Tucson Ciy Council proposes double taxation of renters; 700 turn out to protest

Like the State of Arizona, the City of Tucson created new spending programs and padded old ones during the construction boom. Now that the boom has went bust, they're predictably trying to raise taxes to balance the budget, when they should instead be cutting programs. (Talk to an opponent of spending cuts sometime. It's amusing. If we can't eliminate programs without sliding into some sort of Third World conditions, why don't I remember it being so bad before they existed?)

Among the tax increase schemes under consideration is a 2% rent tax, as reported in the Tucson Citizen and Arizona Daily Star. Over 700 people turned out last night to protest this proposal, with well over 100 requesting to speak.

The issue was mostly framed as being whether or not renters are able to pay the increase. That's a silly way to discuss taxation, it would have nearly any small tax increase being OK. Harms come at the margin. The questions that should be asked are: should the additional money be the City's? Why? And is the tax fair?

Councilwoman Karin Uhlich, according to Daily Star commentator Josh Brodesky, has renters paying less than their fair share. As this is ridiculous, Uhlich should be voted out of office. Renters do not directly pay property taxes; their rent instead reflects the level of property tax that must be paid by their landlords. They pay rent, the landlord pays the property tax, thus they're already paying for city services just as homeowners and business property owners do. A rent tax would amount to double taxation of a particular class of people, a balancing of the budget at renters' expense to the benefit of homeowners and business property owners.

The rental tax is the brainchild of Uhlich (D-Ward 3), Regina Romero (D-Ward 1) and Rodney Glassman (D-Fraternity Row). When it comes time for a vote, I'll let readers know who was in favor and who was against. Those who voted in favor ought to be evicted from their offices when the time comes--both double taxation and taxation of peculiar classes ought be simply unacceptable. Tucsonans often give their officials a free pass. The presence of over 700 angry members of the Geritol Set at last night's meeting means that this may not be the case. Opponents of rent taxes are getting organized, having launched a (lowbrow) website. Word is that John Kromko, Mr. Ballot Initiative, is considering launching a referendum effort to repeal the rent tax if the Council approves it. Kromko's ability to get things done has waned in recent years, but here's hoping he has one more success in him.

A further hearing will be held on Tuesday, 5 May at 5:30 PM. I'll be able to attend this one, and will keep readers up to date on further developments.

That's the way to do it!

A long post on checkpoints, reasonable suspicion, and probable cause has been in the works for over a week. Until it's up, take a lesson from two or three University of Arizona undergraduates. The Daily Wildcat reports:

The RA told police that while he was doing rounds, he smelt the odor of marijuana. He said he traced it to the men's room, so he called another RA up to the floor to see if she smelt it too. The other RA did smell marijuana, so he made contact with the people in the room. The RA said that there was another man who lived in the room with the student, but he left the scene after being asked to stay. When he returned, he began to yell at and harass the RA, saying that there was no marijuana in his room and that he was being wrongfully persecuted. The RA said the man would not allow him to speak because he constantly interrupted him and spoke over him.

Police had the man take them up to his room. While they were walking there, the officer noted that the man showed him a lot of attitude. The man was cursing and saying that the situation was "so unfair and unjustified" because there was nothing in his room and he does not smoke marijuana.

When they got to the man's room, the officer asked him if he had smoked any marijuana in there. The man said no.

While police were talking to the man, another resident from a neighboring room tried to interject, even when the RA told him to go back to his room. He continued to stay near the scene.

Police asked the man if they could search his room, but he refused saying that he would prefer not "because of principle." The man said that his roommate was in the room all night and was sleeping.

Police knocked on the door and the man's roommate answered. He seemed to be in a daze from waking up, and was asked if there was any marijuana in the room. The roommate said no. Police noticed that there was a strong odor of marijuana coming from the room as soon as the door was opened. They asked the roommate if they could search the room, and he too said no.

That's precisely what should be done. Never give your consent to a search.

Police noted that every time they tried to talk to the first man, he accused them of "bullying" him or "being mean" to him. He would not allow officers to speak and he refused to stop talking when asked to be quiet. Throughout the incident, the man continued to yell at the RA and told his roommate not to speak with officers.

"Bullying" sounds like childish hyperbole, but see what follows.

Police asked him if there was nothing in the room, why would he not allow them to search it.

"Well, officer, let me search your home, too. You have nothing to hide, right? And let's have a look at that hard drive. Do you have a license for that copy of Leisure Suit Larry--and what would the wife think?"

The man continued to say that it was on principle. Police told the men that they had the right to deny a search, but the more they cooperated the better it would be for them (Emphasis mine--BSK)

See, bullying. "Cooperate or else." Bullshit. Maybe not bullshit if la migra is involved and there are few to no witnesses--more on that later. But here, bullshit.

Both men said that they still did not want police to search the room. The man became so upset at one point he started crying and would not stop for several minutes.

The man was referred to the Dean of Students Office for disorderly conduct.

Note that he's not going to Pima County court. He's being referred to a university inquisition. And if he were smart, he'd retain a lawyer. Being a University student shouldn't mean being forfeit one's Fourth Amendment-protected rights. (It shouldn't mean being forfeit the right to keep and bear arms in self defense protected by the Arizona constitution, either, but that would seem to be a matter for another year.)

Update: Evan Lisull of The Desert Lamp beat me to it.

"Win-win" environmentally friendly home improvements for Arizonans (Earth Day post)

I don't know whether or not one can wish another "Happy Earth Day." It really isn't that sort of holiday. It's more like Patriots' Day (19 April), a time to reflect on ideas, facts, and responsibilities.

The Industrial Revolution yielded rapid and immense gains in human standard of living. In the rush to attain these gains, our legal institutions did not keep pace, did not adapt to take into account the spillover harms (negative externalities) associated with these novel activities. Man was surely more prosperous but was at the same time fouling his nest, to his immediate and long-term detriment.

Things have gotten quite a bit better since the first Earth Day. The U.S. and several other countries with acid rain problems have brought matters under control with cap-and-trade systems. Once-moribund waterways have come back to life. The U.S. passed a Clean Air Act and established an EPA--there is room for improvement of both, but they're a start. Common-law "Environmental Justice" continues to yield results in the courts. Ozone layer thinning and a southern-hemisphere "ozone hole" was found and we are well on our way to mitigation thanks to surprisingly effective international cooperation through the Montreal Protocol. I could go on.

But there is room for improvement. We have made no significant progress towards mitigation of two very serious global anthropogenic harms: warming and ocean acidification. (Readers who have genuine questions about either of these concerns, either due to denialist noise machine induced confusion or their own curiosity, who have sought out answers in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report should feel free to e-mail me their courteous queries. Your name, your city of residence, your query, and my response will be posted on a different 'blog.)

There's no sensible change Arizona, alone, could make to its policy to mitigate this harm. As was the case for ozone layer damage, Federal and international cooperation is necessary. There are small win-win improvements Arizonans can make, however, that can both lower home and business carbon footprints and save consumers money.

Arizona is rarely cloudy, and relatively close to the equator; solar irradiance is high. Solar water heating and solar electric generation can be cost-effective in many far cloudier places, but they make even more sense here. A properly installed system can pay for itself and more over its lifetime. Making the payoff even quicker are tax credits and incentives. An Arizona tax credit will pay for 25% of a residential solar hot water, heating, or photovoltaic system, up to $1000 per residence; the Federal tax credit, on which the cap was lifted, will pay for 30%.

Several of the state's electric companies also provide incentives. Tucson Electric Power provides up to $1,750 up front for residential solar hot water or space heating installations and $3 per watt up front for photovoltaics. The Salt River Project offers incentives for both, and a nifty web-based calculator of incentive levels and time to simple payback. Metro Phoenix's APS offers incentives at similar levels for solar hot water, solar space heating, and photovoltaics.

Other electric utilities elsewhere in the state might also provide incentives; check their websites. TEP and APS offer further incentives for geothermal and all are giving commercial incentives, as well. APS is now offering incentives for nonresidential installation of solar absorption cooling

Further governmental incentives are available for efficiency upgrades. See the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency for more information.

Cannabis for Arizona

Evan Lisull of the Desert Lamp has already remarked on the nonsense of the ban on recreational use of Cannabis sativa. The ban on any plant which has any use whatsoever that doesn't threaten the public safety is absurd. Banning plants that are used safely is even crazier. Millions of South Americans use coca, daily, yet coca is banned in the USA. Thirty million Americans use marijuana regularly--nearly a tenth of the population!--yet it is banned. It's legal in most of India--look up "bhang" when you get the chance--and does Indians no serious social harm, yet it is banned here.

Not only is the ban absurd, its repeal could benefit Arizona. Cotton farming requires intensive fertilizer use, pesticide spraying, and irrigation. Cannabis requires less fertilizer, almost no pesticide, and less water than even Pima cotton. Less water on the cotton fields means more in the rivers. (Longtime readers will know that I support riparian restoration and a cap-and-trade system for water resources management.)

We could grow, here in Arizona, sight- or even lifesaving medicine, a nutritious seed, a fiber that can be spun and woven like linen or processed into plastic, and even make construction materials from the waste product. This is an environmental and economic opportunity just waiting to be exploited: hemp and "wacky tobaccy" to replace cotton as an Arizona cash crop. What's not to like?

Oh, right. Legal hemp would drive William Randolph Hearst out of the paper business. And we can't have our Captains of Industry taking losses, can we? And the next thing you know, too, the white women will be lusting after colored jazz musicians. The only worse imaginable thing would be the legalization of absinthe.

Bacanora

Proximity to Sonora is one of the great benefits of living in southern Arizona. It'd be better, of course, if the immigration situation were straightened out (just adopt a quotaless, shall-issue visa policy and let the market decide!) but we nevertheless have access to archaeological and ecological tourism, both "party" beaches and "getaway" beaches, inexpensive fruits and vegetables, amazingly cheap dental care, and the innumerable joys of cultural contact and exchange.

Cuisine and produce are the most trivial of these--buying menudo on Sunday to calm a battered stomach is no more experiencing Mexico than ordering a box of chow mein is experiencing China--but that doesn't make it meaningless to broaden one's culinary horizons. And as Alford and Duguid demonstrated in Beyond the Great Wall produce and recipes can be used as a starting point for cultural study and appreciation. Which brings me to the point of this post: If someone offers you bacanora, have a sip. Even if he explains it as "Mexican moonshine."

I'd heard a bit about this (until 1992, illegally) home-distilled spirit, and the rumors were mixed. It was either something to rival the best sipping liquors of the world, or harsh, foul-tasting firewater. The Sonora tourism website mentions that the name is now protected and boasts of it as a regional specialty, but as far as I can tell there are only two commercial brands, and I haven't seen either in area stores. The example I had today was certainly a homemade product, brought to a party by a Sonoran friend who took a liter across the border in a wine bottle (presumably legally, as he declared it as bacanora) and in turn put it into a flask for transport today.

And it was more "sipping liquor" than firewater: not as refined as top-shelf commercial brandy or whiskey--possibly merely due to lack of aging--but something clearly showing care and craftsmanship. As it's made from agave, I expected it to be like tequila. It's not. There's certainly an agave base note, but there's a profound smokiness, too, the result of the roasting of the maguey "piña" directly over hardwood coals. The difference is akin to that between Irish and Scotch whiskey.

Note to self: if the science career doesn't work, there's a business opportunity in this.

A drink with bread and jam: thousands turn out for tea parties.

I salute those who turned out for the over eighteen "tea parties" across the state. It isn't that I think very highly of demonstrations, but it pleases me to see people going out of their way for the limited-government cause. And, importantly, you caught the press's attention.

The Tucson Citizen reports over three thousand in attendance in Tucson; Phoenix's event starts in about twenty minutes.

Remember that raising one's voice is not political action. Follow this up with organization and with a push for change. Consider reviving Axe the Tax, and let's make sure we pass the next Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act.

Much shame on David Safier "AZ Blue Meanie" of Blog For Arizona for calling the protests "racist." "Socialist" isn't a substitute for "nigger". It's a term the less educated use for politicians who support redistribution of wealth, who stir up class envy, and who can't imagine a solution to problems like those we're facing in health care that involve getting a market working. It's technically inaccurate as a descriptor of policy--Obama at his worst is more of a Social Democrat or New Dealer--but it's accurate as a descriptor of values. Anyone who takes the time to try to understand his opponents would understand this. But not Safier "Blue Meanie", nor one "Jill Tubman" who he echoes.