Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Feb 15

26

Sherwood and billboards

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 26, 2015
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 1 Comment

On February 25, 2015 the Recall Councilman the Gary Sherwood Committee issued following press release:

“The Recall Councilman Gary Sherwood Committee announced today that it has reinstated its campaign calling for a Recall Election to unseat Gary Sherwood, Councilmember from Glendale’s Sahuaro District. Committee Chairperson Anna Lee said, ‘Gary Sherwood has forgotten who elected him. He has turned his back on the people he is supposed to represent and they won’t stand for it. Throughout our new campaign, we will be publishing details of Sherwood’s actions that enraged his constituents and precipitated this action.’  Lee filed a second Application for Recall Petition with the Glendale City Clerk’s office at 10 am on Friday, February 20, 2015.

“This is the committee’s second effort to unseat Councilmember Sherwood; the first was filed in August, 2014. ‘We followed all the rules,’ said Lee, ‘but when we submitted the signatures we’d gathered, they were rejected because, according to the clerk, they were entered on an old version of the petition form. The legislature had changed the requirements, but the new form reflecting the changes was not made available until after our Recall team had finished collecting its signatures.’ She concluded, ‘We won’t let anything like that happen again. This recall is far too important to the future of the citizens of Glendale and the Sahuaro District.’

The Recall Councilman Gary Sherwood Committee is reaching out to Sahuaro District constituents who share its concerns about the voting history and other activities of Councilmember Sherwood, and who fear how he may vote on issues that impact them in the future.

“For more information about Stop Gary Sherwood, call the committee message phone at 602.657.0303, e-mail info@stopsherwood.com or visit its website: www.stopsherwood.com. Contact: Anna Lee, 602-657-0303 / info@stopsherwood.com .”

Please note at this time the committee’s website is still under construction. I would suggest contacting Ms. Lee at the phone number provided in their press release until the website is completed.

It is clear that Sherwood and Becker have not given up on their effort to plant billboards in north Glendale.  A review was conducted of contributors to Sherwood’s initial campaign effort in 2012. In the fall of 2012 Sherwood received contributions from:

  • Mark and Erin Becker $860
  • Joyce Becker $430 and
  • Amy Becker $430 for total of $920
  • Rose Law Group 10 contributions from attorneys within the group totaling $1,960.00

The Rose Law Group represented Becker Billboards on its first, March 25, 2014, attempt to gain council approval for its proposed billboards. Hmmm…did nearly $3,000 in political contributions to his campaign buy advocacy for Becker Billboards? That is something you must decide.

After the original denial of the billboards by city council, Sherwood brought up the billboard issue again on October 7, 2014 and October 21, 2014. From the minutes of the October 7, 2014 meeting, “Councilmember Sherwood spoke for an absent Councilmember (Councilmember Chavira) regarding the recent discussions about the Palm Canyon billboards. He asked the Councilmembers to vote at the October 27th meeting on rescinding the previous denial based on this recent information on the Becker Boards case at the Loop 101 and Bell. He said if the rescission vote is successful, then too immediately at the same Council meeting on October 27th vote on approving the billboards request of Becker Boards and direct staff to notify all parties as required by law at the expense of the applicant.”

A majority of council did not support his request. At the October 21, 2014 meeting Councilmember Sherwood continued to pursue the issue by attempting to clarify the circumstances under which a special council meeting could be called. From the minutes of that meeting, “Councilmember Sherwood said so if it was a special meeting, there would be two agenda items and there would still have to be a vote of four to rescind the March decision and then an actual go through the whole process of presenting the ordinance again.” Sherwood was seeking rescission of the original council vote denying the billboards. This is part of the exchange between Sherwood and City Attorney Michael Bailey at the same meeting:

“Mr. Bailey said his reading of Robert’s Rules of Order is that when there is an affirmative vote on a rescission, it brings the item back live again, it revives it. He said at that time, there would be a more robust discussion or additional information provided by planning and zoning. He said if there was a desire to make a different decision that decision could be made then.”

“Councilmember Sherwood asked if that was something that could be done in the same meeting.”

“Mr. Bailey said yes.”

A year after the original vote denying the billboard proposal it’s back again. The first salvo is Mark Becker’s neighborhood meeting and “Crane Study.” Since when doesn’t “no” mean “no?” Apparently, Councilmember Sherwood, Mark Becker and Jordan Rose have decided that a council “no” vote means “maybe.” Insider assumption is that Chavira is supportive of the billboard issue and will support his good buddy Sherwood. That’s two votes in favor. All Sherwood has to do is to find two more councilmembers to vote in the affirmative…who will it be? Mayor Weiers? Vice Mayor Hugh? Or Councilmembers Aldama (probably a yes as he seems to vote with Sherwood and Chavira), Tolmachoff, or Turner?? That’s a probable three votes in favor. Oh my gosh…Glendale residents will make best use their time contacting Weiers, Tolmachoff, Hugh and Turner with their opinion.

© 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 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.

Feb 15

24

Switching it up…a good news story

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 24, 2015
Posted in City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues • Westgate  | Tagged With: , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Last week the Phoenix Business Journal had a story by Angela Gonzales, Senior Reporter, about a new health campus coming near St. Joseph’s Westgate hospital. It will be a $30 million dollar investment led by Dr. John Simon. Dr. Simon founded SimonMed Imaging, Inc.

simon-edited-map_304xx1102-1650-0-0

Site of Simon Investment Group medical campus

It will be located at the northwest corner of 99th Avenue and Glendale Avenue, directly to the west of the Glendale Park n Ride lot. The 20 acre project is planned to be a healthcare campus with all kinds of outpatient facilities available at one central location.  The buildings and/or condos will be available for lease or sale to doctors for medical offices, surgery centers, skilled nursing facilities and long term care facilities.  The investment group is also seeking a research center and a satellite nursing school. Construction is planned to start in 12 to 18 months.

I congratulate Dr. Simon and his investment group for their commitment to develop further medical facilities in West Glendale. West Valley residents are delighted and can’t wait to use this new complex. Residents in the Westgate area, until the advent of St. Joseph’s Westgate had to travel 10 miles to Banner Thunderbird or 5 miles south to Banner Estrella or 10 miles west to Banner Sun City to have access to medical services. Having medical providers and services in this area has been long overdue. We look forward to even further expansion of medical facilities and thank Dignity Health for its investment in this area. It has proven to be a catalyst for further medical development. We are excited and grateful.

Now that’s a good news story!

© 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 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.

Feb 15

19

Mystery

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 19, 2015
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , | 14 Comments

Please note: I just received confirmation a few minutes ago that Jon Froke will not be resigning and will remain the city’s Planning Director. Thanks to Interim City Manager Dick Bowers for reviewing this situation and reversing the former City Manager Fischer’s decision.

Why is Planning Director Jon Froke resigning suddenly under mysterious circumstances? Here are the circumstances known to date. First, be advised this is not about Ms. Barbara Lentz. She is an unwitting participant and it could have happened to anyone. She is in no way to be considered as having done anything wrong.

On October 28, 2014 Ms. Lentz was appointed to the General Plan Steering Committee representing the Sahuaro district (Councilmember Gary Sherwood’s district) by the city council. Typically if an appointee is present that evening that person takes the Loyalty Oath at the council meeting. When an appointee is not present the Loyalty Oath is taken at the first meeting of the committee to which the person has been appointed. Apparently Ms. Lentz was not present that evening. On December 3, 2014 Ms. Lentz attended her first General Plan Steering Committee meeting and took the Loyalty Oath at that time. A regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on January 8, 2015. In the minutes of that meeting roll call identifies the following commissioners as present: Johnston, Hirsch, Lenox, Berryhill and Lentz. Ms. Lentz voted as a Planning Commissioner that evening. Without Lentz there would have been no quorum of the commission and the meeting would not have been held.

Now the mystery begins. How did Ms. Lentz sit as a Planning and Zoning Commissioner that evening? A review of council minutes for the two months preceding her sitting as a Planning Commissioner shows that city council did not appoint her to that position. How did she get there? City council minutes confirm her appointment as a General Plan Steering Committee member, not as a member of the Planning Commission.

There were three items on the Planning Commission’s agenda of January 8, 2015. One item, a Conditional Use Permit passed on a 3-2 vote with Ms. Lentz’ voting in the majority. The other two agenda items were passed unanimously by the 4 regularly seated Planning Commissioners.

Mr. Froke was not in attendance at the January 8, 2015 meeting. That is not unusual. If it were an agenda item of major significance or one that may be considered complex or contentious he would have been there. The items on that night’s agenda fit none of those criteria. In his stead Ms. Tabitha Perry of the Planning Department and Liaison to the Planning Commission was in attendance. It is also typical to have someone from the City Attorney’s office be in attendance to advise on any legal matters. Ms. Deborah Robberson, Chief Deputy City Attorney was in attendance.

Why didn’t Ms. Robberson and especially Ms. Perry, as the Planning Commission’s Liaison, raise an objection to Ms. Lentz’ seating that evening as a Planning Commissioner? Did they not know that Ms. Lentz had not been appointed a commissioner? If they did not know, why not? Ms. Perry as the Planning Commission’s Liaison is expected to be thoroughly conversant with all areas surrounding the Planning Commission. How could she not be aware that Ms. Lentz was not appointed by city council as a Planning Commissioner?

From here on the information is sketchy. It seems that former City Manager Fischer had an investigation into the whole matter which appears to have resulted in the resignation of Planning Director Jon Froke and the appointment of…you guessed it…Ms. Tabatha Perry as Acting. The very same Tabatha Perry who apparently didn’t have a clue as Liaison for one of her areas of responsibility. The first question that comes to mind is, did Councilmember Sherwood influence or urge former City Manager Fischer to ask for Mr. Froke’s resignation? Sherwood appears to have been quite unhappy with Froke’s performance on some of his pet issues. None of this makes any sense right now. If it was Fischer’s desire that a Director take the fall, shouldn’t Michael Bailey, the City Attorney, have received the same investigative treatment? After all, his designee, Ms. Robberson, was also present at this weird Planning Commission meeting and did nothing.

Jon Froke has been the consummate professional and a loyal employee of the city for many years. He listens…not just to the developers with a project but to the concerns of residents and does his best to balance both points of view. I will be the first to admit that I do not know “the rest of the story.” I would hope that Interim City Manager Dick Bowers would review the entire situation and that his findings would result in a return of Mr. Froke to his position of Director of Planning for the City of Glendale. It appears from the outside looking in, that an injustice has occurred and only Mr. Bowers can resolve it.

© 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 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.

Feb 15

18

Sherwood and his shadow government

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 18, 2015
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Councilmember Gary Sherwood took office representing the Sahuaro district in Glendale in January of 2013. He has served two years of his four year term. In his first six months in office he:

  • He flip flopped on his anti-casino campaign pledge claiming he had learned “new information” from Councilmember Chavira (which neither have ever publicly disclosed) and was the deciding vote on a 4-3 council vote supporting it.
  • He and Councilmember Chavira became very close. Coincidentally Chavira flip flopped on his election pledge of opposing exorbitant arena management deals and was the deciding vote on a 4-3 council vote approving the IceArizona deal.
  • He publicly acknowledged that he independently and privately interviewed Brenda Fischer and then publicly advocated for her hire. To this day he remains squarely in her camp and his latest district E Newsletter praises her tenure.
  • At a meeting I attended several years ago at a local restaurant in north Glendale Sherwood was present. After the meeting some of us were standing out in the parking lot. Sherwood was there and at a one point he bragged about having a “cop card.” I never forgot that. To this day, I don’t know exactly what that is but I assume it’s to be used when pulled over for a moving violation.

The next year and a half haven’t been pretty either:

  • He was the leader of the Becker billboard proposal and voted for it. His recent support for Councilmember Tolmachoff’s request for a Scenic Corridor in north Glendale is no more than a smoke screen that will be used to bring back the Becker billboard proposal. Wait for it…the Becker billboard issue will arise again.
  • He allegedly violated Arizona’s Open Meeting Law. The allegations are still under investigation by the Attorney General’s Office.
  • He purportedly attended citizen Planning and Zoning meetings and was reputed to have made hand signals to some of the commissioners as well as visibly associating himself in front of the P&Z commissioners with various applicants that he supported.
  • He was seen having frequent lunch meetings with City Manager Fischer and assorted senior staff at an out-of-the-way Asian restaurant in Peoria.
  • He apparently has a close working relationship with Assistant City Manager Julie Frisoni as evidenced by Frisoni’s emails on the arena management deal that were sent exclusively to Sherwood and the other 3 Councilmembers supporting the deal.
  • He seems to support the sale of the Foothills Library as evidenced by his lack of notification to his constituency (those most affected by its closing and relocation). In his latest district E Newsletter he announced the library meetings dates after the fact. He could have issued a special E Newsletter announcing the dates prior to their being held…but he didn’t.
  • Purportedly he was heard to remark on more than one occasion that he did more than the mayor.
  • He not only supports light rail in Glendale but continues to advocate for its placement on Glendale Avenue in clear contradiction of the 2001 voter approved transportation plan.

Councilmember Sherwood seemed to fancy himself as the ‘real’ mayor of Glendale. His frequent lunches with Fischer, et.al, apparently were for the purpose of trading information and working together on agenda items that would come before the full council. From all appearances he had created a virtual shadow government. He used Council Items of Special Interest, not for initiatives for the good of his constituency but to denigrate the mayor. He publicly disparaged his constituents’ concerns. His constituents believe that instead of representing their interests he has consistently represented his own.

Events are still in play. Apparently the Attorney General’s Office investigation into alleged Open Meeting Law violations is being actively pursued. The major allegation centers around Sherwood’s secret and private coordination of three other councilmember votes on the IceArizona deal. Of course, Sherwood will deny any wrong doing but the infamous email sent to former Councilmember Manny Martinez with the tag line of “please destroy this email after reading” is pretty damning. It purports to say that he, former Councilmember Yvonne Knaack and Councilmember Chavira are all on board after a private meeting with IceArizona’s attorney Nick Wood during which executive session information was shared.

The first attempt to recall Sherwood as councilmember representing the Sahuaro district failed due to technical errors committed by an inexperienced group of citizens. It was a learning experience for the Sherwood recall committee. One of those learned lessons is that the city will do whatever it can to protect sitting elected officials and that one must be very, very precise in dealing with the city. Expect the Sherwood recall committee to soon, very soon, annouce a new petition signature drive. This time expect success.

Sherwood, in an attempt to aggrandize power, has done much to destroy his viability and credibility as an elected official. Should the Attorney General’s Office investigation lead to a finding of wrong doing and/or the second recall attempt be successful Sherwood could end up being removed from office or at the very least, his effectiveness to accomplish anything will have been severely minimalized. It’s politics at its very worst. It would be sad if it weren’t for the fact that his actions have had real and lasting repercussions for every resident of Glendale.

© 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 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

22

Sherwood refuses to take ‘no’ for an answer

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 22, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , | 3 Comments

 

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 the Glendale city council held a workshop meeting. There were two agenda items: a review of the 4th quarter budget results (more about that later in another blog); and discussion of rescinding a March 2014 city council rejection of Becker billboards at Bell Road and the Loop 101.

You have to be a died-in-the-wool political junkie to appreciate the nuances of council discussion of the second item regarding Becker Billboards. When the issue was first rejected by city council it was on a vote of 5 to 2 with Sherwood and Alvarez being the only affirmative votes.  Keep in mind that Sherwood received over $1700 in political campaign donations from the Becker family and Alvarez received $2500 from Becker. Does that kind of money in a local, seemingly podunk, Glendale election buy not only access to these councilmembers but their advocacy?

When the request for rescinding of the original Becker billboard decision was made on Tuesday, October 7, 2014 Sherwood claimed to be making the request on behalf of Councilmember Chavira. Yet it was Sherwood who penned the letter on October 8, 2014 to the City Manager asking for council discussion and consideration. Apparently Sammy was doing his pal a favor by making the original request even though he was absent for the meeting and Sherwood read Sammy’s request. Everyone recognized that Sammy was trying to give Sherwood some cover. Didn’t work. Many acknowledge that it was Sherwood who rammed through the selection of Fischer as City Manager and that she owes him. No wonder it was on a workshop agenda two weeks later. Typically, staff does not move that fast and normally this would be a workshop agenda item a month or two after the request had been made.

Discussion of rescinding the original Becker billboard decision was extensive. Some councilmember comments stood out. Councilmember Martinez said, “some things will not go away” and the issue has “taken on a life of its own.” Councilmember Chavira tried to use the same rationale that Sherwood had used in the past when trying to explain his flip flop on his casino position.  Chavira claimed to not be fully informed when he originally voted to defeat the billboards and went on to say, “he likes to think he’s well informed about every decision he makes.” What a hoot – it seems pretty evident that Chavira takes his marching orders from Sherwood. Councilmember Alvarez chanted her usual mantra that north Glendale has all of the power in the city and gets all while south Glendale gets nothing. Same song, same verse. She was as much as saying that she was all too happy to stick it to north Glendale residents.

The argument that eventually prevailed was that of precedent. If council were to move forward and rescind their original denial of Becker billboards it would be the opening of Pandora’s box. It would put every council vote up to the possibility of rescission. It could even put past council votes on the arena management deal and the casino issue up for future reversal. It is that very thought that defeated Sherwood’s attempt to reverse council’s prior decision on billboards with Mayor Weiers, Vice Mayor Knaack and Councilmembers Martinez and Hugh indicating through consensus that they did not want to move forward and vote on a rescission. Sherwood failed but he was not finished.

City Attorney Bailey had opened another door during his disjointed remarks explaining procedure for such a rescission vote. He said that 3 councilmembers had the right to call for a special council meeting. Sherwood asked several specific questions about that procedure. Make no mistake – expect Sherwood, Chavira and Alvarez to request such a special meeting.

Why the desperation to get a revote on this issue? Sherwood faces two adverse actions that could impact his seat as a councilmember. One is the ongoing Attorney General’s investigation into allegations of open meeting law violations and the other is the current effort to recall him. Add to that Alvarez is standing for reelection on November 4, 2014 and she may, or may not, survive. With the outcomes of these two events in question it seems imperative that they make another run at the billboard issue before November 4th. It doesn’t leave them much time which makes their request for a special council meeting very attractive. The saga continues and will not conclude as long as Sherwood refuses to take a majority council ‘no’ as an answer.

© 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

17

Like a bad penny, Becker Billboards turns up again

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 17, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , | 6 Comments

From previous actions it appears that Councilmembers Sherwood and Chavira are in lockstep. There was another example of their tag team act at the city council workshop of October 7, 2014. Sammy was not in attendance. Could his job as a Phoenix firefighter be interfering with his attendance at council workshops and meetings?

As a favor for his best council friend, Sherwood, during Council Items of Special Interest and as a proxy for Sammy, reintroduced the infamous Becker Billboards but this is a Sherwood issue, not a Sammy issue. Becker Billboards’ attempt to obtain billboards at Bell Road and the Loop 101 was denied at a council meeting several months ago. Sherwood read Sammy’s request asking that the previous council decision be rescinded and Becker be granted the right to erect billboards by council vote at the October 28, 2014 city council meeting.

Sherwood and Chavira seem not to mind ignoring council guidelines when it suits them. Under the current Council Guidelines, when a councilmember, under Council Items of Special Interest, asks that an item be studied by staff and a presentation on the issue be made to council at a workshop within 60 days. They requested a circumvention of that process and that it immediately be brought to a council voting meeting in 2 weeks.

Councilmember Martinez reviewed the process for a Council Item of Special Interest and pointed out that the item first has to go to a council workshop meeting. He requested the item be reviewed at a future council workshop. City Manager Fischer, an ally of Sherwood’s, immediately placed the billboard issue on the agenda of the next council workshop this coming Tuesday, October 21, 2014.

Do Sherwood and Chavira have the votes to overturn the previous council decision on Becker Billboards? They can probably count on Alvarez. She received a hefty, and I mean really hefty, campaign contribution ($2,500) from Becker. So there are three that will support a reversal. Who’s the fourth? Take your pick…the most likely candidates are Councilmember Ian Hugh or Mayor Jerry Weiers.

Councilmember Martinez is concerned and has every right to be. The residents of the Cholla and Sahuaro districts fought the good fight and thought they had prevailed and there would be no billboards. They are probably angry and very frustrated at this latest turn of events and they have every right to be. Councilmember Martinez issued a special blast electronic alert to the residents of Cholla. Do not expect Councilmember Sherwood to do the same. The fewer people in his district who know about his latest effort, the happier he will be.  Here is the text of Councilmember Martinez’ special alert:

“CALL TO ACTION – October 21, 2014 Council Workshop: Palm Canyon Billboards

“Dear Cholla Residents,

“Under the Glendale City Council Guidelines, Item #2, it addresses Placing Items of Special Interest on a Council Workshop Agenda.

“ ‘City Council Workshop Items of Special Interest’ is listed on every Workshop agenda. This item will be a standing item and will be placed last on the Workshop agenda.

“At the October 7, 2014, Council Workshop, Councilmember Sherwood spoke for an absent Councilmember who wanted the Palm Canyon Billboards to be considered at the October 27th Council meeting (it is actually Oct 28th) on rescinding the previous denial based on recent information on the Becker Boards case at Loop 101 and Bell Road, and that if the rescission is voted successful, to immediately – at the same Council meeting on October 27th (28th) – vote on approving the billboards request of Becker Boards and direct staff to notify all parties as required by law at the expense of the applicant.

“Subsequent to this Workshop our City Attorney, Michael Bailey, sent an email to Mayor and Council that this item will be scheduled for work session on October 21, 2014. At that work session, staff will advise the Council of the necessary procedural steps (rescission and reconsideration) to address the issue. At that time, if the Council desires to move forward on the issue, they may direct staff to then place the item on the November 24th Council meeting agenda.

“This item has been scheduled for the October 21st City Council Workshop at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, at the Glendale Municipal Office Complex at 5850 West Glendale Avenue. Though the City Council does not take public comment at this meeting, your presence and that of your neighbors is a crucial opportunity to show your opposition.

“Please feel free to call me at (623) 561-8263 or email me at mmartinez@glendaleaz.com if you have any questions. Thank you for your support.”

Those of you who supported a defeat of the billboard issue last time, please take note and plan to attend this Tuesday’s workshop. Once again, you must send a strong message to members of this council that there is no support in our community for the Sherwood/Chavira Becker Billboard action.

© 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

12

Deja vu

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 12, 2014
Posted in Casino • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues • Tohono O'odham  | Tagged With: , , , , | 1 Comment

From the Associated Press by Sundin Thanawala and reprinted by the Arizona Republic on October 12, 2014. This article was too relevant to ignore and so it is offered below with a few interspersed comments: The article, California tribe’s casino plan to go before voters, is from San Francisco.

 “A Native American tribe’s plan for a Las Vegas-style casino in Central Valley (make that Glendale) nearly 40 miles (change that to 100 miles) from its reservation has drawn opposition from other casino-owning tribes in the state.

“The voters now will weigh in on whether the North Fork Rancheria Band of Mono Indians (insert Tohono O’odham) are ‘reservation shopping,’ as their critics contend, or taking land that was part of their historical territory, as the tribes maintains.

“A referendum on the November ballot asks voters to approve or reject a deal signed by the governor and passed by the state Legislature that would allow the North Fork Rancheria to build a casino with up to 2,000 slot machines ( change to nearly 1,100 slot machines), on a 305-acre (132 acres) plot of land along a major highway (the Loop 101 Freeway) about 30 miles (5 miles) northwest of Fresno (Phoenix).

“With a yes vote, the project would clear its last major hurdle to entering the state’s Indian gambling market, where 58 tribes (21 tribes) are currently running 59 (28) casinos, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

“Critics of the proposal say the tribes is trying to get closer to an urban market that can bring in more gamblers.”

“ ‘This move by North Fork, if it goes forward, will incentivize tribes in rural areas to move to more-lucrative locations,’ said Cheryl Schmit, director of the group Stand Up For California.

“Representatives of the 2,000-member North Fork tribe counter that their existing land is for housing and does not allow gambling and that they went through a lengthy vetting process to get approval for the new land.

“ ‘We’re getting back to the historical land that serves as a reservation for our tribes in the 1850’s,’ said Charles Banks-Altekruse, a spokesman for the tribe, which is being supported by Las Vegas-based Station Casinos.

“Additionally, tribal officials say, the project would create more than 4,500 (change to 6,000) jobs and pump tens of millions of dollars into the local economy.

“Opposition to North Fork’s proposal is coming from other casino-owning tribes, including Table Mountain Rancheria (Gila River Indian Community and the Salt River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community) whose casino is about 25 miles (20 miles) from the proposed site of the North Fork facility (Tohono O’odham’s Glendale site).

“The campaign against the project is also being funded by New York-based Brigade Capital Management, an investment firm that backs the Chukchansi Gold Resort & Casino, another Indian casino near the site of the proposed North Fork casino.

“Under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, tribes can build casinos on reservations that existed before Oct. 17, 1988, but not on lands taken into trust after that date (except in Arizona). The law allows the Interior secretary to make an exception in cases where the off-reservations acquisition is in the tribe’s best interest (not proven for Tohono O’odham) and does not hurt the surrounding community (which it will).”

These situations are eerily similar with one major exception. The referendum was not blocked in California and so the voters will have the final say. Not so in Glendale. Glendale has blocked the referendum petitions and the matter is now a court case and a judge will decide whether Glendale voters can determine their own fate.

© 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

30

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing, Part IV

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 30, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community • Glendale zoning issues • Salt River Indian Community  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 10 Comments

September 17, 2014 the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing on Senate Bill 2670 introduced by Senators McCain and Flake. I have offered the direct testimonies of the  panelists, Assistant Secretary Kevin Washburn; Governor of the Gila River Indian Community Gregory Mendoza; Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers; Glendale Councilmember Gary Sherwood and Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Ned Norris, Jr. Each of the panelists was asked questions by Senators McCain and Tester.

I have never heard so many non-responsive answers in my life. It’s as if the questioner and the person answering were on parallel universes. Isn’t that the mark of a true politician? If so, they all passed the test. The only person to answer a question directly was the Attorney for the Gila River Indian Community, Allison Benney (my apology if I have slaughtered her name).

Sherwood, in his answers to Senators McCain and Tester, pumps out a great deal of misinformation. His reference to one 30 minute conversation between Glendale staff and the TO…wrong. His estimate of jobs created…wrong. There was one very telling revelation however. The city’s position on the referendum petitions submitted in opposition to the TO/Glendale Settlement Agreement et. al., relies exclusively on the argument that council votes were administrative not legislative. Gary Sherwood, went off script (which he does quite frequently). At the 43 minute, 46 second mark of the hearing he refers to the council votes as legislation (in a convoluted way). In his mind, he recognized that those council votes were legislative… Oh Oh. I hope the attorneys take note.

I also stand corrected on the amount of annual revenue the Tohono O’odham (TO) earn from their 3 casinos. I had used $38 million. Well, you can nearly double that. The figure that Senator McCain used was $68.2 million. No matter the number…no matter whether that is net revenue or gross revenue that is still a lot of money. Again, what have the TO been spending all of that revenue on? Too bad no one is allowed to audit their books…they are a sovereign nation, you know.

Chairman Norris downright refused to verify or disqualify the annual revenue figure Senator McCain used. He kinda, sorta answered Chairman Tester’s question. The only relevant fact he could come up with was the $5 million dollar scholarship fund before he began ranting about the use of the Border Patrol agents’ use of TO roads.

Miss Binney, on the other hand, offered some startling testimony when she said they had hand written notes in their possession describing discussion of a possible closure of the 3 TO casinos in Southern Arizona and a move to rebuild and reopen them in the Phoenix area.

The last portion of testimony from the hearing is below:

Chairman Tester: “Thank you, Chairman Norris, for your testimony. Thank you all for your testimonies. Senator McCain.”

Senator McCain: “Thank you, Chairman. Ah, Chairman Norris, would you like to, for the record, supply the, ah, the amount of money, the revenue that your casinos have gained for the tribe on an annual basis?”

Chairman Norris: “I’ll be happy to give that some consideration but I will not do that without the express umm, umm, authorization of my legislative council.”

Senator McCain: “So, what ah, tell us how impoverished you are. I will provide for the record, Mr. Chairman, hearings that Senator Inouye and I had, including that with Attorneys General, especially in states that came and testified before our committee, where their great concerns were what would happen, is happening exactly now. That was one of the reasons why we had great difficulty getting the support of Governors and Attorneys General because they said, ‘if we don’t look out we’re going to have Indian gaming operations in the middle of our towns and cities.’ So, I would be glad to provide the record of hearings and the conclusions and statements that Senator Inouye and I made at the time of the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, um, which clearly was designed to prevent a non-contiguous, middle-of-a-metropolitan area, Indian gaming operation for which the people have, ah, maybe their elected representatives have, maybe some like Mr. Sherwood who changed their mind over time. Umm, but they have not been able to make their will known as far as a very significant impact in not only Glendale but in the entire West Side. So, Mr. Sherwood, out of curiosity I think you used to be very much opposed. You even wrote articles in opposition to this. What changed your mind?

Councilmember Sherwood: “Ah, thank you for the question, ah, Chair and Senator McCain. Umm, when I campaigned I had campaigned against this proposed based on information I had and I had read deal…quite a bit of information on it. Umm, the thing that was distressing to me though, that in the very beginning there was a half hour conversation when the city first found out about it in April of 2009 and that was the only conversation the previous administration had and I was, was always quite upset by the fact that we didn’t have the dialogue. We weren’t very doin’ very good in the courts. So when umm, we ah, after the new council got seated in January ’13 and we, ah, took care of the hockey situation we turned our attention to the casino issue which again, had been laboring for five years and started havin’ that informal dialogue and learned quite a bit more about the project from the fact that it could benefit us umm, in many more ways than what the gaming compact even called out for. So, those informal discussions led into, ah, formal fact finding in the November time frame which led to negotiations in March. Umm, and, and having gone through that and having voted on this a couple months ago to approve the project and to ah, equivocally set ourselves against this legislation (43:46) umm, and the benefits, certainly after talkin’ to other developers, I mean we’ve had several developers come to us uh, since this casino project was announced wanting to develop on Glendale, on land in Glendale city proper.”

Senator McCain: Well, thank you. Chairman Norris, I have before me information that, ah, I’m not sure where it came from but it alleges that your annual revenue from gaming is  $68,200,000. Is that in the ballpark?”

Chairman Norris: “Chairman, Senator McCain, as I stated before without the authorization of my legislative council I’m not at this point, ah, able to disclose, to agree or disagree with your information.”

Senator McCain: “So you refuse to tell this committee who is expected to support your effort to establish a casino and you won’t even tell me whether this is a correct or incorrect number, $68,200,000?

Chairman Norris: “Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, the courts have already made that determination on whether or not the Nation is within its legal right to be able to establish…and our current compact also authorizes it as well.”

Senator McCain: “I asked…that’s not in response to the question I asked Mr. Chairman. You refuse to give, to authenticate or disagree with roughly $68,200,000 in revenue for a year, ah, for your Nation?”

Chairman Norris: “Mr. Chairman…”

Senator McCain: “Is that correct? You do not wish to give that information? Either agree or disagree. “

Chairman Norris: “Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, I am not agreeing or disagreeing. What I’m saying…”

Senator McCain: “Actually what you’ve done is refuse to answer questions before this committee. I’m not sure why you came. Ah, Mr. Mendoza, is there a concern, Chairman Mendoza, President Mendoza, is there a concern that there may be other loopholes such as this exploited and using this precedent to other casinos that would be established in the Valley?”

Governor Mendoza: “Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, uh, thank you for that question. You know, umm, I’ve been hearing about this particular bill and it would create that particular precedence and in my mind, no. The act has been very consistent with Congressional precedents and umm, if you’ll allow me, I will allow my attorney here to offer some specifics. Miss Benney.”

Miss Benney: “Yes, thank you Senator McCain. So the concern that you have is a legitimate concern in that Tohono O’odham if they’re able to build this Glendale casino can actually shut down their other three casinos in the Tucson area and move them up to the Phoenix area basically using the same legal theory. That’s why the East Valley mayors are so concerned because they think the same thing that is happening in Glendale can happen in the East Valley and I think it was Congressman Gossar last time brought it back that showed 200 county islands in other parts of the Phoenix Valley where the same thing can happen. But more importantly, in the negotiations and during litigation, umm, hand written notes have come out from Tohono O’odham’s representatives basically indicating that they would do such a thing. They’re aware that they have that legal ability if they’re successful in Glendale to shut down the other three casinos and move them up to the Phoenix area. That’s one of the biggest concerns of the East Valley mayors.”

Senator McCain: “Well, Mayor Weiers, you find yourself in the minority here. Maybe you can tell us how that happened going from the majority to the minority on this issue. I’m sure it didn’t have anything to do with a $26 million dollar commitment over several years.”

Mayor Weiers: “Chairman, Senator McCain, I don’t actually know how I find myself in that position. I, you know, I’ve been ah, on one line of one thought, ah, ever since this issue came up when I was a state legislator. I know in our campaign, ah, that people have ran their campaigns, ah, stating certain views and certain beliefs and I guess I never really expected people to change their opinion but, ah, I don’t know exactly how we find ourselves here. You know the same facts, the same truths that were there two years ago are the same facts and truths today. Nothing’s changed. People’s opinions have changed and how they’ve changed their minds because of those truths and facts I don’t know. Sir, I really don’t know if that’s the question that maybe I should be asked but I’m not exactly sure how we came to that position.”

Senator McCain: “Thank you. Mr. Chairman, it bears repeating to all the witnesses in response to some of the statements. The Constitution calls for the Congress to have a special responsibility as far as Native Americans are concerned. It’s written in the Constitution. So although some may view this hearing and our action as being unwarranted interference it is a specific Constitutional responsibility of the Congress of the United States. Umm, so Mr. Chairman, this is a very busy week. We’ll be leaving tomorrow for quite awhile and you were kind enough to hold this hearing for me and I take that as a very special favor that you granted me and I wanted to express openly and repeatedly my appreciation for you doing this. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.”

Chairman Tester: “Well, thank you for those kind words, Senator McCain. We always appreciate your commitment to the Senate and to this committee and we thank you for your leadership on a number of issues including this one. I, um, have a few questions here. I’ll start with Governor Mendoza. Ah, Governor, when it comes to tribal gaming in Arizona being successful, could you talk about the kinda success Gila River has enjoyed, ah, because of gaming.

Governor Mendoza: “Thank you for that question, ah, Senator. You know Gila River does enjoy the benefits from our casinos. Ah, we’ve been able to fully fund for our students to go to college, any college in the world. We’ve been able to provide funding for our public safety, police, fire, umm, our emergency management program. We’ve been able to provide programs for our elders, our youth, housing, you name it. We’ve been able to do a lot for our community and again, we’re very thankful and blessed.”

Chairman Tester: “Well, I commend you on your commitment to your people and education, ah, is one of my priorities. You reference, when it comes to the expansion of gaming, you reference a commitment made by the Tribes in 2002 that there be no additional gaming facilities in the Phoenix area. In the current gaming compacts there’s specific limitation on the Tohono O’odhams from building a fourth facility in the Tucson area. If the parties thought enough to put a Tucson limitation expressly in the compact why wouldn’t the state include such a limitation around Phoenix? Any insight into that?”

Governor Mendoza: “Thank you Senator Tester. You know, Senator Tester, I’m not an attorney. I’ll allow my attorney to answer that.”

Chairman Tester: “Well Allison, I think it’s a good point that you’re not an attorney. I’m not either. So, Allison, since you are, have at it.”

Miss Binney: “So, I think there’s some, there’s a little bit of confusion. So in Arizona it’s different than in most other states. Most other states the governors can go and just negotiate a compact directly with the Tribes and enter into it. In Arizona that’s not the case. The governor had to get authority from the voters to enter into compacts and so the voters voted on a model compact that I actually have the Proposition that the voters had here. So Tohono O’odham does say here, like nowhere in the model compact or the compact does it say Tohono O’odham can’t go into Phoenix. I mean, number one there was no need to say that in the compact because no one ever thought that would happen; but two, in all the negotiations which are a key part of what this bill is trying to address Tohono O’odham specifically said their fourth casino would be in the Tucson area or in a rural area. They never once indicated that they would somehow go a hundred miles up to the Phoenix area. But I will say the Proposition that has the model compact that the voters actually saw when they voted to give the governor authority, there’s a chart in there and in the chart it shows the number of casinos that the Tribes in Arizona were authorized to build under the old compact and the number of casinos that the Tribes would be authorized to build under the new compact, the model compact that the voters were voting on. In the Phoenix area Tribes, all are shown as giving up a right to an additional facility that they had under the old compact. Tohono O’odham, because they’re not a Phoenix area Tribe, kept the same number of casinos, the right to build the same number of casinos. So Gila River is shown as giving up an additional casino, right to an additional casino. Salt River gave up the right to an additional casino. Ak Chin gave up the right to an additional casino. Fort McDowell gave up a right to an additional casino and so did Pasqua Yaqui. Tohono O’odham didn’t have to give up the right to an additional casino ‘cause they weren’t in the Phoenix area. So in our view, it is in the compact. Why else would these charts be in here showing that the Phoenix Tribes gave up rights to casinos and Tohono O’odham didn’t if it wasn’t intended that the whole goal of the compact was to limit the number of facilities in the Phoenix area?”

Chairman Tester: “Okay. Umm, if you don’t mind Allison, I wanna ask you another question. Umm, since you are an attorney and since you know the law and I say this in the most friendly way. When I talk to Chairman Norris and I think was referenced in one of your testimonies. Maybe it might have been Washburn’s testimony about breaking ground on a facility already. So ground has been broken. If we are to pass this bill would there be a takings issue?”

Miss Binney: “No and I thought it was interesting that Assistant Secretary Washburn didn’t address this issue at all. Because he was aware of it and Senator McCain asked him about it last time. And the fundamental reason why is because this bill just provides a temporary restriction on gaming activities on certain lands. That’s what IGRA does. The Indian Regulatory Gaming Act was passed to restrict gaming on Tribal lands. So, if this bill is a taking so is the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act and that’s been around for 25 years and that’s been upheld again and again and again.”

Chairman Tester: “So, in one point you’re talking about policy that prevents gaming activities to happen with IGRA. This is an actual, physical construction. You don’t see that there’s any difference there? And I ask this because I don’t know.”

Miss Binney: “Yeah, no. We, actually, when it came up in the last hearing, Senator McCain asked it, we actually went and did a thorough analysis because I will say, last Congress there was some legitimate concerns raised by Tohono O’odham and we addressed them in this new bill. But we looked at it and the other reason it’s not a takings is ‘cause Congress does these types of bills fairly frequently actually restricting gaming on lands and they can build a resort; they can build a new sports stadium. They can do economic activity…”

Chairman Tester: “Thank you. That’s fine. Thank you, Allison. Uh, Chairman Norris, ah, you’ve got a similar question that I just asked Governor Mendoza. You’ve got gaming facilities, umm, can you discuss what benefits you’ve got from these gaming facilities and while you’re in that vein could you also discuss unmet needs that are still out there by your Tribe?”

Chairman Norris: “Mr. Chairman, ah, I, too, am not an attorney. I am the elected chairman of my Nation and have an obligation to speak for my people.”

Chairman Tester: “Yes.”

Chairman Norris: “So I will do so. There are still third world conditions that exist in my tribal community and many tribal communities nationwide. The Nation has had an enormous amount of benefit in comparison to where we were at prior to gaming. We have been able to construct different facilities that were only dreams facilities, that we were needing within our communities to be able to provide the necessary services. We have been able to create a government of employees that are, that are able to provide the necessary services that many of our Nation’s members require. We have been able to provide scholarships to our, to our members. Prior to gaming we had probably less than 300 members that acquired masters, associates and doctors degrees and some law degrees. Today we have graduated more Tohono O’odham with those types of degrees this many years later and my council continues to allocate some $5 million dollars towards scholarship programs to our Nation. So we have had an enormous amount of benefit from the results of gaming but we still have those third world conditions that continue to exist. As far as unmet needs, Mr. Chairman, we know today that we have 500 families that are homeless on the Nation. We know today that there are many people within our communities that do need housing. We know today that much of the roads that are within our Tribal communities are being used and misused by the U.S. Border Patrol because of the influx of Border agents on our Nation, have really done wear and tear on our roads, and primarily BIA are on our roads. And so there’s a need for us to work hand in hand with the Department of Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs to try and address the roads conditions that are so needing to be addressed, to be able to deliver the services, to be able to enter and to exit our Tribal communities nationwide. We have a reservation that is 2.1 million acres square. We have some 2.9 million acres in size. We have some 80 villages within that geographical area. The reservation is vast. The villages are remote. We’ve got homes that do not have running water. We’ve got homes that do not have electricity. So there’s a serious amount of unmet needs on my Tribal community.”

Chairman Tester: “Ah, thank you, Chairman. Mayor Weiers, umm, you’re a former state legislator. You’ve worked with city government as mayor and I think you understand the actual text of laws and contracts and the weight that carries with the weight that carries with those contracts and that text. In this case there was a specific limitation, correct me if I’m wrong, on TO developments around Tucson but not Phoenix. Umm, with that said, if this limitation on gaming around the Phoenix area was important, why was it not included in the contract or Prop 202?

Mayor Weiers: “Chairman Tester, all I can tell you is, is, is the knowledge that I have of talking to one of the authors, Senator McCain, and he had told me, point blank, that, uh, there was never, ever any intention in their mind that this would ever be an issue. And I don’t believe personally, quite honestly, that the average person, a non attorney person, would ever thought something like this. You know, uh, I guess that’s why we have attorneys to sit around and think of ways to get around stuff. But ah, I don’t believe anybody ever believed that this was going to be an issue and, and it is an issue. And, and quite honestly all this bill is trying to is just, let’s do what everybody said and thought we were gonna do and then when that compact’s over, renegotiate. Chances are we’ll probably end up with more casinos in the Valley. Most certainly.”

Chairman Tester: “Thanks, Mayor. Ah, Councilman Sherwood, ah, your testimony discusses the impacts that the agreement with TO would have on the city of Glendale. Ah, positive impacts. Umm, could you talk about those benefits of this development and while you’re on that, if there’s downside that comes to mind, could you talk about that too?”

Councilmember Sherwood: “Ah, thank you, Chair. Well, right off the bat, I can’t see of any downside in the negotiations, ah, in the settlement agreement that we concluded with the Tohono O’odhams in August. Ah, they’re covering existing infrastructure, new infrastructure, umm, water, umm, it’s not costin’ the city a penny. I mean, how often do you get a development where you don’t have to give in to anything? Umm, in terms of the development, we were hurt pretty hard with the down turn of our sports and entertainment. There was 8 funded projects that were to occur, south of the University of Phoenix Stadium where our Arizona Cardinals play. Umm, one of ‘em, umm, was Mr. Bidwill’s, ah, CB 101 Project before he started building. Those either went into litigation afterwards or the developers pulled back. Those are slowly comin’ back but not nearly the pace that was expected. So, our sports and entertainment area which has two professional sports teams, large entertainment area along with some retail, umm, was hurt vastly by that. And so when we have the mega events, like when we have the Super Bowl next February, umm, we don’t have anything to keep people in the area. So they go off into Scottsdale and Phoenix. Umm, a project like this resort will, umm, entice other development. In fact within, within weeks of us signing that agreement we had two major developers; one that had done a large scale project in Phoenix come through and they were only interested in us now because of this project and they were lookin’ at land within the city of Glendale to develop that would, ah, be real close to the sports and entertainment area. So, yes, we’re lookin’ at a lot of, ah, development activity that will directly benefit our city coffers and then again, on the deal that was referenced earlier about the $26 million or so, umm, that we get directly into the General Fund from the Tohono O’odhams. In fact we’ve already received a check for $500,000, ten days after the agreement was signed. Umm, that helps the city that has struggled as has been widely reported, umm, because of our past deals with some of the sporting facilities we have. It’s sorely helped our community.”

Chairman Tester: “Okay. Talk about jobs. How many jobs?”

Councilmember Sherwood: “The jobs, in terms of the operations, you’re gonna see 3,000 jobs, 1,500 of ‘em probably indirect. Ah, 15 direct in terms of construction jobs. It’s right now scheduled for three phases, the casino and then the attached resort and then probably year later, another resort based on how things are movin’ along. So you’re talkin’ thousands of construction jobs, ah, over this project that’s gonna take place over the next four years. But in terms of actual jobs, umm, in the West Valley, I’d say about 3,000.”

Chairman Tester: “Well, once again, I want to thank all of you for, ah, makin’ the trek to Washington, D.C. I know it’s not easy and some of you made it twice and I thank you for that. And I mean that. This is obviously an emotional issue it’s ah, it’s ah, an important issue. Umm, note that the hearing will remain open for two weeks and I encourage all stakeholders to submit written statements for the record. I’m gonna’ say that again. Ah, this hearing record will remain open for two weeks and, ah, if you’re a stakeholder on this issue I would encourage you to write written statements, ah, for the record. With that thank you all and this hearing is closed.”

© 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

25

Senate Committe on Indian Affairs hearing, Part II

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 25, 2014
Posted in Casino • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community • Glendale zoning issues • Salt River Indian Community  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

On September 17, 2014 the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs took testimony on S. 2670, a bill introduced by Senators McCain and Flake. It is designed to prevent the Tohono O’odham from building a casino in Glendale until 2027 when the current state-Indian gaming compact expires.

Because there is a lot of testimony I have broken it into segments. This portion is the testimony of Governor Gregory Mendoza, Chairman of the Gila River Indian Community and Mayor of Glendale Jerry Weiers. It is evident from Mendoza’s testimony that the 16 other tribes that are part of the gaming compact feel betrayed and are very bitter about the actions of the Tohono O’odham (TO). The reason that Governor Mendoza of the Gila River Indian Community and President Diane Enos of the Salt River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community have taken the lead in opposing the TO’s project is that these two tribes have the resources to do so. They have the support of the other Arizona tribes.

Mayor Jerry Weiers highlighted Proposition 202, the Arizona Gaming Compact, and distributed to members of the committee copies of the original publicity pamphlet distributed to voters in 2002. What is ironical is that the pamphlet used, that promised no new casinos in the Phoenix Metropolitan area was paid for by the Tohono O’odham.

Both men spoke of possible consequences should the TO prevail. Governor Mendoza spoke of the harm that will befall rural tribes and Mayor Weiers spoke of action that could be taken by the Arizona legislature to open up the entire state to non-Indian gaming.

The actions of the Tohono O’odham stink on so many levels:

  • They don’t care that they have destroyed the deep-seated, long-term trust they enjoyed with their sister Arizona tribes.
  • They don’t care that they broke their word and their commitment to keep new casinos out of the Phoenix Metropolitan area.
  • They don’t care if they destroy, single-handedly, the voter approved state gaming compact.
  • They don’t care if their casino is across the street from a high school and becomes a magnet for curious teenagers.
  • They don’t care if they destroy the fabric of neighborhoods with greater 24/7 traffic and spill over crime.
  • They don’t care if the state legislature opens the state up to non-Indian gaming.
  • They don’t care if rural Indian tribes suffer.

Their actions are nothing short of Machiavellian, “the ends justify the means.” Their only concern appears to be enriching themselves at the expense of all around them. They have 3 casinos in the Tucson area estimated to earn $36 million annually. I guess that’s just not enough for them. If they succeed in building the casino the unintended consequences will be felt for many years to come. But that’s OK – as long as they get what they want.

Below is the verbatim transcript of the testimonies of Governor Mendoza and Mayor Weiers:

Governor Mendoza: “Good afternoon Chairman Tester, members of the committee. Thank you for holding this hearing and inviting me to speak in support of the Keep the Promise Act. I want to start by saying that it pains me to advocate against a sister tribe. But this is not a dispute with the Tohono O’odham people, only with the leadership of the Tohono O’odham Nation whose actions jeopardize every tribe in Arizona. Contrary to what Tohono O’odham claims, this is not a fight about market share. It’s about preventing fraud upon tribes, local governments and voters. Tohono O’odham likes to talk about the promises made between their tribe and the federal government in 1986 but this bill is about protecting the promise made to my community and to other tribal governments.

“Our tribes relied upon the actions of Tohono O’odham when we gave up our rights in 2002. While we agreed the Tohono O’odham should get replacement lands under the 1986 law we also strongly believed that Tohono O’odham must abide by the promise and commitments they made to us. In 2002 Arizona tribes had to get approval for our compact from the voters. In order to get this approval we promised the voters that the number of casinos in the Phoenix metro area would not increase until 2027.

“At the same time that Tohono O’odham helped us to win voter approval they also were secretly plotting to build a casino in Phoenix. That casino will be located right across the street from a high school and it’s near homes and churches. This is exactly what we promised the voters would not happen. Tribes like mine gave up rights to build additional casinos. We also agreed to limit on the number of gaming machines allocated to us. We did this in order to get voter approval and to preserve the tribal monopoly on gaming in Arizona and assure that rural tribes benefit from gaming.

“Tohono O’odham doesn’t deny making promises nor do they deny knowing that their sister tribes gave up rights in order to limit the number of casinos in Phoenix. They don’t deny that the compact negotiations would have been vastly different if everyone knew of their plans. Instead they say they’re winning in the courts. There remains a dispute because they refuse to waive their sovereign immunity for claims of fraud. We do not want to attack another tribe’s immunity. That is why the bill merely provides for a temporary restriction on additional casinos in the Phoenix area until the end of the existing compacts. At that point all parties can come together at the table and bargain in good faith. Hopefully my community will be able to regain the rights we gave away.

“The Gila River Indian Community will weather the storm but most tribes in Arizona are not as fortunate. Rural tribes will suffer the most from Tohono O’odham’s fraud. There are six rural tribes that utilize gaming compacts to lease gaming machines to urban tribes. Leasing these machines allows them to benefit from gaming even though their markets can’t support a casino. Each year these tribes receive more than $30 million dollars to provide basic services to their members and the structure of the gaming compacts create markets for a few rural tribes to operate small casinos.

“If gaming happens in Glendale the state legislature will likely eliminate that tribal monopoly. If this happens urban tribes will have no reason to lease gaming machines from rural tribes. Patrons will stop traveling to reservations for gaming and instead visit non-tribal casinos in cities. We have come to Congress because you’re the only entity that can provide swift action to preserve the promises made in 2002. Interior indicates it cannot resolve this matter because Congress through the 1986 law mandates that they take the land into trust for the Tohono O’odham.

“This bill does not set bad precedent. It is common for Congress to pass bills that limit tribal gaming. In this Congress alone, two bills have been enacted placing land into trust for a tribe but prohibiting gaming on those lands. The bill narrowly restricts gaming on the land until 2027 but does not eliminate the uses of the land and there are a number of non-gaming activities that Tohono O’odham could conduct. For all of these reasons I ask that you pass this bill. Thank you.”

Chairman Tester: “Thank you, Governor. Uh, Welcome Mayor Weiers and I would ask you to try to keep it to five minutes because the Senator has another meeting to get to and I want to get to him for questions.”

Mayor Weiers: “I’ll do the best that I can, Sir. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Brasher and members of the Committee. My name is Jerry Weiers. I am the Mayor of Glendale, a city of 232,000 and the 72nd largest city in the country.

“Before becoming mayor I served eight years in the Arizona legislature. I am here today to discuss my personal views on a casino proposed to be built in my city. I am required to state that my views today do not represent the majority of the body of the council and my views are not the official position of the council.

“Like Senator McCain I supported Arizona Proposition 202, the ballot initiative which gave tribes the exclusive right to conduct gaming. One key aspect of that campaign was the clear promise, repeatedly made to voters by tribes and state officials, that there would be no additional casinos in the Phoenix metro area. When Governor Hull concluded compact negotiations in 2002 with the seventeen tribes she publicly announced that under the compact that there would be, and I quote, ‘no additional casinos in the metropolitan Phoenix area.’ Now here’s a voter pamphlet from the 2002 initiative campaign. It was widely distributed by the seventeen tribes. The pamphlet told voters that under the compact and I quote, ‘There will be no facilities in Phoenix.’ If you look at page six, which I’ve got highlighted here, ah, major funding for this pamphlet was provided by the Tohono O’odham Nation, that I will respectfully refer to as the TO.

“Understandably the public was blind sided when the TO announced in January of 2009 that it was going to open a Las Vegas style casino on a 54 acre parcel within our city. At that time I was serving in the Arizona legislature and I met with TO Chairman Norris and I expressed my grave concerns with gambling within our city. The council immediately passed a resolution opposing the casino because it would harm our residents and our way of life.

“Recently the city council voted 4 to 3 repeal the 2009 resolution opposing that casino. But this was done only after the Interior Department had already decided to grant a casino reservation on that parcel. We had no real choice. We could continue to fight and hope for action from this body or give up. It’s frustrating to be a city of our size and have no voice on gambling pushed by a tribal government that’s more than a hundred miles away. The public has no right to object to gambling because of the narrow exception in the 1988 Indian Regulatory Gaming Act the TO is using, and gives Interior absolutely no authority to stop gambling even if it knows the adverse impact to nearby neighborhoods, churches and a public school across the street.

“Since the Interior has no authority to stop gambling it has no reason to ask the public for comments or investigate adverse impacts. This is the polar opposite to the two part exception in IGRA which is typically used for off reservation casinos. It requires that the Interior prepare for an environmental impact statement and investigate in great detail adverse impacts that a casino may cause. What’s more, for gambling to be allowed, the Secretary must determine on the record, and I quote, ‘would not be detrimental to the surrounding community.’ And most importantly, the state’s governor has the right to veto any casino project regardless of the Secretary’s decision.

“But in our case, the public has no say. The state legislature has no say. Our governor has no say and the Interior has no authority to stop it. For us this means the largest tribal casino in the history of the state may operate on a 54 acre island in the middle of the Phoenix metro area without anyone investigating and addressing the adverse environmental and social impacts it will cause and without any federal, state or local official deciding that it can safely operate in the public’s interest.

“What’s more, my city may not be the last. Our sister cities realize that unless Congress acts, they may be next. Under the 1986 Gila Bend Act, TO claims that it can create new reservation land on more than 6,000 acres. They also claim the right to operate a total of four new casinos in the Phoenix metro area. If Congress does not act the entire Phoenix metropolitan area must be prepared for more off reservation casinos. That is why many mayors and city councilmembers have signed a letter asking the Congress to enact the Keep the Promise Act.

“As a former state legislator I know that if gambling happens in Glendale there will be a strong effort in the state legislature to authorize non-Indian gaming in all of Arizona and that will have a devastating effect on all the tribes. I urge this committee to move the Keep the Promise Act. The bill is about preserving the promises made by tribes to voters protecting Phoenix metro cities from having unwanted gambling within their borders. Thank you, Mr. Tester. I’ll be happy to answer any questions.”

Chairman Tester: “Thank you Mayor Weiers.

© 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.

« Previous Page — Next Page »