The Glendale City Council meeting of March 25, 2014 was reminiscent of many meetings I attended. It was one of those marathon sessions, lasting well over 4 hours, attracting many public speakers. The council approved a contingency fund transfer of over $6 million for the arena management fee and accepted staff’s recommendation that retirees will now pay the full liability for their medical insurance. Curiously current city personnel will remain heavily subsided by the city (read, you, the taxpayer).
However, the two big issues were billboards along the Loop 101 and Bell Road and the resolution to officially rescind city support for U.S. Representative Trent Franks’ legislation, HR 1410.
One could see a sea of yellow t-shirts in support of allowing billboards adjacent to the Loop 101 and Bell Road. Jordan Rose of the Rose Law Group delivered a strong, and very, very long presentation on behalf of Becker Boards. Yet speakers against the proposal outnumbered those supporting 2 to 1. It was assumed by many that it was a done deal and would win approval. After all, Councilmember Sherwood had publicly announced that he had the four votes needed for its passage. Can you say, “blind-sided?” The ultimate vote was 5 to 2 against. Only Councilmembers Sherwood and Alvarez voted in favor of Becker Billboards.
Sherwood’s advocacy for the billboards may be more easily understood as one of the speakers questioned his support in terms of the campaign contributions he had received from the stakeholders. A quick pass of his campaign finance reports reveals at least $1,960 received from members of the Rose Law Group and another $1,720 received from members of the Becker family. Approximately 1/5 of his total campaign contributions came from these two entities.
As a side note, seeing the large campaign contributions from fire unions, fire PACs and union firefighters in Sherwood’s campaign filings has piqued my interest. Look for a future blog that details how much money these fire union entities poured into Glendale’s last election cycle in 2012 and to whom. I suspect it will surprise us all except for the fire unions who probably know to the penny.
Councilmember Alvarez, on the other hand, cast a spite vote in favor of the billboards. After all, if her district must suffer their blight, why shouldn’t North Glendale suffer too?
The other hot issue was a vote by a majority of council to reject Representative Trent Franks legislation (HB 1410) to prohibit casino construction in the Phoenix Metro area after August of 2013. Council’s vote on this issue was much closer this time, 4 to 3, with Councilmembers Alvarez, Hugh, Chavira and Sherwood (perhaps as payback to Chavira) voting in the affirmative. The result of this congressional bill would be to stop the Tohono O’odham in their tracks. You can be sure it will result in another court battle. In the meantime court decisions are not yet settled in the 9th Circuit Court and in the Supreme Court.
Plain and simple, the Glendale City Council should not have done this. It is a slap in the face of a supportive bipartisan congressional coalition made up of the likes of Franks (R), McCain (R), Pastor (D) and others—virtually the entire Arizona Congressional delegation is in support of Franks’ legislation. The State of Arizona has a law on the books—the voter approved Gaming Compact of 2002. Since when can a city council pick and choose which laws it will uphold? It is a premature action that can result in futility should the court cases be resolved against the Tohono O’odham or Franks’ bill become law.
Mayor Weiers read a letter from Representative Franks expressing his disappointment with this council’s action and his pledge to continue to move this legislation forward. The Mayor also expressed concern that should the Tohono O’odham prevail the State Legislature will move to allow gambling state-wide, no holds barred. Many neighborhoods, state-wide, not just in the Phoenix Metro area, may become victims of new casino construction, not just by state tribes but by gaming interests throughout the country.
I, the former Yucca district councilmember, along with many, many Glendale residents, especially in the district affected, the Yucca district, urge the Gila River Indian Community and the Salt River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Communities to stay the course. Continue to fight this deception perpetrated by the Tohono O’odham on you, its sister tribes.
I urge Representative Franks to also stay the course. The 4 current councilmembers who voted to pass this resolution do not represent the majority — Glendale residents opposed to this intrusion. They are misguided–swayed by the promises made to them by the Tohono O’odham. Yet how can we trust a tribe that used deception to buy the land and keep it a secret for 7 years? How can other tribes trust the tribe that used deception and secretly was planning to build a casino while advocating for a state compact that promised no new casinos in the Phoenix Metro area? Anyone who relies upon the Tohono O’odham’s word after having seen their deceptions is a fool. It looks like we’ve got at least 4 fools on the Glendale City Council. Sigh…
© Joyce Clark, 2014
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
I thought the most explosive part of the evening was the testimony by two different members of the Arrowhead Ranch Phase 2 HOA who alledged that they were offered financial payments for their (HOA’s) support of this billboard zoning request. I wonder if Ms. Rose will be welcomed back into Council chambers after her outburst while trying to rebutt the claims after the end of the citizen comments?
I was also surprised that Ms. Rose continued with the same old presentation including her allegations that Peoria will use billboard revenue to build up some facilities in the P83 area (Peoria Sports and Entertainment area along 83rd Ave/south of Bell Road) when the Glendale Star had a letter from Peoria Mayor Bob Bennett which stated that Peoria has nothing in the works and also included a Peoria Council Resolution stating opposition to billboards. Did somebody on Ms. Rose’s team not do their homework? It sure seemed like a lot of old and sometimes untrue information was presented for the upteenth time.
Councilman Sherwood’s rush to get a motion on the floor including adding 3 stipulations to the original zoning request was puzzling and also caused quite a bit of confusion when the City Attorney wanted to have an “E-session” to provide some legal direction to the council before it was made public. I still don’t know what Sherwood expected to gain by adding a stipulation that two of the five billboard signs now had to be digital instead of the 5 static boards submitted by the applicant.
It is getting to be like a broken record listening to Councilmember Alvarez complain about all the billboards in her district. Hasn’t somebody explained to her that many of those billboards are grandfathered and cannot be removed just because she doesn’t like the looks of them? CM Alvarez is also on this kick about thinking that every purchase made by the city must by sent out to bid even when arrangements made by other cities, counties or even the state for purchase of certain equipment has already gone through the bidding process and Glendale can take advantage of these deals. It also appears the the new City Attorney is not on CM Alvarez’s favorites list as this is the second time that she has become agitated at his answers.
I’m not sure how many others watched the meeting on Glendale 11 last night. Did you also notice the constant keyboard noise that at times was louder than the speakers? I wonder who was playing around on their laptop, tablet or cell phone and also had their microphone open so we could hear the constant pecking?
I was there, what a no brainer! Glendale is, has been and always be known for NO BILLBOARDS! They are distracting and a poor form of advertising. Today, 2014, when I need a service, I turn to my smart phone or the internet and get a rating along with the services provided. Yes it is 2014 and we no longer wear high button shoes!
My son and I really had a good laugh when that preacher got up and tried to relate bible verses to the billboards. How bout the churches start paying their way? What O read in the good book is tiething was tax! I pay my tax but these con men churches are killing us. Jesus walked an average 3 miles a day to spread the word. Drive down Greenway Rd or any other major cross road and look, the number of churches, non tax paying, will wake up the LORD! About three weeks ago, Joel O’Steans office desk was robbed on a Monday, $600,000.00 in cash was taken! $250,000.00 in one service? To that preacher con man I say, pay YOUR way and STOP using the good word to con people, we all have a judgement day.
I am rather dismayed about your comment that taxpayers are paying a subsidy for current employees healthcare. The city paid a subsidy for your insurance also when you were a Council Member if you elected to take the cities insurance. That is a benefit paid by almost all employers. I am surprised that the council has taken the position to increase the retiree premium. We are not subsidized by the CITY but allowed to be on their plan. For deficiencies in the funding of the cities insurance, the retirees are being asked to pay more. For retirees over age 65, the city only pays 20% of medical bills. This appears to be just an effort to remove retirees from the insurance plan.
Johm, I stand corrected. I think I phrased it badly. The point I was trying to make was that upper management has no problem in the city contribution to current staff for their insurance premiums but do not extend that policy to retirees. I agree with your assessment that the city is trying to get rid of any liabilities associated with retirees.
Changing gears a moment here……
A recent AZCentral article has the following quote from CM Gary Sherwood,
[quote]
Councilman Gary Sherwood
“Neither — I will support the project if the Tohono O’odham Nation can be treated as close to a private entity as possible and having some form of revenue stream into the city’s general fund. Additionally, infrastructure including any street improvements, public-safety agreements, et al. would have to be included and enforceable in federal courts. Thus far, in fact-finding sessions, the Nation appears to be very amenable to this. Businesses such as Westgate, Renaissance Hotel, Coyotes and Tanger Outlets, to name a few, are also in support of proposed project. The sports and entertainment district could very well capitalize on a project of this size if it meets the city’s criteria.”
— Councilman Gary Sherwood
[/quote]
I’m curious about this statement since none of the entities Gary lists have ever publicly supported the casino as far as I know.
I guess the next thing would be to get public comment from them all…. no??
See today’s blog on the very same topic.