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.

City Council candidates never seem very interesting to the public as a Mayoral candidate or a Congressional candidate. I don’t know why because your city councilmember is the closest form of leadership to you, the public. These are the people who determine what your water bill is. When you have a problem with the city, these are the people you call. They determine city policies on virtually every aspect of your daily life and represent your city on a myriad of regional, state, and national committees.

Your choice of a city councilmember should be guided by someone who shares your values and who is responsive to your comments, questions, and concerns. If they can’t be bothered doing that as a candidate, I can assure you that they will not be responsive when elected.

Let’s look at the very first Candidate Financial Reports for those running and who is no longer running for council seats in Glendale. In general, none of the candidates have raised a lot of funding yet. Their campaigns start off slow as they hustle for signatures from registered voters for their nominating petitions. Once those petitions are turned in this March, they will be in full candidate mode as they start to raise money in earnest, order their campaign material and go to any groups’ meeting that they are invited to.

Patty Ortega expressed an interest in running for the Yucca Council seat last spring. Since then, she has changed her mind and is no longer interested.

The only uncontested city council race is that of incumbent Councilmember Ray Malnar, representing the Sahuaro District. It’s easy to see why. He’s doing a good job. He is sensitive to and responsive to his district residents. He is also even-handed in his policy discussions and decisions. Here’s what his financial report states. He started with $1,830.37 from his last campaign for Sahuaro district and loaned his committee $250.00. He has received $853.70 in campaign contributions. His expenses to date have been $954.21 leaving him with a balance of $1,729.86. His campaign contributors to date are:

  • Connie Kaiser
  • David Mitchell
  • Marion Malnar
  • Ron Kolb

He has received no Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions.

His major expenses are:

  • GoDaddy, $46.34 for a domain site
  • Wix, $267.87 for a web site

There are no rumors or speculation to report.

Incumbent Councilmember Ian Hugh also has a good record with his constituency. His policy decisions have been good for the city. He is one of the best and most responsive councilmembers. He is caring and will help his constituents out personally whenever possible. Here is his financial report. He starts with $23,753.74 from his last campaign for the Cactus District. He has raised $6,800.00 and has spent $843.14 to date leaving him with a balance of $29,710.60. He has received one maximum contribution of $6,550:

  • Louis Sands, owner of Sands Chevrolet

His other contribution:

  • Ron Kolb, Glendale business owner

He has received no PAC contributions. His expenses to date have been:

  • Costco, $650.57 for election announcement refreshments
  • Staples, $68.97 for petition copies and walking maps
  • Mail and More, $51.60 for petition copies and walking maps

There are no rumors or speculation to date.

A recent contender has surfaced to oppose Councilmember Hugh, Guadalupe “Lupe” Gonzalez, Jr. He pulled a packet and filed a Statement of Organization last week. Consequently, there is no Candidate Financial report available. According to his filing he is the Organizing Manager for a non-profit organization, ONE Campaign, devoted to fighting poverty and disease throughout the world. He is also running for the Alhambra Elementary School Board.

Diana Guzman is a candidate for the Yucca Council seat. She has raised $5,304.84 with $1.602.71 coming from a state legislative senate campaign committee. She has loaned her committee $3,102.13. She spent $1,602.64 leaving her with a balance of $3,702.20.

She has no contributors who have given the maximum amount of $6,550.00. She has received no PAC contributions. Here are her contributors:

  • Ernie Guzman, relative
  • Jane Breakiron, Behavioral Health

Her expenses to date include:

  • Vista Print, $98.27 for business cards
  • Office Max, $64.73 for petition copies
  • Hondo’s Screen Printing, $390.20 for ?
  • Next Day Flyers, $171.11 for pull up sign
  • Phoenix Print Shop, $651.60 for flyers
  • Hondo’s Screen Printing, $168.00 for shirts
  • Plotters Doctors, $52.13 for laminate map

Rumor and/or speculation to date is that I am supporting Diana. This is true. I encouraged her to run and am endorsing her wholeheartedly. She is smart, compassionate and shares our values and goals for the Yucca District and the City of Glendale.

Guadalupe “Lupe” Encinas is also running for the Yucca District Council seat. She has raised $2,618.07and has loaned her committee $1,270.70. She spent $967.69 leaving her with a balance of $1,650.36.

She has no contributors who have given the maximum amount of $6,550.00. She has received no PAC contributions. Here are her contributors:

  • Lauren Tolmachoff, occupation not listed, incumbent Glendale Councilmember, Cholla District
  • Luiz Guzman, occupation not listed
  • Craig Jennings, occupation not listed
  • Grant and Dana Hickman, occupation not listed
  • Glenn and Audry Hickman, occupation not listed
  • Yvonne Knaack, occupation not listed, former Glendale Councilmember
  • Bart Turner, occupation not listed, incumbent Glendale Councilmember, Barrell District
  • Natalie Stahl, occupation not listed, Chair of Encinas Campaign Committee
  • David Serey, occupation not listed, husband of Treasurer of Encinas Campaign Committee

Her expenses to date have been:

  • GoDaddy, $78.49 for email
  • La Art Printing, $889.90 for shirts, flyers and yard signs

Rumor and/or speculation include Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff encouraged her to run and is or will be, endorsing her. Watch Encinas’ level of missing information in her reports. She fails to enter information that is required. Some of the contributors’ addresses and ALL job titles and employers are missing. These are glaring omissions of fact that are reporting requirements. If she can’t follow the state law for reporting requirements what else will she fail to report?

As you can see, these initial reports don’t contain a great deal of information and the next set of reports due March 2, 2024 won’t have much new information. Once these people have turned in their nominating petitions later in March, more information will be available.

In my next blog I will be discussing the current atmosphere of politics in Glendale. Watch for it. There will be some interesting dynamics to share.

© 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.

You know it’s really political season when candidates file their first Candidate Committee Financial Report. These reports hit the Glendale City Clerk’s office on Tuesday, January 16, 2024. All of my information can be obtained on this city website:   https://docs.glendaleaz.com/WebLink/CustomSearch.aspx?SearchName=Elections&cr=1 .    Click on the type of report you wish to view and then click on the name of the candidate committee. Typically, there isn’t too much to see in these first reports. That’s because until these self-proposed candidates file their nominating petitions with registered voters’ signatures in early March they are not legally candidates until those nominating petitions are received by the Glendale City Clerk. The first step for any would-be candidate is to file a Statement of Organization which formally creates a Candidate Committee that can collect contributions and pay expenses. Here is a list of candidates to date and the positions they seek:

  • The current Mayor, Jerry Weiers, filed his Mayoral Candidate Committee on May 2, 2022. The filing lists Weiers as Chairperson of the committee and Michael W. Law as the Treasurer.
  • Paul Boyer filed his Mayoral Candidate Committee on February 2, 2023. His filing lists himself as Chairperson and Treasurer.
  • Current Councilmember Jamie Aldama filed his Mayoral Candidate Committee on May 16, 2023. His filing lists himself as Chairperson and Treasurer.
  • Patty Ortega filed her Yucca district Candidate Committee on February 27, 2023, and lists herself as Chairperson and Treasurer. She has since dropped out from the race and is no longer a candidate.
  • Lupe Encinas filed her Yucca district Candidate Committee on March 1, 2023, and lists her Chair as Natalie Stahl and her Treasurer as Jody Serey.
  • Diana Guzman filed her Yucca district Candidate Committee on September 5, 2023, and lists herself as Chair and Treasurer.
  • Current Councilmember Ray Malnar filed his Sahuaro district Candidate Committee on September 25, 2023. He lists himself as Chair and Treasurer. As of this date he is running unopposed.
  • Current Councilmember Ian Hugh filed his Cactus district Candidate Committee on January 16, 2024.  He lists himself as Chair and his wife, Sharon, as Treasurer. As of Tuesday, January 16, 2024, Jose Conchas has picked up a packet of information for running but has not filed a Statement of Organization.

This blog will focus on the Mayoral Candidates, how much money they have raised to date, who their large contributors are and what expenses they have incurred. The next blog will focus on the City Council candidates.

Mayor Jerry Weiers, the incumbent, is the gorilla in the room. He has raised $234,885.79 with $34,418.75 coming from his last election cycle. To date he has spent $24,907.33 leaving him with a hefty war chest of $209,978.45. Those contributors who gave the maximum amount of $6,550 are:

  • Louis Sands IV, CEO of Sands Chevrolet
  • Beverly Petty, CFO of Avanti Glass
  • Jerry Petty, CEO of Avanti Glass
  • Mark Meyer, Partner of AZ Organics
  • James Lamon, CEO, self-employed
  • Francis Tesmer, CEO of Rolf’s Global
  • Dustin Petty, COO of Avanti Window Products
  • John Crow, CEO of Century 21 Northwest
  • Maurice Tanner, CEO of M.R. Tanner
  • Julian Petty, Manager of Avanti Window Products
  • Jogn Zyadet, Construction, no employer listed
  • Rania Zyadet, homemaker
  • Ed Bailey, Maven Strategic Partners
  • Jerry Reinsdorf, CEO of Chicago White Sox

These Political Action Committees (PACs) have contributed:

  • Republic Services, Inc. PAC
  • Cemex Inc. Employees PAC
  • Valley Partnership Action Committee
  • Southwest Gas AZ PAC
  • Pinnacle West PAC
  • Salt River Project PAC
  • Surprise Firefighters PAC

His largest expenses to date have been:

  • Bilstein Consulting, $14,465.00 for petition signature gathering
  • NextGen, LLC, $6,000.00 for opposition research
  • Grassroots Partners, $1,742.14 for website and business cards

The only rumor or speculation that has come to my attention is that Mayor Weiers may receive endorsements from Public Safety organizations. The other is that he is not done raising money for his campaign and we can expect to see his war chest grow.

Next up is Paul Boyer, Mayoral candidate. He has raised $26,432.36 with $2,357.12 coming from his last election cycle for state senator. To date he has spent $9,528.48 leaving him with a balance of $16,761.41. No contributor gave the maximum amount although some have come close. Here are some of his largest contributors:

  • Elaine Scruggs, Retired, former Mayor of Glendale
  • Yvonne and David Knaack, retired, former Glendale City Councilmember
  • Charles and Lorraine Zomak, downtown Glendale business owners
  • Mark Burdick, Fire Chief, Arizona Fire & Medical Authority, former mayoral candidate
  • Andrew Kunasek, Principal, Arizona Strategies
  • Robert and Janeen Knockenhauer, requested information not provided
  • Jane Short, requested information not provided
  • Gary Sherwood, Consultant for ?
  • Tom Cole, Former Fire Union, current Glendale Planning Commission member
  • Al and Nancy Lennox, retired
  • Gerald and Susan Bernstein, retired
  • Bruce Heatwole, retired
  • Tom Shannon, Fire Chief, City of Scottsdale
  • Mario Diaz, Govt. Relations, Mario E. Diaz & Associates
  • Mike Gardner, Consultant, Policy 48
  • Patrick Cantelme, Retired, former Fire Union President
  • Robert Heidt, former President & CEO, Glendale Chamber
  • Coit Burner, Owner, Bears & More, downtown Glendale
  • Ed Bailey, Managing Partner, VCP Funding

No contributions have been received from Political Action Committees.

His largest expenditures to date have been:

  • BW Creative Agency, $4,000.00 for website
  • Campaign Sidekick, $2,475.00 for voter and walk lists
  • 923 Consulting, $1,500.00 for consulting

Rumors and/or speculation that have come to my attention are that those who have worked with him professionally don’t like him very much. As you will see, he and Aldama seemed to have split the downtown Glendale support between them. Someone who attended an event in the Cholla district relayed that Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff introduced Paul Boyer “as the next Mayor of Glendale.” As of this date she has not endorsed Mayor Weiers. FYI: Boyer couldn’t even get the date right for submission of his financial report, using “2/16/2024” instead of 1/16/2024.

Finally, current Councilmember Jamie Aldama, Mayoral Candidate. He has raised $83,668.12 with $16,197.12 coming from his last election cycle. To date he has spent $18,975.43 leaving him with a balance of $64,692.69.

There is one contribution of the maximum ($6,550) by Brian Gallimore, Construction, WSP. Some of his more notable contributors are:

  • Robert Heidt, former President & CEO, Glendale Chamber
  • Richard Vangelisti, Real Estate Investment, downtown Glendale
  • Carlos Arellano, Self-Employed ?
  • Maria Brunner, former Chair of Glendale Chamber
  • Guillermo Gonzalez, Operator, Gonzalez Asphalt
  • Ron Short, Retired, Glendale Historical Society
  • Alice Roach, Retired
  • Haithern Haddad, Owner, Best Quality Construction
  • Bill Scheel, Self-Employed ?
  • Rudy and Soledad Molina, Self-Employed?

He received one Political Action Committee contribution from the UFCW PAC.

His greatest expenses to date have been:

  • $8,000.00 for consulting
  • $7,036.00 for consulting

Rumors and/or speculation that have come to my attention are just who will claim the support of those downtown shop owners that have a history of being disgruntled with anything the city does? Everyone is wondering just when Aldama will resign as Councilmember to officially run for Mayor. Word is he seems to be relying on two communities of interest to finance his campaign—the Hispanic community and the construction community. Beyond those two groups his support base is pretty thin.

Next up—a look at council candidates campaign committee filings.

© 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.

The good news for Glendale just keeps coming and I wanted to share the news with you. On Friday, March 18th, the Mayor, I and city councilmembers welcomed Senator Mark Kelly to our Oasis Water Treatment Plant to recognize and thank him for his successes in acquiring federal funding for Glendale-specific projects. He lobbied and secured $2 million in federal funding for the city’s water interconnect project which will provide water from Peoria and Phoenix should there be an emergency and we have to shut down the Pyramid Peak Water Treatment Plant.

Senator Kelly was also successful in securing $710,000 in federal funding to replace Glendale’s 20+ years old, public safety mobile command center. Thank you, Senator Kelly. Each of these is a critical project for Glendale and we are pleased that each of these projects can now be realized.

Two more blockbuster developments are coming to Glendale’s “New Frontier” in the area of the Loop 303. On March 9th, Nestle announced that it would invest $675 million to build a manufacturing facility expected to open in 2024. It will create over 350 jobs, primarily for Glendale residents, with salaries that begin at $60,000 using professional staff, production and manufacturing leaders, technical staff, engineers and more.

Today, March 23rd, Williams-Sonoma, the world’s largest digital-first, design-led and sustainable home furnishings retailer announced it has leased 1.25 million SF facility to be developed as manufacturing at The Cubes in Glendale. This facility is also in the “New Frontier.” It is expected to open in the fall of 2022 and will create over 2,400 jobs by 2027 at an average salary of $50,000.

All of this once again, signals Glendale’s tremendous growth and showcases our ideal location for national and international businesses. Think about some of the facilities that are already in Glendale with Red Bull, White Claw and Rausch in the “New Frontier.” Add the soon-to-be-open Crystal Lagoon Island Resort, Pop Stroke and Chicken ‘n’ Pickle joining the Gila River Arena, State Farm Stadium and Camelback Ranch in the Westgate/Zanjero area. Next year Glendale will host the Super Bowl followed by the NCAA Final Four. Then add national companies, such as Humana and Bechtel to our lineup. The recent locates of several luxury car dealerships, such as BMW and the Tesla Service Center are part of Glendale’s line up. Last, but certainly not the least, Glendale is the proud home of Luke Air Force base, a training center for the F-35 fighter jet.

Nearly 4,000 residential units, both single family and multifamily, will be completed this year or next adding over 13,000 new residents in the Yucca district alone. All of Glendale’s districts – Cholla, Sahuaro, Barrell, Cactus and Ocotillo – are welcoming new developments as well.

If you are not impressed, you should be. Glendale has come of age with the impressive Bell Road Corridor of retail as well as the equally impressive Westgate/Zanjero entertainment and retail district and the explosion of manufacturing and distribution development in the “New Frontier” at the Loop 303. Cities, to remain healthy, must grow or they die. Glendale has no intention of dying.

© 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.

 

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.

After the Federal Census was performed in the Spring of 2020 a mandate to redraw political district lines applies. In Arizona that is for congressional districts, state legislative districts and local districts.

Glendale began this process this summer after the hiring of a consultant to assist with the technical aspects of the process. Glendale’s new map with council districts must be submitted to the state no later than December 15, 2021.

The city council has had a series of workshops on the issue and there has been a period of public comment. Below is the public comment that has been received to date and presented to city council at its most recent workshop on November 9, 2020.

Please note that one citizen comment was made requesting that the Copperwood community not be divided. This citizen request was accommodated by the consultant and the city council. Three citizens asked that the Independence Heights community remain within the Yucca district. Neither the consultant nor the city council accommodated these citizens’ request as can be seen by the preferred city council map, Draft A, presented by the consultants. See Map A here:

The traditional redistricting guidelines for consideration in drawing districts includes three items of particular importance. One is to preserve communities of interest another is to accommodate planned future growth and the third is to have a “nearly equal number of inhabitants” (Arizona Statute 9—473.B). Here are the guidelines, federal, state and traditional:

In my opinion, some of these guidelines have been not been satisfied. Lets take a look at future growth within the districts. Please refer to this map:

You will see numbers for each district. Upon receiving clarification from the consultant, these numbers refer to the number of residential units already approved or in the pipeline and anticipated to be approved. The nationally recognized multiplier of occupants per residential unit is 2.3.

  • Cholla 533 units       X 2.3       increased population expected of 1,225.9
  • Sahuaro 944 units    X 2.3       increased population expected of 2,171.2
  • Barrel 859 units       X 2.3       increased population expected of 1,975.7
  • Cactus 342 units      X 2.3       increased population expected of 786.6
  • Ocotillo 410 units     X 2.3       increased population expected of 943
  • Yucca 7848 units      X 2.3       increased population expected of 18,050.4

Also consider this:

                                 Current population Map A          Future planned population by district

  • Cholla      39,793             +1,225.9                                     40,018.9
  • Sahuaro   42,051             +2,171.2                                     44,222.2
  • Barrel      41,210             +1,975.7                                     43,185.7
  • Cactus     43,132               +786.6                                      43,918.6
  • Ocotillo    42,409               + 943                                        43,352.0
  • Yucca       39,820           +18.050.4                                     57,870.04

The startling fact that should be immediately apparent is that the Yucca district is expected to see an increase in population of nearly 20,000 new residents in the next few years. It will have a population of 13,000 more residents than Sahuaro district projected to have a population of 44,222.2.

Legal guidelines do permit accommodation for future growth. However, there is one caveat to that guideline. The Supreme Court has granted safe harbor for population plan deviations up to 10%. Map A offers a deviation of total population of 8.06%. However, that deviation is occurring in Sahuaro, Cactus and Ocotillo districts. I’m not convinced that adding another percentage point in total population deviation would make any substantial difference.

However, while accommodating the Copperwood community, Map A offers no accommodation for the Independence Heights neighborhood’s request to remain in the Yucca district. This is a distinct community of interest between Ocotillo Road and Maryland Avenue, 71st Avenue to 75th Avenue. I am convinced that the consultants could have accommodated their request with minimal disruption to other council district boundaries.

I found it astonishing that Councilmember Aldama, representing the Ocotillo district, into which Independence Heights would go, paraphrasing made the following comment, If I am losing the Sands neighborhood, it should be compensated for by including Independence Heights in the Ocotillo district.  His comment virtually makes Independence Heights a pawn or consolation prize for losing the Sands neighborhood. I didn’t know that’s the way districts were to be drawn.

I am surprised that the only Councilmember that recognized the issues and supported keeping the Independence Heights neighborhood in the Yucca district was Councilmember Turner and for that, I thank him. To support their interests and their boundaries the rest of the council was willing to sacrifice the interests of the Yucca district.

Here’s two maps that I created. Obviously, they are not perfect. They were not vetted by the consultants and even though the population deviations are lower than the consultant’s Map A, they recognize that at some point council district boundaries are going to have to change dramatically to accommodate the growth occurring in the Yucca district. That is what occurs in my proposed draft maps. The Ocotillo boundary has to shift west at some point and that will create a domino effect in all of the other districts with their common boundaries moving further south. In fact, it should happen this time but it won’t.

 

A powerhouse in Glendale has not only been created but perpetuated for the next ten years until the 2030 census. The Yucca district is the largest geographically. The Yucca district will be the most populated of all 6 districts. The Yucca district is the epicenter of not only residential development but economic development as well.

If anything makes the case for the completion of Heroes Park, after 23 years of waiting for sports fields, a recreation and aquatics center, expansion of the smallest library in the city system and a dog park, this is it.

© Joyce Clark, 2021       

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.

Every ten years, Glendale is required to redraw its City Council districts based on data from the U.S. Census. The process is called redistricting and the goal is to make sure each Council district has approximately equal population.

Let’s begin with the Census data for 2020 provided to the city.  On July of 2019 the Census Bureau’s estimated population for Glendale was 252,387. It’s final, official count of Glendale is 248,325.

Everyone in the State believes the Bureau’s count is wrong and the population was undercounted. Experts said they expected to see even higher rates of growth. William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., who specializes in census data and urban populations, said he expected to see a higher growth rate in Arizona. Cities with council districts redraw those boundaries every 10 years after each U.S. census.

Four cities looking to redistrict by the next election in November include: 

  • Mesa
  • Glendale
  • Peoria
  • Buckeye

Other Valley cities, such as Chandler, Scottsdale and Goodyear, don’t use a district system,      instead electing council members on a citywide basis.

Look at this chart for Glendale.

City-data.com got its numbers from the Maricopa County estimates. I have no idea how the County arrived at these figures.

Please note, according to Census data, that every council district but the Yucca district added from 2,000+ in population to 6,000+ in population. Yet the Yucca district supposedly lost 315. Can anyone in their right mind believe this? The Yucca district has exploded over the last 10 years with new residential subdivisions (Copper Cove, Bethany Ranch and Positano to name just a few) as well as new apartment complexes. Yet, in the past ten years the Yucca district lost 315 people? Ridiculous. It’s nuts. The data makes no sense. The city should be requesting a recount of the Yucca district data. Someone, somewhere screwed up. If you put garbage in, garbage comes out. I suspect that the Yucca district, in fact, gained about 10,000 in population over the last decade.

Not only that, but the Census Bureau has also been late in releasing census block data (will do so this month, September) on population counts, the very data needed to redraw districts.  As a result, Glendale has until December 15, 2021, about 3 months, to submit their new council districts to the State.

Here are the guidelines, city council adopted, that shall be used to redraw the districts:

  • Each district shall respect communities of interest as much as possible;
  • District borders shall follow visible natural and man-made geographical and topographical features as much as possible;
  • District borders shall be drawn to avoid locating more than one current Councilmember in any one district as much as possible;
  • Each new district shall preserve the corresponding existing district’s population and territory as much as possible;
  • Districts known to be areas of higher-than-average population growth in the two to five years following redistricting, based on development projects that have received final plat approval from the City, may be under populated within the population deviation amounts allowed by law;
  • To the extent possible, consistent with constitutional law and the requirements of federal and state statutes, each district shall contain a substantially equal number of electors.

 

 

 

The city has created a dedicated web site allowing all Glendale residents not only information about the redistricting process but on or about September 16th the public can see the population data by census block and draw their own redistricting maps. Here is the link to the web site:

https://glendaleaz.com/your_government/connect/departments/city_clerk/redistricting/current_district_map

You can learn more and get involved by attending one of three public Glendale workshops. By the time of these city hosted workshops occur the appropriate data should be available on the city website to any citizen who wants it. Here are the workshop dates:

 Monday, September 20  2:00 p.m. Glendale City Council Chambers
5850 W. Glendale Avenue
 Wednesday, September 22  10:00 a.m. Glendale Main Library Auditorium
5959 W. Brown Street
 Monday, September 27  6:30 p.m. Foothills Recreation & Aquatics Center
Coyote Room
5600 W. Union Hills Drive

Why should we focus on redistricting whether it be on a local, state or national level? We all vote for those representatives that most closely align with our values and goals. With redrawn districts you may find that now you are in a district that has a representative with whose values and goals with which you disagree. By involving yourselves in the redistricting process your input will contribute toward making sure that your representative actually represents you.

© Joyce Clark, 2021       

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.

On Saturday, July 24, 2021, the Arizona Redistricting Commission held a public hearing at Glendale’s Civic Center to obtain public comment on their mission to create new legislative districts within the State of Arizona. Their prime directive is to preserve “communities of interest.”

Unfortunately, the last Commission failed miserably to do so in Glendale and divided Glendale into 5 legislative districts, more than any other Valley city. So much for preserving or even recognizing Glendale as a whole as a “community of interest.” I have prepared some illustrations. The data I used came from www.city-data.com .See the graphic below:

Current state legislative districts

The problem with 5 legislative districts is that each contains only a small portion of Glendale’s voters. These legislative districts are very large and with 5 districts in Glendale, our voter base in each of these districts is very diluted. In other words, Glendale voters in each of these legislative districts are such a small percentage of each district’s total voter base, there is no imperative by each of these legislators to represent our interests (our “community of interest”).

I would ask the Commission to consider this suggestion for a legislative district map for Glendale:

Proposed state legislative districts

On another note, legislative districts are not the only districts that have to be redrawn after the census. So, too, do Glendale’s council districts. Since the last census in 2010, the council districts are no longer equal in population. Take a look at this graphic:

Council districts by population

As you can see, the Yucca district with a population of 72,077 is double the population of the Ocotillo and Cholla districts and nearly double that of the Sahuaro and Barrell districts. Cactus district will surprise most as its population has grown to 65,620 people.

The city council will consider and most likely, approve the hiring of a consultant to redraw Glendale’s council district boundaries. I would expect some radical changes to the current boundaries to get as close to ensuring that all districts have as close to equal population as possible.

The greatest shift may well be seeing the Yucca district’s eastern boundary move westward. How much is anyone’s guess but another imperative is to leave enough population allowance to accommodate future population growth. That is expected to be in the Yucca district as more residential units are developed west of the Loop 101 along Ballpark Boulevard.  It is possible that its eastern boundary will move further westward than expected to allow for future population increase over the next 10 years.

These redistricting efforts, statewide and in Glendale, will impact voters and candidates. Candidates would be wise to wait until the new district boundaries are approved before collecting nominating petition signatures. If they start now, they may end up with petition signatures from voters who are no longer in their newly configured districts.

As these new districts are approved be sure to check your (possible) new voting precinct and where you will be voting in the 2022 elections next year.

© Joyce Clark, 2021       

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.