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.

On Saturday, July 24, 2021, the Arizona Redistricting Commission held a public hearing at Glendale’s Civic Center to obtain public comment on their mission to create new legislative districts within the State of Arizona. Their prime directive is to preserve “communities of interest.”

Unfortunately, the last Commission failed miserably to do so in Glendale and divided Glendale into 5 legislative districts, more than any other Valley city. So much for preserving or even recognizing Glendale as a whole as a “community of interest.” I have prepared some illustrations. The data I used came from www.city-data.com .See the graphic below:

Current state legislative districts

The problem with 5 legislative districts is that each contains only a small portion of Glendale’s voters. These legislative districts are very large and with 5 districts in Glendale, our voter base in each of these districts is very diluted. In other words, Glendale voters in each of these legislative districts are such a small percentage of each district’s total voter base, there is no imperative by each of these legislators to represent our interests (our “community of interest”).

I would ask the Commission to consider this suggestion for a legislative district map for Glendale:

Proposed state legislative districts

On another note, legislative districts are not the only districts that have to be redrawn after the census. So, too, do Glendale’s council districts. Since the last census in 2010, the council districts are no longer equal in population. Take a look at this graphic:

Council districts by population

As you can see, the Yucca district with a population of 72,077 is double the population of the Ocotillo and Cholla districts and nearly double that of the Sahuaro and Barrell districts. Cactus district will surprise most as its population has grown to 65,620 people.

The city council will consider and most likely, approve the hiring of a consultant to redraw Glendale’s council district boundaries. I would expect some radical changes to the current boundaries to get as close to ensuring that all districts have as close to equal population as possible.

The greatest shift may well be seeing the Yucca district’s eastern boundary move westward. How much is anyone’s guess but another imperative is to leave enough population allowance to accommodate future population growth. That is expected to be in the Yucca district as more residential units are developed west of the Loop 101 along Ballpark Boulevard.  It is possible that its eastern boundary will move further westward than expected to allow for future population increase over the next 10 years.

These redistricting efforts, statewide and in Glendale, will impact voters and candidates. Candidates would be wise to wait until the new district boundaries are approved before collecting nominating petition signatures. If they start now, they may end up with petition signatures from voters who are no longer in their newly configured districts.

As these new districts are approved be sure to check your (possible) new voting precinct and where you will be voting in the 2022 elections next year.

© Joyce Clark, 2021       

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.

Today, July 7, 2021, former President Trump announced that he will be the lead in a civil class action suit against Twitter, Google and Facebook as well as their founders and/or CEOs, Jack Dorsey (founder of Twitter), Sundar Pichai (CEO of Google) and Mark Zucherberg (co-founder of Facebook) personally.

The results of such an effort are obviously, unknown but we can expect such a suit to take years to reach the Supreme Court for final settlement. To understand what is occurring there are basic concepts that we should understand – the First Amendment, 47 U.S. Code Section 230 and the concept of the public square.

The First Amendment states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It specifically guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 includes Section 230. The law was established 25 years ago when the internet was in its infancy. Since that time, the internet has matured at warp speed and the seminal question becomes does a trillion- or billion-dollar private company still need the protections provided in Section 230? The findings in Section 230 recognize, “The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity…Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.”

It protects information content providers from civil liability,  “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph.” An information content providermeans any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

We will hear the term, public square, used often as this suit makes its way through the judicial system. Merriam Webster defines the public square as, “an open public area in a city or town where people gather.” The public square in the digital age has no shape or no physical place but is generally accepted to be any place or space where information and opinion can be shared and includes newspapers, magazines, books, websites, blogs, songs, broadcast stations and channels, street corners, theaters, conferences, government bodies and more.

One Supreme Court decision of note in 2017 recognized broadly in principle that using social media is a constitutional right. The case is Packingham v. North Carolina. North Carolina passed a law prohibiting sex offenders from accessing social media and made it a felony if they posted on any social media platform.

The Supreme Court viewed it as a free speech rights issue and unanimously held that states cannot broadly limit access to social media because cyberspace “is one of the most important places to exchange views.” “A fundamental First Amendment principle is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

The one aspect that will not be addressed in this class action suit is the anti-trust issue. There is no dispute that Google, Twitter and Facebook are billion dollar monopolies. That will not be the issue of this suit but rather violations of our First Amendment free speech rights. The final decision is unknown and there will be twists and turns in this saga. Stay tuned and hang onto your hats…it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

© Joyce Clark, 2021       

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

Recently Tucker Carlson had a segment on affordable housing and its impact on Buckhead, Georgia. More about this later in this article. It reminded me of the blog I posted this February about the federal government’s push to create more affordable housing throughout the country.

The Progressives in the Biden administration are working overtime to require more affordable housing everywhere. Under the HOME Act in a strategy to increase affordable housing stock, CDBG grantees, such as Glendale, requires “Each grantee receiving assistance under this title shall—

 ‘‘(A) include in the consolidated plan required under part 91 of title 24, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor thereto) a strategy to support new inclusive zoning policies, programs, or regulatory initiatives that create a more affordable, elastic, and diverse housing supply and thereby increase economic growth and access to jobs and housing;

and‘‘(B) include in the annual performance report submitted under section 91.520 of title 24, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor thereto) the progress and implementation of the strategy…”

Measures to increase the amount of affordable housing include:

  • “Increasing both the percentage and absolute number of affordable units
  • “Authorizing high-density and multifamily zoning
  • “Eliminating off-street parking requirements
  • “Establishment of density bonuses
  • “Streamlining or shortening permitting processes and timelines
  • “Removing height limitations
  • “Establishing by-right development
  • “Using property tax abatements
  • “Relaxing lot size restrictions
  • “Prohibiting source of income discrimination
  • “Taxing vacant land or donating vacant land to nonprofit developers
  • “Allowing accessory dwelling units
  • “Establishing development tax or value capture incentives
  • “Prohibiting landlords from asking prospective tenants for their criminal history
  • “Provide that affordable housing units should, to the maximum extent practicable—be designated as affordable for not less than 30 years; comprise not less than 20 percent of the new housing stock in the community; and be accessible to the population served by the program established under this title”

Let’s take a snapshot of Glendale. There are 82,810 housing units (homes and apartments). Of those, 2,629 are affordable apartments in 25 low income complexes in Glendale. This represents 3% of the current housing stock as affordable and a far cry from the 20% required under the soon-to-be enacted federal HOME Act. Here are the 25 apartment complexes:

  • Vista Alegre

6549 W Maryland Ave

Glendale, Arizona

Income Based 1 BR Subsidized 62+ Accessible Elderly Supportive Housing

  • Landmark Senior Housing

8232 N 59th Ave

Glendale, Arizona

Income Based 1 BR 62+

  • Brook Creek Apartments

4937 W. Myrtle Avenue Glendale, AZ 85301

Glendale, Arizona

$475-600 1-2 BR

  • Good Shepherd West

6113 N. 60th Ave

Glendale, Arizona

Call For Rent Studio BR Subsidized 62+ Accessible Elderly Supportive Housing

  • Kachina Place Apartments

6238 N 63rd Avenue

Glendale, Arizona

Call For Rent Studio-1 BR Subsidized 62+ Accessible Elderly Supportive Housing

  • Casa Bill Soltero

6001 W Missouri Ave

Glendale, Arizona

Subsidized 62+ Accessible Elderly Supportive Housing

  • Valley of the Sun School 6

5239 W Tonto Rd

Glendale, Arizona

Subsidized Accessible Accessible Disabled Supportive Housing

  • Bethany Glen Apartments

4788 W Bethany Home Rd

Glendale, Arizona

Subsidized

  • Waymark Gardens

5325 W Butler Dr

Glendale, Arizona

Subsidized 62+ Accessible Elderly Supportive Housing

  • Glencroft Towers

8620 N 65th Ave

Glendale, Arizona

Subsidized 62+ Accessible Elderly Supportive Housing

  • Manistee Manor

7987 N 53rd Ave

Glendale, Arizona

Subsidized 62+ Accessible Elderly Supportive Housing

  • John’s Manor

7229 N 51st Avenue

Glendale, Arizona

Subsidized 62+ Accessible Elderly Supportive Housing

  • San Remo Apartments

5755 N 59th Ave

Glendale, Arizona

  • Valley of the Sun School 5

4649 W Haywood

Glendale, Arizona

Subsidized Accessible Accessible Disabled Supportive Housing

  • Tanner Terrace

7138 N 45th Ave

Glendale, Arizona

Subsidized 62+ Accessible Elderly Supportive Housing

  • Palms at Glendale

6112 N 67th Ave

Glendale, Arizona

  • Desert Eagle

6917 N 71st Ave

Glendale, Arizona

  • Faith House a L a Prospect Park Apartments

8581 N 61st Ave

Glendale, Arizona

  • Villas Solanas

6755 N 83rd Ave

Glendale, Arizona

  • Glendale Homes

6617 N 52nd Ave

Glendale, Arizona

  • San Martin Apartments

6802 N 67th Ave

Glendale, Arizona

  • Town Square

5136 W Glenn Dr

Glendale, Arizona

  • Glendale Enterprise

6839 N 63rd Ave

Glendale, Arizona

  • Los Vecinos Housing Development, Inc

7131 N 54th Ave

Glendale, Arizona

  • Shadow Creek II

10854 N 60th Ave

Glendale, Arizona

Ten of these complexes are for elderly housing and two complexes are for disabled housing. Thirteen are non-restrictive subsidized housing. Note that almost all are in the Ocotillo District—an unhealthy situation for that district at best.

Obviously, Glendale as a federal recipient of Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and Surface Transportation Block Grants (STBG) would be subject to this federal law or become ineligible to receive either of these block grants. Practically, Glendale in its annual report, would have to show that it is using any or all of the measurements listed above to achieve a goal of 20% of its housing units as affordable and that they would remain so for 30 years (for a generation).

How does this situation apply to Buckhead, Georgia? Buckhead, unlike Glendale, is not an incorporated city but rather a suburb of Atlanta, Georgia. Therefore, it is subject to whatever zoning code amendments are enacted by the Atlanta City Council and its Mayor, Keisha Lance Bottoms. Much of what is in the federal HOME Act is suggested for use in Buckhead as well as other communities considered to be the suburbs of Atlanta proper.

In March of this year, Atlanta issued a report, Atlanta City Design Housing. It says, “The first step toward making Atlanta a more inclusive place to live should be to end exclusive single-family zoning by allowing an additional dwelling unit in all existing single-family zoned areas in the city.” Other ideas promoted in this report include reducing minimum lot sizes, allowing small apartment buildings in some neighborhoods currently limited to single-family homes, and mandating those wealthy neighborhoods have their per-capita share of ‘affordable housing’.“ Yet other strategies include: creating basement apartments, converting garages, allowing accessory dwelling units on the same lot; elimination of parking minimums for apartments complexes; elimination of low density housing; reduction of minimum lot size requirements; distribute affordable housing throughout the city including wealthy neighborhoods; creation of overlay affordability districts; and the use of city owned vacant land for affordable units.

There is also the creation of an Atlanta Housing Affordability Tracker which “provides a snapshot of progress made in reaching the goals of (1) creating or preserving 20,000 affordable homes by 2026 and increase overall supply and (2) investing $500 million from City-controlled public sources in the production and preservation of affordable housing as part of the larger goal of investing $1 billion (the other $500 million coming from private and philanthropic sources).”

In the name of diversity or equality what is happening in this country? When, not if, this amendment to the HOME Act becomes law, the incentive to work hard and become successful will be disincentivized. It doesn’t matter if you are black, white or brown. The most important and meaningful purchase of anyone’s life will have been diminished. It smacks of reverse discrimination not based on skin color but rather on one’s ability to be financially successful in life.

We live on an acre of land in a 3,000 SF home. For 30 years our family lived in a typical R1-6 residential subdivision. Twenty years ago, we were fortunate and found our current home and large lot property. We worked hard all our lives to have the necessary funds to buy. If the HOME Act amendment becomes federal law, our opportunity to live on a large lot today would evaporate.

I suspect that the residents of Buckhead and other Atlanta suburbs have the same attitude, and it will not surprise me in the least if they take Atlanta’s zoning amendments to court—perhaps even the Supreme Court. It is clearly a “takings” issue.

© Joyce Clark, 2021       

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: