Apr 13

17

City council plays the same song…over…and over…and over

Posted by Joyce Clark on April 17, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances | Tagged With: budget, finances, Glendale City Council, Glendale council workshop | 2 Comments

Congratulations are in order to city staff. At the City Council workshop of April 16, 2013 working in an atmosphere where the current city council is loathe to make any budget cuts that are associated with layoffs and in fact wants to add additional police and fire positions is difficult, to say the very least. The cuts that this council will not accept remain necessary even as they collectively stick their heads in the sand.

Staff, knowing that cuts to the budget will not be accepted, took the obverse approach and has offered this council revenue enhancement. It seems that raising property taxes and collecting additional revenue from the Enterprise Funds for services provided by the General Fund may be the answer. This is not the final solution, however. As Ms. Schurhammer stated today, budget cuts, albeit more modest ones, are still needed and the sooner the better. As she and the rest of staff have said repeatedly the city’s budget has a structural deficit. In other words, more is spent than is taken in.

Yvonne Knaack

It was noted that Vice Mayor Knaack, a member in good standing for many years, of the “gang of four” (voting bloc of the former mayor), now repudiates the former mayor’s imperative to keep the city’s property tax rate low. She actually had the temerity to say that she never supported the former mayor’s desire to keep property taxes artificially low. Too bad she never spoke out publicly or demonstrated her beliefs in a vote.

Sam Chavira

Councilmember Chavira once again, embarrassingly and obviously, carried fire’s water bucket in an attempt to get this council to support granting the 15 fire fighter positions (at a cost of $1.5M every year) coveted by the fire department. If one didn’t know his agenda all one had to do was watch his performance in feeding positive questions to the Fire Chief to immediately figure it out. Every once in a while he would throw the police department a bone by including them in the discussion but his sole objective was to advance the cause of his brother firefighters. Mr. Bowers, Interim City Manager, made it very clear that the staff recommendation is to deny any supplemental requests this year including those of fire and police. His reasoning was straight forward and quite clear, “The city simply does not have the money.” This time, at least for now, council listened and it appears that these supplementals will not be granted. This council is not quite done with this subject. I suspect they will look for other means to grant, at the very least, fire’s supplemental.

Gary Sherwood

Councilmember Sherwood once again raised the question as to whether a figure of $6M was adequate for the arena costs. He became a little confused in attempting to get the figure of annual revenue the arena generated (not all of Westgate…and the western world…thank you) out. Well, we, dear readers, already know what that figure is from a previous blog where I conveyed the average numbers reported by the NHL as the manager of the arena. Ta Da! That revenue figure averages $6 to $7 million annually. No one else on council seemed interested in a workshop on arena costs and revenues so it died as a future topic.

Councilmember Alvarez appears to have only two songs in her repertoire. One is the siren song to support the Tohono O’odham in its quest to plant a casino in Glendale less than a quarter mile away from Westgate. Again she called for a public forum (read free favorable publicity for the Tohono O’odham) before council. Again, she was rejected by a majority of the council. Does she not understand that the city is a party to state and Tribal interest litigation against the casino?

Norma Alvarez

Her other one-note song is blaming others for her belief in the city’s continual waste of money. Please note it is a waste of money to her if it is not being spent to increase the salaries of its low wage employees. Her public definition of low wage employees is anyone making under $130,000. My goodness…reminds me of Obama’s definition of the rich ($250K annually, for tax purposes)! Today’s rant on city waste was twofold: the absolute waste of the city’s involvement in Camelback Ranch and the car dealership coming finally to Bell Road with the city’s incentive to forgive a portion of sales tax for a specified amount of time. She refuses to understand that the dollar a year rental of Camelback Ranch for the teams is in exchange for their picking up the tab for operating and maintaining the facility year round (saving the city a cost of easily a million dollars a year). Instead of taking the time to truly understand the issue we hear her accusations of the city being too busy thinking of the glory of sports and not realizing that sports bring the city nothing. What she fails to realize that as part of this new council she bears the same baggage as the rest of them. On her watch the dealership will come in. Therefore on her watch the dealership will receive the sales tax incentive.

Apr 13

16

Casino…good, bad or indifferent? Part 3

Posted by Joyce Clark on April 16, 2013
Posted in Casino | Tagged With: casino, crime, gambling, jobs, Tohono O'odham Indian Nation | 1 Comment

We know the proposed site of the casino. We know about the state voter approved gaming compact and how the Tohono O’odham acquired the land. Is a casino is healthy for an urbanized area?

There is one disclaimer however. I am not commenting on the casino as a social justice issue. For this discussion this issue is not about the white man having treated Indians badly over several hundred years. It’s not about owing Tribes for past wrongs. Today’s society has crafted many solutions for ameliorating social injustice. What this is about is whether a casino, whether owned by Las Vegas interests, Atlantic City interests or the Tribes, is a good thing within a major city. Glendale is a major city with a population of nearly a quarter of a million people. It is the fourth largest city in the state. It definitely qualifies as an urban area within the Phoenix metropolitan area.

How is crime related to a casino? Does crime go up, go down or stay the same? The following is an Abstract entitled Casinos, Crime and Community Costs by Earl L. Grinols and David B. Mustard, originally published in 1996 but this excerpt is from the Review of Economics and Statistics (February 2006). The authors say, “We examine the relationship between casinos and crime using county-level data for the United States between 1977 and 1996. Casinos were nonexistent outside Nevada before 1978, and expanded to many other states during our sample period. Most factors that reduce crime occur before or shortly after a casino opens, whereas those that increase crime, including problem and pathological gambling, occur over time. The results suggest that the effect on crime is low shortly after a casino opens, and grows over time. Roughly 8% of crime in casino counties in 1996 was attributable to casinos, costing the average adult $75 per year.

“Casinos increased all crimes except murder, the crime with the least obvious connection to casinos. Most offenses showed that the impact of casinos on crime increased over time, a pattern very consistent with the theories of how casinos affect crime. The crime-ameliorating effects of casinos through increased employment opportunities and wages for low-skilled people will be concentrated shortly after opening. Between 5.5% and 30% of the different crimes in casino counties can be attributed to casinos.

“This translates into a social crime cost associated with casinos of $75 per adult in 1996. This ﬁgure does not include other social costs related to casinos, such as crime in neighboring counties, direct regulatory costs, costs related to employment and lost productivity, and social service and welfare costs. Overall, 8.6% of property crime and 12.6% of violent crime in counties with casinos was due to the presence of the casino.

“According to the study, five years after a casino opens, robbery in the community goes up 136 percent, aggravated assault is up 91 percent, auto theft is up 78 percent, burglary is up 50 percent, larceny is up 38 percent, rape is up 21 percent and murder is up 12 percent, compared to neighboring communities.

“Crime-lowering effects, like additional police and the new jobs represented by a casino are overwhelmed by rising crime increased by the presence of the casino, according to the study.”

Since this study was published in 1996 many pro casino interests have attempted to debunk it. Be that as it may, this is a definitive study that has been repeatedly cited by many reputable public policy groups in attempting to determine the benefits and negatives of a casino.

The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies in its April, 2010 report entitled Impact of Expanded Gambling in New Hampshire concluded in part, that negative impacts could be substantial:

Decrease in meals and room taxes away from other, traditional sources (a shifting of tax revenue away from hotels and restaurants such as Westgate, toward gambling facilities)
Visitors and residents spend money on gambling that would be spent on other goods and services (known as “substitution”)
The state will have increased expenses related to expansion of personnel to accommodate the new facility
Creates an atmosphere of increased competition for state investments and subsidies
Shifts workers currently in one industry to the gambling industry (known as “displacement”). This new development may take workers from other industries and moves them into the casino industry
Social costs increase related to increased crime and pathological gambling
Significant potential political influence from a single industry

This New Hampshire study also offered, “For a standard casino, most patrons come from within 30 miles and participation declines exponentially as distance increases. These markets do not conform to state or other political boundaries.”

Another issue identified by the study said, “In casino markets like Las Vegas and Atlantic City 8-10% of casino patrons are ‘problem gamblers” (National Opinion Research Center, 2000). A person is not going to have a problem unless they have access to gambling. Proximity to a casino impacts propensity to gamble. Proximity to a casino (e.g. within 50 miles) increases the risk of pathological problems (National Opinion Research Center, 2000). Problem gambling will impact communities closest to the gambling venue and decrease the further away you are.”

In addition, “An analysis by the New Hampshire Lottery Commission shows that scratch ticket sales have declined in the last six months of 2012 in the region of New Hampshire closest to the Oxford County casino.”

This New Hampshire study raises issues not previously discussed publicly such as a diminishment of state lottery sales in the geographic region closest to a casino or that pathological gambling increases in the geographic area closest to the casino.

What about the issue of traffic? The Connecticut South Western Regional Planning Agency issued a Casino Traffic Impact Study in 2009. “The purpose of this study was to estimate the possible traffic and air quality impacts of the development of a casino in Bridgeport.” The study concluded, “that the development of a casino would have a significant impact on traffic congestion in southwestern Connecticut. Casino traffic is not seasonal because the number of trips to and from casinos is relatively consistent from month to month. Casinos operate 24 hours per day; there is no peak travel period to and from casinos thus traffic impacts of casinos may be experienced at all times of day.” Many transportation agencies in many states where casinos have located have done similar studies. All recommend new transportation infrastructure whose costs are borne by taxpayers.

The increased traffic in the area will not just be due to the number of visitors to the casino. Add to that, traffic from employees as well as vendors and suppliers making deliveries with their semis at all hours of the day and night. In Glendale a traffic impact analysis study was done for Westgate and the University of Phoenix Stadium. As a result of those studies, additional traffic mitigation was created and paid for by the developers of those projects. There is no mechanism to compel the Tohono O’odham to enhance road infrastructure in the area. As a sovereign nation there is no local, state or federal mechanism to compel another nation (think of it as another country) to reimburse the costs of enhanced transportation infrastructure to and from their site.

In return for the problems created by a casino in an urban area, supporters of the casino continually use the mantra of (1) it will pump up business in the adjoining local area. They say that customers will leave the casino environment and move to Westgate to eat and to shop. I doubt the restaurants and hotels, or Tanger Outlet Mall in Westgate would agree with that notion. More likely, customers with limited disposable income will make choices and it will be one or the other – Westgate or the casino – not both; and (2) it will bring jobs – temporary construction jobs and later, permanent jobs servicing the casino. Keep in mind, 25% of the jobs created, whether temporary construction jobs or permanent service jobs later, are reserved for Native Americans. At Talking Stick Casino, “Chanen Construction, which has worked with Casino Arizona for 14 years, divided the enormous job of sheet-rocking the interior and exterior into 10 different bid packages. This resulted in five firms getting the work, instead of one, which is the norm. But Chanen wanted ‘to maximize opportunities for different project participants,’ the company told McGraw-Hill Construction in a profile of Talking Stick published last fall. ‘We have a process where we let tribal members who own businesses participate as subcontractors, so we want to make the packages in smaller bites so more participation could occur’.”

The Tohono O’odham has said repeatedly there will be 6,000 construction jobs. The Maryland Live! Casino is a 332,500 square foot facility (twice the size of the proposed TO casino) and anticipates creating 2,750 construction-related jobs (half that number would be approximately 1,400 jobs and reportedly a much more realistic number for this facility). In an effort to “sell” the benefits of the casino, it is quite possible numbers have been inflated. It is a subtle form of deception, no doubt, but not unexpected considering the TO’s actions with regard to Proposition 202.

Problems throughout the country related to casino construction have surfaced. Here is but one example – a Press Release from a coalition of unions in California issued on January 15, 2013, “ROHNERT PARK, CA: Graton Rancheria’s (my note: a coalition of Indian tribes) promises to Sonoma County union workers have been dashed by lay-offs of local union members as out-of-area workers are being brought in to take their places. Sonoma County union construction workers report that workers are being brought in from “Nevada and the L.A. area” and even as far away as Alabama to work on the Graton Rancheria casino/hotel project in Rohnert Park.

Reports started as early as November, as a local member of the Carpenters Union raised the first alarm about locals being replaced by out-of-area workers. Now the complaints are coming from a union cement worker who believes that approximately 70% of the casino workforce is made up of the out-of-towners.”

Those who think the casino is the answer to Glendale’s problems, will dismiss the arguments made in this blog and take this as an opportunity to respond in the negative. As long as comments are respectful of one another and deal with the issue at hand, they will be posted as responses to this blog.

In the next blog we will look at the legal issues and a basket full of attorneys involved in the casino issue.

Apr 13

15

Casino…promise made, promise broken, Part 2

Posted by Joyce Clark on April 15, 2013
Posted in Casino | Tagged With: casino, Gila River Indian Community, Proposition 202, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Tohono O'odham Indian Nation | 4 Comments

Having read my previous post on the casino you should have a pretty good idea as to where the proposed casino will be sited and what people and properties will be impacted. Let’s go back in history to see what was occurring regarding the whole issue of Tribal gaming in the early 2000’s.

Long before the casino was a gleam in the eyes of the Tohono O’odham, in the mid-1990’s the land (approximately 135 acres) was owned by Jerry Kowalsky. Mr. Kowalsky and his group purchased the land in order to establish Icon Movie Studio. In tandem with submitting his plan he also started the procedure to annex the land. His plan was not approved by council. The dream died. Land that had been annexed was later deannexed by the city. His plan for a movie studio, some say, was never welcomed by the mayor. It was rumored at the time that she did not like the gentleman and did not believe he has the financing in place. Well, we all know now what a good judge of character and financial ability she turned out to be – witness Ellman and Moyes, both of whom promised much and delivered little. I supported Mr. Kowalsky’s plan. I believed it would be a catalyst to bring jobs and to cause support businesses to locate there. Do you remember a movie, The Passion of Christ, produced by Icon Studios? It made a bazillion dollars. So much for Icon and its financial capabilities.

Ned Norris Jr.
Tohono O’odham
Nation Chairman

DianeEnos Pres Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community

Diane Enos
President
Salt River
Pima-
Maricopa
Indian Community

It is widely known that since the spring of 2001 at the very latest, the Tohono O’odham was looking at West Valley locations for a possible casino site. they originally looked in the Buckeye area but their consultants advised them it was too far out and needed to be closer and in fact, suggested Glendale.While they were land shopping the talk of the state was a tribal gaming compact scheduled to go before the voters of the state in the election of 2002 known as Proposition 202. In the years previous all of the tribes in the state had met and worked collectively to hammer out the parameters of the proposed compact before bringing it to the state and the voters. The Tohono O’odham were heavily engaged in the inter-tribal discussions to hammer out this framework. Lately in court, the Tohono O’odham has been saying that they were unaware of any discussion to keep casinos out of metropolitan areas. Yet governors and legal counsel representing the tribes have flatly stated that the TO’s involvement in the process was full and robust. In fact, Ned Norris, Jr. currently President of the TO Nation, actively and publicly stumped for passage of Prop 202 knowing full well its provisions and implications. The TO also contributed substantial funding for the publicity campaign used to persuade voters. All the while they were meeting secretly among one another to acquire land in the Phoenix metropolitan area. No wonder they wanted to retain their 4 casino allocation. They never planned to build the 4th casino in the Gila Bend area-they were too busy planning for the Phoenix area.

The following comes directly from the publicity pamphlet entitled, Yes on 202: The 17-Tribe Indian Self-Reliance Initiative, Answers to Common Questions, published and mailed to every registered voter in the state in the spring of 2001:

According to the Prop 202 voter education pamphlet issued by the Arizona Secretary of State: “Voting “yes” on Proposition 202 ensures that no new casinos will be built in the Phoenix metropolitan area and only one in the Tucson area for at least 23 years.”

Gregory Mendoza President of Gila River Indian Community

Gregory Mendoza
President
Gila River
Indian Community

In Congressional hearings on the issue held last year Gila River Indian Community Governor Gregory Mendoza stated, “No new casinos in the Phoenix metropolitan area was a requirement made clear to all 17 tribes involved in the compact negotiations. It was a key commitment and without it there would never have been acceptance or the passage of Prop 202.”

The voter-approved Proposition 202 was rooted in three key elements:

Indian casinos would be kept out of neighborhoods;
Each tribe agreed to a specific casino allocation; some even gave up rights to additional casinos in order to limit the number within the state; and
Then Governor Jane Dee Hull in the Prop 202 voter education pamphlet issued by the Arizona Secretary of State, echoed the same with, “Voting ‘’yes” on Proposition 202 ensures that no new casinos will be built in the Phoenix metropolitan area and only one in the Tucson area for at least 23 years.” This was a lynch-pin issue for the Governor. Without it she was not willing to advocate for or sign a compact.

In December 2002 the Tohono O’odham and the state executed the voter approved compact and in February 2003 the United States Secretary of the Interior approved the compact. All the while Rainer Resources, Inc., a Delaware company with a Seattle mailing address acting as a Tohono O’odham shell company, secretly sought land in the Phoenix Metropolitan area for a casino.

In August of 2003, the TO under the guise of its shell company bought the land, knowing that it was within Glendale’s boundaries. Back in the 70’s there were “land wars” and each city staked out territory for future annexation. Glendale’s recognized western boundaries were set at Northern Avenue as its north boundary and Camelback Road as its south boundary. Any unincorporated land between those two boundaries could only be annexed into Glendale. The TO knew that for it had been policy and formally recognized for at least 30 years.

All that I have related regarding the TO’s actions can be found in the most recent court filing of April 14, 2013 and can be accessed by using this link: http://www.azcentral.com/ic/community/pdf/glendale-casino-case-court-filingx.pdf

President
George W.
Bush

In 2003 there was absolute silence and the TO waited. Why? For a more favorable President and administration to assist them with their agena. They needed an administration to interpret the law favorably. George W. Bush, a Republican, was President at the time and his administration would not have supported the TO’s stealth move. So, they continued to wait until times and administrations became more favorable. In 2008, Barack Obama, a Democrat, was elected as the nation’s President. Good times for the TO had arrived. The tribe had waited 6 years. It was now 2008 and their time had come and they would not be denied. Van Jones, President Obama’s former Green Jobs Czar, said this about Native Americans, “No more broken treaties. No more broken treaties. Give them the wealth. Give them the wealth. Give them dignity. Give them the respect they deserve. No justice on stolen land. We owe them a debt.”

President
Barack
Obama

Almost immediately upon Obama’s inauguration, in late January of 2009, the TO literally descended upon Glendale’s City Hall and announced that they were coming…take it or leave it, like it or lump it. On January 28, 2009, the Tribe met with city staff and informed them that they had transferred the land into its own name and had filed an application asking the Secretary of the Interior take the proposed casino site into trust so that it could be used for gaming. On the following day, the TO issued a press release with their intention to build a “Las Vegas-style” casino on the site. Two months later, city staff, having requested more specific information from the TO for their next meeting, met with the Tribe. The Tribe declined to provide any information until they had successfully secured reservation status. They knew they were now in the “cat-bird’s” seat and cooperation was not necessary to secure their objective.

So far, I have not broached the subject of the casino and its siting. Next up will be the casino and its implications for an urbanized area.

Apr 13

12

Coyotes financial history

Posted by Joyce Clark on April 12, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale | Tagged With: finances, Gary Bettman, Jerry Moyes, jobing.com arena, Phoenix Coyotes, Steve Ellman | 3 Comments

Steve Ellman

Through a Request for Information processed by the City of Glendale, I obtained information about arena management company finances over the years. I do not have a complete picture but I do have information that relates to 2006 to 2007, during the time when Jerry Moyes was the majority owner of the team and arena manager, and 2010 to 2013, the time that the NHL has been owner of the team and arena manager. From the time the arena opened in 2003 to 2006, Steve Ellman was majority owner of the team and the arena manager. Records for his period of management are as elusive as the man himself. When the national economy went south the two men responsible for bringing the team to Glendale left it, holding the bag. Is it karma that Steve Ellman declared bankruptcy regarding Westgate and Jerry Moyes declared bankruptcy regarding the team?

Jerry Moyes

In 2006 to 2008 the arena was managed by the Arena Management Group, LLC (AMG), a Delaware Limited Liability Company. The managing member and 100% owner of AMG was Coyotes Holdings, LLC (CH) and Jerry Moyes was the majority owner of record. Moyes was originally a minority partner in Steve Ellman’s ownership group, which bought the Coyotes from Richard Burke in 2001. On September 26, 2006, Ellman sold controlling interest in the Coyotes, Arizona Sting, and the lease to Jobing.com Arena to Moyes. Independent Auditor’s Reports by BDO Seidman, LLP., an accountancy and consultancy firm, were produced that covered the period of 2006 and 2007, just prior to Moyes’ bankruptcy filing.

The auditor’s report shows the following :

2006 2007

Revenues $7,142,000 $6,499,000

Expenses:

Event $5,616,000 $4,413,000

General and Administrative $ 7,303,000 $ 9,052,000

Total expenses $12,919,000 $13,465,000

Net Loss ($5,777,000) ($6,966,000)

Balance as of June 30, 2005 Member’s Deficit ($9,641,000)

Net Loss ($5,777,000)

Balance as of June 30, 2006 Member’s Deficit ($15,418,000)

Net Loss ($6,966,000)

Balance as of June 30, 2007 Member’s Deficit ($22,384,000)

The managing member(s) had plowed over $22M to cover the losses incurred in 2006 and 2007. The general and administrative expenses appear to be disproportionately high during this period.

Gary Bettman

In 2008, Moyes told Gary Bettman that he would stop funding the club and so, the figures for 2008 were not included in this request. The NHL was willing to provide funding on an emergency basis if Moyes would turn over his voting control. Their divisiveness became public in May 2009 when the League nearly sold the Coyotes to Jerry Reinsdorf. Moyes would have received very little, if anything, from the sale. Moyes immediately put the Coyotes into bankruptcy protection and announced a plan to sell the club to Jim Basillie. Moyes also filed a lawsuit against the NHL, alleging the league was an “illegal cartel.” Bettman, in return, argued that the league had been blindsided and that Moyes did not have the authority to put the club into bankruptcy protection. Financial records for 2009, during this period of turmoil were not provided from the city.

In the 3 years in which the Arena Newco, LLC., (NHL) has been managing the arena, and according to the documents that they submitted to the city, the costs and revenues have been pretty consistent. Revenues average in the $6M to $7M range and expenses average about $12.5M. The Net Operating Loss average is about $5.5M.

If you look the Moyes figures and the NHL figures they are pretty close to one another. I think it is safe to assume that the costs of operating the arena with the team as an anchor tenant will be in the $12M to $13M range. Revenues have consistently been in the $6M to$7M range with an annual operating loss of about $5M to $6M. Keep in mind these figures do not create any Return on Investment for any of the 4 groups and their investors vying to acquire the team. If the city council rejects all of these potential buyers it is safe to assume that they will be looking an annual expenditures of about $8M to cover the construction debt payment and another $12M to operate the arena. Undoubtedly that $20M annual expenditure will be offset by sales taxes collected on revenue but they should not expect revenue to be comparable to the current $6M to $7M range.

There is another issue to be considered and that is , Capital Repairs. There is a Capital Replacement and Renewal Account from which to pay these items. How hefty is it? None of the documents are clear. But it is known that apparently the roof is leaking and may require as much as $2M to fix.

Revenues have been low for a variety of reasons. In 2003, the team was sited in a new geographical location and it took time for fans to adjust their mindset to make the drive to Glendale. Moyes and the NHL have not had a particularly strong track record in booking other events into the arena. In fact, this year saw the least number of non-hockey events booked than in any previous year. Of course, the first lockout and the most recent lockout did not help. Add to this the fact that the team has not had an owner since 2009 and we have had a referendum attempt to get rid of the team and an election to void the sales tax increase. Throw into all of this mix, a national economy that took a nose dive. This team and this location have never had a fighting chance to realize its full potential.

My hat is off to all of the potential buying groups for believing that they have solutions to all of these issues and can turn the profitability picture around. No matter who succeeds they will have a lot of work to do to rebuild revenues as well as the fan base and confidence in this team. Can it be done? I believe… and I believe the answer is “yes.”

Apr 13

11

Casino…to be or not to be, Part 1

Posted by Joyce Clark on April 11, 2013
Posted in Casino | Tagged With: casino, City of Glendale, Tohono O'odham | 4 Comments

On April 9, 2013 there was a court hearing in Phoenix on the issue of the proposed Tohono O’odham casino. From the reporting that has occurred Judge Campbell’s mind appears to be made up and it does not bode well for the State, the Gila River tribe or Glendale. Today I begin a series on the proposed Tohono O’odham casino. It’s proposed location is in a County island within the borders of Glendale, Arizona. We’ll look at geography and where the proposed casino sits in relation to other sites within Glendale. I created this map. It is not to scale but it does demonstrate the relative position of other, established development to the proposed casino site. Unfortunately, this site does not allow for a larger image. If you would like to see a larger version, email clarkjv@aol.com and I will send it to you as a jpg. file.

Perhaps the most important piece of geographical information is that the proposed casino will be approximately less than a 1/2 mile north of the Westgate site and Jobing.com arena. Another piece of the puzzle is the number of homes nearby:

There are 4 high density residential sites. Two of them are near Cabelas, directly south of and adjacent to the proposed casino site, for a total of approximately 800 units. The two other high density sites are in Westgate and are another approximately 800 units.

Now, add to those 1600 apartment units, these nearby residential communities: Provenance (across 91st Avenue and within 1/4 mile) with 120 homes; Rovey Farm Estates (across 91st Avenue and witin 1/4 mile) with 800+ homes; Broadway (within a mile) with 60+ homes; Pendergast Estates (within a mile) with 60+ homes; and Desert Mirage/La Buena Vida (within a mile) with 1200+ homes. That’s a total of 3,840 residential units in close proximity to the proposed casino. The recognized multiplier of residents per home is 2.5. Multiply those units by 2.5 persons per unit and that equates to 9,600 or almost 10,000 people living in very close proximity to the proposed casino.

Centrada Norte

In addition to existent development in the area there are many future developments that have already been approved by Glendale City Council. These developments would add more hotels, more commercial and some additional residential units to the area. Some of these approved projects are: Centrada Norte, Bella Villagio, Sportsman’s Park East/Sportsman’s Park West, and Zanjero – all within a quarter of a mile to a mile away). By no means is this a complete list.

Kellis HS

There is also a Peoria district high school. Raymond Kellis, directly east and across 91st Avenue from the proposed casino. The Peoria district also owns land to the east of the high school that has been planned for a number of years to beome an elementary school.

To recap, the proposed casino would impact nearly 10,000 people, a high school, Westgate and all future development of the area.

Next up…how did the Tohono O’odham get the land?

Apr 13

10

Is a Star dimming?

Posted by Joyce Clark on April 10, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale | Tagged With: April Fools, Glendale Star | 2 Comments

I come from an era of journalism which required reporters to investigate, interview and confirm their facts by the use of two or three corroborating sources before a story ever saw the light of day. Today’s reporting is a far cry from old school journalism. Bias does not just have a foot in the door. Often it is its entire body.

Bias is insidious. It creeps in with an editor’s conscious choice of what will be reported. A local TV station is notorious for this tactic. Rather than openly stating its position it reports almost exclusively on stories that are sympathetic to their point of view or advance their preference on an issue. Bias also shines forth in the choice of words, especially adjectives and adverbs, used to narrate a story. An example might be, “the subject hesitantly entered the room” or “the subject boldly entered the room.” Same statement of fact, isn’t it? But the choice of descriptors paints two entirely different pictures in your mind.

The only place within media where bias is legitimately used is in its Editorial. That is the only instance when a TV station or a newspaper has the freedom to take a position on an issue and openly announce that it is their position. The Glendale Star’s editorial of April 4, 2013 entitled “Glendale taxpayers can hope and dream” had me in a state alternating between utter disbelief and uncontrollable hysteria.

In its Editorial there are expressions of thought such as this, “So, how will the city manage to come out of its terrible deficit with a balance sheet that is less than depressing? That question can only be answered by those with knowledge of the public finance system. The keepers of the city’s books, who will be working with an independent auditor in the next few weeks, should be able to show where the money went, and possibly how it can be retrieved or replaced,” or this, “Why there could be hundreds of thousands of dollars lying around in one account or another. Perhaps all of this gloom and doom talk about the city’s financial condition is just a bad joke, and the auditors will find a pot of gold stashed away in a corner of City Hall.”

Maybe this Editorial was merely an April Fool’s joke. Either that or it was written by someone foolish enough to buy into Councilmember Alvarez’ paranoia that someone in City Hall hatched a nefarious plot to abscond with oodles of city money. Perhaps they think it was former City Manager Beasley who set up a secret stash in the Bahamas. I suggest that they check the undersides of the former City Manager’s desk drawers. Perhaps they’ll find the secret bank account access code.

There are two bills before the state legislature, HB2533 and HB2483 that would seriously weaken newspapers, especially small, local papers like the Glendale Star. I have always supported the notion that a variety of newspaper companies is to the benefit of the average citizen. But local papers do a disservice to themselves and the citizen support they must have, when I read an Editorial such as the one I’ve described.

Apr 13

9

Ze pond

Posted by Joyce Clark on April 9, 2013
Posted in fish pond • Koi pond | Tagged With: fish pond, koi, koi pond, pond plants | 4 Comments

It’s the beginning of April, 2013, and spring has definitely arrived. All of the plants surrounding the pond are starting to bloom and in a few days there will be more riotous color than there is now.

The pond seems to be in “balance” right now and one can see the pond shelf that borders the perimeter of the pond underwater. An abundance of fish is there for our viewing pleasure as well. My husband counts 18 fish. I, not being as diligent, can count maybe 14 fish. No matter, at this time, they are all healthy, voracious eaters and have just started spawning. This morning we observed a pod of them chasing a white Koi that my husband had named “Big Al.” I suppose the more appropriate name, given the activity we saw, would be “Big Alice.” I doubt that we will suddenly be overrun with baby fish. The eggs will be eaten almost as soon as they are spotted as we are not set up to breed baby fish.

Other creatures are in mating mode as well – the birds, the butterflies and the dragon flies. We are not happy about the return of our dragon flies. For you see, they lay their eggs which hatch into nymphs. These nymphs are voracious little suckers and last year, they happily attached themselves to the smallest of our fish and killed them. These nymphs are about an inch long and dark in color. We find some, but not all, in the filter net of our pond.

We have not had to worry about predators like raccoons but our greatest foe is a resident heron. The folks in our area all live on one acre, horse properties. A heron has nested on a property several houses away from ours. He often comes over to visit by sitting on our roof which is a wonderful perch for him as he can see everything in the pond. We’ve installed a heron decoy and move it from time to time as instructed. Does it work? We don’t know yet. If we see fish carcasses lining the pond perimeter we’ll know that the decoy didn’t work.

With our cool, 60 degree nights and mornings in the 70’s, there is nothing better than sitting on our back patio, listening to the sounds of our waterfalls, viewing all of the vibrant color and watching our fish madly darting after one another. This is undoubtedly the best time of year not just for humans but for the fish as well.

Apr 13

8

April 7, 2013 NHL Commissioner Bettman interview transcribed

Posted by Joyce Clark on April 8, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale | Tagged With: NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, Phoenix Coyotes, relocation, Seattle, suitors | 1 Comment

On Sunday, April 7, 2013, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman gave the following interview. I have taken the liberty of transcribing it and then commenting on his answers to the questions posed to him. Here’s the link if you wish to listen and follow the transcription:

http://www.king5.com/sports/NHL-Commissioner-comments-on-Seattle-franchise-201875051.html

Bettman Interview from King5.com by Chris Daniels, April 7, 2013 (3 minutes, 40 seconds)

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman

Reporter (R) Question 1: Unintelligible

Bettman (B) Answer: “We’re not planning on changing the realignment and we’re not planning on moving Phoenix, as we stand here today.” (Italics and bold mine)

Please note that I have italicized and boldened Mr. Bettman’s last phrase. He could have ended his comment after he said we’re not planning on moving Phoenix but he threw in that last phrase, “as we stand here today.” That does not seem to omit future consideration of moving the team.

R Q 2: Is any decision on Phoenix imminent?

B A: “No, when it becomes imminent we’ll tell you. We apparently aren’t operating on the same time frame that a lot of your colleagues are.”

R Q 3: Well, what time frame are you operating on?

B A 3: “On one that works on getting the project completed in a successful light.”

R Q 4: Do you have multiple…Can you give us an update on Phoenix?

B A 4: “As Bill Daly said, quoting him who was quoting me, this is a work in progress and it remains such and Frank hates that when I use that over and over again. But we’re continuing to work on it and there are a lot of things that are in play.”

In Commissioner Bettman’s answers to Q 2, 3 and 4, I would bet you he said the same things in 2010, 2011 and 2012.

R Q 5: In terms of keeping the team in Glendale or…?

B A 5: “Well, we haven’t been exploring the alternatives.”

What is unsaid is just as relevant as what was said in this response and that is we haven’t been exploring alternatives right now.

R Q 6: You haven’t explored relocation?

B A 6: “We are exploring everything we can to work this out and there seems to be considerable interest. You know, if you go through the history of this, there have been lots of reasons this has taken lots of time. There seems to be now, calm at the moment, a lot more interest than we’ve ever seen.”

It is interesting that this question went unanswered and was meant to direct attention away from relocation. Apparently it was successful because the reporter’s follow-up question is related to the time it has taken.

R Q 7: Why do you think that is…going for a long time?

B A 7: “Because there are a lot of things that happened. Some were with our control, some were beyond our control. Whether or not it was third party intervention, whether or not it was the work stoppage, whether or not it was the deal that went bad for a variety of reasons, the fact of the matter is, there seems to be more interest at this particular point in time than we’ve seen throughout the process.”

R Q 8: Is the city any more cooperative?

B A 8: “Well, I’ve been in regular touch with the mayor and we agreed that when we get a framework lined up then we would come see the city. We don’t want the city to have to expend resources and time getting involved until there’s something concrete to present to them.”

The Commissioner’s response corroborates what has been widely suspected and that is the NHL will select a buyer and bring the deal to Glendale to take it or leave it. The NHL certainly wasn’t this solicitous of the time and resources the city used on a parade of previous suitors.

R Q 9: Could there be some kind of combination of previous suitors?

B A 9: “That would require a lot of speculation and information that might not be constructive to the process.”

R Q 10: I’m coming to you so that I don’t have to speculate…

B A 10: “And I would prefer that we not talk about it because what’s more important is that we get through this process and I think we’ll have a better indication from these meetings this week as to whether we’re getting closer to resolving it.”

The Commissioner is reluctant, as obviously anyone would be at this point, to reveal any of the suitors or their deal points.

R Q 11: Is insurance the main issue this week?

B A 11: “There are lots of issues. I know in your business it’s more interesting for the people that follow you to have specific things to focus on. This doesn’t get done until all of the essential elements get done and so it doesn’t take a focus on any one of the issues.”

R Q 13: Can you tell us when the meetings are and who is meeting?

B A 13: “I think the meetings are either Wednesday or Thursday. NHLPA, IOC and double IHI.

R Q 14: How close are you following the NBA Board of Governors and the potential of the Seattle arena going in?

B A 14: “Just from afar.”

Do we really think so?

R Q 15: Does it affect Phoenix?

B A 15: “Not really. Phoenix is Phoenix. They’re gonna, I assume the NBA Board of Governors will make whatever decision they think is in the best interest of the league and the franchise involved.”

I wouldn’t be commenting on Seattle as a relocation possibility for Phoenix either.

R A 16: Seattle in general. Do you have any thoughts on that as a potential hockey market?

B A 16: “The research I’ve seen tells me that it would be a very strong hockey market. I haven’t looked at it in detail but it’s all anecdotal and third hand and obviously, if there were a team in Seattle it might foster a pretty decent rivalry with a northern neighbor, namely Vancouver.”

Look for a team in Seattle in the future. Whether it turns out to be the Coyotes or another team, only the Commissioner knows and he’s not telling.

——————————— END ————————————

Apr 13

7

Just for fun…

Posted by Joyce Clark on April 7, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale | Tagged With: City of Glendale, Gary Bettman, Phoenix Coyotes | No Comments yet, please leave one

Rumors abound about the Coyotes’ ownership saga. Sightings of potential owners now occur regularly at every home game. Thank goodness, according to the research done by one of our Coyotes’ “thug gang,” Greg Dunaway, average attendance is up by at least 7%. When you go to a game, it looks like a full house to me. That surely warms the heart of any potential owner of the team.

At the last game I had my trusty binoculars in tow (usually I forget to bring them or am too lazy to carry them). I spotted John Kaites in Mike Nealy’s suite and George Gosbee chatting in the lower level. I didn’t see LeBlanc, Hulsizer or Jamison. That doesn’t mean they weren’t there. I simply did not spot them. I also saw Councilmember Sherwood in his new Coyotes jersey with his name and number 13 on the back. He visited Nealy’s suite for a generous helping of snacks and goodies and then swiftly disappeared.

Just for fun I have once again added what is fast becoming the Coyotes’ Wheel of Fortune. If you could spin it wherever the pointer landed would be as good a guess as any as to who the new owner will be. There was an old radio show when I was a kid called “The shadow knows.” In this case, it’s not the shadow, it’s Commissioner Bettman who knows the winner of this contest.

Once the new owner is announced and brought to Glendale for the final act, you can then use this trusty Ouija board to find the answer to the question of: Will a majority of the Glendale City Council award the lease management contract? Right now, a Ouija board will give you a comparable answer to any of the speculators. Have fun!

Apr 13

5

Glendale…will they or won’t they?

Posted by Joyce Clark on April 5, 2013
Posted in Jobing.com arena | Tagged With: Anthony LeBlanc, Beacon Sports, City of Glendale, Darrin Pastor, George Gosbee, Greg Jamison, jobing.com arena, Matthew Hulsizer, Mayor Weiers, Phoenix Coyotes, Vice Mayor Knaack | 3 Comments

Late on Friday, April 4, 2013, Craig Morgan, who covers sports for Fox Sports Arizona among a growing list of other media, did an outstanding job of summarizing the recent Coyotes saga. To read his entire article, please go to http://www.foxsportsarizona.com/nhl/phoenix-coyotes/story/Coyotes-ownership-saga-hits-stretch-run?blockID=889001&feedID=3702.

George Gosbee

Anthony LeBlanc

I have chosen some of the most salient snippets for further commentary. He said, “The group led by George Gosbee and Anthony LeBlanc has already submitted its purchase bid to the NHL, and Darin Pastor’s group submitted the paperwork for its proposal to the league on Friday. Greg Jamison’s group is still working on a proposal, but it is expected that they will submit it by the middle of next week, likely under pressure of an imposed NHL deadline.”

Darrin Pastor

Greg Jamison

The latest rumors say the LeBlanc/Gosbee deal is for 15 years, with no opt-out clause and an option to buy the arena. There is no word on the kind of deal submitted by the Pastor group. That’s odd after his flurry of recent publicity. I am especially gratified to see that Greg Jamison is still a player. I must admit that I hope he prevails. I have met him and talked to him in depth and it is still my belief that this man is a perfect fit for the Coyotes. Morgan offers that Matt Hulsizer may still be in the hunt as well. Maybe…maybe not. Mr. Hulsizer, a successful businessman, married into a family of wealth. They were willing to support him on his first attempt to buy the Coyotes…and why not? A hundred million dollars would have come from the City of Glendale. Yes, the family investment was still healthy but not as much was on the line as the city’s investment under Hulsizer. My guess is that there is no will to continue on the part of the family. I could be wrong for I have proven so in the past but somehow or another, I am willing to write him off.

Mr. Morgan then goes on to say, “What is likely to happen soon is that the NHL will choose an exclusive buyer, then approach Glendale to negotiate the lease agreement. The Glendale City Council hired Beacon Sports Capital in late March to solicit bids from management companies to run the arena, as well as to handle negotiations with any prospective owners.”

Gary Bettman

This confirms my assessment in previous blogs that the League is in the driver’s seat this time. They will choose the buyer and Glendale will either come to terms with that buyer or not. The option of relocation of the team is certainly not dead yet. This council may have thrown good money after bad in hiring Beacon Sports Capital. It appears that Beacon will have no role in the process when the NHL selects the owner. There will be no one to vet. If, however, Glendale cannot or will not come to terms with the newly selected owner, Beacon will then have a role as council will most likely Mayor Weiers’ Plan B with the use of 4 managers for the arena.

In additon, Morgan states, “What that lease agreement will look like is anyone’s guess. Glendale City Councilwoman Yvonne Knaack said recently that the annual fee to the city could “be anywhere from $6 (million) to $10 million on operating, and then maybe another $9 million on debt.”

Councilmember Sherwood publicly recognized a figure of at least $10M to $12M annually for a lease management agreement. Vice Mayor Knaack acknowledged a similar figure as well. She is also correct about the arena construction debt of approximately $9M a year. This is where it gets dicey. Will this council accept a deal that requires a substantial annual payment along with the annual construction debt? Combining the two, the figure will be somewhere in the $20M range annually. But that requires this council to cut expenses elsewhere to absorb the costs of the deal and to continue to build a contingency reserve fund. To date there has been absolutely no will to cut by the new council. In fact, they are considering adding 15 firefighter positions and a new $650K truck and 31 police positions to this budget. They simply cannot do both – manage the annual costs associated with the arena while creating new budgetary expenditures.

Norma Alvarez

We have heard enough from Councilmember Alvarez to know that she wants to pay nothing for the arena and I suspect she thinks there is some group out there that will pay the city for the privilege of managing the arena. Not even her beloved Phoenix Monarch Group was willing to fall for that. If you remember, their base fee was $7M for a limited number of events…read tractor pulls. Nevertheless, she stubbornly holds to that position and has even managed to elicit support from Councilmembers Hugh and Chavira. Councilmembers Martinez and Sherwood recognize the importance of keeping an anchor tenant at the arena for the future of a vibrant Westgate that attracts new development in and around it.

Yvonne Knaack

Jerry Weiers

That leaves two question marks, Vice Mayor Knaack and Mayor Weiers. Vice Mayor Knaack is on the horns of a dilemma. I suspect in her “heart of hearts” she knows that keeping the team as an anchor tenant would be the right choice. But her strongest backers, the fire union, will put tremendous pressure on her if they see their 15 additional firefighter positions and new truck evaporate in this year’s budget. Mayor Weiers, on the other hand, derided the deal the previous council had with Greg Jamison. He should be reminded that Anthony LeBlanc has said publicly that any deal with the city must be similar to the previous deal on the table with Jamison. Weiers is also looking for a deal on the cheap. It will be time for these two people to decide what is more important. Is it more important to send the team packing and leave the legacy of an uncertain future for the arena and Westgate because it’s what their supporters in their previous election now expect of them? Or is it more important to accept that for the sake of Glendale, of Westgate and of West Glendale’s future development potential that sometimes one has to make the difficult and unpopular decision? We will see…soon enough. We all hope that they realize the importance of keeping an anchor tenant at the arena.

I am pleased that this long, painful Coyotes ownership saga is coming to an end. I wish all the potential owners well although I continue to root for Greg Jamison. The Coyotes team has been beleaguered and beaten for too long. They, more than anyone or anything else, have earned certainty about their futures.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

For "the rest of the story"

Categories

Archives

Recent comments from readers

Recent Posts

Archives

Spam Blocked

Apr 13

17

Share this:

Like this:

Apr 13

16

Share this:

Like this:

Apr 13

15

Share this:

Like this:

Apr 13

12

Share this:

Like this:

Apr 13

11

Share this:

Like this:

Apr 13

10

Share this:

Like this:

Apr 13

9

Share this:

Like this:

Apr 13

8

Share this:

Like this:

Apr 13

7

Share this:

Like this:

Apr 13

5

Share this:

Like this: