Re: 'eating their young'? Oh, well...

From the get-go, tonight's Pima County Democratic Party meeting had the feeling of a showdown on Prop 401, and it was.

The room was tense as each member of the Executive Committee spoke for the allotted 2 minutes, and there was no call to the audience. Most people passed or said just a few words. Tom Prezelski and Jim Hannley, both EC members and officers in the Protect Local Control No on Prop 401, spoke eloquently against the measure.

Chairman and Prop 401 supported Jeff Rogers gave the history of the measure; first the Democrats were working with the City Council on a strong mayor charter change, but eventually he folded his efforts into those of the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC), who was proposing strong city manager charter changes.

One young EC member read excerpts from a letter from the three City Council members who stood with their constituents and voted against the charter changes back in July. He asked that the EC "not throw them under the bus."

In the end, the mostly white, mostly male, mostly over 60 Democratic EC voted 19 yes, 5 no, and 1 abstain to endorse Prop 401.

Will the Democrats 'eat their young' tonight?

Jon Stewart often says that one of the biggest differences between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans (being more homogeneous) are able to keep their base marching forward in lock step, while the Democrats (who represent many diverse interests) often devolve into squabbling and "eat their young".

Tonight, I'm afraid the Pima Dems will "eat their young"-- or at least a few City Council members. Earlier in the summer, the Pima County Democratic Party Executive Committee voted to officially remain neutral on Prop 401, the City of Tucson proposed charter changes.

This was a wise decision, since the Democratic-controlled City Council vote was split on this issue back in July. Council Members Richard Fimbres, Karin Ulich, and Regina Romero listened to their constituents at well-attended public forums and voted not to send the charter changes to the ballot. Blue Dog Democrats Paul Cunningham and Shirley Scott sided with Republicans Steve Kozachik and Mayor Bob Walkup and voted successfully to send the initiative (now Prop 401) to the ballot.

Even though the Pima Dems officially remained neutral on the issue, Party Chair and local lawyer Jeff Rogers and Vice Chair and Ward 2 City Council aide Katie Bolger have been actively hawking Prop 401 for the corporatists of Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC). In addition, according to Prop 401's campaign finance reports, Bolger has been paid $2000 for her pro-Prop 401 lobbying efforts.

This is a free country, and I respect Rogers' and Bolger's right to have their own opinions and speak out for or against political initiatives-- as private citizens.

But tonight's Executive Committee meeting is another matter.

Through what appear to be parliamentary machinations, the Pima Dems Executive Committee will re-vote whether or not to endorse Prop 401 tonight at the Democratic Headquarters.

Rehashing and re-voting the Prop 401 endorsement is a waste of time. This is like rearranging the deck chairs as the Titanic sinks.

Workers and the middle class are under siege in Arizona and nationwide. It's time for the Democrats to march in lock step to elect as many Democrats as possible and save our country from extremists-- not devolve into cannibalism.

Prop 401: The most polite forum... ever

The Feldman Neighborhood, which has a reputation for fiery politics, hosted the most polite community forum ever last night. Was it the gentle ambiance of the historic but hard-to-find St. Luke's Chapel, built by Josias Joesler. Or the lack of suits?

About a dozen citizens gathered in the chapel to discuss the pros and cons of Prop 401, the proposed changes to the Tucson City Charter. Local lawyer, environmentalist, and Tucson Charter Change Coalition (TC3) executive committee member, Mitch Coker spoke in favor of Prop 401. Political gadfly and former blogger, Luke Knipe represented Protect Local Control, the No on 401 committee.

The free-form, unstructured forum was dotted with controversy and consensus. There was major discussion of what the charter changes would fix, deceptive advertising by Prop 401 supporters, government accountability, the impact of shifting the election cycle, the pros and cons a stronger city manager, and the pay raises for politicians.

When asked what city government problems the charter changes would fix, neither Coker nor Shirley Kiser (one of the architects of Prop 401, along with her husband Jim Kiser) could answer the question. They waffled around what the charter changes would do but couldn't name any problems they would fix. I asked a follow-up question but still no specifics.

My point to them was that the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC) has raised almost $50,000, talked with hundreds of people, and spent thousands of dollars on yard signs and a giant "Fix city government" billboard at the gateway to downtown. And they can't tell us what they want to "fix"?

Finally, since they couldn't come up with an answer, I said that I believe SALC is trying to "fix" the City Council. The proposed charter changes would dramatically weaken the City Council's power and influence over decision-making. Here's how: 1) electing the entire city government in one election (instead of stagger elections, as they are now) would allow moneyed forces (like SALC) to a sweep the entire Mayor and Council out in the same year; 2) the charter changes would take the City Council out of many hiring and firing decisions and give all authority to the unelected city manager; and 3) giving more power to the Mayor weakens the City Council.

Taking power away from the elected City Council reduces government accountability. Repeatedly Coker and Kiser gave examples of strong city manager cities that are "well run". The examples they gave were cities that had had the same unelected city manager for 10-20 years. It dawned on my later that the corporatists want an iron-clad impervious leader for the city; they want the City of Tucson to be run by a despot-- a CEO!

Unfortunately for them, we live in a democracy, and democracy is messy.

SALC distributes deceptive pro-Prop 401 mailer

As to be expected during election season, I am greeted with campaign ads in my mailbox nearly everyday.

Yesterday, I received the above pro-Prop 401 card (without the circles and numbers, of course). This is one deceptive ad; in fact the statements circled in blue are blatant lies. (The items circled in yellow can be dismissed as unsubstantiated public relations claims.)

Prop 401 does absolutely NOTHING to (1) streamline city government or (2) cut bureaucracy. Prop 401 changes some hiring and firing procedures, but these changes actually strengthen the city's bureaucracy by further consolidating power in the office of the unelected city manager. No bureaucratic positions are eliminated, no budgets are cut, and no departments are eliminated by Prop 401.

Regarding (3) hold bureaucrats accountable, I contend that only elected officials are accountable to the voters-- not bureaucrats. Less government accountability is my biggest beef with Prop 401. By taking power away from the Mayor and City Council (while at the same time more than doubling their salaries), Prop 401 strengthens bureaucracy. (Yes, with Prop 401, certain department heads will lose their civil service protection, but the bureaucrats in these positions never have been accountable to voters, so it's a bit of a red herring, in my opinion.)

So, I'd like to see the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC) send out a mailer that tells what Prop 401 actually does:

1- Prop 401 more than doubles the salaries of the Mayor and Council, while diminishing their power.

2- Prop 401 changes hiring and firing processes to increase the power of the unelected city manager.

3- Prop 401 eliminates civil service protection for some department heads and allows the unelected city manager to more easily eliminate staff, which also increases his power.

4- Prop 401 eliminates the off-year elections, thus, enabling the election of the Mayor and all City Council members in the same year. (This saves money, but also potentially weakens our elected officials. SALC members have big bucks; if the entire city government is up for election in the same year, they could easily flood the election with money in an attempt to take over the Democratically-controlled City Council in one fell swoop.)

The bottomline is that Prop 401 is an attempt by big business to weaken and, therefore, control Tucson city government (the way they control the Arizona Legislature). These corporatists are using money and lies to sway your vote.

One look at the Yes on Prop 401 campaign finance reports tells us who the puppeteer is behind the curtain-- big business. Yes on Prop 401 has received a handful of $100 donations, but by far the donations in support of Prop 401 are $500- $10,000 donations from businesses. What are they doing with these funds? Yes on Prop 401 has paid thousands of dollars to a public relations firm, a marketing firm, and a paid lobbyist-- to sway your vote.

In stark contract, the grassroots, all-volunteer Protect Local Control Vote No on Prop 401 group has $70 in the bank.

Don't buy the lie. Vote NO on Prop 401.

P.S.-- As a snarky side note to the PR firm, you've got a run-on sentence in the blue section at the top. :)

UPDATE October 4: The Arizona Daily Star posted a story about the groups for and against Prop 401. They reported that as of last week, Prop 401 supporters have raised $47.000, while the Protect Local Control committee has raised $320.

Neighborhood groups hold community forums on Props 400-401

Today, September 30, and Monday, October 4, two neighborhood groups will host community forums on Propositions 400 and 401, which will be on the November ballot.

Prop 400 would increase the city's sales tax to pay for core services (police, fire, parks) (1, 2), and Prop 401 would change the city's charter (1,2).

The Tucson City Council voted in July to allow both initiatives to be put on the ballot. The sales tax increase would help the city balance its budget, but it has been a contentious issue on the City Council, with Councilman Steve Kozachik offering alternative Plans C and D to City Manager Mike Letcher's Plans A (Prop 400) or Plan B (15% across the board cuts).

Prop 401, although more esoteric, also has been very contentious. Prop 401 is the baby of the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC); this big business group claims that the City Charter should be changed because city government doesn't run efficiently* and because it's old. The grassroots opposition to Prop 401 takes issue with the huge Mayor and Council pay increases that are included. (I am against Prop 401 because it increases the power of the city's bureaucracy [particularly the unelected city manager] and, therefore, makes government less accountable.)

Want to learn more about these initiatives, ask questions, or voice your opinion? Check out one of these forums. The last Props 400-401 forum, hosted by Ward 6, was a standing-room-only event (above). (Kozachik called the event "lively;" other attendees described it as wild political theater.)

Southside
Tonight, the Southside Neighborhood Association Presidential Partnership (SNAPP) will host a community forum on both Props 400 and 401 from 6-8 p.m. The event will be at the El Pueblo Activity Center Multi Purpose Room, 101 W. Irvington Road. The entrance to the parking lot is south of Irvington Road on Nogales Highway.

University area
On October 4, the Feldman Neighborhood Association will host a community forum on only Prop 401, beginning at 6:30 p.m. The event will be at the chapel of St. Luke's Home at Lee and N. First Ave.

* Regarding the efficiency of city government: well, anyone who has been following the downtown hotel hell (1, 2, 3, 4) or the other Rio Nuevo real estate deals could make a case for inefficiency. But, personally, I don't think bigger bureaucracy is going to fix it. I believe we need strong leadership. Prop 401 should have been broken up, which would have allowed people to vote for the parts they favor.

Tucson's downtown hotel: City Council tosses the hot potato back (Part 4)

The debate about whether or not the City of Tucson should go hundreds of millions of dollars into debt to build a mega-hotel downtown crescendo'd yesterday during a 2-hour Executive Session of the Mayor and Council.

You'll remember that at last week's City Council meeting, Councilman Steve Kozachik couldn't get a second on a motion that began with the question: "What is the City of Tucson’s legal obligation to the design, development and building of the Convention Center Hotel?" and ended with a formal motion that would tell the Rio Nuevo Multipurpose Facilities District Board (RN) that the city would "not backstop or issue any bonds to secure the completion of the Tucson Convention Center Hotel, Parking Garage and Convention Center Expansion" and the city would "not approve any additional expenditures for the Convention Center Projects until RN has negotiated an acceptable GMP [guaranteed maximum price] and funding plan for the project."

Later in the week, the RN Board tossed that hot potato back at the City Council.

At yesterday's City Council meeting, the Council voted 7-0 on the following motion by Kozachik:

I move that we direct staff to proceed as discussed in Executive Session, and to negotiate the following:
a) an agreement with RN for financing the Project that satisfies the direction given by the Legislature.
b) a reduced GMP for the project, as well as reduced developer and design/build fees
c) resolution of issues relating to the use of local subcontractors; and
d) acquiring additional security from the hotel operator

I move that staff not return to Mayor and Council for any further action unless these terms are accomplished.

"Direction given by the Legislature" refers to the RN Board's original charge by the Arizona Legislature to oversee expenditure of RN funds. According to Kozachik, that means that RN cannot "toss it into our lap"... again.

Tucson's downtown hotel: Historical context of a complicated project (Part 3)

The saga of Tucson's proposed downtown mega-hotel has been a continuing drama for a few years. To offer an historic context to the current pending decisions, here is a series of news articles.

The original Request for Proposals
Downtown Revitalization Development Opportunity, Convention Center Headquarters Hotel
July 2007-- three years ago! No wonder Tucsonans are frustrated!

Economic downturn in the west
Brookings report finds LV among hardest hit
Las Vegas Review-Journal, December 2009.

City Council starts to debate the wisdom of the hotel project
Dialogue is changing on downtown hotel project
Inside Tucson Business, February 2010.

Local businesses are pro-development
Downtown vision, future is in new hotel, TCC
Inside Tucson Business, February 2010.

Are convention centers and hotels the great investment that developers say they are? (AKA the $190 million question.)
Space Available: The Realities of Convention Centers as Economic Development Strategy
by Heywood Sanders for the Brookings Institution, 2005.
This reports reveals not-so-rosy statistics about many cities that have built new convention hotels and convention centers to boost economic development. Sanders, an academic, was interviewed by local media in the spring of 2010, but the City Council gave him minimal time to explain his findings. It's important to note that the Brookings report was published in 2005; the economy has only gotten worse since then. In his interview on the John C. Scott show, Sanders said many US cities have traveled the convention center hotel road that the City of Tucson is now on. Some put up the funds and built the hotels; others decided to be more prudent and not build. It is scary to ponder what this huge debt could do to these heavily-leveraged cities if the US economy, in general, and unemployment, in particular, do not pick up soon.

Hotel Industry Fights Back
The Rhetoric vs the Facts: What the Brookings Report Fails to Reveal
The International Association of Exhibition Management pushed back after the Brookings Report was published in 2005.

Another "debunking" of the Brookings' Report, 2005.

Local hotel owner/opportunist wants a piece of the action
Chamber backs city lease after hotel upgrade
Arizona Daily Star, June 2010.

OUR VIEW: 99-YEAR PROPOSAL FROM BUSINESSMAN LOPEZ NOT GOOD FOR TAXPAYERS
Using city bonds to upgrade hotel is a bad idea
Even the Arizona Daily Star doesn't go for Lopez's idea for lining his own pockets with Rio Nuevo funds. June 2010.

Desperate construction workers want jobs
'WE NEED THE JOBS,' RIO NUEVO BOARD IS TOLD AT TOWN HALL
Workers flock to back TCC hotel construction
Arizona Daily Star, June 2010.

More questions than answers
These questions need to be answered before we OK a convention hotel
In Inside Tucson Business, Councilman Steve Kozachik uses the media to push for answers from Garfield Traub (the hotel developer) and from the Mayor and Council, June 2010. This article is a thorough overview of the funding and the issues.

Phoenix convention hotel occupancy less than 50%
Downtown Hotel Hell
A dose of convention hotel reality from Phoenix, thanks to the Tucson Weekly, September 2010.

Hotel hell devolves as bloggers offer options to City Council
Give downtown hotel site to the Apache Indians
A View from Baja Arizona blog on the Tucson Citizen website, September 2010.

Sensing the fear of local politicians, the hotel's developer offers another funding plan
New hotel-finance plan unveiled
Sensing that local politicians lack the will to go hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to finance and build the hotel, Garfield Traub offers an alternative funding plan, according to Arizona Daily Star, September 2010. GT suggests the creation of a real estate investment trust (REIT) which would finance the hotel. The problem with this idea is that the city would own all of the risk if the hotel sits empty, but the REIT would reap the profits if all goes well. (This is a really bad idea for the City of Tucson!)

The City Council and the Rio Nuevo Board play hot potato with the project
To build or not to build-- who's decision is it anyway? Apparently, we don't know. When the Arizona Legislature created the Rio Nuevo Board to oversee expenditure of the RN funds, Kozachik and others (including me) thought that meant they would oversee and make decisions on projects like the downtown hotel, but the RN Board passed the buck back to the City Council last week. On Sunday, the Arizona Daily Star called for someone to make a decision.

Three years, many plans, and millions of dollars later, Tucson still doesn't have a downtown hotel. Now what? As I have said many times, I do believe that Tucson would benefit from a larger, updated downtown convention hotel, but after having heard multiple interviews with Sanders about his convention hotel research, I am convinced that now is not the time for Tucson to take on massive debt and that the GT proposal is not the right plan for Tucson in 2010.

Stay tuned for future developments.

Tucson's downtown hotel: Who's on first? Rio Nuevo Board passes hotel back to M&C (Part 2)

The tortured saga of Tucson's new downtown hotel has been a long and twisted one.

Do we need a giant, glittering new hotel downtown?

How much will it cost?

Who should pay for it?

Who will own the debt?

Who will get the profits?

Tucson's Mayor and Council have been waffling around these questions for years with no resolution. The downtown development drama got exponentially more complicated when the Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature created the Rio Nuevo Board to oversee how Rio Nuevo's funds are to spent in the future. Over the summer there were public squabbles between the Mayor and Council and the Rio Nuevo Board. (One example: the RN Board didn't approve of the M&C using downtown parking garage spaces to pay off a legal settlement with developer Scott Stiteler because of a contract dispute.

These stories led me-- and I'm sure other Tucsonans-- to wonder who's really in charge? Did the Legislature clearly delineate the responsibilities of the RN Board and how they are to interact with the Mayor and Council? It appears not.

Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik has been pushing the City Council to drop the mega-hotel project-- at least until the economy improves. He also believes that whether or not to finance and build the hotel is in the hands of the Rio Nuevo Board-- or it was until they punted late last week and said the hotel fiasco belonged to the city.

According to the Arizona Daily Star, "...the project is in … well, "chaos" may be too strong a word, but "confusion" is not. Mix in confusion with political posturing by both the City Council and the Rio Nuevo board and the result is unacceptable. Especially on a project of this size and involving so much taxpayer money."

Here is the text of Kozachik's September 24, 2010 memo to the Mayor and Council, which he released after the RN Board ducked out of the hotel business (even though it is not clear that they lawfully can walk away from it-- since they are supposed to be in charge of how the Rio Nuevo funds are spent.)

SUBJECT: Responsibility for Decision-Making on the Proposed Convention Hotel

There seems to exist a condition of leadership paralysis with respect to making a decision about proceeding with the Convention Center Project. The Rio Nuevo Board has suggested shifting the decision-making responsibility back to the City, where that authority resided prior to the Board having been seated by the State Legislature. With over $230 million in taxpayers’ dollars in the balance, the City must make sure that all relevant questions are answered openly and publicly.

1. Who is legally responsible to make the decision to proceed with the Hotel?
State Legislation placed the legal obligation to adopt a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) and finance plan on the Rio Nuevo Board. And, the Master Development Agreement for the project is between Rio Nuevo and the developer Garfield Traub. What is the role of the Legislature in the decision by the Board to shift that burden to the City? Legally, how does the change in relationship affect the Master Development Agreement? Does a new agreement need to be negotiated?

2. If the District shifts responsibility to the City for the hotel decision, what role does the District now play in approving any contracts related to the project?
The Legislature stated that no TIF money could be spent on any projects other than the Hotel and related project elements until a Notice To Proceed had been issued by the District. If no such NTP is issued, what are the City's options with respect to funding any other projects with TIF revenue? What role does the District then have in those decisions if they have shifted the duty/right to negotiate a hotel package to the City?


3. What other areas are affected by a change in the relationship?
What is the cost for putting together a finance program, that is, a bond package? Does the District have any financial obligation to assist in funding those costs with TIF dollars, or is it a General Fund obligation? Who negotiates the bond package? Who is involved in approving the terms of the package?

Subcontractor bids have expired. There will be a cost involved with re-submitting and re-evaluating a new set of bid documents. Do TIF dollars pay for those new costs, or is that a Developer cost to be borne by Garfield Traub? With the "owner" now out of the decision-making picture, who is to review and approve the bids with Garfield Traub?

There is no GMP. Previously, the District and the City have both been evaluating the proposed GMP submitted by Turner/Sundt. Is the City now in the position of making a unilateral decision with respect to the acceptability of the GMP and negotiating a new one in the event it concludes the existing price is too high? What role does the District now play in that process?

If the City puts together a funding package, does the District have any remaining role in its approval? If not, does this, in effect, constitute tacit agreement by the District that the City now controls the use of the TIF for this, and other projects the City deems appropriate use of those funds?

What we know is this:
a) There remain serious questions to be answered with respect to the financial viability of the Hotel.
b) In the present Convention Center Hotel market, there are numerous real-life examples that demonstrate the financial down-sides possible in operating a facility such as this.
c) There is no private sector money included in the financing of this project and the developer has openly indicated that he is unwilling to absorb any of the risk.
d) The “Team,” as described in the Master Development Agreement, with whom the District is to negotiate a Guaranteed Maximum Price and a finance plan, is comprised of commission-based firms who therefore have no incentive to produce for the City the lowest possible price for a high-quality product.
e) The taxpayers’ voice has been left out of the conversation. If the Rio Nuevo Board passes to the City the responsibility for making this decision, it is the Mayor and Council who are responsible to the taxpayers for whichever choice is elected, not the Rio Nuevo Board.
f) The voters are being asked to approve a sales tax increase along with a package that includes a significant salary increase for Mayor and Council. When the voters see those propositions on the ballot, their vote will reflect the level of trust they have for the governing body.

There appears to be a strong sense of urgency on the part of those who stand to benefit financially from this project that the District step aside and the City simply approve a funding plan that ultimately places the taxpayers at risk for what may well become an under-performing property. The decision to make this level of commitment comes while we are in midst of negotiating a GMP, in the midst of our trying to balance the FY2011 and FY2012 budgets, and in the midst of an effort by some in the City bureaucracy to convince the taxpayers of our need to adopt a sales tax increase. To take on a debt of this size while so many critical fiscal issues are unresolved is irresponsible.

It is time we protect the taxpayers’ interests and make a firm decision that, at this time, we cannot take on the burden of a risky capital project such as this. It is unfortunate that the District is now trying to absolve itself from fulfilling the leadership role in this matter that it was formed to exercise.

Nonetheless, the Board’s decision to stand down on the decision and place it back in the hands of the City does not obligate us as leaders in this community to approve a debt burden that is clearly inconsistent with the other fiscal realities with which we are faced. The timing is wrong, the finances are uncertain, and therefore the project must stop now until the market has improved to the point where some level of private sector investment can be included in the plan. (Emphasis added.)

Tucson's downtown hotel: To be or not to be? (Part 1)

Since he took office, City Councilman Steve Kozachik has been trying to hold the Mayor's and other council members' feet to the fire on the new downtown hotel deal.

The issue of whether or not to build a mega-hotel downtown has been complicated by Tucson's ongoing budget problems-- thanks to a downturn in the US economy, high unemployment and poverty in Arizona, cuts in funds from the state government and an over-reliance on tourism, sales tax, and the housing boon statewide.

All of this has been coming to a head since the City Council voted to send Prop 400, a 1/2 cent sales tax increase, to the voters this November. Labeled the "core tax", it theoretically will be spent on core services-- police, fire, and parks-- but, as I understand it, that is not an iron clad promise.

City Manager Mike Letcher proposed 2 plans to balance Tucson's budget-- Plan A being pass the sales tax and Plan B being across the board 15% cuts in all city departments (including police and fire). (Plan B, I think, is a particularly stupid idea because it plays into the hands of the people who tried to pass Prop 200 last fall. They contended that the City Council didn't value police and fire and would cut those services unless they were protected by the charter changed proposed in Prop 200, and here you go-- not even 1 year later, Letcher's Plan B proposes just that!)

As his answer songs, Kozachik has proposed Plan C and the hybrid, updated Plan D. I am not endorsing Kosachik's Plan D whole hog, but I do agree with him when he says that there are steps that the City Council can and should take now--regardless of whether or not the sales tax passes. For example, included in Plan D are items like eliminating cars and car allowances for city employees (check this link and scroll down to see who gets this now); a 2% decrease in pay for city employees making above $96,000; increased "cost recovery" related to Parks and Recreation programs (ie, increased fees); a sliding scale Sun Tran fare increase; and much more. The kicker at the end of Plan D is killing-- at least for now-- the hotel project:

"Because of the uncertain impact on the General Fund, advise Rio Nuevo Multipurpose Facilities District Board that the City will not entertain any further consideration of funding proposals associated with the Downtown Convention Hotel until the sales tax has sunsetted (see below.)

"In the event sales tax fails at the ballot box, City will not entertain funding proposals for the Hotel until State-shared sales tax receipts to the City exceed those identified in “sunset” provision cited below."

According to Kozachik (the sole Republican on the City Council), he presented Plans C and D as points of discussion and wants to discuss/debate the ideas with other members of the City Council. The problem is that the Democrats on the City Council didn't want to discuss the plans.

At the September 21, 2010 City Council meeting, Kozachik also made this motion to tell the Rio Nuevo Board that the city was washing its hands of the hotel project proposed by Garfield Traub.

Convention Center Hotel and the City of Tucson

What is the City of Tucson’s legal obligation to the design, development and building of the Convention Center Hotel? The Master Development Agreement identifies the Agreement is between the Rio Nuevo Multipurpose Facilities District (The Owner) and Garfield Traub (The Developer).

The signature page of the Master Development Agreement states that the Mayor signs “Solely in connection with the City’s obligation and agreements pursuant to Sections 2.2.2, 4.1.14 and 4.2 of this agreement”

Section 2.2.2 relates to the construction of the East entrance and states that the agreement “obligates the City to expeditiously pursue mutually agreeable methods for funding the CC East Entrance Construction Fund” The City complied with this obligation by issuing additional Certificates of Participation.

Section 4.1.14 relates to the City issuing permits during the design phase and states “City agrees to expedite to the fullest extent possible plan review and approvals as well as the issuance of all permits and consents required for the project.” The City has complied with this obligation.

Section 4.2 relates to the City issuing permits after completion of the Design Development Period and states “City agrees to expedite to the fullest extent possible plan review and approvals as well as the issuance of all permits and consents required for the project” The project has not been approved and therefore the permits will not yet be issued.

Clearly, The City of Tucson has no contractual obligation to fund the project. In light of the dire financial condition in which the City finds itself, the City should not risk one more dollar of the taxpayer’s money on this project.

I move that the City of Tucson advise Rio Nuevo Multipurpose Facilities District Board that 1) at this time we do not intend to backstop or issue any bonds to secure the completion of the Tucson Convention Center Hotel, Parking Garage and Convention Center Expansion and 2) The City will not approve any additional expenditures for the Convention Center Projects until RN has negotiated an acceptable GMP and funding plan for the project.

This declaration of intent will allow the RNMF Board to decide if the project is financially viable in its current form and to decide if alternative funding methods are available. That obligation is clearly delineated in the MDA under Sections 4.1.13 and 6.6.

Section 4.1.13 assigns to Garfield Traub the responsibility of securing a Design Build Contract with Turner/Sundt and to negotiate a GMP, advising Rio Nuevo as that is developed.

Section 6.6 assigns to Rio Nuevo the responsibility of obtaining funding for the Project. The City of Tucson is explicitly not mentioned in the development of a financing plan.

We, as the City of Tucson, cannot simultaneously tell our citizens that we need for them to pass a ½ cent sales tax because we are in dire financial straits and also tell them that we are obligating their money to a $225 million project that has significant risks and assumptions associated with it. The turn in the economy has dictated that this type of risky project should not be placed on the shoulders of the citizens of Tucson. (Emphasis added.)

The motion didn't go anywhere because no one seconded it. For Kozachik's Ward 6 update on the meeting, check this link. To watch the City Council meeting online, check out Channel 12.

I do believe that Tucson needs larger, updated hotel accommodations downtown, but I don't agree that the city should go hundreds of millions of dollars into hock for decades to build it. (Here's a hint: there is a reason why the bankers aren't financing this.)

Marijuana, the City Council, Goddard and aliens-- events abound this week

What's a politically active Tucsonan to do this week? Today and tomorrow (September 20-21) multiple meetings and events have been scheduled on top of each other.

Goddard
Today and tomorrow evening, beginning at 5:30 p.m., Women for Goddard is hosting phone-banking parties. We will be calling women voters and encouraging them to vote for Terry Goddard for Arizona governor. If you are a woman with a cell phone, contact Women for Goddard at 5000women.az@gmail.com for details.

Medical Marijuana
Also, tonight-- 5:15 p.m. at the Copper Room at Randolph Park-- Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall will tell us everything we ever wanted to know about marijuana-- or at least medical marijuana in Arizona. Arizona voters will get a chance to vote-- again-- on the decriminalization of medical marijuana. (Arizonans have approved medical marijuana at least twice before, but somehow the Legislature has been able to not enact the wishes of the voters.) Here is an excerpt from LaWall's promo:

Proposition 203 is a ballot initiative to be voted on during the general election on November 2, 2010. If approved by the voters, the initiative will enact a group of statutes titled the “Arizona Medical Marijuana Act,” to include a new Chapter 28.1 in Title 36 and amendment of Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) § 43-1201. If adopted, the new law would decriminalize possession, sale, and cultivation of marijuana for certain purposes under state law and would provide for the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries and offsite cultivation locations.

Tucson City Council
Also, Tuesday is another one of those big days for the Tucson City Council. Beginning at noon with a study session and continuing through the evening with the regular meeting and call to the audience, beginning at 5:30 p.m. For weeks, Councilman Steve Kozachik has been trying to hold the other council members' feet to the fire regarding budget cuts and the downtown hotel boondoggle.

As usual, the City Manager's office is telling voters to vote for another sales tax increase to pay for core services (police, fire, parks) or face a 15% across the board cut in services-- Plans A and B-- as if these are our only 2 choices. Kosachik unveiled his Plan C in late August and a Plan D more recently. You can read his ideas here.

I agree with Kozachik that there are some budget cuts the city could make now-- like getting rid of city cars and car allowances for staff, trimming top salaries by 2%, increasing some fees, etc. I also agree with him that they should stop fiddling around with that overly expensive downtown hotel project. Having worked in PR for many years and having planned events in Tucson, I strongly believe that we need a better hotel in downtown, but the long-term financial risk of this project is too great. As we know, the city has gotten itself into several bad land deals (1,2); this one would hurt us greatly if it did not live up to it's rosy projections.

Since the city is overly reliant on sales tax and tourism-- and both are down-- we need to make tough choices.

Aliens
If you're sick of politics by the end of the week, check out The Glow in Oracle. Fifty local artists-- including moi-- will display lighted sculptures, while 20 musical acts provide the ambiance.

Props 400-401 townhall today

Ward 6 City Councilman Steve Kosachik will be hosting a townhall on 2 propositions which will be on the November ballot-- Prop 400 which would increase the city's sales tax to pay for core services (police, fire, parks) (1, 2) and Prop 401 which would change the city's charter (1,2).

Want to learn more about these initiatives, ask questions, or voice your opinion? Come to the Ward 6 office, 3202 E. 1st Street, at 6:30 p.m. today (Sept. 16). In addition to Kozachik, City Manager Mike Letcher and City Attorney Mike Rankin will be in attendance.

Here's a news clip from KVOA about tonight's meeting.

Tucson City Charter: 'It's old, so let's get rid of it.'

This morning Arizona Public Media aired a balanced report on Prop 401 by Robert Rappaport.

Several pro-401 corporate talking heads were interviewed, and Tom Prezelski, former state legislator and chair of the grassroots Protect Local Control coalition, provided the anti-401 opinion.

Two of the pro-401 group's arguments that were aired today don't hold much water in my opinion.

A representative from Cox Communications who was identified as the head of the Yes on 401 group pumped up the cost savings which would be earned from consolidated elections. (I can't give you her name because she is not identified on the Yes on 401 website. I think that it is telling that they do not name the officers of their committee on their website. Maybe the pro-401 group is not as diverse as they would lead us to believe. Just look at the parent company's membership list.)

The nameless head of Yes on 401 said that by having the entire Tucson City Council elected in the same year we would not only same money, but the Council would be more likely to work together, since they were elected in the same year. (Well, maybe, but I don't see much evidence of this in the Congress or the Arizona Legislature. That assertion is just unsubstantiated PR, in my opinion.)

What the nameless head of Yes on 401 is not saying is that by electing the entire City Council in the same year, forces with enough money could sweep the entire Council-- thanks to the corporate personhood/campaign finance ruling from the Roberts court. Who would have the money to do this? The corporatists from the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC)-- Diamond Ventures, TEP, Jim Click, Chase Bank, O'Reilly Ventures, SW Gas, Tucson Realty and Trust, etc.-- the same people who are bringing you Prop 401. How convenient is that?

Another pro-401 argument that is regularly touted is the "it's-old-so-let's-get-rid-of-it" argument. Local lawyer Jeff Rogers offered that rationale this morning on the radio. Personally, I think this is the weakest argument the SALC corporatists have.

The Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the "Star Spangled Banner", the Statue of Liberty, the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the works of Shakespeare, my Mom, etc., etc. (should I go on?) are all older than Tucson's City Charter. Should we throw them out "because they're old?"

Let's not be fooled by big money. Vote No on 401.

Buzz words abound at Prop 401 kick off

The weather is cooling down, just as the politics heats up in Tucson and across the nation.

Yesterday, the Yes on Prop 401 supporters held a press conference to formally kick off their campaign to change the Tucson city charter. As you may remember, I waxed poetic last spring about the City Charter Changes and why I opposed them then-- and still oppose them now. (Old stories linked here in chronological order 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.)

In the Arizona Daily Star and on the John C. Scott Show, the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC)-- the corporatists who have been pushing for the City Charter Changes-- have been trumpeting the idea that the City Charter Changes have broad support-- from Tea Baggers to Democrats to unions and, of course, the rich white men who started this process.

Given the signage at the rally, I wonder how many of these people really understand what they are theoretically supporting. For example...

Do the unions understand that they are supporting a HUGE pay raise for mayor and council while their members are being furloughed and/or laid off? Also, by backing SALC, the unions are siding with the corporatists -- the dreaded management, as my steel worker Dad would have called them.

Do the tea baggers understand that those rally signs spouting catchy slogans like "Cut bureaucracy," "Demand accountability," "Cut costs" and "Streamline government" have absolutely NOTHING to do with the City Charter Changes? No bureaucracy is being cut; in fact bureaucracy will be strengthened and consolidated in the City Manager's office. There will be less accountability because the power will be with the manager-- not the elected officials. The only cost savings is in the consolidation of election cycles, but that money will be spent on the pay raises. (Hey, tea baggers, I know you are easily manipulated by the media, but you and the Libertarians should be more against this more than I am!)

Call me a Pollyanna, but I still believe in elected government and accountability to the people. For these reasons, boys and girls, I oppose Prop 401.

If these City Charter Changes pass in November, the most powerful person (mostly likely a white man) in Tucson will be the unelected city manager.

I believe that the city of Tucson could be run more efficiently, but making the city manager more powerful, paying the mayor and council more, scaring departments by eliminating their civil service protection, giving the mayor a tad more power is not going to do it, and shifting election cycles.

The current city government structure is flawed-- in my humble opinion-- because we have 7 people (city manager, mayor, and 5 council members) with about the same level of power + a gaggle of council and city staff also with some power. Consequently, we have a camel government -- one designed by committee.

Tucson has no Harry Truman. Tucson has no strong leader and no vision. Tucson has no one with the cojones to say, "The buck stops here."

Tucson needs a strong leader-- not another bureaucrat. Vote NO on 401!

I got scared yesterday but Keith and Gabby helped me through it

I was scared and depressed yesterday by the time I left work. Too much talk radio can do that to you, and I don't listen to the really horrible shows (ie, Jon Justice, Rush, etc.)

It started with Diane Rehm talking about the fate of education in the US if the Tea Baggers make strides in the November election. She asked the US head of the Department of Education what would happen if the Congress voted to eliminate the Department of Education, which is apparently one of their campaign rallying cries.

After she asked that question, the call was dropped. It was almost prophetic. I could hear in Diane's voice that she felt the same way. Silence... that's what would happen if they eliminated the Department of Education. Ideas would be lost or not shared-- especially unpopular ones. Education would be left to special interest groups-- religious, political, cultural-- and the melting pot of public education would die, thus creating more inequity, more division, more distrust. Sigh...

Later in the day, on the John C. Scott Show, there was a mixed bag, as usual. He started out with big-wig Republican operative Bruce Ash (grrrrr) gloating about a Republican Congress-- as if it were a done deal.

After that Jim Kiser (pro-Charter Change hack) quoting a Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC) poll of a whopping 600 people that concluded 2/3 of Tucsonans are not satisfied with the way the city is being run.

OK, there are some smart people among the SALC membership-- including former UA president Peter Likins-- so I would expect them to conduct valid surveys ... but apparently not. Drawing conclusions for a city of nearly 1 million from a sample of 600 is laughable. Unfortunately, they can get away with it because reporters and talk show hosts never challenge the sampling on surveys, ask exactly what questions were asked, or ask if the findings are statistically significant.

I am particularly suspicious of the Rasmussen polls which are published widely and which regularly offer Ash a reason to gloat (grrr). Their latest poll, which also came out yesterday, reports that Governor Jan Brewer gained 2 points over her challenger Terry Goddard after her disastrous performance in the debate last week. (This seems unbelievable, really.) Again, what question was asked? Is 2 points a significant change? My guess is that 2 points is within the margin of error-- so no real change-- which is also surprising since she came across as a dolt.

So, after a day of depressing news and bad numbers, I decided to take action and stopped at Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' office on the way home. OK, some times she annoys me with that Blue Dog thing, but maybe she's just acting that way to appease the Chochise County voters. Anyway, she's sooooooooooo much more reasonable than Jesse "privatize this" Kelly. It would be a very dark day in Southern Arizona if Kelly were elected. Anyway, I signed up to volunteer for her, as I have in the past. Like Harvey Milk, I won't give up without a fight.

A glutton for punishment, I watched Keith Olberman online later in the evening, and he actually picked up my spirits significantly.

Last night, Olberman reported Gallup data on whether people would vote for a generic Republican or Democrat for Congress. This question is asked every week. Last week the Republicans were up significantly. This week the 2 parties are in a dead heat-- see the graphic above. (So, why was Bruce Ash gloating?) Anyway, Olberman further reported that the lead on that question-- generic Republican vs. generic Democrat-- has changed 6 times since May 2010.

Anyway, that data doesn't sound like or look like a referendum against Democrats to me. I believe that some of this midterm election gloom and doom is being fueled by big money from corporations (thanks to the Roberts court decision), ginned up by Faux News, and then repeated by reporters and bloggers to demoralize us.

We can do this, people! Don't listen to the pundits. Let's make some phone calls and knock on doors.

UPDATE: In the category of great minds think alike, Blog for Arizona posted a similar article this morning (ahem... a few hours after mine, I must add). Check it out because the AZ Blue Meanie does go into more depth than I did.

Who writes Tucson's real estate development contracts? Cuz I don't think they know what they are doing (Part 2)

This downtown development saga begins back in December 2008, but it keeps on... well...developing...

The Cliff Notes version is that the City of Tucson was going to swap land for development services to be completed by Scott Stiteler (and his various other partners who have come and gone in the past year and a half).

The Tucson Citizen (December 17, 2008) made a rosy announcement of the downtown "predevelopment plans" and the land/cash swaps.

Later in the Spring of 2009, the Tucson Weekly (April 9, 2009) published an extensive article on multiple downtown deals.

Quoting from the Weekly:
"The concept is the city has no money," explains Jaret Barr, of the city manager's office. "What if the DTDC [Downtown Tucson Development Company, Stiteler's business] could do the work, and our compensation (to the DTDC) would be properties?"

Under the terms of the predevelopment agreement, the developers would be given options to acquire numerous parcels of valuable property for $1 each. This land was to be transferred when the DTDC finished specific tasks.

This is not a new idea. Cash-strapped municipalities have used this redevelopment tactic for many years: Give a developer some vacant land (or sell it for a token amount of money) and allow the developer to build on it, in a specified way. In the end, everyone is happy, theoretically. The developer owns a money-making property, and the city benefits from sales taxes and the value of having gleaming new construction where there once was a blighted property or a vacant lot.

During the spring of last year, several trial balloons were floated regarding which properties would be traded to Stiteler in exchange for his services. At one point, he was asking for the the Historic Train Depot and the Congress Street frontage of Ronstadt Center (which would have made it unusable as a bus station). This is when I started to pay attention. As I mentioned, these land-for-services swaps are common, but generally the municipality doesn't trade property that the city has spent millions developing. (In fact, last spring I even wrote letters to all of the City Council members asking, "The Ronstadt Center? The Train Depot? Really? What are you thinking???")

To add to the ongoing drama downtown last spring, there were two other city government/development stories also brewing in the local media. In April, the City Council fired Tucson City Manager Mike Hein. Was Hein scapegoated because of the city's problems and Rio Nuevo's ... well... sluggish progress? I don't know, but for a variety of opinions on this high-profile political action, check out these links 1,2,3,4, 5.

And, of course, who could forget the landlord-tenant food fight that sprang up between Stiteler and the the Rialto Theater Foundation, reported in the Weekly in late May 2009. The Rialto eventually lost this battle. (Note to self: never fight publicly with your landlord.)

On June 11, 2009, the Tucson Weekly reported that the Train Depot had been removed from the land swap, but the specific deal between Stiteler and the city seemed to be evolving-- just days before the June 16 deadline for a City Council decision. Furthermore, the Weekly reported that "the city could owe Stiteler and Martin [one of his partners] more than $900,000 if the document isn't ratified by June 16, due to language that was included in an earlier agreement."

Why did the city apparently sign a contract that had a deadline for their decision but not a deadline for submission of the plan? In the June 11 story, the Weekly reported several different possible multi-million-dollar scenarios-- just days before the final decision was to be made. In fact, Stiteler delivered the final plan to the City Council on the Friday before the Tuesday City Council meeting. Three days over a weekend was obviously not enough time for them to make an informed decision.

Ultimately, the City Council did what they do best; they delayed making a decision. This-- among many other Rio Nuevo snafus-- caused City Councilwoman Nina Trasoff to lose her City Council seat to Republican Steve Kozachik in the November 2009 election and gave Councilwoman Karin Ulich a very tight race. In October 2009, the Tucson Choices blog published a series of "Player Reports" with tidbits of information on several downtown deals.

Now let's fast forward to this summer 2010.

Remember the fee that the city "could owe" Stiteler? Well, the city did owe him a settlement because the 2009 deal fell through. On June 17, 2010 (a year and a day after the historic non-decision) the Tucson Weekly reported the city's settlement with Stiteler.

But, wait, there's more!

In the past year, the Arizona Legislature and Governor Jan Brewer created the Rio Nuevo Multipurpose Facilities District Board to oversee future development in downtown and to manage the Rio Nuevo funds.

On June 18, 2010 Inside Tucson Business reported that the Rio Nuevo Board (now in charge of spending the Rio Nuevo funds) doesn't approve of the city's lawsuit settlement with Stiteler. According the Inside Tucson Business, the Stiteler settlement includes a shared asset-- parking spaces in a downtown parking garage-- and the City Council didn't clear the deal with the Rio Nuevo Board. Sigh.

Again, I ask, "Who writes Tucson's real estate development contracts?"

Who writes Tucson's real estate development contracts? Cuz I don't think they know what they are doing (Part 1)

I have lived in Tucson for almost 30 years, and repeatedly, I have seen the City of Tucson-- and the taxpayers-- get screwed on real estate development.

I am not a high-powered lawyer, but I have written and signed a few contracts in my day. My multiple life experiences lead me to ponder one question: Who writes the real estate development contracts for the City of Tucson? Why do I ask? Because-- regardless of the deal-- it seems as if the city (AKA "we") end up with the short straw.

The latest example of this-- the Vista Sierra Apartments in midtown-- was featured in the local section of Sunday's Arizona Daily Star.

The article is a bit confusing about ownership of the now-closed, low-rent apartment complex saying, "For now, at least, Vista Sierra belongs to the Metropolitan Housing Corp., an independent nonprofit created by the city's Metropolitan Housing Commission. It bought the complex in 1996 from the original developer."

So, is this owned by the city or not?

The problem is the Vista Sierra apartments were purchased 14 years ago with the same basic cooling system problem that closed it down this summer.

This is a very expensive problem, since, according to the Star, "The chiller's pipes are in the building's foundation. [yikes!] They're hard to get to, expensive to repair. The fix will cost a million dollars - nearly half what the assessor estimates the place is worth."

When I bought my historic house in 2004, I paid for a home inspection, so I knew-- in great detail-- that I was buying a very cute 1933 house with problems (AKA an adorable, old dump).

Did the city commission a "home inspection" on the Vista Sierra Apartments? If they did, why the heck did they buy it? Really, this sounds like a sweetheart deal for the original developer.

"The [Metropolitan Housing] corporation is almost entirely government dependent, from subsidized rents to federal and local grants, including two recent city grants totaling $133,000. And it's the city - which boarded the windows and helped residents move [emphasis added] - that will probably ride to the rescue to clean up this mess one day. The city is broke, but it's HUD's preferred buyer," the Star reports.

Maybe I'm a dunce, but if the city owns this dump, how can the city be the preferred buyer? This sounds like a scam to me.

This article says that Metropolitan Housing Corp. defaulted on the mortgage for this property, but it also says the apartments are "almost entirely government dependent."

"'We don't have a pot of funds ready to buy this property, so that's clearly a challenge,' said Albert Elias, Tucson's housing and community development director. 'I think the only way that this could work is if we worked in partnership with some other (agencies),'" again quoting the Star.

So, why would we re-buy this dump that we shouldn't have purchased in the first place?

Again, I ask: "Who writes the real estate development contracts for the City of Tucson?"

Watch for more articles in this series...

More than 1000 Signs Removed from Tucson Streets

On Monday morning, I posted a rather fiery blog post about political signs being removed in midtown Tucson.

Well, I kicked a hornet's nest with that story.

After multiple e-mail exchanges with the Ward 6 Office-- including Steve himself-- and neighborhood association leaders, I learned that the sign sweep was not in just Ward 6 but citywide. I also learn that only illegally-posted signs would be removed.

According to data provided by Councilman Kozachik, 1140 illegal signs were removed, including 865 political signs and 275 non-political signs. (Personally, I think that this is a waste of manpower-- volunteer manpower in posting the illegal signs and city staff manpower to remove them.)

Anyway, I want to thank Councilman Kozachik for providing the above data and clarifying the sign blight situation.

For information regarding legal vs illegal signs on city streets, check out this brochure published by the City of Tucson.

BTW, in my note back to Steve, I suggested that he could really help with the neighborhood blight caused by graffiti, illegally tall grass and weeds, and illegal dumping of trash and discarded furniture in the curb lawns by slum lords (long before a scheduled bulky pick-up). Blight begone!

Political signs coming down in midtown Tucson

Midtown Tucson with its mix of funky old houses and mid-century in-fill is an economically and culturally diversely part of Tucson. But at its core, it's heavily Democratic.

Due to the fluke of city-wide City Council elections and a marginally performing Democratic Party incumbant, midtown's Ward 6 is now represented by Republican City Councilman Steve Kozachik.

This summer, as always in an election year, political signs are popping up all over town. According to my neighborhood's newsletter, some residents (not sure how many) are concerned about the blight caused by political signs in and around our neighborhood. As a result, our neighborhood president contacted the Ward 6 office about this, and Kozachik's office has agreed to remove all political signs not on private property.

This statement from our recent newsletter bothers me: "City personnel are removing ALL [political] signs from the intersections for the next three weeks."

I also understand that political signs can be unsightly. In my opinion Tucson has hundreds of unsightly signs and billboards. What is Kozachik's opinion on the sign code regulations?

I take issue with removing political signs right before the primary and general elections. I see this as an unnecessary intervention and an infringement of free speech. The Arizona primary will be held in 8 days. Half or more of those signs will be removed soon after that.

Legislative District 28 (which includes Ward 6) has 5 Democrats running for the Arizona Legislature. There are also many highly qualified Democrats who are vying for Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction-- not to mention the hotly contested Congressional District 8 (Gabrielle Giffords' seat) and the US Senate race for John McCain's seat.

My point is: Republican Councilman Kozachik is more than happy to remove signs because, in reality, he will be removing primarily the signs of hard-working Democratic candidates, thus hurting their name recognition and wasting valuable campaign funds.

This is a problem. If the signs have been placed in accordance with city sign ordinances, they should not be removed. If you live in midtown, contact Kozachik's office at ward6@tucsonaz.gov and tell him that you value free speech and you want him to leave the signs as they are.

I understand the concerns about neighborhood blight. If Kosachik wants to help midtown neighborhoods, get after neighborhoods with illegally tall grass and weeds, broken furniture in the curb lawns, and graffiti.

UPDATE: For an update to this story click here.

Should the RTA take over SunTran? I vote "no"

For several weeks, the issue of SunTran control has been bouncing around the City Council Chambers and the media.

Today as the Tucson City Council considered whether or not to relinquish control of the SunTran bus service to the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), pro- and anti-RTA demonstrators gathered outside (1, 2). The Teamsters Union (below) supports the move to RTA because they believe the RTA will provide a more stable funding source for the bus service and, therefore, the union members. Bus riders and representatives from Casa Maria Soup Kitchen (above) protested against the move to RTA because they fear steep fare increases and cuts to services if the regional authority takes over the buses.

Yes, the city is strapped for cash, but I disagree with the proposal to transfer SunTran to the RTA.

First of all, the vast majority of SunTran riders (in the neighborhood of 80-90%) are residents of the City of Tucson; this alone should be reason enough for the city to retain control. SunTran riders are people who don't have other transportation, can't afford to park or can't find parking where they work (ie, the University of Arizona), or can't drive, ride a bike, or walk to their destinations. Often-- but not always-- these people just can't afford cars.

If SunTran were controlled by a regional authority, Tucson would have one equal vote along with several smaller suburban cities-- such as Oro Valley or Marana. Obviously, potential suburban bus riders have different needs than the poor people and students who ride the city buses. Although Tucson is the biggest city in this group and has the most riders, it would be one voice among many at the RTA table.

RTA claims that it has solid funding, and this is why the Teamsters are supporting the RTA take-over. According to a radio interview between former City Councilman Steve Leal and activist Brian Flagg of Casa Maria, RTA would increase fares-- perhaps even doubling them-- if they take over SunTran.

The tragedy of all of this is that it pits workers who are fighting for their jobs and a living wage, against riders, who are fighting for affordable transportation and a means to get to their jobs or school. These groups should stick together, rather than battling against each other. At the end of the day, drivers and riders have more in common than they may believe today.

Council sends sales tax and charter changes to Nov ballot

An overflow crowd attended yesterday's Tucson City Council meeting to offer opinions and hear decisions on 3 major issues: a half-cent increase in the cap on city sales tax, a major revision to the Land Use Code, and proposed changes to the City Charter.

With split decisions, both the increase in the sales tax cap and the charter changes will be on the November 2010 ballot.

On the sales tax vote, Councilmen Steve Kozachik and Paul Cunningham were the dissenters. If voters approve raising the cap on city sales tax in November, this does not actually raise the sales tax; it allows for it to be increased in the future.

On the charter changes, Council members Regina Romero, Richard Fimbres, and Karin Ulich followed the will of the people they represent and voted "no." At public hearings in Wards 1, 3, and 5, there was strong opposition from neighborhoods and city residents against the City Charter changes proposed by business leaders represented by the Southern Arizona Leadership Council.

Only the changes in the Land Use Code received unanimous support from the Council. Several members said they were supporting these changes because it will help rid our city of blighted buildings by speeding development.

Mayor Bob Walkup remarked that the vote on the Land Use Code should answer detractors that call the city government unfriendly to business.

For more detailed information, check out the Arizona Daily Star or watch the lengthy meeting at Tucson Channel 12.