Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Oct 16

24

Harmont Drive and Code Enforcement revisited

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 24, 2016
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

In May of 2016, I shared with you an issue facing historic Harmont Drive in Glendale. It is an older, historic neighborhood of large lot properties established in 1953, over 60 years ago. Their CC&Rs prohibit commercial use of the properties in this SR-17 (17,000 square feet) neighborhood.

As soon as a Mr. Don Olson moved into a home located on the northeast corner of 59th and Northern Avenues, within this subdivision, he used this location as a commercial tree farm business. He accepted retail customers at the location and also stored trees for disposition and sale at other locations in the Valley. Here’s a link to his Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Shamus-OLearys-Tropical-Fruit-Trees-469661096392272/ .

When he purchased the property he, like any other buyer in this subdivision, received the CC&R’s prohibiting his use of his property for commercial purposes. Apparently he chose to ignore them and promptly began his retail business. When it came to the attention of the city via the neighbors, he claimed ignorance.

The neighbors couldn’t help but notice the increased commercial activity and notified the city’s Code Enforcement Department. Eventually Mr. Olson was told by the city that he had to stop his activities and he would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). On Thursday, May 5, 2016, Mr. Olson’s Conditional Use Permit request went before the Planning Commission. Fearing a denial, Mr. Olson requested that the item be tabled as apparently he had hired a zoning attorney to represent him when the CUP was scheduled for a rehearing on August 4, 2016.

On August 4th, 2016 the following occurred at the citizen Planning and Zoning Meeting: “CUP16-01: A request by Don Olson for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a home occupation (Class II) business in a private backyard of a residence, which will mainly consist of growing trees and selling trees to customers with appointments on a property in the SR-17 (Suburban Residence) Zoning District. The site is located north of the northeast corner of 59th and Northern Avenues (5841 West Royal Palm Road) and is in the Barrel District. Staff Contact: Martin Martell, Planner.  COMMISSIONER HIRSCH MADE A MOTION TO DENY CUP16-01.  COMMISSIONER MORENO SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH WAS APPROVED WITH A VOTE OF 6 TO 1 (GALLEGOS).”

The neighbors had won. Mr. Olson was denied his CUP request and would not be allowed to operate a business at this location. Then what are these semis doing at Mr. Olson’s residence? It’s not just a single occurrence but seems to happen frequently and with regularity.

Apparently these semis are dropping off trees…lots and lots of trees, which are then distributed by Mr. Olson to other locations for commercial sale. This is a commercial activity that had been strictly prohibited by the August 4th decision of the Planning Commission.

olsonoct23

Mr. Olson is gaming the system. As we residents of Glendale know all too well it’s well nigh impossible to expect Code Enforcement to check out anything on a weekend. Yes, they have an inspector on call from 9 AM to 5 PM on Saturdays. Guess when these semis arrive at Mr. Olson’s. You would be correct if you guessed after 5 PM on a Saturday evening. You would also be correct if you guessed that the trees would be gone by 9 AM on a Monday morning.

The neighbors notified Code of Mr. Olson’s activities (he uses the commercial name of Shamus O’Leary) and the response from Code to date? Nothing. Two months later, in October, 2016, neighborhood complaints are now arriving in a steady stream at Code Enforcement’s desk. Witness this October 15, 2016 email trail to Code (names and sensitive information reacted):

“From: XXXXXXXX Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2016 1:44 AM To: XXXXXXXXX (Code Enforcement)

Subject: Don Olson loading up fruit trees on Fri. 10/14 @ 7:45pm

 XXXXXXX,

Here are some pictures of Don Olson loading up a rental truck with fruit trees and supplies.  According to his FB page, he is selling his stuff at Mesa CC on Sat. morning.  XXXXX, my wife, called the Code compliance phone number and left a message.  I am sure that Don waited until after 5pm to load the truck knowing that there would be no code compliance officers on duty.  This is what I was talking to you about last week.  Did you ever get a chance to talk to someone in the police dept. to see if there is someone we can call on the weekends?  These pictures were taken on Fri. night around 7:45pm.  He is loading the truck from the driveway/easement on the back of his property.  The truck is facing 59th Ave.  The bottom picture is a house facing 59th Ave. and is not Don or his wife/girlfriend’s property.”

image1

Then a few days later, October 20th, another advisory email is sent to Code Enforcement:

“From: XXXXXXXXXXXX Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 3:25 PM To: XXXXXXXXXX (Code Enforcement) Subject: Shamus O’Leary

 XXXXXXXXX,

Just wanted to follow up with the e-mail I sent you last week.  According to Don Olson’s business FB page, he will be loading up another truck and heading out on Sat. morning to sell his trees in Apache Junction.  If he is loading his truck on Fri night or Sat morning, is there anyone to call that might catch him in the act?  It also appears that some of his customers are upset with him because he is charging sales tax of 9.6%.  Shouldn’t he be paying that sales tax to the city of Glendale?

 Thanks, XXXXXXXXXXX”

An email is sent to neighbors on the same day:

“From: XXXXXXXXXX Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 7:55 PM To: XXXXXXXXXXX Subject: Fw: Shamus O’Leary

 Don is loading up trees again tonight for a big sale Sat. morning in Apache Junction.  I told Code Enforcement that he would be loading up a truck tonight but, you know the drill, nobody in Code Enforcement is available after 5 pm Fri until Mon. morning.  He pulled a Penske box truck into the front driveway around 6:10 pm, then started loading it up.  XXXXX (Code) said that XXXXXX (Code Inspector) would be available on Sat. morning if anyone sees Don, but I am sure he will be long gone by then.  The cell # is XXX-XXX-XXXX.  According to the Shamus O’Leary FB page, he is selling his trees in AJ from 9-11 am on Sat.  He also responded to one of his customers who asked why he charges 9.6% tax on fruit trees when Lowe’s doesn’t charge any.  He said his accountant advised him to and that he isn’t familiar with the tax codes.  He also said that he pays his taxes monthly?  Who is he paying them to?”  

By now, the City’s Code Enforcement and License & Tax Division knows what Mr. Olson is doing. Why are they not acting with alacrity? Code’s traditional response is that they have to catch the act itself and cite. That is impossible when the activity occurs outside of regular business hours. You would think that Code being aware of this situation would provide the neighbors with a contact inspector who would come out especially to deal with this illegal activity outside of regular business hours. So far…no.

I know that many in Glendale government read this blog. Hopefully, it will spur some sort of immediate action. After all, Code’s prime directive is to ensure the health and safety as well as the property values of Glendale’s residents. To date, this is yet another example of the city’s lack of response and ineffectiveness. It’s what drives residents nuts.

© Joyce Clark, 2016          

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Oct 16

21

Glendale’s Civic Center

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 21, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , | 3 Comments

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 the city council had only one item on its workshop agenda…the performance of its Civic Center. The Civic Center opened in 1999 and is now 17 years old. It is a beautiful building. Former Mayor Scruggs wanted it and sold it under the guise of becoming a destination location in downtown Glendale. Has this facility performed up to its expectations? Let’s take a look.

City personnel made their Tuesday presentation based on figures for the last 5 years of the Civic Center’s operation. I have taken staff’s 5 year average and derived estimates that reflect the entire 17 years of its operation. My figures could be a little too high or a little too low as I did not look up the figures in 17 years of budget books. Hence the estimated were arrived at by multiplying the average annual figures times 17 years.

Over the 17 year life of the facility the General Fund Budget allocation was an estimated $11,422,000.00 and there had been an additional General Fund Subsidy over those 17 years of another $4,400,000. The 17 year total of budget allocations and subsidies is an estimated $15,822,000 or an average of $930,000.00 per year. Not included in this amount are the costs of maintenance and repair that have been expended over the 17 year period as staff did not provide any figures relative to this expense.

What kind of revenue does the Civic Center generate to offset its expenses? Over 17 years an estimated $850,000 had been earned from the catering contract and during the same period the Civic Center had earned an additional $6,800,000.  The total estimated revenues over the 17 year period is approximately $7,650,000.

The Civic Center had earned an estimated $7,650,000 over its life span and had cost the city an estimated $15,822,000. It has cost the city an estimated $8,172,000 to keep the doors of the Civic Center open for the past 17 years.

According to the staff presentation over the last 5 years the Civic Center had drawn an annual average of 51,888 patrons or for the past 17 years an estimated total of 882,096 patrons. That averages about 141 patrons per day. However, there are days when the Civic Center has no business and days when it is booked for large gatherings. It should be mentioned that the Center has very little, if any business, in December due to Glendale Glitters. There simply is not enough parking during that period for Civic Center patrons and over the years patrons have not wanted to deal with the traffic generated by Glendale Glitters.

Has this facility fulfilled its promise? Everyone, even staff, says no.  In their presentation staff offered a plan with a new growth goal of an increase of 5% in patronage per year. Since the average annual patronage is 51,888 patrons, their goal is to increase that number by 2, 594 additional patrons this year. They believe they can accomplish that goal because new funding has been allocated to market the Center; there will be enhanced collaboration with the Glendale Convention and Visitor’s Bureau; their absorption into a new department will create new synergy; and there will be an enhanced building maintenance and repair fund. Staff has also asked for authorization for up to 6 community events at no charge; consideration of rental fee adjustments as part of the Fiscal Year 2017-18 budget; and the flexibility to negotiate rental fee packages.

Will all of this work? Everyone hopes so. The jury is still out. City council is willing to give the Center more time.  Staff’s first annual performance report is due in a year. Make no mistake. Challenges remain. Not having a major hotel nearby as well as inadequate parking space during downtown events will have to be overcome, if possible. Add to this equation the Convention Center space owned by the city and managed by the Renaissance Hotel at Westgate is a direct competitor for the same business.

If staff cannot turn the Civic Center around then it may be time for council to consider whether it will ever meet its purpose financially and philosophically. Perhaps repurposing will become its fate. It was originally designed to be a draw for downtown Glendale. A true destination place is exactly what downtown Glendale desperately needs to become more robust and to grow to its potential.

© Joyce Clark, 2016          

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Oct 16

17

Glendale’s Archery Complex opens

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 17, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Heroes Park  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 2 Comments

arcplaque_000On Saturday, October 15, 2016, Glendale celebrated the Grand Opening of the newest amenity at Heroes Park – the Archery Complex. Archery is a sport that seems to be under the radar. Yet as unheralded as it is, there are a lot of archers in the Valley. They were excited and grateful to see this complex become reality for the only other complex is located in the east Valley.

There was one unsung hero in attendance on that bright, beautiful Saturdayphoto-4 morning and that was local realtor and Yucca district resident Tom Traw. If anyone deserves credit for making this complex a reality it is he. For you see, Tom went to Yucca district councilmember Sammy Chavira to pitch the idea. Sammy did nothing, despite his public assertion that as a result of Councilmember Aldama’s idea, he followed up and made it a reality. Nothing could be further from the truth. The thanks and the credit belong to Tom Traw. Tom bull dogged Glendale Parks and Recreation staff when it seemed as if the project had fallen into a black hole. Tom advocated for and kept the pressure on all involved for over 2 years. My thanks and the thanks of all who will enjoy and use this complex go to Tom Traw.

The archery demonstrations were amazing. Eric Bennet, a Paralympian Archer, actually severed the grand opening ribbon and a segment of it was pinned to a target by his shot. 2016 Olympic Archery Coach was surrounded by hoards of young, aspiring archers.

photo-1What is even more amazing was the outpouring of support not just from the non-profit community; the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority and the Arizona Game and Fish Department both of whom granted funds to the project; but from local businesses who donated time, material and labor. Without their donations there is no way this project could have become reality.

 Lastly, Glendale’s Parks and Recreation Department showcased their innovationphoto-3 and ingenuity as well. Instead of purchasing the stakes needed to hold down lane markings they were able to manufacture them at a fraction of the cost. They also manufactured the moveable carts that hold the targets. They saved an incredible amount of money. They are to be congratulated for their hard work and dedication to this project.

Congratulations to all who made this amazing complex a reality. Now, it’s time to complete Heroes Park, one of a very few regional parks in Glendale and still not completed as designed after an 18 year wait.

© Joyce Clark, 2016          

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Oct 16

13

Glendale Rovey Farm Estates residents’ alert …and archery anyone?

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 13, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Let’s start with the fun stuff. This Saturday, October 15, 2016 from 9 AM to 10:30 AM the City of Glendale will host the Grand Opening Ceremony for a brand new archery complex located at Heroes Park at  the northeast corner of 83rd Avenue and Bethany Home Road.

It’s the first new amenity in the 88 acre, regional park to be constructed in 7 or 8 years. The last amenity being the ramadas. There will be archery demonstrations by local archers and the public will have the opportunity to meet Eric Bennet, U.S. Archery Paralympian, and Mel Nichols, the 2016 U. S. Olympic Archery Coach.

The major funding partners are The Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. This was a project whose primary funding came from the private sector. All of the following companies contributed money, labor and/or materials:

·       Arizona Rock Products Association

·       CEMEX

·       DBA Construction, Inc.

·       GCON, Inc.

·       Hansen Aggregates of Arizona

·       Heritage Trucking, Inc.

·       Madison Granite Supplies, Inc.

·       Salt River Materials Group

·       Shade ‘n Net

Instead of sleeping in this Saturday, won’t you join us in thanking these organizations and private sector companies for their generosity? This is a family-friendly event. Please bring your children. Who knows? You might have a budding Olympic Archer in your family.

archery-range

I also want to alert Yucca district residents, most especially Rovey Farm Estates residents. Just north of Glendale Avenue, between 83rd Avenue and 91st Avenue sits Crosspoint Christian Church. It owns 23.4 acres currently zoned by the city as R1-10 (10,000 square foot lots yielding approximately 3 to 4 homes to the acre). The church wants the land rezoned to R1-7 PRD (7,000 square foot lots yielding 5 to 6 homes to the acre).

zoning-request-oct-12-2016

The greater the density per acre the more money the church gets for the land. It is the difference between putting 69 to 92 homes on that land versus putting 115 to 138 homes (nearly double the amount) on that land.

Rovey Farm Estates is directly north of this parcel. This subdivision is divided into sections and the section that is north of this parcel abutting it is zoned R1-10. A small portion of the northeast portion of this parcel has R1-7 homes abutting it. The majority of this land will directly impact the 10,000 square foot lots to the north.

What can you do? The zoning request will be heard and approved or denied by the city council on Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at its regular 6 PM city council meeting. You can go to council chambers at city hall located at the intersection of 59th Avenue and Glendale Avenue that evening and express your support for or opposition to the rezoning request. You can also send an email expressing your opinion to the mayor and councilmembers. Here are their email addresses: jweiers@glendaleaz.com, ihugh@glendaleaz.com, rmalnar@glendaleaz.com, bturner@glendaleaz.com, ltolmachoff@glendaleaz.com, jaldama@glendaleaz.com, and schavira@glendaleaz.com.

If you want to protect your quality of life and your home values it is up to you to act. Make your opinion known to the city council. Let them know whether you approve or oppose the proposed rezoning.

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Oct 16

3

Chavira’s campaign finance report

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 3, 2016
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Well, Sammy finally turned in his campaign finance report on October 3, 2016…late. Wonder if he was fined? Here is the link to his finance report: http://glendaleaz.com/Clerk/documents/Post-Primary-ChaviraforCouncil.pdf .

Sammy raised almost as much money as the two mayoral candidates as each mayoral candidate raised and spent in excess of $100,000. This report pegs him collecting $81,180.74 in contributions from special interests and unions outside of Glendale. His total spending to date is $74,301.74. I spent $11,489.70. Sammy, to date, outspent me 6 and a half times to one. He retains excess cash of $6878.27. How long will it take him to figure out a strategy that allows him to pocket that cash? Legally, a campaign committee may only make contributions to other candidates or committees or to non-profits. The excess funds are not to be spent personally.

As Sammy rides off into the sunset hopefully never to run for any office again, we wish him a fond farewell.

Even though I do not take office until December 13, 2016, I have begun to resume councilmember elect activities. I had been invited to attend a neighborhood annual picnic this past Sunday. I had a great time. I connected with residents who I had served previously and listened to their current concerns as well as issues important to them now. This week I will meet with developers on two upcoming residential zoning projects and attend a grand opening for a local business.

I attribute the result of my win to my previous constituent interactions. My campaign support came from individuals living within the Yucca district or within Glendale. To celebrate that win I am joining Mayor Jerry Weiers, Vice Mayor Ian Hugh, and Councilmember Ray Malnar in a victory party on October 21, 2016. To all those individuals who either donated to my campaign, made phone calls for me, walked for me, worked the polls or had yard signs, consider this personal invitation as a way to thank you for your support. I invite you to join all four of us in celebration. I, personally, am excited to be part of a team committed to moving Glendale forward. We ask that you RSVP by calling 623-939-4052 or emailing ianhugh2012@yahoo.com before October 14, 2016 so that we might have a count for food and refreshment purposes.

invitation-5

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Oct 16

1

Sept. 29th campaign finance reports

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 1, 2016
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale's Fire Union  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Campaign finance reports were due by 5 PM on Thursday, September 29, 2016. As of this posting (after 5 PM on Friday, September 30, 2016) Sammy Chavira’s campaign filing report has not been posted by the City Clerk. Why, you say? Because Sammy has not turned it in. Sammy apparently believes that the laws that everyone tries to uphold do not apply to him. It’s not terribly surprising considering his attitude toward a simple traffic ticket. He failed to appear in court and subsequently had his driver’s license suspended. In addition the Campaign for Truth and Leadership committee and Fire Fighters interested in Registration and Education PAC have not turned in their latest and now overdue campaign finance reports either. These organizations spent a considerable amount of money in support of Sammy’s reelection.

The amount of money spent on the Glendale mayoral race is truly astounding. Burdick reported spending $121,489.60 and Weiers spent $107,356.97. The total for these two races is $228,846.57 or slightly over a quarter of a million dollars. What bumped up the numbers was for the first time there were TV ads, notoriously expensive. Burdick led the way with TV ads beginning during the Republican convention in mid-July and they were run repeatedly and relentlessly until August 30, 2016, the day of the Primary Election. Weiers had no option but to run his own series of TV ads.

It appears from now on a person should not consider running for mayor in Glendale unless he or she can amass a war chest of a minimum of $100,000. That will put many would-be candidates out of the race. It’s a shame that it has come to that.

There could be as many as four aspirants in the 2020 election for mayor. Many suspect that former Councilmember Yvonne Knaack still harbors ambitions. Add to that Councilmembers Turner, Tolmachoff and Aldama, all of whom seem to be jockeying for a run. Throw in a dash of former Assistant City Manager and major player in the Burdick failed contest, Julie Frisoni. During the election season some voters received a survey call asking for a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Julie Frisoni. Many considered it strange since she wasn’t running. It seems she may be preparing for a political future and could decide to run against Lauren Tolmachoff for the Cholla district seat or perhaps…gasp…mayor. A Cholla city council seat  seemed a far more likely proposition if Burdick had won the mayoral contest but despite the outcome Frisoni and her backers may decide to give it or a mayoral race  a try in 2018.

In the other races more modest sums were spent: Vice Mayor Ian Hugh spent $26,815.31; Councilmember Ray Malnar spent $11,696.13 and I spent $11,489.70. Collectively that amounts to $50,001.14. However, we do know from Sammy’s previous campaign report that he had already spent $57,905.98 and we will await seeing what shows up in his overdue report. So far, the collective total for council races is $107,907.12. Anywhere from $10,000 to $40,000 is a typical amount that is usually spent on a Glendale city council race. In its previous campaign report, The Campaign for Truth and Leadership spent $45,218.56 (donated to it from the United Food Workers). The committee is now terminated. The entire amount was not spent on pro Burdick and pro Chavira mailers or anti Weiers or anti Clark mailers (about $30,000). Some of the funds (about $15,000) was spent in support of Larkin and Andrade.

Let’s total what we know has been spent in Glendale’s elections per the latest submitted campaign finance reports. Two candidates spent $228,846.57 on the mayoral races; $107,907.12 was spent on the 3 city council races; and another $30,000 was spent by an Independent Committee. That totals $336,753.69. I suspect Sammy’s missing report will show additional expenditures of about $20,000 bringing the total spent in this round of Glendale elections to somewhere in the neighborhood of $350,000. That’s a surprisingly large amount of money to spend in a Glendale election cycle and has never occurred before.

I don’t have an answer to this escalation of political spending. A friend suggested that perhaps there should be a cap of maybe $50,000 for a mayoral race and $20,000 for a council race. It’s intriguing. It would cause the candidate to spend wisely and effectively. This person believes it would force candidates to have more interaction with voters and perhaps more reliance on social media which costs relatively nothing. What’s your take on the state of Glendale races?

© Joyce Clark, 2016          

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Sep 16

30

Mark Burdick fined…sort of

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 30, 2016
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale's Fire Union  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

On September 30, 2016 the Glendale Star reported former mayoral candidate Mark Burdick was fined $619.59 for violating state statute. Here is the link: http://www.glendalestar.com/news/article_37133b8c-8431-11e6-8aee-c743b27a385d.html .

Glendale City Attorney Michael Bailey shipped the investigation over to Scottsdale City Attorney Bruce Washburn to avoid any conflict of interest.

Every candidate is required to include “paid for by” and the name of the campaign committee on all campaign literature. Burdick violated the law. He sent out a hit piece on Mayor Weiers and failed to include attribution to his committee.

As for the $600+ in fines, can you say unbelievable? Burdick is claiming that the cost of the campaign mailer including postage was $1,239. Washburn says, “You have provided me with an invoice indicating the cost of the mailer was $1,239, which you have informed me is inclusive of postage and all other related costs.”  

Let us assume for a moment that Burdick’s claimed expense of $1200+ was for postage only. At 40 cents per piece in postage (not printing) that accounts for a mailing to 3,075 homes citywide. Glendale has an estimated 90,000 registered voters. A candidate usually sends mailers to high efficacy voters. That would diminish the numbers considerably and probably be approximately a third of the 90,000 registered voters or about 30,000 voters. The cost to mail a campaign piece to 30,000 voters citywide would be about $12,000. This estimated cost does not include the design of the piece or the cost of printing the piece.

Burdick is claiming one tenth of this estimated cost. Ridiculous. The cost of production and mailing one piece of campaign literature to high efficacy voters in the Yucca district in this election was over $1600. I suspect but have no proof, that Burdick’s mailer, to produce and mail citywide, would have cost somewhere between $12,000 and $18,000.

The penalty of the violation can be up to three times the cost of the mailer. Washburn gives Burdick a “get out of jail” card by saying he believed the violation was not done on purpose. In criminal cases, not civil cases, motive and intent matter. Shades of FBI Director Comey refusing to refer Hillary Clinton for prosecution to the Justice Department because he could not determine “intent.” Has intent become the new buzz word to absolve wrong doing?

Burdick’s fine should have been far more substantial, anywhere from $12,000 to $50,000. Instead he received a slap on the wrist by having to pay $600+. I guess there are different standards for different people and lady justice stopped being blind a long time ago.

NOTE: My next blog will be on the most recently filed (due September 29, 2016) campaign finance reports. Sammy Chavira, once again, flaunts the law, by as of this posting, having failed to file his campaign finance report. Then again, the Campaign for Truth and Leadership (fire committee) and Fire Fighters interested in Registration and Education PAC have not filed their campaign finance reports either. Both of these groups sent out campaign mailings in support of Sammy.

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Sep 16

29

Glendale municipal airport

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 29, 2016
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Municipal Airport  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 1 Comment

There is a little known back story that has been taking place at the Glendale airport for many years. It deals with this cast of characters: the City of Glendale; the Glendale Airport Pilots Association comprised of hangar owners and renters (GAPA); and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Historically FAA policy required that airport hangars be used exclusively for the storage of aircraft/aeronautical items. Many airport hangars across the country have been built and by far, the majority, are owned and maintained by municipalities. That is not the case in Glendale. For a myriad of reasons Glendale chose to allow the construction of private (not municipally owned) hangars. I believe all of the hangars at Glendale’s airport are privately owned. It presents a unique and a decidedly different situation from 90% of all airport hangars across the country.

For years the privately owned hangar owners and the city coexisted. Glendale would perform occasional hangar inspections aware that non-aeronautical items were stored in these private hangars. All of this kumbaya changed in 2009 when a lawsuit for discrimination was filed by the owner of the south hangars, Valley Aviation Services (VAS). VAS contended that the city’s enforcement of FAA policy that only aeronautical items be stored in their hangars when the north owners’ hangars were not under the same enforcement amounted to discrimination. Several years later VAS won the suit and was awarded damages of $1.7 million. The city was also required to pay attorneys’ fees. By the time all was said and done the city tab was closer to $2.3 million.

The VAS judgment caused the city to become concerned about the FAA policy with regard to hangar storage of non-aeronautical items. It believed that the result of the lawsuit put the airport on the FAA’s radar screen and could result in not only the loss of federal funding for future airport improvements but could lead to an FAA demand to repay grants already allocated and spent as a result of its history of non-compliance.

In 2011 the city held a meeting with all hangar owners and stated that it would begin to enforce the FAA’s policy with regard to the storage of non-aeronautical items and would be implemented immediately. The city then inspected every hangar and advised all hangar owners of issues of non-compliance. However, the problem was that these were privately owned hangars and not municipally owned hangars and the city historically had never enforced this FAA policy. GAPA believed that after a long history of non-enforcement of this policy, the city had no legal standing to abruptly begin its regime of  enforcement.

In 2013-14 GAPA hired legal representation for action in the Glendale court system and subsequently filed a lawsuit in Superior Court. During this period the FAA sent out a “Request for Comments” to a proposed Policy Change to their Federal Register Document that deals with Hangar Storage of Non-Aeronautical Items. This was in recognition by the FAA that it was a situation they had created at most airports across the country.

After a lengthy two year court process in 2016 the court ruled the city had failed to enforce FAA policy from 1999 to 2011. A summary judgment was awarded to GAPA requiring the city to pay its legal fees amounting to a little over $70,000. At that time the city terminated their contract with outside counsel paying them about $156,000. It appears the city paid twice as much for legal fees than GAPA did. The city bill for all legal fees, theirs and GAPA’s, totaled about $226,000; $70,000 for GAPA’s fees and $156,000 for its fees.

In 2016, the FAA made a policy change to hangar storage of non-aeronautical items saying, “A sponsor’s Grant Assurance obligations require that its aeronautical facilities be used or be available for use for aeronautical activities. If the presence of non-aeronautical items in a hangar does not interfere with these obligations, then the FAA will generally not consider the presence of those items to constitute a violation of the sponsor’s obligations.”

 “c. Provided the hangar is used primarily for aeronautical purposes, an airport sponsor may permit non-aeronautical items to be stored in hangars provided the items do not interfere with the aeronautical use of the hangar.”

One could assume the issue between GAPA and the city is now resolved. Not so. The city has hired yet another outside counsel, the law firm of Mandel & Young to fight GAPA’s judgment of payment of legal fees of $70,000 and to appeal GAPA’s favorable court ruling. These two issues were just filed by the city in court in July of 2016. It doesn’t appear to be very logical. The previous outside council cost the city approximately $150,000 and one could assume that the bill for this new outside council will be about the same. Why would the city pay $150,000 to get out of paying $70,000?

Apparently the city does not know when to cry “uncle.” It has cost taxpayers about a quarter of a million dollars to have a judge affirm GAPA’s position. Will the city spend another quarter of a million dollars to try to reverse the judge’s decision and to renege on paying GAPA’s legal fees? It doesn’t appear to be a very wise investment. Albert Einstein once said, “The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

© Joyce Clark, 2016          

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Sep 16

23

A new proposed zoning issue and…chickens

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 23, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , | 13 Comments

On September 15, 2016 I received a Notice of Neighborhood Meeting for a Minor General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of a property located in the Yucca district from the law office of David Cisiewski  representing Los Olivos Office Partners, LLC., a Delaware corporation. This is slightly curious. Los Olivos Office Partners is a Delaware corporation that was registered with the Arizona Corporation Commission by yet another law firm who is their agent in Arizona. So who are the principals of Los Olivos? Local people? People out-of-state? A foreign firm?

 They are proposing a subdivision called “Orangewood Terrace.” The property’s location is south of Orangewood Avenue and just east of the West Glenn residential subdivision and just west of 79th Lane. Los Olivos is seeking: 1. a Minor General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan designation from Low Density Residential (LDR, 1-2.5 homes to the acre) to Medium Density Residential (MDR, 2.5 to 3.5 homes to the acre); 2. to rezone the property from R1-10 (10,000 square foot lots) to R1-8 (8,000 square foot lots); and 3. a Preliminary Plat for 55 single family homes.

What’s not to like? 8,000 square foot lots…great. Not so fast. In 2008 the city deliberately planned this property for 10,000 square foot lots with a definite purpose in mind. The property was to act as a buffer between West Glen Estates (a subdivision of 8,000 square foot lots, R1-8) located at the southeast corner of 83rd Avenue and Orangewood Avenue and 79th Lane on the south side of Orangewood Avenue which has about 30 large lot (17,000 square foot lot, SR-17) homes. All of the properties on the north side of Orangewood Avenue directly across from this proposed subdivision are SR-17 residences.

The property in question should remain as a 10,000 SF lot subdivision in order to preserve and to maintain the property values of the residents of West Glen Estates and the residents of 79th Lane. The only conceivable reason to reduce the size of the lots to 8,000 SF is to maximize the profit to be derived by Los Olivos Office Partners. That is not the city’s mission or purpose. Its purpose is to protect the interests of its residents, not developers.

I encourage the residents on the north side of Orangewood Avenue as well as the residents of West Glen Estates and 79th Lane to attend the Neighborhood Meeting:

October 3, 2016

6:00 PM

Hampton Inn & Suite Glendale-Westgate

6630 N. 95th Avenue

Glendale, AZ 85305

Now, chickens…

The next scheduled city meetings are: November 1, 2016 – Second City Council Workshop on the proposed Zoning Text Amendment and November 22, 2016 – City Council Public Hearing on the proposed Zoning Text Amendment.

The Zoning Text Amendment being considered would allow the keeping of contained hen chickens (only) in single family-zoned areas with a zoning district of A-1, RR-90, RR-45, SR-30, SR-17, SR-12, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6 and R1-4. However, per city code chickens are already allowed in these residential zoning districts: A-1, RR-90 (90,000 SF lots), RR-45 (45,000 SF lots), SR-30 (30,000 SF lots), SR-17 (17,000 SF lots) and SR-12 (12,000 SF lots). The text amendment would allow these 4 additional residential districts to have chickens: R1-10 (10,000 SF lots), R1-8 (8,000 SF lots), R1-6 (6,000 SF lots) and R1-4 (4,000 SF lots).

Chicken proponents have cited that other Valley cities allow them. Yes, they do but nearly all cities have restrictions.  Let’s look at Phoenix, the big dog in the Valley. In Chapter 8-7 it states, “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this article, it is hereby declared to be a nuisance and it shall be unlawful for any person to keep rodents or poultry within the City. No poultry or rodents shall be kept in an enclosure within eighty feet of any residence within the City. Poultry may be kept within eighty feet of a residence if written permission consenting to the keeping of poultry less than eighty feet from a residence is first obtained from each lawful occupant and each lawful owner of such residence. Poultry shall not be kept in the front yard area of any lot or parcel within the City. Poultry and rodents shall be kept in an enclosure so constructed as to prevent such poultry and rodents from wandering upon property belonging to others.

(b)    No more than twenty head of poultry nor more than twenty-five head of rodents nor more than twenty-five head comprising a combination of rodents and poultry shall be kept upon the first one-half acre or less. An additional one-half acre shall be required for each additional twenty head of poultry or for each additional twenty-five head of rodents or for each additional twenty-five head comprising a combination of poultry and rodents. For areas larger than two and one-half acres the number of poultry or rodents shall not be limited.” Their code goes on to say in Section 8-10, “(a)    Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is hereby declared to be a nuisance and it shall be unlawful for any person to keep any animal, as defined in section 8-1 of this chapter, within the City on any lot or parcel of land consisting of less than ten thousand square feet in area.

(b)    Poultry may be kept on a lot or parcel of land within the City consisting of an area less than ten thousand square feet if written permission consenting to the keeping of poultry on such lot or parcel is first obtained from all of the lawful occupants and the lawful owners of adjoining lots or parcels of land, as defined in section 8-1, which are located in the immediate vicinity of the property whereon the poultry is kept. In summary, the restrictions are that a resident may have up to 25 chickens, 80 feet away from any residence and if the homeowner’s lot is less than 10,000 SF permission must be obtained from all adjacent property owners.

Let’s look at Mesa. In Mesa, a resident can have “10 chickens on the first one-half acre or less provided any enclosure is at least 40 feet from any neighboring residence, any coop is at least 75 feet from any other residence.” Tempe allows, “5 hens and if the enclosure or coop is 200 sq ft or less AND 8′ or less tall, it must meet building code separation requirements (safety issues) and cannot be in the front yard setback; if either more than 200 sq ft OR 8′ height, it must meet all setbacks for the district.” Similar to Tempe, Gilbert will allow up to 5 chickens on the smallest lots size of 6,000 SF. Chandler and Scottsdale do not allow chickens on small, residential lots.

Some people would have you believe that Valley cities allow chickens carte blanche. That is not the case. I would urge all councilmembers to do their homework and to study exactly what other cities allow and do not allow. It is a no-brainer to realize that allowing chickens, if that is the majority position, must occur with restrictions. Let’s see what kind of restrictions city staff comes up on November 1, 2016 when it makes another presentation before city council. Will they have done their homework?

This remains a divisive issue. I am posting one of my informal polls to the left of this column to give my readers a chance to weigh in on the issue. Blog readers on both sides of this issue have offered reasoned comments. I urge you to take a moment to read them as you make up your mind on this issue.

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Sep 16

21

Loose ends

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 21, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

No contest of the formally accepted final election results has been filed by either of the losing candidates within the 5 day time limit as stipulated by state law. Now, let’s see some loose ends cleaned up. Sammy still has campaign signs up, well past the proscribed 15 day limit. Sammy, take your campaign signs down. You are not above the law.

In August of 2016, Mark Burdick, former Glendale mayoral candidate, sent out a campaign mailer without the disclaimer, “Paid for by …” as is required by state law. Arizona State Statute 16-912 says, “A political committee that makes an expenditure for campaign literature or advertisements that expressly advocate the election or defeat of any candidate or that make any solicitation of contributions to any political committee shall include on the literature or advertisement the words ‘paid for by,’ followed by the name of the committee that appears on its statement of organization, or five hundred dollar exemption statement.” Burdick publicly admitted the omission of this required disclaimer.

In mid-August, City Clerk Julie Bower notified City Attorney Michael Bailey of a violation of ARS 16-912(A.) Bailey had said that he received the City Clerk’s notice and had taken action by shipping the complaint to an outside counsel, namely the Scottsdale City Attorney.

This is a cut and dried situation. Burdick sent out a campaign mailer without the legally required disclaimer. Burdick admitted that it had occurred. So, what’s the problem? Why the delay? It has been over a month. We should have been made publicly aware of the fine imposed upon Burdick and that it has been paid. Instead…silence.

On or about August 17th the City Clerk requested that Burdick provide the cost of producing and mailing the piece. The fine is 3 times the amount spent for production (includes the consultant’s time for designing the piece) and mailing. Since it was mailed to voters within all of Glendale the cost would be substantial. To mail a piece in my district (with perhaps one of the lowest active voter totals) is about $3,000. Multiply that times six districts and a conservative figure would be somewhere in the $15,000 to $18,000 range. Three times that cost puts Burdick’s fine in the neighborhood of $45,000 to $54,000.

Has the fine been assessed? Has Burdick paid the fine? Either the City Clerk or the City Attorney has the responsibility of public notification…for an action that should have been completed by now. It’s the city’s loose end and merits being tied up.

On another note city council met in workshop this afternoon. Councilmembers Jaime Aldama and Sammy Chavira were absent although Sammy did participate, sort of, telephonically. There were only 2 agenda items: 1. Costs associated with workmen’s’ compensation claims and 2. Proposed regulations for donation drop off boxes and permissible flagpole heights.

The presentation on item #1 generated no council comments or questions…not one. Item #2 generated a great deal of comment and questioning by councilmembers present. It holds true that councilmembers tend to spend more time and energy on issues that directly affect residents than on big picture issues. After nearly an hour of discussion council gave consensus to bring both items back with the request for further information related to how other Valley cities handle both issues. Upon advice of the City Attorney Bailey other “clean up” code/zoning items staff had been prepared to present to council were tabled due to insufficient notice to the public.

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

« Previous Page — Next Page »