Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Nov 16

19

Saturday tidbits

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 19, 2016
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , | 1 Comment

A few days ago while visiting my local grocery store as I was waiting in line to pay for them when some members of the Amazing Grace Christian Church (located at 73th Avenue and Glendale Avenue) approached me offering to pay my tab. I guess I must have looked extra needy that day in jeans and a sweat shirt. After I got over the surprise of the offer, I declined, asking them to give it to someone with a greater obvious need. In fact, I was so impressed with their act of charity, I gave them a donation on the spot. If you think this is an extraordinary and would like to support them, please consider making a donation to: Amazing Grace Christian Church, 7310 W Camelback Road, Glendale, AZ 85303.

As Councilmember Elect I am now receiving material for city council workshops and voting meetings. On Wednesday afternoon, November 16, 2016, I ran over to Glendale City Hall to pick up the current council book for the November 22nd meeting. Someone should have advised me to bring a hand truck! There are 55 items on the agenda! Take council-booka look…No guesses needed on what I will be doing this weekend. To date, the city has met all of my requests for further information including the current budget book. I am still waiting to receive all material related to the original development of Camelback Ranch.

Recently I had an opportunity to sit down with Glendale’s Planning Director, Jon Froke. He graciously brought me up to speed on already approved as well as potential, new development projects in my district, the Yucca district. We had a good philosophical discussion about the kind of residential projects that should be supported in Yucca. I was appreciative of the chance to share. In the Yucca district, there is already a large compliment of starter home and mid-range housing units. Currently there are 2,000 existing apartment units with another 4,000 approved as future development occurs. So the city has covered the bases in every area except for upscale housing units. I conveyed the need for this kind of housing stock as a priority for Yucca. We also discussed possible concepts for the type of development adjacent to the Loop 303, Glendale’s next economic frontier. I believe the city’s vision for the area, to attract distribution, manufacturing, etc., and mine are aligned.

I also recently had a meeting with the City’s Transportation Department, led by Director Jack Friedline. As you may or may not know, the city has committed to an aggressive street repair and maintenance program over the next five years. Here is what is planned for the Yucca district for Fiscal Year 16-17:

The following streets will be milled and overlaid this year:
79th Avenue from Myrtle Ave to Glendale Ave
77th Lane from Myrtle Ave to Glendale Ave
Myrtle Avenue from 79th Ave to 77th Lane
Midway Ave from 79th Ave to 77th Lane
78th Drive from Midway Ave to Palmaire Ave
Palmaire Ave from 79th Ave to 77th Lane
79th Ave from Camelback to the Grand Canal

The following streets will be slurry sealed this year:
Area between 93rd Ave to 91st Ave; Maryland Ave to Glendale Ave:
Sierra Vista Drive
McLellan Road
Tuckey Lane
Ocotillo Road
83rd Lane
84th Drive
89th Ave
90th Drive

These additional streets will be slurry sealed this year:
Area between 79th Ave to the Grand Canal and Camelback Road;
Vermont Ave                                                                                                                          Georgia Ave
Oregon Ave
Colter St
Orange Drive
Medlock Drive
Reade Ave
Pasadena Ave
78th Drive
78th Ave
76th Lane
75th Lane

There are 3 Yucca district areas that are street sealant pilot projects. These areas will receive street sealants that are not the usual sealant. The idea is to find out how well each of these sealants perform and how long they last.


Pilot Project Street Sealant #1:
The area between Missouri Ave to Camelback Road and the Grand Canal; 71st Ave to 73 Ave and includes:
Denton Lane
Vermont Ave
Georgia Ave
Colter St
Medlock Dr
Windsor Blvd
Reade Ave
Pasadena Ave
71st Lane
71st Drive
72nd Ave


Pilot Project Street Sealant #2: I believe this sealant goes on pink and after a day or two becomes clear:
The area between Northern Ave to Glendale Ave; 83rd Ave to 89th Ave:
Lane Ave
Augusta Ave
Hayward Ave
Frier Drive
Carole Lane
Helen Lane
Orangewood Ave
Gardenia Ave
State Ave
Northview Ave
Nicolette Ave
Myrtle Ave
Midway Ave
Palmaire Ave
Glenn Drive
83rd Drive
84th Drive
86th Ave
86th Lane
87th Ave
88th Ave
88th Lane
88th Drive
89th Lane


Pilot Project Street Sealant #3:
the area between 87th Ave to 88th Ave;
Glendale Ave to Ocotillo Road:
Flynn Lane
Fleetwood Lane
Peppertree Lane
Lamar Drive
87th Drive
88th Ave

© Joyce Clark, 2016          

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 16

16

Another chapter in the Coyotes saga opens

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 16, 2016
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

On Monday, November 14, 2016, Anthony LeBlanc, representing the NHL Arizona Coyotes, announced the possibility of a Coyotes move to a new arena in the East Valley. Note that I, as others, used the word “possibility.”

Here are the links to major stories about the announcement:

As one read media reports or watched TV reports about the announcement the impression given was that it was a done deal and we could expect construction of a new arena immediately. A very few of the media did admit that the Coyotes face tremendous obstacles. Everyone should take a deep breath and sit back and wait until next June to learn the results of on-going negotiations. 

What was really said at the announcement? Simply this…Catellus Development Corporation, master developer of the ASU Athletic Facilities District, and the Arizona Coyotes are in negotiation. In 2010 ASU was successful in getting the Arizona legislature to approve an athletic district, a special revenue district for lands owned by state-supported universities, which could be used as a funding source for some of its athletic capital projects such as the $268 million dollar renovation of Sun Devil Stadium. Shortly thereafter, in 2014, ASU announced Catellus as its master developer of the Karsten land.

The Catellus Development Corporation is described by Bloomberg as, “Catellus Development Corporation, a real estate investment trust (REIT), engages in the ownership and development of primarily industrial properties in the United States. The company operates in Core segment, and Urban, Residential, and Other segment (URO). Core segment manages and leases its rental portfolio, as well as acquires and develops suburban commercial business parks for its own rental portfolio and for selling land and/or buildings to users and other parties. URO segment manages residential projects and urban development activities, as well as the desert land sales. As of July 28, 2005, the company’s rental portfolio totaled 41.1 million square feet. It operates principally in California, Illinois, Texas, Colorado, Georgia, and New Jersey. The company has elected to be treated as a REIT and would not be subject to federal income tax, if it distributes at least 90% of its taxable income to its shareholders. Catellus Development is headquartered in San Francisco, California.”

What I found to be most interesting about Catellus is that was a spin off of a major railroad company. This is from http://www.muelleraustin.com/about/catellus/ : “Catellus was founded in 1984, following a proposed merger of two railroad giants. When Santa Fe Industries (which owned the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway) proposed a merger with the Southern Pacific Company (which owned the Southern Pacific Railroad), the new company created a wholly owned subsidiary named the Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corporation. The subsidiary was charged with managing the company’s non-railroad landholdings and turning unproductive parcels across the country into revenue generating assets. In 1990, after the merger of the railroads was denied, Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corporation spun off as a publicly traded company named Catellus Development Corporation (NYSE:CDX).”

Everyone by now is aware of the proposed site location and the proposal of a 16,000 seat, $400 million dollar Coyotes arena. What the announcement signals is Catellus has granted the Coyotes until June 30, 2017 to review the land and get the political, developmental, architectural and financial plans required to build it.

Take special note of two words…political and financial plans. Where were the political figures as this announcement was made? Governor Ducey, Phoenix Mayor Stanton, Tempe Mayor Mitchell, ASU President Crow or anyone representing the state legislature were all AWOL.  In fact, it was reported, “Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton who has pushed for a new hockey-basketball arena downtown, threw cold water on the Coyotes’ plan.”  He said, “A deal is far from complete, and appears to require new levels of support from both state of Arizona and City of Tempe taxpayers. My thinking hasn’t changed: Building a third professional arena in this market doesn’t make sense, especially when it would likely require new public dollars as a part of the deal.” The Governor’s office declined to comment. Mayor Mitchell of Tempe didn’t even know about it until the public announcement was made. Even Deputy Commissioner Daley’s comment was lukewarm, “I’m very pleased with where they are. I think this is an incredible opportunity for an exciting new future in the Valley.” Coyotes coach Dave Tippett reflected what many others are feeling these days when there is an Anthony LeBlanc announcement, “It’s good news. It’s early. A lot of us have been through a lot of this before. Hopefully, everything turns out as wonderful as it sounds.”

The Coyotes expect the state legislature to create a special taxing district that would require taxpayers to pay $200 million of the $400 million needed. They floated the idea last legislative year and were told to come back in 2017 for possible consideration. General sentiment is that the Republican-controlled legislature will view the Coyotes’ latest request for public subsidy with a decided lack of enthusiasm.

One has only to look at the snapshot poll run recently by TV Channel 10’s Sean McLaughlin. At last check 31% of the poll respondents supported using tax dollars for construction of another sports facility. 45% of the respondents did not support use of public money and 24% wanted the Coyotes to remain in Glendale. If this poll is an accurate gauge of public support, it isn’t there with 69% opposed to using taxpayer dollars. It appears the public/political will to use $200 million dollars of taxpayer money for another sport facility is no where to be found.

As for the financial aspect, the Coyotes said they would pony up $200 million dollars. Let’s revisit some history. When IceArizona purchased the team, relatively speaking, very little of investor money was used. Instead two loans were granted for the team’s purchase… one from the National Hockey League and one from Fortress investment. The actual cash investment by the IceArizona investment group was less than a third of the purchase price. The investment group came out of the gate heavily in debt. It is no secret that the Coyotes lose millions every year. That’s why the City of Glendale’s annual taxpayer subsidy was so important to them. It made the annual bleeding a little less.

If the Coyotes really want to control their own destiny, why not just buy Glendale’s arena? It certainly would be cheaper than building a brand new $400 million dollar facility and it would give them the advantage of having complete control of the building and all of the revenues it generates.

I have heard but not enough for ironclad confirmation, that AEG, new manager of the Glendale arena, offered the Coyotes a smokin’ deal. Reportedly LeBlanc’s response was to reject the offer and walk out of the meeting.

Where are the Coyotes going to find $200 million dollars for their portion of the deal? There are only so many Andrew Barroways around. Mr. Barroway currently owns 54% of the team and according to Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/teams/arizona-coyotes/ , the team is valued at $220 million as of November, 2015. Here are additional facts provided by Forbes:

  • Price Paid: $170 M
  • Year Purchased: 2013
  • Revenue2: $92 M
  • Operating Income3: $-4.5 M
  • Debt/Value4: 63%
  • Player Expenses5: $60 M
  • Gate Receipts6: $20 M
  • Wins-to-player cost ratio7: 62
  • Revenue per Fan8: $11
  • Metro Area Population: 4.5 M

It should be disconcerting to Catellus, ASU and Tempe to hear that the Coyotes hope the project “pays for itself” or as Barroway says the Coyotes finally might break even with a new Tempe arena. Glendale should be an object lesson for them. Even with all of the revenue sharing schemes in its deal with the Coyotes, the Coyotes’ projections never became reality and those revenues never compensated Glendale for its annual subsidy.

LeBlanc brought much of the continual speculation and fan pressure upon himself. He repeatedly assured everyone that an announcement about a new site was forth coming. Before the draft…after the draft…beginning of the summer…end of the summer. What he provided publicly with this announcement is merely a fig leaf designed to cover his…

I believe the Coyotes best option remains the Glendale arena. I, personally, would like to see them stay.Glendale’s City Manager Kevin Phelps said it best, “the city will keep operating as if their arena will house the Coyotes long-term, noting that new arenas are very expensive to construct. I don’t think the last chapter of this book has been written — and until it is written, we’re going to keep doing our part to see how we can add value to the Coyotes.”

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

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 16

15

There is light at the end of the tunnel

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 15, 2016
Posted in Arizona Cardinals • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • University of Phoenix Stadium  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 2 Comments

On Monday, November 14, 2016, the Glendale city council approved a Settlement Agreement with the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority (AZSTA) and the Arizona Cardinals. Here is the link to the background material on the proposal: https://glendale-az.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2881276&GUID=C07EFD4F-664C-4A92-98FF-A23BF1C88B39&Options=&Search=&FullText=1 . Here is the link to the Settlement Agreement in full: final-settlement-agreement-11102016 .

The major points of the settlement are:

·       It settles an outstanding legal claim of $67 million dollars in damages initiated in 2012 by the Arizona Sports & Tourism Authority (AZSTA) and the Cardinals by paying them jointly $14 million over the next 5 years.

·       It creates $3 million dollars of infrastructure to enable pedestrians to cross Bethany Home Road without impeding the traffic on Bethany Home.

·       It includes construction of 95th Avenue from Bethany to Camelback Road at a cost of $3 million.

If I were on city council I would have approved the settlement. Let’s look at it point by point. I want to make clear since my election was not funded by special interests, my prime directive, based on being fully informed of the pros and cons, is to make the best possible decisions that I believe are in the city’s best interests. This would have been one of them.

Over the weekend, I downloaded the entire proposed 135 page settlement agreement, read it, made notations, and then was fortunate enough to have an opportunity to sit down with the City Manager to get any and all of my questions answered. The current councilmembers have had the luxury of discussion and information about settlement negotiations for the past two months.

At first I was angry thinking here we go again, paying millions more to support sports in our town. Are we nuts? After I calmed down, I started to really think about it. Yes, we could reject the settlement and the $67 million dollar claim would have wended its way through the court system….for a year? two years? There is, of course, no way of predicting the outcome but I will say the city’s track record of late, has not been one to inspire confidence in a city win. If the city had lost, it would have had to pay out $67 million plus not just its attorneys’ fees but the claimants’ attorneys’ fees as well.

It’s also a matter of doing the right thing. The city had the obligation to live up to its contractual agreement of providing 11,000 parking spaces, per the Parking License Agreement and other documents from 2005, over a decade ago.

The $14 million in damages is, of course, an onerous pill to swallow but it’s better than $67 million. It is my understanding that this $14 million will be used for upgrades at the Stadium Plaza and the stadium interior. The city was also able to structure payments over the next five years making it fiscally manageable. The city is no longer obligated to construct a $50 million dollar parking garage… ever. This agreement settles all parking claims forever.

Why is an underpass under Bethany Home Road and bridges over the SRP Canal and the Grand Canal Linear Park necessary? When the stadium and transportation infrastructure was originally built the intent was to drive vehicular traffic from the west and the north toward the stadium. However, when the city has completed both parking lots (one east of the stadium and one south of the stadium), masses of pedestrians will be crossing Bethany Home Road. If they proceeded on the surface street, Bethany Home Road, the pedestrian traffic would essentially block all vehicular traffic. Now that a major portion of fans (6,000 parking spaces) will be parking south and east of the stadium it becomes a necessity.

Lastly, let’s look at 95th Avenue. Another city promise broken for over a decade. This arterial opens up land for commercial development, especially on the west side of 95th Avenue between Camelback Road and Bethany Home Road. There will be new commercial properties locating along that arterial which, in turn, will generate more sales tax revenue for the city. It also puts to rest the alignment of 95th Avenue. It will now curve away from the Pendergast Estates neighborhood and will not connect to the neighborhood’s three interior streets of Missouri, Marshall and San Juan. For years as councilmember I advocated for just such a solution for this neighborhood. I am pleased to know the city has taken their concerns seriously and has devised an alignment to protect this neighborhood.

These reasons persuaded me that approval of the Settlement was the right thing to do: 1. fulfillment of the city’s long-standing contractual obligation; 2. avoidance of a possible $67 million dollar verdict; 3. mitigating pedestrian movement as a result of the installation of two new, massive parking lots; and 3. bringing closure and surety on the 95th Avenue alignment to the Pendergast Estates neighborhood.

What was city council’s decision? Mayor Weiers, Vice Mayor Hugh, Councilmembers Malnar and Tolmachoff voted in favor of the settlement. All councilmembers spoke before casting their votes and this majority of four recited variations of the reasons cited above. Councilmembers Turner, Aldama and Chavira voted against the settlement. They did not cite flaws in the settlement as their reason for disapproval. Why? Because even they know this settlement is acceptable. No, they used the theme of transparency and that the public was not given enough time to weigh in. It was, in all probability, a smoke screen so that they would have time to marshal their activist anti-settlement forces to march on down to council chambers.

While these three councilmembers  professed that they wanted to strengthen their relationships with the Arizona Sports & Tourism Authority and the Cardinals, it had been circulated that Aldama and Turner refused to meet with AZSTA and Cardinal representatives. Instead they gave both organizations the back of their hands. Surprisingly, disgraced and recalled former Councilmember Gary Sherwood showed up to berate this council for lacking transparency while asking for more time for council’s consideration. It seems that he did not consider two months of negotiation to be enough. Rampant conjecture is that three of them (Turner, Aldama and Sherwood) are using issues such as this to raise their level of visibility in order to position themselves for a run for mayor four years from now.

I do see a light at the end of the proverbial tunnel. It’s time to bury the past. The city manager and a majority of the council are to be congratulated for having made decisions that are designed to position Glendale forward and to clean up Glendale’s sports deals with its decade-old refusals to live up to its commitments. Make no mistake, former City Manager Ed Beasley and former Mayor Scruggs were very much aware of these obligations and refused to make good on them. Minority councilmembers such as me and Councilmember Lieberman were simply not privy to their inaction.

With the announcement of the Coyotes entrance into negotiations for an arena in the east valley I think it is time to do another blog on what this might mean. Look for my next blog which will be devoted to this topic.

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

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 16

10

Is Main Stream Media now irrelevant?

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 10, 2016
Posted in City of Glendale • National issues  | Tagged With: , | 3 Comments

I occasionally write about national issues and this blog is one of those. As people demonstrate in the streets of seven major cities tonight (11/9/2016) shutting down traffic (Portland , OR) or wreaking havoc (Oakland, CA) at the expense of small businesses and fueled by Black Lives Matter and other anti-Trump movements the talking heads’ post mortems have begun on not only why Trump won but why MSM did not see it coming.

 I felt compelled to comment after reading this tweet today: “Resonating comment from Peter Thiel: the media took Trump literally and not seriously while voters took him seriously and not literally.” I’m sorry. This statement is too simplistic and is but just one of the current rationales that popped up today, giving Main stream media (MSM) a pass for their actions during this election cycle. MSM still doesn’t get it. Who is MSM? It’s ABC, NBC, CNN, ad nausea and every major city’s newspaper.

I am a “deplorable” – a well-educated, middle class, senior, white woman. All of my life I valued MSM. I can remember every Sunday, after Mass, my parents would get the Sunday edition of the New York Times. We all divvied it up and would devour it. I cut my teeth on their word puzzles. News on TV consisted of objective reporting by the likes of Walter Cronkite and investigative reporting by the Morley Safers of the journalistic world.

Whether it is TV or print they have failed all of us (Republicans, Democrats, Independents, etc.) and I will not buy their theory that they failed to recognize the movement to which Trump has given a voice. MSM became corrupt as its members sought even greater recognition, fame, power and wealth. They salivated to be part of the “inner circle” – to be movers and shakers. They insulated themselves from the very people who relied upon their reputation for fair and unbiased reporting. They were not co-opted. They deliberately chose their path.

They believed to their very core that if they hitched their star to the Clinton campaign it would further their personal agendas. So, they corrupted themselves, through collusion by feeding Clinton debate questions, by submitting their reporting to the Clinton campaign for editing, by pushing a negative Trump narrative daily at the rate of 10 negative Trump stories to every 1 negative Clinton story. MSM deliberately and willfully ignored the consequences of Benghazi, Clinton’s failure to preserve our national security with her personal email server and the Clinton Foundation’s pay-to-play schemes. It willingly became a propaganda arm of the Clinton campaign.

Gone is fair and unbiased reporting and it has done a major disservice, especially to the younger generation. Gone is hard news. It has been replaced with drivel designed to placate and divert. Now the masses are fed the crime of the day, recipe of the day, new decorating ideas for your home…yada, yada, yada…all pablum, no substance, no facts, no hard news about our economy, the world we live in or anything else of real value. MSM has played a major role in giving birth to a generation that accepts no responsibility for anything and who wishes to be wrapped in a cocoon of emotional thinking whose only reality is to pursue the illusion of happiness and “safe spaces.”

In the past year and a half, first I stopped watching ABC, CNN, etc. Then I stopped watching cable stations, even FOX. Lastly I stopped reading the newspaper. I still get plenty of good, solid news from other sources like the BBC. I suspect I am not alone. Viewership and readership are diminishing daily. MSM is no longer relevant to half the country – the half of the country that they perceived to be stupid and ignorant – not of their ilk.

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

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 16

9

Have you seen him?

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 9, 2016
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , | 1 Comment

A constituent asked me to post this video of a young man who attempted to burglarize a house in his neighborhood. The area is Desert Sunset in west Glendale, just north of 83rd Avenue and west of Heroes Park. If you recognize this young man, please call the Glendale Police Department at 623-930-3000. Thank you.

Update: Saturday, November 11, 2016. This may be the young person in the video of a possible attempted burglary suspect. I guess you could call him “a person of interest.” He was skateboarding on 83rd Avenue just south of Berridge Lane, Yucca district, Glendale. If you know who he is, please call the Glendale Police Department. Thank you.

possiblesuspectcropped

Nov 16

2

Two Glendales

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 2, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , | 1 Comment

PLEASE NOTE: REPORTS OF PROBLEMS WITH THE TWO GLENDALES POLL.  HAVE REMOVED IT TEMPORARILY. WILL TROUBLESHOOT AND REPOST WHEN FIXED.

The City Manager Kevin Phelps has initiated a major initiative, Strategic Planning: A discussion of values, mission and vision for the entire organization.  The consultancy group facilitating the project is the Advanced Strategy Center located in Scottsdale. There have been two meetings involving the city council as well as other sessions involving various stakeholder groups. Unfortunately I cannot share any commentary made by the city council or the stakeholders who have participated thus far. The material received by council bears the following admonition,“This document in its entirety is Client Confidential and may not be reproduced or distributed without expressed permission.”

A council session on this topic was held on Monday, October 31, 2016. I want to take this opportunity to thank the city council. I remain at this time, a Councilmember Elect without the right to formally participate. Council, at the start of the session, invited me to do so. I thank them for their generosity in granting me the opportunity to be part of the discussion.

In reviewing the material provided for this session, it caused me, as I am sure it did the other councilmembers, to really think about and to reflect upon Glendale…past, present and future. The perspectives I am about to offer are mine exclusively and do not reflect support of or opposition to any of the remarks I may have made at this Strategic Planning Session. The following thoughts  are mine and mine alone and may or may not be shared by other councilmembers.

You will note that I entitled this blog, “Two Glendales.” There are two distinct Glendales with the central portion of the city acting as a buffer between the two. The central area of Glendale is predominately comprised of the middle class who tend to become more vocal and active when an issue directly affects them.

It is the classic north versus south scenario. North Glendale, with the exception of the major economic drivers of Bell Road and Midwestern University, is a sea of residential subdivisions. The residents are predominately more affluent, better educated, more articulate and vocal and certainly more activist. If 20 Arrowhead residents show up at a council meeting, city council will take note, listen and respond.  It suffers of crime but usually in terms of property theft and violent crime, although there is some, is quite low statistically. The demographic is mid to high socio-economic.

South Glendale, is comprised mainly but not exclusively, of zip code 85301, noted in the media for its concentration of a low socio-economic demographic. Here one will find the city’s greatest concentration  of auto loan businesses, pawn shops and bars. The Maricopa Adult Probation Center is located here along with the many non-profits who serve poorer, less educated populations. Its residents tend to be less educated, often poor and dependent on government/non-profit services. They tend not to be articulate, vocal or activist. There is certainly greater reluctance to interface with government. Crime occurs with greater frequency and tends to be more violent.

Take a moment to look at the comparative Census Bureau statistics (latest figures available via city documentation) between two locations. The 67th Avenue and Union Hills Drive 1 mile radius is representative of north Glendale. The 59th Avenue and Glendale Avenue 1 mile radius is representative of south Glendale. Demographically there are stark differences:               

                                             67/Union Hills Drive  1 mile        59/Glendale Ave   1 mile

  • 2014 Projected Population                            16,475                   21,462
  • 2014 Proj. Households                                   4,726                     5,788
  • 2009 Est. Median Age                                      35.9                       27.7
  • 2009 Est. Average Household Income          $99,243                  $37,528
  • 2009 Est. White Population                            85.8%                    59.7%
  • 2009 Est. Black Population                              3.1%                      6.6%
  • 2009 Est. Asian & Pacific Islander                    4.7%                      2.2%
  • 2009 Est. American Indian & Alaska Native       0.8%                      2.6%
  • 2009 Est. Other Races Population                     5.6%                      29%
  • 2009 Est. Hispanic Population Percent             17.3%                    65.8%
  • 2009 Est. Elementary (0 to 8)                           2.3%                   26.5%
  • 2009 Est. Some High School (9 to 11)               4.2%                   15.8%
  • 2009 Est. High School Graduate (12)               22.3%                   27.6%
  • 2009 Est. Some College (13 to 16)                   22.1%                  15.9%
  • 2009 Est. Associate Degree Only                        9.5%                      5%
  • 2009 Est. Bachelor Degree Only                       25.1%                      6%
  • 2009 Est. Graduate Degree                              14.5%                    3.1%
  • 2000 Home Value $200,000 to $299,999    32.3%       $100,000 to $149,999  11.4%
  • 2000 Home Value $150,000 to $199,999      42%         $50,000 to $99,999   66.4%
  • 2000 Home Value $100,000 to $149,999   21.4%        $25,000 to $49,999    15.9%
  • 2009 Est. Civilian Employed                             66.0%                     55%
  • 2009 Est. Civilian Unemployed                           7.0%                    7.1%
  • 2000 Percent White Collar Workers                   76.5%                  34.2%
  • 2000 Percent Blue Collar Workers                     23.5%                  65.8%

This is not an exclusive problem seen only in Glendale. Every other Valley city has some iteration of this same dichotomy. Part of the determinant of Glendale’s future rests upon how we deal with it now…finally.  For too long, probably the last twenty years, all of us have allowed this division between the two Glendales to become more pronounced. It is not hopeless just because it’s been easier not to face. We have failed to address the complicated issues needed to create mitigation and bring the two Glendales together. If we are to craft the Glendale of the future it is an issue that must be resolved.

I don’t pretend to know the solution. If I did I would have become a consultant making big bucks a long time ago. Perhaps part of the solution lies in open and frank dialogue between the two communities. Give them an opportunity to craft solutions that both segments of the community can embrace. It is not a situation that lends itself to imposed fixes but rather offers opportunities for collaboration. Perhaps it it is time to think in terms of equity rather than equality.

There are other issues as a result of my thinking about strategic planning yet to be discussed… in future blogs.

© Joyce Clark, 2016          

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 16

29

GAIN night

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 29, 2016
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , | 1 Comment

On Friday evening, October 28, 2016, Glendale celebrated its GAIN night (Getting Arizona Involved in Neighborhoods) at Murphy Park in downtown Glendale. It was a wonderful event but it was not img_3921a GAIN night. It could be characterized as a police expo, children’s trick or treat and an entertainment event but it was not a GAIN night. There were a tremendous number of booths available to the public from AARP to Glendale’s Justice Center and everything in between. All were eager to share information with the public about the services they offer. The police department had their SWAT vehicle and Command Center vehicle open for the public to view and to learn about their equipment and responsibilities. A local dance academy provided entertainment for the public. All of the kids were fantastic from the youngest dancers shaking their “tail feathers” to the older children performing hip hop. But none of this was GAIN night.

This is undoubtedly an event that has earned the right to become an annual event. But it was notimg_3940 GAIN night and should not take its place. GAIN night was designed to emphasize the importance of police-community partnerships and to encourage citizen involvement in fighting crime. In fact, some of the event visitors I met were from Surprise, Phoenix, etc.

During my time on city council up until I left at the end of 2012, neighborhoods, large and small, were encouraged to host a get together that brought neighbors together. The registered neighborhood could be as small as one street of 20 neighbors or as large as an HOA led subdivision of a 100 neighbors or better. Typically, neighbors would host a pot luck with activities for the neighborhood children. Everyone would sit around, eat and drink, and talk to one another.

img_3929Neighborhoods would be visited by police officers, often the very officers charged with patrolling their neighborhoods. They would meet face-to-face and neighbors would share their “atta boys/girls” and their concerns. They would also be visited by the nearest fire station and the kids had the opportunity to see those fire trucks, up close and personally. Councilmembers, when requested to do so by a neighborhood, would donate $50 out of their council budget, to help defray the cost of refreshments and they would stop by and visit as many neighborhoods as physically possible. While on council I looked forward to GAIN night as a way to reconnect with some neighborhoods and tried to visit as many GAIN neighborhood gatherings as humanly possible. Typically, I was usually able to stop by at least a dozen of them. The good thing about it was there were always more events than a person could visit.

We all know Arizona is a very transient state. People move in and out continually. People also change neighborhoods in an effort to upsize or downsize their homes or for any number of other reasons. Neighborhoods are in a continual flux. Often neighbors may know who lives on either side or across the street from their home but no one else.

One of the benefits of GAIN is that at least once a year it brought new and old neighbors together. It provided a venue to get to know one another. It provided an opportunity for neighbors to bondimg_3944 and to make new friendships – often long lasting.  It encouraged them to discover who was a part of their neighborhood so that strangers in a neighborhood could be more easily identified.

Another benefit was that it provided neighborhoods the chance to meet and to develop relationships with the very police officers that served their neighborhood. Councilmembers used this event to reconnect with some of their neighborhoods and to learn what was going well and what needed attention. GAIN in that format did exactly what it was designed to do.

img_3941Glendale should continue to promote the police expo. It, too, serves a purpose but it should be considered as an adjunct to the traditional (at least 15 year old) GAIN night. Let’s get back to building neighborhoods by building relationships within them.

 

© Joyce Clark, 2016          

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 16

24

Harmont Drive and Code Enforcement revisited

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 24, 2016
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

In May of 2016, I shared with you an issue facing historic Harmont Drive in Glendale. It is an older, historic neighborhood of large lot properties established in 1953, over 60 years ago. Their CC&Rs prohibit commercial use of the properties in this SR-17 (17,000 square feet) neighborhood.

As soon as a Mr. Don Olson moved into a home located on the northeast corner of 59th and Northern Avenues, within this subdivision, he used this location as a commercial tree farm business. He accepted retail customers at the location and also stored trees for disposition and sale at other locations in the Valley. Here’s a link to his Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Shamus-OLearys-Tropical-Fruit-Trees-469661096392272/ .

When he purchased the property he, like any other buyer in this subdivision, received the CC&R’s prohibiting his use of his property for commercial purposes. Apparently he chose to ignore them and promptly began his retail business. When it came to the attention of the city via the neighbors, he claimed ignorance.

The neighbors couldn’t help but notice the increased commercial activity and notified the city’s Code Enforcement Department. Eventually Mr. Olson was told by the city that he had to stop his activities and he would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). On Thursday, May 5, 2016, Mr. Olson’s Conditional Use Permit request went before the Planning Commission. Fearing a denial, Mr. Olson requested that the item be tabled as apparently he had hired a zoning attorney to represent him when the CUP was scheduled for a rehearing on August 4, 2016.

On August 4th, 2016 the following occurred at the citizen Planning and Zoning Meeting: “CUP16-01: A request by Don Olson for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a home occupation (Class II) business in a private backyard of a residence, which will mainly consist of growing trees and selling trees to customers with appointments on a property in the SR-17 (Suburban Residence) Zoning District. The site is located north of the northeast corner of 59th and Northern Avenues (5841 West Royal Palm Road) and is in the Barrel District. Staff Contact: Martin Martell, Planner.  COMMISSIONER HIRSCH MADE A MOTION TO DENY CUP16-01.  COMMISSIONER MORENO SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH WAS APPROVED WITH A VOTE OF 6 TO 1 (GALLEGOS).”

The neighbors had won. Mr. Olson was denied his CUP request and would not be allowed to operate a business at this location. Then what are these semis doing at Mr. Olson’s residence? It’s not just a single occurrence but seems to happen frequently and with regularity.

Apparently these semis are dropping off trees…lots and lots of trees, which are then distributed by Mr. Olson to other locations for commercial sale. This is a commercial activity that had been strictly prohibited by the August 4th decision of the Planning Commission.

olsonoct23

Mr. Olson is gaming the system. As we residents of Glendale know all too well it’s well nigh impossible to expect Code Enforcement to check out anything on a weekend. Yes, they have an inspector on call from 9 AM to 5 PM on Saturdays. Guess when these semis arrive at Mr. Olson’s. You would be correct if you guessed after 5 PM on a Saturday evening. You would also be correct if you guessed that the trees would be gone by 9 AM on a Monday morning.

The neighbors notified Code of Mr. Olson’s activities (he uses the commercial name of Shamus O’Leary) and the response from Code to date? Nothing. Two months later, in October, 2016, neighborhood complaints are now arriving in a steady stream at Code Enforcement’s desk. Witness this October 15, 2016 email trail to Code (names and sensitive information reacted):

“From: XXXXXXXX Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2016 1:44 AM To: XXXXXXXXX (Code Enforcement)

Subject: Don Olson loading up fruit trees on Fri. 10/14 @ 7:45pm

 XXXXXXX,

Here are some pictures of Don Olson loading up a rental truck with fruit trees and supplies.  According to his FB page, he is selling his stuff at Mesa CC on Sat. morning.  XXXXX, my wife, called the Code compliance phone number and left a message.  I am sure that Don waited until after 5pm to load the truck knowing that there would be no code compliance officers on duty.  This is what I was talking to you about last week.  Did you ever get a chance to talk to someone in the police dept. to see if there is someone we can call on the weekends?  These pictures were taken on Fri. night around 7:45pm.  He is loading the truck from the driveway/easement on the back of his property.  The truck is facing 59th Ave.  The bottom picture is a house facing 59th Ave. and is not Don or his wife/girlfriend’s property.”

image1

Then a few days later, October 20th, another advisory email is sent to Code Enforcement:

“From: XXXXXXXXXXXX Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 3:25 PM To: XXXXXXXXXX (Code Enforcement) Subject: Shamus O’Leary

 XXXXXXXXX,

Just wanted to follow up with the e-mail I sent you last week.  According to Don Olson’s business FB page, he will be loading up another truck and heading out on Sat. morning to sell his trees in Apache Junction.  If he is loading his truck on Fri night or Sat morning, is there anyone to call that might catch him in the act?  It also appears that some of his customers are upset with him because he is charging sales tax of 9.6%.  Shouldn’t he be paying that sales tax to the city of Glendale?

 Thanks, XXXXXXXXXXX”

An email is sent to neighbors on the same day:

“From: XXXXXXXXXX Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 7:55 PM To: XXXXXXXXXXX Subject: Fw: Shamus O’Leary

 Don is loading up trees again tonight for a big sale Sat. morning in Apache Junction.  I told Code Enforcement that he would be loading up a truck tonight but, you know the drill, nobody in Code Enforcement is available after 5 pm Fri until Mon. morning.  He pulled a Penske box truck into the front driveway around 6:10 pm, then started loading it up.  XXXXX (Code) said that XXXXXX (Code Inspector) would be available on Sat. morning if anyone sees Don, but I am sure he will be long gone by then.  The cell # is XXX-XXX-XXXX.  According to the Shamus O’Leary FB page, he is selling his trees in AJ from 9-11 am on Sat.  He also responded to one of his customers who asked why he charges 9.6% tax on fruit trees when Lowe’s doesn’t charge any.  He said his accountant advised him to and that he isn’t familiar with the tax codes.  He also said that he pays his taxes monthly?  Who is he paying them to?”  

By now, the City’s Code Enforcement and License & Tax Division knows what Mr. Olson is doing. Why are they not acting with alacrity? Code’s traditional response is that they have to catch the act itself and cite. That is impossible when the activity occurs outside of regular business hours. You would think that Code being aware of this situation would provide the neighbors with a contact inspector who would come out especially to deal with this illegal activity outside of regular business hours. So far…no.

I know that many in Glendale government read this blog. Hopefully, it will spur some sort of immediate action. After all, Code’s prime directive is to ensure the health and safety as well as the property values of Glendale’s residents. To date, this is yet another example of the city’s lack of response and ineffectiveness. It’s what drives residents nuts.

© Joyce Clark, 2016          

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 16

21

Glendale’s Civic Center

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 21, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , | 3 Comments

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 the city council had only one item on its workshop agenda…the performance of its Civic Center. The Civic Center opened in 1999 and is now 17 years old. It is a beautiful building. Former Mayor Scruggs wanted it and sold it under the guise of becoming a destination location in downtown Glendale. Has this facility performed up to its expectations? Let’s take a look.

City personnel made their Tuesday presentation based on figures for the last 5 years of the Civic Center’s operation. I have taken staff’s 5 year average and derived estimates that reflect the entire 17 years of its operation. My figures could be a little too high or a little too low as I did not look up the figures in 17 years of budget books. Hence the estimated were arrived at by multiplying the average annual figures times 17 years.

Over the 17 year life of the facility the General Fund Budget allocation was an estimated $11,422,000.00 and there had been an additional General Fund Subsidy over those 17 years of another $4,400,000. The 17 year total of budget allocations and subsidies is an estimated $15,822,000 or an average of $930,000.00 per year. Not included in this amount are the costs of maintenance and repair that have been expended over the 17 year period as staff did not provide any figures relative to this expense.

What kind of revenue does the Civic Center generate to offset its expenses? Over 17 years an estimated $850,000 had been earned from the catering contract and during the same period the Civic Center had earned an additional $6,800,000.  The total estimated revenues over the 17 year period is approximately $7,650,000.

The Civic Center had earned an estimated $7,650,000 over its life span and had cost the city an estimated $15,822,000. It has cost the city an estimated $8,172,000 to keep the doors of the Civic Center open for the past 17 years.

According to the staff presentation over the last 5 years the Civic Center had drawn an annual average of 51,888 patrons or for the past 17 years an estimated total of 882,096 patrons. That averages about 141 patrons per day. However, there are days when the Civic Center has no business and days when it is booked for large gatherings. It should be mentioned that the Center has very little, if any business, in December due to Glendale Glitters. There simply is not enough parking during that period for Civic Center patrons and over the years patrons have not wanted to deal with the traffic generated by Glendale Glitters.

Has this facility fulfilled its promise? Everyone, even staff, says no.  In their presentation staff offered a plan with a new growth goal of an increase of 5% in patronage per year. Since the average annual patronage is 51,888 patrons, their goal is to increase that number by 2, 594 additional patrons this year. They believe they can accomplish that goal because new funding has been allocated to market the Center; there will be enhanced collaboration with the Glendale Convention and Visitor’s Bureau; their absorption into a new department will create new synergy; and there will be an enhanced building maintenance and repair fund. Staff has also asked for authorization for up to 6 community events at no charge; consideration of rental fee adjustments as part of the Fiscal Year 2017-18 budget; and the flexibility to negotiate rental fee packages.

Will all of this work? Everyone hopes so. The jury is still out. City council is willing to give the Center more time.  Staff’s first annual performance report is due in a year. Make no mistake. Challenges remain. Not having a major hotel nearby as well as inadequate parking space during downtown events will have to be overcome, if possible. Add to this equation the Convention Center space owned by the city and managed by the Renaissance Hotel at Westgate is a direct competitor for the same business.

If staff cannot turn the Civic Center around then it may be time for council to consider whether it will ever meet its purpose financially and philosophically. Perhaps repurposing will become its fate. It was originally designed to be a draw for downtown Glendale. A true destination place is exactly what downtown Glendale desperately needs to become more robust and to grow to its potential.

© Joyce Clark, 2016          

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 16

17

Glendale’s Archery Complex opens

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 17, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Heroes Park  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 2 Comments

arcplaque_000On Saturday, October 15, 2016, Glendale celebrated the Grand Opening of the newest amenity at Heroes Park – the Archery Complex. Archery is a sport that seems to be under the radar. Yet as unheralded as it is, there are a lot of archers in the Valley. They were excited and grateful to see this complex become reality for the only other complex is located in the east Valley.

There was one unsung hero in attendance on that bright, beautiful Saturdayphoto-4 morning and that was local realtor and Yucca district resident Tom Traw. If anyone deserves credit for making this complex a reality it is he. For you see, Tom went to Yucca district councilmember Sammy Chavira to pitch the idea. Sammy did nothing, despite his public assertion that as a result of Councilmember Aldama’s idea, he followed up and made it a reality. Nothing could be further from the truth. The thanks and the credit belong to Tom Traw. Tom bull dogged Glendale Parks and Recreation staff when it seemed as if the project had fallen into a black hole. Tom advocated for and kept the pressure on all involved for over 2 years. My thanks and the thanks of all who will enjoy and use this complex go to Tom Traw.

The archery demonstrations were amazing. Eric Bennet, a Paralympian Archer, actually severed the grand opening ribbon and a segment of it was pinned to a target by his shot. 2016 Olympic Archery Coach was surrounded by hoards of young, aspiring archers.

photo-1What is even more amazing was the outpouring of support not just from the non-profit community; the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority and the Arizona Game and Fish Department both of whom granted funds to the project; but from local businesses who donated time, material and labor. Without their donations there is no way this project could have become reality.

 Lastly, Glendale’s Parks and Recreation Department showcased their innovationphoto-3 and ingenuity as well. Instead of purchasing the stakes needed to hold down lane markings they were able to manufacture them at a fraction of the cost. They also manufactured the moveable carts that hold the targets. They saved an incredible amount of money. They are to be congratulated for their hard work and dedication to this project.

Congratulations to all who made this amazing complex a reality. Now, it’s time to complete Heroes Park, one of a very few regional parks in Glendale and still not completed as designed after an 18 year wait.

© Joyce Clark, 2016          

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.

« Previous Page — Next Page »