CXLIII - UPDATED 6/3 - Coyotes arena deal takes next step after Tempe council votes to open negotiations

[TheLegend]

Appears Sky Harbor has an IGA skeleton or two in its closet.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2022/10/13/tempe-mayor-coyotes-deal-wrap-up-two-months/10475263002/

If you can get around the paywall it's a decent read.

But if not.....

The Arizona Republic has dug up emails which contradict some of the recent statements made by Sky Harbor in regards to the IGA.

Including one regarding a multi-unit complex Tempe built near the airport in 2013 that Sky Harbor claimed they didn't know about, but an email showed they not only knew about it but never lobbied any objections to it.

In fact, the Coyotes proposal was the first pushback from Sky Harbor of any project since the 1999 proposal to build the Arizona Cardinals stadium on a site to the north of where Meruelo wants to build (and it was not in line with any of the runways at the airport).

The Republic also found email exchanges from 1996 between the then mayors of Phoenix and Tempe that agree to conditions that would allow multi-unit complexes in the high noise areas provided they had appropriate sound proofing.

The IGA was signed in 1994.

While the exchange did not address the IGA directly. It's painting a picture that Phoenix has been quite selective in what projects they chose to object to,

 

[gstommylee]

Appears Sky Harbor has an IGA skeleton or two in its closet.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2022/10/13/tempe-mayor-coyotes-deal-wrap-up-two-months/10475263002/

If you can get around the paywall it's a decent read.

But if not.....

The Arizona Republic has dug up emails which contradict some of the recent statements made by Sky Harbor in regards to the IGA.

Including one regarding a multi-unit complex Tempe built near the airport in 2013 that Sky Harbor claimed they didn't know about, but an email showed they not only knew about it but never lobbied any objections to it.

In fact, the Coyotes proposal was the first pushback from Sky Harbor of any project since the 1999 proposal to build the Arizona Cardinals stadium on a site to the north of where Meruelo wants to build (and it was not in line with any of the runways at the airport).

The Republic also found email exchanges from 1996 between the then mayors of Phoenix and Tempe that agree to conditions that would allow multi-unit complexes in the high noise areas provided they had appropriate sound proofing.

The IGA was signed in 1994.

While the exchange did not address the IGA directly. It's painting a picture that Phoenix has been quite selective in what projects they chose to object to,

That's quite damaging if they tried to sue and those e-mails are brought up. You can't just pick and chose what to object to and what not to object to.

 

[awfulwaffle]

That's quite damaging if they tried to sue and those e-mails are brought up. You can't just pick and chose what to object to and what not to object to.

I'm wondering how this would impact their threat to cancel the agreement altogether.

 

[gstommylee]

I'm wondering how this would impact their threat to cancel the agreement altogether.

Pretty big to the point they'll lose in court if tempe sues them if phx tries to chancel the agreement.

The airport can't do what ever they want and make people's lives miserable on purpose. Tempe sued pjx to get that agreement in the first place.

 

[TheLegend]

I'm wondering how this would impact their threat to cancel the agreement altogether.

If @1CasualFan makes it back to here again I'd like to hear his thoughts on it.

But IIRC, Phoenix was offering the option to Tempe for them to cancel the agreement. I don't believe they would do it unilaterally because the optics would be very bad for them. And from this public lobbying campaign they recently launched, it appears going to court would be the last thing they want to do because any additional discoveries such as this if they exist would be forced out.

 

[Stumbledore]

That's quite damaging if they tried to sue and those e-mails are brought up. You can't just pick and chose what to object to and what not to object to.

If you really believe that, you haven't been following the politicization of the courts lately.

 

[AZDesertKnight]

At what point can the City of Tempe sue for damages for the City of Phoenix slander and attempts to kill their deal?

 

[sawchuk1971]

Appears Sky Harbor has an IGA skeleton or two in its closet.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2022/10/13/tempe-mayor-coyotes-deal-wrap-up-two-months/10475263002/

If you can get around the paywall it's a decent read.

But if not.....

The Arizona Republic has dug up emails which contradict some of the recent statements made by Sky Harbor in regards to the IGA.

Including one regarding a multi-unit complex Tempe built near the airport in 2013 that Sky Harbor claimed they didn't know about, but an email showed they not only knew about it but never lobbied any objections to it.

In fact, the Coyotes proposal was the first pushback from Sky Harbor of any project since the 1999 proposal to build the Arizona Cardinals stadium on a site to the north of where Meruelo wants to build (and it was not in line with any of the runways at the airport).

The Republic also found email exchanges from 1996 between the then mayors of Phoenix and Tempe that agree to conditions that would allow multi-unit complexes in the high noise areas provided they had appropriate sound proofing.

The IGA was signed in 1994.

While the exchange did not address the IGA directly. It's painting a picture that Phoenix has been quite selective in what projects they chose to object to,

what is IGA?

 

[Ernie]

Doesn't matter if Phoenix wins or loses, if they take this to court it could tie up the deal for years.

As far as I can tell, just because one party chooses not to enforce their side of the agreement at some point it doesn't mean the agreement is invalid at a later date. Tempe would have to provide proof that Sky Harbour is making this decision for ulterior motives. Even if that proof exists, getting it would require a fairly long legal process.

 

[Llama19]

what is IGA?

Inter-governmental agreement...

 

[sawchuk1971]

Inter-governmental agreement...

thanks...

 

[TheLegend]

Doesn't matter if Phoenix wins or loses, if they take this to court it could tie up the deal for years.

As far as I can tell, just because one party chooses not to enforce their side of the agreement at some point it doesn't mean the agreement is invalid at a later date. Tempe would have to provide proof that Sky Harbour is making this decision for ulterior motives. Even if that proof exists, getting it would require a fairly long legal process.

They won’t tie it up. The optics would not go in their favor and people still remember the Cardinals stadium debacle.

Besides…. Meruelo has a backup plan which most of us locally believe is a short distance to the east. Most of the preliminary talks for that took place back when they were talking to Tempe. There are public comments from Meruelo himself to that effect. Plus there are comments from Tempe’s mayor to the same effect.

Not going to take much for him to pivot and shift to the backup plan. And he has an optional fourth year at ASU if he needs it for that.

So all the wishing in the world from those who’d like nothing more than to see this fail are betting on some very long odds right now. And I’m only giving it that because nothing is ever certain.

 

[Stumbledore]

They won’t tie it up. The optics would not go in their favor and people still remember the Cardinals stadium debacle.

Besides…. Meruelo has a backup plan which most of us locally believe is a short distance to the east. Most of the preliminary talks for that took place back when they were talking to Tempe. There are public comments from Meruelo himself to that effect. Plus there are comments from Tempe’s mayor to the same effect.

Not going to take much for him to pivot and shift to the backup plan. And he has an optional fourth year at ASU if he needs it for that.

So all the wishing in the world from those who’d like nothing more than to see this fail are betting on some very long odds right now. And I’m only giving it that because nothing is ever certain.

The back-up plan makes a lot of sense.

Is there anything in print/public about this Plan B that you can direct us to?

 

[TheLegend]

The back-up plan makes a lot of sense.

Is there anything in print/public about this Plan B that you can direct us to?

Nothing… only rumors. Tempe’s mayor referred to Meruelo going (paraphrasing) “right across the city limits” as the alternate if Tempe did not consider it. That limits it to Scottsdale, Mesa or the Salt River Community. Would really have to dig to find that quote but it’s there.

 

[Fyreman]

Do not quote me on this, but a person of reliability said the Plan B site is 3 miles due east of the proposed TED site. You can do your own calculations, but a SWAG on my part came up with roughly (very roughly) 60 acres. Not trying to add/subtract to the discussion here, just passing on what I heard... FWIW

 

[gstommylee]

Doesn't matter if Phoenix wins or loses, if they take this to court it could tie up the deal for years.

As far as I can tell, just because one party chooses not to enforce their side of the agreement at some point it doesn't mean the agreement is invalid at a later date. Tempe would have to provide proof that Sky Harbour is making this decision for ulterior motives. Even if that proof exists, getting it would require a fairly long legal process.

Here's the thing, if this ends up in courts every discussion every little thing regarding the agreement and the airport will be public due to discovery and some of that could very well be very damning especially if the airport/phx is picking and choosing what residental units to object near the apirt and not.

If you really believe that, you haven't been following the politicization of the courts lately.

This is over an agreement between two cities and phx is basically choosing what to oppose and not oppose.

You can't go to a judge and argue Tempe are violating the agreement when there's evidence to show that there are similar residential units nearby that they knew about but didn't object. Also if there is evidence to support phx/airport is violating the agreement itself.

Nevermind there possible being evidence between the two that says phx/airport is with it as long as there the noise gets mitigated and yet they come out publicly saying its not allowed at all. Someone is lying and the last thing they want to be lying in front of a judge...

Also the airport can't be doing anything in which the FAA hasn't approve themselves, anything unapproved by FAA that they are doing can be consider also as a violation of that agreement.

Basically for the agreement to be actually followed and honor as written, the phx/aiport has to object to object to everything that happens near the aiport to make sure its actually followed. Again they can not pick and chose what to object and not object to. They can't be contradicting themselves in front of a judge.

Its like trademarks in order for a company in order to keep their trademark they basically have to enforce their right to said trademark regardless if they win or lose. If they don't then you basically lose it. This agreement is no different than at trademark. The agreement isn't effective if no is there actually enforcing it if need to be.

Lawsuits are the last thing anyone wants to deal with cause its discovery phase that can be quite damaging to phx/airport and tempe could very well dig back to the moment that agreement was agreed and get every little thing phx/airport has done to that airport and stuff around that airport. And they may find stuff that is infact violating FAA regulations and violating that agreement.

There is a reason, why The legend said optics is not on their side is cause of the discovery phase.

The courts can only rule based on how the agreement is written not what phx/airport wants it to say as written. Again someone is lying here.

 

[TheLegend]

Do not quote me on this, but a person of reliability said the Plan B site is 3 miles due east of the proposed TED site. You can do your own calculations, but a SWAG on my part came up with roughly (very roughly) 60 acres. Not trying to add/subtract to the discussion here, just passing on what I heard... FWIW

That puts it in or around the Riverview area in Mesa. Which also once was a tentative site the Cardinals looked at.

That said… I have reservations about that site because the residents in that area have a strong history of NIMBYism. The Riverview Mall took a lot of heat while it was being planned.

 

[Stumbledore]

You can't go to a judge and argue... Again they can not pick and chose what to object and not object to.

Wrong.

You can go to a judge and argue anything you want. Read some current news, it's happening all the time. If you pick the right judge, you can probably win, too.

And, yes, I can choose what to object to or not object to. If someone breaks into my house, I can choose not to call the police. If a second person breaks into my house at a later date, I can still call the police and they are obligated to respond. My ignoring the first break-in does not obliterate my rights to object to a second break-in.

 

[sh724]

Doesn't matter if Phoenix wins or loses, if they take this to court it could tie up the deal for years.

As far as I can tell, just because one party chooses not to enforce their side of the agreement at some point it doesn't mean the agreement is invalid at a later date. Tempe would have to provide proof that Sky Harbour is making this decision for ulterior motives. Even if that proof exists, getting it would require a fairly long legal process.

It would not invalidate the agreement but it could make specific clasues of the agreement unenforceable.

If you deault on a loan and the bank chooses to not call the loan they will still send you a default letter that said they are waiving the default. The letter will includes reservation of rights language to protect the enforcability of the clause that you defaulted on should you continue to not meet the clause. If the bank does not send you a reservation of rights letter and you continue to default on the loan then it becomes much harder for the bank to call the loan prior to the maturity date.

This is much more common with commercial loans than consumer loans as commercial loans tend to have significantly more enforceable clauses than consumer loans.

 

[sh724]

Wrong.

You can go to a judge and argue anything you want. Read some current news, it's happening all the time. If you pick the right judge, you can probably win, too.

And, yes, I can choose what to object to or not object to. If someone breaks into my house, I can choose not to call the police. If a second person breaks into my house at a later date, I can still call the police and they are obligated to respond. My ignoring the first break-in does not obliterate my rights to object to a second break-in.

Your example is not applicable as the IGA would fall under contract law, whereas someone breaking into your house would fall under penal law.

The individual building are not party to the agreement. Your example the burglars would be the individual buildings and therefore once again not applicable to the agreement.

 

[TheLegend]

^^^^^ Just for some context.

Coyotes held one their planned public forums yesterday with Tempe residents. Local TV was there for it but other than a couple of spots on the news I haven’t found anything I can link to yet.

Nick Wood and someone I couldn’t identify were at this meeting to answer any and all questions about the proposal allowed within Arizona guidelines.

It seems quite apparent that Bluebird (Meruelo’s developer) and the city are taking the position that everything they will be proposing will not violate the IGA as its written.

The hope is this gets decided by the end of November and all legal contracts signed by the end of the year.

 

[Stumbledore]

Your example is not applicable as the IGA would fall under contract law, whereas someone breaking into your house would fall under penal law.

Where did I say the example was applicable to the IGA? I said I can choose what I object to and what I do not want to object to. That was the point of the illustration.

As a retired lawyer, I am quite familiar with both tort law and contract law. And with not reading elements into a statement where they were never intended.

 

[gstommylee]

This is about residental units and there were residental units built near the airport that they knew about and didn't object... its going to be into question in as to why they didn't object to that specific residential project that was built near the airport and are objecting to residential units in the TED project. Then there's e-mail that was discovered saying they were fine with the residential units as long as the noise proof stuff to mitigated the noise is included. This is called contradictions. they can't be contradicting themselves in front of a judge.

This previous residential unit project that they didn't oppose when they knew about it WILL be used against phx/sky harbor.


Also they can't declare something as a voliation of the IGA just cause they don't like it or want the IGA terminated. They can't enforce the IGA based on what they THINK it says. they can only enforced based on how the IGA is WRITTEN.

Again judge can't just declare tempe loses arena plan thrown just and ignored all the laws and regulations as it contains to this ordeal... Thats how the judge's ruling get thrown out by the appeals court.

Guess what this isn't about the residental units its about the arena that PHX doesn't want in tempe and wanting the IGA terminated so they can do what ever they want with with that airport.


Its already been shown that phx/airport are condraciting themselves even the yotes lawyer and showed that phx/airport are contracting with that letter saying "we are fine with the residental units jsut cancel the IGA" yet they been saying they aren't fine with the residential units at all. Which bloody is it are they fine or not fine.


Residential units are okay as long as they follow the requirements per the IGA, if the residential units that they didn't object to follow the IGA as written and the TED residential units are built the same way per requirements of IGA, then TED residential units are fine. Again their objection has nothing to do with residential units.

 

[Llama19]

Coyotes officials discuss (at Oct 15 community meeting) new arena

To quote:

"“We are still in the negotiation phase with the city of Tempe,” said Marina Carpenter, the team’s general counsel."

Source (with video): www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/tempe/coyotes-officials-discuss-new-arena

 

[Hockeyholic]

Hockey will work in Arizona with a contending team.

No mention of Canadian cities not selling out though. Toronto couldn't sellout a Saturday night game against Ottawa. Season tickets aren't sold out in any of the prairie/west cities.