四 川 铁 FourRiverIron

Source

Hot air in mayor's race

The campaign for Phoenix mayor is mostly hot air.

Take all the babbling about education and jobs.

Here’s something that’s certain: Whoever is elected Phoenix mayor won’t make a statistically measurable difference in the academic achievement of students in schools located within the city over the next four years. [This paragraph occurred twice in the original article. I deleted the 2nd copy.]

All of the candidates have what they call “plans.” Those whom the Phoenix Chamber deigned to invite to Monday’s televised debate were fond of waving their “plans” to the audience and the cameras. They invite people to read their “plans,” presumably with confidence that few ever really will. For when you read them, they are mostly platitudes and generalities.

For example, small businesses are apparently politically popular right now. Many of the candidates promise to cut red tape that inhibits them. But you will search their plans in vain for any specific proposed change in any specific city regulation or procedure relating to small business.

I’m going to pick unfairly on Greg Stanton for a moment. In reality, Stanton’s “plan” is the most comprehensive of all the candidates and has the largest number of at least semi-specific ideas.

However, Stanton’s “plan” also calls for no fewer than five new staffers in the mayor’s office, with portfolios consisting of small business, sustainability, education, the arts and ending homelessness. He would set up eight new task forces or committees, covering an equally broad range of topics -- from “day one,” as his “plan” puts it.

Now, adding staff and appointing committees aren’t really plans. They are plans to make plans. And adding to city bloat hardly seems in keeping with the temper of the times for leaner, more efficient government.

Of the few concrete proposals the candidates are making, here are some of the best ideas and the worst ideas.

The best idea of the campaign so far comes from Wes Gullett, to change the city’s election cycle to coincide with that of the state. That will increase turnout and reduce city election expenses. Scottsdale did that, and 76 percent of its registered voters participated in its last mayoral election. In Phoenix, turnout for the last mayoral election was just 18 percent.

Peggy Neely proposes a charter amendment to require longer notice of council consideration of tax increases, so they cannot be quick-pitched as the sales tax on food was.

Several of the candidates express support for ending abuses of generous city pensions, such as artificially inflating pay in the last few years. But only Jennifer Wright gets to the heart of the problem and advocates transitioning to a defined contribution system rather than the current defined benefit system that leaves taxpayers too much on the hook.

Stanton has embraced an effort to prevent street crime from spinning out of control by not ignoring prior misdemeanors when prosecuting a current one.

On the negative side, the third worst idea in the campaign is shared by Stanton and Gullett, using city bank deposits to lean on financial institutions to lend to local businesses. One of the lessons of the 2008 financial turmoil should have been the folly of putting political pressure on lenders to make loans they otherwise wouldn’t make.

The two worst ideas belong to Stanton alone. He would use city bond proceeds not just to support city facilities but also to fund math and science education and provide home energy efficiency loans.

The latter is particularly offensive. All city taxpayers would be on the hook to subsidize the home improvement loans of a selected few.

A leaner, more efficient city government that is not.