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!

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.)

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..

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...

Tucson lacks "the vision thing" but proposed charter changes won't remedy the problem

In the 29 years I have lived in Tucson, I have seen the city's fortunes ebb and flow like the ocean tides. No where has this cycle of growth and decay been more evident than in downtown Tucson. Over the years, many businesses and revitalization initiatives have come and gone regardless of how successful or popular they were.

A case in point: long before Rio Nuevo and Second Saturdays, there were the Tucson Arts District Partnership (TADPI) and Downtown Saturday Nights.

Both Rio Nuevo and TADPI were charged with breathing new life into downtown. TADPI focused primarily on downtown revitalization by showcasing Tucson artists, hosting downtown arts and music events (like Downtown Saturday Nights), and beautifying downtown with mural projects and pop-up galleries in vacant buildings.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was a viable strip of shops and galleries along the east end of Congress Street-- Yikes Toys, Picante, Berta Wright Gallery, Pink Adobe Gallery, and others. Downtown Saturday Night attendees visited these shops and perused the wares exhibited by street vendors. One by one these business folded or moved.

Downtown Saturday nights and the other TADPI projects were wildly popular but were mysteriously discontinued in the 1990s.

Rio Nuevo was created in 1999 when voters approved a special tax increment district and began accumulating sufficient funding to support projects in 2004, according to the city's website. Rio Nuevo has had far more money than TADPI ever did but also has had less focus and much more bad press (thanks to a vendetta by the Arizona Daily Star). Second Saturdays is a downtown business initiative-- and not a Rio Nuevo project-- but projects occurring simultaneously downtown and tend to be lumped together in the minds of citizens.

By 2008, this same strip of shops on Congress Street (which had been vacant for years) had been reborn and housed four galleries, a coffee shop, a hair salon, and a trendy clothing resale shop, along with a few bars. Creative events (1, 2, 3, 4) drew hundreds of Tucsonans downtown to enjoy the art and check out the music and bar scene. To us supporters, downtown appeared to be experiencing a resurgence. By early 2010, seven of these businesses were closed or relocated by a developer to make way for a trendy sports bar, whose owner was glorified in a Daily Star puff piece this week.

While other cities are able to revitalize their downtowns (1, 2), Tucson's beleaguered city core suffers from the fits and starts. This leads long-time Tucsonans ask themselves: "Why does Tucson keep re-inventing the wheel? Why can't we get it right?"

Why? In my opinion, Tucson suffers from the lack of a visionary leader. Yes, we have had plenty of politicians, plans, proposals, and committees, but if you look behind the glossy PR of these initiatives, you'll usually find that they benefit special interests, and not the city as a whole.

Tucson's City Manager form of government is inherently flawed. Our Mayor is a powerless figurehead who signs proclamations and acts as a tie-breaker when City Council members can't agree.

With a City Manager form of government, there is no one elected official who takes responsibility and says, as Harry Truman did, "The buck stops here." Tucson has a City Manager, a Mayor, and six City Council members who run the government. It's no wonder that decision-making, at times, appears schizophrenic. This distributed governance allows some people to be scapegoated (like Nina Trasoff, who personally paid the political price for Rio Nuevo's perceived lack of progress), while Mayor Bob Walkup became our local Teflon Don and easily won re-election.

A leadership vacuum such as this affords the perfect opportunity for special interests to shape local government decisions. Enter the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC)--a group of local businesses-- and the Tucson Charter Coalition (TC3), a spin-off organization, who want to save the city by making basic structural changes in governance.

Currently, these groups are lobbying the Tucson City Council to put city charter changes on the November 2010 ballot.

Some of these proposed changes I agree with. For example, changing city elections to even years would align them with the larger presidential and Congressional elections, thus increasing voter turnout and saving money. Changing the City Council's and Mayor's positions to full time and aligning their salaries with the Pima County Supervisors' compensation would allow the city to attract more qualified candidates. Since these positions are now all part-time, much power is held by unelected staff members. (Eliminating off-year elections will provide funds for the change from part-time to full-time positions.)

What I vehemently disagree with are SALC's proposals that would give the City Manager, another unelected official, more control.

Bureaucrats already hold too much power and are not directly accountable to the voters. Tucson needs a strong visionary Mayor to lead us into the future-- not a strong bureaucrat who owes his power to local businesses.

This article originally appeared in my Progressive Examiner column.

What is our shared vision for downtown Tucson?

This month marks the end of an era in downtown Tucson-- an era of art, innovation, diversity, and creative energy.

Three galleries on East Congress Street will be closing this week--Dinnerware Artspace, Central Arts Gallery, and Rocket Gallery. A funky coffee shop and a fourth gallery have already closed. Five local businesses -- plus two others-- have been evicted to make way for a sports mega-bar.

These businesses paid rent, hung on through construction and the summertime, and looked forward to the revitalization of downtown. They were the pioneers of revival; they were downtown before anyone else wanted to be.

The galleries and shops in the 200 block of East Congress Street filled once-vacant storefronts and breathed life into downtown by bringing art, fashion, music, and community to a forgotten part of town. They complemented the existing bars, restaurants, movie theaters, and music venues. They will be replaced by yet another large bar-restaurant.

What is our shared vision for downtown Tucson? Do we want a downtown filled with bars, student housing, and parking structures? If we allow the developers to rule downtown, they will chase the quick cash and invest in mini-dorms and bars. People who once came downtown for the art scene will be greeted with restaurants decorated with generic sports bar kitsch.

The artists are not leaving downtown altogether, but they are being pushed to the fringes. Once again they will be moving to a part of Tucson that everyone else has forgotten--the warehouse district. Initially, Dinnerware and others will move to the Citizen's Storage building on East 6th Street. Eventually, artists will occupy the warehouse at 1 East Toole Ave.

In the meantime, Tucsonans who care about downtown must remain vigilant. We must not let the developers and politicians chase the quick fix while short-changing for our culture and our future.

Tucson's vibrant art and music scenes set this city apart from others. Cheap housing and generic sports bars are everywhere.

This article originally appeared in my Progressive Examiner column. To view the accompanying slide show, check out this link.

UPDATE: For an update on this story check out An Congress-- Not?