Posts Tagged ‘City of Tucson’

Phoenix–There are almost 90,000 local governments in America, with an average of one new local government born each day. Few are models of limited government restrained by a system of checks and balances. Often they are unaccountable, and special interest-driven. Facing a maze of regulations and powerful local bureaucracies, ordinary citizens often can’t fight City Hall. They need a concrete set of rights to protect them from the abuses of local government–the equivalent of a local bill of rights.

Today the Goldwater Institute released “A New Charter for American Cities: 10 Rights to Restrain Government and Protect Freedom.” This ground-breaking report recommends enacting a “Local Liberty Charter” consisting of 10 judicially enforceable rights to rein-in out-of-control local governments.

“The Local Liberty Charter is not a pledge signed by politicians,” said Nick Dranias, Goldwater Institute constitutional policy director and author of the report. “It is meant to be enforceable in court by ordinary citizens. Each right would be implemented by policies that furnish a private right of action, empowering individuals to file lawsuits, when necessary, to compel local governmental officials to respect freedom and perform their legitimate responsibilities.”

The Local Liberty Charter is designed to become part of a local government’s charter or statutory legal framework. It would function as a constraint on all ordinances and regulations that a local government passed, much like a constitution defines and restricts the powers of state and federal government.

The Local Liberty Charter is a trailblazing roadmap for local government reform. The 10 rights in “A New Charter for American Cities” are:

Right 1: The Right to a Presumption of Liberty.
Like the Declaration of Independence, the Local Liberty Charter presumes citizens are free to act peaceably and honestly without legal restraint. Therefore, the Local Liberty Charter requires simplifying or reducing burdensome regulation through ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’ review, and eliminating regulatory delay.
    
Right 2: The Right to Use and Enjoy Property.
As long as they do not violate the rights of others, property owners should have the right to develop and use their property however they wish. The Local Liberty Charter requires simplifying and eliminating land use regulations and transforming zoning into a freedom-friendly legal framework.

Right 3: The Right to Separation of Powers.
Municipalities typically concentrate executive, legislative, and quasi-judicial power into one unchecked entity, increasing the likelihood of power abuses and biased decision-making. The Local Liberty Charter requires diffusing the concentration of local power, and giving citizens hurt by local government action the option to request alternative dispute resolution.

Right 4: The Right to Freedom from Crime.
Protecting citizens from crime is government’s core function. The Local Liberty Charter requires performance benchmarking for law enforcement, using overtime as an incentive for high performance, and contracting out failing police departments to other localities.

Right 5: The Right to Fiscally Responsible Government.
Government at any level should not be larger than necessary and should be fiscally accountable to its citizens. The Local Liberty Charter requires outsourcing services, keeping government spending from exceeding growth in population and inflation, and limiting the business of local government to core functions.

Rights 6: The Right to Freedom from Favoritism.
Local governments should not be in the business of singling out individuals or groups for special benefits or harms. The Local Liberty Charter requires eliminating laws, taxes and spending that unfairly single out a particular person or group for benefit or harm.

Rights 7: The Right to Accountability.
Government officials serve the people and should be held accountable for their actions. The Local Liberty Charter requires a “three strikes you’re out” policy for public officials who repeatedly misapply the law. Under this policy, nonelected public officials would be terminated if they violate the law, causing citizens to suffer substantial harm, on three occasions.

Rights 8: The Right to Genuine Local Sovereignty.
The offer of federal funds is tempting, but often comes with strings attached that require matched spending by state and local governments. Additionally, new federal regulations are often implemented without local government coordination. The Local Liberty Charter requires cities, counties and towns to reject federal funds that come with strings attached and obligates local officials to demand coordination from federal agencies to stop the implementation of burdensome federal regulations.

Rights 9: The Right to Transparency.
Transparency in government is crucial to holding public officials accountable and preventing corruption. The Local Liberty Charter requires the public posting of government financial information, deadlines for public records requests to be granted, disclosure of critical public information, such as performance benchmarking, and open municipal contracting.

Right 10: The Right to Reconstitute Local Government.
When local government goes bad, sometimes the best answer is to hit the “reset” button. The Local Liberty Charter requires allowing citizens to vote for “none of the above” when all candidates on a ticket are unacceptable, to dissolve unaccountable special districts, and to mandate bankruptcy filing by fiscally irresponsible localities.

Click here to read “A New Charter for American Cities: 10 Rights to Restrain Government and Protect Freedom“ or have a copy mailed to you by calling (602) 462-5000.

About the author: Nick Dranias holds the Goldwater Institute Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan chair for constitutional government and is the director of the Institute’s Dorothy D. and Joseph A. Moller Center for Constitutional Government.

The Goldwater Institute is a nonprofit public policy research and litigation organization whose work is made possible by the generosity of its supporters.

When revenues aren’t coming in you have to cut expenses. Sound pretty basic right? Well according to a recent editorial in the Tucson Citizen  “City leaders should contemplate other creative alternatives as well to save money without eliminating jobs.”  In other words, instead of cutting expenses let’s look at raising income – click HERE for tax increases you should start planning for.

A look at lay offs around the state:

Oro Valley Cutting Jobs To Balance Budget – HERE

Phoenixis expected to lay off 1,200 people next month, Fischbach said. And Tempe, Chandler, Mesa, Bullhead City and Flagstaff have already been through series of layoffs. 

February 25, 2009, 4:28 p.m.

Tucson Citizen
letters@tucsoncitizen.com

Normally we would not applaud Tucson City Council members for delaying decisive action, but their hesitancy to lay off workers in this economy is commendable.

Yes, the financial forecast is grim and the city budget situation is dire.

Yes, difficult decisions must be made.

And yes, perhaps City Manager Mike Hein’s recommended 30 or so layoffs would result in more city “efficiency,” as he says.

But as we at the Tucson Citizen know all too well, losing a job in this economy is an especially terrible fate.

Every layoff sends ripple effects through the local economy – and those effects hit city government, too.

So the council members are wise to continue their work on other options, such as 12-day furloughs.

City leaders should contemplate other creative alternatives as well to save money without eliminating jobs.

Employees should be offered unpaid, voluntary sabbaticals, with their jobs reserved for them until they return.

Also, most workers undoubtedly would prefer to accept a sizable pay cut on a temporary basis rather than lose their jobs permanently.

Or, some portion of employee salaries could be deferred for a year while the economy recovers (let’s hope).

And if some employees’ jobs in the development arena no longer are needed, as Hein reports, then the city should try to devise a way to transfer those workers to other vacant positions.

In that way, when the construction industry picks up again – and it will – the city will not have to hire and train new employees to perform permitting and other development-related functions.

Councilwoman Karin Uhlich recently told the Citizen, “Obviously I’m concerned about the high-quality staff we have throughout the Planning Department and making sure we don’t lose the benefit of their guidance in any way.”

The federal stimulus bill also “could fill in some of these blanks,” Councilwoman Nina Trasoff recently noted. “It’d be fabulous if it does. The city has done a good job of poising itself with shovel-ready projects if it does.

“I hate to see anybody lose a job.”

So do we. Director Fred Gray’s ideas to reduce services in the Parks & Recreation Department would preserve full-time jobs but eliminate part-time ones.

He would cut the summer swimming season by three weeks, close three pools, reduce adult sports leagues by half and eliminate up to 40 leisure classes.

We urge the council to continue carefully calculating its strategies. If the federal infusion of funds can eliminate the need for layoffs, we hope the money will be used in that regard.

Here’s my prediction – Rental tax -YES, the council will think they are taxing big bad landlords but in reality it’s renters that will pay. Trash Increase – NO Uhlich and Trasoff ran on eliminating the trash fee so don’t expect this political football to go anywhere in an election year. Bed Tax – YES, easy target because it only hits out of towners. It is kind of biting the hand that feeds you. The MTCV is collecting $9m as it is. Any discussion on how they are spending their funds? Bus Fare – YES, it needs to happen. We are way out of line with other communities. We don’t have the political leadership or will to make this tough decision so the RTA will take over Sun Tran and promptly raise fares. Utility Tax – who knows – No telling how this council will go on this one. It hits everyone so the impact on low to middle class families will be noticeable.  The memo forgot to mention an Ad Tax – look for that one coming soon. Low Income Housing Trust Fund – watch this one closely. It’s a classic take from the rich and give to the poor. All it will do is increase the prices of housing and drive investors out of city limits. We’ll probably see increases in sign permit renewals, building permits etc. Development Services will need to recoup as much as they can.  Water Fees - YES – we went up 8.9% last year, expect another 10% or so this year. Sewer Fees - YES. Anyone notice your TEP bills have a new tiered pricing structure. Higher users pay more – keep an eye on that on because it can be a big escalator. Wonder who this will hit the hardest?  What you are witnessing is nickle and diming an entire class of people and business right out of a community.

We are starting to hear of lay offs finally today, with over 5600 employees at the City cutting 12 here or 30 there is a drop in the bucket.  – fromt the Star – HERE.

City ponders new taxes, boost in fees to balance budget

February 23, 2009, 6:26 p.m.

CARLI BROSSEAU
Tucson Citizen

Higher parks and recreation fees, higher bus fares, taxes on rental properties and gem show vendors buying temporary licenses are among the “revenue enhancements” Tucson officials have proposed in a report sent to the city manager Feb. 4.

The report, obtained by the Tucson Citizen through a public records request, examined ways the city can increase its tax and fee collections to cover its costs. It suggested that most fees be hitched to an index or cost-recovery formula to avoid financial handwringing whenever there is an economic downturn.

“Without intermittent fee increases, or a mechanism for incremental increases, the city will continue to find itself in situations during economic downturns when it is forced to cut entire services and programs,” the report states.

The report was written by the city’s Revenue Enhancement Team, which consists of staffers from the finance, transportation, legal and internal auditing departments.

The panel suggests returning to the city’s 1996 user-fee policy, which sets a percentage of the cost of a service that must be paid by the fee.

Seemingly small changes could mean significant revenue for the city, which is looking to save another $30 million next fiscal year (which starts July 1) to match expected revenues. Any new or reinstated taxes would likely take effect in July.

The City Council is scheduled to discuss City Manager Mike Hein’s proposals for closing the $30 million gap at its meeting Tuesday. They include $5 million in unspecified revenue enhancements.

The options on the table and the amounts they are expected to raise annually are:

•A 2 percent tax on residential rental real estate – $12 million.

• Raising residential trash and recycling fees by 4 percent – $986,000.

• A 25 percent increase in most bus fares – $1.8 million, with economy and express fares exempted. The basic fare would go from $1 to $1.25.

• Doubling the bed tax levied on hotels to $2 a night – $1.8 million.

• Utility tax increases on water, power and cable – $5 million

Officials also recommended that advertising, health spa memberships and tanning salons be taxed, that residential rental property owners be licensed and that builders be prevented from taking a cost-of-land deduction on their taxes.

City golf courses may also raise fees due to a $1.1 million bill they left the city’s general operating budget for the 2008 fiscal year, which ended June 30.

Twice in the past dozen years the City Council considered a proposal put together by a “revenue enhancement team.” Of the 10 suggestions made in 1997 and 2000, one was implemented: the much debated trash collection fee.

Water Water Everywhere. . .

Okay, I am just getting up to speed on the water debacle. Let’s see if I got this straight:

1. Tucson Water tells everyone to conserve water, but now that we do, they find that this hamstrings them financially. So a 6% dip in water hookups and usage equals 15.4 million in lost revenues. The immediate answer would be to raise rates as a reward for conservation.

2. Was there never a plan for what would happen should water use decline? Were the commercials and hand wringing just a form of nagging that was never meant to be effective? Surely somebody somewhere had a plan for what might happen should water use actually fall, right?

3. Apparently not, if this gentleman is symbolic of the brain trust managing water in Tucson:

“Water is too cheap here,” said the planning commissioner, Sean Sullivan, an environmentalist who also sits on a commission overseeing a regional water study. “If you’re paying $20 to $30 a month on your water bill, you’re not looking to save water.”

OK brianiac, apparently the prices ARE enough to get people to conserve. I’m sure rewarding them with raising rates will make them proud of their efforts. I wonder what Mr. Sullivan’s paycheck totals per month. If we are looking to cut expenses. . .

4. So in order to make everything right, we are going to sell a good portion of our allotment of water from CAP.

To help bridge a $6.5 million budget hole for Tucson Water this fiscal year, the City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to sell more than one-third of its Central Arizona Project water share to pay it off.

The council also approved Tucson Water’s plan to sell 50,000 acre-feet of CAP water — enough to serve up to 150,000 households for a year — to the Arizona Water Banking Authority for next fiscal year as well. The fiscal year begins on July 1.

Tucson’s allocation of CAP water — which comes from the Colorado River — is just over 144,000 acre-feet a year. An acre-foot is about 324,000 gallons.

5. So we conserved enough water that we could sell it back and still probably not break even. Great! People in San Diego and Phoenix can water their lawns, and it will only cost us each a few extra dollars a month. Can’t go wrong with that deal.

The next time Traceoff and Uhlich start their sustainability riff, someone needs to introduce them to the business end of a water ballon.

Excuse me while I wash my car.

After Killing the Golden Goose, How many City and County Employees will be Laid Off?

By Carl Schroeder, PAC Chair, Kadon Land Company

Personally, I never enjoy hearing the words “I told you so. ” When I hear that, it means I was wrong. So I won’t tell you, “I told you so,” even though I just did.

The home building industry drives the economy on a local level. However, home building is hurting. We won’t meet our projected new home permits for 2007 that was anticipated to be about half the permits pulled in 2005, our peak year.

If you factor in a resale market with over 10,000 houses for sale, (with over 3,000 of those units unoccupied), throw in an unknown number of foreclosures, you have a problem that trickles down to just about every business, government entity and resident in our community.

We need to earn money before dollars can be spent and trickle down in the local economy.

Pima County , the City of Tucson, and the towns of Marana, Oro Valley and Sahuarita tax new home buyers in their respective communities through Impact Fees.

Seen by elected officials as an easy source of funding, they waste no time during a good market. Local legislation added tens of thousands of dollars onto the sale price of a new home while creating the impression they were tough on home builders and land developers.

All along, it is the new home buyer who ultimately pays those fees.

The new home buyer doesn’t even get a piece of paper in exchange for paying Impact Fees. Although we don’t see results (i.e. new infrastructure built) for five, 10, or even 20 years out, the toll on the economy is now.

Why can’t Pima County and every municipality within its borders recognize when it’s time to offer concessions to the industry that pays a huge portion of their bills and funds their operations?

They have successfully crafted an image that those associated with the home building industry are “the problem” in our community. I contend that they have lost sight of our overall and beneficial contributions to the community, economy and local charities. They may still, to this day, be having a difficult time understanding the connection.

Now that their cash flow has been cut, will they cut off their own noses to spite their public “face?” Or, will they offer some temporary, reasonable concessions before reaching crisis layoffs?

Let’s see how they tighten their own belts as building permits and related fees continue to fall.

Did I forget to mention they still want to talk about affordable housing?

Here is a great letter to the editor from Inside Tucson Business. There are so many strong voices in our community that are waiting in the wings to be heard.

This blog was created as a way to let some of those voices be heard.  The traditional media has strong voices as well, the challenge is finding those messages in a crowded world is sometimes difficult. The goal of this blog is to bring those voices front and center.

 

Published on Friday, August 08, 2008

TO: The Editor
FROM: M. L. Ebert
RE: Steve Emerine’s column “Politicians’ failure to act may have already doomed Tucson’s future,” July 28 issue

Steve Emerine again is “spot on” regarding our city government. I remember seeing a computer-generated presentation of the makeup of Tucson’s demographics including political affiliation many years ago. I said then (1980s) that this town did not have the stomach for the diversity an annexation of those folks living north of River Road would give to our community.

We truly are destined to be guided into the future by people with little understanding or appreciation for free enterprise or the importance of protecting property rights.

A good beginning would be to declare city council positions full-time and to pay them enough to attract caring citizens from the private sector. Secondly, move away from partisan elections and look to actual leadership credentials, instead of party affiliations, of individuals running for office.

Regarding annexation: We need to stop the annexation of land; that is gutless. This city needs people to join the municipal government process. Most living in the outlying areas are affected by decisions made by our city council yet have no voice. To entice them, we may have to give them their own seats on the council. If we want to stop the anti-business spirit of this city government and stop the decay, we need to do all of the above.

If you remember back a few quarters, ASBA/O’Neil ranked Tucson the worst in Arizona for it’s friendliness towards business. Well they are at it again but this time our local media missed it. Why you ask did they fail to catch the survey? Because is was actually GOOD news for a change.

Tempe-based O’Neil Associations/ASBA Economic Indicators Monitor showed 25 percent of poll participants ranked Tempe as having the best quality of life, followed by Tucson (21 percent), Prescott (21 percent) and Phoenix (8 percent).

The survey, which has a six point margin of error, also said 29 percent of respondents said Tempe had the best downtown, followed by Phoenix (23 percent) and Scottsdale ( 21 percent) and Prescott (15 percent).

AZ Star ran a story on this year’s Gem Show being off due to economic challenges nationally and internationally.  Decent story read it – HERE.  A couple local hotels were asked about bookings this year compared to last and the consensus is we are down 25%. No doubt challenges this year are beyond our immediate control. The main thing we can do from an economic development point of view is DIVERSIFY our tourism and industrial base.

Once again the online comments are where the real stories develop. Here’s a great set of comments that are worth a second look;

Tucson’s government has never cared to develop an economy based on industry. I remember when the City Council ran Firestone out of town. So, we go through this every time there is a downturn in the economy.

Companies don’t want to come here – there isn’t a skilled workforce. Those same companies can’t get their managers to move here because the schools are mediocre – at best.

But, you can’t tell the City Council, Board of Supervisors, City Manager anything. They don’t care – they have their own vision of what they want to accomplish and never mind the city.

Instead, we hear that the Tourism Board is busy advertising in Mexico. Wonderful, they can spend some of their drug money at our hotels and restaurants.

We’ve never had a leader to organize the citizens to put a stop to the mismanagement of the city.

A response to the above comment;

15 years ago my employer announced they were moving our jobs to Albuquerque because they were getting tax incentives to do so. We knew it would be only a matter of time before they moved other jobs to other cities for the same reasons.

Stupid us, we figured that the Tucson Ecomonic council might want to know and DO SOMETHING like offer the same tax incentives to keep those well paying jobs here. So we called them up and filled them in. The reply: “Well it’s their company, they can do whatever they want” and hung up on us.

So after 15 years I’ve only managed to make 50% of the wages I used to make thanks to the low paying jobs the Tucson Economic Council has brought in. And sure enough my old employer moved almost all other jobs out of Tucson. They only have a small workforce here now.

Another short and to the point comment;

Less tax revenue from tourism=higher property taxes for residents. Fewer jobs means more people on welfare. Fewer people=lower real estate values.

Councilman Steve Leal announced that he will not be seeking another term of office.  An open seat on City council will surely make for fun blogging in 09′.  Will the business community field a candidate? Will the discussion change from plastic bags, rain water harvesting and Kidco/Jobpath to, I don’t know, IMPORTANT STUFF?

From an earlier blog post regarding Leal:

This story goes right up there with Leal locking himself in Pima County jail over night.

This is better than Barney Fife and an episode of The Andy Griffith Show. 

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube Direkt

Some of the AZ Star comments worth a look:

8. Comment by Max M. (20YearResident) — December 22,2008 @ 1:17PM

Ratings:   -9 +22

 Steve Leal had all the makings to be a great city councilman.However, he chose to pander those qualities away and as the writer above said became an empty suit.Mr. Leal when you try to stand for all things your message is that you stand for nothing.The rest of your city council will follow suit as the public sentiment to transparent crooks is become worn and frayed.

Perhaps if you had taken your actual constituents to heart rather than businesses money to pocket you would’ve become someone great in this town.

Yet, I am sure you have built love with Jim Click and friends and perhpas one of them can find you a job selling cars or insurance.

But history will only look at you as another crook in a city full of crooks and you will be soon forgotten.

Thank God.

Merry Christmas Tucson.

 

Report this comment

 

LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) – They may seem like paradise to those trying to escape bitter cold, but warm-weather cities can make for a pretty lousy climate for business, at least according to a MarketWatch survey.

One reason is the bursting of the real-estate bubble. The linchpin for much of the nation’s current economic turmoil took a toll on sunny regions where speculators invaded the market and kept flipping properties.

That was especially true in the twin cities of Tampa-St. Petersburg, the only new entry to the bottom 10 list this year. Area economists now say that 2009 will be a “lost year” economically because of it.

“You can just write it off right now,” said Sean Snaith, director of the Institute for Economic Competitiveness at the University of Central Florida. In fact, Miami was close to making the bottom 10 this year for many of the same reasons.

In many ways, however, the inherent problems confronting the rest of the bottom 10 remain until the regions find ways to pull themselves up – cold regions that relied heavily on industry and have yet to adapt to new economic realities.

Starting with the worst, the bottom 10 this year are:

 

50. New Orleans – 62 points: The Big Easy had an even rougher year than last, as the region still struggles to recover from the effects of Hurricane Katrina. But with only two Fortune 1000 companies, no Forbes private companies, one S&P company and three Russell firms, the region was crippled from the start.

New Orleans would have improved its odds had mining concern Freeport McMoRan

FCX, , ) not left for the Phoenix area.

The figures will only get worse for small business when new data is released next year, since the census bureau’s data only covers up to 2005. A large portion of the small-business community was devastated when Katrina struck in September of that year.

While many residents still are not living within the Orleans Parish, they have crowded into other nearby parishes, making the metro region close in population to what it was prior to Katrina.

 

49. Buffalo – 80 points: This upstate New York region does suffer from the ill effects of cold weather, and the fact that many of its mainstay heavy industries fell by the wayside.

Buffalo tumbled by 46 total points and thus fell two places in the rankings. It nearly beat out New Orleans for the bottom spot as well.

Buffalo’s rankings in many of the business metrics stayed consistent, but much of its slide was due primarily to a statistical anomaly last year. It ranked high in job growth as it managed – up to that point in the decade – to add a small number of jobs despite losing population.

This year, however, that job growth figure turned negative and Buffalo slid to the bottom 10 in that category.

 

48. Tucson – 111 points: This southern Arizona city is the smallest of the 50 metro areas surveyed, but some there think it’s getting a raw deal.

Sure, there are virtually no businesses that locate there – Freeport McMoRan is a prime example of a company that chose Phoenix instead when it moved from New Orleans. The city has no public or private firms on the Fortune, Forbes or S&P lists.

It lost two of its Russell 2000 companies in the last year, helping it to drop nine points in its overall score. Further, it ranked second-worst in the small-business category.

But Tucson ranked in the top 10 in the jobless category, and in the top third in population growth, all of which helped it to remain in the same ranking as last year.

A sizable military and aerospace presence has helped the region prosper along with tourism, and kept its jobless rate low. But it could face trouble should either of those two industries stumble, says Marshall J. Vest, economist at the University of Arizona’s Eller College of Management.

“That’s what drives the Tucson economy,” he said. “It’s not very well diversified.”

The region’s population has swelled in recent years as retirees continue to gather there. And year-round living is becoming more attractive as Tucson’s climate is somewhat more moderate than Phoenix’s. Its higher elevation keeps the city about 5-10 degrees cooler.

That hasn’t helped, however, when it comes to attracting new companies, Vest says.

“If a company is looking to expand in Arizona, they’re going to look at Phoenix first,” he said.