Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Oct 14

10

Shooting from the hip…err…make that lips

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 10, 2014
Posted in Arizona Cardinals • Arizona Coyotes • Casino • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Councilmember Gary Sherwood has done it again. On September 17, 2014 he appeared before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing on Senate Bill 2670. The bill, if approved by the Senate, would have the effect of stopping the Tohono O’odham from building a casino in Glendale.

Please note that the panel members were not sworn in. It is the usual practice in any Congressional hearing and one wonders why it was not done this time. In his oral testimony Sherwood said, “We have talked to many business leaders in this area including leaders of two professional sports teams and major hospitality developments and they all support this West Valley project.”

It appears that his statement is not true. In fact, the Cardinals have sent a letter to the Chair of the Committee, Senator Jon Tester, as well as the Vice Chair Senator Barrasso, Senator John McCain, Senator Jeff Flake, Mayor Jerry Weiers and all members of the Glendale City Council, categorically stating that they do not support the casino project.  The Arizona Coyotes released a public statement indicating that they have never expressed support for the casino project.

Looks like Sherwood was shooting from the hip…err…his lips…again. Sherwood is on a personal path of self destruction with a history of public statements that have all but destroyed his credibility. No wonder the people of the Sahuaro district, which he represents, seem all too willing to sign a recall petition against him.

On a separate but another questionable note, a blog reader contacted me and asked if Jamie Aldama has the home he owns in the Yucca district registered as a rental property with the City of Glendale and if he is paying monthly rental property tax to the city. I have no answer and the city maintains no online listing of rental properties. I suggest the Ocotillo voters go to the source and ask Mr. Aldama. It begs yet another question. Why is Jamie Aldama still sitting on the citizen’s Planning and Zoning Commission representing the Yucca district if he doesn’t live there and is running as a candidate for the Ocotillo council seat? Councilmember Chavira (Yucca district) should have replaced him when Aldama announced for Ocotillo. Why didn’t he? Perhaps he was just lazy and didn’t want to deal with the hassle of finding a replacement or perhaps he thought he was giving Aldama greater credibility as an Ocotillo district candidate with Planning and Zoning credentials. There’s no love lost between Chavira and Alvarez. She supported him a lot…I mean tons… in his run for his council seat only to be double crossed by him when Chavira voted for the arena management agreement. Alvarez was counting on him to be the fourth vote that would kill the deal. This kind of politics is certainly not for the faint hearted.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to 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 14

9

Aldama…maybe not

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 9, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

 

Right after this blog endorsed Jamie Aldama for the Glendale Ocotillo district council seat, I received the following information.

Zomok ltr Oct 8 2014On October 1, 2014 former Ocotillo district city council candidates Bud Zomok and Michael Hernandez sent a formal letter to the following: Attorney General Tom Horne, Maricopa Supervisors Marie Lopez Rodgers and Clint Hickman, County Attorney Bill Montgomery, Glendale City Clerk Pam Hanna and County Recorder Helen Purcell.

They allege that Jamie Aldama, a current employee of the Glendale Community College Structures Department, is required to resign his position if he wishes to remain a viable candidate for the Ocotillo District City Council seat. Anyone, as does Mr. Aldama, who works for a governmental agency such as the Maricopa Community College district is a paid, public employee. A councilmember’s position is a paid, public office.

The Maricopa County Ethics Handbook on page 18 states, “A public employee, whether merit-covered or unclassified, may not be a candidate for nomination or election to any public office which is either paid or partisan. Upon filing for nomination papers or making a formal public declaration of candidacy, an employee shall be required to submit a letter of resignation.” See this link: http://www.maricopa.gov/InternalAudit/pdf/Controls/ethicshandbook.pdf . It is commonly referred to as ‘Resign to Run’.

If after further investigation by the above cited agencies this stricture applies, Mr. Aldama has only two options. One is to resign from his paid, public position with the Maricopa Community College District or two, immediately terminate his candidacy for the paid, public office of the Ocotillo City Council seat.

Is Aldama waiting to see if he captures the Ocotillo council seat before resigning? That can’t be kosher, can it? Not according to the Ethics Handbook which says upon filing nomination papers one is required to resign.

So, Mr. Aldama, which is it to be? Will you resign your paid, public employment or will you withdraw your candidacy? Those of you planning to vote for Mr. Aldama may want to hold off for a bit to see how this situation plays out.

On yet another front…JMC Irrigation. It’s public address and phone number is that of Jamie Aldama’s residence within the Ocotillo district. Hmmm…either Mr. Aldama has a side business or someone else living at his residence has the business. Either way, in checking the Arizona Corporation Commission, it is unregistered. In checking the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, it is also unregistered with that agency. Is anyone from JMC paying required licensing fees and taxes?

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to 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 14

8

It’s a Coyotes kind of day

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 8, 2014
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Today, October 8, 2014 is a grey, overcast day in the Phoenix metro area…a rarity to be sure. Anywhere else it would portend a day of steady rain but Phoenix is a desert and because it looks like rain, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will happen. It’s a good day to let thoughts rumble around.

A blog reader recently sent me two news stories of interest. One is from the October 5, 2014 Seattle Times entitled Key Arena turns a bigger profit than it ever did with the Sonics by Ashley Scoby. Here is the link: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024708723_keyarena05xml.html. The other is a Deadspin article entitled The Coyotes were damned close to moving to Seattle by Barry Petchesky dated October 8, 2014. Here is the link: http://deadspin.com/the-coyotes-were-damned-close-to-moving-to-seattle-1643791488 . Each article compliments the other.

In the Deadspin story three sources confirm that the Coyotes were a hair’s breadth from moving to Seattle. Ray Bartoszek and Anthony Lanza had formed a buyers’ group with plans to move the Coyotes to Seattle’s Key Arena the day following the Glendale City Council vote on the IceArizona arena management agreement if it had failed to gain approval. The new information in the story is confirmation that the NHL had blessed the scheme. Everyone knew how imminent the move could be….the NHL knew; the presumed buyers had moving trucks on standby; Glendale senior management knew; the Glendale City Council knew; and IceArizona knew. The only ones in the dark were Glendale residents.

Which leads to the second news story about Seattle’s Key Arena. Everyone presumed in 2009 without the Sonics as an anchor tenant the arena would die a pitiful death. How wrong. An average annual loss to Seattle with the Sonics was $1.5 million. In 2013, without the Sonics, the arena generated $1.2 million in profit. The loss of the team didn’t hurt for it opened up more desirable dates for performing artists to utilize the arena. Artists such as Kanye West, Rihanna, Maroon 5 and Bruno Mars performed at the Key in 2013.

I had always supported keeping a professional sports team at the Gila River Hockey Arena because it was my belief that the arena and Westgate could not survive without one. Seattle’s Key Arena disproves that belief. If the Coyotes arena management agreement had failed on that fateful July, 2013 day Glendale would have moved on, just as Seattle did. Glendale would have joined with an AEG-type partner and could have enjoyed the same kind of success that we see today at Seattle’s Key Arena.

P.S. Here’s a link to yet another Seattle Times news story about an almost move to Seattle: http://seattletimes.com/html/hockey/2024716050_seattlenhl07xml.html#.VDWTTHFMEBI.twitter

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to 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 14

7

Glendale General Election: Aldama vs. Alvarez

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 7, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , | 1 Comment

The Glendale General Election is in less than a month and early ballots have been mailed out and voters are beginning to make choices. For the voters of the Ocotillo district in Glendale’s General Election you have no good choices. Norma Alvarez, the incumbent and retired, is running against Jaime Aldama, who works for the Maricopa Community College District as a Coordinator. The Ocotillo voters must choose between an old, worn out Chevy or a brand new, slick Chevy. The trouble is that the make is the same.

If you go to their websites you will find that they are warm and fuzzy without much substance. Both candidates support the Tohono O’odham casino. Aldama’s site on the issues offers generalities on economic diversity, public safety and public services. Alvarez’ site doesn’t offer anything but why should it. The general public has had four years to observe her negativity on nearly every issue. Here are the links to their sites: http://www.jamiealdama.com/  and http://www.normaforglendale.com/ .

Both candidates have shown their commitment to Glendale and its well being. Aldama has shown his community commitment through his volunteerism on Glendale’s Boards and Commissions and Alvarez with her many years as a Glendale employee in Glendale’s Community Action Program (CAP). CAP is a pass through agency that doles out federal funds to those who are economically distressed.  

Let’s look at their campaign reports.  Both candidates filed complete reports. The last report made by their political committees is the Post Primary Report which covers activity through September 15, 2014. Jamie Aldama has raised $16,545 as of Sept. 15th. Norma Alvarez has raised $11,480 as of Sept. 15th.

Aldama’s base of support is big money donors (a few of which are Glendale residents) and Political Action Committees (PACs).  Of the donors listed only 4 are from Glendale and in some instances he does not list his donor’s job occupations or employers. He has loaned himself $2,500 to date. The PACs contributing to his campaign are: the UFCW #99 for $2,000; the Peoria Police Officers Association for $500; and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees for $1,000.

Alvarez’ base of support is from her husband, Fernando for $2,500. In other words, she gave her campaign $2,500 in a form other than a loan. Other notable contributors are Jason and Jordan Rose, attorneys, for $500; and the owner of Gonzalo Tours for $1,400.

Aldama has outspent Alvarez nearly 2 to 1. Aldama spent $15,611.44 to date and Alvarez spent $9,399.62 to date. All candidates had expenses for bank charges and websites. Alvarez has no such charges listed.

The choice in this race is difficult for the Ocotillo voter since there is no real choice…the new model vs. the old model.  Although Glendale races are non-partisan and no political party affiliations are declared it is pretty evident that Aldama and Alvarez are both Democrats. They share the Democrat philosophy of big government and big spending.

It boils down to a choice between the devil you know and the devil you don’t know. The Ocotillo voter knows exactly what he or she will get with Alvarez – more negativity and cheer leading for the Tohono O’odham.  She has made it clear that she only supports transparency and the voice of the people when it fits her positions on issues.

Aldama, if you have viewed his performance on the Planning and Zoning Commission, has a tendency to express his position after he sees which way the wind is blowing. He will be a follower, not a leader. That may be a good thing as city council has too many self-styled leaders these days.  Aldama may end up as the latest swing vote on many Glendale issues.

Based upon readily available information to the Ocotillo voter the choice for this race is:

 checkmark__bottomheavy_140

    Jamie Aldama

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to 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 14

6

Glendale General Election: Miller vs. Turner

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 6, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , | 1 Comment

The Glendale General Election is in less than a month and early ballots have been mailed out and voters are beginning to make choices. For the voters of the Barrel district in Glendale’s General Election you do have a choice between two distinct styles and philosophies. Randy Miller, a self employed IT consultant is running against Bart Turner, a self employed insurance agent.

The mantle of fiscal conservatism goes to Randy Miller.  He has taken the time to research the fiscal issues and to do his “homework.” Each has staked out positions on some of the major issues facing Glendale.  Here are the links to their websites: http://randyforcouncil.com/ and http://bartknowsglendale.com/index.html  . Turner is opposed to the current management agreement for the hockey arena. He supports the recent council passage of the extension of the temporary sales tax increase.  Miller has concerns about the management agreement for the arena and does not support the temporary sales tax increase. He believes there are other strategies, such as reining in the city’s operations and maintenance costs, to help solve Glendale’s financial crunch. Each has taken a position on the proposed casino with Miller opposed on the basis of reservation status and the future losses of critical sales tax revenue and Turner supports the casino because he believes it’s time to stop wasting money on frivolous lawsuits.

Both candidates have shown their commitment to Glendale and its well being through their volunteerism. Miller’s has been in support of Public Safety and Turner’s has focused on the arts, historical Glendale and social welfare.

Let’s look at their campaign reports. The last report made by their political committees is the Post Primary Report which covers activity through September 15, 2014. Miller filed a complete report. Turner continues to turn in only what he considers to be relevant pages of the report. Randy Miller has raised $8,621 as of Sept. 15th. Bart Turner has raised $10,408.94 as of Sept. 15th.They are within the ballpark of one another.

Miller’s base of support is the small business, self-employed community.  He held a local fund raiser and received support from Glendale residents. He has loaned himself $6,821 to date.

Turner’s base of support is from former college classmates; members of non-profits with whom he has worked over the years and a meet & greet with locals. His classmates contributed about $1600 to his campaign. The Young Voters Political Action Committee contributed $100. He made an In-Kind contribution, rather than a loan to his campaign of $3,087.61.  

Their campaign expenditures are also similar to one another. Miller spent $$8,319.49 to date and Turner spent $9,122.77 to date. Since I do not live in the Barrel district I do not have any information related to their political mailings.

The choice in this race is clear-cut for the Barrel voter.  Although Glendale races are non-partisan and no political party affiliations are declared it is pretty evident that Miller is a Republican (or perhaps an Independent) and Turner is a Democrat. Do you want a council representative who will be sympathetic to the interests of the small business and the self employed communities? Then vote for Miller. Or a council representative whose support comes from former classmates and members of the non-profit community? Then vote for Turner. Miller has consistently demonstrated an eagerness to learn and a passion for the issues confronting Glendale.

Based upon readily available information to the Barrel voter the choice for this race is:

 checkmark__bottomheavy_140

 Randy Miller

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to 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 14

2

Coyotes’ saga continues

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 2, 2014
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , | 12 Comments

On October 2, 2014 Larry Brooks, a reporter for the New York Post, reported that a 51% interest in the Coyotes is in the process of being acquired by Andrew Barroway. Barroway is managing partner and founder of Merion Investment Management LP based in Radnor, PA. He is a failed suitor in the purchase of the Devils and Islanders.  At this point the story is speculation as neither the NHL nor the Coyotes’ owners have confirmed the deal. Here is the link: http://nypost.com/2014/10/02/spurned-islanders-buyer-to-purchase-coyotes-instead/. As an exercise, let’s speculate some more.

Why is Barroway acquiring a majority interest in the team? He wants to own a hockey team. That is evident in his two failed attempts. But he wants more than that. He wants to be in control and to make the ultimate and final decisions about the team’s fate at a future date. The team cannot and will not leave for 5 years. We can enjoy hockey in the Valley through the 2018-2019 season. After that you will need to consult your crystal ball.  Although I would expect that when the fans finally realize the team’s days may be numbered attendance will drop like a stone.

According to the agreement the team cannot leave for 5 hockey seasons and must demonstrate $50 million in operating losses. Here is the exact language in the management agreement: Section 3. Term. 3.3. Early Termination by Arena Manager/Team Owner. “Notwithstanding the other terms and provisions of this Agreement, Team Owner and Arena Manager jointly shall have the right to terminate this agreement without penalty or cost by delivery of written notice to the City at any time within 180 days following the end of the fifth (5th) hockey season year after the execution date if (a) neither terminating Party is in material default of any term or condition of this Agreement, and (b)Team Owner has incurred a cumulative Operating Loss of $50,000,000 or more, calculated as the sum of Team Owner’s operating income/loss for each the Fiscal Year periods then ended, provided that if such notice is given during any NHL hockey season, the termination shall not be effective until the end of the applicable hockey season, including all Home Games associated with the season. In this regard, Team Owner shall deliver to the City, not later than ninety (90) days following the end of each Fiscal Year, a statement (certified to the City by the Team Owner’s chief financial officer or the Team Owner’s certified public accountants, at the option of Team Owner) of the Team Owner’s claimed operating income or loss for such Fiscal Year, which statement shall be subject to audit by the City and the result f such audit shall thereafter be conclusive upon team Owner with respect to the determination of Operating Losses.” This exact same provision applies to the city as well.

The New York Post story cites the team loss in its first year of operation at $24 million. Educated rumors are that it’s on the low side and could be more. As long as we’re speculating, let’s peg their losses at $20 million a year. At the end of 5 years the team’s losses will be north of $100 million and will meet the terms of the agreement.  Barroway’s investment in the team now will cover those expected losses and he will be in the cat bird’s seat to decide the team’s future move.

Let’s wait to see if a majority interest is indeed sold to Barroway. That will deliver a strong message to everyone and you can then decide how much of an emotional investment you wish to make in the team. And just when we thought the Coyotes saga was closed…so it continues.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Sep 14

30

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing, Part IV

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 30, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community • Glendale zoning issues • Salt River Indian Community  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 10 Comments

September 17, 2014 the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing on Senate Bill 2670 introduced by Senators McCain and Flake. I have offered the direct testimonies of the  panelists, Assistant Secretary Kevin Washburn; Governor of the Gila River Indian Community Gregory Mendoza; Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers; Glendale Councilmember Gary Sherwood and Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Ned Norris, Jr. Each of the panelists was asked questions by Senators McCain and Tester.

I have never heard so many non-responsive answers in my life. It’s as if the questioner and the person answering were on parallel universes. Isn’t that the mark of a true politician? If so, they all passed the test. The only person to answer a question directly was the Attorney for the Gila River Indian Community, Allison Benney (my apology if I have slaughtered her name).

Sherwood, in his answers to Senators McCain and Tester, pumps out a great deal of misinformation. His reference to one 30 minute conversation between Glendale staff and the TO…wrong. His estimate of jobs created…wrong. There was one very telling revelation however. The city’s position on the referendum petitions submitted in opposition to the TO/Glendale Settlement Agreement et. al., relies exclusively on the argument that council votes were administrative not legislative. Gary Sherwood, went off script (which he does quite frequently). At the 43 minute, 46 second mark of the hearing he refers to the council votes as legislation (in a convoluted way). In his mind, he recognized that those council votes were legislative… Oh Oh. I hope the attorneys take note.

I also stand corrected on the amount of annual revenue the Tohono O’odham (TO) earn from their 3 casinos. I had used $38 million. Well, you can nearly double that. The figure that Senator McCain used was $68.2 million. No matter the number…no matter whether that is net revenue or gross revenue that is still a lot of money. Again, what have the TO been spending all of that revenue on? Too bad no one is allowed to audit their books…they are a sovereign nation, you know.

Chairman Norris downright refused to verify or disqualify the annual revenue figure Senator McCain used. He kinda, sorta answered Chairman Tester’s question. The only relevant fact he could come up with was the $5 million dollar scholarship fund before he began ranting about the use of the Border Patrol agents’ use of TO roads.

Miss Binney, on the other hand, offered some startling testimony when she said they had hand written notes in their possession describing discussion of a possible closure of the 3 TO casinos in Southern Arizona and a move to rebuild and reopen them in the Phoenix area.

The last portion of testimony from the hearing is below:

Chairman Tester: “Thank you, Chairman Norris, for your testimony. Thank you all for your testimonies. Senator McCain.”

Senator McCain: “Thank you, Chairman. Ah, Chairman Norris, would you like to, for the record, supply the, ah, the amount of money, the revenue that your casinos have gained for the tribe on an annual basis?”

Chairman Norris: “I’ll be happy to give that some consideration but I will not do that without the express umm, umm, authorization of my legislative council.”

Senator McCain: “So, what ah, tell us how impoverished you are. I will provide for the record, Mr. Chairman, hearings that Senator Inouye and I had, including that with Attorneys General, especially in states that came and testified before our committee, where their great concerns were what would happen, is happening exactly now. That was one of the reasons why we had great difficulty getting the support of Governors and Attorneys General because they said, ‘if we don’t look out we’re going to have Indian gaming operations in the middle of our towns and cities.’ So, I would be glad to provide the record of hearings and the conclusions and statements that Senator Inouye and I made at the time of the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, um, which clearly was designed to prevent a non-contiguous, middle-of-a-metropolitan area, Indian gaming operation for which the people have, ah, maybe their elected representatives have, maybe some like Mr. Sherwood who changed their mind over time. Umm, but they have not been able to make their will known as far as a very significant impact in not only Glendale but in the entire West Side. So, Mr. Sherwood, out of curiosity I think you used to be very much opposed. You even wrote articles in opposition to this. What changed your mind?

Councilmember Sherwood: “Ah, thank you for the question, ah, Chair and Senator McCain. Umm, when I campaigned I had campaigned against this proposed based on information I had and I had read deal…quite a bit of information on it. Umm, the thing that was distressing to me though, that in the very beginning there was a half hour conversation when the city first found out about it in April of 2009 and that was the only conversation the previous administration had and I was, was always quite upset by the fact that we didn’t have the dialogue. We weren’t very doin’ very good in the courts. So when umm, we ah, after the new council got seated in January ’13 and we, ah, took care of the hockey situation we turned our attention to the casino issue which again, had been laboring for five years and started havin’ that informal dialogue and learned quite a bit more about the project from the fact that it could benefit us umm, in many more ways than what the gaming compact even called out for. So, those informal discussions led into, ah, formal fact finding in the November time frame which led to negotiations in March. Umm, and, and having gone through that and having voted on this a couple months ago to approve the project and to ah, equivocally set ourselves against this legislation (43:46) umm, and the benefits, certainly after talkin’ to other developers, I mean we’ve had several developers come to us uh, since this casino project was announced wanting to develop on Glendale, on land in Glendale city proper.”

Senator McCain: Well, thank you. Chairman Norris, I have before me information that, ah, I’m not sure where it came from but it alleges that your annual revenue from gaming is  $68,200,000. Is that in the ballpark?”

Chairman Norris: “Chairman, Senator McCain, as I stated before without the authorization of my legislative council I’m not at this point, ah, able to disclose, to agree or disagree with your information.”

Senator McCain: “So you refuse to tell this committee who is expected to support your effort to establish a casino and you won’t even tell me whether this is a correct or incorrect number, $68,200,000?

Chairman Norris: “Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, the courts have already made that determination on whether or not the Nation is within its legal right to be able to establish…and our current compact also authorizes it as well.”

Senator McCain: “I asked…that’s not in response to the question I asked Mr. Chairman. You refuse to give, to authenticate or disagree with roughly $68,200,000 in revenue for a year, ah, for your Nation?”

Chairman Norris: “Mr. Chairman…”

Senator McCain: “Is that correct? You do not wish to give that information? Either agree or disagree. “

Chairman Norris: “Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, I am not agreeing or disagreeing. What I’m saying…”

Senator McCain: “Actually what you’ve done is refuse to answer questions before this committee. I’m not sure why you came. Ah, Mr. Mendoza, is there a concern, Chairman Mendoza, President Mendoza, is there a concern that there may be other loopholes such as this exploited and using this precedent to other casinos that would be established in the Valley?”

Governor Mendoza: “Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, uh, thank you for that question. You know, umm, I’ve been hearing about this particular bill and it would create that particular precedence and in my mind, no. The act has been very consistent with Congressional precedents and umm, if you’ll allow me, I will allow my attorney here to offer some specifics. Miss Benney.”

Miss Benney: “Yes, thank you Senator McCain. So the concern that you have is a legitimate concern in that Tohono O’odham if they’re able to build this Glendale casino can actually shut down their other three casinos in the Tucson area and move them up to the Phoenix area basically using the same legal theory. That’s why the East Valley mayors are so concerned because they think the same thing that is happening in Glendale can happen in the East Valley and I think it was Congressman Gossar last time brought it back that showed 200 county islands in other parts of the Phoenix Valley where the same thing can happen. But more importantly, in the negotiations and during litigation, umm, hand written notes have come out from Tohono O’odham’s representatives basically indicating that they would do such a thing. They’re aware that they have that legal ability if they’re successful in Glendale to shut down the other three casinos and move them up to the Phoenix area. That’s one of the biggest concerns of the East Valley mayors.”

Senator McCain: “Well, Mayor Weiers, you find yourself in the minority here. Maybe you can tell us how that happened going from the majority to the minority on this issue. I’m sure it didn’t have anything to do with a $26 million dollar commitment over several years.”

Mayor Weiers: “Chairman, Senator McCain, I don’t actually know how I find myself in that position. I, you know, I’ve been ah, on one line of one thought, ah, ever since this issue came up when I was a state legislator. I know in our campaign, ah, that people have ran their campaigns, ah, stating certain views and certain beliefs and I guess I never really expected people to change their opinion but, ah, I don’t know exactly how we find ourselves here. You know the same facts, the same truths that were there two years ago are the same facts and truths today. Nothing’s changed. People’s opinions have changed and how they’ve changed their minds because of those truths and facts I don’t know. Sir, I really don’t know if that’s the question that maybe I should be asked but I’m not exactly sure how we came to that position.”

Senator McCain: “Thank you. Mr. Chairman, it bears repeating to all the witnesses in response to some of the statements. The Constitution calls for the Congress to have a special responsibility as far as Native Americans are concerned. It’s written in the Constitution. So although some may view this hearing and our action as being unwarranted interference it is a specific Constitutional responsibility of the Congress of the United States. Umm, so Mr. Chairman, this is a very busy week. We’ll be leaving tomorrow for quite awhile and you were kind enough to hold this hearing for me and I take that as a very special favor that you granted me and I wanted to express openly and repeatedly my appreciation for you doing this. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.”

Chairman Tester: “Well, thank you for those kind words, Senator McCain. We always appreciate your commitment to the Senate and to this committee and we thank you for your leadership on a number of issues including this one. I, um, have a few questions here. I’ll start with Governor Mendoza. Ah, Governor, when it comes to tribal gaming in Arizona being successful, could you talk about the kinda success Gila River has enjoyed, ah, because of gaming.

Governor Mendoza: “Thank you for that question, ah, Senator. You know Gila River does enjoy the benefits from our casinos. Ah, we’ve been able to fully fund for our students to go to college, any college in the world. We’ve been able to provide funding for our public safety, police, fire, umm, our emergency management program. We’ve been able to provide programs for our elders, our youth, housing, you name it. We’ve been able to do a lot for our community and again, we’re very thankful and blessed.”

Chairman Tester: “Well, I commend you on your commitment to your people and education, ah, is one of my priorities. You reference, when it comes to the expansion of gaming, you reference a commitment made by the Tribes in 2002 that there be no additional gaming facilities in the Phoenix area. In the current gaming compacts there’s specific limitation on the Tohono O’odhams from building a fourth facility in the Tucson area. If the parties thought enough to put a Tucson limitation expressly in the compact why wouldn’t the state include such a limitation around Phoenix? Any insight into that?”

Governor Mendoza: “Thank you Senator Tester. You know, Senator Tester, I’m not an attorney. I’ll allow my attorney to answer that.”

Chairman Tester: “Well Allison, I think it’s a good point that you’re not an attorney. I’m not either. So, Allison, since you are, have at it.”

Miss Binney: “So, I think there’s some, there’s a little bit of confusion. So in Arizona it’s different than in most other states. Most other states the governors can go and just negotiate a compact directly with the Tribes and enter into it. In Arizona that’s not the case. The governor had to get authority from the voters to enter into compacts and so the voters voted on a model compact that I actually have the Proposition that the voters had here. So Tohono O’odham does say here, like nowhere in the model compact or the compact does it say Tohono O’odham can’t go into Phoenix. I mean, number one there was no need to say that in the compact because no one ever thought that would happen; but two, in all the negotiations which are a key part of what this bill is trying to address Tohono O’odham specifically said their fourth casino would be in the Tucson area or in a rural area. They never once indicated that they would somehow go a hundred miles up to the Phoenix area. But I will say the Proposition that has the model compact that the voters actually saw when they voted to give the governor authority, there’s a chart in there and in the chart it shows the number of casinos that the Tribes in Arizona were authorized to build under the old compact and the number of casinos that the Tribes would be authorized to build under the new compact, the model compact that the voters were voting on. In the Phoenix area Tribes, all are shown as giving up a right to an additional facility that they had under the old compact. Tohono O’odham, because they’re not a Phoenix area Tribe, kept the same number of casinos, the right to build the same number of casinos. So Gila River is shown as giving up an additional casino, right to an additional casino. Salt River gave up the right to an additional casino. Ak Chin gave up the right to an additional casino. Fort McDowell gave up a right to an additional casino and so did Pasqua Yaqui. Tohono O’odham didn’t have to give up the right to an additional casino ‘cause they weren’t in the Phoenix area. So in our view, it is in the compact. Why else would these charts be in here showing that the Phoenix Tribes gave up rights to casinos and Tohono O’odham didn’t if it wasn’t intended that the whole goal of the compact was to limit the number of facilities in the Phoenix area?”

Chairman Tester: “Okay. Umm, if you don’t mind Allison, I wanna ask you another question. Umm, since you are an attorney and since you know the law and I say this in the most friendly way. When I talk to Chairman Norris and I think was referenced in one of your testimonies. Maybe it might have been Washburn’s testimony about breaking ground on a facility already. So ground has been broken. If we are to pass this bill would there be a takings issue?”

Miss Binney: “No and I thought it was interesting that Assistant Secretary Washburn didn’t address this issue at all. Because he was aware of it and Senator McCain asked him about it last time. And the fundamental reason why is because this bill just provides a temporary restriction on gaming activities on certain lands. That’s what IGRA does. The Indian Regulatory Gaming Act was passed to restrict gaming on Tribal lands. So, if this bill is a taking so is the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act and that’s been around for 25 years and that’s been upheld again and again and again.”

Chairman Tester: “So, in one point you’re talking about policy that prevents gaming activities to happen with IGRA. This is an actual, physical construction. You don’t see that there’s any difference there? And I ask this because I don’t know.”

Miss Binney: “Yeah, no. We, actually, when it came up in the last hearing, Senator McCain asked it, we actually went and did a thorough analysis because I will say, last Congress there was some legitimate concerns raised by Tohono O’odham and we addressed them in this new bill. But we looked at it and the other reason it’s not a takings is ‘cause Congress does these types of bills fairly frequently actually restricting gaming on lands and they can build a resort; they can build a new sports stadium. They can do economic activity…”

Chairman Tester: “Thank you. That’s fine. Thank you, Allison. Uh, Chairman Norris, ah, you’ve got a similar question that I just asked Governor Mendoza. You’ve got gaming facilities, umm, can you discuss what benefits you’ve got from these gaming facilities and while you’re in that vein could you also discuss unmet needs that are still out there by your Tribe?”

Chairman Norris: “Mr. Chairman, ah, I, too, am not an attorney. I am the elected chairman of my Nation and have an obligation to speak for my people.”

Chairman Tester: “Yes.”

Chairman Norris: “So I will do so. There are still third world conditions that exist in my tribal community and many tribal communities nationwide. The Nation has had an enormous amount of benefit in comparison to where we were at prior to gaming. We have been able to construct different facilities that were only dreams facilities, that we were needing within our communities to be able to provide the necessary services. We have been able to create a government of employees that are, that are able to provide the necessary services that many of our Nation’s members require. We have been able to provide scholarships to our, to our members. Prior to gaming we had probably less than 300 members that acquired masters, associates and doctors degrees and some law degrees. Today we have graduated more Tohono O’odham with those types of degrees this many years later and my council continues to allocate some $5 million dollars towards scholarship programs to our Nation. So we have had an enormous amount of benefit from the results of gaming but we still have those third world conditions that continue to exist. As far as unmet needs, Mr. Chairman, we know today that we have 500 families that are homeless on the Nation. We know today that there are many people within our communities that do need housing. We know today that much of the roads that are within our Tribal communities are being used and misused by the U.S. Border Patrol because of the influx of Border agents on our Nation, have really done wear and tear on our roads, and primarily BIA are on our roads. And so there’s a need for us to work hand in hand with the Department of Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs to try and address the roads conditions that are so needing to be addressed, to be able to deliver the services, to be able to enter and to exit our Tribal communities nationwide. We have a reservation that is 2.1 million acres square. We have some 2.9 million acres in size. We have some 80 villages within that geographical area. The reservation is vast. The villages are remote. We’ve got homes that do not have running water. We’ve got homes that do not have electricity. So there’s a serious amount of unmet needs on my Tribal community.”

Chairman Tester: “Ah, thank you, Chairman. Mayor Weiers, umm, you’re a former state legislator. You’ve worked with city government as mayor and I think you understand the actual text of laws and contracts and the weight that carries with the weight that carries with those contracts and that text. In this case there was a specific limitation, correct me if I’m wrong, on TO developments around Tucson but not Phoenix. Umm, with that said, if this limitation on gaming around the Phoenix area was important, why was it not included in the contract or Prop 202?

Mayor Weiers: “Chairman Tester, all I can tell you is, is, is the knowledge that I have of talking to one of the authors, Senator McCain, and he had told me, point blank, that, uh, there was never, ever any intention in their mind that this would ever be an issue. And I don’t believe personally, quite honestly, that the average person, a non attorney person, would ever thought something like this. You know, uh, I guess that’s why we have attorneys to sit around and think of ways to get around stuff. But ah, I don’t believe anybody ever believed that this was going to be an issue and, and it is an issue. And, and quite honestly all this bill is trying to is just, let’s do what everybody said and thought we were gonna do and then when that compact’s over, renegotiate. Chances are we’ll probably end up with more casinos in the Valley. Most certainly.”

Chairman Tester: “Thanks, Mayor. Ah, Councilman Sherwood, ah, your testimony discusses the impacts that the agreement with TO would have on the city of Glendale. Ah, positive impacts. Umm, could you talk about those benefits of this development and while you’re on that, if there’s downside that comes to mind, could you talk about that too?”

Councilmember Sherwood: “Ah, thank you, Chair. Well, right off the bat, I can’t see of any downside in the negotiations, ah, in the settlement agreement that we concluded with the Tohono O’odhams in August. Ah, they’re covering existing infrastructure, new infrastructure, umm, water, umm, it’s not costin’ the city a penny. I mean, how often do you get a development where you don’t have to give in to anything? Umm, in terms of the development, we were hurt pretty hard with the down turn of our sports and entertainment. There was 8 funded projects that were to occur, south of the University of Phoenix Stadium where our Arizona Cardinals play. Umm, one of ‘em, umm, was Mr. Bidwill’s, ah, CB 101 Project before he started building. Those either went into litigation afterwards or the developers pulled back. Those are slowly comin’ back but not nearly the pace that was expected. So, our sports and entertainment area which has two professional sports teams, large entertainment area along with some retail, umm, was hurt vastly by that. And so when we have the mega events, like when we have the Super Bowl next February, umm, we don’t have anything to keep people in the area. So they go off into Scottsdale and Phoenix. Umm, a project like this resort will, umm, entice other development. In fact within, within weeks of us signing that agreement we had two major developers; one that had done a large scale project in Phoenix come through and they were only interested in us now because of this project and they were lookin’ at land within the city of Glendale to develop that would, ah, be real close to the sports and entertainment area. So, yes, we’re lookin’ at a lot of, ah, development activity that will directly benefit our city coffers and then again, on the deal that was referenced earlier about the $26 million or so, umm, that we get directly into the General Fund from the Tohono O’odhams. In fact we’ve already received a check for $500,000, ten days after the agreement was signed. Umm, that helps the city that has struggled as has been widely reported, umm, because of our past deals with some of the sporting facilities we have. It’s sorely helped our community.”

Chairman Tester: “Okay. Talk about jobs. How many jobs?”

Councilmember Sherwood: “The jobs, in terms of the operations, you’re gonna see 3,000 jobs, 1,500 of ‘em probably indirect. Ah, 15 direct in terms of construction jobs. It’s right now scheduled for three phases, the casino and then the attached resort and then probably year later, another resort based on how things are movin’ along. So you’re talkin’ thousands of construction jobs, ah, over this project that’s gonna take place over the next four years. But in terms of actual jobs, umm, in the West Valley, I’d say about 3,000.”

Chairman Tester: “Well, once again, I want to thank all of you for, ah, makin’ the trek to Washington, D.C. I know it’s not easy and some of you made it twice and I thank you for that. And I mean that. This is obviously an emotional issue it’s ah, it’s ah, an important issue. Umm, note that the hearing will remain open for two weeks and I encourage all stakeholders to submit written statements for the record. I’m gonna’ say that again. Ah, this hearing record will remain open for two weeks and, ah, if you’re a stakeholder on this issue I would encourage you to write written statements, ah, for the record. With that thank you all and this hearing is closed.”

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Sep 14

25

Senate Committe on Indian Affairs hearing, Part II

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 25, 2014
Posted in Casino • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community • Glendale zoning issues • Salt River Indian Community  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

On September 17, 2014 the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs took testimony on S. 2670, a bill introduced by Senators McCain and Flake. It is designed to prevent the Tohono O’odham from building a casino in Glendale until 2027 when the current state-Indian gaming compact expires.

Because there is a lot of testimony I have broken it into segments. This portion is the testimony of Governor Gregory Mendoza, Chairman of the Gila River Indian Community and Mayor of Glendale Jerry Weiers. It is evident from Mendoza’s testimony that the 16 other tribes that are part of the gaming compact feel betrayed and are very bitter about the actions of the Tohono O’odham (TO). The reason that Governor Mendoza of the Gila River Indian Community and President Diane Enos of the Salt River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community have taken the lead in opposing the TO’s project is that these two tribes have the resources to do so. They have the support of the other Arizona tribes.

Mayor Jerry Weiers highlighted Proposition 202, the Arizona Gaming Compact, and distributed to members of the committee copies of the original publicity pamphlet distributed to voters in 2002. What is ironical is that the pamphlet used, that promised no new casinos in the Phoenix Metropolitan area was paid for by the Tohono O’odham.

Both men spoke of possible consequences should the TO prevail. Governor Mendoza spoke of the harm that will befall rural tribes and Mayor Weiers spoke of action that could be taken by the Arizona legislature to open up the entire state to non-Indian gaming.

The actions of the Tohono O’odham stink on so many levels:

  • They don’t care that they have destroyed the deep-seated, long-term trust they enjoyed with their sister Arizona tribes.
  • They don’t care that they broke their word and their commitment to keep new casinos out of the Phoenix Metropolitan area.
  • They don’t care if they destroy, single-handedly, the voter approved state gaming compact.
  • They don’t care if their casino is across the street from a high school and becomes a magnet for curious teenagers.
  • They don’t care if they destroy the fabric of neighborhoods with greater 24/7 traffic and spill over crime.
  • They don’t care if the state legislature opens the state up to non-Indian gaming.
  • They don’t care if rural Indian tribes suffer.

Their actions are nothing short of Machiavellian, “the ends justify the means.” Their only concern appears to be enriching themselves at the expense of all around them. They have 3 casinos in the Tucson area estimated to earn $36 million annually. I guess that’s just not enough for them. If they succeed in building the casino the unintended consequences will be felt for many years to come. But that’s OK – as long as they get what they want.

Below is the verbatim transcript of the testimonies of Governor Mendoza and Mayor Weiers:

Governor Mendoza: “Good afternoon Chairman Tester, members of the committee. Thank you for holding this hearing and inviting me to speak in support of the Keep the Promise Act. I want to start by saying that it pains me to advocate against a sister tribe. But this is not a dispute with the Tohono O’odham people, only with the leadership of the Tohono O’odham Nation whose actions jeopardize every tribe in Arizona. Contrary to what Tohono O’odham claims, this is not a fight about market share. It’s about preventing fraud upon tribes, local governments and voters. Tohono O’odham likes to talk about the promises made between their tribe and the federal government in 1986 but this bill is about protecting the promise made to my community and to other tribal governments.

“Our tribes relied upon the actions of Tohono O’odham when we gave up our rights in 2002. While we agreed the Tohono O’odham should get replacement lands under the 1986 law we also strongly believed that Tohono O’odham must abide by the promise and commitments they made to us. In 2002 Arizona tribes had to get approval for our compact from the voters. In order to get this approval we promised the voters that the number of casinos in the Phoenix metro area would not increase until 2027.

“At the same time that Tohono O’odham helped us to win voter approval they also were secretly plotting to build a casino in Phoenix. That casino will be located right across the street from a high school and it’s near homes and churches. This is exactly what we promised the voters would not happen. Tribes like mine gave up rights to build additional casinos. We also agreed to limit on the number of gaming machines allocated to us. We did this in order to get voter approval and to preserve the tribal monopoly on gaming in Arizona and assure that rural tribes benefit from gaming.

“Tohono O’odham doesn’t deny making promises nor do they deny knowing that their sister tribes gave up rights in order to limit the number of casinos in Phoenix. They don’t deny that the compact negotiations would have been vastly different if everyone knew of their plans. Instead they say they’re winning in the courts. There remains a dispute because they refuse to waive their sovereign immunity for claims of fraud. We do not want to attack another tribe’s immunity. That is why the bill merely provides for a temporary restriction on additional casinos in the Phoenix area until the end of the existing compacts. At that point all parties can come together at the table and bargain in good faith. Hopefully my community will be able to regain the rights we gave away.

“The Gila River Indian Community will weather the storm but most tribes in Arizona are not as fortunate. Rural tribes will suffer the most from Tohono O’odham’s fraud. There are six rural tribes that utilize gaming compacts to lease gaming machines to urban tribes. Leasing these machines allows them to benefit from gaming even though their markets can’t support a casino. Each year these tribes receive more than $30 million dollars to provide basic services to their members and the structure of the gaming compacts create markets for a few rural tribes to operate small casinos.

“If gaming happens in Glendale the state legislature will likely eliminate that tribal monopoly. If this happens urban tribes will have no reason to lease gaming machines from rural tribes. Patrons will stop traveling to reservations for gaming and instead visit non-tribal casinos in cities. We have come to Congress because you’re the only entity that can provide swift action to preserve the promises made in 2002. Interior indicates it cannot resolve this matter because Congress through the 1986 law mandates that they take the land into trust for the Tohono O’odham.

“This bill does not set bad precedent. It is common for Congress to pass bills that limit tribal gaming. In this Congress alone, two bills have been enacted placing land into trust for a tribe but prohibiting gaming on those lands. The bill narrowly restricts gaming on the land until 2027 but does not eliminate the uses of the land and there are a number of non-gaming activities that Tohono O’odham could conduct. For all of these reasons I ask that you pass this bill. Thank you.”

Chairman Tester: “Thank you, Governor. Uh, Welcome Mayor Weiers and I would ask you to try to keep it to five minutes because the Senator has another meeting to get to and I want to get to him for questions.”

Mayor Weiers: “I’ll do the best that I can, Sir. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Brasher and members of the Committee. My name is Jerry Weiers. I am the Mayor of Glendale, a city of 232,000 and the 72nd largest city in the country.

“Before becoming mayor I served eight years in the Arizona legislature. I am here today to discuss my personal views on a casino proposed to be built in my city. I am required to state that my views today do not represent the majority of the body of the council and my views are not the official position of the council.

“Like Senator McCain I supported Arizona Proposition 202, the ballot initiative which gave tribes the exclusive right to conduct gaming. One key aspect of that campaign was the clear promise, repeatedly made to voters by tribes and state officials, that there would be no additional casinos in the Phoenix metro area. When Governor Hull concluded compact negotiations in 2002 with the seventeen tribes she publicly announced that under the compact that there would be, and I quote, ‘no additional casinos in the metropolitan Phoenix area.’ Now here’s a voter pamphlet from the 2002 initiative campaign. It was widely distributed by the seventeen tribes. The pamphlet told voters that under the compact and I quote, ‘There will be no facilities in Phoenix.’ If you look at page six, which I’ve got highlighted here, ah, major funding for this pamphlet was provided by the Tohono O’odham Nation, that I will respectfully refer to as the TO.

“Understandably the public was blind sided when the TO announced in January of 2009 that it was going to open a Las Vegas style casino on a 54 acre parcel within our city. At that time I was serving in the Arizona legislature and I met with TO Chairman Norris and I expressed my grave concerns with gambling within our city. The council immediately passed a resolution opposing the casino because it would harm our residents and our way of life.

“Recently the city council voted 4 to 3 repeal the 2009 resolution opposing that casino. But this was done only after the Interior Department had already decided to grant a casino reservation on that parcel. We had no real choice. We could continue to fight and hope for action from this body or give up. It’s frustrating to be a city of our size and have no voice on gambling pushed by a tribal government that’s more than a hundred miles away. The public has no right to object to gambling because of the narrow exception in the 1988 Indian Regulatory Gaming Act the TO is using, and gives Interior absolutely no authority to stop gambling even if it knows the adverse impact to nearby neighborhoods, churches and a public school across the street.

“Since the Interior has no authority to stop gambling it has no reason to ask the public for comments or investigate adverse impacts. This is the polar opposite to the two part exception in IGRA which is typically used for off reservation casinos. It requires that the Interior prepare for an environmental impact statement and investigate in great detail adverse impacts that a casino may cause. What’s more, for gambling to be allowed, the Secretary must determine on the record, and I quote, ‘would not be detrimental to the surrounding community.’ And most importantly, the state’s governor has the right to veto any casino project regardless of the Secretary’s decision.

“But in our case, the public has no say. The state legislature has no say. Our governor has no say and the Interior has no authority to stop it. For us this means the largest tribal casino in the history of the state may operate on a 54 acre island in the middle of the Phoenix metro area without anyone investigating and addressing the adverse environmental and social impacts it will cause and without any federal, state or local official deciding that it can safely operate in the public’s interest.

“What’s more, my city may not be the last. Our sister cities realize that unless Congress acts, they may be next. Under the 1986 Gila Bend Act, TO claims that it can create new reservation land on more than 6,000 acres. They also claim the right to operate a total of four new casinos in the Phoenix metro area. If Congress does not act the entire Phoenix metropolitan area must be prepared for more off reservation casinos. That is why many mayors and city councilmembers have signed a letter asking the Congress to enact the Keep the Promise Act.

“As a former state legislator I know that if gambling happens in Glendale there will be a strong effort in the state legislature to authorize non-Indian gaming in all of Arizona and that will have a devastating effect on all the tribes. I urge this committee to move the Keep the Promise Act. The bill is about preserving the promises made by tribes to voters protecting Phoenix metro cities from having unwanted gambling within their borders. Thank you, Mr. Tester. I’ll be happy to answer any questions.”

Chairman Tester: “Thank you Mayor Weiers.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Sep 14

24

If it’s not your endorsement, ignore it

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 24, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , | 3 Comments

In the September 18, 2014 Glendale Star its editor, Carolyn Dryer, penned an editorial decrying U.S. Senator Trent Franks endorsement of a Glendale City Council candidate. Whoa…let’s take a look at this.

  • It’s OK if…the Star and the Republic , in their usual, unbiased fashion (yeah, right) endorse a local candidate.
  • It’s OK if…the local fire union endorses (and works for and contributes financially to) a local candidate.
  • It’s OK if… a local pastor, rabbi or priest endorses a local candidate.
  • It’s OK if… a president of a university or hospital endorses a local candidate.
  • It’s OK if… an owner of a sports team endorses a local candidate.
  • It’s OK if… a Chamber of Commerce endorses a local candidate.
  • It’s OK if… a state elected official endorses a local candidate.
  • It’s OK if… other Congressional officials, such as U.S. Representative Pastor, endorse a local candidate.

But it’s not OK if U.S. Representative Trent Franks endorses a local candidate. Hmmm, could it be because Representative Franks introduced a bill in opposition to the planned Tohono O’Odham casino and supports a local candidate who shares his position? Hmmm, could it be because the Glendale Star has repeatedly written articles in support of the TO casino? Nah…you decide.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Sep 14

18

Media gives legs to erroneous reporting

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 18, 2014
Posted in Casino • City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

image002

Is this Timothy Schwartz?

image003

Or is this Timothy Schwartz?

Who is Timothy Schwartz and where did he come from? Here’s a good example why newspaper coverage is so disappointing and more and more people are turning to other sources. 

Timothy Schwartz is chair of Republican Legislative District 30 and used this event to get some media face time. His only claim to fame is that he apparently made a motion at a state Republican event a year or two ago to censure Senator John McCain. To say that he is to the right of Genghis Khan would be an understatement. His position within the groups, No More Bad Deals for Glendale and Keep the Promise is as mythical as that of a leprechaun.  Gary Hirsch chairs both of those committees and is the only legitimate spokesperson for those two political action committees.

Schwartz’ committee, Glendale Citizens for Voice and Choice is also mythical. It is not a political action committee registered with the Glendale City Clerk or the Arizona Secretary of State. Its existence is a figment of Schwartz’ imagination, as mythical as Schwartz’ self-proclaimed position as spokesperson.

So how did Schwartz get to be spokesperson and quoted in the media? Frankly, he was blustery and loud enough to attract a reporter’s attention. The Glendale Star was the first to give Schwartz credibility by saying, “After turning in what they claim is nearly 15,000 signatures protesting the city council’s vote to approve the West Valley Casino and Resort, a group called Glendale Citizens for Voice and Choice is hoping to have the question placed on the ballot for citizens to have their say.” Too bad no one bothered to fact check first. The referendum petitions signatures were collected by and turned in by No More Bad Deals for Glendale and Keep the Promise. Schwartz magically appeared the day the petitions were to be turned in to the City Clerk. Schwartz’ imaginary political action committee did not collect any petition signatures or turn them in. His only contribution to the effort was to hook up with the legitimate group and offer to carry two boxes of petitions into the City Clerk’s office.

Then Monica Alonzo in her Phoenix New Times blog capacity called Schwartz, self proclaimed leader who did not bother to disabuse her of the notion, and she ran with it saying, “A group calling itself ‘Glendale Citizens for Voice and Choice’ reportedly turned in more than 13,000 signatures on a ‘petition protesting the way the Glendale City Council approved the gaming Casino at 91st Avenue and Northern without notice to the citizenry’.”

It is now a self perpetuating story with no one bothering to check. After all, if one newspaper ran it, it must be true. Then the same misinformation is picked up by other media such as myfoxatlanta.com and yourwestvalley.com.  Again, no one bothered to check the facts and assumed that if another media source ran it, it must be true.

Should you believe what you read in the papers? This is but one example how they feed off one another and repeat the same erroneous information until it becomes “fact.” There are other errors within these stories covering the submission of these petitions but why bother giving them legs. The media, in a time honored tradition, will continue its questionable practice of covering events using unsubstantiated “facts.”

P.S. On September 18, 2014 the City Clerk announced that the city is rejecting both petitions citing the two council votes as administrative rather than legislative…meaning the actions are not referable to the voters. Expect this issue to wind up in court.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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