Arizona Politics for Conservatives: Sonoran Alliance
Arizona Politics, News, Commentary and Information with a Blatantly Conservative Worldview Presented by an Alliance of Writers, Activists, Consultants and Government Insiders.
Hat tip to Harry Mitchell Watch for putting up the latest political ad by conservative Republican, David Schweikert. This ad signifies that the 2010 General Election ad campaign is officially off to a start. Watch as Harry Mitchell runs from a citizen reporter wanting to know if he will follow through with his opposition to the Pelosi-Obama healthcare bill. Harry runs off and as we know, broke his promise and voted for it.
Phoenix–Like countless enterprising American immigrants before her, Cindy Vong came up with an inspired business idea.
Ms. Vong, a licensed nail technician who owns LaVie Nail Salon in Gilbert, last year opened a second business called Spa Fish Therapy. The therapy, which is popular in many Asian countries and in other states, uses small Garra Rufa fish imported from China. The fish nibble on the customers’ feet, removing dead skin and providing a relaxing experience in a safe, sanitary environment. Clients paid $30 to plunge their feet into a clean tank filled with fish.
Everything was going swimmingly until an inspection by the Arizona Board of Cosmetology. The Board, which is comprised primarily of members of the profession, decided that the fish were performing pedicures and thus subject to the Board’s regulatory control. Because fish cannot be sterilized, the Board ordered Spa Fish to close, which cost Ms. Vong a substantial financial investment and lost business, leading her to lay off three employees.
The Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional litigation today filed a lawsuit against the cosmetology board, charging that the order exceeds the Board’s jurisdiction and violates Ms. Vong’s freedom of enterprise under the state and federal constitutions.
“The Board knows nothing about spa fish therapy, so its reaction is to shut it down,” declared lead attorney Clint Bolick. “The Board’s action is more about protecting cosmetologists from competition than it is about protecting consumers against anything except wet feet and smooth skin.”
“For the couple of months I was allowed to perform the treatment it was very popular” Cindy Vong recounts. “People came from all over, other states, Scottsdale, Tucson. All small businesses should have the freedom to step outside the box and be creative.”
“Some people will view this as a fishy lawsuit,” Mr. Bolick added. “But it affects the economic liberty of every American. Too many small businesses have been destroyed by overzealous regulation. If we have anything to do with it, Cindy Vong’s Spa Fish will not be one of them.”
For more information on Vong v. Sansom and other Goldwater Institute lawsuits visit www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.
by Mark Flatten
Goldwater Institute
The operators of Tucson International Airport have scrapped the use of racial preferences in awarding concession contracts. That is in sharp contrast to efforts by the City of Phoenix to preserve race-based programs at Sky Harbor International Airport.
The Goldwater Institute reported in October that the Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) program at Sky Harbor has allowed lucrative airport concession leases to go to a small group of political insiders. The owners of companies deemed “disadvantaged” are often little more than a name on the lease, brought in to meet requirements for participation by minority and woman-owned businesses that are set by Sky Harbor officials.
Among the biggest beneficiaries of the program at Sky Harbor is Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, owner of a DBE-certified business which is part owner of a Chili’s restaurant franchise in Terminal 4.
Airport operators in both Phoenix and Tucson suspended their use of “race-conscious” methods after a 2005 federal court ruling required detailed disparity studies to justify using race as a factor in awarding concession contracts. If airport operators cannot meet their goals through race-neutral means, they can resort to “race-conscious” preferences based on race and gender, if they can prove those methods are necessary to offset the effects of discrimination.
Even though Tucson did not attempt to preserve the preference program it had been using before the court ruling, it still has a goal that 16 percent of airport concession sales will be attributed to firms owned by minorities and women. But airport operators will achieve that goal without resorting to preferences that take race or gender into account, according to Paula Winn, spokeswoman for the airport authority.
Phoenix, on the other hand, has gone to great expense to justify the preference program at Sky Harbor. Phoenix officials commissioned a disparity study in 2007 that to-date has cost taxpayers more than $600,000. The study results are due in December. While the study has been underway, Phoenix extended leases issued while race and gender preferences were in effect.
Regardless of the study results, on the 2010 election ballot Arizona voters will have their say in whether or not government offices can use race and gender preferences in contracting.
Mark Flatten is an investigative reporter for the Goldwater Institute.
