Some old timers still blame a December 1988 Barron's article ("Phoenix Descending") for the collapse of the city's real-estate boom. This is fantasy, of course: The market caved in on its own, pulled down by too many hustles, too much overbuilding and the savings and loan scandal driven by local steward Charles H Keating and his pet senators. Now Rupert Murdoch's Dow Jones has tried to make amends with a Wall Street Journal story about Phoenix's "nascent real-estate rebound." Indeed, it "holds lessons for the rest of the country." Another fantasy?
The Journal continues:
Phoenix has found a viable formula. Low prices are igniting demand from first-time buyers and investors who are converting the homes to rentals. The local economy is on the upswing with several big employers like Amazon.com Inc. and Intel Corp. hiring again, which is further increasing demand for housing. And the region is benefiting from a surge of buyers from Canada who are using their favorable exchange rate to scoop up bargains in the desert.
Could this be true? Has long-suffering Phoenix "found a bottom" and is beginning a rebound? As Zhou Enlai may have said when asked about the significance of the French Revolution: It is too soon to say. What it means about the metropolitan area's real competitiveness and future is murkier still.
As for housing, bear in mind these essentials: Few cities were harder hit by the housing collapse, with prices falling 55 percent and the foreclosure rate hitting third worst in the nation. Also, more than 52 percent of borrowers are still underwater, owing more on their mortgage than their house is worth. The Arizona Republic's Catherine Reagor reports that investors (read speculators) are rushing into the market, crowding out real home buyers. The shadow inventory of bank-owned properties is unknown, so it's difficult to predict whether a real bottom has been found, much less that prices will rise. Of course, location always matters most, so a rare historic home in Midtown will command a price that a tract house in the exurbs won't. And repairing the damage where hundreds of thousands were financially ruined will take years, even if housing is slowly recovering.
This hardly means the good old Growth Machine is sputtering back to life. The old model, where easy credit, liar loans, massive population increases and industrial-scale laying down of spec housing, strip malls and other development remains broken. An uptick in housing interest won't change it. More importantly, if it did, a return to business-as-usual would be the worst possible outcome for Phoenix's future.
The boosters are not interested in Phoenix's real competitive situation. "Positive" data and anecdotes are thrown out. Back in the "good old days," metro Phoenix made top lists, but only in job creation and housing starts — and the jobs being created paid low wages. Another trick is always to compare Phoenix and Arizona against their past performance. There's rarely useful context or an effort to benchmark against peer cities. For example, venture capital "is up." Or not: Arizona received $132 million in VC in 2011, according to Dow Jones Venturesource, vs. $166 million in recession-ridden 2010. But here's the context: Seattle companies netted $135 million — in the fourth quarter of last year, and not an especially strong performance. All of Washington state, similar in population to Arizona, received $542 million in VC in 2011. Ignorance is useful to the ruling elites and perpetuating the status quo.
Phoenix wasn't even in contention in the new Hot Spots report by the Economist's well-regarded Intelligence Unit. It examined 120 cities, using 31 indicators as well as in-depth interviews with business and political leaders. The goal was to produce a gold-standard benchmark of the world's most competitive cities. Only 15 out of a total of 60 global hot spots are in North America: New York, Washington, Chicago, Boston, Toronto, San Francisco, Vancouver, Los Angeles, Montréal, Houston, Dallas, Seattle, Philadelphia, Atlanta and Miami. These are the cities that make the grade to prosper and succeed in our new century of discontinuity. As the report states: "Size alone does not determine a city’s growth potential … Competitiveness, however, is a holistic concept. While economic size and growth are important and necessary, several other factors determine a city’s overall competitiveness, including its business and regulatory environment, the quality of human capital and indeed the quality of life. These factors not only help a city sustain a high economic growth rate, but also create a stable and harmonious business and social environment." Does this penetrate the booster craniums in Phoenix?
No. Obviously. The Kooks never tried to "get" economic development. They undermined the old state Commerce Department at every turn, failing to give it the toolbox of incentives that have worked nationwide. Instead, they replaced it with a "public-private" Commerce Authority controlled by the Real Estate Industrial Complex. Its mandarins tell the press it "is offering what it believes to be the nation's largest pool of innovation grants — $3 million — to create more home-grown businesses, speed the commercialization of inventions and help existing small businesses grow and add jobs." But what does that mean? South Carolina promised Boeing some $900 million in incentives to land a 787 production line. Austin spent $4 million to attract an eBay support center. These attracted established, large-scale employers. And what about support for Science Foundation Arizona and the Phoenix Biosciences Campus, which would be real job/innovation machines? In reality, the Commerce Authority is simply a target-rich environment for investigative reporters, agreeing to pay its first director an astonishing $1.25 million. The Greater Phoenix Economic Council is toothless and now torn apart by the appetites of the East Valley and the west side, all to the detriment of Phoenix. It was only effective when first established, under the dynamic leadership of Ioanna Morfessis and backed by major corporate leaders, now all gone.
The results were on display with the "competition" to win a new Apple operations center. The center and its 3,600 jobs went to Austin instead, a city that already boasts an impressive tech ecosystem utterly lacking in metro Phoenix. Austin, which knows how to play the eco-devo game, is giving Apple $8.6 million among other incentives. Just peddling sunshine, land and lots of tilt-up spec buildings won't cut it. This reality is not new. I can't tell you how many times I was told in the 2000s that "Phoenix is in the running" for some big project, only to see it go elsewhere. Intel is nice, a legacy of real economic-development efforts and Craig Barrett's affection for the Valley. But ask a resident of Phoenix how easy it is to get a job there. As for Amazon, it is creating low-wage warehouse jobs controlled by the well-paid thousands of headquarters employees who will occupy the multiple skyscrapers being built out my window in downtown Seattle.
Thus, a headline in the Republic proclaims, "More Arizona startups taking root." But read on and you learn that just 7,272 Arizona corporations were started in 2011, a 33 percent decline from the number registered during 2007. A banker notes, "New Mexico often has more venture activity than the state of Arizona, yet the population of the Phoenix area is two times the population of New Mexico." Small firms and startups, don't create many jobs. Also, a report by the Business Journal in the 2000s showed that Phoenix actually has much fewer startups per 100,000 people that many smaller cities, much less Phoenix's peers. In any event, the typical startup or tech venture is a rich-man's toy in north Scottsdale or Gilbert, meant to be quickly sold off, not built into the next Amazon, much less have a civic connection to creating a great city.
Then there's the continuing drag of political extremism, which shouts, "Global companies, don't invest here!" One new example is an anti-contraception bill that is the most extreme in the country. As Daily Kos comments, "How many times do we have to say this? Arizona's economy is in the shitter, education was cut a half-billion dollars last year, and 100,000 were just kicked off the state's Medicaid program. And this is what they spend their time on: restrict, restrict, restrict access to birth control, and if we can't restrict it anymore, then let's threaten workers with losing their job."
I don't write this to "make Phoenicians feel bad" or because "I hate Arizona." I do it so people get a clue. The old economic model, such as it was, failed to create good jobs and great companies even when it was performing at its best. It did create very costly externalities and great wealth for a few of the real-estate boyz. Now it's a new world, where slow growth and hyper-competition is the norm, with smart, livable cities taking the prize. A bunch of cheap houses, a few months of delightful weather and championship golf are not an adequate economic strategy for a major metropolitan area.
Can we get some urban growth boundaries in all of Arizona, not just metro Phoenix?
Second, the researchers at ASU’s Global Institute of Sustainability need to shout louder than Grady Gammage, Jr. and not let him go unchallenged with his “Sun Corridor” proclamations!
Make sure you pickup the latest copy of Adbusters. They need your dollars.
The Wall Street Journal and Fox News, Pravda of the American Right
Phoenix will never be a competitive city as defined in the Economist study. Cities in that league promote thinking and intellect. A person displaying either in metropolitan Phoenix is asking for trouble.
An air head city second to none.
jmav: On the subject of “air head”, I translated it quickly to thoughts about the Brown Cloud of particulates that’s been a-building during this last 50 days without rain. Phoenix is getting warmer, drier and less sustainable as a year-round residence. That may not dissuade the speculators or the seasonals, but it certainly bears on our overall marketability. Grady and Michael Crowe will continue to flog the Sun Corridor dream, but these machinations sound more and more like shilling and hustle to me.
It becomes increasingly evident that we are in the cross-hairs for climate change and The Flat Earth Society (aka state leadership) is doing everything they can to undermine environmental protections.
Michael Crow is not a proponent of the Sun Corridor and a huge influence for expansion of sustainability research and a proponent of “resilient cities”. I think Gammage is the most vocal at ASU…with some help from the Morrison Institute. It is a dichotomy within ASU for sure.
Next wave of land development? https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://interstate11.org/boardofdirectors.aspx
PSF: What I’ve read of M. Crowe on the Sun Corridor leads me to believe he’s a booster. Can you direct me to something more blanced from him?
He’s recently been on the news for his sustainability and downtown revitalization efforts…I’ve never read anything from Crow (no “e”) that was pro-Sun Corridor. I’m looking to see if I am wrong…
I think it’s important to understand that someone like Michael Crow must talk about things like urban living and downtown campuses as the next big thing, and they are. However, he’s not going to turn his back on the big dogs who push more and more development outward into the desert in a series of boom-bust growth cycles. Take a look at the list of supporters for the Interstate-11 highway (cached copy, btw — they removed the site in recent weeks). Then look at how far west the I-11 is supposed to go and note all of the development currently underway along the outlying Loop-303 corridor. The west side is now in play just like the east side was during the last boom cycle and there’s a whole lot of open land out there.
EATING CROW: Here’s what he has to say about the Sun Corridor, dated 10/4/11. Sounds like booster stuff to me.
https://asunews.asu.edu/20111004_TREO
I’m not sure they are using the sun corridor in the way Gammage, Jr uses it. Crow is talking about self sufficiency and regional cooperation. The Sun Corridor (Phoenix to Tucson) as a generic name for this region. Gammage talks about unapologetic sprawl development and replacing agriculture with tract homes.
Wonder where Soleri and Emil are?
They caught a train off planet
Wow. First, Rogue quotes Bum Phillips months ago and now throws in Zhou Enlai.
As a football geek and Sinophile Jon definately knows how to speak to me. 🙂
MORE CROW: Dates back to 2008, but his use of the term “megapolitan” spooks me!
https://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0504vip-crow04.html
Still more of the same cleanair. Crow’s idea of a Sun Corridor is one of sustainable practices and resiliency. In his speeches you get a sense of what he means. I suggest, if you have the chance or the inclination, to take a PUP/SOS (sustainability) class at ASU. He often speaks at these classes…
To him, the “Sun Corridor” is a region that can sustain itself with regional transportation (high speed rail linking the various communities, especially Tucson and Phoenix), continuing agriculture in Pinal and N. Pima Counties as well as preserving “urban farming” around Phoenix’s periphery (and planting crops that require less water than what is grown today like alfalfa and cotton). That’s what he means in this article by a “megapolitan” area acting like a nation.
Is this the normal cow poopy that comes out of Crow’s mouth?
What a deranged nutjob.
One thing about these higher-learning folks, not a clue about reality.
No wonder all his “ideas” have fallen flat on their faces.
No wonder they pay the coaches more than the college presidents. At least the coaches produce $$$. The Presidents only produce clouds of methane.
When we run out of water, let’s all go over to Crow’s house and run a hose from his faucet to our homes.
I won’t continue to defend Crow, but he’s brought more money to ASU than any president before. Research dollars at ASU have moved it from a non-performer (based on AAU standards) to one receiving more funding than many AAU schools. ASU under his watch now runs on more renewable energy than any other American university campus and is considered one of the “greenest” in the nation.
https://asunews.asu.edu/20111014_sustainablecampus
Interesting news from City Hall concerning Apple’s search for a new campus:
“‘State Trust Land did not excite them,’ Stanton said, ‘so there was no Phoenix site reasonably in contention.’
Apple took its $304 million investment, with the promise of 3,600 jobs, to Austin.
According to Deputy City Manager David Krietor, who oversees the city’s economic-development efforts, Phoenix did not even know Apple was considering the city until it was too late.”
https://www.azcentral.com/community/nephoenix/articles/2012/03/14/20120314phoenix-loses-bid-apple-campus-near-mayo-hospital.html#ixzz1pEidBglF
Maybe not all bad since the campus would have been in far north Phoenix! Seriously? Why not downtown or near Sky Harbor around 44th Street and light rail?
Then there is this:
https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2012/03/15/apples-austin-expansion-not-a-done.html
It appears there made be a very slim chance that Phoenix can steal Apple from Austin…since Apple doesn’t want to deal with State land issues, city leaders should sell the company on 44th St, downtown, or even Tempe. Anything but N. Phoenix…
pSf,
don’t you drive around downtown Phoenix?
A company like Apple doesn’t want it’s employees to run the gauntlet of homeless with their shopping carts at every intersection from 24th street to the I-10 to 19th ave. to Indian school.
When you folks on this blog go out and about, are your eyes open? Or are the poor homeless invisible to you??
No, I guess I can “tolerate” and not complain about the homeless because they are mostly harmless. Many need help and services…ever been to another big city azrebel? Many make Phoenix’s homeless problem seem nonexistent.
I don’t know much about Apple’s corporate culture, but why should the homeless discourage employers from locating somewhere? It didn’t stop Amazon from locating in downtown Seattle despite the huge homeless population there…perhaps Apple and its employees more pretentious?
The homeless are hardly visible downtown in Phoenix, unless you drive close to the human services campus south of the capitol mall. When I lived in Midtown, I rarely saw many. Austin has homeless. Downtown Seattle has a huge homeless problem. In Phoenix, the center city’s problem is different: Lack of a robust economic-development organization.
This message is for cal only. If you are not cal, please do not read it.
cal,
I had a couple of doctor appointments last week. Due to accidents on the freeways and a few accidents on the surface streets, my wife and I had to wind our way through downtown. All along third street, seventh street up to Camelback then on the way home along 7th avenue winding down to Van buren and across, there were more homeless with shopping carts than I’ve ever seen before.
cal, are these folks blind? When they say “downtown” are they only talking about a 2000 square foot area at the corner of Central and VanBuren? My wife and I purposely drove down through the avenues because I wanted to see if what I saw was an anomally.
The homeless were EVERYWHERE.
cal, this is scary. I’ve heard that the homeless and downtrodden are invisible to the general public, but this is amazing.
cal, don’t tell them about this message. Who knows what it would do to their “reality”.
cal, if you unplug me, will I dream ????
“the region is benefiting from a surge of buyers from Canada” – the manager of my condo complex noted the same thing – Canadians were buying foreclosed units 1 to 2 years ago (near Central). But how exactly does this benefit Phoenix residents who have lost houses to foreclosure? It looks like Phoenix is headed for a service economy for sunbirds.But I dearly hope I am wrong!
LA, SF and Seattle all have lots of homeless. After spending time in each of those places I think they become part of the scene and not something to get in a hissy about.
I do think the Catholic Services would do well to move their food distribution elsewhere from downtown. They have other properties they could perform this function at.
Green Homeless People
Well AZREBEL, You are onto something here, but I don’t think Apple passed on Phoenix because of the homeless. Not even homeless panhandling dudes, just trying to get up enough for a bottle of Morgan David. Phoenix, Arizona is a big negative in the world of businesses that employ a lot of really smart geeks. Silicon Valley types can read the news and the news they see in Arizona is a real turn off. Arizona politicians may be of a different religion but they can agree with Rick Santorum on kids that want to get a college education. Bunch of elitists free loading jerks. No I think Apple choose Austin cause they got Austin City Limits, and Engine # 2. And Austin is in Texas. A state that is much friendlier to business than Arizona. My grandson who claims to be a geek turned down an offer from ASU because intellectually the University of Texas is his kind of atmosphere. And he thinks Austin is cool. He doesn’t have to walk or ride his bike more than a mile for all his needs and desires.
Correct if I am wrong Jon but back in the early 2000’d didn’t you and I have a little go around about panhandlers in the area of 2nd Street and Van Buren. (Or as some of my old friends said Van Buree).
That was about the time the City Council decided to make the Phoenix Police Department Downtown walking beat hand out citations to Panhandlers. Of course they couldn’t pay the tickets so a warrant for their arrest was issued and they were arrested. Now they were no longer homeless or hungry. As you and I were feeding and housing them. But at least they were not scaring the shit out of poor defenseless people that worked downtown. Currently there are still a fair number of homeless in downtown Phoenix but not in the numbers there were in the past as we starved them out of town. And come the first of June the homeless from Phoenix will be harassing Jon(again) in Downtown Seattle.
Oh and AZREBEl you will only dream of Electric Sheep. I know cause HAL told me so.
Green Homeless People
Well AZREBEL, You are onto something here, but I don’t think Apple passed on Phoenix because of the homeless. Not even homeless panhandling dudes, just trying to get up enough for a bottle of Morgan David. Phoenix, Arizona is a big negative in the world of businesses that employ a lot of really smart geeks. Silicon Valley types can read the news and the news they see in Arizona is a real turn off. Arizona politicians may be of a different religion but they can agree with Rick Santorum on kids that want to get a college education. Bunch of elitists free loading jerks. No I think Apple choose Austin cause they got Austin City Limits, and Engine # 2. And Austin is in Texas. A state that is much friendlier to business than Arizona. My grandson who claims to be a geek turned down an offer from ASU because intellectually the University of Texas is his kind of atmosphere. And he thinks Austin is cool. He doesn’t have to walk or ride his bike more than a mile for all his needs and desires.
Correct if I am wrong Jon but back in the early 2000’d didn’t you and I have a little go around about panhandlers in the area of 2nd Street and Van Buren. (Or as some of my old friends said Van Buree).
That was about the time the City Council decided to make the Phoenix Police Department Downtown walking beat hand out citations to Panhandlers. Of course they couldn’t pay the tickets so a warrant for their arrest was issued and they were arrested. Now they were no longer homeless or hungry. As you and I were feeding and housing them. But at least they were not scaring the shit out of poor defenseless people that worked downtown. Currently there are still a fair number of homeless in downtown Phoenix but not in the numbers there were in the past as we starved them out of town. And come the first of June the homeless from Phoenix will be harassing Jon(again) in Downtown Seattle.
“Global Institute of Sustainability” . . . in Arizona! Give me an effin’ break!!
What is THEIR plan to shrink the human footprint in the desert by more than 50%?
Oh, and just how many airline miles do these GIOS clowns log each year? I’ve never seen one of them on a train. What a freakin’ joke!
Ooops, posted this in the wrong thread:
University of Texas is a nice campus…great school. The only problem is that it’s in Texas.
I know not many of you watch TV, however if you ever watch a bit of GCB (Good Christian Bitches) on ABC you’ll get a sense of Texas life. Those people (although based on Dallas social life) remind me of Texas and Texans, even in Austin…
Hey Serene Cannibal, it sounds logical that such an institute would exist in Arizona, but alas it does. Its research is valuable, serious, and well known around the world. Perhaps learning more about it before judging something you know nothing about would be valuable. It is also the first of its kind in the world, along with the School of Sustainability.
Oh, and there’s a reason they call it the “Decision THEATER”, what with all their strutting, fretting, and no more. It’s no wonder Crow needs to bring ever more cash into the perpetual flush of the ASU toilet.
https://dt.asu.edu/
ooops, illogical not logical…
Oh, now I understand, serene must be a UofA grad…such anger and resentment. ASU became a university in ’58, get over it already.
“ASU under his watch now runs on more renewable energy than any other American university campus and is considered one of the “greenest” in the nation.”
In perspective, that is both one of the saddest commentaries on the status of American ‘higher’ eduction, and the deepest pile of bullsh** ever heaped.
“Oh, now I understand, serene must be a UofA grad…such anger and resentment. ASU became a university in ’58, get over it already.”
Nope, you’re wrong. I know the UofA very little, and ASU far too well: well enough to believe that you may well be an ASU graduate.
Wow, you must be a genius Serene…
“you may well be an ASU graduate”
…and with all the genital warts that dubious honor entails.
Wow, you must be a genius Serene…
We can assume that is your relative assessment.
The real problem, it would seem, is the American k-12 education; it obviously failed you since you can’t argue with logic and fact and resort to ad hominem attacks. I take it Santorum is your friend from the way your comments read…
Phxsunfan, speaking of religion, I missed U at the Book signing by Kathrine Stewart and her book “The Good News Club.”
And I find it hard to bad mouth Austin just because it is in Texas. I have friends that are Gay Muslim Texans.
It seems that you need some guidance:
ad hominem
— adj , — adv
1. directed against a person rather than against his arguments
2. based on or appealing to emotion rather than reason
If you review, you will see that my preceding (and valid) criticisms were directed towards ASU and your boosterism regarding that shameless institution. You responded with this tripe (the very definition of ‘ad hominem’:
“Oh, now I understand, serene must be a UofA grad…such anger and resentment. ASU became a university in ’58, get over it already.”
Therefore, my assessment that you are likely a graduate of ASU.
“Some day folks living in Arizona are going to look back on the heroic days of rapid growth in Maricopa County and hail the developers and bankers who made it possible. We know it was a boondoggle, but to them it’ll just be home.” From:
https://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/03/15/the_myth_of_the_good_old_days.html?wpisrc=nextbox
The house across from me was bought by Canadians. No one lives there and its not for rent. Their property manager has stored a bunch of mattresses and some furniture there.
I think there are at least 5 bank-repoes in my ‘hood. Two are for sale.
An Apple Center at Indian School and Central would have been great (pick one of three corners), but can’t disturb the land bankers. CVS is putting one of their unimaginative boxes up at 7th St and Indian School. The parking lot seems to be the focus, as usual.
The homeless are here. They are out mostly during the commute times and also can be found panhandling in the parking lots of any grocery.
“Its research is valuable, serious, and well known around the world. Perhaps learning more about it before judging something you know nothing about would be valuable. It is also the first of its kind in the world, along with the School of Sustainability.”
Bullsh**. I know people who were living sustainably, and teaching it, before you were even a twinkle in someone’s eye. ASU should be pilloried for foisting its “School of Sustainability” upon our poor, unsuspecting children; and perpetuating the lie that what our culture does is not fundamentally unsustainable while it exhibits itself as a prime example of unsustainability.
Serene reread your statements. Obviously you don’t understand your the results from your Google search of the definition. Maybe you overlooked your STD quip among others…
Eclectic, I never even thought of Central and Indian School. It is just a big gravel lot now…
Besides it is a logical assumption to make that you may be a UofA graduate based on your irrational and vitriolic comments.
If you throw the first ad hominem, expect a return.
Of course, ad hominem attacks are the lazy response of those with no other defense. Keep tossin’ ’em. You’ll get ’em back.
Except I had not thrown one…my attacks weren’t personal, but trying to make sense of your irrationality. Like saying that the School of Sustainability teaches that our culture, and its rate of consumption, is a sustainable practice when the exact opposite is true. My statements stand…learn about something before you attack it with unsupported opinions.
Arizona and Texas the cutting edge on Redneck States.
You tossed this tripe:
“Oh, now I understand, serene must be a UofA grad…such anger and resentment. ASU became a university in ’58, get over it already.”
And, yes, the anger is justified. ASU is a shameless embarrassment.
Was that 1858 or 1958?
“learn about something before you attack it with unsupported opinions.”
I’ve learned. I’ve supported. Even so, one need only the briefest glance towards multi-million-dollar theatrics . . . err, ‘decisions’, like the ASU Decision Theater, to see the obvious, fundamental flaw in ASU’s misconception of what it means to be sustainable. The only words left to speak about ASU and GIOS are foul ones. Though, perhaps, if they relocated to a region that could sustain its population…
We really do need one more real estate growth bubble. Without it many people will be stranded in mid-career and face a financially challenging retirement.
Illiterate, that would be 1958 when university status was granted…
Relocated where exactly? Curitiba? For sure…but I’m curious, what evidence can you provide that ASU is an embarrassment or that truly sustainable practices are not taught…and that the status quo is taught. In lieu of pure opinion.
I’d like to know why ASU is an embarrassment. My college is not in Arizona but it surprises me when I hear such harsh comments against ASU.
Guess we need a Rogue post on ASU.
ASU is an embarrassment because it HAS a “School of Sustainability” instead of BEING a ‘school of sustainability’ (or even being sustainable). Here’s another one, in case you missed the first one: ‘.’
Oh, and let’s build commuter campuses! (And I don’t mean pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit).
Oh, yah! That’s a great idea!
Go ASU!
Jon a thread on ASU may be interesting but don’t expect an intellectual conversation or one based on many facts. The ASU, UofA rivalry will rear its ugly head. Subconsciously comments will be made about sports rather than academics. And comments like “because it has a school of sustainability makes it an embarrassment” will be the norm, as nonsensical as it may be.
From where did this obsession with interstate rivalry come?
Sustainability is global, despite ASU.
There! Another embarrassment. The moniker “Global Institute of Sustainability” expresses just the same kind of grandiosity and hubris that got us to where we are today. At least, Tucson has Brad Lancaster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Lancaster
Commuter campuses..you do realize those campuses have actually cut down on SOV trips made by the student population. And yes, more students than ever before use transit (light rail, bus, and campus bus services) than ever before. More campus housing and students living within walking, biking, and transit distance from the campuses than ever before as well. Let’s not forget that the Tempe campus is likely to meet its goal of carbon neutrality, or what we considser today as carbon neutral, by 2015. ASU has offered more solutions than most institutions can claimant thus, has cut against the grain in Arizona. That is one reason I believe those idiots at the State Capitol are in effective trying to de-fund Arizona’s universities.
Lancaster, Tucson and the Ecosa Institute at UofA have a long road ahead before they match campus sustainability efforts made by ASU. That’s not a gibe, but reality. How much renewable energy is generated there? How much waste created? How much effluent and recycled rainwater/runoff is captured and used? No where near the levels that ASU, despite its size, has achieved.
Here’s the take from San Antonio:
https://sacurrent.com/news/call-center-blues-san-antonio-39-s-slow-start-courting-the-creative-class-still-stings-1.1285363#.T2KnK-c6slg.email
That should read and at the UofA…
Meanwhile, Phoenix’s unsustainability keeps gaining national/international attention:
https://www.fastcoexist.com/1679449/lessons-from-phoenix-the-most-unsustainable-city-in-the-us
The School of Sustainability does in fact conduct research and lectures on the viability of Town Lake and riparian restoration. The question of if Phoenix can’t change, what city can is a common one in their desert cities series. And another point, the institute at ASU is a global consortium because its focus, and funding, isn’t solely focused on AZ or Phoenix and has attracted international students and researchers.
The problem is will Phoenix and Arizona be willing to change along with the university?
I apologize for the repeated words and typos, using a cellphone isn’t the best idea.
Mr. Talton wrote:
“Wonder where Soleri and Emil are?”
Three days after I returned to the state and purchased a 31-day bus pass, the bus drivers went on strike.
Bus service along my primary route (Thunderbird Road) was essentially nonexistent. It seemed as though Veolia ran only one or two buses a day, never at predictable times, perhaps so that they could claim to be servicing the route for statistical reporting purposes. A bus that ran one night at 9:20 pm did not appear the next night at that time (or the previous night, or any other night that I know of). A bus that ran one morning at 10:30 am did not appear the next day at that time. A bus would head in one direction, but instead of turning around at the end of the route and returning in the opposite direction as it is supposed to, it never appeared, as if it had been taken out of service. I was never able to discover a single bus making the round trip, and though I once watched for four hours after seeing a bus one morning, I never saw another one passing in either direction; and that was on a weekday, days after the strike had started the previous Saturday.
While it would have been possible to plan around very long delays, it was not possible to plan in the complete absence of any observable regularities in bus service; nor was it practical to wait for four or six or eight hours in the hope that a bus might randomly appear. No information was forthcoming from Valley Metro’s customer service on the telephone, since the line was either perpetually busy or else I was put on hold interminably (and I use prepaid phone cards which charge by the minute).
Without bus service I could not get to a library to check Valley Metro’s online updates (which I understand from newspaper reporting were rather vague anyway and subject to sudden change without notice).
So, I’ve been doing a lot of walking: four hours in the morning, another four hours at night, and on grocery day another four miles. I only have Internet access via libraries and haven’t been able to get to a library to visit Rogue Columnist or even so much as check email. (My ancient cellphone does not have any provision for Internet access.)
P.S. Did I mention I came down with a cold or flu (respiratory problems, fever, etc.) at about the time the strike began?
Nice thread, I didn’t mean to hikjack it.
It may well take a decade for the state’s housing market to recover. Cash buyers account for 60 percent of all Phoenix area homebuyers now according to the Arizona Republic article Mr. Talton linked to, but they are focused on houses at the bottom of the market ($100,000 and below). They are buoying the market, for now, because as the article notes, “wealthy investors can make more money buying foreclosure or short-sale homes in growing areas like Phoenix and renting them for seven to ten years until prices rebound, than they can on most investments now”. Their competition is increasing prices at the bottom of the market but the rest of the market is sick. When investors deplete that bottom stock (or drive those prices up enough to make rental income from those properties insufficiently remunerative) their activity will dry up. If ordinary homebuyers then fail to pick up the slack, expect to see home prices stagnate indefinitely or slide again.
Reagor’s article softpedalled the foreclosure problem: “Lenders did slightly increase the number of new notices of foreclosure they sent last month, which could mean more short sales or foreclosures”. In fact, in a separate article, Reagor stated that lenders sent 4,398 such notices “to Valley homeowners” in February compared with 3,297 in January. That’s an increase of 33 percent, which is scarcely slight. Time will tell if this is a transient spike.
Emil has been found. Good.
Soleri, it is rumored, was last seen pedaling a pedi-cab at Cubs games in Mesa.
Hey, a buck’s a buck.
Re ASU’s ‘sustainability’. It’s weird that the first thing they trot out is its membership in the “Green Honor Roll” of the Princeton Review — a test prep shop that for some reason put out a ranking with a methodology south of USNews&WorldReport.
“It boils down to this question: piles of trash outside the dorm and dining hall or less waste and lots of easy recycling bins?”
“Are new buildings are required to be LEED Silver certified or comparable?”
“Does the school employ a dedicated full-time (or full-time equivalent) sustainability officer?”
Seriously?
Then ASU prides itself on being in the “top 25” of Sierra Magazine’s “Coolest School” list — ASU comes in 23rd. Even the Sierra Club (shame on them) is dabbling in meaningless ‘Green’ rankings. Theirs is based on a voluntary survey with no independent audit of actual performance. At best they represent some progress in boutique ‘sustainability’ measures — LEED buildings come to mind. And they don’t care very much how much energy is used as long as there is a high percentage of renewables. My favorite question:
“Does your school offer campus-sponsored, nature-based extracurricular activities to students
and/or faculty? If yes, please list and describe up to three. ”
Finally,
“ASU was one of only 22 institutions out of 117 to receive a gold rating. STARS, the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System, is a transparent, self-assessment framework for colleges and universities to gauge relative progress toward sustainability.”
Baby it’s cold outside and there is nothing better than a backrub circle.
‘Sustainability’ should not be abused as a buzzword to sustain the unsustainable, for instance a megalopolis in the desert. The vision of sustainability that ASU espouses comes from watching too many Chevron commercials. ‘Will you join us’ is better translated as ‘Don’t blame us’. Congratulations for putting up lots of PV panels (how much of the output do they actually use?) and some LEED buildings. But where are the solar thermal systems and passive houses? Less snake oil, more hardcore engineering.
Thank You AWinter.
Emil: sorry to hear you got caught in the bus strike. Reading of your experience reminds me how important good transit is . . and how the lack of it affects those who don’t have the advantages most of us take for granted.
That Emil has been affected by the bus strike is bad. That there is actually real union activity in AZ is good.
I HATE Typepad.
I just tried to post a comment and, yet again, it WILL NOT APPEAR.
I’ll send a copy to Mr. Talton for indirect posting. The comment involves the question of how many jobs “small businesses” create.
Mr. Talton wrote:
“Small firms and startups don’t create many jobs.”
I saw that article awhile back and clipped it, but noted at the time that it was confusing (largely, it seems, because of editorializing on the part of the article’s writer, rather than the source cited).
A close reading reveals the following:
Small businesses that have existed for five years or more account for 60 percent of small businesses. This 60 percent cuts slightly more jobs annually than they add, for a net annual job loss of 0.5 percent of their staff. So, “most” small businesses eliminate (slightly) more jobs each year than they create, through layoffs, closings, or bankruptcy.
BUT, the same article claims that the 40 percent of small businesses that are less than five years old accounted for “more than 99 percent of the 2.5 million net new jobs in the United States in 2005”.
So the article really says that “small firms” and especially startups, created most of the net new jobs, even though technically only a minority of small firms (40 percent) were responsible for this.
The Small Business Administration, citing a U.S. Department of Labor study, has a different take: small firms accounted for 65 percent of net new jobs created from 1993 to 2009; and “much” of the job growth is from “5 to 6 percent of all firms” and their average age is 25 years.
https://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24
Still, this is less than impressive. Why? Because as the article notes, 99.9 percent of the almost 6 million companies in the U.S. are “small businesses”. That’s because the Census Bureau (and the Small Business Administration, among others) defines “small business” as 500 or fewer workers.
Obviously, this is not what most people think of when they think of “small business”. The family-owned and run neighborhood dry-cleaning shop is a small business. A company that has 499 employees is not, in any reasonable estimation. Complicating this is the fact that a neighborhood convenience mart than employs a dozen individuals may be part of a chain of stores across the city, state, or nation, and it’s the total employees that count. Is a franchise which provides income to a single owner/entrepreneur and a dozen employees a “small business”, even if it is part of a large national chain employing more than 500 (e.g., McDonald’s)?
A study by the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, using U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data, found that firms employing 1 to 19 workers were responsible for about 15 to 16 percent of net job gains from 1992 through 2010 (16 percent if the 2007-2009 recession was excluded from the dataset). This fits my personal definition of “small business”. Firms employing from 20 to 99 workers accounted for about another 23 percent of net job gains. Firms employing 100 to 499 workers were responsible for another 21 percent of net job growth over the period. So, by the classical definition of “less than 500 workers” small businesses created about 60 percent of the net job gain over the period: but firms employing less than 20 workers — which is what the typical personally owned startup would employ — accounted for only 16 percent of the net job gain.
OK?
Sign of an Arizonan’s memory and attention span.
“It’s cold and rainy today. Global warming and the drought are over.”
You know that’s what they’re thinking. You know it is.
‘Sustainability’ should not be abused as a buzzword to sustain the unsustainable, for instance a megalopolis in the desert. The vision of sustainability that ASU espouses comes from watching too many Chevron commercials. ‘Will you join us’ is better translated as ‘Don’t blame us’. Congratulations for putting up lots of PV panels (how much of the output do they actually use?) and some LEED buildings. But where are the solar thermal systems and passive houses? Less snake oil, more hardcore engineering.- Awinter
Renewable energy from ON CAMPUS sources at ASU compromises more than 25% of PEAK energy use. So yes, that is a huge difference from only 5 years ago when nearly 0% was derived from sustainable energy. Also, the university collects more material for composting and recycling than it does trash going to a landfill; that includes from dormitories, academic halls, dining facilities, etc.
Sorry, but if each of us did as much the world would be far better off. All I hear is a few of you talking down what has been done at ASU but I doubt you really know what is going on beyond a few internet searches.
AZrebel, so true!
I wonder what they are saying about the rest of the country (what over 80%) that experiences early blooms and pollen counts usually seen in April and May…
What are they saying regarding the thousands of (high) temperature records broken over the course of this winter around the U.S.
One last point: LEED Certified buildings don’t help much when they are built on pristine desert or in exurban areas, but when they are coupled with other sustainability efforts on an URBAN campus, the positive impact on the environment is exponential…
“But where are the solar thermal systems and passive houses?”
Currently, solar thermal in the desert is not a sustainable energy source. The water input necessary for cooling those systems outweighs the benefits. Passive Houses, like those built in Germany, are extremely rare and only a few exist in the U.S. However ASU has comparable structures with net-zero energy buildings and “Energy Plus Buildings” like Wrigley Hall. ASU’s goals are to reduce their carbon footprint and become a “carbon neutral campus” in terms of water use, solid waste, transportation needs, and energy. If the university wasn’t doing this then it would be championing our unsustainable culture.
Mr. Talton wrote: “And what about support for Science Foundation Arizona and the Phoenix Biosciences Campus, which would be real job/innovation machines?”
Two days ago, buried in the “Phoenix Republic” community insert of the Arizona Republic, was a story announcing that Phoenix had lost out to Austin as a site for a new operations center for Apple. The envisioned site was near the Mayo Clinic Hospital and also near Mayor Stanton’s proposed site for a biotech campus in Northeast Phoenix.
The article is interesting not only for the submerged political threads (read between the lines) but also as a possible explanation for why so much development seems to go to places like Chandler rather than Phoenix.
Stanton: “State Trust Land did not excite them, so there was no Phoenix site reasonably in contention.”
Read that sentence three times. It says that there is no Phoenix site “reasonably in contention” for a development of this type and scope that does not involve State Trust Land.
According to the article, Stanton also said that the state Land Department’s processes for releasing land for development are “byzantine”, and that the city’s strategy is to “get the land out from under the Land Department”.
The Phoenix city manager’s office states that it had not even been informed that the city was being considered; apparently it first learned when the newly created state Commerce Authority informed the city that it had been crossed off the list.
https://www.azcentral.com/community/nephoenix/articles/2012/03/14/20120314phoenix-loses-bid-apple-campus-near-mayo-hospital.html
I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume ASU is on a learning curve like the rest of us. Like the rest of us they’re not doing ‘sustainability’ as if survival depended on it. We still delude ourselves that we can keep living the way we do. All we have to do is to make some technical modifications -more green gizmos- so we can keep our lifestyle running and gain a moral highground for being conscious consumers – thus all the green rankings and sexy visible ‘sustainability’ measures. That’s phase one. I singled out LEED because it’s a good example of that kind of thinking and currently shows signs of being a glitzy racket.
https://www.energysavingscience.com/articles/henrysarticles/BuildingRatingSystems.pdf?attredirects=0
I mentioned the lack of solar thermal because I looked at the “Campus Metabolism” monitor, which tracks ASU’s energy use, and found that ASU uses a third of its energy budget on heating. Why does a university in the desert spend that much energy on heating? Another sign that they are yet to tackle the big heavy stuff.
To be fair, sooner or later they will tackle those deeper issues – all of us will be forced to do so. LEED is evolving as well. You gotta start somewhere but that’s not cutting edge leadership in ‘sustainability’.
“Like the rest of us they’re not doing ‘sustainability’ as if survival depended on it.” -Awinter
The truest statement any of us has made so far…the university still has much to do before it reaches its goals.
The heating that the university uses is for water (like most of us in the desert, that is the significant portion of our heating costs). Also research facilities, labs, etc require unique conditions and well regulated temperatures. Its not a perfect system of course, but ASU has been upgrading facilities and their systems nonstop. It will take sometime since most of the buildings on campus were built before any of these concerns (sustainability) were taken seriously.
Emil, Jon is right when he wrote that the CITY lacks a serious economic development organization…or even effort from its Economic Development Department. Stanton’s claim there is no other Phoenix site compatible with Apple’s needs is utter bullshit or simply an excuse for not being in the know.
Incidentally, the $8.6 million which the city of Austin is offering Apple is described in an update in the Austin Business Journal as an “economic development grant”, but in the comments section it is specified to be a “10 year property tax waiver”.
Total costs to the city, including the grant or tax waiver: $75.2 million. Benefits expected by the city (“could be”) $89.9 million. So, over 14 years the city expects to gain a net $14.6 million, or just about a million dollars a year. Chump change for a city the size of Austin.
The Texas Enterprise Fund is expected to kick in another $21 million in incentives to Apple over 10 years.
All this for 3,600 jobs. Meanwhile, the race to the bottom means that cities get to compete against one another to see who makes the least from the additional presence of rich companies like Apple.
https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2012/03/15/apples-austin-expansion-not-a-done.html?page=all
How would better city development resources have helped, if Phoenix wasn’t even informed it was under consideration?
Stanton didn’t claim that there is no other Phoenix site compatible with Apple’s needs: he said that there is no such Phoenix site which is not on State Trust Land. That’s a big difference. Do you have any reason to suppose that the new Mayor of Phoenix is ignorant or mistaken here?
Also note that it was Apple, not Phoenix, that was looking at that particular land parcel. Phoenix didn’t suggest it because — again — Phoenix didn’t know that it was on the list of cities being considered by Apple.
We must also consider ASU’s ability to change and come up with innovative solutions amid huge funding cuts from the state. Upgrading aging facilities is no small task…and very expensive. The university has relied heavily on the student population to change its consumption behaviors and to ask for changes. It has done so by teaching, and adding into nearly every students curriculum, the idea of living in a more responsible manner. Private-public partnerships have also allowed the university to fund its efforts in the face of huge budgetary restraints and a hostile Legislature.
Word play Emil…how could the city not have other sites already selected to showcase in case a company like Apple happens to come around asking for a site it could develop?
A better city develop resource would have likely aided with the first big hurdle by simply letting the city know that the most profitable company on earth had it on a short list for potential development.
“A better city development resoruce…”
Emil,
https://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2011/12/folly-corporate-relocation-incentives/737/
It’s strange when you find yourself agreeing with the chairman of the Goldwater institution. For heaven’s sake, Apple has $100 billion in cash lying around. This is as cheap as it gets.
For example (and maybe Jon can help us out here) when a company wants to locate in a city like Seattle, does that company leave the the city of Seattle out of the inner circle and go straight the state government in Olympia? Likely not because of Seattle’s powerful economic development efforts and organizations; especially for downtown.
Please stop ignoring the point at issue, phxSUNSfan. The issue is not whether other sites existed, the issue is whether they are on State Trust Land.
The parcel Apple wanted (without any suggestion from Phoenix) is on State Trust Land.
Stanton says of Apple that “State Trust Land did not excite them”. He adds “…so there was no other Phoenix site REASONABLY IN CONTENTION”.
This means that other sites “reasonably in contention” were also State Trust Land. This, combined with “byzantine” land release rules for property development by the state for such land, may explain, at least in significant part, why places like Chandler have seen much more development of this sort recently than Phoenix.
Ok, but what does that matter in the larger scheme of things? Why does State Trust Land matter so much if both the State and City were serious about being competitive…it doesn’t. Fine, there was no other site on State Trust Land; “so what’s plan B?” should be the next question already answer when a strong economic development effort is in place.
State Trust Land didn’t excite Apple, yes we read that…so again, what site will. Where could a company like Apple locate within the city that would be an attractive site? Near light rail and Sky Harbor yet still close enough to freeways since urban housing stock is in short supply in this region, I’d presume. Why was Apple not made aware of sites other than the ONE in North Phoenix?
Furthermore, a strong and well developed economic development effort would have realized the hurdles that existed on State Trust Land long ago and tackled those issues…or take least had a simple plan in place for removing them once the site was selected for development.
Thanks for that link, “AWinter”.
phxSUNSfan, Apple CHOSE to examine that site: it was not “made aware” of it by Phoenix.
How could the city “remove the issue” once the site was selected, if the city was not informed by Apple that it was under consideration? How can the city development machinery trump state law or tell a state agency to drop everything and make an exception whenever the city planner says so?
How about cooperation in an effort to accommodate future economic development endeavors? So really what you are saying is that you simply believe that the location was the only one Apple would consider?
I think that instead of “presuming”, you should listen to what Stanton said:
“State Trust Land did not excite them, so there was no other Phoenix site reasonably in contention.”
This seems like a problem that needs to be addressed at the state level. Can that be done by a legislature whose ranking Republican members come from districts outside the Phoenix area? Would Mesa or Chandler area legislators revise state law in a way that makes Phoenix more competitive against them? Would legislators in Fountain Hills, Anthem, or rural areas rush to aid urban Phoenix development, or would they sit on their hands for the benefit of their buddies in East Valley sprawlville?
I never wrote that Phoenix made Apple aware of the site. I wrote that if Phoenix had known of Apple’s interests it could have been more accommodating and had alternate sites preselected that would be competitive. With the help of a strong economic development resource, the CITY HALL would have been Apple’s first stop.
Again, you are saying that Apple would only consider that land for development even if the city was aware of their interest from the get go?
How would the mayor know that there was “no other Phoenix site reasonably in contention” if the city learned of Apple’s interest after the fact? I don’t remember reading that the Mayor met with Apple to discuss the details. Perhaps you are putting too much stock in one sentence?
phxSUNSfan wrote:
“So really what you are saying is that you simply believe that the location was the only one Apple would consider?”
No. Please stop rephrasing my comments in a manner designed to further your agenda.
Now, one might profitably ask, what does “reasonably” mean, in Stanton’s quote? Were there sites “unreasonably” in contention? What makes a site reasonable versus unreasonable, in this context? If you can discover this, and post some concrete information, that would be useful.
North Phoenix is no different in terms of sprawl compared to Chandler or Mesa. If anything, the conservative base has strong ties to North Phoenix/Scottsdale; two communities this development would have impacted.
“How would the mayor know that there was “no other Phoenix site reasonably in contention” if the city learned of Apple’s interest after the fact?”
Obviously, because he was informed by Apple, either directly or through the state Commerce Authority (which apparently HAD been in touch with Apple) AFTER the fact!
Don’t you have anything better to do than waste my time with silly questions you could answer yourself?
My “agenda” is only stating that Phoenix lacks a serious economic development resource. And yes, I am questioning your inference (from one sentence) that Apple was or would only “reasonably” consider one site. I’m simply don’t read that much into a one liner from the mayor who may very well be embarrassed that he wasn’t at the table when Apple came to town.
It’s Sunday and I’m a little hungover, so no, I don’t really have anything better to do today.
Note that there is a difference between North PHOENIX and Anthem or Scottsdale or some other non-city-of-Phoenix political and developmental entity.
You don’t seem to grasp the difference between geography and politics. Lots of municipalities share borders with Phoenix. That doesn’t mean they want to change state law to make development in Phoenix easier, since it might take away from their own development.
Furthermore, Phoenix is run by DEMOCRATS. Chandler, Mesa, Scottsdale, Anthem, etc., are not. Politics again.
Apple employs creative type employees. Austin, in the middle of Texas and nine hours from nowhere, is a destination city for creative type employees. Why is that the case?
Phoenix, located in a beautiful state within a day drive to the west coast, less than two hours from mountains, a day trip to Mexico, and a short flight to Las Vegas, has difficulty attracting a creative employee pool. Why is that so?
The tax benefits from local government certainly is a factor in city selection for Apple but the ability to attract creative talent no doubt weighed heavily in the location choice.
I suspect that the Mayor was deliberately cut out of the loop.
The state Commerce Authority is a creation of the Republican governor and her legislative cronies. They went headhunting and Apple bit. Hard to say what kind of incentives were offered, or suggested. However, the idea was for the CA to justify itself with this big trophy. So, part of the conditions for the incentives, especially until a decision had been made, was not to inform the City of Phoenix, which had its own resources and agenda and might have stolen the CA’s thunder.
I’ll let someone else chime in, but I don’t buy that argument. There is no way the state would let Apple slip away just because the mayor is a Dem. You don’t think Brewer and the rest of the kooks would be out there with Stanton claiming their piece of the pie? Geography and politics? Apple would have located in LD 11…no?
“So, part of the conditions for the incentives, especially until a decision had been made, was not to inform the City of Phoenix, which had its own resources and agenda and might have stolen the CA’s thunder.” -Emil
That is completely plausible. I’m not stating this to argue with you or simply contradict you, but do you not agree that if Phoenix had a more powerful Economic Development Department with their ear to the ground and nose in the air that Apple would have heard from the City even if the State was trying to keep City Hall out of the conversation?
I didn’t say that the state let Apple slip away because the Mayor is a Dem.
I suggested that the state Commerce Authority cut the City of Phoenix out of the information loop as long as possible, using the promise of incentives as pressure to obtain Apple’s discretion, because it wanted the trophy itself. The fact that Phoenix city government is Democratic is merely an aggravating factor.
jmav, good points. But there is more to it than that and I think Apple chose Texas, not just Austin, because of the tax breaks (incentives) they will receive. Translation, profits. They chose Austin next in order to satisfy their employees’ liberal tastes or to give them the illusion that they are somewhere liberal.
Texas and Arizona aren’t that different: Gov. Perry or Brewer? And Texas has gutted their public education system even more than AZ.
jmav wrote:
“…the ability to attract creative talent no doubt weighed heavily in the location choice…”
And yet, in Apple’s own documents submitted to Austin, it wrote that it was also considering Phoenix given its “supply and cost of labor” as well as Phoenix’s accessibility to its Cupertino, CA headquarters.
https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2012/03/15/apples-austin-expansion-not-a-done.html?page=all
Could a better city development machine have detected this in the works? Could well be. Could the city have approached Apple before the CA? Surely they did.
Don’t forget that the state of Arizona may have incentives outshining anything the municipal government of Phoenix has to offer. That may include the State Trust Land (within Phoenix city limits) that Apple was looking at. They could make some sweet offers on that. What would Phoenix have to offer, competitively, that wouldn’t bankrupt the city coffers?
“Could the city have approached Apple before the CA? Surely they did.”
Weren’t we left with the impression that they didn’t know Apple was considering the City until it was too late?
Also, there is the Discovery Triangle within Phoenix and Tempe that offers incentives from the city, state, and federal government…
https://www.discoverytriangle.org/incentives/
The Discovery Triangle stretches from downtown to Papago Park to the ASU campus in Tempe. Companies within these boundaries already are On Semiconductor, First Solar, Microsoft, etc.
Nice discussion. I notice only a couple of you noticed the absurdity of a company with $100 billion in cash, coming to cities with hat in hand looking for a handout. AND the cities falling ovr themselves to give this company with no morality all the cash they ask for.
Corporations, don’t worry, no property tax for you for the next ten years.
Citizens, so sorry, raising property tax for you forever and we’re going to cut fire, police and education because for some reason we don’t have enough of a tax base. Go figure.
A correction to my earlier post: I stated that the site Apple was looking into is located in AZ LD 11 when in fact it is in LD 7.
AzReb, so true. Moreover, Phoenix would be on the hook for infrastructure improvements and connections in an undeveloped site in N. Phoenix. This would have cost Phoenix much more in the long run.
To me, it’s nuts to be peddling state trust land as your big asset for something like Apple. Putting something like this in the middle of nowhere when there’s so much empty land in the heart of Phoenix, right on the light-rail line.
Again, the lack of serious economic development policy combined with the knee-jerk desire to develop empty, fringe land are terrible policy. They especially work against the city of Phoenix. Desert Ridge is a cancer.
And it is because the UT Engineering College along with the Engineering colleges at Texas A&M and Texas Tech that Apple came to Austin. Apple needs a workforce of educated technical professionals and Texas can fulfill that obligation.
Look, you may thing Texans are ass backwards on a lot of issues and you are correct. But looking at your governor and my governor, they are both idiots. However, bashing Austin for recruiting an employer isn’t going to solve your problems. Your state has failed miserably to advance higher education and research. I will give ASU and AU kudos for work they have done in space exploration and in the material sciences. Unfortunately, that still doesn’t solve your state’s education issues.
Intel probably wishes it would have built its last fab in Austin because it has a bigger pool of engineers and technicians. However, the financial incentives and reduced taxes won them over.
Where is S.I. Hayakawa?
“This seems like a problem that needs to be addressed at the state level. Can that be done by a legislature whose ranking Republican members come from districts outside the Phoenix area? Would Mesa or Chandler area legislators revise state law in a way that makes Phoenix more competitive against them? Would legislators in Fountain Hills, Anthem, or rural areas rush to aid urban Phoenix development, or would they sit on their hands for the benefit of their buddies in East Valley sprawlville?”
I AGREE.
“I’ll let someone else chime in, but I don’t buy that argument. There is no way the state would let Apple slip away just because the mayor is a Dem. You don’t think Brewer and the rest of the kooks would be out there with Stanton claiming their piece of the pie? Geography and politics? Apple would have located in LD 11…no?”
I DISAGREE. I think the kooks would do such a thing after all they are willing to destroy America to not let Obama be re-elected.
“jmav, good points. But there is more to it than that and I think Apple chose Texas, not just Austin, because of the tax breaks (incentives) they will receive. Translation, profits. They chose Austin next in order to satisfy their employees’ liberal tastes or to give them the illusion that they are somewhere liberal. Texas and Arizona aren’t that different: Gov. Perry or Brewer? And Texas has gutted their public education system even more than AZ. ”
MAYBE: but, my daughter moved to Phoenix a few months ago. In Texas she taught math to gifted Children in a public school for three (3) times what she is now receiving as a elementary teacher in Phoenix.
“And it is because the UT Engineering College along with the Engineering colleges at Texas A&M and Texas Tech that Apple came to Austin. Apple needs a workforce of educated technical professionals and Texas can fulfill that obligation.”
I AGREE This is one of the major reasons why my grandson chose to NOT accept an offer from ASU and Choose the University of Texas, in Austin.
If Apple is so interested in great engineering programs and the number of graduates, why not just remain in California where the schools ranked in the top 10 for Computer Science, Engineering, Programming proliferate?
Bottom-line, PROFITS gleaned off the backs of taxpayers in Austin and Texas. The Apple Campus will be built in sprawling NW Austin…not in downtown or near the UT campus and Austin lacks basic public transit besides a fledgling bus system. The Engineering programs at UofA and ASU are also top tier programs; I don’t buy the UT argument.
I forgot to mention Austin’s also Capital Metro Rail without a stop near the Apple Campus and with limited service.
Top engineering schools: UT #8, ASU #43:
https://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/eng-rankings
For all its flaws, which pSf has pointed out, Austin has a real technology ecosystem; Phoenix doesn’t. Texas has a congressional delegation that brings home the earmarks for research, etc.; Arizona doesn’t.
Gen. Sherman said if he owned Texas and hell, he would rent out Texas and live in hell.
Austin has some outstanding strip clubs, which is where the Austin people would have taken the Apple dignitaries. Apple dignitaries who are normally used to the hairy hippie chicks of the northwest and northern California. All the paperwork for the deal was probably signed in the VIP room of one of the clubs. Done deal.
phxSUNSfan, when I said that Phoenix had no doubt approached Apple before the CA, I meant only that Phoenix is always trying to recruit big companies like that (certainly, the Greater Phoenix Economic Council is) and that Apple has been on their watch list for a long time. That’s perfectly consistent with Phoenix being cut out of the loop by the new state Commerce Authority. I have to assume that GPEC was not informed either, since if it were the Phoenix City Manager’s Office would have known.
Note that an updated version of the story which appeared in the Arizona Republic Business section on Sunday, added a sentence revealing that Apple had also been considering sites in Mesa and Chandler.
Bloomberg News confirmed this in a story datelined three days ago, with quotes by Mesa and Chandler mayors:
“Chandler Mayor Jay Tibshraeny said a site near an Intel Corp. project was one of the finalists for Apple. He said a snag in the state capital became an issue.
“I was told they needed some kind of tax policy assurances at the state level that didn’t happen in the time frame they needed it,” Tibshraeny said.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-16/apple-hits-pause-as-austin-digs-deeper-to-net-texas-plant.html
The article reveals that even as Apple was promising Austin (in effect) the right of first option, they were still using the threat of picking Phoenix as leverage to insure the Austin City Council voted to approve its incentives package.
Note also that Apple itself, in the Bloomberg story, states that it rejected Phoenix because “it would be too difficult to get permission to build” on the State Land Trust property.
Stanton learned of the prospective deal two weeks ago, and tried to work with Apple, “but it was too late”.
To me, the salient point remains that, in Phoenix, the only land under consideration by Apple was State Trust Land; whereas (apparently) this was not the case in Chandler and Mesa.
Everyone talks about “empty land” in the Phoenix city limits as if Apple had its pick, but nearly all land is owned by someone already, either public or private. The question, in addition to property price and property tax rates, is whether the location, zoning, accessibility, and other issues make it desirable for the particular purpose Apple designated.
The Desert Ridge site was right at the confluence of 101 and Tatum. That makes for easy commuting by car, which may be what most Apple employees prefer (why should they be any different than the general population?).
Housing in the area is much cheaper (and newer) than downtown or central Phoenix because those areas are already built up and have been for a long time. A lot of Rogue readers have yet to internalize the lesson that sprawl occurs because undeveloped land on the fringes is cheaper and makes for cheaper housing. There is also a great deal more urban decay in the downtown and city center. The question of schooling also may appeal to Apple employees and to managers considering living areas for them close to work.
I don’t think that the quality of ASU engineering graduates is particularly relevant. The company’s Austin workers are “mostly in sales, administrative and finance for the North Americas” (see Bloomberg) and the new operations center looks like more of the same: mostly non-technical jobs.
phxSUNSfan, I did graduate from UA and I appreciate that you got back on topic. Ad hominem attacks aside, you and Serene Cannibal were just being dicks above. ASU’s school of sustainability is an asset, as is the sudden increase in research funding. Meanwhile, UA has been doing a great deal that we should acknowledge as beneficial — primarily through their research and engineering innovations (like building new semiconductor crystals in their optics labs, for instance, which help bring cheaper solar panels). Let’s not attack what’s good in our state. Let’s stick with going after all those unwilling to take on the hard stuff that might actually make this place better.
An article in the Arizona Republic’s Business section on Sunday makes my point for me:
“If they don’t mind rising fuel costs and driving stress, workers today can live in areas where housing and living costs are lower and commute to areas where salaries are higher.”
The article reports the findings of the Rudin Center for Transportation at New York University, which found that Tucson-Phoenix ranked first in the nation in the number of “super-commuters”.
A figure of 54,400 was given, but it’s unclear if this was daily, since as the report itself points out, “the super commuter typically travels once or twice weekly for work, and is a rapidly growing part of our workforce”, with computers and other remote devices allowing work from home (or at least the home city) the rest of the time.
The question of how much an increase in gas prices might deter commuting and sprawl depends largely on the amount of the increase versus the need for less gas by newer and more efficient motor vehicles, as well as the salaries of the commuting professionals and whether the company includes rising gas costs in employees compensation.
https://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Business/2012-03-18-PNI0318biz-insider-beardPNIBrd_ST_U.htm
P.S. Perhaps I should have made explicit that the commute in question is BETWEEN Tucson and Phoenix.
ptb, you are right. I was being an ass, though I wasn’t too harsh on the UofA. 😉
Gave you guys a “shout out” for your Engineering Program as well…
Are “super commuters” willing to pay the price or forced to? What if, as Jon writes in his next article, our nation had invested in rail and other infrastructure…much nicer commutes could be had between Phoenix and Tucson on high speed rail.
As for cheaper sprawl, it is only so because externalities aren’t considered in the price. We pay much more as a society to subsidize the sprawl machine.
The question of gas prices is fascinating.
Domestically, demand for gasoline is at a 12 year low, and that isn’t expected to change.
The United States exported nearly as much gasoline (not oil) in 2011 as it imported: 562,000 barrels versus 596,000 barrels.
Major East Coast refiners have actually been shutting down. They aren’t operating anywhere near maximum capacity; they make decisions based on demand and profitability.
https://www.cnbc.com/id/45826765/
Oil has risen in cost, with tensions about Iran. Dan Dicker has been trading in oil instruments (options, swaps, futures) for 25 years. He claims that the speculative premium in oil is 40 dollars a barrel.
https://www.thereformedbroker.com/2012/02/12/dan-dicker-almost-half-the-price-of-oil-is-speculative-premium/
Did you all see the comments in Jon’s Seattle newspaper blog?
How in the world is a city to juggle the following items and still strike a balance in these times?
Growth
Transportation
Crime
Homelessness
Rich People
Poor people
shoppping
tourism
Drugs
Smart people
dumb people
education
taxes
no taxes
tax exemptions
Seems like too much to ask.
Emil is this a judgment?
“A lot of Rogue readers have yet to internalize the lesson”
By the way I ran into Sam Pulsifer today.
Not a judgment so much as an observation. I think that support for mass transit is fine, but there is a difference between how we’d like things to work and how things actually do, and it’s important to base analysis of “real world events” on the latter.
Only about two percent of Phoenix commutes involve mass transit. That’s abysmal. But there are reasons why sprawl occurs and why companies like Apple favor locations in the suburbs rather than downtown (whether in Phoenix or Austin) and they should not be ignored in analyses of company behavior. So too must a similar dynamic be considered when evaluating the behavior (present and future) of actual and potential homeowners and migrants.
Phoenix is built on the model of cheap land = cheap housing and single-family homes. The cheap land is in the suburbs and exurbs for reasons involving basics of supply and demand, as well as infrastructure (its presence or absence) and development costs.
I don’t think that gasoline prices alone will eliminate sprawl because gas prices will follow a pattern nationally whereas housing will remain cheaper where land exists for development. The housing market (particularly underwater mortgage holders) is much more significant in holding back a return to the previous model of in-migration and development, but that is temporary, even though I expect it may take ten years to correct.
When municipal expansion is restricted through geographic means (e.g., surrounding municipal borders) or by laws restricting density or land usage, then “suburbia” takes the form of surrounding municipalities and the Big Commute continues. This is true, for example, of Seattle, which sees little growth itself but which is surrounded by areas which grow and grow because they face no such restrictions (or less) and because the dynamic for growth continues to be valid. The distinction is arbitrary, because the metropolitan area takes the place of a single municipality, and sprawl exists either way.
Look also at some of the top 10 supercommuting cities mentioned in that article and you will see that over the last decade long commutes from the suburbs and exurbs have increased dramatically.
I’ve heard the new country of So. Sudan (or whatever it is called) has STOPPED oil production because No. Sudan has been using the monies for itself and not passing it along — in addition to continuing religious and ethnic cleansing in disputed areas. That is 6% of Chinese imports so now they have to get it elsewhere…
Sudanese oil exports to China are down, but the Saudis have increased theirs: so have Iraq, the UAE, Kuwait, and Russia.
China has also cut imports from Iran to show its displeasure with tough Iranian bargaining terms. If it can afford that sort of political brinksmanship, it probably is getting all the oil it needs from other sources (which are numerous).
https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/china-crude-iran-idUSL3E8EL37820120321
Associated Press reports that the Chinese government just raised gasoline prices for the second time in two months. However, the government is concerned that the economy will overheat, so it is targeting lower growth (just 7.5 percent this year, instead of the 8.9 percent annualized rate seen in the last three months of 2011). The Chinese government is also trying to reduce speculation in the housing market, and home prices in 45 cities have dropped as a result.
The real news, for me anyway, is that BHP Billiton, a mining company, predicts that Chinese use of iron ore has maxed out: it predicts about the same use in 2020 as today. Iron ore is the main component in steelmaking, of course, so that seems to say something (not sure what, yet) about the Chinese manufacturing sector.
The Arizona Republic carried a story in today’s Business section today headlined “Arizona leads U.S. in innovators”
https://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/2012/03/15/20120315report-arizona-leads-us-innovators.html
The story could probably have been more accurately titled “Arizona leads U.S. in desperate individuals who cannot get hired and who consequently hire themselves”.
I took a look at the report that the story was based on:
https://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/KIEA_2012_report.pdf
The index measures the percentage of individuals ages 25-64 who do not own a business in the first month, who own a business in the next month and devote 15 or more hours of work.
Note that the index for high-school dropouts is higher than for other groups, as is the growth in the index since the recession, suggesting that these are not “entrepreneurs” (where would high-school dropouts get the capital?) but rather, desperate individuals who cannot find work and as a consequence “hire themselves”. Nothing in the requirements (and I’m not sure how “new business” is determined except as an unverified response in a survey — check this) suggests that the business must be successful or that stuffing envelopes as a free contract agent, etc. is excluded from the “businesses”.
The index for high-school dropouts was 0.42 percent in 2007 and 0.57 in 2011; for high-school graduates it was 0.30 and 0.33 respectively (a much smaller increase); and for college graduates it was 0.33 and 0.29 respectively, a decline. See Table 5, p. 15 of 32.
Interesting footnote:
1. The U.S. Census Bureau notes that the definitions of nonemployers and self-employed business owners are not the same. Although most self-employed business owners are non-employers, about a million self-employed business owners are classified as employer businesses.
https://www.census.gov/econ/nonemployer/index.html.
Thanks for deconstructing the “innovators” story, Emil. I go back to this eye-opening story in the Business Journal of maybe six years ago that showed metro Phoenix actually had fewer startups per 100,000 residents than any peers. It was something like 32nd in the nation. Phoenix is many things. It does not have an ecosystem for genuine startups, much less innovation.
“Lancaster, Tucson and the Ecosa Institute at UofA have a long road ahead before they match campus sustainability efforts made by ASU.”
The suggestion that Brad Lancaster somehow devolve into a bloated echo of the surrounding, unmitigated sprawl of his city in order to “match” ASU is comical, at best.
You should be quiet now. You don’t have much more credibility to piss away.
“Serene Cannibal”?
Methinks I detect the strident whinny of Rosinante. Have you undergone a name change here recently?
Whoops. I meant Rocinante. At any rate, there was a user here recently, claiming (with what they used to call the Latin Temper, and an online handle to match) that the world would end in 2012.
https://www.hcn.org/issues/44.5/traveling-arizona-highways-in-your-dreams-and-on-the-ground
An uplifting AZ story…