Pima County

Arizona State University President Michael Crow’s message of regional collaboration by Tucson and Phoenix to compete in the global economy went over well Friday with a large, sold-out audience of Tucson-area business and community leaders.

After his talk in Oro Valley, officials in government, business and academia agreed that it’s time for these long-sparring communities to go beyond their parochial interests and start dealing with the entire region’s problems.

Before 600 people, Crow said that the idea that individual cities or metro areas can by themselves compete with other regions is outmoded. His vision is of a “Sun Corridor” region consisting of Maricopa, Pinal and Pima counties working together to compete for new jobs. In another way, Crow was pushing a message of self-sufficiency, saying that business and community leaders need to find other ways of raising money to build their economies than relying on cash-strapped governments.

In the speech sponsored by Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities Inc., an economic development group, Crow also presented a litany of statistics showing how far Tucson and Phoenix are behind the rest of the country economically. He cited very low educational achievement, very high poverty levels and well-below-average incomes.

“He painted a clear picture of opportunity for us to become one of this country’s economic powerhouses,” said Tim Bee, a former Republican state senator from the Tucson area who is now the University of Arizona’s associate vice president for state relations. “The only way to do that is through collaboration. Apart from each other, we don’t have the economic strength we have together.”

Daisy Jenkins, an executive with the Carondelet Health Network, said she hoped Crow’s ideas create an intellectual awakening in this community.

“He’s saying, ‘Look, folks, we are living in isolation in our thinking about developing Tucson,’” said Jenkins, Carondelet’s executive vice president for human resources and administration. “We have to think of Phoenix as well.”

Crow’s ideas are very realistic about where this region needs to go, said Marty Laurel, a vice president for community relations for Blue Cross and Blue Shield.

“The old ways of thinking that people in Phoenix need to look out for Phoenix and Tucson for Tucson – those days are gone,” Laurel said.

Crow said people should instill in themselves the idea that the basic economic barometer for this region is not the health of Phoenix or Tucson. “It is what is the region capable of competing for on a global scale? What does Arizona have that can compete with central Texas and Shanghai?”

He also said that a regional “megapolitan” area such as the Sun Corridor must look at every possible option for raising money to carry out its goals other than going to the taxpayer.

Paula Aboud, a Democratic state senator from Tucson, said Crow’s ideas will help the business community look beyond the Legislature for help and achieve “a new degree, a new level of creativity. … I’d like to have our governor say what Mr. Crow says.”

Arizona IN decline

In an earlier talk at the event at the Hilton El Conquistador Hotel, TREO President Joe Snell laid out statistics showing that Arizona had dropped in just a three-year period since the recession started in 2007 from being among the national leaders in job, income and population growth to being at the bottom in all three categories.

He also told the crowd that the factors that companies look at when deciding where to locate with new jobs have changed since the recession started.

Points such as climate, outdoor recreation, quality of life and cultural amenities, in which Tucson has long excelled and which used to be very important to employers, have slipped in recent years, he said. The most important things today are a company and community’s ability to recruit workers, a pool of workers with the right skills, a strong research university, a healthy system of roads and other infrastructure and a business-friendly reputation, he said.

Also important are “cost reductions,” meaning government incentives that will reduce a company’s costs to open up in a new city.

“That didn’t even make the list five years ago. Post-recession, it has become one of the key drivers,” Snell said.

Speaking of infrastructure, he said that recent presentations from Tucson-based Raytheon Missile Systems and other employers show that when they track their employees by ZIP code, they find out that there is no “critical mass area” where most live. So the ability to move people around at a reasonable rate is critical for the region’s survival, he said.

Also important is the reputation of the area’s K-12 school systems, the continued momentum of downtown revitalization and the city’s physical and aesthetic appearance, Snell said.

“We have one of the most beautiful natural environments in the country. But let’s be honest with each other. Our man-made environment at times leaves something to be desired,” he said.

Contact reporter Tony Davis at tdavis@azstarnet.com or 806-7746.

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/business/local/article_55cc958a-f831-5c2d-ac4e-0e75dfb58f11.html#ixzz1ZXSxHe00

Why not let Marana manage its own assets?

Posted: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 4:00 am

By Vice Mayor Patti Comerford, Special to The Explorer | 0 comments

The Town of Marana is seeking to manage its own sewer system. The town’s leadership believes we can better manage all our water resources for the benefit of the Marana community, our water customers and the environment. All across Arizona, cities and towns operate sewer systems, except in Pima County, where it is controlled by the county.

Pima County has yet again chosen to ignore the law in furtherance of its senseless and costly crusade to keep Marana from operating its own wastewater treatment facility. In its latest display of political gamesmanship, Pima County filed another lawsuit against Marana, seeking to invalidate a law passed by the Arizona State Legislature – a law that protects the rights of cities and towns in Pima County.

Throughout this battle, Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry has never been able to articulate an answer to this simple question: Why not let Marana manage its own assets?

Of course, Huckelberry wants us to believe that he has efficiently managed the Pima County sewer system. It sure smells like it along Interstate 10 near Prince Road. This terrible smell has plagued our region for years and is an embarrassment. Residents are negatively affected by the smell and it definitely impacts the image visitors and tourists have of our region.

Huckelberry is facing federal mandates to bring Pima County sewer plants into compliance under the Clean Water Act. He is issuing hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds to fix these deficiencies, thus causing an accelerated increase in consumers’ monthly sewer bills. Questions should be asked and truthful answers given about the financial condition of the county’s regional wastewater system.

For too long, Huckelberry has had a stranglehold on this region. His disrespect of our community and this region hurts our ability to be successful. He wants us to believe that his policies and directives are good for us. They are not. Pima County has real problems to deal with, such as fixing roads, cleaning up around the county, and working with, not against, cities and towns to attract good jobs.

Rather than spending quality time and resources fixing real problems, Huckelberry writes memos trying to tell others what to do and how to do it. We need a collaborative visionary leader at the county more than ever.

Marana’s mayor, council and staff are working hard to make this community a great place to live and do business. We believe in our community and strive to do the right thing for the right reasons. In spite of Huckelberry’s many efforts to punish and retaliate against Marana and its citizens, we have never lost our spirit.

No doubt Huckelberry will soon offer an opinion to the media in response to this message. It’s his way of obsessively having to respond to anyone who dares question his self-proclaimed authority. As Huckelberry once wrote in a memorandum to Marana, “Facts and circumstances change.”

The one fact that cannot change is that Marana wants to be a shining community that represents the best in local government. We want to solve problems, serve our community and be a positive example of good government. Why can’t the county do the same?

Patti Comerford is vice mayor of Marana.

© 2011 The Explorer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

By Marshall J. Vest
EBR and Forecasting Project Director

September 1, 2011

In our annual update of 30-year projections, we’ve lowered the forecast significantly. That’s partly due to decennial Census counts that found far fewer residents than expected and new estimates that show population growth currently near zero, a phenomenon that is likely to extend a few more years. Also, there’s realization that fallout from the financial crisis will take a long time – perhaps a decade – to repair. Arizona already has lost a decade of growth, or more, in many industries (as measured by employment). And we are in the midst of losing an entire decade, or more, of population growth, due to low mobility rates. As a result, Arizona’s population will barely top ten million 30 years from now.

The recent recession wiped out a decade’s worth of progress, but Arizona’s growth will eventually return and once again rank amongst the fastest-growing states. In our annual update of our 30-year projections, we show Arizona’s population topping 10.2 million in the year 2041. That will easily put Arizona in the top ten largest states. By 2041, nearly four million more people will call Arizona home than live here today. Projections for each 10-year interval for selected aggregate measures are presented in Exhibit 1.

Highlights of the 30-year forecast include the following:

•Over 1.8 million new jobs will be created in Arizona over the next three decades, boosting the total to 4.2 million.

•Per capita personal income relative to the nation will continue its downward slide from 87% today to nearer 83% thirty years from now. This ratio peaked at 95% in 1971. Per capita income is an aggregate measure comprised of demographics (age structure), wage levels, industry mix, and labor force participation rates. The projected downward trend will keep Arizona near the bottom of all states on this measure.

•Arizona’s employment-to-population ratio plunged during the current recession and will remain well below its peak established in 2000 (43.3%), and after dipping below 37.2% last year, finishes in 2041 at 41.2%. Arizona’s ratio consistently runs 3-4 points lower than nationwide (Exhibit 2).

•As the population continues to age, an increasing share of personal income will come from transfer payments, of which social security is the largest component. The share will rise from 21% today to 26.5% by 2040. Per capita transfers in Arizona today are roughly equal to the corresponding nationwide measure.

•Retail sales relative to income will continue to fall, dropping below 18% from nearly 45% in the early-1960s. An aging population that spends more on services (especially health care) and a smaller portion on taxable goods accounts for the drop. This has serious implications for a tax system heavily reliant on retail sales.

•Over the long term, migration flows will continue to account for the lion’s share of population growth. On average, natural increase (births minus deaths) accounts for one third while net migration provides the remainder. The latter varies significantly, of course, over the business cycle. During the recession, with mobility rates at a six-decade low, migration flows swung deeply negative for the first time in recorded history. By 2015 net migration will again approach 100,000 annually. Natural increase moved significantly lower during the recession due to falling births, but will stabilize at 40,000 new residents annually (Exhibit 3).

•Manufacturing, government, utilities, retail trade and mining will represent smaller shares of total jobs 30 years from now. Manufacturing’s share will decline from 6.2% to 4.0%, government from 17.0% to 14.2%, utilities from 0.5% to 0.3%, and retail trade from 12.3% to 12.0%. Mining jobs will all but disappear.

•Sectors that will gain the largest shares are professional and business services (from 14.3% to 16.7%), health care & social assistance (from 12.6% to 14.7%), and financial services (from 6.9% to 7.7%).

•In our “high” scenario, Arizona’s population reaches 11.2 million in 2041. In the “low” scenario, it is 9.8 million, compared to 10.2 million in the “most likely” scenario. Michigan, the seventh largest state, today has 9.9 million.

•Today, Arizona’s 6.4 million population ranks 16th, just ahead of Tennessee. In thirty years, Arizona likely will overtake Indiana, Massachusetts, Washington, Virginia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, and Michigan to become the eighth largest state.

•The range for 2041 metro Phoenix population is 6.7 to 8.0 million. Metro Tucson’s range is 1.4 to 1.5 million people. The “Sun Corridor” megapolitan population (both metros — three counties combined) ranges from 8.1 to 9.5 million.

•By 2041, 71% of Arizona’s population will reside in the Phoenix metro area (Maricopa and Pinal counties). Metro Tucson (Pima County) will account for 14.2%. Today, the shares are 65.8% and 15.3%, respectively.

Arizona was the second-fastest growing state over the past decade, even though population growth disappeared during the recession. Low mobility rates will limit Arizona’s growth for a few more years, but growth will return to more historical levels by mid-decade.

A history of population growth and components of change are shown in Exhibit 4. During the 1970s and 1980s Arizona’s population swelled by nearly a million persons each decade. During the 1990s, a surge in migration pushed the gain to nearly 1.5 million. That pace appeared to be on track until the recession arrived in late 2007. The lack of jobs, accompanied by the loss of mobility due to the fall in housing prices and legislative action to restrict illegal immigration, brought population growth to a halt. So, for the decade just past, Arizona’s population swelled by “only” one-and-a-quarter million. Interestingly, almost half (45%) of the gain was due to natural increase. With mobility likely to remain at low levels for at least a couple more years, we expect population to increase by a little over one million during the “teens”. Our projections show net migration rising to 1.3 million per decade during the 20s and 30s.

Over the next 30 years, Arizona will add 3.6 million residents, or roughly half of the numbers here today. We can only guess what Arizona will be like, but it’s clear that a great deal of change lies ahead.

Access EBR’s Latest Forecast Data Online

Tucson is like that lazy cousin that crashes on your couch, who’s always between jobs and who borrowed the $10k to start a new business swearing to never ask you for anything again. Our big brother up north, Phoenix on the other hand has been focusing on it’s future, building infrastructure and attracting an economic base to build from. Both the metro Phoenix and the Tucson markets have seen big busts driven by a real estate down turn.  Phoenix is evolving, diversifying and working to get out of their whole – Tucson sadly is not.  Phoenix will bounce back sooner under the leadership of ASU’s Michael Crow and other valley business and political leaders. Tucson has an interim city manager, and interim president of the university of Arizona and an economic development marketing organization with a difficult product to sell.
Put your bets on Phoenix to bounce back and rise from the ashes.  We’ll be avoiding pot holes and shooting for the moon with boondoggles like Rio Nuevo.

From the AZ Star:

Arizona State University President Michael Crow is trying to remake the American public university, the online magazine Slate noted last month.

Now, Crow is making a pitch to remake the relationship between Tucson and Phoenix, as well.

He will speak Friday before a Tucson economic development group, TREO, on how the two oft-competing cities can collaborate on the business front.

His pitch will be how the two cities can collectively build a more sustainable economic base for the Sun Corridor, the urbanizing region in southern and central Arizona, anchored by Tucson and Phoenix, that is expected to grow significantly by 2040.

Crow has seen and fostered plenty of growth at ASU since becoming president in 2002. Enrollment has grown by 30 percent, to more than 72,000. The university has created more than 100 new degree programs since his arrival.

Here’s a Q&A with Crow on how to build the regional economy:

Q. Tell us how and why Tucson and Phoenix can cooperate in the name of the Sun Corridor.

A. The root of all this is that the Sun Corridor is one of 10 places in the U.S. called megapolitans, where most of the population growth will occur (in the next few decades). … I’ll be walking through how we find ways to leverage the advantages that Tucson and Phoenix already have. We’re not doing as well as we could be. One reason is that we’re not leveraging our advantages.

Q. What are some of them?

A. The most significant advantage is Arizona itself. It’s a fantastic natural place to be. Match it with the newness of the place and the spirit of innovation here, and we can advance anywhere we want to advance. We have to make a decision as to where we’re going. There’s nothing fighting against us. We are not like Cleveland or Baltimore where you are trying to work against what isn’t working anymore. All we’re trying to do is to think about what’s new.

Q. We’re not Cleveland. But our mainstay, the real estate industry, has collapsed as hard as the steel industry did in Ohio 30 years ago. Isn’t that an obstacle for us?

A. It’s not really an obstacle, at least regionally. As hard as that’s been for everyone, it’s not at the core of our productivity, our competitiveness. It’s an overbuilt real estate market. It has to adjust. As you move forward, you are not looking at collapsed businesses. You are looking at having to build new businesses. It’s easier to do that.

Q. But a lot of experts say our slowdown due to real estate could be the new normal for a long time. What’s going to change that?

A. Our fundamental problem is hypergrowth. We reached out a little too far. Now we need to get about reaching out for export-oriented businesses. For many people, the lower housing prices, as painful as they’ve been, for many businesspeople they have worked in our favor.

Q. How do we do that – reaching out for export-oriented businesses?

A. Pursue economic development activities together. Make sure we build the infrastructure necessary to support regional growth. We don’t have that now, for which Interstate 10 is just one example. We have to make sure we create an environment as friendly for business development as possible. We don’t have that.

Q. Maricopa County is a lot more conservative than Pima County politically. Is this schism an obstacle?

A. I don’t see political differences as an obstacle at all. We’re not talking about massive government action. We’re talking about ways to work together, and red versus blue doesn’t stand in the way. Typically, municipalities are very engageable. We have to figure out how to leverage cities and counties, with the small businesses and universities, and politics are not much of a part of that.

Q. We compete with Phoenix all the time for things and usually lose. In the Legislature, the Phoenix crowd outmuscles us all the time. Why should this turn out differently?

A. It turns out that some competition is good. For local places to compete for the site of the company, that’s OK, as long as everyone is pulling together for the next company to come to this region. We have to draw together and support each other’s advantages. We should all be finding ways to allow each city to accent its differences and use those differences in our overall marketing strategies. …

You have Phoenix and Tucson with unique, wonderful, complementary cultures. You offer a whole plethora of options. It gives you significantly more firepower when you are trying to attract, retain or grow new businesses. We just haven’t thought that way.

Q. But many people in Tucson feel, rightly or wrongly, lack of trust that Phoenix’s leadership has our interests at heart. The Legislature has a track record of taking actions perceived by city leaders here as being contrary to our best interests, such as their attempts to limit our city government’s powers. Why should we trust Phoenix leaders now?

A. Trust is a function of experience, wisdom and understanding. We need to work to expand each so that trust can be built. I am not familiar with the reasons behind a lack of trust and would have to say that in any event ‘that was then and this is now.’ It is time to set mutual goals and work toward those goals.

Q. After the bust, what’s going to bring the Sun Corridor back?

A. Yes, there has been an economic downturn. There hasn’t been a population decline (Pima County’s population dropped very slightly in 2010, but Arizona’s didn’t, census figures show). People are going to move here anyway. The question is will they be marginally employed and heavily supported by government subsidies? Or will we have a robust economy and steady economic growth?

It’s about whether economic growth and enhancement allow for the building of families and schools. It’s about employment and people making jobs or money. The highest-paying jobs are related to technology or exports. The rest of us, we support them. I don’t feel this is going to change. That is just raw demographics. We might be off by 10 percent, but the U.S. is still the fastest-growing industrialized nation in the world.

Q. How can we make this a business-friendly state without wrecking the natural setting that draws so many people?

A. I’m all for protecting the natural environment. It’s our leading asset. What one wants to do is to develop a business-friendly environment that doesn’t allow any deterioration of our natural environment. You have to have a tax policy and educational infrastructure. You have to have things that other businesses want. We haven’t done a good job of figuring that out.

FULL House

Tickets have sold out for the Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities Inc. (TREO) luncheon Friday where ASU President Michael Crow will deliver the keynote address on the Sun Corridor.

The event begins at 11:30 a.m. at the Hilton El Conquistador hotel, 10000 N. Oracle Road.

Contact reporter Tony Davis at tdavis@azstarnet.com or 806-7746.

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/business/local/article_0d04856e-62af-5729-a753-abb3d6c32fda.html#ixzz1ZLBlWUep

Posted: Friday, September 16, 2011 7:00 am | Updated: 11:58 am, Thu Sep 15, 2011.

The Tucson region has set another record – the median home price last month fell another 2 percent to $122,200 from its peak of $225,900 in February 2006. No doubt most of the rest of the country has gone through similar adjustments but economists say Pima County is in for a longer down cycle.

Admittedly, Phoenix fell more than Tucson during the recession but the Phoenix metropolitan area is already showing signs of recovery.

Tucsonans resist the Phoenix model. Phoenix has freeways while Tucson widens roads. Phoenix has two dozen municipalities in its metropolitan area all competing to have the safest neighborhoods, best businesses and superior quality of life. Tucson has five municipalities and more than 36 percent of its population living outside those cities towns where Pima County tries to maintain its stranglehold.

Even though residents resist doing anything that resembles our neighbors to the north, Tucsonans throughout the region need to realize Phoenix is recovering from the economic recession because companies have invested capital in facilities and are hiring people there.

In case you haven’t been keeping up:

Intel Corporation is spending $5 billion to build a new state-of-the-art chip-making plant in Chandler, which will bring the firm’s job base in the area to 9,200.

Republic Services Inc., an $8 billion waste management company relocated its headquarters to Phoenix from Florida in 2009 after at $6.1 billion merger with Allied Waste Industries, which had been its largest competitor. In Tucson, Republic operates SaguaroEnvironmental.

Insurer USAA expanded and added 450 jobs in Phoenix in 2009 as it consolidated and closed offices in Sacramento, Calif., and Norfolk, Va.

Stirling Energy Systems, which is based in Phoenix, received a $100 million investment in 2008 from NTR, a renewable energy company in Ireland that now has a controlling interest in the Arizona firm and is moving quickly to grow its business in the utility-scale solar market.

CyrusOne, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cincinnati Bell, just this month announced it has purchased a 40-acre parcel in Chandler where it will spend $150 million to build a 1 million square-foot data center.

Honeywell Aerospace, which is headquartered in Phoenix, is now the area’s third largest employer and just this month received a $450 million contract from NASA to help it extend the life of existing satellites and develop ground systems for new satellites.

Petsmart Inc., also headquartered in Phoenix, is the nation’s largest specialty pet retailer with $5.9 billion in sales last year through its 1,197 stores.

Electronics distributor Avnet Inc., also based in Phoenix, did $19.5 billion in sales last year.

Discount Tire Co., headquartered in Scottsdale, in May opened its 800th store, a location in northern California. It now operates with 13,000 employees fixing 6,000 flats a day and selling $3 billion worth of tires in 23 states per year.

Go Daddy, the domain name registry that has made a spash with its racy commercials, is headquartered in Scottsdale where its 2,900 employees brought in $741 million in revenue last year.

While Tucsonans may not want to admit it, these kinds of businesses bring both money and a quality of life to a region. Relocate America.com released its list of top 100 markets to live for 2011 and Phoenix, Scottsdale and Prescott are on it. Tucson isn’t. El Paso and Albuquerque also made the list.

We’re not advocating Tucson should be exactly like Phoenix but our economy would be a lot stronger now if we had leadership that would at least consider reading a page or two from the playbook Phoenix leaders are using.

Then, if Tucsonans are so bent on not becoming another Phoenix, we have to ask what do we want this region to become?

Contact Joe Higgins and Chris DeSimone at wakeuptucson@gmail.com. They host “Wake Up Tucson,” 6-8 a.m. weekdays on The Voice KVOI 1030-AM. Their blog is at www.TucsonChoices.com.

Leading by example

Homeowners who are unhappy with the tax bills now arriving in the mail should know there’s an annual process that allows them to appeal their value and stand a good chance of getting it cut.

Just ask County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry.

When he thought the County Assessor’s Office was dinging him unfairly after it pegged his home value for tax year 2010 at $1.1 million, he appealed, suggesting it was worth $850-ish, tops. The assessor re-measured, found he didn’t really have 5,800 square feet of living space, and dropped him to $975,000.

Normally, Huckelberry would have been paying taxes on that amount for two years under a state law that freezes values for an additional year following an appeal. The law was written to protect homeowners in more normal times, when values go up each year.

But with home values continuing to drop, Huckelberry then had to appeal his 2011 value to keep pace with the falling market. And for 2012, same song, different verse, with his most recent appeal landing his value at $640,000.

Assessor Bill Staples said the value is based on comparable sales and neighboring properties. “We care about every person who lives in Pima County, but the value of property stands on its own. We aren’t going to consider who lives there,” he said.

Huckelberry said he is just exercising the right that every taxpayer has.

“I pay what is appropriate,” he said. Besides, he added, “It’s not a question of who pays what, but about the equity in the tax base.”

Huckelberry has never been accused of not knowing his way around the system.

Contact reporter Rhonda Bodfield at rbodfield@azstarnet.com or 573-4243.

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/article_344bfaee-9827-548f-bb00-affa79799c3b.html#ixzz1YMVtgv9W

(CNN) — On a recent sunny Arizona morning, Judy Macintyre, a 72-year-old tourist from Minnesota, is ready to board a bus. But this is not just any tour. To Macintyre, it’s an opportunity to take an in-depth look at a controversial issue she wanted to explore for a long time.

The tour titled “Border Crisis: Fact and Fiction” is intended to allow tourists to see immigration at one of the hottest spots on the border. And that’s exactly what the adventurous Minnesotan wants to do.

“It’s such a complicated issue, and there’s so many sides to it, and people need to come together, work together instead of fighting against each other like they all seem to be doing right now,” says the retired professor who used to teach at the University of Minnesota business school.

Experiencing the realities of the U.S.-Mexico border up close is as simple as buying an $89 ticket. The Tucson, Arizona, office of Gray Line Tours is offering the trip twice a month.

The tour operator bills the trip as “a fact-finding mission” that allows tourists to draw their own conclusions. “Don’t let the politicians and news broadcasters become your only source of information,” the tour description says on the Gray Line Tours’ website.

Tourists are taken to the border fence. They take a look at a pedestrian bridge connecting the two countries. They see Customs and Border Protection agents in action at a crossing point, although they can’t get too close for security reasons. And then they go to the areas where more than a hundred immigrants die each year. Since last October, more than 130 migrants have died while trying to cross the Arizona desert, according to the U.S. Border Patrol.

At one stop, they take a look at a water station for migrants crossing the desert. The tank was installed by Humane Borders, a human rights group. Tour operator Bob Feinman shows the blue, 65-gallon plastic tank filled with water to the tourists. He explains that for some people the tank is the difference between life and death.

“It’s a hundred-and-something degrees out here. You’re dying of thirst. That’s what this is for, with or without a map, whether you found it on purpose or whether you stumbled across it,” Feinman says.

Near the town of Arivaca, Arizona, tourists are also taken for a walk in the unforgiving Arizona desert.

Sherlee Terres, a tourist taking the trip, says the desert walk gave her a good idea about what migrants experience.

“I wouldn’t make it three miles. It just seems so desolate. I’m not from Arizona originally. I was just looking at the branches with the thorns and thought, ‘wow, what would happen if you were trying to get through, a thorn would just tear your clothes and your skin,’” Terres says.

The tour also includes a get-together with ranchers who want a more secure U.S.-Mexico border and who are deeply concerned about drug traffickers and smugglers.

Dan Bell, one of the ranchers who takes time to speak with the tourists, is concerned about border security and the impact of illegal migration to his property.

“The border is secure in areas where it was easiest to secure. The places that are really difficult to secure are the places that remain wide open, and those are the places where most of our ranches are located on,” Bell says.

Tourists also hear from those who advocate easier access of products and migrant labor to the United States. Christopher Ciruli, former chairman of the Fresh Produce Association of the Americas, says that trade between the two countries is very important for communities on both sides of the border.

“We need to facilitate trade between the two countries. We need to facilitate the people crossing between both, and we need to make sure that we have human life interests whether it would be the people working at the border or the people trying to cross so that we’re not causing more deaths at the desert,” Ciruli says.

In the end, tourists are left to draw their own conclusions. The tour company claims the trip is intended to be apolitical and aims to educate and alert people to the realities of living on the border and the issues of life and death that play out every day in that part of the country.

The tour started in April. According to Gray Line Tours, about 100 tourists have traveled to the U.S.-Mexico border so far, but interest is increasing as the weather cools down in the Arizona desert.

The tour starts at 8:30 am and lasts eight hours. At the end of the trip, Judy Macintyre, the retired professor, says it’s an eye-opening experience. “I think every congressperson should take this tour and take the information that we got.”

Journalist Valeria Fernandez contributed to this report.

TUCSON, AZ (KOLD) - The Pima County-wide first responder communication system will be going online in late 2013, but without one of the larger towns in the area.

The Pima County Wireless Integrated Network, or PCWIN, will allow firefighters, police, deputies and other emergency services to easily communicate on the same radio system.

The town of Marana isn’t a part of this effort, even though Marana residents are paying for it.

They are helping retire a $92 million bond Pima County voters passed in 2004.

It pays for PCWIN.

Marana’s mayor says opting out of PCWIN is not a problem for Marana.

Ed Honea says the problem would be in joining PCWIN, and giving up the town’s state- of- the- art system that Marana taxpayers have paid for.

“Our taxpayers have already paid for this technology. We already have it in place. Why would we give it to someone else and then turn around and lease it back, and not have any control over it?” Honea asks.

He says the safety of Marana citizens would not be jeopardized by not participating in the regional communication system.

But not everyone agrees, especially not a representative of Pima County, the government that would be in charge of PCWIN.

Pima County Supervisor Richard Elias calls Marana’s decision to opt out “irrational.”

He says, Marana knows it will be very expensive to opt back in.

“At that point we will have already designed a system and spent money on that design with our vendor and finding the sites and locations for the various kinds of antenna needs that we have,” Elias says.@

A lot of this comes down to trust.

Mayor Honea says it’s no secret there are trust issues between Marana and Pima County because of recent battles.

Copyright 2011 KOLD. All rights reserved.

A WORD FROM THE DIRECTOR

The results are in! MPA conducted a public policy survey to provide us with information that we can utilize in our advocacy efforts.  The goal of the survey was to identify specific issues throughout the region impacting members of MPA.

Over 100 individuals, including non-MPA members, who have worked on land use projects within the last 5 years, took the survey. Overall, Marana and Sahuarita were preferred in terms of development process and fees; the City of Tucson was identified as having the most difficult process and the County was noted as being too environmentally sensitive. While I did not expect the results to be much different than what I regularly hear from the MPA membership, I have a better understanding of the most important issues hindering a broad spectrum of the growth community. I have identified specific items where MPA will be proactive in improving different aspects of land use and development in our region. Exhibit A provides a snapshot of how the jurisdictions compare to each other, while Exhibit B illustrates the perception of our survey takers. Jurisdiction by jurisdiction, here are the highlights:

Exhibit A.

CITY OF TUCSON

Pros: The development service process is improving with several recent steps including a revised Certificate of Occupancy process, new Parking Ordinance and active creation of a new Land Use Code.

Cons: Applicants continue to have issues with poor customer service, lack of review consistency and overall confusion with the steps and requirements associated with the development process.

MPA Action Item: MPA is actively working to identify specifics within each of these areas in order to communicate them to Development Services, Management and City Council. We are presently focusing on water policies, which are discussed HERE within this newsletter.

PIMA COUNTY

Pros: Department heads within Development Services and Building are very helpful in working to address and resolve problems and issues.

Cons: The County continues to support ordinances and policies that are largely unbalanced towards environmental issues and hinder reasonable land use and development.

MPA Action Item: MPA is actively engaged with County staff in working on a proposed off-site mitigation ordinance. Presently we believe the draft unreasonably obstructs land development, but staff has shown a willingness to make modifications to the proposal. MPA will remain diligent in staying ahead of issues to ensure ordinances find a respectful balance between growth, development and our environmental surroundings.

Exhibit B.

TOWN OF ORO VALLEY

Pros: Although the overall score was very poor regarding the Council’s relationship with the development community, the individual comments were encouraging in stating that, “It appears that the Council and Town Manager are looking for ways to improve relations with the business and development community.”

Cons: Rated the jurisdiction with the highest fees and some of the most difficult laws and regulations, survey takers were indecisive in stating if the fees or public input process were more burdensome.

MPA Action Item: A better balance must be created if Oro Valley hopes to have successful, revenue generating development on their last remaining acres.  Council recently made a couple of changes to the public input process. As these steps are tested, MPA will carefully observe how effective these changes are or are not. Additionally, MPA is co-hosting a forum with Council and staff to identify specific issues with the land use and development process. We will urge the Town to create a process in which they review their fees and make sure each fee is true cost recovery and necessary.

TOWN OF MARANA

Pros: The Council is recognized as being very reasonable and development friendly.

Cons: The survey actually did not clearly identify any issues with the Town, other than hoping the Town remains responsive to the development community.

MPA Action Item: MPA will encourage the Town to move forward in updating their Land Use Code based on the analysis created by Clarion several years ago.

TOWN OF SAHUARITA

Pros: Survey respondents agree that Sahuarita’s fees are fair and reasonable, as is their land development process.

Cons: Largely, the concern is that the Town relies too heavily on Pima County codes and ordinances, which are regarded as burdensome to the development community.

MPA Action Item: MPA is actively involved in working with  Town Management and staff on several codes including the Landscape Code and Riparian Habitat Text Amendment. It is our goal to provide information and feedback on these ordinances, as well as future policies and ordinances, that help the Town achieve their growth goals.

Lisa and I look forward to taking each of these steps, in addition to responding to land use and development policy issues in each jurisdiction as they arise.  As always, feel free to contact me directly via e-mail or my cell phone at 520.878.8811.

Amber Smith

Executive Director

Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, Pima County’s ambitious but flawed scheme

by Jonathan DuHamel on Sep. 06, 2011

Pima County’s Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP) has been touted as one of the best and most comprehensive habitat conservation plans in the country. Planning began in 1998 in response to the 1997 listing of the Cactus Ferruginous pygmy owl as an endangered species. The owl was removed from the endangered species list in 2006 because the listing was found to be based on flawed science.

The legal idea behind SDCP was to obtain dispensation from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) in the form of an Incidental Take Permit under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. The idea was to allow county public works to proceed even if they would incidentally harm some endangered species. To do that the County had to specify which species it was going to protect and how it would do so.

According to FWS, both federally listed and unlisted species can be covered in the incidental take permit acquired through a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) if issuance criteria are met. The three principal criteria are: 1) that impacts are mitigated to the maximum extend practicable; 2) sufficient funding (taxpayer dollars to pay for land acquisition and monitoring for the life of the permit) is assured up front; and 3) the issuance of the permit won’t jeopardize the species. Note that all species named in the HCP will be treated by FWS as if they were listed as endangered. The County’s purchase of local ranches is part of its mitigation scheme to satisfy FWS. In reality, the plan gives the County tighter control over use of private land.

The County’s plan has had a long gestation period, much longer than normal for habitat conservation plans in general. Finally, early this year the County submitted its plan to FWS who expect to put it out for public comment by the end of this month.

I was involved in the early stages of SDCP. For 5 years, beginning in 1998, I was a member of a Citizen Steering Committee that was formed to address concerns of various stakeholders (and satisfy a FWS requirement for public input). During that time, I attended many meetings and collected 35 CDs full of reports and other information. You can read most of the reports at the County’s dedicated website: http://www.pima.gov/cmo/sdcp/.

The plan could have been relatively simple and deal with only those endangered species likely to be affected by growth in the County. If it had done that, the plan could be in place now. However, Pima County has loftier ideas: “The biological goal of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan is to ensure the long-term survival of the full spectrum of plants and animals that are indigenous to Pima County through maintaining or improving the habitat conditions and ecosystem functions necessary for their survival.”

In my opinion, SDCP is based on flawed science. I am not alone in that opinion. The Town of Marana and City of Tucson both refused to become parties to SDCP because of their concern with the scientific justifications.

Besides the Citizen Steering Committee, the County recruited biologists, both private and university professors, to form a Science and Technical Advisory Team (STAT). In March 2001 STAT produced its major report entitled “Priority Vulnerable Species: Analysis & Review of Species Proposed for Coverage by the Multiple-Species Conservation Plan.” I will refer to that report as PVS.

At a public meeting on March 22, 2001, Dr. William Shaw, head of the county’s Science and Technical Advisory Team said of the team’s data, “biological knowledge is woefully inadequate,” a sentiment echoed by each speaker, and by a peer review committee which evaluated STAT’s work.

Nevertheless, PVS provided the basis for classifying county land into several conservation level categories which would greatly impact private land use:

The multispecies conservation plan and Permit will affect use of private land because it mandates that: 1) Within “Important Riparian Areas” 95% of the land shall be conserved in undisturbed natural condition; 2) Within the “Biological Core” at least 80% of the land shall be conserved in undisturbed natural condition; 3) Within “Multiple-use areas” at least 66% of the land shall be conserved in undisturbed natural condition; 4) Within “Special Species Management Areas” at least 80% of the land shall be conserved as undisturbed natural open space; 5) Within “Critical Landscape Connections” barriers to the movement of flora and fauna should be removed.

In addition to the above classifications, SDCP proposes to have “Recovery Areas,” “Recovery Contribution Areas,” and “Supplementary Population Management Areas.” For lands within the Conservation Lands System, the county will require “rigorous site analysis” prior to development. SDCP also proposes to restore riparian areas by planting hundreds of trees which the county estimates will use up to 2.6 billion gallons of water annually. In subsequent iterations of the plan, these restriction percentages may have changed or become obfuscated, but they have been largely incorporated into the County Comprehensive plan.

The land classification system was put together based on opinion and computer modeling. Here is how they did it.

The STAT team didn’t do any actual field work or checking of ground truth, they instead resorted to data mining. One problem with data mining, i.e., using large data sets from other studies, is that the data are rarely, if ever, verified for accuracy. Another problem is that data mining lends itself to selective extraction of data that might not be representative of the original study.

The methodology, as described in PVS:

Habitat distributions for many of the vulnerable species are poorly known and published accounts of known populations are few; therefore, habitat modeling based on environmental characteristics was conducted in order to provide the most complete, scientifically based depiction of species habitat. Recognizing the critical knowledge of many Pima County biologists, these ‘expert reviewers’ were asked to be part of the modeling process. Reviewers identified key environmental variables describing habitat and helped Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysts score environmental characteristics for each species. Analysts then built GIS models based on these environmental parameters resulting in maps of high, medium, and low potential habitat. Biologists were then asked to review habitat maps and revise model parameters if necessary. This iterative process of GIS analysis and biological review resulted in refined models that more closely represented vulnerable species habitat.

Variables used in the models are vegetation/land cover, streams, shallow groundwater, springs, elevation, slope, aspect, land form, cave/mine potential, geology, and soils. A total of 115 characteristics for these 15 variables were scored as potential habitat for each species. Characteristics of these variables are well-understood for some species (such as a fish requiring a perennial stream), but many are not. In some cases, a ‘best guess’ was recorded in the table cells of the species-environment matrix. All scores have been reviewed and revised by species experts.”

County biologists based their map overlays, their GIS data layers, on the opinions of 13 biologists and upon a fourth data set, the federal government’s GAP program which uses satellite imagery to, among other things, map vegetation cover. The assumption is that vegetation type can be accurately associated with species requirements and therefore species habitat.

GAP, run by the U.S. Geological Survey, is an ambitious program. But, it is instructive to note some of the comments from those involved. According to GAP Analysis Bulletin No. 8 (a U.S.G.S. publication), “what was lacking [in GAP], and continues to be, is the information on species associations with those land characteristics.”

The GAP program ran into problems when it attempted to validate the model by gathering factual field data such as finding the critters and then mapping land characteristics where the critters actually occur.

From the Bulletin:”GAP researchers have generally believed that sampling for species occurrence has been biased and grossly incomplete; therefore, the points used in the quantitative approach may give incomplete or biased distributions.”

In other words, the limited real data collected do not support the model very well. There often was a big difference between modeled potential habitat and actual habitat.

The PVS report was the result of the biologists’ best guesses, “woefully inadequate” real data, and computer manipulations. And the results showed it. The report had many conflicting statements and some very strange recommendations.

For instance, their findings for the Lesser long-nosed bat:

“The lesser long-nosed bat requires 5,320 acres for a home range. The minimum patch size for 250 pairs is approximately 1,330,000 acres. The minimum number of patches for this species in the reserve system is 10; therefore, the population viability goal is to conserve at least 13,300,000 acres in order to maintain a viable population.”

So, county scientists, after applying “the best available science,” recommended preservation of 13,300,000 acres in Pima County for this one species. Trouble is, the total area of the County is 5.9 million acres. There is another problem with this recommendation. According to the report, “estimates of populations in maternity roosts range from 200 to 130,000 (USFWS 1995).” If we multiply just one large roost worth of bats, say 130,000, by the 5,320 acres which county scientists claim each bat needs for a home range, we get a total home range requirement of 692 million acres, or nearly 10 times the total area of Arizona. These errors derive, of course, from rote calculation of the subjective habitat scoring system in a computer model which has, apparently, not been checked for ground truth, or even common sense.

I did point out these errors to county officials. As far as I can tell, the county did not significantly modify the land classification system. However, I noticed that in subsequent reports, they did not publish numbers anymore, only general, ambiguous statements.

The habitat conservation plan and Section 10 Incidental Take Permit will apply only to unincorporated County land. It cannot be legally applied to land within incorporated areas, nor to federal land, nor State Trust land, nor to Indian Reservations. That leaves a highly fragmented area which in reality cannot form an integrated habitat.

Pima County has gone through the motions to obtain a permit, but the flawed scientific basis and reality of land fragmentation make the Sonoran Desert Conservation plan an empty showpiece, one this is costing, and will cost, taxpayers money and restrict use of private land.

I will recommend to FWS that they reject the application for permit.

UPDATE: The map below shows the “permit area,” the land to which SDCP applies. Notice how fragmented it is. The fragmentation makes a conservation plan very difficult to effect actual benefits. And since this is such a small part of the County, will it make much difference to species?

Land ownership in Pima County: