Monday, May 10, 2021

Stop Arizona bill that will roll back tobacco prevention laws. Contact your Arizona reps now.


The Arizona House of Representatives is about to vote on a very bad bill. Backed by the tobacco industry, HB-2682 would roll back local tobacco prevention laws across the state and ban Arizona communities from passing new ones!

We have to stop it from passing. Please contact your state representative ASAP:

In communities across Arizona, parents, teachers, doctors, and local elected officials have come together to decide what's best for their kids, passing laws that protect them from tobacco products and tobacco industry targeting. HB-2682 would undo this work, decimate local tobacco control efforts, and give the tobacco industry free reign in our state. It's truly a gift to Big Tobacco.

And it's especially egregious as Arizona faces a new youth nicotine addiction crisis, with 1 in 5 high school students now using e-cigarettes.

This bad bill just passed the state Senate! The House is now expected to vote on final passage as early as TODAY, March 10th.

This is our last chance to stop it before it goes to Governor Ducey's desk.

Send a message to your state representative ASAP today telling them to reject HB-2682 >>

Monday, May 3, 2021

How to literally bridge park zoo

 

The following column is the opinion and analysis of the writer:

BOB VINT

Special to the Arizona Daily Star

Our community has been roiled in recent months by a controversy over the proposed expansion of Tucson's Reid Park Zoo into sensitive areas of Reid Park.

We can't agree on whether Barnum Hill is a just a pile of dirt standing in the way of progress, or a special place full of memories for thousands of Tucsonans. City officials are cognizant of their responsibility to spend tax dollars wisely, while activists advocate for preserving the majestic old trees, aquatic wildlife and public green space to counteract the heat island effect raising temperatures in our fair city.

Leaving disagreements aside, a group of Tucsonans has developed an alternative concept that addresses the legitimate concerns of all parties: a way to expand the zoo within a reasonable budget, while saving Barnum Hill and its mature tree canopy, the south pond, as well as all existing public green space.

We're calling this alternative 'G-Minor' because it's a variation of the community-preferred concept 'G' (expanding north into an underutilized service area) from among the many choices offered in the city's recently conducted survey.

We propose to extend the zoo north into a paved area now containing prefab metal storage structures that can be readily relocated off-site. Our approach is to reduce costs by minimizing disturbance of existing site features. Here's a written outline of our concept: A. Existing zoo entrance plaza to remain as-is (zero cost).

B. Existing zoo parking lot to remain as-is (zero cost).

C. Existing solar panel structures to remain as-is (zero cost).

D. Existing therapeutic center to remain as-is (zero cost).

E. Existing communications towers to remain as-is (zero cost).

F. Existing therapeutic pool and associated parking lot to remain as-is (zero cost).

G. Expand the zoo north into area of underutilized storage buildings (this would be approximately the same cost as Tucson city manager's favored Concept D.

* Additional cost: Replacement of metal storage buildings, which would be approximately $1.5 million.

H. A New over/under concrete arch bridge to connect the zoo expansion and permit pedestrian and service access to pool, ponds and Barnum Hill (cost: two spans at $250,000 each total out to $500,000.

The key to making this work is a pedestrian bridge extending north from the present zoo to the expansion area, while allowing east-west pedestrian traffic beneath it, along with access for required service vehicles.

We have explored the concept and received a cost estimate from an innovative engineer who designs and builds cost-effective thin-shell concrete arched bridges.

Such a bridge, which can be gently sloped for accessibility, would add an exciting element to the zoo experience, and permit the expansion without cutting the park in half. As a bonus this concept preserves the existing 4.3 acres of green space that would be lost under Concept D.

The cost of the bridge is offset by the savings of not having to re-create lost parkland elsewhere. And a bridge is a nice thing! (think of the bridges in NYC's Central Park — and Reid Park is Tucson's Central Park). Pedestrians crossing over would have views of the wider park and pond, plus distant views. Passers-by in the park would see zoo-goers crossing. A bridge becomes a signature element, an amenity for all.

My experience as an architect working with the Arizona/ Sonora Desert Museum tells me that the extra walking distance necessary to cross the bridge is actually an advantage.

One reason the Desert Museum expanded into the Arizona Uplands area was to increase their footprint, to be able to spread visitors out to avoid crowding. Plus, walking is good for us!

And the bridge might include zoo displays, demonstrations and exhibits along its path. In this light the extra distance is an opportunity, which can be accomplished without excessive cost.

In the end, the true value of preserving the heart of Reid Park isn't measured in dollars and cents. It's the environmental benefit of saving the great trees and the open space to be enjoyed by the community, for the common good, while accommodating the needs of the Reid Park Zoo.

Bob Vint is an architect and Tucson native. He's teaches arid region urban design at the University of Arizona School of Architecture.


https://savetheheartofreidpark.org/option-gminor?fbclid=IwAR1icOEf3LTHcSs1GrAtHVQTHU7GR9Oy-4esQdApQqH6DhBS7-iHyecpHSc


Contact information for your City Council Members: 

https://www.tucsonaz.gov/city-government


Tucson City Council votes to expand Reid Park Zoo to the northwest, Tucson.com, May 5, 2021  



Wednesday, March 17, 2021

Share your Priorities at the Mayor's Climate Action and Adaptation Budget Town Hall and Survey

This Saturday, March 20th at 10:30am is the Mayor's Climate Action and Adaptation Budget Town Hall.

Join us and share your priorities for climate action and adaptation.

Link to register: http://bit.ly/3bHDZCk   

Another way to share your priorities...

The City of Tucson is seeking input on priorities for both city government and community-wide climate and environmental sustainability actions. Please, fill out the following survey. 


City of Tucson's Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Community Survey

Sunday, March 14, 2021

Request to Speak on Bills that Hurt the Environment

This week our Arizona Legislators have proposed several bills that can hurt our environment or our ability to advocate for it.

One tool that can help us protect our environment is repealing or rewriting zoning laws that allow anyone to sell their land even if it hurts the neighborhood or the environment. I believe SB1409 zoning ordinances; property rights; cost will make it harder for cities to pass laws that protect their citizens from bad development and encourage unnecessary development.

SB1531 petition signatures is just another bill to make it harder for us to pursue citizens' initiatives - including those that would protect the environment. In our current political reality it is almost impossible to get a 2/3 vote. 

HB2309 violent; disorderly assembly; public order will increase penalties related to a "violent or disorderly assembly." Who gets to decide that? If someone determines that a protest you attended is disorderly you can be charged with a class 6 felony and end up in jail for a minimum of 6 months with no flexibility in sentencing. (Did we learn nothing from the "three strikes" laws?) One of the founding principles of our country is freedom of speech and the ability to protest this kind of tyranny.  
 
There are also several bills that weaken our ability to vote and can impact our ability to pass bills that protect our environment. If you would like to weigh in on them as well, you can find them on this blog.

Please, weigh in on the following bills being heard in committee this week before they go to a vote.

If you had an account with RTS previously, it is still active. If you do not have an account, you can set one up through Civic Engagement Beyond Voting. (Someone will have to help you activate it as it requires going to the Capitol.)

Request to Speak Actions: Safeguard our rights as Arizonans

Apparently some Arizona legislators think that they are the only ones entitled to vote since they keep proposing bills to limit our ability to vote or exercise our constitutional right to enact citizens initiatives or even protest their actions. Please, speak up on RTS to protect our rights in our democracy.

You can weigh in on the following bills being heard in committee this week before they go to a vote.

If you had an account with RTS previously, it is still active. If you do not have an account, you can set one up through Civic Engagement Beyond Voting.  (Someone will have to help you activate it as it requires going to the Capitol.)  



Monday, March 15th

Senate Committee on Government at 2:00 PM

HB2569 elections; private funding; prohibition (Hoffman: Barton, Biasiucci, et al) prohibits the state or other public bodies from utilizing any private dollars to help conduct or administer elections. This would severely hamstring the state and counties as they receive private grants and in-kind support to fund election work as the legislature does not adequately fund it. OPPOSE.
HCR2023 elections; state authority; infringement; opposition (Hoffman: Barton, Biasiucci, et al) says the AZ Legislature opposes the federal government interfering with the legislature's authority over elections and urges Congress to oppose HR1, a bill that would limit voter suppression and provide for automatic voter registration for federal elections, prohibit improper voter list purges, including based on not voting in a recent election, and prohibit requiring additional identification (beyond a signature) when voting by mail. OPPOSE.

SCR1024 initiatives; tax increases; vote requirement (Petersen) refers to the voters a measure to require a two-thirds vote for certain initiatives and referenda that include tax increases. This is a reaction to Prop. 208. OPPOSE.


SB1003 early voting; signature required; notice (Ugenti-Rita) limits curing an early ballot with a missing signature to 7:00 PM on Election Day. Currently, they can take several days to contact voters to let them know they forgot to sign and allow them an opportunity to sign. This is unnecessarily restrictive. OPPOSE.
SB1010 (now: recounts; requests; procedures; audits) (Mesnard) increases the minimum number of precincts in a post-election hand counts and allows individuals to file an action and bond in Superior Court for a recount of any election or portion of an election that is not subject to an automatic recount. So, people with money can challenge any election and demand a recount? OPPOSE.
SB1409 zoning ordinances; property rights; costs (Petersen) requires cities to consider impacts on the costs of housing before adopting any zoning ordinance or zoning ordinance text amendment. While not as bad as it was, it is still intended to limit protective actions by the cities. OPPOSE.
SB1497 ballot measures; proposition 105; disclosure (Ugenti-Rita) requires the official ballot and the publicity pamphlet to include a Proposition 105 notice. This notice will appear right above both the first statutory measure and also right above the first referendum. The notice states, "NOTICE: PURSUANT TO PROPOSITION 105 (1998), THESE MEASURES CANNOT BE CHANGED IN THE FUTURE IF APPROVED ON THE BALLOT EXCEPT BY A THREE-FOURTHS VOTE OF THE MEMBERS OF EACH HOUSE OF THE LEGISLATURE AND IF THE CHANGE FURTHERS THE PURPOSE OF THE ORIGINAL BALLOT MEASURE, OR BY REFERRING THE CHANGE TO THE BALLOT." The Legislature should absolutely not put this on the actual ballot. The ballot is no place for messaging, analysis, etc. That belongs in campaign literature and in some cases may be appropriate for the publicity pamphlet. We do not put any other notices on the actual ballot, including fiscal analysis, why include this? OPPOSE.
SB1531 petition signatures; description; invalidity (Mesnard: Leach) voids the signature of any initiative or referendum petition signer that signs the petition without either hearing or reading the initiative or referendum description printed on the petition. This is another ridiculous requirement.
What if you actually had read the measure? Why should you have to read or hear the description? It also says the circulator has to cross out a signature if they think the person did not read or listen to the description. OPPOSE.


HB2309 violent; disorderly assembly; public order (Roberts: Barton, Biasiucci, et al) defines a violent and disorderly assembly as when a gathering of seven or more people, with the intent of engaging in a riot, causes damage to property or injures another person; makes participating in a disorderly assembly a class 6 felony; and targets protesters by increasing the penalties of lower level offenses to a felony if part of a gathering. This is clearly targeting the movement for Black Lives and people of color. OPPOSE.

Monday, March 8, 2021

REQUEST TO SPEAK ACTIONS for week of March 8th

The Arizona Historic Capitol at night.
Please sign in on the Request to Speak (RTS) system to oppose SB1429, SB1485, HB2577, HB2691, and HB2714.

Please sign in to support HB2623 and HCR2034.

If you had an account with RTS previously, it is still active. Sign in, click Request to Speak, click New Request, then cut and paste the bill number, weigh in for or against the bill while it is still in committee. You can leave a short comment explaining your position. Click "no" on Do you wish to speak? - unless you want to speak in person. Click New Request to weigh in on the next bill. Repeat as needed.

If you do not have an account, go ahead and set one up, but someone will have to help you activate it as it requires going to the Capitol. Reach out to Civic Engagement Beyond Voting to sign you up.

https://www.cebv.us/rts.html

Tell Legislators: Don't weaken environmental protections on plastic recycling facilities


Recycling plastics isn't the solution.  We need to reduce our use. But if we are going to recycle, it is important to have strong environmental protections in place for recycling centers. SB1156 weakens environment regulations on certain types of plastic recycling facilities.  

It is likely to go for a vote in the state legislator today (Monday, Feb. 8th). Please, call your senator now!  

SB1156 forfeiture of office; technical correction (now: solid waste; advanced recycling facilities ) is being promoted by the plastics industry and is making the rounds throughout the U.S. It seeks to masquerade the processes outlined as “advanced recycling” and part of a “circular economy,” but instead they are producing more of the same, including the production and burning of fossil fuels, as well as pyrolysis. It exempts these plastics processes, including pyrolysis and conversion of plastic to fuel, from the definition of solid waste, so they are more lightly regulated, and also includes them in the acceptable uses for grants for the Recycling Fund monies. Please call your senator and ask them to vote no. 
 
If you don't know who your Senator is, you can find out what district you are in by putting your zip code in here:  https://azredistricting.org/districtlocator/

Then look up their numbers here: https://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster/?body=S


Learn more about our plastic problem:


LEARN ABOUT PLASTIC POLLUTION: THE PROBLEM WITH PLASTICS - Greenpeace