Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Jan 16

11

Neighborhoods with Broken Windows

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 11, 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

It has been 18 years and 25 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

Let’s talk about Glendale’s neighborhoods. Some are great. I live in a great neighborhood. Some Glendale residents do not live in a great neighborhood. Marginal neighborhoods are most generally to be found in Glendale’s Cactus, Ocotillo and Yucca districts…southeast, south and southwest.

When I was elected as the first Yucca district councilmember in 1992 (the first year of full implementation of the district system in Glendale) one of my very first actions was to invite the City Manager Dr. Vanacour, Assistant City Manager Pam Kavanaugh, and senior management (especially department directors) on a van tour of my district ending with a picnic lunch at O’Neil Park. I heard a lot of “oh mys” during the tour and when we reached O’Neil Park some needed to use its restrooms. I never saw so many people do such a quick about face opting to wait until they returned to City Hall.

My reason for this tour was that I recognized that while city resources had been used exclusively in north Glendale to support the development of the Arrowhead area it was done at the expense of the rest of the city. That figure has been pegged as north of $80 million dollars. I wanted Glendale’s senior management to refocus and to appreciate the desperate needs of some of Glendale’s oldest, long ignored neighborhoods.

Most people have heard, at one time or another, of the Broken Windows Theory.  Roughly it states that problems, if not dealt with as soon as they occur, become much worse. That is what was occurring not only in my district but in the Ocotillo and Cactus districts as well. I believed it was time for senior staff to redirect resources to stop the decay created by years of ignoring problems.

As a result of that tour then City Manager Dr. Vanacour and Assistant City Manager Kavanaugh championed my cause and developed plans to refocus on older neighborhoods. So was born the Neighborhood Partnership Program including Neighborhood Partnership Grants. It was not all that I envisioned but it was a start and committed the city’s agenda to redressing conditions in distressed neighborhoods.

As a councilmember I was often the bane of existence for the city’s Code Compliance Department. It was not uncommon for me to drive around neighborhoods making lists of code violations. I often took my council assistant with me so that she could write down addresses and violations at a jackhammer pace. I would turn my lists into Code Compliance and request periodic reports on the disposition of violations. I took the time to ride herd on the department and to require accountability.

Are there any current councilmembers that do this kind of proactive work in their district neighborhoods? I suspect not. There is a new breed of councilmember these days. At workshops and council meetings a smattering of questions sometimes surface but they are superficial at best. Once in awhile a genuinely insightful question will surface, usually from Councilmembers Turner, Tolmachoff or now, Malnar. Councilmembers Aldama’s and Chavira’s shtick is to thank everybody and his brother for everything. Vice Mayor Hugh and Mayor Weiers are often silent. Do any bother to research or do their homework on issues coming before them? Probably not…unless it’s a major public issue like the billboard controversy. Do they have neighborhood meetings…not once or twice a year district meetings but neighborhood meetings of 15, 20 people from a neighborhood where city issues are explained and neighborhood problems emerge? Probably not.

Genuine service to the community seems to be a thing of the past and when it is requested it is performed by a council assistant…not a councilmember. One of Councilmember Aldama’s constituents has been sharing the problems of her older neighborhood with me for the past year. She requested Aldama’s assistance. He was non-responsive and passed her off to others. When she directly requested assistance from Code Compliance she finally received some help. Was it all that she expected? No but it was a start. If Aldama had taken the time to intervene the assistance she received might have been even more robust.

This new crop of council assistants have no historical memory of Glendale, may not even live in our community and seem to have no investment in working with neighborhoods. Their focus seems to be political rather than service oriented.

We appear to have a council that attends requisite meetings and generally accepts all recommendations from staff; attends ribbon cuttings and events; goes to League of Cities and Towns meetings; and remains distant from the residents they serve.

The city also had a scalloped street program that used resources to finish partial streets and to add curb, gutter and sidewalks in areas where the streets had been ignored for years. Then the Great National Recession hit and all disappeared…the scalloped streets program, the Neighborhood grants program and the Neighborhood Partnership Program became toothless. Neighborhoods are once again ignored in the city’s quest to regain financial stability. That is understandable…to a point. Now the city is on the road to economic recovery. While the focus is on Glendale’s finances it can no longer be used as a rationale to ignore the basic issues confronting neighborhoods. I challenge senior staff and the city council to once again make neighborhoods a priority. Remember Broken Windows. If a problem in a neighborhood is ignored it will only get worse. Any city, even Glendale, is only as great as its meanest neighborhoods. Ignore them at your peril.

© 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 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.

Jan 16

9

Coyotes…stay or go…in Glendale?

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 9, 2016
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Gila River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

It has been 18 years and 23 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

Over the holidays there wasn’t much news about the Coyotes. Now that we are in a new year on January 7, Paul Giblin had a story in the Arizona Republic citing the results of a recent poll on the subject of a Coyotes relocation. Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2016/01/07/poll-arizona-coyotes-should-stay-gila-river-arena-glendale/78314406/ . He reported, “Approximately 54 percent of frequent voters in Maricopa County surveyed believe the Coyotes should remain at Gila River Arena in Glendale, according to the poll that was conducted Dec. 29 for Phoenix-based public-relations firms MBQF Consulting and Marson Media.”

The problem for any other governmental agency attempting to locate the Coyotes will be to garner enough public support to pay for yet another very expensive sports facility. Thirteen years ago, in 2002, the cost to build the Gila River Arena was about $180 million dollars. The cost today to build the same type of facility has exploded. It is expected that the cost would be in the $400 million dollar range. The sixty four dollar question is can enough public support be generated in some other Valley community to use precious and scarce taxpayer dollars?

Public support would probably be found if the economy was booming and world affairs were stable. That is not the case. The economy staggers along as the middle class continues its death spiral. The general public fears more ISIS inspired events on our soil as the Middle East explodes into further turmoil while China’s stock market takes a dive and North Korea’s bomb tests reminds us that we, as a nation, are vulnerable. This is not an environment that is conducive for public sentiment to use taxpayer dollars on yet another sports facility.

Anthony LeBlanc, one of the Coyotes’ owners and apparent Public Information Officer, has had to walk back some of his previous assertions about the Coyotes.  He has hired a sports consultancy firm to assist him in his quest for a new location. It seems likely that a location in any other Valley municipality will be very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. His only hope may be can he cut a deal for another new facility funded and built by the Gila River Pima Maricopa Indian Community? His refusal to bid for management of the Gila River Arena may come back to haunt him.

Which leads to another bit of recent news. The City of Glendale received 3 bids to manage its Gila River Arena submitted by AEG Facilities, Spectra by Comcast Spectacor and SMG. All three are “big guns” in the sports management business. All have the experience and knowledge required to successfully manage Glendale’s arena. Currently the bids are TOP SECRET. In the next few weeks Glendale’s senior management staff and city council will each receive separate briefings regarding the specifics of each proposed bid. This management deal is more complicated because the Coyotes will play in the arena for another season and it is expected the chosen management company contract would begin this July 1, 2016. That means that the preferred management company and the Coyotes would have to negotiate revenue streams for one year of Coyotes occupancy. There is always the remote possibility that a deal could be crafted comfortable enough for the Coyotes to create an incentive for them to stay at the Gila River Arena beyond their final year.

The city council may be ready to vote on an arena manager as early as February 9, 2016. If a vote is not taken around that date expect that one of the bids is in further negotiation before final acceptance. The public, as is the case with mushrooms, will be left in the dark and fed horse manure. There is no opportunity for public input in this process. While everyone understands the theory of representative government they also understand the theory of transparency. It seems that once again “father knows best” trumps the public’s right to know.

© 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 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.

Jan 16

7

A tale of two parks

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 7, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • West Branch Library  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 4 Comments

It has been 18 years and 21 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

In 1990 Glendale’s population was approximately 151,449. Two years later, in 1992, Glendale implemented a full council district system of representation with 6 council districts of approximately equal populations. At that time each district would have had about 30,000 residents. The geographical size of the districts varied to accommodate equal population distribution.

A little history is in order. In the late 1970’s to mid 1980’s the Hunt brothers, billionaires from Texas, had acquired most of the land we know today as Arrowhead. They intended to master plan and develop the entire area. In support of their plan Glendale built a water treatment plant to accommodate the anticipated population growth. Disaster struck. The Hunt brothers attempted to corner the precious metals market, especially silver. Paul Volker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, brought their scheme to an end and by the late 1980’s the brothers were convicted of manipulating the market.

What was Glendale to do? It had invested a great deal of money in a water treatment plant now sitting idle. It took on the task of master planning the area and investing millions in developing the infrastructure of the area while ignoring the needs of the rest of the city. It also reserved a substantial parcel of land for what would become Foothills Park. It paid the Hunt brothers for the water treatment plant it had built. In essence Glendale paid twice for the very same plant.

Developers began building homes in the area. With the mayor of Glendale residing in the Arrowhead area it didn’t take long for resources to flow into development of Foothills Park and within 8 years the area also had its branch library, the Foothills Library. In 1998 the Foothills Aquatic & Recreation Center and the Western Area Regional Park had been placed on the city’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

Southwest Heroes Park

Southwest Heroes Park

By 1998 the city has made a commitment to a Recreation & Aquatic Center in Foothills Park and the development of the Western Area Regional Park (known today at Heroes Park) with a branch library, its very own Recreation & Aquatic Center, baseball fields, an urban fishing lake, a dog park, ramadas, basketball courts and a skate area. By 2007 Foothills Park had its Recreation & Aquatic Center. What did the Western Area Regional Park have? It had $6 million dollars diverted from building its branch library to building the Public Safety Center. It had some basketball courts and a

Northeast Heroes Park

Northeast Heroes Park

zero splash pad. The skate area and ramadas were built after 2007. The skate area sits idle…vacant…growing tumbleweeds. The ramadas were built because they generate rental income. They are used heavily. Since its arrival in 1998 on the city’s CIP there is no branch library, no Recreation & Aquatic Center, no baseball fields, no urban fishing lake, and no dog park. Only 20 acres of the total park acreage of 88 acres has been developed.

Skate Court at Heroes Park

Skate Court at Heroes Park

Splash pad

Splash Pad at Heroes Park

Make no mistake…I am as mad as hell. Over the past 18 years there has been a deliberate and concerted agenda by previous city councils to ignore the development of this park. Today with the exception of Mayor Weiers and Councilmember Turner it remains ignored and neglected. Through Mayor Weiers effort to call attention to this park this year 83rd Avenue north of Bethany Home Road (the western boundary of the park) will see road improvements in the form of curb, gutter and sidewalk. A bone to be sure but it is something. At some point a modular building will be erected, one tenth the size of the planned branch library, to serve as this area’s library. Another bone to be sure.

Senior staff is also responsible. This park is not part of their agenda either. When the city very recently decided to buy the Pendergast land for $22 million dollars not surprisingly Tom Duensing, Interim

Ramadas at Heroes Park

Ramadas at Heroes Park

Assistant City Manager and Director of Finance, found the debt capacity to accomplish this purchase. When it comes to this park’s development he wrings his hands and says there is no money and no debt capacity. I call on him to be financially creative and to find a way to increase the city’s debt capacity to cause further development of this park. I call on this city council to make meaningful development of this park a priority. One sixth of the city’s population remains ill served without any of the amenities that can be found throughout the rest of the city. To this day only 20

In the shadow of the University of Phoenix Stadium at Heroes Park

In the shadow of the University of Phoenix Stadium at Heroes Park

acres of the total park acreage of 88 acres has been developed. It is a travesty, shameful and embarrassing that the city has a major, regional park three quarters of which grows tumbleweeds.

 

 

 

© Joyce Clark, 2015

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 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.

Dec 15

3

Coyotes in a pickle

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 3, 2015
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

It has been 17 years and 336 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

It seems that Thanksgiving got in the way of much blog writing recently. I hope your Thanksgiving Day with family and friends was enjoyable. I hope you ate too much, laughed too much and watched too much football.

It was announced that the Coyotes hired Mitchell Ziets, CEO of Tipping Point Sports, LLC, to assist in an exploration of options for the team including a move to another venue from the Gila River Arena in Glendale. Let’s explore the reality of this option.

In a November 2, 2015 story by Craig Morgan several possible venues are offered for consideration by the Coyotes. Here is the link: http://arizonasports.com/story/436156/coyotes-in-discussions-with-at-least-three-separate-groups-for-new-valley-arena/ .

In his story Morgan offers this comment from Anthony LeBlanc, “At some point you have to make a decision that you can’t continue to talk to a wall, Coyotes co-owner, president and CEO Anthony LeBlanc said. You have to accept reality and look at what your alternatives are. That’s where we are right now.” From the time LeBlanc’s group, IceArizona, commenced its deal with Glendale for the use of its arena the Coyotes simply refused to talk to and to share information with Glendale. They were decidedly off the reservation. It has only been since the new, two-year deal was inked that IceArizona has decided to play nice with Glendale.

IceArizona may very well leave Gila River Arena in two years but options to play elsewhere in the Valley are more limited than current speculation would lead one to believe. LeBlanc admits to “conversations” with Phoenix about the possibility of a shared arena with the Phoenix Suns. Out of curiosity I checked the 2015-2016 playing schedules for both teams. Here are some comparisons:

                                                            Phoenix Suns                 Arizona Coyotes

Season                                                10/28/2015-4/13/2016     10/9/2015-4/13/2016

Number of total games                                     82                                        82

Number of home games                                   40                                        41

Out of the 40+ plus home games each team plays at its current venue, if they currently played at the same shared venue, 12 playing dates would conflict. That is ¼ or 25% of their home games. To be fair, we know that can be remedied by the leagues with a gnashing of teeth and the pulling of hair. It has worked before when the Coyotes and Suns shared a venue. One would think the Coyotes fans have warm memories of their experiences in sharing a venue with the Suns and are eagerly looking forward to do so again.

In a recent December 2, 2015 Paul Giblin story in the Arizona Republic, he cites issues that Phoenix would have to consider. Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2015/12/02/arizona-coyotes-arizona-cardinals-wont-bid-manage-glendale-gila-river-arena/76564718/ .

  •  How much would a new arena cost? The Milwaukee Bucks’ planned new arena is pegged at $500 million.
  • How much would be privately funded? How much publicly funded? Would the public-funding source be municipal, state or some combination?
  • Can voters be sold on the idea of picking up any portion of the bill?
  • Where specifically would an arena be built?
  • When would it open?
  • Can the Suns and Coyotes work out an agreement to split revenues?

Let’s look at other possible venues. Tempe and/or Scottsdale are possible candidates. Would the voters of Tempe and/or Scottsdale approve the construction of a $180 million dollar building (cost of Gila River Arena construction in 2005) and agree to subsidize, year after year, a team that is not profitable? Remember those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it. I would think many voters would be very aware of Glendale’s history and that could certainly cause them to think twice about such a proposal.

Arizona State University has been mentioned as well. ASU receives substantial funding from the Arizona State Legislature. It is conceivable that a majority of legislators may balk at the idea of state taxpayer money being used to subsidize a for-profit company.  If ASU can fund and subsidize such a project with new, private dollars and not divert private dollars already committed for existent programs then it is possible. But wait, didn’t ASU Hockey just commit to playing its games at Gila River Arena? If that is the case, wouldn’t ASU have to build a new venue?

The last location on the menu of possibles is Talking Stick. That is certainly do-able. An Indian reservation is not subject to federal, state, county or local laws. The tribe is free to build what it wants to build on reservation land.  One has to wonder if this tribe would be willing to invest in the construction of another major venue as well as subsidizing the team in perpetuity.

There was an interesting article published on October 20,2015 by the Flordia’s Sun Sentinel regarding the NHL Florida Panthers and a Broward County proposed deal. Here is the link: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-panthers-subsidy-debate-20151020-story.html .

In some ways their deal is like comparing apples and oranges for Broward County has a population of 1.87 million people and includes 24 cities. That in itself is much different from Glendale’s population of approximately 240,000 and the fact that it is one city having to deal with a hockey arena. Some elements of their proposed deal are eerily similar to the Glendale/Coyotes deal. As of this date their deal has yet to be approved but here are some of the deal points which would expire in 2028:

  • The Panthers would continue making $5.3 million annual debt payments toward the county’s $15.3 million obligation.
  • Receive $86 million from the county, or $6.6 million a year on average, but in a schedule of front-loaded payments that starts at $12 million a year. Of the total, $39 million must be used for capital expenses at the arena, $45.5 million for operating expenses like paying the electric bill or property insurance, and $1.5 million to lure a “high impact event.”
  • Provide an irrevocable letter of credit to protect the county’s financial investment if the team defaults, files bankruptcy or relocates.
  • Grant the county development rights on land surrounding the arena, where a mixed-use entertainment complex could be considered.
  • Share proceeds with the county if the NHL expands between 2015 and 2021 and gives teams expansion proceeds. After the Panthers’ losses are covered, the county would get the remainder of the one-time expansion payment.
  • Give the county 10 percent of profits if the team, made more valuable by this new deal, were sold.
  • Give the county authority to approve where the money for capital projects is spent, and authority to replace the Panthers’ Arena Operating Company with another arena manager if needed.
  • Allow the Panthers to get out of the contract in eight years if it’s not working out. They’d have to give a year’s notice, show losses of $100 million over seven years, and pay a termination amount. For example, if the Panthers leave in year 8, they’d pay back the full $72 million the county would have given them by then.

No matter where the Coyotes end up in the Valley, whether they remain in Glendale or move to another location, their quest to be subsidized by a governmental entity is surely a public policy question deserving of much public discussion. The people of any city have a right to weigh in on the question of their tax dollars being used to subsidize a private, for-profit company.

© Joyce Clark, 2015

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 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 15

11

Welcome to Glendale’s newest Councilmember Ray Malnar

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 11, 2015
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , | 3 Comments

It has been 17 years and 314 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

Tonight, November 10, 2015 Ray Malnar was sworn in as Glendale’s newest councilmember representing the Sahuaro district. Gary Sherwood is definitely gone and to be forgotten. Councilmember Malnar, in his acceptance speech, set just the right tone. It was positive and hopeful as he suggested that Glendale can have better days ahead.

Many people have said that there are apparently two more sleazebag councilmembers that need to hit the brick road…Councilmembers Chavira and Aldama. Councilmember Chavira is up for reelection in 2016 and Councilmember Aldama faces reelection in 2018. We’ll see what the future holds for both.

I wanted to share an Arizona Republic news story by Chris Coppola. In it Coppola reports that Chandler is starting its search over again for a new city manager. Here is the link:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/chandler/2015/11/06/chandler-city-manager-search-starts-over/75235616/ .

Kevin Phelps, under consideration as one of two finalists for Glendale’s position of city manager, was one of the five finalists for city manager in Chandler ultimately rejected by their city council.

Let’s hope Glendale has the strength of fortitude exhibited by its sister city, Chandler, and rejects its two finalists and starts over. Glendale’s consultant, Slavin, did a poor job of securing candidates for the city. If Chandler can start over, so can Glendale. Glendale deserves better.

For the better part of an hour Glendale’s city council rubber stamped every agenda item. Not one agenda item was pulled for further questioning. Yet we know that while some of the items may have been “of a routine nature or discussed in workshop,” that was not the case with every agenda item. They appeared to show very little interest in the items they approved and on several occasions Mayor Weiers seemed to practically plead for some council input on anything. It was disappointing and literally painful to watch. Has this council slipped back into the modus operandi of previous councils?

© Joyce Clark, 2015

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 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 15

9

Do we have a duck?

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 9, 2015
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 7 Comments

 

It has been 17 years and 309 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

This may be a bit complicated to follow but perhaps by breaking it into smaller bites it will become more understandable. Strands of a tangled spider web emerge and as we explore the web a clearer understanding will be created.logos]

Presented by Councilman Aldama & Councilman Chavira

On the weekend of October 31-November 1, 2015 an event was held at city owned Murphy Park in downtown Glendale. That event was the Dia de Los Muertos. The event had 13 sponsors but take particular note of 4 sponsors: 1. The City of Glendale (Logo prominently displayed as a sponsor), 2. The Glendale Convention and Visitors Bureau (Visit Glendale logo), 3. Glendale Councilmember Chavira, and 4. Glendale Councilmember Aldama.

Why take note of these sponsors? The photo to the right is of a political banner advertising the reelection of Martin Quezada, aQuezada Democrat candidate for Legislative District 29. Unfortunately there was no similar political banner for Quezada’s Republican challenger Aaron Borders.

Why does it matter whether the opposing candidates in a district legislative race had been invited to supply election material and/or participate in this event? The event was partially sponsored by the city, city councilmembers using their district funds (Glendale taxpayer monies) and the Glendale Convention and Visitors Bureau.

Arizona Revised Statutes speaks to such a situation. I have boldened the relevant language within A.R.S. §9-500.14: 9-500.14. Use of city or town resources or employees to influence elections; prohibition; civil penalty; definitions

  1. A city or town shall not spend or use its resources, including the use or expenditure of monies, accounts, credit, facilities, vehicles, postage, telecommunications, computer hardware and software, web pages, personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or any other thing of value of the city or town, for the purpose of influencing the outcomes of elections. Notwithstanding this section, a city or town may distribute informational pamphlets on a proposed bond election as provided in section 35-454 if those informational pamphlets present factual information in a neutral manner. Nothing in this section precludes a city or town from reporting on official actions of the governing body.
  2. The prohibition on the use of public resources to influence the outcome of bond, budget override and other tax-related elections includes the use of city-focused or town-focused promotional expenditures that occur after an election is called and through election day. This prohibition does not include routine city or town communications.
  3. This section does not prohibit the use of city or town resources, including facilities and equipment, for government-sponsored forums or debates if the government sponsor remains impartial and the events are purely informational and provide an equal opportunity to all viewpoints. The rental and use of a public facility by a private person or entity that may lawfully attempt to influence the outcome of an election is permitted if it does not occur at the same time and place as a government-sponsored forum or debate.
  4. Employees of a city or town shall not use the authority of their positions to influence the vote or political activities of any subordinate employee.
  5. The attorney general or the county attorney of the county in which an alleged violation of this section occurred may initiate a suit in the superior court in the county in which the city or town is located for the purpose of complying with this section.
  6. For each violation of this section, the court may impose a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars plus any amount of misused funds subtracted from the city or town budget against a person who knowingly violates or aids another person in violating this section. The person determined to be out of compliance with this section is responsible for the payment of all penalties and misused funds. City or town funds or insurance payments shall not be used to pay these penalties or misused funds. All misused funds collected pursuant to this section shall be returned to the city or town whose funds were misused.
  7. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as denying the civil and political liberties of any employee as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions.
  8. For the purposes of this section:
  9. “Government-sponsored forum or debate” means any event, or part of an event or meeting, in which the government is an official sponsor, which is open to the public or to invited members of the public, and whose purpose is to inform the public about an issue or proposition that is before the voters.
  10. “Influencing the outcomes of elections” means supporting or opposing a candidate for nomination or election to public office or the recall of a public officer or supporting or opposing a ballot measure, question or proposition, including any bond, budget or override election and supporting or opposing the circulation of a petition for the recall of a public officer or a petition for a ballot measure, question or proposition in any manner that is not impartial or neutral.
  11. “Misused funds” means city or town monies or resources used unlawfully as proscribed by this section.
  12. “Routine city or town communications” means messages or advertisements that are germane to the functions of the city or town and that maintain the frequency, scope and distribution consistent with past practices or are necessary for public safety.

A.R.S.§9-550.14 seems to say that city sponsored political activity is only permitted if it is fair and impartial and an equalPhx override opportunity is provided for all viewpoints (including candidates’ opponents). It should also be noted that there were also booths in support of several school district override elections but none for those who opposed the very same override elections.

 

 

The Glendale CVB was a sponsor:

http://diadelosmuertosglendaleaz.com/

Welcome To Dia De Los Muertos Online

The Glendale, AZ Convention & Visitors Bureau welcomes you to their inaugural, Dia de Los Muertos celebration in Historic Downtown Glendale.

The Glendale CVB is a department within the city’s Communications Division:

https://www.glendaleaz.com/budget/documents/4_Communications.pdf

Page 140 2013 budget book:

Mission Statement:  To develop and implement marketing and public relations programs, resident communications and visitor services that promote Glendale and ensure the city’s key messages are delivered to target audiences in an accurate, timely and cost-effective manner. 

Department Description: The Marketing/Communications Department consists of nine divisions, including the Public Relations Office, Special Events, Tourism and the new Glendale Convention & Visitors Bureau, Glendale 11, Glendale Media Center, Web Services, Creative Services, Glendale Civic Center and Administration. Marketing/Communications produces and oversees Glendale’s print and electronic communications with the public and the media, as well as develops communication strategies and marketing campaigns that enhance the city’s image.  The city’s special events, produced in this department, draw about one-half million visitors to downtown Glendale annually.                                                                      FISCAL YEAR 2013  GOALS

Goal

Successfully transition Glendale Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB) from a membership fee based budget model to a bed tax revenue budget model. Related Council Goal One community with quality economic development. (Glendale collects bed sales tax and acts as a pass through on to the CVB).

Activities 

Update CVB Business Plan to reflect organization’s new funding model, establish new organization bylaws, create new hotel advisory group, meet with group to identify budget priorities, develop new advertising, marketing and sales plan, etc. 

If you go to the city’s website and Follow Your Money under the heading Council Office and then the Miscellaneous category for each councilmember you will find Chavira’s and Aldama’s contributions from their district budgets, in other words, taxpayer dollars. Here is Chavira:

http://www.glendaleaz.com/FollowYourMoney/Dept.cfm?Type=5&DeptID=112&DivID=10160&Account=513200

DIA DE LOS MUERTOS EVENT 10/31 10/20/15 $2,500.00

And here is Aldama:

http://www.glendaleaz.com/FollowYourMoney/Dept.cfm?Type=5&DeptID=112&DivID=10170&Account=513200

DIA DE LOS MUERTOS EVENT 10/31 10/20/15 $2,500.00

It would seem that city resources, funds and employees were used to set up and take down the event infrastructure. What was the amount of funding expended by the Glendale Convention & Visitors Bureau as a sponsor? What did the City of Glendale as a sponsor provide in terms of employee manpower and funding or advertising for this event? Did Glendale City Attorney Michael Bailey vet this event and approve the expenditures of the CVB and the $2500 donations each made by Councilmembers Aldama and Chavira? Did Attorney Bailey issue an opinion that these expenditures were not in conflict with A.R.S.§9-500.14 and why or why not they were not in conflict? Did Attorney Bailey advise the City Manager and the city council that city resources were about to be used for what was clearly a partisan event? 

Councilmembers Aldama and Chavira could have made contributions to support this event with personal funds. That would have removed any concerns about a potential conflict with A.R.S. §9-550.14.LD 29 What is even more disconcerting is that LD 29 serves either a portion of or all of Chavira’s Yucca district and Aldama’s Ocotillo district. Both councilmembers are Democrat and the candidate(s) invited to participate in the event were exclusively Democrat. It appears to smack of bias, cronyism and favoritism. It appears that city funds were used to support selected candidates and pro school bond overrides without any opposing viewpoints. It appears that there are alleged violations of A.R.S§9-500.14. 

Councilmember Aldama posted this on his Facebook page:

Jamie Aldama

November 1 at 6:58pm

Thank you LD 29. Senetor Quezada, Representatives Andrade & CeciVelasquez for your support in Downtown Glendale.

One would think that as this comes to the attention of Glendale’s City Attorney Michael Bailey that he would ask either the County or State Attorney Generals to investigate and file charges if necessary. Nope, not going to happen. Bailey’s prime directive is to protect the interests of the City of Glendale. He isn’t going to turn the city in for an alleged violation of A.R.S §9-550.14. However, that does not prevent anyone else reading this blog to file a complaint with either the County or State Attorney Generals’ Offices requesting an investigation and if necessary, subsequent charges.

Since this matter was brought to my attention I am sharing with you, my readers. I am not an attorney and I do not know if the alleged violation has merit. Only the County or State Attorney Generals’ Offices can make that determination.

However, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, do we have a duck?

© Joyce Clark, 2015

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 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 15

6

I’ve got a bridge to sell

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 6, 2015
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 1 Comment

It has been 17 years and 309 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

PLEASE NOTE: SINCE THE INCEPTION OF MY BLOG I HAVE REACHED ANOTHER MILESTONE. AS OF NOVEMBER 4, 2015 THERE HAVE BEEN OVER 300,000 READS OF MY BLOGS. MY THANKS GOES OUT TO ALL WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO RECEIVE THEM ON A REGULAR BASIS AND A SPECIAL THANKS TO ALL WHO HATE MY COMMENTARY BUT KEEP COMING BACK TO FIND OUT WHAT I AM SHARING ABOUT GLENDALE AND ITS PLAYERS.

On October 20, 2015 at city council workshop council was presented with a menu of city properties that could be sold. Amazingly, not one…let me repeat that, not one property was put on the block.

Cushman & Wakefield, the city’s consultant, proposed the possible sale of nine city owned facilities:

  • Water services lot at the northeast corner of 99th Avenue and Bethany Home Road for $7.5 million
  • Glen Lakes Golf Course at 54th Avenue and Northern Avenue for $5.2 million
  • Desert Mirage Golf Course at 87th Avenue and Maryland Avenue for $450,000
  • St. Vincent de Paul Thrift store in downtown Glendale for $300,000
  • Thunderbird Lounge and adjoining properties in downtown Glendale for $545,000 to $727,000
  • Bead Museum in downtown Glendale for $400,000 to $500,000
  • City Court site in downtown Glendale for $3 to $5 million
  • Bank of America building in downtown Glendale for $7.35 million

The only properties that can legitimately be taken off the sales block are the two golf courses. Desert Mirage Golf Course has long term contractual obligations that could prove problematical and Glen Lakes Golf Course land would be used for residential development that would violate a long standing commitment to every home owner surrounding the property. In addition, these two properties offer a genuine amenity to every Glendale resident.

So, why won’t council sell off any of the downtown properties? Well, we might use them sometime in the future…the very distant future. Or we can’t sell them because the sale price is less than the city paid originally. Reality…since the Great Recession, many properties nationally and regionally have sold for less than their purchase price.

Each of these properties, vacant or developed, have annual operating & maintenance (O&M) costs. What is the total annual O&M cost to the city for each of these properties? If they were sold the city would no longer have to pay the O&M costs in addition to receiving the purchase price.

The sale of these properties accomplishes several goals. It takes the annual O&M costs off the books permanently. It earns the city an estimated $20 million plus. These funds should go directly into the city’s Contingency Fund (Unappropriated Fund Balance).  That, in turn, would take pressure off of putting every available nickel in the General Fund into Contingency. It would create the opportunity to utilize General Funds for needs long ignored since the Great Recession.

The sale of these properties also creates a major benefit for downtown Glendale. How many Task Forces, over the years, have made recommendations for the revitalization of downtown Glendale? Too many, going all the way back to the Miracle Mile Citizen Task Force. What has been achieved as a result? Nothing. In one fell swoop, with the sale of these properties the city has the opportunity to kick start downtown’s revitalization. No one is going to buy a downtown property without plans to develop. That’s illogical. An investor in a downtown property expects a return on that investment and that can only occur with the development of the investment. The beneficial and productive use of these properties immediately will do more to revitalize downtown Glendale than the unanswered recommendations of another dozen Task Force groups.

It’s time for the city council to let go of these properties. There are genuine benefits to be achieved with their sale. In the meantime, as long as the council digs in its feet and refuses to sell anything, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell…interested?

© Joyce Clark, 2015

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 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 15

4

Anatomy of a political death

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 4, 2015
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • Casino • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale's Fire Union • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

It has been 17 years and 307 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

On November 3, 2015 the voters of the Sahuaro district dealt a political death blow to Councilmember Gary Sherwood by voting for Ray Malnar to replace him. The unofficial vote total has Ray Malnar winning with 53.61%. There is no doubt that Sherwood caused his own demise. How?

Sherwood was elected in November of 2012. For three years his actions and votes have raised questions. One of the major centerpieces of his campaign was his strong opposition to the Tohono O’odham casino in Glendale. As a result of his position the anti-casino forces paid for independent expenditures supporting his run. He also ran pledging fiscal conservatism in managing the city’s arena. It didn’t take him long to renege on both elements of his platform.

Within a year of his first term he reversed his position on the casino and became its strongest advocate. When asked why, his answers were consistently vague and seemed to center around learning “new information.” When queried on what information and from whom, he never offered a clear and convincing explanation. There was also the nagging assumption by many that he had swapped his positive vote of support for the casino with Councilmember Chavira’s positive vote of support for the IceArizona arena management deal.

Sherwood ran supporting his constituency’s opposition to continuing the practice of exorbitant financial payments to operate the city’s arena. Inexplicitly he advocated for the IceArizona management deal at a cost of $15 million a year. His actions in connection to this support gave rise to an alleged complaint (eventually dismissed) to the Arizona Attorney General’s office regarding his divulging of executive session information. He seemed to have developed a pattern of deliberately supporting big money interests over the voices of his constituents. It was a pattern soon to be repeated.

In the matter of Becker Billboards Sherwood was a prime advocate for their interests while he once again ignored his constituency. It left a bitter taste with his constituents and now they were becoming alarmed about his lack of support for their views. His failure to connect with his constituency became an issue of contention with the proposal to sell the Foothills Branch Library. He failed to notify them of meetings on the issue usually until the day before a scheduled public meeting. He bragged about a luncheon meeting he had arranged with the Kathleen Goeppinger, President of Midwestern University, proposed buyer of the library.

He seemed to be very proud when he declared in a council workshop meeting he had met privately with one candidate under consideration as Glendale’s new city manager, Brenda Fischer. Many people were astounded that he would have done such a thing. He was her strong advocate and after she was hired he seemed to receive preferential treatment not only from Fischer but from her inner circle, including soon-to-be Assistant City Manager Julie Frisoni. It was seemingly obvious that Sherwood and his coalition of councilmembers had the ear of Fischer and her inner circle while those who opposed Sherwood and his positions were frozen out.

Sherwood appeared to be needy…he wanted to be recognized as a “major player,” locally and regionally.  He seemed to revel in the attention he received from Anthony LeBlanc, et.al, when they were seeking approval of their arena contract. After the management contract was signed he was observed lurking about at Coyote Town Hall meetings trying to catch LeBlanc’s attention until he was recognized and praised. Did he know observers reported members of IceArizona not only ignored him after securing the contract but apparently they ridiculed him as well?

When it came to Becker billboards that stakeholder group had contributed significantly to Sherwood’s campaign and so, he seemed to reciprocate by advocating for them. Again, Sherwood seemed to ignore his constituency’s overwhelming opposition to the billboards in favor of those who generously contributed to his campaign coffers. Then there are the countless recitations by many on the 4th floor of city hall who heard Sherwood’s declarations that he was the “real” mayor of Glendale. Many city employees thought he was arrogant and dismissive of them.

The nail in the proverbial coffin was his apparent belief that he was above the law. He accumulated at least 6 driving citations in a relatively short time period and then failed to follow through in fulfilling his responsibilities for those actions eventually leading to a state-wide warrant for Failure to Appear. This issue was resolved only after it was publicly reported that he was caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar. In a recent press release he admitted to using city funds to rent a vehicle while driving on a suspended license and pledged to reimburse the city.

After all of his purported foibles, who wanted Sherwood to remain in office? The largest supporter of keeping Sherwood in office was Phoenix Firefighters Local 493 Fire PAC Committee (responding to the bidding of its sister Glendale union) having contributed $14,000 to an Independent PAC called Citizens for Safety and Education run by a long time fire union activist, Mike Colletto. Between October 2 and October 14, 2015 the independent committee spent $11,412.96 advocating for Sherwood’s retention. By the way, per usual, Sherwood was late in filing his latest campaign expense report. He raised nearly $40,000 ($39,810.30). Of note, that’s twice the amount that his opponent, Ray Malnar, raised ($18, 800). Sherwood’s big money contributors were: Mark Becker – $3,000 on 9/9/15; the Tohono O’odham – $6,250 on 10/8/15; Nick Wood (an attorney for IceArizona) – $1,500 on 10/8/15; Jason and Jordan Rose (Becker billboards was/is a client) – $1,000 on 10/17/15; and members of the Molera Alvarez political consulting group – $1,000 on 10/21/15 and 10/22/15. Let’s not forget PAC contributions, much of it union money, totaling $28,000:

  • Arizona Pipe Trades               $10,000                             9/11/15
  • IBEW Local 640                        1,000                              9/15/15
  • Republic Services, Inc.                 500                              9/15/15
  • Iron Workers Local 75               2,000                              9/16/15
  • Phoenix Firefighters
  • Local 493 Fire PAC                    1,000                               9/16/15
  • Surprise PRO Firefighters
  • PAC                                         2,000 (cumulative)            9/16/15
  • United West Valley
  • Firefighters                               2,500 (cumulative)           9/16/15
  • Pinnacle West PAC                        500                              9/21/15
  • Gilbert Firefighters                    4,000 (cumulative)           10/14/15
  • United Mesa
  • Firefighters                               4,500 (cumulative)           10/14/15

Why has Gary Sherwood become the first councilmember ever successfully recalled in Glendale’s history? Despite the tremendous fire union financial and manpower support as well as the financial support of “big money” interests, Sherwood ignored the voices of his constituency and demonstrated that he was apparently more willing to support the interests of those who contributed generously to his campaigns. You can be sure Sherwood will place the blame on “outside interests” such as casino opponents but Sherwood was the architect of his own political demise by making choices that seemingly benefitted him in the short term while ignoring long term consequences. He died politically by a thousand, tiny cuts self inflicted as he made choices that seemed to benefit only himself. Sherwood has no one to blame but Sherwood. He made his choices and has been made accountable for them by his district’s voters. In commenting on his loss Sherwood said he plans to run again in November of 2016. Albert Einstein once said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Sometimes…every once in awhile…the good guys do win…

© Joyce Clark, 2015

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 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 15

3

Is Glendale keeping its promise?

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 3, 2015
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • West Branch Library  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

It has been 17 years and 306 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

PLEASE NOTE: Today, November 3, 2015 the voters of the Sahuaro district will decide to retain or recall current Councilmember Gary Sherwood. They have already submitted their Early Ballots. If for some reason you still have your Early Ballot you can drop off your completed ballot at any Sahuaro polling location today. Sahuaro district voters do have a choice. They can keep the same representative or opt for change by voting for Ray Malnar. Mr. Malnar is a man of honesty and character whose agenda is to serve the residents of his district in a fiscally conservative and meaningful manner. If the poll to the left of this column is any indication tonight when the votes are tallied the people of the Sahuaro district will have a new councilmember. It may be premature but congratulations to our newest councilmember, Ray Malnar.

How come the city has the capacity to use General Obligation (GO) bond funding (paid by sales tax dollars that flow into the city’s General Fund) to cover $22.3 million dollars to buy 99 acres from the Pendergast family to be used, in part, to satisfy the Bidwill’s and Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority’s requirement for parking for football games yet has no money to construct a West Branch Library? According to Erik Strunk, Director of Parks, Recreation and Library Services, “There are currently no general fund monies available for enhanced library services in this area. Again, the only money we know of that’s available right now is the $2.5 million in development impacts fee money.”

Isn’t it amazing? The city has the opportunity to buy land and voila! There’s money to pay off those GO bonds but to build a library, there’s no money…that is a lot of b_ll s__t. Remember in 2006 a majority of city council stole $6 million earmarked for construction of the West Branch Library and diverted it to construction of the Public Safety Training Facility.

This is but one example of the city playing games with money slated for construction of the West Branch library.

  • Fact:  Glendale voters approved $9.7 million in March of 1987. There is still $1.7 million in library capacity from that approval.
  • Fact: Glendale voters approved $411 million in November of 1999. There is still $7.47 million in library capacity from that approval.
  • Fact: Glendale voters approved $270 million in May of 2007. There is still $12.37 million in library capacity from that approval.
  • Fact: Right now, this very minute, there is over $20 million in bond capacity to build a West Branch Library.

At the September 16, 2008 city council workshop meeting the scheduled completion of the library was 2009 and staff said, “by 2010 the West Branch Library will serve a population of approximately 50,000 in the western area of Glendale, and it is anticipated that more than 1,000 people per day will utilize the services of this branch.”

Residents of west Glendale need to thank Mayor Weiers for asking staff to “refocus” on the promises made regarding what is now called Heroes Park at the northeast corner of Bethany Home Road and 83rd Avenue. We residents appreciate his concern but after waiting 17 years to see this park developed the only action that will suffice is to see dollars being spent.

So they throw us a bone and think that will keep us quiet. Their sop is to install a prefab building, a glorified trailer of about 7,500 square feet in Heroes Park. It will be smaller than Velma Teague Library and smaller than Foothills Library. Gee, aren’t we lucky? Now we will be required to be appropriately grateful.

In the 1975 film classic Network the news anchor Howard Beale stridently bellowed, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.”

17 years is a long time to wait for this city make good on its promises. The residents of west Glendale are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. If the mayor and certain councilmembers want our votes they are going to have to deliver.

© Joyce Clark, 2015

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 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 15

29

Will the Tohono O’odham casino open?

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 29, 2015
Posted in Casino • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 3 Comments

It has been 17 years and 301 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

Once again the Glendale Star’s bias is showing. An October 23, 2015 story by Carolyn Dryer, editor, bemoans the fact that it looks like House Resolution 308, the Keep the Promise Act introduced by Representative Trent Franks, will soon come up for a successful vote in the Congressional House of Representatives. Here is the link: http://www.glendalestar.com/news/article_9a937bea-79d8-11e5-b35d-6b9c5634463d.html .

The House has essentially passed the same bill two times previously with bipartisan support.  It is said, “the third time’s a charm.” Let’s hope so. Once the House passes the bill it moves to the Senate. A Republican majority provides a strong chance that it will pass there as well.

One should note that the Glendale Star was obviously provided a copy of a letter by Representative Raul Grijalva, an opponent of the bill, sent to House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy. Grijalva’s letter is quoted extensively as he requests procedures designed to delay or kill the bill.

The Star also attempted to gain an interview with the House Majority Leader and is quoted as saying, “I realize we are not a national network probing for the truth, but we are a media outlet that is trying to educate our readers.” Unfortunately, there are two glaring errors in their statement. The Star appears to be a long, long way from “probing for the truth.” Oh wait, it’s probably their version of the truth. They also represent themselves as “trying to educate our readers.” That, too, appears to be fudging. If there really was a genuine attempt to educate the reader, the article would have been more balanced with statements from casino opponents as well as proponents. Instead it’s just another vehicle of support for the Tohono O’odham.

Don’t you find it interesting that the Star wrote a blistering editorial condemning Councilmember Sherwood’s actions flaunting the law yet seems to look the other way when it comes to the Tohono O’odham’s flaunting of the law and their casino?

© Joyce Clark, 2015

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 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 »