Buzz words abound at Prop 401 kick off

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Save the middle class: Big Ed wants you to march on DC

Ed Schultz, homespun radio progressive from Fargo, ND and now an MSNBC pundit, is organizing the One Nation March, to be held on October 2 at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC.

According to Big Ed's website, "The march aims to bring working people, young people, retirees, civil rights activists and many others together on the Mall to show the obstructionists in Congress that we are many and diverse, strong and that united-and we will fight together for the American Dream...

"Working people can make a difference when we rely on ourselves and act collectively. We are America. And together we can make our voices heard."

Let's fight for the middle class. DC is quite a ways from Tucson. Maybe we could have a local march?

Here are the details from Big Ed's website.

ONE NATION WORKING TOGETHER

Our nation stands at a critical crossroads. The 30-year drive for a low-wage, high-consumption society that imports more and more of what it consumes has hit the wall.

Millions are unemployed, with little recovery in sight. A record number of Americans who want desperately to work have been jobless for more than 6 months.

At the same time, Wall Street continues to roll up big profits. Banks and corporations have made off with trillions of public dollars, while small businesses can't get loans and cities are being forced to make cuts to public education and public safety, harming our children and our communities.

Obstructionists in Congress are doing everything they can to stop anything that helps working people, and they are scapegoating workers for the demise of the economy. Public sector workers are being cast as selfish, auto workers are being blamed for the troubles of the auto industry, and teachers are being blamed for an education system in need of support.

Working people are frustrated and angry-incensed by the government's inability to halt massive job loss and declining living standards on the one hand, and the comparative ease with which Republicans in Congress, with help from some Democrats, have done their best to make the world safe again for JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and CitiGroup, on the other.

Just as we have seen through history, fear mongers in our country have seized on that anger and are working hard -- unfortunately with some success--to use justifiable anger about a failing economy to divide us.

We have to fight this hateful demagoguery that only benefits our foes, and we can't do it alone. History has taught us that the best way to fight the forces of hatred is to address the economic policies that led to our economic suffering, and that our fight must draw its strength from an alliance of the poor and the middle class-everyone who works for a living.

It is against this backdrop that we join ONE NATION.

ONE NATION is a multi-racial, civil and human rights movement whose mission is to reorder our nation's priorities to invest in our nation's most valuable resource - our people.

The organizations that have come together to form ONE NATION believe that our goal should be a future of shared prosperity, not stubborn unemployment and a lost generation. Workers should be able to share in the wealth they create, and everyone deserves the opportunity to achieve the American Dream - a secure job; the chance for our children to get a great public education and the opportunity to make their own way in the world; and laws that protect us, not oppress us.

ONE NATION is a long-term effort to reverse the dangerous economic course of our country over the past four decades. It brings together organizations from across the progressive spectrum-labor, civil rights, environmental, faith and many others-recognizing that none of us alone have been able to achieve our priorities, whether they are large-scale job creation, labor law reform, immigration reform, investing in public education or other concerns, and that we will not realize change until these priorities belong to all of us.

ONE NATION shares the labor movement's policy agenda: An economy that works for all; good jobs, fair jobs, safe jobs, and more jobs; reforming Wall Street; repairing our immigration system; quality education for every child; and ensuring that everyone in America has the opportunity to contribute to and strengthen our country. Restoring workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively is at the heart of the policy agenda.

The ONE NATION march on Washington on October 2, 2010 will charge up an army of tens of thousands of activists who will return to their neighborhoods, churches, schools and, especially, voting booths, with new energy to enact our common agenda. And on the same day, the labor movement will walk door-to-door in targeted states around the country, bringing the same message to union members exactly one month before the fall elections.

The march aims to bring working people, young people, retirees, civil rights activists and many others together on the Mall to show the obstructionists in Congress that we are many and diverse, strong and that united-and we will fight together for the American Dream.

Many of our unions are already committed to work as a part of ONE NATION. The unions of the AFL-CIO proudly join this coalition and pledge to work collectively to add our support to this great effort.

Working people can make a difference when we rely on ourselves and act collectively. We are America. And together we can make our voices heard.

Here is the FAQ about the march.
When is the March?
Saturday, October 2, 2010. We will begin at 12:00 noon and will end at approximately 4:00 pm.

Where is the March?
The March takes place on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial located on the National Mall in Washington DC.

Is the event open to the public?
Yes, this event is open to the public. This event is also a family friendly event.

Is this event open to the media?
Yes. Media credentials and other logistics information may be obtained from the ONWT Communications Office which can be reached at 202 263 4529 or by email at ONWTCommunications@gmail.com.

What happens if it rains?
The March will proceed rain or shine.

Will there be food, beverage and bathrooms available on site?
Yes, there will be portable bathrooms and water on site.

Can I bring signs?
Yes, you can bring signs that promote the values of One Nation Working Together.

What arrangements are being made for persons with disabilities?
Special accommodations will be made for persons with disabilities. Please contact ONWTlogistics@gmail.com with any questions.

Where can I stay in the DC area?
There are many hotels in the D.C. area that are close to the March event site. To learn more about union hotels in the Washington, D.C. area, visit the Unite Here website.

Additional information about Washington, D.C. can be found at www.washington.org.

Can I make a donation to support the March or ONWT?
Please send any donations by check to:
One Nation Working Together Campaign
1825 K Street, NW Suite 210
ATTN: Matt Reents
Washington DC, 20006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can we learn from the gay rights struggle of the 1970s? Don't give up the fight!

What have we learned in the past 33 years? Apparently not much in the brotherly love category. Far too many of us are easily manipulated by hatred and fear ginned up by right-wingers and Christian zealots.

Last night I watched Milk, the 2008 movie about activist Harvey Milk (above), the first openly gay man to hold a major elected office, a position on the County Board of Supervisors.

Watching an inspiring movie like this one two years after the will-it-get-an-Oscar? hoopla allows the viewer to concentrate on the story and the multiple parallels between 1978 and 2010.

Being a woman ... ahem... of a certain age, I was a happenin' young 20-something in 1978 and remember well the multiple movements of the 1960s and 1970s, but I had forgotten Anita Bryant's anti-homosexual crusade.

A pop-singer-turned-Evangelist, Bryant led a campaign to overturn a Dade County, Florida law that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. After that law was overturned, she made appearances in several states to help them repeal similar anti-discrimination laws nationwide. (Sounds familiar, huh? Using religion and fear of the other to divide the populace.)



Running parallel with Bryant's anti-gay efforts were Milk's gay rights efforts in San Francisco. The movie depicts Milk debating and tirelessly fighting a California legislator who backs Proposition 6, a measure that would have barred gays from teaching in California schools and would allow schools to fire gay teachers.

The parallels between the anti-gay fervor of the 1970s and the anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim fervor being promoted today by Republicans and Tea Baggers were striking. Fear, religiosity, and preservation of family and "American values" were used to paint gays as outsiders-- just as these right-wing strategies are used today to paint immigrants and Muslims as dangerous outsiders and justify discrimination.

California's Prop 6 (which eventually failed) even had witch-hunt tactics like SB1070. One of the proponents of Prop 6 says that they have "procedures to identify who's a homosexual". His statement so reminded me of Governor Jan Brewer's reassurances that Arizona's law enforcement officials can spot illegal immigrants but then she couldn't say exactly how.

Milk's speeches toward the end of the movie-- and the end of his life, since he was assassinated in 1978-- were stirring.

"I want to recruit you to further the fight to preserve democracy," he says.

Referring to "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence and "give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free" on the Statue of Liberty, Milk says, "No matter how hard they try, they can't erase those words from the Declaration of Independence. No matter how hard they try, they can't chip those words from the Statue of Liberty."

What can we learn from Harvey Milk? The struggle continues. Keep fighting. Vote!

Harvard vs GED: Don't forget the Goddard-Brewer debate tonight!

Governor Jan "Are-You-Scared-Yet?" Brewer and her challenger Attorney General Terry "How-Can-I-Turn-This-Around-and-Keep-My-Nice-Guy-Image?" Goddard will debate tonight on television.

The debate will be from 7-8 p.m. on Arizona Public Media Channel 6 in Tucson and on KAET-Horizon Channel 8 in Phoenix.

The Pima County Democrats are having a debate watch party at the headquarters on 1st Street, beginning at 6:30.

In Phoenix, the watch party is at Majerle's Sports Grill, 24 North 2nd Street.

Given their dramatically different backgrounds and... er... smarts, it should be an interesting hour.

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?"

Cartel wars come to Arizona

Only a week after the Arizona Primaries, Governor Jan Brewer is running ads linking her opponent Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard to Obama, unions, and the "boycott cartel."

OK, agreed, for some of us, these linkages are reasons to vote for Goddard, but his portrayal in these attack ads is damming. Blog for Arizona has an embedded video, and there is a similar but different radio version airing on 1330AM during the daily John C. Scott political talk show. (Personally, I think the radio ad is stronger than the TV ad.)

Not to be outdone, the Democrats are claiming that Brewer is ensconsed in a "lobbyist cartel."

In a previous post, I wrote about Brewer's ties to private prison lobbyists.

But the Democrats' list of "lobbyist cartel" members in Brewer's cabinet is impressive-- in a bad way, of course. At least now we know where she gets her ideas. :)

Press release from the Arizona Democratic Party:

Governor Brewer, cut ties to your lobbyist cartel
As Arizona's working families struggle through crisis after crisis,
Brewer surrounds herself with special-interest lobbyists who profit

PHOENIX -- It's time for Gov. Jan Brewer to cut ties with her staff of special-interest lobbyists. They, not Brewer, are running the 9th floor, and Arizona is suffering the consequences -- we remain dead last in school funding and we lead the pack in job losses and foreclosures.

Brewer's campaign staff and governing staff are overrun with lobbyists, particularly those with direct ties to prison privatization. Brewer's lobbyists have been leaders in the efforts to privatize Arizona's prison system at the expense of public safety. Here's a quick Who's Who:

Campaign Manager Chuck Coughlin is a registered lobbyist and president of HighGround Public Affairs Consultants, which has represented Corrections Corporation of America.

Campaign Spokesman Doug Cole is a registered lobbyist for HighGround Public Affairs Consultants.

Governor's Office Chief of Staff Eileen Klein was a registered lobbyist.

Governor's Office Communications Director Paul Senseman was a registered lobbyist.

Governor's Office Deputy Communications Director Mark Genrich is a registered lobbyist.

Governor's Office Deputy Chief of Staff Richard Bark was a registered lobbyist.

Governor's Office Policy Adviser Kevin Kinsall was a registered lobbyist.

Today, Brewer and her fellow Republicans on the general-election slate launched a noisy, coordinated assault on Democrats who fight for hard-working Arizonans. Yet Brewer was eerily quiet throughout August as her handlers' deep ties to private prison lobbyists were exposed in the wake of murderers escaping from a private Kingman prison.

(NOTE to the Dems: nice press release, but it can't compete with a TV ad. Buy some air time. We need to save this state!)

I was going to write this, but Arianna Huffington beat me to it

Remember all of the right-wing blather about the Constitution last winter when President Obama was trying to push health care reform through the Congress?

Blah, blah, blah, we have to stick to the Constitution! The Constitution doesn't say the federal government should provide universal health care, so we shouldn't do it!

"It's not in the Constitution!" was used repeatedly as an excuse to do nothing to solve the country's multiple problems. Republicans proudly wore the badge of "Constitutional Conservative"-- until Arizona's chief wing nut Russel "Father-of-SB1070" Pearce came up with another popular white supremacist idea-- anchor babies.

What's a Constitutional Conservative-- a defender of the Constitution's purity-- to do?

The Constitution clearly says that any baby born in the US is a US citizen. There are no qualifications to that statement-- no stipulations about race, ethnicity, religion, parental citizenship-- or exclusion for mixed race Hawaiians born in the early 1960s. For a humorous look at the Congressional debate that took place when the 14th Amendment was passed originally, check out this Daily Show link..."I know it's hard to be tough on babies, but..."

Now that prominent national whities like US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have picked up Pearce's anti-anchor baby idea, things are getting progressively scarier, and right-wingers are coming out of the woodwork to speak out against the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

To put all of this Constitutional rhetoric into perspective, the Huffington Post published Republicans Hot, Cold on Constitution last week. The article is full of interesting factoids about politicians using the Constitution-- when it suits them-- and offering changes when it doesn't. According to Huff Post, Republicans have offered 42 amendments to the Constitution in this session, and the Democrats have offered 27.

Both numbers are shockingly large in my opinion, and all of these amendments-- and the anchor baby rhetoric, in particular-- smack of political grandstanding and just plain hogwash.

Our forefathers-- in their infinite wisdom-- made it really difficult to amend the Constitution-- thank God (or our elected officials would have thrown the country into the abyss in the name of ideology long ago.)



Does anyone remember the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)? (I do, and here is a photo of my ERA bracelet-- none of those plastic things for us feminists. We knew we were going to be wearing these ERA bracelets for a long time as we fought for equality for women.) The ERA was an amendment to the Constitution that would have guaranteed equal rights under any federal, state, or local law and would have prohibited discrimination based upon sex. It received the required 2/3 vote of each house of Congress-- a feat that seems miraculous now-- but failed to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures by the 1982 deadline (10 years after it was originally proposed).

The whities who are blabbing about an anchor baby amendment aren't serious. They're using this issue as another wedge to pit races and ethnicities against each other... divide and conquer, and by the way, don't forget to vote for the wise whitie who can save you from the Hottentots and the Mongol hoards. (Sarcasm here, check out the link.)

All I can say is that it is a sad day in America when anyone outside of Mesa listens to Russel Pearce's ideas.

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...

I love Paul Krugman

Yes, there I said it, "I love you, Paul Krugman."

Why am I in love with a NY times columnist? Because he's not afraid to tell it like it is.

In a column entitled Now That's Rich in Sunday's NY Times, Krugman called for an end to the Bush tax cuts, which will sunset at the end of 2010-- unless the Congress votes to extend these budget-busting give-aways to the rich.

Several weeks ago, Republican lawmakers-- like our 2 Arizona Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl-- started the spin to save the tax cuts for their rich cronies. Earlier in the summer, they voted to deny extension of unemployment benefits because paying these benefits would increase the deficit; at the same time, they were promoting extension of the Bush tax cuts. (It is blatantly obvious whose side they are on.)

The Faux News spin on the sunset of the Bush tax cuts is that Obama is a tax-and-spend liberal who wants to push through the largest tax increase in history-- or some such drivel.

The truth is that Obama wants to extend the miniscule part of the Bush tax cuts that benefits the middle class, while ending the tax cuts for the richest 0.1% of the US population.

According to the Tax Policy Center, full extension of the Bush tax cuts-- originally instituted in 2001 and 2003-- would add $3.7 trillion (with a T) to the budget deficit over the next 10 years. (Click on the link for the full sobering report.)

I say, let's finally give up on trickle down economics and end the give-aways to the richest 0.1% of Americans. Bush and his Republican-controlled Congress (including John and Jon) wrote each of them a check for $3 million. Enough is enough. Don't buy the lie. End welfare to the rich.