A Few Points To Ponder When Voting To Incorporate
By Emil Franzi
THE PRINCIPLE OF self-determination is basic to American life.
In Arizona, people who live within six miles of currently incorporated
towns have long been disenfranchised under an oppressive state
law that prohibited them from incorporating without the neighboring
municipality's permission. Those folks have a right to decide
under what local government they should live. On November 4, the
residents of the proposed new communities of Casas Adobes and
Catalina Foothills will exercise that fundamental right. That's
their call and it should be.
Since the state Legislature gave Pima County a two-year respite
from the contiguous incorporation law, we've seen both the best
and the worst on both sides of the issue. We've witnessed desperate
pandering by Mayor George Miller and other Tucson officials. We've
seen a bunch of greedy annexation attempts by Tucson, Marana
and Oro Valley, communities catering to, and bought off by, portions
of the Growth Lobby. We've heard end-of-the-world arguments from
a gaggle of doomsayers about the effect of new incorporation on
everything from arts funding to water quality.
Conversely, we've seen unrealistic financial projections from
supporters of Catalina Foothills and grandiose plans of mega-government
from the leaders of Casas Adobes.
We have no recommendation on how the folks in those two communities
should vote, but we'd like to point out several factors they should
consider before making up their minds:
1) Tucson is not the only kid on the block. If these incorporations
fail, Marana and Oro Valley land grabs will continue. Incorporation
foes who argue Tucson will be ringed by suburbs ought to realize
it already is. Defeating more new towns just makes Marana and
Oro Valley more powerful.
2) Many citizens would like to remain in an unincorporated
area. For some, that may not be a realistic option. It wasn't
for the folks in Tortolita, who were being gobbled by Marana and
Oro Valley, and isn't for anybody living near any presently incorporated
town. Remember that annexations are constantly gerrymandered around
property owners, and residents really don't have that much to
say about it.
3) While it's clear the small group of self-aggrandizing
and exclusionary snots who are leading most of the incorporation
drive in Casas Adobes are hardly the kind of folks rational people
would have governing them, there's also no guarantee these same
losers would be in charge of anything if incorporation passes.
The Board of Supervisors would appoint the Casans' first council,
with an election set for next spring. Those who live in Casas
Adobes are not giving a mandate to the current self-appointed
and secretive "leaders," and we wouldn't expect the
Board to appoint a clot of Ed Moore's pals.
The Catalina Foothills incorporation attempt was based on much
broader and more inclusive support, but the same rules apply.
Not liking some of the current leaders isn't a good enough reason
to turn down the incorporation.
4) Money may be a good enough reason to reject incorporation.
It's plain unrealistic for urban areas to pretend they can supply
the services residents demand without supplementing state revenue-sharing
funds with some additional taxation--probably a sales tax. Arguments
that pro-incorporation folks can provide the current minimal service
level with revenue-sharing funds are probably true, but they neglect
to consider the future service demands citizens will make.
Casas Adobes planners have gone the other way, with an avaricious
attempt to grab every buck they can. Voters in that area are rightly
concerned about paying for a new and expensive layer of government.
Recently incorporated Tortolita receives practically no services
now, and current residents are pretty clear they don't want any.
But Tortolita incorporators were the most realistic of all when
they made it clear to petition signers that increased services
would mean increased taxes.
5) Miller's argument that neither area has a sufficient
tax base to incorporate is fallacious and raises a major question:
If they have an insufficient tax base, then why the hell should
the City of Tucson annex them? Won't the cost of providing services
to them just raise the cost of running the City of Tucson? And
when do longtime city residents start to see some return on all
the annexation expense?
6) The "full-cost recovery" attempts by Pima
County to gouge new towns for contract services also raises big
questions: Why does it cost so damn much money to run county government
is a question all Pima County residents should be asking.
And if all these towns incorporate and pay the full cost
of their services, shouldn't we all get a proportionate tax cut
when somebody else is picking up the tab for stuff we're already
paying for? Likewise, if new communities choose other, less-costly
service providers, will Pima County then reduce overhead and taxes
proportionately?
Those undecided on incorporation should check the map. If you're
anywhere near another incorporated community, your real
choice is between that town and taking your chances on a new one.
Either way, you'll probably be paying more taxes to one of them.
|