One worthy proposition was sucked under in the negativity of the Nov. 3
election - and as a result, Tucson taxpayers will take it in the chin.
We're referring, of course, to Proposition 400, the so-called Home Rule
question. Its failure will force the city to bank millions of dollars in
revenues next year, deepening an anticipated $46 million
budget deficit and forcing still more cuts in services.
Voters overwhelmingly approved the Home Rule option for four years in 2005,
and they should have done so again this year and renewed the city's local
control over spending local revenues. But according to the Pima County
Elections Web site, Proposition 400 lost by 927 votes out of 71,613 cast,
with 50.65 percent voting no and 49.35 percent voting yes.
A very narrowloss, but sadly, a loss.
We editorialized several times during the weeks leading up to the election
on the importance of passing Proposition 400. It was needed because state
law sets a formula, based on fiscal 1980 expenditures,
that caps allowable municipal spending.
City Manager Mike Letcher has noted that this year, even during a recession
that has slammed revenues, the cap would have required Tucson to leave $21
million of its revenues in the bank. Given the economic crisis, the sum will
be less next year. But it's still money that will be socked away into some
kind of bank account and no longer will be available to support police,
fire, water and other services for city residents.
Mayor Bob Walkup told the Star's Rhonda Bodfield last week that officials
erred in focusing so heavily on educating the public on the impact of
Proposition 200, the very polarizing public-safety initiative that would
have forced the city to spend some $156 million over the next
five years on additional fire and police personnel.
Walkup told Bodfield that officials did too little to make sure that voters
understood the impact of Proposition 400. Obviously.
The city's management team cannot, by law, take a position favoring or
opposing such propositions. Letcher did provide materials describing how
Propositions 200 and 400 would play out if they passed or if they failed.
There was no organized campaign in support of Proposition 400. Most of the
City Council candidates were focused on
Proposition 200 and other city issues.
Add to that roadside signs posted by the John Kromko-led Pima Association of
Taxpayers that urged voters to reject all propositions,
lumping the good in with the bad.
"We're taxed to the max!" the signs said. "Just say no on all props."
The signs were irresponsible to lump every proposition
under the vote-no-more-taxes umbrella.
Proposition 400 would have cost taxpayers nothing. It wasn't a tax increase.
It simply would have allowed the city to spend revenues it already collects,
such as city and state sales taxes, state-shared income
taxes, impact fees, and water and environmental-services fees.
The taxpayer group's Web site was more specific than the roadside sign,
listing Proposition 200 and two Tucson Unified School
District overrides as the group's targets.
Both TUSD measures went down, as did the public-safety initiative -
and, in the backwash of negativity, Proposition 400.
This is the way our democratic system sometimes works, of course: Voters
just say yes or no without understanding the consequences. Taxpayers in the
city of Tucson will be sorry they did that as
the city works out its next budget.
|
