Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

On Tuesday, June 13th at the regular Glendale City Council voting meeting, a majority of 5 voted to approve the proposed budget for FY 24-25. The 5 members voting for its passage were Mayor Weiers, Councilmembers Aldama, Clark, Hugh and Malnar with Councilmembers Tolmachoff and Turner voting no.

Is any city budget ever perfect? Will it please everyone? Obviously, the answer is no. Out of the hundreds and hundreds of items within the budget, Councilmember Tolmachoff objected to expenditures regarding 4 items: the Downtown Campus Renovation Project, Heroes Park Sports fields, the Veteran’s Community Project, and covered parking for our city attorneys.

She has every right to disagree and to voice her concerns and to make arguments in support of her positions. Every councilmember has that right and exercises it freely. Councilmember Tolmachoff advocated for her positions during the 3 months of intense council budget review as well as during council workshop discussions of the proposed budget. Her arguments were not enough to create a majority of council in support her positions. The fact that her arguments on these 4 items did not prevail should not have been so compelling as to cause her to vote no on the entire budget.

Councilmember Tolmachoff chose to ignore the countless positive elements of the budget. Items such as $12 million dollars for new fire trucks or funding to improve every right of way within the city or our continued commitment to treat every street and to renovate our city parks.

Councilmember Tolmachoff’s objections were on the use of the city’s unassigned fund balance for downtown renovation, Heroes Park sports fields, the veteran’s community project and covered parking for city attorneys.

The city’s fund balance has grown over the past few years due to all the construction sales tax generated by development in the Loop 303 area. She wants a lion’s share of those funds to stay in the unassigned fund balance (think of it as a rainy-day fund to be used in emergencies).

In a very recent workshop finance staff stated that the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends a budgetary fund balance in a city’s general fund of no less than two months of regular general fund operating revenues or regular general fund operating expenditures. Staff went on to recommend changing the current policy of a minimum unassigned fund balance in the general fund to 25% of budgeted ongoing expenditures. A majority of city council concurred because it is a prudent strategy.  Every Valley city has a similar policy with the percentage of fund balance retained ranging from 1% (Phoenix) to 35% (Avondale and Peoria). Keep in mind that our bond agency ratings are excellent. If we were doing something unwise, believe me, the bond agencies would downgrade us immediately.

Consequently, the city has excess funds that can be used for one-time projects. A one-time project is usually, although not always, a construction project. The 4 projects that Councilmember Tolmachoff opposes are all one-time projects. Please note that there is some hypocrisy on the part of Tolmachoff. She does not mind using fund balance for transportation projects which are her priority. Hmmm…

She opposes the cost of renovating the city hall, Murphy Park, the amphitheater and council chambers. This is a long needed and great project. It is the one project that may do more to revitalize downtown Glendale than anything else. As a result of the council’s decision, CivicGroup, LLC. Is planning to build a 120 room hotel adjacent to the Civic Center. A new pub is hosting its opening this week and our Economic Development Department has received numerous calls from developers seeking to invest in our downtown. It seems that our downtown campus renovation project will be the catalyst to bring new life and new businesses to our downtown. It will also help to recruit and retain employees by providing workspaces of today, not 40 years ago when city hall was built.

She opposes the Heroes Park sports fields construction despite a 25-year promise by the city to complete this park. Heroes Park was designed and intended to bring amenities, such as sports fields for our children, enjoyed by other parts of the city to south and west Glendale.

She opposes the Veteran’s Community Project. This project will provide interim housing to veterans as they work their way through various systems to obtain counseling, health services, a permanent job and housing. It is a pilot project that has already drawn interest from other Valley cities that may replicate Glendale’s effort in this area. A majority of council considers this a very worthwhile project that assists a long-neglected segment of our society.

She opposes a covered parking structure for our city attorneys even though it is recognized that it is a retention tool for our current staff. For years the city attorney’s office was in city hall and its staff parked in the city parking garage. With their recent move, they no longer have access to covered parking.

She doesn’t want any of these projects but it’s OK to use the funds for her priority, transportation projects. In a recent article she said, “My plea to the mayor and council to fully fund the transportation plan this fiscal year with cash on hand (fund balance) was met with a resounding no from the majority.” The majority instead identified other projects, long ignored, that warranted funding intended to improve the quality of life for every resident.

City Council adopted a ten year plan to treat all streets. As needed, Council’s plan has been modified and instead of spending $10 million dollars a year, the minimum amount per year has risen to $17 million dollars a year reflecting a total of $450,781,427 million dollars over the next 10 years. This total amount is dependent upon voter approval this Fall of the Transportation Bond authority. However, the planned total for transportation can hardly be considered as underfunded.

Councilmember Tolmachoff literally “threw the baby out with the bath water” because her advocacy for 4 items was not accepted by a majority of the council. The fact that her arguments on these 4 items did not prevail should not have caused her to vote no on the entire budget. It reminds me of the saying, “my way or the highway.”

Councilmember Tolmachoff did not show responsible leadership. A true leader would not attempt to encourage other councilmembers to defeat the city’s entire budget and throw the city into chaos 17 days before the start of the city’s new fiscal year. The results would have been like Congress’s failure to pass a budget before their deadline. A leader recognizes and accepts defeat and works to achieve consensus with colleagues to achieve future wins.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

In a previous blog post I shared some of the more onerous of the Biden administration’s Federal Fair Housing Act’s provisions. Those provisions have migrated to the Arizona Legislature, and you may not be happy about them. In the name of affordable housing, they are designed to remove your reliance upon your property values as they strip away cities’ abilities to protect local zoning regulations.

Who is behind all these provisions? A guy by the name of Steve Kaiser. He was first elected as a State Representative and just in the last few years he was elected as a State Senator. He represents LD 2, the northern Phoenix area and is a Republican. He claims he is sponsoring several bills to help the affordable housing crisis in the state. Sounds great, doesn’t it? Except nearly every proposal he has brought forward does nothing to solve affordable housing. Might there be another reason for his avid embrace? Would a $64,875.11 contribution from the Arizona Multifamily Housing Association to his campaign run for senator affect his perspective?

Something else to be aware of is that Mr. Kaiser lives in an HOA and all of his sponsored provisions do not apply to HOAs.

Here are some facts related to HOAs. In the 1960s there were about 500 HOAs in the entire country. The concept took off in the 70s and 80s.

Let’s look at Glendale. It was incorporated as a town in 1910. Between 1910 and 1970 hundreds of homes were built in Glendale and none were in an HOA. Even Glendale’s first annexation in the 1960s, the 1,300 + home O’Neil Ranch neighborhood built by John F. Long and covering the square mile from 59th Avenue to 67th Avenue, Camelback Road to Bethany Home Road, was not created as an HOA.

The first major use of HOAs in Glendale came with the construction of many neighborhoods in the Arrowhead area of the Cholla District. Today, nearly every new subdivision in Glendale will have an HOA.

The reason I bring this up is because the neighborhoods that will be subject to Mr. Kaiser’s ideas will be older neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are often distressed and the last thing they need is volatility in the value of homes.

Mr. Kaiser will never have to worry about his neighbors building an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) next door. He will never have to worry about his neighbors building their homes without design standards next door because he lives in an HOA.

Another factor to consider is why, suddenly, is there this overwhelming need for affordable housing? I contend that when the country is suddenly home to over 6 million illegal immigrants who need a place to live, the pressure to create affordable housing is born.

Kaiser promoted a series of amendments, none of which have been passed by the Legislature. The reason I mention them is to give you a sense of how far he is willing to go, aided and abetted by residential and multifamily developers. Make no mistake. This lobby probably wrote the original bills and crafted the amendments that Kaiser has been shilling for.

One thing is for certain. “Unless otherwise stated, the following only applies to cities and towns larger than 25,000 people. This bill does not apply to historic neighborhoods, areas near airports, tribal land or HOAs.” I will only list a few of Kaiser’s amendments (again, they have not been passed by the Legislature to date):

  • Subjective or decorative design review is removed from governmental control…” If your neighbor wants to build an ADU and paint it mustard yellow, there is no way to stop it.
  • Cities cannot require more than one off street parking space per residential units… Have you noted how many of your neighbors are parking 2, 3 or 4 vehicles at their home? Can you imagine if the home builder could get away with putting in only one parking space at each new home?
  • Cities cannot require an ADU to have a parking requirement. Where will they park? On the street?
  • Cities shall allow ADUs in residential zoning. This would allow your neighbor to build an ADU in his backyard or sideyard.
  • Buyer of an existing property must provide to the seller an independent appraisal of the property’s value before close of sale. Great if you’re the seller. Not so great if you’re the buyer.

The Arizona League of Cities and Towns (representing all member cities and towns) has been working diligently to kill the more draconian provisions of Kaiser’s bills. The last information I had was that the League was willing to accept the concept of allowing more density along transit corridors, accept the legalization of ADUs but the cities would individually set the standards for this type of dwelling unit, and accept the concept that larger cities could allow triplexes and duplexes where a city zones for it. It is my understanding that these are the only concepts the League will accept, and they are non-negotiable.

The Arizona Legislature is on a break and will not reconvene until June 12th. There is still time to contact your representatives and let them know you do not support HB 2536, SB 1163, or SB 1161. Here are Glendale’s representatives in the State Legislature. Shoot them an email by using the email name listed below and adding @azleg.gov . For example, Skaiser@azleg.gov .Or call their offices.

District 2

Sen. Steve Kaiser         R           Email: SKAISER             (602)-926-3314

 

District 22

Lupe Contreras            D          Email: LCONTRERAS    (602) 926-5284

Leezah Elsa Sun           D          Email: LSUN                 (602) 926-3881

Senator Eva Diaz         D          Email: EVA.DIAZ          (602) 926-3473

 

District 24

Lydia Hernandez         D          Email: LHERNANDEZ   (602) 926-3553

Analise Ortiz                 D          Email: ANALISE.ORTIZ (602) 926-3633

Senator Anna Hernandez D    Email: ANNA.HERNANDEZ      (602) 926-3492

 

District 26

Cesar Aguilar               D          Email: CAGUILAR        (602) 926-3953

Senator Flavio Bravo   D          Email: FBRAVO            (602) 926-4033

 

District 27

Kevin Payne                  R          Email: KPAYNE             (602) 926-4854

Ben Toma — Speaker   R          Email: BTOMA             (602) 926-3298

Senator Anthony Kern R         Email: AKERN              (602) 926-3497

 

District 28

David Livingston          R          Email: DLIVINGSTON   (602) 926-4178

Beverly Pingerelli        R          Email: BPINGERELLI    (602) 926-3396

Senator Frank Carroll  R          Email: FCARROLL        (602) 926-3249

 

District 29

Steve Montenegro      R          Email: SMONTENEGRO           (602) 926-3635

Austin Smith                 R          Email: AUSTIN.SMITH             (602) 926-3831

Senator Janae Shamp  R          Email: JSHAMP                        (602) 926-3499

All of these proposed affordable housing bills are not healthy for our communities and certainly not designed to protect your properties.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

The current administration is not going to give up on increasing our misery index. In addition to rampant inflation and a possible recession, it is hell bent on removing local zoning protection.

Cases in point. Here are some recent examples. Lawmakers in Arlington County, Virginia, a northern suburb adjacent to Washington, D.C., may do away with single-family zoning across the county of 240,000. It is a product of a years-long study that considered the role these medium-density homes can play in expanding the housing supply in an increasingly expensive metropolitan area.

Yet another example is happening in Atlanta, Georgia under Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms. What her administration’s “housing plan” proposes to do, as found starting on page 43 of the 88 page document called ‘Atlanta City Design Housing’ is to:

  • End single-family zoning, allowing any property owner by right to build an additional dwelling unit (called an “Accessory Dwelling Unit”, or ADU) on any lot now zoned for one family residence (p57).
  • Some accessory dwelling units could be built with modular technology, assembled offsite and transported to a final location.
  • Allow the property owner by right to then subdivide the lot and sell the ADU separately on its own “flag lot” (p67), then presumably build another and repeat the process, completely overbuilding the property
  • “Loosen” the building requirements, such as size and height, for ADU’s (p69), making them cheaper, and likely less attractive in the neighborhood
  • Reduce minimum lot sizes, and minimum set-backs from the street and adjacent properties (p82), in order to get more buildings onto every property
  • End minimum residential parking requirements citywide (p74), so that new apartment and condominium buildings would not have to provide parking for their residents, but can rather require them to park on neighborhood streets

The New York Times in a recent article said, “Single-family zoning is practically gospel in America, embraced by homeowners and local governments to protect neighborhoods of tidy houses from denser development nearby. But a number of officials across the country are starting to make seemingly heretical moves. The Oregon legislature this month will consider a law that would end zoning exclusively for single-family homes in most of the state. California lawmakers have drafted a bill that would effectively do the same. In December Minneapolis City Council voted to end single-family zoning citywide.”

Biden says that he wants to “eliminate local and state housing regulations that perpetuate discrimination.” Biden then identifies “exclusionary zoning” as the kind of housing regulation he wants to “eliminate.” “Exclusionary zoning” is Biden’s term for what is more commonly called “single-family zoning.”

Add that President Biden has promised that he will eliminate “exclusionary zoning” with the HOME Act of 2019, co-sponsored by Senator Cory Booker and House majority whip James Clyburn. The HOME Act of 2019 requires any municipality receiving Community Development Block Grants from HUD or benefiting from federal Surface Transportation Grants for highway construction and repair, to submit a plan to “reduce barriers” to high-density low-income housing. The plan must choose from a menu of items, most of which in some way limit or eliminate single-family zoning.

In a July 18, 2022, Phoenix Business Journal article, using a report from a Washington, D.C. think tank called Up for Growth, says Arizona’s housing deficit has increased 1,377% since 2012 — representing 122,683 homes. In the same article, Steven Hensley, advisory manager for the Zonda housing market research firm, said the approval and permitting process at the municipal level is delaying projects, which results in less development. He went on to say that local municipalities must address these issues and allow more building and more density to improve housing costs.

Why the sudden and intractable need for more affordable housing? The American birth rate fell for the sixth consecutive year in 2020, with the lowest number of babies born since 1979. About 3.6 million babies were born in the US in 2020 – marking a 4% decline from the year before. It’s not that the U.S. population is increasing.

So, what is creating the need for large amounts of affordable housing? Can you say ‘open borders’? Can you say that nearly 2 million illegal immigrants have arrived since the start of the Biden administration? Where are they going to live?

This new desire for affordable housing, requires that you to give up the American Dream of a single-family home.

In my next blog I will share how affordable housing can affect you directly.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

I’m going to begin by relating facts. Facts do not lie although they can be manipulated to prove either side of an issue. Here are some of those stubborn facts:

  • Glendale’s population is between 253,000 and 256,000, depending on which site is used to obtain information.
  • The number of active voters in Glendale is 118,846 or 46% of the total population.
  • In the 2020 election (mayoral contest with higher voter totals), 37,761 people voted or 32% of all active voters in the city.
  • In the Ocotillo district there are about 12,000 registered voters.
  • Aldama captured a little over 1,200 votes or 15% of all the registered voters in the district.
  • The Cholla, Sahuaro and Barrell districts (generally north Glendale) account for 60% of the total votes cast and Cactus, Ocotillo and Yucca districts produce 40% of the votes cast.
  • A majority of voters (over 55%) are age 50 or older.
  • A voter turnout of 32% is slightly lower than many other valley cities. Less than 40% of all registered voters (or less than 20% of the total population) will decide who becomes the next mayor.

Glendale is not an anomaly and is typical of many cities. Less than half of Glendale’s residents vote. That is not surprising considering that many people are focused on making a living and paying the bills. If it’s not a NIMBY (not in my backyard) issue, they generally do not care about or focus on who is running the city. I remember polling done during one of my many election races when people were asked to identify the mayor from a list of names, only 3% could identify who was the Mayor of Glendale.

What do these facts signify? Aldama is going to have a very difficult race. It’s been demonstrated that he is not wildly popular in his own district, Ocotillo. It will be difficult for him to gather a majority of votes in the three northern districts.

In Aldama’s recent announcement, the Arizona Republic said, “Aldama then pointed out that in 2018, when he ran for reelection, Weiers endorsed his opponent, Emmanuel Allen.” That was 5 years ago. Is Aldama’s internal motive for running payback for Weiers’ previous endorsement of someone else? Does Aldama feel disrespected by Mayor Weiers?

Also, the Arizona Republic said that Aldama wants to find consensus among the city council and to unify the city. Let’s look at these public goals. He wants to become the great unifier. I defy anyone to find a city council where all 7 members agree. That is how democracy works. What Aldama does not say, as part of a minority on council, is that he wants his side to become the majority.

As for unification of the city, that’s just meaningless rhetoric. What does that really mean? Unification along racial, ethnic or income standards? All of these identifiers produce people who have had different experiences and knowledge which may not lend themselves to unification. Ask Aldama how he’s going to create unity between someone living in a million dollar home in north Glendale with someone living in a $250,000 home in south Glendale.

The Republic reported that, “Aldama also said he plans on holding one of the largest meetings with Glendale constituents…asking them for input…” If this were to happen, I suspect the attendees to be the usual, small group, current activist portion of the community each representing a specific issue.

As a representative form of government, councilmembers are elected by their district constituents to represent them…to lead. That’s what Aldama was elected to do. Sometimes council decisions are difficult. That’s when I turn to my constituents asking for their point of view on the issue. Perhaps his time would be better spent reaching out to his district constituents and asking them for their input so that he can truly represent them.

Lastly Aldama is quoted as saying, “…we’re going to start the healing and we’re going to bring respect back to the dais and we’re going to start to unite the community…” I ask what healing? Aldama’s hurt feelings? I ask what respect? Does Aldama feel disrespected? I certainly don’t and I suspect that is shared by most of the councilmembers. I ask what unity? On what basis? A majority of this council is unified and their decisions have brought about many positive results for Glendale.

Having sat on the dais with Councilmember Aldama for years and having observed his actions and listened to his rhetoric, Aldama will not be my choice for Mayor of Glendale.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

Last night I checked the Maricopa County elections page to find out the results of the Tempe election. There were 3 propositions, all of which if passed, would have given the Tempe City Council and the Coyotes the green light to build a new hockey arena.

I am pleased to report that all three propositions were rejected by a margin of about 56% NO to 44% YES. I helped in a very small way by writing several blogs about Glendale’s experience with the Coyotes and even wrote an opposition statement in Tempe’s publicity pamphlet.

The Coyotes officially conceded last night, and Coyotes CEO Xavier Gutierrez issued the following statement after the vote results were released:

“We are very disappointed Tempe voters did not approve Propositions 301, 302, and 303. As Tempe Mayor Corey Woods said, it was the best sports deal in Arizona history. The Coyotes wish to thank everyone who supported our efforts and voted yes. So many community leaders stepped up and became our advocates and for that we are truly grateful. We also wish to thank the countless volunteers who worked so hard to try and make the Tempe Entertainment District a reality and the Tempe City Council for their support as well. While we wanted a different outcome, we remain grateful to all those who volunteered their time and talent. What is next for the franchise will be evaluated by our owners and the National Hockey League over the coming weeks.”

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman also issued a statement on @ArizonaCoyotes arena vote failing:

“The NHL is terribly disappointed by the results of the public referenda regarding the Coyotes’ arena project in Tempe. We are going to review with the Coyotes what the options might be going forward.”

I suppose they can try to find another location in Arizona. Who knows that may happen. Commissioner Bettman is absolutely glued to the Arizona market and will try his damnest to remain in Arizona. Alex Muerelo has a betting franchise in Arizona that could be worth more than the team. That also gives him a strong motive to stay here. It will be interesting to see how the next chapter unfolds.

In the meantime, here are just a few reactions from the fan base:

  • “My fellow #yotes fans, one day we will looks back and say, ‘Thank God it didn’t work out in Tempe.’ @ArizonaCoyotes there’s still so much love for you in the desert 🌵 We will rise my friends. This is the dark before the dawn. 🏜️

 

  • “Completely gutted. What a devastating loss for our community. @ArizonaCoyotes you always had a fan in me. Through thick and the thinnest of thin. Really heartbroken. ♥️

 

  • From reporter Brahm Resnick: “DEFEAT’S NOT AN ORPHAN Tempe voters’ resounding rejection of @ArizonaCoyotes proposal also a repudiation of mayor & council that backed project along w 4 former mayors who got behind it.”

 

  • “Sorry Gary but your Arizona Coyotes project was and continues to be a failure. It’s time to move the team.”

 

I’m glad the Tempe saga is over. My concern was that Tempe was about to be caught up in the drama of a financial maelstrom just as Glendale had been. When ordinary people, like me, are struggling to pay bills and are worrying about another recession it wasn’t the right time to ask for any kind of financial breaks for yet another sports team.

Tempe voters…you made the right decision. Congratulations.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

Today, May 16, 2023, Jamie Aldama announced his run for mayor of Glendale. He joins incumbent Mayor Jerry Weiers and another wanna-be, Paul Boyer making it a three-way contest.

I am not running again for the Yucca district council seat. More on who I will endorse later. When I complete this term in 2024, I will have served twenty-four years as a Glendale councilmember, off and on since 1992. I served from 1992-1996; then from 2000 -2012; and then again from 2016 to the present. Not running again allows me to speak my mind (more than I usually do!) about current Glendale politics and issues.

I will be blogging a lot about this upcoming election but for today, let’s review some history about Aldama’s previous runs for office. He was first elected in 2014, 9 years ago. In that election he literally squeaked by the incumbent, Councilmember Norma Alvarez.  He collected 1,221 votes and Alvarez had 1202 votes. Aldama won by 19 votes.

Aldama ran for his second term in 2018, against Emmanuel Allen and garnered 1,299 votes against Allen’s 784.  He increased his vote total by 78 votes in four years. His third run in 2022 was uncontested and Aldama picked up 1,788 votes. However, Bart Turner ran uncontested in the Barrell district and earned 5,152 votes and Lauren Tolmachoff ran uncontested in the Cholla district and garnered 8,380 votes.

There are about 12,000 registered voters in the Ocotillo district. Approximately 15% of the district’s registered voters voted for Aldama.  Turner came in with 25% of the approximately 20,000 registered voters in his district. Lauren Tolmachoff earned 33% of the approximately 25,000 voters in the Cholla district. Aldama doesn’t seem to have an impressive track record when one is ambitious enough to run for Mayor of all of Glendale.

In the Glendale Independent newspaper, Aldama is quoted as saying, “He says he has had his sights set on running for mayor for a while. ‘The plan to run for mayor has been in place since the inception of running (for councilmember in 2014) but really took hold about three years ago,’ he said. ‘It really took hold after my 2018 election where the division among the council was at its worst.’

It’s certainly no surprise to me. I always assumed that he would run for mayor. What is surprising is that he reneged on his pledge to Mayor Weiers that he would not be running against him.

Aldama has always impressed me as being calculating because of his mayoral ambitions and it has been demonstrated time and time again in his votes and the issues for which he chooses to advocate. They seem to be calculated to curry favor.

In his Glendale Independent announcement, he also stated that he was running “on a platform of uniting a leadership team on city council he calls ‘divided.’” The characterization of this city council may be perceived as correct but he fails to acknowledge that he along with 2 other councilmembers have created that division. Four of us, Mayor Weiers, Councilmembers Hugh, Malnar and I, as a majority, have voted time and time again to create a strong, healthy and vibrant community while Aldama, Turner and Tolmachoff have shown varying degrees of support.

There will be more to share in upcoming blogs on all kinds of political doings including those I mention in this blog. So, stay tuned. More is coming…a lot more…

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

 

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

A red alert for all property owners! Senator Steve Kaiser (R), representing District 2, has been a busy guy since he was newly elected to the Arizona Senate and assumed office in January of 2023. From the many bills he has sponsored, his candidacy almost appears to be a “switch and bait.” Despite running as a Republican, many of his sponsored bills would make Democrats giddy.

One of the bills he introduced focuses on affordable housing. It should be noted that he received large contributions from many players in the housing industry including the Arizona Multifamily Association.  As a side note, interestingly he also received a $4,000 campaign contribution from the Alex Meruelo Living Trust. The very same Meruelo of the current Tempe/Coyotes fray about building an arena in Tempe.

There are three housing bills currently before the Arizona Legislature, HB2536, SB1161 and SB1163. Glendale and the League of Arizona Cities and Towns have been meeting regularly to evaluate the many housing proposals that aim to take away local control and community involvement when determining housing policy at the municipal level. Currently, all these bills, HB2536, SB1161 & SB1163 are on hold while negotiations continue. The latest I have heard, all of these bills may be morphed into one bill with some of the most onerous requirements having been deleted.

Shades of the Biden administration’s Federal Affordable Housing Act. Many of the requirements in these bills mirror federal legislation. The one fact that the bills’ sponsors continue to ignore is that not one of these bills guarantee to make housing more affordable.

Some of the worst provisions include:

Allow the placement of one accessory dwelling unit on a single-family residentially zoned lot. A municipality may condition approval of the accessory dwelling unit on compliance with local codes and permit requirements.”

‘Land splits’ means the division of improved or unimproved land whose area is two and one-half acres or less into two or three tracts or parcels of land for the purpose of sale or lease.

  1. Not later than July 1, 2024, a municipality with a population of more than seventy-five thousand persons shall demonstrate at least three of the following strategies to incentivize permanent affordable housing:
  2. Allowing the construction of a single-family residence on a residential lot of six thousand square fee or less with reduced setbacks if the lot is dedicated to permanent affordable housing.
  3. Offering higher residential density for a proposed residential housing development that is located on a residential lot within one-quarter mile of commercial and mixed-use zoning districts or designated major investment corridors, but only if the lot is dedicated to permanent affordable housing and the proposed residential housing development complies with all other development standards of the municipality.
  4. Maintaining zoning districts that allow for single-room occupancy in existing residential housing developments.
  5. Allow municipal property that is eligible for development to be used to meet the critical housing needs of the community, which may include:

             (a) homeless shelters.

             (b) transitional housing.

             (c) supportive housing.

             (d) veteran housing.

              (e) affordable housing.

  1. Allowing the use of modular homes or prefabricated homes in a single-family residential zoning district subject to the development standards of the zoning district.
  2. Allowing duplexes and triplexes in a single-family residential zoning district subject to the development standards of the municipality.
  3. Facilitating the rehabilitation of property into permanent affordable housing or using a voluntary deed restriction program to maintain and sustain permanent affordable housing.”

According to these proposed provisions, you could build a second dwelling unit on a six thousand square foot lot and believe me, Glendale has a tremendous number of them, as does nearly every city in the Valley. It seems as long as it’s labeled as affordable housing, the property owner will be able to do whatever he or she wants. For example, there are many, many lots in the newly built Stonehaven that would be qualified to build a second residential unit. Instead of 1,365 homes, there could be 2,000 or more. That’s absolutely crazy.

Slowly but surely, ‘feel good’ legislation has the potential to destroy your property values and quality of life.”

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

Tomorrow, Tuesday, April 18, 2023, the City of Tempe will send out mail-in ballots seeking the voters’ decision regarding the Tempe/Coyotes election. Voters will have the opportunity to approve or deny three propositions, 301, 302 and 303, needed to move the Coyotes proposed development forward.

An economic impact analysis of the Tempe/Coyotes proposed deal was released today, April 17, 2023, by Dr. Dave Wells. Dr. Wells is the Research Director of the Grand Canyon Institute and has a doctorate in political economy and public policy. He has no axe to grind for or against the proposed deal. He looked at the facts presented in the City of Tempe’s and the Coyotes’ economic analyses and ran the numbers. Here is the link to his analysis: GCI_Policy_Economic_Analysis_Tempe_Entertainment_District_Apr_17_2023

What was the Coyotes’ initial response? How about the Coyotes’ attorney Nick Wood calling the critique “silly.” How’s that for an intelligent, well-reasoned response?

There are major takeaways from Dr. Wells’ study. However, one not mentioned was the pace and character of the proposed development. What will be built first? Yep, the arena and the concert venue because these are the two money makers for the Coyotes. They also happen to be the two facilities that benefit from the Tempe giveaway of tax breaks.

Let me share a lesson that the Tempe City Council would do well to heed. I can remember the presentation made at a Glendale city council workshop by Mr. Ellman and staff on expected revenues from its proposed arena and surrounding development. To this day, I remember the graphics showing buckets of revenue dollars flowing into the city’s General Fund to pay the cost of the bonds needed to be issued for construction of the arena. The whole deal was predicated on Ellman’s promise to deliver an estimated two million square feet of retail and commercial development. What did he actually deliver? One tenth of the promised development and then he filed for bankruptcy. Tempe City Councilmembers, heed this lesson. You are dealing with a developer that Dun & Bradstreet, a major financial rating institution, found to be a risk.

The major conclusions of the study are startling. Perhaps the most important finding is, just as in Glendale, the proposed development isn’t going to produce enough revenue for the city to pay back the city’s financial investment. The study’s estimate is that Tempe will only get back about a third of the revenue it invests in the project. The study reveals that for every $2.70 in new taxes, Tempe will earn just $1.00 in new revenue.

Some final thoughts. Just as the last recession (2007-09) caused Mr. Ellman to abandon Westgate and the arena, today’s economy is difficult for all, including people having to dip into their savings just to pay ordinary bills. These very same voters, ordinary people struggling financially, can look to Glendale to realize that this is not a good deal for them.

For years, Gary Bettman, President of the National Hockey League, has pledged to keep the Coyotes in Arizona but he is bucking headwinds these days. Rumors abound that the league’s hockey team owners are fed up with the continual drama of the Coyotes. At some point, if they haven’t done so already, they will pressure Bettman to clean up the Coyotes’ mess once and for all. I suspect Bettman is still a pragmatist and knows when “to fold ‘em.” Maybe it’s time for Bettman to take a serious look at Tilman Fertitta and the Toyota Center.

Beware of the hype coming from Coyotes’ fans. They are an avid group whose only mission in life is to make sure the Coyotes remain in Arizona. Keep in mind that although a percentage of them live in Tempe and can vote, most come from the surrounding communities of Scottsdale, East Phoenix, Chandler, Gilbert, etc. They will not bear the financial burden imposed on Tempe taxpayers.

I hope Tempe voters look to the lessons of Glendale and learn from it. This is not a development that is in their best interests. I hope they vote ‘no’ on Propositions 301, 302 and 303. Tempe can do better and has a proven track record of benefiting their citizens. This time they missed the mark.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

When I post a blog on a topic, I often get readers who send me material related to the blog topic. Most of it cannot be verified. Rarely, if ever, can it be publicly used. But every once in a while, I do receive useable information. One particularly interesting piece of information came via email because of my recent Chamber blog.

In 2020 when COVID struck, Robert Heidt, CEO and President of the Glendale Chamber, posted a Facebook video on the internet. In it, he advocated for the strictest of measures, including the implementation of mask mandates everywhere as well as the closure of all but essential businesses/services. He chided then Governor Doug Ducey and the Glendale City Council for not doing so.

I bet you don’t know that Mr. Heidt, in June of 2020, applied for and was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $95,404. A reader sent me the result of a Google search on PPP loans. I am not about to discuss whether PPP loans were good or bad. That is not the issue. Just to be sure, I confirmed there are several sites that list the Chamber of Commerce PPP Loan Number 3905188007. Here are the links to just one site:

https://www.pppdetective.com/loans/AZ/glendale/14

https://www.pppdetective.com/ppp/az/glendale/glendale_chamber_of_commerce

What’s ironic is that Mr. Heidt advocated for mandated business closures and berated the Governor and the Glendale City Council for not doing so while the Chamber applied for and received a PPP loan to cover the salaries of employees to ensure that the Chamber stayed open. Oh, and by the way, the loan was forgiven in the amount of $96, 152 which included any accrued interest.

The reason this may be of interest is because it raises the question, have there been other instances, as the voice of the Chamber, that Mr. Heidt publicly espoused one position only to have done or said the opposite?

I can’t help but surmise that there will be other revelations about Mr. Heidt and his leadership of the Glendale Chamber.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

This week the publicity about the Coyotes has been nothing but awful. Slapshot number 1 was the media blitz earlier this week about Andrew Barroway. Barroway was the majority owner of the Coyotes until he sold most of his interest in the team to Alex Meruelo in 2019. Barroway, to this day, remains a minority owner. He was arrested March 23,2023, on domestic violence charges in Colorado after allegedly assaulting his wife. As a result, the National Hockey League has suspended Barroway.

Slapshot number 2 is the Phoenix Business Journal article posted today announcing that Sky Harbor is suing Tempe over the proposed Arizona Coyotes arena project. As was stated in the article, Phoenix has no problem with the commercial aspect of the project – arena, shops, etc. Their objection is to the 2,000 proposed high-rise apartments which they claim is a breach of the 1994 Agreement between Phoenix and Tempe.

The Coyotes’ response ignores the basis of the suit which is the construction of the 2,000 apartments and instead uses smoke and mirrors to focus on Phoenix’s sports/entertainment venues saying if Phoenix can build them close to Sky Harbor, then they should be allowed to build their entertainment venue close to Sky Harbor.  “While it is OK for Phoenix to build a baseball stadium, a basketball arena, and a soccer stadium in the flight path of Sky Harbor Airport, somehow, it’s wrong when Tempe attempts to convert an old polluting landfill into a new sports and entertainment district.”

They deliberately missed the point and are trying to divert attention away from their planned 2,000 apartments. So, it will go to court. It’s doubtful the issue will be decided before the Tempe election on the issue.

However, the intended result of the suit has already occurred by muddying the waters even further for Tempe voters. I suspect many voters will decide why bother with this whole Coyote mess and hopefully, vote ‘no’.

It will also have the effect of further extending the timeline for the proposed construction of the development, should it pass in the Tempe election. Remember, to a developer, time is money.

I also ran into a small, news snippet online stating that a group of NHL owners were unhappy with the Coyotes shenanigans perhaps leading to some new marching orders for Gary Bettman, CEO of the Hockey League. This was before news of Barroway or the Phoenix suit. I wouldn’t be surprised if they decided that they’ve had a belly full of the Coyotes. Bettman has always protected the Coyotes but how much longer will he be able to do so?

Would a third slapshot spell a death knell for the Coyotes? Stick around and watch. Just when you think it can’t get any worse for the Coyotes, it does.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.