Two Arizona cities are among the top ten in America for military veterans to live, according to a recently released survey.
WalletHub issued its findings for its latest installment of the Best and Worst Places for Veterans to Live, showing Scottsdale and Gilbert among the highest-ranked municipalities in the nation. Scottsdale clocked in at the sixth-ranked city, and Gilbert as the eighth highest.
Chandler (#11), Mesa (#29), Glendale (#37), Tucson (#46), and Phoenix (#58) also appeared on the list of 100 cities.
WalletHub used four dimensions as determining factors for its report: Employment, Economy, Quality of Life, and Health.
Scottsdale received two top-ten marks in the “Economy” and “Quality of Life” dimensions. Gilbert received one top-ten distinction in the “Employment” dimension and an eleventh-ranked notation for “Economy.”
The Veterans Association estimates that there are more than 18 million veterans in the United States. WalletHub releases this annual study “to help military veterans find the best places in which to settle down.”
The City of Scottsdale has an online page dedicated to military events, giving these American heroes easy access to resources and organizations they might need. The foreword for the page states, “No matter when you served or where you served, we honor your service, your sacrifice and your dedication to the United States of America. The people of Scottsdale have a great admiration and the utmost gratitude for the men and women who selflessly served – and serve – this country.”
The Town of Gilbert also has a webpage for military veterans, which is “intended to boost engagement with veterans and their families in our community, provide for recognition, and connect them with needed resources.” Gilbert’s Veterans Advisory Board seeks to “create a supportive Town atmosphere and examine issues affecting the health and well-being of service members, veterans, and their families.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A federal court ruled that abortionists can challenge the state’s ban on discriminatory abortions.
The Ninth Circuit Court ruled on Monday in Isaacson v. Mayes that abortionists may petition for an injunction against state law prohibiting abortions based on fetal genetic abnormality, dubbed the “Reason Regulations.” Judges Ronald Gould, Andrew Hurwitz, and Roopali Desai agreed in their ruling with the abortionists’ claim that they endured economic harm. The abortionists blamed the abortion ban’s vagueness for moving them to conduct less abortions out of caution.
Specifically, the abortionists claimed that the discriminatory abortion ban violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments: the threat of prison jeopardized their liberty interest, and the threats of license revocation, monetary damages, and revenue loss jeopardized their property interest. The circuit court dismissed the state’s claim of interest in regulating medical practice.
“That their services include abortion does not alter the fact that Plaintiffs make money providing these services and have lost money because the Reason Regulations restrict what services they can provide,” stated the ruling.
During the trial, the abortionists revealed that patients with likely or confirmed fetal abnormalities made up a significant part of their business.
The “Reason Regulations” made it a felony to either knowingly solicit or accept money to finance an abortion, or to perform an abortion, based on a fetal genetic abnormality.
The abortionists claimed that their overcompliance with the statute was due to the vagueness of the term “genetic abnormality,” and the statute’s lack of details on determining how much that factor had to play into a patient’s decision to get an abortion as well as the level of knowledge an abortionist would have to have in order to be guilty of violating the ban.
Monday’s ruling reversed an Arizona District Court order issued in February allowing the ban to go into effect. The district court rejected the abortionists’ request for a preliminary injunction, since the Supreme Court had just ruled that no constitutional right to abortion existed in its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health ruling last year overturning Roe v. Wade.
The federal court remanded the case back to the district court for it to decide, once more, whether the state ban on discriminatory abortion may go into effect.
A similar ongoing case may nullify the results of Isaacson v. Mayes. In Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes, the Arizona Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in December to determine whether the state’s preemptive, pre-statehood, total abortion ban remains enforceable due to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The state’s total abortion ban was suspended following the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that created a constitutional right to abortion. Last year — prior to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health — the state passed its 15-week abortion ban.
Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes would decide which of the two laws has authority in the state.
The state never repealed its total abortion ban. The 15-week ban didn’t preclude the enforcement of any other preceding abortion laws.
Last week, Planned Parenthood Arizona (PPAZ) filed a motion to recuse Arizona Supreme Court Judge William Montgomery for his personal beliefs opposing PPAZ.
"[We] believe that all litigants in Arizona are entitled to have their cases heard by judges who are not biased against them, and that includes [us]…" Read more: https://t.co/e0nu7RxSst
— Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. (@PPArizona) October 26, 2023
Earlier this month, Gov. Katie Hobbs filed an amicus brief to oppose the total abortion ban.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The city of Tucson unveiled plans for a new $140 million public transit system, with the first proposed route along an existing one covered by Sun Tran, the fare-free transit system in place.
In a press release on Monday, the city called for residents’ feedback on the new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. The BRT would cover an existing route by Sun Tran: the 19 – Stone South Route. Both cover the area from the Tohono T’adai Transit Center/Tucson Mall to the downtown Ronstadt Transit Center.
The two public transits have few differences. BRT fare may or may not be free, depending on the continued existence of the no-fare policy applying to Sun Tran. Additionally, the BRT would carry triple the amount of passengers at a quicker pace: anywhere from 100 to 150 persons with a run time of every 10 minutes. Comparatively, Sun Tran buses carry up to 40 passengers with a run time of every 15 to 30 minutes.
On a website dedicated to the new system, the city said that current transit systems are subject to delays and congestion because they operate in local traffic. BRT would have dedicated travel lanes and transit signal priority.
The new BRT system, spanning five miles, is part of a greater 15-mile transit corridor project: the Tucson Rapid Transit. That corridor would consist of a northern segment spanning from the Tohono T’adai Transit Center/Tucson Mall to the Ronstadt Transit Center/downtown Tucson, and then a southern segment spanning from the downtown stop to the Tucson International Airport.
The southern segment would come at another projected cost of $140 million. In total, the Tucson Rapid Transit would cost around $280 million. The city is hoping the federal government will slash that cost in half.
The Federal Transit Administration has approved the city’s proposed northern segment for its Small Starts Capital Investment Grant program, but has yet to award funds. The city applied for coverage of 50 percent of project costs. The remainder of the projected costs would ultimately be taxpayers’ burden, obtained through RTA Next.
The Sun Tran remains free to all riders through the end of this year, and for the foreseeable future.
Last year, city officials decided to continue to waive transit fees from its initial, pandemic-prompted suspension as part of a “new normal” for transit. The total cost of the bus system was estimated at a little over $100 million at the time, with about $53 million coming from the city. Advertising revenue brought in just shy of $2 million annually, with intergovernmental agreements and federal grants accounting for about another $40 million.
The remaining $11 million posed a problem for the city, one that remained unsolved when the council again extended free fare in May.
Ridership has increased in diversity since the pandemic and change in presidents. The border crisis resulted in a consistent flood of noncitizens who have made use of the city’s free transit system. The city allocated about $550,000 from April 1 to Dec. 31 to bus illegal immigrants from between shelter sites and the Tucson International Airport.
The city has also received significant federal investments in its Sun Tran system.
Earlier this year, the city received $21.5 million from the Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration to decarbonize the Sun Tran system by replacing the remaining diesel bus fleet with 39 compressed natural gas buses.
The city is scheduled to hold three meetings on the first proposed BRT: two in-person meetings on Nov. 14 and 16, and a virtual meeting on Nov. 15.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Americans are spending lots of their money on Halloween festivities in 2023.
A recent study by the National Retail Federation (NRF) showed that there is likely to be $12.2 billion spent on Halloween this year in the United States. This number is an increase from last year’s figure of $10.6 billion.
Halloween spending has recovered from its decline during the COVID-marred year of 2020, where $8 billion was expected to leave the wallets of consumers.
The rise in spending tracks the statistics for the total number of people celebrating on the holiday. Seventy-three percent of Americans are expected to take part in some sort of celebration for Halloween, up from sixty-nine percent in 2022.
“More Americans than ever will be reaching into their wallets and spending a record amount of money to celebrate Halloween this year,” NRF President and CEO Matthew Shay said. “Consumers will be shopping early for festive décor and other related items and retailers are prepared with the inventory to help customers and their families take part in this popular and fun tradition.”
Phil Rist, the Executive Vice President of Strategy for Prosper Insights & Analytics, also issued a statement in conjunction with the release of the survey that was conducted by his firm. Rist said, “Younger consumers are eager to begin their Halloween shopping, with more than half of those ages 25-44 planning to shop before or during September. Social media continues to grow as a source of costume inspiration for younger consumers, as more people under 25 are turning to TikTok, Pinterest and Instagram for ideas.”
The survey found that each consumer is likely to spend $108.24 this year through the October 31st holiday. Almost seventy percent (69%) of people are projected to buy costumes for Halloween, leading to $4.1 billion of spending. Americans are also likely to shell out $3.9 billion on decorations and $3.6 billion on candy in 2023.
According to the report, “consumers are looking to get an early start on their Halloween shopping” with just under fifty percent (45%) commencing their holiday shopping before the month begins, which is an increase of twelve percent from ten years ago.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
More schisms have appeared between the state’s Democrat Chief Executive and Republican legislative leadership.
Earlier this month, Senate Majority Whip Sine Kerr, the Chair of the chamber’s Committee on Natural Resources, Energy & Water, announced her resignation from the Governor’s Water Council. Senator Kerr sent a letter to Governor Hobbs, which outlined the rationale behind her thinking.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Senate Republicans Withdraw From Governor's Water Policy Council Beholden to Out-of-State Special Interests@SineKerrpic.twitter.com/5bDvkK7vn1
In a subsequent statement, Kerr explained her reasoning for the decision, writing, “The Governor’s Water Policy Council is nothing more than a forum to rubberstamp the progressive environmental goals of special interest groups. Its ultimate objective has nothing to do with serving the best interests of our Arizona citizens and stakeholders who will be greatly impacted by any newly adopted groundwater management policy. The radical agenda being pushed has the potential to damage our economy and kill the livelihoods of our farmers and ranchers. Sadly, this community is not being provided with fair representation at the table.”
Kerr vowed to keep up her efforts to effect legislative change over the state’s water policies in spite of her perceptions of Hobbs’ current track with those endeavors. She said, “I’m incredibly disappointed in the Governor’s approach that seeks to alienate the voices of Arizona’s multi-generational land and water stewards. This extreme departure from Arizona’s historical, collaborative approach to water management favors her own political gains over sound policymaking. Had her approach been taken over the last forty years, we would not have the tools we have today under the Groundwater Management Act, or the major victories for water augmentation, conservation, reuse, recharge, and irrigation efficiency we have adopted at the Legislature in recent years. I plan to continue my work at the Legislature, in collaboration with the agriculture community, to adopt solutions on basin management issues that will benefit all Arizonans and help with continued efforts in security our water future.”
On January 9, Governor Hobbs created the Water Policy Council “to analyze and recommend updates, revisions and additions to the 1980 Arizona Groundwater Management Act (GMA) and related water legislation, which shall include without limitation, analysis and recommendations for groundwater management outside current Active Management Areas.”
On May 4, Hobbs rolled out the members of the Council, saying, “I’m committed to passing water policies that meet this moment and tackle the challenges we face. I know that with our new Water Policy Council, we will develop the path forward and ensure our state’s natural resources are available for generations of Arizonans to come.”
The Republican Senator wasn’t the only member to leave the Council. The Arizona Farm Bureau, on October 13, also announced that it would be withdrawing from the Governor’s panel, citing a “disappointment in what has been the works of the Rural Groundwater Committee of the Council. Stefanie Smallhouse, the President of the Bureau said, “After months of deliberation, the committee’s direction, and thereby the outcome of the greater Council, appears to be pre-determined as essentially a cross between the seriously flawed attempts of the past and an AMA. At best, our priorities have been given very little committee consideration or, at worst, have been totally dismissed. This is unacceptable to our members, farm and ranch families who will undoubtedly be impacted directly and immediately by any rural groundwater regulatory framework.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The city of Flagstaff may face a lawsuit over its forthcoming decision to ban a firearms advertisement.
In a press release issued earlier this week, the Goldwater Institute said that the city’s ban, if approved, would constitute an illegal violation of free speech.
“When a city operates a public facility, it cannot use that authority to censor messages or viewpoints it disagrees with,” said the Goldwater Institute. “But that’s just what the city of Flagstaff is doing: abusing its power to push an anti-gun agenda.”
The Phoenix-based public policy organization reached out to the city to request they reject the ban on behalf of a business owner who, it appears, prompted the ban: Rob Wilson, owner of the indoor gun range Timberline Firearms and Training.
“By denying Mr. Wilson’s request to advertise based on an unreasonable and pretextual application of the advertising policy, the City has violated Mr. Wilson’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech and due process of law,” stated the letter. “Moreover, the new policy currently under consideration is unconstitutional, both as applied to Mr. Wilson (as it expressly targets his expression) and on its face (as it bans broad, poorly-defined categories of speech and discriminates based on content and viewpoint).”
Wilson had run his gun range business ads without issue at the Flagstaff Pulliam Airport since 2019. It wasn’t until April that the city denied his ad. City officials claimed that Wilson’s advertisement conflicted with their advertising guidelines by representing “violence or antisocial behavior.” Wilson’s contested ad video is below.
The city refused Wilson’s attempt at an appeal. Afterwards, the city developed a new policy specifically prohibiting the inclusion of firearms in advertisements.
Heidi Hansen, director of Economic Vitality, was responsible for the policy changes. Hansen explained during a council meeting last month that the rejection of the Timber Firearms and Training ad was due to the video depicting a firearms instructor “firing rapidly” at a “silhouette of a person.” The figure in question was likely the B-27 silhouette paper target, a common tool for shooting ranges, especially for law enforcement training.
“It was firing quite rapidly at a silhouette of a person and we felt like that might make someone uncomfortable,” said Hansen.
Wilson, a Navy veteran, said that his city leadership went against the Constitution he fought to defend for decades.
“Denying my right to advertise is simply wrong,” said Wilson. “After serving 22 years on active duty to defend the Constitution, I’m not about to sacrifice my rights.”
Lawmakers warned the city last month, ahead of a city council discussion of the ban, that it would be both unconstitutional and unlawful.
During discussion of the policy, city officials said they felt that the advertisement video was unwelcoming and discomforting. Councilmember Miranda Sweet said that Timber Firearms and Training might have to compromise on the issue.
“I was very uncomfortable when I watched [the ad video],” said Sweet. “We’re trying to welcome people into the community when they come into the airport, and the video didn’t portray that.”
Although the Goldwater Institute stated in its letter that the Flagstaff City Council may consider the firearms advertisement ban during its Nov. 7 regular meeting, a city spokesperson informedAP News that an “updated version” of the policy would be included in the Nov. 14 council meeting.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
