Today, the corner of Speedway Blvd. and Country Club Rd. is much less cluttered with signage than it was in 1970 when the "ugliest street in America" photo was taken. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Tucson’s stringent 1980s sign code (plus multiple street-widening projects) have done much to clean up the billboards and over-sized signs on our streets, but every good law can stand some refinement from time to time.

Under the sign code, if you have a non-compliant sign and you want to take it down to fix it, you can’t put it back up. Also, if the property is sold, and the new owner wants to put a different type of business in that location, the non-compliant sign has to be replaced (although they can ask for variances).

Speedway Blvd. was dubbed the ugliest street in America by Tucson's mayor. Life Magazine published this photo of the corner of Speedway Blvd. and Country Club Rd.in 1970 to prove the point.

The Simonize Car Wash at Speedway and Country Club has incandescent lights and part of it is non-rectangular. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

The Loft Cinema on Speedway Blvd. has incandescent lights, a period design, and a partially non-rectangular shape. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

The Buick dealership on Speedway Blvd. has five over-sized signs and the biggest American flag in Tucson, but signs like this one have most likely been altered too much to comply with the transitional sign guidelines. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

In the current code, there are no provisions for retaining and fixing non-compliant signs that may be deemed historically or culturally important– part of Tucson’s sense of place. (An unintended consequence of this is the preponderance of empty sign shells and broken neon around town.)

For two years, a group of Tucson preservationists has been working on an Historic Landmark Sign Amendment to the Tucson Sign Code. This amendment defines two sets of signs that may be able to qualify as historic: Classic Historic Landmark Signs (those built before December 31, 1960) and Transitional Historic Landmark Signs (those built between 1961 and 1974, inclusive). It also provides guidelines to define historic. Besides age, the technical guidelines include: historic design motifs (exposed neon or incandescent bulbs), materials and construction from the time period, and non-rectangular shape. In addition, there are aesthetic guidelines which emphasize the cultural or historic importance of the sign and address whether or not it has been changed too much already to be deemed historic.

Although the city doesn’t have an official, public list of signs that potentially could qualify as historic (if the owner wanted to apply for that designation and come up with a Treatment Plan), an unnamed city administrator shared a draft map of sign locations with The Tucson Progressive. The map was shocking, actually. Marked in green on the map are approximately 85 pre-1961 signs (mostly around Miracle Mile and down Stone Ave. through downtown and into Armory Park). Marked in yellow on the map are another approximately 125 transitional signs spread around town but with a large concentration on Speedway Blvd. — 20+ signs between Tucson Blvd. and Wilmot Rd.

The photos at left represent a few of these signs in midtown. They are all about the right age to be considered transitional, and they all meet some of the technical guidelines. The slippery slope of the Historic Landmark Sign Amendment is that with good Treatment Plan and enough arm-twisting during the variance process these signs could be designated as historic by appealing to the Mayor and Council.

Saturday night I shot video (below) from Miracle Mile, down Stone Avenue, and through downtown to Armory Park to capture the old neon that is left. Many of the signs from Tucson’s days as a motor hotel haven are in horrendous shape, and the sign code amendment would help their owners repair them. I support saving Tucson’s pre-1961 neon signs but not the transitional era signs; I would also support a ~1965 cut-off date. Opening up an historic designation to signs from Tucson’s ugly days could leave us with many unintended consequences.

At the Tucson City Council Meeting on June 28, 2011, the Council will hear public comment on the Historic Landmark Sign Amendment. If you have an opinion, write or call the Mayor and Council or better yet, show up to comment at tomorrow’s meeting.

Adobe casita in downtown Tucson. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

When we first went house-hunting in Tucson in the early 1980s, our realtor thought we were crazy because we wanted a house with architectural style and wooden floors. Having lived in Columbus’ city core in an old Victorian-era brick double, we didn’t realize what a tall order this was in Tucson, our new home.

We spent several weeks driving around older neighborhoods in July in our AC-free Toyota Corolla with Judy (our chain-smoking realtor) and our baby daughter searching for style, affordability, and a house worth the sweat equity we were going to have to invest. We finally settled on a California Bungalow handyman special in the Pie Allen Neighborhood, priced at $34,000– the cost of some new vehicles today.

If Judy thought we were crazy while we were house-hunting, she probably really thought we were nuts when we bought that place, but we saw style and potential in that little house with the inviting front porch, the volcanic rock columns, the cozy fireplace flanked by wooden built-ins, and the large back yard– ready for a swing set and sandbox. Little did we know we were downtown pioneers before downtown was hip.

Thirty years later, many other urban pioneers have joined the struggle to breathe life into Tucson’s older neighborhoods and help downtown become livable and even fashionable.

At yesterday’s City Council Meeting, historic preservationists in Tucson won a major battle against the mini-dorm industry. The Council approved the Neighborhood Preservation Zone (NPZ) overlay for the Jefferson Park Neighborhood. The NPZ will restrict mini-dorm development by limiting the scale of new construction, making it more difficult to build a second story and limiting the size of a building to no more than 35 percent of the lot size. This is the second NPZ the Council has approved– the first being the Feldman Neighborhood NPZ in 2009, which developers are fighting.

This week, Tucson is hosting historic preservation conference, which will include a heritage discussion on Wednesday, June 22 at Hotel Congress.

Also, this week, a new guide to historic homes in Tucson was published.

Next week, at the June 28 City Council Meeting, the Council will consider a proposal to amend the sign code protect and preserve historic landmark signage older than 1975. Although I am a bit concerned about inclusion of “transitional” signage between 1961-1974 in this amendment, I think it is a worthwhile effort to protect the funky neon signs that mark Tucson’s past as a motor hotel haven.

With this volume of preservation activity, will Tucson save its unique architecture and sense of place? I hope so.  I don’t want developers to make Tucson into a place where there is no there there. I still remember the July thunderstorm clouds gathering over the old courthouse’s mosaic dome and the reflection of the Tucson Inn sign in the swimming pool that night in 1981 when we first visited Tucson.

Wooden doors in downtown Tucson. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Crumbling adobe home in downtown Tucson. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

El Rapido sign in downtown Tucson. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Fireplace with nichos in an old adobe home. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

The old Corner Market in downtown awaits TLC. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Inviting entrance to restored downtown adobe home. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

1036 E. Waverly St.-- an old house destroyed by Michael Goodman to build a mini-dorm. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

1920s Territorial style adobe in midtown demolished to build a 2010 house of ticky-tacky. (Photo credit: Pamela Powers)

Tucson has a long history of dozing history and later lamenting it. Two prime examples are the Convento, built in 1770 on the west side of the Santa Cruz River and covered by a landfill in the 1950s,  and, of course, the large swaths of Barrio Viejo, which were razed during an urban renewal frenzy to make way for the Tucson Convention Center.

The latest chapter in the let’s-knock-down-old-buildings-and-make-a-fast-buck book is the demolition of historic neighborhoods near the University of Arizona to build mini-dorms and high-rise student housing.

The destruction of Tucson’s historic architecture came to mind recently as I listened to To the Best of Our Knowledge, a thoughtful Sunday afternoon program on National Public Radio (NPR). This past Sunday they explored the idea of “place” and our deeply rooted connection to home and homeland.

Primarily the commentators lamented the homogenization of America, an America that has lost is “peculiarity,” its sense of history, its sense of place.  Cities and towns that were once distinctive due to the architecture, the ethnic populace, and the local food and culture have been turned into wastelands of fast food restaurants that serve the same food nationwide and strip malls filled with imported brick-a-brack.

This is what mini-dorms developers are doing to the Feldman and Jefferson Park Neighborhoods and trying to do to other older neighborhoods in Tucson’s core– grind up historic homes and spit out cookie cutter mini-dorms. The destruction is glaringly evident in the video below. Entire streets in the Feldman Neighborhood have been converted to mini-dorm ghettos of stucco and particle board.

Tucson City Council vote

Mini-dorm in the Feldman Neighborhood. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

1933 Territorial style burnt adobe in midtown. (Photo credit: Pamela Powers)

The latest battle in Jefferson Park’s war against the mini-dorm developers is the hearing and vote at the Tucson City Council meeting on June 21, 2011. The Jefferson Park activists have been working with the city to develop a Neighborhood Preservation Zone (NPZ) overlay to protect the architectural integrity of the neighborhood. Currently, mini-dorm developers are taking advantage of low housing prices, a slow residential sales market, and foreclosures to cheaply buy single-family homes on R-1 lots and replace them with mini-dorms that house 4-6 residents (plus girlfriends and boyfriends) in structures specifically designed for college students. The size, scale, and designs of the mini-dorms are not compatible with the historic nature of the bungalows and adobes in any of Tucson’s older neighborhoods.

Mini-dorm developers are destroying Tucson’s sense of place. It’s time for Tucson politicians to stop cutting deals with developers who want to destroy our history to make a fast buck.

The Tucson City Council should approve Jefferson Park’s NPZ and work with mini-dorm developers to find locations– outside of historic neighborhoods– for multi-unit student housing. (Here’s a hint: there are several vacant car dealership lots on Speedway and abandoned businesses on Stone and First.) Leave our historic neighborhoods intact– or live to regret it. Do we really want old town Tucson to look like Oro Valley on steroids?

Pop Quiz: Which of the above structures has a sense of place and history? The one on the top or the one on the bottom?

Ward 6 City Councilman Steve Kozachik is not only a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is guy, he’s also apparently very frugal.

Each City Council member receives the same amount of money to run his or her ward office, and sometimes they have money left over at the end of the fiscal year. This year Kozachik has an extra $75,000 from his own budget, and he proposed a plan to spend the $75,000 to fill potholes in Ward 6. (Yippee!)

According to an interview on the John C. Scott Show, on Thursday, Kozachik said that for the last three fiscal years the City Council has not budgeted any funds to fix potholes on Tucson’s residential streets. Furthermore, Kozachik said that whenever he goes to neighborhood meetings the subjects most discussed are potholes and graffiti. (True that. Ward 6 is littered with potholes, graffiti, and junk furniture left on the curbs by lazy landlords.)

Unfortunately for those of us who reside in Ward 6, Kozachik’s plan was squelched by the other City Council members at Tuesday’s meeting. His proposal to use his extra money to fill potholes on residential streets in his Ward 6 was removed from the consent agenda by Councilwoman Karin Ulich and put up for a vote by the full council.

By a vote of 5-2, Ward 6 lost. Only Councilman Paul Cunningham voted with Kozachik and the residents of Ward 6.

What is ironic about this vote is that both Ulich and Councilwoman Regina Romero (who voted against Kozachik) have used leftover monies from their ward offices to fund projects in their wards.

Hey, Karin and Regina, Ward 6 has a pothole problem, and our Councilman has a solution. It isn’t fair to play politics when a fellow council member is trying to serve his constituents.

There are dozens of large, dangerous potholes in my neighborhood—only one of many midtown neighborhoods in Ward 6. Bicycle-riding and dog-walking are common activities. Now that temperatures are rising, many are traveling the streets at dusk or after dark. This is a dangerous situation that could have been corrected.

Last week, Governor Jan Brewer called the Arizona Legislature into special session to make a one-word change in state law which would allow extension of unemployment benefits to the chronically unemployed in Arizona– at no cost to the state.

Legislators argued and grandstanded for two days and, in the end, changed nothing. As the Arizona Daily Star said, Legislators showed “indifference to struggling Arizonans.”

State lawmakers wrapped up their special session Monday and went home without making the one-word change needed to continue funding unemployment for people out of work for at least 79 weeks.

Extending long-term unemployment insurance for another 20 weeks is a no-brainer. It would have extended a safety net to thousands of Arizonans on the brink. It would have continued to inject $3.2 million of federal money into the economy each week. And it should have been easy to do. All lawmakers had to do was change the number “two” to “three” in a formula used to grant the 20-week extension.

Most importantly, it would have been the right and moral thing to do.

These are extraordinary times. The unemployment rate has dropped to 9.3 percent, which is roughly double what it was 10 years ago. While extending unemployment benefits by another 20 weeks would have helped 15,000 people stay afloat, cutting them off will affect an additional 30,000 people who will hit the 79-week mark later this year. So in essence, state lawmakers have ripped away the safety net for 45,000 jobless Arizonans. That’s roughly the size of the crowd at a UA football game. [Emphasis added.]

It’s sad but not surprising that Republicans did this. After all, Arizona right-wing ideologues are just following the lead of right-wing Congressional ideologues like our own Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl, who have voted against extending unemployment many times. And, all of them are more interested in handing out corporate welfare and tax breaks for the rich than helping citizens in need.

Lest we forget the names of the people who passed corporate welfare in the wink of an eye but denied a no-cost extension of unemployment benefits, the Arizona Democratic Party has provided the following list of names and the unemployment rates in their districts.

“Rather than help jobless Arizonans, they punished them. Rather than strengthening our economy, they sapped it of another $3 million a week,” said Andrei Cherny, Arizona Democratic Party chairman. “Weakening our economy and middle-class families is not what we deserve from our state legislators. Even Governor Brewer’s top political advisor agrees that voters in 2012 will remember this outrageous action from the out-of-touch Russell Pearce Republicans.”

These lawmakers should be held accountable for their actions. Here is a list of Republican lawmakers who voted not to extend unemployment benefits. We should fire them all.

AZGOP lawmakers and unemployment rates in their regions:

Legislative District 1
Sen. Steve Pierce
Rep. Andy Tobin
Rep. Karen Fann
Unemployment rate in
Prescott MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area): 9.5%

Legislative District 3
Sen. Ron Gould
Rep. Doris Goodale
Unemployment rate in
Lake Havasu-Kingman Mohave County MSA: 10.1%

Legislative District 4
Sen. Scott Bundgaard
Rep. Jack Harper
Rep. Judy Burges
Unemployment rate in
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale MSA 8.1%
Yavapai County: 9.5%
Glendale: 8.3%
Peoria: 5.7%
Yavapai County: 9.5%

Legislative District 5
Sen. Sylvia Allen
Rep. Chester Crandall
Rep. Brenda Barton
Unemployment rate in
Gila County: 10.2%
Graham County: 10.5%
Greenlee County: 9.1%
Holbrook: 8.0%
Pinetop-Lakeside: 8.2%
Show Low: 7.5%
Snowflake: 8.5%
Winslow: 7.1%

Legislative District 6
Sen. Lori Klein
Rep. Amanda Reeve
Rep. Carl Seel
Unemployment rate in
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale MSA: 8.1%
Phoenix: 9.4%

Legislative District 7
Sen. Nancy Barto
Rep. Heather Carter
Rep. David Burnell Smith
Unemployment rate in
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale MSA: 8.1%
Phoenix: 9.4%
Scottsdale: 6.0%

Legislative District 8
Sen. Michele Reagan
Rep. Michelle Ugenti
Rep. John Kavanagh
Unemployment rate in
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale MSA: 8.1%
Scottsdale: 6.0%
Carefree: 2.8%
Cave Creek: 3.7%
Fountain Hills: 4.0%

Legislative District 9
Sen. Rick Murphy
Rep. Rick Gray
Rep. Debbie Lesko
Unemployment rate in
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale MSA: 8.1%
Glendale: 8.3%
Peoria: 5.7%
Sun City: 9.4%

Legislative District 10
Sen. Linda Gray
Rep. Jim Weiers
Rep. Kimberly Yee
Unemployment rate in
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale MSA: 8.1%
Phoenix: 9.4%
Glendale: 8.3%

Legislative District 11
Sen. Adam Driggs
Rep. Kate Brophy McGee
Unemployment rate in
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale MSA: 8.1%
Phoenix: 9.4%
Paradise Valley: 3.7%

Legislative District 12
Sen. John Nelson
Rep. Steve Montenegro
Rep. Jerry Weiers
Unemployment rate in
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale MSA: 8.1%
El Mirage: 12.1%
Goodyear: 5.8%
Buckeye: 10.1%
Surprise: 10.0%
Litchfield Park: 7.4%
Glendale: 8.3%

Legislative District 18
Sen. Russell Pearce
Rep. Cecil Ash
Rep. Steve Court
Unemployment rate in
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale MSA: 8.1%
Mesa: 7.4%
Gilbert: 4.6%

Legislative District 19
Sen. Rich Crandall
Rep. Justin Pierce
Rep. Justin Olson
Unemployment rate in
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale MSA: 8.1%
Mesa: 7.4%
Gilbert: 4.6%

Legislative District 20
Sen. John McComish
Rep. Bob Robson
Rep. Jeff Dial
Unemployment rate in
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale MSA: 8.1%
Phoenix: 9.4%
Chandler: 6.2%
Tempe: 7.0%

Legislative District 21
Sen. Steve Yarbrough
Rep. Tom Forese
Rep. J.D. Mesnard
Unemployment rate in
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale MSA: 8.1%
Mesa: 7.4%
Gilbert: 4.6%
Chandler: 6.2%

Legislative District 22
Sen. Andy Biggs
Rep. Eddie Farnsworth
Rep. Steve Urie
Unemployment rate in
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale MSA: 8.1%
Mesa: 7.4%
Gilbert: 4.6%

Legislative District 23
Sen. Steve Smith
Rep. John Fillmore
Rep. Frank Pratt
Unemployment rate in
Pinal County: 10.6%

Legislative District 24
Sen. Don Shooter
Rep. Russ Jones
Unemployment rate in
Yuma County: 25.3%

Legislative District 25
Sen. Gail Griffin
Rep. David Stevens
Rep. Peggy Judd
Unemployment rate in
Cochise County: 8.2%
Santa Cruz County: 14.7%
Pima County: 7.9%

Legislative District 26
Sen. Al Melvin
Rep. Terri Proud
Rep. Vic Williams
Unemployment rate in
Tucson MSA: 7.9%
Pima County: 7.9%
Oro Valley: 5.6%

Legislative District 30
Sen. Frank Antenori
Rep. Ted Vogt
Rep. David Gowan
Unemployment rate in
Tucson MSA: 7.9%
Cochise County: 8.2%
Pima County: 7.9%
Santa Cruz County: 14.7%

Source: AzDOA Office of Employment and Population Statistics – Special Unemployment Report 2010-2011

Cluttered with so many signs that you can hardly see the street, Speedway Blvd. was dubbed the ugliest street in American by Life Magazine in 1970.

Being known as “ugly” is not a good designation for a town that lives on tourism. In the 1980s, Tucsonans passed landmark sign code legislation that has gradually whittled away billboards and reduced the number and scale of signs.

Tucson Sign Code works to beautify our city, and that is why it is under attack by the sign industry and local businesses. The question is: Will the Tucson City Council have the backbone to protect it? Judging by recent “business friendly” rulings by the City Council that have weakened the Sign Code, don’t hold your breath. (In December 2010, they voted unanimously to allow more signs and larger signs along Tucson’s scenic corridors. In March 2011, they voted to allow the Jewish Community Center to erect a billboard on the side of their building, which is in Tucson’s scenic corridor.)

The latest Sign Code battle is being fought on two fronts. Business interests are pressuring the City Council to eliminate the Sign Code Appeals and Advisory Board (SCAAB), the citizens’ review board that hears appeals when businesses want a variance to the sign code, and to pass a historic sign amendment to the Sign Code, which goes far beyond saying the funky neon signs along Miracle Mile.

Businesses are attacking the SCAAB because the SCAAB doesn’t roll over and do everything they want. From Sign Code activist Mark Mayer…

A proposal is now pending before Mayor and Council to eliminate the SCAAB and assign its functions to the Board of Adjustment.  This proposal, which is stealthily labeled “Improvement in Sign Code Administration”, is part of the City Manager’s Strategic Work Plan that you will be asked to vote on July 6.   The proposal is the apparent result of the repeated sign industry failures to stack SCAAB with its members and allies and it is now setting its sights on the Board of Adjustment as an alternative forum (with “recommended” appointments to undoubtedly follow).  Any claims that this move is due to budgetary issues ring hollow, as there are no proposals to eliminate the larger, more expensive, and sign industry-dominated Citizen Sign Code Committee (CSCC) and assign its functions to the Planning Commission.  The SCAAB proposal needs to be rejected, at least until such time sign regulations are appropriately incorporated into the Land Use Code and the CSCC issues noted above are fully addressed.

The proposed historic sign change sounds good on the surface, but it goes too far. Again, from Mayer…

An ordinance to ostensibly protect historic signs is now before the City Council in Study Session on June 14 [that's today!] and in public hearing on June 28. The draft ordinance has mushroomed well beyond what was originally conceived and would now open the door to the largest and tallest of signs being relocated or resurrected on properties where they never existed before and without any notification to surrounding property owners, without any public hearing, and without a legislative decision being made by Mayor and Council. Instead, the decision would be made by a single administrative official, which, if not without statutory authority, is certainly bad public policy. It is no wonder that the sign industry and its proxy, the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, are heartily supporting this ordinance. The Mayor and Council need to narrow the scope of the ordinance down to its original focus, which was to determine the relatively limited number of older signs that are widely embraced by the community for their historic value and focus on their preservation. [Emphasis added. ]

As I said at the beginning of this article, Being known as “ugly” is not a good designation for a town that lives on tourism. If the Mayor and Council truly want to be business friendly, they should keep the SCAAB and ask that the focus of the historic sign amendment be narrowed to its original intent.

Tell the City Council what you think. Here’s a link to their contact information, or better yet, come to the meetings and speak in favor of keeping Tucson off the worst-dressed list.

In 2006 voters approved a package of road improvements, bus pullout improvements, and bicycle path improvements and the creation of the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) to oversee the projects.

RTA construction projects have been popping up all over town– like the bus pullouts at Fort Lowell and Campbell, which seemed to take forever to complete. Whew, glad that one’s done, but look for more cumbersome transportation “fixes” in the near future, as “planners” implement multiple clusterf**ks on our roadways.

Back in March, the local news reported that “planners” want to “fix” the intersection at Grant and Oracle Roads by eliminating left turn options unto Oracle. People who want to turn left will have to go through the intersection and make a u-turn down the road. (People driving westbound on Grant who really want to go southbound will be jockeying for position with hundreds of others who are trying to get to Interstate 10.) This will be a MESS at rush hour. Have the “planners” traveled that stretch of Grant Road between Oracle and I-10 recently? Traffic backs up long before you reach the multiple stop lights near the freeway. Add people driving westbound who really don’t want to go that direction to the mix, and what do you have? Yes, a cluster.

Initially, the local news reported that only Grant and Oracle would have u-turn solution to traffic “management.” Now we find that transportation “planners” are planning to implement the same “fix” at the intersection of Ina and Oracle Roads.  Monday’s Arizona Daily Star reported that “planners” have proposed the same stupid solution for traffic that backs up at the Ina and Oracle intersection– eliminate left turns onto Oracle and force people to drive out of their way to wait at u-turn bays to go back to the light they just went through and wait in a right-turn lane to go the direction they really wanted to travel.

Who’s idea was this? Is this the best idea RTA planners can come up with?

This u-turn mania is reminiscent of the dance Tucsonans used to do on Grant Road when those stupid cones were in place. For people who are new to town, for more than 15 years, Tucson had a ridiculous system on Grant Road and 5th/6th Street in which no left turns were allowed during rush hour, and the left turn lane became a temporary a through lane– aptly dubbed the “suicide” lane because it went west in the morning and east in the evening. Drivers who wanted to turn left off of Grant had to turn right, make a u-turn and then go the direction they really wanted to go. Grant Road was a disaster because people were always trying to make illegal left turns– particularly around midtown where the big grocery stores are. (I used to ride the #9 Grant Road bus everyday when I worked at the University. I routinely witnessed people trying to make illegal lefts; others would honk; and oncoming traffic would come to a screeching halt to avoid smashing into the stupid motorist sitting in the turn-lane-turned-through-lane. One night, I witnessed a full head-on collision.) Why would be go back to this?

I agree with this article: Blame not so easily placed on ‘stupid motorists’. It talks about the dumb idea of paving washes which routinely flood during the monsoons. Arizona’s Stupid Motorist Law says if you get stuck in one of those flooded washes, you have to pay a heavy fine if a rescue team is called to fish you out. From the Star…

The monsoon always brings a flood of stories about “stupid motorists” who drive through flowing washes – but the really stupid practice is paving dips and washes and calling them streets, says a UA researcher.

Most motorists who drive through washes have very rational reasons for doing so, said University of Arizona researcher Ashley Coles.

“The irrational ones are the ones who designed the streets,” said Coles, a Ph.D. candidate in geography… [Emphasis added.]

Whether it’s paving washes and pretending they’re safe to travel or creating unnecessary u-turns which are not only dangerours but also waste time and gas, the RTA needs better planning and fresh ideas to Tucson’s transportation issues. Unnecessary u-turns are a temporary solution at best. The cones were supposed to be short-term, and they cluttered our roads for more than a decade.

What happens when motorists start suing the RTA for accidents caused by the u-turn design? Will that force the RTA to come up with real solutions?

In an editorial this past Saturday, the Arizona Daily Star took aim at Mexican American Studies (MAS) Program Director Sean Arce for canceling the annual Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) Mexican American Students Awards Ceremony, a 10-year tradition.

Thanks to information provided to them by MAS supporters, just a few days earlier, the Star broke the story of the TUSD personnel action against Arce for canceling the event. Apparently, Arce took it upon himself to cancel the long-standing tradition to honor all Mexican American students without consulting his supervisor, Assistant Superintendent Lupita Cavazos-Garcia. In May, Cavazos-Garcia met with him, encouraged him to have the event on May 21, and offered resources. From the Star…

The following morning Cavazos-Garcia emailed Arce asking if he had secured a location [for the ceremony]. Arce responded with four reasons the district shouldn’t reschedule and noted that he would be in California that weekend speaking about Mexican American Studies at a conference [which was actually a Save Ethnic Studies fundraising event].

The reasons cited were: the certificates of recognition already had been sent out to students; the Mexican American Studies Department wouldn’t be able to put in the effort required to put on the ceremony; any attempt to reschedule would be interpreted as halfhearted and disingenuous; and dozens of parents of Mexican American Studies students were extremely upset because of developments surrounding the program, so rather than allow for an escalation of a delicate situation, he believed that it was best to let cooler heads prevail.

Arce disobeyed his supervisor’s direct request, and this, in turn, led to official disciplinary action against him.

The Star’s Saturday editorial strongly supported Cavazos-Garcia’s action, and so do I.

So it’s puzzling why the program director, Sean Arce, would unilaterally decide to scrap the traditional end-of-the-year awards ceremony that honors the achievements of Latino students. He has been reprimanded for the decision, and we believe rightly so, because canceling the celebration robbed the community of the chance to come together and celebrate the hard work and well-deserved honors the kids have earned.

If the true purpose of the Mexican American Studies program is, as its literature states, to lift students up through education, to help them forge strong community bonds and develop pride in themselves and their roots, then they should have the opportunity to do that.

If the Mexican American Studies program exists to further the political and academic careers of the adults involved, then they should be upfront about those goals. Canceling the awards ceremony takes the focus away from the kids, and puts it on the adults, where it doesn’t belong…

Caught in the middle are the tens of thousands of students in TUSD schools who are in need of a good education that will prepare them for college or work and make sure they have a sense of belonging.

A relatively small percentage of high school students find this connection in the MAS classes, but the need is much greater.

So it is distressing that Arce, the MAS program director, took it upon himself to cancel an event that affected a large number of students – not only kids who take the MAS classes, but all Latino kids.

I think the Star’s editorial writer was spot on. I think using the right-wing’s approval or disapproval of the ceremony as an excuse not to hold it is lame. High school graduation is a major right of passage for students and their parents. Arce’s action diminished their experience; the disciplinary action is wholly justified.

As the result of the 2010 US Census, Arizona and other states are in the midst of redistricting.

On Monday, the Arizona Daily Star printed a relatively routine article about how little the Pima County supervisors’ districts will likely change in the future– Redistricting likely to shift supervisor areas slightly. If you didn’t read the jump text on this article, you would have missed some interesting facts about voter registration and the county redistricting committee.

The five-member panel tasked with the chore [county-level redistricting] – each member an appointee of one of the sitting supervisors – confronted a choice last week, when it gathered for its second meeting to begin redrawing lines.

The first option: Members could start with a blank slate, essentially using the county’s population center at Park Avenue and 18th Street as a starting point, and continue until the county was sliced into five shapes.

Or they could keep the lines essentially the way they are, with little modification.
On a 3-2 vote, with the Republican appointees on the losing end, they voted to keep the lines the way they are.

Much of the discussion boiled down to race, since, as a consequence of historical discrimination, the U.S. Justice Department has to OK all electoral changes that affect minority voting.

There are two districts currently that have a majority of minority residents. In District 2, represented by Ramón Valadez, minority voters make up 66 percent of its population. In District 5, represented by Richard Elías, minority voters make up 63 percent.

Elías appointee Augustine Romero, the former director of the Tucson Unified School District’s embattled Ethnic Studies program, said it made sense to stick more or less with the current configuration, since the Justice Department already signed off on it. Any redrawing of the lines based on some goal of statistical neutrality, he warned, could have the effect of disempowering minority voters.

But Supervisor Ray Carroll’s Republican appointee, Robert Fee, argued that putting race foremost may violate equal protection, urging his colleagues to instead let the district lines fall as they may. [Emphasis added.]

So, Pima County Supervisor and Mexican American Studies (MAS) Community Advisory Board Member Richard Elias appointed Director of Student Equity and Ethnic Studies Godfather and co-creator Augie Romero to the Pima County redistricting committee.

Elias has been an outspoken supporter of the No Compromise stance on the MAS reorganization plan– showing up at Tucson Unified School Board Meetings and giving fiery pro-MAS speeches like the one he delivered on May Day in Spanish. In turn, Augie Romero votes to protect Elias’ seat on the Pima County Board of Supervisors but he made the original motion to keep the boundaries basically the same as they are. I don’t know how this looks to you, but it sure looks like a classic case of “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine,” and I don’t like it.

The larger question is: Why have a sham Pima County redistricting committee made up of five friends of the five Pima County Supervisors? Obviously, as Mark Evans pointed out a few weeks ago, the committee’s structure has been rigged to secure the incumbents’ seats on the Board of Supervisors. Is democracy being served?

In the spirit of full disclosure, I usually agree with Elias’ politics– especially his pro-union stances– but I have been sorely disappointed with the lack of leadership from him and Tucson City Councilwoman Regina Romero (also an MAS Community Advisory Board member) on the MAS reorganization debate and the divisive nature of the rhetoric (1, 2) that has been tearing our community apart recently.

I don’t care if Richard Elias and Regina Romero personally support the No Compromise stance. As Latino leaders in this community they should rise above their personal opinions and show some leadership by working to bring all stakeholders to the table for civil discourse– rather than taking sides.

The Tequila Party– the Latino answer song to the now-infamous Tea Party and the lesser-known Coffee Party– held its national kick-off last Saturday in Tucson, Arizona.

Locally, the group is spearheaded by TucsonCitizen.com blogger Dee Dee Garcia (AKA Dee Dee Blase and Dee Dee Blase Garcia) from Somos Republicanos (AKA Arizona Hispanic Republicans).

Officially, one of the stated goals of the Tequila Party is to get out the Latino vote. The Latino population is growing in numbers nationwide– and particularly in the Southwest– but their voting record is dismal.

In 2010, the Pima County Democrats invested thousands of dollars and hundreds of man-hours in registering people–particularly Latinos in Congressman Raul Grijalva’s CD7– to vote. This effort may have helped Grijalva barely squeak by right-wing extremist Ruth McClung, and it may have helped Sally Ann Gonzales and Marcario Saldate get elected to the Arizona Legislature, but it certainly didn’t help Terry Goddard, Felecia Rotellini, or Penny Kotterman. (Just think how different the Mexican American Studies debate would be if Arizona had elected Goddard governor, Rottellini attorney general, and Kotterman superintendent of public instruction.)

Personally, I think the Tequila Party is a great idea– if it focuses on getting out the Latino vote– but I am a concerned about the mixed messages from Arizona Hispanic Republicans’ blog posts. There is huge emphasis on LIVE STREAMING (her caps)– which to me spells PROPAGANDA (my caps)– and not many specifics about how the Tequila Party will actually get out the Latino vote.

Going door-to-door and canvasing at every public event– as the Democrats do– takes organization, walk lists, time, money, and hundreds of volunteers. (I know. I was one of those Democrats walking the Tucson neighborhoods in the heat with campaign literature and Permanent Early Voting List [PEVL] registration forms. You can easily spend entire Saturday morning slogging through a neighborhood and get fewer than five new, completed voter registration cards.)

Of course, why am I surprised that Arizona Hispanic Republicans would emphasize propaganda? Propaganda is Karl Rove’s signature tactic. What is surprising (sort of) is that the Three Sonorans has jumped on board with the Republican-backed Tequila Party. (Check out the audio link on the Unapologetic Liberal’s blog.)

Back to voter registration…

A stark example of the voter registration challenge facing the Tequila Party (or anyone else trying to encourage Latinos to vote) appeared in Monday’s Arizona Daily Star:  Redistricting likely to shift supervisor areas slightly.

Take voter behavior in Districts 1 and 2, for example. The northwest-area[which includes Marana and Oro Valley] district has nearly 117,000 registered voters. The south-side district, even though it has a bigger population, has only about 73,000 registered voters.

As the Arizona Lottery used to tell us: You can’t win if you don’t play. Latinos will continue to be frustrated politically, as long as they don’t register and don’t vote proportionally to their numbers. Propaganda may get people pissed off, but will it encourage them to vote? Republicans have used hate speech, wedge issues [can you say Ethnic Studies?], and fact-free smear campaigns to their advantage for years. Time will only tell if the Tequila Party follows this course.