The usual anticipated post-election collective sigh-of-relief that all of us give and hear seems to have been a bit prolonged, or delayed somewhat, in this election cycle. With so many significant races and issues that were not resolved fully or completely decided on election night, voters could only hold their breaths for yet another day, or in some cases days, for grateful closure. The results of one measure on the ballot required no breath holding, as voters’ response to it was loud and clear, and it certainly was no cliffhanger. That would be Proposition 463 – the countywide bond proposal for road repair that was voted down, resulting in its significant defeat. Questions and thoughts that seem to be on everyone’s mind are: What does the defeat of Proposition 463 mean; where do we go from here; and what do we do now to get our roads fixed?
I am glad that I supported putting this proposition on the ballot and for providing the opportunity for this decision to be made by the voters. And the voters have spoken indeed.
There is much to learn from the defeat of Proposition. 463. I think the bottom line lesson stated by the voters is clear: Even as angry, frustrated, and exhausted the voters are with the failed and intolerable condition of our roads, their “road fatigue” was not enough to overcome the mistrust and lack of confidence they have in Pima County’s ability to properly facilitate and undertake a comprehensive regional road-repair plan. This is another way of saying that the voters did not think or feel that bond monies generated would actually end up going to fixing our roads.
From this point on, any pathway that reveals itself for road repair should be treaded upon slowly and with caution. Two such courses may be potential options. One is to try again the Phoenix legislative route, proposing the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA)-in-charge plan. However, we don’t know, nor will we know immediately, what the makeup or philosophy of the new legislature will look like. More importantly, we won’t know for some time the degree to which legislator’s receptivity to helping solve Pima County’s road repair problems will be.
Experience dictates that the legislature will be reticent and lacking in both will and desire to help Pima County with our local road problems. Even though an “RTA-in-Charge” plan died during the last session by lacking only one vote, it still died. Another such loss could prove so damaging that it could jeopardize future local infrastructure issues for Pima County. Let’s slow this approach way down and proceed on the path only after great reflection, analysis, debate – and after it’s deemed winnable in all of its facets.
Another potential direction for road repair may lie with the Pima County Board of Supervisors, of all places. The supervisors have debated significant road repair plans for over a year now, with no road repair plan generated. Perhaps the results of Proposition 463 could open the possibilities and some minds that Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and Vehicle License Taxes (VLT) that come into Pima County should be re-evaluated. Perhaps now, with the budget process just around the county’s corner, the board’s majority would be open to finding a way to allocate HURF and VLT so that more of the funds go to actually fixing our roads and not to overhead and administrative expenses. However, this approach, which has never been successful and has gained zero traction from the board’s majority in the past, must be pursued thoughtfully, and with reason and caution as well. Will the board’s majority remain entrenched and unmovable to the idea of better utilizing HURF/VLT monies for road repair? Or will they be more receptive and willing to seriously negotiate now that Propopsition 463 and all other attempts at road repair plans have failed?
At the board of supervisors level is where this conversation should be, and at this point in time is when it needs to start. Such a conversation would truly be a road less traveled.
