Mesa Needs City Council Members Who Put Our Citizens First

Mesa Needs City Council Members Who Put Our Citizens First

by | Jun 8, 2024 | Opinion

By Melody Whetstone |

Like a lot of Arizona residents, I was drawn to the state by its natural beauty, economic opportunities, and conservative values. In the 15 years my husband Gary and I have called Mesa home, we’ve seen a lot of growth and some exciting opportunities for our community and the citizens of District 2. Unfortunately, we’ve also seen some significant erosion of Mesa’s conservative values as well as questionable zoning and purchase decisions by the Mesa City Council. I believe we can, and should, do better. That’s why I’m running for City Council!

As a city council member, I’ll work to represent my District with the values and needs of my constituents instead of personal opinions. Take, for example, the purchase last year of the Arizona Grand Hotel by the City Council which is slated to be converted to a homeless shelter. In addition to overpaying for the property by $1 million, the annual operating cost paid by the city is estimated to be $3.5 million, which will be a permanent burden to Mesa taxpayers. The city council approved the sale over strenuous objections of adjacent businesses and homeowners.

Homelessness is a serious issue in our state, but there are better alternatives for properties not located adjacent to a residential area. Unfortunately, the current District 2 councilperson chose to vote her values against the wishes of her constituents.

Over the past 15 years, we’ve had a moderate increase in economic development activity in our district, but we’ve continued to be a bedroom community. It is the “actions over words” that have me concerned. While the Council says they want to bring in more high wage jobs, they continue to approve of more and more residential and multi-family projects. We have a vibrant airport at Falcon Field, but instead of protecting this valuable asset from residential encroachment, the council has turned a blind eye and put the airport in jeopardy. The same thing has happened to Boeing and Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. The council’s actions have not mirrored what the council has set as their Strategic Plan. We need to refocus the council and balance residential needs with economic development.

Another area that I believe we are lacking in is police and fire. Response times for our police have risen from 3.64 minutes in 2017 to 4 minutes today. That may not seem like much, but those extra seconds can mean the difference between the bad guy getting away or being caught. It can also be the difference between life and death. We need to make sure we have adequate personnel and equipment to ensure our public safety officials show up in a timelier manner.

Finally, I feel as though the city has left its lane and ventured into areas outside the City’s Charter. The city isn’t responsible for ensuring homeless people have shelter. I’m not trying to be dismissive of the need for humanity, I just feel as though the City should focus on potholes and allow the many not-for-profit entities and the religious communities across Mesa to share in the compassion. Citizens’ tax dollars should go exactly where Mesa’s founding fathers outlined in the Charter so many years ago: to ensure we have clean, potable water, a safe and reliable natural gas and electric system, clean streets that are pothole free, great outdoor parks and trails for public recreation, and public safety that continues to be one of the best in the nation. 

I’ll work hard every day to represent the citizens of District 2, so that you will truly have a voice at the City. If you are tired of the status quo, let’s build our community together!

Melody Whetstone is candidate for Mesa City Council. You can find out more about her campaign at Melody4Mesa.com.

Mesa City Council Set To Vote On Gender Identity Ordinance

Mesa City Council Set To Vote On Gender Identity Ordinance

by | Mar 1, 2021 | News

By B. Hernandez |

On Monday, March 1, the Mesa City Council will consider a new ordinance to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes in the city’s nondiscrimination laws. While the new rules are welcome by city leaders and residents, how they will be implemented has raised concerns.

The “nondiscrimination laws” which are meant to be a shield to protect people from unjust discrimination have raised concerns for parents of young children and individuals with closely held religious beliefs.

For young parents, the prospect of allowing children to use bathroom facilities with people who identify as sharing the same gender but are of the opposite sex has raised both safety and privacy concerns.

For religious advocates, like Cathi Herrod, Director of the Center For Arizona Policy (CAP), the concern is that the “ordinance would be used as a sword against individuals and organizations who have a historic understanding of marriage and gender.”

Supporters say the ordinance would merely replace the city’s existing fair housing code to provide a much broader set of protections, some of which already exist under state and federal law.

In contrast, Herrod’s group claims that the proposal would mean the following:

● Fitness centers, water parks, public swimming pools, and similar facilities would have to allow all men identifying as women access to women’s showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms.

● Women’s domestic violence shelters would be forced to allow a man identifying as a woman to share living quarters, showers, and bathrooms with vulnerable and abused women.

● Sex-specific jobs like an employee at a women’s shelter could not be denied to a man identifying as a woman.

● Faith-based adoption agencies would be forced to choose between placing children in same-sex households against their beliefs or closing down their adoption services.

● Wedding vendors like cake bakers and florists would be forced to choose between their livelihood and their faith.

● A religious bookstore would not be free to require all employees to adhere to their religious beliefs.

Herrod and others say the proposed “ordinance undermines constitutional freedoms of speech and religion, threatens women’s and girls’ privacy, and limits religious organizations that serve communities.”