Sunday, October 17, 2021

CITY OF MESA PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING Wed 10.13.2021

Anyone care to see any Citizen Participation Report: Zero 0
(1) Planning & Zoning Study Session
(2) Planning & Zoning Board Public Hearing  
The Planning and Zoning Board meetings operate on a hybrid system. Public participation is available using either blue comment cards found in the City Council chambers or by submitting an online comment card and participating through Zoom. 
We believe that providing access for citizens to communicate with the board is vital for a strong representative local government. 
All Planning and Zoning Board meetings are open to the public to attend in-person (beginning August 25, 2021). 
Study Sessions 
The live meeting may be watched via a video conferencing platform at https://mesa11.zoom.us/j/5301232921 or listened to by calling 888-788-0099 or 877- 853-5247 (toll free) using meeting ID 530 123 2921 and following the prompts. 
Members of the public can address the Planning and Zoning Board in the following ways: 
• Attend a meeting in person. Participants may complete a blue comment upon arrival at the meeting, or download a copy of comment card [PDF] and hand in at the meeting. 
• Submit an online comment card at least 1 hour prior to the start of the meeting. If you want to speak at the meeting, you will need to indicate on the comment card that you would like to speak during the meeting, and you will need to call 888- 788-0099 or 877-853-5247 (toll free) using meeting ID 5301232921 and following the prompts, prior to the start of the meeting. 
You will be able to listen to the meeting; and when the item you have indicated that you want to speak on is before the board, your line will be taken off mute and you will be given an opportunity to speak. 
For any difficulty accessing this meeting, please call 480-644-2099. 
 
Planning and Zoning Board - Study Session City of Mesa 
Meeting Agenda - Final Mesa Council Chambers 57 East First Street 
1 Call meeting to order. 
2 Review items on the agenda for the October 13, 2021 regular Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. 
3 Planning Director's Updates. 
 • Decisions of the City Council’s October 4, 2021 land use hearings. 
4 Adjournment
Meeting Name:Planning and Zoning Board - Study SessionAgenda status:Final
Meeting date/time:10/13/2021 3:00 PMMinutes status:Draft 
Meeting location:Lower Council Chambers
Published agenda:Agenda AgendaPublished minutes:Minutes Minutes

 
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA
Meeting Name:Planning and Zoning Board - Public HearingAgenda status:Final
Meeting date/time:10/13/2021 4:00 PMMinutes status:Draft 
Meeting location:Council Chambers
Published agenda:Agenda AgendaPublished minutes:Minutes Minutes 
Meeting video: 
Attachments:
File #Agenda #TypeTitleActionResultAction Details
PZ 211142-aPZ MinutesMinutes from the September 22, 2021 study session and regular meeting.  Not available
PZ 211242-bPZ MinutesCorrected minutes from the June 9, 2021 regular meeting.  Not available
PZ 211153-aPZ Zoning - ActionZON21-00132 District 4. Within the 800 block of West Broadway Road (north side), and within the 300 block of South Extension Road (west side). Located east of Alma School Road on the north side of Broadway Road. (1.9± acres). Site Plan Review; and Special Use Permit. This request will allow for the development of a convenience market with an associated fuel station. Land Development Consultants, LLC, applicant; Circle K Stores Inc., owner. Planner: Charlotte Bridges Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions  Not available
PZ 211233-bPZ Zoning - ActionZON21-00589 District 6. Within the 9300 to 9400 blocks of East Ray Road (north side), the 5000 to 5200 blocks of South Bradley Way (east side) and within the 9300 block of East Serenity Avenue (south side). Located east of Ellsworth Road and north of Ray Road. (9.12± acres). Site Plan Review. This request will allow for a mult-residential development within the Eastmark Community. Drew Olson, PCS Development, applicant; Premiere Multi-Family at Eastmark II LLC., owner. (Continued from September 22, 2021) Planner: Kellie Rorex Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions  Not available
PZ 211163-cPZ Zoning - ActionZON21-00640 District 6. Within the 10700 block of east Southern Avenue (south side). Located west of Signal Butte Road on the south side of Southern Avenue. (1.06± acres). Site Plan Review. This request will allow for the development of a retail building. Trish Flower, Upward Architects, applicant; MVM Shopping Center, LLC, owner. Planner: Kellie Rorex Staff Recommendation: Withdrawn  Not available
PZ 211173-dPZ Zoning - ActionZON21-00653 District 6. Within the 9800 to 9900 blocks of the East Williams Field Road alignment (south side) and within the 6000 to 6300 blocks of the South Crismon Road alignment (west side). Located on the southwest corner of the Crismon and Williams Field Road alignments. (18.1± acres). This request will approve the Development Unit 3 Development Unit Plan within the Pacific Proving Grounds North Community Plan, also known as the Cadence Community Plan. Susan Demmitt, Gammage and Burnham, PLC, applicant; PPGN-Williams, LLLP, owner. Planner: Evan Balmer Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions  Not available
PZ 211183-ePZ Zoning - ActionZON21-00689 District 6. Within the 9300 to 9500 blocks of East Elliot Road (north side) and within the 3400 to 3600 blocks of South 94th Place (west side). Located east of Ellsworth Road on the north side of Elliot Road (14± acres). Site Plan Review. This request will allow for an industrial development. Adam Baugh, Withey Morris, applicant; Mesa Growth Properties LLC, owner. Planner: Charlotte Bridges Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions  Not available
PZ 211224-aPZ Zoning - Discuss and RecommendZON20-00840 District 1. Within the 1000 block of East McKellips Road (south side). Located west of Stapley Drive on the south side of McKellips Road. (4.5± acres). Rezone from Single Residence 9 (RS-9) and Multiple Residence 4 (RM-4) to Multiple Residence 2 (RM-2) with a Planned Area Development Overlay (PAD); and Site Plan Review. This request will allow for a multiple residence development. Victoria Snively, United Realty MTA, applicant; Thomas Adhoot, owner. (Continued from September 22, 2021) Planner: Cassidy Welch Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions  Not available
PZ 211194-bPZ Zoning - Discuss and RecommendZON21-00278 District 5. Within the 1300 to 1500 blocks of North Power Road (east side), within the 6800 block of East Hobart Street (south side), and within the 6800 block of East Halifax Drive (both sides). Located north of Brown Road on the east side of Power Road. (6.13± acres). Rezone from Office Commercial (OC) and Single Residence 35 (RS-35) to Neighborhood Commercial with a Planned Area Development overlay (NC-PAD); and Site Plan Review. This request will allow for the development of a Food Truck Park. Sean Lake, Pew and Lake, PLC, applicant; Power Road Park, LLC, owner. Planner: Lesley Davis Staff Recommendation: Continue to October 27, 2021  Not available
PZ 211214-cPZ Zoning - Discuss and RecommendZON21-00540 District 6. Within the 10500 to 10800 blocks of East Elliot Road (north side) and within the 3500 block of South Signal Butte Road (west side). Located on the northwest corner of Signal Butte Road and Elliot Road. (25.7± acres) Rezone from Agriculture (AG) to Light Industrial (LI) with a Planned Area Development (PAD) Overlay, Site Plan Review, and Special Use Permit. This request will allow for a commercial and industrial development. Adam Baugh, Withey Morris, PLC, applicant; Whane of Mesa, LP, owner. Planner: Evan Balmer Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions  Not available
PZ 211204-dPZ Zoning - Discuss and RecommendZON21-00620 District 6. Within the 7800 to 8100 blocks of East Pecos Road (north side), and within the 6800 to 7000 blocks of South Sossaman Road (east side). Located north of Pecos Road and east of Sossaman Road. (155+ acres). Rezone from Agriculture (AG) to General Industrial with a Planned Area Development Overlay (GI-PAD), and Site Plan Review. This request will allow for an industrial development. George Pasquel III, Withey Morris PLC, applicant; ARMSTRONG DENNIS L & INGEBORG E; TCA DEVELOPMENT LLC; GERMANN INVESTMENTS NO 1; GI 20 LLC; GI 30 LLC; and PR20 LLC, owners. Planner: Jennifer Gniffke Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions  Not available

PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES + STREAMING VIDEO UPLOAD
Meeting Minutes Planning and Zoning Board - Public Hearing Wednesday, October 13, 2021 4:00 PM
44 Views
1:31:29

 
Council Chambers 
Consent Agenda - All items listed with an asterisk (*) will be considered as a group by the Board and will be enacted with one motion. 
There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Boardmember or citizen requests, in which the item will be removed from the consent agenda, prior to the vote, and considered as a separate item. Items on this agenda that must be adopted by ordinance and/or resolution will be on a future City Council agenda. 
Anyone interested in attending the City Council public hearing should call the Planning Division at (480) 644-2385 or review the City Council agendas on the City's website at www.mesaaz.gov to find the agenda on which the item(s) will be placed. 

Call meeting to order. Chair Sarkissian called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm 1 

Take action on all consent agenda items. Items on the Consent Agenda 2 

Approval of minutes from previous meetings. 
  • 2-a PZ 21114 Minutes from the September 22, 2021 study session and regular meeting. Approved (Vote: 6-0; Boardmember Allen, absent) 
  • 2-b PZ 21124 Corrected minutes from the June 9, 2021 regular meeting. Approved (Vote: 6-0; Boardmember Allen, absent) 

City of Mesa Page 1 Planning and Zoning Board - Public October 13, 2021 Hearing Meeting Minutes 

3 Take action on the following zoning cases: 
3-a PZ 21115 ZON21-00132 District 4. 
Within the 800 block of West Broadway Road (north side), and within the 300 block of South Extension Road (west side). Located east of Alma School Road on the north side of Broadway Road. (
1.9± acres). Site Plan Review; and Special Use Permit. 
This request will allow for the development of a convenience market with an associated fuel station. 
Land Development Consultants, LLC, applicant; Circle K Stores Inc., owner. 
Planner: Charlotte Bridges 
Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions Approval with conditions (Vote: 6-0; Boardmember Allen, absent) 

3-b PZ 21123 ZON21-00589 District 6. 
Within the 9300 to 9400 blocks of East Ray Road (north side), the 5000 to 5200 blocks of South Bradley Way (east side) and within the 9300 block of East Serenity Avenue (south side). Located east of Ellsworth Road and north of Ray Road. (9.12± acres). Site Plan Review. This request will allow for a mult-residential development within the Eastmark Community. Drew Olson, PCS Development, applicant; Premiere Multi-Family at Eastmark II LLC., owner. (
Continued from September 22, 2021) Planner: Kellie Rorex Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions Approval with conditions (Vote: 6-0; Boardmember Allen, absent) 

3-c PZ 21116 ZON21-00640 District 6. Within the 10700 block of east Southern Avenue (south side). Located west of Signal Butte Road on the south side of Southern Avenue. 
(1.06± acres). 
Site Plan Review. This request will allow for the development of a retail building. 
 Flower, Upward Architects, applicant; MVM Shopping Center, LLC, owner. 
Planner: Kellie Rorex 
Staff Recommendation: Withdrawn Withdrawn (Vote: 6-0; Boardmember Allen, absent) 

City of Mesa Page 2 Planning and Zoning Board - Public October 13, 2021 Hearing Meeting Minutes 

3-d PZ 21117 ZON21-00653 District 6. 
Within the 9800 to 9900 blocks of the East Williams Field Road alignment (south side) and within the 6000 to 6300 blocks of the South Crismon Road alignment (west side). Located on the southwest corner of the Crismon and Williams Field Road alignments. 
(18.1± acres). 
This request will approve the Development Unit 3 Development Unit Plan within the Pacific Proving Grounds North Community Plan, also known as the Cadence Community Plan. 
Susan Demmitt, Gammage and Burnham, PLC, applicant; 
PPGN-Williams, LLLP, owner. 
Planner: 
Evan Balmer 
Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions Approval with conditions (Vote: 6-0; Boardmember Allen, absent) 
 
3-e PZ 21118 ZON21-00689 District 6. 
Within the 9300 to 9500 blocks of East Elliot Road (north side) and within the 3400 to 3600 blocks of South 94th Place (west side). Located east of Ellsworth Road on the north side of Elliot Road (
14± acres). 
Site Plan Review. 
This request will allow for an industrial development. 
Adam Baugh, Withey Morris, applicant; 
Mesa Growth Properties LLC, owner. 
Planner: Charlotte Bridges 
Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions Approval with conditions (Vote: 6-0; Boardmember Allen, absent) 
 
Discuss and make a recommendation to the City Council on the following zoning cases: 4 
4-a PZ 21122 ZON20-00840 District 1. 
Within the 1000 block of East McKellips Road (south side). Located west of Stapley Drive on the south side of McKellips Road. (4.5± acres). Rezone from Single Residence 9 (RS-9) and Multiple Residence 4 (RM-4) to Multiple Residence 2 (RM-2) with a Planned Area Development Overlay (PAD); and Site Plan Review. This request will allow for a multiple residence development. Victoria Snively, United Realty MTA, applicant; Thomas Adhoot, owner. (Continued from September 22, 2021) Planner: Cassidy Welch Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions Approval with conditions (Vote: 6-0; Boardmember Allen, absent)
 
City of Mesa Page 3 Planning and Zoning Board - Public October 13, 2021 Hearing Meeting Minutes 
 
4-b PZ 21119 ZON21-00278 District 5. Within the 1300 to 1500 blocks of North Power Road (east side), within the 6800 block of East Hobart Street (south side), and within the 6800 block of East Halifax Drive (both sides). Located north of Brown Road on the east side of Power Road. 
(6.13± acres). 
Rezone from Office Commercial (OC) and Single Residence 35 (RS-35) to Neighborhood Commercial with a Planned Area Development overlay (NC-PAD); and Site Plan Review. 
This request will allow for the development of a Food Truck Park. 
Sean Lake, Pew and Lake, PLC, applicant; 
Power Road Park, LLC, owner. 
Planner: Lesley Davis 
Staff Recommendation: Continue to October 27, 2021 Continue to October 27, 2021 (Vote: 6-0; Boardmember Allen, absent) 
4-c PZ 21121 ZON21-00540 District 6
637321535572830000 (2).jpg
Within the 10500 to 10800 blocks of East Elliot Road (north side) and within the 3500 block of South Signal Butte Road (west side). Located on the northwest corner of Signal Butte Road and Elliot Road. 
(25.7± acres) Rezone from Agriculture (AG) to Light Industrial (LI) with a Planned Area Development (PAD) Overlay, 
Site Plan Review, and Special Use Permit. 
This request will allow for a commercial and industrial development. 
  • Adam Baugh, Withey Morris, PLC, applicant;
  • Whane of Mesa, LP, owner. 
Planner Evan Balmer 
Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions Approval with conditions (Vote: 5-1; Boardmember Allen, absent) 
File #:PZ 21121   
Type:PZ Zoning - Discuss and RecommendStatus:Agenda Ready
In control:Planning and Zoning Board - Public Hearing
On agenda:10/13/2021
Title:ZON21-00540 District 6. Within the 10500 to 10800 blocks of East Elliot Road (north side) and within the 3500 block of South Signal Butte Road (west side). Located on the northwest corner of Signal Butte Road and Elliot Road.
(25.7± acres)
Rezone from Agriculture (AG) to Light Industrial (LI) with a Planned Area Development (PAD) Overlay, Site Plan Review, and Special Use Permit.
This request will allow for a commercial and industrial development. Adam Baugh, Withey Morris, PLC, applicant; Whane of Mesa, LP, owner. Planner: Evan Balmer Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions
Attachments:1. Vicinity Map,
2. Staff Report,
3. Landscape Plan,
4. Site Plan,
5. Elevations,
6. Narrative,
7. Citizen Participation Plan,
8. Citizen Participation Report,
9. Presentation


 
4-d PZ 21120 ZON21-00620 District 6
637321535572830000 (2).jpg
Within the 7800 to 8100 blocks of East Pecos Road (north side), and within the 6800 to 7000 blocks of South Sossaman Road (east side). Located north of Pecos Road and east of Sossaman Road. 
(155+ acres). 
Rezone from Agriculture (AG) to General Industrial with a Planned Area Development Overlay (GI-PAD), and Site Plan Review. 
This request will allow for an industrial development. 
  • George Pasquel III, Withey Morris PLC, applicant
  • ARMSTRONG DENNIS L & INGEBORG E; TCA DEVELOPMENT LLC; 
  • GERMANN INVESTMENTS NO 1; GI 20 LLC; GI 30 LLC; and 
  • PR20 LLC, owners. 
Planner: Jennifer Gniffke 
Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions Approval with conditions (Vote: 5-1; Boardmember Allen, absent) 
File #:PZ 21120   
Type:PZ Zoning - Discuss and RecommendStatus:Agenda Ready
In control:Planning and Zoning Board - Public Hearing
On agenda:10/13/2021
Title:ZON21-00620 District 6. Within the 7800 to 8100 blocks of East Pecos Road (north side), and within the 6800 to 7000 blocks of South Sossaman Road (east side). Located north of Pecos Road and east of Sossaman Road. 
(155+ acres). 
Rezone from Agriculture (AG) to General Industrial with a Planned Area Development Overlay (GI-PAD), and Site Plan Review. 
This request will allow for an industrial development.
APPLICANT:
  • George Pasquel III, Withey Morris PLC
OWNERS:
  • ARMSTRONG DENNIS L & INGEBORG E
  • TCA DEVELOPMENT LLC
  • GERMANN INVESTMENTS NO 1
  • GI 20 LLC; GI 30 LLC
  • PR20 LLC
Planner: Jennifer Gniffke Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions
Attachments:1. Vicinity Map,
2. Staff Report,
3. Site Plan,
4. Grading and Drainage Plan,
5. Landscape Plan, 6. Elevations,
7. Narrative,
8. Citizen Participation Plan,
9. Citizen Participation Report,
10. Map of anticipated PIRATE rail spur location,
11. Avigation Easement,
12. Union Pacific Railroad Letter,
13.Presentation
 
City of Mesa Page 4 Planning and Zoning Board - Public October 13, 2021 Hearing Meeting Minutes 
 
Items not on the Consent Agenda 5 
 
Adjournment. Approved (Vote: 6-0; Boardmember Allen, absent) 

Reverse shockwave studied with stunning supernova imagery

Saturday, October 16, 2021

COINING THE WORD UNICORN: Private VC-Backed Start-Ups Busting-The-Charts and Gouging-On-The-Feeding Frenzy

According to a report in Wired [ https://www.wired.com/story/earths-unicorn-population-is-exploding/  ] yesterday by Arielle Pardes, "When the venture capitalist Aileen Lee coined the term unicorn, in 2013, there were 39 of them—roughly four minted every year.
So far in 2021, 264 companies in the United States have reached such valuations. Around the world, multiple startups turn into unicorns every single day. . ."
Let's pause - and take a look a look back at the year 2018 five years after that name UNICORN was coined
THE STUFF OF LEGENDS (Earlier post on this blog from February 2018)
From the Crunch Network
Unicorns gorge as investors dish up bigger rounds, more capital
Globally, a staggering $66 billion went into unicorn companies in 2017, up 39 percent year-over-year, according to an analysis of Crunchbase data.
The ride-hailing space was the single largest recipient of investor dollars, with several rivals in the space raising billions. Investors also poured copious sums into co-working, consumer internet and augmented reality.
 
Sectors
Unicorn investors showed a particularly strong appetite, however, for companies in a handful of sectors.
Ridesharing, in particular, had a strong funding year, with companies in the space taking more than 10 percent of all unicorn investment.
Bike-sharing was also big. Two new entrants onto the unicorn list came from that space: Ofo and Mobike.
Other recipients of really substantial funding rounds, even by unicorn standards, include U.S. co-working giant WeWork and China-based consumer internet players Toutiao and Koubei.
 
Exiting the board

So a lot of unicorns are raising big rounds. But is there any sign members of the group will eventually produce returns for investors?

Overall, 2017 provided some modestly positive news for unicorn exit watchers.

  • Fifteen venture-funded companies with private valuations of a billion dollars or more went public last year, more than double 2016 levels and the highest total since Crunchbase began tracking the asset class.
  • Unicorn IPOs weren’t just more common in 2017. Performance was often quite good, too. Many of last year’s newly public companies sustained market caps far higher than their last private valuations.
Lately, going public seems to be a better option for investor returns.
 
Averages point to more exits ahead
> For the 45 unicorn companies that have gone public, the average time to go public has been 26 months after first being valued at $1 billion.
> For the 25 companies that have been acquired, the average time to get acquired is 24 months after first being valued at $1 billion.
 
____________________________________________________________________________
"When the venture capitalist Aileen Lee coined the term unicorn, in 2013, there were 39 of them—roughly four minted every year.
> So far in 2021, 264 companies in the United States have reached such valuations.
> Around the world, multiple startups turn into unicorns every single day.
The staggering rate at which companies reach billion-dollar valuations is just one of the ways that venture capital has busted charts this year.
“We’re looking at $240 billion invested in VC-backed companies this year, which would have seemed outrageous a few years ago,” says Kyle Stanford, a senior analyst at Pitchbook.
“There is more capital and more interest in the venture space than there has ever been.”

Earth’s Unicorn Population Is Exploding

It’s not a fantasy: VC valuations and spending on startups in 2021 are off the charts, and the year isn’t over yet.

<div class=__reading__mode__extracted__imagecaption>Between July and September, more than $82 billion poured into American startups—about as much as venture capitalists spent in all of 2017.Photograph: Adrienne Bresnahan/Getty Images

"Between July and September, more than $82 billion poured into American startups, according to a new report on Q3 data from Pitchbook and the National Venture Capital Association. That’s about as much as venture capitalists spent in all of 2017—which was, at the time, the high-water mark for venture capital spending since the dotcom boom of the early 2000s. Globally, Crunchbase found the Q3 total was $160 billion, a new record high for any quarter in history. Deal sizes have also gone up: The average early-stage deal in the US is now $20 million.

This money is pouring into all parts of the startup world, from angel investments to late-stage deals, from enterprise software to financial technology.

> More interest is coming from what Pitchbook calls “nontraditional” investors: those in private equity, hedge funds, or corporations, which have deeper pockets than the average fund on Sand Hill Road.

These investors have elbowed their way into venture capital to try to get a piece of the excellent profits. Across the market, exit value—the amount a company is worth once it goes public or gets acquired—is at an all-time high, surpassing $500 billion for the first time in a single year (with one quarter still to go). That’s already double the record from last year.

 
. . .Plenty of founders are enjoying the spoils of the funding frenzy, though.
> This year has set new records for “mega-deals,” or funding rounds in excess of $100 million.
> There have already been nearly 600 such deals in 2021, with 207 of them happening in the last three months.
With three months left to go, there are no signs of slowing down."

Friday, October 15, 2021

Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission Redrawing The Grid Maps...TWO VAGUE CRITERIA: "Communities of Interest" + "Competitiveness"

At a quick glance it doesn't look like the difficulty of defining two metrics is going anywhere anytime soon. . .
A new legal argument emerges
Image result for huh?
Recent comments by Erika Neuberg, the commission’s independent chairwoman, have raised the possibility that competitiveness will be more of a focus than the AIRC has previously indicated.
Neuberg had always held fast to the interpretation that competitiveness is contingent on not hindering the other criteria. But on Oct. 4, the first time the AIRC began adjusting the lines that will eventually become the new districts, she said that in order to respect communities of interest — one of the other five criteria — the commission may need to prioritize competitiveness. Without competitive districts, communities of interest in one-party districts may be disenfranchised, she said.

Neuberg later told the Arizona Mirror that when she first began her work on the commission, she viewed the criteria as more of a hierarchy. But as she heard from Arizonans during the commission’s statewide tour, she concluded that some communities of interest are disenfranchised if the lack of competition in their districts is “too severe.”

“That rises to that higher-level constitutional criteria. So from my perspective I look at all six. . ."

Legislative control may hang in the balance as redistricting rekindles competitiveness fight

By: - October 15, 2021 8:55 am

Members of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission met Oct. 4, 2021, in the Phoenix city council chambers to discuss initial changes to the grid maps approved the previous month.

L to R: Shereen Lerner, Derrick Watchman, Erika Neuberg, David Mehl, Douglas York. Photo by Jeremy Duda | Arizona Mirror

"As the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission draws the state’s new congressional and legislative maps, the debate over competitiveness is once again moving to the forefront. 
The decennial battle over competitiveness at the AIRC is fraught with partisan overtones. The stakes are high for both parties, especially when it comes to the legislative districts that the state will use for the next 10 years. 
> For Democrats, competitiveness represents at least a potential opportunity to win control of the legislature, which has been in GOP hands for an almost unbroken stretch dating to the 1960s. More competitiveness often makes for less proportional outcomes, which aids minority parties. Republicans make up about 35% of the electorate in Arizona, while Democrats are about 32%.
Image result for huh?
> Many advocates also view competitiveness as a way to get the extremes out of politics. In a district where a candidate must appeal to the center, not just to the left or the right, more moderate lawmakers are likely to get elected, they say. . .
 
. . .Because voter registration is such an imperfect way to measure competitiveness, especially given the rise of independent voters, who now make up nearly a third of the electorate in Arizona, redistricting commissions often use more complex formulas based on voter performance. The current AIRC will use two metrics based on voter performance in statewide races in 2016, 2018 and 2020."
 

NO CAPTAIN ONBOARD