For local governments—and councils of governments—in Arizona, it appears that creating a climate action plan has become all the rage. Maybe that’s because it pays well.
The latest group to bow down at the altar of the Biden administration’s climate change agenda is the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG). Back in August, MAG received a $1 million grant from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Climate Pollution Reduction Grant Program to serve as the lead planning organization for the Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler metro area. The grant requires MAG to develop a priority climate action plan by next March, a comprehensive climate action plan by 2025, and a status report in 2027 after the four-year grant period expires.
But this $1 million grant isn’t the only way MAG stands to benefit…
Last week, Tucson residents exercised common sense by overwhelmingly rejecting Prop 412 in a special election. And whether you live in the city or not, this is a significant win for our future.
Disguised as a new agreement between the City of Tucson and Tucson Electric Power (TEP) to renew the Franchise Agreement for another 25 years using the current 2.25% fee, the proposal included a number of Green New Deal pet projects. Had it passed, it would have added a 0.75% “Community Resilience Fee” to fund the costs associated with building underground transmission facilities—and “projects that support the City’s implementation of the City’s approved Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.”
That would have meant:
Lengthy construction projects removing driving lanes from roads (Road Diets)
Permanently inhibiting access to small businesses
Reducing personal vehicles by 40% by 2050
Establishing Tucson as a 15-minute city with local travel restrictions removing personal choice
Now, the citizens of Tucson have spoken. And it’s clear that they don’t want Green New Deal mandates that take money from their wallet and freedom from their lives.
But make no mistake about it. TEP and its leftist ally Major Regina Romero are committed to their “climate change” agenda…
A special election is taking place right now in Tucson, and even if you’re not from the city, you should pay attention. At first glance, Prop 412 appears to be nothing more than a new agreement between the City of Tucson and Tucson Electric Power (TEP) to renew the Franchise Agreement for another 25 years using the current 2.25% fee. But just like anything government bureaucrats put out there nowadays, you need to keep reading.
Along with the renewed agreement, Prop 412 would add a 0.75% “Community Resilience Fee” to fund the costs associated with building underground transmission facilities—and projects that support the City’s implementation of its Climate Action Plan. Ahhh, there it is. The agenda behind Prop 412 finally comes out. This isn’t about renewing a franchise agreement. It’s about forcing hardworking taxpayers to start funding the estimated $326 million it’s going to need to address Mayor Regina Romero’s so-called “climate emergency.”
A fair housing ordinance enacted by the City of Tucson in September violates state law, and could result in the Arizona Treasurer withholding funds to the city if not repealed in 30 days.
That is the opinion issued Dec. 22 by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office (AGO) following an investigation undertaken in response to a complaint recently filed by State Rep. Ben Toma after Tucson passed Ordinance No. 11959 prohibiting discrimination in housing based on a person’s “lawful source of income.”
Toma, who is now the House Speaker-elect, filed what is known as a 1487 complaint over concerns that Tucson’s new ordinance violates longstanding federal and state fair housing laws.
Under Arizona’s existing fair housing law, a person “may not refuse to sell or rent after a bona fide offer has been made or refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of or otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status or national origin.”
In addition, a person “may not discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in providing services or facilities in connection with the sale or rental, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status or national origin.”
One thing Deputy Solicitor General Michael Catlett notes in the AGO’s investigative report is that Arizona law does not include the right to be free from discrimination based on source of income. Whether such a protection is worthwhile – as city officials argued – was not considered by the AGO because the City of Tucson is 28 years too late in enacting such an ordinance, Catlett noted.
According to the 21-page AGO report, Tucson was given an option by the Arizona Legislature in 1992 to update its fair housing policies. One of the conditions was that any changes were completed by Jan. 1, 1995.
City officials, however, took no action by the deadline which makes the new ordinance inconsistent with Arizona law, Catlett determined. And if city officials do not repeal Ordinance 11959 within 30 days, the AGO “will notify the State Treasurer, who shall withhold state shared monies” in accordance with state law.
Toma called the AGO’s investigative report “an important check” on government.
“We are all bound by the laws of this state and the Constitution,” Toma said in response to the report. “If we hold this expectation for our citizens, then we should do the same for the government. It’s really that simple.”
Tucson has fallen victim to no-growth policies including “not in my back yard” advocates which has put the city in the position of not having enough housing for its citizens, according to Toma.
If Tucson wants to address the housing situation, “then it needs to look inward and remove the barriers that have caused its housing shortage,” Toma said.
And the solution, he added, is quite simple.
“Build more housing. That’s the only answer here.”
Tucson has 30 days to repeal Ordinance 11959. If the City does not repeal, then A.R.S. 41-194.01 requires the State Treasurer to withhold state shared monies until notified by the AGO that the city has come into compliance.
One question will be whether the attorney general’s report will be revised or even overturned by Attorney General-elect Kris Mayes, a Democrat, if she withstands the election challenge filed by Abe Hamadeh, the Republican nominee.
Because the city missed the 1995 deadline for enacting changes to its fair housing policy, the AGO did not address whether Ordinance 11959 and its protection based on lawful source of income is substantially equivalent to federal and state fair housing laws.
Terri Jo Neff is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or send her news tips here.
