Other
transcripts
Transcripts
September 21, 2004
Host:
Michael Grant
Topics:
· Proposition 100;
· NHL Lockout/Economic Impact
In-Studio Guests:
· Mike Anable, government land consultant and
former state land commissioner;
· Susan Culp, Assistant Director, Arizona League of Conservation
Voters;
· Art Lynch, Chief Financial Officer, Glendale
Michael Grant:
Tonight on "Horizon", optimistic hockey fans anticipated
the first full year of the Phoenix Coyotes playing in Glendale
arena, now a player lockout by the National Hockey League owners
not only threatens the cancellation of the season but hurts the
city's ability to pay for the arena. Also, should the state be
able to trade land with federal agencies? That's what voters are
asked in proposition 100.
Announcer>>
"Horizon" is made possible by the friends of Channel
8, members who provide financial support to this Arizona PBS station.
Thank you.
Michael Grant:
Good evening, I'm Michael Grant. Welcome to "Horizon".
The recount is over in the district 20 Republican race for one
of those two house seats. Two weeks after the primary election,
Maricopa County election officials declared John McCommish the
winner by 13 votes over Anton Orlich. Orlich had led McCommish
by four votes following the September 7 election, but State law
mandates an automatic recount if the margin is fewer than 50 ballots.
Michael Grant:
A former state GOP executive and Arizona political consultant
may be facing some legal trouble over a voter registration effort
in Oregon. Nathan Sproul sent a letter to several Oregon libraries
advising them his firm wanted to register people to vote outside
those libraries as part of the national non-partisan voter registration
drive, called "America Votes." A Medford, Oregon librarian
checked with the group and discovered the nonprofit "America
Votes" had not contracted Sproul to register voters. Sproul
told "Horizon" he and his staff picked the name not
knowing it was used by a national organization and says he feels
bad about the misunderstanding. A spokesman for "America
Votes" told the Medford newspaper that he didn't find the
explanation credible. He says the group is pursuing legal options
to get Sproul's group to stop using its name. "America Votes"
affiliated with dozens of Democratic leaning organizations, while
Sproul consults for mostly conservative candidates and causes.
Michael Grant:
Phoenix City Council is going to vote tomorrow whether to spend
$30 million to acquire land downtown to house a new ASU campus.
30 million would buy the old Arizona Public Service building on
Central Avenue and Polk, as well as six surface parking lots.
A report commissioned by ASU estimates the cost of the downtown
campus at $948 million. Michael Grant: The new campus would feature
a biomedical facility, nursing school, journalism school and house
this public TV station.
Michael Grant:
A state land department auction brought in $23 million for 41
acres located in the Desert Ridge development near the 101 freeway
and 56th Street. The winning bidder, Towne Developments, will
then build high-end condominiums. Last year, state land auctions
brought in a record $310 million. State land the subject of another
ballot measure. Lawmakers refer to the proposal to allow the state
to exchange trust land with federal agencies. Such agencies are
touted as helping the state land department better manage the
land. The issue has been brought to voters several times and defeated.
This time, a different approach, by tying the exchange of state
land to preserving military bases. The question will be presented
to voters in the form of proposition 100. Here to debate is Mike
Anable, a government land consultant and former state land commissioner.
He is in favor of proposition 100. Opposing proposition 100 is
Susan Culp, assistant director for the Arizona League of Conservation
Voters. I'm sorry, I took so much time to say all that, we're
out of time. Mike, why should voters vote for 100?
>> Mike Anable:
I believe the reason the legislature keeps referring land exchanges
to the ballot is that it is an important tool to help correct
difficulties that have come over time in terms of land ownership.
We have state land trapped in national monuments, land close to
military bases, jeopardizing its use. Land exchanges are a way
to change ownership without costly taxpayer acquisition of land
and with willing parties on both sides being happy with the outcome.
This is an important proposition, that's why it comes back. The
loss of the bases would be devastating. I think it's important
for the legislature to ask voters again, is this important enough
to everyone to allow the state to again exchange land as they
had for years and years. Michael: Susan, why does your group think
it's a bad idea?
>> Susan Culp:
First of all, as a conservation organization, we're troubled by
the fact that it could open public lands to development and these
are lands that are currently in protected status, enjoyed by people,
both residents and visitors. To open them up to additional development
is not necessarily going to be in the best interest of the community.
We are troubled that the measure doesn't have adequate protection
to insure that the conservation outcome will be good and the public
interest ultimately will be served. Another facet that we are
concerned about is the intent behind the measure and behind the
title, military base preservation initiative which we believe
is an attempt to mislead the voters into approving a concept,
land exchange authority which has been defeated at the ballot
consistently over the last few years.
>> Michael Grant:
Are you saying the reference to military base preservation is
in effect a sham?
>> Susan Culp:
Yes, that's what I would say. The impact it will have on preserving
military bases is pretty insignificant if there is no impact at
all. The prop 100 will authorize public to public land exchanges
and most of the land surrounding military bases are in private
ownership. Unless you allow three way land exchanges, which are
problematic, you're not going to be able to accomplish the goals.
Michael Grant:
Mike, how does that work? How could this be used? People are concerned
about Luke and other Air Force bases. How could this be used to
preserve a military base?
>> Mike Anable:
The federal agencies that manage land, Forest Service, Bureau
of Land Management, Park Service, those agencies would have no
interest in acquiring land around the bases from the private land
owners to solve the private land owners problem. Their job is
parks, recreation, wilderness. The same agencies have state land
trapped in their monuments, their park places that they have yet
to pay the state for. This is an opportunity, I wouldn't call
it a 3 way exchange but an opportunity for the federal government
to acquire some private land through the exchange authority they
currently have. They could do these today, but there's not an
incentive. It would far rather be around a military base where
farming could occur, industrial uses, than trapped in a national
park or monument where its only way to make money would be to
auction that off to the highest bidder, which wouldn't be publicly
possible.
Michael Grant:
I suspect we may need a blackboard to explain the concept. The
State of Arizona could point at the approach to the Luke runway
and say to, illustratively, BLM, if you acquire some of that land,
we will exchange with you some state lands that are trapped in
a national monument administered by the Bureau of Land Management?
>> Mike Anable:
That's right. There are a lot of federal lands that are important
recreation areas. The state wouldn't want to go into sensitive
environmental areas. But there are federal lands that are not
as sensitive that they will exchange with private landowners,
so I think there is an opportunity there. What's lacking is incentive
for the federal government to acquire the lands that the private
landowners have around the bases. This would allow that kind of
thing to happen. Michael: Go ahead, Susan.
>> Susan Culp:
I'm not sure why it would provide extra incentive for the federal
government to do that. Military base preservation is of national
interest as well as state interest. We wouldn't need land exchange
authority for the federal government to come in and intercede
to protect military bases by acquiring private land surrounding
the bases.
>> Mike Anable:
I think you're wrong. The Forest Service has no mission to protect
military bases. You would be asking them to acquire non-forest
type properties. They probably couldn't legally do it. Same with
the Bureau of Land Management, same with the National Park Service
We don't have a federal land management agency out there with
a large ownership in Arizona that would have any reason to acquire
land around the bases.
Michael Grant:
Susan, does it help the concerns at all, obviously it hasn't the
past three or four times around, but does it help the concerns
at all this is not the State of Arizona trading the lands to private
interests, it is limited only to other federal agencies who have
I hesitate to call it somewhat similar missions but it's a public
to public transition without the greed involved.
>> Susan Culp:
I think it makes it slightly better, but there are other concerns
we have in terms of the public process and presenting three way
land exchanges. They are difficult for the public to monitor and
track. Difficult when you shuffle different sets of land to come
up with apples and apples to insure that the public doesn't lose
out in those transactions. I think having public to public land
exchanges could be a good tool if the appropriate protections
were in place, but that's not the case with prop 100.
Michael Grant:
I keep hearing that every time this comes on the ballot but I've
never had anyone explain to me in your seat, and here's an appropriate
set of protections that would cause my group to support this proposition.
Is there something?
>> Susan Culp:
There are. The land that were identified that would be subject
to the exchange outright, including multiple exchanges that would
take place. We would like to see land held for a certain period
of time to prevent three way land exchanges that fall under the
radar screen and the public can't track or comment on. We would
like to see the appraisals and the analyses of the exchanges made
available to the public in advance of the hearing. It's great
in this measure public hearings and public comment period is allowed
but if you don't have access to information about the exchange,
it's difficult to develop an informed opinion.
>> Mike Anable:
There are public hearings. The appraisals are public record. They
can be acquired the minute the agency has them. There are public
notification requirements. The governor, treasurer and attorney
general have to approve any exchange that has to happen. Three
highest elected officials approving after all the public hearings.
In addition, after approving and there is a protest capability.
So it's a pretty tight exchange. I mean, we have seen the voters
turn this down. Every year we have come back and tried to tighten
it up. We have two appraisals, two hearings, public notice. That's
just the state side. If we're exchanging with the federal government,
they have a whole process as well.
Michael Grant:
Susan, the Supreme Court invalidated land exchanges about 15 years
or so ago. For a long time the state land department did land
exchanges not only with federal agencies but primarily with private
parties. I think the process went awry a few times. There was
a 50-year history where most people thought it was okay. Is there
any reason why we should feel uncomfortable about returning to
that long-term status quo?
>> Susan Culp:
I think the public is rightly suspicious that abuses occur under
land exchange schemes, particularly when there aren't adequate
safeguards to prevent multiple land exchanges where the land is
in this kind of shell game and it's unclear what the final outcome
is going to be in terms of the public and impact on the communities.
I think it was declared unconstitutional because of a series of
high profile cases where abuses did take place and the public
has been suspicious ever since. I think it's going to be a tough
sell for them.
Michael Grant:
The state land department did get hosed on a few of those. Is
the argument it's an agency to agency kind of thing?
>> Mike Anable:
Yes. The land department did over 2 million acres worth of land
exchanges over many, many years. There were a handful of cases
where there was fraud involved. This is a public to public land
exchange, there is no incentive for anyone to undermine or try
to get a better deal on the state. It's a federal to state transaction
only.
Michael Grant:
All right, Mike, thank you very much for joining us. Susan, thank
you for the information.
>>> Michael Grant:
Player lockout by the National Hockey League affects more than
the players and fans, it affects the ability of the city of Glendale
to make payments on the bonds it took out to build the new arena.
I'll talk to the chief financial officer about the impact, but
Paul Atkinson takes a closer look at the lockout.
>> Paul Atkinson:
Instead of hosting the first preseason hockey game, Glendale arena
sits empty. The hockey team moved to the arena last year. Gone
are 4,000 seats with obstructed views that plagued the team at
America West Arena which was designed for basketball, not hockey.
The new arena was seen as a way for the financially strapped Coyotes
to turn a profit. Both on the ice and the co-owner developing
surrounding properties. Now, the Coyotes must deal with the effects
of the NHL lockout. Following announcement of the player lockout,
Coyotes president and chief operating officer Doug Moss issued
the following statement. The league has our full support as we
take the difficult but necessary step toward creating a new economic
system that will help our club in the future. The Phoenix Coyotes
organization apologizes for the inconvenience the necessary action
will cause loyal fans, employees and business partners. We hope
our team will be in action soon. The hockey players may be locked
out, but full time employees of the Phoenix Coyotes and the Glendale
Arena may still have jobs. That's not the case with the several
hundred people who work here part-time. Many of them rely on hockey
games for supplemental income. Those who sell you tickets, take
you to your seats, sell you food and popcorn, even clean up after
you, they're the ones who are out of luck. The unluckiest of all
could be the city of Glendale, which keeps the sales tax generated
from the arena. The money helps pay off the $180 million the city
spent to build the $215 million facility. The Coyotes paid the
rest. With ticket prices ranging from 12 to $200 per seat, Along
with the $4 per ticket parking surcharge, the city stands to lose
plenty. On top of that is sales tax generated from food and merchandise.
A few season ticket holders I talked to say they spend between
5 and 50 bucks a game on food, drink and souvenirs, of which Glendale
won't see any sales tax revenue. The next event to be held at
Glendale Arena is a month from now. And while management hopes
to replace hockey games with other events, including concerts,
tractor pulls, it's more likely the arena will remain empty more
often than not.
Michael Grant:
I talked to Art Lynch, chief financial officer of the city of
Glendale about the lockout's financial impact. Art, the hockey
lockout did not come as a surprise to the city of Glendale, right?
>> Art Lynch:
That's correct, sir. We basically were looking in our planning
stages to really make some provisions to be able to react favorably
if there was a strike that occurred and so it was initially a
part of our planning to look forward and see what are the potential
challenges that could be faced or issues that could be faced in
operating a major sports venue like this.
Michael Grant:
How do you go about planning for the contingency that you're going
to lose your prime tenant? It's about 40 nights a year that hockey
occupies the building?
>> Art Lynch:
Yes, sir, it is. I think one of the important things is that in
looking at this project we were looking at a not only a multi
purpose facility, which was not just hockey and hockey events
but many other events and venues at the arena. In addition to
that, the project had multiple components to it in that it was
a redevelopment project which had a redevelopment component of
an older mall that needed to be kind of revitalized. In addition,
there was the mixed use component which was a retail multiple
type housing venue. And various other components to that and the
restaurants and all of those things. And then of course there
was the multi purpose facility component which included the arena
activities, some of the public events that would be done as community
events.
Michael Grant:
Put it in some context for me, though. How many other than hockey
nights have you had since this thing signed on? It was December
of last year, wasn't it? 9, 10 months ago?
>> Art Lynch:
Yes, sir, it opened actually, the end of December so we had a
partial operating year. The total number of events for the multi
purpose facility, if I remember correctly, was in excess of 108,
if I remember right.
Michael Grant:
These would run the gamut from truck pulls to concerts, I guess?
>> Art Lynch:
They would run the gamut from concerts to, as I said various promotional
things.
Michael Grant:
Trade shows?
>> Art Lynch:
the performance, there was a community performance for Luke Air
Force base. Some trade show activities. Most of the activities
were concerts and special types of performances and special appearances
such as Bette Midler, Rod Stewart.
Michael Grant:
You lose two primary revenue streams when you lose the hockey
team, I would think. You lose the sales tax revenue and you also,
do you lose some portion of the parking revenues? Are those the
two main revenue streams?
>> Art Lynch:
Let me try to clarify one thing. I think it's very, very important
that you understand as a multi purpose facility, as long as events
are booked in that facility there's still the opportunity and
there's still the revenue is received for sales tax, whether it
be a concert, hockey game, we're talking about the same kind of
taxable activity going on.
Michael Grant:
But you have to plug those 40 days or whatever portion the team
is down.
>> Art Lynch:
I think that's exactly right. That's one we try to look for some
of the positive aspects in planning for difficult situations or
issues or challenges that come up and as a part of the planning
one of the things that we looked at is if there was notification
would it be soon enough that you could start planning and making
sure that the arena management group is booking additional events
to fill those days. So quite honestly, because we were planning
from that perspective, we also could see their planning was very
proactive in looking to try to have other events that could be
lined up to fill those dates so that it's not just 40 nights of
hockey disappearing, you don't have anything, it's 40 nights disappear
but you have a number of special events that you can put in their
place. That's the strategy.
Michael Grant:
That's a good point. When did you really know for sure? It's one
thing to say I think they're going to be down in mid September.
I assume you have to have another level of certainty before you
start dropping in ice capades or whatever on a night scheduled
for hockey.
>> Art Lynch:
We heard as things were being announced by the NHL, that there
could be that potential. That's when we started the planning in
that regard for encouraging the arena manager and the folks that
are doing the bookings.
Michael Grant:
Summertime?
>> Art Lynch:
It was a little earlier than that. Again, I think looking at the
project from a comprehensive standpoint, we wanted to also make
sure that we had enough other things going on that that -- that
the arena would serve as the destination point and spur additional
activities, not only on the site but around the site, also. I
think that's one of the real benefits that we have seen and are
still continuing to see.
Michael Grant:
I realize that the retail development, there's some ground breaking
activities and those kinds of things going on. Do you really have
much if any of a restaurant retail stream in the immediate vicinity
of the stadium right now?
>> Art Lynch:
Yes, sir. The companies will be talking more specifically about
the leases that have been done in the next few weeks so there
will be the announcement of those contracts that have been entered
into. In addition -
Michael Grant:
I'm talking people sitting down at a table and ordering meals.
Retail activity occurring now.
>> Art Lynch:
the actual retail activity occurring now is with events at the
arena and in addition at the northern crossing development, the
redevelopment project we spoke of. At that location, it's about
four miles from -
Michael Grant:
59th Avenue and Northern?
>> Art Lynch:
Yes, sir. That's been not only generating revenue from the sale
of those component parts of the property but also, obviously as
those facilities have opened up they generate sales tax and additional
revenue to the city, also.
Michael Grant:
Art, any indication from the National Hockey League how long they
expect this thing to last?
>> Art Lynch:
At this time, I have not yet heard any specificity as to it's
going to end this month or that month.
Michael Grant:
No one seems to be optimistic about a short conclusion to this,
unfortunately.
>> Art Lynch:
That could be very true. I think the key is what we have tried
to do, is to make sure that we have, if you will, through planning
addressed a number of those issues that result in cost for operating
the facility and things of that nature and setting aside also
some rainy day or kind of contingency funds to weather the issues
as long as we can.
Michael Grant:
Whether the ice forms. Art Lynch, City of Glendale, thank you
very much for joining us.
>> Art Lynch:
You're very welcome. I'm Glad to be here.
>> Announcer:
Now the state pays the cost of voter passed initiatives, prop
101 would change that so initiatives would have to identify a
revenue source other than the general fund for new spending. Prop
104 would change the amount of time to file an initiative with
the state from four months before the election to seven months.
Supporters and opponents of the propositions join us Wednesday
on "Horizon".
Michael Grant:
Thursday, with the presidential debate confirmed for Tempe next
month, we'll take a look at some pre-debate events. Friday, the
panel of journalists will join me for the weekly journalists'
roundtable. We'll talk about the week's news events. Thank you
very much for joining us on a Tuesday evening. I'm Michael Grant.
Hope you have a great one. Good night.
Back to the top
