Today, September 30, and Monday, October 4, two neighborhood groups will host community forums on Propositions 400 and 401, which will be on the November ballot.

Prop 400 would increase the city’s sales tax to pay for core services (police, fire, parks) (1, 2), and Prop 401 would change the city’s charter (1,2).

The Tucson City Council voted in July to allow both initiatives to be put on the ballot. The sales tax increase would help the city balance its budget, but it has been a contentious issue on the City Council, with Councilman Steve Kozachik offering alternative Plans C and D to City Manager Mike Letcher’s Plans A (Prop 400) or Plan B (15% across the board cuts).

Prop 401, although more esoteric, also has been very contentious. Prop 401 is the baby of the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC); this big business group claims that the City Charter should be changed because city government doesn’t run efficiently* and because it’s old. The grassroots opposition to Prop 401 takes issue with the huge Mayor and Council pay increases that are included. (I am against Prop 401 because it increases the power of the city’s bureaucracy [particularly the unelected city manager] and, therefore, makes government less accountable.)

Want to learn more about these initiatives, ask questions, or voice your opinion? Check out one of these forums. The last Props 400-401 forum, hosted by Ward 6, was a standing-room-only event (above). (Kozachik called the event “lively;” other attendees described it as wild political theater.)

Southside
Tonight, the Southside Neighborhood Association Presidential Partnership (SNAPP) will host a community forum on both Props 400 and 401 from 6-8 p.m. The event will be at the El Pueblo Activity Center Multi Purpose Room, 101 W. Irvington Road. The entrance to the parking lot is south of Irvington Road on Nogales Highway.

University area
On October 4, the Feldman Neighborhood Association will host a community forum on only Prop 401, beginning at 6:30 p.m. The event will be at the chapel of St. Luke’s Home at Lee and N. First Ave.

* Regarding the efficiency of city government: well, anyone who has been following the downtown hotel hell (1, 2, 3, 4) or the other Rio Nuevo real estate deals could make a case for inefficiency. But, personally, I don’t think bigger bureaucracy is going to fix it. I believe we need strong leadership. Prop 401 should have been broken up, which would have allowed people to vote for the parts they favor.

Last week, the national Republican Party unveiled their Pledge to America. If you watched the brilliant Jon Stewart piece on this, you know that the much-ballyhoo’d Pledge is the Same Old Sh– from the Grand Old Party (AKA, the Party of No Ideas): tax cuts for the rich (AKA, trickle down economics); elimination of “Obamacare” (AKA, pay-your-own-way health savings accounts); traditional values (AKA, we hope everyone has forgotten those gay sex scandals); control spending (AKA, we hope everyone has forgotten our deficit-spending binge under Bush II); reduce government (AKA, we hope everyone has forgotten those earmarks and bail-outs we voted for); support the troupes; stand by our friends; tort reform; yada, yada, yada.

There was much comparison in the media of the Pledge to America and the Contract with America, Newt Gingrich’s document from the early 1990s when the Republicans took control of Congress. As Stewart so aptly pointed out, the Pledge to America is “not even a sequel [to the Contract with America], it’s a shot-by-shot remake.” He proceed to show clips of long-term Congressional Republicans like House Minority Leader John Boehner (above, courtesy of NPR) spouting the same ideas in 1994 – 2004 as they outlined last week in the Pledge.

The grand finale was Boehner 2010 side-by-side with Boehner of the past saying exactly the same words with the same emphasis and pacing. (How’s that for living up to your stereotype of the Party of No Ideas?)

Fast forward one week…

Pundits are now analyzing and commenting on the content of the Pledge to America, and more data are being released about the dismal state of the economy. (“Drat, we thought we could get by with soundbites!” Boehner is overheard saying in Southern Ohio tanning spa.)

- The Economic Policy Institute released a report that says the Republicans’ job creation plan (AKA, give more money to the rich) would result in the loss of 1.1 million jobs. (I guess they are the only ones who have not heard that giving money to the rich is the least effective way to stimulate the economy and jobs and that trickle down economics doesn’t work.)

- The 2010 Census data revealed that the gap between rich and poor is widening (duh), and that poverty has increased in most states. (So, why have Republicans vote against extension of unemployment repeatedly? Why are they holding extension of the middle class tax cuts hostage? Why did they try to block Obama’s jobs bill? Why do they want to eliminate the public safety nets of healthcare reform and Social Security? Why? Because all of these things are unfriendly to the corportists. They represent the multinational corporations of America– not the people.)

- Robert Reich said on NPR that the middle class can’t go any deeper into debt and can’t work longer hours. They’re doing everything they can to survive.

And besides all of this, their plan just doesn’t add up. They want to repeal healthcare reform and make all of the Bush II’s tax cuts (especially those for the ultra rich) permanent PLUS cut government and cut the deficit.

George Bush I called trickle down economics “voodoo economics” when he ran against Ronald Reagan for president. What the Republicans are proposing with the Pledge to America is “voodoo math”. Healthcare reform and sunsetting Bush II’s tax cuts on the richest Americans save us BILLIONS of dollars. If Congressional Republicans are allowed to accomplish these two goals, the US economy will be hurt even more. Also, decreasing the size of government means eliminating government jobs. On the NPR’s Diane Rehm Show, one commentator said that even if the Republicans take government spending back to Reagan era levels + cut more, we would still be no where near a balanced budget.

The bottom line is: the Pledge to American is a hoax. Don’t buy the lie.

The Arizona Daily Star reported today that CD8 Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords chose to stand with the middle class and fiscally responsible– rather than caving in and going along with those who want to continue the budget-busting Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans.

Forty-seven House Democrats sent a letter to President Obama saying that they would support extension ofall of the Bush era tax cuts.

Obama has been promoting keeping the Bush tax cuts for people who make less than $250,000 but allowing the cuts to expire for the richest Americans.

Although the Republicans have been pushing the IDEA of fiscal responsibility (in order to win over the Tea Bagger vote), they also have been pushing hard to make all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, which add BILLIONS to the deficit.

This fall Republicans have been willing to let all of the tax cuts expire– even cuts for the middle class– if they can’t get continued give-aways for their rich cronies. When will they give up on trickle down economics?

I am seriously disappointed that these DINOs wrote a letter of support for this fiscally irresponsible Republican plan, but I am proud of Giffords for not caving. Go, Gabby.

Robert Reich is one of my heroes. He gets it (unlike the delusional Tea Partiers who also were on National Public Radio [NPR] this morning, but more on those jokers later).

Here is a quote from his interview today on NPR. (Check out the link for the whole interview.)

“[The middle class] can’t go deeper and deeper into debt. They can’t work longer hours. They’ve exhausted all of their coping mechanisms,” he says. “And people at the top are taking home so much that they are almost inevitably going to speculate in stocks or commodities or whatever the speculative vehicles are going to be. … Unless we understand the relationship between the extraordinary concentration of income and wealth we have this in country and the failure of the economy to rebound, we are going to be destined for many, many years of high unemployment, anemic job recoveries and then periods of booms and busts that may even dwarf what we just had.”

The debate about whether or not the City of Tucson should go hundreds of millions of dollars into debt to build a mega-hotel downtown crescendo’d yesterday during a 2-hour Executive Session of the Mayor and Council.

You’ll remember that at last week’s City Council meeting, Councilman Steve Kozachik couldn’t get a second on a motion that began with the question: “What is the City of Tucson’s legal obligation to the design, development and building of the Convention Center Hotel?” and ended with a formal motion that would tell the Rio Nuevo Multipurpose Facilities District Board (RN) that the city would “not backstop or issue any bonds to secure the completion of the Tucson Convention Center Hotel, Parking Garage and Convention Center Expansion” and the city would “not approve any additional expenditures for the Convention Center Projects until RN has negotiated an acceptable GMP [guaranteed maximum price] and funding plan for the project.”

Later in the week, the RN Board tossed that hot potato back at the City Council.

At yesterday’s City Council meeting, the Council voted 7-0 on the following motion by Kozachik:

I move that we direct staff to proceed as discussed in Executive Session, and to negotiate the following:
a) an agreement with RN for financing the Project that satisfies the direction given by the Legislature.
b) a reduced GMP for the project, as well as reduced developer and design/build fees
c) resolution of issues relating to the use of local subcontractors; and
d) acquiring additional security from the hotel operator

I move that staff not return to Mayor and Council for any further action unless these terms are accomplished.

“Direction given by the Legislature” refers to the RN Board’s original charge by the Arizona Legislature to oversee expenditure of RN funds. According to Kozachik, that means that RN cannot “toss it into our lap”… again.

Don’t forget, Ed Schultz’s One Nation Working Together March is this Saturday, October 2, in Washington, DC.

The Nation recently posted a great background piece– For Jobs, Justice, and Education. In a nutshell, the article talks about the plight of working families in America, tone-deaf Republican and Blue Dog Democrats who are fighting for the rich (instead of working for workers), and the rationale behind the march.

Here is a small excerpt.

“…we should be investing in rebuilding America, thereby helping to close the jobs gap, which will then help close the budget gap.

“Instead, as we careen toward a possible double-dip recession and a second round of devastating home foreclosures, the extreme right-wing media machine is desperately trying to discredit the idea that America’s government can and should move aggressively to create more jobs…

“Nothing they say should persuade our leaders to throw America’s working families under the bus. We are in the middle of the biggest economic crisis in half a century. Through its negligence and recklessness, Wall Street has already forced a brutal austerity program on Main Street. The role of America’s government is to mitigate its effects and reverse the damage, not to make things worse by heaping suffering on top of suffering. This is not the time to abandon schools, shut down clinics, ignore crumbling infrastructure and forego job creation. This is not the time to take more away from families and communities that are already losing so much. We don’t need a public austerity program on top of the private sector–imposed austerity that we are already enduring.

“But some members of Congress apparently think they should focus on closing the federal budget gap, even if it means letting millions more American families tumble. They are mistaken. America’s workers find themselves in a deep hole. You don’t cut your way out of a hole. You grow your way out of a hole. We can afford to invest more in America’s long-term success. We are the wealthiest nation in the world. We should not be giving billions of dollars to companies like Halliburton abroad, while closing hospitals at home.

“…the American people finally will be able to choose between two movements: one that wants to demagogue problems and divide us, and another that wants to promote solutions and unite America.“

The saga of Tucson’s proposed downtown mega-hotel has been a continuing drama for a few years. To offer an historic context to the current pending decisions, here is a series of news articles.

The original Request for Proposals
Downtown Revitalization Development Opportunity, Convention Center Headquarters Hotel
July 2007– three years ago! No wonder Tucsonans are frustrated!

Economic downturn in the west
Brookings report finds LV among hardest hit
Las Vegas Review-Journal, December 2009.

City Council starts to debate the wisdom of the hotel project
Dialogue is changing on downtown hotel project
Inside Tucson Business, February 2010.

Local businesses are pro-development
Downtown vision, future is in new hotel, TCC
Inside Tucson Business, February 2010.

Are convention centers and hotels the great investment that developers say they are? (AKA the $190 million question.)
Space Available: The Realities of Convention Centers as Economic Development Strategy
by Heywood Sanders for the Brookings Institution, 2005.
This reports reveals not-so-rosy statistics about many cities that have built new convention hotels and convention centers to boost economic development. Sanders, an academic, was interviewed by local media in the spring of 2010, but the City Council gave him minimal time to explain his findings. It’s important to note that the Brookings report was published in 2005; the economy has only gotten worse since then. In his interview on the John C. Scott show, Sanders said many US cities have traveled the convention center hotel road that the City of Tucson is now on. Some put up the funds and built the hotels; others decided to be more prudent and not build. It is scary to ponder what this huge debt could do to these heavily-leveraged cities if the US economy, in general, and unemployment, in particular, do not pick up soon.

Hotel Industry Fights Back
The Rhetoric vs the Facts: What the Brookings Report Fails to Reveal
The International Association of Exhibition Management pushed back after the Brookings Report was published in 2005.

Another “debunking” of the Brookings’ Report, 2005.

Local hotel owner/opportunist wants a piece of the action
Chamber backs city lease after hotel upgrade
Arizona Daily Star, June 2010.

OUR VIEW: 99-YEAR PROPOSAL FROM BUSINESSMAN LOPEZ NOT GOOD FOR TAXPAYERS
Using city bonds to upgrade hotel is a bad idea
Even the Arizona Daily Star doesn’t go for Lopez’s idea for lining his own pockets with Rio Nuevo funds. June 2010.

Desperate construction workers want jobs
‘WE NEED THE JOBS,’ RIO NUEVO BOARD IS TOLD AT TOWN HALL
Workers flock to back TCC hotel construction
Arizona Daily Star, June 2010.

More questions than answers
These questions need to be answered before we OK a convention hotel
In Inside Tucson Business, Councilman Steve Kozachik uses the media to push for answers from Garfield Traub (the hotel developer) and from the Mayor and Council, June 2010. This article is a thorough overview of the funding and the issues.

Phoenix convention hotel occupancy less than 50%
Downtown Hotel Hell
A dose of convention hotel reality from Phoenix, thanks to the Tucson Weekly, September 2010.

Hotel hell devolves as bloggers offer options to City Council
Give downtown hotel site to the Apache Indians
A View from Baja Arizona blog on the Tucson Citizen website, September 2010.

Sensing the fear of local politicians, the hotel’s developer offers another funding plan
New hotel-finance plan unveiled
Sensing that local politicians lack the will to go hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to finance and build the hotel, Garfield Traub offers an alternative funding plan, according to Arizona Daily Star, September 2010. GT suggests the creation of a real estate investment trust (REIT) which would finance the hotel. The problem with this idea is that the city would own all of the risk if the hotel sits empty, but the REIT would reap the profits if all goes well. (This is a really bad idea for the City of Tucson!)

The City Council and the Rio Nuevo Board play hot potato with the project
To build or not to build– who’s decision is it anyway? Apparently, we don’t know. When the Arizona Legislature created the Rio Nuevo Board to oversee expenditure of the RN funds, Kozachik and others (including me) thought that meant they would oversee and make decisions on projects like the downtown hotel, but the RN Board passed the buck back to the City Council last week. On Sunday, the Arizona Daily Star called for someone to make a decision.

Three years, many plans, and millions of dollars later, Tucson still doesn’t have a downtown hotel. Now what? As I have said many times, I do believe that Tucson would benefit from a larger, updated downtown convention hotel, but after having heard multiple interviews with Sanders about his convention hotel research, I am convinced that now is not the time for Tucson to take on massive debt and that the GT proposal is not the right plan for Tucson in 2010.

Stay tuned for future developments.

The tortured saga of Tucson’s new downtown hotel has been a long and twisted one.

Do we need a giant, glittering new hotel downtown?

How much will it cost?

Who should pay for it?

Who will own the debt?

Who will get the profits?

Tucson’s Mayor and Council have been waffling around these questions for years with no resolution. The downtown development drama got exponentially more complicated when the Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature created the Rio Nuevo Board to oversee how Rio Nuevo’s funds are to spent in the future. Over the summer there were public squabbles between the Mayor and Council and the Rio Nuevo Board. (One example: the RN Board didn’t approve of the M&C using downtown parking garage spaces to pay off a legal settlement with developer Scott Stiteler because of a contract dispute.

These stories led me– and I’m sure other Tucsonans– to wonder who’s really in charge? Did the Legislature clearly delineate the responsibilities of the RN Board and how they are to interact with the Mayor and Council? It appears not.

Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik has been pushing the City Council to drop the mega-hotel project– at least until the economy improves. He also believes that whether or not to finance and build the hotel is in the hands of the Rio Nuevo Board– or it was until they punted late last week and said the hotel fiasco belonged to the city.

According to the Arizona Daily Star, “…the project is in … well, “chaos” may be too strong a word, but “confusion” is not. Mix in confusion with political posturing by both the City Council and the Rio Nuevo board and the result is unacceptable. Especially on a project of this size and involving so much taxpayer money.”

Here is the text of Kozachik’s September 24, 2010 memo to the Mayor and Council, which he released after the RN Board ducked out of the hotel business (even though it is not clear that they lawfully can walk away from it– since they are supposed to be in charge of how the Rio Nuevo funds are spent.)

SUBJECT: Responsibility for Decision-Making on the Proposed Convention Hotel

There seems to exist a condition of leadership paralysis with respect to making a decision about proceeding with the Convention Center Project. The Rio Nuevo Board has suggested shifting the decision-making responsibility back to the City, where that authority resided prior to the Board having been seated by the State Legislature. With over $230 million in taxpayers’ dollars in the balance, the City must make sure that all relevant questions are answered openly and publicly.

1. Who is legally responsible to make the decision to proceed with the Hotel?
State Legislation placed the legal obligation to adopt a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) and finance plan on the Rio Nuevo Board. And, the Master Development Agreement for the project is between Rio Nuevo and the developer Garfield Traub. What is the role of the Legislature in the decision by the Board to shift that burden to the City? Legally, how does the change in relationship affect the Master Development Agreement? Does a new agreement need to be negotiated?

2. If the District shifts responsibility to the City for the hotel decision, what role does the District now play in approving any contracts related to the project?
The Legislature stated that no TIF money could be spent on any projects other than the Hotel and related project elements until a Notice To Proceed had been issued by the District. If no such NTP is issued, what are the City’s options with respect to funding any other projects with TIF revenue? What role does the District then have in those decisions if they have shifted the duty/right to negotiate a hotel package to the City?

3. What other areas are affected by a change in the relationship?
What is the cost for putting together a finance program, that is, a bond package? Does the District have any financial obligation to assist in funding those costs with TIF dollars, or is it a General Fund obligation? Who negotiates the bond package? Who is involved in approving the terms of the package?

Subcontractor bids have expired. There will be a cost involved with re-submitting and re-evaluating a new set of bid documents. Do TIF dollars pay for those new costs, or is that a Developer cost to be borne by Garfield Traub? With the “owner” now out of the decision-making picture, who is to review and approve the bids with Garfield Traub?

There is no GMP. Previously, the District and the City have both been evaluating the proposed GMP submitted by Turner/Sundt. Is the City now in the position of making a unilateral decision with respect to the acceptability of the GMP and negotiating a new one in the event it concludes the existing price is too high? What role does the District now play in that process?

If the City puts together a funding package, does the District have any remaining role in its approval? If not, does this, in effect, constitute tacit agreement by the District that the City now controls the use of the TIF for this, and other projects the City deems appropriate use of those funds?

What we know is this:
a) There remain serious questions to be answered with respect to the financial viability of the Hotel.
b) In the present Convention Center Hotel market, there are numerous real-life examples that demonstrate the financial down-sides possible in operating a facility such as this.
c) There is no private sector money included in the financing of this project and the developer has openly indicated that he is unwilling to absorb any of the risk.
d) The “Team,” as described in the Master Development Agreement, with whom the District is to negotiate a Guaranteed Maximum Price and a finance plan, is comprised of commission-based firms who therefore have no incentive to produce for the City the lowest possible price for a high-quality product.
e) The taxpayers’ voice has been left out of the conversation. If the Rio Nuevo Board passes to the City the responsibility for making this decision, it is the Mayor and Council who are responsible to the taxpayers for whichever choice is elected, not the Rio Nuevo Board.
f) The voters are being asked to approve a sales tax increase along with a package that includes a significant salary increase for Mayor and Council. When the voters see those propositions on the ballot, their vote will reflect the level of trust they have for the governing body.

There appears to be a strong sense of urgency on the part of those who stand to benefit financially from this project that the District step aside and the City simply approve a funding plan that ultimately places the taxpayers at risk for what may well become an under-performing property. The decision to make this level of commitment comes while we are in midst of negotiating a GMP, in the midst of our trying to balance the FY2011 and FY2012 budgets, and in the midst of an effort by some in the City bureaucracy to convince the taxpayers of our need to adopt a sales tax increase. To take on a debt of this size while so many critical fiscal issues are unresolved is irresponsible.

It is time we protect the taxpayers’ interests and make a firm decision that, at this time, we cannot take on the burden of a risky capital project such as this. It is unfortunate that the District is now trying to absolve itself from fulfilling the leadership role in this matter that it was formed to exercise.

Nonetheless, the Board’s decision to stand down on the decision and place it back in the hands of the City does not obligate us as leaders in this community to approve a debt burden that is clearly inconsistent with the other fiscal realities with which we are faced. The timing is wrong, the finances are uncertain, and therefore the project must stop now until the market has improved to the point where some level of private sector investment can be included in the plan. (Emphasis added.)

Since he took office, City Councilman Steve Kozachik has been trying to hold the Mayor’s and other council members’ feet to the fire on the new downtown hotel deal.

The issue of whether or not to build a mega-hotel downtown has been complicated by Tucson’s ongoing budget problems– thanks to a downturn in the US economy, high unemployment and poverty in Arizona, cuts in funds from the state government and an over-reliance on tourism, sales tax, and the housing boon statewide.

All of this has been coming to a head since the City Council voted to send Prop 400, a 1/2 cent sales tax increase, to the voters this November. Labeled the “core tax”, it theoretically will be spent on core services– police, fire, and parks– but, as I understand it, that is not an iron clad promise.

City Manager Mike Letcher proposed 2 plans to balance Tucson’s budget– Plan A being pass the sales tax and Plan B being across the board 15% cuts in all city departments (including police and fire). (Plan B, I think, is a particularly stupid idea because it plays into the hands of the people who tried to pass Prop 200 last fall. They contended that the City Council didn’t value police and fire and would cut those services unless they were protected by the charter changed proposed in Prop 200, and here you go– not even 1 year later, Letcher’s Plan B proposes just that!)

As his answer songs, Kozachik has proposed Plan C and the hybrid, updated Plan D. I am not endorsing Kosachik’s Plan D whole hog, but I do agree with him when he says that there are steps that the City Council can and should take now–regardless of whether or not the sales tax passes. For example, included in Plan D are items like eliminating cars and car allowances for city employees (check this link and scroll down to see who gets this now); a 2% decrease in pay for city employees making above $96,000; increased “cost recovery” related to Parks and Recreation programs (ie, increased fees); a sliding scale Sun Tran fare increase; and much more. The kicker at the end of Plan D is killing– at least for now– the hotel project:

“Because of the uncertain impact on the General Fund, advise Rio Nuevo Multipurpose Facilities District Board that the City will not entertain any further consideration of funding proposals associated with the Downtown Convention Hotel until the sales tax has sunsetted (see below.)

“In the event sales tax fails at the ballot box, City will not entertain funding proposals for the Hotel until State-shared sales tax receipts to the City exceed those identified in “sunset” provision cited below.”

According to Kozachik (the sole Republican on the City Council), he presented Plans C and D as points of discussion and wants to discuss/debate the ideas with other members of the City Council. The problem is that the Democrats on the City Council didn’t want to discuss the plans.

At the September 21, 2010 City Council meeting, Kozachik also made this motion to tell the Rio Nuevo Board that the city was washing its hands of the hotel project proposed by Garfield Traub.

Convention Center Hotel and the City of Tucson

What is the City of Tucson’s legal obligation to the design, development and building of the Convention Center Hotel? The Master Development Agreement identifies the Agreement is between the Rio Nuevo Multipurpose Facilities District (The Owner) and Garfield Traub (The Developer).

The signature page of the Master Development Agreement states that the Mayor signs “Solely in connection with the City’s obligation and agreements pursuant to Sections 2.2.2, 4.1.14 and 4.2 of this agreement”

Section 2.2.2 relates to the construction of the East entrance and states that the agreement “obligates the City to expeditiously pursue mutually agreeable methods for funding the CC East Entrance Construction Fund” The City complied with this obligation by issuing additional Certificates of Participation.

Section 4.1.14 relates to the City issuing permits during the design phase and states “City agrees to expedite to the fullest extent possible plan review and approvals as well as the issuance of all permits and consents required for the project.” The City has complied with this obligation.

Section 4.2 relates to the City issuing permits after completion of the Design Development Period and states “City agrees to expedite to the fullest extent possible plan review and approvals as well as the issuance of all permits and consents required for the project” The project has not been approved and therefore the permits will not yet be issued.

Clearly, The City of Tucson has no contractual obligation to fund the project. In light of the dire financial condition in which the City finds itself, the City should not risk one more dollar of the taxpayer’s money on this project.

I move that the City of Tucson advise Rio Nuevo Multipurpose Facilities District Board that 1) at this time we do not intend to backstop or issue any bonds to secure the completion of the Tucson Convention Center Hotel, Parking Garage and Convention Center Expansion and 2) The City will not approve any additional expenditures for the Convention Center Projects until RN has negotiated an acceptable GMP and funding plan for the project.

This declaration of intent will allow the RNMF Board to decide if the project is financially viable in its current form and to decide if alternative funding methods are available. That obligation is clearly delineated in the MDA under Sections 4.1.13 and 6.6.

Section 4.1.13 assigns to Garfield Traub the responsibility of securing a Design Build Contract with Turner/Sundt and to negotiate a GMP, advising Rio Nuevo as that is developed.

Section 6.6 assigns to Rio Nuevo the responsibility of obtaining funding for the Project. The City of Tucson is explicitly not mentioned in the development of a financing plan.

We, as the City of Tucson, cannot simultaneously tell our citizens that we need for them to pass a ½ cent sales tax because we are in dire financial straits and also tell them that we are obligating their money to a $225 million project that has significant risks and assumptions associated with it. The turn in the economy has dictated that this type of risky project should not be placed on the shoulders of the citizens of Tucson. (Emphasis added.)

The motion didn’t go anywhere because no one seconded it. For Kozachik’s Ward 6 update on the meeting, check this link. To watch the City Council meeting online, check out Channel 12.

I do believe that Tucson needs larger, updated hotel accommodations downtown, but I don’t agree that the city should go hundreds of millions of dollars into hock for decades to build it. (Here’s a hint: there is a reason why the bankers aren’t financing this.)

If you drive around midtown Tucson, you can’t help but see Republican Greg Krino’s smiling white face on hundreds of very expensive, 4-color, illegal signs (1,2).

Krino is an opportunistic, young Republican write-in candidate challenging Democrat Paula Aboud for her state senate seat in LD28. Aboud and Krino are in a four-way race with former state Representative Ted Downing and Green Party activist Dave Ewoldt.

Normally, Republicans don’t bother with LD28 because it is overwhelmingly Democratic– “about 36,000 Democrats, 22,000 Republicans and 24,000 others spread out across the political spectrum,” according to the Tucson Weekly.

While Aboud, Downing, and Ewoldt duking it out from the center to the far left, Krino has the extreme far right all to himself. You know all those things that progressives don’t like about the current legislature and Governor Jan Brewer? Let me refresh your memory, in case you have suppressed the last 2 legislative sessions: no support or core services for families, kids, or the poor; minimalist public health; privatization of everything including education, prisons, and parks; give-aways (AKA tax breaks) to the rich and to hell with everyone else; demonization of undocumented workers, etc.

Well, Krino marches in lock step with these Republican core ideas– hence my headline. He’s a scary guy.

I heard him on the John C. Scott show the other day. People– like former Congressman Jim Kolbe– are saying that Krino is a “rising star” in the Republican party. When Scott asked him about his stance on issues, Krino said that government should get back to basics– police, fire, and roads… period.

Yikes! You’ll note all of the government services that are not on that list: education, prisons, public health, providing a safety net or support for the poor.

I know this “back to basics” is popular rhetoric amongst the tea bag types this year, but I seriously don’t think people realize how this would impact them if these wing-nuts get elected.

As an aside, those 4-color signs are expensive. Obviously, this guy has big money behind him. The corporatists really like having the Arizona Legislature in their pocket.

UPDATE, October 8: Most of Krino’s illegally-placed 4-color signs are gone from city streets now. You’ll note his new illegally-placed signs are the standard red/black type, no 4-color smiling photo, and still no indication that he is an extremist Republican.