city events. I, personally, do not believe that these activities are an appropriate use of taxpayer funded public infrastructure improvements.

I plan on using my council Professional Development budget for 2 major functions: to support the rental cost of meeting space and refreshments for regular Yucca district meetings; and to create, print and mail a Spring and Fall edition of the Yucca district newsletter to every household that has a water bill. One newsletter mailing to Yucca residents is anticipated to cost between $5,000 to $7,000 (primary cost is postage). Even though it is a major expense, I believe it is important to provide this mailing because not everyone has access to a computer and some residents, especially seniors, may not be computer literate enough to access all city material available on the internet. I will continue to use social media, my Facebook page, Twitter and my blog page, www.joyceclarkunfiltered.com as major means of outreach to those Yucca district residents who are computer savvy and regularly visit these sites.

In December I have spent the following amounts from my Professional Development budget with an inherited starting balance from the former councilmember of $13,113.93:

·       $87.28 for Councilmember business cards

·       $299.21 for Councilmember letterhead stationery and envelopes

·       $45.86 for a Councilmember name plate and business card holder for my desk

·       $100.00 as my portion of the cost for rental of the Sahuaro fruit packing shed for a mayor and council sponsored event inviting all West Valley mayors and councils

I did not have to buy a tablet to conduct city business as I inherited the former councilmember’s city tablet. After deducting these December, 2016 expenses my Professional Development budget has a January 1, 2017 starting balance of $12,581.58. Councilmembers recently directed staff to publish their monthly expenditures and these expenditures can be found at: http://www.glendaleaz.com/CityCouncil/FinancialStatements.cfm .

I inherited an Infrastructure budget of $12,500 from the former councilmember. I need your help. This is where you come in. If you are a Yucca district resident I suspect you have seen many areas of our district that need repair. Have you seen subdivision monument signage in need of repair? Or have you seen one of our district parks that could use some further landscaping or repair/painting of equipment? Perhaps you have seen spots in need of curb, gutter or sidewalk repair? These funds can be used on city property or public right of way for improvements. Or do you have an idea for a public project with a cost of no more than $12,000?

I am soliciting suggestions from you until January 31, 2017. Any and all ideas are most welcome. This is your opportunity to participate in your local government. Please submit your suggestions with the following information, your name, and your return email address or phone number; the address of problem; description of the suggested improvement; and if you can, include a photo of the problem area. You may send the information to: clarkjv@aol.com; jclark@glendaleaz.com; post a comment to my Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/joyce.clark.338  ; or post a comment to this blog topic.

I believe a councilmember’s Professional Development budget should be used primarily for outreach to either one’s constituents or to the community-at-large. That is why I intend to use it to hold district meetings and to publish district information. I also intend to use it for councilmember related memberships and activities. As a private citizen there are many events, local and regional, I would not be required to attend but as a councilmember I would be expected to participate. I will use this budget to attend local and regional dinners and conferences.

A councilmember’s Infrastructure Improvement budget was designed to allow a councilmember to invest in improving his or her district. The intent when it was created was not to grant money to non-profits. It is always possible that a councilmember could grant money from this budget to a non-profit that constituents could think was inappropriate. I will use this budget to make minor district improvements.

Next blog up…good news about the west branch library!

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘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 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 material. 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.

A constituent asked me to post this video of a young man who attempted to burglarize a house in his neighborhood. The area is Desert Sunset in west Glendale, just north of 83rd Avenue and west of Heroes Park. If you recognize this young man, please call the Glendale Police Department at 623-930-3000. Thank you.

Update: Saturday, November 11, 2016. This may be the young person in the video of a possible attempted burglary suspect. I guess you could call him “a person of interest.” He was skateboarding on 83rd Avenue just south of Berridge Lane, Yucca district, Glendale. If you know who he is, please call the Glendale Police Department. Thank you.

possiblesuspectcropped

There is no doubt that Sammy raised a ton of money for his campaign. Upon review of his campaign finance report filed on August 26, 2016, 99.9% of his money does not come from Yucca district residents or even Glendale residents for that matter. Here is the link to his campaign finance report: http://glendaleaz.com/Clerk/documents/PrePrimary-ChaviraforGlendale.pdf .

Where did Sammy get his money? Can you say special interests? Here are a few that should be of interest. Jacob Long gave $750 and his family attorney, Jim Miller, another $500. They benefitted recently with the approval of Stonehaven (between 83rd and 91st avenues; Camelback to Bethany Home Road). Stonehaven is a planned residential subdivision of over 1,200 homes with 46% of the lots being 5,500 SF (less than Glendale R1-6 standard of 6,000 SF lots). Sammy approved Long’s development with gushing words of praise. Gee, I  wonder why?

There were 3 Glendale residents who contributed: John Phebus, an attorney with offices in north Glendale gave $1000 (I wonder who he represents?); Tom Schmitt with no occupation or employer listed (it is a requirement per Arizona campaign law) gave $200; and Reginald Martinez gave $50. That’s it. No other Glendale or Yucca district resident thought enough of him to contribute.

But guess who did? Why, the fire fighters, course. Three individual fire fighters, from Mesa, Phoenix and California contributed a total of $500.  The big money ( a total of $11,300) comes from Fire Political Action Committees (PACs):

  • International Association of Fire Fighters          $6250 (the maximum allowed)
  • Avondale Fire Fighters                                           $ 500
  • Casa Grande Fire Fighters                                      $ 500
  • Gilbert Fire Fighters                                               $ 500
  • Glendale Fire Fighters                                           $2000 (violation of federal Hatch Act?)
  • Los Angeles, CA  Fire Fighters                                 $ 500
  • Prescott Fire Fighters                                             $ 250
  • Sedona-Verde Valley Fire Fighters                           $ 250
  • Surprise Fire Fighters                                            $1000
  • Tempe Fire Fighters                                              $1000
  • Mesa Fire Fighters                                                  $ 750
  • Peoria Fire Fighters                                                $ 500

I decided to run a grassroots campaign. If district residents and Glendale residents wanted me back they would support me. Here is the link to my campaign finance report: http://glendaleaz.com/Clerk/documents/PrePrimary-ClarkforCouncil.pdf . My campaign donations came from:

  • 21 contributions of $100 or more were from Glendale/Yucca district residents.
  • 10 contributions of $100 or more were from outside of Glendale. They were from friends, former colleagues and retired Glendale employees.
  • 22 contributions of $50 or less were from Glendale/Yucca district residents.
  • 5 contributions of $50 or less were from outside of Glendale. Again, they were from friends, former colleagues and retired Glendale employees.
  • I did receive 3 unsolicited PAC contributions totaling $1200 from 3 police associations that came with the endorsements I received from the Arizona Police Association and the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police.
  • No special interest money or PAC money was sought.

In terms of Sammy’s campaign expenditures, they paint a picture. He paid Ben Scheel of Bright Consulting another $5,570.85. Sammy did not plan or participate in his own campaign. He paid someone else to do it. He paid the LA Machine $7324.00 for field operations. Sammy did not walk his district. He paid someone else to do it.

Just as Sammy has been invisible as a councilmember and unresponsive to the people of his district who he is supposed to serve, he has been invisible as a candidate. He paid to have someone run his campaign and he paid someone to walk his district. In his three campaign reports now filed, he has not received a single donation from a Yucca district resident.

Sammy is about big money from special interests. That is who he will vote for and represent. Not you, not the people of the Yucca district.

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘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 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 material. 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.

CHECK OUT THE VIDEO TO THE LEFT OF THIS COLUMN. IT IS A VIDEO INDEPENDENTLY PRODUCED. IT WAS NOT PAID BY OR AUTHORIZED BY CLARK FOR COUNCIL.

I have offered my biography and my platform of 5Es: Equity, Environment, Engagement, Economy and Ethics. I have shared some of the accomplishments I achieved in my previous service to you. I have honed in on Sammy’s unethical record as a councilmember. Yet you may not be ready to vote for me.

For the years that I served as your councilmember I was honest and ethical. I never abused your trust. While some councilmembers charged mileage or their cell phone expenses to the city, I never did. All of the Sammy mailers implying that I mismanaged city money is simply a lie. I have already stated why he is using these lies. It’s his only path to reelection for his record is a shameful one.

I am not the type to brag about myself but it seems now is the time to offer some instances of my service to you. There was a constituent who had a front yard full of weeds, knee high. City Code Compliance had cited her repeatedly and she was facing a deadline. She was unable to do the work and furthermore did not have the money to rectify the problem. I used my own money, not a dime of city or taxpayer money, and had rock delivered and spread on her front yard. She didn’t ask for help other than my intervention with the city. That I could not deliver. So I delivered a permanent solution instead.

There was another instance out of so many… the time when a small neighborhood had a problem neighbor. Lots of teens/young adults, late parties, constant noise, cars parked everywhere, perhaps drugs, refusal to acknowledge a problem…you get the idea. After I met with the neighborhood to learn the extent of their problem, I called my “go to” Glendale police officer. Within a matter of days the problem was solved. I was a facilitator. Once I knew what the problem was, I knew where to go to get it solved.

There was a time when an entire apartment complex’s water was about to be turned off. The tenants called me desperate for a solution. The owner of the complex owed back payments and was refusing to pay. I contacted the media who then ran stories on TV about the situation. Within 24 hours the complex owner had made arrangements to pay his bill in full.

There was my request to council, approved, for the first 50,000 Christmas lights in Murphy Park. Today those first Christmas lights have grown into over a million lights for Glendale Glitters or my tour of my district for senior management resulting in the Neighborhood Partnership Program.

Another instance that comes to mind was the battle of the burned out house. It took constant prodding of various city departments, including the city attorney’s office, to finally have the house demolished, perhaps not as quickly as nearby residents expected, but I did get the job done.

Land use and zoning was a constant battle. Although I did not win all battles, I won 90% of them. I believe, as many Yucca district residents do, that Yucca is a prime location for large lot development. If you travel along 83rd Avenue you see many large lot developments…Desert Sunset, Missouri Ranch Estates and Missouri Ranch are just a few. I am especially proud on my work on Rovey Farm Estates with lots from 7,000 to 9,000 SF on its western side to one acre lots on its eastern side. On each of these residential developments, I worked closely with the residential developer and the city’s Planning Department, insisting on larger lots and making a successful case for them.

I have not bragged about any of my accomplishments because I felt it was just part of my job as your councilmember. Sammy Chavira has no such record other than a string of unethical actions.

Yucca district residents could always reach me. To this day, I readily offer my home phone number and my personal email address. While I could not successfully solve all constituent problems with the city I did solve an overwhelming number of them. I listened respectfully to all and occasionally there were arguments that changed my mind on an issue. I did not pander to people. If I could not solve their problem, I told them so. They may have gone away unhappy with me but I did not play games with them and promise something I could not deliver.

I have always been active and engaged. To this day, I know the problem areas in our district and welcome the opportunity to address the city’s attention to them. I have demonstrated over and over again that I cared about people and offered my services to help them.

There is still so much to do for our district. It’s time to complete Heroes Park as designed. Even though it is not in my district (I lived in this area for 30 years), O’Neil Pool in the Ocotillo District must be repaired or replaced. It is a disgrace that this economically challenged area has lost its only major recreational amenity.

There is still so much to do for our city. The major focus must be the city’s financial position. While the city has begun its financial recovery there is more to be done.

I have shown that I was an active and engaged councilmember. I want to continue to be that councilmember. I want to help you. I want a fiscally healthy Glendale. I want what you want, safe neighborhoods, the availability of good-paying jobs within Glendale, and a variety of recreational amenities for your families. If you want the same things, then I ask for your vote on Tuesday, August 30th. Together we can make Glendale better.

© Joyce Clark, 2016       

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘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 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 material. 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.

CHECK OUT THE LATEST VIDEO TO THE LEFT OF THIS COLUMN. IN JULY JOYCE CLARK INVITED HER OPPONENT, SAMMY CHAVIRA, TO A DEBATE. HE REFUSED. IMAGINE IF IT HAD HAPPENED…

My opponent, Sam Chavira, has sent many campaign mailings.

  • FACT:  The money fuelling his campaign is from special interests, Mark Becker of Becker Billboards, Arizona Pipe Trades Union, The fire union, and the United Food Workers Union.
  • FACT:  My opponent, according to his 2016 filed campaign reports, has not received one campaign donation from a single person in Glendale or from our district, the Yucca district.
  • FACT:  Nearly every campaign donation I have received has come strictly from people like you, residents of the Yucca district or Glendale. This fact demonstrates a level of support from the district that Sammy simply cannot command.
  • FACT:  A few donations I received from outside of Glendale have been from friends.

You have a choice in this election on August 30th. My opponent, having received his campaign money from special interests, will have to make good on their agenda. 

I owe no one except the residents of Glendale. My pledge is to represent you and to “get your voice back.”

 Do you have a direct question for me? Call me at 623-772-9795 or send me an email at clarkjv@aol.com. I am always available to talk to you and to answer any question or concern you may have. 

This election is so important and your choice will be decided in the Primary on August 30th. I ask for your vote.

 Together we will “get your voice back.” 

We all want safe neighborhoods, more good paying jobs right there in Glendale, abundant recreational opportunities and a well maintained city with excellent service delivery. I want what you want.

 My pledge to you is to work hard to achieve these goals. I humbly ask for you and your family’s votes by Early Ballot or at the polls on August30th.

Banner vote for Aug 15 2016

© Joyce Clark, 2016                 

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘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 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 material. 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.

PLEASE CHECK OUT THE LATEST VIDEO TO THE LEFT OF THIS COLUMN AS SAMMY CHAVIRA AND ANTHONY LEBLANC, CEO, SHARE A MOMENT PRIOR TO CHAVIRA’S FLIP FLOP VOTE FOR A $15 MILLION DOLLAR A YEAR ARENA MANAGEMENT CONTRACT

The countdown is on. Today is August 10, 2016. In 20 days all Early Ballots will have been mailed or will be turned in to voting sites and on August 30, 2016 voters will go to the polls to vote.

As did all candidates, I have walked and telephoned, delivered campaign fliers, had Meet ‘n’ Greets, participated in media interviews, planned the design of campaign mailers and mailed them out. I have posted on every social media site and even posted mini-videos. Campaign signs have been planted in residents’ yards and on nearly every street corner in the district. I exhausted the first supply of yard signs and had to order more.

I raised $9,640 – just $360 shy of a goal of $10,000. If you can give just a little bit thermometer w new numbers July 28 2016more I will have enough to cover bills still coming in. All of your $25, $50 and $100 donations added up and are a testament to the power of the people. Please send whatever you can to Joyce Clark, 8628 W. Cavalier Drive, Glendale, AZ 85305. Please make your check out to “Clark for Council.” If your contribution is over $50 by law I must have your name, address, employer and job title. My thanks to all who have donated as well as those who send me a contribution now, when it is needed the most.

The most amazing thing happened during this campaign. Not only have I had an opportunity to renew old friendships but nearly every contribution I have received has come from Yucca district residents or city-wide residents. I am so proud of that accomplishment but I am also very humbled and grateful to see the level of faith and trust so many of you have placed in me.

There are so many differences in our candidacies for the Yucca district city council position. I haven’t raised nearly the campaign cash that my opponent, Sammy Chavira, has raised but his first two filed campaign committee reports show that his money has come from only one source — special interests – the majority of cash and independent mailings from unions. Nearly all of my campaign donations have come from people like you.

There are stark differences in our campaign styles as well. Sammy has relied on his job as a fire fighter to provide you, the voter, with a reason to vote for him. But that is exactly why you should not vote for him. His full time job as a fire fighter has caused him to fail to carry out his responsibilities as a councilmember. Sammy has offered you, the voter, a laundry list of generalities in terms of his goals and accomplishments. Sammy has not bothered to list anything factual. Sammy can’t point to his record because it is so blemished and unethical.

We are judged “by the company we keep.” Sammy’s best buddy on city council was former Councilmember Garry Sherwood, recalled and disgraced. Many to this day believe that Sammy flip flopped on his campaign pledge and voted for the Coyotes deal so that Sherwood would support the casino.

  • Sammy has been invisible and failed to do his job as your councilmember.
  • Sammy has abused your trust in him by abusing taxpayer dollars on lavish trips.
  • Sammy thinks he’s above the law.
  • Sammy has offered a campaign platform devoid of anything concrete.
  • Sammy has presented only platitudes and generalities.
  • Sammy has a full time job as a fire fighter and no time to be a full time councilmember.
  • Sammy is offering the same, tired promises of 4 years ago and will fail to deliver on them just as he has done during his one term.

You deserve better than this. I pledge my accessibility and accountability. I’ve done it before and will do it again. I offer you my 5 E’s of Ethics, Economy, Engagement, Environment and Equity. I will post every taxpayer dollar spent from my councilmember budget. You deserve no less.

You have a choice. You can choose between Sammy’s years of inaction and my proven record of action. You can choose to “get your voice back” or you can have councilmember silence on the issues that concern you the most.

Here’s a simple comparison for your consideration:

  Sammy Joyce
Presented Biography No Yes
College graduate ?? Yes
Listed accomplishments while serving No Yes
Listed community involvement Yes Yes
Presented specific platform No Yes
Source of campaign contributions Special Interests The People
Current job full time fire fighter retired
Abused taxpayer dollars with travel Yes No
Held district meetings 1 in 4 years Min. of 2X a year
Attended neighborhood meetings No Yes
Returned your phone calls No Yes
Attended council meetings Missed 12 in 1 term Yes, faithfully
Active participant at council meetings No Yes
Failed to appear in court, driver’s license suspension as a result of a traffic ticket Yes No
Flop flopped on Coyotes vote Yes No

 

I have done all the things necessary in a campaign to convince you to support me…walked and talked, mailed and met. Now it is up to you. All I can do is wait and hope that you, the voter, recognize the real, basic differences between us and how we will represent you. I ask for your vote by Early Ballot or on August 30th.

Can you afford Sammy any longer?

© Joyce Clark, 2016

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘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 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 material. 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: