For Immediate Release: Monday, March 15, 2010

ON BEHALF OF

MAYOR JOHN LEWIS
VICE MAYOR LINDA ABBOTT
COUNCILMAN DAVE CROZIER
COUNCILWOMAN JENN DANIELS
COUNCILMAN LES PRESMYK
COUNCILMAN JOHN SENTZ
COUNCILMAN STEVE URIE

Gilbert, Arizona, March 15, 2010. Approximately six weeks ago, members of the Gilbert Town Council learned that a Town zoning code intended to help neighborhoods with traffic, parking and safety concerns had been interpreted by Town staff to mean that small church groups could not meet in their own homes. The Council immediately asked Town staff to make changes to the code and not enforce the code while changes were being considered.

Unfortunately, without the Town Council’s knowledge, one church group had already been told to stop holding meetings in their home. Last week the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed an appeal for the Oasis of Truth Church located in Gilbert. While Town staff had anticipated presenting to the Town Council proposed zoning changes at the next Town Council meeting (scheduled for March 23), ADF’s appeal reached the media on Friday, March 12, causing concern that Town of Gilbert restricted religious freedom guaranteed in the Constitution.

Gilbert’s Mayor John Lewis said, “It is unfortunate that the Council did not know about information given to the Oasis of Truth Church. Gilbert is known as a family-oriented community and our faith groups are a vital part of our Town. We want to keep it that way.” Lewis continued, “Gilbert has the largest celebration of the Constitution in the United States. During the third week of September, we have an entire week of community activities available to remind us of the important principles of the Constitution.” Vice-Mayor Linda Abbott commented, “This is a community with patriotic citizens who study and defend the Constitution. We understand the importance of maintaining religious freedom.”

Upon learning of the appeal, the Town Council expressed their overwhelming support to expedite changes in the code. Yesterday, Mayor Lewis and Acting Town Manager Collin DeWitt attended the Sunday worship services of the Oasis of Truth Church. DeWitt said, “We had a wonderful experience as we met with the three leaders of the church and their families. We are glad that they selected Gilbert as their home.” Mayor Lewis told church leaders that he will ask Town attorneys to include ADF and the Oasis of Truth Church in the review process this week of the proposed changes that will be presented to the Town Council on March 23. Lewis said, “We welcome their input and suggestions to ensure that church groups are able to meet and enjoy their Constitutional rights. Potentially, we may have a solution to this issue this week.”

The Town of Gilbert has been one of the fastest growing cities in the United States. In spite of the economic downturn, 1,278 single family permits were issued by the Town in 2009. Currently, 221,000 citizens of Gilbert enjoy the clean, safe, and vibrant environment. In 2009, Gilbert was named as the 24th safest city in the United States and safest city in Arizona. Mayor Lewis said, “Our vibrancy is enhanced with our strong faith-based groups. Our partnership with our local ministers and pastors is excellent. Gilbert is considered a religious friendly area. Religious activities occur all over Town and most especially in our homes. The Town Council and our citizens will keep it that way.”

###

Once again Oro Valley is conducting a mail-in election. And once again I will tell you why the concept is fundamentally wrong.

It makes voting easier? Check Iraq or Afghanistan or lots of other places trying to build democratic regimes where they still shoot at you for making the attempt. Voting was pretty damn easy here for quite a while.

My liberal Democrat radio co-host Tom Danehy, who shares my opinion on this subject, reminds us of a news clip from a Philippine election in which an official with a ballot box is being chased by a group of thugs. Not shown is the part where they succeeded and killed him. I witnessed a few years back huge lines in Rocky Point when they were holding something unusual in Mexico – a real election. People wanted to be part of it.

We had it pretty soft. Having to actually leave home and go to a safe polling place isn’t exactly a root canal.

Voting by mail does make it easier – for the election bureaucracy. They prefer to use the money involved to hire a few more permanent employees rather than go through the hassle (for them) of using Election Day temps.

The costs involved are clearly increased in some areas (postage) and decreased in others (poll workers), but that should never be a deciding factor. Ahead of even cops, courts and armies, choosing who’s in charge is the first and most primary duty of government.

At-home voting destroys the secret ballot. Why do you think we have those little booths and curtains? So husbands can’t muscle wives or wives husbands. Mailing out ballots is an invitation to cajole by anyone from the family patriarch and union boss to your mama.

It’s also quite obviously a fraud magnet. Why the same Republicans who are convinced thousands of illegal aliens are voting at the polls are ignoring a system that eliminates their having to go there to do it is beyond me. I recognize that most voting systems are legit, but it doesn’t take much dog barf to ruin an otherwise great burger.

While supposedly being in the best interest of individual voters, the at home ballot can screw them in two ways by returning it too early or returning it too late.

Return it too early and you may learn something that would’ve changed your mind about a candidate or an issue. The elimination of late information was sold as a virtue by advocates of early voting because it would eliminate last-minute smears. It also eliminates last-minute facts. Which is why many folks hold onto their ballot until the last minute.

Only return it too late and it doesn’t count. One stat I have never seen election officials produce is how many ballots get tossed every time for late delivery.

But my greatest complaint is that the entire concept (beyond taking care of the ballots of those physically unable to get to a polling place including those who are out of town) is totally demeaning to the election process.

What advocates are really saying is “we recognize this voting thing is really not important to you. You’re right — it’s no big deal. We want to make it so easy it won’t inconvenience you at all.” Turnout is not increased by telling people voting is not worth much effort.

Election days used to be local and national events. They were part of that Norman Rockwell kind of glue that helped hold the country and its culture together. To eliminate them is to eliminate one more part of what made America a great nation.

This dramatically caught my eye especially since my church, Central Christian Church, strongly encourages its members to conduct small group meetings. Say this isn’t so and that the Town of Gilbert will quickly abandon this policy if it is so. Thank GOD, literally, that we have the Alliance Defense Fund based right here in Arizona!

The city of Gilbert, Ariz., has ordered a group of seven adults to stop gathering for Bible studies in a private home because such meetings are forbidden by the city’s zoning codes.

The issue was brought to a head when city officials wrote a letter to a pastor and his wife informing them they had 10 days to quit having the meetings in their private home.

Pastor Joe Sutherland had been told in a letter from code compliance officer Steve Wallace that the people were not allowed to meet in a home for church activities under the city’s Land Development Code.

(Read the full article at World Net Daily)

Today’s Phoenix Business Journal ran the following article by Mike Sunnucks:

U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Mesa, has been quick throughout his tenure to oppose federal subsidies and special incentives. But the East Valley congressman is keeping mum on state and local proposals within his district to build a new Cactus League ballpark in Mesa for the Chicago Cubs.

The Legislature is considering a plan to impose 8 percent ticket fees on all Cactus League games and $1 Maricopa County rental car tax to help pay for the Cubs stadium. In addition, the city of Mesa will ask its voters to approve bonds and new spending for the $86 million project.

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, the Arizona Diamondbacks and other Cactus League teams oppose the ticket fee idea. Instead, Gordon and D-backs officials would like to see special tax districts created around spring training ballparks and in downtown Phoenix to capture and dedicate sales tax revenue toward those areas, and perhaps bond against future expected revenue.

The Cubs have threatened to move to the Grapefruit League in Florida unless a new ballpark is built here by 2013.

Flake is not taking a stance either on the ticket fees or the tax district idea to help pay for a new stadium.

“We’re going to hold off on commenting for now,” said Flake spokesman Matthew Specht.

The city of Mesa is a prime backer of the ticket fee and car rental tax increase to keep the Cubs from moving.

A bill that would impose ticket fees and the car rental tax has been approved by committees in the Arizona House of Representatives. House Bill 2736 is not yet scheduled for a full House vote.

“This is budget week, and the Cactus League bill is on hold for this week,” said House Majority Leader John McComish, R-Ahwatukee.

by Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
 
Adapt and overcome. This is part of a Marine Corps mantra born of a resource scarcity the service suffered when its equipment consisted mostly of hand-me-downs from the Army. This is exactly the kind of can-do spirit that we need from government officials today.

The Arizona economy has lost more than 300,000 jobs. Tax revenues have plummeted at every level. We cannot afford to continue funding government at its former levels. Unfortunately, officials with the City of Phoenix have demonstrated an unwillingness to adapt to changing circumstances.

Phoenix says it has eliminated 500 positions, but that’s only about 3 percent of the city’s 14,000 employees. Due to attrition, the actual number of layoffs will be less than 50, or around three-tenths of 1 percent. The City Council did eliminate an administrative assistant position that paid $95,000 a year. That’s a start, but it begs the question of how many other high-dollar assistant positions have been preserved. And, it lends credence to the assertion that the average cost of a city employee is $100,000.

Residents of Phoenix were told that the city needed to impose a 2-cent food tax to protect police and fire services from budget reductions. But on a recent episode of Sunday Square Off, Mayor Phil Gordon said he was shifting police officers to other city departments whose budgets were partially funded through federal or state tax money.

So, really, the City Council has made it more expensive for people to put food on the table so that they can protect the city’s $1 million budget for “arts and culture” and the $1 million budget for “government relations,” i.e. lobbyists.

When Mayor Gordon delivers the “State of City” address next Tuesday, he will talk about all the changes going on at City Hall, all the hard choices he’s made. But the truth is, the new tax on groceries and the refusal to realign government to focus on core functions show nothing has changed and the state of the city is disappointing.

Dr. Byron Schlomach is an economist and the director of the Center for Economic Prosperity at the Goldwater Institute.

February 25, 2010

Dear Scottsdale/CD5 Taxpayer:

Three upcoming taxpayer events are listed below. Be sure to check out the picture of our gigantic inflatable ATM machine, which we will deploy in front of Scottsdale City Hall for the rally against the Bed Tax on Tuesday afternoon, March 2:

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/022510-three-big-taxpayer-events-scottsdale

(ATM stands for “Already Taxed to the Max.” The message of our upcoming statewide ATM campaign is that politicians should stop treating taxpayers like an ATM machine whenever they get short on cash.)

If that link doesn’t work for you, just go to www.aztaxpayers.org and scroll down under What’s New until you see the photo.

Event Type: Tea Party Protest
Topic: HONKING for Health Care Freedom
City: Scottsdale
Date: Saturday, February 27
Time: 1:00 to 3:00 pm
Host(s): Scottsdale Tea Party Patriots
Location: Harry Mitchell District Office, Camelback and Scottsdale Road, SE corner.
Ideological Orientation of Host(s): Patriotic/Free-Market/ Conservative/Libertarian/Constitutionalist
Contact/Sign Ideas: Judy Hoelscher, judy@shadowlakes.com
More Info: http://www.meetup.com/Scottsdale-Tea-Party/calendar/12706997/ Keep calling Congressman Mitchell! His Scottsdale number is 480-946-2411. DC number: 202-225-2190.

Here is a video from our last Honking event, in Flagstaff:
http://www.americansforprosperity.org/021710-video-honking-health-care-freedom-flagstaff

Event Type: Rally Against the Prop 200 Bed Tax
City: Scottsdale
Date: Tuesday, March 2
Time: 4:30 to 5:30 pm
Host(s): AFP Arizona, Scottsdale Tea Party Patriots, Stop the Tax – NO on 200
Ideological Orientation of Host(s): Patriotic/Free-Market/ Conservative/Libertarian/Constitutionalist
More info on the Bed Tax: http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/4423
Media Inquiries: Ryan O’Daniel, (480) 941-0781, Tom Jenney, (602) 478-0146
Protest Info: Among other fun things, AFP Arizona will deploy its giant ATM machine, to make the point that the people of Scottsdale are Already Taxed to the Max. We are encouraging the people of Scottsdale to vote NO on the Prop 200 Bed Tax.

Event Type: Tea Party Meeting
Topic(s): Defending American Freedom
City: Scottsdale
Date: Tuesday, March 2
Time: 5:15 to 7:30 pm
Host(s): Scottsdale Tea Party Patriots
Location: Arabian Trail Library, 10187 E. McDowell Mountain Ranch Road, 85255
Ideological Orientation of Host(s): Patriotic/Free-Market/ Conservative/Libertarian/Constitutionalist
Contact: Honey Marques, h.marquesz@cox.net, (808) 283-3661
More Info: http://www.meetup.com/Scottsdale-Tea-Party/calendar/12374001
More statewide taxpayer events are posted at www.aztaxpayers.org. Scroll down to the top items under What’s New.

For Liberty,

–Tom
Tom Jenney
Arizona Director
Americans for Prosperity
(Arizona Federation of Taxpayers)
www.aztaxpayers.org
tjenney@afphq.org
(602) 478-0146

by Byron Schlomach Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
 
Today, the Arizona Senate Committee on Appropriations will consider an important measure from Senator Jonathon Paton which would require all levels of government (including cities, towns, counties, school districts) to disclose in detail how they spend taxpayer money. It would also require the state to maintain a website where anyone could get quick access to information on every government in Arizona that has the power to levy taxes on them. Those governments would post details on a website about every expenditure and tax revenue collected, like an online checkbook register for city hall or the county courthouse.

This bill also would require government agencies and departments to establish performance benchmarks and list them for the public to review. Accurate crime statistics and details about county prosecutions would have to be reported as well.

For little cost, information about government operations can be made available 24 hours a day to people researching on their home computers or even on their cell phones. Most local governments have websites now, but the information they post often is so general that it doesn’t provide any real insight into how it conducts the people’s business.

The primary objection to these websites is that they will be costly to create and maintain. But experience proves otherwise. State Treasurer Dean Martin launched a transparency website in the midst of budget cuts, and states like Virginia, South Carolina, Kansas and Texas put spending information online using only existing resources. Nebraska created its spending transparency website, which does much of what this bill would require, for only $40,000. Some software companies, like ProcureNetworks, are even offering software to government agencies for free.

I have a question for those who use cost as a reason to oppose spending transparency: considering the recent declines in government revenue, how can we afford not to engage citizens more comprehensively in determining spending priorities and hunting down new efficiencies?

Taxpayers who foot government’s bills deserve the widest possible access to information on how their money is spent. Perhaps then Thomas Jefferson’s vision will be fully realized.

Dr. Byron Schlomach is an economist and the director of the Center for Economic Prosperity at the Goldwater Institute.

The Goldwater Institute’s outstanding investigative reporter Mark Flatten has produced one of the most important pieces of Arizona journalism in many years called Shifting The Burden: Cities Waive Property Taxes for Favored Businesses.  In it he methodically and devastatingly deconstructs the complicated “government property lease excise tax” or GPLET scheme that insiders close to Gov. Jan Brewer and other top Arizona politicians use to shift hundreds of millions of dollars from small businesses and homeowners to their special interest friends.  The topic is a bit dense but any taxpayer who has asked why their property tax liability keeps going up should work through it so they can understand how the powerful and their lobbyists like Brewer’s man Chuck Coughlin game the system to the misfortune of average guy and gal.

Shifting The Burden: Cities Waive Property Taxes for Favored Businesses

By Mark Flatten
Goldwater Institute Special Investigation
February 18, 2010

Special deals between cities and hand-picked developers have exempted more than $2 billion in development projects from property taxes in Arizona, shifting the tax burden to surrounding property owners and creating a competitive disadvantage for other businesses, an investigation by the Goldwater Institute has found.

Those high-rise office buildings and sprawling retail centers would generate more than $30 million annually in property taxes if they were not exempted through lease agreements with the cities. As a result of those deals, the owner of a $200,000 home near Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix pays about $183 in additional property taxes every year. A similar home in downtown Phoenix is charged an extra $90 annually, according to state legislative studies.

The unpaid property taxes are supposed to be replaced by the Government Property Lease Excise Tax or GPLET. However, the Institute’s investigation found GPLET payments amount to a fraction of what would be paid in property taxes.

Virtually every high-rise office tower that has been built in downtown Phoenix in the last decade is covered under a GPLET lease. The tax exemption also has been granted to a now-shuttered dog racing track in Phoenix, a tattoo studio in Clifton and regional shopping malls in the East Valley. In coming years, additional projects worth billions of dollars will be covered under GPLET leases.

Last year efforts by state lawmakers to curb the lucrative breaks in the law were blocked by Mesa officials and the developer planning to use the exemption for a $1 billion resort on the eastern outskirts of the city. But, State Representative Rick Murphy has introduced a bill again this year to curb these agreements.

A recent Arizona Supreme Court decision also puts the property tax exemption in jeopardy. The court ruled that sales tax rebates for a shopping center in Phoenix amounted to an unconstitutional gift of taxpayer money to the developer. Promises of future job growth or other tax revenues are not enough to justify special sales tax breaks, the court ruled. Those are the same arguments that are used to justify GPLET agreements.

Read Shifting the Burden here

Sidebar: Scottsdale’s SkySong Avoids Property Taxes Without GPLET lease

Investigation Analysis by Clint Bolick

Goldwater Institute
News Release

PHOENIX–Some Arizona cities that recruit major shopping malls and high-rise buildings have used a special tax incentive that waives most of the development’s property taxes, often for 50 years or longer. A Goldwater Institute investigative report found development projects valued at more than $2 billion pay only a small fraction of what they otherwise would in property taxes. As a result, local governments raise property tax rates for nearby businesses and homes that don’t qualify for this special tax break.

To qualify for the property tax exemption, building developers transfer ownership of the property to the city and then lease it back to operate. State law requires that the developer pay a Government Property Lease Excise Tax, or GPLET, that is supposed to replace a significant portion of the waived property taxes. Mark Flatten, a Goldwater Institute investigative reporter, shows that GPLET projects throughout Arizona pay at least $31 million less in property taxes each year.

“Arizona’s high property taxes deter businesses from moving here. It’s no surprise that companies look for ways to lighten the tax burden using the GPLET system. However, any time you offer a tax break to one business, it should be available to all,” said Darcy Olsen, president and CEO of the Goldwater Institute. “GPLET programs that single out select businesses for deals essentially leave neighboring businesses and homeowners with the tab.”

Most GPLET projects are located in Tempe and Phoenix, where most downtown high-rises built since 1996 benefit from a property tax exemption. Other communities have started to approve GPLET projects as well. For example, Mesa has agreed to waive an estimated $776 million in property taxes over 50 years for a future convention center and luxury resort near Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. Mr. Flatten reports cities generally don’t worry about lower property tax revenue because property taxes are a relatively small portion of their budgets.

School districts and community colleges, on the other hand, depend more heavily on property taxes. But school districts haven’t had to worry either, because the state government had filled the gap created by GPLET projects. That will change this year because lawmakers have changed the law that protected school district budgets. Now, GPLET projects likely will prompt school districts to raise property taxes or reduce spending. “It’s a great concern. It shifts the tax onto our property owners, our homeowners, and it’s a huge shift,” Antonio Sanchez, superintendent of the Wilson Elementary School District in Phoenix, told Mr. Flatten.

Some lawmakers have tried in the past to change GPLET laws to limit the length of the new leases and to increase the amount that new projects have to pay in excise taxes so that it is more comparable to what businesses that do not have a special exemption are required to pay. These efforts have been thwarted by lobbyists for cities and developers who expect to benefit in the future, Mr. Flatten reports. State Representative Rick Murphy has introduced a bill this year that will try to curb the practice.

The Goldwater Institute recommends that governments pursue economic development efforts that would benefit a wide range of businesses, instead of giving a handful preferential treatment. The Arizona Supreme Court recently reinforced the Arizona Constitution’s “Gift Clause,” a prohibition that GPLET leases might violate. Examples of more appropriate business incentives would include reducing property tax rates for businesses to match the rates paid by homeowners and the expansion of enterprise zones in which reduced tax rates are offered to all businesses.

“These deals show that Arizona’s tax burden is too high to attract business. That is easy to correct without giving special privileges to the few. Lower property taxes to competitive regional rates for all of our businesses and help Arizona grow its way out of the recession,” said Ms. Olsen.

Read “Shifting the Burden: Cities Waive Property Taxes for Favored Businesses” online here.

The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.

by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute
 
Efforts to keep the Chicago Cubs in Mesa present the first opportunity to see if Arizona elected officials were paying attention to the Arizona Supreme Court decision striking down government subsidies to individual businesses. A city can construct and own a baseball stadium. (We’ll leave aside for now the question of whether that’s good public policy.) However, the funds being considered by the Legislature are problematic: a new tax on all tickets to Cactus League spring training games for the benefit of the Cubs and an increase to the already hefty car rental tax. Adopting these taxes to benefit a single sports franchise may constitute an illegal special law under the Arizona Constitution. The proposed bill would confer to a sports authority such unbounded power that it may be an improper delegation of legislative authority, which also presents constitutional problems.

The potential deal between Mesa, which will own the facility, and the Cubs also raises serious issues. Under the proposed deal, the Cubs reap all of the financial benefits and have to do little more than show up. Under the CityNorth decision, the beneficiary of a government incentive must produce roughly comparable direct, tangible benefits. The best way to achieve this is fair market rent, which the Cubs are apparently unwilling to pay. A deal probably could be constructed that complies with the constitution, but it will require the Cubs to make far greater commitments than they have appeared willing to do.

Any baseball fan would want to have the Cubs here. And certainly the Cactus League is a valuable asset. But at some point, incentives become illegal subsidies, and taxpayers are asked to do too much. We hope our elected officials will heed the wisdom of the Arizona Supreme Court in the CityNorth decision and honor their constitutional limits.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.