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.

For the past seven years I have blogged about Glendale issues…the good, the bad and the ugly. Whether on city council or off I do not plan to stop.

Cardinals Way Dedication

I am running for re election as your Yucca district councilmember because I love this city and I love its people. I love representing you and I am good at it. It is an honor and privilege to serve you. My experience as a councilmember has given me the advantage of understanding how to maneuver within the corridors of power to achieve objectives that benefit Glendale’s residents and especially Yucca district residents. I always do my homework and research on every issue that comes before council. Residents and staff alike acknowledge my strength in this area. I have always been accessible to all. I listen to all points of view and have been known to change my position as the result of a strong, well reasoned argument. I have always been mindful of my expenditures because the money I spend is yours, not mine.

This has been the strangest election campaign in history.  Candidates have not been able to approach voters to meet and greet and share their personalities and positions on issues. This campaign has been all digital. That works well if all have internet access but that is not always the case and that is very concerning.

I have tried to figure out why my opponent, Bryce Alexander, is running. He has no experience in participating in the Glendale community.  His background is that of a network architect. He dabbled briefly (for about a year) as a downtown Glendale art gallery owner and is currently an associate pastor at a local church.

On July 5th on his website he finally posted what he is for and against. There are several problems with his list. First, it’s too little and too late. The very things he offers are the very things I have championed for years and for which I have a proven record. We seem to hold similar views and the only difference is that I have extensive experience and leadership in each of them.

  • My opponent is against police defunding. When the issue first surfaced weeks ago I immediately stated publicly that I would never support defunding the police and rather I will continue to defend the police. It’s taken him several weeks to get to the same position. One of our children is a retired law enforcement officer and as a Mom I have heard far too many horror stories of the dangers he faced. I support law enforcement…always have and always will.
  • My opponent is against new taxes. I have a proven record of no property tax increases for the past 4 years.

    Bryce Alexander

    That, and my reputation as a fiscal conservative, is my record.

  • My opponent says he is strong on crime prevention. Again, my record proves my position. I have always supported the funding of the Glendale Police Department resulting in an agency that ranks among the top 3 agencies in the Valley in terms of officers’ pay and benefit package.
  • My opponent supports neighborhood revitalization. I guess he’s forgotten or maybe he’s not aware of the fact that it was my work that created the city’s Neighborhood Revitalization Program. This program, during its lifespan, awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars in neighborhood grants to upgrade some of our most disadvantaged neighborhoods.
  • My opponent says he is strong on parks and road infrastructure maintenance. It was my suggestion, adopted by the city council last year, to allocate ten million dollars a year for the next four years to upgrade existing parks and to add new amenities. My record of support for the residential street repair program is strong and has been appreciated.
  • My opponent claims to be strong on transparency and ethics in government. When you don’t have any issues to claim as yours, all politicians drag out these often used buzz words. They are platitudes. During my term, I have sent out 188 weekly E Newsletters; 6 semiannual district newsletters mailed to all 11,000 households in the district; posted innumerable times alerting residents to timely issues and shared my positions on current issues on Facebook, Twitter and NextDoor. I have also written this blog for seven years discussing Glendale’s issues. I am available via email, text or phone call. All of these means of contact are offered regularly.

So, that brings us back to why is he running?

I keep thinking about a statement he posted on Facebook on June 19, 2018 that stated, “I always get that special feeling when my name appears in print.”

Draw your own conclusion about such a statement.

If you conclude that Mr. Alexander is on an ego trip, you may be right.

© Joyce Clark, 2020         

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.

Let’s begin with a story. It is Tuesday, March 17th, St. Patrick’s Day. It also happens to be the Democrat Presidential Preference Election Day. CoVid 19 is in full force so many voters that day chose to drop of their mail in ballots at a polling location. One of the polling locations was the Westside Church of God on Bethany Home Road just east of 83rd Avenue.

One of the favorite haunts of paid petition circulators is any place that is hosting an event or where people visit on a regular basis, such as a grocery store. For the same amount of time and effort they can maximize the number of signatures they can collect.

At least one was standing at the Westside Church of God location on March 17th. When people showed up to vote or to drop off their mail in ballots they were asked to sign one and/or both of two petitions. One petition was for a candidate for a local school board and the other petition was…wait for it…for my opponent. Many people signed that day. Here are the two petitions with a total of 20 challenged signatures that were the subject of my court challenge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I contended in court that Mr. Alexander, although he signed the backs of the petitions, did not collect the signatures or witness the signatures. In fact, Mr. Alexander appears to have signed the backs of those two petitions. I think it is fair to say it is his signature when compared to his signature on the Candidate Statement of Interest form presented here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We were able to make contact with several of the petition signers. To protect their privacy, I will not refer to them by their names.  For the sake of brevity I am offering the relevant portions of only 2 of the 3 witnesses’ telephonic testimonies from an official transcript. I have never met them and do not know them. They agreed to testify of their own volition when asked to do so by my attorney.

I personally think their testimonies would have been more compelling if they had been able to appear in court in person. That was not able to happen because of CoVid 19 and proved to be disadvantageous to us.

Clark Attorney (CA): “…You’re a Glendale resident; are you not?”

Witness #1 (W1): “Yes, I am.”

CA: “…do you recall signing a petition sheet for a candidate for the – for a Glendale Council race?”

W1: “Yes.”

CA: “Do you remember the name of that individual?”

W1: “No, I do not.”

CA: “…was it for a council race?”

W1: “Yes, it was for city council.”

CA: “Did you sign more than one petition for a city council race?”

W1: “No, not for the city – I just signed one for city council. There was another one that I signed for, that was for a school board; I believe it was.”

CA: “Were you sent a petition sheet with your signature on it?”

W1: “Yes.”

CA: “Did you review that petition sheet?”

W1: “Yes. I did.”

CA: “Did that appear to be the petition sheet that you signed?”

W1: “Yes, it was.”

CA: “Did that petition sheet – did it have a photo of an individual on the upper left corner?’

W1: “Yes, it did.”

CA: “Was the person whose photo was on that petition sheet, was he the one you signed for?”

W1: “No.”

CA: “Now, in terms of the person who you saw on the petition sheet that was sent to you, that bore your signature, do you ever remember seeing that individual at that time?”

W1: “No at all.”

****************

Clark Attorney (CA): “Do you recall signing a candidate petition sheet for a candidate for Glendale City Council?”

Witness #2 (W2): “I do recall.”

CA: “When was that approximately?”

W2: “I think St. Patrick’s Day, so it was the 17th.”

CA: “…have you seen a copy, since that time, of the petition sheet you signed?”

W2: “I have, yes.”

CA: “Did you recognize your signature on that petition sheet?”

W2: “Yes, I did.”

CA: “And on that petition sheet did you see a photo of a man in the upper left corner, for where the candidate goes?”

W2: “Yes.”

CA: “Do you ever recall seeing that man before?”

W2: “No, I don’t.”

CA: “In terms of who was present when you signed on St. Patrick’s Day, I take it that means that that man was not present?”

W2: “Yeah.”

CA: “So, in other words you’re certain that he was not the circulator?”

W2: “Yes, I am.”

The Superior Court judge in her oral ruling at the end of the hearing that day stated, “The Court also has heard the testimony of the three people who testified here at this hearing. They indicated they were qualified electors. They indicated that they did sign the petition, and the Court does find that their testimony fails to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the circulator improperly verified these signatures, and so those 20 signatures at issue, the Court finds to be valid.”

The only question that needs to be asked and answered is, why didn’t Mr. Alexander testify on his behalf that he did circulate and witness those signatures? It would have put to rest all speculation about his being the circulator or not.

I suspect, although I cannot prove,  it was because Mr. Alexander’s attorneys did not know exactly what my witnesses would say and in not knowing, they advised him not to appear that day in case he was called upon to answer questions that he would not have been able to answer truthfully.

There is one more element to this tale of petitions and petition circulators and that will be the subject of my third and final blog on this issue.

*Please accept my apology if the graphics do not appear lined up correctly. No matter what adjustments I make it doesn’t seem to help the situation.

© Joyce Clark, 2019         

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.

I am writing this particular blog on Tuesday, May 5, 2020. As of this date I had already challenged the validity of some nominating petition signatures of my presumptive opponent for the Yucca district city council position, Bryce Alexander, in Superior Court. I did not win the case and so, I appealed to the state Supreme Court. It has not yet been decided and I may not know their decision for several more days. Whether I win or lose at the Supreme Court level, once the decision is made I will post this blog.

I want to share the under belly, the nefarious side of signature gathering for nominating petitions. There are as many petition gathering companies in Arizona as the number of fingers on both of your hands. Some are very reputable…and some not so much.

I, along with many candidates throughout this state, work hard going door to door collecting the needed signatures. You can usually tell when a candidate has done so because the signatures will reflect people who all live on the same street. For example, I went door to door on several streets so I have an entire sheets that have signatures from people who live on those streets.

 I started to collect signatures immediately after I filed to run last winter. I had already gathered the minimum number of signatures needed to file when Covid 19 hit. Just like any other candidate I wanted to obtain the maximum number of signatures (which is usually double the minimum amount required). Then I would have a cushion in case any signatures were declared invalid for any reason.

I did use a petition gathering company for those extra signatures. I used a person I know to be reputable and honest, especially since the person has a relative who was elected and had served in local, political office. This person knew the importance of and valued the need to obtain valid signatures. Before giving me the signatures collected, that company went through each sheet and verified the signatures and struck all those that were invalid. Being careful, I did my own verification after I received the petition sheets. I knew the signatures that I turned into our city clerk were indeed valid.

There are some petition companies out there that don’t necessarily operate in this fashion. They will hire anyone. In some instances, the petition signature gatherers may have a criminal history including felonies. These companies claim to do background checks. However if they are doing so, they are doing a lousy job of it. I am certainly not accusing but I suspect Mr. Alexander (and Michelle Robertson, a presumptive mayoral opponent) used such a company and you will understand the basis of my speculation shortly.

The minimum number of valid petition signatures required for nomination in the Yucca district is 160. Mr. Alexander turned in 210 leaving him a cushion of 50 signatures should any of his signatures be challenged. My challenge at the Superior Court consisted of some of Mr. Alexander’s petition signatures as invalid and I contended that only 134 of his signatures were valid. That was well below the 160 signatures required to get on the ballot.

The County Recorder agreed with me in part and did invalidate 42 of Mr. Alexander’s signatures leaving him with a maximum number of 168 signatures – only 8 over the minimum required to become a candidate.

The balance of my challenge would be decided by a Superior Court judge and my challenge was twofold: I contended in my suit that while Mr. Alexander signed the backs of two petition sheets (totaling 20 signatures) as the circulator, he did not witness those signatures and he was not the circulator of those sheets. On the back of a petition sheet the signer is attesting to the fact that he or she was the circulator and witnessed the signatures. When a person signs as having collected and witnesses those signatures and in fact, did not do so, those signatures are struck from the total count of signatures.

We were able to secure 3 witnesses, all Yucca district residents, who had signed the Alexander petitions and testified in court that it was not Mr. Alexander who asked them to sign the sheets and that they had never seen him before. I did not know any of the witnesses. They were not friends, acquaintances or supporters. They were principled strangers who wanted to do the right thing.

Mr. Alexander did not appear in court. He did not get on the stand and swear on the bible that he circulated those petition sheets and witnessed their signatures. Why didn’t he? The Superior Court judge ruled that the witnesses’ testimonies were not “clear and convincing” and validated those 20 signatures.

The other basis of my challenge was that 43 signatures should be declared as invalid because they were obtained by a convicted felon who had not had all of his civil rights restored thereby disqualifying him from being a petition circulator. On this issue the judge ruled that his civil rights had been restored and therefore his signature collection was also valid. This was a more of a technical issue and rested on the interpretation of previous Arizona Supreme Court decisions which apparently the Superior Court judge did not consider important enough to shape her ruling.

That is why I sit here today as I write this, waiting to hear the decision of my appeal by the Supreme Court. Bryce Alexander may end up on the ballot as a candidate for the Yucca district council seat by the skin of his teeth…8 signatures over the minimum required for nomination.

However, I want to bring up something Bryce Alexander wrote on his Facebook page on April 29th:

“Update: I have received notification that the incumbent has filed a notice to appeal the ruling that the petitions signed by voters was valid.

I do not yet know the basis for the appeal, nor do I wish to speculate on the motivation of Joyce Clark to drag this out at this time. Time will reveal and clarify her intentions.”

Mr. Alexander cannot possibly be as ignorant or uninterested in his fate as he portrays himself to be in this post. He had two attorneys from a very pricey law firm representing him in Superior Court. It would have been a dereliction of their duty to not inform their client of the action and my basis for challenging the validity of his nominating petition signatures.  By the way, I wonder who paid those high priced attorneys? And how much was their fee?

For the record, my campaign is paying my attorney’s fees. Unfortunately, we won’t know the answers about his campaign finances until after July 15, 2020, when the next campaign filings are due. Early ballots will have already been mailed out to voters and the Primary occurs two weeks later on August 4, 2020. So much for a timely full disclosure. Perhaps Mr. Alexander will be willing to share that information on his Facebook page.

Of course he knew my motivation in that I was challenging on the basis that he did not personally circulate those two sheets and that a convicted felon who may or may not have had his civil rights restored circulated his petitions. He just didn’t want to reveal the basis for my challenge as doing so might raise some questions among his followers.

Anyone who knows me even remotely knows that I can be feisty and sometimes I have “a take no prisoners attitude.” If I had been challenged as not being the circulator after I signed the back of sheets attesting that I had, I would have been incredibly angry. I would have marched right into that courtroom, taken the stand, sworn on the Holy Bible to tell the truth and then testified that I did, in fact, circulate and sign the backs of those petitions. Yet, Mr. Alexander did not. Again, why not?

It is now late Thursday afternoon and I just learned that I lost the appeal before the state Supreme Court. I do not have the details yet. I suppose those details are irrelevant. I would be lying if I said I was not disappointed.

In my next blog on this topic, I will be sharing some of the petition sheets Mr. Alexander submitted and some that Ms. Robertson submitted. Once the petition sheets are submitted to the City Clerk, they are a public record. There’s more to this story because not all petition sheets are created equally.

© Joyce Clark, 2019         

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 May 7, 2020, the Planning Commission will hear and will either approve or reject an applicant’s proposal to put a Love’s travel stop at the intersection of the Loop 303 and Bethany Home Road. I posted a blog on March 7, 2020, entitled A look at the Love’s site location. This blog is a follow up based upon additional information provided by the applicant.

Some people asked, why couldn’t the Love’s be sited on the east side of the Loop 303 and Bethany Home Road rather than on the west side of the Loop 303? The city possesses no magic wand that can order a land owner on the east side of the Loop 303 to accept a Love’s. Property owners are free to sell their land if they so choose and a developer has the right to accept or reject possible development as it sees fit. The city cannot mandate that the property owner on the east side of the Loop 303 accept the development of a Love’s.

Many objections to the proposed Love’s centered on the charge that it would bring crime to residential development one quarter of a mile away from the proposed location.  I asked the applicant for crime statistics at a comparable Love’s. The applicant provided me crime statistics for the Love’s Travel Stop on 1610 S. Miller Road, Buckeye, Arizona. I will provide a summary of the data they provided below and where possible, include the exhibits they provided.

SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S RESPONSE:

Five hundred and seventy-four (574) calls for service at Love’s were recorded by the Buckeye Police Department over a 5 year period. That averages approximately 115 calls per year or approximately one call for service every 3 days. 65 different categories were provided from 911 Hang Ups to Welfare Checks. I have listed below the top ten categories; total number of calls over the 5 year period; average number of calls per year and the percentage of the total call volume for each listed:

 

Type of Call       # Call Over 5 years           Average per year         Percentage of total 5 year call volume

Accident                     64                               13                                    11.5% 

Theft                           41                            8                                         7.4%

Traffic Stop                35                            7                                          6.10%

Welfare Check           33                           6.6                                       5.75%

Agency Assist             31                           6.2                                       5.40%

Citizen Assist              29                           5.8                                       5.05%

911 Hang Up              23                           4.6                                       4.01%

Trespassing                23                           4.6                                       4.01%

Business Check          22                           4.4                                      3.83%

Suspicious Activity    20                           4                                          3.48%

Unwanted Guest       20                           4                                          3.48%

Suspicious Veh.          16                        3.2                                          2.79%    

 

Of the 574 total calls for service over the 5 year period, less than 25 calls were violent in nature. Of these, 9 were assaults (1.8 calls per year) and 8 were drug related (1.6 calls per year). Below is the complete listing of all crime categories (65) statistics covering a 5 year period provided by the Buckeye Police Department.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The applicant stated the following, “Love’s takes crime prevention and detection seriously. Accordingly, each employee receives training on how to identify and report illegal activity. Additionally, each employee is trained on how to detect and help victims of human trafficking. Love’s sees itself as a partner to local enforcement and therefore takes necessary steps to eliminate criminal activity.”

The applicant also submitted visual graphics depicting the Love’s proximity to the proposed location as well as comparing its proximity to residential at its Buckeye location. In case you cannot read the graphic, it is 1,355.2 feet from the nearest residences at the Buckeye location compared to 1,334.1 feet from residences at the proposed at the Loop 303/Bethany Home Road location.  The Buckeye and Glendale locations are virtually identical with both being approximately one quarter mile away from the nearest residences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The applicant also notes that at the Buckeye location there is also a Quik Trip Travel Stop immediately south of the Love’s location on S. Miller Road. The Quik Trip is 765 feet from the nearest residences.

Another factor for consideration is that there will be industrial/ warehousing/manufacturing buildings between the Love’s and the closest residences. The mass of those buildings may be 40 feet tall or taller and will act as a visual and noise buffer for the closest homes.

It appears that there are several facts that may make Love’s suitable for the proposed location. It is a quarter mile away from the nearest home. There is adequate buffering in terms of industrial buildings that will provide visual and noise buffering for residents. The Buckeye Love’s location seems to show that it does not produce greater crime for nearby residents. I would expect similar results to occur at the Glendale location.

I recognize that there are those who simply hate Love’s. It’s an emotional reaction. I cannot decide on the basis of emotion. Facts, in this case, are important. If any of the opponents have more factual information that has not been presented as of this date, then now is the time to present it.

I have provided all of the factual information that I have received. I will use it along with any other factual information provided to me to make my final decision. Part of that information will be to look at the Planning Commission’s decision and what factual information they used to arrive at their decision.

© Joyce Clark, 2019         

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.

This week I met with city personnel to get an update on the progress regarding Heroes Park Lake. My goal as the Yucca district councilmember is to secure funding for the completion of all elements in Heroes Park. One of the most visual elements of the park is the lake feature. So where are we on the lake? We know that to date, in Fiscal Year 2021, $4.2 million is available to construct the lake.

Currently, the lake is in the preliminary design stage. There have been ongoing discussions with Salt River Project to determine whether canal water or irrigation water would be used. The Mayor and I were keenly interested in using canal water but there are problems with doing so. SRP canal water has a lot of “stuff” in it including solids, garbage and yes, even fish. Pushing that water through mechanical equipment before it reaches the lake is a recipe for expensive costs in continually repairing the equipment. Obviously a wiser decision is to use irrigation water which is available to the site.

Heroes Park lake

Now that that issue is settled the city is working on the preliminary design. I have included a conceptual design staff provided to me. The lake will be sited on the east side of 83rd Avenue.  Its size is determinant upon how far $4.2 million dollars will go. It could be anywhere from 3.5 acres to 5 acres in size. I am also including a conceptual design of the entire park. In it you will see that the water goes further eastward. The additional water will be a future expansion.

It will take nearly a year to create the final design that includes all engineering for the plan. The goal is to have all design and engineering completed by May/June of 2021 so that the RFP for construction can be put out for bid immediately. I anticipate that the lake can be completed by approximately December of 2021. Don’t take that date to the bank just yet for something could happen to delay my assumption on the date of completion.

Heroes Park design

The point is that the lake will be the next element to be constructed in the park. It will be a fishing lake. Other good news is that library expansion or community meeting space, a recreation & aquatics center and the sports fields are back in the city’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This is first step toward getting funding allocated by the city council for the remaining elements. Rest assured I am working on my pledge to see the  park completed.

© Joyce Clark, 2020         

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.

Sometimes “a picture is worth a thousand words.” I thought a photo of the proposed site of the Love’s Travel Center would be helpful. So I went out to the site the other day and took this photo. I was sitting in my car immediately west of Cotton Lane at Rose Lane.

In the background you can see the Loop 303. The proposed Love’s site is at the Bethany Home Road exit of the Loop 303. The approximate distance between the proposed Love’s site and the nearest home is1,600 feet, about a quarter of a mile.

NOT TO SCALE

Conceptual Courtesy of Lincoln Property

Now, imagine an industrial building on the east side of Cotton Lane (with appropriate front setbacks). The industrial building will not be sited right along the western boundary of the property. It will be set back from Cotton Lane. I don’t know the distance but I would guess about 50 feet. That 30 to 40 foot tall building will act as a noise and visual buffer between the proposed Love’s and the nearest resident.

Please note that the property owner will be required to improve that portion of Cotton Lane that is adjacent to their property. That means Cotton Lane will be improved from Bethany Home Road to Glendale Avenue.

I hope this visual provides some perspective of context as we continue to discuss this issue.

© Joyce Clark, 2020         

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.

As the stadium and arena were announced back in the early 2000’s, residents who live in the adjacent areas were very concerned and many were upset. The farm fields that they had gazed upon from their windows was about to disappear. Many were saddened and angry that their way of life was about to change…forever.

Over the years we (including myself) have adjusted to the dramatic changes that have occurred in the Westgate and Zanjero areas. Humans are highly adaptable. Consequently, we now take alternate routes on football game days and when there are major events in the area. We cope with the tremendous traffic increases we experience on every major arterial in this area. Those residents who couldn’t adapt moved elsewhere but most of us stayed. Many of us now shop at the Tanger Outlets or enjoy a movie at the AMC Theater or go for lunch or dinner at the abundance of restaurants in the area. We enjoy and use the variety of entertainment while living on the periphery of it all.

Change is coming to another part of Glendale and the nearby county residents are unhappy about it. Several years ago city council made a policy decision to reserve the land beyond 115th Avenue to our westernmost boundary, especially around the Loop 303, for job creation. We call it the “New Frontier.” It has succeeded far beyond our expectations. For example, every parcel within the Glendale Airpark is in escrow, sold, in plan review or under construction. By the Loop 303 industrial and commercial development took off with the announcement of Red Bull, Rausch and Ball choosing the Woolf Logistics Center as their location of choice. It was followed quickly by White Claw who expects to be open for business by June of this year. There are 15 projects worth over $600 million dollars in various development stages that will offer over 1,500 good paying jobs to our residents.

Now Cotton Properties is about to develop on the west side of the Loop 303 from Bethany Home Road to Glendale Avenue. Located at the intersection of the Loop 303 and Bethany Home Road is a proposed Love’s Travel Center. The rest of the Cotton Properties parcel will have several industrial/commercial buildings on it and they will act as a visual/noise buffer between the Love’s and the county residents to the west. There is a concentrated swath of county residents who have expressed their opposition to any kind of development of Cotton Properties. It really doesn’t matter what is developed there. The residents are opposed to change of any kind. The farm fields that they had enjoyed for years is about to disappear.

They have decided to concentrate their opposition on the Love’s Travel Center and I and other Glendale personnel have received a lot of email in opposition to the proposed project. That is their right and I encourage their commentary. However, one would think Love’s was a creation of the Devil himself. There was one email that stood out from the pack and it was from a family of truck drivers who live in the county where the opposition is the strongest. I asked them for permission to use it and they graciously granted it. Here’s the “other side of the story:”

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

First of all I would like to introduce myself to you. My husband and I, Joe and Kathy Papineau are both long haul truck drivers. We bought a beautiful home in the Russell Ranch subdivision. We have been in the trucking industry for over 20 years. We would welcome a Loves Truck Stop with open arms. In this letter I wish to offer an accurate rebuttal to all of the surrounding areas’ concerns and arguments on why they think a Loves Truck Stop is going to ruin their quality of life.

 

First of all, with all the warehouses and businesses going up in the area providing safe and designated parking for truckers’ transportation needs is a great idea. If there isn’t sufficient parking provided, they will be parking on the side of the roads. Due to Elogs (Federal regulations), they are not permitted to drive after loading and unloading. Even law enforcement may not ask them to move. Truck drivers must obey the federal laws. They will have no other choice but to leave debris and human waste on the side of our roads. That would be a disgrace to put truckers in that position. My neighbors will argue there are enough truck stops off of I-10. However, on the contrary, there is not enough parking. Throughout this country, there is a shortage of safe parking for truckers.

 

Secondly, my neighbors will argue about the crime a truck stop will bring. That is false. Now back in the 70’s and 80’s that may have been true. Nowadays all trucks have armed security. As a woman truck driver, I have never felt unsafe at a truck stop. It does not bring drugs, prostitution, human trafficking, or serial killers. This is fear mongering at its worst and is dangerous. Truck drivers deserve more respect. Everything that we all have or consume is delivered by a truck. Our food, lumber to build our homes, furniture and decor that we all love to use, eat or display is delivered by long haul truckers. The lack of knowledge about the trucking industry is not their fault. They have been misinformed by fear mongering. Statistically, 40% of all truckers are now women. Truckers are hard working and they deserve a safe place to park, sleep, shower, and eat. We owe it to them for all that they do in providing goods throughout this country. 

 

Also, my neighbors will use the argument of increased air and noise pollution. Today, most trucks have DPF systems to ensure that truck pollution is minimal. I find it to be very hypocritical, that my neighbors love Luke Air Force Base yet will not accommodate the trucking industry. The jets continually release fumes and jet fuel over our heads. The noise from jets breaking sound barriers is more harmful than a 100 trucks.

 

My neighbors argue about the traffic of the big trucks being solely caused because of the truck stop alone. With all of the warehouses and distribution centers, we already have more traffic than ever before. It has not caused any grief to residents except for making them go the actual speed limit. The truckers will not be detouring through neighborhoods or by the schools. Truckers are smarter than that. They like and appreciate the quick on and off access to highways.

 

We have a state prison right down the street. Residents seem to be more comfortable with incarcerated prisoners than truck drivers. The prison had two escapees a few months ago. Neighbors didn’t seem to mind a few escaped prisoners and appeared to think of it as of no concern.

 

So, on behalf of our family and for all of my brothers and sisters in the trucking industry, please approve this Love’s truck stop. We appreciate a clean and safe place to lay over as I am sure you also appreciate the delivery of food and consumer products we haul and you use.

 

Thank you very much for your time,

 

Joe and Kathy Papineau

18028 W. Medlock Dr.

Litchfield Park AZ 85340

© Joyce Clark, 2020         

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.

I’ve reported on residential, hotel and apartment development in our district. Now, it’s time to tackle the most difficult and complicated subject of all – retail, commercial and industrial development. I say it’s difficult and complicated because so much is going on in these areas. The Yucca district is simply exploding with these kinds of development.

To organize the material is some fashion, I’ve separated projects into Conditional Use Permits (CUP), in Design Review (DR), those requesting new zoning or a change in the existing zoning (ZON), and under construction. Some development projects require a CUP that has been approved by the citizen Planning Commission. The Planning Commission uses guidelines to determine if the granting of a CUP is appropriate. If you are ever interested in seeing the Planning Commission in action they are televised on Glendale’s Channel 11 and if you use the city website and go to the agenda of the Planning Commission, there is also an option to view the video of the meeting.

Some projects either already have their zoning approved or are in the process of getting their zoning and are now in the process of having all plans related to their project reviewed by the Planning Department. Everything is reviewed from electrical designs to the exterior elevations of the project. The design review process is complicated and takes months to gain approval.

The following projects have been granted a CUP:

Equipment Storage Rentals located at the southwest corner of 71st Avenue and Northern Ave. It is located in an industrial area of Glendale along Northern Avenue.

Bank of America drive thru located at 7448 W. Glendale Avenue will not have an accompanying bank branch building. This will strictly be a drive thru facility.

Camelback Shopping Center is located at 5070 N, 83rd Avenue. It will be just north of the Dignity Emergency Room facility. There will be an EOS Fitness Center and 3 pads for retail shops. The tenants of these 3 shops have not been announced.

The following projects are under design review. They will not begin construction until their design review process is completed and their designs (from electrical, plumbing, exterior, etc.) have been approved by the city’s planning department:

Commercial vehicle storage yard located at 7190 N. 110th Avenue near Glen Harbor Commercial Park and the landfill.

Glendale Avenue Storage located at 10911 W. Glenn Drive. It is in the same area as the storage project listed above.

Zanjero Retail is located at 9200 W. Glendale Avenue. This development is across the street from Cabela’s on the north side of Glendale Avenue. The only tenant that has been confirmed to me is Starbucks. There will be an apartment component (cited in a previous blog) to the north of the retail component of this project).

WalMart Electric Vehicle Charging Stations located at 5010 N. 95th Avenue. This is a new addition to the Super WalMart located on 95th Avenue north of Camelback Road.

 The next group of properties to be reviewed is the activity primarily (although not exclusively) surrounding the Loop 303. The city calls this area, “The New Frontier.” These involve properties abutting to or very close to the Loop 303.Two factors determine the type of development that will occur. One is city council policy directing that this area be used to create jobs for our residents. The other is the fact that some of these properties are within the Luke Air Force Base noise contour lines and Glendale, which is home to LAFB, has pledged to uphold those noise contours to preserve LAFB, its mission and its importance to the nation.

This is the most complicated update to compile. Some parcels have submitted for annexation and along with their requested annexation they could be asking for simultaneous rezoning. Others have been annexed and are in various stages in the city process.Below I have summarized each individually, identify its location and attempted to indicate where it is within city processes:

The Church of Christ is a one acre annexation located at 8305 W. Northern Avenue (southwest corner of 83rd Ave. and Northern Ave.) Construction is complete and the project is awaiting formal approval from the Planning Commission and the City Council.

Annexation 204 is called Northern 107. It consists of 10 acres. An application for annexation has been submitted and it is awaiting Planning Department and City Council approvals.

Annexation 206 is called Bethany/303. It is 76 acres and is located at Sarival and W. Claremont. It was just heard by the city council on February 11th and council consensus was given to move forward on the annexation.

The next 3 annexations are in the planning stages and have formally submitted applications to the city for: annexation, final plat, rezoning/general plan amendment, design review, OR required conditional use permits:

Annexation 207 located at the southwest corner of Loop 303 and Glendale Avenue.

Annexation 208 called 303 West Crossing located at the northeast corner of Sarival Farms Road and Maryland Avenue.

Annexation 209 called Copper Wiring Logistics Center located at 13402 W. Northern Avenue.

The project known as T-2 located at 10501 N. Reems Road is in the process of receiving its Final Plat approval from the city.

The project known as West 303 is located at the northeast corner of Sarival Farms Road and Maryland Avenues. It is in the process of seeking rezoning and/or a general plan amendment.

The Barclay Group project is located at the southwest corner of the Loop 303 and Glendale Avenue. It is in the process of seeking rezoning and/or a general plan amendment.

Park 303 located at the southwest corner of Sarival Avenue and Glendale Avenue is in the design review stage.

EOS Fitness located at 5070 N. 83rd Avenue is also in the design review stage as well at the rezoning and/or general plan amendment stage.

The Cornerstone Camelback project located at 5205 N. 99th Avenue is in the rezoning process.

Centerpoint located at 9501 W. Cardinals Way (southwest corner of 95th Avenue and Cardinals Way is currently in the rezoning process.

The Lincoln Logistics 303 PAD located at 6600 N. Sarival Road is also currently in the rezoning process.

The project known as Zanjero Retail located at 9200 W. Glendale Avenue is under design review.

Sparrow located at the northwest corner of 91st Avenue and Zanjero Blvd. is also in the design review stage.

The Westgate Shell Shops located at 9405 W. Glendale Avenue are retail, spec buildings currently under construction.

Swire Coca-Cola located at 7845 N. 106th Avenue in the Glen Harbor Industrial Park is expanding its warehouse by 147,804 square feet and is under construction.

The Camelback Self Storage located at 5205 N. 99th Avenue is under construction.

Red Bull located at the Woolf Logistics Center in the area of Loop 303 at 10501 N. Reems Road is under construction.

White Claw, located at the same Woolf Logistics Center is also under a fast-track construction schedule and plans to be open in about 6 months.

Westgate Caramba restaurant located at 9455 W. Glendale Avenue is also under construction.

These 21 projects represent thousands of acres and thousands of square feet of development located from Westgate/Zanjero westward to the Loop 303. As a casual reader of this information you may not realize that this is an amazing time in Glendale’s history. The development under way as well as those projects yet to be announced will confirm that Glendale has become an economic power house within the Valley. These projects combined will provide jobs in the retail, office, and industrial/manufacturing/distribution sectors. A hundred jobs here and a hundred jobs there soon add up to thousands.

The only caveat I will provide is that I don’t think I missed any projects but in compiling all of the material I presented and summarized it is always possible that I missed something. If that is the case I do apologize. I am sure I will hear about it.

© Joyce Clark, 2020         

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.

Let’s review hotel projects first. I have no further data at this time other than their locations. Generally, most of the hotels that have been built in our district have approximately 200 rooms:

Townplace Suites Hotel at 7271 N. Zanjero Blvd. has been approved and is in the design review stage.

The Aloft Hotel by Marriot @ Westgate located at 6920 N. 93rd Avenue is open.

Tru by Hilton is located at 6610 N. 95th Avenue and is under construction.

Marriot Towne Place Hotel in Zanjero is now under construction.

The Holiday Inn Hotel is located at 6151 N. 99th Avenue, adjacent to TopGolf, is under construction.

We now have 5 hotels in the Zanjero area. Three are already in business and two are under construction. There are another 6 hotels in Westgate. Five are already in business and one is under construction and 1 hotel under construction on the west side of the Loop 101. With 12 hotels that brings the total number of hotel rooms in the area to approximately 2,000 to 2,400 rooms.

When it comes to apartments we also are experiencing a lot of activity. My reputation over the years has been to oppose apartments but there is one exception to that caveat. I do believe apartments are appropriate in a few selected locations: west of 91st Avenue in the Westgate/Zanjero area and on the west side of the Loop 101 close to these two major economic centers. Population mass is needed to sustain the Westgate/Zanjero areas now and into the future.

We will see little, if any, residential development on the west side of the Loop 101. Council would like to see more commercial and retail on the immediate west side of the Loop 101 and industrial development along the Loop 303 corridor.

Again, I have only apartment locations to offer and no hard data on the density or the number of units:

Urban 95 Apartments will be located at 9600 W. Georgia Avenue. It is approved but has not submitted for design review.

The Zanjero Apartments is located at 7375 N. Zanjero Blvd. and is under construction.

95 Camelback at 5151 N. 95th Avenue and is under construction.

Zanjero Sante Assisted Living at 7410 N. Zanjero Blvd. is approved and is under design review.

There are 3 more apartment complex proposals but they have not come before city council yet and until they receive city council approval or denial I am not at liberty to discuss them. There are more development projects that are only in the conceptual stage and may or may not ever end up being submitted to the city.

There were a few apartment complexes (2?) such as Summerly at Zanjero that were approved by city council while I was not a councilmember. As such I have very little information or history on them.

To sum it up, the Yucca district has 5 new hotels bringing the total to 12, 3 new apartment complexes and 1 assisted living facility recently opened, approved and under design review or under construction with more of each kind of development to come.

Elliot Pollack, one of the best know economic gurus in the state, once said during a speech he gave in Glendale years ago that Glendale and especially the Westgate/Zanjero/Loop 101 was destined to become the geographic center of the Valley. His prognostication is now becoming reality as development marches westward in the state. We are not only destined to become the Valley’s geographic center but we are already the state’s mega center for sports and entertainment. The Yucca district has a baseball Spring Training Complex, a hockey arena, the new brand of golf entertainment and a football stadium. More mega entertainment opportunities will be coming, of that I am certain.

Next up, I’ll be reviewing commercial and industrial development and the tremendous opportunities for job creation for Glendale’s residents. It is extensive. It will take me several days to compile all of the information.

© Joyce Clark, 2020         

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.

I view Facebook and NextDoor sites regularly. There are always questions about what’s coming here or what’s coming there. It’s been awhile since I have done any updates about development in our district. Trust me, there is a great deal. I’m going to tackle residential development first and in follow up blogs I will cover commercial development.

Let’s start with the project we all love to hate…Stonehaven. A little background on this one. It will have 1,364 lots. Some of them could be as small as 3,000 and 3,500 square foot sized lots. Unfortunately, a majority of council approved this. Only Vice Mayor Malnar and I voted in opposition. This was despite 1,000 local Yucca district resident signatures presented in a petition of opposition to the proposed project to the city council. This council squandered an opportunity to create a signature residential subdivision on one of the last remaining large parcels slated for development. It is actually larger than Rovey Farms Estates which contains about 800 homes. However, the Rovey Farm lot sizes range from 7,000 square feet to over an acre in size.

The Stonehaven subdivision is located at 9050 W. Camelback Road. On its south side. which abuts the north side of Camelback Road, it goes from 87th Avenue to 91st Avenue. Its west side goes from the Grand Canal to Camelback Road. Its east side does the same and surrounds already existent housing and commercial. Its north side goes from 83rd Avenue to 91st Avenue, just south of the Grand Canal.

Here is the latest information on its progress which only addresses 565 of the 1,365 lots:

  • Parcel 2 167 lots         Final Plat approved
  • Parcel 3 72 lots         In design review, Pulte Homes
  • Parcel 4 38 lots         In design review, Pulte Homes
  • Parcel 5 85 lots         In design review, Pulte Homes
  • Parcel 6 37 lots         In design review, Pulte Homes
  • Parcel 7 25 lots         In design review, Taylor Morrison Homes
  • Parcel 8 45 lots         In design review, Taylor Morrison Homes 
  • Parcel 13A 67 lots         In design review, Pulte Homes
  • Parcel 14 29 lots         In design review, Pulte Homes

When design review is complete we can assume construction of these homes will begin. You might have noticed the activity on the 83rd Avenue side of the project. The large concrete pipes are the sewer pipes which are s-l-o-w-l-y being installed. All of the infrastructure, water, sewer, electrical,  internal roads and internet, must be installed before work can begin on Bethany Home Road (now known as Cardinals Way) and construction of homes can begin.

Another residential project that has received entitlement but no design review has been submitted, is Orangewood Terrace at 7901 W. Orangewood Avenue. It will be a subdivision whose lot sizes (51 lots) is large and compatible with the large lots adjacent to the proposed subdivision.

The Orangewood Ranch subdivision is located at 7536 N. 83rd Avenue and is comprised of 43 lots. Its lots will be comparable to the Rovey Farm Estates subdivision. It is entitled but has not submitted for design review.

The Enclave at Rovey Farms subdivision, with 43 lots, located at 8806 W. Emil Rovey Parkway is currently in design review. Once that is approved expect construction to begin.

The Bethany Ranch subdivision of 56 lots, located at 5850 N. 71st Avenue and Bethany Home Road is a Garrett Walker project. It is nearly finished. All lots are sold and the last homes within it are in various stages of construction. I note that this subdivision was immensely successful and once the model homes were open they sold out in under a year.

Northern Ridge Estates subdivision containing 53 lots by KB Homes now has its model homes open. I expect it to be sold out within 6 months. It is located at 8237 W. Northern Avenue, adjacent to 83rd Avenue.

The Garden Grove and Affinity at Positano subdivisions of 138 lots located at 8510 and 8450 W. Glendale Avenue are Taylor Morrison/K Hovanian projects. They only have a few lots left. I expect the last lots to be sold by the end of February.

Cadance at Westgate Village subdivision located at 8835 W. Glendale Avenue is another K. Hovanian project of 71 lots of primarily R1-5 (5,000 sf lots). The site is currently being prepared and the first model home is under construction.

El Prado I and II subdivisions located at 7932 W. Camelback Road is another Taylor Morrison project with 119 lots. The El Prado II lot sizes abutting the acre lot homes to the west of the project will be larger lots compatible to those large lots. This project is just beginning construction of its infrastructure.

The Camelback Village subdivision located at 8420 W. Camelback Road has 53 lots by Hillstone Homes. It is entitled but has not submitted for design review.

The Jaafar Estates subdivision will be at 7111 N. 83rd Avenue and is comprised of 23 lots. It has not submitted for design review. This is the only subdivision I opposed and did not vote for. It is a long, narrow strip of land with 4,500 square foot lots.  It should not have been approved by council as it does not meet the concept of 83rd Avenue as a large lot corridor. It has not submitted for design review.

That’s 13 subdivisions either nearly sold out, under construction, under design review or in some cases, have not yet submitted for design review. This is stunning and amazing. I don’t think anyone realizes the magnitude of residential development occurring in our district.

Here’s a trivia fact I discovered while reviewing the last census data available for our area. The Yucca district, since the last census in 2010, has grown in population by 104%. Each city district is supposed to have a generally equal population. In 2010, the figure was 45,000 per district. A doubling of the Yucca district population since 2010 requires that the city conduct a redistricting of the city in order to once again equalize the district populations. Once the 2020 figures are compiled and released by the federal government in 2021 I will ask that redistricting begin.

In my next blog I will cover apartment and hotels. Believe me, there are plenty of those as well!

© Joyce Clark, 2020         

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.

%d bloggers like this: