Archive for April, 2010

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube Direkt

The Pima County Board of Supervisors passed a $1.431 billion budget for the 2010-’11 fiscal year that begins July 1.

The budget passed June 15 by a 3-2 vote, with supervisors Sharon Bronson, Richard Elias and Ramon Valadez voting in favor, and Ann Day and Ray Carroll opposed.

The approved budget includes increased taxes, with primary and secondary property rates combined to total $4.96 per $100 assessed value. Increases were made to the library district and debt service secondary property taxes.

The new tax rates represent a nearly 9-cent increase over current rates.

The approved budget includes $489.8 million in general fund spending, the area that funds most governmental operations.

The budget assumes the county’s general fund would take in $22 million more than it expends. The surplus would be put into a property tax stabilization fund. That money would be reserved to avoid primary tax rate increases in the event property values continue to fall, thereby decreasing the amount of cash the tax generates.

Objecting to the spending plan, Day and Carroll presented the board with a joint statement and alternative budget outlining their opposition.

“Sometimes we think that the county budget is deliberately made confusing, to make it more difficult for the citizens, and even members of the Board of Supervisors, to clearly track the expenditures,” Day and Carroll wrote.

The pair wanted the board to provide taxpayers some relief through a 10 percent spending cut, and in lowering or not raising taxes.

Carroll and Day noted the county is expected to close the current fiscal year with more than $487 million in budget surpluses, $51.8 million of that in the general fund.

Supervisor Elias was suspect of the alternate proposal.

“I think it’s interesting that we got this budget proposal two minutes before we’re going to vote on it,” Elias said.

He congratulated County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry on the adopted budget, saying the plan would save taxpayers money.

County budget at a glance

$1.43 billion             total budget

$489.86 million        general fund

$145.31 million        wastewater management

$134.84 million        sheriff’s department

$57.19 million          community and economicdevelopment

$44.13 million          superior court

$36.52 million          public works budget

$34.81 million          library district

$32.03 million          juvenile court

$30.70 million          county attorney

$9.91 million            environmental quality

Source: Pima County

By Dave Devine

IT WAS ONLY 20 years ago, but looking back, it seems like it happened in a different millennium. The January 1977 Tucson City Council recall election, however, reverberates in Tucson politics even today.

Back then, the metropolitan area had a population of more than 420,000. The city limits encompassed 91 square miles, and the water bill for the average household was $8. That sum bought almost 15,000 gallons of water.

Today, more than 725,000 people live in the metro area, and the city proper is spread across 190 square miles. But while Tucson has ballooned in size, the average wage today is almost 10 percent less than it was in the 1970s. And today the average Tucson Water customer uses considerably less water each month and pays a lot more–15,000 gallons now cost about $40.

But the mid to late ’70s were certainly not the good old days:

To help lower demand on an overtaxed delivery system in the face of continuing population growth, Tucsonans, in the summer of 1976, were asked to volunteer for “Waterless Wednesdays” and limit their outdoor watering.

That helped, but the need to improve and enlarge the water system to serve a growing population meant additional revenues had to be raised. The politicians and bureaucrats knew it wouldn’t be easy–Tucsonans were still smarting from the Arab oil embargo of a few years before that had pushed up gasoline prices. And they’d recently seen a huge increase in local electrical bills.

The people were worried and angry…

THE FOUNDATION OF the 1977 recall was laid in late 1975, with the election of Margot Garcia and Doug Kennedy to the Tucson City Council. They joined Robert Cauthorn and Barbara Weymann and formed a four-member “reform Democrat” team which dominated the council.

Mayor Lew Murphy was the only Republican on the council. The other two Democratic members, Ruben Romero and Rudy Castro, were not associated politically with the other four Democrats.

These four council members–Garcia, Kennedy, Cauthorn and Weymann–were publicly linked with Ron Asta, then a member of the Pima County Board of Supervisors. Some in the local business community accused this group of favoring limited growth, or even no growth.

Those accusations were confirmed in the eyes of many when the reform Democrats voted in June to institute a higher water rate. Adding insult to injury, they also voted to charge a “lift” fee–an additional expense to the customer based on how high his water meter was above Tucson’s well sites. The idea was to charge for the actual cost of delivering the water, since pumping uphill is expensive.

The combined impact of these increases skyrocketed many bills. People told of monthly charges going from $8 to $13 and from $12 to $26. But that was in the central part of the city. In the higher elevations, at many homes in the affluent foothills and outside the city limits, costs went up much more. One customer’s bill went from $19 to $107 because of the lift charges.

When folks received their July water bills, they were furious. The reform Democrats tried to explain their votes in a front page story in The Arizona Daily Star. Kennedy stressed the extra income would allow the city to improve the water system. Garcia admitted the timing of the increase was terrible, but she stood by her decision.

The people of Tucson, however, were not interested in explanations. Led by John Varga, an electronics teacher at Pima Community College, the effort to gather enough petition signatures to force a recall election of the four council members began in early August.

To blunt the increasing criticism of the new rates, the four council members quickly abandoned their support for the lift charges. Later, they called for a public referendum on several water issues, to be voted on during the November general election. Eventually they tried to “educate” people about the seriousness of the issue by holding a series of poorly attended public workshops on water.

But the furor persisted, and the recall effort continued. The ease and speed with which the required number of valid signatures were obtained was impressive.

In addition to simple rage over the hike in water bills, other issues fueled the recall movement. One of those was the perceived “no-growth” philosophy of the four, which some promoting the recall effort claimed was the real reason for the lift charges.

As one critic complained: “The drastic increase in…water rates in Tucson cannot be justified on the basis of economics or planned growth. They are only a subterfuge for restricted growth.”

The recall affected the city’s ability to sell bonds to finance expansion of the water system. Lawsuits filed over the new water rates, including one involving the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association (SAHBA) as plaintiff, made selling the bonds impossible. According to a newspaper story at the time, SAHBA contended “the city is using the new rate structure to slow growth on the city’s outskirts by making it too expensive to live there.”

After the recall election date had been set, there was a short campaign. The anti-incumbent effort was led by Varga, Jack Fitzgerald, a local businessman with a residential water bill that had gone from $14 to $83, and several others. They worked for three candidates–Richard Amlee, Cheri Cross and James Hooton–who promised to roll back the rate increases.

A few weeks before the election, however, the message from the three challengers changed. They warned water rates would have to be raised some, because of inflation and other causes. At the same time, the recall movement endorsed another challenger, Schuyler Lininger, a local hotelier, even though he never promised to roll back the higher rates.

The recall was the first and only nonpartisan city council election in Tucson history. The three incumbents were Democrats; of the challengers, only Hooton was a Democrat. However, because of election provisions, that information was not be on the ballot.

THE INCUMBENTS WERE outspent by their opponents, and the water issue dominated the campaign. The result was a political slaughter.

The carnage was not surprising. As Cauthorn had predicted in September, “I think we’re going to lose, every one of us.” He didn’t lose, only because he’d resigned his council seat in November to take a job in Florida; but his three colleagues were crushed.

The impact on water rates was minimal. Of course, that had been a given all along. While the newly elected council members eventually supported reducing the amount of the increase, the hike was still significant. As Kennedy said throughout the recall campaign, water rates had to be increased to finance needed improvements in the system.

But the impact of the recall effort on Tucson politics was immense. Combined with Asta’s defeat in November 1976, the reform Democrats had been routed. Whatever their views about growth in Tucson, they’d been sent packing by the voters. The continued control of the community by Tucson’s powerful Growth Lobby was assured.

Oddly, however, the political victors did not have long political lives. Hooton was defeated by George Miller in the city council primary election only eight months after taking office. Lininger was beaten by Democrat Tom Volgy in 1977′s general election.

Two years later it was Amlee and Cross’ turn. Amlee decided not to seek another term, while Cross was defeated by Democrat Chuck Ford in the general election.

Varga ran for mayor as an independent in 1979. Though he had an impressive second-place finish to Lew Murphy in the general election, his political career was over.

But despite these election reversals, the basic message had been loudly sent–Tucson politicians should stay out of the way of the growth steamroller. For the past two decades, it has been a rare city council member indeed who questions any growth-related issue.

But the recall movement didn’t stem rising water rates. The money was desperately needed to expand the system to accommodate an ever-increasing population. The price of water continued to escalate.

LOOKING BACK ON the recall after 20 years, what do those involved think it accomplished?

Fitzgerald is the most enthusiastic. He says it “stopped no-growthers dead in their tracks.” Tucson has grown and progressed tremendously since that time, he believes, so the recall did a lot of good. But, he concedes, the winning candidates melted under pressure and double-crossed the movement when they raised water rates.

Lininger and Amlee are more subdued in their assessments. Lininger believes the four incumbents were using the water price hike to slow growth. While acknowledging that a recall is not a good way to change office holders, Lininger says the mood in 1976 was that people were being shafted by the City Council and the Water Department, so that’s why it happened.

Amlee isn’t sure the recall effort had any long-term impact on Tucson. He thinks the growth/no-growth controversy has lost its meaning here. He also says water decisions have become too political, adding the current debate over Central Arizona Project water reflects that. He also admits the four people swept into office by the recall didn’t handle the water issue very well.

Of course, the ousted Democrats see the recall results differently. Garcia thinks it made local politicians more likely to duck difficult issues and afraid to take positions necessary for the good of the community. Kennedy says the recall changed politics for the worse in Tucson by scaring off qualified candidates for office for several years after the election.

Cauthorn says it’s easy to overestimate the recall’s impact. The inequities in water bills–due to the lack of lift charges–are still with us, he noted.

In Weymann’s view, history has vindicated the ousted council members. She says they changed water policy in Tucson for the better, adding they were absolutely right in what they did. But, she noted, “The builders and car dealers wanted us out from the beginning.”

Weymann also says the growth issue had nothing to do with the lift charges. Kennedy agrees. Garcia says the lift charges were really a matter of social equity–necessary if the city is ever going to bill the actual cost of delivery to a customer.

Even today, some members of the current council are critical of the situation in which in-town residents, many of them poor, are subsidizing the rates of their better-off neighbors in the foothills. But don’t expect any of the current council members to go around spouting the idea of simple fairness.

Weymann, Garcia and Cauthorn admit they were “politically naive,” “inexperienced,” and “pretty stupid” to have hiked water rates during the summer months. But all four Democrats still believe they did the right thing. Kennedy says, “No water system improvements then would have been the ultimate no-growth position.”

The recall helped to bring Tom Volgy to the city council, and later he became mayor. He believes the recall limited Tucson’s ability to deal with its water problems. “If there hadn’t been a recall,” Volgy says, “maybe we’d have stumbled into a more creative water solution. Because, after the recall, people were afraid to make an error like that again.”

Volgy agrees the actual issue in the recall election was not water rates. Instead, he says, it was all about who controls development in Tucson.

Volgy describes the four ousted Democrats as bright people who made one big political mistake. The recall made them pay for that mistake and sent out a terrible message about making an error in local politics. It resulted, he says, in people shying away from running for the city council.

As we approach the 20th anniversary of the recall, Tucson is a much larger place than it was in 1977. Ironically, the water rate increases which led to the recall were needed to support that growth.

Without the lift charges, new development could easily continue in the foothills and other areas outside the city limits. Would Tucson, currently with vast amounts of vacant land within the central city, be having to encourage infill projects within the city limits–as it is now– if the lift charges had been allowed to stand?

If nothing else, Amlee points out, the recall showed that in Tucson, water is a very political issue. It’s a lesson we’re still learning today.

Welcome Up & Comers, we need your dreams and your leadership
GUEST OPINION: Two Tucsons
By Christopher Clements, special for Inside Tucson Business
Published on Friday, April 09, 2010

“Desert sky, dream beneath the desert sky. Rivers run but soon run dry. We need new dreams tonight.” – “In God’s Country” by U2

It is a path traveled frequently by many citizens of the Tucson region. It is a path of perception; yet, exemplifies the stark reality of where the City of Tucson finds itself as it limps through 2010.

You drive through the center of the city and travel east on Grant Road toward Alvernon Way. You can’t help but notice the colorful graffiti, the abandoned buildings, the weeds on the side of the road and homes in disrepair. You turn left on Alvernon and cringe at the visions that are engulfing the core of the city. You pray that it were different. In 1970 Life magazine described East Speedway as the “ugliest street in America.” Over the past decade, portions of Grant Road might be described as the most depressing street in Tucson. Print this story
 
You continue north and pass Fort Lowell Road. Things begin to change. You are no longer on Alvernon but have been transported, magically, to East River Road. Buildings seem newer and the streets cleaner. Suddenly, you are on a scenic bridge with the white walls of the Jewish Community Center staring back at you and the Brandi Fenton Park ahead. The urban environment transforms.

Majestic homes rise out of the hills and the signs of blight ebb. You are no longer in the city, but in unincorporated Pima County. This Bridge has transported you to the Other Tucson which stretches north of the Rillito River along the foothills of the Catalina Mountains and further north to the vibrant, clean, community and business-friendly municipalities of Oro Valley and Marana.

You can do this experiment of sight and perception on any city road traveling north towards the Catalinas. Campbell Avenue, First Avenue or Oracle Road will all yield the same result as you cross a Bridge to the Other Tucson. Urban blight ebbs and scenic vistas abound. It works going in other directions, too (though without the bridge) east toward Vail and south to Sahuarita and Green Valley, for example.

The trip emphasizes the stark reality that Tucson proper is crumbling, while communities around it are thriving. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Tucson’s lack of attention to urban blight. In this regard, Tucson is becoming the Detroit of the Southwest. Joe Snell, president and CEO of Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities (TREO), likes to tell the story of how business leaders, while recruiting him, brought him to Tucson in the dead of night to avoid the stark and dreadful reality of a city that refuses to enforce its own ordinances with regard to blight.

Many here like to bemoan Phoenix with its big-city attitude; yet, the communities of the Phoenix metropolis consistently argue as to which has the tougher Neighborhood Preservation Ordinances. There, home-owners and business are fined up to $2,500 if the city has to come and clean their yards and paint their buildings. Yes, paint their buildings. Regardless of your anti-Phoenician view, their neighborhoods and roads are clean. Many of the same types of ordinances exist in the City of Tucson but are not enforced. The city could conceivably raise much of its needed revenue by simply making certain its streets and its neighborhoods are clean and livable.

Unfortunately, while this would seem an obvious agenda item for the business interests in Tucson as we try to bring more employment to our city. As chronicled in this publication by Messrs. Joe Higgins and Chris DeSimone, we have business leadership that is tired and fragmented. We seem more focused on maintaining the status quo rather than forging ahead with a vision for the future and taking back a city crumbling under its own bureaucracy and red tape.

Our stark reality is thus: the Business Center of the city has shifted. Its leaders have left and joined the communities of the Other Tucson. Its bankers, lawyers, financial advisors and entrepreneurs have abandoned the city’s core for the tranquility and cleanliness of the Other Tucson. Our K-12 educational capital has also shifted to the districts of the Other Tucson, such as Vail and Catalina Foothills. Whole families are moving their children out of Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) to forge a better life, further contributing to our crumbling core.

This will continue to be the fate of Tucson unless drastic changes are made to our socio-political culture which seems focused on the words “can’t” and “won’t”. Tucson needs NEW leaders and NEW dreamers.

The century began with a great promise for Tucson, a river of investment and growth as embodied in the idea of Rio Nuevo; yet ended up drowning in a flood of red ink, red tape, fraud and abuse. A business shutters and we shrug, a company selects a competing city for jobs and investment and we barely blink. The business of Major League Baseball, which sustained countless businesses during the spring for six decades, fades into nothing and we show no outrage at the incompetency that led to such a travesty. Is this Tucson’s future?

There are three paths our city can embrace to bring itself into the new century:

1. Make fighting urban blight a priority: Enforce existing neighborhood preservation ordinances and enact stronger ones to make our city shine – a livable, vibrant place to live. Empower county assessors to chronicle code violations and assess accordingly. Without this, economic development efforts are meaningless.

2. Place economic development in the hands of the business community: TREO is too beholden to the city and county in terms of funding and leadership and, as a result, it falls victim to the status quo. Merging TREO and the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce would be a good first step.

3. Reform education by breaking up TUSD: The school district suffers from the same plight as the city. It is losing students, intellectual talent and resources to surrounding districts. Break up TUSD into smaller districts for more accountability of teachers and administrators to parents and neighborhoods. Is it any wonder its vaulted superintendent is leaving so soon?

We live in God’s Country. It is a place my family has been proud to give our time, resources, investment and charity for over three decades.  Unfortunately, while so much has changed, much has stayed the same. The awesome beauty of our desert speaks to all of us and yet, when it comes to creating a safe, livable, thriving city – we stumble, limping into decade after decade with the same issues, the same problems as decades before.  We seem unable to get out of our own way.

This week’s issue of Inside Tucson Business celebrates the fantastic achievements of this year’s class of Up & Comers.

Are these the new dreamers?

We need them now.

Christopher Clements is vice chairman and CEO of Golden Eagle Distributors.

Copyright © 2010 Inside Tucson Business

How Tucson leaders broke the golden egg of tourism
WAKE UP, TUCSON: Gem show priority, really?
By Joe Higgins and Chris DeSimone, Inside Tucson Business
Published on Saturday, April 10, 2010

Walk up to someone in Cleveland, Minneapolis, Philadelphia or anywhere that’s cold and miserable about this time of year and give them a choice of escaping to Scottsdale, Santa Fe or Tucson and we’re guessing Tucson is going to come in last. What does Tucson need to work on to change that? We’re going to cover a few of them in this and other columns.

Tucson’s competitors have spent money perfecting their image, embracing a unique market position and investing in an industry that’s clean, easy on the environment and employs a lot of people: tourism. In this column, we are focusing on investing in your tourism infrastructure.

Scottsdale voters are going to decide whether to spend $75 million to upgrade WestWorld and $50 million on a Desert Discovery Center (a la the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum). Mesa voters recently approved bonding to build a premiere destination resort and convention center property to be operated by Gaylord Hotels, whose flagship is Opryland in Nashville, Tenn. Print this story
 
What are we bonding for here in Tucson? More open space and a sewer system that we’ve bonded to fix or upgrade multiple times already. We did a nice baseball stadium but put it in the wrong darn place. We spent $214,989,482.28 through Jan. 31, 2010 — give or take a hundred million — on Rio Nuevo, and what do we have to show for it?

What about our premier event, the annual gem and mineral shows? They pump $100 million of economic activity into our market each February. People come from all over the world to shop, buy and network. Apparently the lead show that has been here for years is demanding a new convention center hotel or they’re out of here. Enter the Tucson City Council PK — Pre-Kozachik — and Keystone Kops antics begin.

“We’ll do whatever it takes to protect (the gem show). If we have to reprioritize projects, we will do that,” Mayor Bob Walkup was quoted as saying in the Tucson Citizen Feb. 18, 2009.

Oh really?

How about a presentation of the facts:

The 2005 gem shows came and went.

During the next fiscal year, Rio Nuevo spent $12.3 million on things except renovating the Tucson Convention Center or a hotel.

Major expenditures included:

• $6 million for the Fox Tucson Theatre, a truly wonderful venue but a financial disaster

• $1.3 million for Presidio and Heritage parks

The 2006 gem shows came and went.

During the next fiscal year, Rio Nuevo spent $16.7 million on things except renovating the Tucson Convention Center or a hotel.

Major expenditures included:

• $4 million for Mercado Avenue

• $3 million for Tucson Origins Heritage Park and Mission San Agustin chapel convento

• $1.5 million for the Mission landfill

• $1.2 million for Presidio and Heritage parks

The 2007 gem shows came and went.

During the next fiscal year, Rio Nuevo spent $33.2 million on things except renovating the Tucson Convention Center or a hotel.

Major expenditures included:

• $11 million for Mission Gardens and Origins Park

• $9 million for an Interstate 10 underpass

• $5.5 million for a science center (where is that again?)

The 2008 gem shows came and went.

During the next fiscal year through May 2009, Rio Nuevo spent $28.6 million on things except renovating the Tucson Convention Center or a hotel. No wait, Rio Nuevo spent $553,000 on planning for a hotel.

Major expenditures included:

• $8 million for downtown infrastructure

• $5 million for a parking garage

• $2 million on on the mission site and Origins Park

• $1.4 million on an Arizona History Museum

• $1.3 million on Mission Gardens

To be fair, infrastructure and parking can help the gem shows. But, still no renovation of the Tucson Convention Center or anything of prime interest to those who run the main gem shows.

This city council has sent a clear message to those in charge of the gem shows: Rio Nuevo has spent $118 million on all sorts of things (with bonding, finance costs and projects that were planned but never started costing tens or millions of dollars more), but nothing to show that the gem show is of value to our community.

When the council members finally got rockin’ on the hotel, we were presented with quite another mess.

The city fired then re-hired Rio Nuevo’s point man as a $100 per-hour consultant. At its grand opening, the proposed hotel will be worth $50 million to $80 million less than what it will cost to build it based on projected five-year revenues and an aggressive 10 percent CAP rate on the hotel. The hotel’s feasibility is based on marketing reports that have origins somewhere in la-la land.

To add insult to injury, a Rio Nuevo board member is on the payroll of the developer who is paid by Rio Nuevo to prove the hotel is a good deal for the taxpayers. Starts to sound like a plotline for the now-canceled Fox TV series “Sons of Tucson.” Fact is truly stranger than fiction.

Now it’s up to a new Rio Nuevo board and Councilman Steve Kozachik to bring a dose of reality and leadership to this morass. Overcoming all the wasted time and effort and the distrust of citizens is a tough task.

We wish them the best in that regard.

Despite magic streetcars and Mayor Bob Walkup’s delusional cheerleading, downtown revitalization is riding on a knife-edge.

Wake up, Tucson. Really.

Contact Joe Higgins at joe@joehigginsinc.com or Chris DeSimone at provenpartners@comcast.net. They host “Wake Up Tucson,” 6-8 a.m. weekdays on The Voice KVOI 1030-AM. Their blog is at www.TucsonChoices.com.

Copyright © 2010 Inside Tucson Business

From the Arizona Daily Star: On this date in history: The artisan who sculpted the equestrian statue of Pancho Villa, located next to La Placita Village, confessed it was actually a sculpture of actor Wilford Brimley that Brimley had commissioned and rejected. The Republic of Mexico, which gave Tucson the statue years earlier, had no comment.

Let’s get right to the news.

• Fox Broadcasting dumped the sitcom “Sons of Tucson” after four episodes when all three sons were forced to leave Tucson because they couldn’t find any jobs better than working at a Widgets call center or a Taco Bell.

• City fathers unveiled plans for the Rio Nuevo Museum. Architect Von Dilbert said, “I’m proud of the kiosks where tourists can see failed plans, and I’m pleased with our patio garden featuring a a miniature rainbow bridge taken from Mayor Bob Walkup’s garage. Kids can play on our Mountain of Studies.

“The proposed Rio Nuevo Museum will feature the very first ‘Watch this space for exciting changes to downtown’ sign, and a ‘Where are they now?’ exhibit profiling city leaders. Plenty of free parking will be unavailable.” A grand opening is scheduled for sometime this century.

• After months of exploring a run against Sen. John McCain, Tucson City Councilman Rodney Glassman announced he’s running for the U.S. Senate. This stunned one man who had been living in Kartchner Caverns for the past decade. He had to be hospitalized for shock when, on top of this news flash, he heard Ricky Martin’s astonishing admission, “I’m gay.”

The 31-year old former councilman resigned to launch his campaign. When asked why he’s running, Glassman answered, “A race for the presidency was unrealistic. The U.N. secretary-general spot is what I’m really after. And that will have to wait.”

The New Republic last week noted that Janet Napolitano is often mentioned as a candidate to be our first female president. Hearing this, Glassman said, “Really? I hadn’t thought of that angle. I could be the first female president after I’m senator – the cost of surgery wouldn’t be a problem. My D.C. operatives are looking into it.”

• A controversial exhibit featuring preserved corpses is coming to downtown Tucson this May. “This will rival the winter snowbird migration into Tucson in September,” said Mayor Walkup. “Downtown is on the move and it’s time to get people downtown. The fact they’re dead is exciting.”

“Bodies … The Exhibition” features past Pima County employees who were dissected and preserved, at their desks, through a plastination process. Some are posed doing important bureaucratic activities such as avoiding constituents or shuffling papers. County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry admitted, “Sure, half of them are still on the payroll, but heck, they do a great job.”

• The Arizona Department of Transportation announced plans to add an express lane for human smugglers and drug traffickers to alleviate the northbound traffic congestion out of Mexico in Southern Arizona’s deserts.

• This week Gov. Jan Brewer declared, “Arizona shouldn’t drop out of the competition for federal education funding. The state should forget the ‘Race to the Top’ money and reapply for ‘Race to the Bottom.’ A lot of legislators put a lot of work into ‘Race to the Bottom’ and we’re proud to say the result was no shocker: Arizona scored next to last behind Pennsyltucky. Is that a real state or were the judges making fun of us?”

• An elderly Tucson man annoyed his family by declaring for the 170th time in a week, “If I had bought that land at the corner of Speedway and Wilmot in 1952, I’d be a millionaire today.”

• Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard officially kicked off his gubernatorial campaign Monday morning promising to lift weights, take some assertiveness training and stick with the testosterone therapy. Should he be elected this fall his first initiative will be to make calling any candidate running for public office “a four-eyed brainiac” a hate crime.

Goddard declined to say in detail how he would balance the state budget but did say he would consider both tax cuts and tax increases. His opponents accused him of thinking. In Arizona that can cost votes.

From the East Valley Tribune – Editorial – Mesa is back at the drawing board after a plan to impose a ticket surcharge on all Cactus League games was nixed this week. The surcharge would have raised an estimated $185 million over 30 years to help fund a new $84 million Cubs complex as well as improvements at other Valley spring training facilities.

The plan lost steam when the 14 other Cactus League teams, the cities in the Valley they represent and Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig all expressed opposition to the ticket surcharge.

Why? They don’t want fans of their teams and from their cities footing the bill for a spring training facility in Mesa. That may seem reasonable on its surface, but not if you look at the issue a little deeper.

The Arizona Tourism and Sports Authority and Maricopa County Stadium District have been raising money for Cactus League facilities for years through rental car taxes and hotel taxes approved via Proposition 302 in 2000. Their efforts have revived the Cactus League, which at one time was down to seven teams and in danger of shrinking even further. Today, the Cactus League has expanded to 15 teams and generates an estimated $350 million economic impact every year in the Valley.

But the money generated through those hotel/rental car taxes for a 30-year period has already been spoken for.

• Phoenix Municipal Stadium received $4.4 million in renovations in 2003.

• Scottsdale got $20 million for renovations to Scottsdale Stadium.

• Tempe received $12 million for renovations to Diablo Stadium.

• Glendale got $60 million for its new two-team facility to house the Dodgers and White Sox.

• Goodyear was allocated $57.5 million for its new two-team facility for the Reds and Indians.

• And in 2008, $28 million was set aside for expected improvements at facilities in Peoria, Surprise, Maryvale and Mesa.

In other words, they all got theirs and are now balking at the idea of pitching in to benefit the most popular team, by far, in the Cactus League — the Cubs, who are threatening to move their spring training operations to Naples, Fla.

What’s more, because money for those mostly West Valley spring training facilities (as well as the Cardinals new stadium) was generated through hotel and rental car taxes, a big portion of those funds came from the more-developed East Valley.

For teams and cities to complain about a ticket surcharge is simply hypocritical after taking advantage of public monies for years.

Pay Ball - Tucson Weekly 2002

The Sidewinders wriggle out of lease provisions, leaving county taxpayers holding the skin.

by Chris Limberis

Jay Zucker uses self-deprecating humor to explain that he is far from a baseball know-it-all, but the Sidewinders owner has developed an array of fastballs, sliders and changeups. And when he tires, Zucker has lawyers for relief and closing.The result? Pima County taxpayers are scoreless after three years with Zucker and playing serious catch-up after their fifth season hosting the Sidewinders at Tucson Electric Park.

Zucker, after threatening a move to the city’s Hi Corbett Field, announced late last week that he would keep the Sidewinders at Tucson Electric Park. The decision, which had more to do with Zucker’s inability to get as sweet a deal from the city than his love for the county, came a month after he settled year-old county bills for 50 cents on the dollar.

Zucker bought the Sidewinders from millionaire businessman and land speculator Martin Stone for a reported $8 million before the 2000 season. The Sidewinders, Triple-A affiliate of the World Champion Arizona Diamondbacks, have lost about $1 million in their three seasons at Tucson Electric Park.

For taxpayers, saddled with a nearly $50 million stadium and spring training complex, it’s worse. Principal and interest owed on the stadium amount to $35 million and combined annual losses are now at $6 million. Taxes that the Board of Supervisors adopted from 1991 through 1997 to pay for the baseball complex included a $3.50 surcharge on car rentals, a 1 percent hotel bed tax and a 50-cent-a-night tax on RV space rental. But those taxes have failed to keep local taxpayers from subsidizing Tucson Electric Park and the training facilities with property and other local taxes.

Still, bookkeeping that even county officials concede was not up to standards allowed Zucker to avoid paying half of the operating expenses from last year.

The Sidewinders reported attendance of 241,991, the lowest in the 16-team Pacific Coast League, in 2001. But Zucker paid base rent of just $30,000, the amount due if the official attendance under the county contract was less than 200,000 because. Rent should be $60,000 if attendance is between 200,000 and 400,000 and hits $90,000 if attendance exceeds 400,000 over the course of a 70-game home season that runs from April 1 through early September.

Zucker unilaterally scrapped parking charges and instead paid the county $11,503. But other expenses, ranging from nearly $15,000 in city garbage collection fees to $490 for elevator repair, totaled $25,395.63 for the 2001 season, according to county records.

Although the contract calls for reconciliation 30 days after the end of the season, Zucker and his lawyer, James Sakrison, haggled with the county for nearly a year before agreeing to cough up half the amount due–$12,697.82.

This year, the Sidewinders reported 268,807 in attendance, an average 3,895 for 69 games at Tucson Electric Park, which can accommodate 11,000. The team drew more than only Calgary and Colorado Springs, where PCL play opens in troublesome cold weather.

Sacramento, which won the PCL title, mirrored a nationwide trend of a surge in popularity in minor league baseball. The River Cats drew 817,317 fans. Memphis, the Triple-A affiliate of the St. Louis Cardinals, followed with 794,550.

Zucker, who made his fortune selling a Spanish-language television station, can thank Stone for lease provisions that shut out the county on food and drink concession revenue when season attendance is below 250,000.

The low base rent was a concern, at least for Democratic Supervisors Dan Eckstrom and Sharon Bronson, in 1997. Field maintenance alone was projected to cost $35,000 a year. Eckstrom also complained about the county playing the bank for 30 days, let alone a year. But he and Bronson were outvoted on the baseball lease by Republican Ray Carroll and then-Supervisors Mike Boyd, a Republican, and Raul Grijalva, a Democrat.

Carol Bonchalk, head of financial operations for the county, conceded that the county has not done a good job pinpointing all expenses in order to justify provisions in the lease that call for reimbursement of direct costs and a blanket statement that the county cannot lose money.

The lease is problematic, she said, because it does not allow the county to bill for wear and tear on items such as air conditioning systems that keep the luxury and press suites cool.

The county has hauled in more money from single-day events like concerts than it has from a Sidewinders season.

The Diamondbacks and Chicago White Sox, which have shared Tucson Electric Park since 1998, reported big increases in attendance during spring training. The Diamondbacks drew 147,449 for 16 games, up from 95,208 in 2001 but still slightly less than the high mark set in the inaugural season. The White Sox attendance jumped more than 20,000 this year, to 87,670.

The county earned more than $935,000 from the month-long spring training season, including $372,086 in ticket shares, $478,632 in food and drink concessions and $85,000 in parking.

The Colorado Rockies, who replaced the Cleveland Indians at the city’s Hi Corbett Field in 1993, drew 68,314. That was a slight improvement over the 2001 figure but a sharp decline from the 103,475 in 1997, the Rockies’ last year as the only spring training show in Tucson.

Zucker and Diamondbacks brass complained about the county’s work to maintain fields for two years and Zucker last year began scoping the smaller Hi Corbett. But when it became clear he couldn’t get a better deal from the city, which had a tighter lease that brought in at least $750 a game–more than $50,000 a season–from the Sidewinders’ predecessors, the Tucson Toros, his calls to county officials became conciliatory.

And on Friday he sent word that the Sidewinders would stay put.

“An opportunity to utilize Hi Corbett Field had recently presented itself,” Zucker said. “However, upon an analysis of both stadiums, we believe it is in the best interest of our community and organization to continue to play ball at TEP.”

Many are pushing, many are working overtime to bring some balance to Tucson. Many  believe Tucson can be and should be Austin-in-the-desert, an economically thriving place of good jobs and good roads and good schools and good government, if only we can bring reason, common sense and accountability to the process of governance and bring to the community’s conversation the voice of the business community

But suppose that just ain’t so?  Suppose what you see is what you have.  Suppose that in its governmental manifestation and in its physical manifestations, Tucson is a perfect reflection of the community.  There are three main components of our community, the retirees on fixed and relatively low incomes, the poor victim underclass and the ultra-liberal University crowd.  This tripartite constituency wants cheap taxes subsidized by business taxes, they want minimal capital improvements, because those imply general fund outlays and bond payments, they want generous social benefits paid for by taxes on businesses, visitors and “the wealthy”, and they want growth choked down or choked off, because growth challenges their after-me-close-the-door environmental perspective.  Those three groups and their four attitudes give Tucson its culture.
A city reflects its culture.  To illustrate, I invite you to come with me on an imaginary drive; not presented as some kind of Gloat, but merely to illustrate the point.

Drive with me around Dallas.  Hundreds of miles of modern expressways, lined mile-after-mile with gleaming office towers, the spectacular new Cowboys Stadium, the new Calatrava bridges under construction, a hundred miles of first class shopping districts, several dozen five-star restaurants, thousands of four- and three-star restaurants, symphony, opera house, playhouses, fine schools, ten thousand acres of fine homes.

A man I know had some control of the placement of a significant high-tech facility that sought an Arizona home.  Wanting to bring it to Tucson, he approached the political and business leaders here.  Mayor Walkup expressed modest interest, but couldn’t get to work on it right away.  As I recall, he had to take his dog to the vet.  The man reported he then drove up to Phoenix and repeated his pitch.  Something like four days later, Mayor Gordon phoned to say he had the building being donated by one party and the money donated by another.

Different culture.