Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

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.

Today, May 16, 2023, Jamie Aldama announced his run for mayor of Glendale. He joins incumbent Mayor Jerry Weiers and another wanna-be, Paul Boyer making it a three-way contest.

I am not running again for the Yucca district council seat. More on who I will endorse later. When I complete this term in 2024, I will have served twenty-four years as a Glendale councilmember, off and on since 1992. I served from 1992-1996; then from 2000 -2012; and then again from 2016 to the present. Not running again allows me to speak my mind (more than I usually do!) about current Glendale politics and issues.

I will be blogging a lot about this upcoming election but for today, let’s review some history about Aldama’s previous runs for office. He was first elected in 2014, 9 years ago. In that election he literally squeaked by the incumbent, Councilmember Norma Alvarez.  He collected 1,221 votes and Alvarez had 1202 votes. Aldama won by 19 votes.

Aldama ran for his second term in 2018, against Emmanuel Allen and garnered 1,299 votes against Allen’s 784.  He increased his vote total by 78 votes in four years. His third run in 2022 was uncontested and Aldama picked up 1,788 votes. However, Bart Turner ran uncontested in the Barrell district and earned 5,152 votes and Lauren Tolmachoff ran uncontested in the Cholla district and garnered 8,380 votes.

There are about 12,000 registered voters in the Ocotillo district. Approximately 15% of the district’s registered voters voted for Aldama.  Turner came in with 25% of the approximately 20,000 registered voters in his district. Lauren Tolmachoff earned 33% of the approximately 25,000 voters in the Cholla district. Aldama doesn’t seem to have an impressive track record when one is ambitious enough to run for Mayor of all of Glendale.

In the Glendale Independent newspaper, Aldama is quoted as saying, “He says he has had his sights set on running for mayor for a while. ‘The plan to run for mayor has been in place since the inception of running (for councilmember in 2014) but really took hold about three years ago,’ he said. ‘It really took hold after my 2018 election where the division among the council was at its worst.’

It’s certainly no surprise to me. I always assumed that he would run for mayor. What is surprising is that he reneged on his pledge to Mayor Weiers that he would not be running against him.

Aldama has always impressed me as being calculating because of his mayoral ambitions and it has been demonstrated time and time again in his votes and the issues for which he chooses to advocate. They seem to be calculated to curry favor.

In his Glendale Independent announcement, he also stated that he was running “on a platform of uniting a leadership team on city council he calls ‘divided.’” The characterization of this city council may be perceived as correct but he fails to acknowledge that he along with 2 other councilmembers have created that division. Four of us, Mayor Weiers, Councilmembers Hugh, Malnar and I, as a majority, have voted time and time again to create a strong, healthy and vibrant community while Aldama, Turner and Tolmachoff have shown varying degrees of support.

There will be more to share in upcoming blogs on all kinds of political doings including those I mention in this blog. So, stay tuned. More is coming…a lot more…

© 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.

 

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.

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.

Tomorrow, Tuesday, April 18, 2023, the City of Tempe will send out mail-in ballots seeking the voters’ decision regarding the Tempe/Coyotes election. Voters will have the opportunity to approve or deny three propositions, 301, 302 and 303, needed to move the Coyotes proposed development forward.

An economic impact analysis of the Tempe/Coyotes proposed deal was released today, April 17, 2023, by Dr. Dave Wells. Dr. Wells is the Research Director of the Grand Canyon Institute and has a doctorate in political economy and public policy. He has no axe to grind for or against the proposed deal. He looked at the facts presented in the City of Tempe’s and the Coyotes’ economic analyses and ran the numbers. Here is the link to his analysis: GCI_Policy_Economic_Analysis_Tempe_Entertainment_District_Apr_17_2023

What was the Coyotes’ initial response? How about the Coyotes’ attorney Nick Wood calling the critique “silly.” How’s that for an intelligent, well-reasoned response?

There are major takeaways from Dr. Wells’ study. However, one not mentioned was the pace and character of the proposed development. What will be built first? Yep, the arena and the concert venue because these are the two money makers for the Coyotes. They also happen to be the two facilities that benefit from the Tempe giveaway of tax breaks.

Let me share a lesson that the Tempe City Council would do well to heed. I can remember the presentation made at a Glendale city council workshop by Mr. Ellman and staff on expected revenues from its proposed arena and surrounding development. To this day, I remember the graphics showing buckets of revenue dollars flowing into the city’s General Fund to pay the cost of the bonds needed to be issued for construction of the arena. The whole deal was predicated on Ellman’s promise to deliver an estimated two million square feet of retail and commercial development. What did he actually deliver? One tenth of the promised development and then he filed for bankruptcy. Tempe City Councilmembers, heed this lesson. You are dealing with a developer that Dun & Bradstreet, a major financial rating institution, found to be a risk.

The major conclusions of the study are startling. Perhaps the most important finding is, just as in Glendale, the proposed development isn’t going to produce enough revenue for the city to pay back the city’s financial investment. The study’s estimate is that Tempe will only get back about a third of the revenue it invests in the project. The study reveals that for every $2.70 in new taxes, Tempe will earn just $1.00 in new revenue.

Some final thoughts. Just as the last recession (2007-09) caused Mr. Ellman to abandon Westgate and the arena, today’s economy is difficult for all, including people having to dip into their savings just to pay ordinary bills. These very same voters, ordinary people struggling financially, can look to Glendale to realize that this is not a good deal for them.

For years, Gary Bettman, President of the National Hockey League, has pledged to keep the Coyotes in Arizona but he is bucking headwinds these days. Rumors abound that the league’s hockey team owners are fed up with the continual drama of the Coyotes. At some point, if they haven’t done so already, they will pressure Bettman to clean up the Coyotes’ mess once and for all. I suspect Bettman is still a pragmatist and knows when “to fold ‘em.” Maybe it’s time for Bettman to take a serious look at Tilman Fertitta and the Toyota Center.

Beware of the hype coming from Coyotes’ fans. They are an avid group whose only mission in life is to make sure the Coyotes remain in Arizona. Keep in mind that although a percentage of them live in Tempe and can vote, most come from the surrounding communities of Scottsdale, East Phoenix, Chandler, Gilbert, etc. They will not bear the financial burden imposed on Tempe taxpayers.

I hope Tempe voters look to the lessons of Glendale and learn from it. This is not a development that is in their best interests. I hope they vote ‘no’ on Propositions 301, 302 and 303. Tempe can do better and has a proven track record of benefiting their citizens. This time they missed the mark.

© 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.

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.

When I post a blog on a topic, I often get readers who send me material related to the blog topic. Most of it cannot be verified. Rarely, if ever, can it be publicly used. But every once in a while, I do receive useable information. One particularly interesting piece of information came via email because of my recent Chamber blog.

In 2020 when COVID struck, Robert Heidt, CEO and President of the Glendale Chamber, posted a Facebook video on the internet. In it, he advocated for the strictest of measures, including the implementation of mask mandates everywhere as well as the closure of all but essential businesses/services. He chided then Governor Doug Ducey and the Glendale City Council for not doing so.

I bet you don’t know that Mr. Heidt, in June of 2020, applied for and was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $95,404. A reader sent me the result of a Google search on PPP loans. I am not about to discuss whether PPP loans were good or bad. That is not the issue. Just to be sure, I confirmed there are several sites that list the Chamber of Commerce PPP Loan Number 3905188007. Here are the links to just one site:

https://www.pppdetective.com/loans/AZ/glendale/14

https://www.pppdetective.com/ppp/az/glendale/glendale_chamber_of_commerce

What’s ironic is that Mr. Heidt advocated for mandated business closures and berated the Governor and the Glendale City Council for not doing so while the Chamber applied for and received a PPP loan to cover the salaries of employees to ensure that the Chamber stayed open. Oh, and by the way, the loan was forgiven in the amount of $96, 152 which included any accrued interest.

The reason this may be of interest is because it raises the question, have there been other instances, as the voice of the Chamber, that Mr. Heidt publicly espoused one position only to have done or said the opposite?

I can’t help but surmise that there will be other revelations about Mr. Heidt and his leadership of the Glendale Chamber.

© 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.

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.

For many years I have been a member of the Glendale Chamber of Commerce. For 22 years I believed in the mission and goals of the organization and to demonstrate that, I paid my dues from personal funds and not my City Council funds. I attended countless Chamber Ribbon Cuttings, Ground Breakings and events and have been supportive of the Chamber’s efforts.

My position changed dramatically last Fall when Mr. Heidt publicly solicited a candidate to run against Mayor Weiers. I support Mayor Weiers. I believe he and this council have done an outstanding job in managing the city and “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” I immediately resigned my membership and have not participated in Chamber activities since then.

It seems Mr. Heidt’s appeal for someone to run against Mayor Weiers was successful and former State Legislator Paul Boyer has answered Mr. Heidt’s call. Heidt is doing all that he can to support Paul Boyer by dragging him along to city events and trying to make him more visible by introducing him to every Chamber member possible. Paul Boyer is not good for the City of Glendale but more about that later. Make no mistake, Robert Height seems to be on a personal vendetta to get the Mayor out of office. Keep an eye on this situation.

Most of us assume that the Chamber is a 501C3 organization, but it is not. Rather it is a 501C6 organization. The distinction is that a 501C3 may have members that belong to all kinds of membership groups. But with a 501C6, it is strictly a membership organization where its members pay annual dues to belong. Both categories are non-profit. One of the differences between the two is in their ability to get politically involved. In a 501C3 there is an absolute prohibition from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, a political campaign (or opposing) any candidate for political office. With a C6 organization, lobbying is allowed as long as it discloses to its membership the % of their annual dues that is for lobbying as well as reporting it on its annual tax filing. While the Chamber may permissibly lobby for a political candidate or position if it has the common interests of its members, that lobbying must reflect the position of a majority of its members. Makes one wonder if a majority of all 1400 (publicly claimed) members want to get rid of the current Mayor and replace him with Boyer? I think not.

I checked the 2019 filing of the Chamber (the latest available online) and the Chamber declared no lobbying in 2019. What was more interesting was its 2019 declaration of salaries with the declaration of just one, Mr. Heidt’s of $144,992. Others have worked for the Chamber for quite some time but I could find no filing for their salaries. Hmmm…

Mr. Heidt’s war began when Covid hit. Mr. Heidt, in his position of President and CEO publicly berated Governor Ducey and the City for not adopting his position regarding mask mandates and the closure of local businesses by producing a video that he posed to Facebook. While Mr. Heidt was advocating for radically doing so, our Mayor and Council took a more measured position refusing to close local businesses. This was the first publicly open rift between the city and Mr. Heidt created by Mr. Heidt but it was not to be the last. Over time, in hindsight, not closing local businesses turned out to be the right course of action for our city.

In August of 2022 the Chamber’s Military and Veterans Affairs Committee (MVAC) had requested an audit of finances raised for the benefit of veteran’s causes which it was holding in a reserved account. At that time, the Mayor was an Ex-Officio board member of the Chamber and Co-Chairperson of the Chamber’s MVAC. Mr. Heidt balked but eventually produced an “accounting”, not an audit, at the follow up meeting in September. This accounting omitted several key fundraising efforts led by the Mayor for his two personal events, the Mayor’s Big Dog Run and the Annual Military Induction Ceremony. It also omitted key items that are seen in normal audits such as specific expenditures and where funds/monies came from, such as donations and sponsorships. A committee member motioned to have these funds moved from MVAC to the VFW Post 1433. This was rejected by Mr. Heidt as he stated the money belonged to the Chamber exclusively, even though two of those events were started by and belonged to the Mayor and were outside the purview of the Chamber. It should be noted that in the past, motions were made, seconded, and approved within the MVAC on financial issues many times before, but now Mr. Heidt claimed they must go to the Chamber Board to be approved. After the September meeting, the Mayor along with several key members who had supported this vote were removed from the committee by Mr. Heidt by not being invited back to any future meetings. Keep in mind the Mayor was the Co-Chairperson along with Mr. Heidt of this committee when this occurred.  Both meetings were recorded. Add another salvo in Mr. Heidt’s war.

Other signs of Mr. Heidt’s ongoing war with the city were not publicized by the city but I will mention one in very general terms. Both the City Manager and the Mayor served as members of the Board of Directors. Recently, when one of the usual monthly board meetings was scheduled, the day before the meeting, both gentlemen received an email saying the meeting was canceled. Only to learn in the ensuing days it had not been canceled. This action seemed to be a deliberate attempt to make sure that neither gentleman attended while specific city issues were being discussed.

There is also an incident that occurred at the city’s suite in the arena when Mr. Heidt appeared to have had too much to drink and acted inappropriately. As a matter of prudence, he was not invited to attend functions at the city suite for quite some time. That is all that I will reveal about the incident but note, it has never been publicly brought up, especially not to embarrass Mr. Heidt…until now.

The latest salvo, caused by Mr. Heidt, has been his support of a small group of downtown merchants expressing their displeasure over the city’s plans to renovate the city hall complex. Some of you may remember when the city installed the café lighting on Glendale Avenue, Mr. Heidt and a few downtown people showed up in “Save Murphy Park” shirts and when the Mayor spoke, they made a point of vigorously waving their signs with the same message.

Or what about the time last August at a council workshop when Mr. Heidt appeared with a few downtown people once again sporting their “Save Murphy Park” shirts. Mr. Heidt disappeared for a while apparently to talk to the press. Subsequently Mr. Heidt sent an email to the city council claiming one of the media characterized our city council as dysfunctional. Staff attempted to clarify Mr. Heidt’s assertion and the following day sent this email.

“Mayor and Councilmembers,

In an email you received yesterday from Robert Heidt, he said, ‘even the reporters said to us outside what a dysfunctional group of elected officials we have.’

We wanted to let you know that immediately after the email was sent, one of the reporters cc’d on the email proactively contacted our media relations team to deny having made any such remarks. They did not want the Council, who may have seen them at the meeting, to infer or attribute that comment to them.

Subsequently, this morning, all the other reporters in attendance who were not cc’d on the email but have now seen it communicated to our media relations team that they did not call the Council dysfunctional. Each of them reiterated their desire to report objectively on the issue and wanted you to know they did not and would not make such remarks.

We agreed to pass along their comments to you.”

Mr. Heidt lied. What else has he lied to you, the public, or to city council or even to his membership about?

In the past few days, David Mitchell, the same gentleman who spoke at the March 14th council meeting, on his Facebook page, posted an article recently in the media related to the Peoria and Glendale Chambers’ relationships with their respective Chambers. Heidt just couldn’t let it pass and the following exchange ensued:

Mitchell:

“This article doesn’t take sides but it gives the public information of the current situation between the Cities and the Business Centric Chamber of Commerce Organizations.

Glendale, Peoria battel local chambers”

Heidt:

“The reality is, Dave’s remarks pertaining to Glendale furthers how out of touch he is, and his lack of knowledge regarding everything, very disappointing to witness Dave adding to this nonsense rather than rise above, be a person who unites and a peacemaker of the very organizations which helped him to build his business.”

Mitchell:

“To Robert Heidt: First of all I thank the Lord for his many blessings to our 42+ years of business. Through the years our business has come thru many sources, one being the leadership of the Leadership Mayor Weiers, the people of Glendale, surrounding cities, including the Glendale Chamber, where we’ve been a member since 1994. We plan to renew our membership again with the Glendale Chamber of Commerce and will continue to support the Glendale Community. My comments and post is simply to uplift the Mayor who’s done a fantastic job. The article is public knowledge and we simply are being informative – where everyone has their right to their own opinion. We’ve proved over many years that Ideal Insurance Agency is a peacemaker and we continue to help our customers with their insurance needs.”

Heidt:

“Again, you certainly can uplift whomever you wish, however when it comes to the nature of these situations related to the Chambers, you are not informed and just because someone does something nice does at times does not mean they don’t do things harmful or bad. You really shouldn’t’ let yourself be a pawn in the mayors nonsense. But then again, you are free to do what you wish, very unfortunate if you ask me!”

Heidt then personally attacks his long standing, 30-year Chamber member by calling him “out of touch, lacking knowledge regarding everything, not informed, and a pawn.” Is this taking the high road as a leader of a major organization by publicly calling a member names? You be the judge.

Note that this has been Mr. Heidt’s war. In some instances, he has acted publicly to make known his personal and social grievances. Not so with the city. Some references I made to certain events have never been made public by the city…till now and only in very general terms. Over the many years of the relationship between the two entities, there have been occasional differences. But never has such a public display of animosity been made.

The Mayor and City Council made the decision to withdraw from the Chamber. It was generally felt that Mr. Heidt’s public comments and actions were not in the best interest of the city. It is ironic. When you look at the Chamber’s federal tax returns, under line 14, Activity Description, the response is “Promote the City of Glendale.”

In today’s economic climate, it would seem that the primary goal of Mr. Heidt would be the promotion of the interests of small, Glendale businesses, some of whom continue to struggle in this volatile economic environment. Rather, Mr. Heidt’s agenda seems to be focused on social issues which is fine in a healthy economy when your membership can afford to take stances that could alienate some of their consumers. It is never permissible as the visible leader of a large organization to air grievances in public especially those of a personal nature. It is simply not professional.

I have transcribed Mr. Heidt’s remarks made at the City Council voting meeting of March 14, 2023. Here they are in their entirety:

Robert Heidt transcript from regular council mtg of March 14, 2023\

35:53: “Good evening. Robert Height, President and CEO of the Glendale Chamber of Commerce. While heated discourse between the Glendale Chamber and the City of Glendale has sometimes occurred, this is the very process that has led to some of the most productive outcomes for both business and community.

“Most recently, it has become abundantly clear that Mayor Weiers has moved well beyond discourse. Instead he has intentionally engaged in tactics and behavior designed to damage me personally and to bring financial harm to the Glendale Chamber of Commerce Mayor Weiers has used his position and his perception of power to both craft and lodge a crusade of destruction. While his attempts to contact and negatively influence chamber members, investors, key partners, community members has (sic) largely failed.

“We will weather this storm. His intentional actions has (sic) impacted the good work of a nearly 100 year old institution. An institution that ultimately drives sales tax revenue for the businesses of our community…your budget.

“You may ask, how we know this. Quite simply, several of our members have reached out to me, our board of directors and other (unintelligible) partners after his attempts at sabotage. Furthermore, past attempts by Mayor Weiers to interfere with my personal employment contract have resulted in failure.

“As President and CEO of the Glendale Chamber of Commerce and as a representative of the business community there are times when opinions may differ. However, the Mayor’s underhanded maneuvers to jeopardize the stability of the organization I represent and my personal welfare are nothing more that the tactics of a bully. I would like to remind you of similar bullying situations where a parking attendant lost his job due to mayoral tactics The same attendant that later sued and prevailed. “After consultation with other professionals including those in the legal field, defamatory behavior such as this may jeopardize you personally, Mr. Mayor, or the city if we must take legal action. It is my desire and that of the Chamber Board of Directors, that bringing this situation to light, that further slanderous behavior will cease and desist. In closing, it is my hope that the safety and security of both me and the organization I represent remain top of mind of all of you here tonight. I remain optimistic. At the end, we are stronger together. And you know the saddest part, Mr. Mayor? I actually once believed in you. I no longer do.”

I should note that the parking attendant which Mr. Heidt referenced has been extremely nasty to me as well. When I attempted to get assistance to find a handicapped parking space, he refused to assist and made disparaging remarks. Others using the parking garage during his time of service have related similar instances to me. This person had no business working in such a publicly oriented position. So, it came as no surprise that the Mayor stood up to this bully. I would also clarify that Mr. Heidt left the impression that the city was sued. That is not true. Once again, he lied by omission. The parking attendant’s employer was sued, not the city.

Mr. Heidt’s remarks were highly personal and inflammatory. No specific facts were offered. Rather there is a lot of mudslinging and innuendo as well as threats of legal action.

Yet the same evening, other speakers came forward in a highly professional manner. Yvonne Knaack, former Glendale Councilmember and Vice Mayor, who has been with the Chamber for many years did direct her remarks to the city’s leaving the Chamber. She took the high road and cited the mutual benefits of both organizations working together and suggested that the city reconsider its position.  David Mitchell, a Glendale resident, and another respected, long-time member of the Chamber commended the city and Mayor Weiers, for past actions and long-standing participation in the Chamber. Both spoke without accusations or the use of inflammatory rhetoric. They are to be commended for their comments.

The worst part was Mr. Heidt’s closing. He claimed optimism and unity and then undermined that sentiment by rejecting the Mayor and any attempt to rebuild the relationship. It appears that Mr. Heidt joins the Mayor only when it aligns with Mr. Heidt’s personal agenda. It is not appropriate for such a publicly visible leader to use the organization to foster his personal, social agenda.

He has so alienated some Glendale business leaders as well as some former employees that they have simply left the organization. He has moved the goals and mission of the organization to one of a social and political agenda no longer in the best interests of his membership or the city he professes to promote. It makes one wonder, is he still the right person for this job?

© 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.

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.

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 I of this blog, we looked at the finances of Alex Meruelo, majority owner of the Coyotes, and the Coyotes organization. Dun & Bradstreet rates all Meruelo- associated enterprises as moderate-to-high credit risks.

Are there risks for Tempe taxpayers based on the terms of the Tempe development agreement with Bluebird Development (Coyotes’ development entity)? Yes, there are. The deal relies upon providing Meruelo $700 million plus in tax breaks, in both sales & bed taxes and property taxes. For your reference, here’s is the link to the 175-page development agreement: Bluebird Tempe DDA 11162

The first part of the deal relies upon Tempe’s creation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) and the reallocation to the CFD of earned sales and bed taxes.  The CFD can issue bonds up to a maximum allowable amount of $247,134,726.00 million, which reimburses Meruelo for the cost of the land, remediation of the land, and the necessary infrastructure (which developers almost always pay for). These bonds are paid off by taking 0.9% of every dollar of city sales tax; 3.75% of every dollar of city hotel sales tax; and a 6% surcharge on every sale within the CFD (such as tickets, clothing, food and drink) and using the taxes to pay off the CFD bonds. It also creates a taxing district that can be charged an additional assessment if there are not enough taxes brought in – a heightened concern in the early phases of the project.

Within the agreement regarding the CFD, it states, “Developer has agreed…which costs for site remediation and development of certain other public benefits will be financed from the proceeds of the bonds issues by a community facilities district and certain other sources of the city…” This acknowledges that the city may use city funds other than those generated by the imposition of the sales and bed taxes explained above. Question: What other city resources could be on the chopping block to repay these bonds, if and when, these sales tax impositions do not raise the requisite bond repayments? Does the city tell you, the voter, what could be used? The first alarm bell should be going off.

Consider this fact when weighing whether the project has the capacity to generate enough sales and bed tax to pay back the CFD bonds. The project’s raw acreage is 46.26 acres. By the time all infrastructure is built, the useable acreage should be about 37 acres. Make no mistake, this development project can be called a mini-Westgate. But it will never be as large or as profitable as Westgate area which today encompasses nearly 3 square miles. Hear that sound? It’s another alarm bell.

Yet within the agreement, the developer states, “…that it believes it has available to it the financial resources…” Note the word “believes.” It does not state definitively that it has the financial resources but rather it believes it does. How is Tempe to be assured that the private development group is well capitalized? The city failed to hire a forensic economist to examine their financial resources but instead enlisted Beacon Sports, a marketing group that brings financial institutions, teams, and cities together but cannot go beyond the self-reported finances provided by the private developer Meruelo. Yet another alarm bell– this one screeching — should be going off about now.

The other major financial gift to Meruelo is the use of a GPLET (Government Property Lease Exercise Tax). This mechanism allows Meruelo to avoid paying property taxes by leasing each building, when completed, to the city. Cities do not pay property taxes. It amounts to tax avoidance for about 30 years of property taxes on the arena, practice facility and the music venue as well as 8 years of property taxes on the 2 hotels, approximately 316,000 square feet of retail, up to 1,995 of luxury apartment units, and office space. That’s approximately $494 million of property tax avoided (and that’s the Meruelo groups estimate). If Mr. Meruelo paid the property taxes, about $99 million ( or 20%) would go to Tempe’s General Fund. The other 80% (or about $395 million) would go to Tempe’s schools and community colleges in Tempe and the County. A great deal for Meruelo but not so great for schools.

There are two other issues not to be ignored. The first is transportation. Although fans complained about the time it took to travel from the East Valley to the West Valley, keep in mind the arena was directly and immediately off the freeway. This proposed site is several miles from the freeway I-10 but close to the 202 freeway and the exit to the airport..  The time East Valley fans complained about will now be replicated with the traffic jam in and around this site. Tempe recognizes there’s a problem and has required the Coyotes to help mitigate expected congestion at the airport entrance and to pay Valley Metro to try to ease the problem. We’ll see how well that works for Priest Drive, Rio Salado and surrounding neighborhoods, already plagued with traffic woes.

The other issue is the Coyotes’ history of charitable giving and civic involvement. In Glendale, it was crickets. There was no involvement. Have you noted the rash of the Coyotes’ very recent involvement in the Tempe community? I suspect it’s all for show. I assume they want you, the voter, to expect this same level of civic involvement once the deal is done. I suspect you shouldn’t hold your breath. Their current civic engagement is for selling purposes. Once Tempe has bought this deal, it will no longer be an imperative for them.

One issue that merits comment is why hold a Special Election? It seems quite simple. Don’t believe the hype that voters should decide this issue. It’s more basic than that. The Tempe City Council is seeking cover. They are your elected representatives. They are charged with representing your best interests and making the difficult decisions. They have more insider knowledge about this deal than you will ever hear about. The reason to put it to a public vote is, if and when, the deal goes south, your Council will not take the blame for it because it asked you, the public to decide and therefore, their hands are clean.

There is an organization that can provide you with further information about the Coyotes (Bluebird)/Tempe Development deal and that is Tempe1st.  Remember by voting “NO” on Propositions 301, 302 and 303 starting on April 19th (Early Ballots available) and through to the May Special Election on May 16th, you’ll will be telling the Tempe City Council that they can do better. I urge you to visit https://tempe1st.com. Get the facts from them. They have the resources to read the 175-page development agreement and to let you know what issues are problematical.

There is an adage, “A leopard cannot change its spots.” I suspect Meruelo can’t change his spots either. His organization’s propensity to stall on payments, to claim to forget or to claim human error, is not suddenly going to go away. Many observers of this new Coyotes saga believe he’s just looking for a new arena for his unethical practices and culture of dishonesty.

Are Tempe voters and its City Council who have not bothered to learn from history, especially that of Glendale, doomed to repeat it?

© 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.

WordPress › Error

There has been a critical error on this website.

Learn more about troubleshooting WordPress.