With that, your questions do not lend themselves to easy, seriatim answers. I will touch each of the questions you have asked, and yet they blend together and to answer them one by one would not do justice to the complexity of the economic issues on which they touch. The other candidates will of course answer them as they see fit. For me, they speak to a theme which I will address below.
The key question is #3; What plan or plans do you have to help stimulate the economy?
|
|
On my web site I have offered a vision for downtown revitalization. In brief, it includes creating a link between the UA and downtown to establish a K-PhD corridor, linked by Sun Tran and Cat Tran (no need to await the trolley) - create a Drug Free Zone either by ordinance or using the buffers already in existence via the charter schools in the area - build graduate level student housing and classroom space in underutilized City buildings and support the building of a major youth/amateur sports complex being promoted by the Pima County Sports Authority. That provides all of the elements needed to anchor in private sector development, draw in tourism and with that make our downtown area no longer a laughingstock, but a jewel upon which other cities can look and follow. Of importance is to also work towards breaking down barriers to entry into our locale such as overly restrictive zoning overlays, the creation of an uneven playing field by offering differentials in lease agreements which drive down the land/asset values by giving away city owned property as a part of development agreements, etc. The government should not compete in the private sector, thereby picking winners and creating losers. Private sector development is stifled if potential investors see that they will not be treated on an even basis once they arrive. In addition, several of your questions address taxation. If you want less of something, charge more for it. Basic economics. I am not a proponent of raising taxes, especially during an economic downturn. And yet, to specify which, if any taxes I would roll back is to miss the dynamic of needing to consider each of those in the broader context of budgetary shortfalls, obligated spending and the health of the various sectors of our economy as compared to others. There is simply a much broader discussion that needs to accompany the answer to which specific taxes are excessive and which may stay in place to provide the funding needed for satisfying the core services the City is charged with providing. As to those core services, one is clearly public safety. Yes, I am a supporter of the Safety First Initiative. You ask if taxes are a part of my proposal for paying for its implementation. No, it is not. We are paying for it already in terms of excessive crime on our streets. We are paying for it in terms of the hidden tax that is high homeowners, auto and business insurance. To your point though, the answer is in growing the pie, not cut backs and increasing taxes. Jobs generate sales tax revenue - that feeds the trough at which the City bureaucracy feeds. Ultimately, that is the answer. In the meantime, we fund that core obligation of City government by tightening our collective belt and refocusing what services the City is providing back to those for which it is primarily ‘in business.’ With respect to jobs and growing the pie, we look long and hard at the effects specific taxes may be having on our ability to invite in new business. Taxes that render us less competitive to other locales, such as the bed tax, need to be reconsidered. Taxes that strike at the heart of the ‘least of those among us’ need to be avoided. Taxes that create their own barriers to entry into professions that we need for economic vitality in our community need to be avoided.
The City Manager needs policy direction from the Mayor and Council. From that leadership he is then charged with finding in the budget the resources to meet core needs, and making cuts in areas that fall outside of those parameters. That is a series of discussions, not an edict from M&C as is suggested in your question #2.
I would consider it. Ahead of that though is the need for each council office to reduce the number of staff on their payroll. Regardless of whether or not we consolidate into one central office, council members need to rely less on staff for their research and more on their own initiative. Further, I recognize that it is impossible for a council member to attend all meetings and events that occur throughout the ward. Paid staff is not the only solution though. Throughout the course of this campaign I have been approached by innumerable people wanting to be involved in our process of governance. Those are candidates for volunteer representation at some of the meetings that will deserve attention. In addition, I am daily contacted via email by neighborhood and business representatives – we engage healthy and productive dialogues in this fashion. In these days of tight budgets, and with an interest in minimizing the use of our fossil fuels, we can and should become more efficient in the ways we approach intra-community communications and representation.
Comments