Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Mar 14

19

Councilmember Gary Sherwood can’t have it both ways on the casino

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 19, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

March 18, 2014 was a “two-fer” in terms of council workshops. The morning session focused on the budget: General Fund budget balancing; Employee medical benefits; and fire staffing. The afternoon city council workshop also had 3 items of discussion: the Becker billboard request; a possible archery range at Heroes Park at 83rd and Bethany; and the Tohono O’odham casino.

I am going to discuss only one of those items here and now – the proposed Tohono O’odham (TO) casino. All of the other items will be covered in a subsequent blog.

In a prior meeting Vice Mayor Knaack requested an assessment of the impact of the proposed casino on the city and during the day’s discussion reminded staff of her original request that: staff (City Attorney Michael Bailey) bring back an assessment of the impact (fiscal and otherwise) of this proposed casino on Glendale; and that staff meet not only with the TO but with the tribes in opposition to the casino. Was Bailey too busy with his tablet and smart phone to pay attention because he fulfilled none of Vice Mayor Knaack’s request? He simply regurgitated former City Attorney Craig Tindall’s well-researched legal opinion on the matter. His actions could be construed as those of someone who is lazy and ill informed. He did not provide this council with Knaack’s original request: that of an assessment of the impact on the city.

Somehow or other the council discussion, at Councilmember Alvarez’ instigation (in person no less), moved to negotiating directly with the TO and opposing Franks’ bill. Chavira and Hugh immediately expressed their support. Mayor Weiers and Councilmembers Martinez and Knaack voiced their dissent. None of this was a vote, as council does not vote at workshop, but gives direction to staff through a majority support to move forward to investigate, plan and bring back information to be voted on in a council meeting.

Four councilmembers (a majority) gave direction to initiate negotiations with the TO and to express the city’s opposition to Congressional Representative Trent Franks’ bill, HR 1410. To what end no one knows because there are still lawsuits to be settled that will determine the proposed casino’s fate.

Councilmember Martinez, in opposition, quoted from a very eloquent article written by former Governor Rhodes of the Gila River Indian Community in the Arizona Republic on October 20, 2010.. The former Governor said, “There’s no literal translation in English that does justice to the tribal word, ‘himdag.’ As Governor of the Gila River Indian Community, himdag guides my every decision, my every action. Himdag, as passed down by our elders across hundreds of years, teaches us to respect for all things, including the value of a promise, abiding by the law and concern for the welfare of others.

Respect as a guiding principle feels old-fashioned in the 21st century, but it exists all the same – even when our community is compelled to sign its name to a lawsuit against the United States Department of the Interior.

You may have read about that lawsuit filed Spt. 16. You may have also read about Glendale’s lawsuit to stop the casino, filed this week. Out of respect, I believe that I must explain the reasons why my community to pointedly disagrees with Washington and with a southern Arizona sister tribe’s plan to build a casino on land they secretly bought in Glendale, 160 miles from their reservation headquarters.

My explanation can be summed up in a single sentence. We believe the TO Nation, with the assistance of the federal government, has disrespected the rule of law, the balance so carefully struck among Indian gaming tribes, our community, Glendale and every Arizonan.

At the crux of our lawsuit is clear evidence that the proper procedure for creating an Indian casino has been sidestepped. I’ll leave the legal wrangling to the lawyers, bit in the 21 months since our sister tribe surprised us with plans to build a casino on our aboriginal lands, our community has learned more than we would care to about legal loopholes, PR spin and shading the truth. The surprises have continues to come, and so have the disappointments especially where our sister tribe is concerned.

In the past, my community and the TO Nation have lived side by side and mutually benefited from our entwined cultures and interests. There’s no better example than the Indian gaming compacts ratified by Arizona voters in 2002. Proposition 202, supported by 17 tribes statewide, including the Gila River and TO communities, created a sound but delicate balance, a promise, that kept casinos out of urban neighborhoods, gave much needed revenue to the state and created an economic engine to lift every tribal community.

To see that balance upset and that promise broken – and to see one tribe use secrecy and legal maneuvering to benefit at the expense of every other tribe and our state – is difficult to comprehend, let alone stand for in silence.

Thus the Gila River Indian Community has taken our case to federal court. Our first goal is to force the federal government to apply federal gaming laws evenly. Never before has a tribe been allowed to “shop” for reservation land half a state away from its homeland, then open a casino on the newly created “pocket reservation.” That not only flies in the face of federal gaming law, but in the face of every Arizona’s vote for Proposition 202.

As for our sister tribe, I know our disagreement is temporary. Himdag has a place of supreme importance in their culture, too. I would like to believe that their leadership will rediscover their way soon enough. I believe we can achieve more together than apart and that greed should never be allowed to trump respect for all things.”

The deciding supporter of Alvarez’ plea was Councilmember Gary Sherwood. Mr. Sherwood can not have it both ways despite the rambling, confusing and often contradictory reasons for his decision. On one hand he says he still supports City Council Resolution 4246 that stated that the city is officially opposed to the TO casino.  It’s important to quote part of that resolution, “Whereas, the City believes that the Tohono O’odham Nation’s assertions and the basis upon which it makes these assertions are incorrect, poor public policy, in violation of the governmental rights, privileges, and authority of the State of Arizona, the County of Maricopa, and the City of Glendale, and are contrary to the best interests of the Citizens of the State of Arizona, the County of Maricopa, and the city of Glendale; and Whereas, the City of Glendale, consistent with the Indian tribes voicing opposition to the Tohono O’odham Nation’s application, opposes off-reservation gaming, including this current effort by the Tohono O’odham Nation to establish gaming on the Proposed Reservation Land, as contrary to the terms of Proposition 202 as presented to the people of the State of Arizona in 2002 and supported by, among other, the Tohono O’odham Nation.” Here is the link to Bailey’s (really Tindall’s legal opinion): http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agendasandminutes/Workshops/Agendas/031814-W03.pdf .

On the other hand, Sherwood then launched into a monologue stating, in essence, the TO casino will create “synergy” with Westgate and drive more business there. In a pig’s eye and he knows it. Subsidized food, drink and room rates at the TO proposed casino will undercut every restaurant, bar and hotel in the Westgate area. Despite his statement that he still supports opposition to the proposed casino and it will be “contrary to the best interest of the City of Glendale and of the citizens of the State of Arizona” he then supported moving forward with negotiations with the TO and opposition to Franks’ bill.  On one hand he says he opposes the casino because it earns not a penny of revenue for Glendale yet on the other, he is prepared to negotiate and facilitate their eventual presence.  His position is illogical yet he became the fourth councilmember needed to achieve consensus and direction.

Why? Sometimes things become clearer with perspective. Think back to the arena deal vote. Sherwood knew Weiers, Hugh and Alvarez were opposed to the arena deal and Martinez and Knaack already supported him and the deal. The vote was split, 3 to 3. He discovered those 5 members could not be dissuaded. Whether one agreed with or opposed their positions they had the principles of their conviction and could not be moved. He desperately needed that 4th vote of approval for the arena deal.

Who was left? Newly elected Sam Chavira — of course. Whispers of this scenario have circulated for months. If Chavira voted for the arena deal, in return Sherwood would support the casino. Is it true? I don’t know but it makes perfect sense and certainly seems to fit the known facts. Did each sell their souls? For what? Political back scratching? To be recognized in public hockey town halls as the saviors of the Coyotes? Reelection financial support from hockey and TO stakeholders with deep pockets?

But at whose expense? The citizens of Glendale locked into unsustainable arena debt of an estimated $27 million a year with a council unwilling to make the budget cuts that make the arena deal feasible? The Westgate area business owners who will suffer from unfair competition? The residents of West Glendale whose property values will decline with the advent of a casino while crime and traffic increases? The Westgate business owners who will suffer from unfair competition?  The Indian tribes who joined the State Compact in good faith? The voters of the State of Arizona presented with a plan to limit casino locations?

These politicians were just that –typical politicians, exemplifying the worst of the offices they hold. Sherwood delivered an irresponsible and dangerous signal to casino friends and foes alike. His flip flop on one of his campaign promises should be remembered when he runs for reelection. Given this, expect him flip flop again and to support the hated billboards proposed for North Glendale.  After all, he confessed that all of the fuss over the billboards was “baffling” to him and he was “pro-business.” There is no statesmanship here.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Mar 14

13

Connections…

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 13, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , | 9 Comments

In the March 13, 2014 edition of the Arizona Republic there is a story by Paul Giblin and Craig Harris entitled Contract violated Glendale Policies. Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2014/03/13/contract-violated-glendale-policies/6359209/ .

It reports that former City Attorney Craig Tindall may have used his influence to award a no-bid contract for the city’s external audit to a friend, Jose de Jesus Rivera of the firm of Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman and McAnally. Apparently Tindall was close enough and comfortable enough to Rivera to send an email on his city computer soliciting tax exempt tuition funding for his son.

Typically contracts over $50,000 are required by city policy to go out to bid as a Request for Proposal (RFP). As a professional services contract that requirement may not have been necessary but there remains a question of undue influence. Surely for a contract of this dollar amount, while not required to go to bid, it may have been prudent to do so. Members of the Glendale City Council seem to be shrugging their shoulders while kicking the can down the road and alluding to “that’s the way it has always been done.” They don’t want any part of this latest debacle.

By the end of the external audit the cost would be over half a million dollars, ten times the amount required for an RFP. Rivera thought there would be an RFP and asked Tindall via email about its timing and release. Instead Tindall submitted a memo to then Interim City Manager Horatio Skeete recommending the use of Rivera and his law firm. Skeete wanted to put the contract out for bid and to issue an RFP but for reasons unknown that did not occur. The result of the external audit was to place blame on Skeete and to completely exonerate Tindall. Could it have been that Rivera, as Tindall’s friend, was well aware of the bad blood between Tindall and Skeete? As friends it appears plausible they may have discussed it. Did that knowledge play any role in the final outcome of the external audit? It seems to be worth your consideration and your decision.

Was the external audit result payback to Skeete by Tindall for having lost his bid to become Interim City Manager? It there a connection between Tindall’s failed attempt to become Interim City Manager and the audit conclusions? You will have to decide. It was a bloody battle for the position of Interim City Manager. Tindall’s supporters on city staff lobbied me and I assume, the rest of council, disparaging Skeete. No such effort occurred on the part of Skeete or any supporters he had. During this period Tindall apparently stalled contracts and other documents on his desk seemingly in an effort to further bloody Skeete’s nose. Council was evenly split between the two candidates and it was Alvarez who broke the tie in favor of Skeete. It appears that Tindall wanted the position far more than he was willing to admit publicly and was disappointed that he did not prevail.

The Republic story goes on to say that Tindall is under on-going investigation by the state Attorney General’s regarding the issuance of this no-bid contract. He is also under an on-going investigation by the state bar as a result of a complaint filed by former Councilmember Phil Lieberman regarding a presumed conflict of interest. Lieberman’s complaint alleges Tindall was employed by the city while he also was general counsel to IceArizona, successful bidders on the Jobing.com Arena management contract, constituting a conflict of interest. I do remember a conversation had with Tindall during the period of the Jamison bid for the arena management contract and his assertion that he was talking to other “serious” bidders ready to come forward if the Jamison bid failed. Was Anthony LeBlanc, of IceArizona, one of those “serious” bidders? How much information about the Jamison bid was shared with these “serious” bidders? Skeete alleged to me, and presumably other councilmembers, that Tindall appeared to be holding up negotiations as the Jamison contracts sat on his desk for inordinately long periods of time. When Skeete was queried as to his awareness of the most recent Jamison contract amendments, his response was that Tindall still had them and he had not seen them. Were these actions by Tindall more payback to Skeete or even worse, was it an attempt to railroad the Jamison bid in favor of these other “serious” bidders? I don’t know and don’t know if we will ever find out. All we know is that there are connections – between Tindall and Rivera; Tindall and Skeete; and Tindall and “serious” bidders for the arena management contract.  What part these connections played in the outcomes is yet to be discovered.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Mar 14

10

Monthly arena revenues to date

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 10, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , | 15 Comments

There are figures available for the first six months of the Jobing.Com management agreement covering from August, 2014 through January, 2014. No figures are available for February, 2014 even though we are in March of 2014. We can expect them at the end of March. Why it takes a full month to publish the figures is a mystery. After all, the city is directly reporting the figures supplied to it by IceArizona. The agreement took effect in August of 2014 and there were no ticket sales that month.

The monthly arena report reflects numbers supplied by IceArizona, manager of the arena. It reflects ticket revenues to the city on qualified ticket sales only. Non-qualified tickets could be anything from discounted to comped tickets. The qualified tickets per game do not reflect total per game attendance as reported publicly by IceArizona. The arena has a seating capacity of approximately 17,700. Some of the games were reported as sold out – standing room only. A portion of the ticket sales for those sold out games must have been discounted or comped and therefore not counted as qualified tickets requiring the surcharge of $3 per ticket.  It appears as if the city is not earning the revenue it could. Perhaps more of these tickets should be considered as qualified. Here is a summary of the qualified tickets that actually earned the city revenue month by month:

               # of hockey           Ticket Surcharge divided            Average number

                          events                  by $3 per game                        of Qualified tickets/game

August, 2013                0                             0                                                 0

September, 2013         1                       $16,413 ÷ $3                             5,471      (1 game)

October, 2013              7                     $203,289 ÷ $3                            9,680      (7 games)

November, 2013          6                     $193,517  ÷ $3                          10,751      (6 games)

December, 2013          4                      $153,975  ÷ $3                         12,831      (4 games)

January, 2014              10                    $355,135  ÷ $3                        11,837     (10 games)

A question that has never been answered satisfactorily is how come the Interest Income on the Escrow Account was posted at $4,620 as of September 30, 2013 and that number has not changed to this day? There is no posting of any accrual to that account in Oct.- Nov.- Dec. or Jan.

As of January 31, 2014 the city has spent $6,502,055 toward the $15,500,000 owed this year per the arena agreement. Offsetting revenues earned of $2.7 million have not covered the $6.5 million spent and to date the city has a loss of $3,705,324.

If there are no playoff games the total revenues for the city for FY 2013-14 which ends June 30, 2014 can be estimated at $6 to $7 million dollars. Add another approximate $1 million in Supplemental Ticket Surcharges ($1.50 per qualified ticket) for a total revenue estimate of $7 to $8 million dollars. The city will pay out $15.5 million this year. It is estimated that the loss will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $7.5 million dollars on the arena this year.

Then there is the annual arena construction debt payment at an estimated $12 million a year. It is offset by the sales taxes earned at Northern Crossing, Cabela’s, Tanger Outlets and the businesses in surrounding Westgate. It does not include sales tax earned inside the arena as that is counted as part of the arena revenue of $2.7 million to date. The estimate of the amount of annual sales tax earned from these sources is approximately $4million. That means the city will have to find an estimated additional $8 million to cover the shortfall on the arena construction debt.

The underperformance of both revenue sources: arena revenues and Westgate/Northern Crossing/Cabelas sales tax revenues will fall short and cause the city to pay an estimated $15 million this year over and above all revenues earned. The only ways the city can continue to subsidize arena expenses is to: raise the temporary sales tax and make it permanent; increase property taxes and reduce city services by eliminating some or privatizing. The question for every Glendale resident is, is it wise to continue to subsidize arena losses by raising taxes and reducing/eliminating city services?

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Mar 14

9

Our Koi pond is 3 years old today!

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 9, 2014
Posted in City of Glendale  | No Comments yet, please leave one

IMG_5506

Pond March 2014

There were so many lessons learned:

  1.  Be patient. Water quality, if you are going to have Koi in your pond, is critical. It takes a substantial amount of time for the biologic enzymes to plant themselves in your pond and filters and grow. I would wait probably about 6 months before introducing any fish into your pond.  I learned the hard and expensive way. I freaked out when algae took over the pond and so, I added chemicals, lots of them. I created a toxic waste dump that killed fish continually. That set us back by about a year and a half. I kept adding fish and they kept dying. I have learned that there are ways of curing pond problems without the use of chemicals. I have not used any chemicals for the last year and a half. For instance, I now use barley to keep the algae from taking over. I put in about a dozen lilies and other pond vegetation to provide shade and to help oxygenate the water.

    IMG_5468

    Pond March 2014

  2. Overbuild your filter system. The original filter system simply could not handle the volume of water in the pond. After trying various external DIY filter systems, many of which worked but were too small to handle the volume of water, we settled on a four barrel system using different media. This system does a really good job of keeping the water clear.

3. Choose your pond builder carefully. One contractor was recommended by a friend. To be safe we did get 5 bids. Some couldn’t build the kind of pond we envisioned and wanted to use a lot of concrete. Others wanted to add so many bells and whistles (that later we would discover were not necessary) that the cost was more than we could afford. The contractor we chose was the friend’s recommendation (not the highest bid and not the lowest bid) but we had to fix many of the problems he created.

4.  The shade is your friend in hot climates. Last summer we built a DIY shade cover for the pond, 17’ X 31’. We put it up in June and took it down in October. We will put it up when the temperatures stay consistently around 95 to 100 degrees and the sun becomes brutal. It not only shaded the pond and kept the water temperature lower by as much as 8 to 10 degrees but it also kept our only predator, the heron, away. Little did I know that any heron existed in Arizona much less in our area until he came to visit and I noticed that we lost some fish. There seems to be only two ways to keep predators at bay. Put netting over the entire water surface area or in our case, put up a shade cover. Since we don’t have raccoons or bobcats – just the heron – the shade cover works for us.

5.  Rain in the desert is a rarity and when it does come you must compensate for it. After rain storms I was losing fish and couldn’t figure out why. Then I learned what rain can do to a pond. The rain water can be acidic and can also deplete the oxygen levels. Test your water frequently so that you can establish base line levels of water quality. After a rain test again and treat the water naturally, as needed. We have also learned to add extra oxygen before a rain storm, during and after it. It’s another DIY project. We use a small, submersible pump, a short piece of hose and a spray nozzle. The extra water spray into the pond keeps the oxygen level steady.

pond in winter

Pond in winter

In the meantime my husband goes about merrily naming our brood as we spend mornings and evenings sitting by the pond watching our Koi “do their thing.” Our pond has given us countless hours of pleasure. Were the time, expensive mistakes and tears worth it? For us, the answer is “yes.”

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Mar 14

3

Say it ain’t so…not another pawn shop

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 3, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 2 Comments

Recently the City of Glendale approved yet another pawn shop, Go Daddy Pawn, in south Glendale at 67th Avenue and Bethany Home Road, specifically in zip code 85301. Now USA Pawn wants to plant itself a mere 300 to 500 feet away from Go Daddy Pawn. Not another pawn shop! Give south Glendale a break. There are more than a half dozen pawn shops within shouting distance of one another in the area.

Not all residents, but many who live in zip code 85301 are poor. It is a socio-demographic area under stress. There are, at a minimum, 15 apartment complexes. Housing can and often will sell for less than $100,000. An obscene number of pawn shops, liquor stores, title loan shops and we buy gold & silver shops dot the landscape – far more than in any other part of Glendale. I won’t even get into the number of south Glendale billboards (ala the north Glendale situation that has residents currently fighting their placement along Bell Road).

85301 is a ripe and juicy target area for the non-profits of the world. Many wish to locate in 85301 to be close to their client base. After a while it becomes a “chicken and egg” situation. The non-profits are drawn there to do good. That in turn, attracts more people in need to the area which, in turn, attracts even more non-profits. It becomes a never ending cycle that drags down property values. These types of commercial/retail seek out areas such as 85301.

Pawn shops are not healthy for any community. In a University of Michigan Law School study (here is the link: https://www.law.umich.edu/centersandprograms/lawandeconomics/workshops/Documents/Winter2008/miles.pdf ) “…estimates indicate that a 10% increase in the rate of pawn shops raises the rate of robberies, burglaries, and larcenies in urban counties by between 0.8 and 1.1 percentage points.” It found that, “pawn shops increase the rates of robbery, burglary, and larceny…”

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 at 6 PM the Glendale citizen Planning Commission will decide whether to grant a Conditional Use Permit for USA Pawn Shop. The meeting will be in the council chambers of Glendale City Hall.

Whether you live in zip code 85301 or not, please plan to attend and to ask the Planning Commission to deny USA’s request. You don’t have to live in that zip code, or in Glendale for that matter, to have an opinion and to speak. The Planning Commission, similar to a city council, can be swayed by the numbers of people in attendance opposing or supporting an issue. Your neighbors need your help and your support more than ever. It starts with just one person who does not assume that others will do the job. Be part of the solution.

Why bother? Because negative zoning requests such as this know no bounds. They are like sludge, silently expanding their boundaries. While they are predominately located south of Glendale Avenue now, look for a future that moves these indicators of decline further north in Glendale – first to Northern Avenue and then beyond as they relentlessly move northward in our city.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Mar 14

3

What’s with the Coyotes?

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 3, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , | 19 Comments

I have watched nearly every Coyotes game this season. The St. Louis Blues game on March 2, 2014 was positively painful as the team disintegrated in the third period and blew a lead. Does that suddenly make me an expert? Gosh, far, far from it. Yet even the most uneducated fan recognizes the team’s lack of consistency from game to game. In one game they are brilliant. In the next it’s as if they don’t know each other. What seems to be happening now is more than a lack of consistency. It’s as if a malaise has settled over the team destroying its chemistry.

Everyone has assumed since 2009 that stable ownership would offer certainty to the players and would remove the team’s collective anxiety causing them to play with more confidence. Yet in 2012 while under the ownership of the League’s front office and with no ownership surety the team made the play offs and won the divisional title. Is throwing money at the problem the solution? Don Maloney and Dave Tippett operated on a shoe string that year and pulled it off. They had no choice. They were magicians.

In the face of disappointing team play this year, the year of stable ownership, ffn the face of disappointing team play nce. Yetary 28, 2014 game against the Colorado Avalanched acquire new ones. hat was it wian chirping has begun – but in a subdued fashion as no one wants to anger or alienate the new owners. The collective fan solution seems to be to get rid of some players and acquire new ones. Candidates identified after the February 28, 2014 loss to the Colorado Avalanche are Schlemko, Stone, Riberio and Smith. The team’s core has remained intact throughout the years of uncertain ownership drama  – Doan, Hanzel,Virbrata, Bissonette, and Yandle, to name a few. Instead of removing and replacing players the real question is, what has happened mentally and collectively to this core? There is evident frustration and anger. Witness some of Doan’s public remarks about the team’s abysmal play. One would think it has spilled over into the locker room – oh, to be a fly on THAT wall.

It’s too late to right the ship this year. Maloney and Tippett have to identify the mental poison and apply the antidote. That takes time. Unfortunately this year’s poor showing will affect the bleeding bottom line of the owners and of the City of Glendale. How long can either entity sustain the financial loss? In the case of the owners they would have you believe it’s not a problem for them but it most certainly is for Glendale. Glendale entered into the ownership deal relying upon the new owners’ promise to partially reimburse (the estimate was $9 million) the city for the management fee of $15 million a year through “enhanced revenues.” All estimates are that this figure will not be met – not even close to it.

On a different note: The owners just hosted Jewish Heritage Night. Great. I would expect to see Christian, Muslim and Buddhist Heritage Nights as well. If there is no recognition of other faiths, don’t we call that discrimination in this country?

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Mar 14

2

An idea whose time has come

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 2, 2014
Posted in Camelback Ranch Spring Training Facility • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 1 Comment

Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers delivered his State of the City remarks to a packed audience at the annual Glendale Chamber of Commerce dinner at the Renaissance Hotel on Thursday, February 27, 2014. Although his news about Glendale’s finances was dire it was also a fair assessment. He is to be commended for his forthright speech. Here is a link to a recap: http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20140228glendale-arizona-state-of-the-city-mayor-financial-problems-real.html . Here is also a link to a Mayor Weiers You Tube video that visually explains Glendale’s debt and revenues: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2nBWBojUh0&feature=em-share_video_user .

He didn’t remark on how Glendale got to where it is today financially but I will because I was one of the council that got us there. Although I approved the arena I did not approve of Ellman’s plans for his development of Westgate. His “vibrant” building colors look like WalMart on steroids and his billboards are monstrosities. He also would not dedicate an additional land to place another eastbound lane on Glendale Avenue. I was more reluctant about Camelback Ranch but the deal called for future reimbursement by the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority (AZSTA). I agreed because there were development plans in place for the surrounding land and an AZSTA reimbursement on the horizon.

Council knew we would never be a Scottsdale, the west’s most western town; or a Tempe, a college town; or a Chandler and Gilbert, with their high tech manufacturing. We believed that these facilities would create a niche, a branding of Glendale and that they would help to grow Glendale.  After approval of Camelback Ranch the city began negotiation to place a USAA basketball training facility in the area. It looked as if we were about to add another major sporting facility. Glendale’s future looked bright.

There are two major contributors to Glendale’s current debt burden: Jobing.com Arena and Camelback Ranch Spring Training Facility. At the time of these facilities’ approval it was clear that Glendale could sustain the debt. Deals were in place to develop commercial and retail around both. They would generate new sales tax revenues to cover the expected construction debt. The arena did not have an annual management fee. Glendale’s economy was surging as was the national economy.

There was no hint of the Great Recession that would lay waste to so many of Glendale’s plans. Glendale’s sales tax and property tax revenues sunk like a stone as did its state shared revenue.  Developers and their plans dropped like flies as one after another went into bankruptcy.

Suddenly the city’s debt had become unsustainable.

What was council’s plan back in the day? It was three fold. Pass a temporary 5 year sales tax increase to provide much needed revenue while other strategies took hold; restructure our debt; and embark on a 5 year plan of targeted cuts to expenses while rebuilding the city’s contingency fund. It was even suggested, at the time, by Interim City Manager Skeete that the city sell the arena. I was shocked by the thought at the time but over time, it has become an idea that has a great deal of appeal.

It is no coincidence that Glendale’s future debt burden is about $30 million. That is very close to the city’s annual arena debt: $12-13 million in an annual construction debt payment; $500,000 to $1 million annual payment to a capital repair account; and $15 million in an annual management fee. The solution of selling the arena at fair market value is now very appealing. While the city loses money already invested in the facility the bleeding stops. Suddenly there would be no more construction debt; no more annual management fee and no capital repair account to maintain. It’s an idea whose time has come.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Mar 14

1

Billboard applicant pulls rabbit out of hat

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 1, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , | 4 Comments

The Glendale City Council meeting of February 25, 2014 was contentious. Everything was truckin’ along until Item 19, the billboard issue. Whoa…not so fast! The council vote was tabled. It was widely assumed that Councilmember Sherwood had the votes to ram it through. It turns out that was not the case. Somewhere along the way he, Rose Law (applicant’s representative) and Becker (applicant) realized the votes were not there. Their fall back plan was to table, hopefully providing them more time to bring reluctant councilmembers into the fold. The vote to table and bring to a council workshop on March 18 and council meeting on March 25 was 5 to 2. Vice Mayor Knaack voted “No” and observed that this issue was “being pushed out until the answer changes.” Councilmember Martinez also voted “No” and said the move smacked of “desperate measures.” Weiers, Sherwood, Alvarez, Hugh and Chavira voted “Yes.”

There were at least a dozen or more citizens there to voice their opposition to the billboards. Sherwood, in the past, characterized the billboard opposition as “a minority.” Not so. It’s usually the case that every citizen that takes the time to get actively involved in an issue represents a large segment of silent citizens. 

Most of the public stayed until the end of the council meeting to express their dismay with council’s non-action. Michele Tennyson from the Cholla district expressed their collective sentiment quite well. Ms. Tennyson had served on a city council in Mill Creek, Washington and after locating to Glendale, served on various Glendale boards and commissions. She obviously knows how political games are played. She said she was “ashamed” by council’s conduct and decision to table the issue. She related the timeline and history of actions taken. She made it quite clear that there was no reason to delay an up or down vote. Ann Berman, a Sahuaro district resident, said “Sherwood seems to have made a decision” and alluded to the fact that it is not in the public’s favor. Others pointed out that the next scheduled council vote would occur during Spring Break when many people take the opportunity to go out-of-town. Clearly the residents of the Sahuaro and Cholla districts, directly affected by the erection of these billboards, do not want them.

During the council comment period at the end of the meeting those who spoke offered hints regarding their positions on the issue. Councilmember Sherwood attempted to explain why it was necessary to table the billboard issue. Councilmember Alvarez told the citizens that they need “to make the council accountable.”  Councilmember Martinez characterized council’s actions as “blatant” and “a slap in the face” to the decisions already made by the citizen Planning Commission and staff. Vice Mayor Knaack described it as “unforgiveable” to disregard the Planning Commission’s decision.

Others were silent about that issue but offered a wide range of comments on other topics. Sherwood, Chavira and Knaack voiced their opposition to SB 1062 (although Knaack cited the wrong bill number). Several thanked Executive Directors of Communication/Marketing and Transportation, Jerry McCoy and Jamsheed Mehta, for their service as they move to take positions with other cities. Mayor Weiers characterized it as a “brain drain.” That is exactly what it is. We continue to lose the best and brightest and their historical memory of previous city action. Jamsheed Mehta should have been appointed as an Assistant City Manager.  Councilmember Chavira, always reluctant to take a position on anything unless cleared by his handlers, thanked everyone for everything. During the Public Comment period Arthur Thruston spoke of Ken Jones’ contribution to Glendale via his activism on issues and asked for special council recognition for him.  Some of the councilmembers publicly thanked Ken Jones for his participation in Glendale’s civic life. Will he get a plaque for his activism? No. It would set a precedent and create untold controversy as to which citizens would merit such recognition.  I have never agreed with Mr. Jones’ positions on any Glendale issue but he has earned my respect and thanks for his avid activism. There should be more Ken Jones in Glendale, not necessarily sharing his point of view but willing to speak and stand for those things in which they believe. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 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.

Feb 14

28

Fire truck bid controversy goes on…and on…and on

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 28, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 4 Comments

The Glendale Star in an effort to perpetuate the current feud between the Glendale Fire Union and Freightliner, Inc. recently ran two opinion pieces, one by Joe Hester, President of the Glendale Fire Union, and one by Tim Noeding, General Sales Manager of Freightliner of Arizona. Here is the link to the Hester op ed: http://www.glendalestar.com/opinion/editorials/article_80078e26-9d73-11e3-8f2f-001a4bcf887a.html . Here is the link to the Noeding op ed: http://www.glendalestar.com/opinion/editorials/article_ea857dd8-9a46-11e3-a4c4-0019bb2963f4.html .

Again, it is apparent that the situation is a “he said vs. he said.” The general public does not understand or appreciate the technical nuances both gentlemen have used without any published facts. Neither side has offered anything new that hasn’t already been said.

So what do we need to know to ascertain the truth? At this point the fire department (or perhaps Joe Hester??) should provide the original, time stamped or dated, original bid specifications provided to the vendors. It should also provide the ratings sheets/evaluations of each bid publicly. If they are unwilling or unable to do so publicly speculation will continue to grow over was there ever was a standard set of specifications.

Apparently no formal RFP was ever issued. That flies in the face of city policy. Chief Burdick and Joe Hester claim that they dusted off old bid specifications, unused because of a lack of funding. When the older attempt to buy a truck did not occur, that was a final action. It died. When grant funding became available a new bid process should have been initiated. That did not happen. Why? Until the truth is known this incident will fester like a wound that is infected.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 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.

 

Feb 14

23

Citizens respected and valued?

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 23, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

The Glendale City Council flirted with Public Comments occurring at the beginning of their meetings. It was a pilot project. After several months council voted to move Public Comments back to the end of the meeting citing that it got in the way and delayed council’s real business which is certainly not hearing from the public.

The biggest gorilla in the Valley, Phoenix, just had its council voting on February 5, 2014 to move its Citizen Comment Session to the beginning of their meeting. The move was in response to a citizen petition which claimed citizen input was not respected or valued.

It seems ironic that Phoenix has now done what Glendale rejected. If Glendale citizens submitted a petition to move the Public Comment period to the front of the meeting again would council acquiesce as Phoenix has done? What do you think? You can weigh in by voting in my informal poll to the left of this column.

A coalition on Glendale’s city council has emerged. Look for Knaack, Martinez, Sherwood and Chavira voting as a majority. That puts Weiers, Hugh and Alvarez on the losing side of most issues. I bet Alvarez rues the day she helped Chavira to get elected as he has voted in opposition to her positions since he started in office. The biggest issue was the vote on arena management and Alvarez may never forgive him for that one.

However, this November is election time in Glendale with 3 council seats up for grabs. This newly formed, rather fragile majority may not last long. Will Chavira, et.al, work behind the scenes to defeat Alvarez and get someone who is more simpatico? It would be a good move on his part as it would get rid of a problem before he stands for reelection in 2016. All he has to do is throw his support behind Jamie Aldama, Alvarez’s opponent.

Don’t forget, Knaack and Martinez are retiring. Martinez has anointed Robert Petrone but candidate Petrone’s past financial troubles may get in his way. Knaack appears ready to endorse Bill Toops, owner of the Glendale Star. Toops will have his own problems explaining how his ownership of the local paper does not conflict with serving on council. Look for more candidates to emerge as it gets closer to the end of May when nominating petitions are due. Historically in recent times there have never been less than 2 candidates for every open seat. It will be interesting to see how this election shakes out. Stay tuned…

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

« Previous Page — Next Page »