More news on McClung's ties to extremist groups

Over on my Tucson Citizen blog, I have posted several stories about CD7 Republican Congressional challenger Ruth McClung and her ties to extremist and often blatantly racist groups who are fundraising and endorsing her.

Will the real Ruth McClung please stand up? first brought to light her endorsement by the right wing Republican Majority Campaign and the Grover Norquist TV ad on her behalf.

The sequel: Will the real Ruth McClung please stand up? (part 2) continues the discussion of her ties to Norquist and Sarah Palin. Even though McClung signed the Norquist pledge and spouted his soundbites at the CD7 debate, she claims not to know who he is.

Desperately seeking ‘Republican Majority Campaign’, signed RM further delves into the shadowy Republican Majority Campaign and its racist ties. The title is a take-off on the 1980s cult classic "Desperately Seeking Susan" where bored housewife (Rosanna Arquette) places a newspaper ad to find her wild-child friend, Susan, (played by Madonna). Like the bored housewife, McClung want to play on the wild side with the RMC.

Goddard 'works it' in Tucson

Attorney General Terry Goddard knows that in order to beat Jan "beheadings!" Brewer in the race for governor of Arizona he has to win big in Pima County-- the one bright blue spot in a state dominated by that large red blob to the north.

Goddard has been everywhere in recent weeks. There was an impressive voter registration rally on October 4 with fellow Democrats on the UA mall, and this weekend there are back to back events.

Women for Goddard Rally and Movie at the Loft
Come to the Loft Cinema, hear Goddard speak and view the film Iron Jawed Angels, an amazing movie on the battle for the women's right to vote. (This is labeled as a women's rally, but I'm sure men can come also.)
What: Women Vote Rally
When: Saturday, October 9th from 10-11:30 am.
Where: The Loft Cinema, 3233 E Speedway Blvd.
For more info, please contact Erika Burkhart at (303) 514-3452.

Eastside Rally for Goddard
What: Eastside Rally for Terry Goddard hosted by City Council members Shirley Scott and Paul Cunningham
When: Saturday, October 9, 4-6 pm
Where: The Children's Outdoor Performance Area, 8123 E Poinciana (next to PCC East, north of Irvington, east of Pantano).
Come join us for food, music and show your support for Terry Goddard!
Please contact Max Torres at (520) 250-0473 or Pat Weidhoff at (520) 850-6755 for more information.

Goddard Got Art
The Goddard Got Art artist reception will be this Saturday. Goddard's campaign held a art competition. Come view the winners. This is the Second Saturday, so there will be loads of other things to do also. (If you're worried about parking, check out the Pennington Street Garage, by Cafe Poca Cosa. It's cheap or free for these events.)
When: Saturday, October 9, 5-7pm
Where: 1 E. Congress in downtown Tucson

17th Annual Pima County Democratic Party Honor Roll Gala
If you're into somewhat expensive political dinners, come this event and hear keynote speaker, Henry Cisneros, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development along with Goddard and State Senator Paula Aboud who will be the master of ceremonies.
What: Pima Democrats Honor Roll Gala, featuring Henry Cisneros and Terry Goddard
When: Saturday, October 9th at 12 pm. Registration begins at 11:30.
Where : University Marriot, 880 E 2nd St. Tickets are $75 ($65 for PCs and $50 for students). To purchase tickets, visit this Act Blue web link or call (520) 326-3716.

Cycling for Goddard
So, after that rubber chicken dinner at the Marriott on Sunday, join Goddard supporters Tuesday night for the community bike ride. We tried this last Tuesday, but that huge rain storm washed out our plans. We are calling on Goddard supporters to participate in the bike ride and show their support at the same time. We will be wearing lights and Goddard paraphernalia-- signs, t-shirts, bumper stickers-- to raise awareness. Barring bad weather (again), we plan do to this for each Tuesday night ride until the election on November 2.

Rumor has it that Connie Sanchez of Blondes for Brewer may even make an appearance at the art event and the cycling event. Is she switching sides? Come find out!
What: Tucson Community Bike Ride
When: Tuesdays, 7:30 pm
Where: in front of the Starbucks on University Blvd.

Goddard is workin' it in Tucson. Help him take back our state. Volunteer and vote!

This is called not knowing what you are voting for

In case you can't read it, one of my messier neighbors has "Yes on 401, Fix City Government" sign in his front of his junk car.

This is a perfect example of not knowing what you are voting for.

You see... a few months ago the neighborhood association turned this particular neighbor-- among others-- into the city for violating the ordinances against tall weeds and grass and visible junk cars.

Should I tell him that even if Prop 401 passes, he'll still have to keep his yard cleaned up and cover-- or preferably ditch-- that junk car with the flat tires? (After all, even covered, it's an eyesore.)

Tucsonans can join the Rally to Restore Sanity or the March to Keep Fear Alive-- without leaving the Old Pueblo

I have been seriously jonesing to go to Washington, DC for the progressive rallies being held in October. After all I have a hybrid car and at least one person + 2 cattle dogs who would love to go on a road trip.

Problem is I also have a fulltime job and can't take 2 weeks off for the round trip.

Ever since I learned about these 3 rallies, I have been pining away to hear Ed Schultz, Jon Stewart, and/or Stephen Colbert address the teeming throngs of progressives on the mall in DC, but alas...

Now, thanks to the ingenuity and marketing savvy of the Hotel Congress, Tucson progressives can enjoy the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or the March to Keep Fear Alive without leaving town. The rallies begin at 9 a.m. on 10-30-10.

Personally, I think they should secure Governor Jan Brewer and Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall as keynote speakers for the Keep Fear Alive rally.

For Restoring Sanity...hmmm...definitely there are no Arizona Republican politicians who could address a rally with that title-- especially since Stewart called Arizona the "meth lab of democracy". Maybe Dave Ewoldt or Andrew Weil?

Here is a link to the Tucson rally and a link list of other states and cities that are having rallies. And, of course, in case you're not already distracted enough, you can follow it all on facebook and Twitter.

Where's the diversity?

Is it coincidence, fate, or maybe poor planning on my part that I am spending 3 evenings in a row at the Pima County Democratic Headquarters this week?

The Pima Dems Executive Committee met last night; tonight Legislative District 28 (where my precinct is) met; and tomorrow I am making phone calls for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and MoveOn. (That's me and Gabby on election day 2008, when I was also making calls for her. Wasn't that a great day!)

What really struck me about last night's meeting-- besides the vote-- was the lack of diversity in the Pima County Democratic Party's upper echelon. When I made phone calls for Barack Obama in 2008, I was in the minority on most nights. Didn't the local Dems recruit any of those 2008 black and Hispanic phone bank volunteers or walkers to be precinct committee people?

I had planned to raise the lack-of-diversity issue at tonight's LD28 meeting, but with only 1 black campaign worker for Rodney Glassman (Hi, Zeke!) and 1 Polish Mexican, tonight's meeting was older and whiter than last night's meeting. (Not that there's anything inherently wrong with old white folks; these people are hard workers. And, besides, I plan to be an old white person someday.)

Yes, I know there is an African American Democratic Caucus. Great group of folks, but I don't see many of them in leadership positions. Actually, I only saw 1 last night.

This is a problem-- and a missed opportunity. Nationwide and statewide, the Republicans are alienating many groups and particularly people of color. The "energized" Republican base-- primarily Tea Partiers-- ranges from old white folks to white supremacists on the diversity scale. Obviously, that leaves a lot of people left out.

Come on, Democrats. Let's show everyone that we really do have a big tent that all of us can fit under. We need to bring these diverse populations into the fold-- not just for their vote but for their ideas, their energy, and their leadership.

I challenge the Arizona Democratic Party to make a concerted effort to recruit more diversity to the ranks of its precinct committee members between now and 2012. This will only make the progressive movement stronger. We can do this.

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.

Cycling for Goddard-- tomorrow!

Have you every been downtown on a Tuesday evening and seen a mass of lights moving toward you in the darkness? Giant lightening bugs? An alien hoard? Too many margaritas?

Nooooo, it's the Tucson community bike ride. Beginning tomorrow night, October 5, and continuing for the month of October, a few of us artistic/political types are planning to add a twist to the community bike ride.

We are calling on Terry Goddard for Governor supporters to participate in the bike ride and show their support at the same time. We will be wearing lights and Goddard paraphernalia-- signs, t-shirts, bumper stickers-- to raise awareness.

If you want to participate in the community bike ride and support Goddard, meet at the Starbucks at Geronimo Plaza on University Blvd. at 7:30 p.m. (with your bike, bike light, helmet, Goddard t-shirt or other wearable promo + LEDs, glow necklaces, and other funs stuff.) Extra signs will be available. This is a great opportunity to show our support and get a little exercise at the same time.

UPDATE, October 12: The cycling event on October 5 got rained out. We are going to ride Tuesday, October 12 and hopefully every Tuesday until the election.

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.)

It ain't over 'til it's over: the Goddard 'Surge' vs the robocalls

I just returned from the Women for Goddard gig with a list of my soon-to-be 20 new best friends -- women I have to call and convince to vote for Terry Goddard for Arizona governor. Between 100-150 women gathered tonight to collect lists and calling procedures. If last night's Women for Goddard event was that big, that means hundreds of women will be calling Pima County Democratic women to encourage them to vote for Goddard and other Democrats on the ticket.

Hillary Clinton used the same women-calling-women strategy in 2008, came to Tucson herself (instead of sending the second string, sorry, Michelle), and won Arizona-- despite Obama endorsements from Raul Grijalva and Janet Napolitano.

With the state and federal Republicans' abysmal voting records on women's issues (AKA, reproductive rights, healthcare, education, and poverty), it would be amazing to me if any women-- except the ultra-rich or those with ties to an ultra-conservative, highly-repressive religion popular in Arizona-- would vote Republican.

Feeling pretty good on my way home, I was thinking about the new Goddard-Brewer polling data that was sent out today. From the Goddard press release:

New polling data released today indicates Terry Goddard is gaining ground on Jan Brewer in the race for Governor of Arizona.

The poll, conducted on behalf of Project New West, shows that in one of the more conservative Congressional districts in Arizona, Terry Goddard has moved to within single digits with 45% of the vote, Brewer at 52%.

"Jan Brewer has failed to bring new jobs or new business to Arizona. She has failed us on education - and is willing to cut even more from the education budget. Times are bad, and voters are recognizing that Jan Brewer is not the kind of decisive leader we need, to lead us out of this mess," added Goddard.

The huge gain of more than a dozen points since a Rasmussen poll on September 8, shows a dramatic shift in momentum as voters learn about Terry Goddard, his success as Attorney General, and his plan to bring new jobs and support business expansion in Arizona.

OK, Terry, sorry, man, but there are a few things wrong with this press release information.

1- It is frickin' awesome that you have gained a significant number of percentage points in a conservative district; 52% Brewer vs 45% for you puts you in striking distance-- especially considering the army of scared progressive out their working for you. (But here comes the but...)

2- But you really can't compare the new data with the Rasmussen robocall data. To use research terminology, you're comparing apples with oranges. :) To compare these polls, the surveyors would have had to ask the same questions in the same way (live person vs robocall computer) in the same order to the same types of voters (ie, likely voters, not likely, anyone who answers the phone and speaks English, anyone who has a land line, etc.) Also, I believe that the puny Rasmussen polls (500-600 likely voters) are supposed to be representative of statewide demographics, which would be most heavily weighted for Maricopa County-- rather than just looking at one district. (Speaking of statewide data, do either of these groups-- Rasmussen or or Project New West-- have Spanish-speaking surveyors. I doubt it.) Having a research background, my guess is that only a certain type of person-- and not me-- would answer a computerized telephone survey. In my opinion, that skews the Rasmussen data as much or more than their conservative bent. (And here comes another but...)

3- Believe it or not-- this is good news. I hope I'm not giving away the secret strategy here, but my guess is that Goddard is trying to follow in Napolitano's footsteps (ie, win big in Pima and other blue/purple areas outside of Maricopa to take the state). So, if the Rasmussen polls are heavily weighted to Maricopa-- who cares what their data says?

Woo, hoo. Volunteer. Donate. Vote! Go Goddard. Beat the Bruja.

LaWall uses scare tactics and half-truths to campaign against medical marijuana

As political junkie, I have attended numerous public forums, City Council meetings, Pima County Board of Supervisers' meetings, and even Arizona Legislature sessions, but tonight's "educational" forum on medical marijuana (Prop 203) was the weirdest, most one-sided and contentious non-debate that I have ever witnessed.

In a nutshell, Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall [check out the seriously under-the-radar website link] used this public forum (and a Pima County facility) to give her personal opinion on medical marijuana, scare the audience, and campaign for a No vote on Prop 203. (Isn't this unethical behavior?)

At the onset, LaWall said that the meeting was not a debate or a public forum but simply an educational meeting. She said her goal was to "educate and inform" the audience about Prop 203. Fair enough but that is not what transpired.

LaWall's slanted slide show, her "facts" about medical marijuana, and editorial emphasis on certain key points made it obvious that she was not providing education; she was using her office to campaign against medical marijuana.

Early on, in the non-debate, the mostly pro-203 audience of about 40 people began to challenge her "facts". For example, she said that marijuana was not approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a "medicine" and that it has not been research-tested. (Earth to Barbara, the FDA has not approved St. John's Wort for depression, black cohash for menopause, or any number of herbal remedies and supplements, but drug stores and health food stores are selling them.)

Marijuana has not been approved as a medicine because there are no pharmaceutical companies producing marijuana pills and funding multi-center clinical trials. Since it is illegal in most states, there is no economic incentive to pay millions of dollars to test it. (Drug research in the US is based on capitalism, not on the overall public good.) On the flip side, there have been loads research articles providing anecdotal evidence and case studies on the benefits of medical marijuana.

Regarding research testing of Controlled Substances, in the US most research is funded by the federal government or by drug companies. After the free-wheeling 1960s when Timothy Leary. Ram Das, Andrew Weil, and others at Harvard Medical School were conducting clinical trials of, writing about, and/or experimenting with mind-altering drugs, the Nixon administration clamped down on experimentation (research or otherwise), and medical research into potential benefits of controlled substances was suppressed. (Research funding is a political football.)

I digress. Back to tonight's political theater... instead of answering questions from the audience, LaWall became defensive, skipped through some slides, threatened to have people removed, and solicited help from uniformed police officers to control the crowd of citizens with legitimate questions. Since LaWall refused to call on people who raised their hands early on, audience members started shouting questions and comments.

For example, she answered one of my questions, but only when I said I was a journalist and asked, "Do you want me to write that you refused to answer audience questions?" When I raised my hand with a follow-up question, I was ignored-- along with many others.

Eventually the audience turned to heckling, but, seriously, LaWall deserved it. One breast cancer patient shouted out how much medical marijuana has helped her over the past 2 years of chemothearpy. Community activists accused LaWall of abusing her elected office by using the public forum to voice her personal opinion. Outside, a cancer doctor and palliative care cancer nurse told me that LaWall just doesn't understand the benefits of medical marijuana to their patients.

The meeting lasted about 30-40 minutes, since LaWall refused to answer the vast majority of questions or address comments from the audience. This was a pathetic performance by an elected official.

On November 2, 2010, Arizona voters will again have the opportunity to approve medical marijuana (Prop 203). Arizonans have approved medical marijuana at least twice before in my recollection. What makes the 2010 vote different? In 1998, Arizona voters got tired of voting for initiatives and then having the Republican-controlled Legislature not enact the voters' wishes. Consequently, the Voter Protection Act was passed. This forces the Legislature to enact laws approved by the voters. (Watch out for this because Republican legislators are trying to undermine our initiative process.)

Old hippies, stoners, cancer patients, people with chronic pain and other medical conditions improved by marijuana, and other freedom-loving Americans who want less government control of our lives-- mark your calendars. I'll make it easy for you. Here are the election-related deadlines you need to know:

- To vote on November 2, you must register by October 4, 2010. You can register to vote here.
- The first day of early voting and the day that early ballots are mailed is October 7, 2010.
- You can also request to be on the Permanent Early Voting List (PEVL). This means you automatically always get a ballot in the mail. (You can change this at any time; you can also drop the ballot off at a polling place on election day. It's easy, trust me.)
- The last day to request an early ballot is October 22, 2010. Here is a list of early voting sites.
- Election day is November 2, 2010. If you don't know where to vote, check out the Pima County Recorder's website. And, again, thanks to Republicans, you have to take an official government identification with you to the polls.

Also, while you're voting for medical marijuana, vote for Arizona Democrats. Statistics show that most people don't like the way the Republicans are running this state (ie, 2nd in poverty, 50th in education, worst unemployment in 27 years). It is long past time to throw those bums out!

In the future, looks for public forums on zoning for medical marijuana. Counties and cities around Arizona will be trying to control usage, dispensaries, and cultivation. Don't let them undermine your rights!

The vision thing: I vote for Hurricane Hazel for mayor

As I have said on many occasions, Tucson lacks "the vision thing". In my opinion, we need a strong mayor to lead us out of our economic and social problems-- not stronger bureaucrats, which is what Prop 401 would give us.

Hurricane Hazel has been mayor of the 6th largest city in Canada for 33! years-- 11 terms. Eight-eight-year-old Hazel has a 92% approval rating, a vibrant city, and no municipal debt. Check out her story.

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.

An Congress-- Not?

If you follow downtown politics and development/non-development, you know that it has been a rocky road littered with bad real estate deals, broken dreams, and random glimmers of hope.

Last fall there was a big hullabaloo when downtown landlord and developer Scott Stiteler evicted 3 businesses (Tooley's, Preen, and Metropolis Hair) and 4 galleries (Dinnerware, Firestone, Rocket, and Central Arts [above]) on Congress to make way for a 7000-square-foot sports bar owned by Mr. An of Sakura fame.

I'm sure, at the time, Stiteler thought that Mr. An would be a more solid tenant than these funky small businesses and galleries, but that Congress Street gallery row-- coordinated for the most part by David Aguirre of Dinnerware Artspace-- created a very popular art scene and drew large crowds downtown to view rotating exhibits (1,2,3,4, 5, 6, 7).

Construction-- or destruction, actually-- started in the spring. Walls were knocked down to make way for the glittering new sports bar. The Arizona Daily Star trumpeted Mr. An's move downtown.

Now, construction appears to be stalled. Word on the street is that Stiteler is stuck with an empty shell with dirt floors, no tenants paying rent, and no Mr. An.

As Joni Mitchell sang, You don't know what you got 'til it's gone. You paved paradise and put up a parking lot..

Sept. 18, UPDATE: I received e-mails from Stiteler and Councilman Steve Kosachik on this story. According to Stiteler, construction and renovation inside structures on 200 block of Congress Street continues. He said that An and others are interested in the space but would not be more specific regarding future tenants. No time frame for completion was offered. Apparently, when the 1912 structures were gutted, they were found to be in rougher shape that anticipated. Watch for further developments on this story..

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.