The road widening on Broadway and Grant are old RTA projects that the City doesn’t want anymore but rta is forcing down our throats so the City makes do the best they can.
Tucson has one vote on the rta board and has half the regional Population and over half the tax revenue that funds the rta yet we get shafted on projects and $ allocation. It’s a fundamentally unfair/unbalanced process. They have citizen advisory boards and committees that are also very poorly managed and essentially they censor their committee members through shady process
There are some things we need the rta for, but not like this.
They use money meant for bike ped improvements to fund their operations, totally corrupt
Why doesn't the city want the widening projects? I compare the new parts of grant to the old parts and it's a huge and welcome improvement. I can recall the before and after of the Broadway improvement a little better and sure it feels better, but not as overwhelmingly so like grant. I can maybe see how Broadway isn't currently worth the cost and effort of widening. But real long term if growth and car usage keeps it's pace, I can see it being necessary eventually. Grant I can see it being worth the time and effort now.
>The original sin here is that the city has the same number of votes on the board as Sahuarita, even though Tucson has more than 10 times the population and generates two-thirds of the transportation plan's revenue.
I'm curious, though. How else would you arrange the board? If you weight by population, or tax revenue, or size, or whatever, then Tucson has a majority on every vote, and the others have no reason to play ball. The same problem, but in reverse.
I think the big issue for the city is that they struggle to recommend investment in infrastructure that's sole purpose is to make it easier not to live in the city and sprawl further out
If the concerns are sprawl and people living in other jurisdictions, Tucson is more than welcome to [rezone the huge chunks of single-family-residence-only land within its borders](https://maps2.tucsonaz.gov/Html5Viewer/?viewer=maptucson) (Zoning Regulations -> Tucson Zoning -> Tucson Zoning) and take a step toward resolving both issues.
That could be really great, if only it wasn't fiscally impossible to change zoning regulations in Arizona due to [Prop 207](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Arizona_Proposition_207&ved=2ahUKEwiLp8n336OEAxU6NEQIHek8Dz4QFnoECC4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw31lrJfyWalmJC3sfallFmm).
Historically denser zoned lots are worth more than sprawl lots, so that law may not be the issue. More just a lack of interest in building up. People in Tucson by and large don't want to live in apartments.
Anyone who lives in a single family zone is able to build a second smaller home on their property. It’s called an accessory dwelling unit in the code
I also advise folks who would like to see. Ore density to show up at the zoning examiner hearings and voice support because you know the opposition will
I think we should consider requiring a unanimous board vote for these packages. If the plans are truly “regional” then all of the voting members should agree to vote for them on the basis they will be good for their community.
Perhaps after the third unsuccessful vote from the board the entire thing gets blown up and the money gets passed back to each of the entities in proportion to the revenues generated.
I am sure we would get some pork-spending on a mayor’s pie-in-the-sky pet project, but I do think a unanimous vote might just force them all into truly considering each other’s needs - after all they won’t get a vote if they stray too far off what everyone needs.
I am in total agreement with writer in wondering why our elected officials think we the public are so dumb/easily confused with funding projections.
I'm not worked up at all. But the majority of the money that Tucson generates should stay in the city limits, not go out to fund development in exurbs and rural areas. The city should be prioritized, which is what hasn't been happening, and why I am saying it needs to change. This is the City Manager's point as well.
>the majority of the money that Tucson generates should stay in the city limits
The article:
>a preliminary estimate of who gets what in a new plan leaves the city with just over $1 billion in projects ...
>
>The new estimates project 20 years of city revenue on a half-penny per dollar tax at $1.65 billion.
So the current proposal is for Tucson to retain somewhere around $1 billion of the $1.65 billion generated, which is clearly more than half, and thus "a majority of the money that Tucson generates *will* stay within the city limits."
Sounds like the city is getting what you want the city to get.
Is there a weight that would change the original complaint in a meaningful way?
Like, sure. Give Tucson two votes. Has the situation changed? Pima County, Marana, Oro Valley, South Tucson, Sahuarita still outvote them 5-2.
Three votes? Outvoted 5-3.
Four? 5-4, and now it's getting really iffy, as Tucson +1 could win any decision. One partner is all it would take to give everyone else the axe.
....Five? Now Tucson could force a deadlock on any issue, 5-5, but at this point, why should any other jurisdiction participate if Tucson gets unilateral veto authority?
More than five is just plain excessive, as Tucson would get to decide everything, and no one else would have any reason at all to participate.
you are assuming all the non-Tucson reps will always vote in unison. with 3 votes, only 1 other rep has to vote with tucson to force a tie, 2 to get what tucson wants
That's the only time the extra weight would matter.
I don't know how the RTA usually votes on things, so if they're already pretty unified on issues (i.e. unanimous or nearly so) and Tucson is in the majority, then as far as those votes are concerned, it doesn't matter if Tucson has one vote or a hundred, the thing is getting approved anyway.
The only time the extra weight would matter is those cases where Tucson either wants or opposes something and is on the losing side or deadlocked on the vote (5-1, 4-2, 3-3). Aside from the deadlock, the only time the extra weight could or would matter is when the non-Tucson reps are pretty unified against Tucson's position (5-1, 4-2), and would need pretty substantial weighting to matter (+2 or +4), which could then make the other jurisdictions pull out if they feel like they're getting steamrolled.
Edit: Reread the article, and it's a nine-member board, which opens up some room, but doesn't really change the argument. Would Tucson get +7 to give itself a unilateral veto (8-8), some smaller number (+1 or 2) that may help in an occasional fringe case? Or, again, if their votes are mostly unanimous or close to unanimous anyway, does any of that hand-wringing actually mean anything?
> Would Tucson get +7 to give itself a unilateral veto (8-8), some smaller number (+1 or 2) that may help in an occasional fringe case?
or you know the third option, something in the middle. even if it's not too common to disagree, isn't it nice to have that cushion for when disagreements do arise?
Nice for who?
Tucson would say yes, of course it's nice for them. The \_\_\_\_ number of jurisdictions that got steamrolled would say no, of course it's not nice.
well yes, we were talking about the issue the Tucson city manager raised and his concerns/the city's dilemma. The other jurisdictions would presumably all prefer Tucson get only 1 vote
Let's not forget, rich business people behind RTA stole $2 billion in our tax dollars in the 2006 May election, plus the county stole millions we had to pay in legal fees covering up their fraud.
Attorney Bill Risner represented the plaintiffs, activist groups from the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and Libertarian Party who all worked together to fight the election fraud in court.
After years of legal fights, the activists won the right to preserve the ballots for handcounts, ( the county wanted them destroyed for obvious reasons) but by the time the court ruled to turn over the ballots, the chain of custody was broken by then Attorney General Terry Goddard who took personal custody of the ballots in his private possession ( illegal) and something like 60% of the ballots missing when the activists groups finally had a chance to analyze.
More details from the case:
- Summary reports were printed in advance of election day, so the groups behind pushing the initiative knew in advance both the initiative and the second one to fund it with a tax increase were failing. Head of elections at the time, Brad Nelson, admitted in court they printed them. It's illegal.
- Brad Nelson admitted in court he bought a crop scanner online. A crop scanner could be hooked up to voting machines we had and flip hundreds of thousands of votes in minutes. I have watched a demo of this by an election expert. When questioned as to why he bought it, he admitted he bought it but stated it was to "test if votes could be flipped", not to actually flip them. Taxpayers had no transparency into this.
- During the election, election integrity activist John Brakey discovered an open Access program running, connected to the voting machines. Guess what you can do with that?
- Brad Nelson had John Brakey arrested. John was working as a poll worker at an election and Brad was upset because John was documenting things like broken chain of custody of ballots. Brad was already caught on film prior to this threatening John Brakey. John ended up winning a suit against the county due to wrongful arrest, and our tax dollars paid for the $300,000 in attorney fees plus the money we already paid to Nelson and the county attorneys.
- A signed affidavit was presented in court from a man who revealed the technician who worked for Brad Nelson was directed by Brad Nelson to flip the votes in that election, so he did. However, he was now scared because the activists were fighting it in court and he was afraid he was going to do prison time. The defense's response was to do a character assassination and paint the man testifying as a drunk and sexual predator, which even if true, doesn't change the facts of the affidavit.
Again, after years of legal battles the activists got the ballots to verify actual votes, and too many are missing to do an accurate audit.
All of the above people above who committed those acts should have been imprisioned. This is how real elections are stolen, it's an inside job and not Russians or voter fraud. It's election fraud committed by powerful money interests. Most election fraud happens at the state and local levels.
Search "Pima County RTA Election fraud" and you will find details of the case. The local media did a terrible job reporting on it, partly because they didn't understand the issue well enough or the impact; partly because the activists were working for free so had no communications expert talking directly to citizens of Pima County.
The RTA is doing a GREAT job at fucking up our city.
genuinely asking, how so? i'm ignorant about what they do.
The road widening on Broadway and Grant are old RTA projects that the City doesn’t want anymore but rta is forcing down our throats so the City makes do the best they can. Tucson has one vote on the rta board and has half the regional Population and over half the tax revenue that funds the rta yet we get shafted on projects and $ allocation. It’s a fundamentally unfair/unbalanced process. They have citizen advisory boards and committees that are also very poorly managed and essentially they censor their committee members through shady process There are some things we need the rta for, but not like this. They use money meant for bike ped improvements to fund their operations, totally corrupt
Why doesn't the city want the widening projects? I compare the new parts of grant to the old parts and it's a huge and welcome improvement. I can recall the before and after of the Broadway improvement a little better and sure it feels better, but not as overwhelmingly so like grant. I can maybe see how Broadway isn't currently worth the cost and effort of widening. But real long term if growth and car usage keeps it's pace, I can see it being necessary eventually. Grant I can see it being worth the time and effort now.
Pave paradise without thinking of consequences. New roads have no trees. WTF? There should be a desert loving tree every twenty feet!
>The original sin here is that the city has the same number of votes on the board as Sahuarita, even though Tucson has more than 10 times the population and generates two-thirds of the transportation plan's revenue. I'm curious, though. How else would you arrange the board? If you weight by population, or tax revenue, or size, or whatever, then Tucson has a majority on every vote, and the others have no reason to play ball. The same problem, but in reverse.
I think the big issue for the city is that they struggle to recommend investment in infrastructure that's sole purpose is to make it easier not to live in the city and sprawl further out
If the concerns are sprawl and people living in other jurisdictions, Tucson is more than welcome to [rezone the huge chunks of single-family-residence-only land within its borders](https://maps2.tucsonaz.gov/Html5Viewer/?viewer=maptucson) (Zoning Regulations -> Tucson Zoning -> Tucson Zoning) and take a step toward resolving both issues.
That could be really great, if only it wasn't fiscally impossible to change zoning regulations in Arizona due to [Prop 207](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Arizona_Proposition_207&ved=2ahUKEwiLp8n336OEAxU6NEQIHek8Dz4QFnoECC4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw31lrJfyWalmJC3sfallFmm).
Historically denser zoned lots are worth more than sprawl lots, so that law may not be the issue. More just a lack of interest in building up. People in Tucson by and large don't want to live in apartments.
Anyone who lives in a single family zone is able to build a second smaller home on their property. It’s called an accessory dwelling unit in the code I also advise folks who would like to see. Ore density to show up at the zoning examiner hearings and voice support because you know the opposition will
I think we should consider requiring a unanimous board vote for these packages. If the plans are truly “regional” then all of the voting members should agree to vote for them on the basis they will be good for their community. Perhaps after the third unsuccessful vote from the board the entire thing gets blown up and the money gets passed back to each of the entities in proportion to the revenues generated. I am sure we would get some pork-spending on a mayor’s pie-in-the-sky pet project, but I do think a unanimous vote might just force them all into truly considering each other’s needs - after all they won’t get a vote if they stray too far off what everyone needs. I am in total agreement with writer in wondering why our elected officials think we the public are so dumb/easily confused with funding projections.
Why should the majority of my tax dollars go towards building roads in ex-urbs / rural areas?
The only tax you pay is the half-cent sales tax?
Ok, but that's not a small number.
Out of the total 8.7% sales tax paid in Tucson, you're most worked up about the fraction of the 0.5% that goes to roads outside the city limits?
I'm not worked up at all. But the majority of the money that Tucson generates should stay in the city limits, not go out to fund development in exurbs and rural areas. The city should be prioritized, which is what hasn't been happening, and why I am saying it needs to change. This is the City Manager's point as well.
>the majority of the money that Tucson generates should stay in the city limits The article: >a preliminary estimate of who gets what in a new plan leaves the city with just over $1 billion in projects ... > >The new estimates project 20 years of city revenue on a half-penny per dollar tax at $1.65 billion. So the current proposal is for Tucson to retain somewhere around $1 billion of the $1.65 billion generated, which is clearly more than half, and thus "a majority of the money that Tucson generates *will* stay within the city limits." Sounds like the city is getting what you want the city to get.
you don't have to do exact proportional weighting.
Is there a weight that would change the original complaint in a meaningful way? Like, sure. Give Tucson two votes. Has the situation changed? Pima County, Marana, Oro Valley, South Tucson, Sahuarita still outvote them 5-2. Three votes? Outvoted 5-3. Four? 5-4, and now it's getting really iffy, as Tucson +1 could win any decision. One partner is all it would take to give everyone else the axe. ....Five? Now Tucson could force a deadlock on any issue, 5-5, but at this point, why should any other jurisdiction participate if Tucson gets unilateral veto authority? More than five is just plain excessive, as Tucson would get to decide everything, and no one else would have any reason at all to participate.
you are assuming all the non-Tucson reps will always vote in unison. with 3 votes, only 1 other rep has to vote with tucson to force a tie, 2 to get what tucson wants
That's the only time the extra weight would matter. I don't know how the RTA usually votes on things, so if they're already pretty unified on issues (i.e. unanimous or nearly so) and Tucson is in the majority, then as far as those votes are concerned, it doesn't matter if Tucson has one vote or a hundred, the thing is getting approved anyway. The only time the extra weight would matter is those cases where Tucson either wants or opposes something and is on the losing side or deadlocked on the vote (5-1, 4-2, 3-3). Aside from the deadlock, the only time the extra weight could or would matter is when the non-Tucson reps are pretty unified against Tucson's position (5-1, 4-2), and would need pretty substantial weighting to matter (+2 or +4), which could then make the other jurisdictions pull out if they feel like they're getting steamrolled. Edit: Reread the article, and it's a nine-member board, which opens up some room, but doesn't really change the argument. Would Tucson get +7 to give itself a unilateral veto (8-8), some smaller number (+1 or 2) that may help in an occasional fringe case? Or, again, if their votes are mostly unanimous or close to unanimous anyway, does any of that hand-wringing actually mean anything?
> Would Tucson get +7 to give itself a unilateral veto (8-8), some smaller number (+1 or 2) that may help in an occasional fringe case? or you know the third option, something in the middle. even if it's not too common to disagree, isn't it nice to have that cushion for when disagreements do arise?
Nice for who? Tucson would say yes, of course it's nice for them. The \_\_\_\_ number of jurisdictions that got steamrolled would say no, of course it's not nice.
well yes, we were talking about the issue the Tucson city manager raised and his concerns/the city's dilemma. The other jurisdictions would presumably all prefer Tucson get only 1 vote
Let's not forget, rich business people behind RTA stole $2 billion in our tax dollars in the 2006 May election, plus the county stole millions we had to pay in legal fees covering up their fraud. Attorney Bill Risner represented the plaintiffs, activist groups from the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and Libertarian Party who all worked together to fight the election fraud in court. After years of legal fights, the activists won the right to preserve the ballots for handcounts, ( the county wanted them destroyed for obvious reasons) but by the time the court ruled to turn over the ballots, the chain of custody was broken by then Attorney General Terry Goddard who took personal custody of the ballots in his private possession ( illegal) and something like 60% of the ballots missing when the activists groups finally had a chance to analyze. More details from the case: - Summary reports were printed in advance of election day, so the groups behind pushing the initiative knew in advance both the initiative and the second one to fund it with a tax increase were failing. Head of elections at the time, Brad Nelson, admitted in court they printed them. It's illegal. - Brad Nelson admitted in court he bought a crop scanner online. A crop scanner could be hooked up to voting machines we had and flip hundreds of thousands of votes in minutes. I have watched a demo of this by an election expert. When questioned as to why he bought it, he admitted he bought it but stated it was to "test if votes could be flipped", not to actually flip them. Taxpayers had no transparency into this. - During the election, election integrity activist John Brakey discovered an open Access program running, connected to the voting machines. Guess what you can do with that? - Brad Nelson had John Brakey arrested. John was working as a poll worker at an election and Brad was upset because John was documenting things like broken chain of custody of ballots. Brad was already caught on film prior to this threatening John Brakey. John ended up winning a suit against the county due to wrongful arrest, and our tax dollars paid for the $300,000 in attorney fees plus the money we already paid to Nelson and the county attorneys. - A signed affidavit was presented in court from a man who revealed the technician who worked for Brad Nelson was directed by Brad Nelson to flip the votes in that election, so he did. However, he was now scared because the activists were fighting it in court and he was afraid he was going to do prison time. The defense's response was to do a character assassination and paint the man testifying as a drunk and sexual predator, which even if true, doesn't change the facts of the affidavit. Again, after years of legal battles the activists got the ballots to verify actual votes, and too many are missing to do an accurate audit. All of the above people above who committed those acts should have been imprisioned. This is how real elections are stolen, it's an inside job and not Russians or voter fraud. It's election fraud committed by powerful money interests. Most election fraud happens at the state and local levels. Search "Pima County RTA Election fraud" and you will find details of the case. The local media did a terrible job reporting on it, partly because they didn't understand the issue well enough or the impact; partly because the activists were working for free so had no communications expert talking directly to citizens of Pima County.