Dave Hatfield over at Inside Tucson Business put out an editorial last week and finally came out and said it. TUSD was formed from 4 or 5 school districts back in the day where when it came to education, bigger was better.  In our current day and age that concept just won’t cut it. Students and parents demand more up close and personal experiences. The charter schools are flourishing because they are addressing the needs of the student/parent better than the one size fits all humongous school district model.

Our poor education system can most definately benefit from additional dollars. Voters lack confidence in the way their dollars are being spent so they refuse to vote for more money down the rabbit hole.

 

TUSD’s problems can’t be fixed

By David Hatfield, Inside Tucson Business
Published on Saturday, November 15, 2008 Click HERE to read the full article.

Tucson Unified School District lost another one when voters Nov. 4 once again rejected the district’s request to exceed a 10 percent override of its operations budget. A person in business might be tempted to shrug off the loss without much surprise. After all, any business that has operated as poorly as TUSD would have been out of business long ago.

But as a taxpayer-supported entity, TUSD’s bloated bureaucracy, mismanagement and arrogance survived.

Being the largest school district in Pima County, TUSD’s failures are hurting this region’s hopes of being able to develop an educated, competitive workforce for when we ever get ourselves out of the national economic mess we’re in right now.

TUSD officials need look no further than themselves for the reasons why the override failed. 

Yes, this was not the best year to ask taxpayers for more money but voters in Altar Valley, Catalina Foothills and Flowing Wells all approved school spending measures on Nov. 4.

Yes, teachers are underpaid but they’re notoriously underpaid throughout Arizona. Teacher salaries in TUSD are higher than most other local districts.

Yes, more children should have exposure to TUSD’s Opening Minds Through the Arts program but not everyone would have received it, even if the override had passed. Voters were left to figure out for themselves if their neighborhood school would have received it. Not a good position to be in with TUSD administrators’ history of not being forthright.

Yes, students stuck in TUSD’s academically underperforming schools should have the resources they need to get on pace. But TUSD’s decision-makers still don’t get it: A few weeks ago I drove by Duffy Elementary School, 5145 E. Fifth St., and the marquee carried this notice: “Yeah—We’re a performing plus school.” That’s it? That’s what you’re going to boast about? Getting an achievement profile from the Arizona Department of Education that is the equivalent of getting a C+ or B- on a report card. 

It took TUSD a long time to get as bad as it is. It could take longer to try to fix it. So let’s not fix it.

That’s right. Let’s do away with TUSD as we know it now. Break the district up into, say, three or four separate school districts. Some of the fringe areas could be moved into the neighboring districts of Flowing Wells, Tanque Verde, Catalina Foothills or Vail. They’re all districts that have better community support and more success in educating children.  

Studies disagree on the optimum size for a school district, but most generally agree smaller school districts allow for better student achievement because of the closer interaction between educators and families.

Further, virtually every study has found there are few efficiencies that come from very large school districts. Andrew Coulson, of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, studied optimal district size in five states (California, Florida, New York, Michigan and Texas) and concluded: “If (the) goal is to save tax revenues, then deconsolidation is a better option.”

Public schools aren’t broken. TUSD is broken. It’s time to get rid of it.

E-mail comments for publication to editor@azbiz.com. Contact David Hatfield at dhatfield@azbiz.com or (520) 295-4237.

Regional Land Use Roundtable: Challenges and Opportunities

With Pima County population reaching one million and with over $2.5 Billion in land transactions since 2000, Tucson is planning for the next one million people. Regional land use will play an increasingly important role in how current communities develop and new growth areas emerge. The initial ground work has been laid for the next generation of large scale master-planned communities and mixed-use activity centers.

Posted in Features | Keywords:April 2008, Cover Feature

Cover Feature April 2008

In dealing with the region’s land use constraints and transportation options, there are community leaders and organizations working diligently to ensure that Tucson’s future is as exciting and vibrant as its past. This month TREND report sat down with community leaders including Ken Abrahams, Executive Vice President, Diamond Ventures, Andy Gunning, Director of Planning, Pima Association of Governments, Mike Hammond, President/CEO, PICOR and SO. AZ ULI Chair, Robin Shambach, AIA, Principal, Burns Wald-Hopkins Architects and past-president of So. AZ AIA, and Ron Shoopman, President, Southern Arizona Leadership Council.

Ron: The Southern Arizona Leadership Council co-sponsored a Tucson Regional Town Hall last May in an effort to find consensus solutions for top issues facing the region. We evaluated the work in progress in our region and we selected topics where there was a possibility for success. One of those areas was land use. The American Institute of Architects, Southern AZ chapter was completing a design sustainability assessment team project. ULI was planning some major land use planning meetings. We knew that PAG, and all cities and towns were interested in the land use process. So we felt that land use planning was an area where the community was ready to engage. The people around this table have all been in land use discussions with us about what to do next and to highlight the work that’s being done by AIA, by ULI and meet some of the goals that the municipalities and PAG would like to see happen. So you catch us at a time when we’re still identifying how we would do this process. We’re using the RTA success model, thinking “How do you make change in this region?” On any topic we start by elevating the understanding and awareness of the people who live in the region, then bring a diverse group of people to the table to share ideas and find common ground. Finally we will use the results to formulate a plan for positive change.

Mike: Tucson’s not unusual compared to other communities. All across the U.S., there’s more of a grass roots need to get information to make decisions and our politicians, in my opinion, struggle immensely to understand their constituencies because we send mixed messages. So the need for some sort of consensus building process in all the debates on the major issues facing this community is very important. And that’s what’s happening with the Star’s Growth Forum, the Arizona town hall, and the Tucson town hall. They’re trying to find consensus and trying to create processes that include more and more people so that when we get a result it’s clearly a community consensus. And right now, we have not built that majority view on a lot of important issues. So we need clarity of message and we need to change the way we’ve been doing it in the past. It just hasn’t worked well. So, ULI for example is trying to take a stronger role with what they bring to the table, which are best practices. Also, they have a broader constituency-the environmentalists, the academics, the developers, and the politicians are all in their tent, so they have a lot of credibility when they become part of the process. We don’t have the luxury of the inefficiencies of past processes. These problems are coming too fast. They’re too expensive and they’re too complex. Unfortunately the process of getting the involvement is what’s hard. I think the clarity of message, if we can get the consensus building process in place, will flow from that as much as you can in a community like Tucson.

Robin: Are we at a point in Tucson where not only are we faced with these land use issues, but is it also a more difficult development climate in terms of certainty?

Ken: It’s a very important question. And it gets to why Tucson has such great potential but hasn’t achieved it. One reason is that Tucson is an undercapitalized community compared to any million population community. Why? Capital goes to where it has the greatest return and the lowest risk and because it operates the way it does, in many ways Tucson represents a higher risk for the rate of return compared to other places. So capital flows to places where it has more security and either equal or greater rate of return.

Robin: I think that idea of certainty or some level of predictability is one of things that inspired us initiate the sustainable design assessment team report. The idea of sustainable design is not new. It’s all the things that we’ve been talking about; we just came at it from a slightly different direction. But some of the smaller discussions that inspired us to do something were more project by project based where within the city limits there is that level of uncertainty. Whether it’s by interaction with neighborhoods, or whether it’s by unpredictable interpretation of our land use code. And so those are some of the pressures people trying to do neighborhood sensitive projects, the timelines drag on, the success rate of the projects in terms of the business model is very frustrating.

Ken: Our architects talk about the same thing. At the ULI Trends Day in Phoenix, the keynote speaker was the Mayor of Phoenix. His goal is to make Phoenix a model sustainable city and he said they cannot get there without completely redoing the land use code because they can’t build density and activity centers and then went one step further saying “we have to change the way our referenda can repeal zoning.” They couldn’t get anything through the zoning process to increase density because while everyone loves it, nobody wants it near them. I think Tucson is behind where Phoenix is. We’re kind of caught-We met the enemy. It’s us.

Mike: There are a lot of overlays that make development difficult here, but when it comes to land use, there are those who think that by creating these hurdles, they can slow growth. What they do is redirect it. They squeeze out the little guy. They bring in the folks with cash that can buy a property and sit on it. So you get winners and losers. When you make it so tough to develop, you raise prices, money transfers to those with entitlements and patience. It’s the folks that invest their money that take the big risk and hopefully obtain the big reward. But we are creating huge uncertainties and in that uncertainty there is risk, and in that risk there is reward. What we’re trying to do in this discussion on the debate on land use and growth is really “What are the trade-offs? Do we want to trade off affordable housing for, for example growth rings, where you’ve got to be in it? That’s one of the trade-offs. You don’t get affordable housing in growth rings. You’ve got winners inside, you’ve got losers outside. The debate on land use is really one of priorities. Tucson is going to continue to grow, but I’m not sure it’s the kind of growth we want. I think, on balance, we want good growth, not bad growth.

Ken: One of the things we talked about recently with the ULI steering committee is how do we do regional planning? There’s all this mistrust. It’s part of that winners/losers mentality. Our regional discussions, whether it is water, land use planning, are a challenge. I think we had a victory with the RTA, but there’s no question that there’s going to be another plan, another funding round or two in the future and they’re going to get tougher. But whatever it is, when we look regionally, it is set up as a win/lose and we have to get past that. The RTA was successful because it was a win/win. It wasn’t the perfect package, but everybody could agree on it. It started with some general principles and then got down to specific projects.

Mike: Don’t forget there was great consensus building and community involvement.

Ken: Right, it started with that, but then got down to some agreed upon principles. It’s a process of bringing everybody together on some common basis, developing some broad principles we can agree on, then setting the level of detail at the appropriate level to get at least a broad vision. What hurts us is while we’re trying to calm the waters, there are people firing things in all the time. It rocks the whole landscape and it needs to be quieted now. If you look at great communities, there’s usually an individual who rises up and pulls everyone together. There doesn’t seem to be that individual in Tucson. So we are disadvantaged from that. It takes leadership. That’s why SALC has gotten to where it is.

Andy: Great observations. I think we can rise up and find a win/win situation from a regional standpoint. We call it sort of a regional framework. We’ve got an opportunity right now where because of growing smarter planning statutes, some of the agencies may be updating their general long range plans starting next year and wrapping them up by 2010. PAG’s also going to update our long range transportation plan that includes the RTA projects. But if we operate at some broad framework where we understand where jurisdictions want to grow and don’t want to grow, then we can come up with some ideas to make our infrastructure, capital improvement plans, wastewater plans, transportation plans more in sync with these growth areas. We just get everyone’s growth areas and land use plans on a map. We figure out how we can serve them. It also gets to a public finance issue. We know we’ve got at least a $4+ billion shortfall between now and the year 2030 with all the transportation infrastructure need we have out there. One of the things we’ve been looking at is how much revenue over a thirty year period is going to be generated. On the other side of the ledger, what are our big infrastructure needs going to be over that 30 year period and when do we go into the red or have we gone into it already. That should help us move toward getting our infrastructure in sync with our jurisdictions’ growth areas.”

Mike: I know a developer who built industrial buildings in Tucson and whenever he’d do a pro forma for a building, he would add 10%. When asked why, he said, “I can’t pick any one thing, but on balance it costs us 10% more to develop here than in Phoenix.”

Robin: One of the things I’ve really noticed in Phoenix is the quality of the development work, communities, and commercial buildings. They’re generating more interesting designs and using nicer materials. And that has to be part of what you were talking about with capital injection. I still think there are things we can learn from how that community has grown that I would prefer not to see here. But that’s why we’re having this conversation now instead of when we are six million people. There are some things I’d really love to see here in terms of quality. I think that leads to what we are all talking about-job creation. I know there’s going to be growth, but what kind of growth? Good or bad?

Ken: This capital investment issue may be framed in a broader discussion, which you’re touching on. It goes to the culture, the educational institutions and job opportunities. How does Tucson rank as a performing community? If we were compared to other 1-3 million population cities, how would we rank in terms of GDP, number and quality of jobs that are created, the educational performance of our institutions? We export our greatest natural resource, which is our children. We have a great climate, beautiful natural resources, proximity to Mexico, a wonderful southwestern lifestyle, and underdeveloped infrastructure. So why is it that we are where we are? I think if we rated Tucson on a performance basis, we’d rate relatively low. We may be one of the greatest underperforming communities in the developed world. Certainly in the southwest and maybe in the United States. So you have to ask yourself “Why? Why is that that way?” Why are we less competitive? Why don’t we attract capital? When TREO did its blueprint, “poor leadership” was number one on the scorecard. We’re losing out on the dynamism of that million population base because we do not have a collective sense of direction. When you get to a certain population base, that dynamism is supposed to kick in.

Robin: It seems like the time is right. We have momentum and interest. I would like to see us do something more-the next thing. The idea is not to do a land use plan but it’s more to instill in the community as a whole the need to create that kind of dynamism, really harness that energy to make some decisions.

Ken: I like where you’re going. We need to figure out what the next step is going to be. We’ve been working hard in our ULI steering committee with how the Reality Check is going to fit in. One of the sticking points is the magnitude of it as well as the difference between doing one in Phoenix vs. doing one here. There are serious differences in terms of how everything works. Phoenix is very used to pulling together. They’ve decided to be a great regional center. Tucson, I can’t say what we’ve decided to be. We want to observe what it is all about before we fully sign on to the Reality Check down here. The other is we’re not sure it’s going to work here. If we don’t have buy in to the process as a legitimate planning effort, and as a follow-up to the Tucson town hall process, with its results having meaning in whatever the official land use regional discussion is, then it’s probably not worth doing.

Robin: I really like the idea. Because it’s education and it’s also light bulbs going on. The idea of choice. And what if we do choose that we’re going to be a big small town?? Great. What does that mean to us? And when you talk about a framework, I have no idea what that means. So, giving some examples that people could respond to might be useful.

Ken: Andy said something that was very important though. And that is the financial reality. What’s happening across the United States, is the cost of infrastructure has spiraled out of all proportionality to the revenue streams that growth is able to fund. Ultimately, Reality Check says you can’t have it all. You have to make choices. The problem with planning here in Tucson is that it’s a kind of ‘you can have it all’ kind of planning. If we’re going to do real regional planning, it has to be based on certain fiscal assumptions as well. In Phoenix, they’ve decided to be a prosperous regional hub. They’ve committed the resources to make it happen. We haven’t made that fundamental statement as to what we’re going to be. If we say we’re going to be the last big ‘small town’, then we can start taking things off the list.

Andy: We’ve got a million people, and if we’re going to have room for another million, what does that look like using the same land mass? Can we afford all the service and infrastructure demands under that scenario?

Ken: The first insight into this is the Southwest Infrastructure Study that the county just did that concludes that the impact fees for all the physical infrastructure is close to $20,000 a house. That’s where the affordable houses are going to go. The county has designated that a growth area but I think those costs are going to prove problematic for most people wanting to live there. The county plans to do a series of these studies in the region. This could result in forcing growth to other areas that will accommodate it. So what we get is kind of an older urban center that is relatively low density.

Ron: I do see a shift in the way that this community views itself. I now see people working together with a whole different attitude. We’ve got to be able to get the elected officials to start hearing the public’s desire for change. If we’re successful in continuing this conversation, I think we start moving and keep the pressure on. I think we need to keep moving the community towards the things that will give us the choice. Not to choose the direction for the community, but to allow the community to decide for itself. Whether we become a vibrant community with a high quality of life or a big ‘small town’ with low paying jobs, that should be a conscious choice by all the people who live here.

Mike: I do think there is more interest in the business community to get into the game. Whether it results in the elected officials hearing remains to be seen. But that’s when they will change is when they hear the message. So we’ve got to keep the debate out there.

Ken: We know we want to have a discussion on land use and regional planning, then what happens after that? Let’s assume one option would be there’s a Reality Check early next year. The other question is “What would we do programmatically to segue way from the Arizona Daily Star survey and forum to a conversation on regional land use. What would be the follow up if we didn’t have Reality Check? Is it really talking about principles and trying to refine it or would that be a product of the conversation?

Ron: It could be something as simple as, we come out of that meeting with information that we provide to every municipality and say “We had 700 people, here are the surveys we conducted. Here are the results. You ought to consider this in your plans, because the message was strong. They said they wanted this, regardless of where they lived.” I think it would be possible to come up with something that feeds into the planning process.

Ken: How do we get the municipalities on board?

Ron: Part of it may be that we have to go in and disarm them and tell them that what we want to accomplish with them is first, non-threatening to them, and second will help them. And there’s something in it for them.

Robin: I do believe there’s a place for government to define some of the things we are talking about in terms of infrastructure and taking the financial burden that individual developers can’t afford to do. If that’s transportation infrastructure or wastewater infrastructure, then these kinds of activities and consensus building mean that maybe people are more open to supporting that financial picture. Instead of impact fees we have a more structured governmental approach to support infrastructure and the kinds of things we want to see in our community. If these are the kinds of things that we’re saying as a community that we want, then somebody better pony up and pay for them. And maybe it’s all of us. Because we’re not going to have people invest in our community until it looks like we want to invest in our community.

Ken: You made a key point. Why would someone else come in if we don’t even have the interest ourselves? If you look at what Phoenix has done, they’ve created a magnet, because they created a statement, “We’re going for it. And we’re going to be a great thriving community and economic engine.” That’s what they did. And everyone said “OK, I want to be a part of that.”

Ron: We need to create that statement for us.

Comments are closed.

← Pima County’s SWIP May Set Precedent for Valley