The tome that landed in Pima County homes during the last week or two measures just over a 1/2-inch thick.
It looks like, and has the weight of, a voter guide for a major general election with dozens of races.
The publicity pamphlet for the RTA Next election is 280 pages long and just over 1/2-inch thick. Arguments for and against Propositions 418 and 419 make up 251 of those pages. The pamphlet cost around $800,000 to produce and mail to Pima County voters.
But no, it's just for one election: The RTA Next vote, otherwise known as Propositions 418 and 419. Voters will start receiving ballots for the all-mail election in the coming days, and the last day to turn them in is March 10.
But first the tome, which is required by state law, crowded our mailboxes. The first 29 pages of it is introductory material, explaining the vote and the ballot issue. Of the total 280 pages, 220 are arguments for and against the propositions.
The arguments are duplicative, not just in content, but because most of them are repeated in separate argument sections for each of Prop. 418 and for Prop. 419. Both propositions have to pass in order for this regional plan to take effect, but the election is broken into one vote on the plan (Prop. 418), and another vote on the tax to fund it (Prop. 419). So people submitted the same argument for each.
After this duplication between the two propositions, the arguments are duplicated again — in Spanish. That's what makes the book so thick.
There are 76 arguments for Prop. 418, and 38 against that proposition. Then there are 79 arguments for Prop. 419 and 16 arguments against.
The ability to submit arguments online and pay for them that way has increased the number of submitted arguments, Mark Evans, a Pima County spokesman, said via email.
He noted that the publicity pamphlet for the original, 2006 Regional Transportation Authority election had 89 arguments submitted, whereas this one had 209.
Each submission required a $25 fee, and the total fees collected were about $5,200, Evans said. The total cost of producing and mailing the pamphlet was about $800,000.
It's a steep price for a booklet that, in all probability, few people are going to read.
Local leaders fill pages
You can choose to read all the arguments for and against, but of course that would take a long time. If you read a handful of them, you'll get a good idea of who's on which side and what their arguments are.
On the pro-418 and -419 side, you'll find many people from Tucson's highest positions in government, business and the non-profit sector — our local elite. Among the top local business executives:
• Mimi Coomler of Tucson Medical Center
• Susan Gray of Tucson Electric Power
• David Goldstein of Diamond Ventures
• Matthew Gaspari of Tucson Federal Credit Union
• Monica Vargas-Mahar of Carondelet Health Network
• Alison Flynn Gaffney of Banner-University Medical Center
• Sandra Sagehorn-Elliott of Vantage West Credit Union
Among the elected officials:
• Tucson Mayor Regina Romero
• Marana Mayor Jon Post
• Oro Valley Mayor Joe Winfield
• Sahuarita Mayor Murphy
• Pascua Yaqui Chair Julian Hernandez
• Pima County supervisors Rex Scott and Steve Christy
• Tucson City Council members Selina Barajas, Lane Santa Cruz, Paul Cunningham
The leaders of Tucson's non-profit sector and business groups are also fully represented.
The pro-RTA Next arguments emphasize that improved infrastructure boosts economic development, that transit and paratransit services would be funded under the plan and that a substantial portion goes toward safety projects.
"Strong communities rely on strong infrastructure," TMC Health Vice President Julia Strange wrote in her submission. "Safe, reliable transportation is essential for businesses looking to grow here, for workers traveling to jobs and education, and for families managing everyday responsibilities."
On the con side, a variety of left- and right-leaning residents mostly represented themselves, rather than large local organizations. Among the main themes in their critiques: That RTA Next maintains the Tucson area's car dependency, allowing for greater polluting emissions, and doesn't do enough about traffic safety.
"Fatal and serious-injury crashes keep rising, yet the plan includes no safety benchmarks, no data-driven goals, and no strategy for prioritizing corridors where people are at most risk," Vanessa Cascio and Elliot Dumont of the Living Streets Alliance said in their submission. "Without a systemic safety framework, the plan simply cannot deliver benefits our region urgently needs."
Marana data center challenge
A vote on the controversial data center complex approved by Marana officials could soon be put to a vote.
Marana residents turned in about 2,800 signatures last week to put a public referendum on an upcoming ballot, to try to overturn a recent rezoning decision made by the Marana Town Council that paves the way for a massive data center complex, the No Desert Data Center (NDDC) coalition said.
Town spokeswoman Vic Hathaway confirmed that the town clerk issued two receipts for two referendum petitions to a representative from Arizonans for Responsible Development, sponsored by the organization Worker Power.
In January, the Town Council approved rezoning more than 600 acres of land to allow for a data center campus to be built by the same developers of Project Blue, despite strong pushback from residents.
One of the two properties is a roughly 300-acre plot owned by the Kai Family Trust. Herb Kai, listed on the property details in the Pima County Treasurer's Office, is one of Marana's six Town Council members, but he has not participated in “discussions, deliberations, or voting related to this project," Marana says. The other property is a 310-acre parcel owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, according to the Treasurer’s Office.
There are two referendum petitions because the data center projects span the two properties, Hathaway said.
The No Desert Data Center coalition says the referendum “will be the first time a community gets to vote directly on a data center in Arizona.”
Hathaway said the town clerk has 20 business days to verify that there’s a minimum of 1,360 eligible signatures, and if that threshold is met, a “5% random sample” will go to the Pima County Recorder’s Office for review, Hathaway said.
A “precise estimate” for completing the process is difficult to nail down, but if the petitions “ultimately qualify, the referendum will likely be scheduled for an election later this year,” Hathaway said.
