Phoenix Development News (3)

[bwonger06]

Anyone know what they are doing at the Brophy Towers Lot? They have been a lot of digging in the back (west) half of the lot.

[combusean]

Originally Posted by bwonger06

Just to be technical... its not another new law school.

Speaking of lawyers, anyone know what these two documents are saying?

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc...V/CV100620.pdf

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.go...=CV2007-004793

Is the city trying to eminent domain some downtown land? I checked up on the property ownership of these guys and they literally own half of downtown's empty lots and parking structures.

I can't find anything specific. I have pondered this map of SoRo property owners a whole hell of a lot tho.

[HX_Guy]

An update on condo sales from a Business Journal article...

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/p...sh-prices.html

44 Monroe currently has 14 units occupied out of 196.

One Lexington has sold 74 units out of 145 since March 2010 (That's damn good!)

Summit at Copper Square has sold 74 units out of 165 but 20 were or are in foreclosure.

[glynnjamin]

I've been helping out with the downtown dog park issue for a while now...well, at least as much as I can from Seattle. Just using contacts to try and put political pressure on the city council. It's a great idea, one that I tried to push for the log on 2nd & Fillmore that is now a parkinglot.

Less parking in downtown!

The really annoying thing about this process is how dismissive the city has been. If you get a minute, check out the City of Phoenix's opposition letter
link
They actually argue that a parking lot does not increase traffic or heat and increases pedestrian activity.

The maddening thing about this whole issue is that ASU had this property and they were using it and (by most accounts) the students really liked it. Then the city built them a new place for the students and all of the students moved out. The city then bought the property and refused to let anyone else use it. So they kept it vacant and then argued that, because it was vacant, it should/needed to be torn down. Then they tore it down and argued that "anything is better than a dirt lot." How frustrating.

[westbev93]

I tried emailing some people on this dog park issue, but I keep getting ignored. I will tell you, as I've been telling them, that making this pitch as servicing the downtown residents (he references 500-600 apartment/condo units) is not going to get this passed. There are too few people living downtown, and selling something as servicing transient residents who live in apartments and student housing will not get the City's attention.

This should be sold as not only servicing downtown, but also servicing all the historic neighborhoods around downtown. That is a large constituency. It is a large constituency that votes, is politically active, and has money. When the Willo, Roosevelt, FQ Story, etc. people ask for things with the City, they get some attention. This proposed dog park would be closer for them than Indian School. By not getting those neighborhood steering committees involved, or at least referencing the benefits to those people, the movers behind this idea are shooting themselves in the foot.

Political reality-politicians could give two shits about transient residents without money. Gotta get money from established neighbors behind this.

-Somebody who has dealt with City politics before and who resides in one of the historic gayborhoods

[glynnjamin]

^Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

We've been in touch with Roosevelt and Willo's neighborhood associations but have not made much headway. If you have any contacts within those groups, your help would be appreciated.

I am working on the business side of things, getting sponsorship pledges and letters of support from business owners. Obviously the City Council cares what business owners have to say, right?

[Vicelord John]

Originally Posted by westbev93

I tried emailing some people on this dog park issue, but I keep getting ignored. I will tell you, as I've been telling them, that making this pitch as servicing the downtown residents (he references 500-600 apartment/condo units) is not going to get this passed. There are too few people living downtown, and selling something as servicing transient residents who live in apartments and student housing will not get the City's attention.

This should be sold as not only servicing downtown, but also servicing all the historic neighborhoods around downtown. That is a large constituency. It is a large constituency that votes, is politically active, and has money. When the Willo, Roosevelt, FQ Story, etc. people ask for things with the City, they get some attention. This proposed dog park would be closer for them than Indian School. By not getting those neighborhood steering committees involved, or at least referencing the benefits to those people, the movers behind this idea are shooting themselves in the foot.

Political reality-politicians could give two shits about transient residents without money. Gotta get money from established neighbors behind this.

-Somebody who has dealt with City politics before and who resides in one of the historic gayborhoods

Wonderfully said. I have nothing to contribute, but waned to add that you're spot on.

[westbev93]

I live in Story so I can post info about this to the neighborhood message board to push our Steering Committee toward this. Everyone in the neighborhood has dogs so I'd imagine they would at least sign on as supportive.

[trigirdbers]

Don:

Do you know of any Phoenix or Scottsdale firms other than the ones listed on NALP that hire for the summer? I realy want to come back to Phoenix and there are only like 3-5 large firms that hire a large volume of people so I'm trying to put together a list of some smaller ones that hire maybe 1 or 2 SA's. I feel like someone like you who has gone to law school locally would have better information on this than me.

G-d I wish AZ's economy didn't suck so much right now.

Sorry for the off topic post.

P.S. I agree, ASU spending a shitton of $ to move their law school down town when half their graduates can't get legal jobs due to the economy is pretty fucking stupid. Thats $ that should be going to fellowships and career services. Also, ASU may be moving instead of opening a new law school but it is ALSO expanding, meaning the market is going to be even more flooded with lawyers. Looks like ASU proper is going to try to ballance its budget on the backs of law students.

[Vicelord John]

Originally Posted by trigirdbers

Don:



P.S. I agree, ASU spending a shitton of $ to move their law school down town when half their graduates can't get legal jobs due to the economy is pretty fucking stupid. Thats $ that should be going to fellowships and career services. Also, ASU may be moving instead of opening a new law school but it is ALSO expanding, meaning the market is going to be even more flooded with lawyers. Looks like ASU proper is going to try to ballance its budget on the backs of law students.

what an asinine statement. The economy will recover, jobs will be replenished, and future graduates will find gainful employment again. You seem to not be able to see the big picture... must be a republican.

[bwonger06]

Originally Posted by Vicelord John

what an asinine statement. The economy will recover, jobs will be replenished, and future graduates will find gainful employment again. You seem to not be able to see the big picture... must be a republican.

The job placement out of law school is a problem everywhere (minus the top 5 schools in the US). I have friends at Duke and Georgetown Law and both said their recruiting has gotten hammered in the last few years.

That said, the best thing ASU-Law can do is try to grow its brand image in order gain a more diversified body of employers. They need to grow and expand for this to happen.

[trigirdbers]

Originally Posted by bwonger06

The job placement out of law school is a problem everywhere (minus the top 5 schools in the US). I have friends at Duke and Georgetown Law and both said their recruiting has gotten hammered in the last few years.

That said, the best thing ASU-Law can do is try to grow its brand image in order gain a more diversified body of employers. They need to grow and expand for this to happen.

Top 5 recruiting has also gotten hammered, I assure you. Yale is still safe, but everywhere else is varying shades of anarchy. However, at top schools, at least pretty much everyone is going to get a legal job even if the percentage of the class getting those jobs with big firms paying 6 figures has decreased significantly. Don't get me wrong, ASU still has very solid placement for a regional school but increasing the class size is not going to help matters. Think of it this way, most large firms in the valley have a cutoff between top 5-15% for ASU grads. Another tier of firms has the cutoff at top 1/3 and another at top 1/2. When you increase the number of students in each category, it means that more students in each bracket will be competing for the same number of jobs - not good if you are an ASU student. Growing the school won't help to increase its "brand" either. The "brand" of a law school is not correlated with its size, except perhaps negatively. Just ask any Yale, Penn, or Duke grad. What helps a schools "brand" is hiring top quality faculty and increasing the GPA and LSAT medians of accepted students. Both of these things take money because you've got to pay better faculty more and you've got to give high # students scholarships to entice them to attend. With the money ASU will spend to move downtown, they could be doing these things instead. Instead, they plan to raise tuition which will deter top quality students and weaken the brand.

To a certain point, however, this is non-sequitur. The "body" of employers that ASU attracts won't grow unless the legal industry in Phoenix does (legal placement is overwhelmingly regional outside of the "Top 14" law schools in the country). The legal industry in Phoenix won't grow until the Valley gets more Fortune 500 headquarters. Perhaps then we should just say that ASU Law should focus on lowering tuition and keeping class sizes low.

"what an asinine statement. The economy will recover, jobs will be replenished, and future graduates will find gainful employment again."

The above makes me doubt that you have much knowledge of legal hiring. The legal economy will recover but if you can't get a legal job at the level you want to work at right off the bat, you probably won't ever get a job at that level - legal hiring is irrational and not at all like business hiring. Kids who are screwed coming out of school are screwed career-wise (with very few exceptions) in a way that would be unfathomable in most industries. Besides, even prior to this economy, many students at ASU Law still had problems landing gainful employment so its not like an economic recovery is going to render all of this moot. The stereotype of the J.D. being a golden ticket hasn't been true for a generation.

[Vicelord John]

Originally Posted by trigirdbers

The above makes me doubt that you have much knowledge of legal hiring. The legal economy will recover but if you can't get a legal job at the level you want to work at right off the bat, you probably won't ever get a job at that level - legal hiring is irrational and not at all like business hiring. Kids who are screwed coming out of school are screwed career-wise (with very few exceptions) in a way that would be unfathomable in most industries. Besides, even prior to this economy, many students at ASU Law still had problems landing gainful employment so its not like an economic recovery is going to render all of this moot. The stereotype of the J.D. being a golden ticket hasn't been true for a generation.

you're absolutely right, I know nothing about legal hiring. What I do know though, is if ASU moves the law school downtown, it will be a couple years before they find the money, a couple more before they build it, and before you know it, it's five years from now. I'm sure the job market will be different by then... perhaps not ideal, but undoubtedly better than it is now. There are always going to be legal jobs available in this state, I assume, as long as it remains as low class and idiotic as it is now. I've never seen so many criminal/dui/personal injury lawyer ads as I have in Arizona.

[trigirdbers]

Originally Posted by Vicelord John

you're absolutely right, I know nothing about legal hiring. What I do know though, is if ASU moves the law school downtown, it will be a couple years before they find the money, a couple more before they build it, and before you know it, it's five years from now. I'm sure the job market will be different by then... perhaps not ideal, but undoubtedly better than it is now. There are always going to be legal jobs available in this state, I assume, as long as it remains as low class and idiotic as it is now. I've never seen so many criminal/dui/personal injury lawyer ads as I have in Arizona.

Lots of those PI shops that you see advertised pay 30-40g starting (a very few pay more). Debt from ASU Law with no scholarship can be in excess of 100k. Do the math, it isn't pretty.

Even in a good year 1/3 of the graduating class at ASU can't even get a job like this (1/2 in a year like this), so even if the economy improves, ASU will still find that it is better off focusing its resources on students.

Basically, the U.S. and Arizona are facing a long term and systematic oversupply of lawyers. The legal market will only shrink further as more legal work moves overseas.

[bwonger06]

Originally Posted by trigirdbers

Top 5 recruiting has also gotten hammered, I assure you. Yale is still safe, but everywhere else is varying shades of anarchy. However, at top schools, at least pretty much everyone is going to get a legal job even if the percentage of the class getting those jobs with big firms paying 6 figures has decreased significantly. Don't get me wrong, ASU still has very solid placement for a regional school but increasing the class size is not going to help matters. Think of it this way, most large firms in the valley have a cutoff between top 5-15% for ASU grads. Another tier of firms has the cutoff at top 1/3 and another at top 1/2. When you increase the number of students in each category, it means that more students in each bracket will be competing for the same number of jobs - not good if you are an ASU student. Growing the school won't help to increase its "brand" either. The "brand" of a law school is not correlated with its size, except perhaps negatively. Just ask any Yale, Penn, or Duke grad. What helps a schools "brand" is hiring top quality faculty and increasing the GPA and LSAT medians of accepted students. Both of these things take money because you've got to pay better faculty more and you've got to give high # students scholarships to entice them to attend. With the money ASU will spend to move downtown, they could be doing these things instead. Instead, they plan to raise tuition which will deter top quality students and weaken the brand.

To a certain point, however, this is non-sequitur. The "body" of employers that ASU attracts won't grow unless the legal industry in Phoenix does (legal placement is overwhelmingly regional outside of the "Top 14" law schools in the country). The legal industry in Phoenix won't grow until the Valley gets more Fortune 500 headquarters. Perhaps then we should just say that ASU Law should focus on lowering tuition and keeping class sizes low.

I agree the bigger does not cause a law school to be better. However, ASU is still a very small school compared to other comparable law schools. ASU is obviously never striving to be among the private elites of the world, but I think it is good to shoot for UVA, Cal, Mich, UT (all except for one are twice the size).

More students and higher tuition will result in more money available for top faculty, better services, etc. You can't get more students without expanding and it will be hard to expand without moving at this point. Obviously like all economics, there is a certain point of equilibrium and a well thought out business plan is very important to insure a successful transition.

ASU will always be mediocre if it continues relying on ABOR and the state of AZ for funding. So ASU has to raise tuition and it also means it has to create a better brand which brings us back to expansion and growth.

And about increasing class size and competition, you think Michigan, Ohio St., Wisconsin, etc. are meccas of F500 cities? If these schools can support a large student size, I am sure ASU can too.

[trigirdbers]

Originally Posted by bwonger06

I agree the bigger does not cause a law school to be better. However, ASU is still a very small school compared to other comparable law schools. ASU is obviously never striving to be among the private elites of the world, but I think it is good to shoot for UVA, Cal, Mich, UT (all except for one are twice the size).

More students and higher tuition will result in more money available for top faculty, better services, etc. You can't get more students without expanding and it will be hard to expand without moving at this point. Obviously like all economics, there is a certain point of equilibrium and a well thought out business plan is very important to insure a successful transition.

ASU will always be mediocre if it continues relying on ABOR and the state of AZ for funding. So ASU has to raise tuition and it also means it has to create a better brand which brings us back to expansion and growth.

And about increasing class size and competition, you think Michigan, Ohio St., Wisconsin, etc. are meccas of F500 cities? If these schools can support a large student size, I am sure ASU can too.

I think you've got some confusion about the hierarchy of law schools. Ohio State and Wisconsin place no better than ASU. Michigan DOES because it is a Top 14 (T-14) national school (as are UVA and Cal incidentally). T-14s, both public and private (a meaningless distinction at this level since all T-14 schools are funded almost entirely by tuition and the donations of rich alumni), don't place even with but rather outplace the vast majority of private law schools. However, Michigan places primarily into Chicago, NY, and CA where the big firms that primarily hire elite law grads and the F500 Cos they service reside. Therefore, the school's grads are not very dependent on Michigan's economy.

I guess the more fundamental question is why you would want to grow the size of ASU. Even among similarly ranked schools large class size tends to be negatively correlated with placement (see. Yale out-placing Harvard, Penn out-placing Michigan etc.) Considering that the demand for lawyers is going to decrease why would you want to increase supply while at the same time increasing the cost of entry? In addition, if you are interested in "reputation", manifested in the legal world almost entirely based on U.S. News, you should know that the U.S. News metrics heavily value small law schools over large ones.

On a more fundamental level, assuming ASU doesn't become a (T-14), and it never will, it will continue to place similarly to the way it does now as long as its reputation doesn't decrease significantly (also highly unlikely). Therefore, the school has little to gain by improving its reputation. Paying full freight at ASU is already a bad investment statistically speaking, why would you want to want to exacerbate that by raising tuition.

[bwonger06]

Originally Posted by trigirdbers

I guess the more fundamental question is why you would want to grow the size of ASU. Even among similarly ranked schools large class size tends to be negatively correlated with placement (see. Yale out-placing Harvard, Penn out-placing Michigan etc.) Considering that the demand for lawyers is going to decrease why would you want to increase supply while at the same time increasing the cost of entry? In addition, if you are interested in "reputation", manifested in the legal world almost entirely based on U.S. News, you should know that the U.S. News metrics heavily value small law schools over large ones.

On a more fundamental level, assuming ASU doesn't become a (T-14), and it never will, it will continue to place similarly to the way it does now as long as its reputation doesn't decrease significantly (also highly unlikely). Therefore, the school has little to gain by improving its reputation. Paying full freight at ASU is already a bad investment statistically speaking, why would you want to want to exacerbate that by raising tuition.

I wouldn't pay for ASU's education right now, but I would if it gets better. ASU will never be a Berkeley, UVA or Michigan but it become a UCLA or UT.

I guess I am a little more optimistic and think ASU law should expand because I think the demand will go up in a few years, especially when the bioscience industry takes off.

[Vicelord John]

Originally Posted by trigirdbers

Lots of those PI shops that you see advertised pay 30-40g starting (a very few pay more). Debt from ASU Law with no scholarship can be in excess of 100k. Do the math, it isn't pretty.

Which is why more and more you can make the argument that a college degree is becoming less and less important.

[trigirdbers]

Originally Posted by Vicelord John

Which is why more and more you can make the argument that a college degree is becoming less and less important.

Yep, a college degree is the new high school degree. I also get the feeling that most college graduates know about as much as the average high school graduate knew in the 50s. Can't tell you the number of college grads I know right now with no job and no marketable schools.

"I wouldn't pay for ASU's education right now, but I would if it gets better. ASU will never be a Berkeley, UVA or Michigan but it become a UCLA or UT.
I guess I am a little more optimistic and think ASU law should expand because I think the demand will go up in a few years, especially when the bioscience industry takes off."


ASU may not be on the same level of UCLA and UT but to the extent that these schools place better than ASU, it is only because they are the best schools in large legal markets (SOCAL/Texas). However, with the way that SOCAL's legal market is in the shitter right now, you might be hard pressed to say that UCLA Law significantly outpaces ASU today, notwithstanding the difference in rankings.

I think that you are conflating undergrad quality with law school quality and the two are only somewhat related. For instance, NYU has an average-quality undergrad but the average senior at Harvard doesn't have the numbers to get into their law school.

Think of it like this

Elite and place nationwide:

Yale
Harvard
Stanford
Columbia
Chicago
NYU
Penn
Berk
UVA
Michigan
Northwestern
Duke
Georgetown
Cornell

Placement based on regional economy and how that school stacks up to competitors in the same market:

Schools ranked #15-100

Therefore, unless ASU rises up to #14 or sinks to #101 (the point at which employers seem to just ignore schools, assuming that those schools have been around long enough to get ranked i.e. not new schools like PSOL, which employers usually haven't made up their mind about), the prospects of its graduates will fluctuate significantly with the AZ legal market and slightly with its ranking (but only vis-a-vis U of A Law, its major competitor - and only if it either ranks ahead or behind U of A for a number of years will employers put even a 5% premium on grads of one school or another unless they are alums in which case they will always favor their school). ASU students know this (or learn it in their first year) which is why they would rather have the tuition break - not some shiny new campus/program.

[Don B.]

At this point, I'm giving up on the legal field entirely. I'm surviving on photography and the occasional odd contract work for fellow law school buds and that is about it. Phoenix's legal biz is in the toilet. When I can't even get an interview in my chosen field and I have 17 years experience, you know there is something wrong.

--don