Laveen 2.1, Part I: Density

I wrote a post a few weeks ago that I knew would be contentious, but did not anticipate the level of divisiveness that it fueled. It was titled "Laveen's Delicate State of Housing, Density, and Growth". What's so delicate, you might ask? Well, aside from the obvious point that we are still in the midst of the housing recovery (and it has slowed drastically in recent months), there are many issues in which I see Laveen precariously divided and without a properly up-to-date strategy going forward.

This division became clearer in watching the videos from the October 30th city council meeting (here and here), at which many Laveen residents spoke both in favor of and against Butler Housing's plan for a slightly denser housing development at 43rd and Baseline (and yes that's me, very dressed down for a formal meeting, but it was a rather stressful day of going back and forth from the hospital and other commitments). So let's look at some of these issues as discussed and/or alluded to in the last few months and explore how they might hint at a shift not only from Laveen 1.0 (low-density, agricultural) to Laveen 2.0 (more suburban, with mostly low- to medium-density tract housing and neighborhood retail), but now to Laveen 2.1, which I think is a fitting name for the revised plan that we should envision after having experienced a full cycle in the housing market over the last decade.

This will be a brief series, starting with density and then exploring traffic, real estate values, and Laveen's overall "feel" -- all of which are recurring topics of discussion both here and in general. So here goes:

Density

I get it, some folks don't like density. I once was on your side -- remember, I supported the legal battle against Berkana. I also fought the apartments planned for 35th Ave. and Southern. The memory of these past battles made me want to look back and reflect on what has changed since then, either about Laveen or my perspective. Here's a blog post that I wrote five years ago about the fight against apartments near Wal-Mart, which I'm glad I found. To this day I am concerned about the quality of development that we will see on that site if it ever gets developed. The high density only helps to facilitate and contribute to low-quality development at such a location in my opinion (although I suppose there's a chance that it could become affordable senior housing, which is pretty inoffensive and a popular, much needed multifamily product at present, as discussed in my last post). This is a separate issue from the site at 43rd and Baseline, largely due to the difference in surrounding amenities.

As was discussed quite vehemently by those opposed to the marijuana dispensary approved for 35th and Southern, Wal-Mart has brought something of a "bad element" to the community and we should be concerned about exacerbating this problem. Since then, the much celebrated C-A-L Ranch Store and others have decided to locate at the same intersection, which I see as positive for the area. I still, however, scratch my head in wonderment about how and why we pushed density toward that intersection. Without digressing too much on this particular example, let's bring it back around by saying that it's now there and it has most certainly changed things. I see the increased traffic to the area as a positive in the overall goal of crowding out the bad with the good -- essentially my overarching theory for promoting positive developments, which once again reflects MLK's famous quote:

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

This brings me back to the overall tone of our discussion on density. Not only has my perspective on appropriate placement and levels of density evolved; not only has the execution of Laveen's overall plan evolved; but there was something else that made me want to jump into the fray on this issue. It was that I picked up on a darker, more insidious element to the anti-density argument. The Laveen faction that most opposed the density on this site seemed to most prominently feature the voices of those who bought larger homes on larger lots in newer subdivisions. These homes are now, for all intents and purposes, regarded as "low density" (although many folks who live on Laveen's rare remaining acreage in the area might call it something more of a "compromise"). In their arguments against density, I detected this precariously qualified notion that they don't hate all density, but they certainly hate it to south of Baseline if a project wasn't previously zoned for higher density. This realization made me question what was so inherently bad about density -- particularly in this location, near where I once bought my own home on a 5,500 square foot lot. Were they blaming homebuyers like me for Laveen's growth-related challenges, while escaping blame themselves? I cannot find a justification for this line of reasoning in the city's most recent annual heat maps of criminal activity, nor could I find justification in analyzing rental rates in newer subdivisions and I made this case in my previous blog post. Therefore, I could not bring myself to oppose the density on these bases or any others.

Urban Village of Laveen

This discussion is incomplete without a reexamination of the overarching paradigm of the Urban Village concept adopted by Phoenix during the heyday of the New Urbanism movement. So too must we reexamine our naively wide-eyed vision for New Urbanism, as well as the specific implementation we envisioned, way back during Laveen 2.0's formative years.... like this blog post that I wrote in 2009, which now seems like an eternity ago. Granted, the housing market and the stock market had already crashed by then, but I was still optimistic about the framework we had created in Laveen and other such enclaves of newly planned growth. Re-reading that post was fascinating to me, and I feel that I owe my audience a little insight into my perspective. Here are some places that I'd visited and studied in recent years prior, as at least somewhat analogous templates (even if wildly inappropriate as direct analogs) for our visions of planned growth:

• Southlake, TX
• Sugarland, TX 
• Las Colinas, TX
• The Woodlands, TX
• Irvine, CA

There were many more, too numerous to list, as well as the trend toward "Traditional Neighborhood Development" that took root in these places and others -- especially suburban growth areas that feature quaint walkable town centers (or even neighborhoods that offer a neat mix of uses). For a great regional example of a truly traditional neighborhood, I'd offer downtown Prescott, AZ, which is often held up as exemplary urban design. However, I can't help but note that downtown Prescott developed largely organically, on its own, in a very different time before the days of zoning and it started with density at the town center (newer growth in Prescott is an abomination to the city's original charm, IMO). Conversely, all of those above named places feature some sort of justifiably powerful centralized planning control (not to mention a great deal of economic resources), which allowed the artificial co-development of high density and low density for their own manifest destinies.

Guess what Laveen lacks: centralized control and clarity of vision. Not only must Laveen struggle with the modern execution of Phoenix's urban village concept, but we tend to erode the legitimacy of Laveen 2.0 with each inappropriate compromise that we allow and each smart compromise that we block (like our Wal-Mart apartments versus smarter SFR layouts near quality amenities). In every such controversy over compromise, we find this vocal minority talking about the prescribed density that we can live with -- density at the future village core, to be located between Baseline and Dobbins along 59th Ave. (see 2002 general plan here). Remember that this is the same density that was shoved down Laveen 1.0's throat a decade before most of our development started.

I'll go into Laveen's overall "feel" in another post, but end this one on a note that the above argument is misguided, possibly even spurious, based in part on our perception of what Laveen is and can be. The anti-density crowd holds onto its false belief that Laveen 2.0 remains "rural", while also rejecting the apparent truth that people tend to move to Laveen seeking housing value. To take it a step further, one of the parties fighting new density in Laveen cited a bit of smart-sounding research about current trends toward higher density mixed-use development (see here, here, and here), but falsely rejected that it matters to Laveen. Note that millenials and aging baby boomers are largely credited with leading these shifts away from the typically suburban toward more urban neighborhoods. When I ran an analysis of Laveen's demographics and community "tapestry" on esri.com, I confirmed that our population has experienced a sea change from "Green Acres" (Laveen 1.0) to "Up and Coming Families" (Laveen 2.0), with additional changes anticipated for the years since the 2010 census information was cited. Laveen does, after all, offer the closest swath of new housing to downtown and the airport, which differentiates the area from other such suburban locales in our metro housing market.

Moving forward, I find it increasingly difficult to toe the line on our expectations for a glorious village center that only makes sense once our embattled Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway gets formal approval. If we seek to preserve that plan, then I propose that we hold firmly against low-density suburban development in the target area, which hasn't been an issue (yet). But to oppose good density elsewhere looks foolish and backwards, especially when Laveen 2.0 is but one interpretation of an ideal balance between high and low density, and it's long overdue for an update. We can and should do better than our already corrupted Laveen 2.0 plan as we move forward, and one such way that we can do that is to squeeze increased density and positive flow closer to fun open spaces as a means to amplify that very benefit that we all agree is most critical to Laveen -- open space. Here's a wonderful article that might just blow your mind if you opposed the project at 43rd and Baseline: "Using urban density to support parks, and vice versa".

Retail Update September 1, 2013

I'm all about taking short cuts..... So while I would love to elaborate on all the exciting progress we've made in recent retail growth, I'll instead provide the following email I sent to an area representative for Harbor Freight Tools, as inspired by Mike Hernandez in our Laveen FB group. The only major development that comes to mind that I missed in this email is the opening of Sinbad's Grocery, just outside Laveen in SoMo (27th Ave. & Baseline) -- go check it out on a weekend, when they have huge spreads of prepared Middle Eastern food available for take-out or (standing) dine-in. We also just got Chipotle and Barro's Pizza, both near Fry's at 51st Ave. & Baseline, so we are finally getting more dining options!

Without further ado, here goes (please let me know what I might have missed):

To: Chris Malherbe

cmalherbe@ngkf.com

(405) 306-7774
http://www.harborfreight.com/real-estate.html

As a former regional director for Choice Hotels International, I know how challenging it can be to manage a large territory and constantly keep up with every corner of every market (mine was essentially "the West" at one point). Therefore, I hope you are as receptive to local insight as I always was in that role, especially if it makes your job a little easier in identifying ideal submarkets with solid locations available. So I have one for you: 

Laveen Village Center, NWC of 35th Ave. & Baseline

Managed by Hinkson Company, LLC

Property Flier: http://hinksoncompany.com/13_0506_laveen_vlg_marketing.pdf

Space available: 15,600 sq ft in-line with monument signage in a newer shopping center

Other major tenants: Big 5, 99 Cents Only, Big Lots, Circle K, Wendy's (just announced), and several local businesses

Key demographics (from property flier): 

1 Mile: 10,685 population, $68,915 avg income

3 Mile: 60,508 population, $72,206 avg income

5 Mile: 146,657 population, $61,764 avg income

Traffic (from property flier):

Baseline Road  29,275 CPD

35th Avenue 17,813 CPD

More about the area:

• Proven demand: Home Depot located 2 miles west at 51st Ave. & Baseline, Lowe's located 2 miles east at 19th Ave. & Baseline.
• 1, 3, 5-mile radii can be misleading; as you can see from the street/freeway configuration and the area's population growth, There is a rather large residential population located to the south and west (85339 ZIP) that travels Baseline Rd. for their daily commute, many of whom turn north on 35th Avenue or 19th Avenue, toward downtown and the large government complex located directly north-northeast of this site.
• Large population to the east in ZIPs 85041, 85042, 85040 may also be drawn to this location.
• Large industrial area to the north and interspersed ranch/agricultural properties indicates significant likelihood that lifestyle/psychographic analysis will yield a sizable DIY market, where Harbor Freight will likely thrive.
• C-A-L Ranch is currently opening a location 1 mile north (35th Ave. and Southern) to reach a similar demographic. 
• This site has direct visibility to the large municipal area directly across the street: park, library, golf course, and school(s); this means great weekday and weekend traffic/visibility

Please let me know if you have any additional questions about the area. I am passionate about this part of town and involved with a great group of like-minded volunteers who come from professional backgrounds and are able to help provide more contextual area information, (besides that readily available to you through ESRI and CoStar reports). This could be helpful if your client, Harbor Freight, decides to pursue this option further. I think it's a slam dunk for you, and this shopping center's owner/manager are working to get deals done quickly, so please do look into it as soon as possible. 

Best regards,

Patrick T. Brennan

@Home Properties and Management

http://www.patrickbrennan.us
Direct | 480.559.9429
Fax | 602.467.3165

District 8, Vote Now, Vote Smart

The time is now upon us, D8 residents. If you haven't yet voted in the city council primary, you can go today (Saturday), or Monday or Tuesday, to one of our city's polling places -- here's an interactive polling place locator -- and cast your preference. If you received an early ballot and are still holding onto it, please don't mail it now, but instead drop it off at a polling location. Here's more info about where and how to vote.

I've attended two of our local candidate forums and have otherwise followed this election by asking several of the candidates to complete a questionnaire for my blog (read their responses here), as well as following others' coverage of this race. My wife Catherine and I have chosen to support our friend, Kate Gallego. I encourage you to do the same -- but only after learning more about the five official candidates and their platforms. Click their names below for links to their campaign websites, and note that the following order is my prediction of popular vote turnout, based purely on my gut instinct about the candidates' support base and campaigns thus far (and maybe a little personal bias between #1 and #2, which will likely be close):

Kate Gallego
Lawerence Robinson
Warren Stewart
Luis Rodriguez
Carolyn T. Lowery

This election should rightfully come down to a choice between Kate Gallego and Lawrence Robinson, who I hope to see in the runoff election if there is one, and here's my reasoning, based on each campaign:

Carolyn T. Lowery

Let's start on a positive note about Carolyn T. Lowery, who has run a purely grassroots campaign and probably doesn't stand a chance of winning. If you attended any of the earlier candidate forums (sadly, she didn't attend the Laveen forum), then you know that this lady is passionate, entertaining, and absolutely deserves a seat at the table. It's hard not to cheer for her and her focus on special communities in district 8 that often lack a voice, like the elderly and the economically disadvantaged. To be clear, she's not just some bleeding heart begging for handouts, but she actually seems to pick up on some important nuances about localized issues that affect neighborhoods. I also appreciated her appeal to voters (paraphrased): "Who knows, maybe you'll decide to take a chance on that nice lady, Carolyn."

Luis Rodriguez

Next we have the Tea Party favorite, Luis Rodriquez, whose campaign message at the candidate forums was essentially, "District 8 is a scary horrible place; get out now, but vote for me first." His campaign will likely take offense to this characterization, as Rodriguez touts his military record, plus his focus on "eliminating red tape" and promoting more sound fiscal policy from the city. In all fairness, I thought he brought up some very solid points about how we could better manage the city's finances -- he sold me on hiring him on city staff to tackle waste, but not as a candidate for council. His message came off more negative than positive and was rife with logical inconsistencies about his perception of the city government's role in managing a city.

Warren Stewart

Speaking of ugliness and negativity.... Who would have suspected that so much would come from the campaign of the only clergy member running in this race?! While the Stewart campaign would very much like to forget these episodes, it's hard not to recall the turmoil unleashed by his supporters over racial politics in District 8, most notably this one that employs ugly racial name-calling and this one featuring Stewart supporter and allegedly corrupt politician, Mary Rose Wilcox. And let's not forget this article that kicked off the unflattering but mostly truthful coverage of south Phoenix, while also highlighting Stewart's work with the "old guard" -- mostly behind closed doors. Sorry, but this campaign seriously fails to connect with younger voters and new transplants to D8, which includes a significant portion of Laveen. Speaking of Laveen and the greater south Phoenix area, did anyone else catch his comment at one of our forums regarding his "first term" on council? Whoa now, settle down there, Mr. Candidate! I'm not sure that you're as entitled to this office as you seem to think. And if it seems that I'm giving too much attention to this candidate, it may be due to the fact that his campaign took almost a week to respond to my May 26th request for comment, only to say that he would follow up a few days later and then never did. That response came from Stewart's campaign director who, according to his corporate filings, lives all the way up north of the 101.... so maybe I was a little hasty in expecting my email to travel that far in the amount of time I expected. Oh well, they didn't want my support anyway I guess -- they certainly haven't been out in the community, asking for it, like the next two candidates have...

Lawrence Robinson

Robinson's campaign is practically synonymous with The RISE of South Phoenix, which is something fierce of a grassroots community group with some very smart, capable, passionate folks involved. I respect these guys and see many more young politicians in the making here -- not to mention at least one kingmaker in the mix, who I presume wishes to remain nameless, but he knows who he is and I'm happy to give him credit if he will accept it. To be clear, I have a good deal of positive sentiment for Robinson and his campaign, which I don't attempt to hide. He's charismatic, he's running a smart campaign, and he's an ideal 2nd place candidate.... After all, as much as I like the guy, I think he's got enough on his plate already.

Shortly after moving here from NY in 2009, Robinson went to work as a staffer for the Democratic caucus in the state house of representatives and later left that position for a teaching role at the private for-profit college, Phoenix School of Law. He also serves on the Roosevelt School Board, although it is not reflected currently on his linkedin profile, and his school district bio reads like a campaign announcement (go ahead and read it for yourself). Do you see where I'm going with this? I might just be a little sensitive to the fact that Robinson ran for school board and then within a month or two of being elected he announced his candidacy for city council. Judging by Robinson's response to questions at public forums (like responding to one question by pointing out that it's his constitutional right to run for another office while serving), he seems to be a little bit sensitive about this topic, too -- as he should be! The Roosevelt School District, like many school districts in political hotbeds like ours, has long been the victim of neglect by self-serving board members with greater political ambitions. Whether this is a fair assessment of Robinson or not, we need to keep him on the defensive about it.

All that said, I generally do like most of Robinson's policy ideas.... except where I think he lacks depth on issues related to economic development, zoning, and real estate. Not to make too little of social issues, but these issues are by far the most critical in a city council district that includes Phoenix's population-growth juggernaut, aka Laveen, as well as the airport, the light rail corridor, and important redevelopment corridors in the downtown and south Phoenix areas.

Kate Gallego

That brings us to Kate. She is a friend and an admirable community leader, and yet I feel that I've failed her up to this point by making myself too busy to publish this post or volunteer, and also by hamstringing myself with a promise to remain somewhat unbiased in the public sphere regarding this election (which I inadvertently extended for far too long). That said, I am quite biased in favor of Kate -- not just because of my wife's and my friendship with her, but also because she's one of the very few people in this world who will indulge me with technical conversations about zoning, economic development, and other such issues. She's also one of the few people in this world who gracefully yet commandingly interrupts my tangential diatribes to keep our discussions on point. But this isn't just about me -- it's about Laveen and District 8, so back to that....

We need someone who understands Laveen and south Phoenix, particularly the more subtle growth dynamics that impact our community, both in contrast with and in light of those other subtle growth dynamics in redevelopment areas like the light rail corridor and downtown. Kate's experience as an economic development professional and her work on PlanPHX have given her an almost unfair advantage over the other candidates in this arena. She brings a well rounded perspective, an impressive resume, and an ability to take charge of issues by dominating the details. She runs a political race against a pastor and a non-practicing attorney, yet she manages to bring home almost every point far more effectively than these silver-tongued wordsmiths -- that's because she knows her stuff! Also, she's been the only candidate to make meaningful contributions to Laveen-specific issues and reliably show up at community meetings/events in Laveen. And remember how I mentioned that she knows how to keep discussions on point? Yeah, that will help tremendously when it comes to fighting for limited resources from the city -- which we need in D8. As far as I'm concerned, we are by far the most important district in the city, and Kate understands this and knows how to leverage it. She will not stand by and let double-speaking buffoons like Sal DiCiccio dominate the discussion.

And back to my personal take for a moment, I can't help but comment that Kate's team wins the contest for door-knocking at the Brennan house. This is notable because a) no one ever bothers to solicit our quiet out-of-the-way street and b) door-knocking is critical when it comes to connecting with people.

And finally, I am in a unique position to comment on another issue: There's at least one Laveen community member who has repeatedly and incorrectly called Kate a "carpetbagger". Ahem, you must be kidding me! I've been talking to Kate and her husband Ruben for at least three or four years about moving to the Laveen-SoMo area from their old downtown condo, also in District 8 (both before and after redistricting, btw). A mutual friend of ours worked masterfully on their behalf to snag them a beautiful home earlier this year, following a lengthy search. The Gallegos, their realtor (my friend Victor Jett Contreras), and I spoke on many occasions about their planned move, and I can promise that they landed right where they wanted to be because they love the area. It's not quite Laveen, but we can't always hit the bullseye. And Kate is the only candidate offering more than lip service about her commitment to Laveen. So it is with pleasure that I announce my endorsement of Kate Gallego and encourage the rest of District 8 to do the same -- especially Laveen.... and downtown.... and SoMo.... and anyone else. Eh, you get the idea. Go Kate!

Part II of II: Questions for District 8 Candidates

As promised a couple of weeks ago, I am now sharing responses to the 10 questions that I posted at that time, eight of which were borrowed from Jon Talton, plus two more that I added. This time around, there is an 11th question, thanks to Laveen resident Stefany Scovell's request via our Laveen community FB group that we add disability resources/enforcement into the mix. I asked three of the District 8 candidates for their responses and have received them from Kate Gallego and Lawrence Robinson thus far. If I receive more in the next couple of days, I may add those as well. Here are their responses:

1. Please detail your connections to the real-estate industry: Properties you own; do you work in the industry and if so, doing what?; have you served on boards that make recommendations on land use?; have you profited from land-use decisions made by public bodies, including the approval and siting of freeways?

Gallego: My husband Ruben and I own our own home and have invested in rental property.  I am very interested in land use and volunteer my time serving on a village planning commission and as Vice Chair of MyPlanPHX, the Phoenix General Plan Update Effort.  I have not profited from land-use decisions, but I have gained the experience I need to represent this community.   While other candidates will need to rely on developers or staff, I have firsthand knowledge of the development process and the tools we have to improve traffic, invest in economic development, and protect quality of life.

Robinson: I have owned my home in South Phoenix since 2009. A licensed attorney, I work as a law professor at the Phoenix School of Law, and was elected to the Roosevelt Elementary School District Governing Board in November. I have not faced land-use decisions in that role. I have not served on any boards or commissions that work on land use, nor have profited from any. I have however served on the city’s Community Engagement and Outreach Task Force and the City of Phoenix Water Roundtable. I have served on the boards of non-profits, such as One n Ten, an organization that provides services for LGBT youth.

2. Do you support light rail, including expanding the system and adding more frequent service?

Gallego: I whole-heartedly support the expansion of light rail, and I have been the most active in making sure District 8 gets its fair share of our transportation dollars. I have pushed for our district through my role as one of the leaders of the Phoenix General Plan update, and I have also supported light rail through my work as Chair of the Environmental Quality Commission and on a village planning commission.  As the most experienced candidate, I am best positioned to deliver results.

District 8 is an area that relies more heavily on public transit than others, but the southern portion of the district was left out of the original plan for light rail expansion. I support extending light rail south along Central and adding more frequent and longer service.  Light rail needs to be part of a multimodal system that includes bicycle lanes and space for bike share, which haven’t been included in recent extensions.

I would also like to offer additional tools for patrons to use their phones to know when future trains will be arriving (text messaging service and smart phone apps). I would also support including commercial space in light rail stations—it would be great to buy a cup of coffee while I am waiting at the station.

As the only candidate who has lived and worked near light rail, I know that we can do a better job protecting existing businesses and residents as we build new projects.

Robinson: I wholeheartedly support extending Metro Light Rail into District 8. Strengthening our existing local businesses and opening new ones in the area – which will create the jobs we need - will depend on building and developing public transportation connections between our neighborhoods, both within the district and citywide. A meaningful public transportation network will attract new visitors and residents to our area, providing increased foot and vehicle traffic for our small and local businesses, and serving as a catalyst for the development of empty lots along the train line and in the Discovery Triangle region.

To maximize the benefit to our neighborhoods, we must plan sustainable development along the Lightrail line. This means offering smart incentives for the development of the vacant lots along the train route. It also means working with all the stakeholders involved in the area’s development to ensure the area is pedestrian and bike friendly, with bikeable, walkable, and shaded areas. Buildings should be built with shade and pedestrian use in mind – to be truly sustainable, we must always think sustainable. We need to think creatively to ensure we make the most of the structures we already have by using incentives for redevelopment and adaptive reuse, and explore creative private/public partnerships wherever possible.

3. Do you support increasing transportation options in Phoenix with better bus service, and connecting the suburbs with commuter rail?

Gallego: I want Phoenix to be an extremely accessible city. To achieve this goal, we must have a more connected and diverse transportation network. To increase the efficiency of the bus system I’ve proposed adding smart stops with electronic arrival signs, more busses and more routes. Additionally, I will fight for commuter rail to make Phoenix a greater hub for economic activity.  I have worked regional transportation planning through my role in SRP’s economic development group and as a leader of the Phoenix General Plan, so I have the experience to deliver.

Robinson: As well as extending Metro Light Rail into District 8, we simply must expand bus routes and alternative modes of transportation, as well as ensuring new developments are pedestrian and bike friendly. Public transportation options from the Lightrail to buses to biking will be the most successful when we develop a high-quality, interconnected system where the different modes of public transportation support one another. Varied transportation options that connect to one another and allow people to move quickly around the area, as well as come to the area from other parts of the city and state, is central to our long-term economic development and growth.

4. What is your position on additional annexation?

Gallego: I would like to see Phoenix grow up, not out. Our priorities should be building on vacant lots in the city and redevelopment, not annexing new lands. I support annexing the county islands within the city if the owners of those lands are interested in being part of the city. Annexing county land will give the city more ability to plan across South Phoenix and Laveen and improve service to residents.

Robinson: Additional annexation of county islands can make sense when it meets the needs and wants of residents that live there. It can also be a more fiscally responsible and effective way of managing those areas, and residents should have access to city services such as police, fire, and waste. I would not support additional annexation of county lands outside the city, but rather promote infill development on existing city land to make denser, safer and more sustainable neighborhoods. Each particular decision of annexation must be based on the specific and specialized needs and wants of residents of the area and the financial budget of the city. When it comes to growth and development, there is no appropriate one-size-fits-all approach. Each decision must be evaluated on its relative advantages and disadvantages, and be made in conjunction with all the interested stakeholders.

5. What is the city's role in downtown economic development?

Gallego: The city government needs to take an active role in ensuring that we have a vibrant, safe, and sustainable city core.  My first priority will be implementing the many plans and programs we have already created from the Shade and Tree Master Plan to the Downtown Form Based Code.   Unlike the other candidates, I have been involved in developing these plans, and I want to make sure we devote the resources needed to execute them.  I have lived downtown and serve in leadership positions such as the Central City Village Planning Commission and the Board of the Arizona Latino Arts and Cultural Center.  I have the experience needed to continue the progress Phoenix is already making downtown—to make downtown a much-visit destination for business, recreation, and tourism.

I have been involved with many dialogues and policy developments downtown, and most stakeholders agree that we want a dense, walkable downtown with unique businesses, academic, arts, and cultural institutions.  We need more residential development, corporate headquarters, and street-level uses.  I would like to see fewer vacant lots and surface parking lots.

Downtown Phoenix has an extensive group of stakeholders including businesses, residents, and non-profits.  The city council and mayor represent all of these stakeholders and are most accountable to the public, so the elected officials need to make sure stakeholders work together.  However, we need to listen to these stakeholders and respect the progress they have already made.  The city manages many public funds for downtown development, and fiscal responsibility is also key.

Robinson: A vibrant downtown area is at the center of a strong city, and an ongoing commitment to a variety of downtown accommodations, restaurants and amenities is central to that vision. Our downtown area has transformed before our eyes over the last decade, but we cannot rest here. We must ensure continued growth and development that makes sense, as well as the creation and expansion of important amenities like bike paths, shaded areas and connected public transportation options. The continued development of our downtown area will strengthen our local businesses city-wide. To allow this development, the City must ensure new businesses have the tools they need to be successful, and that the City serves as a partner rather than a roadblock to new amenities and services opening and operating. Our city leaders must also focus on a long-term vision for our downtown area that they use to inform their everyday decisions that relate to the development of the area. 

6. What is the city's role in creating more effective economic development for Phoenix as a whole? As things stand, Phoenix keeps losing assets and jobs to the suburbs, and it lacks the headquarters companies, high-paid jobs and economic diversity of other large cities, or even many smaller ones such as Seattle, Denver and Portland.

Gallego: Economic development is a regional business, and we need to compete with other regions and countries, not other cities in the Valley.  I will use my experience as a member of the Arizona Association for Economic Development and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce Economic Development to make economic development a higher priority.   

Arizona now has new tools to attract high-value employers such as corporate headquarters and research facilities, and I will work with GPEC and the Arizona Commerce Authority to ensure District 8 gets its fair share of these jobs.   I will also make sure we invest in the infrastructure we need to pursue high-wage industries such as technology, healthcare, and mission critical business services.

We need to do more to support the growth of our existing companies. I would like to see Washington Row and the Warehouse District become the leading area for startups, and I want to see a new business incubator south of the river.  We should to leverage community development finance institutions, state programs, and private sector partners to ensure companies have the capital they need to grow in Phoenix.  We also need to make it easy to do business with the City of Phoenix, whether the business needs a permit or upgraded water service.  

Companies want to locate in cities with strong infrastructure, qualified workforces, and livable communities.  We should understand that investments in our educational system, arts, and the environment also contribute to the decisions that business leaders make about where they want to locate their operations.  

I list additional economic development ideas at www.gallego4phoenix.com.

Robinson: We must foster an environment that is conducive to both allowing our existing businesses to grow and attracting and retaining the new high-wage industries of the future to Phoenix. This means a continued commitment to streamlining our licensing and permitting processes for new businesses and always seeking to provide our existing businesses the tools they need to thrive. It means that we must be the kind of city that attracts new businesses and the diverse talent needed to fill the jobs they create. This means strong and safe neighborhoods, excellent local schools, and a variety of amenities and attractions such as arts and cultural opportunities and clean, open park space. And it means we must be aggressive about recruiting new businesses to Phoenix, and promoting the great things our city has to offer. 

7. Do you support expanding the downtown biomedical campus?

Gallego: I support expanding the downtown biomedical campus and utilizing the city-owned parcels that have been reserved for the campus.  I will lobby for more state and private resources to expand the campus and leverage the city’s investment.  Phoenix has the potential to be a leader in many medical fields such as personalized medicine, and we need to leverage resources such as the Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen) to create more high-wage jobs.  

In order to succeed, the campus needs to work closely with the many strong neighborhoods near it. 

Robinson: Yes, education is important to attracting and retaining high quality jobs and the employees to fill them, and as a member of the Roosevelt Elementary School District Governing Board, I am strongly committed to ensuring all of our children have access to a high-class education that will fully prepare them to compete for 21st century jobs - from Kindergarden all the way to post-graduate schools. Business owners - of small and large, local and national companies - are more likely to locate to vibrant areas with strong, safe neighborhoods with high quality local schools. The quality of our schools and neighborhoods directly relates to supporting and opening new businesses, and I will fight without compromise for both. 

Furthermore, the medical and bioscience fields are exactly the kind of growth industries we need to attract and retain to Phoenix. Expanding the campus will serve as an important catalyst to allow us to realize our full potential to become a hub for these fields. 

8. What would you do to address the problem of empty, blighted land in the Central Corridor?

Gallego: The city owns several parcels in the central core, and we need to be very careful that we are only land banking for well-defined and strategic projects.   The city may need to package its small and oddly shaped parcels together so that the private sector can afford to buy and develop them (generating much needed revenue while reducing blight).

District 8 also includes land that has not developed due to local environmental problems.  I have an environmental studies degree and have supported the city’s brownfields revitalization program, so I am well positioned to push for the cleanup and development of contaminated parcels.  

Some of the land is approved for uses that are struggling to get financing in this market, and I will work with each landowner to push them to develop buildings that make sense in this economy (even if those buildings do not use all of the height to which they are entitled).  I will encourage landowners who do not develop their land to allow temporary uses such as events and community gardens.  I also support eliminating the tax break for undeveloped land.

Robinson: We must address vacant lots by encouraging new, sustainable development. Vacant lots are everywhere in District 8, lowering property values, leading to higher rates of crime, and exacerbating respiratory problems that reduce the quality of life in our city. Infill development on existing lots should be encouraged through smart economic incentives that make sense and serve to further our economic development – I am not talking about useless tax giveaways or incentives for the sake of it. Additionally, we should promote community-based initiatives, such as community gardens, on vacant lots, and make the most of engaging the non-profit community and private/public partnerships. And we must engage with residents about the importance of reporting issues like dumping, littering, and crime in vacant lots – and inform them how to do it.

9.What do you think of the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway?

Gallego: I support building the South Mountain Freeway.  The recently completed environmental impact study concluded that the freeway will reduce congestion and pollution while delivering economic development to the district. I would like to work with the Gila River Indian Community to develop a route that does not go through South Mountain Park if it is possible to do so without delaying the project.  

Robinson: I support the Loop 202 but want to address environmental and Native American concerns. I am committed to sitting down with all stakeholders to find a solution that meets the need of all groups.

10. What do you think are the three most important issues facing Laveen in the immediate future?

Gallego: Laveen needs additional economic development.  The nearest hospital for most Laveen residents is a 30-minute drive; this is an unacceptable hurdle for medical emergencies. We need an emergency medical center in Laveen as well as more doctor and dental offices.  I would like to see more family entertainment options such as a movie theater and more local restaurants.  We also need additional high-wage jobs such as professional services firms, which will be key to supporting these additional restaurants during the week.  We need to take advantage of our great tourism resources such as South Mountain Park (recognized for its great hiking trails by National Geographic) and Aguila Golf Course, which Golf Digest rates as one of the top municipal courses in the country (same score as The Boulder’s Resort and JW Marriott Desert Ridge).   I would also like to see more educational resources including support services for students with learning disabilities and a full community college campus.  As an economic development professional, I am the best suited to develop local businesses and to help bring in new investments.  I understand how businesses make investment decisions, and I know the tools that cities have to bring desired economic development while honoring Laveen’s history.  

Second, I think Laveen needs additional investment in transportation infrastructure.   I support expanded bus routes, shaded bus stops, adding bike lanes and improving sidewalks.  We need to build the 202 and make improvements to manage traffic associated with the Vee Quiva Casino.  There are several areas that need traffic lights, and we need to improve safety and traffic flow near several schools including Betty Fairfax.

Third, I think Laveen needs its fair share of city resources.  We need to improve response time for police complaints in Laveen.  The City of Phoenix should build the Laveen Recreation Center and the same types of dog and splash parks that the city has built in other districts.  We should also get more city investment in canal beautification projects.  I will fight to bring Laveen the resources that it deserves.   During the last boom, city investment did not keep up with growth.  I will use my experience working with the city to make sure we do not make the same mistake twice.

Robinson: Laveen is the home of my mother and grandmother. In my mother’s words, she moved into the area under the promise that “it would be built up, but it hasn’t happened”. Three issues Laveen needs to overcome are economic diversity, accessibility of transportation, and educational opportunities.

Laveen is home to many skilled workers that travel outside of the neighborhood for work. We need to look to attract new, high-wage jobs to the area, allowing families to work in their own community. Greater access to quality public transportation options will both attract new businesses to the area, and allow for people who live in the areas surrounding Laveen to easily travel to new jobs in the area.

Laveen is also home to many young families. We need to make sure that the city is supporting the education of these students in every way possible – as they are the leaders of tomorrow. As your City Councilman, I will fight for the restoration of funding for vital afterschool programs and important amenities that aid learning such as open libraries and learning opportunities like museums and cultural events.

11. What about disability issues? Enforcement of ADA standards? Inclusion to all events for the disabled? Monitoring the number of tickets written for parking in the handicap spots and education?

Gallego: I have a strong record in this area.  I have pushed Phoenix to develop a Complete Streets policy that accommodates all users including people who use wheelchairs.  I have also led the Inclusion Committee for the Arizona Commission on Service and Volunteerism, which works to include people with disabilities in national service and volunteer projects.  

The City of Phoenix needs to develop its streets so that they are accessible to all types of traffic. This includes wheelchair accessible sidewalks and smart traffic signals that allow people using mobility aids to travel more safely. Additionally, I will hold the city responsible to make sure we are adhering to ADA standards, educating the public and our employees about disability issues, and enforcing current ordinances such as providing wheelchair-accessible parking. 

Robinson: I am running for the Phoenix City Council to ensure a fully inclusive city that protects, promotes and represents ALL residents equally. It’s the same reason that I led the team that drafted the early version of the comprehensive non-discrimination policy that the City recently adopted, which expanded the existing ordinance to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability, sexuality and gender-identity. Other cities – our competitors nationwide - that have passed similar ordinances have found holistic non-discrimination policies to assist them in attracting, retaining and promoting a diverse and talented workforce and community, which is good for business and good for our local and regional economy. 

Truly representing and promoting every resident means going beyond preventing discrimination and also actively promoting policies that affect our under-represented communities, such as enforcement of ADA standards wherever possible in new and existing developments, and protection of important amenities for disabled people – like disabled parking spots.

Part I of II: Questions for District 8 Candidates

First let me preface this with the fact that these initial questions are not my own. I have followed an AZ ex-pat blogger/journalist for many years now, Jon Talton, who was recently asked by a group called "Democracy for America-Maricopa County" to offer a few questions for Phoenix City Council candidates. Mr. Talton currently calls Seattle home, but he once wrote a business column for the AZ Republic and he apparently still owns property here in Phoenix -- plus, he writes his own blog that keeps tabs on our fine city, and I read every post. While we do not see eye to eye on all issues (Loop 202, for instance), I greatly respect his views on downtown Phoenix and other vital issues that impact our city/metro region. Therefore, I found it entirely appropriate to ask if I could perchance borrow his questionnaire to ask our District 8 candidates where they stand on important issues.

While I may no longer live in Laveen, I still live right down the street in District 8 and therefore have a few opinions myself about these issues. So I'm starting this two-part series by offering my responses off-the-cuff (as Socrates said, "an unexamined life is not worth living"), and will continue this miniseries with the responses from our candidates in a later post. Here are the questions, followed by my responses:

1. Please detail your connections to the real-estate industry: Properties you own; do you work in the industry and if so, doing what?; have you served on boards that make recommendations on land use?; have you profited from land-use decisions made by public bodies, including the approval and siting of freeways?

My personal response: I work in real estate as a residential agent (realtor); my wife and I own our previous Laveen residence and rent it to a wonderful tenant, plus I own a vacant lot in south Phoenix that will hopefully soon become the future home of our business, ZonieBaskets; I have in the past served on the LVPC and on a city of Phoenix development services ad hoc taskforce. I feel that these experiences, as well as my past work related to hotel real estate, are valuable in my ongoing learning about land use and regional planning. To the best of my knowledge, I have never profited from policy decisions related to real estate, although I'd like to think that my public involvement has helped preserve value in the neighborhoods where I've volunteered my time and energy, including my own.

2. Do you support light rail, including expanding the system and adding more frequent service?

My personal response: Yes, yes, and yes. The ongoing light rail corridor study for S. Central is vitally important to the greater south Phoenix area, including Laveen. I am a strong advocate for its furtherance, and I'm optimistic that it will move forward. Same goes for the western extension along the I-10 corridor, which will likely provide an important link to future transit options that benefit Laveen.

3. Do you support increasing transportation options in Phoenix with better bus service, and connecting the suburbs with commuter rail?

My personal response:  Yes, absolutely. Please see my above response. However, I'm still frustrated by the choice of 27th Avenue and Baseline for Laveen's first park & ride, instead of 35th Avenue and Baseline (see my previous blog post here). I also think we can better utilize Laveen's greenbelt system for biking and walking, by providing better major roadway crossings (see here).

4. What is your position on additional annexation?

My personal response:  County islands? Sure, why not. Further annexation for the sake of growth? No thank you. Please let Scottsdale, Cave Creek, and Peoria fight over further annexation to the north.

5. What is the city's role in downtown economic development?

My personal response:  This to me is paramount. We all benefit from a stronger downtown, and our current downtown lacks residential density. If we want the amenities that a strong and vibrant downtown can provide, then we must support and encourage infill growth there.

6. What is the city's role in creating more effective economic development for Phoenix as a whole? As things stand, Phoenix keeps losing assets and jobs to the suburbs, and it lacks the headquarters companies, high-paid jobs and economic diversity of other large cities, or even many smaller ones such as Seattle, Denver and Portland.

My personal response:  Firstly, we need to keep supporting and promoting local businesses, which our current mayor and council appear committed to do. We need to do more with business incubators that help provide resources necessary to scale up existing local companies, and this needs to happen in our core and elsewhere throughout our city. A couple of vital components in helping local businesses are our treatment of adaptive reuse projects and creating more streamlined permitting processes. While we have made progress in these areas, much work remains to be done.

Secondly, our city government needs to better appreciate the comparative advantage of areas like Laveen when competing for greenfield development against Phoenix's suburban areas -- especially once we get a decision on the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway. One way that we can make this happen is to ensure that our city's own economic development department is well versed in promoting our positive attributes, but we also need to exert more pressure on our regional partners, like GPEC and the Arizona Commerce Authority.

And finally, we need to support our local businesses by getting far more creative in recognizing when they are doing something good -- even when we don't really understand it. For a prime example related to Laveen, please see my post regarding the automotive businesses located on Broadway, titled "Laveen-SoMo, Motor City?" As our streets and transportation department struggles with plans to beautify the area, they've made clear that they completely fail to understand this street's occupants and their needs. Meanwhile, our city planners are hearing from multiple people that plans for city redevelopment needs to do more to "celebrate unique communities" in Phoenix, whether residential, commercial or otherwise (as was shared with me recently by a city planner). Thank goodness they're listening!

7. Do you support expanding the downtown biomedical campus?

My personal response:  As a graduate of UA, I'm a tad biased in favor of the biomedical campus. But simply for the sake of our downtown and nearby areas like Laveen, I'm even more for it. High paying jobs, education, research... What's not to like?

8. What would you do to address the problem of empty, blighted land in the Central Corridor?

My personal response:  Getting away from the fundamental issue of individual property rights, this kind of question conjures a carrot and stick analysis in my mind -- incentives versus disincentives. While I do not care for the prevalence of vacant lots in our city, a problem that our municipal leadership itself has exacerbated over the years, I also don't think we can get as far with disincentives as we can with incentives. We don't desperately need for all of them to start building immediately, but we do need to see some progress in this arena.

Increasing the utility of those lots, which can be done by either developing them or at least helping to make them more useful to their surrounding neighborhoods, would offer a big step in the right direction. We could make significant progress by helping the owners of vacant lots mitigate their liability from allowing neighbors to use them. This is a far more detailed discussion than I care to expound upon here, but I think that the city could help facilitate the temporary "borrowing" of vacant lots by neighbors and community organizations -- in part by insuring land owners against liability (or at least helping them to do it on their own) and by promoting such activity in targeted neighborhoods. This provides an incentive to land owners by not only helping to alleviate maintenance issues, but also by adding value to those lots through community strength.

Here are a few Laveen-specific questions of my own:

9.What do you think of the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway?

My personal response: Read my blog (yep, I just linked back to this blog), or check out the group that I co-created with fellow community leaders several years ago: Friends of the South Mountain Freeway.

10. What do you think are the three most important issues facing Laveen in the immediate future?

My personal response: 1. Traffic/infrastructure (Loop 202, HAWK signals, safe routes to schools, etc. -- all detailed in past blog posts like this one); 2. Business/economic development (again, as outlined plenty in the past, and very much related to the Loop 202 discussion); and 3. Enhanced social services, like healthcare (again, related to the 202) and recreational amenities for kids in the community.

Related to the last one, please expect a forthcoming blog post about suburban poverty and how it has impacted the Laveen and Ahwatukee areas. This was inspired by a recent national report on the subject, published by the Brookings Institution.

Those are all of my questions and answers, so I'll next reach out to our candidates for their responses and then publish those without commentary as "Part II of II" (am I the only one who thinks Roman numerals are fun?). I'll also see if they read my blog and, if they do, suggest that they perhaps try to get a jump on #10 by checking out our recent community survey results from my last post. But first, did I forget anything? What would you ask?

Introductions Are In Order: Laveen, Meet Your Newest Pro-202 Special Interest Group

In case you hadn't yet noticed, there's a facebook button on the right side of this blog for the "Friends of the South Mountain Freeway". This is a page that I created in 2010 on behalf of several folks who support the Loop 202, myself included. We have never been paid, we have no budget, and we have therefore been intermittently active or not very active, depending on whether anyone gets inspired to say something important about the 202. Thankfully, that's been somewhat frequent lately -- especially for fellow page administrator and prominent Laveen residents Erika Keenan and Claudine Reifschneider. Erika and Claudine have put in countless hours for Laveen, particularly on behalf of Loop 202 advocacy in recent months (and getting about a hundred Laveen residents to show up to the city's budget hearing to ask for much needed resources). They have not, however, made any robocalls of which I'm aware -- remember, we have no budget for this campaign.

Who's Calling Me?

If you have received a call asking how you feel about the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway, it was likely from the "Let's Build the 202" people. I understand that they have also sent out pro-202 mailings -- definitely not in our budget. Pleasantly surprised by this campaign, I did a little research after learning about the group's website in our Laveen FB group. My first impression of the website was that this looks like the work of a professional PR team, so my inner skeptic guided me to keep digging. Who in the world is paying these people?!

Luckily, this is not some sort of secretive effort. At the bottom of their webpage, the pro-202 group includes a link to their main organization page, "We Build Arizona". With a little further research, I found that this is an AZ non-profit corporation, listing Ronda Barnes of Perkins Coie as statutory agent. The officers and directors are a who's who of development interests, representing the Arizona Builders Alliance, the Associated General Contractors of America (AZ Chapter), the Tucson Utility Contractors Association, and others. Additionally, we know that District 7 Councilman Michael Nowakowski and District 27 Representative Ruben Gallego have been working diligently with their staff to promote the buildout of the Loop 202 SMF -- they co-hosted a public meeting in Laveen last week to inform residents about the process, and representatives from "Let's Build the 202" were also invited.

What's in It for Them?

Resources and growth. For Nowakowski and Gallego's constituents in Laveen, as well as for Ahwatukee residents, the freeway represents a vital economic development component, as it promises to bring the area much needed medical and commercial amenities. For the builders and their respective lobbies, it means a return of new construction where we need it. According to ADOT's environmental impact study, almost half of the region's near-term growth is anticipated within the area to be served by this freeway. After having been recently overlooked in favor of the far-flung SE Valley and NW Valley areas for new freeway projects, it's about time that we recognize the needs of this rather large swath of south Phoenix -- and recognizing it, we are. So are the business interests that will be building additional homes and those other amenities previously discussed. 

So Here We Are, All on the Same Side

Obviously, the residents of the impacted area and the construction interests share an economic benefit, most obviously to Laveen, western Ahwatukee, and the Gila River Indian Community. This helps explain why in a recent survey of active Laveen FB group members (who tend to skew higher in income and education than the community as a whole), 87% support the freeway. According to the recent HighGround survey, commissioned by the lobbying group, 59% of likely voters in Laveen and Ahwatukee support the Loop 202 SMF, and 64.3% of likely voters throughout Maricopa County agree. I guess those folks located elsewhere are in it for the regional traffic flow benefits, and perhaps they'd like to more easily visit their 75,000+ (and growing) friends and family in the Laveen-Ahwatukee area, or perhaps they want to have some fun at the huge new casino at Vee Quiva. Whatever the reason, I say welcome friends, let's work together to get this done -- and let's use the builders associations' funding to make it happen!