Tucson's Vice-Mayor Takes On His 'Malicious,' Anonymous Critic. By Steve Leal TWO WEEKS AGO the Tucson Weekly published a typically malicious article ("Shadow Mayor", May 16) which falsely inferred a collection of inappropriate efforts on my part. The article, according to the accompanying editor's note, was written by "Ed Cuestas." Mr. Cuestas, it turns out, is the pen name of "someone close to the daily operations of the Tucson City Council." In plain language: a political operative. A political operative for whom? We will never know. Could he be an operative for someone who wants an unobstructed path to run for mayor and needs to taint any possible opposition? For The Weekly to grant anonymity to the writer was wrong; it works against us as a community. What we end up with is paranoia and confusion, rather than enlightenment. The result: I became a victim of a political drive-by shooting committed by a coward in a ski mask with a lap-top. This sniper in the shadows says I've "taken over the reins of city government by fiat" from Mayor George Miller. My purpose, claims the writer, is to "determine the agenda of the City Council." According to the writer, I am able to do this because the other Council members don't care enough to "attend the Agenda Committee" meetings. According to the sniper, I am able to take over City Council functions because the Mayor has a "shrinking brain." Not funny. This is a vicious and false depiction of the Mayor operating at less than his full mental capacity. I deeply resent the suggestion I would do anything to harm or usurp Mayor. I consider myself a friend of the Mayor. As the current Vice-mayor, I am responsible for coordinating the placement of items onto the Council's agenda. This position requires me to do more than simply hold open the gate to allow any and all items on the agenda. Often, city staff will try to place items on the agenda without fully briefing or preparing the Mayor and Council. When this has occurred, I have refused to allow these items to appear until all the bases are touched. I'm also reluctant to place items on the agenda when it has become too full. Council members have requested of me to keep agendas shorter. To honor their request I must say no to some of them sometimes. Another issue arises when one Council member has placed an item on an upcoming sub-committee agenda and along comes another Council member who tries to by-pass the process by placing the same item on the council's study session agenda. When this happens I've always refused to place the item on the Council's agenda until it completes the sub-committee process. I consider it to be an ethical breech when one Council person attempts to take over another's issue. Furthermore, whatever decisions I make concerning the agenda are a part of the democratic process of the Council and can be overridden by four votes. Hardly the stuff of dictatorial rule. I am accused by the ski-mask journalist of raiding money slated for Shirley Scott's ward and committing those funds to Freedom Park, which is located in my ward. This is not true. The idea for enhancement funding for parks came about three years ago when the Corbett Neighborhood Association (CNA) worked with former Ward 4 councilman Roger Sedlmayr. I became involved in the Freedom Park issue when I was contacted in January of this year by CNA members in Scott's Ward because the item was buried in the Council's Consent Agenda, which meant there would have been no public discussion. The CNA members felt the city was acting in bad faith by denying them an opportunity to address an issue they'd been working on for years. These are some of the people concerned about the future of Freedom Park, since they live in an area that would benefit from enhancements to the park. I considered their request to be a serious due process issue, and so I asked that the item be pulled from the Consent Agenda to allow for a full and open discussion of the issue. This is not an issue of "raiding" money from another Council ward. The real issues in this case were: • That the city act in good faith and keep its word; and, • That the city not run roughshod over the very neighborhoods who cared enough to campaign for better parks to serve their community. Freedom Park, as a district park that serves three city wards, has been long overdue for up-grading and enhancement. My job is to see the park project move forward and to ensure the legitimate due process needs of the citizenry are not thwarted. Next, "Mr. Cuestas" has me sacking the city's new Neighborhood Reinvestment program. Could the sniper mean I'm trying to kill the program? That would be a tough sell, since I formally proposed a Neighborhood Reinvestment program for the city. The current city program is based on revenues from past annexations. Of the few annexations showing positive revenues, only two generate what can be considered significant dollars. I'm opposed to using annexation revenues as a funding source for Neighborhood Reinvestment. Most annexations work against our neighborhoods. Annexations drain much needed tax dollars to the fringes of the city. That's why I proposed an infill program to aid city neighborhoods. Building within the city limits is another form of neighborhood reinvestment. Two years after infill began to show success, I proposed a Cost of Service Delivery Analysis Study which resulted in the elimination of subsidies for many building construction-related activities. I proposed making all fees for service to be at a level of full cost recovery. The revenues generated from full cost recovery could then be funneled into neighborhood reinvestment. The annual dollars accumulated by eliminating development subsidies would give neighborhood reinvestment a larger and more appropriate budget than the limited funds which come from annexations. This is different than using money generated from annexations, which often promote urban sprawl and come at the expense of neighborhoods. And, yes I am out of step with the current council majority on this issue. But does this make me a power-sucking opportunist? I hope not.

		© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth