RIDING

RIO NUEVO RIPOFFS INVESTIGATED

TUCSON CITY NEWS: Rio Nuevo Rundown

The Rio Nuevo Board takes action to uncover the daisy chain of events leading up to the evaporation of the Rio Nuevo dream. It appears that high rollers took most of the money and very little hit the ground for the little guy. Rio Nuevo is a tax rebate program created by the state aimed at encouraging development that would result in increased tax revenue. The construction was to create jobs and the result was to attract consumers.
Since a few well connected individuals made off with most of the money, there were very few jobs and now there are no consumers because the money was blown on multiple designs, trips to Italy for U of A faculty, a useless $700,000 video, and endless cost overruns that were always granted. The rich became richer and the poor had no jobs, yet our tax money paid for all of it.

The problem with Rio Nuevo is that the projections lacked practical vision, leaving the field wide open for charlatans, which I will label any designer who designs something that is so expensive, it can never be built by the employer. Yes, employer. Rio Nuevo hired these people to produce a workable design and they did not do that. Clawback time for sure. Oh, but somebody's feelings might be hurt if they had to refund money for a job not done well. How about limiting design costs for that actually constructed?

This Garfield Traub mess was to be predicted, since they have serial lawsuits recorded all over the country where they sued other cities. I don't know who brought these people in, but they should be thrown out. And as for Sundt not paying his contractors, I say that they be excluded from bidding on government work until they pay up.

So I heard on the John Justice program that this new forensic audit will not only look at the existing paper trail of who was paid what, it will also examine bank records and possible conspiracies centered around the disbursements. Let's remember that all of this took place with the Democrats firmly in control, their lawyer issuing opinions that allowed for payments over the amount of contract to flow unimpeded into the hands of the unscrupulous. The Democrats and their buddies milked Rio Nuevo dry. Just hours from the institution of a new Rio Nuevo Board, the old board borrowed $80,000,000 and disbursed most of it. This money trail has to be followed.

The upcoming city council elections are extremely important. We have a little Napoleon around here by the name of Jeff Rogers, head of the Pima County Democrats. Rogers runs the town and the politicians like a fiefdom, dictating positions and lack of compromise and apparently he supported the Rio Nuevo Ripoff. His people are still in office, still burdening the city with debt and still allowing rampant cost overruns on the streetcar and the bridge. The Democrats are running a lawyer for Mayor, who has deep financial ties to the current city council, which means more of the same for the taxpayers. The Democrats are supporting the unions yet allowing workers to be furloughed in order for workers on overtime to have the empty slots. Are the union honchos grabbing that work for themselves, while the rank and file take furloughs? The Democrats deserve to be voted out of office for corruption and waste.

The primary election for the Mayor and city council is coming up in August. Republicans have two candidates for city council, Jennifer Rawson in Ward 2 and Tyler Vogt in Ward 4. The Republican write in candidate for Mayor is Rick Grinnell. I hope you all write in Rick Grinnell on your mail in ballots for the primary. If enough people write him in, then Republicans will have a candidate on the ballot.

If you are wondering why we don't have a Republican on the ballot when you signed a petition for Shaun McClusky, I'll tell you now. Enough petitions were turned in, but some petitions were signed by two people, which is taboo, according to the elections people. The Democrats challenged Shaun's petitions and they were thrown out because two people signed a few of them. The signatures were valid, but the glitch allowed the Democrats to challenge successfully. It seems to me that the intent of the people who signed the petitions was to have Shaun on the ballot and that the government thwarted the will of the people. The people signed the petitions! I think that a huge write in campaign for Rick Grinnell would reward the Democrats for ignoring the will of the people.

Amendment to Pima County GOP Bylaws

Amendment to the Proposed Bylaw Change set forth by the Pima County Republican Central Committee


This is the original proposed bylaw change to add Section 5 to Article IV:

An elective officer of the county committee may be removed at any time by a vote to that effect of two-thirds of the precinct committeemen of the county committee elected per the provisions of A.R.S. ~ 16-821 A. and present in person or by proxy at a mandatory or special meeting of the county committee, but an elective officer may not be removed at a special meeting unless his/her proposed removal is set forth in the notice of the call of the meeting as one of the items of business of such meeting. Thirty percent of the precinct committeemen members of the county committee elected per the provisions of A.R.S. ~ 16-81 A. and present in person or by proxy at a mandatory or special meeting called for the purpose of removal of an elective officer shall constitute a quorum.

It is proposed that the following paragraph be inserted behind the above Amendment to the Bylaws:

An elective officer of a Legislative District may be removed at any time by a vote to that effect of two thirds of the precinct committeemen of the Legislative District elected per the provisions of A.R.S. ~ 16-823 C. and present in person or by proxy at a special meeting of the Legislative District precinct committeemen. An elective officer may not be removed at a special meeting unless his/her proposed removal is set forth in the notice of the call of the meeting as one of the items of business of such meeting. Thirty percent of the precinct committeemen of a legislative District elected as per the provisions of A.R.S. ~ 16-821 A. and present in person or by proxy at a special meeting called for the purpose of removal of an elective officer shall constitute a quorum.



(The rationale behind this amendment to the proposed Bylaw Amendment is that many of the Legislative Districts have no mechanism to remove officers, if that does become necessary. This is a situation similar to that of the county GOP, and needs to be rectified. Since the LD officers are elected differently even though they are on the county GOP committee, a different paragraph is needed to cover that eventuality. It also offers a failsafe for the LDs in case of lapses of judgment, infighting, cronyism, sectarianism and false accusations. If the central committee wants power to remove the chair, they should all be subject to the same removal procedure as the Chair.

I think that allowing non precinct committeemen to vote or hold proxies in this election is a violation of some kind that must be investigated. This election is for elected precinct committeemen who hold proxies of precinct committeemen from the same precinct only, not Tom, Dick and Harry. There needs to be some order maintained. If citizens want to vote as a precinct committeeman, then they should run for the office.)

Dorothy Prater Niemi 8 July 2011

Tucson City News Let us eat Cake!

This Jeff Rogers who is chair of the Pima County Democrats is waging a campaign against the voters of this city. If he manages to disenfranchise all of the Republican voters, he may view that as a victory but it actually shows why lawyers should not be running this country. I always did think that the rules for getting signatures are too fluid. How about a standing number of 200? If 200 people want this person to be in the primary, then so be it. Cancel clean elections and let the primary sort it out. In the mean time, the Democrats seek to prevent legitimate candidates from even being on the ballot. The letter of the law but not the intent of the law.

The intent of the law was never to prevent all candidates but the Democrat candidate from being on the ballot. The intent of the law was to have an orderly election process that prevented unworthy candidates from running for office by requiring citizen signatures of support for the candidate. How about a little reform that would lower and standardize the number of signatures and let everybody pay for their own campaign? If Rothschild is the only candidate of the two major parties on the ballot, I will not vote for those tactics.

Democrat chair Jeff Rogers can be lumped with Clarence Dupnik in his rabid response to the January shootings, blaming his old political foes for that horrible tragedy. Too bad such shortsighted and narrow men remain in power among the Democrats. I sense a possibility of compromise and progress if these roadblocks to creativity are removed.

These Democrat politicians and Mayor Walkup have used and abused the city of Tucson, leaving the taxpayers with a heavy debt of more than $1,200,000,000,000 that these people expended. $1.2 billion in debt with more planned so they can spend and spend. Since Jeff Rogers is suspected to have threatened the Democrat city council members with dire noncooperation from the party if they don't follow his line, I can't help but wonder when his name was on the ballot. It is obvious that he likes shutting out a chosen candidate from the meetings simply because the Democrats have a majority. Our voters are being disenfranchised by the city council who refuses to hear anything from the voters who elected our guy.

I openly call this kind of political manipulation corruption. We don't need any little Kings in this town. Let us eat cake, will he?

I can't help but hope the current investigations bring some corruption to justice. The heat of the summer might bring out the tarantulas. Just shine a light down their holes.

In other news, the RTA is borrowing and must pay back about $150,000,000 plus about $50,000,000 in interest. I don't believe that $50,000,000 in interest was a professed ballot item even though projects that cost far less were on the list. Why has the right of voters to OK borrowing been destroyed? Mr. Hayes is playing fast and loose with tax money in an effort to meet some imaginary deadline, instead of using the ready cash to pay for projects. Mr. Hayes is in such a hurry to start projects, he is wasting fifty million dollars on interest. That's $50,000,000 less to spend on local hiring. I'm tired of these wasteful officials who are not even an elected having the power to indebt the taxpayers. So what will Mr. Hayes cut from the RTA budget when he has to pay back the money with interest? Valencia Road work? It's near the bottom of the list.

Maybe Mr. Hayes can hire more of his inlaws, like he did for the 'Value Engineering' reports for the Grant Road and Houghton Road RTA projects. I asked for these reports in a public information request that was finally answered after repeated e mails. I was told that the reports would not be available until July. That was a month away but Mr. Hayes had assured everyone that money was saved by hiring his inlaws for $89,000 without a bid. Maybe the next time Mr. Hayes has a no bid project, he should hire local. I can hardly wait to see these reports!

Support Republican candidates for Mayor and City Council plus Joe Flores in Ward 1 if you can vote in the Democrat primary. Jeff Rogers has blackballed Joe Flores even in the primary among the Democrats. I guess Joe is a little too independent for the likes of Rogers.

Vote Shaun McClusky, Jennifer Rawson, and Tyler Vogt! Clean up the corruption in city government!



Dorothy Prater Niemi

June 2011

Creeping Corruption in Tucson

Tucson City News

I am hearing all kinds of stories that are really accusations of corruption if analyzed from a certain perspective. 

One story indicates that the 'Central Democrats' have decreed that if a Democrat on the City Council cooperates with the lone Republican, then they can expect to lose official support, use of the phone banks and other resources and will not win the next primary because of the rug jerked off from under them.   So does this mean that the city council is controlled by the local Democratic Party honchos?  Nobody voted for them.  Are the current members of the council really just doing what they are told, instead of what should be in their hearts and minds to help the people of this city?

Was it a lack of moral engagement that resulted in the recent failure to actually balance the budget, relying instead of on 'restructuring debt' and borrowing more cash to get by for another year?  Perhaps the honchos at the central office lack the moxie to see that some council members understand more than others and forwarding the foolish and shortsighted is actually a negative for the city.  Or are the Democrats hiding yet another scandal like more Rio Nuevo?  Advising against needed funding cuts because big Democrats might get a haircut is counterproductive to the goal of actually balancing the city budget. 

In elected officials, corruption is allowing others to make decisions that you should study first and then make from your heart and mind.  Corruption is allowing others to control you for reasons that have nothing to do with the common good.  Whatever happened to altruism?  Politics is apparently trumping human kindness and cooperation, particularly among council members.  This is uncivil.    

Another story has to do with the mayor's and council members' aides meeting like a quasi council meeting to discuss and decide the issues that will be fed to the actual council members.  Once again, the lone Republican is left out of this action with no input and no representation allowed.   Considering the level of corruption in the Rio Nuevo squandering, perhaps it is time to allow input from a fresh source.  This kind of political infighting is despicable and is resulting in huge debts and mismanagement.  I call borrowing money to make it through next year a failure. 

Several funds need to be examined:  The subsidized housing is expensive and I think that the rents should reflect the value of the real estate rented out.  I smell a disparity between what the city is now subsidizing and the rental overcharging that is bolstered by city subsidies.  I think an investigation is in order.   Maybe the city is paying too much out in these subsidies.

How much is the city paying out in insurance?  All insurance!  This needs to be exposed and documented and then examined as to how to cut those costs, even if old 'friends' are the agents.

Parkwise should be phased out or forced to contribute to the general fund instead of spending all the excess on bureaucrats.  The parking is too expensive, the fines too punitive, and the money generated never goes for repairs, like it used to.  Of course, if party 'friends' are those bureaucrats, then party honchos can take over and tell you what to do. 

These creepy people who are 'legal' but skirt the intent of the law are like the recent expose of the RTA hiring in-laws and avoiding the bid limit by a few dollars.  Discretionary spending should all be local, even if needy family members want the work.  Sorry guys, the purpose of tax money is not to hire your in-laws or other relatives.  I think the lesson in this is that the initiatives should not be allowed to put more than one project in a line item vote.  No more massive building programs stretching for 20 years, tying up funds for projects that may not be needed or wanted down the road.  We should be able to vote on one project at a time.  We are losing our rights to pick and choose through these massive spending initiatives that mandate tax money to go to people who hire their in-laws and relatives to do the jobs.  Local people need not apply.  I am disgusted with the never ending nest feathering by powerful individuals while the rest of us pay for it and there are no jobs for anyone but insiders.  I don't want to pay for it any more.    

All city leases need to be reviewed as to their legality and enforceability.  Leasing city land for 50 years for a dollar a year is a gift of public funds.  All these leases should be cancelled.  Patronage like this is not free enterprise and as for the artists, let them compete on the same venue as others.  I don't want to subsidize them with a gift of public funds.  Any official who assigns a gift of public funds should be fired and investigated as to criminal activity. 

Another story is the Tucson Convention Center that is used about 10% of the time and  is being subsidized by the city for $6.5 million.  Evidently policy favors the use by non-profits over the paying customers.  Must be nice not to have to pay for it and be able to choose the best dates before anyone else has a chance.  It's nice to have friends to set that up for you.  No business will bump paying customers in favor of the freeloaders.  I don't want to subsidize freeloaders and run off paying customers.  This kind of mismanagement shows me that the ones responsible for this foolish policy should be terminated immediately, the cause being irresponsible fiscal behavior.      

How about the Fox Theater?  Burdened with debt, the people in charge are in default of $7 million to the city but the city does not want to repossess it.  A suggestion has been made that  the TCC music hall, the TCC theater and the Fox Theater all be put under one private enterprise that will bring in acts to fill the empty time.  Conjecture is that the Fox sublet itself to somebody for 50 years at a dollar a year.  Please tell me it isn't so!  Can you do that over the top of a $7 million debt?  I doubt it.  I like the idea of a management group for the three venues but I think they are now charging too much rent to be competitive.    

Tucson was never an Aspen or even a Sedona.  Tucson was always a competitive town with reasonable rents and freedom to run a business without having to pay officials to allow it.  Restore property rights and get rid of most zoning and watch the businesses crop up like Sonoran Hot Dog stands.  Now rents are too high due to excess debt on properties sucked dry of profit by the 'equity' people.  Lower the price of TCC use and bring in more attractions.  Free parking would also aid the financial recovery.            

It is time for more retirements and resignations of those who do not treasure fiscal responsibility.  Hopefully our pension system will not be burdened with double dipping, in case any of them want to return in another capacity. 

Dorothy Prater Niemi    1 June 2011 

Border Issues

Analysis of the few days from Penasco to Tucson after a nice vacation.


The economy of Rocky Point is suffering due to the lack of tourism from the USA. It's a beautiful resort with fine seafood and reasonable accommodations. We stayed at La Roca, where Al Capone liked to vacation, safe behind rock walls. We saw many Mexican tourists but few from the USA. It seems to me that it would be beneficial to have a citizen presence there.

We used to have the freedom to cross the border without writing to our government first, but now that hassle and expense discourages economic activity along the border. Nogales, Arizona used to have more shops and trade. Nogales, Sonora has decreased USA economic activity. Remember, we import excellent food from Mexico. Railroad traffic should be increased but so should the local border traffic. I don't know why some of that money spent on the Border Patrol loungers and cruisers sixty miles from the border can't be used to expedite the border crossings at the Nogales Port of Entry. Shift the funds and personnel to the actual border to facilitate local economic activity.

The Debt Limit

Unions have taken a back seat to the hassle over the debt limit. Both remain of interest and the topics are related.


I begin with the debt limit problem. The original purpose of the debt limit was to limit debt. I don't know what the purpose of the debt limit is now but that it must be constantly be raised so the nation will function, according to those in the know. A contradiction. Ultimately, the nation cannot function with too much debt, so the debt must be limited, like our founders intended.

It appears that Treasury Secretary Geithner is threatening no payments to seniors if the debt limit is not raised. The crass idea that our citizens will go wanting while moneylenders must be paid seems to dominate. The moneylenders must be paid so that they will lend more money so they must be paid. What is wrong with this picture?

Donald Trump might have the right idea about China when he criticizes sweetheart deals for Chinese interests and the Chinese currency manipulations. Perhaps some of the past disparities among the currencies could be remunerated with debt credits, as a beginning negotiation point for continued payments of any kind.

Time for real negotiations, like Mr. Trump says.

And on to the topic of unions, much in the news lately. Governors are concerned that union demands are bankrupting the state and local jurisdictions. It appears that the aura of corruption extended to politicos who signed deals with unions that were financially unsustainable but I got mine, so what? Responsibility must be laid at the door of those elected officials who caved into union demands without the financial wherewithall to maintain payments to individuals. Borrowing is rife and the unions support the borrowing culture because they get more jobs now and fewer later and overall but so what? Short term thinking seems to be the leader of this crew.

The idea that clerical workers for the state need do or die union representation is ludicrous. Miners need that kind of representation, not paper pushers. The hazardous occupations need union representation and collective bargaining should come in if the members voluntarily join a union in response to poor working conditions. Mining is one of those occupations where the workers need protection from poor working conditions, like unsafe shafts. Police and Fire might need union representation if chronically understaffed, for instance. Requiring workers to join a union is a violation of workers' civil rights. Unions should arise in response to a need in the workplace, not be mandated 24/7. As of now, unions are controlling substantial required contributions from workers, which is money workers might like to spend elsewhere if they had a choice.

Get rid of the government worker unions. I don't want unions controlling any aspect of the government, including when and where workers will strike and shut the government down. Public employees and others like teachers have a responsibility to keep the schools and government functions open. OSHA should be sufficient for job safety requirements.

Now back to how unions and the debt limit are intersected: government unions encouraged the growth of pay levels beyond that of the private sector while relying on tax money to pay for it. The more, the merrier, except that the recession hit and the tax take shrunk and each worker now takes a higher percentage of the whole than before. In other words, there are too many workers at too high pay working for the government. The SunTran runs empty buses instead of cutting the number of runs on a route because of an agreement with the union not to cut jobs. So now the fares are raised and the poor pay for the extra runs. Would they rather pay less for fewer bus runs?

This story could go on and on but the idea is there to extrapolate: The entire nation is debt ridden. Moneylenders rule and the tax money is earmarked for however long the funding source lasts. The cash is long gone but the debt remains. Encumber your income sources and you have less cash to work with. It seems so logical but now this debt service obligation has blown everybody's mind with the implications for our immediate future. How much of the borrowed money is squandered?

For example, the Regional Transportation Authority is a tax on the populace. This money is to be used for a list of projects, yet millions are being used for a purpose never listed on the voting descriptor. The voters never voted to spend millions of the RTA money on interest payments. The use of the RTA funding for any other purpose than is what is on the ballot material is not legal, yet millions are wasted on interest payments. The RTA will sunset earlier than intended because the income will be gone or tied up in interest costs. The Rio Nuevo revenue stream is committed from now until 2025, which sunsetted the economic activity more than a decade before the revenue stream ends. Politicians should not be allowed to encumber every revenue stream available to the government. Why are they able to indebt the tax money without a vote of the people? Tucson Water owes half a billion dollars yet borrowing continues with spending having little to do with improving water quality or service. Are there no limits to the use of money derived from borrowing from Tucson Water? They raise water rates in order to finance this borrowing.

The cycle of borrowing has to end somewhere. The myriad brokers, unions and hangers-on are getting too expensive and the moneylenders and gamblers rule the halls of government.

                                         Winter Storm over Tucson