Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Feb 25

9

Recall Councilmember Leandro Baldenegro….NO!

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 9, 2025
Posted in Barrell District • Cactus District • Cholla District • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Downtown Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Ocotillo District • Velma Teague Library  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 1 Comment

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 is a long post but certainly worth reading.

Several factions are mounting a petition drive for a recall election against Councilmember Leandro Baldenegro of the Ocotillo District. In the Spring of 2024, Councilmember Jamie Aldama resigned his Ocotillo seat in a failed attempt to run for mayor. He never made the ballot for mayor because many of his petition signatures were found to be fraudulent and therefore, he never acquired the number of signatures needed to be on the ballot.

In April 2024, city council accepted applications and conducted interviews for the Ocotillo seat. Leandro Baldenegro was interviewed and impressed council with his answers. He is smart, down-to-earth, understands how local government works and expressed a genuine desire to serve the people of the Ocotillo district.

Now, there are several interest groups that have coalesced around obtaining petition signatures to force a recall of Baldenegro because they do not like the way he handled the issue of the Velma Teague Library.

These interest groups include Councilmember Lupe Conchas’ (Cactus district) supporters, Councilmember Bart Turner’s (Barrel district) supporters, the downtown disaffected who dislike a majority of the sitting council as well as senior management and former Councilmember Jamie Aldama’s supporters.

Councilmembers Conchas and Turner have made naked attempts to take over the affairs of the Ocotillo district. It is not either of their districts. Some of their activities have occurred without notifying Councilmember Baldenegro. These actions are in violation of Council Guidelines which require councilmembers when conducting activities in another councilmember’s district to notify the councilmember as a courtesy.

Their agenda is simple. Get rid of Councilmember Baldenegro in a recall election and replace him with Roree Goree. Goree, a pro-Aldama supporter, for the past year has made it a point to speak during the public comment portion of council voting meetings in order to get televised face and airtime. This ploy is a strategy so that Goree will be better known when he runs for the Ocotillo seat.

Make no mistake. If these factions succeed there will be a new majority that will replace the current conservative councilmembers and mayor with a Woke, liberal, Democrat majority comprised of Councilmembers Conchas, Turner and Tolmachoff with a new 4th, majority member, Rory Goree. I do not think the majority of Glendale residents would be happy with such an outcome and could very well force the removal of one or more of this aspiring new majority in upcoming elections.

Did you know the next regularly scheduled election for the Cholla district, Barrel district and Ocotillo district council positions will be in 2026? In fact, candidates wishing to run for these seats will pull nominating packets this Fall/Winter.

If a Special Election is called it will probably occur in November 2025. The cost will be borne by Glendale taxpayers and is estimated to be about $250,000 for a Special Election. This is crazy. Why is a special election needed when there will be a regular election for the seat in 2026? It makes no sense and is wasteful of taxpayer dollars.

I urge the registered voters of the Ocotillo district when asked to sign the recall petition, to just say ‘no’. Do not buy into their propaganda attempting to convince you that Leandro Baldenegro needs to be replaced. It is wasteful and unnecessary.

Recently, Councilmember Baldenegro posted a thorough and thoughtful response to this recall effort. He answers recent questions with fact and forthrightness. I was impressed and decided to offer it to a wider audience.

Leandro Baldenegro .

February 2, 2025 

“SORT OF A LONG POST BUT EVERYONE IN GLENDALE OR FROM GLENDALE NEEDS TO PLEASE READ IT!!!

I thought I would set the record straight on a few things that I am dealing with in my City Councilman life. Please feel free to repost and share with as many people as you like…I don’t have anything to hide and everything that I will be sharing is fact based (not opinions) and can be completely verified by anyone at anytime (Freedom of Information Act). So….here we go.

  1. It has been posted online and spoken in public that I ignored “thousands” of people who reached out to me to oppose the moving of the Velma Teague Library.

THE TRUTH IS when I went back and searched every email with the subject line having anything written about “saving the library” or something related to that sort of wording, I found 9 emails total. 9…not thousands….but only 9 and received maybe as many voicemails. So I can say that roughly 20 people (I added a few more for this conversation) reached out to me. I spoke face to face with about 20 or so people (both residents and business owners) and they were completely satisfied with the original plan to move the library for the reasons given in the presentation.

  1. It has been posted online and spoken in public that I have every intention to still move forward with moving the library to a different location and tearing down the current library building. The picture that is being painted is that I “pressed pause” for now and will carry out the previous plan.

THE TRUTH IS I have contacted city officials to see if the building DOES or DOES NOT qualify to be designated as a historic building. I was told it doesn’t, but I had a citizen that is under the impression that it does. That same citizen also told me that I need to look into seeing if the park itself would qualify as a “historic area” and by extension the building would be labeled “historic” as well and would then qualify for federal grants. Those two ideas were thrown around a lot by people online from what I was told. I am making sure and double checking to see if any of these ideas have merit. EVEN IF THEY DON’T, I will be working with a team of citizens, business owners, parents, teachers, students and library employees to hopefully come up with a few ideas for a new/updated/better library regardless of how that is defined.

  1. It has been posted online and spoken in public that I have made irresponsible decisions on my own without asking the community for any feedback about removing some exercise equipment from one of the parks here in my district.

THE TRUTH IS THAT the only time I have ever been involved with removing anything from any city park was when I attended a meeting with a group of veterans at a park and one of the attendees asked if a certain exercise apparatus could be removed because it was an eyesore and that citizen had never seen anyone ever use it. It was shortly after that meeting that I had another meeting with the director of Parks and Recreation through a Council Item Of Special Interest (CIOSI) request to see what we needed to do moving forward. That particular CIOSI had a few items in it including installing a flagpole (that was already purchased by a citizen), installing a plaque (that was already purchased by the city after a citizen submitted all the required paperwork on her own) and possibly having a military mural painted on the block walls of the park. There is a meeting tentatively scheduled for Saturday February 22nd at Veteranos Park on the southeast corner of 54th Ave and Ocotillo to gather more information from the community.

  1. It has been posted online and spoken in public that I lied about the story of a kind woman who told me on at least 4 occasions that she was mad and upset at my decision to move the library but that she still loved me and hoped that I would change my mind.

THE TRUTH IS that women in question is Martha Dennis. She is a retired teacher. She was my 86-year-old mother’s first friend when my mother arrived here from Mexico. As my mother has told all of my family over the years, my mother was picked on by the other Mexican girls in her school for being friends with a white girl and Martha was picked on by the other white girls for being friends with a Mexican girl. My mother has told my family this story for at least the last 40 years. I believe it to be true…why would my mother ever lie about something like that. Marth and her family have been friends with my mom and our family for many years. Martha was not at the meeting when I explained why it was her that helped me change my vote and do what I felt was necessary to reverse my prior decision. From what I was told, she received a few phone calls letting her know what I did and how she was mentioned. She did leave me a nice voice mail thanking me…and telling me that she loved me.

YOU can verify all of this information by contacting the city clerk’s office and asking for the emails pertaining to all of these issues. I believe you can request a transcript for the workshops and meetings as well. The Freedom of Information Act is in place so you can do this.

I can counter all of their irresponsible claims with VERIFIABLE PROOF. I don’t know if they will ever provide YOU any proof of their claims…but you certainly have the right to ask them to.

Certain individuals have submitted a petition to RECALL me and force the city to spend about $250,000 (that is what I was told it costs to run an election) to force a recall election. They could just wait until next year and run against me in the general election which the city would already be paying to conduct. I just want everyone to ask this very simple question…what has Councilmember Baldenegro done that was so traumatic and so scandalous that it requires him to be removed by a recall election?

In an upcoming post, I will list in detail all of the things that I have been doing since I was sworn in last April. I will gladly show you my body of work that my team (city employees) and I have worked on. I will list what I have planned for the future. I will describe what my life consists of now compared to before I was on the city council. I have been and will continue to be transparent. I have been and will continue to support and promote Ocotillo District and specifically Downtown Glendale. In spite of having purchased some more formal attire, I have been and will continue to be A REGULAR GUY doing a job with a politician’s title.

I look forward to sticking around for a long time as the proud councilmember of the Ocotillo District in the City of Glendale.

THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!”

© Joyce Clark, 2025   

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.

 

Jan 25

28

Stipend is not a dirty word

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 28, 2025
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Former Councilmember Joyce Clark • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Heroes Park • Yucca district  | Tagged With: , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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

Recently Shawn Raymundo had an article in the Arizona Republic about the city council receiving stipends. Before I go into that issue, a word about Mr. Raymundo. He is a writer for the Arizona Republic which is part of the USA Today network. The Arizona Republic and USA Today are notoriously ‘progressive’ liberal news organizations. It follows that their reporters hold the same positions and most of them, not all, do. Both organizations have a few token conservative reporters.

Mr. Raymundo has become Councilmember Turner’s lapdog. All that Turner has to do is to call Raymundo and plant something designed to embarrass either the City of Glendale, the city manager, the mayor or city council. It appears that Turner’s other ‘go-to-reporter’ is Richard Smith of the Glendale Independent. Both of these gentlemen harbor a liberal bias seemingly evident in their reporting, especially when covering a council that is, in the majority, conservative.

Some history is in order. When I was first elected as the Yucca district councilmember in 1992, my salary was $24,000 a year. After tax deductions, I probably took home about $19,000 a year. This was my salary for over half of the 24 years I served as a councilmember. It wasn’t ever about the money then or now. It was about having the opportunity to serve the people of Glendale. I was and am still proud of having done so.

In the last portion of my time in office, the voters of Glendale approved a councilmember salary of $34,000 a year. That averages $16.35 an hour, about $1.65 more an hour than Arizona’s required state-wide minimum wage of $14.70 an hour. After tax deductions I earned about $28,000 a year.

What is a stipend? The dictionary defines it as “a fixed sum of money paid periodically for services or to defray expenses.” When I first came to the council the stipends offered to defray expenses were for monthly cell phone usage and car mileage. Receipts had to be submitted for a request for reimbursement (stipend). I chose at that time to not request reimbursement.

I paid for my home office computer, my cell phone and monthly bill, a printer, a scanner and all necessary supplies like printer paper and ink out of my personal funds. I paid for my car’s gas and maintenance personally. Also, I often paid my share or the entire bill for a working lunch in my capacity as a councilmember personally. I paid for my yearly dues to the Glendale Chamber of Commerce from personal funds.

I also paid for things that I never talked about until now. I’ll give you one example. A constituent of mine, in crisis, needed to gravel the front yard immediately. I explored having the city pay but city policy was and is, that no city funds can be expended to enrich a private citizen or that citizen’s property. So, I paid out of my personal funds to have the front yard graveled. That is not the only time over the years that I used personal funds to help a person in crisis. I know for a fact, that former Vice Mayor Ian Hugh has done the same.

Several years ago, when monthly stipends were offered, this time I chose to take them. Everything is far more expensive than when I started, and I found that I needed help to defray costs.

Councilmembers have always had two council budgets. One is for professional development that can include travel, hotels and meals. Rather than travel, I used my funds to send out two district-wide newsletters to every home in the district twice a year. I also used those funds for hosting district-wide meetings as well as numerous incidental items to reach out to constituents. I occasionally made donations for causes such as backpacks filled with school supplies for Glendale’s disadvantaged children or Christmas gifts for families in need.

The second council budget account is for infrastructure improvements within one’s district. Annually, I directed those funds to be used for park improvements not covered in the Parks and Recreation Department’s annual budget. Those funds were used for such things as repainting park ramadas or replacing park infrastructure such as benches. For example, the digital sign at Heroes Park was paid from my infrastructure budget.

Never once did I abuse either account or use those funds for personal expense or gain.

I believe the current stipend policy is warranted. Here’s why. Now that I have retired, my cell phone informs me that my daily usage of about five hours a day has dropped to less than an hour a day. That tells me that my cell phone was used, almost entirely, for city business. I used to fill up my gas tank once a week at about $45 to $50 a pop. In retirement, I can fill my car up once a month. My use of printer paper has dropped from two reams a month to one ream for several months. Laser toner, very expensive by the way, was replaced twice a year. Now it lasts the entire year. These items, among others, had 90% of their usage attributed to city business. Monthly expenses for meals, tickets, donations and events have dropped to zero.

I am typical of most councilmembers. These stipends have helped to defray the expenses I incurred. I am grateful as your councilmember that they were made available in the last few years.

As for Turner, he’s up to his usual tricks. If he doesn’t understand the use of stipends shame on him. If he chooses not to take them, that is his prerogative. Painting the rest of council as somehow underhanded for using them is a typical Turner move.

The nonuse of a stipend by Councilmember Turner does not make him an angel. It appears that he is far, far from that. The use of a stipend by the rest of the councilmembers, just because Turner and his cohort, Raymundo, write about it does not make us devils.

© Joyce Clark, 2025   

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.

Jan 25

25

Turner and Conchas Gunning for Baldenegro

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 25, 2025
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Code Department • Downtown Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Ocotillo District • Velma Teague Library  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

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

As the Yucca District Councilmember, I worked with Leandro Baldenegro, appointed to represent the Ocotillo District, for 8 months until I retired. During that time, we did not agree on every issue but neither of us harbored ill will toward the other. We had mutual respect for one another, and it remains to this day.

When Jamie Aldama resigned, according to the city charter, it became council’s responsibility to appoint a person to fill that seat until the next regular election in the Spring of 2026. There were many applicants that applied for the appointment. The council narrowed the long list down to five applicants. Each of them was interviewed and the majority chose Mr. Baldenegro. He was very impressive and innately understood the role of a councilmember. It was noticed that some councilmembers did not support his appointment because they had others in mind, presumably more sympathetic to their agendas and whom, they counted on to support those agendas.

Councilmember Baldenegro has since proven to be a hard-working and dedicated councilmember. He is smart and well-grounded. He is humble and caring. He believes in faith, family, friends and the people of his district. He has lived in the district his entire life and loves it. He genuinely wants to lift the people of his district up. He knows the district and he knows those who live there. He is not a typical politician pushing his own agenda.

He is committed to reaching out to the people of the district and soliciting their opinions on the issues that matter to them. In fact, he has a regular meeting for his constituents before every council workshop on alternate Tuesdays.. He truly listens to his constituents and is not afraid to change his stance when presented with sound, well-reasoned arguments, as seen with the Velma Teague Library decision. He had originally supported the move of the library because he believed a new library would offer more content and events to children and their families. It would also have offered the opportunity to become a high-tech library that would provide the tech tools of the 21st Century. He listened to his constituents. They are the ones who convinced him that the best option would be to keep the library in its present location. It is rare for an elected official to be willing to publicly change a position once declared. Councilmember Baldenegro was not afraid to do so.

Turner appears to be targeting Baldenegro not out of personal dislike but to create a new majority on the council. Turner already enjoys support from Councilmembers Tolmachoff and Conchas. Those three are desperately seeking to gain a fourth member of their coalition to become the new majority on council. If they should succeed, Glendale’s city council will become ‘woke’, similar to the disaster that California has become. God help us all.

Make no mistake. Turner and Conchas appear to be behind the recall movement targeting Councilmember Baldenegro. This recall effort against Baldenegro seems driven by political motives rather than genuine concern for the district. How dare Baldenegro have an opinion on the library and how dare he change his opinion. They will use this and other disinformation to try to defeat Baldenegro. It promises to get ugly.

They are courting the disaffected downtown crowd and the pro-Aldama crowd. Two members of the pro-Aldama faction to watch are Warren Wilfong and Rory Goree. I have always been friends with Warren Wilfong but he has an Achilles Heel. That is the poor performance of the Code Department. He is obsessed with that issue. If you do not share his view on this issue, he has no use for you. I’m sure he would love to run for the Ocotillo seat.

However, he has competition that appears to have the inside track with Turner and Conchas, Rory Goree. If you watch council voting meetings, Goree makes it a point to speak at every one. Why? Public comments are televised and Goree gets face time and greater recognition. Unfortunately, only about 11 people actually watch city council meetings. Oh well.

Conchas announced in his last week’s digital newsletter a press conference in support of the library issue and guess who is hosting it? If you said Rory Goree, you would be correct. I would not be surprised if Goree announced his support for the recall of Baldenegro and his candidacy for the Ocotillo district at this press conference. It is required that when a recall petition is circulated, an opposing candidate must be identified on the petition.

I urge Ocotillo residents to continue supporting Councilmember Baldenegro, who has demonstrated honesty and integrity. If the Turner-Conchas- pro Aldama- downtown disaffected factions desire change, they know full well that the next regularly scheduled election for the Ocotillo district councilmember will occur in the Spring of 2026, a year from now. Anyone interested in running will be able to pull a candidate packet this Winter. A recall election before the regular 2026 election is costly for all of Glendale’s taxpayers.

Ocotillo residents can stop this by simply not signing the recall petition. If the leaders of this insurrection do not obtain enough signatures, there will be no election until the regular one in the Spring of 2026 and Councilmember Baldenegro will continue to represent the Ocotillo district residents until then.

Shame on those pushing this costly and untimely recall for their political agendas over the interests of Glendale residents.

© Joyce Clark, 2025   

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.

Jan 25

13

Now the fun begins

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 13, 2025
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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

Today, just before the deadline of 24 hours before a posted council meeting, a new item was added to the city council workshop agenda. It was called for by Councilmembers Tolmachoff, Turner and Conchas. It is a tactic not used before. Probably because there was a strong majority of 4 councilmembers who would not have supported an item presented by the minority.

These three councilmembers want to discuss how council assistants are selected. There has been a push of late by some on council to hire council assistants by a councilmember’s sole discretion. On the face of it, it sounds great. Why shouldn’t a councilmember be free to select any one they want for the position, whether qualified or not. The concern with that position is that the selection can become a political appointment rather than one chosen by merit. This is a slippery slope indeed. I have seen a case where that occurred. After some time, that person left the position.

Here is the agenda item:

Subject

**DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL ASSISTANT POSITIONS                        Presented by: Councilmember Turner, Vice Mayor Tolmachoff and Councilmember Conchas

Purpose and Recommended Action

This is a council-requested item by Councilmember Turner, Vice Mayor Tolmachoff and Councilmember Conchas to discuss the council assistant positions.

Background

The mayor may, or at the request of three (3) members of the council shall, by giving notice thereof to all members of the council then in the city, call a special meeting of the council for a time not earlier than three (3) hours nor later than forty-eight (48) hours after the notice is given. Special meetings of the council may also be held at any time by the common consent of all the members of the council.  This request was made in accordance with the above-referenced Glendale City Charter provision.

Here’s a little inside baseball. Tolmachoff and Turner use every instance they can to make the City Manager, and the Mayor look bad. They appear to purposefully look for council discussion items that provide them the opportunity to say something nasty about either. They seem to harbor an intense dislike for both gentlemen. This discussion item will give them another opportunity to publicly emphasize their feelings.

There is more to this discussion, however. The minority has a coalition of three councilmembers with the addition of Conchas. Keep in mind, Conchas is beholden to Turner. Turner not only endorsed Conchas enthusiastically, but he also donated 90% of the funding for Conchas’ last hit-piece, a campaign mailer portraying Vice Mayor Ian Hugh as a racist.

At one point in his installation speech Conchas said, “…your belief in me kept me going and you stood by me every step of the way. And I will not forget that.” He was referencing the unions and others, like Turner, who had endorsed him and contributed to his campaign.

That is why Conchas will always follow Turner’s lead and agenda.

It is common knowledge around city hall that both Tolmachoff and Turner have consistently treated their council assistants badly. Each has gone through quite a few council assistants. Each believes that they are good bosses but with a slew of council assistants leaving each of them, the facts prove otherwise.

If you have the time and inclination this might be a good council workshop to view. I know that I certainly will watch.

© Joyce Clark, 2025   

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.

Dec 24

28

Velma Teague Library…elegant or eye sore?

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 28, 2024
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Downtown Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Ocotillo District  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

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

As a preface to this blog, I am pleased to tell you that I now have the luxury of time to write again. I started this blog in 2013 and over the years I have written many pieces. For the last two years, taking care of my husband of 89 years and fulfilling my council responsibilities left no time to write. I retired from my council position this December. That action has provided me with time to do one of the things that I love and that is to write again. Look for more consistent and frequent pieces about Glendale.

Many years ago, for at least 40 years ago, my children and I used Velma Teague all the time. It was the only library us south and west Glendale residents had. As the children grew, they soon had access to other libraries and Velma Teague faded as our resource.

What is Velma Teague today? It is small and outdated. It has no room to expand or to accommodate another generation of readers who rely on computers and phones.

Suddenly and unexpectedly, the city’s Promenade space became available. Did you know that the Promenade features a unique history walk featuring 59 images relating to the history of Glendale imbedded in the sidewalk? Each vibrant mosaic offers insight into the evolution of Glendale. 

The majority of council sees this as an opportunity to move the library out of its old, cramped space into a larger space that can bring it into the 21st Century while meeting the needs of economically disadvantaged children. It is an opportunity to provide them with the tools they need to succeed in an ever-advancing digital economy. The city council views this proposal as an opportunity to provide our children with learning to meet the demands of the highly technical world we live in today.

Not only that but the new larger space can accommodate and encourage more programming of classes and learning experiences for our children. It seemed to be a win-win for all.

Not so fast. Remember the group that sported green T-shirts emblazoned with “Save Murphy Park”? They were opposed to the city hall remodel project, convinced that it would destroy the park. This very same group, against anything the city council proposes, is at it again. This time, it’s save the library. One would think from some of their rhetoric that city council was banning books!

Their two major arguments against removing the Velma Teague building are first, its enormous sentimental value. I ask to whom? 99% of Glendale’s residents don’t know it exists and have never used it. It is not a historical building as there have been several iterations of this library over the years. Its sentimental value is limited to the small group of activists desperately searching for any reason to override the direction of the city council.

Last year I started to clean out our home after 50 years of “stuff” had accumulated. Some of it had sentimental value but if I had saved it all we would still be drowning in an overabundance of “stuff.” Sometimes you just have to get rid of things, if for no other reason than to make room for the new. It’s so nice to use uncluttered rooms with space to accommodate new looks and new gadgets. Velma Teague is exactly the same. Sometimes you get rid of the old with perceived, limited sentimental value to make room for the new and often more useful items that can enrich your life. A new Velma Teague holds the promise of enriching the lives of a new generation of children.

The second reason our merry band of nay sayers say they don’t want to see Velma Teague removed is that city council has a nefarious plan to enlarge the amphitheater. Here are a few facts that they deliberately prefer to ignore. The plans for the remodeling of city hall, the amphitheater and council chamber have been approved and are final. The budget is set. The only changes in the budget that have come forward are an increase in the cost of building materials or unexpected glitches that have been found in the old building that required an unbudgeted remedy.

Have you seen or heard senior management come forward with a plan to increase the size of the amphitheater and an accompanying request for more funding to cover that expansion? The answer is ‘no’. It hasn’t happened and it isn’t going to happen.

Just for a minute, can you imagine Murphy Park, wide open and newly landscaped without that intrusive old building? Imagine Murphy Park, enlarged for an even more spectacular Glendale Glitters when it returns to that location? Without that building there is suddenly more room for people and the events that attract them to downtown Glendale. As I said previously, it’s a win-win for the children and a win-win for the downtown merchants.

What will happen? Now I will use my crystal ball. The dozen activists will win this round, and Velma Teague will stay as the proud, old lady in her tattered finest. We know that Councilmembers Tomalchoff and Turner oppose any plan to remove Velma Teague. Add newbie Councilmember Conchas to the pro Velma Teague faction. All these councilmembers have to do is turn one more councilmember to gain the majority. My guess is that they are gunning for Ocotillo Councilmember Baldenegro. He is a smart, common sense, compassionate guy with the genuine best interests of his constituency at the forefront. Whisperings have started that if he doesn’t support keeping Velma Teague where it is, he can look forward to a recall in his future.

I think that would be enough to get him to change his position. A recall filled with lies, smears and innuendos comparing one to Hitler or Al Capone, no matter how untrue, is something no one wants to face.

So, after all the political sound and fury, I suspect Velma Teague will stay where it is and the children of the Ocotillo district will be the losers, having gained nothing for their future well-being. It will be a sad ending to a project that could have provided these children with enhanced opportunities to move into the digital age.

Suffer the children.

 

© Joyce Clark, 2024    

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.

Oct 23

27

Not 12 Angry Men but 3 angry councilmembers

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 27, 2023
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale's Fire Union  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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

Please remember that this is a campaign season and things get ugly during such a season, but this is the worst I have ever seen or of which I have been a part.

The reference to Twelve Angry Men is an American courtroom drama written by Reginald Rose in 1954 concerning the jury of a homicide trial in which one man convinces the rest of the jury of reasonable doubt concluding with a not guilty verdict. It’s a really good movie.

Although Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff has not come out and publicly endorsed any candidates as of this date, at Chamber events her actions would lead people to believe that she supports Paul Boyer for Mayor and Lupe Encinas for my Yucca district council seat. This is the context upon which this blog is written.

It is no secret that if you watch City Council meetings lately, you will witness a lot of sniping directed toward the Mayor and City Manager by Councilmembers Tolmachoff, Turner and Aldama. They appear to be quite unhappy with both gentlemen as well as decisions made by the majority of city council. They seem to be using public city council forums to convince you that the majority of city council is acting inappropriately. What you are witnessing these days is pure political theater.

I refer you to this video of the latest city council workshop of October 24, 2023: https://glendaleaz.new.swagit.com/videos/277456  starting at the 37:23 minute mark. On May 9, 2023, Mayor Weiers requested a Council Item of Special Interest to explore state legislation that ensures reoccurring cancers cannot be the sole reason for denying cancer claims and to ensure that reoccurring cancers that result in disability or death are presumed to be an occupational disease as outlined in the Arizona Revised Statutes.

The scope of the October 24, 2023, city council discussion and subsequent deliverables would be focused on the introduction of legislation in the 2024 Arizona Legislative Session that would add the additional protections to firefighters.

City Council has already adopted a policy to recognize reoccurring cancers for Glendale’s firefighters despite the state legislature’s failure to do so. The focus of this CIOSI workshop discussion was not looking for further changes in this policy but rather to take Glendale’s adopted policy and to work with the state legislature to encourage all fire departments to make Glendale’s policy statewide. A fix was no longer needed in Glendale and staff were asking for council consensus to bring Glendale’s approach before the state legislature.

Previous to the Mayor’s May, 2023, request for a Council Item of Special Interest (CIOSI) related strictly to making Glendale’s policy a statewide one, Councilmember Tolmachoff had asked for a similar CIOSI that included among other things, recognition of pre-cancerous conditions. A majority of council did not support her request at the time.

Dismayed by the rebuff of her past CIOSI, Councilmember Tolmachoff said the following during workshop, “…but I think it is shameful to make a campaign issue out of the health and safety of our firefighters and I believe that’s what this is.” She went on to say, “Because of four people, I believe, had been told to snuff this out (her previous CIOSI).” As well as, “I think it’s shameful the way it transpired.” And “So, just like I said, I see this for what I believe it is and I think it’s a campaign move.” During the fifteen-minute discussion of the issue she interrupted the City Manager and the Mayor repeatedly and spoke out several times without being recognized by the Chair (Mayor).

Firefighters are not speaking up in her defense. They are pleased that Glendale adopted a policy recognizing reoccurring cancers and will work with the city to lobby the state legislature to make it a statewide policy. In this upcoming election, the general expectation is that both police and fire will endorse Mayor Weiers, Councilmembers Hugh and Malnar and Diana Guzman, candidate for my Yucca council seat.

Councilmember Bart Turner agreed with Councilmember Tolmachoff and went on to say, “There is something going on and it does feel to me like it’s campaign related and that there’s collusion going on.”

Councilmember Aldama, an announced candidate for Mayor, agreed with Councilmember Tolmachoff and accused the Mayor of unprofessionalism and divisiness.

I support free speech as well as all Glendale Councilmembers’ exercise of such. Rather the concern is when does speech border on slander? Accusing the majority council of collusion or taking direction from some mysterious person at a public council workshop may be considered as slander.

Feeling something or believing something does not make it true. There were no facts presented back up the accusations made. Rather what we heard was “I believe” and “I feel” as if they were matters of fact.

Just remember, this is a nasty political season and if anyone is pushing a political agenda it may very well be the 3 angry councilmembers.

© 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.

May 18

11

Friday tidbits of May 11, 2018

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 11, 2018
Posted in Barrel district election 2018 • Cholla district election • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale election 2018 • Glendale's Fire Union • Ocotillo district election 2018  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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

I haven’t done one of these types of blogs in quite awhile but there is so much occurring politically it’s a good time to throw one out there.

Vice Mayor Lauren Tolmachoff filed her nomination paper and petition signatures with the City Clerk’s office on Thursday, May 10, 2018. She is now an official candidate for the position of councilmember representing the Cholla district. It appears as of this date she will have no opposition thereby assuring her of another term.

Also on Thursday Ray Strahl of the Barrel district obtained a candidate packet and filed a statement of organization. Should he turn in enough petition signatures by May 30th he will become an official candidate for the position of councilmember representing the Barrel district. It appears likely that the current councilmember, Bart Turner, will have an opponent in the August primary election.

On April 30, 2018 Councilmember Jamie Aldama of the Ocotillo district filed his nomination paper and petition signatures with the City Clerk’s office. His likely opponent, Emmanuel Allen, has until the end of May to turn in his paperwork to become an official candidate.

Aldama’s campaign manager is Chuck Foy. It’s appears that Jamie likes to keep his distance from nasty stuff and that is apparently part of Mr. Foy’s usefulness. On March 13, 2018 Mr. Foy filed a first Freedom of Information Request seeking any and all information with regard to the city and Emmanuel Allen, a possible opponent of Aldama’s for the Ocotillo city council seat. I guess the city’s first response was either disappointing or Foy and Aldama haven’t found any dirt to throw at Allen yet. Foy made another request for more information on Thursday, May 10th. They seem to be trying to find something nefarious about Allen’s ROOTS organization, the successful bidder for providing after-school programming at two city locations.  Allen’s organization bested the current operator, Breakthu Barrio, who appears to have had a long and fruitful relationship with Aldama.

Yet another fascinating Freedom of Information request was filed with the City Clerk on Thursday, May 10th by Bryan Willingham. Mr. Willingham is a Glendale resident but also just happens to be a Phoenix Fire Captain and Executive VP of the United Phoenix Firefighters Association, Local 493. What was the nature of his request? He requested information on the recall process for all councilmembers as well the procedures and requirements for filing a citizen’s initiative proposition. His action seems to be for the purpose of firing a warning shot at the mayor and all councilmembers.

I will flesh out the reasoning behind Mr. Willingham’s query on behalf of the fire union in an upcoming blog but suffice it to point out initially that Glendale fire fighters are among the best paid fire fighters in the Valley. Did you know they work 502 hours less per year than nearly every fire fighter in the Valley? Yet it seems the Glendale fire union is very unhappy over this year’s negotiations with the city on pay and benefits. How and why is something every citizen in Glendale deserves to know and will in the near future.

© Joyce Clark, 2018         

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.

Nov 17

13

Reasons to opt out of light rail in Glendale

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 13, 2017
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Phoenix Metro issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 4 Comments

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

In the November 9, 2017 edition of the Glendale Star Councilmember Bart Turner offered a guest commentary entitled the “Top 10 reasons to proceed with light rail.” While he is a fierce advocate for light rail his position does not comport with a majority of city council. Those who gave direction to abandon moving forward with light rail were Mayor Weiers, Vice Mayor Hugh, Councilmember Malnar and I. There were only two councilmembers definitively in support of light rail and they were Councilmembers Turner and Aldama. Councilmember Tolmachoff never really responded in any clear cut fashion. Aldama’s position in an election year may not bode well for him as he seemed to ignore a great many downtown business owners opposed to the concept.

Before I launch into a rebuttal of Councilmember Turner’s commentary I want to recommend two articles written by Randal O’Toole that I found while researching this issue. The first, “The coming transit apocalypse” was published as a policy paper by the Cato Institute on October 24, 2017. Here is the link:
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/coming-transit-apocalypse .

The second, also by O’Toole was published in the Wall Street Journal on November 10, 2017. It is entitled “It’s the Last Stop on the Light-Rail Gravy Train: Mayors want new lines that won’t be ready for a decade. Commuters will be in driverless cars by then.” Here is the link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/its-the-last-stop-on-the-light-rail-gravy-train-1510354782 . Both are well worth reading.

Turner’s top reason for supporting light rail is that it was a component of Proposition 402 approved by voters on November 6, 2001, 16 years ago. I bet if light rail were on a ballot today it would go down in flaming defeat.

The specific ballot language said, “That all revenues from the 0.5% increase in the privilege and use tax authorized by this ordinance shall be deposited in a separate transportation fund that shall be used only for transportation purposes in accordance with Proposition Number 402 , including the following:

  • Intersection improvements
  • Street projects
  • Expansion of existing bus services
  • Increased Dial-A-Ride services
  • Express bus service
  • Regional light rail connection
  • Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvement Projects
  • Airport projects
  • Safety improvements”

 At that time the proposition was deliberately crafted to offer a potpourri of 9 items. The working assumption was that a menu of items was sure to appeal to various stakeholders. Light rail was included and its insertion onto the ballot measure was as contentious as its possible location. It was assumed at that time that this inclusion was the surest way to insure its passage by its advocates at that time.

And yes, Proposition 402 did pass on a vote of 8,313 yes votes (64%) and 4,664 no votes (36%). The ballot proposition was very general in its wording. It did not mandate that any of the above action items take precedence over any other. It also did not present a time line under which these items were to be completed.

It is fair to say that many of the voters wanted improved bus services as well as intersection improvements and street maintenance and repair. They were willing to accept all elements of the ballot in order to get the options that were important to them – streets, intersections and better bus service.  That was the voters’ agenda then and it remains the voters’ agenda now.

Turner goes on to state that there is enough city funding to get light rail to 51st Avenue and Glendale Avenue but that is not accurate as the estimated costs show a deficit of $400,00. See the chart below:

When we consider capital construction and operations & maintenance (O&M) costs — beware. Fares generate only one-quarter to one-third of operating expenses. There will be significant annual operational costs causing a redistribution of income from all taxpayers to subsidize light rail riders. Historically ridership fluctuates with the condition of the national economy. When gas prices are high or we are in the midst of a recession ridership increases. When gas is cheap or times are good, we climb right back into our cars. Soon we will see driverless cars whose cost of operation will compete very favorably with transit fares.

Light rail is very, very expensive. Typically it is 20 times the construction cost of all other forms of mass transit. Generally, construction delays and cost overruns are endemic. Federal and state subsidies are needed to construct the rail line and to maintain and operate the system. All federal grants require assurances. In other words, there are strings attached. One of those required federal assurances is that the light rail system will never be shut down.

What about the disruption to traffic and local businesses during construction? Most of the downtown businesses that would be affected by 2 to 3 years of light rail construction will end up closing or moving to another location. They are concerned and they have every right to be. Many are small businesses that cannot afford the kind of disruption that occurs with light rail construction. Many may end up being replaced by multi-family…most likely not high-end multi-family either.

What about Turner’s contention that light rail provides a “catalyst” for high-quality redevelopment? According to an Excel presentation provided to me by Valley Metro current development to-date along the existent light rail lines (Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe) show that anywhere from an estimated 3% to 30% of the investment in new development that occurs along a light rail route is public money (municipal funding). In addition it is quite likely that the incentive funding provided by the city to attract private development will have to compete with other General Fund priorities. In essence, taxpayer subsidies boost development along transit lines and around stations. Do you want to divert your taxpayer dollars to incentivize development along a light rail line? The “catalyst“ will be city investment and city incentives offered to developers.

What kind of investment is typical along a light rail line? Again, based on information provided by Valley Metro, the new development tends to be a double digit percentage increase in the addition of multi-family (apartments) and the decrease of retail (percentage is variable from single digit decline to double digit decline).  Are you willing to trade downtown retail locations for apartments? Do you think the disappearance of existent stores and restaurants and the addition of more apartments in their stead is high-quality development? Did you know that properties near light rail stations in low income areas experience negative benefits?

Councilmember Turner suggests that, “a rubber-tired trolley can ferry light rail passengers throughout downtown.” Why would that be necessary? Light rail lines cannot be rerouted. They are fixed.  They create a certain inflexibility. Consider a rail breakdown or the permanent elimination of a temporary street closure caused by a special event (Glendale Glitters? Chocolate Affaire?) or a parade (Christmas parade?). There can be a permanent inconvenience to motorists when a street lane is lost or if they are required to wait behind a rail car while passengers get on or off. Motorists often react to light rail location by choosing alternate nearby streets. Suddenly the vehicular congestion migrates but still remains.

Turner suggests, “If Glendale abandons its light rail plan, $72 million paid by Glendale and other West Valley residents into the regional light rail fund will be transferred” to other light rail projects in the Valley. That is true. While Glendale chooses to opt out of light rail right that doesn’t mean that in future years Valley Metro may create other priorities in which Glendale may participate . At that time it will have access to those regional dollars.

Councilmember Turner does not mention the benefit of not establishing light rail now. Angel Rodriguez, in a Letter to the Editor in the November 2, 2017 Glendale Star asks, “The Oct. 23 article regarding the Glendale City Council killing plans for downtown light rail referred to a ‘decision 16 years after Glendale voters approved a sales tax increase, in part for light rail,’ raises the question of that part of the sales tax increase for light rail. How much of the sales tax increase starting 16 years ago was and has been set aside for that light rail that won’t happen? By now, it must be in the millions …” Approximately 40% of the sales tax collected was set aside and reserved for light rail. With the council decision not to proceed with light rail that money can be reprogrammed for other more immediate transportation needs. It can be used to enhance and increase bus service. A majority of our bus shelters are without shade. Just adding shade to these bus stops will increase ridership. The bus route along 83rd Avenue now goes from McDowell Road in Phoenix up to Bell Road in Peoria. Other routes may be able to be expanded or created.

 It can be used for intersection and street improvements. There are at least 5 intersections in Glendale in need of remediation right now. Some of those dollars could be reprogrammed to mitigate them. As another example, it can be used to connect Camelback Ranch to Westgate. Once that occurs, just as in the case of completing 95th Avenue south from Bethany Home Road to Camelback, it creates a catalyst for more businesses to locate and with it comes more jobs for Glendale’s residents. When the extension of 95th Avenue was planned and announced who came to town? IKEA with its hundreds of jobs. Those light rail transportation dollars can be reprogrammed to create enhanced connectivity between locations. With that activity comes more jobs to Glendale. City council, in a future workshop, will decide how to make the best use of the light rail dollars for other transportation needs.

Lastly, Councilmember Turner says, “Our image as the progressive future-looking city that Glendale is working hard to develop will be significantly harmed if we willingly choose to forgo this opportunity.” According to his perception, the same must be said for the other “dale” – Scottsdale. For it, too, has made the decision not to pursue light rail in its community. The four councilmembers, including me, that gave direction not to proceed with light rail at this time, in this location, do not accept his statement.

Glendale continues to be the location of choice for many businesses. Just this week, we celebrated the ground breaking for a BMW automotive franchise. BMW does extensive market research in making a decision as to where to locate another franchise. They, just as any other business looking for another location, cannot afford to make the wrong choice. They chose Glendale because of the positives Glendale offers to all new business locates. Glendale is on the move and the council decision to not move forward with light rail does not harm the amazing prospects for our future in any way, shape or form.

I understand Councilmember Turner’s frustration because the light rail decision was not the one he wanted. I’ve been there and done that. But council has made its decision and will reaffirm that decision in the form of a future Resolution to that effect. His continued advocacy for a position not supported by a majority of the city council will not change the outcome. Just as we agree to disagree, we respect his position on this issue; it’s time for him to respect our positions as well. Calling councilmembers “un-American” because of opposition to light rail does nothing to advance the issue and, in fact, is a violation of the City Council Guidelines for Conduct.

© Joyce Clark, 2017                 

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.

Oct 17

18

Light rail dead in Glendale

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 18, 2017
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Light Rail  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

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

On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 the Glendale city council met in workshop. The first agenda item of five items was that of light rail. Staff presented by recapping what had been discussed to date and asked for further council direction.

There was a robust discussion by council for well over an hour and a half. I will recap each councilmember’s position in the order of workshop seating. Councilmember Ray Malnar related that the original Glendale proposition ballot had 9 items, one of which was light rail. He believes that voter support for the proposition was based on support for 8 of the 9 ballot items and that voters approved the measure and tolerated light rail on the ballot because of the other items that would bring local transportation improvements. He indicated that he could not support light rail and asked for consensus on that position.

Councilmember Bart Turner is a strong and avid advocate for light rail. He attempted to refute any councilmember comments that offered reasons not to move forward with light rail. He feels that the financial figures presented showing a GO Program deficit and the use of General Fund dollars would not be accurate in the future and that the economic development created by light rail would offset those deficits. When it came time to create consensus he clearly wanted to move forward with light rail.

Vice Mayor Ian Hugh has never made a secret of his position on light rail. He has been opposed consistently.  He asked questions of Valley Metro’s CEO, Scott Smith, about pollution and congestion. The answers provided by Mr. Smith were vague as he could not really speak to the issue of pollution and answered the congestion question by stating that in Mesa light rail has caused vehicular traffic to find alternate routes and therefore he has not seen an increase in vehicular congestion. When consensus was called for, the Vice Mayor joined Councilmember Malnar to request that the light rail issue be discontinued in Glendale.

Mayor Weiers Indicated that at one time he had supported light rail as he believed that local connections in the form of trolleys, etc., would be able to connect with the end of the light rail line. However, having reviewed the financial forecast of dollar needs for light rail, he was reluctant to commit future dollars to light rail. He feels that Glendale is finally in a healthy financial position and does not want to jeopardize that success by committing future dollars that the city may not be in a position to afford.

Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff was clearly torn and on the fence. At one time she had indicated that her support of light rail would hinge on its ability to cross over Grand Avenue. Clearly, the dollars needed to accomplish that were astronomical and frankly unaffordable for Glendale. She did not want to dismiss light rail completely and asked that a decision by council be made after an upcoming council workshop on transportation in Glendale.  There was no support for delaying a decision on the issue. When the call for consensus on ceasing pursuit of light rail in Glendale I, quite honestly, did not see her indicate her position in support for or in opposition to light rail.

Councilmember Jamie Aldama, shared the same position as Councilmember Turner and was a strong advocate for light rail. He believes that light rail will spur downtown economic development. As the Mayor noted, Councimember Aldama was comfortable with his position on the issue as it did not impact LaMar Avenue, located one block south of Glendale Avenue and at one time was considered as a possible location for the light rail line. When it came time for consensus, Councilmember Aldama joined Councilmember Turner in continued support of light rail.

As last in line, I said that I was not ready to sacrifice Go Programming dollars and General Fund resources to pay for light rail. We have immediate needs that can be satisfied by releasing light rail dollars to other transportation needs. When it came time for consensus I joined Mayor Weiers, Vice Mayor Hugh, and Councilmember Malnar in giving direction that council would no longer pursue light rail in Glendale.

On a 4 to 2 consensus with 1 unclear, city council has finally made a decision. Light rail will not come to Glendale…at least not anytime in the next 10 years. Light rail is dead.

© Joyce Clark, 2017                 

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.

May 17

8

Council approves Clark’s request

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 8, 2017
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Glendale's Fire Union  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

“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 May 18, 2017 as a Council Item of Special Interest the Glendale City Council approved my request for a temporary council subcommittee on business. Its purpose is to review all codes, ordinances, regulations, policies, etc., associated with businesses in Glendale. This initiative has never been accomplished since the city’s inception in 1912. Over the years there are sure to be outdated and redundant regulations that can be eliminated. It’s an opportunity for the business community to tell Glendale what it’s doing right and where there can be improvement.

The article below by Cecila Chan for Your West Valley News of May 1, 2017, sums it up very nicely:

Glendale to establish subcommittee to help businesses

May 1, 2017 Business

Cecilia Chan Independent Newsmedia

“Glendale wants to improve its climate to keep and grow the business community in the city.

“City Council last week in study session agreed to move forward with the creation of a temporary subcommittee and to solicit feedback from the business community. Mayor Jerry Weiers was absent. The item is expected to come before Council at its next voting meeting.

” ‘This sends a positive message to all business large and small in Glendale that we are interested in them and what they do,’ said Councilwoman Joyce Clark, who came up with the idea. ‘It sends a positive message to businesses thinking about moving here that we are serious about improving the business climate. I’m not saying it’s bad but it can be made better.’

“The one-year subcommittee will be made up of three council members and representatives from the business community who will review the city’s codes and make recommendations to the Council.

“Ms. Clark said during her time on the Council off and on since 1992, there has never been a review of the city’s policies, regulations or laws pertaining to businesses in Glendale.

“The subcommittee will remove outdated, ineffective and redundant business regulations on the city’s books, she added.

“The committee will look at everything the city does relating to business and see where it can become more business-friendly and enhance its reputation as the premier business community in the Valley, Ms. Clark said.

“Development Services Director Sam McAllen said the subcommittee would take an average of two to three hours a week of staff time. For the duration of the committee, it is estimated to take 1,040 hours to 1,560 hours of staff time, he added.

“Councilman Ray Malnar suggested increasing the seven- member committee to include a contractor or builder because that profession, which creates job opportunities in Glendale, is affected by city fees and policies.

“Councilman Jamie Aldama suggested adding two representatives, one from the minority business community and one from a woman-owned business.

“Councilman Bart Turner said the idea of a subcommittee is a worthy endeavor, however, it is a step too soon.

“He cited the large use of staff hours, a city resource.

“Instead, he suggested the city find out what the issues and/or frustrations are for businesses in Glendale by getting it from the members of the Glendale Chamber of Commerce, soliciting input at city hall’s second-floor service counter and establishing a hotline for merchants.

“Try that for a year and then see if the committee is still needed, Councilman Turner said.

“Councilman Aldama asked what the staff hours equated to in money.

“Mr. Allen said staff only went as far as to identify which departments would be involved in the committee. Departments involved include Building Safety, Fire Marshal, Planning, Economic Development and City Attorney.

Councilman Aldama noted despite the cost of creating the committee, its recommendations would generate more revenue for Glendale.

Councilwoman Lauren Tolmachoff suggested the council move forward on both proposals.

” ‘I have no problem doing both at the same time,’ she said.

“The council also agreed to expand the subcommittee to 11 to 13 members, taking in Councilmen Aldama’s and Malnar’s suggestions.

Staff estimated the new subcommittee could be up and running within three to four months upon approval.”

© Joyce Clark, 2017               

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.

Next Page »