RTA Boondoggle

So now the RTA, Rio Nuevo, TCC, and Tucson are all broke! And the only way RTA can see to get out of the hole is to borrow against the tax money they control. This is not a new story: the taxpayer funded activities around here are all wallowing in debt with little to show for it. Let's cut these bums out of control and force accountability for the use of that money.


If RTA has mismanaged and overspent, then halt the spending and put the projects on hold to join the Rio Nuevo projects in limbo. Borrowing huge sums so the same people can get their hands on the money to spend it capriciously on more inflated projects seems like an exercise in futility. The idea that projects need to be merely begun, and not funded in entirety, is a foolish way to do business. If there is any actual money left, let it be spent on public safety projects for local use. No more cross town freeways for outsiders to use: let's spend what is left on local projects hiring local people.

No more borrowing. The dollar value is cut by 40% usury charges, which creates a huge debt for this community to complete boom inspired projects. Whatever the promises were, what money that can be spent will be received as it comes in. Create an RTA fund and when that fund is large enough to proceed with completion of a project, then begin again.

The money is not there. Accept the fact and scale back operations until times get better. Fund ongoing street repairs and small projects out of the incoming revenue. Debt only delays the realization that the money is not there, it just sets taxpayers up for a deal where the money is blown now but the debt must be paid for years and years, during which time there will be no money for anything else. Now, if we can wait out the recession without debt, then times will be better much faster. It sounds like the RTA is planning on using up Pima County's credit rating to borrow huge sums. Pima County Supervisors might be interested in this angle.

I'm sorry about the jobs we are talking about here. Putting projects on hold deals with fiscal reality but real people work those jobs. The incremental funding jobs in RTA would keep some jobs, retirements could be encouraged, and attrition will account for some. I do believe that the unemployed need retraining programs tied to unemployment benefits and perhaps the unions would be interested in funding some of this.

Dorothy Prater Niemi

Modern Streetcar Stimulus?

In Tucson, Mayor Walkup is once again in a hurry to get another grant that must be supported by borrowed money. We should all stampede to the fore to protect this 'opportunity' to indebt the taxpayer through encumbering the RTA revenue stream and the Tucson general fund, thereby increasing the debt service and interest charges. If the RTA borrows $88 million, then over $100 million must be paid back, thereby diluting the material buying power of the tax dollar they are spending. No telling what kind of deal the city would make on new 'Certificates of Participation' or 'grant anticipation notes', which would further indebt the general fund.


So the bottom line is that they want to borrow money to build a system that will not be self-sufficient in operating costs. Mr. LaHood has evidently sabotaged the stimulus by paying grant money into projects that will not be self sufficient or profitable when they are completed. In the case of the city of Tucson, which is reportedly $54 million in deficit for 2011 and is paying about 30+% of total income as debt service, more debt cannot be tolerated. SunTran must also be subsidized and this new streetcar project would just add another increase to the deficit. The city of Tucson does not need more revenue streams tied up and diluted nor does the city need more debt service drain on the inadequate general fund. What next? Laying off police and fire to subsidize this streetcar? The city already wants to raid $14.5 million from the street repair fund to build another bridge over the Santa Cruz for the streetcar. Our streets need maintenance. Spending $178 million on a project that is of questionable economic benefit seems out of place in this economic climate. The city cannot afford more debt.

RTA money is obtained county wide, yet this streetcar project will not improve the economy countywide. Economic benefit will be limited to a few landowners and businesspeople along the route, which will cost more than $50 million per mile, with the RTA funding covering half the cost. This is not a judicious use of RTA funds. I remember a long list of funded projects, of which this modern streetcar was not one detailed, but existed only as part of a list of possible projects. $88 million is a bite out of RTA projects elsewhere and even more money would be lost to interest payments on $88 million in debt.

Possibly another grant could fund local projects, rather than using our tax money to fund jobs in Oregon. We need local stimulus money to stay local, not force us into borrowing in order to get the money in order to buy streetcars made elsewhere. We need jobs here and less debt.

I have an alternative proposal. Put buses or vans on this proposed streetcar route. Bulldoze a road through the Santa Cruz to mimic the use of the proposed bridge and send the buses over it. Connect it all up now with increased transit and just see the economic activity along the proposed route. If this deal is truly about moving people along this route, let's do it now and try it out. Revamp the bus pullouts or make new ones and get busy moving those people. We need a bus stop right by that new UA classroom complex! Stop talking about this proposed route and get it on! Modifications to little used routes could pick up the cost. Put those expensive teamsters to work on this people moving project.

HELP THE UNEMPLOYED!!!!!

Unemployment in perpetuity?





Unemployment at 10% is caused by:

• population increase

• money concentrated in 'financials' instead of production

• dumping of foreign consumer goods on US market

• 2% of population has 25% of the wealth

• borrowing has lessened since subprime boom

• taxes favor financial losses

• foreclosures and devaluation of housing to pre boom levels

• credit card use is down due to increased standards

• cities and states are debt ridden to the maximum

• the federal government is debt ridden and in deficit spending

• insurance costs are out of control

• medical costs are out of control

• local taxes are up

Certain industries related to construction have been hit harder during the recession. Jobs overall are scarce, with work to be found in medical services and internet related businesses, among others.

The long term unemployed need to find new professions. I remember when the mines closed down and left many workers stranded. The government offered job training classes to these displaced workers, giving them a chance to get off the dole and back into the workforce. A friend laid off at the mine south of Tucson took this opportunity to become a skilled diesel mechanic. Why can't workers now be offered an opportunity to change professions?

A long term unemployed person signing up for this program would continue unemployment benefits. Success would continue benefits until the program was complete. Non attendance would cut off benefits.

Enrollment in programs should be limited to certain growing professions. For example, a program in construction management would not be eligible for funding due to a glut of workers in that profession. A program in website construction would be eligible because work in that area is growing.

A further caveat would require that the school providing the training would not be paid unless the student successfully completes the class, with a final payment due upon completion of the program. This would prevent the schools from getting the money upfront, which lessens their responsibility to the student. If the student fails, the school is not paid!

I think that the long term unemployed would leap at the chance at a retrain themselves and give themselves a chance in this new tight job market. The nation cannot afford to have 10% of our workers on the public dole and a simple program to reeducate these workers would give hope to distressed workers.

My program suggestion has several important aspects:

• Workers have a chance to reeducate and get off unemployment

• Schools have an infusion of students and money into their programs

• More money is circulating

Tax Policy as an implement of change

Tax Policy as an implement of change


A short term tax source would be the taxing of the original mortgage lenders on all foreclosures and the taxing of the foreclosing party, as the empty homes are a blight to neighborhoods and make problems for local law enforcement. Local economies should tax vacant houses at a higher rate, due to the extra costs. All tax hikes go on the foreclosing parties, not the people being ousted. The idea here is to discourage bad loans at the inception, and collect taxes on the problems loans all down the line.

Another idea would be to discourage non producing investments like mortgage backed securities and ETFs, that tie up money and produce nothing except commissions and dividends. Tax the profits from these kinds of investment at a high rate and tax the losses also, as a drain on the system. No more tax credits for losses from non producing investments, real or fabricated. The government is rewarding these non good or service producing investments with tax breaks. The government even covered their losses with tax funded bailouts, instead of refunding to the original investors, who took a loss. There were other ways to prop up the pension funds.

Long term tax policy as a remedy for economic problems could include stabilizing population growth as a remedy for high unemployment. Lately the numbers of jobs available has not kept up with population growth, resulting in high unemployment rates and many unemployed young people.

Perhaps the tax policy should state 'one dependent per one adult' instead of huge tax breaks for people who have many children. Having more children actually costs the system, the schools, welfare, busing, meals, and other subsidies. Limiting the dependent credit to one per one would tend to discourage large families. The same would go for school tax credits and tuition subsidies. Manifest Destiny is certainly over and more population growth plus high unemployment will damage the prosperity of the citizenry.

As for the economic model that demands ever increasing growth for success is surely in for a disavowal as populations become more dense and physical supplies are strained or tenuous. Tax policy could slow down this 'population infill' before we have people living in doorways. Too many people are broke and unemployed while the amount of money the mega wealthy controls has ballooned.

Current tax policy uses the IRS as an arm of welfare, giving 'returns' to people who did not earn them like a once a year Santa. I suppose that gratis payments to low income people is easier to do this way than it would be if the legislative process were used to authorize these payments. It also attracts less political publicity. Payments to these people should be limited to one per one.

So now the IRS is to be used as an arm of insurance companies to force people to buy private health insurance? If the IRS is checking on this, then it must be a tax that you will be punished if you do not pay, just like income tax. A tax imposed on us by private companies is not sound policy. I am hearing stories of people who have to buy high deductable insurance because it is cheaper and then still don't get health care because they can't afford it. Anything to keep the IRS off your ass, right?

More on tax policy later.

REVISE TAX CODE

1. Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) Definition


Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) - Definition of Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) on Investopedia - A security that tracks an index, a commodity or a basket of assets ...

www.investopedia.com › Dictionary -



Exchange-Traded Funds are being discussed as the next scam like the mortgage backed securities debacle. It looks like another way to make money without investing in material jobs. This kind of investment does nothing to add to the economy, except for a few receiving commissions and a few receiving dividends. Money tied into these second tier investments produces no jobs, creates nothing material and freezes money out of circulation.

Carnival barkers rule. Taxes pick up their losses. Perhaps losses in investments that produce no jobs or material goods should not be tax deductable, which would discourage the practice. The prevention of future bailouts for these kinds of manipulative non producing funds must be a priority. Those subprime losses and the 'securities' losses should not even be tax deductable but instead were subsidized with tax money. Maybe these kinds of losses in 'non producing' investments should be taxed as a burden to the rest of the economy. Profits from non-producing investments should be heavily taxed also, in an effort to capitalize on and discourage non-producing investments.

Fannie and Freddy and any other of those who subsidize non producing investments like mortgage backed securities should lose funding. If the mortgage brokers go broke so be it. These people cannot control monetary policy and tax policy and all that would benefit them.

Our nation is becoming a playground for the rich for whom it is apparently easier to avoid messy investments that actually result in jobs producing something. Too much in the hands of the few did not bode well for other nations.

I think it is far too easy for politicians to put governmental agencies in debt to give tax money to special interests who were making risky investments. That is not capitalism: It is parasitism. Tax the ass off these people and those non producing investments. Tax the original lender if a home is foreclosed, as it increases welfare and homeless. Tax the owner of record of a foreclosure at a higher rate than residents, because the empty house requires increased police patrols. Provide tax incentives for keeping the homes in the hands of the buyers, instead of tax incentives for eviction.

Tax policy is a tool and should not be a weapon. We need to work together to solve economic problems that are causing unemployment and scarcity of money. Stop passing the bubble around like a hot potato and let those who profited from the fraud fed bubble take the losses. Why not create tax policies to achieve this aim?

What kind of capitalism is being promoted by these archaic tax policies that reward making bad loans and eviction and tying up money? Special interests bailouts will make this monetary system a reversion to the wealthy oligarchies of the past where the masses are expected to absorb fewer jobs and a tax hike while more money is concentrated in the hands of a few? Taxes on the upper echelons should be increased, with easing provided for increasing employment in local sustainable businesses. Spending on increasing infrastructure should be avoided, with infrastructure maintenance to be encouraged as a source of jobs, but not the only designee for funding. The kinds of businesses that should be funded are those that build up a continuing business for example like a sewing business that imports fabric, sews it into something salable, sells it locally at a reasonable price that competes. Flip side would be that Pima cotton is once again grown here, thread is spun here, cloth made here, sewn here, sold here and elsewhere if there is a surplus. Pima cotton used to be famous and cotton seed oil is a commodity. This is an example of what could be accomplished. A cottage copper industry would create more long term jobs than a huge short term mining operation. Sustainable jobs should be the focus of tax break investments.

ADVICE TO THE POLITICIANS: GET BUSY AND MAKE SOME TAX CHANGES THAT BENEFIT MAINSTREET!

The Rio Nuevo Debacle

Rio Nuevo Rundown


The issue of management must be addressed when considering the decisions made by the Rio Nuevo Board and the Tucson City Council and Mayor as of the TIF time period from inception to Q4 2010.

As of 2010, $230,000,000 was spent: $156,682,160 was spent as mostly borrowed cash on capital projects, of which most are grossly incomplete and another $70,000,000 was blown on other 'costs'. Future money was encumbered at an average interest of close to 50%, cutting in half the material value of the dollars invested in jobs and projects.

In 2010, Rio Nuevo spent over $15,000,000 on debt service of which $6,200,000 went for interest on five debts incurred by Rio Nuevo and passed by the City Council. The TIF revenue of $9,322,000 did not cover this payment. This huge debt payment is not covered by the total revenues of $13,000,000, even though the income from the TCC is also encumbered. Reserves of borrowed money are being used to make up the difference.

Using this train of fact, perhaps it is time to question the decision making that occurred that produced this unfortunate situation. The individuals involved were quite interested in possessing borrowed cash to pay out. They were so motivated to get the cash; they agreed that taxpayers would pay 50% interest. This reduces the value of the tax dollar by half. The moneylenders get half and the Rio Nuevo handlers get half and the taxpayers get to pay for it. Is this mismanagement?

I know the scheme was that the boom would be endless and properties would continue to escalate and the tax money would continue to flow and grow. Debts would be smaller because of increased value in equity. Instead, a recession intervened and closed the party down. Property is down only 40% if you're lucky and commercial and housing sits empty. Tucson is not booming. Tucson just turned down a tax hike for the city. Tucson has a history of real estate booms and busts. Was I the only one in town who knew this?

Poor decisions and a recession that was foreseeable by many of the cautious has put Tucson in the category of the family who just bought a new car and home and then lost their jobs. Default, anyone?

But it's not just the borrowing and spending, it's the way the cash was spent. According to the Rio Nuevo audit, the Rio Nuevo handlers played fast and loose like a sailor on shore leave with a pocket of cash. Evidently no spending plan existed beyond borrowing the future proceeds of the TIF and TCC and setting up payment plans. No attempt was made to pay for work incrementally. Everybody dreamed big but not in enough detail to actually fund most projects that were begun. Evidently, the spending was dictated by whim or friendship, instead of what could be afforded. Rio Nuevo would now need $449,530,501 and more to complete the projects they began.

This scattershot approach resulted in millions of dollars wasted. I call this mismanagement. Even if the recession had not intervened, it would have been difficult to raise enough money to finish what they started. Looney tunes seems rational compared to this.

The Rio Nuevo audit revealed that few projects were actually completed. The Fox Theater restoration was completed but the operation of the theater is not profitable. The 'Presidio' generates no income. That brings me to another consideration. Apparently the TIF spending was supposed to be an economic stimulus. Projects should be revenue generating. Projects should not be infrastructure or housing. This was not a 'living space' project where housing is created and tenants pay rent and buy needs from area stores which generates tax revenues. The Rio Nuevo was supposed to be a new arena/stadium that held important big events, raised the cultural opportunities of locals and generated fat tax revenue. However, instead of focusing on the big event facility, a series of other derailments took place, with the money going to a hokey film and other frivolities that did nothing to create revenue. The tacking on of a glassy entrance to TCC did nothing to enhance revenue but did result in a substantial debt was a bad business decision. Architects collected millions in tax money. How about paying architects as the project is built, on an incremental basis? If the structure is not built, no payee to architect. We have been taken to the cleaners. We have no new arena nor do we have a world class museum, but we now have cash happy architects and outlandish designs and an out of state filmmaker has $800,000 in tax money. Is this mismanagement?

What happened to the bid process required by law? Why was this Rio Nuevo video not put out to bid? The city and Rio Nuevo paid the bills for this film so it should have been put out for bid. If the bid process was violated, the city charter says that those responsible will be removed from office. If more laws were violated, this should come to light. It has been suggested by the Rio Nuevo Audit that the payments to the U of A were in violation of state law. Legal problems, subverting the bidding process required by law, and lack of progress point to mismanagement. The bidding process for all spending needs to be documented.

The city matching funds projects for Rio Nuevo were transportation projects, some of which seemed that there was a bond issue for some time ago. What are the cost overruns on these transportation projects? Did these matching funds projects bring in revenue to the TIF? I know the premise is that good streets generate business but did this happen? What was allowable for matching funds? The Martin Luther King housing units downtown have been eating money but generating nothing after the tenants were ousted. The debt level will ensure the rents remain high.

The modern streetcar that lacks funding has already consumed millions in Rio Nuevo 'matching funds' , another fiasco designed to need a city subsidy to operate. Already deep into transit deficit spending to set up a situation projected to require a subsidy to operate is the ultimate foolishness. As for the streetcar projects, most of them take place out of state employing workers building streetcars while Arizona's unemployment rate remains high. If the Federal funding requires that our community export jobs, then perhaps this type of funding is simply too expensive for Arizona.

The new Rio Nuevo Board has been hiring lawyers and now wants to hire employees, even though Rio Nuevo is in deficit spending. I suggest this board nominate and elect one of their own to be treasurer. I also suggest that those with financial interests in the defunct hotel project resign over a conflict of interest. As a community, we need fresh ideas on the board and we also need a board that is willing to work in a transparent manner and one that is willing to work to salvage what is left of Rio Nuevo. We have from 2011 to 2025 to work towards solvency and material achievement. A hiring freeze is in effect, isn't it?

This bum on the street corner now wants you to buy him a new car when he's flat broke. Tell him no. Tell him to get busy and do the job as Rio Nuevo Board, instead of just claiming dubious prestige for the title.

The pattern of disorganized and whimsical spending without a reasonable budget for accomplishing material gain in the form of an arena or expanded TCC or even a viable project to generate revenue was an outstanding example of mismanagement that needs a full investigation. The gambler who is forever optimistic just continues on and on until he is bankrupt.

I say it is time for the gambler to fade away and a fiscal conservative to take his place.





IF YOU WANT MORE INFORMATION:

Rob O'dell wrote an interesting factual article on Rio Nuevo and the hiring of lawyers and what they were paid out of tax money:

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_522148bd-131f-5d86-bb90-5ac6c3867d11.html

Joe Higgens and Chris DeSimone wrote a good opinion piece on the Rio Nuevo Audit:

http://tucsongrowup.com/2010/11/06/those-responsible-for-rio-nuevo-must-face-consequences-wut-column-for-inside-tucson-business/

Tucson Convention Center Renovation Ideas

The Convention Center Renovation


We are talking cosmetic changes at the beginning. Jobs to renovate the TCC can be created. TCC is a serviceable facility that has much to recommend it. We need projects that serve the needs of the community and that create local jobs.

Money? Is there any money at all? A $51,000,000 deficit on an adopted budget ? Should budgetary decisions be based on cutting costs to meet the budget? If so, then matching a retiring debt with a new debt that does not change payment amount in order to obtain money for jobs projects should instead go to cut the deficit.

Perhaps, but the train of thought will continue as if there were money. I would prefer to short contract pay as you go with no debt. Without the debt, maybe part of the $ could be used to retire other debt and a smaller amount would go to a fund. When that fund reaches the size required for a short term job, then hire! The improvements thereby would be on city property to city buildings by local contractors on an incremental basis.

Implementing an incremental hiring and renovation plan would require planning to meet the need to renovate TCC. After an outside tour of the TCC, I think that cosmetic renovations are needed. Maybe TCC isn't as large as some but artistic quality, ambiance etc will attract clients. If the rent prices were lowered, then possibly more acts, attractions would be able to come here. We need lower rent prices and a better looking structure.

The grounds of TCC are really nice, beautiful plants and nice brickwork. It's like a park. The grounds are a plus for the entire set of structures. Tourists love the flora.

• The structure has a nice brick facade but the older metal and glass additions could be refurbished or replaced.

• Doors need refurbishing.

• brick needs sandblasting

• cement walks need sandblasting and resurfacing. Tile would be nice but expensive.

• new light fixtures and electronic signs

• The tunnel is quite unattractive: how about bright tile mosaics or murals and better lighting? The tunnel is nice in summer. Good open air snack cart area. It seems like something really good could be made out of the tunnel. How about scenes from Arizona history done in mosaic all along the walls? There might be an art grant out there somewhere to help pay for it. Local artists make it more valuable as a tourist attraction.

• The west side is horrid, except for the plants. This definitely needs reassessment and redoing. Paint, stucco, anything. Is this what people see when they walk to the back lots? All that area could be turned into breakout rooms and the maintenance crew could be quartered in a steel building somewhere else.

• The chain link corral and chairs stacked against the walls don't do much for the decor. Ratty chairs look like a yard sale.

• The TCC could be a showcase for local art if murals are put on some of the walls. I'd love to see more sculptures by local artists on the grounds.

• The new addition is ugly. Why didn't they match the TCC when they designed it? It looks like a cheap skirt tacked over levis.

• We were over there on a Thursday. the escalators were grinding away and icy air conditioning even though it was 85 outside. Expensive choices. What is the utility bill over there?

• Solar power additions. I don't know what the roofs look like but that would be a good place for liteweight units if it's feasible.

• I have been told that the TCC needs new electronics.

These are just a few ideas from walking around the main TCC.

I like architecture and buildings. The TCC could be a showcase for local art. Jobs refurbishing the structure could be created. The ratty chairs could be reupholstered by locals, rather than replaced by chairs made in China. A good cleaning would help. The place looks like maintenance has been deferred. How much money was spent on maintenance at the TCC?