“Emotional hyperbole” is one of the catchphrases conservatives use whenever they are called out for being crass or outright short-sighted. I suggest you look the word “hyperbole” up in the dictionary and see what it really means.

One great example of actual hyperbole is the assumption that Tucson is a cesspool of crime, but the numbers do not bear this out. Crime is down over 20% in Tucson in the last decade or so, and our statistics with regard to public safety compare favorably with most other Arizona cities. These numbers are consistent with my personal experience as a Tucson resident.

I bring that last point up to emphasize that, unlike the most prominent supporters of this initiative, I actually live in Tucson.

As for bankrupting Tucson, if this is an exageration, it is not much of one. The money to fund this simply does not exist. One supporter even suggested that we could cut costs by housing the new police in modular buildings, so even the proponents of this have admitted that they haven’t really thought this through.

And, of course, the idea proposed by Councilwoman Uhlich’s opponent that the City will simply grow its way to being in a position to pay for this is the same faulty supply side theology that has been guiding the legislature’s budget policy, and we see where that has gotten us.

I realize that Republicans are feeling left out of setting policy in Tucson, but the way to get some of their folks elected might be to find someone other than partisan buffoons to run and not to destroy City government.

Short answer:

The Federal Government has every business getting involved because hiring more police costs money and if the level of police protection locally is inadequate then they should fix the problem because inadquate police staffing and the attendant high crime rate threatens everyone.

Specifically, as a resident of a rural area of northern Arizona I probably pay more tax to hire cops in cities (including that I pay to the Feds which then gets sent to cities) than I have coming back, but I have no problem with this because 1) when I do go to a city like Phoenix or Tucson I have less to fear from local hoods, and 2) I get the money back because the lower crime rate means less taxpayer money going to pay for courts, prisons and other expenses that go up if the crime rate goes up.

And the City Council has provided for public safety staffing increases already through the Financial Sustainability Plan in 2006. At least that plan allows the Council some flexibility in unexpectedly tough financial times such as these. Amending the City Charter as Prop 200 tries to do would lock in those spending increases with no mechanism to pay for them and would tie the hands of this or any future Council, including one you might prefer to this one.

The people actually doing the job disagree with you. Ask a first responder what they think. You are allowed to speak to them.

Again, I’m not even convinced that prop 200 is the answer. I do not trust the current city council to do right by our police and fire departments, however. They were short funding them even when the money was there. Just vote ‘em out.