Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Oct 14

8

It’s a Coyotes kind of day

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 8, 2014
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Today, October 8, 2014 is a grey, overcast day in the Phoenix metro area…a rarity to be sure. Anywhere else it would portend a day of steady rain but Phoenix is a desert and because it looks like rain, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will happen. It’s a good day to let thoughts rumble around.

A blog reader recently sent me two news stories of interest. One is from the October 5, 2014 Seattle Times entitled Key Arena turns a bigger profit than it ever did with the Sonics by Ashley Scoby. Here is the link: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024708723_keyarena05xml.html. The other is a Deadspin article entitled The Coyotes were damned close to moving to Seattle by Barry Petchesky dated October 8, 2014. Here is the link: http://deadspin.com/the-coyotes-were-damned-close-to-moving-to-seattle-1643791488 . Each article compliments the other.

In the Deadspin story three sources confirm that the Coyotes were a hair’s breadth from moving to Seattle. Ray Bartoszek and Anthony Lanza had formed a buyers’ group with plans to move the Coyotes to Seattle’s Key Arena the day following the Glendale City Council vote on the IceArizona arena management agreement if it had failed to gain approval. The new information in the story is confirmation that the NHL had blessed the scheme. Everyone knew how imminent the move could be….the NHL knew; the presumed buyers had moving trucks on standby; Glendale senior management knew; the Glendale City Council knew; and IceArizona knew. The only ones in the dark were Glendale residents.

Which leads to the second news story about Seattle’s Key Arena. Everyone presumed in 2009 without the Sonics as an anchor tenant the arena would die a pitiful death. How wrong. An average annual loss to Seattle with the Sonics was $1.5 million. In 2013, without the Sonics, the arena generated $1.2 million in profit. The loss of the team didn’t hurt for it opened up more desirable dates for performing artists to utilize the arena. Artists such as Kanye West, Rihanna, Maroon 5 and Bruno Mars performed at the Key in 2013.

I had always supported keeping a professional sports team at the Gila River Hockey Arena because it was my belief that the arena and Westgate could not survive without one. Seattle’s Key Arena disproves that belief. If the Coyotes arena management agreement had failed on that fateful July, 2013 day Glendale would have moved on, just as Seattle did. Glendale would have joined with an AEG-type partner and could have enjoyed the same kind of success that we see today at Seattle’s Key Arena.

P.S. Here’s a link to yet another Seattle Times news story about an almost move to Seattle: http://seattletimes.com/html/hockey/2024716050_seattlenhl07xml.html#.VDWTTHFMEBI.twitter

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Oct 14

2

Coyotes’ saga continues

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 2, 2014
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , | 12 Comments

On October 2, 2014 Larry Brooks, a reporter for the New York Post, reported that a 51% interest in the Coyotes is in the process of being acquired by Andrew Barroway. Barroway is managing partner and founder of Merion Investment Management LP based in Radnor, PA. He is a failed suitor in the purchase of the Devils and Islanders.  At this point the story is speculation as neither the NHL nor the Coyotes’ owners have confirmed the deal. Here is the link: http://nypost.com/2014/10/02/spurned-islanders-buyer-to-purchase-coyotes-instead/. As an exercise, let’s speculate some more.

Why is Barroway acquiring a majority interest in the team? He wants to own a hockey team. That is evident in his two failed attempts. But he wants more than that. He wants to be in control and to make the ultimate and final decisions about the team’s fate at a future date. The team cannot and will not leave for 5 years. We can enjoy hockey in the Valley through the 2018-2019 season. After that you will need to consult your crystal ball.  Although I would expect that when the fans finally realize the team’s days may be numbered attendance will drop like a stone.

According to the agreement the team cannot leave for 5 hockey seasons and must demonstrate $50 million in operating losses. Here is the exact language in the management agreement: Section 3. Term. 3.3. Early Termination by Arena Manager/Team Owner. “Notwithstanding the other terms and provisions of this Agreement, Team Owner and Arena Manager jointly shall have the right to terminate this agreement without penalty or cost by delivery of written notice to the City at any time within 180 days following the end of the fifth (5th) hockey season year after the execution date if (a) neither terminating Party is in material default of any term or condition of this Agreement, and (b)Team Owner has incurred a cumulative Operating Loss of $50,000,000 or more, calculated as the sum of Team Owner’s operating income/loss for each the Fiscal Year periods then ended, provided that if such notice is given during any NHL hockey season, the termination shall not be effective until the end of the applicable hockey season, including all Home Games associated with the season. In this regard, Team Owner shall deliver to the City, not later than ninety (90) days following the end of each Fiscal Year, a statement (certified to the City by the Team Owner’s chief financial officer or the Team Owner’s certified public accountants, at the option of Team Owner) of the Team Owner’s claimed operating income or loss for such Fiscal Year, which statement shall be subject to audit by the City and the result f such audit shall thereafter be conclusive upon team Owner with respect to the determination of Operating Losses.” This exact same provision applies to the city as well.

The New York Post story cites the team loss in its first year of operation at $24 million. Educated rumors are that it’s on the low side and could be more. As long as we’re speculating, let’s peg their losses at $20 million a year. At the end of 5 years the team’s losses will be north of $100 million and will meet the terms of the agreement.  Barroway’s investment in the team now will cover those expected losses and he will be in the cat bird’s seat to decide the team’s future move.

Let’s wait to see if a majority interest is indeed sold to Barroway. That will deliver a strong message to everyone and you can then decide how much of an emotional investment you wish to make in the team. And just when we thought the Coyotes saga was closed…so it continues.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Sep 14

17

Welcome to the Gila River Arena

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 17, 2014
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 1 Comment

On September 9, 2014 at its regular council meeting the Glendale City Council approved a new name for its arena. It will now be known as the Gila River Arena. The following day there was a press conference to announce the name change. Anthony LeBlanc, one of the Coyotes’ owners was there; Gregory Mendoza, Governor of the Tribe was there; Jan Brewer, our state Governor was there; and Jerry Weiers, Mayor of Glendale was there.  Guess who wasn’t there? Our infamous “gang of four,” Councilmembers Alvarez, Sherwood, Hugh and Chavira. It’s perfectly understandable. After all, their allegiance is to the Tohono O’odham Nation. Alvarez was also the lone negative vote on the name change to Gila River. Instead she stubbornly questioned staff on the necessity of bringing the name change before council for ratification.  It appeared as if she questioned the action long enough and hard enough she could make the need for a council vote disappear. Didn’t happen. Apparently Norma’s love for minorities does not extend to the Gila River Community.

However, it’s not so strange a move. Gila River has been a long time partner of the Arizona Coyotes hosting the Gila River Club within the arena proper. If I were the Gila River I would be secretly smug and taking enormous satisfaction in the fact that their name will be prominently displayed across the street from their duplicitous sister tribe, the Tohono O’odham’s new casino.

Here’s a reminder that today, Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 2:30 PM Eastern time, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will have a legislative hearing on Senate bill 2670, Keep the Promise Act of 2014, introduced by Senators McCain and Flake. It can be viewed online live.  Panel One of the hearing will have Governor Mendoza of the Gila River Indian Community, Ned Norris Jr., Chairman of the Tohono O’odham Nation, Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers and Glendale Councilmember Gary Sherwood. It should prove interesting as 2 champions of the casino face off against 2 opponents of the casino. Hopefully, the bill will move out of committee paving the way for a full senate vote.

Considering the fact that Glendale did not recoup its $14,002,055 (not a full fiscal year, prorated for 11 months) paid for the management fee and capital improvement fund and that you can add another $12 million for the arena construction debt, you would think Alvarez would welcome the new Gila River name and the 20% of the fee paid by Gila River to IceArizona. It will offset the approximately $20 million in arena costs, not by much, but every penny is welcome. A lot of Glendale’s residents are anxiously awaiting the audit of IceArizona’s budget and hope it is made public and put on the city’s website. If not, don’t be surprised if there are a lot of FOIA requests for a copy of the audit.

There was no council workshop on Tuesday, September 16, 2014 because there was not a quorum. How many of Glendale’s council is attending the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs legislative hearing today? I guess we’ll find out.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Sep 14

12

The fat lady hasn’t sung…yet

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 12, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 2 Comments

NOMOREBADDEALS-talkingpoints_Page_1Today, Friday, September 12, 2014 at 1 PM two Political Action Committees (PACs), NO MORE BAD DEALS FOR GLENDALE and RESPECT THE PROMISE, chaired by local resident Gary Hirsch, will turn in to the Glendale City Clerk approximately 15,000 signatures in opposition to the Glendale City Council’s recent votes regarding the Tohono O’odham (TO) casino. The minimum number of signatures required by law on each measure is 6,956 and the PACs have far surpassed that number by almost double. Expect the city to fight them with every fiber of its being by declaring the council votes to be “administrative actions” not subject to referral to the voters. Expect after that to see the issue wind up in the courts. On August 12, 2014 at its regular city council meeting the council approved two actions related to the Tohono O’odham.  Agenda item 36 by council’s majority vote (Alvarez, Sherwood, Hugh and Chavira) approved a settlement (read contract) with the TO. The settlement terms are embarrassing. The deal is so bad it’s as if the council had accepted a dollar from the TO and called it good. One of the petitions being submitted this afternoon is for the purpose of bringing the settlement before Glendale voters to accept or reject. In agenda item 37 the city council voted in the affirmative to support the creation of an Indian reservation. This action is the cherry on top of the cake for the TO. They need Glendale’s support desperately to show the Feds that the host city within which the reservation is located is in favor of their action. The second petition seeks to bring before the Glendale voters the majority vote of council (Alvarez, Sherwood, Hugh and Chavira) that supports a reservation within Glendale’s boundaries. All of these council votes are for the benefit of a Tribe that:

  • Violated a 2000 agreement signed by 16 state Tribal leaders, including the Tohono O’odham, vowing “to strive for a good-faith cooperative relationship between and among themselves.”
  • Created a corporation  in 2000 chartered by the TO actively seeking land in the Phoenix Metro area for the “possibility of doing a casino” prior to the 2002 statewide vote on the Gaming Compact.
  • Looked it sister Tribal leaders in the face and lied to them.
  • Actively promoted and financially contributed to the campaign in support of Proposition 202, the Tribal Gaming Compact, promising voters that there would be no new casinos in the Phoenix Metro area.
  • Actively participated in the election campaigns of sitting councilmembers who voted for these agenda items through the TO’s independent expenditures for campaign mailers in support of these council persons. Expect them to do the same in this election cycle. These four elected officials owe the TO and they know it.

These majority council votes by Alvarez, Sherwood, Hugh and Chavira stink to high heaven. Were these four elected officials acting in the best interests of Glendale? You can decide for yourselves but I think not. If and when these council votes come before you, the voter, you will have an opportunity to reject these council votes and send a strong message to these councilmembers that “back door” deals will not be tolerated. There are still actions that have not been settled…legal decisions not yet rendered and legislation introduced by Senators McCain and Flake awaiting a full Senate vote up or down. The Tohono O’odham are making a million dollar bet that nothing will stop them. They could end up losing that bet. Remember, it’s not over until the fat lady sings and she hasn’t sung…yet. © Joyce Clark, 2014 FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Sep 14

11

Water, water everywhere

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 11, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Lately the hot button issue for Glendale has been the topic of irrigation of Glendale’s original town site. Before we delve into the issue, a little Irrigation 101 is necessary. Glendale residents have 3 primary water sources. It has a system of ground wells from which it pumps water. It also gets a portion of its water from Salt River Project (SRP). SRP water territory covers from approximately the middle of Glendale, all of south Glendale and west Glendale. Glendale also gets its water from the Central Arizona Project (CAP). CAP’s water territory is from the middle of Glendale, north of SRP territory, and all of north Glendale. CAP water is very, very expensive. It’s about 15 times the cost of an SRP acre foot of water. Why? CAP water comes from the Colorado River allotment to the state of Arizona. CAP rate payers are not just paying for the water but for the relatively recent construction of the delivery system from the Colorado River – hundreds of miles of canal and the delivery pipes from the canal system.

I live on a street of 30 homes of an acre or better. We get SRP irrigation. When we bought our home 16 years ago, I immediately contacted SRP and set up an irrigation account with them. Water rights in the West are sacred. They often run with the land and are worth their weight in gold.  We have at least a dozen citrus trees and another dozen shade trees on our back property. They could not survive without irrigation water for we could not afford their upkeep if we had to use city water. Our SRP water irrigation bill is about $110 a year. It’s a veritable bargain.

The irrigation process itself is quite simple. I used to physically and periodically go to the SRP irrigation board and sign up for my water allotment delivery. During the summer water is delivered every 2 weeks. During the winter it is once a month. There is one month, usually January, that we receive no water when SRP shuts the canal system down for annual maintenance.

Nowadays, my water allotment is all done by computer. I fill out my request online once a year and check the option of having the allotment be the same every time. Then SRP sends me an email notice a week prior to the delivery date, telling me the day, date and time of my water delivery. When the water is delivered it is our responsibility to go to our gate and open it up and after the water is received, shut it down. We have no choice in the time of water delivery. We have gotten water, for example, at 2 AM. 80% of the time, it is delivered during daylight hours.

SRP regulations require us to maintain the private portion of the delivery pipe system. That means SRP delivers the water to a central location for our street and the water pipe that runs underground from home to home is private and not SRP’s responsibility to maintain. If there is a problem with our private portion SRP will notify everyone on our street and request that it be repaired before it makes any further water deliveries. It’s only happened twice in the past 16 years. Everyone on the street puts money in the kitty and we either hire someone to repair the system or do it ourselves. In the two previous instances we were able to do the repair ourselves.  

So, why all the fussin’ and feudin’ about Glendale town site irrigation water? I guess a little Glendale history is in order. I don’t pretend to know the entire history but I do know just enough, I guess, to get me into trouble. Glendale was incorporated in 1912. It was a small, rural, farming community.  All of the farmers lived in and around the original town site. Water was their life blood. All of Glendale’s elected officials came from in and around the town site. It was logical to them to have their town maintain and operate their SRP water delivery system and it remained so for many years. For years, until 1990, Glendale’s elected officials came from a small, concentrated downtown area. In 1990, the voters of Glendale adopted a district system of representation. Then the SRP water delivery system lost its priority. Now there were people from middle and north Glendale who were not within SRP territory and could care less about irrigation in old town Glendale.

Yet the city remained responsible for the maintenance and operation of the SRP water delivery system for “old” Glendale. It paid lip service to that commitment. It performed minimal repairs on the delivery system and hired a “Zanjero” (water master) to open and close the water gates throughout the system. Irrigation customers in that area pay higher rates than we do because they pay for the Zanjero and maintenance of the entire system.

Glendale’s deliberate inattention to the system caused many irrigation users to drop off and today there are only about 300 users on the system. Glendale would like to extract itself from this irrigation system in its entirety. The current users sense that this is Glendale’s goal and they are anxious. They want to get the word out to residents who could use the irrigation but do not currently do so. They want more users and more voices to preserve and protect their water delivery system.

Frankly, they are getting a good deal. No wonder they want it to continue. They never have to get up in the middle of the night to open a water gate and they never have to worry about repairing a water pipe. Perhaps there is a solution out there. If it satisfies no one it’s probably a good compromise. The city should finally invest in making the repairs needed for a healthy water delivery system and have it certified by an independent party that the system is in good, working order. Then and only then, it should turn that system over to the users. The users should then set up their individual accounts with SRP and be prepared to open/close their own gates and to bear the costs of repair when required. It gets the city out of the irrigation business and it returns individual control to the irrigation users who end up paying far less annually for their irrigation water. So there is water, water everywhere. The question is who should be responsible for the delivery system and its maintenance?

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Aug 14

14

So much for transparency

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 14, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 15 Comments

During my last four years on city council, from the time the Tohono O’odham publicly announced their intent to build a casino within Glendale, I would take notes from presentations and comments of staff regarding the casino’s impact on Glendale. While they retain the essence of the statements made, I did not have the time or opportunity to write the comments verbatim. The other day I was cleaning out some old folder files and I ran across the file where I had been keeping these notes. The following was represented to me and the rest of city council by staff from 2009 to 2012.

This was said with regard to the Nation’s gaming application—  However, the issue of “first impression” within Arizona is a major one. It means that this action if granted would be precedent setting in that it would establish an Indian reservation where one did not previously exist. It may be the first attempt to do so in the nation. It is the first step to create a free for all system that establishes “off-reservation” gaming, not just in Arizona but in the nation.

Glendale staff in meeting with the Tohono O’odham attempted to ascertain more specific information. The Nation would not offer anything beyond conceptuals. Staff, after meeting with the Nation, offered the scope of the project as it was presented to them:

  • 134 acres of land
  • 1.2 million square foot complex
  • Cost of construction approx. $550 million
  • 6,000 construction jobs
  • 3,000 permanent jobs

Gaming portion:

  • 150,000 square feet
  • 1,089 machines
  • 50 tables
  • 25 poker tables
  • 1,000 seat bingo hall 

Spa/Hotel portion:

  • 480 rooms
  • 120 suites
  • 180,000 square foot convention center
  • 40,000 square foot event center

Amenities/Services:

  • 30,000 square feet of retail
  • 5 restaurants
  • 1 food court
  • 2 buffets
  • 1 coffee shop 
  • 2 bars
  • 1 nightclub

Issues identified by staff during the years of 2009 to 2012 included:

  • City’s General Plan has area designated as Corporate Commerce Center with less density and impact.
  • Sales tax revenue anticipated to be lost is $2 million a year or $40 million over 20 years as city cannot collect sales tax from federal land and that removes the land from producing sales tax for the city with other non-Indian uses.
  • There are revenues that flow to the state from gaming. However 88% percent goes directly to the state. The other 12% is distributed to all cities and counties with no larger share or preference to the host city or county.
  • The project will generate jobs but nearly all will be minimum wage employment.
  • Gaming revenues siphon off discretionary income that could have been spent elsewhere in the City
  • Staff projects water demand to be 600,000 gallons per day gpd (gallons per day). Projected wastewater demand to be 400,000 gpd. If they use the on-site well that is available to them it would impact our groundwater table. 
  • Estimated Impact fees loss is $299,500.
  • Police estimate an additional 8,500 calls for service necessitating an additional 11 officers at a cost of $950,903. There is also the problem of suspects committing crime in adjacent areas and fleeing to reservation where Glendale Police have no jurisdiction. Anticipated calls for service expected to be high due to the casino being open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 
  • Fire anticipates the need for an additional fire station costing:
  • 18 additional fire fighters
  • $2.8 annually for Operating & Maintenance costs
  • $14.6 million for land acquisition and construction
  • In addition, there is no mutual aid agreement for off-site service (reservation). Can be negotiated perhaps but no guarantee of total cost recovery.
  • Transportation estimates 20,000 one-way trips per day on weekdays and 30,000 one-way trips per day on weekends. It will generate 8.34 million additional trips in the area per year. There could be traffic conflicts on stadium and arena event days.
  • There is a possible impact on the Northern Parkway Project. 225 feet of right-of-way is needed on the south side of Northern between the Loop 101 and 91st Avenue. Tribe may or may not participate.

 

There are several reasons why I decided to use my old, newly discovered notes. Despite the city council’s inappropriate action this issue is not yet decided. There is still Tribal litigation to be decided and there is still Congressional legislation pending. I would anticipate Referendum petitions on the 2 council actions taken on August 12, 2014. If successful, the voters will decide Glendale’s final position.

Another reason for using them is to ask the question, was this information given to the current council? With senior administrative staff knowing that a majority of council now supports the proposed casino, they may have thought it unwise to fully inform the council. That is no excuse. Council should have had this information. If council did have this kind of information and a majority chose to ignore it and its implications of cost to Glendale, then they are not serving the best interests of Glendale.

Lastly, it is information that should be public. The citizens of Glendale have the right to know that there are costs to Glendale that have not been addressed in the recently approved agreement. I would expect the current senior administration to disavow the facts presented above, especially with regard to water and public safety. They have been given their marching orders to embrace the casino project. The question remains, why weren’t these issues and the costs associated with them addressed in the approved agreement? So much for transparency.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Aug 14

13

Train Wreck

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 13, 2014
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Jobing.com arena • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments

20140812_193537The August 12, 2014 meeting of the Glendale City Council was like watching a train wreck in slow motion. You know the inevitable outcome; you know it will be extremely painful; but you are utterly powerless to stop it. All you can do is watch it unfold. This is the first council meeting I attended since leaving office over a year and a half ago. People have been telling me for months that the animosity among councilmembers was evident. I thought OK, there were times when our council meetings were not happy affairs. Little did I know that the atmosphere reeked of councilmember nastiness and disrespect. It was palpable fueled by the absolute arrogance of the council majority (Sherwood, Hugh, Alvarez and Chavira). The meeting was not unusual as council sped through proclamations and the consent agenda. The last two items were casino related. One was council approval of the draft agreement between the Tohono O’odham and Glendale. The other was the first official groveling of the city council with a resolution supporting the construction of the casino.  All hell broke loose. The draft agreement was introduced and recited by Michael Bailey, Glendale’s City Attorney. Mayor Weiers opened the public comment portion. There were 22 speakers to the item. 15 citizens spoke in opposition to the draft agreement and 7 spoke in favor of the draft agreement. The speakers’ comments in opposition to the proposed casino revolved around these general themes: casinos produce greater crime in the adjacent area; they create a greater rate of gambling addiction and subsequent bankruptcies and home foreclosures. The two major themes were comments about the rush to get this agreement done and the fact that it simply wasn’t a good deal for Glendale. There were some memorable comments to share (my apology if I butcher someone’s name). John Burnell of the Sahuaro district related that a family member, as a gambling addict, maxxed out credit cards and lied to keep it secret. The husband had to take two jobs and it took him over two years to get the family’s finances back on track. Barbara Roberts acknowledged the casino job creation but said, “Yes, we need jobs but what kind of jobs?” Timothy Green of Goodyear said, “Casinos only succeed on the backs of losers.” A rather profound statement. Ron Kolb, Ocotillo district said, “The West Side will never be the same.” Dr. Ron Rockwell, pastor of a Yucca district church very near the casino site, said, “You no longer care about the moral and spiritual culture of this community.” Randy Miller, candidate for the Barrel district council seat, called out Councilmember Alvarez and her continual homage about the importance of listening to the people…yeah, Norma, right. It seems to be a principle of hers only when convenient. Those speakers in support of the casino were arrogant and boastful. John Mendlelberg, former Mayor of Surprise, said, “You must concede.” Reverend Maupin of Phoenix, said, “You lost the war. You should be grateful for whatever you are getting.” He accused Councilmember Martinez of being a liar and a racist. Robert Quizneros of the Ocotillo district complained about the audacity of “the other side’s hiring of attorneys and lobbyists” to defeat the casino. A special “shout out” to Lauren Tolmachoff, candidate for the Cholla district council seat. It appears that she has become a one-trick pony as she reiterated her support for the casino in the name of jobs. Hey, Lauren, don’t you know about “job displacement?” Several pro-casino speakers kept referring to, “it’s their (TO) land.” Well, yes it is after a purchase kept secret for 7 years and its newly minted designation as a reservation. It’s all about a reservation WITHIN Glendale. I defy anyone to identify any city in the State of Arizona that has a reservation within its boundaries. Then it was time for the Councilmembers to speak prior to their vote. Alvarez’ remarks were priceless in their ignorance. She made memorable comments such as, “what’s the difference between a lottery ticket and a casino?” Or, “We have casinos in Scottsdale.” Or, “They (Tohono O’odham) are going to provide a service.” That one caused audible audience derision.  And lastly, “Make us responsible for what we’re doing.” Trust me, we will.   Councilmember Sherwood, self-proclaimed negotiator and leader, was strangely silent all evening except for his monologue prior to his affirmative vote. His comments deserve a special blog and its coming. Councilmember Martinez offered a series of amendments to the draft and that’s when all hell broke loose. Councilmembers Alvarez and Chavira, repeatedly and often, yelled out while Councilmember Martinez was trying to speak, “Call for the question!” Their obvious intent was to silence Councilmember Martinez’ efforts. What were they afraid of? They knew they had the votes to defeat any amendment. Chavira was literally in a rage because of Martinez’ efforts. He lept out of his seat and it looked as if he was about to confront Mayor Weiers physically. Wow, Sammy. Finally we see the true persona and your reaction when crossed and you don’t get your way. The lack of control he exhibited demonstrated that he is unfit to serve as a councilmember and cannot conduct himself in a manner required by the office he holds. Martinez offered 4 amendments: raising the TO payment to $20 million or 3% of the Class III net; offsite infrastructure costs to be paid by the TO up front; a waiver of sovereign immunity especially with regard to fraud and other bad acts; and payments to continue beyond 2026. Each was rejected. The vote was as everyone expected. The majority of 4 – Sherwood, Alvarez, Hugh and Chavira voting to approve the agreement and Weiers, Martinez and Knaack voting against. What was unexpected to the degree it manifested itself, was the vituperativeness and nastiness. At one point a citizen called Martinez a liar and a racist. Mayor Weiers should have stopped the speaker immediately and requested a police officer escort the person from the building. There is no doubt that Mayor Weiers lost control of the meeting during the first casino agenda item. His failure fueled the majority’s contempt and rage. Kudos go to Bonnie Steiger, a Glendale resident and faithful attendee at council meetings for 28 years. She is everyone’s Grandmother. She was so disgusted with council’s behavior that she said their lack of respect for the very office they hold merited the removal of all of them. Lastly, I offer two interesting items for your attention. One is the Coyotes publicly announced today that they had accepted a deal for arena naming rights. Are you ready for this? It will be called the Gila River Arena. Hooray for the Gila River. Although it may require Glendale approval, Glendale may only reject for very narrow reasons and the new naming rights do not fit the criteria. Can you say embarrassing, Glendale?? Or perhaps the majority of 4 will figure out a way to kill the deal. The second item is that just before 5 PM, yesterday, August 12, 2014 a group filed paperwork with the Glendale City Clerk’s office for a Political Action Committee for the purpose of recalling Councilmember Gary Sherwood. Things are heating up in Glendale. As I said at the beginning of this blog, this meeting was definitely a train wreck but the pain is yet to be borne by all of the people of Glendale. © Joyce Clark, 2014 FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Aug 14

11

An open letter to Glendale Councilmember Ian Hugh

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 11, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , , | 3 Comments

August 11, 2014

Dear Councilmember Hugh,

I do not know you on a personal level for your service as a Glendale councilmember the first time was before mine and your service the second time was after mine. I do get a sense of you from your public actions and comments.

You have lived in Glendale all of your life. You own a business, Bridgestone Tires, in downtown Glendale. You married and raised a family in Glendale.  You love Glendale as evidenced by your many years of public service to our community. You are a fiscal conservative and have voiced concerns about Glendale’s financial status. You are a good and honorable man.

From your public statements you support the proposed Tohono O’odham casino. That is a separate issue that merits debate at another time. This agreement is not about whether one thinks the Tohono O’odham has the right to build.

This agreement is a business deal, pure and simple; you give me “X” and I’ll give you “Y.” This agreement is not a good business deal for Glendale. Please review the proposed Tohono O’odham/Glendale Agreement one more time. There are solid, reasonable reasons why the proposed agreement in its present form does not serve the best interests of Glendale. Here are just three of the many, major flaws:

  • It does not protect Luke Air Force Base. It does not allow Glendale the right to design review and the ability to insure that construction of any structure will not interfere with Luke’s mission.
  • The payment to Glendale is too low. By now you have seen what other cities across the country have been able to achieve in terms of revenue sharing. Some tribes share as much as 25% of their revenue.
  • The sovereign immunity waiver offered is restrictive. Glendale must be able to fully and freely access its ability to enforce the provisions in any court and any jurisdiction.

Please put aside your support of the Tohono O’odham and examine this agreement strictly in terms of Glendale’s best interests. I am asking you to make a motion to table this agreement, return to the negotiating table and craft an agreement that reflects the imperative…to create the best deal possible for Glendale. If a motion to table is rejected, I ask that you vote “No” and reject this flawed agreement.

The tabling or rejection of this proposed agreement gives voice to your love for and to your commitment to Glendale.  It will show that you listen to and value the input you receive from the community. There is no reason to rush this through.  As a Glendale City Councilmember it is your responsibility to create policy that serves our entire community. Please show everyone that you take that responsibility very seriously.

Thank you for your service to Glendale. It is recognized and very much appreciated. In times such as these, you have a very difficult job and I doubt the public understands exactly how difficult. Thank you for your consideration of my remarks and request.

Sincerely,

Joyce Clark

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Aug 14

10

Still more reasons to reject a flawed agreement

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 10, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , | 2 Comments

The Glendale City Council will vote on the proposed Tohono O’odham/Glendale agreement on Tuesday evening, August 12, 2014. Expect a packed house with speakers both pro and con. If you would like to attend the meeting here are the details:                                                     

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

6 PM

Glendale City Council Chambers

5850 W. Glendale Avenue

In the proposed agreement the Nation will pay $100,000 to the Glendale Convention and Visitors Bureau with an annual 2% ($2,000) increase. Bet on the payment coming from the state mandated percentage that all tribes must dole out to non-profits annually. Although not specified in the proposed agreement the general understanding is that the money will be used to promote and advertise the casino. Now, that’s a sweet deal for the Tohono O’odham (TO). The funds will be used exclusively for the proposed casino’s promotion to the detriment of other competitor member businesses who have restaurants, bars or hotels.

Glendale would be better served to have a stipulation similar to the Seneca/Buffalo agreement. In June, 2014 the Buffalo News reported, “Seneca Gaming Corp. on Thursday announced a plan to spend $3 million over a year marketing Buffalo’s attractions… The marketing program announced Thursday includes print, television, radio and digital advertising in Ontario, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Among the targeted markets are Toronto, Cleveland and Pittsburgh.” Hmmm…$3 million and Glendale is settling for $100,000 to its Convention Bureau to be used to advertise the proposed casino.

It is widely known that Mayor Weiers, while visiting the City of Niagara Falls, received a great deal of information on that city’s casino revenue sharing arrangement. He brought it back, had it copied and distributed to every member of council. They know there is a better deal to be had yet they continue to rush to accept this deal. People are now openly wondering is there any quid pro quo? Have the Tohono O’odham done or will it do Independent Expenditure campaign mailings for Alvarez? In 2016 will it do the same for Hugh, Sherwood and Chavira? Many readers of this blog still can’t get over Mark Becker’s (Becker Billboards owner) campaign donation of $2,500 to Alvarez and her vote of approval for the billboards. So much for principle. If they are ugly and unwanted in her district, why wouldn’t they be ugly and unwanted in the Cholla district?

Are you dumb founded yet by this proposed agreement? If not, you should be. It’s reminiscent of the arena management deal and the Camelback Ranch deal. The majority (Alvarez, Hugh, Sherwood and Chavira), avid supporters of the TO, have continually pointed fingers at previous councils and their inability to negotiate deals to benefit Glendale. Now they have an opportunity to negotiate in Glendale’s best interest and they have blown it.

This is a deal that begs for rejection. The majority of 4 can’t do that for all kinds of reasons: their haste to get something…anything…before the November General Election when the council make up could change and they lose their majority; their haste to get something…anything…should the Attorney General’s investigation into Open Meeting Law violations drops the hammer on any or all of the 4 of them and they lose their majority; and lastly, out of sheer embarrassment for rejecting an agreement they have publicly proclaimed as a “good deal for Glendale.”

What they fail to recognize is that the Tohono O’odham are desperate. They need Glendale. Glendale does not need the Tohono O’odham. The TO must still secure gaming approval from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Interior Department and to obtain it they need Glendale and the Governor of the State to enthusiastically embrace their plans.

This coalition of 4 councilmembers reminds one of an old, worn out, street hooker bending over and willingly accepting five bucks for services rendered. It’s downright pitiful and embarrassing.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Aug 14

8

Three reasons to reject the proposed Tohono O’odham/Glendale agreement

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 8, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , | 1 Comment

The proposed agreement between the City of Glendale and the Tohono O’odham should not be executed at this time. It is premature. There are outstanding legal actions and Congressional legislation yet to be decided. At the very least, the Glendale City Council should table this action to a time uncertain. There is absolutely no need for execution of this agreement immediately. In the last blog there were 3 major flaws with the agreement. Let’s take a look at them.

  1. The City of Glendale has no authority to review the design and the only entity that can inspect construction is the Fire Marshall. The Fire Marshall will not be able to tell if the plumbing, electrical, etc., construction is up to Code. The reservation is similar to a foreign nation planted inside Glendale. The proposed casino’s design cannot be approved by Glendale and even more importantly, the Federal Aviation Administration. The University of Phoenix Stadium’s height was subject to the FAA process and required approval from the agency. If the Tohono O’odham builds structures whose height interferes with operations of Luke Air Force Base or the Glendale Municipal Airport, Glendale and every agency is prohibited from taking action to stop it. There is precedent for such action. In Kenosha, Wisconsin their agreement stipulates, “That the Menominee Kenosha Gaming Authority will follow all applicable building and Federal Aviation Rules during the construction and operation of the project.”  Glendale should insist on a stipulation in the agreement requiring the Tohono O’odham’s development to be subject to Glendale’s design review process and FAA restrictions.
  2. The amount to be paid to Glendale annually is too low. Here are some examples of Tribal revenue sharing with other cities across the country. In NY Governor Cuomo’s press release of August, 2013 says, “Under the agreement, the local governments in Buffalo, Niagara Falls, and the Salamanca area will receive their full 25% share of local impact payments, a total of $140 million. Today, the Governor traveled to Western New York to present checks to the local governments receiving funds under the agreement: Buffalo will receive $15.5 million, Niagara Falls will receive $89 million, and the Salamanca area will receive $34.5 million.” Because of a dispute between the State of New York and the Seneca Tribe payments were suspended for several years. The money cited in the press release were back payments made by the Seneca Tribe to those 3 cities. These cities receive anywhere from $2 to $8 million annually. The Seneca facility is about half the size of the proposed TO casino and therefore generates about half of the revenue expected at the proposed TO facility. Here is another example and it underscores another problem, “Officials in Duluth, Minnesota, are still trying to reinstate a gaming agreement with the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. The tribe was sharing 19 percent of gross revenues from the Fond-du-Luth Casino. The tribe stopped making payments in 2009 after sending $75 million to the city.” If the Tohono O’odham stop making their miserly annual payments to Glendale, the city will see itself in a Duluth-type situation, waiting years to rectify the situation. Here is one last example and believe me, there are plenty more that could be cited. The Michigan Pokagon-New Buffalo Area Local Revenue Sharing Agreement says, “Section 18 of the Compact defines how tribal payments are made to local governments…These payments shall equal 2% of the annual net winnings at each casino derived from all Class III electronic games of chance, to the local units of government that are located in the immediate vicinity of each tribal casino site or that are otherwise directly affected by the operation of the casino.  It is the intent of the State and the Tribe that the payments to local units of government provided for in this section will be used primarily to provide financial resources to those political subdivisions of the State that actually experience increased operating costs associated with the operation of the Tribe’s Class III gaming facility.” For the most recent fiscal year, as of July 31, 2011, the total allocations of the tribal payments were shared by 8 cities and 4 educational districts in the amount of $5,818,019. The City Council should renegotiate the Tohono O’odham annual payment and require $15 million annually. That is equal to ONE DAY of estimated net profit or it should stipulate a percentage (no less than 5% annually) of net profit.   
  3.                                                                                                                                                                                                             3.  Lastly, Lastly, there is the issue of tribal sovereign immunity. The TO in the proposed agreement refers to a TO Resolution 14-317. I visited the Tohono O’odham’s web page on its Code and some very interesting information was available: “The Tohono O’odham Code is an unofficial compilation of the Nation’s laws of permanent and general interest, as well as Tohono O’odham Judicial Court rules, canons, and significant administrative orders. While the Code as a whole has not been formally adopted by the Legislative Council, an increasing number of the Nation’s laws are being adopted in a uniformly codified format and the individual laws appearing in the Code have been duly enacted as reflected in their legislative histories.” The web page defines sovereign immunity further: 

“Section 2101 Sovereign Immunity

    1. “The government of the Tohono O’odham Nation (“Nation”) and any person acting within the scope of his or her capacity as an officer, employee, or agent of the Nation are absolutely immune from suit, court process, or liability.
    2. “The Nation’s sovereign immunity extends to the Nation’s districts, enterprises, entities, and the officials, employees, and agents thereof.
    3. “Sovereign immunity cannot be waived except by a resolution or other official action of the Tohono O’odham Legislative Council expressly waiving, or authorizing a waiver of, sovereign immunity; provided that such a waiver shall be limited in accordance with its terms. A Legislative Council action that authorizes a Nation’s district, enterprise, or entity to sue or be sued does not waive sovereign immunity unless a waiver is expressly granted in a separate written contract or other duly approved writing.”

What is Resolution 14-317, where is it and what does it say? On Thursday, July 17, 2014 the TO called a Special Session and the last Resolution approved that day is Resolution 14-316, approving a Pisinemo District 2014 Operations Amendment . When was Resolution 4-317 passed and why is it not posted on the TO web site listing all actions passed by their Legislative Council? The City Council should require a stipulation requiring the TO to completely waive sovereign immunity with regard to any provision of this agreement. If the TO will not do so, then they have something to hide.

The proposed agreement makes me ill. Once again, Glendale is being taken to the cleaners and the majority of 4 councilmembers are too dumb or too ignorant to realize it. If they are truly serving the best interests of Glendale, as they claim to do, ad nausea, then they would take action to reject this TO self-serving agreement or at the very least, table it and craft an agreement that protects Glendale and works in its favor. Any one of these issues is enough grounds to reject or table the current proposed agreement. I would hope Councilmember Hugh might be concerned enough about these agreement provisions to support such action. So should Councilmember Sherwood, who fancies himself a negotiator and businessman extraordinaire.  

©Joyce Clark, 2014

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

« Previous Page — Next Page »