Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Nov 23

8

Glendale voters approve both bond questions

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 8, 2023
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale Nov. 2023 bond election  | Tagged With: , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

I am pleased to announce that Glendale citizens have approved both bond questions in yesterday’s election. Question 1 authorizes additional bonding capacity of $82 million for street and intersection improvements and Question 2 authorizes capacity of $78 million for public safety. In both cases, no new bonds will be issued until there is the city’s capacity to pay them off without increasing your property taxes.

Here are the results posted by the Maricopa County elections department.

  • On Question 1, streets, 21,279 or 17.87% of all Glendale registered voters voted.
  • There were 12,061 (57.03%) voters who approved of the question.
  • There were 9,089 (42.97%) who voted ‘no’ on the question.
  • On Question 2, public safety, 21,279 or 17.87% of all Glendale registered voters voted.
  • There were 12,699 (60.06%) who approved of the question.
  • There were 8,446 (39.94%) who voted ‘no’ on the question.

I am waiting for the Canvass of Votes to see how those numbers break down by district. I expect to see the total number of votes cast in each district as well as how many were ‘yes’ votes and how many were ‘no’ votes by district. When I have that information, I will share the data in another blog.

Over the next 5 to 10 years, I look forward to the construction of street and public safety projects that will benefit all of us. For Yucca district residents, passage of the street bonds means we can finally see the reconstruction of 83rd Avenue between Glendale Avenue and Northern Avenue, a street I have characterized as “Alligator Alley” because the road is so rough, and it zig zags from a single lane in each direction to a double lane and then back to a single lane.

These questions passed because of the tremendous support offered by ordinary citizens, Glendale’s Bond Committee and most importantly, the hard work of the firefighters’ and police officers’ unions. Their strong advocacy for passage of the bonds played a critical role in their passage. They recognized how much the anticipated projects would help them to be more effective in providing essential services to everyone in Glendale.

The Mayor and Councilmembers Hugh, Malnar and I were in total support of both bond questions. Councilmembers Aldama, Tolmachoff and Turner, not so much. Keep in mind that city councilmembers could not advocate for or against the bonds in their official capacities but privately, if asked, they could convey their support for or against the bond questions.

It’s a good day for Glendale as it continues to build a stronger and safer community for all its residents.

Thank you to the 12,000+ registered voters who shared their optimism and support for Glendale.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Nov 23

2

Downtown Campus Renovation Project

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 2, 2023
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Downtown Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

I think there are many Glendale residents who may be unaware of the impending start of the Downtown Campus Renovation Project (DCRP). Our city hall has stood proudly at the intersection of 59th Avenue and Glendale Avenue for 40 years.

The building is old. Its A/C, plumbing and electrical are at the point of constant repair. It’s possible to continue to pour money into continuing repairs or to finally bite the bullet and renovate the building. Also 40 years old are the parking garage, the Council Chambers, the Amphitheater and Murphy Park. The parking garage leaks every time it rains, Council Chambers A/C is stuck on perpetual cold, the Amphitheater no longer has the sound infrastructure to support entertainment groups and in Murphy Park the trees are dying.

I am very proud and excited to be part of this momentous project. You should be too. Our signature city hall building will reflect the spirit of today’s Glendale.

The images presented here are conceptual only and have not been finalized or approved by the City Council. Our city hall is the heart of downtown. With the announcement of its renovation, various developers have expressed an interest in renovating older buildings or taking down vacant parcels for new projects.  Its renovation has sparked renewed interest in our downtown. This project will make our amphitheater a true destination location able to accommodate a wider variety of entertainment. This renovation will finally create a “One Stop Shop”, a centralized location for all our citizens to access all city services in one location. Need a building permit? You will be able to access that service at our One Stop Shop. Need to pay your water bill? The One Stop Shop will be where you go. Need a copy of a public record? Visit the One Stop Shop.

Murphy Park, while retaining its unique, historical character, will be retrofitted with lush landscaping with plenty of trees providing shade. The amphitheater will have permanent seating available as well as a shade structure.

City Hall will provide a new, updated workspace for its employees while the exterior look of the building will reflect a Glendale that has proven itself to be the epicenter of all the amazing accomplishments that have occurred over the past 40 years that it has existed.

City Council has had a series of public workshop meetings regarding this project. Citizens have had many opportunities to weigh in. Unfortunately, while many downtown shop owners have participated, not many citizens from other parts of the city have used the public meetings to get involved.

Construction is slated to begin this month and the completion of the renovation and move in is expected to occur in the Winter of 2025. To date the council has seen possible concepts for the city hall renovation and surrounding area. In an upcoming workshop we will be presented with a final, suggested concept that will be shared with the public for further comments before the final design is approved by the city council.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Oct 23

31

Follow Up to 3 angry councilmembers

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 31, 2023
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale's Fire Union  | Tagged With: , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

Recently I posted a blog in which the surmised conclusion was three councilmembers were attempting to score political points on the issue of presumption cancer claims for Glendale’s firefighters.

Today the City Manager issued a memo addressed to Councilmember Tolmachoff and copied the entire city council on this subject. As such it is a public document and I include the full document here: Memo – Presumptive Cancer

I refer to some relevant portions of that memo.

“To recap, the City’s policy for handling presumptive cancer claims is to follow state statutes as instructed by the ICA (Industrial Commission of Arizona) and administered by our TPA (Third part administrator, CORVEL). Cases that have been denied and have exhausted the ICA appeals process can make their case directly to the City’s Risk Manager. It has been my instruction to the City’s Risk Manager to carefully review each case individually based of the facts of the claim, and further, in accordance with the spirit of the presumptive cancer legislation, approve any claim that has been denied if warranted.”

Earlier this year the City issued a press release that cited a letter of agreement between the City and the Glendale Chapter of the Firefighters Association. In part, it said, “This letter also calls for Glendale staff to work with their labor partners to pass a state law that clarifies that any reoccurrence of cancer diagnosed during the old (state) rules must be covered under the new state law…”

Councilmember Tolmachoff referred to a previous workshop in which she brought up the issue. This was her response when, at that workshop, the Mayor concurred with Councilmember Tolmachoff that reoccurrences of cancer were an important issue for the staff to research. In the actual video of that meeting she said, “And that is not my item of special interest about the reoccurrence of cancer Mayor and I am not going to issue another Council Item of Special interest.”

The Mayor, in response to the previously cited letter of agreement coupled with Councilmember Tolmachoff’s above statement, felt it appropriate to get Council consensus to move forward with working with state legislators to correct any lapses in the state law.

What is really going on? This is an attempt to make political hay. This is certainly not the first time that an attempt has been made to make an issue political for gain and it won’t be the last.

It is important that you, the reader, are made aware of such attempts.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Oct 23

27

Not 12 Angry Men but 3 angry councilmembers

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 27, 2023
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale's Fire Union  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

Please remember that this is a campaign season and things get ugly during such a season, but this is the worst I have ever seen or of which I have been a part.

The reference to Twelve Angry Men is an American courtroom drama written by Reginald Rose in 1954 concerning the jury of a homicide trial in which one man convinces the rest of the jury of reasonable doubt concluding with a not guilty verdict. It’s a really good movie.

Although Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff has not come out and publicly endorsed any candidates as of this date, at Chamber events her actions would lead people to believe that she supports Paul Boyer for Mayor and Lupe Encinas for my Yucca district council seat. This is the context upon which this blog is written.

It is no secret that if you watch City Council meetings lately, you will witness a lot of sniping directed toward the Mayor and City Manager by Councilmembers Tolmachoff, Turner and Aldama. They appear to be quite unhappy with both gentlemen as well as decisions made by the majority of city council. They seem to be using public city council forums to convince you that the majority of city council is acting inappropriately. What you are witnessing these days is pure political theater.

I refer you to this video of the latest city council workshop of October 24, 2023: https://glendaleaz.new.swagit.com/videos/277456  starting at the 37:23 minute mark. On May 9, 2023, Mayor Weiers requested a Council Item of Special Interest to explore state legislation that ensures reoccurring cancers cannot be the sole reason for denying cancer claims and to ensure that reoccurring cancers that result in disability or death are presumed to be an occupational disease as outlined in the Arizona Revised Statutes.

The scope of the October 24, 2023, city council discussion and subsequent deliverables would be focused on the introduction of legislation in the 2024 Arizona Legislative Session that would add the additional protections to firefighters.

City Council has already adopted a policy to recognize reoccurring cancers for Glendale’s firefighters despite the state legislature’s failure to do so. The focus of this CIOSI workshop discussion was not looking for further changes in this policy but rather to take Glendale’s adopted policy and to work with the state legislature to encourage all fire departments to make Glendale’s policy statewide. A fix was no longer needed in Glendale and staff were asking for council consensus to bring Glendale’s approach before the state legislature.

Previous to the Mayor’s May, 2023, request for a Council Item of Special Interest (CIOSI) related strictly to making Glendale’s policy a statewide one, Councilmember Tolmachoff had asked for a similar CIOSI that included among other things, recognition of pre-cancerous conditions. A majority of council did not support her request at the time.

Dismayed by the rebuff of her past CIOSI, Councilmember Tolmachoff said the following during workshop, “…but I think it is shameful to make a campaign issue out of the health and safety of our firefighters and I believe that’s what this is.” She went on to say, “Because of four people, I believe, had been told to snuff this out (her previous CIOSI).” As well as, “I think it’s shameful the way it transpired.” And “So, just like I said, I see this for what I believe it is and I think it’s a campaign move.” During the fifteen-minute discussion of the issue she interrupted the City Manager and the Mayor repeatedly and spoke out several times without being recognized by the Chair (Mayor).

Firefighters are not speaking up in her defense. They are pleased that Glendale adopted a policy recognizing reoccurring cancers and will work with the city to lobby the state legislature to make it a statewide policy. In this upcoming election, the general expectation is that both police and fire will endorse Mayor Weiers, Councilmembers Hugh and Malnar and Diana Guzman, candidate for my Yucca council seat.

Councilmember Bart Turner agreed with Councilmember Tolmachoff and went on to say, “There is something going on and it does feel to me like it’s campaign related and that there’s collusion going on.”

Councilmember Aldama, an announced candidate for Mayor, agreed with Councilmember Tolmachoff and accused the Mayor of unprofessionalism and divisiness.

I support free speech as well as all Glendale Councilmembers’ exercise of such. Rather the concern is when does speech border on slander? Accusing the majority council of collusion or taking direction from some mysterious person at a public council workshop may be considered as slander.

Feeling something or believing something does not make it true. There were no facts presented back up the accusations made. Rather what we heard was “I believe” and “I feel” as if they were matters of fact.

Just remember, this is a nasty political season and if anyone is pushing a political agenda it may very well be the 3 angry councilmembers.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Jul 23

31

Don’t be buyin’ what they’re slingin’, Part III

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 31, 2023
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • VAI Resort • Yucca district  | Tagged With: , , , , | 1 Comment

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

In Part III of this three-part blog, I offer the specifics of the Glendale GPLET and Worker Power’s public statements regarding their opposition to the GPLET.

In the Fall of 2020, Applied Economics submitted an analysis requested by and paid for by the city. Its purpose was to present future tax revenues should the city decide to incentivize the development of what, at that time, was called Crystal Lagoon (now known as VAI Resort). The report also presented two other development alternatives for the same site. Keep in mind that the information I cite from this report is based upon old numbers. Since that report Crystal Lagoon is now VAI Resort and the hotel portion of the site has doubled. In recognition of these facts, the city has commissioned an updated report from Applied Economics. It is not yet available.

The 2020 report concluded that, “The proposed incentive structure outlined here would include permit and plan fee waivers of up to $1 million and a 25-year Government Property Lease Excise Tax agreement (GPLET) on the entertainment, recreation and concessions portions of the development. The total value of the incentive is estimated at $29.7 million, in return for $700.8 million in new sales, property and bed tax revenues to the city, county and state over the next 25 years. These incentives are performance based and the amounts will be less if the project is not built in its entirety.” (Page 2, Applied Economics, August 31, 2020).

The report goes on to state, “In terms of precedent for including the lagoon, Tempe has included sections of the Tempe Town Lake in the parcels for several different GPLETs that also include various types of development along the shoreline.” (Page 6, Applied Economics, August 31, 2020).

Further, “In order to demonstrate that the proposed GPLET meets the economic and fiscal benefit requirement in A.R.S. 42-6206, it is necessary to isolate the portion of the development that would be part of the GPLET. This analysis considers the property tax impacts the GPLET relative to the amount of benefit to the property owner or prime lessee. During the 25 year term, the prime lessee would normally pay lease excise tax instead of real property tax, although the recreation, entertainment and related retail and restaurant concessions of the development are assumed to b exempt from lease excise taxes…The estimated public benefit, or value of the other tax revenues generated by the projects exceeds the property tax savings to the prime lessee from the GPLET by $176.2 million over the 25 year term.” (Pages 6-7, Applied Economics, August 31, 2020).

Lastly, “The Crystal Lagoon Island Resort could result in an annual increase in property tax revenues to schools of $2.8 million, and $3.7 million to all jurisdictions in total after accounting for the GPLET exemptions.” (Page 12, Applied Economics, August 31, 2020).

What the report said is that this property, incentivized with a GPLET earns more money per year over the 25-year period for the city, the schools, the county and the state than if it were allowed to develop sometime in the future as apartments, retail and office buildings with no incentive.

Why does Worker Power object? In an Arizona Republic story dated 7/28/2023, entitled Community group that fought Tempe’s entertainment district aims for Glendale’s VAI Resort, Jordan Greenslade, a Worker Power senior field director, claimed that this tax break was unnecessary, stating, “Greenslade explained that the tax exemption was likely an initiative that began as a means to bring growth and prosperity to an area that could benefit from the jobs and development. Though, as Greenslade noted, Glendale is not that. In fact, Glendale is booming with development.

With additions like the Cardinals’ stadium and Westgate Entertainment District, Greenslade does not see why a 25-year tax break was necessary to draw a luxury resort like VAI to a booming tourist destination.”

Let’s unpack Greenslade’s assumption. He obviously hasn’t done his homework and has no knowledge of the history of this site. Historically, it has been farmed. About ten years ago Michael Bidwill bought the site, called it Organic 101 and had planned to build a gazillion apartments and some office buildings on the site. Apparently, that was not to be, and Bidwill let the property go into bankruptcy.  About six years ago, IKEA had the property in escrow but never completed the sale, so it remained farmland.

It was obvious, despite the success of Westgate, no entity was willing to purchase this site and make a major investment in its development until ECL (now VAI) approached the city with its vision for development and asking the city to consider offering an incentive for such a massive project. The city commissioned the Applied Economics study in 2020 and based upon the facts presented in the study, entered into a development agreement.

The massive size of this development coupled with an investment of a billion dollars along with the revenue return of this project justified an offer to incentivize this project ensuring that this coveted project would come to Glendale and be a perfect fit for Westgate, the city’s sports and entertainment district. Glendale has never had a resort within its jurisdiction and its placement at Westgate on an underutilized piece of farmland made good, economic sense.

The Phoenix Business Journal on 7/28/2023, ran this story entitled, Labor group that opposed Coyotes’ arena wants Glendale resort incentives placed on ballot. The article states, “Brendan Walsh, executive director of Worker Power Institute, said in a statement that GPLETs should ‘not be used to subsidize luxury development that brings little or no benefits to working families already living in the area’.”

Mr. Walsh is offering the same brand of Kool-Aid as Mr. Greenslade. This massive development project will employ at least 1800 Glendale residents. Every possible kind of job from restaurant waitresses and bar tenders to hotel workers to retail managers to skilled tradesmen to maintain this massive property. Another 1800 jobs is nothing to sneeze at and certainly is a major benefit to “working families already living in the area.”

Worker Power on its website offer the following as its Economic Policy:

“A primary focus of Worker Power’s advocacy efforts has been to challenge the misuse of GPLETs (Government Property Lease Excise Tax) by local municipalities. GPLET is a tax abatement program used to spur development in Arizona cities. While these developments purport to bring new jobs and additional tax revenues to aid the economy, GPLETs can add up to hundreds of millions of dollars not spent on local schools and other community needs over time. In addition, GPLETs can contribute to gentrification, exacerbate the deepening housing affordability crisis in our cities, and push low-wage earners out of town.”

Where is the “misuse” of the GPLET in this case? There is none. The Applied Economics study of 2020 stated that all entities – the city, the schools, the county and the state, earn more revenue over 25 years with this GPLET than without.

In addition, Glendale is leading the forefront of Valley cities in creatively financing affordable housing within the community. In fact, Glendale’s homeless population has decreased year over year. There is no demonstration of fact by Worker’s power that Glendale is “pushing low-wage earners out of town.”

Worker Power is spouting phrases designed to gin up general citizen support with absolutely no fact to back up their baseless accusations. It’s as if just because they said it and they are a PAC, it must be true. They are looking for a cause where none exists.

The deadline for turning in their petitions was last Thursday at 5 PM. The signatures collected are in the process of being verified. They claim to have collected over 5,000 signatures but how many of them are good and can be verified?

Worker Power has no legitimate cause to follow in Glendale. Really…don’t be buyin’ their brand of nonsense.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Jul 23

28

Don’t be buyin’ what they’re slingin’, Part I

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 28, 2023
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Mattel Amusement Park • VAI Resort • Westgate  | Tagged With: , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

This past week I and the other Glendale city councilmembers have received identical, word for word emails from all who signed a petition circulated by the Worker Power Political Action Committee (PAC). I have not seen the petition but somewhere within it there had to be the petition signer’s permission to allow Worker Power to send emails on the signer’s behalf as well as revealing to the recipient (the city council) the email address of the signer. I bet that everyone who signed the petition didn’t know that. Below is Worker Power’s application for a Referendum petition:

Here is just one of the emails I received. They are all the same with the exact same verbiage. All of the emails come from everyactioncustom.com with the personal information of the petition signer provided at the bottom of the email. What is everyactioncustom.com?

This domain is used to send emails on behalf of the supporters (petition signers) of organizations that use the EveryAction advocacy tools. Each one of those emails represents a form submission by a real person (the petition signer) wanting to contact (did they want to contact or did they even know that their signature granted permission to contact using their personal information?) a custom advocacy target (in this case, the members of the Glendale city council) configured in the EveryAction system. In other words, Worker Power hired Bonterra, the company that runs EveryAction, to set up a system where every signer will automatically have an email sent on his or her behalf. Here is a sample of the form email we are receiving. I have personally redacted the name, address and email address of this sender:

“Dear Vice Mayor Joyce Clark,

I am aware that City Council has approved a 25-year property tax break to VAI Resorts known as a GPLET and I would like to express my concern with that decision. This is tax money that could be going to improve our infrastructure, schools, our parks, public safety, and more. There have been major transparency issues with this project. Despite announced changes to the size and scope of the resort, change in ownership, and changes to the GPLET, it took over a year to update the Development Agreement. For such a massive project that has been delayed for so long, there was very little opportunity for the public to comment given that it was added to the agenda the day before it was set to be heard. We also heard the Mayor express a need to consider the effect of new lighting, more noise, and additional traffic caused by changes to the project from the original approval, but we have yet to see these findings . Finally, the next vote involves a sale of public land to the developer to expand the project. At the last neighborhood meeting, multiple nearby residents expressed concerns about amending the zoning to turn this public land into a parking lot and a six-story office building that could overlook private backyards.

Sincerely,
Daniel ———–
—— W Blackhawk Dr  Glendale, AZ 85308-9638
————–@gmail.com”

What is Worker Power? It’s a super political action committee (Super PAC):

“The Worker Power PAC is a Democratic Party-aligned Super PAC founded in 2020 as the Working Arizona PAC that expanded to conduct activity in other competitive states in 2022 after changing its name. The PAC is closely aligned with organized labor and has received money from labor unions and other left-of-center advocacy groups including Unite HERE Local 11, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Federation of Teachers, and the Arizona AFL-CIO.

The PAC has conducted campaign activities in support of Democratic candidates in Arizona and Georgia as well on behalf of the presidential campaign of Joe Biden during the 2020 election. The group also created a separate PAC to funnel funds to support congressional and U.S. Senate Candidates in Georgia in 2020 and 2022 called the Worker Power PAC for Georgia. 

The Worker Power Pac was founded in 2020 as the Working Arizona PAC. The PAC is organized as an unaffiliated ‘super PAC’ that is allowed to spend unlimited amounts of funds in support of candidates via independent expenditures. The PAC describes itself as ‘dedicated to delivering wins for progressive political candidates.’  In 2020, the PAC focused its spending on Arizona-specific state and federal elections. In 2022, the PAC ‘conducted a massive independent expenditure field canvass that provided the margin of victory for numerous progressive candidates and delivered a decisive blow to a slate of extreme right-wing candidates at every ballot level.’

Candidates that the organization deployed paid canvassers to support in 2022 included those of Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs (D), Senator Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D), and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D).” (Google search)

What should be interesting to note is that the city council approved the original agreement with ECL (ownership has changed to VAI)  nearly two years ago and that agreement included the original GPLET (Government Property Least Excise Tax). Where was Worker Power then? They didn’t care almost two years ago and now they do. They are opportunists.

What are they really up to? Part II of this blog to be published tomorrow, Saturday, should explain a great deal.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Jun 23

15

Glendale’s budget is a good budget

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 15, 2023
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Downtown Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Heroes Park  | Tagged With: , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

On Tuesday, June 13th at the regular Glendale City Council voting meeting, a majority of 5 voted to approve the proposed budget for FY 24-25. The 5 members voting for its passage were Mayor Weiers, Councilmembers Aldama, Clark, Hugh and Malnar with Councilmembers Tolmachoff and Turner voting no.

Is any city budget ever perfect? Will it please everyone? Obviously, the answer is no. Out of the hundreds and hundreds of items within the budget, Councilmember Tolmachoff objected to expenditures regarding 4 items: the Downtown Campus Renovation Project, Heroes Park Sports fields, the Veteran’s Community Project, and covered parking for our city attorneys.

She has every right to disagree and to voice her concerns and to make arguments in support of her positions. Every councilmember has that right and exercises it freely. Councilmember Tolmachoff advocated for her positions during the 3 months of intense council budget review as well as during council workshop discussions of the proposed budget. Her arguments were not enough to create a majority of council in support her positions. The fact that her arguments on these 4 items did not prevail should not have been so compelling as to cause her to vote no on the entire budget.

Councilmember Tolmachoff chose to ignore the countless positive elements of the budget. Items such as $12 million dollars for new fire trucks or funding to improve every right of way within the city or our continued commitment to treat every street and to renovate our city parks.

Councilmember Tolmachoff’s objections were on the use of the city’s unassigned fund balance for downtown renovation, Heroes Park sports fields, the veteran’s community project and covered parking for city attorneys.

The city’s fund balance has grown over the past few years due to all the construction sales tax generated by development in the Loop 303 area. She wants a lion’s share of those funds to stay in the unassigned fund balance (think of it as a rainy-day fund to be used in emergencies).

In a very recent workshop finance staff stated that the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends a budgetary fund balance in a city’s general fund of no less than two months of regular general fund operating revenues or regular general fund operating expenditures. Staff went on to recommend changing the current policy of a minimum unassigned fund balance in the general fund to 25% of budgeted ongoing expenditures. A majority of city council concurred because it is a prudent strategy.  Every Valley city has a similar policy with the percentage of fund balance retained ranging from 1% (Phoenix) to 35% (Avondale and Peoria). Keep in mind that our bond agency ratings are excellent. If we were doing something unwise, believe me, the bond agencies would downgrade us immediately.

Consequently, the city has excess funds that can be used for one-time projects. A one-time project is usually, although not always, a construction project. The 4 projects that Councilmember Tolmachoff opposes are all one-time projects. Please note that there is some hypocrisy on the part of Tolmachoff. She does not mind using fund balance for transportation projects which are her priority. Hmmm…

She opposes the cost of renovating the city hall, Murphy Park, the amphitheater and council chambers. This is a long needed and great project. It is the one project that may do more to revitalize downtown Glendale than anything else. As a result of the council’s decision, CivicGroup, LLC. Is planning to build a 120 room hotel adjacent to the Civic Center. A new pub is hosting its opening this week and our Economic Development Department has received numerous calls from developers seeking to invest in our downtown. It seems that our downtown campus renovation project will be the catalyst to bring new life and new businesses to our downtown. It will also help to recruit and retain employees by providing workspaces of today, not 40 years ago when city hall was built.

She opposes the Heroes Park sports fields construction despite a 25-year promise by the city to complete this park. Heroes Park was designed and intended to bring amenities, such as sports fields for our children, enjoyed by other parts of the city to south and west Glendale.

She opposes the Veteran’s Community Project. This project will provide interim housing to veterans as they work their way through various systems to obtain counseling, health services, a permanent job and housing. It is a pilot project that has already drawn interest from other Valley cities that may replicate Glendale’s effort in this area. A majority of council considers this a very worthwhile project that assists a long-neglected segment of our society.

She opposes a covered parking structure for our city attorneys even though it is recognized that it is a retention tool for our current staff. For years the city attorney’s office was in city hall and its staff parked in the city parking garage. With their recent move, they no longer have access to covered parking.

She doesn’t want any of these projects but it’s OK to use the funds for her priority, transportation projects. In a recent article she said, “My plea to the mayor and council to fully fund the transportation plan this fiscal year with cash on hand (fund balance) was met with a resounding no from the majority.” The majority instead identified other projects, long ignored, that warranted funding intended to improve the quality of life for every resident.

City Council adopted a ten year plan to treat all streets. As needed, Council’s plan has been modified and instead of spending $10 million dollars a year, the minimum amount per year has risen to $17 million dollars a year reflecting a total of $450,781,427 million dollars over the next 10 years. This total amount is dependent upon voter approval this Fall of the Transportation Bond authority. However, the planned total for transportation can hardly be considered as underfunded.

Councilmember Tolmachoff literally “threw the baby out with the bath water” because her advocacy for 4 items was not accepted by a majority of the council. The fact that her arguments on these 4 items did not prevail should not have caused her to vote no on the entire budget. It reminds me of the saying, “my way or the highway.”

Councilmember Tolmachoff did not show responsible leadership. A true leader would not attempt to encourage other councilmembers to defeat the city’s entire budget and throw the city into chaos 17 days before the start of the city’s new fiscal year. The results would have been like Congress’s failure to pass a budget before their deadline. A leader recognizes and accepts defeat and works to achieve consensus with colleagues to achieve future wins.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

May 23

25

Affordable housing push comes to the state legislature

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

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

District 2

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

 

District 22

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

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

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

 

District 24

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

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

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

 

District 26

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

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

 

District 27

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

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

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

 

District 28

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

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

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

 

District 29

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

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

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

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

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

May 23

24

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

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

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

May 23

21

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

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

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

« Previous Page — Next Page »