Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Dec 13

4

No ghettos in Arrowhead

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 4, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

On the December 3, 2013 city council workshop there were 6 topics. This was not one of council’s short, one-hour, “whizz bang, thank you ma’am” kind of meetings. It seems whenever there is discussion related personally to council the discussion is intense and prolonged.

Let’s take a look at each one. First up was the issue of 2 hour downtown parking. Someone had complained to Mayor Weiers and so it surfaced as a Council Item of Special Interest. Since the parking restriction was not being enforced there was a question of keeping the signage up. Councilmembers Martinez, Knaack and Sherwood felt there was no problem but supported Weiers, Hugh and Chavira in their request to survey the downtown merchants about the issue. So there will be a second installment on this issue after the survey is completed.

Next item was the city suite policy and its use. This item was requested for discussion by Vice Mayor Knaack who explained that she wanted to disabuse the public of the notion that council had free and unfettered access to the city suites at Jobing.com arena and Camelback Ranch. This notion is widely held when the public sees Mayor Weiers and Councilmember Sherwood often and regularly in the city Jobing.com arena suite. The policy as I remember it allowed for 2 uses: for non-profit use and for city business use (economic development). Apparently there is now a third use allowing for city council city business.  Council finished by directing staff to make more use of the suites as a reward to city volunteers. A good idea. Sources have said that Interim Assistant City Manager Frisoni was able to rent the Jobing.com arena suite in the past for her daughter’s birthday party. If that did occur it most certainly violated stated city policy. Hmmmm…

The third item was allowing citizens to donate a greater amount monthly to the From the Heart Donation program — another Mayor Weiers topic. After much discussion council gave direction to increase the donation option from $1 a month to $2 a month on citizen utility bills. The thinking was that it would double the amount received monthly for the program. Maybe, maybe not. When the price is increased on anything the number of purchasers usually decreases. Let’s see how this works out.

Undoubtedly the hottest topic was the discussion of council budgets. Vice Mayor Knaack requested this item and made the point that she did not think the use of council funds (read your taxpayer dollars) should be given from councilmember budgets to non-profits.  Martinez and Sherwood agreed but it raised Councilmember Alvarez’ blood pressure by at least 100 points. She had been silent on all previous items and did not wake up until this topic came forward. Then she was off and running!

She made sure she cited every past transgression from Knaack benefiting from the city’s VIP (Visual Improvement Program) for businesses to the city’s decision to enter into the $15 million dollar a year management agreement with IceArizona to the absence of recreation programming for kids. She made sure she recited every past sin. She made clear she would not go along with any prohibition council might create regarding council budget donations to non-profits. Hugh and Chavira stood fast with her.

Councilmember Martinez, joined by Vice Mayor Knaack, once again asked that councilmembers reduce their discretionary and infrastructure budgets so that the funds could go back into the General Fund. There is no doubt that Martinez, Knaack and former Vice Mayor Steve Frate believed strongly in doing so. Here is the past history on council budget reductions;

  • Barrel district (Knaack)      reduction of $26,571 and district improvements of $197
  • Sahuaro district (Frate)      reduction of $24,729 and district improvements of $4,965
  • Cholla district (Martinez)    reduction of $23,796 and district improvements of $2,998
  • Cactus district (Lieberman) reduction of $2,563 and district improvements of $500
  • Yucca district (Clark)          reduction of $1,188 and district improvements of $15,445
  • Ocotillo district (Alvarez)    reduction of $0 and district improvements of $9,545 

Donations to non-profit/school districts:

  • Ocotillo district (Alvarez)              $22,134
  • Cactus district (Hugh)                  $11,849
  • Yucca district (Chavira)                $  8,000
  • Cholla district (Martinez)              $  1,000
  • Barrel district (Knaack)                $     609
  • Sahuaro (Sherwood)                    $     419

You can see from the figures above there are two competing philosophies regarding the spending of council budgets. There being no consensus on anything related to how they spend your taxpayer dollars there was no direction given and things will stay just as they are.

The next item was a topic generated by Councilmember Sherwood. Currently all councilmembers can offer a Council Item of Special Interest without having to get 3 other councilmembers to agree to the topic. Sherwood wanted to go back in time and reuse the policy that required 3 other councilmembers to support any Item of Special Interest. As he said, “It was better to have staff work with ‘real’ issues” and he summarily dismissed the value of any Item of Special Interest brought forward by a councilmember. His suggestion went over like a lead balloon and he received no council support for his latest idea.

The last item was city generated and was a presentation on the proposed financial policy on transfers. After the presentation by Tom Duensing, the new Director of Financial Services, he was thanked profusely (especially by Chavira who has become quite adept at thanking everybody for everything) but there was nary a question. The longest part of this item was the presentation by Duensing.

On another unrelated issue, lately there has been a fire storm of public discussion on the siting of billboards in the Arrowhead area adjacent to the Loop 101. I bring this up not to take a position on the issue but because of something I read recently. A Cholla citizen reacting to the billboards said, “How ghetto could that be, to put up signs like that?” This is not an aberration but the typical attitude exhibited by Arrowhead folk. So, billboards are ghetto-izing? It’s OK for billboards to be placed in the rest of Glendale along with pawn shops, loan stores, massive apartment complexes and liquor stores? I’m surprised that Arrowhead has not ceded from the city. It must be embarrassing for Arrowhead people to have to say they live in Glendale with all of its ghettos.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 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.

Dec 13

2

Tidbits of fact or fiction

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 2, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Well, well, well…guess who pulled a city council nomination packet to run again in her district?? Yep…none other than Jaba, er, Councilmember Norma Alvarez. Others have used the nickname repeatedly.  Warranted? You decide. She pulled her nomination packet Wednesday, November 27, 2013. It was the day before Thanksgiving perhaps to fly under the media’s radar screen??

norma and jaba 2

This is the woman who vowed not to run again and told voters during her election campaign that she would be a one-term councilmember. This is the same woman who said after the results of the external audit her work was done and she would resign. This is the same woman, when asked directly by the media recently, waffled for all she’s worth. Your first hint should have been the new hairdo, clothes and her presence at events she couldn’t be bothered with in her previous 3 years.

Let’s hope Jaime Aldalma, an announced candidate for the same Ocotillo district seat, or perhaps some other candidates will give Alvarez a run for her money, er, that’s the Democratic Party’s and the Tohono O’odham’s money. Alvarez has not earned a seat on council with either her actions or her words.

Trading votes?

Sources have speculated endlessly about the reason for Chavira’s vote in support of the new Coyotes ownership deal of $15 million dollars a year. Chavira made it clear when he ran that he did not support the deal and thought there were more prudent ways to manage the city’s arena and money  – such as one of the Beacon bidders. Gary Sherwood ran on a platform that included his opposition to the proposed Tohono O’odham casino. Lately he appears to have flip-flopped. The speculation is that they traded votes. Sherwood may have gotten Chavira to support the Coyotes deal in return for his support of the Tohono O’odham casino. We’ve all seen stranger things happen.
arrow 1

 

 SherwoodChavira photo

These are just some of the tidbits that come my way continually.  Fact or Fiction? You decide.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 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.

Dec 13

2

Employed or unemployed…at whose will?

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 2, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

On the November 26, 2013 City Council meeting agenda was Item 23, an ordinance revising employee unclassified and classified positions as well as a revision of Human Resources Policies 201, 513 and 514. It was an item that council tabled and directed to be brought to a workshop — as well they should have.

As Councilmember Martinez stated there had been no review or discussion of this item prior to its appearance as an ordinance that night. City Manager Brenda Fischer took full responsibility for not bringing it to council prior to the vote. She should have. This ordinance, if approved, will be a blatant and naked accrual of more power to the City Manager and a diminishment of employee rights. Instead of former City Manager Ed Beasley’s “iron fist” we now have current City Manager Brenda Fischer’s “velvet glove.”

If I were a city employee I would be concerned. Currently the “at-will” employees are:

  •  City Manager                        1
  •  City Clerk                             1
  •  City Attorney                        1
  •  City Judge                            1
  •  Assistant City Judges             5 estimated

Under the proposal add:

  • Assistant and Deputy City Manager level positions
  • All department Director/Assistant Department Director level positions
  • All employees, exempt and non-exempt, assigned to positions in the legal department (includes City Attorney’s office and Prosecutor’s office);                            
  •  assigned to positions in the City Clerk’s office;                                        
  •  assigned to positions in the Mayor’s and City Council offices;
  •  and all classified employees in their introductory or probationary period of employment.

Under the current system reflected in the FY 2013 budget there are approximately 9 positions (estimate of number of assistant city judges is 5) that are unclassified and are considered as at-will. Under the proposed “velvet glove” system the number grows to approximately 120 positions. That number does not include “all classified employees in their introductory or probationary period of employment.” My math can be shaky but it appears to be a 1,000% increase planned in the number of at-will employees and that does not include probationary employees.

What are the differences between classified and unclassified employees? The major distinction is that unclassified employees have no right of appeal or right of grievance should they be fired. There does not have to be a “cause” to terminate. Consider them to be contract employees. There is no permanence or stability associated with the job. They are salaried employees who earn no overtime pay. There is no annual merit or “step” increase. Rather increases are based upon performance and productivity.

Retirement “vesting” and benefits can be different between the two systems. Unclassified employees can usually vest in retirement immediately while there is a waiting period for classified employees.

A classified job offers an individual job security and stability. Security at work has been demonstrated to improve and to enhance the individual’s performance. In the private sector companies that offer permanent jobs understand the need of promoting higher levels of job satisfaction to improve workforce performance. A classified employee will generally receive more employment benefits and bonuses like health insurance, pay raises and holiday pay.

There is no right or wrong position on these job classifications. Younger, more mobile workers seem to prefer at will employment while older persons are more comfortable with the security of job stability.

However, this new proposal raises a myriad of questions and concerns:

What about the issue of subjectivity? What if a department head has an assistant department head that does terrific work but their personalities clash? There exists the potential for abuse.

What about public safety? Do department heads and assistant department heads in police and fire become unclassified? If so the estimated number of 120 will grow substantially.

What about those employees currently in their introductory or probationary phases? Did those that already accepted employment from the city choose stability or mobility? If it was stability did they unwittingly forego another opportunity at another city assuming that once they passed their current probation they would have a stable job? In this new proposal once they finish probation after January 2, 2014 do they become at-will, unclassified? If so, over time, every employee will become unclassified. The proposed ordinance specifically states, “Legislative note: The expansion of the unclassified service to include employees hired and or promoted on or after January 2, 2014.”

The ordinance also states, “Unclassified employees are entitled to all regular benefits and leaves unless otherwise provided in the human resources policies and procedures.” How long will it be until unclassified employees see revisions to HR policies and procedures?

Then there is the description of classified service within the ordinance, “The objective of this service is to provide public and management services covered by a fair and nonpolitical system of personnel management for the City of Glendale.” Those seem to be desired outcomes in municipal government. So why the proposed change? It goes on to say, “The unclassified service is made up of employees in positions where administrative necessity dictates that the position be more responsive and accountable to city policy.” Is the unclassified system inherently more subjective and political? Yes.

The City Charter under Article III, Section 3, (3) states the City Manager has the authority to “appoint, and when deemed necessary for the good of the service, lay-off, suspend, transfer, demote or remove all department heads, officers and employees of the City subject to such merit system regulations as the Council may adopt.” However, only classified employees are subject to the merit system and even if the City Manager wished to get rid of a classified person there are protections in place that must demonstrate cause. The council may make all the adjustments it wants to the merit system but they will only apply to classified employees whose numbers in this proposed scenario seem to diminish over time.

Another sentence has been added in this section, “The City Manager delegates the Human Resources & Risk Management Executive Director as the decision making authority with regard to the entire recruitment and selection process.” It is worded carefully for it appears that the HR Director can select candidates for positions but the ultimate hiring and firing will be done by the City Manager.

Why was this proposed? I’ve been told by sources that it was adopted by the City Manager after she had to appear before the Personnel Board in the matter of the Don Bolton termination. A different source suggested Mayor Weiers’ love of all legislative practices and procedures (this model is used by the state legislature) drove this initiative. Weiers has tried to have several state legislative practices adopted but what works at the state level does not always work well at a local level.

What justification is offered by either the City Manager and/or the HR Executive Director for a major change in personnel classification? None — apparently.  In the City Council Report under Purpose and Recommended Action the proposed action is described but its purpose is not.

Why the reluctance to offer the purpose of such a major change? We are certain to hear that this proposed system offers flexibility in a changed work environment. Sounds like double-speak, doesn’t it? Make no mistake. This scheme centralizes power in the City Manager’s office. As elected officials leave so, too, will their staff under this proposed system. It can get really expensive in short order.

It was extremely prudent of council to table this proposal for future discussion at a workshop. The questions are many:

* Why is this major policy change necessary? And do not accept the answer of flexibility.

* Exactly how many employees out of the 1,000 plus will become subject to this policy?

* Will it apply to all new employees throughout the organization after January 2, 2014? From that date forward, once they have finished probation, will they be unclassified?

* How does such a policy change affect future budgets? What is the anticipated cost of moving to such a system? Add 20% to any staff estimate, if they provide one.

* Will department heads and assistant department heads in public safety become unclassified? If not, why not?

* Is the City Auditor and her department employees unclassified? If not, why not?

* Who will have the ultimate authority for hiring and firing unclassified employees?

* And most importantly — What practices will be implemented immediately and prior to a council vote to prevent any potential abuses including that created by subjectivity?

 

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 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.

Nov 13

27

Representative Franks’ casino bill is short and sweet

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 27, 2013
Posted in Casino • City issue and actions  | Tagged With: , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

What exactly is in Representative Trent Franks’ bill, H.R. 1410? In the world of Congress it is short and sweet. Here is a link to the text of the bill: http://www.keepingthepromiseaz.com/.

H.R. 1410 specifically cites the 2002 voter approved state Gaming Compact which expires in 2027.The bill states that there was a promise to Arizona voters that there would be no new casinos in the state, especially within the Phoenix metropolitan area, other than those specifically granted within the Compact. It requires that there be no new casinos in Maricopa and Pima Counties. This stipulation covers the period from April 9, 2013 to January 1, 2027. That’s it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

This bill enjoys bipartisan support not only among the Arizona delegation but in Congress as well. It has passed the House of Representatives and has moved to the Senate. Its fate is unknown. It will be voted up or down or ignored in this session. If no action occurs it dies and will have to be reintroduced in the next session of Congress. If the midterm elections prove to be wildly successful for the Republicans there is a good chance for its successful passage.

The Tohono O’odham (TO) and their supporters are positively hyperventilating over this bill. If passed the TO simply cannot build in Glendale – certainly not until 2027 when the Gaming Compact is up for renewal by voters.

What many fail to realize is that the proposed casino is not in the hands of Glendale. We all await a decision from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court followed by a final clarifying decision by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Then there is the Supreme Court decision on the case of Michigan vs. Bay City on the issue of Tribal sovereign immunity. Don’t for a second believe that these decisions won’t be appealed – for they will. We are still years away from a final outcome.

Why all the posturing by the TO and their supporters right now? Could it be because the Gila River Indian Community and their sister tribes have ramped up their profile of late by advertising on TV and underwriting a letter of support by Mayor Weiers? They must be chagrinned to see the Gila River Indian Community award a grant to Glendale that is 10 times larger than the $40,000+ they awarded a month ago.

The drama will continue with both sides posturing and vying for the hearts and minds of Glendale residents. Yet the ultimate decision rests elsewhere.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 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.

Nov 13

27

Who is keeping the promise to Glendale’s citizens?

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 27, 2013
Posted in Casino • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , | 17 Comments

The City Council meeting of November 26, 2013 had a raucous start, much like council meetings of old. The notion of putting citizen comments at the start of every meeting may come back to bite this council as they experienced their first hour long marathon of citizen commentary. I am not including the public commentary on the night of the Coyotes’ vote as that was to be expected. No, this time it was the opening salvo of a regular, assumed-to-be ho hum council meeting. It was anything but not just because of citizen commentary but because of all of the very serious issues that were up for a vote (more about those issues over the course of the next few blogs).

A majority of council did not comment about citizen commentary at the start of every meeting. Councilmember Sherwood did and made clear that he does not like it. It’s almost as if he considers citizen comments to be irrelevant and just an irritation that prevents him from performing what he considers to be the real business of council. His sentiment was arrogant to say the least. Then Councilmember Alvarez, who is wedded to citizen comments first, just had to rebut Sherwood’s remarks by saying, “When we were elected we were (sic) committed to be here.” How ironic as this is the councilmember who holds the record for her non-attendance at scads of meetings. She even has had the temerity when calling in to council meetings to hang up before the meeting’s conclusion and thus missed those all important citizen comments.

It looks like the Keeping the Promise anti casino group has seared the nerves of the casino supporters with their running of a TV ad and underwriting the costs of an anti casino letter penned by Mayor Weiers. They had their usual suspects…er, supporters out in force to speak on the TO’s behalf before the council. The usual mouthpieces have decided to become visible once again…Ken Jones and Arthur Thruston to name but two. Due to their advanced age they needed time to rest and recharge before becoming public gadflies again. Can you believe that Ken Jones was advocating for yet another public vote? This time his target is the casino. You’d think he would have learned that one needs to be careful what one wishes for. His last effort fizzled out like water dousing a fire. He also opined that the people of Glendale do not need Keeping the Promise running our city and buying city officials. Oh really? Guess he figures it’s okay when the Tohono O’odham appear as if they are buying city officials like Alvarez. He never took the time to complain about Alvarez and her antics with the Tohono O’odham.

Thruston, bless his heart, simply relies on picking and choosing his facts. Those that he doesn’t like, he ignores. He trots down to the podium with a handful of newspaper clippings and pontificates on issues culled from the newspapers (and of course, their, ahem, totally unbiased reportage). He fancies himself as a raconteur in the vein of a modern day Will Rodgers who once said, “you know everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.”                       

What engendered all of the citizen commentary was Item 12 of the Consent Resolution agenda accepting a grant of over $400,000 from the Gila River Tribe for the purchase of a fire truck. Yet, there was no comment from the citizens when council voted to accept a Tohono O’odham grant of $40,000+ to fund the Glendale Youth Project on October 22, 2013 – a scant month ago. In fact, Alvarez voted to accept that grant voicing praise and voted to reject tonight’s grant. Could her bias be showing? What’s changed? The acceptance of a grant from an anti casino Tribe. That’s the only difference. What was even more astounding were the citizen accusations that Mayor Weiers and Councilmember Martinez are shilling for the casino opposition.  When Councilmember Alvarez engages in the same activity it’s not considered shilling. Strange, isn’t it? There’s an old saying, “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” Alvarez would be well served to rein in her troops or she may find her glass two story home (second story improvement not recorded nor additional property tax paid) shattered in all of the cross fire. It’s merely an observation.

Another action of note is Councilmember Sherwood’s reversal of position on the casino. When he ran last year he was opposed to the casino. He even met and collaborated with now Mayor Weiers, I and candidate Gary Hirsch, all of whom shared the same anti casino position. The anti casino Tribes even did an independent political mailing expressing their support for Sherwood because he ran on a platform of opposition to the casino. Now, inexplicitly or perhaps not so inexplicitly, he has reversed his stance. He, along with Councilmembers Hugh and Chavira, wrote to the Department of the Interior saying don’t pay attention to Glendale’s opposition to a Tohono O’odham casino. Why has the champion of Westgate abandoned it? Remember all of his talk about the necessity of the Coyotes as an anchor for Westgate because the team would attract traffic to Westgate and keep it viable?  Does he really believe that the casino will help Westgate? Nah. Rumor has it that he was contacted by the pro casino forces right after his election and they may have assured him that if he moved to the dark side they would assist in bank rolling his next election. Was that just too good a deal for Sherwood to pass up? You decide.

So, who is keeping the promise to Glendale’s residents? The promise that a casino does not belong in Glendale, will cost our taxpayers for the supporting infrastructure and will destroy a pledge made by all of the tribes (including the Tohono O’odham) when seeking voter support for the 2002 voter approved Gaming Compact. It’s no longer Sherwood. If he could change his position on this issue so readily, how can we believe what his stance is on other issues? It appears that his guiding principle has become one of pragmatism but what has happened to one’s word being one’s bond?

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 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.

Nov 13

22

Knock out the Knock Out Game

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 22, 2013
Posted in Musings over a cup of early morning tea  | Tagged With: , , , , | 1 Comment

I prefer to opine on local issues in Glendale for that is my comfort zone having served on City Council for so many years. It’s time to move beyond my comfort zone. Lately there has arisen a gruesome, national phenomenon called the “Knock-Out Game.”  They also call it “Ghost Hunting” as a reference to their white targets. It is a game played exclusively by Afro American youth. It entails a group of kids, one of whom suddenly leaves the pack and punches someone. That someone is always a white person for apparently that is the only criterion for choosing a victim. The group walks off laughing assuming that there will be no consequence. When will one of these kids choose someone who is armed and shoots back? We are sure to hear about it then. It is videoed and put on social media for all to see. It started in New York City and since has spread to seven states.  To date it has resulted in two deaths from these assaults.

Is it a hate crime? It appears to be since the victims are all white. Even more disturbing is the evident lack of moral compass and values these youth possess. In our nation’s effort to be politically correct we are failing our children. To insure that everyone is treated the same and offered the same opportunities our nation is slowly eroding the very concept of individual achievement and individual responsibility.

What has happened to our nation’s moral fabric when a group of kids think it’s fun to randomly inflict injury and perhaps death on a stranger with the only criterion being that it be someone not of your race? Where is our collective outrage? Or will we offer the typical excuse and rationalize their behavior by pointing to their disadvantaged backgrounds?

Where is the media outrage? Where is their reportage in an effort to warn people? Where is our outrage on the plethora of social media sites? Have we all become AWOL? I am disgusted by these random acts of violence done solely for amusement. At least I have now spoken up about it and I hope others will do so as well.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 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.

Nov 13

22

So we wait

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 22, 2013
Posted in Casino  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Caitlin McGlade of the Arizona Republic has a story on a Supreme Court case that may affect the Tohono O’odham’s prospects of building a casino in Glendale. Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com//community/glendale/articles/20131118west-valley-casino-appeal-delayed-until-us-supreme-court-decision.html?source=nletter-

The state as well as other stakeholders such as the Tribes opposed to the TO Casino have asked the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to wait until the Supreme Court renders a decision on tribal immunity. The Supreme Court schedule begins in October and they hear their last case arguments in April. In May they begin to announce decisions. It is assumed that the 9th Circuit Court will agree and wait until the results of the State of Michigan vs. the Bay Mills Indian Community are rendered.

The TO case has no common ground with the Michigan case but the decision that flows from the Michigan decision will definitively impact the issue of tribal sovereign immunity across the country. The Supreme Court decision may help the Valley tribes stop the TO’s plans but it’s a double-edged sword and will affect the concept of tribal sovereign immunity. How much is anyone’s guess — it could be a little or it could be a lot.  

Sovereign immunity is a complex issue and as with all rights can and has been used positively and negatively. It provides all Indian Tribes with the right to determine their long term destinies and protects them legally. It is a concept not often understood and many have  realized, too late, that they have no legal rights on reservation land.

Lately the local media has offered citizen comments on the issue of the casino. The common theme is that the Tribes opposing the casino are greedy and are attempting to thwart competition. It is a simplistic and false notion offered repeatedly to those who are not invested in the outcome but may have a voice in the ultimate decision. They conveniently ignore a major consequence – the destruction of the State Gaming Compact and its effects. There are people who get it and understand that if the delicate balance achieved by the Compact is destroyed the door is open to see the proliferation of casinos throughout the Phoenix Metro area. There are many other reasons to keep this casino out of Glendale but they have been offered by me and others ad nausea.

So, we wait.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 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.

Nov 13

19

Wishful thinking

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 19, 2013
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Glendale Municipal Airport • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

 

The Tuesday, November 19, 2013 Glendale city council workshop is jam packed and includes a Development Impact Fee update, the Fire Department Budget deficit, special project recommendations and the Ballpark Boulevard extension.

Since the Arizona Legislature changed the way all cities in the state can impose, collect and spend Development Impact Fees Glendale, like many other cities, has developed a new Impact Fee structure. Impact Fees are charged to new developments and the developers typically add these fees into the price of a home, apartment, office, commercial or industrial building. Tischler Bise is the consultant hired to prepare the study on Impact Fees. I would like to know the cost of the study for I assure you, as thorough as it is, it was not cheap.

The consultants divide Glendale into three zones. The East Zone runs the entire length of Glendale, north to south and from 43rd Avenue to 75th Avenue. It is a very large zone and is approximately 42 square miles.  The Loop 101 zone is the smallest running from Northern Avenue to Camelback Road, 75th Avenue to 115 Avenue. It is a very small zone and is approximately 13 square miles. The West Zone is all land within Glendale’s annexation boundaries and is approximately 36 square miles. Although very thorough the consultants provide no rationale for the establishment of the Zones that are essential to the study.

There is concern with the disparity of size of the zones for they comprise a “nexus.” By that is meant that development impact fees are collected and spent within each zone. With the Loop 101 Zone being the smallest there will be less opportunity to collect/spend fees to provide the same quantity and quality of infrastructure as enjoyed by the East Zone. As an equitable issue all land south of Northern Avenue from 43rd Avenue to 115th Avenue should form the Loop 101 Zone. That would remove approx. 12 square miles from the East Zone making it approx. 30 square miles and increasing the Loop 101 Zone to 25 square miles. The West Zone would remain static at 36 square miles.

The balance of the study is impressive. Their facts and figures are well grounded and formulas are used to determine what the new fee structure for state mandated infrastructure should be. Although the Development Impact Fee structure is no longer what Glendale and every other city used previously there is no choice but to work within the new state-mandated regulations. We will not see the kind of Impact Fees that helped to make Glendale what it is today but it is important that we make the best use of them possible. With the exception of the determination of the zone configuration this is exactly what this study does.

The second item of discussion is the fire department’s deficit. There is but one question to ask. Is the fire department being managed effectively by current Fire Chief Burdick? In juxtaposition the Police Department led by Chief Deborah Black is not facing this kind of deficit. What kind of deficit? How about $1,674,887 minus one-time savings netting a deficit of $1,328,070? In addition the on-going, annual deficit of over $800,000  goes to pay for overtime due to the department’s philosophy of “constant staffing.” It’s time for a study to demonstrate which brings more value to citizens – constant staffing which entails an enormous amount of overtime at time and a half pay or the hiring of more personnel eliminating the need for the constant staffing regimen and its requisite overtime pay.

That item will be followed by a presentation and discussion of recommendations that resulted from the half million dollar external audit.  The City Auditor’s and City Attorney’s roles will be part of that discussion as well as the Trust Fund Citizen Boards and departmental internal premiums for risk management.

The last item of discussion will be what to do about Ballpark Boulevard. The city in an agreement with the two baseball teams agreed to extend Ballpark Boulevard north to 99th Avenue and Maryland Avenue. The current, approved concept will cost the city $18 million to acquire land for right-of-way and construction. Mayor Weiers asked that two alternatives be considered that would come in between $6 and $8 million. Both of these alternatives would run adjacent to the city’s airport on either its west or east side. The only problem with the alternatives is that they will not replace the contractually mandated concept of connecting to 99th and Maryland. That will still have to be done. So the question is…does the city construct a stop gap measure costing $6 to $8 million now knowing that down the road it still must spend $18 million per its contract with the City of Phoenix and both baseball teams? The city has no money right now and without any demonstrated urgency it is something that can wait. Neither Phoenix nor the teams are demanding immediate action.

This is not going to be one of the council’s typical one hour or less meetings. The issues are complex and I would hope that council “has done its homework” and is prepared to ask meaningful and relevant questions on all of these complex issues…but then again, it could be wishful thinking.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 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.

Nov 13

17

What the heck?

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 17, 2013
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the Super Bowl  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Two recent news stories can have you scratching your head and saying, “What the heck?” Just when you think Glendale has its act together it trips over itself and acts either incomprehensibly or incompetently.

It appears the NFL is still miffed with Glendale. I don’t buy it. Glendale successfully hosted one Super Bowl and is using the same model, only updated, to host the next one. Supposedly the NFL is in a stew about three issues: parking, Glendale hoteliers’ refusal to join the NFL’s room bloc and lack of Glendale leadership.

What about parking? Glendale provided the necessary parking at the last Super Bowl and will do so again. It has the requisite parking lined up already. It’s a non-issue.

What about the room bloc? Glendale cannot tell private businesses what to do and what to charge for room rates. Perhaps if the NFL sweetened the pot a bit for Glendale’s hotels there would be incentive for joining the room bloc.

What about Glendale’s leadership? It appears that the current city council has sent numerous signals that they are on board and willing to take whatever action necessary to make the Super Bowl a success. It is a smoke and mirrors issue apparently being jinned by two entities: the Arizona Host Committee and the Bidwills. On nearly all levels of Glendale must communicate with the NFL executives through one or both of those entities. Remember the kid’s game of post office? By the time the original message went through several people the final message was nothing like the original. Glendale’s message is filtered by two, not-so-friendly entities.

The Host Committee has got to be walking around with a bag full of guilt knowing that all events but two are sited outside of Glendale and that Glendale will get the bill for the Super Bowl and probably lose money again. They have been very reluctant to assist Glendale in legislatively crafting a mechanism to make Glendale whole. Apparently Glendale’s losses are not a concern.

The Bidwills apparently are not giving the NFL kudos about Glendale because they are angry about NFL Super Bowl unrelated issues. They are angry that they didn’t get their way about putting up a training tent on Glendale’s Youth Sports Fields adjacent to the stadium and they are angry (perhaps in this case justified) that their partnership with SMG to bid on managing Jobing.com was ignored. Glendale did handle that badly by accepting bids and then letting them hang out there in limbo while it brazenly accepted IceArizona’s deal to manage the arena. The entire situation was strange to say the least. Another issue may be one of the lack of a parking garage. The Bidwills know that Glendale cannot afford to build one at this time. Soooo….the Bidwill’s land on both sides of stadium already has approved zoning (including the right to build a parking garage or two) as Sportsmen’s Park, East and West. If the Bidwills want a garage so badly why don’t they take out an incredibly low interest loan from the NFL and build one on their land??

It’s time that the Host Committee and the Bidwills stopped stewing and accepted the fact that Glendale is the host city. To make this event successful it’s time they lifted Glendale up rather than attempting to stomp it into the ground. They say publicly that they want Glendale to be a full participating member of the team but behind the scenes Glendale is virtually ignored. When another successful Super Bowl is over it will be in great measure because of Glendale’s efforts to insure its success.

Glendale is showing that its methods of operation haven’t changed much, if at all, under new City Manager leadership. It appears that Glendale missed the FEMA deadline for submitting paperwork regarding its flood prone areas in the city. A special council meeting had to be scheduled last Tuesday despite the fact that Weiers, Sherwood and Chavira were attending the National League of Cities convention in Seattle. They participated telephonically, something the Surprise city council just voted to abandon as a practice.

It was only discovered after several citizens called the city to complain that they were denied coverage. Don’t believe the disclaimer that it’s not a big deal because most of Glendale’s flood plain is in its river beds. There is also substantial land along Grand Avenue that has historically flooded and is in the flood plain. How could this fall through the cracks?

And the City Manager’s remedy? Expect another firing of some employee becoming the latest “fall guy” in the string of recent firings. Glendale hasn’t changed under new leadership. It still fudges on transparency. It refused to publicize its investigative report generated from the half million dollar external audit until the Arizona Republic made a Freedom of Information Request. It continues to follow the philosophy of omission; leaving out the negative, in an effort to spin any issue positively. Sometimes Glendale, you just have to say that you screwed up.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 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.

Nov 13

12

The Removal Effect

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 12, 2013
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 1 Comment

Recently the John F. Long Family Trust filed two zoning applications. There will be a public meeting on Monday, November 25, 2013 at the Desert Mirage Elementary School hosted by the applicant. I urge local residents to attend.

One effect of these zoning requests is that the Trust is requesting that 53 acres be used for multifamily housing units (apartments). More land will be used for attached single family housing, another very dense concept. They want land with the highest density possible because it makes the land more valuable and they earn a greater profit when it is sold. The 384 acres of Trust land is located south of the Grand Canal Linear Park to Camelback Road, 83rd Avenue to 91st Avenue.

The City of Glendale’s heart is pumping wildly at the very thought. After all, they are already counting the hefty construction tax, impact fees and sales tax that will be earned as these apartments are built. The heck with its effect on surrounding, existent residents.

They hope that you don’t know that the city has already granted developers (or entitled the developers) the right to build another 4,000 apartment units in West Glendale, the Westgate area.  The last thing that West Glendale needs is another 736 apartments, especially in an area of large lot homes.

If you do a Google search of the effects of multifamily housing on communities you will find positive study after study underwritten by multifamily housing associations or federal government studies as to why multifamily housing is good for us all.

However, I did find one unbiased study done for the Town of Boone, North Carolina by Jud & Associates in 2005. Boone had a moratorium on the building of more apartment units for several years previous to the study and wanted to know if the latest development proposal to build apartments was good or bad for their community. They discovered that it was a question of economics versus quality of life. The study concluded, “A number of academic studies have examined the effects of municipal zoning as practiced in Boone and elsewhere. These studies generally provide support for the idea that proximity to multi-family housing damages the values of single-family homes. An estimated statistical model of housing values in Boone suggests that residential values rise 8.7 percent for every one-mile increase in the distance to the nearest apartment project. The statistical estimates of the housing model provide evidence that proximity to multifamily apartments lowers the values of single-family structures.” In other words multi-family housing damages the values of single-family homes. It lowers property values for existent residents.

An MIT Real Estate Center study identified what it called the “Removal Effect.” It said, “The Joint Center for Housing at Harvard University notes that the construction of rental housing is notable for the way that it impacts the existing neighborhood in terms of what is removed from the neighborhood. While rental housing does have the potential to replace rundown portions of the neighborhood, it also has the further potential to cause the erasure of attractive elements of the community.” In Glendale’s case since the land is currently used for agriculture the removal effect is that it removes the possibility of development of a stable, single family housing subdivision and a grocery anchored commercial center – something West Glendale sorely lacks.

There are other intangible effects of apartments on the health of a community. Apartment renters are by their very nature transient. Did you know that a 1997 study found that 34 % of apartment renters moved in the previous year? If the apartment renter is under 30 years of age that number jumps to 53%. What does this mean to a community? It means that a renter does not invest time or talent in the community. Typically renters do not volunteer in the community. Very few of them vote. They lack knowledge of or interest in local community affairs. Why should they? They will be there a year or two and then move on. It should be noted that senior apartment complexes do not fit this description.

Impact fees paid by developers do not cover the entire cost of increased services needed — water, sewer and sanitation. In fact, apartment owners are free to contract their sanitation services with public or private entities. What about new roads and traffic lights? The developer is usually required to put these elements in at their cost but future operating and maintenance costs belong to the city.

There is also the increased need for public safety – police and fire. Logically apartment units with their much higher populations will have more crime and need these services much more often than a single family subdivision.  In conversations with police officers when asked where crime hot spots are inevitably they will identify an apartment complex.

A case in point about density is the O’Neil Ranch subdivision located from Bethany Home Road to Camelback Road, 59th Ave. to 67th Ave. It is ringed by 10 apartment complexes. Over the years these complexes have not always been maintained, much less upgraded causing their monthly rents to become lower and lower. It is one of the highest crime areas in the city. It has attracted not the normal retail a neighborhood wants and expects but rather 23 package liquor stores, a plethora of fast food restaurants and pawn shops. As a result the 1300+ homes in O’Neil have lost value and their average price is about $90,000. That’s being generous. Some homes have sold for as low as $79,000.

Over the years, I have steadfastly opposed apartment construction. They do not contribute to the overall health of a community. Their residents are transient and do not invest in themselves in the community. Crime increases because of the dense population in apartment complexes. Often the complex may not be a high quality product to start and over time its quality tends to deteriorate. I know that some will point to some spiffy, upscale apartment complex to belie these conclusions but that is not the kind of development that will be built on the 53 acres in question. There will be more apartments in West Glendale’s future  — guaranteed. More are not needed or wanted in an area whose character has been one of large lot development. Oh, by the way, how many apartment complexes are there in Arrowhead?

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 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 »