Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Jun 14

27

War declared

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 27, 2014
Posted in Camelback Ranch Spring Training Facility • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena • Westgate  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 9 Comments

I had just finished writing this blog when I received 2 robo calls. The first one was from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club announcing it was seeking petition signatures to put the city council’s affirmative decision to eliminate the sunset provision of the temporary sales tax increase on the ballot. In the call they announced that they would be at the Foothills Recreation Center and the Glendale Main Library this weekend from 9 AM to 5 PM both days gathering signatures to get it on the ballot. I wish them success. I will make a special point of going to the Main Library this weekend to sign their petition.

The second robo call was several hours later and it was from the Glendale Fire Union urging people not to sign the petition and promising dire consequences if the sales tax increase is sunset in 2017. Everyone acknowledges that Glendale’s debt burden is unsustainable. Perhaps it would be more productive if the Fire Union got behind an effort to urge reduction of the city’s debt by selling some of its assets. It would make the entire sales tax sunset issue a moot point. 

The battle lines are drawn. Voters will be fed misinformation and exaggeration from both sides. They will have to wade through the claims and counter claims made until their eyes are crossed. Will voters decide to send a strong message of austerity to the city council or will they decide Glendale cannot continue to exist without a permanent sales tax increase? It looks like the voters of Glendale will be given the opportunity to ultimately decide the issue. Which side will be more successful in activating their voter base? It’s fair to say that the Sales Tax Sunset Elimination War is officially declared. Now…on to the rest of this blog.

The June 24, 2016 city council meeting had two major items not yet reviewed in my blog. One was the passage of Ordinance 2897 removing the sunset provision from the sales tax increase. The other was Ordinance 2899 eliminating city permitted events from the requirements of the city’s noise ordinance.

The elimination of noise provisions for city permitted events is a city-wide ordinance. If there is a city permitted event in Sahuaro Ranch Park, it applies. If there is a city permitted event at Arrowhead Mall, it applies. It does not affect just the residents adjacent to Westgate. It was approved unanimously by city council. Councilmember Chavira, representing west Glendale and the area of Westgate, had no qualms about throwing his residents under the Glendale bus. Perhaps it is time for the voters of his district to question his representation of them, their concerns and their interests.

Sam Allen, Code Compliance Director, also neatly side-stepped a question about the number of previous noise complaints in the Westgate area by saying he did not have that figure as noise complaints are handled by the police department. There were allusions by staff that neighborhoods would remain protected but no specifics as to how that would be accomplished.  Another question asked was how many events declined to locate in Glendale as a result of the city’s noise ordinance? That, too, was deftly ignored.

Ken Sturgis, a citizen commentator, said that he lived .8 of a mile away from Westgate and often heard Westgate event noise within his home. His neighbors heard it as well but felt that the city would do nothing about it. I live a mile away from Westgate and heard noise but not at the same level of intrusion that neighbors living closer to Westgate would have heard. So, in the name of flexibility and competiveness, all neighborhoods throughout Glendale have lost all protection from city permitted event noise. They will experience sound and fury…signifying nothing.

The other ordinance, passed on a 4 to 3 vote (with our usual 4, Knaack, Martinez, Sherwood and Chavira in the affirmative), was the elimination of the sunset provision of the sales tax increase. I was the councilmember who originally insisted it be a provision of the sales tax increase. I did not offer that stipulation on a whim. It was the only way I could support the increase. I trusted and relied upon my fellow councilmembers to keep their word. Little did I know that their acceptance of the sunset provision was done with fingers crossed behind their backs.

Barrel district council candidate Randy Miller spoke to the issue and said the two options, making the sales tax increase permanent or utilizing draconian cuts, were not the only options available. Mayor Weiers agreed and that was the basis of his “no” vote. Mr. Miller said there is always an Option 3 and crafting it should be the goal.

At the time of the passage of sales tax increase with the sunset provision senior staff offered a plan to gradually absorb the $25 million in the temporary sales tax increase by making incremental cuts of $5 million a year over a 5 year period. The first signal that council would not have the fortitude to make the necessary cuts over 5 years was when they could not even accept privatization of custodial maintenance of city buildings. That decision sent a message, loud and clear, to senior staff that making the necessary spending cuts over 5 years was a council non-starter.

I marvel at the city’s propensity and adroitness in propagandizing the issue.  Knowing that the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) is currently circulating a petition to get the council’s vote for elimination of the sunset provision on the ballot, senior staff slipped in a new concept.  The sales tax increase will be reviewed during the budget process each year. Be careful what you wish for. It would be ironic indeed if, at the next budget discussions in the spring of 2015, council decided to raise the sales tax increase. After all, Councilmember Sherwood publicly stated that he believed it would be necessary.

The offer of sales tax increase review every year was strategically offered to mitigate the anger of Glendale voters should the AFEC be successful in getting the question on this fall’s ballot. The city will be holding out the hope that the increase has a chance of being reduced or going away in the future. Maybe after we’re all dead.

The city assertion flies in the face of the fact that the bond rating agencies are taking a close look and relying upon the elimination of the sunset provision to satisfy them. The bond rating agencies will again be very concerned about Glendale’s financial stability when they realize that now the sales tax increase stands an annual possibility of reduction or elimination. By adding this provision of annual review the stability that the bond rating agencies rely upon has been removed.

Another mitigation strategy that the city is already employing is on its website under Frequently Asked Questions about the elimination of the sunset provision. Here is the link:http://www.glendaleaz.com/documents/FAQEliminationofSunsetforTempTax062514.pdf .

The city’s message is that dire consequences will occur should the tax sunset in 2017. They used the same strategy years ago when a group of us nearly got the elimination of food sales tax on the ballot. The city prepared a slick pamphlet asking Glendale citizens to choose what cuts they would be willing to make. All choices were dire and it scared the voters. It worked that time and sadly, it may work this time.

If the Arizona Free Enterprise Club is successful in acquiring the requisite number of signatures to get the question on the fall ballot, don’t buy into scare tactics this time. It’s time for Glendale voters to send a direct message to council and senior management staff. That message is, live within your means. Don’t spend more than the city receives in revenue. If 22% of the budget is devoted to the debt burden, tell them it is their job to reduce the debt.

Which brings up the question, can Camelback Ranch, the Media Center, the Parking Garages, the Convention Center, the Civic Center or Jobing.com arena be sold? I’m not an attorney but I would say “yes.” Many years ago as a small business owner, my landlord sold the building in which I was a tenant. The new landlord and I could not come to mutually agreed terms. When my lease expired I did not renew. I left that location.

Glendale owns these buildings and has the right as landlord to sell them. Tenants in any of these sites would then have to negotiate new lease terms with the new landlord. Glendale may lose some money by selling at present market value but it would remove the debt and/or the O&M costs associated with the asset. Glendale must get its debt burden under control. Right now it is over 22%. It should be under 10%. If Glendale cannot afford these assets, selling them seems to be a prudent course of action.

There are those who will immediately say, we can’t do that. Instead, council direction should be given to the city attorney to make it happen. The city simply cannot continue down this unsustainable debt burden path forever.

There are those who will say, what’re you… nuts? The city can’t do that! It reminds me of something Councilmember Hugh said at this council meeting. He said, paraphrased, that the current council is fractured because its members do not share the same strategy for curing Glendale’s financial situation. Each side believes it has the better path and the right path to solve Glendale’s fiscal crisis.

I have no doubt that the councilmembers love this city. They demonstrate it daily by their service. Unfortunately, a majority believe the only solution is to tax the city out of its financial crisis. The minority believes that there are other choices, painful, yes… but other choices.

It has been my honor and a great privilege to have served as a Glendale councilmember for 16 years. I have lived in Glendale for nearly 50 years. I love this city. You love this city. It is our home. Placing a greater and greater tax burden on those who live in this home, is not prudent…and it sure isn’t the best way to grow Glendale.

© 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.

Jun 14

20

Do you still want the casino if…

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 20, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 3 Comments

I have written about the proposed Tohono O’odham (TO) casino and its impact on Glendale too many times to count. The other day a thought occurred to me. We all know that Glendale is in a financial mess. Its debt burden has prevented the construction of so many much needed facilities such as a western branch library and has caused the cuts in service to residents’ quality of life.

We often hear Councilmember Alvarez complain about service cuts and the on-going lessening of basic infrastructure maintenance. Yet she is all too willing to support the construction of the proposed casino in the name of jobs. Realistically the job numbers touted by the TO are highly inflated and everyone seems to ignore the stipulation that 25% of them must go to Native Americans.

Has anyone considered the financial impacts to a city already struggling financially? I think not.

Several years ago senior Glendale staff presented a cursory assessment of the financial effects of the casino. It was made clear that a new water treatment facility would be required to service the intense demand for water that would be created by the casino and its ancillary uses.  The construction of such a water facility is upwards of $70 million. Who would pay for it? Certainly not the Tohono O’odham. The persons paying the construction bill would be water ratepayers through an increase in water rates.

Then there is the issue of public safety. While a TO reservation would have its own tribal police to handle issues within the reservation it would be Glendale’s police and fire that would respond outside the reservation boundaries. At the very least, Glendale taxpayers would have to bear the costs of an increase in personnel and could experience delayed response times.

Lastly there are transportation costs. Streets adjacent to the reservation may need improvement to handle the increased traffic that will occur 24/7. There may be a need for upgraded traffic signals, signage and upgrades to the city’s Intelligent Traffic System.

For all of those who support the coming of the TO casino, do you still want the casino if it means that you have to pay more for your water provided by the city?  For all of those who support the coming of the TO casino, do you still want the casino if it means that public safety response times get longer as Glendale’s public safety personnel deal with a major traffic accident on adjacent streets or respond to a heart attack victim on the reservation? For all of those who support the coming of the TO casino, do you still want the casino if it means that instead of resurfacing or improving your street the money is used to improve or maintain streets to accommodate the increased traffic adjacent to the reservation?

You know, of course, that because of reservation status, the TO pay no taxes of any kind – no federal taxes, no state taxes, no county taxes and no Glendale taxes. If you were counting on increased sales tax revenue from the casino to offset these new financial burdens to the city’s General Fund, you can forget it. It’s not going to happen.

There are those like Councilmember Sherwood that believe Glendale can negotiate reimbursement for its added financial burden to support the casino from the TO. Do you really think the TO will shell out $70 million for a new water treatment facility or pay the ongoing costs of an increase in public safety personnel or pay millions for new or upgraded street improvements?

Even if a deal is struck, how can you trust people who violated agreements and the trust of their sister Tribes or kept secret its purchase of land for 7 years? If they renege on any kind of agreement with Glendale how will those who have complained about the costs of law suits feel about yet another law suit to get the TO to honor an agreement with Glendale?  

Please don’t regurgitate that the TO are required to give a small portion (8%) of their revenue to non-profits throughout the state. That presupposes that the TO will give their entire portion to non-profits in Glendale and ignore those in the Tucson area (site of their real reservation). Not going to happen. None of that money can go to Glendale’s General Fund to offset the new financial demands created by the proposed casino.

For every action there is an equal reaction. It’s the age old law of unintended consequences. While you may support the proposed casino because it will “create jobs,” are you willing to place further financial burdens on a city already under financial stress? Are you willing “to put your money where your mouth is” and to pay more for your water, deal with longer public safety response times and watch your streets deteriorate even further? I’m not.

© 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.

Jun 14

18

Neighborhoods thrown under the Glendale Bus

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 18, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , | 3 Comments

The Glendale city council workshop meeting of June 17, 2014 had only 2 items. One was the issue of restricted access to and from Northern Parkway at some intersections. The upshot of the subject was that there are no solutions on the horizon for fixing the problem. I bet that was not such good news for commercial activities adjacent to Northern Parkway like the World Wildlife Zoo. Its funny how Glendale can be so accommodating to some businesses and to others, it’s the “back of the hand.”

The second item was senior staff’s recommendation to amend Glendale’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 25, Article V.  Currently special events and large events (attendance over 500 persons) are subject to this ordinance which has 3 provisions: a) noise should not be heard more than 125 feet from perimeter of event; b) noise should not be heard off premises between 10 PM and 7 AM; and c) every 2 1/2 hours there must be an intermission of 30 minutes. Simple, common sense provisions designed to protect adjacent neighborhoods, No?

There were 3 options given to council: 1. Exempt permitted events during the entire year; 2. Exempt permitted events between December 26, 2014 and February 2, 2015; and 3. Do not change anything. Staff’s recommendation was Option 1 for in the name of all that is holy, it would fulfill their quest for greater city “competitiveness and marketability.” More likely this code amendment is pandering to the big boys, Super Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, etc., chafing under Glendale’s current noise restrictions. I see Assistant City Manager Frisoni’s hand in this effort to accommodate them.

To bolster staff’s contention that Glendale must still be in the “horse and buggy” days, a chart was used showing the cities of Chandler, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe as permitting noise exemptions for city issued permitted events and special events.

Not one, not one bloody councilmember asked a single question. The first one should have been related to the cities chart that showed which permitted noise and that should have been, “How exactly does each city address the noise issue?” Yes, these cities may have granted noise exemptions but exactly what are they?

Senior staff went on to say that an applicant for an event would have to abide by the provisions of the city’s issuance of a special event permit. If you go online to the city’s website and enter “special event application” it will eventually direct you to Ordinance 2951, Article V, Large Special Events.  In that Article, the City protects its butt pretty well with indemnification, insurance and surety bonds. It also seemed pretty concerned about public safety and sanitation/garbage needs but not one single word about noise…not one. Again, not one single councilmember had the presence of mind to ask, “What noise requirements are included in the city permit process?” They would have been surprised to find there are none even though staff represented that there were noise requirements within the permit process that would have to be followed.

So council sat there like lumps on logs, never questioning anything and certainly not one displayed any sensitivity for the noise concerns of adjacent neighborhoods. They should have asked for the noise restrictions in other cities’ special event permit processes. But they didn’t. They should have asked for the noise restrictions in Glendale’s special event permit process. But they didn’t.

Instead we heard blather from the twins, Councilmembers Chavira and Sherwood who seem to vote in tandem these days. Chavira (representing west Glendale neighborhoods near Westgate) said the only option for Glendale was Option #1 without really saying why. Sherwood, in an attempt to be amusing, likened Glendale’s noise ordinance to an old, existent law that forbids putting “ice cream in one’s pocket.” Really?

This council threw adjacent Glendale neighborhoods under the “Glendale Bus”(someday when I am so inclined I will tell you more about the “Glendale Bus Club”) especially over 2,000 homes adjacent to Westgate, epicenter of special events in Glendale. I live a mile to the east of Westgate and there were times when even I heard the noise erupting from the Westgate area. My thought was always, OMG, what about those who live directly across the street from Westgate and the football stadium? If I could hear it, how badly were they affected by the noise? Sometimes, as councilmember, my question was answered as residents called me directly to complain. I had a direct phone number to the police officer in charge of the event and would call to let him know that the noise was getting out of hand. Thankfully, the officer was always able to get the event promoter to abate the noise.

At least I had the noise ordinance to back me up…now there will be nothing that residents can do when the noise is too loud or goes on too long. But that’s OK…those residents will hear the roar of the “Glendale Bus” as it runs over them.

© 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.

 

Jun 14

16

Apathy wins every time

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 16, 2014
Posted in Camelback Ranch Spring Training Facility • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

On June 12, 2014 Mike Kenny had an opinion piece in the Glendale Star entitled, Ring the alarm – city once again wants you to foot bill. Here is the link: http://www.glendalestar.com/opinion/editorials/ . Generally I do not agree with Mr. Kenny’s stance on many issues but this time I do.

One sentence stood out, “This current city administration banks on two things for survival, and they’re both yours: money and apathy.” The current city council simply cannot stop itself from spending money, your money. The latest example of their inability to reign themselves in is the expenditure, one-time and on-going, for an electronic voting system to be used at 24 council meetings a year. Why? Because they want to assure that you are confused as to who might be the deciding vote on any hotly contested issue…and to relieve Councilmember Chavira’s stress level.

What if there’s not enough in the budget to cover their willingness to spend your money? Not a problem. They will just create a new tax or raise an existent tax. Need money to cover the construction debt and annual management fee for the arena of approximately $27 million a year or the construction debt on Camelback Ranch of $18 million a year?No problem. Just make the temporary sales tax increase permanent. Need money to raise employee salaries? No problem. Just create a new annual licensing fee of $20 on your alarm system or make sure Glendale charges the highest fee in the state for driving school as you try to avoid those points on your record.

Why are 4 councilmembers led by the nose by senior management? Simple, it’s the easier way for them because you, the taxpayer in Glendale, never object. It’s called apathy. I can remember when a bunch of us tried to repeal the sales tax on food. Senior management put together a slick piece of propaganda asking citizens to decide what service(s) to cut if the sales tax on food was eliminated. It was a scare tactic and it worked beautifully. Glendale voters bought city rhetoric.

This time we heard the same scare arguments, i.e., half of Glendale’s staff would be terminated; services would continue to be cut. Those arguments only hold true if citizens allow this council to continue to spend beyond the city’s means. If citizens had demanded council adopt a phased plan of $5 million in cuts per year for 5 years there would be no need for the temporary sales tax to become permanent. Instead it was easier for them to accept Finance Director Duensing’s demands that the temporary sales tax be made permanent now…not in 2017 when it was due to sunset…but now.

This council, with the exception of Mayor Jerry Weiers, has adopted a budget that is not balanced as required by state statute. The budget starts with a $2.7 million deficit. But that’s OK according to senior staff. The money can come from $5 million in Contingency. If Phoenix demands a payment of over $3 million this October, that’s OK too…just take it out of Contingency. But wait…there’s not enough in Contingency to cover both obligations. Well, that’s OK too…just take it out of the Unappropriated Fund Balance (just a slick, new name for what is basically another Contingency account). They play games with your money and by now, you are so confused you can’t figure out what is going on.

Because of citizen apathy you, the Glendale taxpayer, will continue to be “nickled and dimed” to death until you have no more nickels and dimes. What many fail to recognize is that it takes so few of you to have an effect on this council’s financial decisions. Because so few citizens object to anything at council meetings when 20 or 30 citizens show up and speak to an issue council’s sensitivity radar kicks into high gear. Yep. That’s all it takes… 20 or 30 speakers to object. Are there 20 or 30 Glendale residents ready to scream, “I’m mad as hell and not going to take it anymore?” or will citizen apathy allow this council to spend beyond your means?

© 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.

Jun 14

10

Pawn shops…enough already

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 10, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Tonight, June 10, 2014 at 6 PM in Glendale City Hall Council Chambers the city council will hear an appeal for a Conditional Use Permit by USA Pawn at the southeast corner of 67th Avenue and Bethany Home Road.

I urge the city council to DENY the siting of yet another pawn shop in south Glendale.

When a governmental agency allows the concentration of this type of use in one area of its city it is applying “negative zoning.” Negative Zoning is the permitting of property uses that affect property values and quality of life of adjacent neighborhoods.

Whether you live in the adjacent area or not, I encourage residents of Glendale to attend the council meeting tonight and to speak to the council during the public hearing on this item. Please let them know that yet another pawn shop within spitting distance of nearly a half dozen other pawn shops in south Glendale is not something our community wants or needs.

Tuesday, July 10     6 PM City Council meeting

Glendale City Council Chambers

5850 W. Glendale Avenue

One of my blog readers sent me the following article about Craig McCall, owner of USA Pawn. I thought it worthy of posting. It relates Mr. McCall’s activites within the pawn shop industry:

 Craig McCall of USA Pawn is a Las Vegas Pawnbroker who came into Arizona after selling his Las Vegas pawnshops to EZCorp in 2008 for 34.5 Million Dollars.  Please see the article below:

EZCORP Acquires Eleven Nevada Pawnshops

PRNewswire-FirstCall

AUSTIN, Texas Sep 5, 2008

EZCORP, Inc. (NASDAQ: EZPW) announced today that it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire the assets of eleven pawnshops located in Las Vegas and Henderson, Nevada that operate under the Pawn Plus and ASAP Pawn brands. EZCORP will acquire approximately $6.6 million of pawn loans, $2.2 million of inventory, $1.2 million of auto title loans and all other operating assets at the eleven locations for a total purchase price of $34.5 million. Half of the purchase price will be paid with the issuance of EZCORP’s Class A Non-voting Common Stock and half in cash. The acquisition is expected to close by early November. EZCORP’s President and Chief Executive Officer, Joe Rotunda, stated, “We believe this is an excellent acquisition in a very good pawn market and will complement our existing four Las Vegas locations. These stores have an average pawn portfolio of roughly $600,000 per store, almost three times our chain average, and on a proforma basis, generated approximately $5.5 million of EBITDA during the last twelve months.

In our fiscal 2009, we expect these stores to contribute five to six cents in earnings per share.” Rotunda continued, “In conjunction with this acquisition, we are pleased to announce that Craig McCall, the seller, will be joining our team in a long term consulting capacity. Craig has done an excellent job in building this business in the Las Vegas market and we see Craig as a real asset to our company as we jointly fulfill the commitments he has made in developing this quality operation. Craig also will be our landlord at eight of these locations.”

EZCORP is primarily a lender or provider of credit services to individuals who do not have cash resources or access to credit to meet their short-term cash needs. In 294 U.S. EZPAWN and 30 Mexico Empeno Facil locations open on June 30, 2008, the Company offers non-recourse loans collateralized by tangible personal property, commonly known as pawn loans. At these locations, the Company also sells merchandise, primarily collateral forfeited from its pawn lending operations, to consumers looking for good value. In 461 EZMONEY locations and 71 EZPAWN locations open on June 30, 2008, the Company offers short-term non-collateralized loans, often referred to as payday loans, or fee based credit services to customers seeking loans.

This announcement contains certain forward-looking statements regarding the Company’s expected performance for future periods including, but not limited to, the completion and anticipated benefits of an acquisition and expected future earnings. Actual results for these periods may materially differ from these statements. Such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties such as changing market conditions in the overall economy and the industry, consumer demand for the Company’s services and merchandise, changes in the regulatory environment, and other factors periodically discussed in the Company’s annual, quarterly and other reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. For additional information, contact Dan Tonissen at (512) 314-2289. First Call Analyst: FCMN Contact: Laura_Jones@ezcorp.com  

Mr McCall then opened 12 Arizona pawnshops and again sold them to EZCORP.  Please see article below.  

EZCORP Enters the High Potential Arizona Market

EZCORP has also completed the acquisition of 12 USA Pawn & Jewelry stores in Tucson  and  Bullhead City, Arizona.  This investment marks the Company’s initial move into  Arizona  and its key markets.  The Company intends to grow its presence over time into a market-leading provider of instant cash, by expanding its storefront position, supported by both online and mobile channels.  

USA  Pawn & Jewelry represents the second set of stores that the Company has purchased from owner  Craig McCall, who continues to consult with and assist the Company in executing its multi-market growth strategy. Mr. Rothamel stated, “The  Arizona  acquisition demonstrates our continued focus on growing and expanding our core pawn business.  Not only will the addition of these 12 successful stores enhance our profitability in the near-term, it will also provide us with a robust base from which to expand further, through in-fill opportunities and possible additional acquisitions.  Craig is an extremely talented pawn entrepreneur and operator, and we look forward to continuing our relationship to develop further growth opportunities.  

Mr. McCall is on his third set of Pawnshops for sale to EZ Corp  To make his future deal even sweeter Mr McCall along with EZCORP and Cash America,another large public company, spent a huge amount of money having the interest rates pushed to a unconscionable interest rate that will take effect this summer.  Please read legislative report below:

 HB2537 – pawnbrokers; interest; military members – DO PASS   In the Arizona legislature Vice-Chairman Shope moved that HB2537 do pass. Jason Theodorou, Majority Research Intern, advised that HB2537 increases the interest rate a pawnbroker can charge and requires pawnbrokers to waive any unpaid interest and hold pledged goods for military members and their spouses for 60 days after returning from active duty deployment (Attachment 18).  

Vice-Chairman Shope, sponsor, stated that the HB2537 has two components.  The first allows pawn brokers to raise interest rates.  The second is a military member component, which he is working on with Representative Sonny Borrelli. 

Craig McCall, USA Pawn and Jewelry, representing self, testified in support of HB2537.  He said that the pawn industry is unable to raise interest rates on its own and the Legislature has not reviewed the cap rate in 16 years.  Surrounding states have much higher interest rates, i.e. Colorado has a 20 percent monthly cap rate, Nevada at 13 percent and Idaho and Utah have no monthly rate caps with market rates at 15 to 25 percent.  Mr. McCall cited the following reasons for increased business expenses:   Rental costs Building size – the pawn industry holds a large amount of collateral Healthcare insurance; Labor intensive process – the average pawn loan is $80; Municipality requirements for technology – daily transaction downloads to the police departments  to have taken the place of payday loans.

Question was called on the motion that HB2537 do pass.  The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-3-0-0 (Attachment 19).    Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.

People who borrow money from pawnbrokers may soon have to pay higher interest. Current law caps pawnshop interest at 8 percent a month for the first two months and 6 percent for every month afterwards. HB 2537 would raise the initial rate to 13 percent, with an 11 percent cap for the third and following months. HB 2537, which was approved by the Senate 22-8, does require pawnbrokers to waive unpaid interest charges and hold pledged goods for members of the military who are on active duty until 60 days after that person returns from deployment. It now goes to the governor.

To get a 80.00 Pawn Loan for a TV for 30 days now cost  $25.80 in fees  There is a $5.00 service charge, a $5.00 storage charge, a $3.00 police ticket fee and $12.80 in interest.  The APR on this loan is 400.04% 

But Mr. McCall  who takes in Millions flipping pawnshops wanted to burden the residents of Arizona even more with increases to this already insane rate.  This summer when rates increase this loan will cost an additional 8.00 or a whopping $33.80 interest on a $80.00, 30 day loan. This is over a 500% APR  

© 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.

Jun 14

6

An Odds ‘n’ Ends Friday

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 6, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the Super Bowl • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 5 Comments

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

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

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

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Jun 14

4

What’s a handshake worth?

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 4, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , | 1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

May 14

27

A coat with many pockets, Part VI

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 27, 2014
Posted in Camelback Ranch Spring Training Facility • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

This is the last blog in a six part series about Glendale’s debt. In previous blogs we explored the different kinds of debt, how those debts are paid and the purposes for which each debt was created. Some debt such as Enterprise Fund debt, Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) debt, Transportation debt and a portion of the General Obligation (G.O.) debt are reasonable debt. A portion of the G.O debt could be characterized as imprudent and unnecessary debt. The Municipal Property Corporation debt, in hindsight, is unnecessary debt created to fulfill the commonly held vision of former Mayor Scruggs and former City Manager Beasley.  

The purpose of this exercise is to manage Glendale’s debt by paying it down or eliminating portions of it. Very simply the city’s expenses are greater than its revenues. The result has been to strip the city bare and reduce services to its residents (such as reduced library days and hours) because the debt is absorbing revenues that could be used for other purposes. When a mistake is made it is better to accept accountability, rectify it and move on. A city is required to do the same.  

A simple example might be that you decide you want a new car. You don’t need a new car. The old one is fine but you have decided you must have a new car. You buy a Tesla (extravagantly expensive) just because you want it. However, to make the payments you cut back on food, utility expenses and other necessities. You end up eating beans and rice every day, live without air conditioning and stop using doctors but, by God, you have the car of your dreams. You may be comfortable with your decision but the rest of your family may not be so happy especially if they are not allowed to weigh in on its purchase. One day your child is ill and the family learns that you stopped making medical insurance payments. If it is a decision that affects only you, fine, but it’s not right to obfuscate when that decision affects others without their buy-in. In Glendale’s case it is the residents of the city many of whom are not fine with past decisions that incurred tremendous debt and have resulted in a diminishment of their services.  

Before I go too much further I wanted to share a newspaper clipping that I received. A scant 11 years ago this is what the Arizona Republic reported about Glendale’s finances:  Gl finances 3

By September of 2003, former City Manager Dr. Martin Vanacour had resigned (that’s a whole ‘nuther story) and Ed Beasley had been appointed by City Council. Make no mistake, Fiscal Year 2003 was Vanacour’s budget and Beasley never attributed its success to Dr. Vanacour’s management.

I hope Dr. Vanacour will not take offense if I refer to him as Marty. I respected and admired Marty a great deal. He was and still is, highly respected by his peers. Marty was an excellent city manager and was also fiscally conservative. I genuinely liked Marty. He was approachable and respected confidences. Sometimes he reminded me of a Buddha or sphinx as he would sit stoically, listening to my latest series of questions, comments or rants. 

There were a few, alas an important few, who wanted new management. They wanted someone who would lead Glendale into becoming the “new” Glendale acknowledged by all as THE Sports and Entertainment city. That someone chosen to be the new City Manager was Ed Beasley. Between 2003 and 2009, on former Mayor Scruggs’ and former City Manager Beasley’s watch all of the current MPC debt was incurred.  

The MPC debt is killing Glendale financially. This debt is paid out of Glendale’s General Fund because MPC debt is paid from sales taxes. Sales tax monies are received and accounted for within the General Fund. It should be the prime imperative for the city council to reduce or remove MPC debt by any means possible as quickly as possible. The elimination of MPC debt frees up General Fund money for other purposes such as restoration of library hours or other basic services Glendale provides to its residents.  

What does Glendale do now? It must use a combination of strategies that will bring Glendale’s expenses in line with its revenues eliminating the need to extend the temporary sales tax increase beyond its 2017 sunset date.  

STRATEGY #1: Implementation of the sale of Glendale’s assets. I am pleased to see that Glendale staff has finally drawn up such a list and presented it to council at the workshop on May 20, 2014. Staff acknowledged that they omitted the two city owned golf courses: Desert Mirage and Glen Lakes and that they belong on the list. Here is a link to Glendale’s current assets: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agendasandminutes/Workshops/Agendas/052014-W02.pdf.

Executive Director of Finance, Tom Duensing, said recently, “Selling city property is just ‘one-time money’.” I beg to differ. Not in all cases. If a city facility’s O&M is being subsidized by General Fund revenues or if it still has construction debt then the city gains in two ways. It brings in much needed one-time cash that can be used to pay down or off the construction debt but it also eliminates an on-going General Fund expense.

A case in point is the Civic Center.   The Civic Center was built as Pay-As-You-Go with cash from the General Fund. It has no construction debt. Did you know that since it opened the city has subsidized its operation and maintenance in some form or fashion? There was even aCivic Center period of years when all city departments were required to hold all of their events at the Civic Center. It was a way to subsidize the Civic Center without being readily transparent since department event expenses are a line item in a department’s budget and there is no explanation regarding those payments.  

No matter what is suggested as an asset to be sold someone’s ox will be gored. There are so many stakeholders each supports a different city asset. It will be a painful experience for everyone. However, there’s either a will to finally fix this problem or not.  

What should be sold? My list will be different from yours. I welcome all comments to this blog that argue for or against the sale of a particular asset. My list would include, but not be limited Jobingto, in the downtown area, the Civic Center, the downtown parking garage, the Bank of America building, the Sine building, the Thunderbird Lounge property, the Civic Center Annex, the St. Vincent De Paul property and the city court property. In north Glendale, I would sell the Foothills Recreation & Aquatic Center. In west Glendale the city should sell Jobing.com Arena, the Media Center and Parking garage, and the Convention Center. If a legal way can be found to sell Camelback Ranch, that would be on the list as well.  

STRATEGY #2:  No employee raises until the General Fund has enough of a surplus to accommodate it. The current City Manager Brenda Fischer has complained that there is a 17% turnover rate of employees in Glendale but she never compared that figure to other Valley cities. In this economy people are thankful to have a job and we should know what vacancies currently exist, how many people apply and how long does it take to fill a vacancy? In other words, more information than the public has received to date. In police and fire there are always tons of people who apply.  

STRATEGY #3: While we are on the subject of vacancies, it should be standard practice to eliminate all unfilled vacancies each budget cycle. This is an accounting trick that has been used for years. It has always been a fist-fight to get staff to remove unfilled vacancies once and for all.  

STRATEGY #4:  All departments would be required to live within their annual budget appropriation, with no exceptions. No more fire department requests for additional money to cover overtime. Council should require (not request yet another study that goes nowhere) the fire department to move immediately to implement 3 man staffing on trucks and to implement the use of small, 2 man vehicles to answer medical calls.  

STRATEGY #5:   No carry-over requests from year to year with one exception. A project currently under construction but not completed within the year should be allowed carry-over to complete the project. If it is a project not yet begun it should have to compete for the appropriation the next fiscal year.  

STRATEGY #6:  Each department’s “Professional & Contractual Expense” must only be used for specific essential expenses. Only a specialty’s required licensing and organization membership should be permitted. The city’s payment for publications should be eliminated. The city’s policy on car allowances and cell phone use should be reviewed and the usage monitored carefully monthly.  

STRATEGY #7:  Council’s will to live within its means must be implemented as well. A majority of council possesses the prevalent attitude that it can approve new expenses and somehow the staff will find a way to cover them.

This is a time in Glendale’s history that calls for austerity. Austerity begins with the policy makers. If they cannot demonstrate their willingness to practice what they preach it sends the wrong signal to the entire organization. Signals emanate from Glendale regularly and are usually just as clearly understood as the white smoke that signals the choosing of a new Roman Catholic Pope. One clear signal that we all have seen is that Glendale will not stop spending. It makes one think of the people who declares bankruptcy but not before maxing out every credit card they possess. They “get their stuff” and use it before the court steps in to stop them. Sadly the creditors end up getting mere pennies on the dollar when that inevitable day comes careening down the tracks. I hear warning sirens in the distance…  

© 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.  

 

May 14

27

A coat with many pockets, Part V

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 27, 2014
Posted in Camelback Ranch Spring Training Facility • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

The major categories of debt that Glendale carries have been identified in the bdu-4-pocket-khaki-tan-jacket-100-ripstop-cotton[1]previous 4 blogs. How the revenues are spent has also been explored.  The next question is…was the issuance of all Glendale debt prudent and necessary?

The issuance of Enterprise Fund debt, Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) debt and Transportation debt has historically been reasonable and prudent. The debt associated with these three funds are for the “bricks and mortar” of the city. They fund projects for the construction of new infrastructure as Glendale grew and for the repair and maintenance of all city infrastructures. They were used on projects as diverse as new water treatment facilities to new traffic lights to Northern Parkway.

There is one form of debt that I have not covered previously and that is the Interfund Loan debt. The General Fund borrowed from the Water/Sewer, Landfill, Sanitation, Technology Replacement and Vehicle Replacement Funds to cover two annual $25 million management fee payments to the National Hockey League (NHL) for Jobing.com Arena during Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012. The first $25 million annual fee payment in 2011 came from the General Fund’s Contingency Fund and no Enterprise Funds were used.

The second $25 million annual fee payment in 2012 came from loans from the above mentioned funds with the lion’s share of $20 million borrowed from the Water/Sewer Enterprise Fund. We know from Ordinance 1451 that, “The sanitation fund shall be a separate and protected fund, to be used for no other purpose than expenses associated with sanitation services.” The other Enterprise Fund Ordinances carry the same caveat.

There are some who have heart burn over the concept of the city having borrowed money from these funds. What they fail to recognize is that over many years, General Fund dollars were used to support these funds by carrying some of the Enterprise Fund employees or by not receiving full compensation for the support functions performed by General Fund employees. Historically, over the years, the Enterprise Funds have been supported financially in some form or fashion by the General Fund. Under those circumstances borrowing from the Enterprise Funds is not as egregious as some think it to be. Here is just one example of the financial interrelationship between the General Fund and the Enterprise Funds occurring on January 8, 2013, “This is a request for City Council to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an ordinance approving an operating cash transfer from the General Fund (GF) to the Water/Sewer Enterprise Fund; and the transfer of 3.5 Full Time Employees (FTEs), and the associated appropriation authority, from the Water/Sewer Enterprise Fund to the GF, both of which are within the Financial Services Department.”

The debt issuance decisions associated with the General Obligation (G.O.) bonds and the Municipal Property Corporation (MPC) bonds have not always been prudent or even necessary. As has been stated previously some of the council decisions were political. In the G.O. bond category just two examples are: the accelerated advancement of the Foothills Recreation & Aquatic Center which was politically motivated; as was the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) number 1 placement of the Public Safety & Training Facility (PSTF). The PSTF was funded with a combination of G.O. debt and MPC debt.

Was the need for either of these facilities critical? No. Those that get everything in north Glendale wanted more and in this case it was their own recreation and aquatic center so that they wouldn’t have to travel down “there.” The number of resident-owned swimming pools in north Glendale and especially the Cholla district is astronomical compared to any other region of Glendale. It’s ironic that this facility has become regional serving the interests of Peoria and Phoenix residents. Councilmember Martinez would be quick to point out that the facility earned revenues that just about cover the annual O&M facility costs but those revenues do not cover the debt issued to pay for its construction. That’s being paid off by every property owner in Glendale with their secondary property tax.

Was the need for a Public Safety Training Facility (PSTF) critical? Again, the answer is No. To this day new police recruits go to a regional police academy such as the Arizona Law Enforcement Training Academy (ALETA) for initial training. The PSTF is used by Glendale police for advanced training only, another function whose needs can be met elsewhere. The Glendale fire department just had to have this facility even though they have always been able to obtain training slots for new recruits at the regional facilities in Phoenix and Mesa. Training slots had never been an issue. Suddenly the dearth of slots became the rationale for Glendale’s very own training facility.

Lastly we arrive at the MPC Bond debt. Were the projects funded by MPC debt critical and necessary? The answer is No.  Decisions regarding MPC expenditures were often political. Former Mayor Scruggs always went ballistic when she heard references to Glendale as the town of “hicks and sticks, plows and cows.” She and former City Manager Ed Beasley shared a vision. Their vision was that Glendale would become an equal of the well known Valley cities who had developed a niche and a city brand for themselves. Tempe is known as a college town. Scottsdale has always been the “west’s most western town.” Chandler and Gilbert were becoming the technology towns. Glendale wanted to be the sports town.

The former mayor often had majority council support from Councilmembers Eggleston, Martinez, Frate and Goulet. All wanted Glendale to be a member of the “big boys’ club” that included cities like Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe. All had cache and Glendale had none. The road to acceptance meant Glendale’s branding as a sports and entertainment mecca and accepting the cost associated with making that a reality. As major developments appeared and wanted costly incentives to locate in and around the Westgate area, more and more MPC debt was issued.

Glendale has issued more MPC debt than it can sustain for such projects as Jobing.com Arena, Camelback Ranch, the Regional Public Safety Training Facility, Zanjero infrastructure and the Westgate parking garage, media center & convention center. All…very “big ticket” projects. These projects are the albatrosses hanging from Glendale’s neck.

The final blog in this series will explore any possible solutions to paying down or eliminating the MPC debt. Can it be done? Yes but it requires the will to do so.

© 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.

« Previous Page — Next Page »