Bond Questions are about Special Interests
by Jessica Stealey

May 10, 2004

Originally published in the Tucson Citizen

George Bernard Shaw said that those who would rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

The Board of Supervisors is hoping that by lumping every possible special interest group's wish list into this bond election, there will be so many Pauls receiving benefits that there will be no one left to vote against this bond package.

Let's look at this bond package for what it is - a tax increase. Not just a new tax, but one for which our children will be ultimately responsible. This entire bond package is a dishonest mortgaging of our children's futures for the benefit of a handful of powerful special interests.

Don't let the name fool you. A bond is nothing more than approving "credit card" type spending for the county. The money isn't due for 30 years, thus shackling our children to pay most of the principal on the mortgage. The bond package allows for an interest rate of up to 12 percent per year, a figure rivaling that of most credit card companies.

Since bonds are paid out of tax revenue, approving this measure means voting to increase property taxes in Pima County, which already has the highest rates in the state. This is most burdensome on the lower-paid working class, potentially pricing them out of home ownership, and on senior citizens living on fixed income but facing skyrocketing property tax increases.

As if the thought of saddling our children with mortgage debt is not reason enough to vote against all of the bond measures, reading the supervisors' plans for the bond money reveals their corrupt intentions.

Question 1 - Open Space Preservation. Originally part of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, the question seeks to acquire land for open space, as well as land around Davis-Monthan. The question does not define which lands are to be acquired, nor does it provide for money for maintaining such lands. It is essentially a blank check to the county to buy up land that is currently privately held. This question caters to a few environmentalist groups and does nothing to actually "preserve open space." All it does is transfer ownership from private groups and individuals to government.

With government already in possession of more than 85 percent of the land in Pima County, this question is clearly just an attempted land grab by the county. And even members of the SDCP steering committee are opposing this question as a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Question 2 - Public Health and Community Facilities. This question seeks to spend money improving county hospitals, museums and art facilities. Cleverly camouflaged in this question is money to pay University Physicians, a private practice, $25 million to run Kino Hospital, as well as money to build more buildings for the private physicians group. This is pork barrel - giving taxpayer money to a private organization and doing nothing to cut the costs of operating Kino Hospital for the taxpayers.

Question 3 - Public Safety and Justice Facilities. Here the supervisors want to spend $183 million on new infrastructure for law enforcement and the courts. More than half the money will go to "Homeland Security," George W. Bush's answer to the Gestapo. The supervisors might try to tell you that at least part of this bill will be picked up by the feds, but other states that have passed similar spending packages were left holding the bag.

The other half of the Question 3 money will go to building a new Justice Court facility. This satisfies not only the construction special interest, but also the lawyers who want more work at the expense of productive citizens. You may remember some of Sheriff (Clarence W.) Dupnik's and County Attorney (Barbara) LaWall's greatest hits, such as shifting the focus of law enforcement from violent and property crimes to making sure underage drinkers are stopped. Of course, let's not forget the stun-gun torture of DUI suspects such as Brian Sewell, a despicable action left unpunished by both the sheriff and county attorney.

Question 4 - Parks and Recreational Facilities. More than $96 million to improve parks, libraries and community centers. It includes such ridiculous expenditures as a library for the Continental Ranch area, lighted Little League fields and numerous land grabs for the purpose of "preservation."

Question 5 - River Parks and Flood Control Improvements: $46 million in another cleverly disguised land grab by Pima County. Money approved through Question 5 will go to purchase "flood-prone properties." If the Board of Supervisors was serious about flood control, could they not find something in the budget that could be cut rather than rack up more debt?

Question 6 - Sewer System Revenue Bonds: $150 million for sewer system repair. Since Wastewater Management has allowed the sewer system to deteriorate without routine maintenance, why should we believe this $150 million will fix the problem? Again, if this is so vital to the county, why not include it in the budget?

The county supervisors are so interested in slipping this bond package past the voters of Pima County that they are spending more than $1 million for a special election instead of including it in the presidential election in November, which would have been virtually free. Why would they do such a thing? Simple - because voter turnout is notoriously low in nonpresidential elections and much lower in special elections.

Don't be fooled by front groups such as "Metropolitan Pima Alliance" and "Six Bonds for All of Us." Follow the money and you will see these shell organizations are funded by the usual suspects in political thievery.

Are pork-barrel projects for environmentalists, builders, private physician groups and the police worth saddling YOUR children with almost $1 billion of debt? I care too much about Pima County to vote for pork barrel, and I hope you do, too.

Jessica Stealey is a pharmacist and Libertarian Party activist.