Occupy Tucson in Veinte de Agosto Park (Image Credit: Pamela Powers)

Former Green Party Mayoral Candidate and staunch Occupy Tucson support Mary DeCamp was arrested and taken from Veinte de Agosto Park last night– Thanksgiving.

News bulletin from the Occupation…

Tonight, just after midnight, Mary DeCamp was taken into custody after supposedly refusing to sign her citation. Mary was seated into a police cruiser without handcuffs as occupiers waved and yelled words of encouragement as she was driven away. There are no further details.

Earlier this week, Occupy Tucson lost a legal battle as a Superior Court Judge Howard Fell lifted the stay order. Tucson Police are now allowed to arrest anyone who has received 3 or more citations for being in the park after curfew. With the arrests come more legal problems and a charge of interfering with the judicial process.

From FOX News…

What it means now is – if a person who has more than two tickets for violating the city code which prohibits sleeping in the park after 10:30 p.m. – goes back to the park after 10:30, they face the more severe crime “interfering with judicial process.”

The City of Tucson has been trying to use zoning restrictions against the Occupation for weeks; they finally won in court. Tucson Police have issued more than 600 citations to 99 people since the Occupation began; DeCamp was one of several local Occupiers with multiple citations. Upping the legal stakes on the Occupiers could crush the movement locally as people must decide if going to jail is a wise decision for themselves and their families.

As Tucson Police step up their efforts against the Occupation, local political figures are expressing support. Today the Arizona Daily Star published a supportive commentary by former Tucson Mayor George Miller and former City Council Member Molly McKasson.

Our feeling, however, is that fees [for park use] should be waived for all groups engaged in legitimate, peaceful protest.

And what could be more legitimate than protesting that 99 percent of our citizenry – reds and blues alike – are not being represented?

Nearly everyone who spoke in support of Occupy Tucson expressed their gratitude for our Constitution and its democratic guarantees of free speech and assembly, but as one man put it, “We just haven’t been exercising these rights.”

In classrooms across the country, it’s a message that social studies teachers (George, included) work to communicate every day: That voting and participating are the keys to real change; that just reading about history and listening to the news is no substitute for being part of history in the making.

The Occupy movement seems to us like a giant classroom in participatory democracy. At a time when our politicians seem unable to address the pressing issues, the Occupy movement has given people the hope that together we can create a healthier, happier, more productive and secure nation.

With lifetimes of engagement in citizen and official politics, we know firsthand the importance of participation.

We also know that it’s not a good sign when only 41 percent of the registered voters in the city (not counting those eligible but unregistered) voted in the last election. How can we have a strong democracy when 59 percent of those who are registered don’t vote at all?
Finally, a group of citizens is demonstrating displeasure and frustration with politics as usual, and with the lawmakers who focus on meeting the demands of the wealthiest 1 percent, while ignoring the middle class and the 14 million unemployed or underemployed Americans.

That is why Americans all across the country have embraced the Occupy movement, and why the demonstration in Viente de Agosto park is important for our community.

With poverty in Tucson now hovering at around 23 percent, and more foreclosures and fewer jobs on the horizon, we think it’s vital not to block the profoundly democratic expression that is going on in downtown Tucson. That is why we strongly support council member Romero’s proposal:
• Declare a moratorium on ticketing and fining protesters in Viente de Agosto park.
• Work with the Occupy participants to assure that all other park activities are respected.
• Explore moving certain public funds into local credit unions or banks that support and strengthen our local community.

We urge the entire the mayor and council to support this proposal, which we believe is not just a legitimate and constructive action, but a moral imperative to uphold the First Amendment in no uncertain terms.

UPDATE, Nov. 25: DeCamp has been released from jail. Her and her doggie are back at Veinte de Agosto Park.

UPDATE, Nov. 26: More arrests occurred on Friday night at Occupy Tucson. Check out this link.

Occupy Tucson banner (Image credit: Pamela Powers)

Both MoveOn.org and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have created online petitions in support of Occupy Tucson in their struggle with the Mayor and Council, the Tucson Police Department, and the Parks and Rec Department.

From MoveOn…

The members of Occupy Tucson are requesting our help.

The Tucson Police Department is issuing criminal citations to Occupy Tucson protestors who stay in Armory Park past 10:30 p.m. This citation carries a potential sentence of up to a $1,000 fine, up to six months in jail, and up to three years probation.

Mayor Bob Walkup, the Tucson City Council, and City Manager Richard Miranda should support freedom of speech by dismissing all charges against the occupiers and allowing them stay in Armory Park. That’s why I created a petition on SignOn.org, which says:

Dear Tucson City Leadership,

You have it in your power to dismiss all charges against the peaceful demonstrators of Occupy Tucson. We the people of Tucson and southern Arizona call upon you to stand up for our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and peaceable assembly by dismissing these charges and allowing the demonstrators to remain in Armory Park.

Will you sign the petition? Click here to add your name, and then pass it along to your friends:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=266019&id=32331-10190030-CCS6jax&t=2

And from the ACLU…

Free Speech Trampled in Tucson

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the passage of the Patriot Act. The misguided law, which dramatically expands the government’s authority to spy on its own citizens, has been used to shut down debate across the country. And many post 9-11 government tactics—from censorship and surveillance to detention, denial of due process and excessive force—are still being used by government officials to squelch dissent in Arizona and nationwide. Look outside your own window and you might just see your fellow Arizonans paying the price for exercising their constitutional right to dissent.

Arizonans’ urge to express their First Amendment right to free speech is stronger than ever. The Occupy Phoenix and Occupy Tucson movements have seen hundreds of Arizonans take to the streets to flex their First Amendment muscle and tell their own “We The People” story. These Arizonans know that one of the best ways to honor our Constitution is to exercise the precious rights it guarantees us.

Despite this guarantee, many of these earnest and peaceful protesters have been arrested, harassed, and intimidated during the protests. More than 100 Tucson protesters were charged with various criminal citations as they exercised their right to free speech. Countless Phoenix residents were also charged with violating camping and trespass ordinances as they exercised their right to free speech. Phoenix police initially prevented protesters from camping after hours, but are now letting people stay at Cesar Chavez plaza around the clock. Phoenix protesters can sleep at times, but can’t have any tents or camping gear. But the situation in Tucson is still unresolved.

The ACLU of Arizona remains intently committed to protecting the free speech rights of all Arizonans.
Take action to respect the First Amendment rights of the Occupy Tucson protesters.

Whether you agree with the Occupy movement or not, we can all agree that government can’t stifle peaceful protest and harass people for exercising their constitutional rights. That’s why we’ve provided ACLU resources in Phoenix to ensure that protesters know about their rights when protesting, camping, and photographing police. That’s why we’re coordinating legal representation to make sure that people who were arrested get their full measure of due process in court. That’s why we’re strategizing to convince Tucson city officials to drop charges against the 100-plus people arrested during Occupy Tucson.

Add your voice to the chorus and tell Tucson Council Members to urge City Attorney Michael Rankin to protect and support peaceful political expression.

Speaking with commentator Keith Olbermann on national television , Occupy Tucson spokesman Craig Barber outed the Tucson’s Mayor and Council for “hiding behind” the bureaucrats in Tucson Police Department (TPD) and the Parks and Recreation Department and avoiding to make a decision regarding the legality of the peaceful Armory Park occupation.

Prior to Tuesday’s City Council Meeting– which was flooded with Occupy Tucson supporters– City Council Members told the Occupiers that their “hands were tied” and that the Occupiers had to comply with the city’s anti-vagrancy laws which dictate a 10:30 p.m. park curfew. Since the beginning of Occupy Tucson on Saturday, October 15, 2011, TPD has been arresting protesters and dispensing fines up to $1000 (for breaking the curfew) nightly.

Since it is against state and federal law to step on anyone’s first amendment freedom, the protesters are dubbing the $1000 fine– “The First Amendment Fine”– and their lawyers are investigating legal recourse.

Informational tents erected by Connect the Dots, Progressive Democrats of America, Jobs with Justice, and political campaigns drew in many interested people.

Labor Day 2011 in Tucson was a blend of old fashioned games and old fashioned politics.

As a volunteer with the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) booth, my job was to work the crowd and attach as many “Healthcare not Warfare” stickers to as many people as possible. This task afforded me the opportunity to engage in multiple conversations about universal healthcare, ending US military adventurism, and other political issues with dozens of people during the course of the day.

Two of the more extended and spirited discussions I had on Labor Day were with  Republican City Council candidate Jennifer Rawson and Republican Mayoral candidate Rick Grinnell. (I’m not sure if they were tag-teaming at the Labor Day event, but they passed by the PDA and Connect the Dots booths one right after another. Little did they know what they were stepping into.)

Rawson wandered by first, then Grinnell. They both accepted my “Healthcare not Warfare” stickers, and began to tell me who they were; but, of course, I already knew. I started my conversations with both of them with the same question:

If you are elected as a City Council person [or Mayor], how would you reduce the poverty rate in Tucson?

“Create jobs!” Rawson responded enthusiastically.

“How?” I asked.

At this juncture, Rawson shifted the topic from jobs and poverty to a story about a small business owner who received a bill for $5000 from the city for a light pole erected on her property. Boo hoo for the business owner was Rawson’s message. Of course, she didn’t offer anybackground information on this story– such as whether or not the small business owner has asked the city to erect the light pole on her property. Details, details. Instead she went off on the city and the fees…yada, yada, yada.

“Fix city government. It’s full of corruption. We really need to clean house!” was Grinnel’s answer to the poverty problem. (Well that didn’t answer my question at all. Ironically, when I checked Grinnell’s website today, I realized that he is on the Rio Nuevo Board… hmmm… city corruption… pot calling the kettle black?)

“So, do you want to know my ideas for creating jobs in Pima County?” I asked them both. Not allowing either of them to answer my rhetorical question, I launched into my ideas. I told them both that the Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities (better known as TREO) and the Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau (MTCVB) were a waste of money because they have been ineffective in their strategies to boost the Tucson economy or create jobs. Here is what I told them…

TREO’s tactic– also employed by economic development groups in dozens of cities– is to chase large corporations and sports teams with tax breaks, free land, and taxpayer-funded facilities (ie, ball parks, industrial parks, convention centers, etc.) This strategy benefits businesses, for sure, but it is was not producing long-term, good jobs in Tucson (remember IBM? remember Wiser Lock? remember spring training?)– or anywhere else– because these companies and sports teams are not loyal to the location. They are just looking for the best deal, and the cities and politicians are so desperate to look successful at job creation that they break the bank with the deals they offer. (I didn’t realize when I was dissing chasing sports teams that Grinnell used to do just that!)

The way to grow jobs– and help small businesses– in Tucson isn’t to give tax breaks to relocating corporations or to excuse fees levied on existing business; it’s to invest in businesses that are “born and raised” in Tucson — like Gadabout, Bohemia, Patio Pools, Technicians for Sustainability, Nimbus Brewery, Thunder Canyon Brewery, eegees, etc. Instead of spending $1 million to bring in another call center or baseball team, why not offer 50 – 100 individual $10-20,000 low-cost loans or grants to different local businesses with innovative ideas or well-crafted business expansion plans? (I’m talking real plans– not just “Hey, if we give you a $5000 tax credit, could you maybe hire someone someday?”)

With a $20,000 investment, would Gadabout start a skin care line? Would Nimbus or Thunder Canyon improve expand distribution to other states or start a spin-off business? Would Technicians for Sustainability start manufacturing their own line of solar shingles? Would Bohemia start marketing local art on the Internet or open another store or reduce their consignment fee (thus helping local artists make more money)? Who knows? At any rate, investment– not giveaways– will grow businesses (and jobs) because it fosters innovation and expansion– not just increased profits for the business owner.

After promoting Local First and trashing TREO’s ineffective strategies, I moved on to MTCVB. Tucson has a vibrant arts and music scene. Our musicians and artists are every bit as talented as Austin’s or New Orleans’. Tucson also has great musical events– the blues festival, the folk festival, Club Crawl, HoCo Fest, just to name a few– and local music in clubs nightly, but you won’t learn about any of these attractions on the MTCVB website. It’s all mariachis, golf, swanky resorts, rodeo, baseball(?), the Gem Show, cacti, and sunsets. On the MTCVB website, the only art represented is David Dominguez Gallery, Tohono Chul Park, the Tucson Museum of Art, and the Open Studio Tour. Huh? No mention of Dinnerware, Raices, the warehouse district galleries, or the Central Tucson Gallery Association. MCTVB is promoting business– not Tucson and Tucson’s cultural, artistic, and musical assets.

TREO and MTCVB should be de-funded, and their missions and tactics re-tooled. Their strategies are not working; it’s time to think forward.

What is our shared vision for Tucson and how do we realize it? Grinnell and Rawson offered me canned Republican answers to my sincere question about jobs and poverty. Is continued Democratic Party rule the answer? I’m not so sure about that; the Democrats have perpetuated the inept policies of TREO/MTCVB. Stay tuned for more…

Teams representing different labor unions prepare to push a giant ball back and forth across the field. Is this game an analogy for the political struggle between local Democrats and Republicans?

This graphic, based upon Department of Labor statistics, shows that overall middle class income has decreased with union membership.

According to Michael Moore, the beginning of the end was 30 years ago yesterday. On August 5, 1981, President Ronald Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers who had defied his back-to-work order. They had been on strike only two days. From Michael Moore’s The Day the Middle Class Died.

From time to time, someone under 30 will ask me, “When did this all begin, America’s downward slide?” They say they’ve heard of a time when working people could raise a family and send the kids to college on just one parent’s income (and that college in states like California and New York was almost free). That anyone who wanted a decent paying job could get one. That people only worked five days a week, eight hours a day, got the whole weekend off and had a paid vacation every summer. That many jobs were union jobs, from baggers at the grocery store to the guy painting your house, and this meant that no matter how “lowly” your job was you had guarantees of a pension, occasional raises, health insurance and someone to stick up for you if you were unfairly treated.

Young people have heard of this mythical time — but it was no myth, it was real. And when they ask, “When did this all end?”, I say, “It ended on this day: August 5th, 1981.”

Beginning on this date, 30 years ago, Big Business and the Right Wing decided to “go for it” — to see if they could actually destroy the middle class so that they could become richer themselves.

And they’ve succeeded.

Thirty years of trickle down economics later…

Productivity is up, wages are in decline, union membership continues to decline, corporate profits are breaking records, unemployment and housing forclosures are ravishing the middle class, Americans are going bankrupt due to sky-rocketing medical costs, and income disparities between the richest 1 percent and the rest of us are ever-widening.

Meanwhile, Congress– owned by big business and paralyzed by ideology– fiddles while Rome burns.

Americans are weary from grinding recession and disenchanted [putting it mildly] with our out-of-touch government. After the recent debt ceiling fiasco and the shutdown of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) due to an ideological, anti-union battle, a full 14 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, according to a recent CNN poll. (A commentator on National Public Radio’s Diane Rehm Show quipped that the 14 percent who said they approved of Congress’ performance must not have understood the question.)

And why shouldn’t we feel disenfranchised by this corporate-controlled government? In poll after poll taken during the protracted debt/deficit battle, Americans said they favored a balanced approach to deficit reduction– one that decreased spending + increased revenues– but that’s not what we got in the end. What we got was a Tea Party dream, a deficit reduction deal based solely on cuts which will likely cost the US 1.8 million jobs. Congressional Teapublicans– including five from Arizona (Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, Phil Gossar– even scared Wall Street and financial markets worldwide with their intransigence and extremism.

From Noam Chomsky’s America in Decline…

For the public, the primary domestic concern is unemployment. Under current circumstances, that crisis can be overcome only by a significant government stimulus, well beyond the recent one, which barely matched decline in state and local spending – though even that limited initiative probably saved millions of jobs.

For financial institutions the primary concern is the deficit. Therefore, only the deficit is under discussion. A large majority of the population favor addressing the deficit by taxing the very rich (72 percent, 27 percent opposed), reports a Washington Post-ABC News poll. Cutting health programs is opposed by overwhelming majorities (69 percent Medicaid, 78 percent Medicare). The likely outcome is therefore the opposite.

The Program on International Policy Attitudes surveyed how the public would eliminate the deficit. PIPA director Steven Kull writes, “Clearly both the administration and the Republican-led House (of Representatives) are out of step with the public’s values and priorities in regard to the budget.”

The survey illustrates the deep divide: “The biggest difference in spending is that the public favored deep cuts in defense spending, while the administration and the House propose modest increases. The public also favored more spending on job training, education and pollution control than did either the administration or the House.”

The final “compromise” – more accurately, capitulation to the far right – is the opposite throughout, and is almost certain to lead to slower growth and long-term harm to all but the rich and the corporations, which are enjoying record profits.

Is Tucson the new ‘Hooverville’?

Homeless shanty towns-- Hoovervilles-- sprang up during the Great Depression. (Photo Credit: Dorthea Lange for the Farm Security Administration.)

What has all of this got to do with life here in Tucson? Plenty. Two recent studies show that: 1) Tucson has the highest rate of poverty of any major city in the sunbelt and 2) Tucson has the “sickest” housing market in the US.

These statistics– coupled with Arizona’s Starve-the-Beast-Feed-the-Capitalists state government and Teapublican Congressional representatives–Gosar (CD1), Franks (CD2), Quayle (CD3, Schweikert (CD5), and Flake (CD6)– paint a pretty bleak future for the Old Pueblo.

What can we do about it? A few weeks ago at a City Council meeting, political activist Jim Hannley suggested that the Tucson Mayor and Council set up a citizens’ commission to study local poverty (Check out the video at about 3:16 minutes in part 2.) In 2007, then Tucson City Councilman Steve Leal’s office compiled a “Poverty and Urban Stress” report. With dozens of statistical graphics, the 90+ page document details poverty, educational attainment, crime, and other urban stress indicators citywide and by Council ward. At the time, the Arizona Daily Star lauded the report and the City Council agreed to revisit the report annually… but didn’t. That was 2007– before the market crash of 2008 and the ensuing recession. Obviously Tucson’s economy– as well as the state’s and the nation’s– has slid since the report was created.

Repeatedly, the Tucson City Council has bowed to local business interests, at the expense of citizens and workers. The City’s budget– like the state’s and the nation’s– has been cut by cutting jobs, thus worsening our economy by increasing unemployment.

It’s time for Tucson’s Mayor and Council to take the long view on our economy. Leal’s report should be updated and expanded to include multi-year trend data. After the update, a citizens’ commission focusing on poverty, the local economy, and jobs should be created to study the data and make recommendations based upon economic research and best practices from other cities.

As Tucson celebrates its 236th birthday this month, it’s time for Tucsonans to stop grumbling, to start fighting for economic and social justice, and to take a lesson from The Little Engine that Could: I think I can. I think I can. I think I can.

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)

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.

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 a recent e-mail blast, Ward 6 City Councilman Steve Kozachik released a long and varied list of projects that the City Council will be contemplating and potentially voting upon in the coming months. The list is below. In addition, rumor has it that the City Council is considering scrapping or at least knee-capping the Sign Code. If you hate billboards as much as I do, go tell the City Council that you want to see the mountains and sunsets– not the Clear Channel advertising!

There is a City Council Meeting today– May 24, 2011. As always, the meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. and include a call to audience, when you and everyone else can voice their opinions.

In last week’s newsletter I promised to share with you the Strategic Work Plan items that the city is contemplating. These are projects with varying levels of urgency and funding. We will be discussing them over the next several weeks. I’m interested in your thoughts about the items on the list.

1. City/County Courthouse – build a new courthouse to house both City and County operations
2. Expand City Court self-serve kiosks program – to allow remote filing of court documents
3. Graffiti Reduction Pilot Program – has already begun in the downtown area with purpose of identifying taggers and bringing charges
4. Implement PCWIN Project – interconnected communications system for and in between public safety agencies
5. Wireless data communication for Public Safety – new proprietary data communications system
6. Replace Public Safety computer aided dispatch – relates to 911 call center.The intent is to streamline that operation
7. Partner with UA for downtown development – has already begun with Roy Place Building and more plans are being developed
8. Downtown Civic Events coordinator – comprehensive plan for coordinating the planning and staging of community events
9. Management of downtown performing arts centers – consider options for how to manage and co-promote performing arts venues
10. Downtown links overlay zone – optional overlay for zoning of properties located within the downtown links urban overlay district
11. Create downtown entertainment district – meant to designate an Entertainment District primarily to ease restrictions on sale of alcohol
12. Ronstadt Transit Center redesign – consider adding retail/mixed use to the southern border of the RTC
13. Create plan for City owned facilities and land downtown – to create both short and long term returns to the General Fund, HURF and CDBG programs to the community.
14. Westside projects / Mission Garden – seek out funding and continue in conceptual design on the properties.
15. Implement new Clean Renewable Energy Bonds – full debt service is dependent on approval from the Rio Board.
16. Aerospace and Defense corridor – continue working with TREO to create cluster development in this sector.
17. Implement energy efficiency and conservation block grants.
18. Revise Small Business Enterprise programs – create program for giving incentives to local businesses bidding on City work
19. 2012 Bond Election – earmarked at this time to fund projects in police, fire and other core services.
20. Procurement Card program – expand use of PCards in operating departments to save City processing costs and receive rebates for their use
21. Identify economic incentive package for attracting businesses – identify appropriate incentives the City can offer prospects
22. Expenditure limitation – create a permanent expenditure cap, a level beyond our projection capabilities that is fixed, unless changed by a simple majority from the council.
23. Marketing, communication web strategy – put out through social media some positive news stories and other City news worthy items.
24. Extend public pensions TSRS end of service plan – provide an incentive for people to retire if they have met certain criteria.
25. Retiree wellness program – offered to retirees as an option within their health plan coverage
26. Develop Health Insurance RFP – put out on the street provision of health insurance to all City employees
27. Consolidation of Boards, Committees and Commissions – streamline BCC process in order to save volunteers’ time and hopefully expand volunteer pool.
28. Community services dialogues – hear Budget 101 from staff and offer input
29. ERP I.T. Technology – upgrade the software being used by the City and enhance the communication processes.
30. Comply with recent State mandates relating to maintenance of financial data – keeping records per State statute
31. Deferred maintenance plan – put together a comprehensive deferred maintenance plan and begin to perform work under the plan to protect taxpayer assets
32. Comply with recent State and Federal mandates regarding technology and personal data – identity theft protection measures
33. P4 program – allows virtual meeting option through upgrade to City communications system
34. 792-CITY – citizen virtual information center
35. Update building code – more user friendly code system
36. Environmental Services and Tucson Water greenhouse gas inventories – conduct greenhouse gas inventories in ES and TW
37. Plan Tucson – General plan for Tucson, as per State mandate
38. Greater Southlands habitat conservation plan – plan to protect habitat and provide for responsible growth in undeveloped lands south and east of Tucson
39. Modern Streetcar – design has begun and work on the tracks will begin soon
40. City/County water-wastewater study – program to set goals and recommendations related to water supply, integrate planning, demand management and respect for the environment
41. Seawater Foundation – provide alternatives to use of CAP water in Yuma region – crops grown in seawater freeing up CAP for jurisdictions.
42. Complete Land Use Code parking amendments
43. Continue to amend Land Use Code – should have Clarion Study done this year.
44. Sustainable Land Use Code amendments – should have additions to LUC in the area of sustainability later this year
45. Zoning along streetcar route to facilitate development – mixed use, residential, and commercial
46. Houghton Road - change from Scenic Corridor to a Gateway Corridor
47. Expand Houghton Road Area master plan to include areas southeast on State Land
48. Parks and Recreation 10 year growth plan
49. Planning for future events at Hi Corbett field
50. Clean City initiative – multi-departmental program to address pot-holes, graffiti, landscaping, etc.
51. Barrio Viejo drainage project – determine funding sources for this project that was placed on hold when Rio Nuevo pulled funding.
52. West University ”transition area” plan amendment – land use code alterations
53. Transit Fare shift to use of Smart Cards
54. Five year financing plan for Sun Tran/Transit
55. Update Chapter 25 – relates to neighborhood cleanliness – landscaping, removal of unsightly items from private property, etc
56. Riparian Preservation and Restoration – revise the City’s existing riparian preservation ordinances
57. Urban landscape/heat island management – Land Use Code changes to address urban landscape issues
58. Net Zero Energy Program – energy conservation program
59. Planning & Development Services stakeholder group to be formed
60. Developmental Services to adopt “best practices” as found in researching other progressive localities
61. Sign Code program administration improvements
62. Update Tucson Floodplain Ordinance
63. Catalina High School Skate Park fencing project

 

Staff will be making presentation of these proposed Work Plan projects over the next several weeks. Council meetings are always open to the public, so come on down to 255 W. Alameda, Council Chambers, on Tuesday at 2 p.m. for our study session or wait until after 5:30 p.m. to get your time at the microphone during Call to the Audience.