Finally an article from the Az Star  and Erica Meltzer detailing just how much our property taxes have increased in Pima County.

Despite repeated cuts in the tax rate, many Pima County taxpayers are paying twice as much in property taxes as they did a decade ago…

To look at the long-term impact of rising home values on our taxes, the Arizona Daily Star used information from the Assessor’s Office to determine an average home value in 1998 and 2008. We found the average home value for tax purposes had increased 126 percent, from $89,444 to $202,483. Applying the tax rates in each of those years showed the average county tax bill increased 101 percent.

Today’s average homeowner pays $476 more in taxes to the county than 10 years ago.

Even when adjusted for 34 percent inflation over the decade, that’s still a 50 percent increase in constant dollars.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

FRIENDLY BUSINESS REGULATORY CLIMATE

EDUCATED WORK FORCE

TAXING POLICIES

Check out the great story appeared in USA Today regarding teacher bonuses tied to improved student test scores.  What a novel idea, paying for results, holding a buaracracy like the American public education system accountable for their students performance. 

   A few examples:

• In Chicago, teachers at a handful of schools can earn up to $8,000 in annual bonuses for improved scores, while mentor teachers and “lead teachers” can earn an extra $7,000 or $15,000, respectively.

• In Nashville, middle-school math teachers can earn up to $15,000 based on student performance.

Do such plans work? A research center launched at Vanderbilt University to study performance pay has found mostly promising, if limited, results.

Realizing the importance of the K-12 education system on economic development Denver voters agreed to raise their taxes and approved a $25 million teacher pay increase package – with one catch increases were to be based on merit.

ProComp has four components that allow teachers to build earnings through nine elements:

Knowledge and Skills – Teachers will earn compensation for acquiring and demonstrating knowledge and skills by completing annual professional development units, through earning additional graduate degrees and national certificates and may be reimbursed up to $1,000 for tuition.

Professional Evaluation – Teachers will be recognized for their classroom skill by receiving salary increases every three years for satisfactory evaluations.

Student Growth – Teachers will be rewarded for the academic growth of their students. They can earn compensation for meeting annual objectives, for exceeding CSAP growth goals and for working in a school judged distinguished based on academic gains and other factors.

Market Incentives – Bonuses can assist the district and schools in meeting specific needs. Teachers in hard to serve schools—those faced with academic challenges—can earn annual bonuses. Bonuses will be available to those filling hard to staff positions—assignments which historically have shortages of qualified applicants.

Add in a financial incentive and the quality and caliber of our public education system will increase.  Nation wide over half the teachers leave the profession within five years and we are so desperately lacking math teachers that 1/3 of middle and high school math teachers are by someone lacking even a college minor in math.  Increase the education levels of our greatest assets, children and one more leg of our economic prosperity will be achieved.

TUSD is looking for a budget over ride this November (Proper 403). I for one would feel a lot more comfortable increasing my taxes if there were measurable results.

Rio Nuevo, GTEC, TREO, Downtown Alliance – the list goes on. Each of these groups started with the greatest intentions and have all struggled to show results. At the end of the day Tucson continues to loose. We are unable to break away from our BIG THREE industries. (real estate, tourism, government)  This blog and our authors will attempt to outline and highlight where and how we are off track.

A note on our unfriendly business climate.

The roots go back decades and we are reaping today what leaders sowed many years ago.

Roger Yohem VP of SAHBA summed it up pretty well. Read the full article HERE:

Anti-business genesis

From a development perspective, a complex maze of reluctant leaders, ingrained employees and citizen resistance are the roots of the anti-business policies coming out of Tucson City Hall.

City leaders “have to direct staff to develop standards and the process for encouraging development,” said a builder. Instead, the “entrenched bureaucracy” won’t allow progress to happen.

“Staffers have their own personal agenda, which I believe, is no growth,” he added. “The result is anarchy.”

A former member of the City Council spoke of the process. If an assignment conflicted with a staff member’s agenda, it was stonewalled. The official confronted employees and a typical response was: “I’ve been here almost 20 years, you’ll be gone in four and I’ll still be here.”
There is no pressure to perform. And many employees are protected by a union.
“They can’t be fired, so many feel bullet-proof. They don’t have to answer to anybody,” said a director of SAHBA.

The city’s anti-business movement “got legs” during the terms of Democratic mayors Tom Volgy (1987-91) and George Miller (1991-99). Both had won council seats in 1977.

“As no-growthers, they started to empower extremists and staff to follow their lead,” the SAHBA director said. “The people they hired decades ago are killing today’s redevelopment efforts. Many have moved up into policy-making positions with their negative attitudes toward progress.”

Regarding the conflicts of business versus neighborhoods, Volgy once said, “It’s hard for business groups to understand what the neighborhoods want, and vice versa. It’s very hard to put themselves in each other’s shoes.”

Yet Volgy’s “Kumbaya” thesis never developed into a serious collaboration. The narrow-minded NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything), and NOTE (Not Over There Either) protesters trumped progress.

As the city’s finance director told the council this spring, income from sales taxes will be flat in 2008 for the first time in 30 years because, “There’s no growth.”

No political cover

City leaders lack the political grit to confront the no-growth crusaders. Proposed projects fade away despite the widespread benefits.

“A radical minority dictates city policy,” says a SAHBA director. “There’s a handful of people who claim to represent neighborhoods but they really don’t. It’s always the same two or three people, who have become the city’s de facto planning department.”

One way to restore balance is to give politicians political cover. Development dissenters should get 60 days to prove their claims about traffic, property values, and other concerns.

“Make neighborhoods do what developers are required to do. Pass a mandate that they prepare and pay for their own study,” he said.

The breakpoint. The moment that everyone started paying attention.

Arizona Small Business Association (ASBA) sent a survey to 3000 business to find out which Arizona cities where the best and worst for business.  Tucson was named the most unfriendly, just edging out Mesa. Read the AZ Star article HERE.

“It’s very difficult, specifically for any kind of builder, whether commercial, industrial or residential, because of the myriad regulations in place,” Taczanowski said.

As such, builders in Tucson can get mired in red tape. “You could spend more time reading ordinances and trying to comply with them than you would planning your project,” he said.

From Busines Pundit:

We’ve heard every talking head go on about Wall Street’s effect on Main Street. We’ve all been scared to death that the credit markets are going to freeze up. I don’t know about you, but I’m still getting credit cards in the mail. So how exactly is this credit crunch really affecting small businesses across the country?

The Credit Crunch is Real for Small Business

According to a recent survey of senior loan officers by the Federal Reserve’s, the majority of banks are restricting or decreasing credit for companies with less than $50 million in revenue. That sure includes small business! Anyone associated with housing in any way is perceived as extra risky. This could be a mortgage broker or a carpet seller.

A National Small Business Association (NSBA) survey reported by CNN Money, revealed 67% of business owners had been affected by the credit crunch in August, up from 55% in February.

Even the Strong Are Being Denied

Many small and family owned businesses rely on generous lines of credit to finance day to day operations. Banks are cutting back on this type of credit. And according to Dayton bankruptcy attorney who spoke to Business Week,

“It’s not just sick businesses. These are healthy businesses, and that’s the surprising thing.”

Tougher Standards

 Banks are looking at scores over 720 and companies at least two or three years old. This is particularly bad news for brand new ventures. According to the Business Week article, small businesses may have better luck with smaller, regional banks that specialize in small business lending.

The Domino Affect

What happens when a small business goes under? Even of the banks recoup their loans, what about all those accounts at the other small businesses who supply the one that can’t make it? One business failure affects many.

Job Losses

According to Small Business Administration estimates, small businesses employ about half the non-government employees in the United States. Without adequate credit, small companies can’t meet payroll.

Lost Opportunity

It takes money to make money. When an opportunity to grow presents itself, small business owners need cash in hand or else those chances can be lost forever.

 Not that it should be a surprise to anyone but the Tucson Citizen endorsed  Sharon Bronson over Barney Brenner. I went through a similar dance with the Citizen. As if their endorsement weren’t enough they used the article as an  opportunity to blast out as many negatives on Barney as they could find. 

Emerine ways in HERE and newspaper endorsments.

The bad news is, based on the editors glowing endorsements in this race and many others,  it appears that the editorial board doesn’t read their own reporters stories.  The good news is that newspapers are taking a smaller role in the political arena and circulation are dropping faster than the stock market. 

Read more about the  Republic’s circulation downturn is HERE and the Citizen/Star’s bad news HERE.

Diminishing Influence

Candidates are starting to boycot the newspapers. This election cycle Frank Antenori declined an invite to interview with the Citizen editorial board after they chose not to endorse him in the primary. From Antenori’s web site:

I have already participated in a primary election endorsement interview for the Tucson Citizen.  The Citizen, while endorsing the two candidates who lost in the primary, inadvertently paid me the highest compliment by calling me a “fervent small government advocate.”  Their disdain for smaller government is at odds with the state’s fiscal reality and is not in line with the sentiments of the voters in District 30.

 

Meanwhile, the Arizona Daily Star has been on record editorially as opposing guns in the hands of “testosterone poisoned males,” a published statement that is not only patently sexist, but anti-Second Amendment and in line with neither my views nor the views of the voters of the 30th District.

 

In summary, both newspapers have had several opportunities to assess, for endorsement, my position on dozens of issues, head to head with the other candidates.  I have provided two specific examples of editorial biases displayed by these publications.  Therefore I will not seek, nor do I want an endorsement from either paper.

Antenori received the Citizen endorsement in absenscia!

Do we have a trend brewing? Arpaio and Thomas not seeking Arizona Republic endorsement:

Then again, the New York Times didn’t endorse Mayor Giuliani despite his success cleaning up New York City either. The New York Times was out of touch. The Arizona Republic editorial board is out of touch.

The newspapers credibility is declining, their advertisers are jumping ship and circulation is dropping. In our rapid 24 hour news cycle, reprinting AP News articles throughout the daily papers just isn’t cutting it.  People are turning to the internet and online media outlets and local blogs for more detailed coverage. 

Hats off to The Tucson Weekly and their  Scramblewatch blog for really covering local races. The little old Tucson Weekly  figured out that print and online blogging can be a powerful combo.

Read the original article HERE.

Transitioning to a Sustainable Economy: Tucson’s Future?

What is the greatest challenge we now face in Southern Arizona?

This question becomes more important as we join together this year in community conversations about our future. Increasingly, people are realizing the main challenge is not growth, but rather sustaining and improving our quality of life including our economy. Managing growth is necessary, but only part of what is required for success.

Our mounting problems are largely the result of over-dependence on population growth to keep our economy thriving. In addition to our attractive climate, desert landscape, and friendly, diverse culture, people migrate here for the affordable lifestyle. Until recently, we offered many low-cost advantages – cheap water, cheap energy, cheap labor, cheap capital, and cheap land. We also subsidized the expansion of public infrastructure and services to serve growth, mostly out of general revenues. As long as these favorable, artificial conditions for growth prevailed, people continued to move here. Only one year in our history – 1990 – did out-migration outpace population in-flux. And that was a year when our economy last hit bottom.

Our region’s long-term average population growth rate has been a little over 2% per year. The annual growth rate for Arizona as a whole has been more than 3%, resulting in doubling population every two decades. Job creation has generally kept up with population, yielding low unemployment rates, mainly because population growth has been the driver of job growth. Even though public systems and services were under-funded, this growth dynamic benefited most of us as long as the base kept growing.

But what happens when the conditions underpinning growth change? This is the situation we find ourselves in today – a drying, warming Southwest with looming water shortages; the end of cheap oil, natural gas, and coal; unprecedented price rises for food imports; people refusing to subsidize urban sprawl; increasing limitations on jurisdictions to maintain and expand infrastructure and services; a super competitive global economy driven by advances in science and technology; new accounting and costing requirements including measuring and limiting carbon impacts – and in the face of these growing uncertainties – questions about the declining health of the American economy and its financial systems. What does sustainability mean for us here as we confront these major, converging challenges of the 21st century?

Instead of debating the infinite pros and cons of growth, maybe we should focus on what really matters most to us – how are we going to successfully transition to an economy which sustains our quality of life into the future but doesn’t require unsustainable growth to keep it thriving?

The Arizona Department of Commerce initiated an important study several years ago to answer this question. However, that prospectus was mostly neglected and to date, remains little known. The bottom-line finding is that we are well positioned to sustain and grow our economy by developing a Sustainable Systems Industry based on already existing strengths in engineering, optics, biosciences, environmental design, earth sciences, and natural resources. Our sustainability challenges can all be converted into opportunities for centers of excellence in economic development. These sustainable systems and technologies would include resource-efficient products, services, and practices in the areas of water, energy, food, health, transportation, and housing. And perhaps most important, these industries would supply both the local economy and rapidly growing export markets – all responding to the new demands for higher performance standards.

Development leaders in both Tucson and Phoenix are already discussing the growth limitations of each city – the prospects of “population build-out” in the future. Some say our region should grow to 2 million, some say we can sustain another half million people, but others ask: How will we sustain even the current million people without fundamental economic innovation and investment in our deficient public infrastructure and services to support a new economy? Regardless of scenario, population growth will go away as the driver of the economy.

More immediately, growth is certain to slowdown naturally as development subsidies are reduced and demand for new development declines. Growth patterns will be better managed as we direct growth pressures toward more compact, mixed use, transit-oriented urban form. The big questions that remain are: Will we respond to these sustainability challenges in time to ensure that our quality of life becomes sustained and not further eroded? Will we build a new economy based on the opportunities of sustainability? Or will we witness these converging challenges become the first step of long-term economic decline?

In his inspiring 2008 State of the City address, Mayor Bob Walkup called upon people and groups in the community to join together in building a new sustainable economy. This should be Goal One if we are to build economic resilience and attract sufficient investment within the next five years. Surely, we need clarity about where we are and where we’re headed. And we need a way to common ground, common vision and full community participation.

Write to Bob Cook at unispan@dakotacom.net

The Tucson region has rested on it’s great climate and influx of new residents for virtually all our economic development. We have three industries that run are the overwhelming economic engines in our region. The big three are; construction and real estate related activities, tourism and the government sector. GTEC settled on bringing in low paying call centers and is no longer in existence. (GTEC background HERE.)  TREO is working on their blueprint and point to successes but at the end of the day the big three still dominate our economy. Info on the 2008 blue print HERE.

Real Estate and construction related activities which are fueled long term by people’s desire to move to our region. This industry was super heated during the sub prime boom and bust we are currently experiencing. We will recover but the bitter pill will be hard to swallow for the short term. The slump started back in 2007, just when the County was INCREASING their staff. 
 

The slowdown was clear by January or February, said Tom Doucette, owner of local builder Doucette Communities.

“I’d have to be awfully skeptical to criticize that decision (to hire), but it seems they ignored the signs of what was happening,” Doucette said. “They hear the development community say things are bad, and they think we just don’t want to pay more fees.”

Tourism is way down all over our valley. The national economic pressures are causing ripple effects all over our region. Tucson International Airport is loosing flights and airlines, bed taxes are down, people are being laid off and again the near future doesn’t look good.

The government sector which makes up 7 out of the top 10 employers in our region is finally starting to slow. The UofA is talking about cost cuts, City and County coffers are slowing down causing departments to downsize. From the federal to the state to local government we are in for the biggest drop in revenue and slow down than we’ve seen in decades.

As a community we live and die on NEW MONEY entering the system. With pressures on our big three industries our NEW MONEY supply will dry up and the circulation system will slow to a crawl.

Economic pressures on a national level effect everyone. Those communities that have diversified their economic base will weather the storm much better than us. Hold on it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Find out your district and who you can vote for HERE.

We sent an email out to all the southern Arizona candidates for House and Senate and asked them if they supported the Arizona School Tax Credit originally enacted in 1997. Kudos to these candidates for getting back to us within 48 hours!

Below are the responses we got back so far. FOR means they support the current private school tax credit, AGAINST means they would eliminate the credit all together.

Bob Westerman – LD27 Senate - FOR

Linda Lopez – LD29 Senate (incumbent) – AGAINST

Al Melvin – LD26 Senate – FOR

Cheryl Cage – LD26 Senate – AGAINST

Don Jorgensen – LD26 House- AGAINST

Nancy Young Wright – LD26 House – AGAINST

Vic Williams – LD26 House - FOR

Marilyn Zurrel – LD26 House – FOR

Dave Bradley – LD28 House (incumbent) - FOR

Frank Antenori – LD30 House – FOR
and expanded amounts and extended filing times!

Juan Ciscomani – LD29 House – FOR

Matt Heinz – LD30 House – AGAINST

Andrea Dalessandro – LD30 House – AGAINST
Read The Weekly coverage of the LD30 debate – HERE

David Gowan – LD30 House – FOR

Jonathan Paton – LD30 Senate – FOR

Still waiting to hear from:
Jorge Garcia
Paula Aboud
Georgette Valle
Cajero Bedford
Phil Lopes
Steve Farley
Daniel Patterson
Pat Kilburn