Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Nov 13

17

What the heck?

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 17, 2013
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the Super Bowl  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Two recent news stories can have you scratching your head and saying, “What the heck?” Just when you think Glendale has its act together it trips over itself and acts either incomprehensibly or incompetently.

It appears the NFL is still miffed with Glendale. I don’t buy it. Glendale successfully hosted one Super Bowl and is using the same model, only updated, to host the next one. Supposedly the NFL is in a stew about three issues: parking, Glendale hoteliers’ refusal to join the NFL’s room bloc and lack of Glendale leadership.

What about parking? Glendale provided the necessary parking at the last Super Bowl and will do so again. It has the requisite parking lined up already. It’s a non-issue.

What about the room bloc? Glendale cannot tell private businesses what to do and what to charge for room rates. Perhaps if the NFL sweetened the pot a bit for Glendale’s hotels there would be incentive for joining the room bloc.

What about Glendale’s leadership? It appears that the current city council has sent numerous signals that they are on board and willing to take whatever action necessary to make the Super Bowl a success. It is a smoke and mirrors issue apparently being jinned by two entities: the Arizona Host Committee and the Bidwills. On nearly all levels of Glendale must communicate with the NFL executives through one or both of those entities. Remember the kid’s game of post office? By the time the original message went through several people the final message was nothing like the original. Glendale’s message is filtered by two, not-so-friendly entities.

The Host Committee has got to be walking around with a bag full of guilt knowing that all events but two are sited outside of Glendale and that Glendale will get the bill for the Super Bowl and probably lose money again. They have been very reluctant to assist Glendale in legislatively crafting a mechanism to make Glendale whole. Apparently Glendale’s losses are not a concern.

The Bidwills apparently are not giving the NFL kudos about Glendale because they are angry about NFL Super Bowl unrelated issues. They are angry that they didn’t get their way about putting up a training tent on Glendale’s Youth Sports Fields adjacent to the stadium and they are angry (perhaps in this case justified) that their partnership with SMG to bid on managing Jobing.com was ignored. Glendale did handle that badly by accepting bids and then letting them hang out there in limbo while it brazenly accepted IceArizona’s deal to manage the arena. The entire situation was strange to say the least. Another issue may be one of the lack of a parking garage. The Bidwills know that Glendale cannot afford to build one at this time. Soooo….the Bidwill’s land on both sides of stadium already has approved zoning (including the right to build a parking garage or two) as Sportsmen’s Park, East and West. If the Bidwills want a garage so badly why don’t they take out an incredibly low interest loan from the NFL and build one on their land??

It’s time that the Host Committee and the Bidwills stopped stewing and accepted the fact that Glendale is the host city. To make this event successful it’s time they lifted Glendale up rather than attempting to stomp it into the ground. They say publicly that they want Glendale to be a full participating member of the team but behind the scenes Glendale is virtually ignored. When another successful Super Bowl is over it will be in great measure because of Glendale’s efforts to insure its success.

Glendale is showing that its methods of operation haven’t changed much, if at all, under new City Manager leadership. It appears that Glendale missed the FEMA deadline for submitting paperwork regarding its flood prone areas in the city. A special council meeting had to be scheduled last Tuesday despite the fact that Weiers, Sherwood and Chavira were attending the National League of Cities convention in Seattle. They participated telephonically, something the Surprise city council just voted to abandon as a practice.

It was only discovered after several citizens called the city to complain that they were denied coverage. Don’t believe the disclaimer that it’s not a big deal because most of Glendale’s flood plain is in its river beds. There is also substantial land along Grand Avenue that has historically flooded and is in the flood plain. How could this fall through the cracks?

And the City Manager’s remedy? Expect another firing of some employee becoming the latest “fall guy” in the string of recent firings. Glendale hasn’t changed under new leadership. It still fudges on transparency. It refused to publicize its investigative report generated from the half million dollar external audit until the Arizona Republic made a Freedom of Information Request. It continues to follow the philosophy of omission; leaving out the negative, in an effort to spin any issue positively. Sometimes Glendale, you just have to say that you screwed up.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 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.

Nov 13

9

Zoning at any price

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 9, 2013
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

As a councilmember one of the many skills I picked up quite quickly was Zoning and its methods, practices, implications and effects. Quite a few years ago, about 8 or 9 years ago, Jake Long and the Long’s attorney, Jim Miller, met with me as the councilmember representing the Yucca district. The Long family owns a substantial piece of property (384 acres) between 83rd Avenue and 91st Avenue, Grand Canal Linear Park south to Camelback Road. They shared their proposed development plan for that land. I can’t remember all of it but what did stick in my head was their desire to plant apartments directly south of the Grand Canal Linear Park. I made it clear that I would not support their plan and they went away — until now. Now that I am no longer representing the district their assumption must be that the atmosphere is more conducive to granting their zoning requests. I hope not as it would the lower property values and the quality of life of many residents of West Glendale.

I had long ago signed up with the city Planning Department’s “Interested Parties” notification list. Because I am on that list on November 8, 2013 I received a letter from Earl, Curley and LeGarde, P.C., attorneys representing the Long Trust on its latest zoning applications. Like a bad penny, the same zoning requests presented to me many years ago by the Long family (this time with disastrous modifications) has turned up once again.

The city’s General Plan for this parcel of 384 acres currently designates zoning of 2.5 to 3.5 homes to the acre and a limited amount of Commercial. That current designation yields 960 homes on the low end to 1344 homes on the high end. There are no multifamily residential (apartments) allowed.

These Long Family Trust zoning applications do not contain specificity for the entire parcel. They do state what they plan for 64 of the 384 acres: 27 acres of 5 to 8 dwelling units to the acre which yields a low of 135 units and a high of 216 units; 26 acres of 12 to 20 dwelling units to the acres which yields a low of 240 units and a high of 520 units; and 11 acres of planned Commercial. So we know from the proposal that there could be a low of 375 apartment units to a high of 736 units on 64 acres or 16% of the entire 384 acres. It is not clear where this 64 acre portion is located. South of the Grand Canal Linear Park? North of Camelback Road? Who knows? They’re not sayin’. They call this a Minor General Plan Amendment. Maybe it’s minor to them but it certainly is not minor to the thousands of Glendale residents who live in West Glendale and who do not want more apartments in the area…not 375 or 736 of them.

Their second application seeks to change the zoning designations of the entire 384 acres from R1-8 PRD (single family homes with a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet; Commercial Office and General Commercial (remember there are no apartment units on the current zoning designations) to a PAD which is a Planned Area Development. Sounds Ok but it isn’t. A PAD grants generalities of a certain amount of acreage as single family density, multifamily density and commercial but allows the developer flexibility as to where these elements are placed. The Planning Department would approve the PAD through a Design Review Process but you and I would not know the particulars or what has been approved. Once the PAD zoning is approved we are excluded from the process.

The applicant is seeking an average of 4.63 dwelling units per acre on the 384 acres for a total of 1,777 units. Their projected population is 4,700 residents. I suspect that is a low ball figure. This proposal is far denser than any other subdivision in the nearby area.  Why seek that kind of density? When land is sold for development the price per acre is dependent on the zoning (and density) allowed on the land. The greater the entitled density the more expensive the land becomes and the more money the land owner makes. As a hypothetical, if the land were zoned for 3 homes per acre it might sell for $10,000 an acre. If the land were zoned for 20 units to the acre it might sell for $100,000 an acre. I am not opposed to the land owner making a profit when his land is sold but I am opposed to granting inappropriate densities that do harm to existent neighborhoods. That is exactly what the high densities that the applicant is seeking will do. The city has an obligation to protect existent neighborhoods and their quality of life and property values.

Interestingly enough, guess when the public meeting is scheduled? How about the Monday before Thanksgiving – you know that time of year when many people leave town to visit friends and family for the Thanksgiving holidays. Do you think this schedule was deliberate, designed to ensure that not many attend the public meeting? I do. By the way, the public meeting is:

Monday, November 25, 2013

6 PM

At Desert Mirage Elementary School Cafeteria

8605 W. Maryland Avenue

We need butts in seats for this meeting. We need to send a message, loud and clear that we do not support the applicant’s plans that directly affect our area. We also have petitions that you can circulate in your neighborhood. You do not have to be a registered voter to sign (these are not political petitions) and multiple persons from the same household may sign the petition. Email me at clarkjv@aol.com and I will email a petition to you. All petitions must be returned no later than Saturday, November 23, 2013.

Why is this a lousy plan for a great area in Glendale? Let me count the ways.

  1. There are many developments surrounding Westgate that have already been approved by the city (they are “entitled”). If I remember correctly those approved developments will yield another 4,000 apartment units. I am going to check with the Planning Department to corroborate this figure from my memory.
  2. North of Cabelas and in Westgate there are already nearly 2,000 apartment units combined. The Westgate units were approved as condos but when the economy went south they were redesignated and auctioned off – some for as little as $79,000 a unit. One of the multifamily complexes north of Cabelas was built as condo units and today they are apartments.
  3. The existing apartments plus the future apartments will allow for 6,000 units in West Glendale.  When is enough, enough? Now. It’s time to hold the line.
  4. Planting small homes (attached and detached) on small lots and dense apartment units will lower the property values and the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhoods – just to name a few, Camelback Park, Missouri Ranch and Missouri Estates.
  5. The 83rd Avenue corridor from Camelback Rd. to Northern Avenue has historically been the site of most of the large lot properties in West Glendale. There are streets north of Camelback Road like Orange, Montebello and Cavalier that have one acre, irrigated lots. Missouri Ranch and Missouri Estates subdivisions are large lot subdivisions. The Rovey Farm subdivision of 800+ homes was built with the smaller lots of 9,000 square feet on the 91st Avenue side and the large lot, gated communities on the 83rd Avenue side. South of Northern Avenue there is the Bonderosa enclave of large lot properties as well as  gated communities such as Casa de Esueno. The 83rd Avenue corridor is unique and should be preserved as it is the only such corridor in all of West Glendale.

Please send this blog link on to your friends and neighbors. Let them know how important this upcoming public meeting is for all of us. Let’s get butts in seats that night and petitions signed to send a strong signal to the city and the developer that this proposed development is not compatible with the surrounding area. Zoning at any price, especially a price too high to be paid by residents, is not the answer.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 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 13

31

Tohono O’odham like a bad penny

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 31, 2013
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

A word of advice. When you get older, say 70 on up, avoid getting sick at all costs. Wear a mask or go into isolation to save yourself. I speak from experience. Two weeks ago I caught a cold. You know how it goes. You begin to feel better, almost human, and you resume your schedule with gusto. Then you learn your lesson as it comes back, ten times worse. That is exactly what happened last week. Mercifully I was saved from an untimely death by my doctor’s prescription of a really heavy duty antibiotic.

There’s been a lot of activity regarding the Tohono O’odham’s (TO) proposed casino during the week of October 23, 2013. Where to begin? At the council workshop meeting of October 15, 2013 an agenda item was discussion of starting a dialogue with the TO. In a previous blog I described various councilmembers’ positions on the issue. They did not go as far as opening exclusive dialogue with the TO. Rather council majority asked for an assessment from staff of the consequences to Glendale IF the casino were to be built. This assessment was to include gathering factual information from the TO. Good luck to them on that action. Historically the TO have never been very forthright about their plans. A majority of council gave this direction despite newly hired City Attorney Michael Bailey’s admonition to wait until two outstanding casino issues were resolved.

Then at the regular council meeting of October 22, 2013 council passed as part of its Consent Agenda (no discussion occurred and all items were passed in a single vote) Item 14, a resolution of support to accept a $45,000 grant from the TO for use by the Glendale Youth Project. The Glendale Youth Project is a worthy cause and it is not the issue. The issue is the acceptance of any TO grant. How can this council legally or morally accept money from a group that it has opposed and litigated against and continues, as city policy, to oppose? It boggles the mind. Council is repeatedly and short sightedly sending the wrong signal to our friends and supporters – the State Legislature, our Congressional Delegation and all of the Arizona Tribes opposed to machinations of the TO’s gambit to build a casino in the Phoenix Metropolitan area.

On October 26, 2013 the Glendale Republic ran two viewpoint submissions. The pro-casino faction consisted of Bob Barrett, Mayor of Peoria; Adolfo Gamez, Mayor of Tolleson; and Sharon Wolcott, Mayor of Surprise. I find it ironic that not one of these three communities will host or have to pay a dime for the development of the TO casino and continue to believe the TO hype that somehow this project will benefit their communities.  They embarrassingly trotted out their “East Valley Envy” for all to see. The anti-casino viewpoint was signed by Jim Lane, Mayor of Scottsdale; Mark Mitchell, Mayor of Tempe; Jerry Weiers, Mayor of Glendale; Thomas L. Schoaf, Mayor of Litchfield Park; and John Lewis, Mayor of Gilbert. They get it. They understand the broader picture and the ramifications to the entire Valley should the TO succeed. It’s too bad that some of the West Valley cities are greedily willing to chase a mythical pot of gold at the expense of Glendale.

In the October 27, 2013 edition of the AzEconomy Section of the Republic there is an article about Steve Ellman’s Phoenix-like rise from financial death. Ellman was the former owner of Westgate (until 2011) and co-owner of the Phoenix Coyotes (until 2006).  Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/business/news/articles/20131026ellman-glendale-coyotes-tribe-deal.html . Part of the story recounted Ellman’s efforts back in 2009 to obtain a $100M investment from the TO. The major city players at that time would have been Ed Beasley, Julie Frisoni, Craig Tindall and Art Lynch. I had heard about such a proposal – not in detail — years ago but dismissed it for a variety of reasons. It was disturbing then and is disturbing now to read it. Ellman was lobbying for a deal that certainly would have benefitted him but not necessarily the City of Glendale. $10M a year for 10 years would have been invested by the TO in the arena AND Westgate. How much would have gone to the arena? Not much. A token amount would have gone toward naming rights but the lion’s share would have been used by Ellman for Westgate. In return for this largesse (read bribe) Glendale would have been required to support the TO’s plan for the casino. The article quotes Ellman as saying, “the deal between the tribe and Glendale ‘would have allowed ME (caps mine) to stay in (sic) the team…and stay in Westgate’.” This unsavory deal was always about Ellman.

The TO continue to press their plan for a casino and we can count on more pressure until the Secretary of the Interior makes his final determination about reservation status and until Representative Trent Franks’ bill is settled one way or another.

If you would like more information about the impact of a casino in Glendale please visit this site: www.keepingthepromiseaz.com . The site recently added information about available county islands within other Valley cities that could become targets for a casino if the TO prevail and break the state compact.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 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 13

18

Council left its steak dinner on the table

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 18, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

The City Council workshop meeting of October 15, 2013 had a little something for everyone. Since Mayor Weiers has been at the helm all of their meetings have been extraordinarily brief. Not so this time.

The first item was an informational presentation on light rail in Glendale by Steve Banta, CEO of Valley Metro. Keep in mind that even if all the stars aligned, Glendale still wouldn’t see light rail for a minimum of ten years. The corridors under study remain the same: Northern Avenue to Bethany Home Road; Camelback Road; and the Loop 101. The only strong sentiment was expressed by Vice Mayor Knaack whose business is located in downtown Glendale. She remains adamantly opposed to light rail being sited along Glendale Avenue. Ummm…I guess she didn’t get the memo about Mesa. They deliberately sited their light rail on their Main Street to spur redevelopment. Their experiment with light rail has been so successful that Mesa is paying for an additional 2 miles from a city fund dedicated to street improvements.

Council moved on to the next item, Councilmember Chavira’s plea to get more amenities in the Western Regional Park (now called Heroes Park) at 83rd and Bethany Home Road. He proposed as temporary, soccer fields; or the addition of sod to green the park; or an archery range. He needs to bring something home to his constituents before he runs for reelection. Poor Sammy, it won’t be park improvements. He ran into the same brick wall as I. Keep in mind that a majority of the former council diverted $6M earmarked for the park to the construction of the Public Safety Training Facility. It was a spite move orchestrated by the former Mayor because I refused to become a member of her team. Council has an obligation to restore that $6M deliberately and willfully taken from the park. Chavira heard a resounding “No” from his fellow councilmembers to his requests. Even Alvarez said “No” and called for prioritization of needs. They fell back on the council policy directive that mandates maintaining and improving the parks already in place. They grudgingly agreed to move forward on the concept of an archery range provided it “was at no cost to the city.” I have never seen a project come forward that didn’t involve some cost to the city. In addition when residents of the area publicly participated in the planning of the park there was not one request for an archery range. In all my years on Council I received one call from a father who wanted to establish an archery range in a nearby retention area for his son so that he could conveniently practice. As the Director of Parks and Recreation Erik Strunk stated, “There will be no available funds in the Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program until Fiscal Year 2018-19.” At that time all seven councilmembers will be vying for the use of those funds.

The Sister Cities Program was next on the agenda.  This item was Councilmember Sherwood’s request. His motive was to partner with Canadian cities that host hockey and perhaps to boost Canadian attendance at Coyotes hockey games. It was a subject that didn’t engender a lot of comment. However, Alvarez and Chavira broadened the concept to include Mexican cities. Council directed this initiative be shifted to the private sector for further exploration and called on the Civic Pride Ambassadors, the Chamber of Commerce and the Convention and Visitors Bureau to lead the effort.

Now we get to the meat and potatoes…er…steak and potatoes of the workshop…the Tohono O’odham and its proposed casino. The new City Attorney, Michael Bailey, presented information first. He said for 5 years the city’s position has been in opposition as expressed by various city council approved resolutions. Until council passes a new resolution expressing a new direction, the city will remain opposed to the proposed casino. He went on to say the city is no longer involved in any active litigation against the TO’s plan. Everyone is waiting for the results of two actions: U.S. Representative Trent Franks bill currently enjoying bipartisan support which has passed the House and moved on to the Senate; and the 9th Circuit’s Court mandate that the U.S. Department of Interior further clarify its justification for provisionally placing the land within Glendale in reservation status. He also expected that no matter what the Department of Interior’s decision, we can expect further litigation.  The City Attorney advised waiting until these issues were resolved before moving in any direction. He likened the current situation to council’s ordering and paying for a steak dinner and then just before it arrives, getting up and walking out of the restaurant. He alluded to the fact that entering into a dialogue with the TO could send the wrong signal to our friends and supporters – the other Tribes, the State Legislature and our Congressional delegation.

Despite his sage advice, here’s how the council lined up on the issue. Mayor Weiers and Councilmember Martinez remain firmly opposed and counseled waiting until the issues resolve. As expected Councilmembers Alvarez and Hugh are in the TO camp, breathlessly awaiting the casino’s arrival as if it is the cure for all of Glendale’s financial woes. Councilmember Chavira, in whose district the proposed casino would be located, has never been one to take a strong position on anything, maintained a fence sitting posture (painful to say the least). If he had a brain, he’d listen to and represent his constituents who will be dramatically affected and simply do not want the casino. Councilmember Sherwood after proclaiming that he was still opposed to the casino then trotted out a litany of reasons in its support. Vice Mayor Knaack, ever ready to appease everyone and anyone, listed the reasons why a casino was not in anyone’s best interest then flopped to supporting dialogue with the TO. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. What happened when the European nations practiced appeasement?

The result of the long and sometimes contentious discussion was 5 of 7 councilmembers supported directing staff to fact find (including dialogue with the TO) to produce an assessment of the impacts of the proposed casino on Glendale. I find it amazing that 5 of them believe they will get specific facts from the TO. This is the same Tribe that hid its ownership of the land in question for years. This is the same Tribe, when asked by Glendale staff, for specifics regarding their proposed casino, offered only conceptual ideas, nothing concrete. This is the same Tribe that publicly stumped for the State Gaming Compact in 2002, knowing that they already had plans to violate the spirit of the compact. There is and should not be, justifiably, any trust regarding assertions that they make. What’s the old saying? Trust but verify?

Council’s reasons in support of dialogue were superficial and may have been motivated by the people who spoke at their last council meeting (by the way, many were not from Glendale). This council left their steak dinner on the table having already paid for it, unwilling to wait and to let the issues play out and knowing that possible further litigation will not see an end to this situation for several years.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 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 13

15

Who needs a clue? Not Glendale

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 15, 2013
Posted in Glendale and the NFL Super Bowl  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 1 Comment

On Sunday, October 13, 2013 the Arizona Republic posted an editorial entitled City Finally Getting Clue on Super Bowl. Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/articles/20131007glendale-super-bowl-editorial.html . If I wanted a sermon I can always get one from my priest.

At least the editorial acknowledged the NFL’s heavy-handed demands with, “The NFL can be a demanding taskmaster when it comes to operating its big game. It wants to have things just so, and those things can be costly.” And that’s the point. The costs borne by the Host City far outweigh the revenue earned to cover those costs. Not so for Scottsdale, Phoenix, etc., who reap the revenues from major NFL events that earn enough to pay for their expenses. The editorial failed to acknowledge or even mention that other states, Texas and Florida, do pay Host Cities for their losses.

It goes on to say, “But, like it or not, if you want to continue playing host to the Super Bowl, you mostly have to play by NFL rules. That is just how it is.” There are two assumptions in that remark. There is an assumption that Glendale wants to continue to play host to the Super Bowl. I am sure every other Valley city most certainly wants to but is it in Glendale’s best financial interest? Not currently. Don’t be so quick to assume that Glendale should host future Super Bowls without recompense. The other assumption is that every Super Bowl Host City is held hostage by the NFL with their remark, “that is just how it is.” It’s time for potential Host Cities to form their own monopolistic league and negotiate terms with the NFL. It’s time when the NFL asks a Host City to jump, the Host City stops asking “How high?”

The article lays blame on Glendale, its usual modus operandi and its favorite city to bash, by saying, “…Glendale has been slow to grasp these essential details.” Oh really? Glendale successfully hosted a Super Bowl. It knew what to do and when to do it and performed at a very high level.  Glendale has proven its ability to host successfully. Glendale understands what is required of it and when but it is up to the Arizona Host Committee and the NFL to acknowledge Glendale as a full, participating partner. They have failed to do so to date.

Lastly, it says, “The Valley of the Sun has developed a strong reputation among those in college football and basketball and within the NFL who make the decision about where to host their marquee events.” Then it’s up to the member cities of the Valley of the Sun to create a mechanism that makes their sister city, Glendale, financially whole. Glendale was proud to host a Super Bowl and would be proud to host future ones but not by committing financial hari kari.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 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 13

17

With justice for all

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 17, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

 

The September 14, 2013 edition of the Glendale Republic reports that former Assistant City Manager Horatio Skeete and former Assistant Budget Director Don Bolton are appealing their terminations to the City’s Personnel Board (an advisory board of appointed citizens). Good for them. If there is any justice in this world they shouldn’t be left as the only fall guys (along with former Director of Finance Schurhammer and former Budget Director Goke). At the very least the City will have to back up and to prove its charges to the Personnel Board. There remains faint hope that the Attorney General’s office will bring charges against some of those who left before everything hit the fan. Based upon its track record in dismissing all recent Open Meeting Law violation complaints don’t hold your breath.

In City Manager Brenda Fischer’s termination letter to Skeete she says, “This action is based on your violation of city of Glendale policies and procedures. Specifically, the results of an external audit indicate that you were dishonest and misleading to the Glendale City Council on numerous occasions.” Whoo Hoo! If this is her reason for dismissal then there’s a long list of upper management personnel who fit the City Manager’s Bill of Particulars. As just one example, go all the way back to the “Indictment Period.” That was when the City Clerk told Councilmembers that they could backdate their signatures on their annual financial disclosure statements. If that wasn’t dishonest and misleading then there is no such thing. Councilmembers Eggleston, Goulette, Frate (each charged with 2 felonies; Goulette also received perjury charge) and Martinez (1 felony charge) apparently thought there was nothing wrong in doing so and followed her advice.  In 2004 they were indicted by the Maricopa County Grand Jury along with the City Clerk Pam Hanna (9 felony charges) and were charged with violating financial disclosure laws, tampering with and destroying public records, perjury and presenting false instruments for filing.  The charges were eventually dismissed on a technicality. They should be grateful not just for those “technicalities” but for the sharp attorneys who use them as a means of thwarting justice.

 For a period of nearly 10 years, under City Manager Beasley, misleading and dishonesty appeared to have been practiced as fine arts. It became ingrained in the organization’s culture witnessed by directives limiting what a staffer could and could not say to a councilmember. It reached its peak not just with the 2009 dollar transfers from funds but with the 2012 internecine warfare between former City Attorney Tindall and former Assistant City Manager Skeete vying for Council’s appointment as Interim City Manager. Tindall’s faction appeared to have been particularly adept. Isn’t it ironic that the very people who supported Skeete now find their heads chopped off during Acting Assistant Manager Julie Frisoni’s watch? Frisoni was clearly a supporter of Tindall and I can remember attending an event at the city’s convention center when Frisoni and Fire Chief Burdick lobbied me to support Tindall as the Interim City Manager.

It is also mystifying that City Manager Fischer has announced that the city is dropping an investigation into policy violations outside the scope of the external audit. On August 2nd she announced such an investigation. A month later…poof! It’s gone. Such an investigation might have led to other policy violations by active personnel. It might have led to wholesale dismissals which she might not have been able to afford as a new city manager. If that is what is needed, so be it. When there is an infection it must be removed entirely or it just resurfaces somewhere else. Maybe there’s an unwritten code in the fraternity of city managers that says do no harm to past or present brethren. Who knows?

While all this turmoil occurs there is an entire cadre of Glendale personnel quietly doing their jobs to provide the best service possible to Glendale’s residents. They are the people who keep our water running, our streets safe and take care of our garbage and loose trash. They don’t earn the exorbitant salaries that make the newspapers. They are a quiet army that keeps a city running. They should not be smeared with this executive mismanagement paint brush. Many of them were shocked to learn what had occurred. They are to be recognized and thanked for their fierce commitment to Glendale and its residents. So, thank you to all of the City of Glendale employees who faithfully and loyally serve us all.

©Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 Lawwho 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 13

11

Glendale stay the course

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 11, 2013
Posted in Casino  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

On September 11, 2013 the Glendale Republic ran an article by Caitlin McGlade entitled Glendale softens harsh casino tone. It makes me angry to see the AzRepulsive begin its not so subtle media infomercial in an effort to sway public opinion in support of the Tohono O’odham (TO) Tribe’s ambitions.  In my latest unscientific blog poll I asked the question, Is the Arizona Republic’s reporting fair and balanced? Of the 50 respondents, 40 (80%) said, “No” and 10 (20%) said, “Yes.” 4 out of 5 people no longer believe that its coverage is fair and balanced and recognize that its reporting is slanted.

I stand with Congressman Trent Franks, the Gila River Indian Community and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (and all of the tribes in the state supporting them). I do not support a casino in Glendale and I believe a dialogue with the TO only becomes necessary if all legal avenues are closed and the Tribe prevails. It sends the wrong message.

I am not going to repeat all of the reasons why planting a casino in Glendale should not happen. Instead, in April of 2013 I authored a 5 part blog series on the effects of a casino. If you have not read them, please take the time to go back and check them out:

  •    April 11, 2013      Casino, to be or not to be, Part 1
  •    April 15, 2013      Casino…promise made, promise broken, Part 2
  •    April 16, 2013      Casino…good, bad or indifferent?, Part 3
  •    April 22, 2013       A casino is a casino…no matter where it is, Part 4
  •    April 24, 2013      Casino…it’s lose, lose for everyone, Part 5

What truly dumbfounds me is that one of the major rationales for keeping the Coyotes hockey team at Glendale’s Jobing.com Arena is that it generates more people and therefore more sales tax to the businesses (and the city) in Westgate. Yet Councilmember Sherwood apparently believes that the casino will do no harm to Westgate and says, “There’s not enough right now to keep people here. The casino just offers another thing for folks to do if they’re in town.” Is he nuts? Even Peoria Mayor Bob Barrett who has supported the casino from the start acknowledges, “In the short term, it (the casino) will probably hurt Westgate…” Sherwood is speaking from both sides of his mouth. On the one hand keeping the hockey team is good for Westgate and on the other the casino is good for Westgate as “another thing for folks to do.” We know that the casino will siphon discretionary dollars away from Westgate. Councilmember Sherwood, you can’t have it both ways.

Vice Mayor Knaack is performing her usual wringing of hands routine and practicing “kumbaya” with her comment, “We can’t keep on and on and on with this.” She just wants everyone to get along. Whatever happened to sticking to one’s principles? Is this another example like her avowal that she supports the downtown merchants as she votes approval for a liquor license they opposed?

Councilmember Martinez gets it with, “How do casinos attract their clients? Cheap booze, cheap food and the cost of the rooms are minimal. Here (at Westgate) we have hotels and restaurants paying taxes and helping us pay off our debts to the arena and everything else and the tribe comes in with a clean hand and they don’t have to pay anything.” Bravo Councilmember Martinez. You do get it and you are sticking to your principles.

The Gila River Indian Community said, “…any dialogue between the city and the TO would have no bearing on the Gila River’s position.” Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community President Diane Enos said it best in this statement, “If the commitments to keep tribal casinos out of neighborhoods made by all 17 Arizona tribes during Prop. 202 negotiations were being kept, cities like Glendale wouldn’t find themselves in these circumstances, vulnerable to broaching risky developments like this off-reservation casino, exasperated further by the current economic climate in Glendale.” Bravo President Enos. You get it too. I wonder what the Republic’s position would be if the Tribes pulled their considerable advertising dollars?

Let’s at least acknowledge that the TO and its supporters are preying on Glendale’s weakened financial position and using it as leverage to further their cause. Before its indebtedness became a cause célèbre leaders in Glendale stood on principle. How much gold are our elected officials willing to sell out for? Glendale must stay the course.

PS: In the September 12, 2013 edition of the Arizona Republic the story ran again. Only this time the comments from the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the Gila River Indian Community are omitted while keeping the TO’s comments intact. Way to go Arizona Republic!

©Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 Lawwho 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 13

10

Quite ordinary

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 10, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The September 10, 2013 meeting of the City Council has nothing earth shaking on its agenda but there are several items of note. There are 11 actions on the Consent Agenda (out of a total of 17 items) and 3 are note worthy. Item 7 is a Memorandum of Understanding with the Mesa Police Department. In it Glendale will pay $500 each ($1,000 total) for 2 police officer training slots. Typically Glendale sends its recruits to the Arizona Law Enforcement Academy (ALEA) at no cost to Glendale. With the recent economic recession ALEA reduced its program capabilities; hence the need to find an alternative training facility. The good news is that Glendale has already reserved training slots at ALEA for future recruits. But it brings up an interesting question. Glendale has a great deal invested in its Public Safety Training Facility. Perhaps it’s time to assess its functionality and to make plans for its use as a AZPost certified training facility for its police officer recruits as well as those from other NW valley jurisdictions.

Items 10 and 11, also on the Consent Agenda, deal with changes to council meetings and council guidelines. Item 10, if approved, will institute a prayer/invocation rather than a moment of silence at the start of council meetings. In an informal poll hosted on this blog site asking whether council meetings should begin with prayer, 67% polled said, “No” and 33% said, “Yes.” Humm…So much for representing the people. Unscientifically a majority of the poll respondents preferred continuation of a moment of silence. Item 11, if approved, formally institutes the Vice Mayor’s term running according to a calendar year, from January to January; term limits of 2 years for council service on council subcommittees; and staff will have 60 days rather than 30 days to respond to council items of interest.

The last item, Item 17, is an action I suggested would take place rather quickly and it has. On August 13 and August 23, 2013 a council approval of update of signature authorization occurred. After the removal of 4 city staffers and the appointment of Julie Frisoni as Interim Assistant City Manager this item will formalize those changes. If approved, authorized signators will be City Manager Brenda Fischer; Interim Assistant City Managers, Julie Frisoni and Jamsheed Mehta; City Clerk Pam Hanna; and Executive Director Stuart Kent. The City Manager will also be appointed as City Treasurer. It was just a matter of time. Remember the decks had to be cleared first.

Recently council moved its start time for evening meetings to 6 PM. This should prove interesting to all those who show up at 6 PM only to discover that council has called for an Executive Session at 6 PM and that the regularly scheduled meeting will occur at 7 PM after the Esession. It could make for some very confused, unhappy people.

Sometimes the best part of the meeting is the section allowing for council comments. Often they are quite ordinary – thanking someone or some organization or the offering of special recognition. Every once in awhile a councilmember gets off script and throws a bomb. Will there be any bombs at this meeting? Ya never know!

Two other events have occurred recently – IceArizona’s hiring of former Glendale City Attorney Craig Tindall and council’s alleged rapprochement with the Tohono O’odham. They deserve blogs of their own. Look for them in the coming days.

©Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 Lawwho 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 13

5

City staffers weigh in

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 5, 2013
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

In response to a request for any information about the cast of characters or the city hall environment in my Mushroom blogs I received emails, anonymous of course, from presumably city staffers, past and present. I do not know these email authors and their identifiers are names like “concerned citizen” and “deep throat.” From the insider information revealed it is quite clear that they are/were city personnel. Their messages lead me to believe that even with a new City Manager there remains an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.

I pulled some quotes that exemplify the majority sentiment of emails received to date. For example, “There were essentially 2 management teams – Ed’s inner circle & the leadership team.” It makes one wonder which group had the most juice.

Or this, “At agenda review it was a precursor to Council meeting where you were drilled & drilled…sometimes there was pre agenda review before the actual agenda review.” At one time I knew (now long since forgotten) which staffers were tasked with playing the roles of various councilmembers and that at times everyone would crack up because some staffers were really, really good at mimicking certain councilmembers.

There was tension at the time between Schurhammer and Carmicle. We get a glimpse with, “There was also bitter, AND I MEAN BITTER feeling between Budget & HR. Budget office had lots of problems getting info from HR.” A generalized assessment of Alma Carmicle as HR Director seems to be that she was in way over her head and relied heavily upon her staff.

With regard to the 4 staffers that either resigned or were terminated, “They were merely Ed’s good soldiers. And, yes, I get the fact that they should of (sic) told people, but everyone needs a job.” This comment brings up the proposed hotline for employees. With a hotline voices can be recognized and IP addresses can be found. Anonymity is not guaranteed. Consideration should be given to an Ombudsman who must remain neutral and can legitimately investigate allegations while maintaining the anonymity of the employee.

There are questions about Candice MacLeod’s expanded and more prominent role as Auditor with, “Candace McCloud now reports to Council. As I recall in the Charter, only certain positions report to Council and that was not one of them! Doesn’t that require a change in the Charter????” This is a concept that requires further specificity. The Charter states the City Council hires/fires its four direct appointees: The City Manager, the City Attorney, the City Judge and the City Clerk. On a regular basis these 4 appointees submitted either monthly or quarterly reports directly to the council. With this new scheme the City Auditor is not a council appointee yet must report directly to council. There will be an inherent conflict as the City Auditor is hired/fired and supervised by the City Manager. Who takes precedence? It would appear that would be the City Manager.

Lastly all agree on this, “Julie Frisoni was part of Ed’s inner circle. She knew most everything that went on and she was very much aware of the money situation.” Or, “She (Frisoni) framed every major press release and all information had to go through Marketing.” Another comment was, “She is unqualified to be in that position. As far as I know she does not have a Master’s Degree which HR policies says (sic) you need for that position.”

There you have it. Some brave staffers have found a way to weigh in. Please keep those emails coming to clarkjv@aol.com. Your voices are an essential part of the story.

©Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has 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, democracy, 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. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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 »