Posted by Joyce Clark on November 1, 2020
Posted in City of Glendale • Glendale November 2019 Special Election • National Election 2020 • National issues | Tagged With: City of Glendale, Nov. 3rd election, take the poll, your vote for President | 2 Comments
My informal poll is to the left of this column.
Ok. We are down to the wire. This Tuesday is the country’s official election day but many of us have already voted. I am going to leave this informal poll up until Tuesday evening.
This may be the most consequential election of our lifetimes.
Who did you vote for? This poll is anonymous. There is no way to trace or figure out who voted which way. You only get to vote once.
Posted by Joyce Clark on October 29, 2020
Posted in City of Glendale • Glendale Nove. 3rd election • Phoenix Metro issues | Tagged With: City of Glendale, cons, Nov. 3rd lection, pros, question of recreational marijuana | 4 Comments
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 recently read an article in the Epoch Times, dated October 27, 2020 regarding recreational marijuana use in Pueblo Colorado. Here is the link: https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-true-cost-of-marijuana-a-colorado-town-that-went-all-in_3546091.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-10-27-4 . I urge you to read the entire article.
Pueblo, like the rest of Colorado, allows recreational use of marijuana. It’s a town smaller than Glendale with a population of about 160,000. There is no doubt that marijuana is earning a ton of money for the town—about $100,000 in sales tax monthly. That’s over a million dollars in sales tax a year for the city. The industry employs about 2,000 people at a rate of $12 to $15 an hour. Sounds good, doesn’t it?
However, the article shares the experiences of several Pueblo emergency physicians and now the picture is not quite so rosy. They say the harmful effects far outweigh any monetary benefits. Many people end up in the ER with something called cannabinoid hyperemesis. The cause is chronic cannabis use of high-potency products and stops when the use of cannabis stops. The main ingredient in marijuana is THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). Twenty, thirty years ago a marijuana joint contained about 4% THC. Now the potency is pegged at more than 80%. Then there are the issues of psychosis and schizophrenia typically affecting 17, 18 and 19 year olds.
Pueblo and all of Colorado has seen an increase in all drug use and not just marijuana. Marijuana is a gateway drug that often leads to the use of opiates. Methamphetamine use is up 143 percent, opiates are up by 10 percent, and cannabis is up by 57 percent, according to data from the ER drug screens over the past seven years.
Then there are the not so obvious results. It is much more difficult for employers to find sober workers. There is the effect of more school drop outs and those not dropping out have more difficulty in learning resulting in a larger, unsatisfactorily educated work force. And while town coffers may be bulging, health care costs have increased dramatically. Public safety spends more and more time answering overdose calls taking them away from more serious medical emergencies and crimes.
Arizona already allows the use of medical marijuana and the system is often abused but that action should not be used to allow the use of recreational marijuana. What are we doing to our people ? And most especially to our kids? Aren’t we obligated to protect them?
It’s on the Nov. 3rd ballot. The choice is yours.
© 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.
Posted by Joyce Clark on October 28, 2020
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Heroes Park • Yucca district | Tagged With: City of Glendale, Heroes Park lake, Heroes Regional Park, rendering of lake, Yucca district | 33 Comments
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 you may, or may not be aware, I have been working hard to make Heroes Park Lake a reality. I am pleased to share this first rendering of Heroes Park Lake to be located on the east side of 83rd Avenue just north of Bethany Home Road at Heroes Regional Park. This rendering shows the position and size of the lake (approximately 5 acres) but it does not show ‘the bells and whistles’ that will be incorporated. Since it will be a fishing lake there will be a few fishing piers, a 20’ foot fountain, several shade structures, benches and the planting of larger trees (none of which is depicted in this rendering).
I am so excited and pleased to be able to finally announce that this lake is definitely coming to the park and soon. There are a lot of moving parts that complicated this project including coordination with Salt River Project. Final details on the amenities are still to be determined and finalized. The latest schedule is that work will begin in the first quarter of this coming year, around this coming March or April.
I thank all city personnel that will make this project a reality. If I omit some names, please accept my apology. Thanks to City Manager Kevin Phelps, Assistant City Mangers Jack Friedline (technical) and Vicki Rios (financing), Don Bessler, Special Projects Engineering and Trevor Ebersole, Director of Transportation and Streets (includes engineering). Many more were involved. My thanks also goes to the entire City Council. Without their approval this project would never have occurred. I appreciate their recognition of and commitment to fulfilling the city’s promise to complete Heroes Park. My thanks to every Yucca district resident for your patience. You have had to wait over 20 years to see this park completed. I believe the lake is just the beginning of the road to placing all elements within this park.
© 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.
Posted by Joyce Clark on October 25, 2020
Posted in City of Glendale • National Election 2020 • National issues | Tagged With: City of Glendale, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, National Election Nov. 3rd, policy differences, Presidential candidates | 5 Comments
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.
Before I share my thoughts let me say that I voted and dropped my permanent early ballot off on Thursday at the drop box located in the sub-basement of Glendale’s City Hall. I waited until Saturday and went online to ballotstatus.maricopa.vote to check my ballot status. I filled in a few questions for identity verification and clicked submit. It immediately verified that my ballot had been received and my vote counted. It couldn’t have been simpler. I urge you, if you have a Permanent Early Ballot that you take a moment to fill it out and drop it off at a secure drop box location.
My remarks are directed at those who have not yet voted or will do so in person on Election Day. Let me preface my comments with this. I first registered to vote during my college years at the time of the Presidency of John F. Kennedy. I, like so many, admired this President and so, I registered as a Democrat and remained so for almost 50 years and actually voted for Obama and his first term. Obama’s performance was so disappointing that it was at that time that I began voting Republican and eventually changed my registration from Democrat to Republican. I proudly voted for Donald J. Trump.
In 9 days this nation will make a decision on who will be our President. It’s been said often and although it seems trite this election will most certainly determine if this nation remains a Republic, “if we can keep it.”
We should not be judging these candidates based on personality but that is not reality and so, we do. It is not personality but policy that drives my decision. Trump is a salesman and has always been so – he’s not a career politician in the true sense of the word. He blusters and he exaggerates but those actions should not be confused as lying. He’s not the perfect person but then again, neither is Biden.
Biden is cognitively declining. I’ve seen it occur before in my parents. He exhibits ‘tells’ that I saw in my parents. I believe he is no more than a Trojan Horse filled with Progressives that will be released moving this country into Socialism should Biden win.
Enough with personalities. Policy issues are far more important. Let’s begin with economic policies. It cannot be denied that prior to COVID this economy was roaring. Trump often points to the stock market’s performance. My 401K rose dramatically under Trump’s administration. Before you discount the stock market’s importance, think about this. Are you a teacher? police officer? fire fighter? Where do you think your pension funds are parked? In the stock market. When the stock market does well that bodes well for the futures of many ordinary Americans.
Trump’s policies of tax cuts and reduction regulation led to the prosperity of many while pulling Afro-Americans, Hispanics, women, etc. off the unemployment rolls in historic, record busting numbers. We saw a real wage growth of 6% for blue collar workers. Countless new, small businesses were created and manufacturing came back to America. In nationwide polling more Americans (56%) still believe that Trump will do a better economic recovery job than Biden.
Biden has said repeatedly that he will only raise taxes on those making more than $400,000 annually but he has also said that on his first day he will eliminate Trump’s tax cuts. Independent, neutral tax policy groups have confirmed that Biden’s elimination of those tax cuts will cost 82% of all American families about $6,500 each. Biden would also reinstate the death tax and raise the capital gains tax. The passing down of small, family farms would once again be in jeopardy and that 401K when you take money out of it will be taxed far more.
Energy policy is another issue with stark differences. Under the Trump administration America is finally energy independent. The consequence of energy independence drives foreign policy and creates a rationale to keep America out of foreign wars, especially in the Middle East. Trump supports the use of fossil fuels and fracking and the millions of jobs these policies sustain.
Biden has flip flopped all over. He’s for fracking and then he’s against fracking. Remember that the occupants of the Biden Trojan Horse (Progressives) are adamantly opposed to fossil fuels and support the New Green Deal. Biden, in the final Presidential debate, admitted that he would eliminate all federal subsidies for oil production and fracking. In essence, he is willing to sacrifice our energy independence for a model similar to that of California’s. How’s that working out? Today, one million Californians will once again have their power turned off due to wildfire prevention. The problem with that is wind and solar are incapable of making up the difference in electrical power generation. Hence the blackout.
COVID is another issue that provides differences between the candidates. It’s a choice between optimism and pessimism. Biden said in the final debate that America faces its darkest days ahead. Trump believes that the cure should not be worse than the disease. Truthfully whether Biden or Trump had been in the White House today’s current condition would have been the same. Our fatal mistake, now that America is experiencing a 3rd wave of the virus, is that we should have been protecting the old and the vulnerable and kept the country running. This 3rd wave is due to the fact that the country never built up ‘herd immunity’ and now that so many people are sick of wearing masks (BTW I still wear one) and social distancing not enough of the population has immunity to fight the disease. I suspect this 3rd wave will finally result in the population immunity needed.
There are certainly more stark differences between the policies of the two Presidential candidates but I want to focus on one that especially bothers me as a local, elected official and that is the Affirmatively Affordable Fair Housing Act (AAFHA). President Obama signed an Executive Order establishing this act in 2013 and Trump, via Executive Order in 2018, rescinded it. Thankfully, during its 5 years of existence it was a policy that was never aggressively pushed. In essence, it federally mandated local jurisdictions to implement a plan to create more affordable housing within their communities. If they did not do so their Community Development Bloc Grants (CDBG) and Surface Transportation Bloc Grants (STBG) would be denied. Biden has stated that he would reinstate this policy. This policy would eliminate local control over zoning. A vacant parcel near your home zoned for residential development could end up being developed with a low income affordable housing project on it instead. This act, if implemented, would do more to destroy the fabric of many communities than anything in recent memory.
I know that half of my audience is Democrat and obviously, the other half is Republican but there are still many undecided voters, anywhere from 2% to 6% of the electorate. You, the undecided voter, may very well determine who our President will be. I urge you to put aside your like or dislike based on personality. You must decide based upon policy and what kind of future you would like for you, your family and the country. Even more importantly you have the obligation and the right to vote…something citizens in many countries cannot do freely. It’s up to you. We still have a Republic but can we keep 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.
Posted by Joyce Clark on October 24, 2020
Posted in Blogs • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Yucca district | Tagged With: City of Glendale, joyceclarkunfiltered blog, over half a million reads, Yucca district | 6 Comments
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 first began this blog in the spring of 2013. Since its inception I have written 860 posts centered on issues related to Glendale, from ‘hot button’ topics like the current Glen Lakes issue to past issues including chickens! I have received nearly 3,000 reader comments. My subscribers span the globe from Zimbabwe to China to Kuwait.
I want to thank all of my subscribers for following me these many years! It makes the effort worthwhile. I intend to continue to offer my perspective on Glendale issues until I can no longer see or write. Sometimes you may agree with my take and sometimes I am sure I have angered others. That’s great because it highlights an issue, makes the reader think and hopefully offers a forum to weigh in with your opinion on the topic.
Again, thank you…
Number of reads as of October 24, 2020
© 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.
Posted by Joyce Clark on October 15, 2020
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Glendale election 2020 • Glendale finances • Glendale Nove. 3rd election • Yucca district | Tagged With: City of Glendale, EPCOR franchise agreement, Nov. 3rd election, Proposition 437 | 4 Comments
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 have received a lot of calls, emails and text messages from citizens wanting an explanation of Proposition 437. They say the city has not provided any information on this issue. If you go to www.glendaleaz.com on the landing page there is a link to get you to the information about Proposition 437 and the 4 ballot questions asking for voter approval for bond authorization.
You may have wondered why the city is not asking voters to vote ‘yes’ on Proposition 437 and the 4 bond questions. By state statute a city may not advocate for or against issues presented to the voters when they are city initiated. The city has held at least a dozen public informational meetings on these issues where information about them was presented by staff being careful not to advocate for the issues presented.
With Proposition 437 the city is asking for voter approval to grant a franchise agreement between the city and EPCOR Water Arizona, Inc. Approval would allow EPCOR to construct, maintain and operate water and wastewater utilities within the city including any future annexations, west of 115th Avenue. EPCOR has been providing water and wastewater services to many entities both commercial and residential west of 115th Avenue for many years. All of their current service provision has been on county land not incorporated Glendale land. Since they are already operating in that area and already have the infrastructure in place to provide services it makes sense to grant them the right to service properties in Glendale’s Municipal Planning Area (MPA) as those properties are annexed into Glendale.
The city council approved a policy for future annexations in far West Glendale that mandates the area be used for industrial, commercial and retail development, most particularly around the Loop 303 area. With EPCOR already providing water and sewer services in that area it does not require the city to invest millions of dollars in putting in the needed infrastructure there. EPCOR already has customers and operates in that area as well as in some West Valley cities.
Voter approval of this franchise agreement in no way affects current city water and wastewater customers now getting those services from the city. There is no relationship between the two services. Those people who get water and wastewater services from the city will continue to get those services. Approval of this franchise agreement eliminates the need to expand city infrastructure beyond 115th Avenue. If the voters do not approve this franchise agreement then Glendale may have to build infrastructure in far west Glendale. In this scenario every current customer would bear the associated costs.
As a franchisee of the city EPCOR will be required to pay the city three percent (3%) of its annual gross (not net) receipts. The estimated annual payment to the city is $825,612.
It’s a win-win for the city and for EPCOR. I would recommend a ‘yes’ vote.
Please note my previous blog presented information not just on this issue but on the 4 bond questions that are on the ballot.
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.
Posted by Joyce Clark on October 12, 2020
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Glendale election 2020 • Glendale finances • Glendale Nove. 3rd election • Heroes Park • O'Neil Pool | Tagged With: City of Glendale, Drainage ballot question, EPCO/r franchise question 437, Landfill ballot question, Nov. 3rd election, Parks and Recreation ballot question, Streets ballot question | No Comments yet, please leave one
Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.
As voters receive Early Ballots and we are 3 weeks away from voting in person, it’s a good time to review the items related to Glendale on the ballot..
The first is Proposition 437. The city is asking voters to approve granting a franchise agreement to EPCOR Water Arizona, Inc. Approval would allow EPCOR to construct, maintain and operate water and wastewater utilities within the city including any future annexations, west of 115th Avenue.
The city council approved a policy for future annexations in far West Glendale that mandates the area be used for industrial, commercial and retail development, most particularly around the Loop 303 area. With EPCOR providing water and sewer services it does not require the city to invest millions of dollars in putting in the needed infrastructure in that area. EPCOR already has customers and operates in that area as well as in some West Valley cities.
Granting voter approval for this franchise agreement in no way affects current city water and wastewater customers now getting those services from the city. There is no relationship between the two services. As a franchisee of the city EPCOR will be required to pay the city three percent (3%) of its annual gross (not net) receipts. The estimated annual payment to the city is $825,612. It’s a win-win for the city and for EPCOR. I would recommend a ‘yes’ vote.
There are also 4 Bond Questions on the Nov. 3rd ballot. The city issues bonds to pay for Capital Improvement Projects. These bonds are paid off over time, usually 25 or 30 years. The city has committed that it will issue no more bonds than that which can be paid off while keeping your property tax rate at its current rate. In other words, passage of these bond questions will not raise your property tax bill.
Question 1 is for Parks and Recreation in the amount of $87,200,000. These bonds would not be issued all at once but rather as other bonds are paid off that allows the city to issue new bonds without raising your property tax. Here are the specific projects for which the bonds will be used:
Question 2 is for Streets in the amount of $81,500,00. and lists specific streets that will be reconstructed. It costs between $3M and $4M to reconstruct one mile of arterial street. The specific streets are:
Question 3 is for the Landfill in the amount of $9,900,000.00 and any bonds issued will not be paid back from the General Fund. These bonds will be paid back by the consumers/rate payers that use city sanitation services. Current bond repayments for previously issued bonds are already part of your monthly sanitation bill. These funds will be used for expansion of the city’s landfill as it opens the north cell and closes the south cell.
Question 4 is for Flood Control in the amount of $9,300.000 and will be used for 3 specific projects:
If all or any of these 4 Bond Questions do not pass, there will be no bond money to pay for them. The city options are to not build the project or scale it back. It should also be noted that when voters approve these bond questions, the bonds issued can only be used for the specific projects on the ballot that were voter approved.
I ask that you carefully consider all 4 questions. If you think they are worthy of investment then you will vote to approve them as I am doing.
© 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.
Posted by Joyce Clark on October 3, 2020
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glen Lakes Golf Course • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues | Tagged With: City of Glendale, Glen Lakes Golf Course, landscaping, maintenance, property owner, Ron Short letter | 8 Comments
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 September 29, 2020, Glendale resident Ron Short sent a letter to the Mayor and all Councilmembers regarding Glen Lakes. The entire council appreciates hearing from citizens and values their comments and takes them under consideration when making decisions. I have the utmost respect for Mr. Short. He is a valuable member of our community. In fact, he is a former employee of the city and worked in the Planning Department working on historic properties. Although at some time he may have, I don’t remember his working on any new development or redevelopment applications (unless they had a historical component). His area of expertise was that of historic property preservation.
In his letter he questioned whether the city is an appropriate applicant. Unfortunately, he ‘cherry picked’ the City Code, Section 3.803 – Authorized Applicant. He referenced A. 5., only one of the 6 permissive applicants listed, “5. The Planning Commission or City Council on its own motion at a public meeting; or.”
The complete Section 3.803 – Authorized Applicant., as follows:
“A. An application for an amendment to change the zoning on any property shall be one (1) of the following:
Fact: The applicant for the amendment is the city, owner of record at the time the amendment was filed and meets number 2 of the above Section 3.803. Mr. Short refers to an agreement with Homes by Towne dated December 11, 2019. That was the initial agreement agreeing in principle to sell under certain conditions. The actual sale and close of escrow occurred at a much later date.
Mr. Short, within his letter, then makes reference to the required landscape area referring to Code Section 19-62, On-Site Landscaped Areas and quotes, “All development projects covered by Section 19-4 here shall provide on-site landscaped areas located in accordance with the following standards and requirements: (3) For all development within other zoning districts, landscaped areas shall be provided on the site in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) percent of the net site area.”
Let’s see what Section 19-4 actually says and requires. “The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development or construction, all building remodeling, alterations, additions, or expansions, and to all changes of occupancy in the use or development of land which requires the approval of a development site plan or subdivision plat by the city. Agricultural uses and single-family and two-family residences and their accessories shall be exempt from the requirements of this chapter.” Once again Mr. Short chose one sentence to make his case without bothering to review Section 19-4, his citation, to see if it applied to this development project comprised of single family residences.
Mr. Short also fails to recognize that city code with reference to a Planned Residential Development (PRD) allows for public open space to be a part of the development. The developer in required to build the park (on his dime) and then must dedicate the park to the city as public open space. The requirements for specifications and maintenance of the park area are the responsibility of the city, not the developer, which is his assertion.
Mr. Short refers to the ‘boom times’ the city is currently experiencing and therefore there is no need to sell Glen Lakes Golf Course. Boom times don’t last forever and are often followed by ‘bust’. When ‘bust’ does come, everything is on the table for consideration as to whether it is an essential component of city service delivery. Historically, the city has spent millions of dollars to preserve Glen Lakes Golf Course and if retained would continue to spent considerably more. A component of council’s decision was the question, is it fair and equitable to all city taxpayers to continue to subsidize this golf course? That is a complicated question that each councilmember must decide for himself or herself. Each will have come to a final conclusion when it comes before council for a vote this month.
© 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.
Posted by Joyce Clark on September 30, 2020
Posted in City of Glendale • fish pond • Koi pond • Yucca district | Tagged With: City of Glendale, feeding our Koi, Gambusia, koi, koi pond, landscaping, update, Yucca district | 4 Comments
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.
Our pond was built in 2011 and filled with water for the very first time in March of that year. It’s hard to believe it’s nearly 10 years old. Over the years I have written about the ups and downs of creating a Koi fish friendly pond.
Today we have about 30 Koi. It’s hard to know exactly how many because if you’ve ever tried to count fish, you would understand. We have a mix of standard Koi and Butterfly Koi and a herd of little fish called Gambusia (mosquito fish). The Gambusia multiplies like rabbits. We began by throwing in about a dozen given to us by our neighbor and today who know how many? At least a hundred.
It’s a beautiful, end-of-September day in Arizona and so I took a few photos as the pond looks roday.
It’s time to trim the landscaping plants surrounding the pond once again and I’ve discovered a patch of grass in the pond island area that will have to be removed. Basically, the pond has become a rather simple and calming addition to our backyard requiring minimal maintenance.
Our external filter system with a UV light is cleaned once a year. At that time all of the filter media is removed and replaced with clean, fresh media. Every evening, the two main filter pump filters are cleaned. There is a plastic grate at the intake that stops large items like dead lily pad leaves. Then there is a a square net that collects smaller material and finally, there is a green filter mat that collects small material. It probably takes 15 minutes to remove, wash with a hose and replace.
The fish get fed once a day, consistently around 5:30 in the evening. I bring my bowl of Koi food out and call out “dinner” and they all covey up to the feeding spot. It seems to trigger their appetites because after eating the Koi pellets they will spend several hours grazing on any algae on the rocks in the pond. As the weather gets cooler, I will reduce the amount of the daily feeding and in the winter they will get half the amount they receive now.
As the mornings and evenings cool down we are more likely to sit around the pond and watch the fish do their thing.
© 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.