Tucson Mayor George Miller Has Survived 20 Years Of Local Politics.
By Dave Devine
THE YEAR 1977 was a long time ago. Jimmy Carter was in
the White House, Vietnam was still a fresh memory, and the Pittsburgh
Steelers dominated pro football.
In local politics 20 years is an eternity. But Mayor George Miller's
20th anniversary on the City Council passed quietly in December.
Recently, The Weekly asked him to reflect on his political
past and the changes he's seen in Tucson during his time in government.
In 1977 Miller successfully ran in the Ward 3 Democratic primary
against Bob Goodpaster and incumbent James Hooton, who'd won office
in a recall election earlier in the year. Then he faced Republican
Kile Jarvis in the general election.
Among the issues Miller emphasized in his first council campaign
was doing something about the local unemployment rate. It stood
at 7.7 percent for Pima County at the time.
Today, the rate is much lower, but another--more difficult--issue
has surfaced. A growing income disparity between the haves and
have-nots has developed here and throughout the United States.
Miller told The Arizona Daily Star a few weeks ago
that closing this income gap is the biggest issue facing every
level of government.
He believes that equalizing educational funding across the state
and increasing job-training opportunities are required to address
the problem. "This is a very expensive proposition,"
Miller says, "but it's less expensive than leaving things
the way they are." He would also like to see the City of
Tucson put more money into job-training programs operated by Pima
County government.
Miller says school tax equalization is extremely important in
attracting better-paying jobs here. Why would a firm come to Tucson,
when it can go to Maricopa County and pay lower school taxes?
Tucson is less attractive to higher-paying manufacturing firms
because of that.
He describes a sort of cycle of discouragement which is self-destructive
for local school districts. It goes from local schools needing
more money, which means increased taxes, which means higher paying
firms won't locate here because of the higher taxes. The result:
fewer jobs for graduating students.
So why did he talk about annexation incentives instead of the
income-gap issue when he addressed the local business community
at his recent state-of-the-city speech? "It had received
extensive publicity already," Miller says, adding he wanted
to discuss his views on the long-term impact of suburban incorporations.
Back in the late 1970s, there were other things to worry about.
Within 15 months of taking office, Miller had twice unsuccessfully
sued his colleagues on the City Council.
The first suit was over a vote to acquire the privately owned
Old Pueblo Transit Company to make it part of the SunTran system.
The new council member thought they needed more financial information
before acting. The second suit concerned funding to enlarge the
city court building after the voters had turned the idea down.
Showing a remarkable memory for details of the two cases, Miller
says today, "People thought I was a little strange for doing
that. They didn't take the two issues as seriously as I did."
He admits, however, that both council decisions were within their
legislative discretion.
By early 1979 Miller was pushing for city elections to be by
ward only. According to a story in the Star, "He is
a believer in ward politics and would like to see councilmen elected
by the ward and not by the city at large. 'For a lot of things,
there ought to be more, rather than less, pork barrel,' "
he said then.
But Miller eventually changed his mind about ward-only elections
and opposed the idea until recently, when he changed his mind
once again, supporting the concept as part of his annexation package.
He says he was against the idea because he thought council members
elected at large would be more responsive to the needs of the
entire city, and thus make for better government. But now he calls
that a theory for the classroom, not one that works in real life.
The practical reality, Miller says, is that council members focus
on their own wards' issues anyway. From that standpoint, he thinks
ward-only elections are worthwhile. Plus, they may have the potential
to induce county residents to be annexed, since as new city residents
they would have more control over who represents them.
But the City Council's recent rejection of the proposal will
require an initiative drive to put the issue on the ballot. Miller
says he was assured the day before the council vote that he had
enough support for it to pass.
"But in this business," he adds, "you only have
a person's word."
Also during his first term, Miller was a strong supporter of
building so-called "bantam interchanges" to ease Tucson's
traffic problems. Almost 20 years later, he's still advocating
grade-separated interchanges, a redesigned and smaller variation
on the earlier idea.
He sees them as a realistic alternative to freeways. They're
expensive, he admits, but much cheaper than a cross-town freeway.
After 20 years of failing to get one built. Miller remains optimistic
that a grade-separated intersection will someday be constructed.
What does George Miller see as the most encouraging change in
Tucson since he was first elected to the City Council? "Participation
from neighborhood associations," he replies--a surprising
response from a politician who has never been seen as a strong
neighborhood supporter.
The most discouraging change, Miller says, is that it's now more
difficult to make decisions which are in the best interest of
the entire community. More City Council votes today, he says,
are purely political in nature, or may be only incidentally good
for the community.
|