Residents on Tucson’s west side are concerned about the City’s potential plans for Sentinel Peak, otherwise known as “A” Mountain. Their concerns stem from City Councilwoman Regina Romero’s announcement during her re-election campaign that she would like to see the popular road up to the peak closed to vehicular traffic.
The Sentinel Peak Master Plan Emergency Resolution is on the agenda for today’s Tucson City Council meeting.
According to City Councilman Paul Cunningham, the city does not intend to close the loop road. West side residents began an email campaign asking “that the item be removed from vote tomorrow till the concerns are resolved” and they could coordinate a response to the plans.
The Emergency Resolution had been slated as part of the Consent Agenda; however, Cunningham moved quickly to have it pulled to facilitate some discussion of the item by area residents.
Residents expressed concern that the city would “rearrange the cards to suit them” so they would not have an opportunity to be heard. The City officials have been known to shuffle cards submitted by members of the public who wish to address the board. Too often, residents who hope to comment on an issue are “shuffled” to the bottom of the speakers’ card pile preventing them from having their opportunity to address the Council and make a public record of their position.
Residents were concerned by omissions made by a City staffer to their email request for information. They advised the City staff that the language used in drafts of the plan “may not be a direct reference to closing the road but is a suggestion that such things should happen.” That lack of clarity, Romero’s previous statement that she would like to stop vehicular access, and the slow and steady restriction of access to the Peak has made residents believe that complete closure is the goal.
One Tucsonan wrote to the City staff, “As it has taken almost 3 years to make the changes on this plan, it seems strangely rushed to now have to get this voted on without all parties being satisfied with the changes made.” They asked staff for a chance for “a fair process,” and that the item be removed completely from the agenda.
It is the City’s use of the Emergency Clause that concerned residents. However, Tucson City Attorney Mike Rankin told Tucson City Councilperson Karen Uhlich earlier this year that the vast majority of resolutions passed by the Tucson City Council include an “Emergency Clause.”
According to the Goldwater Institute, cities sometimes propose measures declaring an emergency as a matter of routine. They may do so to prevent citizens from taking out a referendum on an unpopular or controversial action that they don’t want reversed, like a tax increase, or they may do so to speed up the effective date for a project that the council should have considered and approved before, like an important contract that wasn’t negotiated on time. The only requirement is that a supermajority of councilmembers – typically three-fourths – vote in favor.
“Supermajority vote or not, taking away the citizen’s voice in local matters and rushing projects through the legislative process should be a rare exception to the norm,” according to Carrie Ann Sitren of the Goldwater Institute. “Cities should use the emergency clause only during real emergencies when the risk to the public health or safety is high. For everything else, cities should follow the normal process for doing public business.”