By Ray Stern
By Ray Stern
By New Times
By Amy Silverman
By Stephen Lemons
By Stephen Lemons
By Monica Alonzo
By Chris Parker
Seven months later, the heavily favored Bruner was drubbed in his bid to gain the Republican nomination to Congress. Voters sent Bruner to the private sector.
But Jim Bruner was hardly alone in ramming the baseball-stadium tax down the public's throat. Supervisors Ed King and Mary Rose Wilcox led the charge.
And the Phoenix City Council quietly did its share, too. The council, led by Mayor Skip Rimsza, delivered perhaps the most important prize to Colangelo--quick zoning for the stadium.
No other single action by county or city leaders was as vulnerable to the public's wrath than January's slam-bam zoning approval, first by the Phoenix Planning and Zoning Commission and then by the city council.
The reason: Unlike the county's vote, which courts have ruled to be exempt from voter referendum, the city council's vote to amend downtown zoning ordinances could have been subject to referendum.
Stadium opponents would have had 30 days to gather the signatures of only 10,000 Phoenix voters to place the zoning question on the October 3 ballot.
"That would have killed the stadium," says a Phoenix zoning attorney who monitored the process.
Quick zoning was essential so Colangelo could show Major League Baseball owners last March that the stadium was guaranteed. Any doubts concerning the stadium's feasibility could have ended Colangelo's chances of securing the $130 million expansion franchise. No franchise, no tax.
But the public never got a chance to take the issue to referendum, thanks to some clever work by Phoenix city staffers, Colangelo's slick attorneys and a compliant city council.
Here's what happened, according to city records and interviews with city officials and councilmembers:
This was no simple zoning case. The changes sought by the baseball team required a major overhaul of two Phoenix zoning districts--the Downtown Central Core and the Historic Warehouse Overlay district. The ordinances governing development in the two districts needed to be amended to allow a baseball stadium and associated parking.
The team believed amending the ordinances would be faster and pose less risk to the project than waiting a year or longer for the Maricopa County Stadium District to acquire the land for the stadium and apply for site-specific zoning.
On September 23, 1994, Colangelo's zoning attorney, William H. Jury, sent a draft of the amendments to Phoenix Planning Director David Richert. Six days later, Jury sent a proposed time schedule for the needed amendments to Richert.
Jury, who works for the Phoenix law firm of Gallagher & Kennedy, urged the city to process the amendments quickly. The "time schedule is tight and forces us all to accomplish a great deal of work in a relatively short period of time," Jury's letter states.
Jury provided two target dates, one with council approval coming on December 15, 1994, and the second with the council nod on February 1, 1995. In both cases, Jury noted that there would be a 30-day lag in the ordinance taking effect because the changes would be subject to a referendum.
City planners and Colangelo's lawyers met repeatedly last fall to draft the proposed amendments to the zoning code that would allow the stadium to be built downtown. Discussions were also held with private-property owners in the area and downtown business leaders.
The city advertised the amendments, as required, for four days--November 18 to 21--in the Arizona Republic and the Phoenix Gazette. (The papers' owner, Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., is an investor in the baseball team.) The proposed amendments filled two full pages of fine print and notified the public that hearings would be held.
The ads, however, failed to mention a rather important item--the dates of the hearings. The dates were not included on the last three days of publication "due to problems in setup and printing of the advertisement," according to city documents.
Apparently, this snafu went unnoticed until the Reverend A. Cosentino, director of the Interfaith League for Sound Government, complained to the city on December 7, 1994.
The city republished the advertisements, this time in the far less widely circulated Arizona Business Gazette, a small weekly owned by Phoenix Newspapers. However, instead of publishing the notice four times, the city only requires legal notices in weekly newspapers to appear twice.
While it was bungling the advertising of the zoning ordinance, city staff was acceding to Jury's wishes that the typical month lag between reviews by the planning commission and city council be compressed to one week.
The staff also agreed to have the city council hold a public hearing on the ordinance and vote the same day. Generally, there is at least a week separating a public hearing and a council vote on a major zoning ordinance.
By mid-December, Jury's updated schedules for city action no longer contained any reference to a referendum or a 30-day delay in the ordinance taking effect. The absence of discussion of this crucial issue suggests that the city and Jury had arranged to avoid the problems. Jury did not return a phone call requesting an interview.
Given the lack of widespread public notice by the city and the complete news blackout by the Republic and Gazette--which never mentioned the upcoming hearings in news stories--only a handful of people showed up at the January 11 planning commission hearing.