Here’s a text book example from the Arizona Daily Star. In fact, the example is so good that I will translate the first half of the Star editorial in its entirety.
We have editorialized in the past about the need for a nonpartisan City Council system to replace Tucson’s deeply partisan government, but so far voters have disagreed.
The Star sees a problem; they have opined against the problem, but to no avail.
The most recent vote was in 1993. Since then, proposals for a nonpartisan council system have failed to make it to the ballot, including an initiative drive in 1998 and lobbying campaigns to get the council to put a measure to the voters in 2001 and 2003.
They are actually losing ground and it’s clear that a local solution isn’t possible.
We hope such efforts will continue, because we think reform is necessary.
It’s still a problem. Of course, we’ve had 15 years to fix it…
We believe a council that is not mired in political party obligations and is not straitjacketed into partisan ideological positions would be acting more often for the general good. Furthermore, as we’ve noted before, most of the time the city government deals with issues that are neither Republican nor Democrat.In fact, it’s still a serious problem.
Now comes Tucson native and State Sen.-elect Jonathan Paton, who agrees with us.
Someone from Tucson has the power to fix the problem. He’s not from Mars, or Phoenix, he’s a Tucson native who agrees with the Star on this critical issue.Under a nonpartisan council system, he told the Star’s Rob O’Dell, “You get more people who are interested in getting things done than they are in party politics. It would be harder for interest groups around parties to control the process.”Wow, this Tucson native is exactly right about the issues. Finally, someone local who is now saying the same thing that we have been saying for years.But Paton, a Republican, is planning to introduce legislation in the Legislature to to impose a nonpartisan City Council system on Tucson, according to a story Monday by O’Dell. Please note: In January, this body will be dominated by Maricopa County and by highly partisan Republicans.Que the scary music. Paton may be a Tucson native who agrees with the Star, but we learn that Paton is…a Republican and he’s part of a body that dominated by…Maricopa County Republicans. After all, non-partisanship is a good thing unless it’s pushed by Republicans…not that we are partisan or anything.
Well, don’t tread on us, Phoenix.
That’s right. Just because it’s a good idea and we support it and the local officials have proven incapable of implementing it, and it’s being pushed by one of our own elected representatives…don’t tread on us. We’ve had 15 years to fix this but by golly, you people from north of the Gila were made part of the United States via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo while we were admitted via the (sniff) Gadsden Purchase.
You think I’m kidding, but the editorial writer chose that phrase “Don’t tread on us” intentionally. The ”Don’t Tread On Me” flag is actually the Gadsden family flag. Phoenix was acquired by war, Tucson was purchased from Mexico. Growing up in Tucson I was taught that distinction from pre-school. I don’t know how many book reports I’ve turned in with the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag on the cover, but it was a lot. Just ask Mr. Petri at Townsend Junior High.
If Tucson’s City Council system is to be reformed, the changes must flow up to the ballot from local citizens and must be accepted or rejected by Tucson voters. Our local governance choices are none of the Legislature’s business, nor Paton’s.
We hold these truths to be self evident that Tucson must govern itself.
It appears, based on O’Dell’s research, that if Paton were to compose such a bill carefully, the Legislature could, in fact, legally impose a new governmental system upon Tucson.
Dang, Paton is smarter than he looks. (That’s nice of the reporter to check up on the attorneys at Legislative Counsel. I look forward to reading his memo.)
There you have it. The only thing the Star values over bipartisan ship is parochialism. The Star offers no legitimate reason not to support the bill. They obviously can’t disagree with the issue. They can’t even complain about Paton as the sponsor. But the Tribe of Pima has counted the Tribe of Maricopa its enemy for many moons. Arguments that are usually the last bastion of fools have become official policy of the Star.
The only thing more troubling than the people of Tucson being the last city to tolerate partisan elections is their toleration of such a weak third-tier newspaper.
Archive for December 17th, 2008
From the Arizona Republic:
December 17, 2008, 8:58 p.m.
Since the first Arizona charter school opened in 1995, charters have seen a steady enrollment boom as parents seek alternative choices to the traditional public-school district.
Statewide, there are 478 charter schools this school year compared to 455 in 2007-08, according to the Arizona Charter Schools Association. This year’s enrollment will not be known until February, but 100,119 K-12 students were enrolled in 2007-08.
In Pima County, 14,426 students attended 80 charter schools in 2007-08.
Arizona’s charter schools are operated by private companies or agencies which contract with the state and are paid by the state for each student they educate. They are smaller than most district schools and are less regulated by the state. No tuition is charged because they are public schools.
These specialty schools are one of the reasons for the success of charter schools in Arizona.
Matthew Ladner, vice president of research for the policy-research organization Goldwater Institute, said the idea of choice is what attracts parents to charter schools.
“When parents get to choose, no one knows kids better than the parents when it comes to looking for a good fit,” Ladner said. “Choice is part of the reason why charter schools are growing the way they are today.”
Arizona is one of the leaders of the national charter-school movement, said Larry Pieratt, executive director for university public schools at Arizona State University.
“Arizona charter schools are coming into its own and have risen to a level where it’s an integral part of the system,” Pieratt said.
Though specialty education and choice are major draws, there are some drawbacks. Transportation is sometimes an issue because some charter schools don’t offer buses to pick up and drop off students. There also is the question of whether a charter school is effective. Funding is an issue because charter schools receive about $4,000 for each student enrolled from the state, which is $2,000 less than what public schools receive.
Eileen Sigmund, president and CEO of the Arizona Charter Schools Association, said the economy is a concern for charter schools like it is for district schools. But despite these drawbacks, charter schools have managed and grown throughout the Valley because of stringent laws and oversight.
“There is a measure of quality control,” Ladner said. “If a charter school has really bad test scores, then parents can say they don’t want to go to that charter school. It is a very positive phenomenon that doesn’t happen in public schools.”
Charter schools are held accountable through the same state tests, such as AIMS, under the federal No Child Left Behind Act. The Arizona State Board for Charter Schools can revoke a school’s charter should it perform poorly.
More discussion from Sonoran Alliance (an Arizona political blog) about Paton’s Non Partisan Elections - HERE.
The problem comes into play during the general election. All primary candidate winners (mayoral and councilmen) move on to the general election but instead of the voters in each ward electing their own councilman, the rest of the city gets to vote in the ward elections. (Tucson City Charter, Chapter XVI, Section 9) This means that the voters of one ward may overwhelmingly elect a councilman who is rejected by all the other wards voting. The best example would be akin to having Arizona nominating its two US Senate candidates only to have the rest of the states gang up and vote for the candidate who would have received the lesser votes by Arizona voters.
Sec. 9. Mayor nominated and elected at large; councilmen nominated from wards, elected at large.
Beginning in the year 1930, and continuing thereafter, the mayor shall be nominated from and elected by the voters of the city at large, and the councilmen shall be nominated each from, and by the respective voters of, the ward in which he resides, and shall be elected by the voters of the city at large.
It’s completely unfair to the voters of each ward.
And from Espresso Pundit a blow by blow look at our local papers biased view that serves our community so well;
Apparently DM is in the running to be the base of choice for the Air Force’s new F-35 supersonic fighter jet. We may need to land the F-35 to ensure DM Air Force bases future in our community. Tucson Citizen ran a story today HERE.
DM’s current jet squadron, the A-10 preformed amazingly in the Desert Storm and Desert Shield campaigns but the 1960’s aircraft is starting to show it’s age.
If we loose the A-10’s and don’t replace them with a new fighter squadron DM could be in trouble the next time the military goes through a BRAC realignment.
The good news is a group of area business people and community leaders have banded together to create the DM-50. The sole purpose of the group is to makes sure relationships between Tucson and the military are as strong as they can be. The DM-50 which was started in part by Dorothy Finley of Finley Distributing successfully helped DM avoid the hatchet on at least two other BRAC’s (Base Realignment and Closure).
I’ve heard the story directly from Dorothy about how she stepped up and didn’t wait until it was too late. Dorothy took a group to Washington D.C. and requested that Senator McCain’s office set up a in chambers a dinner with the other members of the decision team. The schmoozing worked and we still have a military base.
The rumblings are starting already. Phoenix suburbs are swooping around and courting the F-35’s into their market. In the light of the recent crash in San Diego one fo the big advantages Pima County has taken was to make sure that the ‘flight paddle’ or no build zone is adequately large enough to handle the new jets
From article;
While Phoenix-area officials have been meeting with Air Force officials and touting the West Valley and Luke Air Force Base as an ideal home for the F-35, Tucson officials have apparently stopped lobbying.
Mayor Bob Walkup and Glen Kerslake, president of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base booster group DM-50, said this week that it had been more than two years since they had heard any news on whether the F-35 would come to Tucson or had formal conversations about it.
I’m a little uncomfortable having Mayor Bob on point for this issue or many other issues. He’s ‘Big hat and no cows’. I realize he’s the lone Republican surrounded by a pack of Dems that want his job but come on use your position to get something done in our community.
Glenn Kerslake on the watch the other hand will let me sleep a little sounder.
There can be no doubt that if we loose DM our region would suffer greatly. Next time you hear the jets over head thank people like Dorothy Finley, Glenn Kerslake and the DM 50.
After meeting with top Air Force officials Thursday, Peoria Mayor Bob Barrett told the Arizona Republic, “If we are successful in acquiring the F-35 for Luke, it will help the mission of the base for the next 40 years.”
How about them apples? Baseball, bio-tech and now bases. Phoenix continues to beat us to the punch. Could it be that they are more organized, visionary and focused on strategic economic development engines? Nah they are just getting all the breaks.
embedded by Embedded Video
YouTube Direkt
Cutting Crime Pays — But At What Cost?
There isn’t a city that is escaping the knife in 2009 (if there is, please let me know). Budget cuts are coming, dashing the hopes of many cities to implement better transportation projects or sustainability plans. They’re also taking a toll on schools, libraries, fire departments and police stations. But out in Los Angeles, where the weather is predicted to be a balmy 72 this weekend, police chief William Bratton is adding more cops.
The city is adding 1,000 police officers, pushing its force levels in the Los Angeles Police Department to above 10,000 for the first time. Even as the city faces a more than $400 million shortfall for this fiscal year and next, the police budget — the city’s most costly department — is emerging largely unscathed.
— Wall Street Journal
Bratton has been at the job in LA for the past six years and overseen a dramatic drop in crime. According to the WSJ, Los Angeles is on target for 374 homicides this year, compared with 647 in 2002. (As a comparison Philadelphia, a city about one-third the size of LA, recently hit the 300-homicide milestone in a particularly macabre way.)
In order to prove that cutting crime is worth its cost, Bratton has been seriously crunching the numbers. Apparently, each homicide costs LA $1 million. Another $13 million has been saved in prison costs, more money saved with the 31 percent reduction in auto theft. Essentially, Bratton seems to be saying that the city reaps a good return on investment with money spent on cops. Add to that the safe feeling of being able to go outside, and you can imagine that people spend more money and are willing to invest in the city.
Diana Lind | Thu, Dec 4th, 2008 | Category: Commentary | City: Los Angeles | Tags: philadelphia, los angeles, diana lind, budget cuts, william bratton, auto theft, homicide rate, 2009
Pages
Blogroll
Misc Links
Categories
Archives
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008