By Arizona House Majority Leader Michael Carbone |
America cannot remain a great power if young people cannot afford to marry and raise children.
Building more homes, especially modest starter homes, is essential to helping young Americans put down roots and build a future. The consequences of our housing shortage reach far beyond local zoning decisions. They affect our families, our population, and ultimately our national interest.
The warning signs are unmistakable. The United States recorded about 3.61 million births in 2025, down one percent from 2024, while the general fertility rate fell to 53.1 births per 1,000 women ages 15–44. The Congressional Budget Office now projects that, beginning in 2030, annual deaths will exceed births, putting the U.S. population at risk of shrinking for the first time in the country’s 250-year history.
At the same time, the first rung of the housing ladder is disappearing. Freddie Mac estimates America is short roughly 3.7 million homes. The National Association of Realtors reports in its 2025 survey that first-time buyers accounted for a record-low 21 percent of purchasers, while their median age reached a record high of 40.
Homeownership is not a prerequisite for marriage or having children. But space, stability, affordability, and financial security matter when couples decide whether to marry and have children. History demonstrates how access to homeownership can influence decisions about having children. A 2025 National Bureau of Economic Research paper estimates that the expansion of FHA and VA mortgage insurance produced about three million additional births from 1935 through 1957, roughly 10 percent of the excess births associated with the baby boom.
For too many young Americans, buying a first home and starting a family are becoming goals they must postpone. Those delays have consequences for America’s future.
Strong families are the foundation of a strong country. Children first learn responsibility, discipline, sacrifice, trust, and the importance of caring for others at home. Studies also show that homeownership increases personal responsibility and encourages people to become more invested in their communities. These values shape the next generation of Americans and strengthen our country as a whole.
America’s ability to compete with rival nations also depends on its people: workers, engineers, entrepreneurs, taxpayers, caregivers, and future service members. Extensive research shows that children raised in stable, intact families generally have better outcomes across a wide range of measures. Strong families help prepare the next generation to take on the responsibilities of citizenship, contribute to our economy, and defend our country.
But as fewer children are born, America faces a smaller next generation, making it harder to sustain the workforce and leadership our country will need. Housing alone cannot reverse that trend, but policies that artificially restrict construction make it harder for young Americans to settle down and raise children. The consequences extend far beyond the housing market.
Foreign adversaries know it.
In 2024, three House committees investigated Chinese funding of U.S.-based environmental NGOs: Energy and Commerce; Science, Space, and Technology; and Natural Resources. Environmental organizations and litigants have used climate, habitat, land-conservation, water, and anti-sprawl arguments to challenge major housing developments.
Arizona offers a clear example. According to the Common Sense Institute, our state faces a long-term shortage of over 100,000 housing units, yet hundreds of thousands of acres of potentially developable State Trust Land sit near existing urban areas. Many of the individuals who wrote our state’s groundwater laws are also ardent anti-sprawl activists. They believe building new homes outside urban areas is “unsustainable” and have weaponized those laws to block development in more affordable areas. When government restricts where homes can be built, young families have fewer affordable options.
Anti-sprawl environmental advocacy deserves serious scrutiny, especially when American growth and development are at stake. America must reject efforts, whether foreign-funded or domestic, that use environmental arguments to obstruct new housing, essential infrastructure, and the resources American families need for an abundant and prosperous future.
If we believe in strong families and a strong America, our policies should reflect those priorities. We need to open more land for development, invest in infrastructure and expand water supplies, speed up permitting, and make it possible to build millions more homes that Americans can afford.
Housing affordability is essential to the national interest. America’s future depends on young people being able to afford a home and raise a family.
Michael Carbone is a Republican member of the Arizona House of Representatives representing Legislative District 25 and serves as House Majority Leader. Follow him on X at @MichaelCarbone.
The spark that ignited the American Revolution stemmed from the tax on tea. An unjust duty on their beloved tea led colonists to shout, “No taxation without representation.” This burdensome tax became one of the fissures that set America on its path to independence from colonial rule.
The dispute goes beyond the price of tea; it was about who has the authority to impose taxes and whether the people have a say. In 2026, Arizona voters can revisit this question in the grocery aisle. If Proposition 316 passes, it would cap local taxes on groceries at 2% and allow voters to approve increases above that threshold.
Since America’s founding, the government’s legitimacy has rested on the consent of the governed. Cities exercise taxing authority per the Arizona Constitution. While this satisfies the lawful criteria for taxation, when is delegated consent sufficient? Arizonans can propose a referendum, but doing so requires traversing a complex process.
However, Proposition 316 tackles this issue directly. It caps local taxes on groceries and requires voter approval for any increase above this limit, giving voters direct input without tackling the hurdles of organizing a referendum after the fact.
Unlike luxury goods, groceries are a necessity. Demand for essentials like food tends to be inelastic because we all need to eat. As the cost of living rises, debating grocery taxes differs from debating cigarette taxes; consumers can quit smoking, but they cannot quit eating.
Food taxes disproportionately hit poorer residents. Per the USDA, households in the lowest income quintile spent 33% of their pre-tax income on food in 2024, compared with just 6.4% among those in the highest. That means an onerous tax on groceries consumes a larger share of a poorer household’s resources, making it regressive. If a tax falls most heavily on people least able to absorb it, we should give them a direct voice in the matter.
Inevitably, taxes are a necessary evil. Grocery taxes can make up a sizable portion of a city’s budget, especially with the recent downturns in tax revenue from declines in tourism and the elimination of local residential rental taxes, which cost cities across Arizona $230 million in annual revenue losses.
However, local elected officials should be held accountable for fiscal responsibility and clarity. If they want to raise the grocery tax above the threshold, they need to make their case to the public. Why should the public support a tax on necessities if it isn’t clear what the revenue will fund? To garner widespread support, municipalities should directly identify what the additional revenue will fund and explain why the increase is necessary.
Voter feedback stimulates civic engagement. While Arizona is only a bit below the national average for voter turnout and confidence in voting, there’s still room for improvement. Pew Research has found that one of the top reasons voters give for not participating is the belief that their vote doesn’t matter.
However, policies that enable more direct constituent feedback can give citizens a greater stake in local government. In 2024, Scottsdale put Proposition 490 on the ballot. The measure passed, levying a 0.15% sales tax for the next 30 years to fund resources for parks and recreational facilities. What made that election stand out was the city’s 88.9% voter turnout. This proposition alone can’t explain the high voter participation; it shows how a local fiscal decision can give voters a direct role in managing public expenditures.
The Boston Tea Party wasn’t just about tea. It was a rejection of constituents not having a meaningful voice in public affairs. Prop. 316 brings this same principle to the grocery aisle. If local governments want to raise the grocery tax above 2%, they have to make their case with the voters. Bashas’ may be a long way from Boston Harbor, but the question of who gets a say remains.
Peter Clark is an Arizona-based writer. His work has been published by AzCentral, AZ Capitol Times, FEE, AIER, Inside Sources, OC Register, Tobacco Reporter & RealClear Markets.
Anyone who has watched Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board meetings over the past two years has likely noticed how often Member Pittinsky cites his business experience and expertise. He presents himself as a thoughtful decision-maker, especially when the board considers difficult choices such as closing schools.
Yet when the facts conflict or information is lacking to support what Menzel wants—or with what is right for SUSD students and parents—Pittinsky consistently abandons those concerns and votes in support of Menzel.
That is the pattern followed by the union-backed majority of education professionals on the Governing Board.
At the September 8th board meeting, Pittinsky asked how many students might leave SUSD if additional schools closed. Emphasizing his business background, he explained that businesses call this “churn.” Menzel and his staff agreed to provide the information.
At the October 6th meeting, when the board discussed and voted on the Phase II committee’s school closure recommendations, staff presented its “churn” analysis.
Notice that staff acknowledged receiving parental input, likely referring to surveys in which more than 160 families reportedly said they would leave the district if Laguna closed, but did not treat it as a “driving factor” in calculating churn. Instead, staff gave more weight to travel time, competition, and historical attrition.
Consider the contradiction: a district that says it values parents’ input discounted families who said they would leave and relied more heavily on other factors.
Menzel and his staff presented this as meaningful analysis for a critical decision about closing schools. That is difficult to accept.
The central problem is that closing four schools in two years, with more closures possible, is unprecedented in SUSD. Historical attrition is therefore an unreliable basis for estimating the effects.
Pittinsky’s response makes clear that he was dissatisfied with the analysis.
Pittinsky said:
“As I think it was noted, I’ve asked for this for a long time. I do need to say I am disappointed and frustrated that it came so late in the process. Not to be clear because I view it as like this point estimate. You know you could say 65,64,63. It’s all a function of the assumptions. But so, I think anyone who looks at these, my judgment at least, anyone who looks at this as a point estimate, I think that’s false precision.”
He continued:
“I think we can and need to do better in developing a much more multi-dimensional model for thinking about these kinds of enrollment dynamics.”
Although Pittinsky criticized the analysis and said the board needed a more sophisticated understanding of why families choose SUSD or a competitor, he nevertheless concluded that “it doesn’t block me from feeling like I can make a judgment tonight.”
In other words, Pittinsky acknowledged that the analysis was late, imprecise, and based on an incomplete understanding of declining enrollment, concerns many community members have raised for years, yet still felt prepared to vote on closing more schools.
Is that the way Pittinsky makes decisions in his business? Asking for data, not getting it, but proceeding anyway. The next time he says he needs data before making a decision, can we believe him?
The board and staff not only lack a clear understanding of declining enrollment, they have also declined to seriously examine alternatives to school closures, despite Member Carney’s repeated requests over the past two years.
Is the SUSD community comfortable with major decisions being made without adequate data and without considering all available alternatives?
As the October 6thmeeting moved to the proposed alternatives and the vote, the board discussed how Mesa Public Schools was addressing declining enrollment. The exchange between Members Pittinsky and Carney became heated.
Carney noted that, a year earlier, she had asked the board to create a long-range planning committee modeled on Mesa’s. She questioned why SUSD was not considering Mesa’s other strategies instead of focusing solely on school closures.
Although alternatives like Mesa’s were not on the agenda, and district counsel repeatedly warned Pittinsky to stop so as to avoid another open meeting law violation, he continued the discussion and more than likely committed another violation. SUSD had been cited in the past for a violation by the Arizona Attorney General for discussing non-agendized topics.
Pittinsky insisted that he had researched the issue and argued that Mesa was starting from a very different position than SUSD. The issue is not whether districts statewide are losing enrollment, that is well documented, or what is the root cause of the decline, which SUSD has yet to determine. The key question is how each district responds.
Pittinsky then said, “Mesa actually did close schools. They closed or repurposed three junior high schools and they did it very early in a way that our board has been less willing to do.”
Notice how Pittinsky shifted from the definitive claim that Mesa “did close schools” to saying it “closed or repurposed” them. He also distanced himself from prior decisions by referring to “our board,” even though he has served on it for the past two years.
The point Pittinsky, Sharkey, Lewis, and Menzel appear to miss, perhaps deliberately, is that Mesa developed a plan for declining enrollment rather than closing schools first and asking what to do afterward.
Pittinsky’s research also appears to have overlooked publicly available information showing that Mesa’s schools and governing board are pursuing strategic ways to create “vibrant and thriving” schools rather than “disrupting and dismantling” the district, the way SUSD is doing.
“Mesa Public Schools will offer more educational choices to families by transitioning an elementary school into an accelerated learning campus and launching two new high schools for the 2026-27 academic year.”
“Because of dropping enrollment, the district has to think strategically and creatively, Superintendent Dr. Matt Strom said, “Or we’re probably going to be moving to school closure within the next three to five years.”
“We were fortunate to receive a lot of feedback from parents and community members that were excited and eager for this change to happen,” said Jacob Martinez, vice chairman of the district’s Planning and Boundary Design Advisory Committee.”
I believe that last year Member Carney asked for this same committee to be formed in SUSD. But “our board” rejected the idea.
Here are some excerpts from an article by Rachel Walden, Mesa Public Schools Governing Board Member, on how their board has been addressing the issue of declining enrollment.
“We adopted a small school model that allows a school to stay financially viable and continue to operate. These schools have shared resources, shared staff, focused specials, and aides may be leveraged differently than at a comprehensive campus. The model provides the opportunity to specialize and meet student interests.”
“Financial uncertainty also means we must explore ways to bring in revenue, which is underway at MPS. Mesa fully welcomes ESA families. The Eagleridge campus offers three full days of educational programming for K-12 students from across the Valley. Ninety-five percent of Eagleridge is funded through ESA dollars. The MPS board approved a fee schedule allowing families to use ESA dollars to participate in classes at other campuses, which increases revenue to the district.”
“Responsible budgeting requires continual evaluation. Positions not related to the classroom and not required by regulation or law can be eliminated in many cases. Courses with low student interest should be removed, which will change staffing needs.”
“If enrollment continues to decline, the Board may eventually have to consider school consolidation or closure. Those decisions should come only after other strategies have been exhausted and after careful consideration of student outcomes, finances, facilities, transportation and community impact.”
Notice how rather than just blaming ESA for declining enrollment, like Menzel does, Mesa schools turns it into a revenue stream for the district.
“Faced with ongoing student loss, Mesa Public Schools is looking to reconfigure six of its campuses for the 2026-27 year instead of closing sites.”
The bottom line is that SUSD’s Governing Board, dominated by Menzel’s supporters, has failed its students, parents, and broader community. SUSD cannot continue electing board members who place Menzel’s agenda above students’ interests.
It is time for a change.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
Last year, residents of Page, a small town in northern Arizona, fought back against plans to reduce vehicle lanes on Lake Powell Boulevard, one of the town’s most important roads. This November, they have the opportunity to protect it by voting YES on Proposition 406. A Yes vote on this measure would prevent the City from reducing the road’s vehicle lanes without further voter approval, pumping the brakes on a proposed road diet.
At the center of the controversy is the Page Downtown Streetscape Master Plan, approved by the City Council in 2022. Among the plan’s proposals is a “road diet,” the quippy name for stripping perfectly good roads of their vehicle lanes, and narrowing streets to accommodate bikes, buses and other barely used transportation methods. In Page’s case, that means cutting two of the four travel lanes on Lake Powell Boulevard through the downtown business district, a stretch of about 1.4 miles.
Despite years of resident opposition, the idea remained on the table. So, residents took action, gathering around 1,000 signatures to put the issue before the voters. The City challenged the initiative, and the fight went all the way to the Arizona Supreme Court. In July 2025, the justices unanimously ruled that the initiative was legislative in nature and could proceed. In other words, the people of Page are allowed to vote on their own main street…
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether municipalities can set national energy policy by forcing oil and gas companies to pay for weather damages purportedly precipitated by carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from combustion of their products. While the question before the court hinges on constitutional provisions that reserve such power to the federal government, it is important to note that the premise of the case is scientifically invalid.
In Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County and City of Boulder v. Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil — the lead case in nearly three dozen similar suits — the producers of fossil fuels are blamed for the effects of bad weather. The suits are a coordinated effort to bankrupt energy companies and force an economically devastating “green” agenda on the public.
On Monday, lawyers for oil and gas companies argued in the U.S. Supreme Court that state and local governments are precluded by the Constitution from taking the kind of legal action in the Colorado case, reserving such power to the federal government. Those suing the companies would have the country’s 90,000 counties, cities, townships, boroughs, school districts, and so forth effectively setting national energy policy, suggested one attorney.
We agree that city hall should not be deciding whether the producers of coal, oil, and natural gas are allowed to stay in the businesses that make modern civilization possible. However, equally important is that the apocalyptic claim of a climate emergency underlying what could become hundreds, or thousands, of lawsuits is fearmongering with no basis in reality.
In Colorado, the record shows that temperatures have fluctuated, as one would expect, since the late 1800s. A modest rise since the mid-1970s is driven by nights becoming less cold, not by hotter days, and recent averages are comparable to earlier warm decades. Days at or above 95 degrees Fahrenheit have declined since a peak in the 1930s, the decade of the infamous dust bowl. Nights at or below zero have declined since the 1920s.
Annual precipitation in Colorado records significant fluctuations year-to-year but no overall decreasing trend, as recent values are comparable to those from past decades. Dry periods since 1999 can be partially explained by natural phenomena in the Pacific Ocean, namely El Niño and La Niña. Occurrences of floods show no clear worsening outside a few unusual years. Wildfires, tornadoes, and winter storms are not becoming more frequent or severe, according to official records.
In short, despite claims of “weather damages” from the modern use of fossil fuels, natural phenomena have exhibited little variation from the time before SUVs and multi-megawatt power plants.
If Colorado were suffering unduly from weather, agriculture would be a likely victim. However, crop productivity is increasing in Colorado and around the world. Much of this is due to longer growing seasons resulting from modest warming since that end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-19th century, agricultural innovation, and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
CO2 is not a pollutant but a trace atmospheric gas necessary for plant photosynthesis and all life. Higher concentrations increase plants’ growth and drought resistance. About 70% of global greening confirmed by NASA satellites has been attributed to CO2’s fertilization effect. Greenhouses routinely increase CO2 levels to boost crop yields.
As for warming from CO2, the effect of U.S. emissions from 2025 to 2100 is calculated to be about 0.13 degrees Celsius, and of Colorado’s approximately 0.0021 degrees. These are differences too small to be felt. Neither figure can support a damage award of any amount, much less one ruinous to international businesses and national economies.
Boulder seeks a monetary judgment, subject to treble damages, for health programs, “green-fit” streets and transit, and general climate mitigation. A parallel suit by Multnomah County, Oregon, has demanded as much as $51 billion. Lawyers associated with the Colorado litigation have described the strategy as a tax on oil companies and consumers. Plaintiff-aligned estimates of cumulative exposure run into the trillions.
A ruling for the companies would not strip states of authority over activities inside their borders. It would stop localities from using damage awards as a substitute for rational energy policy.
Whatever one thinks of the climate issue, its questions need to be answered according to the disciplined rationale of both the U.S. Constitution and scientific inquiry.
Angela Wheeler is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. She is a cum laude graduate of Emporia State University, Kansas, where she studied communication, with additional biology and pre-medicine coursework.
Arizona’s future belongs to its citizens. Only their votes should decide it, foreign money should not influence it, and they should not be left waiting weeks for answers after every election.
Proposition 144 puts those principles into Arizona’s Constitution.
You can read it for yourself. It is short, fits on one page, and in less than 200 words, it ensures that only US Citizens can register and vote, requires that every voter must show government issued ID before casting their ballot, bans foreign money in any of our elections, and allows all voters to tabulate their ballots on election day at their polling place and have their votes posted election night.
Together, these reforms will result in more secure elections and faster and more accurate election results.
Prop 144 Will Speed Up Results with On-Site Tabulation
Rarely do Republicans and Democrats find common ground on election policy. But in this year’s Maricopa County primary, officials from both parties recognized the benefit of an option Prop 144 would guarantee statewide: on-site tabulation…
