Prop. 414 Betrays Community Interests, Undermines Working-Class Families

Community Care Tucson, a local mutual aid group, advocates for the essential needs of Tucson residents, particularly the unhoused. Their commitment has led them to oppose Proposition 414, a tax increase viewed as detrimental to critical community services.

A recent column by Blake Morlock in the Sentinel misrepresented their coalition’s stance, suggesting it signifies societal decline. Morlock described coalition members as part of an “instant-gratification” generation, engaged in trivial pursuits. In contrast, Community Care Tucson comprises diverse Tucsonans, including social workers, immigration lawyers, and journalists, united in their quest for social justice.

The coalition emphasizes the urgency of their message: voters should reject Prop. 414. They argue it represents more than an inadequate proposal; it’s a regressive tax primarily burdening the working class. The measure diverts essential resources away from pressing community needs, instead funneling funds into an already substantial Tucson Police Department budget, which includes provisions for expanded surveillance and new police aircraft.

Proposition 414 exacerbates existing struggles for Tucson’s working class. The rising cost of housing is a pressing concern, with median home prices soaring from $215,000 in 2020 to $329,000 in 2024. Additionally, eviction filings have surged by 127% since 2021, and homelessness has increased by 52% since 2018. Faced with inflationary pressure, citizens find it particularly burdensome to cope with any tax hike.

While the city faces financial pressures due to Arizona’s flat tax structures, past voter behavior shows a willingness to adapt to funding needs if investments genuinely serve community interests. Community feedback is paramount, and the coalition asserts that any new tax must come from a comprehensive and inclusive planning process.

The coalition criticizes the spending priorities outlined in Prop. 414, claiming it fails to adequately address Tucson’s most pressing issues. Despite the city’s outreach efforts yielding substantial feedback underscoring housing as a priority, only 17.5% of the proposed spending in Prop. 414 targets housing and shelter. This disconnect raises questions about the city’s commitment to addressing residents’ fundamental concerns.

Proposition 414’s financial breakdown reveals an allocation of just $2.5 million annually for the city’s Housing First program, overshadowed by a larger budget dedicated to police expenditures. The proposed spending includes funding for added police officers and substantial increases in patrol vehicle costs, alongside an unsettling provision for a new surveillance plane.

Community Care Tucson argues against the efficacy of a policing-heavy approach to social issues. They highlight the detrimental impact of criminalization on vulnerable populations and suggest that the enormous funding directed toward policing could be better used to resolve the root causes of socioeconomic issues.

Current police budgets reflect a pattern of increasing expenditure without accountability. The proposal outlines funding that significantly expands police resources, with a total of $526 million projected to be allocated to police and fire departments over the tax’s lifespan. This raises critical questions regarding community priorities and the potential for escalation in state surveillance tactics, directly contradicting calls for effective resource allocation.

Supporters of Prop. 414 argue that it is essential for covering community costs, but many residents believe that it fails to address essential services adequately. The necessity for voter approval underlines the importance of community involvement in determining spending priorities. The community deserves a proposal that resonates with its needs, not one that perpetuates existing inequalities.

In conclusion, Community Care Tucson urges voters to reject Proposition 414, advocating instead for a comprehensive proposal that aligns with the community’s priorities, emphasizing housing and human services over policing and surveillance.