Monday, February 9th, 2009...11:31 am
We Will Now Identify Him as “R-400 ft. Inside Tucson City Limits”
Frank Antenori wants the world to know:
I just don’t want the perception that I live in Tucson.
Antenori was displeased that the Star identifies him as “R-Tucson” rather than “R-Southern Arizona.” He lives inside city limits, but he sure as heck doesn’t want people to think he lives in Tucson. Checking his voting record so far, in which he is already kowtowing to his new Maricopa masters by voting for massive cuts at the U of A and a $1.6 million blank check for Joe Arpaio, you’d never know he was from down here anyway.
One of the sillier parts of Antenori’s complaint is that saying “R-Tucson” confines him to one tiny part of his constituency, even though his district is much larger. If this is the reasoning, then we need to change the designations of many more legislators. Manny Alvarez’s District 25 takes in a huge chunk of Cochise County, winds through Nogales, takes in the Tohono O’Odham nation and Marana, and even skirts Phoenix’s western most exurbs. Yet, he is identified as “D-Elfrida,” a small community of roughly 1500 people halfway between Willcox and Douglas.
Alvarez’s predecessors, Gus and Marsha Arzberger, were identified as “D-Willcox.” Willcox is a veritable metropolis compared to Elfrida, but still small compared to the whole district at 3,729 people according to the last census. By the way, the Arzbergers don’t live in Willcox, but in the village of Kansas Settlement, on the other side of the playa from Willcox. Victor Soltero was often identified as “D-Tucson” even though he lived outside of city limits. Not only outside city limits, but in the separately incorporated City of South Tucson. Heck, he’d been the mayor of South Tucson.
But all of this begs the question: the guy is obviously getting votes from Tucsonans, and represents Tucsonans, so why is he so afraid to be identified as one?
CORRECTION: I misread the article and thought that Antenori’s protest was because he lives just outside of city limits. Re-reading the article after I got a text message, it turns out that he lives inside city limits. This makes the whole matter even more ridiculous. I have changed my rant to reflect this.
25 Comments
February 9th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
I wish you had said a bit more today about the following story in the paper, which marks Antenori, Gowan, and another as principal agents behind cutting science funding to the university because it might benefit local companies. He called this type of public-private partnership “corporate welfare”.
Frank, I find the fact that you would lead the effort to keep funding out of our region insulting. It makes me wonder for what reason you could possibly want to serve the public. It is clear that you don’t believe in serving your constituents and their best interests. So then, what do you believe in?
By the way, before you answer, I hope you will apply the same standard to the privatization of public functions. Which is ALSO corporate welfare. I am guessing you must hate private prisons too? For which there is no competition but for a check from the state for them to run them.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Here is the story:
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/279395
These folks should not be serving our region.
February 9th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Did Antenori indicate WHY he doesn’t want to be associated with Tucson?
February 9th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Because 85% of the district he represents is outside of Tucson.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
He said–
“I just don’t want the perception that I live in Tucson.”
What does he not like about Tucson? The people, the food, the architecture, the museums, the traffic, schools, symphony, etc.???
February 9th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Antenori and Gowan are taking orders from the Maricopa County power brokers. Southern AZ had the most funding from SFAz than any other are of the state. They are both self serving and only after headlines. It is time to find someone to run agains both NOW before they think about re-election. They are bad for Tucson and AZ. May we ask them to step down? Oh maybe we should ask the Marparicopa County power brokers–they can get them to do anything.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Antenori and Gowan are taking orders from the Maricopa County power brokers. Southern AZ had the most funding from SFAz than any other part of the state. They are both self serving and only after headlines. It is time to find someone to run agains both NOW before they think about re-election. They are bad for Tucson and AZ. Maybe we ask them to step down? Oh maybe we should ask the Marparicopa County power brokers to have them step down–they can get them to do anything.
Did anyone find out for sure that Antenori and Gowan are taking orders from a secretary–Phil Mason?
February 10th, 2009 at 6:30 am
The Scarpinato article and this post trivialize what is going on in Phoenix right now. Who really cares about stuff like this when local school districts may lose close to 20% of their budgets in the next school year because of the votes of people like Rep. Antenori and other supposed guardians of Southern Arizona’s interests, like Rep. Williams and Sen. Melvin?
I live in the district represented by the latter two gentlemen and could care less that Melvin designates himself as “R-Saddlebrooke” in his communications. What matters to me is that Antenori, Gowan, Melvin, Williams and their leadership are content to make Arizona an even more difficult place to raise children because of their focus on the interests of corporations and the well-off.
The bigger (and far more relevant) story is that Southern Arizona is no longer the bastion of common sense legislators who work to meet the needs of the second-fastest growing state in the union.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:17 am
Gertrude Stein wrote “A rose is a rose is a rose.” If Rep. Antenori lives in the City of Tucson and represents District 30, then he is a Tucsonan.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:39 am
Recall, Recall, Recall, Recall
February 10th, 2009 at 8:06 am
By the way, Kral, the Democrats’ budget did not have any funding for 21st Century Fund either. So while you’re pointing fingers, don’t forget to aim at them too. They “voted against it” then they screamed bloody murder that it was cut. Don’t forget that little detail.
Wow, a legislator asks if there is a way he can be identified in news stories more accurately to the area he represents, an area in three counties of southern Arizona, a small part of which is actually in Tucson and the reporter tells him he should move. OK. How about for your next rant you tell us where to find three billion dollars.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:29 am
I doubt seriously that the democrat caucus would have voted to cut that program. If it wasn’t in there budget, you can be sure it was because that budget was never even read by the GOPers. They were shut completely out.
And…the blame is squarely and clearly on our S. Arizona GOPers who dont know SQUAT about the economic development they so prize.
Last, I guess the only thing we can expect out of Antenori, Gowan, Melvin and Williams is strong protections against abortion and gays. They clearly could care jack about representing the interests of our region. ToTALLY WORTHLESS.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Look in the Dem caucus proposed budget. They had cut it. They were against it before they were for it.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Kral
http://www.rumromanismrebellion.net/2009/01/26/house-democrats-release-budget-plan/
February 10th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Doesn’t Gabby live in Tucson. Is she referred to as “Tucson Congresswomen Giffords” or is she rightfully referred to as Southern Arizona Congresswomen Giffords? or Arizona Congresswomen Giffords? This is a very important issue and should be decided hear and now. Slow news day?
February 10th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Roger,
Flipper is right. Some of the other things left out of the Democratic budget:
Alzheimer’s research (I believe the governor put that back in)
AHCCCS HealthCare Group
Lottery-Funded Assistance to the Homeless
Math, Science, vocational, and Gifted Child increases.
Judging that Democrats said that they don’t want to make any cuts, you all must really HATE those programs.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
The problemmatic with Antenori’s statements are not that he wants to be identified (correctly so) as R-Southern Arizona, but the statement “I just don’t want the perception that I live in Tucson”, which is a cut on Tucson, where HE and 15% (?) of his constituents live.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Framer,
You all keep saying “left out” and I think carefully. Were they proposed by cuts by the Democrat caucus? Or off the table? Out of a budget that everyone knew was not even being considered. They were not even at the table.
Show me that they were cuts. I would bet my arm that they did not propose to cut the entire AHCCS program as they have been the biggest defenders of it.
Sounds like you all are trying to distract from the work that you did. The fact is that your budget cut education as deeply as it has been cut. You balanced the budget on the backs of children and economic development because none of your caucus is willing to borrow or god forbid raise taxes.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Roger,
Not the entire AHCCS program, just the HealthCare Group provision which gives insurance to small business, and up until recently sole proprietorships.
Look at the pdf that Tedski posted. It was laughable, but it was an outline that was put out by the Democrats. Mainly it just tried the postdated check routine which is just flat out unconstitutional.
The cuts to k-12 amounted to 1.9% for most districts, which suck, but hardly worth the hyperventilating considering what is happening to most people out there right now. I believe most workers would gladly give that up to keep their jobs as they are now. Considering our budget was 18% overdrawn and k-12 makes up 44% of the budget (even a larger percentage of the non-voter protected portion). I flatly reject your assertion. K-12 education was barely touched in proportion.
I have a honest request for you. Show me any point in history where raising taxes in the middle of a recession turned out well. If anybody in my caucus did move to raise taxes, especially on business at this particular point in time, they would deserve to get drummed out of the party. That is just stupidity.
As for borrowing. I am not convinced by the evidence that that is a good idea at the moment either. Until we get through this tight spot, bonding to expand schoolhouse building is probably not advised. Borrowing just to pay other bills is, I believe, unconstitutional.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Kral, that’s is just a bunch of hogwash.
Look at the spreadsheet. I gave you the link. The Dems made their recommendations to the chairman’s position–it’s there in black and white– and they put a big fat zero in their recommendation for 21st Century Fund. I’ll say it again, if you’re going to blast Antenori and any “Southern Arizona” Republicans, then you also have to blast the Southern Arizona Dems, it’s that simple.
You are unsuccessfully trying to make a wedge issue out of something that Rs and Ds have just been proven to agree on.
Borrowing and raising taxes…pushing the problem forward while you add burdens to businesses that are already failing in droves and/or take more money out of the economy if you tax people more. I think we all know how $4/gallon gasoline perked things up in the consumer sector. We have to disagree on the “increase taxes and borrow” strategy.
Antenori is working to preserve every possible dollar for education and services needed by society’s most vulnerable. Such a sin. He can say he lives in “Houghtonia” as far as I’m concerned.
February 11th, 2009 at 8:53 am
I just looked at the budget, outside of 21st Century, there really did not look like there were any major cuts to AHCCCS. Only two sections were cut.
So unless I am reading it wrong, I think Flipper and Framer are incorrect.
As for the $4 gas-it did perk some things up. Mainly things that are not immediately obvious-such as an uptick in smaller cars being bought that have better MPG and a reduction in exhaust in the environment that makes it easier for children with asthma to breathe.
February 11th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Well let me ask this Flipper. I see the zero, maybe you are right that it was “left out” in the Democrat response to the GOP proposal to cut this and an enormous amount of other programs that are important to this state.
Only difference here is that you have shown me no evidence that the Dem legislators in S. Arizona supported getting rid of this economic development program. Frank bragged about cutting it. It is clear that he believes in cutting government and lowering taxes. Fine. It is quite fair then to argue that he is find with also cutting the things he clearly voted for and supported.
Stripping our university system at a critical time.
Stripping our K-12 education system at a critical time.
And calling economic development funding to this region corporate welfare.
Well…he is honest isn’t he, Flipper. But don’t try to argue that somehow the Democrats support these cuts and at this level. Don’t try to say that this GOP dominated govt. gave them any choice other than to find another way. With taxes off the table and their interest in cutting them further, there is very little choice but to cut somewhere. And it your party that demands other solutions to be off the table.
So, you reap what you sow. People wont stand for it. And I hope that folks like Antenori, Gowan, Paton, Williams, and Melvin get bounced next time.
They have proven themselves unfriendly to the needs of this region.
Show me where they protested or
February 11th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
What part of zero do you not understand? Your caucus didn’t want it either. I could see your point if they put in their response $15M or $10M or $1M or even $50K. They put in zero. Your caucus shares in this bipartisan move.
Again, we disagree on solutions on the “increase taxes” side of the equation so I can’t help you there.
Please adopt “Jack up my taxes!” as your rallying cry for 2010. Maybe the unions will give you another $2M to lose four more seats.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Flipper is right about the cuts to the 21st Century Fund, in fact, it was the Republican Leadership that wanted back in, the minority leadership is actually inconsequential at this point. The Dems have been locked out of negotiations, and it is not a collaborative process. The minority legislative budget has been a bit less of a priority for 9 years, so the Dems are out of practice. In 2000, with a 15-15 Senate and kids Caucus, the Dems had the perennial “chip and a chair” After 2002, the Governor’s office represented the minority with its budget.
That is irrelevant at this point, the Majority is going to do what they want and the Governor is probably not politically saavvy enough to understand that she is about devastate the State Government. More importantly, Arizona Poison Control Office in Tucson got cut, the University of Arizona, the Governor’s Office and State Government presence in Tucson all got cut. This is going to cost Pima County and Southern Arizona about 2500 or 3000 quality jobs. So–what is more important, the State of Arizona balancing its budget?, or the economic stability of our community? What would you pick? Making tough choices is what cultivates good leadership. Taking responsiblity for leading a collaborative process and massaging personalities to work together is what good leadership is all about. I have it on good authority that we have legislators who have forgotten that. All I have to say to the legislature is be careful what you wish for.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Paul, I’ll grant you that. It’s a two way street though. Hopefully the best possible solution can be reached with as many participants as possible.
Past “compromise” positions have resulted in a 50% growth in spending over the last few years. Can’t say that’s entirely rational either.