����Ӱ��AV

People like Steven Brooks have been writing emails to Tucson police, to the Ward 6 City Council office, even to Mayor Regina Romero. Their demands: Crack down on drug dealing at a neighboring apartment complex, make the nearby pocket park usable again, and keep people from openly using and selling drugs right outside their gates.

The demands don’t seem far-fetched, but even after city officials responded with increased police patrols and other actions, the problems have dragged on. The park is still unusable, so much so that Brooks asked the mayor to sell it, and the streets can feel unsafe for taking walks.

All of which made Prop. 414 an interesting proposition in that area. Brooks told me via email that he, despite his frustrations, voted “yes” on the referendum for a half-cent sales to fund police, fire and housing efforts.

“I was willing to ‘give it a go’ with the hope that it makes life a little better. It’s a gamble. I don’t mind paying a modest tax increase for that chance.”

He was in the minority — in the city and among three neighbors I heard from.

A frustrated John Burcher told me via email, “A city is a ‘professional’ functioning institution that is supposed to provide ‘services’ to its ‘taxpaying’ residents and support and enforce the ‘laws of society’ that they establish.”

Since he didn’t see that happening, he voted “no” on Prop. 414.

So did Karin Shipman, who said she was happy with police but said, “Their hands are tied, unless our local legislature (city council) changes laws about ‘encampments, drug usage and asocial behavior.’ We, as taxpaying citizens, are not able to enjoy our little park because it is ‘occupied’ by these individuals.

“This is why we voted NO on Prop.414!!!!”

That tiny focus group of three individuals voted about as the city did. Only 25 percent of registered voters turned out for the vote-by-mail election, but they the proposal a thumping rejection, by a 70% to 30% margin.

Run of wins ends

The proposal was questionable from the beginning. It seemingly came out of nowhere when the City Council approved the election last year.

Turns out it initially was a proposal from the Tucson firefighter and police unions that was then massaged into final form by the Tucson City Council, giving more of the revenue to programs addressing homelessness, drug addiction and affordable housing.

The council had reason to have a little confidence in sending a proposal like this to city voters, especially in a March election when they could try to persuade a smaller electorate. Over the last 13 years, Tucson voters have passed a half-dozen initiatives passed on by the City Council, or supporting them:

— In 2023, Prop. 413 gave a large pay raise to City Council members, who now make $96,000 per year.

— In 2022, Prop. 411 approved a half-cent sales tax increase, lasting 10 years, to pay for neighborhood road repairs.

— In 2018, Prop. 418 initiated a $225 million bond package for improving city parks.

— In 2017, Prop. 202 installed a 1/10 of one cent sales tax increase lasting 10 years to pay for Reid Park Zoo improvements.

— In 2017, Prop. 101 gave a five-year, half-cent sales tax to pay for police and fire department needs.

— In 2012, Prop. 409 green-lighted a $100 million bond issue for road repairs.

It was a good run of good feeling between the council and voters, but now it’s good and over. The first signs occurred in 2024 when city officials pushed for voters to pass a new franchise agreement for Tucson Electric Power. The proposal, which held little benefit for most city residents, failed by 56% to 44%.

Now this.

Granted, the timing turned out bad. Not only is there some mistrust between voters and the Council over the condition of the city, but the Trump administration’s chaotic economic policies are making people worried about their jobs and prospects.

That’s no time to ask people to tax themselves more for the next 10 years.

Rebuilding trust

Now comes the hard part. Opponents of Prop. 414 repeatedly claimed that the city has enough money to pay for core services but refuses to cut frivolous spending. Still, they found it hard to come up with any examples other than the approximately $10 million-per-year cost of free transit service.

After the election, Mayor Regina Romero called out the proposition’s opponents, saying on social media, “The No campaign believes they have a better solution, I say, let’s see it.”

It’s true that opponents, led by the Tucson Metro Chamber of Commerce, do have some obligation to share what they would cut, beyond that $10 million transit expense. The city budget process begins this month.

But it would be wrong to discount the feeling of discontent among voters, which didn’t just arise from the “No” campaign. It arose, I believe, from Tucson’s long-term economic underperformance and inadequate government responsiveness to places like 3rd and Richey.

Don’t forget — all the city’s voters can cast ballots for each City Council seat, so it was the same universe of voters who elected this council but also rejected this proposition. The mayor and council need to see that a disconnect has grown between them and the voters who elected them.

This budget process would be a good time to begin rebuilding the trust that was in place for a decade. And then, as the Trump effect on our economy and city finances becomes clear, if we need to consider a tax increase again, we can.