The Glendale City Council will vote on the proposed Tohono O’odham/Glendale agreement on Tuesday evening, August 12, 2014. Expect a packed house with speakers both pro and con. If you would like to attend the meeting here are the details:                                                     

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

6 PM

Glendale City Council Chambers

5850 W. Glendale Avenue

In the proposed agreement the Nation will pay $100,000 to the Glendale Convention and Visitors Bureau with an annual 2% ($2,000) increase. Bet on the payment coming from the state mandated percentage that all tribes must dole out to non-profits annually. Although not specified in the proposed agreement the general understanding is that the money will be used to promote and advertise the casino. Now, that’s a sweet deal for the Tohono O’odham (TO). The funds will be used exclusively for the proposed casino’s promotion to the detriment of other competitor member businesses who have restaurants, bars or hotels.

Glendale would be better served to have a stipulation similar to the Seneca/Buffalo agreement. In June, 2014 the Buffalo News reported, “Seneca Gaming Corp. on Thursday announced a plan to spend $3 million over a year marketing Buffalo’s attractions… The marketing program announced Thursday includes print, television, radio and digital advertising in Ontario, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Among the targeted markets are Toronto, Cleveland and Pittsburgh.” Hmmm…$3 million and Glendale is settling for $100,000 to its Convention Bureau to be used to advertise the proposed casino.

It is widely known that Mayor Weiers, while visiting the City of Niagara Falls, received a great deal of information on that city’s casino revenue sharing arrangement. He brought it back, had it copied and distributed to every member of council. They know there is a better deal to be had yet they continue to rush to accept this deal. People are now openly wondering is there any quid pro quo? Have the Tohono O’odham done or will it do Independent Expenditure campaign mailings for Alvarez? In 2016 will it do the same for Hugh, Sherwood and Chavira? Many readers of this blog still can’t get over Mark Becker’s (Becker Billboards owner) campaign donation of $2,500 to Alvarez and her vote of approval for the billboards. So much for principle. If they are ugly and unwanted in her district, why wouldn’t they be ugly and unwanted in the Cholla district?

Are you dumb founded yet by this proposed agreement? If not, you should be. It’s reminiscent of the arena management deal and the Camelback Ranch deal. The majority (Alvarez, Hugh, Sherwood and Chavira), avid supporters of the TO, have continually pointed fingers at previous councils and their inability to negotiate deals to benefit Glendale. Now they have an opportunity to negotiate in Glendale’s best interest and they have blown it.

This is a deal that begs for rejection. The majority of 4 can’t do that for all kinds of reasons: their haste to get something…anything…before the November General Election when the council make up could change and they lose their majority; their haste to get something…anything…should the Attorney General’s investigation into Open Meeting Law violations drops the hammer on any or all of the 4 of them and they lose their majority; and lastly, out of sheer embarrassment for rejecting an agreement they have publicly proclaimed as a “good deal for Glendale.”

What they fail to recognize is that the Tohono O’odham are desperate. They need Glendale. Glendale does not need the Tohono O’odham. The TO must still secure gaming approval from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Interior Department and to obtain it they need Glendale and the Governor of the State to enthusiastically embrace their plans.

This coalition of 4 councilmembers reminds one of an old, worn out, street hooker bending over and willingly accepting five bucks for services rendered. It’s downright pitiful and embarrassing.

© Joyce Clark, 2014


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