Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Jan 25

29

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 29, 2025
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Mattel Adventure Park • VAI Resort • Worker Power Super PAC  | Tagged With: , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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

Worker Power is at it again. They keep trying to blow up VAI Resort, currently under construction and scheduled to open at the end of this year. VAI Resort is a billion dollar development expected to generate $32 million dollars a year in revenue to the City of Glendale. It promises to be the most impactful project in Glendale’s economic history. It will be the largest resort in the state and probably all of the Southwest. It includes nearly 1200 hotel rooms, an amphitheater that will feature live entertainment 100 times a year, a dozen restaurants, upscale retail, a water feature, a convention center and ample meeting space. Just to its south, as a companion piece, is Mattel Adventure Park. This is Mattel’s first Adventure Park in the country and will feature Barbie, Thomas the Train and other Mattel branded children’s figures.

Worker Power wants to unionize VAI Resort and if they cannot get what they want, it appears they are ready to kill the project all together. This is their third try. First, they obtained petition signatures to stop Glendale from using a GPLET (Government Property Lease Excise Tax) with VAI. That failed to go to an election when VIA and the city announced that there would be no GPLET used. That action erased the need for an election.

Their second salvo was to get enough petition signatures to force the question of mandating a minimum wage of $20 an hour for hospitality workers in Glendale exclusively. That question was defeated in the last general election by 56.6% of Glendale’s voters saying ‘no’.

Now they are at it again. They have successfully collected enough signatures to force a special election this May. City Council approved amending the VIA PAD (Planned Area Development) by including (as a formality) the use of 10 acres on the east side of 95th Avenue (across from the Resort’s hotels) for an office building and additional parking. It is important to note the building is nearly complete.

What is Worker Power’s compelling argument that drove them to force yet another election related to VAI Resort and their use of 10 acres for an office building and parking? Their spokesperson said, “We feel that the removal of landscaping may increase the urban heat island effect.” That’s it. An environmental crisis will occur if those 10 acres are not green space. Give me a break. That’s the best that they can do this time around to try to stop VIA Resort?

Adam Baugh is VAI’s zoning attorney. He is highly respected among his peers and those elected officials that have worked with him. I have worked with Adam on numerous projects in my district. I admire and respect him. His word is his bond. If he promised to work with his client to address issues that I felt needed attention on a development project, that is what he did. He was successful in getting many changes I sought on various projects.

Mr. Baugh said, “The project will not move forward”…”You need the 10 acres for the project to be successful still. If the referendum is successful … then the project doesn’t function the way it’s intended to.” (Arizona Republic) The nearly complete office building will support VAI’s management of the resort complex and offers parking for those employees as well as those who will be working on the resort site.

In essence, the project will grind to a halt which is exactly what Worker Power wants to occur.

It is important to note how Worker Power obtains its signatures for petitions. They go to apartment complexes to gather signatures. It is recognized that renters are typically transient and stay in an apartment complex for a few years and then move. They are not vested in the city in which the apartment complex is located.

Another source of signatures is low propensity (don’t often vote) registered voters, a significant portion of which do not use English as their primary language. It has been revealed by those who have been approached to sign what the petition gatherers say. It appears to be misrepresentation and misinformation of the facts. In other words, whatever it takes to get that signature.

Both of these groups often have no interest in city government and are not informed on the issues. When they are told by petition gatherers how bad the city and VAI are, they will sign. They typically don’t question and will believe what they are told.

Worker Power has a formula and has turned petition gathering into a fine art form. At what point will Glendale taxpayers get tired of paying for Worker Power initiated elections?

I urge Glendale voters to become informed about this issue. When they are they will realize what a frivolous election this is. Reject Worker Power’s latest attempt to go after the city and VAI Resort.

© Joyce Clark, 2025   

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Jul 23

31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Jul 23

29

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

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 29, 2023
Posted in City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Mattel Amusement Park • VAI Resort • Yucca district  | Tagged With: , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.Yesterday in Part I, I shared the concept of Worker Power and their current referendum effort to oppose the City of Glendale’s use of a GPLET within portions of the VAI Resort. I alerted those who had signed their referendum petition that an email with their personal contact information was generated and sent to the Glendale city council.

What in heaven’s name is a GPLET? Its full title is Government Property Lease Excise Tax. It is an incentive created by the Arizona Legislature that permits cities and towns to encourage development within their communities. A GPLET permits a temporary lower property tax payment for up to a maximum of 25 years. This means instead of a developer paying property tax, the developer must pay an excise tax in its place. The excise tax amount is determined by a formula created by the Arizona Legislature. Please note that tax is still paid on the property but at a lower rate called an excise tax instead of property tax.

A project eligible for a GPLET would typically not otherwise be built at the desired scale or design or timing because of the expense of the land, the cost of building massive projects, and the high rates of commercial property tax.

A city is providing the GPLET to land that it does not expect to develop soon. It is by no means counting on the property paying taxes in the near term. A GPLET can cause a project to be built sooner rather than later.

Historically, Arizona cities and towns have used GPLETs often. It is not some kind of exotic incentive rarely used. In the past twenty years at least 8 Valley cities have used GPLETs.

  • Avondale currently has 4 GPLETs including one for its Phoenix International Speedway
  • Chandler currently has 4 GPLETs including one for its Overstreet Cinema
  • Glendale currently has 21 GPLETs, a majority of which are airport related but there is one for Cabela’s and one for the Renaissance Hotel
  • Goodyear has 1 GPLET for its Western Regional Medical Center
  • Mesa has 51 GPLETs including its Mesa Convention Center and Visitor’s Bureau
  • Phoenix’s financial report is not so opaque but I was able to identify at least 58 GPLETs, including restaurants and hotels
  • Scottsdale has 19 GPLETs including the Tournament Players Club of Scottsdale (part of the PGA Tour)
  • Tempe has 40 GPLETS including the Tempe Town Lake and the Hilton Hotel

Why is Worker Power doing a referendum on the VAI Resort development now? Remember, I said in my last blog post that they are opportunists? If they were genuinely opposed to the use of GPLETs, they would have opposed the original GPLET for this project passed by the city council two years ago. Where were they then? Crickets. Oh wait, weren’t they in Georgia working on Rafael Warnock’s senatorial campaign? That action would bring them far more notoriety than opposing a no-nothing GPLET in Glendale. How come the only other GPLET they’ve opposed is the one involving the Coyotes project in Tempe?

It looks like there will be a Part III to this GPLET blog tomorrow. In the next part we’ll look at the benefits of this GPLET as well as Worker Power’s publicly offered reasons for their opposition.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

May 23

25

Affordable housing push comes to the state legislature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

District 2

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

 

District 22

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

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

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

 

District 24

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

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

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

 

District 26

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

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

 

District 27

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

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

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

 

District 28

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

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

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

 

District 29

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

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

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

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

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

May 23

24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Apr 23

27

Affordable Housing legislation may just destroy your property values

Posted by Joyce Clark on April 27, 2023
Posted in Glendale Economic Development • Glendale zoning issues • Phoenix Metro issues  | Tagged With: , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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

A red alert for all property owners! Senator Steve Kaiser (R), representing District 2, has been a busy guy since he was newly elected to the Arizona Senate and assumed office in January of 2023. From the many bills he has sponsored, his candidacy almost appears to be a “switch and bait.” Despite running as a Republican, many of his sponsored bills would make Democrats giddy.

One of the bills he introduced focuses on affordable housing. It should be noted that he received large contributions from many players in the housing industry including the Arizona Multifamily Association.  As a side note, interestingly he also received a $4,000 campaign contribution from the Alex Meruelo Living Trust. The very same Meruelo of the current Tempe/Coyotes fray about building an arena in Tempe.

There are three housing bills currently before the Arizona Legislature, HB2536, SB1161 and SB1163. Glendale and the League of Arizona Cities and Towns have been meeting regularly to evaluate the many housing proposals that aim to take away local control and community involvement when determining housing policy at the municipal level. Currently, all these bills, HB2536, SB1161 & SB1163 are on hold while negotiations continue. The latest I have heard, all of these bills may be morphed into one bill with some of the most onerous requirements having been deleted.

Shades of the Biden administration’s Federal Affordable Housing Act. Many of the requirements in these bills mirror federal legislation. The one fact that the bills’ sponsors continue to ignore is that not one of these bills guarantee to make housing more affordable.

Some of the worst provisions include:

“Allow the placement of one accessory dwelling unit on a single-family residentially zoned lot. A municipality may condition approval of the accessory dwelling unit on compliance with local codes and permit requirements.”

‘Land splits’ means the division of improved or unimproved land whose area is two and one-half acres or less into two or three tracts or parcels of land for the purpose of sale or lease.

  1. Not later than July 1, 2024, a municipality with a population of more than seventy-five thousand persons shall demonstrate at least three of the following strategies to incentivize permanent affordable housing:
  2. Allowing the construction of a single-family residence on a residential lot of six thousand square fee or less with reduced setbacks if the lot is dedicated to permanent affordable housing.
  3. Offering higher residential density for a proposed residential housing development that is located on a residential lot within one-quarter mile of commercial and mixed-use zoning districts or designated major investment corridors, but only if the lot is dedicated to permanent affordable housing and the proposed residential housing development complies with all other development standards of the municipality.
  4. Maintaining zoning districts that allow for single-room occupancy in existing residential housing developments.
  5. Allow municipal property that is eligible for development to be used to meet the critical housing needs of the community, which may include:

             (a) homeless shelters.

             (b) transitional housing.

             (c) supportive housing.

             (d) veteran housing.

              (e) affordable housing.

  1. Allowing the use of modular homes or prefabricated homes in a single-family residential zoning district subject to the development standards of the zoning district.
  2. Allowing duplexes and triplexes in a single-family residential zoning district subject to the development standards of the municipality.
  3. Facilitating the rehabilitation of property into permanent affordable housing or using a voluntary deed restriction program to maintain and sustain permanent affordable housing.”

According to these proposed provisions, you could build a second dwelling unit on a six thousand square foot lot and believe me, Glendale has a tremendous number of them, as does nearly every city in the Valley. It seems as long as it’s labeled as affordable housing, the property owner will be able to do whatever he or she wants. For example, there are many, many lots in the newly built Stonehaven that would be qualified to build a second residential unit. Instead of 1,365 homes, there could be 2,000 or more. That’s absolutely crazy.

Slowly but surely, ‘feel good’ legislation has the potential to destroy your property values and quality of life.”

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Mar 23

22

75th Avenue and Bethany Home Road dilemma

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 22, 2023
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale zoning issues • Yucca district  | Tagged With: , , , , | 1 Comment

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

Lately I have been receiving a lot of email regarding the proposed development of the property located at the southwest corner of 75th Avenue and Bethany Home Road. Let’s review what surrounds it. Across Bethany on the northwest corner is a residential subdivision. On the northeast corner Beezer Homes is currently building a residential subdivision. On the southeast corner sits a CVS Pharmacy. Immediately to the west of the site is a Glendale Elementary School building. The district closed it as a school and has turned it into a community resource center for those in need of social services. To the immediate south of the site is the dearly beloved and iconic Tolmachoff Farm. It is a treasure and loved by all. Who hasn’t purchased fresh produce there or visited during the Halloween season?

The 3.7-acre site is currently zoned for Commercial Office and has been for many years. I would note that for many years the CVS site was also zoned for Commercial Office and its zoning was changed to C-1 to allow for the pharmacy.

Residents in the area are upset because the site has been sold to a developer who wishes to construct up to 4 retail uses on the site. Let’s dig a little deeper into the situation. The land was owned for many, many years by members of the Tolmachoff clan. Did the Tolmachoff farm owners reach out to the Tolmachoff property owners and make an offer to buy the parcel? Were they unable to come to terms? Who knows? I don’t but I would think that it existed as an option. For whatever reason, that didn’t happen.

So, the parcel was sold as is, current zoning as a Commercial Office site. Think about it, it is certainly not an ideal location for an insurance office or a doctor’s office. These kinds of offices rely in part on foot traffic generated on a commercially zoned retail site. It is logical that the developer would ask for a retail zoning designation.

The community fear is, will this be the nail in the coffin for Tolmachoff Farm? I hope not and I think not. It remains a very popular and viable operation. I have had no recent conversations with Tolmachoff Farm but I suspect they are feeling the pressure of urban encroachment.

Would they sell? I would think ‘yes’ at some point but here’s their dilemma. Right now their land is zoned Agriculture. If they were to sell it would be contingent upon a buyer getting approved rezoning. What’s the most expensive land to sell? Land for multi-family. I suspect if the Tolmachoff farm is ever sold it will be contingent upon the buyer getting the land rezoned for multi-family. The community would be up in arms and fight such a request tooth and nail. If the Farm ever leaves, the only option is to build a residential subdivision on that land. There is no other option.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Jul 22

20

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

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 20, 2022
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues • National issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

May 22

19

Follow up on 70 town house proposal

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 19, 2022
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues • Yucca district  | Tagged With: , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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

As of this date Planning Staff has not informed me about the future plans of Mr. Froke’s project for 70 town houses on 5 acres zoned for Low Density Residential on the west side of 83rd Avenue. That is because there have been meetings between Mr. Froke and the Planning Department but no finalization of any plan. As you may recall, it was tabled by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) on April 28, 2002, with the applicant to decide when it will be reheard by the P&Z.

Recently I received an email from an old friend. This person lived in Glendale for 40 years and was extremely active in the community, having also served on many boards and commissions. This person read my previous blog on the Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 2022. The comments in the email really highlight one of the prime directives of the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z): “I have just skimmed over the report you made of the planning commission’s meeting to address the 83rd Avenue proposal.  I completely agree with you that this is totally out of bounds.  While I didn’t read the whole transcript, I did enough to know that the commission members seem to have had no training on what their duties are. They are to uphold the general plan.  The people have voted on the general plan, and no one or two people are competent enough or have the authority to overturn the public’s desires.  The property owner cannot do whatever he/she wants with their property; they must be held to the zoning regulations and the general plan.”

What is a General Plan? The city states, “A General Plan provides vision and policies that determine how a city will grow and develop in the future. The City of Glendale’s General Plan is a long-range comprehensive plan that guides development in the City by addressing various elements such as land use, housing, growth areas, urban design, military and aviation, open space, circulation, fiscal public health, environmental planning, energy, etc.”

Arizona State Statues requires municipalities to adopt, update, and readopt their General Plans every ten years. The Glendale City Council adopted an updated General Plan on April 26, 2016 and it was approved by Glendale voters on August 30, 2016. It is called Envision Glendale 2040.

Envision Glendale 2040 states, “The General Plan is designed as a policy and reference document to guide future development, projects, and programs.  It is used to determine how and where growth should occur, ways to wisely invest capital improvements, and techniques for enhancing and sustaining Glendale’s quality of life. Using a holistic approach, this plan looks to achieve a citizens’ directive for moderate, well‐managed growth.”  It also states, “Locational placements for private and/or public development investment are coordinated on the Land Use Map.  It is not a zoning map, but it does reflect the types and intensities of current land uses as well as intended development massing with which future zoning decisions are expected to be consistent.”

The Plan offers guidance on General Plan Amendments, and I found this provision very interesting: A Major General Plan Amendment can be applicable for less than 20 acres when,

“The Planning Director may determine an amendment as “major” if it is less than the minimum areas (20 acres) in the above table but: 1) the infrastructure demands are not offset by private investment or privately‐constructed extensions or expansions to publicly‐provided systems: and/or 2) the change has a substantial impact on the neighborhood or on furthering the goals of the General Plan.”

When you look at item 2, “the change has a substantial impact on the neighborhood…” It seems that going from 1 to 2.5 units to an acre to 20 units to an acre within a specific area general planned as low density residential, would certainly have a substantial impact on the neighborhood and should have been considered a Major General Plan Amendment.

Major General Plan Amendments are more complicated and can only be considered by the city at two specific times per year. However, I wonder why this request was not considered by the city as a Major General Plan Amendment?

Perhaps the P&Z Commissioners need a refresher course on their duties and responsibilities. They should be reminded that it is their responsibility to uphold the General Plan…you know, that document approved by Glendale’s voters. Any request for a change must be made by the applicant showing that it offers no “substantial impact on the neighborhood.” Mr. Froke took every opportunity to avoid the issue of density and never made the case.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

May 22

12

Stick to the zoning

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 12, 2022
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues • Yucca district  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 2 Comments

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

This is another blog that is overdue. This topic is of special interest to me for many reasons. One of which occurred recently. On April 28, 2022, the Planning Commission took up GPA 22-01 and ZON 22-01. Well, what’s that? Mr. Jon Froke, representing the property owners, Dorothy Keith and Teresa Zaddack, for 5.3 acres located at 5136 N. 83rd Avenue in Glendale was seeking high density multifamily zoning.

Before I relate the events of that evening, it’s important to understand what zoning is and why it is important to a community. Zoning has been used by cities large and small, throughout the country since the 1930’s, nearly 100 years.

The purpose of zoning is to create a city plan that develops a balanced city. Zoning is how the local government regulates and develops land within its control. Zoning helps protect the local environment and keep property values stable. It is broken down into multiple categories to help balance a city to ensure proper land use and to provide value to citizens that own property.

Every city has multiple zoning categories, from residential to commercial to industrial to multifamily, to name a few. Usually, there are more zoning categories than you have fingers. Within each zoning category there are regulations and guidelines for the benefit of the property owner so that person knows exactly what is required.

By legal right a property owner can develop that property as it is currently zoned. For example, a property that is currently zoned for commercial can be developed as commercial after the property owner has had the plans approved. Approval would be required, among other standards, to ensure proper setbacks (distance) from a street and surrounding structures. That is not the only requirement. Usually, there is a list of items.

A property owner does not have the legal right to develop the property in a different zoning category without first presenting the plan to the Planning Department and seeking the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council.

This is important: by legal right a property owner can develop property within the zoning category identified for the property. There is no legal right for a property owner to develop outside of that identified zoning category. The property owner is legally required to seek approval from the city for any change in zoning. It is up to the property owner to make the case that a change in zoning is not detrimental to the city or surrounding property owners. Only if the case is made will the property owner be granted the right, by the city, to develop in a different zoning category.

That brings us to the night of April 28th and the hearing held for the property at 5136 N. 83rd Avenue. This segment, about an hour and a half, was a clown show. Once again, the Planning Commission (P&Z) demonstrated that it doesn’t understand its role as a citizen advisory body.

I took the time to transcribe this portion of the P&Z meeting. I reviewed it for accuracy and to remove typos, but I am sure that I missed some typos. So, please forgive them. I am providing the link here: Transcript Planning Commission Ap 28 2022

Before I comment on the meeting, let me explain exactly what Mr. Froke was requesting. a minor amendment to the Glendale General Plan from LDR-2.5 (Low Density Residential – 2.5 units/acre) to HDR-20 (High Density Residential – 20 units/acre); and for a rezoning from SR-17 (Suburban Residential 17,000 square foot minimum lot size) to R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) for 5.03 acres.

Some context is required. There are only two areas within Glendale that have large swaths of land zoned as SR-17 (Suburban residential, lot size of 17,000 square feet). One is comprised of 500+ acres south of Union Hills and around 67th. This land has already been developed at 1 to 4 lots to the acre. Those lots appear to be around 4 homes to the acre with lot sizes in the 8,000 to 10,000 SF range. Was the development a deviation from the SR-17 zoning? Yes, but it was decided to be appropriate as it was single family residential to another single family residential category with a reasonable modification as to the lot sizes (or density). It appears as if the lot sizes went from 17,000 SF down to 8,000 SF, a jump in density by 2 zoning categories. The applicant(s) made their case that rezoning would not be detrimental to the city or surrounding neighborhoods.

The other large swath, about 200 acres, is along 83rd from Glendale to Northern. Much of the land has already been developed as single family residential on large lots. The property in question is within this sea of large lot development along 83rd and the applicant is requesting to go from single family residential to multifamily residential by placing 20 units to the acre. The applicant is seeking a jump in density by 6 zoning categories from SR-17; SR-12; R 1-10; R 1-8; R 1-6; R 1-4; R 2 to R3. That, in and of itself is excessive.

There were several things about this particular P&Z agenda item that were concerning and by reading the transcript, I think you will agree. The first was the P&Z philosophy seems to be that by right, the property owner should be granted the right to rezone the property to any zoning category and P&Z was there to ensure that it happened. Not so. The applicant comes before the P&Z to make the case that it should receive greater, more dense zoning. In my estimation, the applicant did not make the case. Mr. Froke said this property would be a transition between the commercial development to its immediate south and the large lot, single family residential to its immediate north. However, across the street there is commercial directly to the south of and abutting large, single family lots of an acre or more (where our Mayor lives). It has been like this for 20 years or more and there have been no issues between the commercial and the large lot residences.

Another area of concern was the belief of Chairperson Vernon Crow that it is the responsibility of the P&Z to facilitate consensus in allowing this type of development at that location and to do so, to broker a meeting between the applicant and the surrounding neighborhoods. That is not the role of nor the responsibility of the P&Z.

Yet another area of concern was Commissioner Tom Cole’s request that the Planning Department has an obligation to provide both sides of the request. Excuse me, the Planning Department’s obligation is to present the facts of the application and to present the facts regarding its recommendation. In this case, it was a recommendation of denial. It did that and is under no obligation to present the case for the applicant. That is the applicant’s responsibility.

I believe Commissioner Gary Hirsch was out of order. As the Interim Planning Director, Tabitha Perry, was summarizing the reasons for the department’s recommendation of denial, Commissioner Hirsch interrupted her and accused her of “selling” the recommendation of denial. He was rude and his comments were inappropriate.

I also was not impressed by the city’s senior planner, George Gehlert. His job was the present the facts and to support the department’s recommendation of denial. In my estimation, he failed to do so.

What was the result? The first motion, made by Commissioner Hirsch was for approval and failed for lack of a second. The second motion, made by Commissioner Nowakowski was for denial and failed due to a tie vote with Commissioners John Crow (no relation to Vernon Crow), Martin Nowakowski and John Guers supporting denial and Commissioners Vernon Crow, Tom Cole and Gary Hirsh not supporting denial. The final motion, made by Commissioner John Crow, was to table with the applicant deciding when it would be brought back before the Commission. All Commissioners supported the motion except for Commissioner Gary Hirsch.

My greatest concern is that if approved, this decision becomes precedent setting for the entire city. It opens the door to any large lot, residential property owner within all of Glendale to seek similar zoning. There are many single family, large lot properties throughout Glendale that would then have the potential to develop a property as dense, multifamily. If this action is approved, it is going to be extremely difficult to deny a similar zoning request to any other large lot property owner.

It makes the city’s zoning plan irrelevant. Why would a zoning plan be needed if the intent is to ignore it? It creates the ‘Wild West’ in development of the city. If current zoning is to be ignored then there is no rationale to adhere to it or keep it.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

« Previous Page — Next Page »