by Daniel Stefanski | Apr 9, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
A joint Arizona legislative committee hearing made some discoveries about the state governor’s water policies in juxtaposition with the reality of housing affordability and supply.
Last week, both the House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee (NREW) and the House Commerce Committee held a joint hearing “to hear testimony from experts on the current state of water policy and its impact on housing supply and affordability in Arizona.”
State Representative Gail Griffin, the Chairwoman of the House NREW Committee issued a statement following the hearing, saying, “Good news! Updated groundwater modeling conducted in 2024 shows Arizona has water. According to independent hydrologists at Matrix New World, the comprehensive groundwater model that was released in June 2023 does not actually describe the amount of groundwater that is available in the basin. The Arizona Department of Water Resources decided unilaterally to model certain wells under the assumption that they would be placed on the side of a mountain rather than in the heart of the aquifer. In addition, the June 2023 model substantially over-estimated groundwater demand while substantially under-estimating future supply to reflect current best practices in water management or the fact that it is currently illegal to build residential subdivisions in the Phoenix metropolitan area without replenishing groundwater.”
“Clearly, this administration is targeting single-family homes and the American way of life,” said NREW Vice Chairman Austin Smith. “Some members of the Governor’s Water Policy Council have an issue with single-family homes and want to see future suburban development come to an end across the state. Governor Hobbs’s water policy and moratorium on new housing development has effectively put urban growth boundaries around the largest cities in our state. These policies didn’t work in states like Oregon and Washington and have only made housing affordability worse. What we’re seeing is a rogue administration that is attempting to use the power of the executive branch to circumvent the legislature and implement illegal housing and population control in Arizona.”
“Arizona is one of the fastest growing states in the nation and relies on new home construction to maintain an affordable housing supply and low-cost standard of living for millions of people,” added Commerce Committee Chairman Justin Wilmeth. “Home ownership is also one of the most effective ways to build generational wealth and lift future generations out of poverty. Bad water policies that prevent the development of new homes directly conflicts with our ability to ensure that first-time homebuyers can purchase at a price that they can afford. If the Department doesn’t change course, millions of people will be excluded from the opportunity to experience home ownership and be forced to pay rent forever.”
“Arizona’s regulatory environment is premised on the foundation that a person who submits an application for a regulatory approval under one set of rules will be entitled to have their application reviewed under that same set of rules,” said Commerce Committee Vice Chairman Michael Carbone. “Arizona water policy under the current administration, however, is the only place where the government has said that the rules can change at any time without notice, even if a developer has already submitted an application under the old set of rules. This is simply irresponsible – no matter how laudable the cause – and has impacted several major housing developers in Arizona who had invested hundreds of millions of dollars in capital improvements to bring thousands of new single-family homes online. These developers played by the rules and did everything they were supposed to do, yet they were denied due process of law in the handling of their applications. The Department must update the June 2023 groundwater model with the latest science and well placement data and lift the moratorium on new housing development without further delay.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Feb 7, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona House Republicans are working to protect the sovereignty of state lands.
On Tuesday, the Arizona State House of Representatives Republican Caucus announced that a handful of its members had “introduced measures to push back against Democrat President Joe Biden’s abuse of power and control over lands in Arizona.”
Those measures are as follows:
- House Concurrent Memorial 2007, sponsored by House Majority Leader Leo Biasiucci. The legislation “urges the President to repeal the recent designation of the Grand Canyon Footprints National Monument in Northern Arizona and oppose any such designation in the state of Arizona in the future.”
Biasiucci said, “If allowed to stand (Biden’s Grand Canyon Footprints National Monument), it will forever close this area to new uranium production and will continue America’s reliance on uranium supplied from foreign nations.”
- House Concurrent Memorial 2005, sponsored by Representative Austin Smith. The legislation would “push back against President Biden’s ‘30×30’ agenda, which seeks to take 30 percent of all federal lands out of economic production (such as mining, energy, and agriculture) and, thereby, reduce our ability to provide for national food security and energy and mineral independence.”
Smith said, “The federal government is the largest landowner in the United States, controlling almost one-third of the entire land in the country. Over 90 percent of this land is in Western States. Under the equal footing doctrine of the U.S. Constitution, this land should have been given to their respective Western States upon statehood.”
- House Concurrent Memorial 2008, sponsored by Representative John Gillette. The legislation “calls for the Antiquities Act of 1906 to be repealed or amended to reaffirm that entire landscapes, animate life, such as birds and mammals, and common plants and vegetation are not considered ‘landmarks, structures, or objects’ under federal law.”
Gillette said, “The Act, which was intended to preserve only historic landmarks, structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest, has been repeatedly misused to set aside vast parcels of real property.”
- House Concurrent Memorial 2006, sponsored by Representative Gail Griffin. The legislation would “call for Congress to enact legislation that requires the express authorization of Congress, the state, and each county affected before any additional federal land grabs may be declared in Arizona.”
Griffin said, “The intrusion and overreach of the federal government, including President Biden’s economically harmful 30×30 initiative, pose the greatest threat to Arizona’s lands, further preventing the state from deciding what is best for its citizens.”
- House Concurrent Memorial 2004, sponsored by Representative Austin Smith. The legislation would “urge Congress to promptly enact legislation requiring the federal government to give to an affected state or county one acre of federal land for every acre the federal government removes or withdraws from the respective state or county.”
Smith said, “Imposing federal preservation management on Arizona lands obstructs our state’s land management objectives and reduces rural communities’ ability to provide local public services. Arizona has been damaged by the inordinate cost and substantial uncertainty regarding the national government’s infringement on Arizona’s sovereign control of federally controlled lands within its borders.”
The measures from the Arizona lawmakers follow a similar legal fight from Senate President and House Speaker Warren Petersen last fall, when they filed an amicus curiae in the case of Garfield County v. Biden. The case, led by Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes, involves President Joe Biden’s “unilateral move in 2021 of declaring more than 3 million acres of land in the southern part of the state now representing two ‘national monuments.’” Arizona’s leaders are supporting the State of Utah’s position that the president’s action here violates the Antiquities Act. After a District Court Judge sided with the White House, Utah appealed the decision, leading to additional briefing.
At the time of his filing, Petersen said, “It is time for the courts to weigh in and stop this federal corruption. Joe Biden’s unlawful maneuvers in both Utah and Arizona promise to wreak havoc on our local economies, the livelihoods of our citizens, and our national security. His end goal is to pander to radical environmentalists by ending mining, ranching and other local uses of federal lands. This has nothing to do with protecting actual artifacts.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Jan 28, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
An Arizona Republican legislator is looking to present voters with an upcoming opportunity to help protect their state’s sovereignty.
Earlier this week, freshman State Representative Austin Smith announced that he had introduced HCR 2040, which is a concurrent resolution to enact and order “the submission to the people of a measure relating to public monies.”
In a comment to AZ Free News, Smith said, “The public policy of this state, political subdivisions, and universities should be – public monies are not spent to join organizations that promote anti-freedom agendas listed in HCR2040. This HCR aims at the heart of what the World Economic Forum and the UN Climate Council are working to implement globally. HCR2040 is about protecting freedom. Period.”
The definition of the prohibited expenditures of public monies was laid out in the bill, as follows:
1. REDUCING THE CONSUMPTION OR PRODUCTION OF MEAT OR DAIRY PRODUCTS OR REPLACING ANIMAL-BASED PROTEIN WITH INSECT OR SYNTHETIC PROTEIN.
2. REDUCING OR REPLACING MOTOR VEHICLE TRAVEL WITH WALKING, BIKING, OR PUBLIC TRANSIT.
3. REDUCING OR LIMITING TRAVEL BY AIRPLANE.
4. LIMITING THE NUMBER OF ARTICLES OF CLOTHING AN INDIVIDUAL MAY PURCHASE OR OWN.
5. REUSING WATER THAT HAS TOUCHED HUMAN FECES AS A SOURCE OF MUNICIPAL DRINKING WATER.
6. REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS OR TRACKING AND COLLECTING OF ANY INFORMATION OR DATA FOR DETERMINING CONSUMPTION-BASED EMISSIONS.
7. LIMITING THE INCREASE OF THE AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE OR PRODUCING OR ADOPTING A CLIMATE ACTION PLAN.
8. REPLACING PRIVATE OWNERSHIP WITH SHARED OR RENTED GOODS AND SERVICES TO PROMOTE A CIRCULAR ECONOMY.
9. FURTHERING MARXIST IDEOLOGIES, INCLUDING STAKEHOLDER CAPITALISM.
10. IMPLEMENTING MASS SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS TO MONITOR MOTOR VEHICLE TRAVEL.
The resolution was cosponsored by Representatives Biasiucci, Carbone, Carter, Chaplik, Diaz, Dunn, Gillette, Griffin, Heap, Hendrix, Jones, Marshall, Martinez, McGarr, Montenegro, Parker, Parker, and Payne; as well as by Senators Hoffman and Wadsack.
If the resolution were to pass the Arizona House and Senate, it would be transmitted to the Secretary of State to be offered to the voters in the November General Election.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Jan 9, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
An Arizona Republican lawmaker is warning his state about what it could experience if Democrats were to control the legislature.
Last week, freshman State Representative Austin Smith highlighted a handful of bills that had been pre-filed by his Democrat colleagues, referring to those proposals as “DEMOCRAT EXTREMISM 2024.”
Smith summarized four Democrat bills, which included the following:
- Allow changing genders on birth certificates after undergoing surgical, hormonal, psychological treatments.
- Banning unmarked police vehicles.
- Repealing no duty to retreat law.
- Repealing drug possession paraphernalia laws.
The Republican legislator from the Southwest Valley sounded the alarm that these bills could become reality for Arizona “in one year under the rule of an extremist Democrat controlled legislature.”
Representative Joseph Chaplik, one of Smith’s fellow Republicans in the chamber, echoed the sentiments, writing, “We are in the front row seats seeing these ideas. Most voters have no idea how radical the democrats are with trying to destroy our society.”
The warning from Smith comes at the start of a pivotal election year for the Grand Canyon State, with both the Arizona House and Senate hanging in the balance for 2025. Republicans have razor-thin majorities in both chambers, giving them very little leeway in conducting business. In addition, Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs occupies the Ninth Floor of the State Executive Tower, which means that many conservative policies are vetoed. As Smith alluded to, should Democrats take over the legislature, they would be able to enact many leftist reforms into law with the support of Hobbs.
Many Republicans have also warned about greater restrictions to the state’s school choice opportunities (like the Empowerment Scholarship Account program) or to Arizonans’ Second Amendment freedoms if legislative Democrats have free rein in the House and Senate.
Arizona may undergo another significant makeover before Democrats even could have an opportunity to pass unfettered legislation. Special interest groups are attempting to refer several issues to the November ballot, including an abortion access amendment and a change to the state’s elections systems. Voters’ passage of those initiatives would save political capital for Democrats in 2025 and beyond, while accomplishing the work they might attempt anyway if they simultaneously controlled the legislature and the Governor’s Office.
With Republicans now in control of the Arizona Legislature, though, the Democrats’ transformative policies are likely dead on arrival. Republican leaders and Hobbs will have to negotiate compromises on select items, such as the state’s budget.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Corinne Murdock | Nov 30, 2023 | Education, News
By Corinne Murdock |
Democratic lawmakers staged a last-minute boycott of the joint committee on free speech at Arizona’s universities.
On Monday, hours before the hearing began, House and Senate Democrats announced their boycott in a joint statement. They claimed that the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on Freedom of Expression at Arizona’s Public Universities had no purpose other than to allow lawmakers to grandstand and to sow misinformation and division.
GOP legislators formed the committee following a controversy earlier this year concerning Arizona State University (ASU) faculty members and a T.W. Lewis Center event featuring prominent conservative speakers.
The Democratic lawmakers also accused their Republican colleagues of furthering lies, and of endangering university students and faculty. Specifically, the caucuses cited an altercation last month between ASU professor David Boyles and Turning Point USA journalists.
“It was made clear that Republican elected officials continue to prop up falsehoods and possibly undermine the safety of students and faculty, as happened when an alt-right camera crew subsequently harassed and assaulted a professor who is a member of the LGBTQ community on the ASU campus,” said the caucuses. “We do not think that this committee will objectively help ASU to take the necessary steps to ensure respect for all speakers to be heard.”
One of the Barrett Honors College (Barrett) professors who opposed the conservative speakers earlier this year, Alex Young, praised the Democratic lawmakers’ boycott. Young indicated that right-leaning lawmakers and other public figures had engaged in hypocrisy by similarly opposing an event featuring Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) earlier this month.
“Good call. The far-right forces waging a disinformation campaign against Barrett faculty in the name of ‘free speech’ never had any credibility, but their cheering the cancellation of @RepRashida definitively revealed their attacks to be nothing but a politically motivated farce,” said Young. “This hearing, as ridiculous as it was, should clarify for everyone what the entire disinformation campaign being waged against Barrett faculty is all about: an attempt to restrict free speech on campus, not an effort to protect it.”
ASU issued a 75-page report summarizing its investigation into the state of free speech on its campus, namely concerning the controversy that occurred earlier this year, in compliance with the legislative committee’s directive issued at its last meeting in July.
The committee asked ASU to investigate whether Barrett faculty or administrators ran a national condemnation campaign, violated policy with actions in the classroom, censored speech or interfered with advertising or attendance, or publicly attacked T.W. Lewis Center donors. The university said it couldn’t find evidence to support the accusations.
Monday’s hearing lasted nearly three hours. The committee heard testimony from Tom Lewis, the principal donor of the now-dissolved T.W. Lewis Center, the entity behind the controversial event featuring conservative speakers that prompted the committee’s creation; as well as Lin Blake, the former events operator for ASU Gammage Theater; Brett Johnson on behalf of ASU; Jake Bennett, a policy director with the Israeli American Coalition for Action; and an ASU student identified as “Zack.”
Lewis noted that he began giving his millions to ASU years ago in the hopes of establishing a center to teach courses about success and entrepreneurship, but he reportedly discovered that faculty were reluctant to teach the content and that leaders were more interested in increasing enrollment than ensuring curriculum quality.
“I’ll say about the universities that they don’t take any responsibility for the classroom, but they are willing to sign gift agreements where they receive significant amounts of money from donors,” said Lewis.
In her testimony, Blake linked her termination from ASU with her involvement in allowing two conservative-oriented events to occur at the Gammage Theater. Blake claimed that the theater’s leadership reprimanded her for allowing those events, and that following the events her responsibilities were slowly sapped until she was fired. Blake said the fact that the controversial event still occurred didn’t mean the existence of free speech at ASU.
“If free speech was truly free at ASU, producing events with unpopular viewpoints would not have cost me my job,” said Blake.
Johnson disputed that claim entirely. Johnson also disputed the claim that Ann Atkinson, formerly the head of the T.W. Lewis Center, was let go from her position due to her arranging the controversial speaker event. Johnson indicated there was an impasse over Atkinson’s retainment on condition of her T.W. Lewis Center salary of over $300,000.
Atkinson didn’t testify at this meeting, but she did testify at the previous meeting.
In his testimony, Bennett touched on the trend of local and college student activists engaging in pro-Hamas activity. He suggested the employment of anti-terrorism statutes to defund and deactivate student organizations providing material support to Hamas, which is the designated terrorist organization that governs Gaza. Bennett also suggested the deportation of those terrorist sympathizers on student and temporary visas, as well as the enforcement of Civil Rights laws to secure college campuses.
In closing, the ASU student and self-described conservative political activist “Zack,” claimed that pro-Palestine students protesting the Israel-Hamas War were making general death threats to him and others protesting on behalf of Israel. This included threats like how Adolf Hitler “should have finished the job gassing the Jews,” and students mimicking throats being slit. Zack said that his Jewish friends reported these instances to campus police. Lawmakers encouraged Zack to bring copies of the police report(s) during their next meeting on Jan. 4, 2024.
State Rep. Austin Smith (R-LD29) said that this entire ordeal has made him lose faith in the Arizona Board of Regents’ (ABOR) ability to oversee the universities, which he called “a rubber stamp” for ASU President Michael Crow.
“Our job is not to have to govern the universities. Our job is to implement the laws that the board of regents enforces at these universities. I don’t think that they do,” said Smith. “The Democrats specifically do not want competition. You’re gonna go exactly where we tell you to go to school, and you’re gonna learn, and you’re gonna sit down and you’re gonna shut up and you’re not gonna question anything. And Michael Crow, who thinks he knows better than the Founding Fathers.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
