Why I Support the Dispensary

As many are already aware, the city of Phoenix is currently considering a controversial proposal for a medical marijuana dispensary to be located at the SW corner of 35th Avenue and Southern Avenue. In order to make this happen, the business owners must not only obtain a special use permit, but must also obtain a "variance" due to proximity to residentially zoned property and a daycare business in a nearby shopping center. Here's why I think this variance should be granted:

First, by process of elimination, let's review the other commercial locations where a dispensary could go. 51st/Baseline, also near schools/daycares/residential, is easily Laveen's prime retail market. This means prime rents as well, which I would guess are not an option. 51st/Southern already has a smoke shop and, oh yeah, a public charter school (maybe someday that office complex will appear on the NW corner as well). This doesn't seem like a great location to me, especially as close as it will be to the planned freeway and all of the pre-existing traffic on 51st -- why let it become a one stop drive-by location for those passing through. Then there's 35th/Baseline -- you know, right across from the park, library, and high school. No go. So how about 27th/Southern? Nope, there's a private school and a daycare there. 27th/Baseline? I suppose that one could work, except that there's also a public school nearby and this is otherwise a very low-traffic area. So how about 43rd/Southern? 35th/Broadway? 27th/Dobbins? 51st/Dobbins? Somewhere mid-block? I don't think any of those are good options, considering they are not very visible or patrolled (not sure that there's actually available space at any of those, either).

That leaves us with the intersection of 35th/Southern as the only one with plenty of available commercial space. This intersection has been plagued with business closures, from the ghost town of a Mervyn's center on the NW to the now shuttered Ace Hardware on the NE and the closed OfficeMax on the SW. But what has done well there? Wal-Mart, multiple fast food restaurants, and more recently there have been several medically related businesses popping up (and a little confection shop and locally owned gun store if we're being thorough -- please spare the obvious jokes and unfounded concerns about co-locating a marijuana dispensary nearby). The dispensary didn't choose one of the nearly empty shopping centers or a hidden location in the back corner, but instead opted for a shop space out in front of the busy and well patrolled Wal-Mart, also near an urgent care facility and multiple other relatively high traffic businesses. What a sensible location! They're *ahem* puffing some new life into the area and perhaps even benefitting other nearby businesses (sorry, couldn't help it).

Isn't this what we want? Shouldn't we want the most visible and secure location available? Doesn't it make sense that this business be located nearby other medically relevant businesses if we are to accept the "medical marijuana" premise, which isn't remotely up for debate on this matter? I don't feel strongly about this issue, except that I want badly for common sense to prevail on such matters so that we can spare our energy for the more important battles. If you believe as I do that this is an easy one to let pass, please feel to contact Mary.L.Brown@phoenix.gov and Alan.Stephenson@phoenix.gov via email with a short note expressing your support (apparently you need to send it off by Wednesday, May 23rd for it to count, but don't sweat the details -- just your opinion, name, and maybe address so that they know it's from an actual member of the community). Also, I understand that the dispensary operators and their representatives are meeting with neighbors at the Laveen Starbucks (at 51st/Baseline) this evening, Monday May 21st, at 6:00 PM. I encourage you to go and find out more. Otherwise, keep an eye out for private crops, coming your way soon (almost forgot to mention that a dispensary location preempts growing rights nearby). That is all. Have a wonderful day.

***Full disclosure: I own a home in Laveen, but have recently moved down the street and now live in the South Mountain Village. This will be properly mentioned in the message I plan to send the above mentioned city officials in favor of the dispensary.

Update, May 21st, 4:11 PM: Here's my letter to the city officials mentioned above:

Dear Phoenix Planning Officials: 

Please see my recent blog post in favor of the medical marijuana dispensary currently being considered for the intersection of 35th/Southern in Laveen: http://www.ourlifeinlaveen.com/2012/05/why-i-support-dispensary.html. For the record, I am in no way affiliated with the applicants, nor do I have a stake in the overall medical marijuana debate. And as noted at the very end of my post, I am no longer a Laveen resident, but still live nearby and have an interest in the community as a property owner. I have also served on the LVPC in the past, worked in commercial and residential real estate, and been an active community member, which I hope provides a certain degree of authority on the matter. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or requests for comment. 

Best regards, 

Patrick Brennan

The Big GRIC Vote Day Is Now Upon Us....

In tracking the coverage today of the GRIC vote for a recently proposed realignment of the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway, I found a couple of interesting news stories. First, there's a great write-up at azcentral that covers much of this project's history (click here), and then there's this other story from azfamily (click here)...... Needless to say, I was not pleased with KTVK's horrible coverage, so I sent the following message to feedback@azfamily.com, and would not mind if you sent something similar:

As a South Mountain area resident and founding member of the Friends of the South Mountain Freeway group, I am concerned that your coverage focused on the freeway as a bypass route that will primarily be something of a burden to surrounding areas. This freeway also represents a vital piece of local infrastructure for people nearby, as it will bring a hospital to Laveen to serve the entire surrounding area, reduce trip times for people living and working in Laveen and Ahwatukee, and take heavy traffic off of our local arterial and collector streets. Further, the freeway brings with it a host of additional economic development benefit for its surroundings, by broadening the market base for retail and other commercial developments that will follow suit. Please do a better job in your future coverage to look at all sides of the story rather than the perspectives of a noisy few opponents -- especially when our fragile local economy is at stake. 

Update 2/7/2011, 10:00 PM: This just in, the unofficial vote results from GRIC are for the no-build option. This likely means that ADOT will pursue the original alignment and fast-track the project: http://www.gilariver.org/index.php/news/2552-gila-river-voters-say-no-to-loop-202-extension 

Traffic and Transportation Issues for Laveen

No, this post is not about the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway (but seriously, where's our freeway?). This is about other transportation issues that are merely tangentially related to the discussion of the SMF....

First, let's just get this out there: I was right about Interstate-11. The lobbying for this highway, specifically the Hassayampa Freeway portion, is strong enough that Governor Brewer mentioned it in her "state of the state" speech yesterday (interestingly advocating for a massive chunk of government spending as she said we were opposed to such a thing). In a world of limited resources, we need to be wary of competing projects that may derail our preferred transportation plans. This is why I ask that you consider attending the ADOT meeting later in January (Tuesday the 24th, at 4:00 PM) to speak on behalf of Phoenix and Laveen.

Now on to the minutia. Last night, at the LVPC meeting, we discussed many exciting topics (seriously, you should come to a meeting sometime), one of which was our lack of bike lanes -- or stated another way, the huge opportunity for new bike lanes in Laveen. As a part of this topic, we discussed the difference between arterial and collector streets, varying street widths (and the options for each), bike lanes versus bike paths (designated and undesignated), and so on. Most importantly, we realized that our guest from the city of Phoenix, Joe Perez (aka our one-man biking task force -- click here for his email address), had a lot on his plate and he really wants our help to make our community more bike friendly. I really encourage anyone with an interest in bicycling to reach out to Mr. Perez with recommendations for new routes. This is the epitome of low-hanging fruit for smart infrastructure growth. A few recommendations that I would like to throw out there:

1. 51st - Beltline - Riggs - Baseline 20th Street - Dobbins (40-mile loop) should be recognized regionally as an ideal scenic biking route, and the city of Phoenix should do its part to paint the roads and provide signs where it can.
2. Bike commuters need to travel safely to schools, the library, the new park n' ride facility at 27th/Baseline, and other vital public facilities.
3. Bike commuters should be able to safely travel to businesses and government offices located north of Laveen, such as a path to the government office complex at 35th Avenue and Lower Buckeye.
4. We should develop trails along the Highline Canal, similar to those from 40th Street to Central (or thereabouts), as well as an interconnected trail access network to South Mountain.
5. And my favorite: Let's get some use out of the existing trails along the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel (LACC) by adding HAWK lights where the LACC crosses busy streets. See my letter to Kerry Wilcoxon (from Streets and Transportation -- click here for his email address), on which I also copied Mr. Perez and Councilman Nowakowski:

Hello Mr. Wilcoxon,

I am a member of the Laveen Village Planning Committee and wanted to follow up on a topic that arose in our meeting last night. When discussing planned and existing bike paths with Joe Perez, we brought up the point that our popular yet mostly unmarked crossings for the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel are progressively dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. They also may represent a missed opportunity for the city's transportation planning goals.

The Laveen community continues to grow, which means commensurately increasing vehicular traffic on Baseline Road and 51st Avenue, as well as increasing use of the trails along the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel (LACC). While these trails offer a great deal of potential functionality for bike-commuting and recreation, Laveen residents fear the ever more dangerous levels of traffic where the LACC crosses Baseline Road (near 56th Ave.) and 51st Avenue (near Vineyard).

As a general safety issue, I'm sure that traffic mitigation needs have already been identified or anticipated for these busy arterial roads. Therefore, I propose that where the LACC crosses them, we ought to address the urgent issue of safety at those crossings, help control traffic along the connecting corridors, reduce our problematically high nearby pollution levels, enhance the outdoor lifestyle of the Laveen and South Mountain communities, and even help Mr. Perez accomplish his goal of making Phoenix a more bikeable city. HAWK signals may very well be the answer to all of the above. Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.

Sincerely,

Patrick T. Brennan

I strongly suggest that you take part in the discussion as well. Feel free to use my email message above, regarding the HAWK signals, or pick your own area of interest to pursue. Thanks for reading and caring.

Sorry for the Cheap Tires

I've come to accept that I may have made a slightly regrettable choice as a member of the Laveen Village Planning Committee, but I'd like a chance to defend that choice. It was to vote for a zoning change from C-1 to C-2 for Discount Tire at 51st Avenue and Baseline Road (SWC). The motion passed with a solid but not overwhelming majority and I took some flack for my vote in the affirmative. There were some unkind things said in the aftermath of this vote, which was our first contentious issue in a while, so I think it's important that we clear the air.

First, some basics. In order for the applicant to build a tire shop on the location, they needed to change the zoning designation -- I recommend reviewing the city zoning ordinance here for a more thorough understanding. Had the property remained designated as C-1, it would have been restricted to what we call "Neighborhood Retail". This means any number of business types, including thrift store, coin-op laundry, smoke shop, liquor store, or other such small and localized uses (and yes, plenty more benign ones too, but then I've already established my bias above). Basically, C-1 includes all of the things we think belong scattered throughout our neighborhoods. C-2, on the other hand, is called "Intermediate Commercial" and accounts for most other commercial uses one might imagine -- it usually connotes more business traffic from the neighborhood and beyond.

Here's the rationale for voting down the application, as I understood it. We know that Discount Tire wants in on all the lucrative tire business in Laveen, but we don't like the location. We expect more for the space in front of LA Fitness and we figure that if we say no, the tire shop will go elsewhere. This move will not only push the tire shop away to a less desirable location, but it will also hold that C-1 spot for something we want more, like a restaurant (or coin-op laundry).

My rationale in voting to approve the rezoning application was simply that I saw little need to block it from a community standpoint and I have a relatively high regard for Discount Tire, as compared to some of the non-local chains out there (not that we could ensure that Discount Tire is the end user, but the developer would be foolish to mislead us). Plus, there's no restauranteur planning to build in this location, so why are we saving a spot? The same shopping center already has (yet another) fast food restaurant planned..... and Denny's, last I heard, has completely walked away from this intersection. Any nicer sit-down options that would build out a pad site would be smarter to either move into the center at 35th Avenue and Baseline or wait for one of the power centers adjacent to the Loop 202 to be built and go there. Meanwhile, we had the opportunity to bring another amenity to Laveen and get some dirt moving -- this time with a developer that has always responded well to community feedback. I thought this was a very practical move.

So now I wonder what other people think about this. Would you have done differently than you planning committee? Did you want to see the LVPC take a unified stand against this rezoning application? Please keep in mind that there is no legal way that we could have colluded before the meeting to do so, but a group of concerned residents could have spoken out during the public comment period and asked at the time that we consider it. I think we did ok, but I'm open to feedback and urge those who are concerned to get more involved in both the LVPC and the LCRD.

I'll even take it one step further. If you are disturbed by the fact that we have another tire shop being built at this intersection, I will go so far as to personally demand an explanation from the developer, Terrazona, as to why the Discount Tire wasn't placed on Terrazona's property at 35th and Southern. If they were to move the location, we would have two there and one at 51st/Baseline rather than the opposite. But seriously, would you rather get your tires changed and hit the gym while you wait, or would you prefer to browse Office Max? I'd rather be on a treadmill or across the street at Scooptacular.

South Mountain vs. Hassayampa: Ever Heard of Either Freeway?

I woke up this morning to find an email sent yesterday (Friday) evening from the Arizona Department of Transportation, regarding the state's "Long Term Transportation Plan Final Report". No biggie, right? Just a discussion about how we plan to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on critical infrastructure projects over the next 25 years. I'm not sure why they chose to send it on a Friday evening, but this Laveen geek couldn't imagine any better Saturday morning reading material. Others may not feel the same way, although I guess we'll see if there's a Sunday morning feature in the Republic tomorrow's Sunday edition, as there ought to be.

Enough about the timing of the report for now. Let's look at what it says. You can find the document here, or I suppose you can trust my brief analysis as follows. First, a few notable sections, as far as Laveen is concerned (you'll have to wait to read about the Hassayampa freeway):

Section 1: Executive Summary (page 1)
In case you don't regularly read professional reports for a living, I'd be remiss to skip over highlighting this section. It may very well include everything you want to know about the following hundred or so pages.

Sections 1.3-1.5: Long-Range Needs, Revenues, and Investment Levels; Gap Analysis (pages 3-9)
This section of the executive summary offers insights about funding constraints and strategic areas of interest for ADOT. For instance, $9.28 billion must stay within Maricopa and Pima counties (mostly Maricopa). The report then notes that tradeoffs are likely, given that we can only count on a small chunk of the funding required to implement all projects envisioned by bqAZ (Building a Quality Arizona) and ADOT's needs assessment.

Section 3.1.1: Goals and Objectives (page 28)
This is a big one. If we want to advocate smartly for the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway, we need to do so in a way that considers these stated goals and objectives. Here's the list:

1. Improve mobility and accessibility
2. Preserve and maintain the system 
3. Support economic growth 
4. Link transportation and land use 
5. Consider natural, cultural, and environmental resources 
6. Enhance safety and security 
7. Strengthen partnerships 
8. Promote fiscal stewardship

We can address all of the above quite handily, in my opinion, for the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway. Numbers 1, 3, 4, and 6 seem like the most obvious concerns that the SMF would address, although we can make an argument for all four of the others as well.

Table 3-1: Performance Measures by Plan Goal Area (page 31)

This table helps to illustrate the metrics for the goals listed above, which also lowers the bar for fashioning a report advocating for one particular freeway, such as the SMF.

Section 4.2.3: Highway Needs for “New” Facilities (page 41)

This section outlines the various studies, reports, strategic plans, and other documents used to guide new infrastructure development. Looking for a specific project like the SMF? Keep digging....

Section 5.1.1: Highway Revenues (page 56)

I recommend skimming over the first section about our gas tax and vehicle registration fees and then on to page 58, to read up on the Prop 400 funds available only to Maricopa County transportation projects.  56.2% of these funds were earmarked for highway construction, such as the SMF.

Table 5-6: Baseline Revenue Forecast with Disbursements (page 65)

From what I see here, it looks like MAG has the money it needs for the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway; ADOT has plenty of discretionary funds; and I'm almost certain that some of those federal funds are set aside for the SMF. Do we have enough money yet?

5.3.2: Generating Revenues from Existing Sources (page 68)

In simple terms, this is how government agencies go about making the pie bigger, so that projects like ours don't take as big a piece of the pie. I suppose that the following subsections could be described as adding new flavors to a bigger pie. Interesting stuff.

Section 6. Investment Alternatives and Outcomes (page 71)

I recommend reading through as much of this section as you can stand, as it outlines different strategies for prioritizing ADOT's investment choices. Skip ahead to page 76 for the "Recommended Investment Choice". Most notably, the RIC would significantly reduce the share of funds going to highway expansion, as compared with both of the alternate plans.

Section 7.1: Benefits of Implementation (page 86)

Just thought you'd appreciate the following quote: "In terms of immediate impacts, it is estimated that a billion dollars of transportation infrastructure investment will create over 30,000 new jobs." This is why we need to stay on top of MAG and our city representatives to advocate on behalf of the SMF. We're not just looking for easier travel to shopping and work destinations, but we're looking at an opportunity to bring a huge economic impact to our city and region as a whole. Please also note that this section of the report makes no mention of infrastructure having a direct impact on targeted growth, as the SMF will provide. Therefore, I predict that the SMF will produce a much greater than average economic impact per mile.

Appendix A: Examples of Significant Transportation Infrastructure Projects (page 95)

Here's where the zinger comes in. Not only is this the first and only specific mention of the South Mountain Freeway I found, but what is that other freeway that appears slightly higher on the list..... The Hassayampa Freeway (see, you knew it was going to come up eventually)..... a.k.a. Interstate 11, a.k.a. Canamex Corridor. As I've written in the past, the improvements that follow the otherwise now mostly forgotten Canamex route are a good thing in that they provide a regional bypass for which the Loop 202 is not intended to serve. However, one must also consider that this project will compete for MAG funding, federal funding, and a reminder of what constitutes "smart growth" for the metro Phoenix area. A project like the Hassayampa Freeway will be of much greater interest to large scale land developers than something like the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway, which is more of an infill project, but probably not as interesting to most existing Valley residents. More to come on this one later, but the important message is that you should be concerned.... be very concerned.

Not Exactly the Winning Platform (Or Is It?)

Here's what I just sent to my community's HOA property manager, as my "pitch" to get reelected to our board of directors. Given the neighborhood's turnover in recent years, I hope and expect that someone new will want to take charge. That's how it's supposed to be, right? Please let me know what you think. Will this work as planned, or does it look more like bitter resignation?

I am currently serving on the Board of Directors and have been since July of 2008 -- shortly after I helped to start our community’s block watch program. I also represent our village on the city’s Laveen Village Planning Committee and work professionally in real estate, with an emphasis on researching communities/properties for investment purposes and representing buyers and sellers as an agent.

My ongoing focus for our HOA is to responsibly manage our finances and try as best we can to preserve property values by upholding our community’s CC&Rs in a fair manner. In the past, i have been a strong advocate of using extra funds for community events like BBQs and picnics. This is something that I would like to see become common again in Highland at Rogers Ranch, but we need help and feedback. I wish I could say that I’ve been reelected in past years by an overwhelming show of support for these kinds of actions, but instead have remained on the board as a default candidate due to problems with too few votes being cast for eligible candidates. Please let me know directly how you feel this time around and cast your vote, or feel free to run against me. I promise to hold this office dutifully, but would not mind someone else stepping up to take my place if they have fresh ideas and are committed to seeing them through to reality. This is a call to action -- please be involved in one way or another. Thank you.

Updated: Working As a Source for the Public Insight Network

Preface: This is officially my first attempt at a shared blog post, with contributions by myself and Nick Blumberg of KJZZ's Fronteras Desk. After initially saying that it sounded like a great idea and would be easily accomplished, I realized that writing in such an organized format might prove challenging to me, despite my periodic aspirations to try and become a journalist (a career choice that no journalist I know would recommend). Upon committing myself, I immediately encountered the kind of writer's block that only a brief bout of insomnia and a glass of wine could resolve. This is despite the fact that Nick gave his assurance that he will give a bit of direction. So here we go....

From Patrick:


My last post, "Thoughts about South Phoenix", was prompted entirely by a questionnaire that a friend forwarded from the Fronteras Desk's Public Insight Network. My completion of the questionnaire prompted a call from Nick Blumberg, who was working at the time with KJZZ's Steve Goldstein to produce a weeklong series focused on various facets of the city of Phoenix, titled "Finding Connections in Phoenix's Directions". This series aired last week, with my contribution to the South Phoenix story airing last Friday morning at 6:33 and 8:33 AM (listen here).

When Nick contacted me, I was initially surprised -- thinking that perhaps he was more interested in other contacts I had recommended as potential sources for his story. But he invited me into the studio to speak with Steve and him about Laveen, and how it fits into the big picture for South Phoenix and the city as a whole. I was honored, to say the least, that I would be included in their project -- still a little doubtful that anything I said would make it onto the air -- but I agreed to stop in at the studio and go on the record just to see what would come of it.

Given that this was a few weeks before my son, Tighe, started at daycare, I was left with no choice but to bring him along and hope that he would behave himself (he's just over two years old). At this point, I'm fairly certain that the surprise was on Nick and Steve.... They really should have considered contacting sources other than this part-time stay at home dad with a son who loves almost nothing more than audio equipment and buttons. Needless to say, this was not a working formula, despite their efforts to make it work. I couldn't help but be both embarrassed and humored by my naiveté, followed by a great deal of appreciation for Nick and Steve's insistence that we figure out something more workable.

While we did record a few bits of arguably usable content in the studio (which was not ultimately included in the aired interview, likely because of the toddler contribution), we all agreed to reschedule and change the venue to somewhere closer to my home. This made things much easier and it is how we ultimately ended up at a chain coffee shop in a relatively new big box shopping center, which almost seemed more apropos to the content we covered -- namely, the types of growth we had seen and expected to see for Laveen and South Phoenix. While I admit that I was a tad distracted by all of the commotion and perhaps rambled on more than necessary about several topics, we managed to have a great conversation. There were even a few useful sound bites as a  result of the interview, so I think we all left feeling relatively pleased with the results.

I have to admit that the whole experience left me feeling excited, both that I had contributed to something worthwhile and that I would thoroughly enjoy listening to the finished product. It didn't hurt that I was one of a select group of fellow Phoenicians, many of whom I know and respect a great deal. The series began with Mayor Phil Gordon, followed by downtown movers and shakers like Sean Sweat and Stacey Champion, along with business leaders like Kimber Lanning (a long-time influence, by the way) and columnist Jon Talton (a more recent influence). If you haven't already, I suggest following the above link and listening to all of the segments for a great deal of insight. My only wish is that the series continues, offering greater depth and more personalized stories about our home. I now look forward to Nick Blumberg's reaction.

From Nick:



It was, indeed, a suprise when Pat showed up in the studio with his (ahem) energetic son in tow. Despite our best efforts to otherwise engage Tighe, he felt fairly certain that his voice ought to be heard too! That aside, it was wonderful to get some perspective on Laveen. Although it's not part of any traditional definition of South Phoenix, it is technically in the south part of this city. It really interested me to look at Laveen in the story, both because it's an emerging area, and because I liked that it gave us an "in" to get at the concept that some parts of Phoenix (Laveen, Ahwatukee) that seem a lot more like suburbs than neighborhoods.


To be perfectly honest, I don't think I would have come up with the idea to include Laveen in the South Phoenix story had Pat not contacted me through the Public Insight Network. That's what's so cool about the PIN--it not only provides KJZZ and our regional Fronteras project with a great database of sources we can reach out to for specific stories, it also creates a new way for stories to come in to the newsroom. Journalists come upon stories in a variety of ways, and PIN creates just another opportunity, one that's perhaps more accessible for so-called "average" people to tell us about what's going on in their community and whether the media are or aren't covering the story.


We want to get as many and as wide a variety of people to join our network as possible. If you're interested, you can tell us what you know more about than most people (http://www.publicinsightnetwork.org/form/fronteras/29b8d24207c2/what-do-you-know-more-about-than-most-people) or what story we're missing (http://www.publicinsightnetwork.org/form/fronteras/fecd7489ba6b/what-story-should-we-be-covering). And if you want to talk with me more about what the heck this all means, or who, exactly, a source is, you can reach me at nblumberg (at) kjzz (dot) org.