Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

May 23

25

Affordable housing push comes to the state legislature

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 25, 2023
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale zoning issues • Phoenix Metro issues  | Tagged With: , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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.

In a previous blog post I shared some of the more onerous of the Biden administration’s Federal Fair Housing Act’s provisions. Those provisions have migrated to the Arizona Legislature, and you may not be happy about them. In the name of affordable housing, they are designed to remove your reliance upon your property values as they strip away cities’ abilities to protect local zoning regulations.

Who is behind all these provisions? A guy by the name of Steve Kaiser. He was first elected as a State Representative and just in the last few years he was elected as a State Senator. He represents LD 2, the northern Phoenix area and is a Republican. He claims he is sponsoring several bills to help the affordable housing crisis in the state. Sounds great, doesn’t it? Except nearly every proposal he has brought forward does nothing to solve affordable housing. Might there be another reason for his avid embrace? Would a $64,875.11 contribution from the Arizona Multifamily Housing Association to his campaign run for senator affect his perspective?

Something else to be aware of is that Mr. Kaiser lives in an HOA and all of his sponsored provisions do not apply to HOAs.

Here are some facts related to HOAs. In the 1960s there were about 500 HOAs in the entire country. The concept took off in the 70s and 80s.

Let’s look at Glendale. It was incorporated as a town in 1910. Between 1910 and 1970 hundreds of homes were built in Glendale and none were in an HOA. Even Glendale’s first annexation in the 1960s, the 1,300 + home O’Neil Ranch neighborhood built by John F. Long and covering the square mile from 59th Avenue to 67th Avenue, Camelback Road to Bethany Home Road, was not created as an HOA.

The first major use of HOAs in Glendale came with the construction of many neighborhoods in the Arrowhead area of the Cholla District. Today, nearly every new subdivision in Glendale will have an HOA.

The reason I bring this up is because the neighborhoods that will be subject to Mr. Kaiser’s ideas will be older neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are often distressed and the last thing they need is volatility in the value of homes.

Mr. Kaiser will never have to worry about his neighbors building an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) next door. He will never have to worry about his neighbors building their homes without design standards next door because he lives in an HOA.

Another factor to consider is why, suddenly, is there this overwhelming need for affordable housing? I contend that when the country is suddenly home to over 6 million illegal immigrants who need a place to live, the pressure to create affordable housing is born.

Kaiser promoted a series of amendments, none of which have been passed by the Legislature. The reason I mention them is to give you a sense of how far he is willing to go, aided and abetted by residential and multifamily developers. Make no mistake. This lobby probably wrote the original bills and crafted the amendments that Kaiser has been shilling for.

One thing is for certain. “Unless otherwise stated, the following only applies to cities and towns larger than 25,000 people. This bill does not apply to historic neighborhoods, areas near airports, tribal land or HOAs.” I will only list a few of Kaiser’s amendments (again, they have not been passed by the Legislature to date):

  • Subjective or decorative design review is removed from governmental control…” If your neighbor wants to build an ADU and paint it mustard yellow, there is no way to stop it.
  • Cities cannot require more than one off street parking space per residential units… Have you noted how many of your neighbors are parking 2, 3 or 4 vehicles at their home? Can you imagine if the home builder could get away with putting in only one parking space at each new home?
  • Cities cannot require an ADU to have a parking requirement. Where will they park? On the street?
  • Cities shall allow ADUs in residential zoning. This would allow your neighbor to build an ADU in his backyard or sideyard.
  • Buyer of an existing property must provide to the seller an independent appraisal of the property’s value before close of sale. Great if you’re the seller. Not so great if you’re the buyer.

The Arizona League of Cities and Towns (representing all member cities and towns) has been working diligently to kill the more draconian provisions of Kaiser’s bills. The last information I had was that the League was willing to accept the concept of allowing more density along transit corridors, accept the legalization of ADUs but the cities would individually set the standards for this type of dwelling unit, and accept the concept that larger cities could allow triplexes and duplexes where a city zones for it. It is my understanding that these are the only concepts the League will accept, and they are non-negotiable.

The Arizona Legislature is on a break and will not reconvene until June 12th. There is still time to contact your representatives and let them know you do not support HB 2536, SB 1163, or SB 1161. Here are Glendale’s representatives in the State Legislature. Shoot them an email by using the email name listed below and adding @azleg.gov . For example, Skaiser@azleg.gov .Or call their offices.

District 2

Sen. Steve Kaiser         R           Email: SKAISER             (602)-926-3314

 

District 22

Lupe Contreras            D          Email: LCONTRERAS    (602) 926-5284

Leezah Elsa Sun           D          Email: LSUN                 (602) 926-3881

Senator Eva Diaz         D          Email: EVA.DIAZ          (602) 926-3473

 

District 24

Lydia Hernandez         D          Email: LHERNANDEZ   (602) 926-3553

Analise Ortiz                 D          Email: ANALISE.ORTIZ (602) 926-3633

Senator Anna Hernandez D    Email: ANNA.HERNANDEZ      (602) 926-3492

 

District 26

Cesar Aguilar               D          Email: CAGUILAR        (602) 926-3953

Senator Flavio Bravo   D          Email: FBRAVO            (602) 926-4033

 

District 27

Kevin Payne                  R          Email: KPAYNE             (602) 926-4854

Ben Toma — Speaker   R          Email: BTOMA             (602) 926-3298

Senator Anthony Kern R         Email: AKERN              (602) 926-3497

 

District 28

David Livingston          R          Email: DLIVINGSTON   (602) 926-4178

Beverly Pingerelli        R          Email: BPINGERELLI    (602) 926-3396

Senator Frank Carroll  R          Email: FCARROLL        (602) 926-3249

 

District 29

Steve Montenegro      R          Email: SMONTENEGRO           (602) 926-3635

Austin Smith                 R          Email: AUSTIN.SMITH             (602) 926-3831

Senator Janae Shamp  R          Email: JSHAMP                        (602) 926-3499

All of these proposed affordable housing bills are not healthy for our communities and certainly not designed to protect your properties.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

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.

May 23

24

Beware as the push for affordable, high-density housing intensifies

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 24, 2023
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale zoning issues • National issues • Phoenix Metro issues  | Tagged With: , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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.

The current administration is not going to give up on increasing our misery index. In addition to rampant inflation and a possible recession, it is hell bent on removing local zoning protection.

Cases in point. Here are some recent examples. Lawmakers in Arlington County, Virginia, a northern suburb adjacent to Washington, D.C., may do away with single-family zoning across the county of 240,000. It is a product of a years-long study that considered the role these medium-density homes can play in expanding the housing supply in an increasingly expensive metropolitan area.

Yet another example is happening in Atlanta, Georgia under Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms. What her administration’s “housing plan” proposes to do, as found starting on page 43 of the 88 page document called ‘Atlanta City Design Housing’ is to:

  • End single-family zoning, allowing any property owner by right to build an additional dwelling unit (called an “Accessory Dwelling Unit”, or ADU) on any lot now zoned for one family residence (p57).
  • Some accessory dwelling units could be built with modular technology, assembled offsite and transported to a final location.
  • Allow the property owner by right to then subdivide the lot and sell the ADU separately on its own “flag lot” (p67), then presumably build another and repeat the process, completely overbuilding the property
  • “Loosen” the building requirements, such as size and height, for ADU’s (p69), making them cheaper, and likely less attractive in the neighborhood
  • Reduce minimum lot sizes, and minimum set-backs from the street and adjacent properties (p82), in order to get more buildings onto every property
  • End minimum residential parking requirements citywide (p74), so that new apartment and condominium buildings would not have to provide parking for their residents, but can rather require them to park on neighborhood streets

The New York Times in a recent article said, “Single-family zoning is practically gospel in America, embraced by homeowners and local governments to protect neighborhoods of tidy houses from denser development nearby. But a number of officials across the country are starting to make seemingly heretical moves. The Oregon legislature this month will consider a law that would end zoning exclusively for single-family homes in most of the state. California lawmakers have drafted a bill that would effectively do the same. In December Minneapolis City Council voted to end single-family zoning citywide.”

Biden says that he wants to “eliminate local and state housing regulations that perpetuate discrimination.” Biden then identifies “exclusionary zoning” as the kind of housing regulation he wants to “eliminate.” “Exclusionary zoning” is Biden’s term for what is more commonly called “single-family zoning.”

Add that President Biden has promised that he will eliminate “exclusionary zoning” with the HOME Act of 2019, co-sponsored by Senator Cory Booker and House majority whip James Clyburn. The HOME Act of 2019 requires any municipality receiving Community Development Block Grants from HUD or benefiting from federal Surface Transportation Grants for highway construction and repair, to submit a plan to “reduce barriers” to high-density low-income housing. The plan must choose from a menu of items, most of which in some way limit or eliminate single-family zoning.

In a July 18, 2022, Phoenix Business Journal article, using a report from a Washington, D.C. think tank called Up for Growth, says Arizona’s housing deficit has increased 1,377% since 2012 — representing 122,683 homes. In the same article, Steven Hensley, advisory manager for the Zonda housing market research firm, said the approval and permitting process at the municipal level is delaying projects, which results in less development. He went on to say that local municipalities must address these issues and allow more building and more density to improve housing costs.

Why the sudden and intractable need for more affordable housing? The American birth rate fell for the sixth consecutive year in 2020, with the lowest number of babies born since 1979. About 3.6 million babies were born in the US in 2020 – marking a 4% decline from the year before. It’s not that the U.S. population is increasing.

So, what is creating the need for large amounts of affordable housing? Can you say ‘open borders’? Can you say that nearly 2 million illegal immigrants have arrived since the start of the Biden administration? Where are they going to live?

This new desire for affordable housing, requires that you to give up the American Dream of a single-family home.

In my next blog I will share how affordable housing can affect you directly.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

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.

May 23

21

Uniter, consensus builder, man of the people…really?

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 21, 2023
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale election 2024  | Tagged With: , , , | 1 Comment

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.

I’m going to begin by relating facts. Facts do not lie although they can be manipulated to prove either side of an issue. Here are some of those stubborn facts:

  • Glendale’s population is between 253,000 and 256,000, depending on which site is used to obtain information.
  • The number of active voters in Glendale is 118,846 or 46% of the total population.
  • In the 2020 election (mayoral contest with higher voter totals), 37,761 people voted or 32% of all active voters in the city.
  • In the Ocotillo district there are about 12,000 registered voters.
  • Aldama captured a little over 1,200 votes or 15% of all the registered voters in the district.
  • The Cholla, Sahuaro and Barrell districts (generally north Glendale) account for 60% of the total votes cast and Cactus, Ocotillo and Yucca districts produce 40% of the votes cast.
  • A majority of voters (over 55%) are age 50 or older.
  • A voter turnout of 32% is slightly lower than many other valley cities. Less than 40% of all registered voters (or less than 20% of the total population) will decide who becomes the next mayor.

Glendale is not an anomaly and is typical of many cities. Less than half of Glendale’s residents vote. That is not surprising considering that many people are focused on making a living and paying the bills. If it’s not a NIMBY (not in my backyard) issue, they generally do not care about or focus on who is running the city. I remember polling done during one of my many election races when people were asked to identify the mayor from a list of names, only 3% could identify who was the Mayor of Glendale.

What do these facts signify? Aldama is going to have a very difficult race. It’s been demonstrated that he is not wildly popular in his own district, Ocotillo. It will be difficult for him to gather a majority of votes in the three northern districts.

In Aldama’s recent announcement, the Arizona Republic said, “Aldama then pointed out that in 2018, when he ran for reelection, Weiers endorsed his opponent, Emmanuel Allen.” That was 5 years ago. Is Aldama’s internal motive for running payback for Weiers’ previous endorsement of someone else? Does Aldama feel disrespected by Mayor Weiers?

Also, the Arizona Republic said that Aldama wants to find consensus among the city council and to unify the city. Let’s look at these public goals. He wants to become the great unifier. I defy anyone to find a city council where all 7 members agree. That is how democracy works. What Aldama does not say, as part of a minority on council, is that he wants his side to become the majority.

As for unification of the city, that’s just meaningless rhetoric. What does that really mean? Unification along racial, ethnic or income standards? All of these identifiers produce people who have had different experiences and knowledge which may not lend themselves to unification. Ask Aldama how he’s going to create unity between someone living in a million dollar home in north Glendale with someone living in a $250,000 home in south Glendale.

The Republic reported that, “Aldama also said he plans on holding one of the largest meetings with Glendale constituents…asking them for input…” If this were to happen, I suspect the attendees to be the usual, small group, current activist portion of the community each representing a specific issue.

As a representative form of government, councilmembers are elected by their district constituents to represent them…to lead. That’s what Aldama was elected to do. Sometimes council decisions are difficult. That’s when I turn to my constituents asking for their point of view on the issue. Perhaps his time would be better spent reaching out to his district constituents and asking them for their input so that he can truly represent them.

Lastly Aldama is quoted as saying, “…we’re going to start the healing and we’re going to bring respect back to the dais and we’re going to start to unite the community…” I ask what healing? Aldama’s hurt feelings? I ask what respect? Does Aldama feel disrespected? I certainly don’t and I suspect that is shared by most of the councilmembers. I ask what unity? On what basis? A majority of this council is unified and their decisions have brought about many positive results for Glendale.

Having sat on the dais with Councilmember Aldama for years and having observed his actions and listened to his rhetoric, Aldama will not be my choice for Mayor of Glendale.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

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.

May 23

17

Tempe citizens win and Coyotes lose

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 17, 2023
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City of Glendale • City of Phoenix • City of Tempe • Phoenix Metro issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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.

Last night I checked the Maricopa County elections page to find out the results of the Tempe election. There were 3 propositions, all of which if passed, would have given the Tempe City Council and the Coyotes the green light to build a new hockey arena.

I am pleased to report that all three propositions were rejected by a margin of about 56% NO to 44% YES. I helped in a very small way by writing several blogs about Glendale’s experience with the Coyotes and even wrote an opposition statement in Tempe’s publicity pamphlet.

The Coyotes officially conceded last night, and Coyotes CEO Xavier Gutierrez issued the following statement after the vote results were released:

“We are very disappointed Tempe voters did not approve Propositions 301, 302, and 303. As Tempe Mayor Corey Woods said, it was the best sports deal in Arizona history. The Coyotes wish to thank everyone who supported our efforts and voted yes. So many community leaders stepped up and became our advocates and for that we are truly grateful. We also wish to thank the countless volunteers who worked so hard to try and make the Tempe Entertainment District a reality and the Tempe City Council for their support as well. While we wanted a different outcome, we remain grateful to all those who volunteered their time and talent. What is next for the franchise will be evaluated by our owners and the National Hockey League over the coming weeks.”

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman also issued a statement on @ArizonaCoyotes arena vote failing:

“The NHL is terribly disappointed by the results of the public referenda regarding the Coyotes’ arena project in Tempe. We are going to review with the Coyotes what the options might be going forward.”

I suppose they can try to find another location in Arizona. Who knows that may happen. Commissioner Bettman is absolutely glued to the Arizona market and will try his damnest to remain in Arizona. Alex Muerelo has a betting franchise in Arizona that could be worth more than the team. That also gives him a strong motive to stay here. It will be interesting to see how the next chapter unfolds.

In the meantime, here are just a few reactions from the fan base:

  • “My fellow #yotes fans, one day we will looks back and say, ‘Thank God it didn’t work out in Tempe.’ @ArizonaCoyotes there’s still so much love for you in the desert 🌵 We will rise my friends. This is the dark before the dawn. 🏜️”

 

  • “Completely gutted. What a devastating loss for our community. @ArizonaCoyotes you always had a fan in me. Through thick and the thinnest of thin. Really heartbroken. ♥️”

 

  • From reporter Brahm Resnick: “DEFEAT’S NOT AN ORPHAN Tempe voters’ resounding rejection of @ArizonaCoyotes proposal also a repudiation of mayor & council that backed project along w 4 former mayors who got behind it.”

 

  • “Sorry Gary but your Arizona Coyotes project was and continues to be a failure. It’s time to move the team.”

 

I’m glad the Tempe saga is over. My concern was that Tempe was about to be caught up in the drama of a financial maelstrom just as Glendale had been. When ordinary people, like me, are struggling to pay bills and are worrying about another recession it wasn’t the right time to ask for any kind of financial breaks for yet another sports team.

Tempe voters…you made the right decision. Congratulations.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

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

May 23

16

Aldama takes the plunge

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 16, 2023
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale election 2024  | Tagged With: , , , , | 1 Comment

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, May 16, 2023, Jamie Aldama announced his run for mayor of Glendale. He joins incumbent Mayor Jerry Weiers and another wanna-be, Paul Boyer making it a three-way contest.

I am not running again for the Yucca district council seat. More on who I will endorse later. When I complete this term in 2024, I will have served twenty-four years as a Glendale councilmember, off and on since 1992. I served from 1992-1996; then from 2000 -2012; and then again from 2016 to the present. Not running again allows me to speak my mind (more than I usually do!) about current Glendale politics and issues.

I will be blogging a lot about this upcoming election but for today, let’s review some history about Aldama’s previous runs for office. He was first elected in 2014, 9 years ago. In that election he literally squeaked by the incumbent, Councilmember Norma Alvarez.  He collected 1,221 votes and Alvarez had 1202 votes. Aldama won by 19 votes.

Aldama ran for his second term in 2018, against Emmanuel Allen and garnered 1,299 votes against Allen’s 784.  He increased his vote total by 78 votes in four years. His third run in 2022 was uncontested and Aldama picked up 1,788 votes. However, Bart Turner ran uncontested in the Barrell district and earned 5,152 votes and Lauren Tolmachoff ran uncontested in the Cholla district and garnered 8,380 votes.

There are about 12,000 registered voters in the Ocotillo district. Approximately 15% of the district’s registered voters voted for Aldama.  Turner came in with 25% of the approximately 20,000 registered voters in his district. Lauren Tolmachoff earned 33% of the approximately 25,000 voters in the Cholla district. Aldama doesn’t seem to have an impressive track record when one is ambitious enough to run for Mayor of all of Glendale.

In the Glendale Independent newspaper, Aldama is quoted as saying, “He says he has had his sights set on running for mayor for a while. ‘The plan to run for mayor has been in place since the inception of running (for councilmember in 2014) but really took hold about three years ago,’ he said. ‘It really took hold after my 2018 election where the division among the council was at its worst.’

It’s certainly no surprise to me. I always assumed that he would run for mayor. What is surprising is that he reneged on his pledge to Mayor Weiers that he would not be running against him.

Aldama has always impressed me as being calculating because of his mayoral ambitions and it has been demonstrated time and time again in his votes and the issues for which he chooses to advocate. They seem to be calculated to curry favor.

In his Glendale Independent announcement, he also stated that he was running “on a platform of uniting a leadership team on city council he calls ‘divided.’” The characterization of this city council may be perceived as correct but he fails to acknowledge that he along with 2 other councilmembers have created that division. Four of us, Mayor Weiers, Councilmembers Hugh, Malnar and I, as a majority, have voted time and time again to create a strong, healthy and vibrant community while Aldama, Turner and Tolmachoff have shown varying degrees of support.

There will be more to share in upcoming blogs on all kinds of political doings including those I mention in this blog. So, stay tuned. More is coming…a lot more…

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

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.