Property Rights, Markets, and Feldman’s Fight for Neighborhood Preservation

In the early part of the twentieth century, the University of Arizona occupied a quaint, two story, brick building now referred to as “Old Main”. Meanwhile, not far away, a number of “sanatoriums” were being built for TB patients from across the country. The neighborhood north of Speedway was nicknamed “Lung Hill.” Today the University of Arizona has metastasized into a gigantic sports, research, and educational facility with an international student body that numbers around 38,000. “Lung Hill” is now the Feldman’s Historic District and Neighborhood Association, in which many of the sanatorium buildings, along with homes of the same vintage, still stand. The Feldman’s neighborhood is primarily residential, composed of both owner-occupied and rented houses, with a mix of university employees, students, and others.

As the university student population has ballooned – doubling over the last few decades – the market for student housing has increased concomitantly. Naturally, areas around the university have seen an increase in student residents. Often a parent would lease, or even purchase, a house near the university and the child, along with any number of friends, would occupy it. Eventually, developers began to respond to the market demand by building rental structures designed for the student customer – they were nicknamed “mini-dorms”.

Long established residents of these neighborhoods suddenly realized that they did not live in gated communities, and as Dylan said, “The times they are a-changin'”. The folks in Feldman’s Historic District and Neighborhood Association were on the cutting edge of these changes, and they did not like it one bit. Seeing, or seeking, no alternative, they sought the force of government to freeze time and turn their neighborhood into a preserve.

Of course, a villain was necessary. The obvious one is the University of Arizona. Its inability to provide accommodations for its students is the root of the problem. The behavior of students themselves, not their existence, is the problem itself. One might even blame the residents themselves for not protecting the neighborhood with extreme zoning before now. Somehow, all these parties were overlooked, and the mini-dorm developer, Michael Goodman, became the bad guy.

Look, I would not want affordable student housing in my neighborhood either. However, I find it hard to condemn a developer who is satisfying a need in the community while staying within zoning laws and codes. He also purchased the land he wished to change. He did not seek the help of city government to force a change on other people’s property. A primary function of property rights is to settle the question of land use. If you want to call the shot, you buy the property. The alternative is large protracted fights over land use with some arbiter assigning a solution that pleases nobody. The idea of ownership also tends to direct land to the best use. For example, a couple with children would be willing to pay more for a four bedroom house than a retired couple, so they each end up in suitable houses. In fact, professionals often buy properties on which to build structures to satisfy a local need. Then they become the villain.

While Feldman’s may have no choice but to resort to extreme zoning – the approval of the development manual and NPZ overlay – other neighborhoods might take some preemptive action. Imagine a neighborhood that came together and pooled some resources and bought up the properties that came up for sale. Once there was a consensus, the residents could contract with each other to adhere to guidelines regarding the properties that went above and beyond the zoning. They could get the city to give them the streets and public areas, abandon the rights of way, etc. They could limit access, take responsibility for the roads, and be at peace with each other, like a gated community.

I know that gated communities are not at all “cool”, but we’re not posing here. Look, people talk a lot about loving “diversity”, but they don’t mean it. I’m sure many of the residents of Feldman’s Historic District and Neighborhood Association hold “diversity” close to their hearts, until it arrives on their streets. They then clamor for tighter zoning. The point of zoning laws, my friends, is to prevent diversity. No family wants to live by a meat packer, a mini-dorm, or a 24-hour coffee shop.

Hopefully, the example of Feldman’s will lead to securing neighborhoods through co-operative rather than combative methods.

Tucson Elections Wrap-up

The votes have been cast, and Tucsonans sent clear messages regarding the ballot proposals. Council races are now official.

Candidates:

Richard Fimbres won Ward V beating Shaun McCluskey. Karin Uhlich hangs on to Ward III by 195 votes beating Ben Beuhler-Garcia. Steve Kozachick upsets incumbent Nina Trasoff in Ward VI by well over 1,000 votes.

Props 401 and 402, TUSD Overrides:

Both attempts by Tucson Unified School District to exceed its its budgets limits were defeated, both by substantial 20 point margins. The failure reflects a basic distrust among Tucsonans. From the many financial scandals, to the “Post Unitary Status Plan”. Greg Patterson of Espresso Pundit credits the controversial “La Raza” (The Race) program.

Young man with Karin Uhlich tee-shirt holds SEIU generated ant-prop 200 sign at Tea Party


Prop 200, Public Safety:

This ill-conceived proposal would mandate specific police and fire response times, officer/population ratios, etc.The idea was to force the council to fund basic services rather than pet projects, favored charities, and payoffs to supporters. The promotion effort was terrible, and the Left seized on the general anti-tax mood to attack the proposal. Service Employees International Union (SEIU) activists were seen at the last Tucson Tea Party parading around with signs saying that Prop 200 would increase taxes. It lost 70% to 30%

In the Graffiti Colony

Graffiti is the bane of Tucson residents. It is generally ugly, costly, and is an indicator (like broken windows) of a crime-ridden neighborhood. I’ll take it a step further, and claim that it is bad for the perpetrators. It is a tool for minors to develop their ant-social, even solipsistic tendencies.

No part of Tucson, certainly no part of mid-town, is untouched by graffiti. Individuals and neighborhood groups are engaged in an endless campaign to clean up after these proto-vandals. The City of Tucson assists residents in this effort by offering classes in graffiti abatement, and providing removal services. In fact, before the City of Tucson started experiencing budget constraints, it used to hire a contractor with two paint trucks to professionally color-match and paint over graffiti. A telephone call would dispatch a team to the scene of the crime.

Meanwhile, in another part of the municipal government, a how-to-do-graffiti class was both facilitated and subsidized. You may recall the mural spray painted on the side of a Tucson Water building downtown. It was the product of a class taught by “graffiti artist” Rocky Martinez. Mr. Martinez teaches a graffiti-art program for the City of Tucson called Arts in Reality. Accorfing to the Red Star, the program is funded in part by $8,000.00 from Regina Romero’s discretionary youth fund.

Here’s a money saving idea: the City of Tucson should decide if it wants to discourage graffiti, or promote it; then it could discontinue either the abatement efforts, or the how-to classes. Does that make sense, or am I missing something? The reaction of the public, particularly those who live in the vicinity of the “mural’, might have provided some direction to the City, but no, it went directly into silk-purse-from-sow’s-ear mode.

Everybody got together and talked with everybody else and decided to repaint the wall with more pleasing imagery. Everybody spoke of the community coming together and about what a great learning experience it was for the kids. However, all of this wishful thinking pablum pointedly avoided the problem – the kids were still being taught how to deface buildings. I know, they were told that it must not be done illegally, and a bunch of other cover-your-keester crap, but the promoters of that line are only fooling themselves. The new “mural” was unveiled in a ceremony on August 25.

The situation is Kafkaesque. It reminds me of his short story, “In the Penal Colony.” As you may recall, the story tells of a traveler who visits a penal colony where he witnesses an execution. The method is brutal. The prisoner is put in a machine that carves the name of his offense in his back, repeatedly, until he dies. It is an all day affair. The traveler sees this as barbaric, while the operator of the machine sees it as a good thing that brings the community together (there was a large gallery), and it really is art, you see, since the offense is written in beautiful swirling caligraphy. The prisoner himself figures out the message about ten to twelve hours into it, and seems to achieve a certain peace, according to the operator. If you guessed that the traveler is the people, the prisoner the kids, and the operator Regina Romero, move to the head of the class. At this point I must say that it is important to understand that the operator was not bad or evil, he just missed the larger point.

Everybody needs a hobby, especially kids, especially kids with too much time on their hands. There are lots of private groups and organizations that provide positive activities for children. I know of none that teach “graffiti art.” What do they know that the City does not?

Bumper Stickers

I have always been fascinated by bumper stickers. They are sort of a pre-electronic Twitter – which I also find fascinating. Bumper stickers are more provocative because you don’t choose to “follow” them. They are in your face.

My wife often chides me when I squint through the windshield to read a sticker, or pause i the parking lot of a restaurant to study one of those cars with stickers plastered all over the back of it – a sort of self-inflicted graffiti.

While I am fascinated by them, bumper stickers offend my sense of propriety. My parents believed it undignified to “advertise” stuff with your car or clothing. My grandfather on my mother’s side would chisel-off the name plates of appliances he bought. “It’s not Frigidaire’s refrigerator, I paid for it, and I’m not going to advertise for them!”, he would say. My parents never had a bumper sticker on a car, nor did they have own any garments with more than a discreet logo. This aversion was passed on to me.

It was in the 1990’s when I put a bumper sticker on my old Honda sedan. I forget what the sticker said, but the capital “C” in “Clinton” was a hammer and sickle. I continue to go back and forth, putting them on, then taking them off. Right now I am sticker free – mostly because I don’t want my late-model vehicle to get key striped.

In the early days, bumper stickers were used to advertised some sort business from the low end of the tourism industry. Older residents will recall the green on yellow, “The THING? Mystery of the desert” sticker that seemed to be everywhere in southern Arizona. Decades ago, when the City of Tucson wanted to straighten River Road and make it an east-west highway, the residents along River Road campaigned strongly against the plan and sported bumper stickers that said, “Keep it Kinky.” This was the local bellwether to the shift from business to politics.

Politics now seem to dominate bumper sticker messages. Stands on every imaginable issue, from abortion to medicine to taxes, are thrust upon the unsuspecting driver. There is always an uptick in an election year, but the last cycle blossomed with a plethora of Obama promotional images and slogans – including the “O” logo which was the best, most adaptable logo since the Sumerians started poking clay with sticks.

Ologo

There are far more Democrats than Republicans in Pima County, so Obama stickers were everywhere. After the election, the stickers remained, even seemed to grow in number, or maybe I just find them more irritating. I have a friend who came to town for the Gem and Mineral Show last February, and was shocked to see Obama bumper stickers on Arizona cars. He, being from New Jersey, assumed all of Arizona was McCain country. I explained that Pima County was “Commie Central” in Arizona, and was actually carried by Obama.

Here it is, the dead of summer, and the virulent plague of “O” stickers still persist. I even saw a new mutation, “Yes We Did!”

Speaking of McCain, people on Obama’s presidential campaign admitted that McCain was their candidate of choice for the Republican nomination. They also admitted that they were scared witless by Romney. They were afraid that Romney would make Obama look clueless in the area of business and economics. Actually, you do not need a Mitt Romney to make president Obama look clueless regarding economics, but that is for another time. This insight does explain why McCain, held in generally low esteem by the Republican base, won the nomination. He was selected by Democrats and “Independents”. That’s why states have “open primaries”. Open primaries allow, in this case, Democrats to affect the outcome of Republican primaries.

I should probably save this for the next “Get Out of Town” issue, but I am really tired of Obama bumper stickers being worn like some kind of badge. It has always been considered poor taste for the winner to strut around rubbing everyone’s nose in his victory. Most parents teach their children this at an early age. My parents were no different. Remember, “Pride Goeth Before a Fall.”

On second thought, keep it up. The way things are going, those stickers may become a source of embarrassment. In fact, the Republicans may recycle the theme of an old 70’s Democrat sticker – “Don’t Blame Me, I voted for McCain.”

Commies on Parade

Recently, I was chatting about local politics with a friend and he said that a couple of members of the Tucson City Council were to speak at the upcoming May Day rally. For those of you who do not know, May Day (the first day in May), also known as International Workers Day, is the big commie holiday of the year. I thought, “A commie rally, right here in River City!” and marked my calendar, determined to attend.

At the last minute, I invited an amateur photographer friend named Eric to come along. I thought that my being accompanied by a guy with a big fancy camera would make me look like some kind of journalist, and he would get a chance to shoot people – photographically speaking. I picked him up on the morning of May the first, and after breakfast, went to the Southgate Shopping Plaza where the commies were gathering for the parade.

The gathering was actually just south of Southgate. There was a small crowd milling about before a podium from which impassioned speeches, maybe rants (it was hard to tell, most of it was in Spanish) were being delivered.

I suppose I’m showing my age when I say that I was a little surprised to see no hammers and sickles, red stars, or pictures of Marx and Lenin.

In their place, were a few Obama tee shirts, and a large banner proclaiming “Obama We Trust in You, Si Se Puede!” The phrase “Si Se Puede!” (Yes We Can!) was originally a slogan of the United Farm Workers, a labor union formed by Cesar Chavez and Delores Huerta. The Obama campaign adopted the slogan as its own for the purpose, we can assume, of showing solidarity with a “community organizer” of an earlier generation, and securing the lefty Latino vote.

I saw a few college-aged kids in SEIU tee shirts. The SEIU (Service Employees International Union) was formed, as I recall, because the AFL-CIO was not doing enough to advocate leftist politics. They focus, as the name suggests, on representing service industry workers – a labor sector generally ignored by older, more mainstream unions.

There were a few guys dressed up in spectacular Aztec costumes. They wore huge plumed headdresses, and seashells around their ankles. They were quite striking and handsome.

Of course, there was a banner comparing Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to Nazis.

They formed a parade line, and moved north on Sixth Avenue, the right lane of which was cordoned off for the marchers. Groups within the parade were chanting different slogans.

The parade’s destination was Armory Park. Eric and I drove to the spot before the parade arrived. The entire park was surrounded with that plastic net barrier material with entrances at the corners.

As we entered, I was approached by a smiling woman with a clipboard who, with a happy lilting voice, invited me to sign a petition. I was really focused on observation that day, and did not want to deal with the relative merits of this or that petition. I told her that I was not registered to vote (I lied). She said, “Oh that’s O.K., you don’t have to be.” I asked about what the petition was. She replied, “We just want to spank Joe Arpaio.” I said, “I really would prefer not to, but thank you.” Suddenly, her face went stern. She glared at me as if to disrupt my cell structure with the energy emanating from her expression. I quickly began to walk away, figuring that for every three feet of distance I put between us would reduce by half the force of her glare weapon.

We walked to the corner at which the parade was to arrive. It was here that I suffered two embarrassments.

First, I looked at a large memorial to the soldiers of the Spanish-American War. It featured a life-size statue of a soldier from the period, and listed the different theaters of battle in the war, one of which was Puerto Rico. It was spelled “Porto Rico”. We were not alone in noticing the gaffe.

Next, were the protesters. Now, I always roll my eyes when someone describes those who have reservations about open borders as “toothless white guys in camouflage clothing.” Well, there were a few protesters, and as you might have guessed by now, there was a guy with the megaphone who was a toothless white guy dressed in military clothing complete with booney hat – O.K., I don’t know if he was actually toothless, in fact he probably wasn’t because his diction was excellent, but why present yourself that way?

Frankly, I find it really counter productive for fewer than half a dozen angry people to harass a bunch of commies celebrating their holiday. It just reinforces the stereotype with the young people there who no doubt were not impressed by the sign saying, “Go Home and Un-F*** Mexico.”

That sign was particularly aggravating because there is an underlying point that was obscured by its quite vulgar and offensive nature. If all the ambitious, hardworking risk takers abandon Mexico to find work abroad, how will the country be maintained? As Thomas P.M. Barnett said, “The rich want protection from the poor, the poor want protection from their condition, but the middle class wants protection from the future.” It is this concern for the future that gives a society stability and continuity from generation to generation. Mexico will become a failed state if the people who could be building her middle class abandon her instead.

Anyway, after the parade arrived, everyone filled the park. There was a stage set up with a band. A speaker went the microphone and, after doing the usual greetings to the attendees, announced that there would be no speakers, just a fun party. She did make a point of thanking councilmen Regina Romero and Nina Trasoff for all their help in supporting the event.

We wandered around looking at the tables and booths. Many groups were represented including Comite de Derechos Humanos, Democrat Party recruiting, ACORN, and CPUSA (Communist Party USA). The live music was great, and many of the young people were dancing.

The most telling image was of the CPUSA table, compared to the ACORN booth next to it. The CPUSA table consisted of a folding table with a few pamphlets, a hand made sign, and an old geezer in a ball cap to answer questions. The ACORN booth had big banners saying “Health Care Can’t Wait”, and “Foreclosure Free Zone”. There were three people man the large sized booth answering questions and selling tee shirts.

CPUSA has pretty much disappeared as a political force in America. It’s a throwback to the days when the left thought it could argue it’s case honestly, above board, and win. That does not work, and the geezer obviously did not get the memo.

The modern approach is to infect and commandeer disaffected groups whose generally noble causes they transform into anti-American weapons. In that way, they can push the agenda while maintaining an innocent front. This is the future of the movement. If you want examples of groups who are in the sway of the far left, you need look no farther than the groups who came to celebrate this May Day.

What can we do about this threat? First, we must be quick to draw attention to deception and dishonesty (remember, they lose when they are honest), then we must stop tax money from going to support their political activities – this is a mater of principle and applies to all, not just the commies. Finally, we vote out of office any elected official who supports them.

As luck would have it, both Regina Romero and Nina Trasoff are up for re-election this fall, so the last part is easy.

Be a Part of History!

At the national level, the Republicans are wandering around shell-shocked in the wilderness, while the Democrats are lookin’ fly and rollin’ phat.

Many Republicans, who dare to look at the future, see a glimmer of hope in 2010. They know that, historically speaking, the mid-term elections usually result in electoral advances for the party that is out of power – if ever a party was out of power, it is certainly today’s Republican Party. Between 1946 and 1996, the president’s party suffered an average loss of about 24 seats in midterm elections, according to the book The American Congress, by Steven S. Smith, Jason M. Roberts, and Ryan J. Vander Wielen. The authors went on to state that the only time this does not happen is when the president’s approval rating is very high.

President Obama’s approval rating is still high, but so are the people’s expectations for his presidency. If, in two years, the economy has not recovered dramatically, unemployment is high, or the voters generally feel that their desires have not been fulfilled; they maybe inclined to make it a good year for Republicans. Two years is a long time in politics.

What the Republicans need are a few good candidates, and campaign organizations. Perhaps there will be some past successes from which they could glean ideas.

Let us now go back in time from 2010 to 2009 (that would be now), and narrow our focus from the nation to Tucson (that would be here). We may have here today a microcosm of the national scene in 2010.

While the big change on the national scene was the last election in which Democrat Barack Obama won the presidency, and Democrats strengthened their hold on Congress. The big change here occurred in 2005, when Democrats Nina Trasoff and Karin Uhlich succeeded Republicans Fred Ronstadt and Kathleen Dunbar. This put Tucson firmly under Democrat control. The newly elected Democrats were to transform Tucson into a happy, crime-free, traffic-jam free, neighborly city with a vibrant downtown in which one could not swing a cat without hitting some kind of artist. The big plank in the platform was the elimination of the trash fee, originally instituted by those nasty Republicans.

The reality, of course, turned out much differently. People are not moving around town on greenways and bicycles; rather, the City Council has approved plans by the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) to make roads bigger and better for *gasp* automobiles. The Rio Nuevo project, that was to “revitalize” downtown Tucson, has been so poorly managed that there is little to show for the ten years, and 60 to 100 million or so dollars, apparently spent on design concepts and artist’s renditions. I just checked my water bill and, and yep, the trash fee is still there. Then there is the goofy stuff like facilitating classes that teach kids how to spray graffiti. I could go on, but you get the idea.

So, Tucson really is the laboratory in which the Republicans can test ways to win against floundering Democrats. The old loser approaches should be abandoned. A focus on technology, particularly social networking, would help. More resources directed at grassroots efforts, with more autonomy at that level, would bring the campaigns into the 21st century. There is certainly enough disenchantment throughout the community that money should not be a problem.

The only major stumbling block is the party itself – they are, as of this writing, three months behind already! I asked Bob Westerman, chairman of the Pima County Republicans, if they were on it. He said that they were actively recruiting. I hope so. This is an opportunity that ought not be missed.

If you have been griping about how you find the current council embarrassing, if you are aggravated by what you see as an anti-business climate in this town, now is your chance to step up to the plate. Imagine, being on the cutting edge, beating the majority party, being the example to which the big boys look for ideas and guidance, making history….any takers?

Teaching Vandalism

It came to light, in a local daily, that the City of Tucson is funding a gaffiti class. That’s right, taxpayer money is being spent teaching children how to spray paint walls. In fact, Regina Romero earmarked $8,000.00 for the project.

Most of the City agencies involved have been scurrying to find excuses, most of them are some form of “Well, we heard of the project, but had not considered or approved it, and suddenly it just happened.”

Regina Romero was the only one in the article that was either gutsy, or stupid enough to defend the program. She apparently asked a bunch of kids what they wanted to do, they said they wanted to do graffiti, and here we are. She actually said, “Who are we as adults to judge what the youth are interested in. We’re reaching kids that wouldn’t otherwise take an art class.” The answer to her question is in the question itself – WE ARE THE ADULTS. Is it not a the role of the adults in our community to guide children regarding their intrests and behaviors?

If the children said that they wanted to deconstruct buildings with fire, instead of vandalize building walls, would Ms. Romero be saying, “Who are we as adults to judge what the youth are interested in?” Would she earmark $8,000.00 to set up structures in the TFD training facility that the children could learn to burn down in a creative and educational way? Would City officials say that the purpose was to provide a place for kids to burn buildings safely so they would not go out and do it illegally?

When I was in High School, some progressive parents would let their kids drink in their houses. They thought that it would be better for the kids to do it under supervision, than out on the street somehere. It did not take long before they realised that their tacit acceptance of under-aged drinking led to a dramatic increase in the activity, and we kids did not limit it to the relative safety of their homes. The vast majority of parents already knew supervised under-aged drinking for the disaster that it was, and the progressive types came to that understanding in short order.

Hopefully, Ms. Romero will learn what some of our parents learned the hard way. It will, of course, be harder on the children who are recieveing mixed messages from those in authority.


Don’t forget to read my latest article that ran in the Tucson Weekly, and Inside Track:
http://tucsonsammy.com/tucsons-modern-streetcar-project/

Tucson’s “Modern Streetcar” Project

As if we were not troubled enough already, our city government has succeeded in putting together enough funding for a really bad idea.

How bad is it? Well, I watched a deeply moved Mayor Bob Walkup make the announcement to the City Council. He looked like he just received a telegram from Jesus saying that Tucson made the list for the Second Coming Tour. This idea is so bad, in fact, that Nina Trasoff interrupted him to thank him for “working hard” on the project, and for his “leadership”.

What is it that makes the usual suspects so giddy? It is The Tucson Modern Streetcar Project. The “good news” was that the U. S. Congress moved something to some kind of phase that virtually assures federal funding. This is the brass ring for the Tucson Department of Transportation, which took a blow when voters turned down a half-cent sales tax for transportation projects in 2003. Undaunted back then, it jumped through all the hoops, did all the studies, and landed the big score. Tucsonans are not off the funding hook entirely, however. According to Tucson Department of Transportation, money will also come from local sales taxes (RTA) and the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) plan.

The transportation guys were almost as giddy as Mayor Walkup, which is appropriate. After all, transportation projects are what they live for, it is that on which they spend their lives. It’s what they do.

The politicians, on the other hand, are supposed to look out for the interests of the people, and keep city agencies in their service. This project represents a failure of our elected representatives. People really do not need, nor do they want, more transit. Our elected city representatives want to repeat the mistakes of other municipalities, ten to twenty years behind the curve, when they should know better.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that adding to the transit system is a good thing. It makes much more sense to increase bus service than build streetcar, trolley, or other light rail systems. According to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), new bus lines cost about two per cent of the cost of streetcars to start, cost less to maintain, and are much more flexible (you can’t reroute track).

This is where someone shouts, “But streetcars are sexier than busses! People will leave their cars to ride them!” Alas, this is a case of wishful thinking. According to Randal O’Toole of the Cato Institute, “The average number of trips taken per light-rail vehicle mile declined from 7.3 in 1995 to 5.2 in 2005, indicating that light rail is suffering from a serious case of diminishing returns.” Many of the very positive rider numbers being bandied about come from samples taken on the first few days of operation, when the thing is new, and people have endured months of hype. After checking it out for a ride or two, people go back to their cars.

I would also suggest that we try a little first hand objective observation. Go to the nearest major street and look at it. How many people are moving down it in cars, how many are traveling in busses – even when bus riding is subsidized! What does that say about the choice of the people? Trust your own observations.

Speaking of observations, when was the last time you heard someone say, “Gee, I wish there was a subsidized way for me to go back and forth between the University of Arizona and downtown Tucson!” Has it been a while? Did you see dozens of people filling the trolley cars to overflowing the last time you were on 4th Avenue? As you might be guessing at this point, that’s where our “modern streetcar” is going. Say what you like about Steve Farley, but at least he knew where to put his bad idea.

So, it leads one to wonder, who are our elected officials representing, the people or themselves? Half of the City Council will be up for election in 2009, including Nina Trasoff. Bob Walkup will be up in 2011. Elections are a good time to let politicians know who is calling the shots.

Tucson City Budget – a Place to Start

It is not news that City of Tucson revenues are way down. Sales taxes account for 42% of discretionary spending, and they have dropped off significantly, with no relief predicted in the near future.

In response, the City has cut back in the areas of hiring, training, and travel. It has also “slashed 10 percent of what it gives social services groups,” according to a local daily.

I have an idea. How about slashing 100 percent of what it gives to social service groups? It would be timely in light of the current budget problems, and no, I’m not suggesting that charities and non-profits not receive funding. I’m suggesting that they be funded directly by the people. Private donations are usually based on the institution’s performance. Government donations are based on politics. Besides, if you let the government make your donation decisions for you, the next thing you know, they’ll be choosing your light bulbs for you.

Seriously, is it not somewhat dehumanizing when the City infringes on the realm of giving? When you freely give your money to a worthy cause, your karma improves and your character is strengthened. When you give other people’s money to a worthy cause, you receive no such benefits.

If you think that people only do the right thing when forced to do so, then you will find free societies frustrating.

Prop 105 “Majority Rules”

Ballot prop 105, known as “Majority rules”, would require a majority of registered voters to vote in favor for passage, as opposed to a majority of votes cast. This standard would apply only to ballot propositions that raised taxes or fees. The idea is that new laws which reach into your wallet should meet a higher standard than others. It is similar in concept to existing law that requires a two thirds majority vote for the Arizona Legislature to raise taxes.

My first conversation concerning this ballot prop included two Democrat friends, one of whom dropped his jaw with a horrified expression when I said that I liked it. Both friends expressed the idea that any voting standard that deviated from a simple majority of votes cast was certainly an un-American, deviant, evil thing that would bring on plagues of locusts, frogs, et cetera.

I was somewhat taken aback by their visceral negative reaction. It took me a while, but I figured it out. It came down to worldview, our at least, how we see our country. My friends see the simple majority vote as foundational, not as a mere process or tool. To them, the country is great by virtue of the simple majority vote.

They are completely wrong. The foundational principle that makes the country great is individual sovereignty, or liberty/responsibility. Voting is a democratic process that picks, and disciplines, our representatives.

This dichotomy of worldviews accounts the hysteria of my friends. They see the prop as an attack on the foundation of our society, I see it as an appropriate tweaking of a process to adapt that process to a particular law-making instrument.

My friends are not just wrong, there is a dark side to their view. If individual sovereignty is not sacred, but anything done by majority vote is, then we have entered a world of tyranny where forty-nine per cent of the people will be oppressed.