Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Nov 23

9

Heroes Park sports fields coming

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 9, 2023
Posted in Cactus District • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Heroes Lake • Heroes Park • Ocotillo District • West Branch Library • 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.

I am so pleased and excited to give you an update on the Heroes Park sports fields. I expect construction to begin early next year (2024) and to be completed by December 2024. However, an additional hurdle will be to gain council approval for additional funding for the project. Due to continued inflation price increases for all components, it will require council approval for the additional cost increase. Council approval will be sought later this month (November).

I have included the final conceptual, but it may be hard to read so I will offer some of the more prominent elements for you. The sports fields complex’s location is to the northeast of the existent library and directly north of the existing ramadas. The main components are 3 soccer fields. There are 8 pickle ball courts with shade sails and 3 adjoining ramadas. A centralized, large ramada and restroom is just south of the soccer fields.

In between the 2 large open lawns is a children’s play area. South of the pickle ball courts is a shaded picnic area. South of the picnic area is a food truck court designed specifically to encourage food trucks to come to the park. Southeast of the picnic area and food court area is a 1.6-acre dog park.

North of the sports fields is a pollinator garden and a fitness loop with fitness nodes. There is a generous amount of landscape buffering between the sports fields and the homes to the north and east of the park. A generous and shaded pathway is provided between the library and the sports fields area as well as a raised intersection and crosswalk from the existing ramadas to the sports fields. Included are 390 parking spaces located to the east and west of the sports fields.

You know, this park was approved by the city in 1998, 25 years ago. During my years in office, I have consistently advocated for its completion. I have been successful in getting a library that can expand, a fishing lake and now the sports fields complex.

This area of Glendale warrants the park’s completion, including finally, the design and construction of the long-awaited Recreation/Aquatic Center. With all the new residential construction of single-family homes as well as 15 apartment complexes, the population of the Yucca district has exploded from 41,000 to an estimated 55,000 people. The tremendous population growth that has occurred is now seeking recreational opportunities.

It isn’t just the people of the Yucca district that will benefit from a Recreation/Aquatic Center at Heroes Park, but the residents of the Ocotillo and Cactus districts will benefit as well. Did you know that nearly 70% percent of all the city’s recreational programming occurs at Foothills Recreation/Aquatic Center? For all who live in south Glendale it’s a 10-mile trip, one way, to Foothills. That’s a long haul for many families. A Recreation/Aquatic Center at Heroes Park will redress this imbalance and provide programming for many families and children in south Glendale. It’s time…

I want to thank the councilmembers who have remained steadfast in the city’s pledge to finish this park. It simply would not have occurred without their support.

It would be wonderful if you would take the time to thank them as well and ask for their support in completing Heroes Park by approving the funding for the design and construction of the last element – the Recreation/Aquatic Center by emailing them at:

© 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

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.

Jul 23

28

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

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 28, 2023
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Mattel Amusement Park • VAI Resort • Westgate  | 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.

This past week I and the other Glendale city councilmembers have received identical, word for word emails from all who signed a petition circulated by the Worker Power Political Action Committee (PAC). I have not seen the petition but somewhere within it there had to be the petition signer’s permission to allow Worker Power to send emails on the signer’s behalf as well as revealing to the recipient (the city council) the email address of the signer. I bet that everyone who signed the petition didn’t know that. Below is Worker Power’s application for a Referendum petition:

Here is just one of the emails I received. They are all the same with the exact same verbiage. All of the emails come from everyactioncustom.com with the personal information of the petition signer provided at the bottom of the email. What is everyactioncustom.com?

This domain is used to send emails on behalf of the supporters (petition signers) of organizations that use the EveryAction advocacy tools. Each one of those emails represents a form submission by a real person (the petition signer) wanting to contact (did they want to contact or did they even know that their signature granted permission to contact using their personal information?) a custom advocacy target (in this case, the members of the Glendale city council) configured in the EveryAction system. In other words, Worker Power hired Bonterra, the company that runs EveryAction, to set up a system where every signer will automatically have an email sent on his or her behalf. Here is a sample of the form email we are receiving. I have personally redacted the name, address and email address of this sender:

“Dear Vice Mayor Joyce Clark,

I am aware that City Council has approved a 25-year property tax break to VAI Resorts known as a GPLET and I would like to express my concern with that decision. This is tax money that could be going to improve our infrastructure, schools, our parks, public safety, and more. There have been major transparency issues with this project. Despite announced changes to the size and scope of the resort, change in ownership, and changes to the GPLET, it took over a year to update the Development Agreement. For such a massive project that has been delayed for so long, there was very little opportunity for the public to comment given that it was added to the agenda the day before it was set to be heard. We also heard the Mayor express a need to consider the effect of new lighting, more noise, and additional traffic caused by changes to the project from the original approval, but we have yet to see these findings . Finally, the next vote involves a sale of public land to the developer to expand the project. At the last neighborhood meeting, multiple nearby residents expressed concerns about amending the zoning to turn this public land into a parking lot and a six-story office building that could overlook private backyards.

Sincerely,
Daniel ———–
—— W Blackhawk Dr  Glendale, AZ 85308-9638
————–@gmail.com”

What is Worker Power? It’s a super political action committee (Super PAC):

“The Worker Power PAC is a Democratic Party-aligned Super PAC founded in 2020 as the Working Arizona PAC that expanded to conduct activity in other competitive states in 2022 after changing its name. The PAC is closely aligned with organized labor and has received money from labor unions and other left-of-center advocacy groups including Unite HERE Local 11, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Federation of Teachers, and the Arizona AFL-CIO.

The PAC has conducted campaign activities in support of Democratic candidates in Arizona and Georgia as well on behalf of the presidential campaign of Joe Biden during the 2020 election. The group also created a separate PAC to funnel funds to support congressional and U.S. Senate Candidates in Georgia in 2020 and 2022 called the Worker Power PAC for Georgia. 

The Worker Power Pac was founded in 2020 as the Working Arizona PAC. The PAC is organized as an unaffiliated ‘super PAC’ that is allowed to spend unlimited amounts of funds in support of candidates via independent expenditures. The PAC describes itself as ‘dedicated to delivering wins for progressive political candidates.’  In 2020, the PAC focused its spending on Arizona-specific state and federal elections. In 2022, the PAC ‘conducted a massive independent expenditure field canvass that provided the margin of victory for numerous progressive candidates and delivered a decisive blow to a slate of extreme right-wing candidates at every ballot level.’

Candidates that the organization deployed paid canvassers to support in 2022 included those of Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs (D), Senator Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D), and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D).” (Google search)

What should be interesting to note is that the city council approved the original agreement with ECL (ownership has changed to VAI)  nearly two years ago and that agreement included the original GPLET (Government Property Least Excise Tax). Where was Worker Power then? They didn’t care almost two years ago and now they do. They are opportunists.

What are they really up to? Part II of this blog to be published tomorrow, Saturday, should explain a great deal.

© 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

28

 Glendale Chamber President/CEO Heidt fires first shot in public war

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 28, 2023
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Downtown Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials  | 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.

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.

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.

Dec 22

14

Did you miss the December Yucca District Meeting? Here’s a recap

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 14, 2022
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Desert Diamond Arena • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Heroes Park • Mattel Amusement Park • VAI Resort • West Branch Library • Westgate • Yucca district • Zanjero  | 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.

I’ve wanted to write this blog since I hosted my Yucca district meeting on December 1st. Do you ever have times when other demands take priority? Well, that’s been the case for the past two weeks.

First, I must apologize to the residents of my district. Every year I send out Spring/Summer and Fall/Winter editions of my newsletter to every homeowner in the district. I planned for its mailing on November 15th because it announced the date, location and agenda for my Dec. 1st district meeting. Everything conspired against my plan. The printing company’s equipment went down and the mailing company had a lot employees out with Covid. Instead of mailing out my newsletter by November 15th, it was mailed on December 1st, the day of my district meeting. To say that I was upset would be an understatement. Suffice to say, I will be using a new printer and mailing company.

I still had excellent attendance of about 50 people as I had announced the meeting on social media. Nevertheless, I have heard from many that they wished they had known and were disappointed in not being able to attend.

I want to publicly acknowledge and thank Dale Adams, Manger of the Desert Diamond Arena (formerly Gila River Arena) and Nicole Jensen, Special Events Director for their generosity in providing the Dos Equis Lounge and the wonderful food. Even though it was outdoors on a frosty December evening, the lounge was warm and inviting with heaters throughout the area. The food was very, very good. Everyone was so pleased with the venue that I plan to use it again for my Spring District Meeting.

There is something you can do to make sure you don’t miss out on district or city-wide events. Subscribe to my weekly E Newsletter that comes out every Thursday. For three weeks prior to the district meeting, information about the meeting was offered in the E Newsletter. It’s ridiculously easy to subscribe. Take your phone and take a photo of the QR code below. It will take you directly to the subscribe page for my weekly digital newsletter. Fill out the form and submit. That’s it. It will take you less than 3 minutes to become a subscriber.

QR code for digital E Newsletter

Here’s a recap of what was discussed at the district meeting. City Manager Kevin Phelps presented information on the growth in the Westgate Zanjero area and the New Frontier area.

 1.The Westgate/Zanjero area is very complex so it is divided into 4 quadrants. The first  quadrant is north of Glendale Avenue from 91st Avenue to the Loop 101. All of the projects have either been recently completed or have been approved and will be complete by the end of 2023. It has 6 apartment complexes: Zanjero II, Zanjero III, Bungalows at Westgate, Mera at Westgate, Zanjero Assisted Living and Capistrano. There are 2 commerical areas: En Fuego which already has Raising Cane’s, Starbucks and Red Robin with more to come; and Northern Crossing with unidentified tenants to date. This area also has 2 new hotels, Cambria and Marriot.

2. The second quadrant is south of Glendale Avenue between 91st Avenue and the Loop 101. There are 6 apartment complexes: Glen 91, the District at Westgate, Broadstone at Westgate, Copper Falls, Acero, Urban 95 and Cardinals 95. There are 12 commercial projects: Bruster’s, Chicken N Pickle, Popstroke Golf, Eegees Salad and Go, Texas Roadhouse, MGM Sports Book at Sportsmans Park, Heritage at Sportsmans Park, Sunrise PreSchool, 91st Center at Camelback, Popeye’s, VAI Resort and Mattel Adventure Park.

3. The third quadrant is north of Glendale Avenue and west of the Loop 101. There are 4 apartment complexes: Springs at Westgate, Ariva Villa and Flats, Prose and Ridgehouse. There are 8 commercial projects: Northern Parkway Self Storage, Maplewood Cabinets, Rainbow Ryders, Westgate Medical Office Building, Desert River Mixed Use Planned Area Development, 99th Avenue Mixed Use Planned Area Development, Quik Trip and Cobblestone Carwash.

4. The fourth quadrant is south of Glendale Avenue and west of the Loop 101. There are 6 commercial areas: Vision 2 – a mixed use Planned Area Development that includes Ferge Ball Park Apartments, Main Street – a mixed use Planned Area Development that includes an unnamed apartment complex, Andrade Indoor Karting, Holiday Inn, Camelback Self Storage and Cornerstone at Camelback – a mixed use Planned Area Development.

Lastly, Mr. Phelps spoke of the New Frontier area. It includes projects such as Williams-Sonoma, Nestle, Red Bull, White Claw, Walmart and Amazon. These are just a few out of the two dozen projects in the area. To date there is 11+ million square feet either built, under construction, approved and in design review creating over 6,600 new jobs. Another 11+ million square feet is specutively under construction with no identified tenants to date promising thousands more new jobs. With the prospect of approximately ten to twelve thousand new jobs, the Loop 303 corridor has become an employment powerhouse in the Valley.

Not included in the presentation are at least 6 residential subdivisions under construction or in design review in the district. The largest of these subdivisions is called “Legacy” (450 homes) and will redevelop the Rovey cattle farm on Northern Avenue and 75th Avenue. Soon, the smells wafting from the cattle will be a distant memory.

After Mr. Phelps’ presentation, I presented several other topics. The first was the Beautify Yucca District Grant Program. Applications for 2023 will be available in January of 2023 and information will be available in my weekly digital E Newsletter. The winners of the 2022 Beautify Yucca District Grant Program are: Mike Zaremba’s project to do a make over of a dead end street in his subdivision; Edgar Hernandez’ 2 new benches in the Grand Canal Linear Park and Tom Traw’s monument sign construction for his subdivision. Below are photos of the projects. For more information, please contact Sbeck@glendaleaz.com .

Edgar Hernandez and his wife with one of the two new benches

Mike Zaremba’s new dead end

Tom Traw’s subdivision entry monument signage

 

 

 

 

 

 

I announced that construction of the sports fields will begin in 2023. This past Tuesday, city council approved an additional allocation of $4 million toward the project bringing the total cost of Phase I of the sports fields at over $11 million. Just some of the elements include: 8 lighted pickleball courts, 3 lighted soccer fields, a multi-use turf area, and walking paths.

I have revisited with staff the concept of expansion of a 75 person meeting space expansion at the library at a cost of  $1.7 million. I have decided that there is a better way to approach the lack of meeting space. I am asking that a portion of the $1.7 million be used to fund the design of the Recreation and Aquatics Center. Once the design is complete it will be easier to get the funding to begin construction. I will be asking that the balance remaining of the $1.7 million be used for the sports fields to add additional elements that would not be included in Phase I of its construction.

Constituents continually ask the status of 83rd Avenue between Glendale Avenue and Northern Avenue that I refer to as “Alligator Alley.” Here is the status. There are 16 property owners with right of way along both sides of 83rd Avenue. To date, 11 of them have agreed to cede right of way. There are 5 hold outs with which the city continues to negotiate. If the city is not successful then those rights of way will go through condemnation. Once all of the rights of way have been acquired, the city can do the final design of the street. Once that is done, funding will have to be allocated. This is a project with over a $2 million price tag and it may require being part of the bonding authority that the city will be asking residents to approve.

I have highlighted the significant portions of our presentations. Of course, there was more, but I don’t think you want to read a book!

The next time I promise my mailed district newsletter will be received by you with an announcement for my next district meeting and will be received in time so that you can plan to attend. It was a good meeting packed with information.

© 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 »