More Opposition to Public Safety First Initiative: Goldwater Institute Says Prop 200 “Won’t Put Public Safety First, It Will Just Bloat City Government”

1. Ya that’s all Tucson needs is more bloated polititians…….Cut off all public services to illegals and see how much cash is saved……….

2. Where’s the link to the full piece? Disingenuous at best.

3. It’s my understanding that these lines are taken out of context from a larger op-ed piece that hasn’t been published yet, and the Goldwater Institute does not take stances on local election propositions. This is a blatant distortion and misrepresentation. The Goldwater Institute says nothing about Prop 200, and the larger op-ed changes the context of those two lines.

4. So if this source says it will be $63 million, where does the 300 million dollar figure come from by Pima County Democratic Party Chair Jeff Rogers that he posted on their website?

   Also I went to Goldwater’s website and could not find any official stance on Prop 200. I even looked up Nick Dranias and Public Safety. I could not find this statement.

   Where did Nick Dranias say this about Prop 200? Is this the official stance of the Goldwater Institute or just certain members against the proposition?

   Jim, I understand your completely biased against Prop 200, especially with the interviews and blogs with the biased assertions that crime is going down (see my response to your blog on crime rate statistics). Personally, I feel your bias on this issue, blinds you about the real situation our police officers deal with in Tucson. However, you need to actually expand on this small talking point of the Goldwater Institute not supporting Prop 200. Could you answer my question above?

5. Tlee: The larger op-ed does not change the context of those lines. You’ll be able to read it yourself in Monday’s Az Daily Star. I was asked not to run the entire op-ed by Goldwater because they had sent it to the Star first but they said I could excerpt those lines. I’ll post the entire thing here after it runs in the morning daily if Goldwater Institute allows it; otherwise, I’ll happily post a link. You can decide whether the Goldwater Institute stands behind Nick’s assertions re: Prop 200, but they’re the ones who reached out with the op-ed.

   Nate, statistics are not biased. Crime rates are, for the most part, going down. At the same time, the city has hired 80 new police officers over the last four years and I would hope that we would hire even more once it’s financially feasible to do so. My objection–which is mirrored by the Tucson Chamber of Commerce, the Metropolitan Pima Alliance, Don Diamond, Cox Cable, Tucson Electric Power and Arizona Multihousing Association (which are hardly a bunch of libs)–is that mandating staffing levels in the city charter is a bad idea because it puts the city into a financial bind.

   My numbers about the cost of Prop 200 are from the city’s Independent Audit Commission’s report.

6. I do not remember saying the statistics are biased, just you are presenting them in a bias way. This was basically in response to your Police Stats” blog.

   quote:
   “I suggest anyone that reads this to look more into the count and not the rate of crime in Tucson. Last year there was 68 homicides, 246 sexual assaults, 1,451 robberies, 2,490 agg assaults, 5157 burglaries, 19454 larcenies, 5808 motor vehicle thefts, 318 arsons, 10562 criminal damage, and 6117 narcotics cases. Over all crime count for 2008 was 102268 crimes where TPD had to show up. 280 crimes a day on average happen in Tucson. That is around 11 crimes an hour TPD has to respond. Also you have to take into consideration some days there are more crimes occurring than the average and some days less. Many of these crimes need more than one officer to assist.

   If you take into the count and not the crime rate per 100,000 people, it shows more peaks and valleys. Some years the count was more in some areas and less in others. It does not show a steady decline like Mr. Nintz is suggesting. Mr. Nintz is trying to show the statistics to show there is no need for Prop 200. However, if you look at individual crime counts there is no decline, and there is a steady rise and fall on certain crimes depending on the year. Crimes such as homicides, robberies, arsons, criminal damage, and narcotics have went UP since 1995. Other crimes have stayed with in a close margin.

   Also since it says on the TPD website, that this excludes crimes that were responded by UofA, TAA, DM, PIMA, and other police agencies. I wonder if the website is counting all the times where TPD came to assist another agency. This article does not include all the traffic incidents (tickets, accidents, and DUIs) where TPD was involved.

   I suggest people need to look deeper in the problem with the manning with our Police Department than just one graph. This article is not giving the whole story. Mr. Nintz does give the source and suggests people look at them. However, sadly most people will just look at the graph above and take this article at face value.”end qoute

   80 officers in the past four years barely covers (if at all) the officers that retire, quit, or get fired per year. This is not a liberal and conservative issue, so I really do not care which groups are for it and against it. Any organization that comes out against or for a issue normally does not publicize the real reason for this stance.

   The Goldwater Institute has not took a official stance on Prop 200 and your title “Goldwater Institute Says Prop 200 “Won’t Put Public Safety First, It Will Just Bloat City Government” is very misleading. The Institute is not saying anything, you are posting a excerpt from a opinion piece by a member of the institute. These words are his stance not the Goldwater Institute. I know work for a pretty liberal leaning news media, does everything you say in your opinion pieces reflect the official opinion the Tucson Weekly? Does everything Keith Oberman, Rachael Maddow, Bill O’reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glen Beck reflect the official opinion of the network? I hope you see the difference. Your title should have said “Nick Dranias from the Goldwater Institute speaks out against Prop 200” but that would have not sounded as big of a issue.

7. Bottom line: Any crime is too much crime. If Tucson’s crime counts or crime rates were half of what they are, it would still be too much crime. Twice the number of cops, of course, will not cut the counts or rates in half. Smarter crime prevention is our best hope.

   Every year, Tucson has a record high number of people living within its boundaries. Growing community – more people at risk of being a crime victim. Crimes per 100,000 persons (or similar rates) account for this growth.

   Sexual assault, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny and violent crime counts and especially rates are down since 1995.

   You are safer now in Tucson than you were 14 years ago.

8. However, more officers will help the police deal with the increasing crime counts and make our officers safer. They would have more manning for back up to deal with the increased crime counts. More manning would lower wait times on calls and make the community safer. Homicides, robberies, arsons, criminal damage, and narcotics have went UP since 1995 and police have to deal with responding to an increasing amount of calls with less officers.

   Yes, maybe statistically I might be safer since more people live in Tucson, which lowers the crime rate per thousand people. However, this does not help the fact our police have to deal with the increased crime counts and the ups and down of those crime cycles. The crime count of all crimes since 1995, has went up and down. Our police are undermanned for this reality.

   I would like to see the statistics for crime rate for each ward. That information would be better than a general per 100,000 crime rate graph.

   So what crime prevention ideas do you have?

9. Move

10. I did not write this and yes it if from organization that supports Prop 200. However, people love to bring up how the Tucson Chamber of Commerce, Pima Alliance, and Cox Cable is against 200. I wanted to bring other view into the discussion. Jim, do you have a answer to what Mrs. Lisa Suarez addresses?

    The only ones being handcuffed by Proposition 200 are the bad guys.

    What began as a community-spirited effort by the business community to make Tucson a safer, better place to live has now been turned into a bitter and acrimonious battle full of deception, “Overzealous” remarks by city staff and ugly character assassination. Comparing Police Officer Larry Lopez to 1950s U.S. Senator Eugene McCarthy was more than mean-spirited; it was a shameful, low blow to a man who risks his life every day to protect the citizens of our city.

    So is this how we will go to the polling booth? Twisted by scare tactics including starving zoo animals, sky-high taxes and eviscerated social service programs? We hope not. We know this to be true: not a single council member has said they would vote to cut social service programs, close the zoo or raise your taxes. Be not afraid.

    Proponents of Proposition 200 have been blasted because we haven’t identified a funding source for the Sustainability Plan already adopted by the city. We considered and then rejected the idea of including a funding source for two reasons: there is case law which indicates that any such directive would be unconstitutional and City Attorney Rankin agreed with our assessment.

    The City’s Independent Audit and Oversight Review Committee report shows that funding the Sustainability Plan will cost just over $2 million dollars next year and will ramp up over the remaining four years. So where is the money going to come from? That answer can only come from our City Council. They have said our only options are huge tax increases or devastating cuts. We disagree. There are many other options. Our City Manager has refused to even discuss the possibility of new revenues which will come from our recovering economy. The City’s revenue stream dropped by more than $75 million in the last two years. The state of Arizona just released it’s “consensus revenue projections” (Joint Legislative Budget Committee report dated 22 OCT 09) through Fiscal Year 2013. Guess what? The State is demonstrating that our City can reasonably expect to receive $2 trillion dollars in revenues between now and then. More than enough to even cover Letcher’s vodka budget for a month.

    For the sake of argument, let’s say that the City Manager is correct … no new revenues for the next five years. Let’s also assume that the politicians can’t find four votes to “eviscerate city services” or to increase your taxes by any amount … what then? Well, there are even more choices our City Council can make but many of them revolve around rescinding political favors and changing their priorities. For example, the city can increase revenues by being more business friendly. Another example: the city could choose to spend the $64 million dollars they currently use to subsidize their pet programs on Proposition 200 and pay for it two times over. Which Is more important to you: subsidizing a bus rider .50¢ a ride or making sure an ambulance gets to your home in time to do any good?

    Opponents of Proposition 200 have recently taken up two new themes: There is no “crime problem” in Tucson and, they refuse to discuss the importance of increasing the response times of our ambulances and fire trucks. They cite the recent decrease in crime and say that Proposition 200 isn’t needed. They don’t tell you that the FBI says that Tucson is one of only two cities in the country who willfully refuse to properly report their crime statistics. They also don’t tell you that 9 out of 10 crimes go unpunished … that’s right, 90% of Tucson’s criminals get away with their crimes – scott free. Those leading the charge to defeat Prop 200 are advocating for a “crime quota” in our community. Essentially they are saying that we should just accept the 217 rapes, 3,868 acts of Domestic Violence and 4,973 burglaries that went unsolved last year. 28 murderers walking our streets – No problem! They support allowing those bad guys get ting away with their crimes because paying for something else is more important.

    Over 480,000 emergency 9-1-1 calls were made last year. Thats just slightly less than one call per resident (and more than one call per household). Thousands of those calls were for Advanced Life Support incidents, each of which demand extremely fast and consistent response times to insure that heart attacks, accident victims, strokes, drownings, allergic reactions, etc., are treated immediately. The result of a slower response time is obvious. Prop 200 increases response times by 66%, something that you will be praying for when it comes your turn to make that 9-1-1 call.

    By now you should have a good feel for what the City Council and the “No” committee are about – It’s nothing less than the status quo for them. No hope. No change. Just preserve their power. Don’t you dare try to tell them what your priorities are. Trust them – they are the government and they are here to help you.

    Crime, fires, heart attacks and car accidents know no political parties. Please set politics aside and think for a moment about your family. Ask yourself — if you have an emergency and need to call 9-1-1 how fast is fast enough? Is a wait time of nineteen minutes acceptable for a domestic violence call? Go to http://www.keeptucsonsafe.com and listen to what is really going on in our community.

    Our First Responders have made a 9-1-1 call to you. All you have to do is vote Yes on Proposition 200.

    Lisa Suarez
    President,
    Tucson Association of REALTORS®

11. Nate: It’s too late for me to start critiquing this piece right now, but I do look forward to it. I will say this, though: It’s interesting that she would complain about character assassination and then make some weird reference to the city more than enough money “to even cover (City Manager Mike) Letcher’s vodka budget for a month.” I assume that’s a poke at FORMER city manager Mike Hein’s recent bust on DUI charges? Character assassination is even worse when you hit the wrong target.

12. Don’t Handcuff Tucson finally removed Goldwater from their list of those opposed to Prop 200 after repeated calls from the Institute. Will you issue a correction?

13. What am I supposed to correct? I accurately quoted a staff member of the Goldwater Institute whose op-ed was sent to me by a press staffer at the Goldwater Institute who said he was an ideal person to interview for the debate over Prop 200.

14. BTW, Goldwater’s daily dispatch carries the headline: “Proposition carries huge expansion of Tucson’s payroll” and reprints Nick Dranias’ op-ed from this morning.

    http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/…

    So let’s stop suggesting that Nick somehow went rogue and produced this op-ed that’s extremely critical of Prop 200 without any backing from the Goldwater Institute. Perhaps a better focus would be on the content of his argument? And while you’re at it, why don’t you counter what Kevin McCarthy from the Arizona Tax Research Association said in today’s Star about how passing Prop 200 is a lousy idea?

15. Drew, Nate1980:

    Mr. Dranias uses his Goldwater Institute email for replies to the op-ed, just like his op-ed from some months ago in favor of Mr. Goodman, a Prop 200 deep pocket.

    No where in the piece does Mr. Dranias claim the op-ed is his opinion alone.

    The piece is published in its entirety on the conservative blog Sonoran Alliance as being from the Goldwater Institute, just like multiple postings from Mr. Dranias on that site.

    The op-ed is today’s “daily email” from the Goldwater Institute and is available to view at the website.

    So guys, got any fabricated statistics for us to review?

16. Long ago, in the olden days, Realtors sold houses. Simple as that…

17. Well, Red Star, the Realtors have this great deal and it will barely cost you anything at all for the first few years…

18. Oh.

    kinda like cars, maybe…

19. Why don’t you take it from the horse’s mouth…

    http://www.1041thetruth.com/Portals/57/pod…

    So what did we learn today?

    1. The Goldwater has asked anti-Prop 200 groups to take down any reference the Goldwater Institute took a stand against Prop 200.

    2. Nick is against the idea of Prop 200 because he feels throwing money at a problem and hiring more police officers will not help the issue.

    I never said Nick went rogue, and just brought up that Nintz’s title of this blog is a lie. He should have put a member of the GWI is against the proposition, not the entire group. This is proven since the Institute ask “Don’t Handcuff Tucson” to take down that reference.

    So Kenny, do you have any other smart a$$ comments?

20. In 2008, the City of Vallejo, California declared bankruptcy. What does this have to do with Tucson and Proposition 200?

    Vallejo was pushed over the brink as the economy tanked and the downturn in the housing market produced a large drop in city revenues. At the same time Vallejo’s public safety expenses grew to 75% of the general fund and were largely locked in via collective bargaining agreements. There simply was not enough revenue to cover the mandated obligations.

    “But the largest share of the blame in Vallejo has centered on public-safety salaries and benefits, which make up about 75 percent of the city’s general fund budget. (Governing.com article)“

    For Vallejo, the tipping point was 75% of general fund revenues obligated to public safety. Where is Tucson and what will be Tucson’s tipping point? (Please note that in no way do I expect Tucson to be the next Vallejo. However, we need a financial tachometer so we know when we are getting close to the redline)

    Public safety now represents 65% of Tucson’s general fund (police, fire, courts, public defender, City Attorney). If Proposition 200 were to pass, most of these costs would be mandated and grow over the next few years. In addition to public safety, are there any other expenses that the City is required to make each year? – Oh yes there are; quite a few!

    Let’s have some ‘fun’ now and dive into the detail of the various financial reports from the city (make sure you have some extra strength Tylenol because these will definitely give you a migraine). What you find is that over 90% of general fund revenue would be mandated, pledged, or contractually obligated if Prop 200 passes. And this is before you fill a pothole, turn on the lights at City Hall, or mow the grass at Udall Park. …If 90% of your revenue is already spoken for this leaves very little money for other services…I think this is a problem…

    Here are some other contractual obligations you find in the financial reports:

    $400 million of outstanding General Obligation bonds and Certificates of Participation for Governmental Activities. Bond holders are kinda funny in that they expect the City to make annual debt service payments on time. (pg 53, ‘08 CAFR)

    $28 million/year of annual lease obligations. (pg 55, ’08 CAFR)

    $600+ million of underfunded pension and retirement obligations. The City has made promises to employees but has not set aside sufficient money to pay for these. The $600 million has to be paid off over time as these are contractual obligations to employees. (pg 63, ’08 CAFR)

    $40+ million Structurally Imbalanced Budget. The City is running a deficit but has balanced its budget through spending their Rainy Day Fund, borrowing more money, and other one-time windfalls. The City Charter requires a balanced budget. (Budget Revenue Presentation 9/15/09)

    $18 million deficit in the Self Insurance Fund. This has to be paid off before the City loses a big legal claim and has no money to pay for it. (pg 93, ’08 CAFR)

    $22 million shortfall in Unreserved Fund Balance (Rainy Day Fund). This is critical in maintaining our credit rating and needs to be fixed ‘promptly’ according to Fitch (FY 2010 Adopted Budget)

    Those are the easy ones to find, I suspect there are other contractual obligations. It just seems to me that Prop 200 pushes too close to the financial tachometer redline.

    Let me to anticipate some comments from the Yes on Prop 200 folks. Yes, some of these contractual obligations are already in the public safety budgets. I believe they still add up to over 90% of revenue. Yes, I expect City revenues to increase somewhat as we claw our way out of the recession. Even if you factor in better revenues, I can still show you that almost 90% of revenues are spoken for before you even fix the first pothole.

    Allow me to offer some free advice (yes, I know free advice is often worth what you pay for it)

    Elect the people who share your priorities and who will make sound decisions. Do not try to micro-manage them – let them focus on the big priorities. Allow them some financial wiggle-room to navigate the economic cycles. If they do no perform, throw them out. Or, better yet, how about you run for office?

    If your organization receives money from the city and you are not a core service, I suggest you start figuring out how to live without these funds.

    If you receive below-market rent or subsidized services from the city and are not a core service, you may want to adjust your budget to pay fair market value. If you can’t pay market rent, please contact “Two Men and a Truck” to help with your move.

    If you drive in the city, don’t expect the potholes to be filled any time soon. You should get to know your local tire dealer and alignment specialist – you will be seeing more of them. Ask if they have a ‘frequent flyer’ program. Provide them with liberal amounts of donuts so you receive priority service.

    Expect your garbage fee to go up as Environmental Services is carrying a $58 million deficit, even though it is an Enterprise Fund and is supposed to break even every year. (pg 120, ’08 CAFR)

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/23385758

    http://www.governing.com/article/vallejos-…

    http://www.tucsonaz.gov/budget/docs/Budget…

    http://www.tucsonaz.gov/finance/CAFR08.pdf

    Adopted Budget 2010:
    http://www.tucsonaz.gov/budget/

Comments are closed.