Page 9 - the NOISE August 2014

founder of a group called “NAU Students Matter,” which claimed to be “created by a group of students who had attended some of the pub- lic meetings on The Standard.” (Apparently, none of those students
were available for comment.) The organization had created a Face- book page and sent robocalls (automated, prerecorded messages) to 14,000 Flagstaff residents, urging them to come out and support The
Standard at the City Council meeting.
My mind suddenly flashed back to the Planning & Zoning meeting. There had been students there, but only five of them. They were, in fact, the only people who had stayed a remarkable 5+ hours to ex- press support for the Standard. Their comments had nothing to do with zoning, though, simply stating that students need nice housing, and that it seemed like The Standard would be a nice place to live.
Finding it strange that students would spend this much time on a weeknight to deliver such a generic message at an interminable Plan- ning & Zoning meeting, several organizers did some cursory research on them. Each and every one of them hailed from the Mesa area.
I immediately began some research on Mr. Bilsten and was not at all surprised to learn he resides in the Mesa area. I was even less surprised when I learned that he operates a small consulting firm dedicated to
“facilitating strategic outreach.” According to the company’s Facebook page, he essentially pays students $1 - $2.50 per signature they ob- tain for various petitions and ballot measures. “Who do you know that needs to make good side money?” the site inquires. “Ask them to like our page! We will share all of our side money opportunities here!”
I shared these findings with the Daily Sun reporter working on the story, suggesting further investigation. The next day she published an article titled, “New robocalls for The Standard in Flagstaff cite unknown sponsors.” This new round of calls claimed to be from the “Flagstaff Small Business Coalition” and “Concerned Parents of NAU Children,” neither of which has ever existed. Mr. Bilsten claimed he didn’t know anything about them, though the automated messages forwarded people to Mr. Bilsten’s “NAU Students Matter” Facebook page.
shots Fired, PArt ii: FoLLoWing suit
It was 1:30PM on the day of the City Council meeting the big news broke: Landmark’s spokesperson — Joe Villasenor, who I inter- viewed for the May edition — was suing Vice Mayor Coral evans for defamation.
Ms. Evans had been the most outspoken member of council against The Standard, publicly drawing attention to what she saw as deficien- cies in the company’s process. Mr. Villasenor was suing her not for something she personally wrote or said, but for an email written by someone else she had forwarded months earlier. In it, the author calls Mr. Villasenor “disingenuous, dishonest, and untrustworthy.”
As I understand it, the question in defamation/libel suits is not whether the defendant said something unkind about the plaintiff, but whether they said something both unkind and untrue. So the ques- tion becomes: Was the author of the email accurate in her specific accusations? [read a copy of the email at thenoise.us/proofs]
Should Mr. Villasenor have mentioned to a reporter that one pos- sible reason Landmark was having trouble obtaining personal infor- mation from the residents was that company representatives tried to visit Arrowhead Village during working hours? Was Mr. Villasenor in- volved in the claims of those representatives that they were working with the nonprofit Caesar Chavez Foundation (who strongly disavows ever working with Landmark)? Did Mr. Villasenor misrepresent the facts to a reporter by suggesting that Landmark had volunteered a compensation package model, rather than being prodded into it over the course of a two-hour meeting by repeated requests from Ms. Ev- ans, the residents and others? These are now questions for a judge to decide.
What we do know is that Ms. Evans and the rest of Landmark’s op- ponents were less concerned with the lawsuit itself than with what they viewed as its intent: to remove Ms. Evans from the vote at the City Council showdown that very evening. Ms. Evans’ recusal was openly insisted upon by Mr. Villasenor’s lawyer, who claimed there was sud- denly and obviously “a bias against the project now for the Vice Mayor.” Even Mayor Nabours — who seemed to favor Landmark, and would be hard pressed to name any development project he’s ever opposed — would later call the timing of the lawsuit “certainly suspicious.”
By 3:30PM, the City Attorney had cleared Ms. Evans of recusal, stat- ing there was not necessarily any conflict of interest or bias. She would be able to vote on the rezoning, but the move had angered an already-disgruntled public, and the stage was set for a cantankerous council meeting.
CitY CounCiL: the FinAL Fight (?)
The City had learned from the public’s reaction to the Planning & Zoning debacle. The sheer quantity of public comments opposed to The Standard would certainly push the City Council meeting past its normal closing time, but rather than another 6-hour marathon, there
were plans from the beginning to split the meeting into two consecu- tive nights.
Once again the public lined up to speak against the project in a packed Council Chamber. The content of their opposition was largely the same as before, though it was now peppered with outrage not only about the project, but about the robocalls, the lawsuit and gen- eral shenanigans of the two previous days. Mr. Villasenor had not shown up for the first time in the whole torrid affair, but there was a tangible sense of tension as his wife took the microphone.
The aggressively vocal responses that characterized the meeting came not only from the speakers, but from the crowd, who openly disregarded the Mayor’s instruction to be silent. He claimed he was being “pretty tolerant” of their disobedience, but it is unclear what he could have done about the frequent outbursts, other than have police clear City Hall into the streets by force, which could have very possibly sparked a riot. At the very least, it would have had severe political consequences in an election year.
Halfway through the first night, the La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood As- sociation played the “wild card.” During her public comment, outreach director Laura Meyers notified the council that Landmark would now require a supermajority vote to approve the rezoning. Taking advan- tage of a little-utilized provision of Arizona law, they had persuaded 20% of the property owners within 150 feet of Arrowhead Village to file written objections with the City. This meant five of the six voting councilmembers would have to vote in Landmark’s favor. With Ms. Ev- an’s vote still in play, and with councilmember Ms. Barotz’s outspoken opposition, it appeared the rezoning was doomed to failure.
Unexpectedly, the real fireworks display ended up coming not from the crowd, but from City Council themselves. I have seen the final 15 minutes of that meeting several times (it is available on YouTube as
“Landmark’s shameful withdrawal of The Standard”), and every time is painful.
It begins with Andrew Young, Senior Vice President of Landmark, standing before council to request a two-week postponement of the council meeting.
“I’m probably guilty of letting this go too far,” he says with a voice of embarrassed contrition, asking for two weeks to produce plans for “fundamental changes to this project.” Mayor Nabours then notes this would reboot the entire process, sending The Standard back to the first stages of Planning & Zoning. The crowd is audibly dismayed. They had been fighting the project for 9 months already, and residents had
been losing sleep wondering if they would even have a home in Flag- staff. No one relished the thought of this battle dragging into 2015.
That’s when Councilmember Barotz threw the first punch. “I have never really seen anything like this, and I found it to just be horrifying. And also deeply saddening.” She followed up with a question that would be echoed several times in the next few minutes: “Why should we trust you?”
Ms. Evans repeated the question, but quickly began to ask pointed, emotionally-charged questions about the lawsuit filed against her only hours before. Her lawyer literally stood up in the audience as a caution to pipe down.
When councilmember Barotz asked again why she should trust Mr. Young, the Mayor decided it was time to intervene. “Ms. Barotz, I don’t know that that’s a fair question.”
It is at this point all semblance of order breaks down. The crowd practically erupts in objection, and an unintelligible booming of un- known origin blasts through one of the microphones. All hope for a nice, clean discussion had ended. “We don’t conduct our business by mob rule here,” the Mayor barks into the microphone.
Mayor Nabours ended up saving Landmark’s last hope for The Stan- dard by suggesting that Mr. Young simply withdraw the rezoning ap- plication. If it was never voted on, it could still be brought back to the table any time, perhaps down the road when the community opposi- tion had cooled its jets for a while.
After a few more minutes so raucous that councilmember Overton suggested a recess for everyone to calm down, Mr. Young finally took the Mayor’s advice. Landmark’s rezoning application was withdrawn and the Mayor jettisoned council procedures, unilaterally ending the meeting with a bang of his gavel.
MArginAL hoPe
The Standard still exists on file at the Planning & Zoning office, but for now it has little hope of standing at the address of 703 Blackbird Roost. This offers some short-term hope to the residents of Arrow- head Village.
The owner of the park says he’ll sell the property anyway. But this just makes me wonder: After a political war like the one Flagstaff has endured for 9 months, who seriously wants in on that?
| Kendall Perkinson knows his way around a FOIA request. kromaticphoto@gmail.com
thenoise.us • the NOISE arts & news •
AUGUST 2014 • 9
ALMOST ON THE AIR! by John Abrahamsen
We know a lot of you have been wondering, “Hey, whatever happened to Radio Free Flagstaff? Haven’t heard much about it lately — is it still a thing?”
The answer is YES! — indeed, Radio Free Flagstaff is now a legal thing. Last month, we got permission from the Federal Communications Commission to build a radio station. There are still a few legalities and technicalities to iron out, but all of our supporters can breathe easy
— Flagstaff is definitely getting a community-access radio station ...
AND SOON!
Before we get too gung-ho, we must acknowledge those without whom we would not have reached this stage. Too many to mention by name, countless supporters taking bills out of their bags and wallets to donate at our various fundraisers, dozens of musicians giving freely of their time and genius, forward-thinking venues like The Green Room, Mia’s Lounge, The Orpheum and Theatrikos for their space and assistance — thank you for sticking by us! We’re here because of you!
There are a lot more thanks to go around, and some celebration is in order, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Our license says we have to build a studio in downtown Flagstaff, so that’s our focus. We will let you know how things are coming along in future issues of the Noise, because we know a lot of you are waiting to do a music show on your local community-access radio station.
Well, your chance is coming —
STAY TUNED!
For more info, email
john@thenoise.us