Page 8 - the Noise March 2017 Edition

2017 MINIMUM WAGES IN THE SOUTHWEST (SOUrcE: NcSl.OrG)
as $12 minimum wage divides flagstaff, council eyes amending citizen initiative
by peter wright
NEWSbrief
deavors, as nearly half of petition signatures needed to be invalidated in order for the peti- tion to not make the ballot.
It was up to the Coconino County Recorder’s Office to determine whether or not the petition contained the needed amount of valid signatures on February 9th, at which point it was determined that the petition contained 5,800 valid signatures, which still surpassed the 4,400 signatures needed to place Prop. 414 back on the ballot.
On February 14th, a city council meeting was held to determine whether the special elec- tion in May would take place, or if Proposition 414 would be added to the November 2018 general election, which drew large crowds of Flagstaff residents gathered to speak on the matter.
Many people from many different backgrounds spoke on their varying personal experi- ences, and their opinions on the negative or positive results that would come from Proposi- tion 414 taking effect in July. After 72 appeals to the council, at a near halfway split between supporters and opponents of the special election, and some discussion between the Coun- cil, it was voted 5-2 against the motion for a special election in May.
Councilmember Jim McCarthy suggested the Council discuss making amendments to Proposition 414, and that he did not support having a special election in May, which histori- cally has a much smaller voter turnout than a general election.
Furthermore, a motion was made to not take any action towards a special election, by default placing Proposition 414 on the November 2018 ballot, as well as to have city staff create a proposal to the city council for possible amendments to the original draft of the proposition. The motion was passed at a vote of 6-1.
“I know that this approach will not satisfy either of the polarized sides, but I also know that it is rational and that it will provide reasonable closure to this divisive issue,” McCarthy stated. “The repeal initiative will be on the 2018 ballot, giving voters time to reflect on our council action. I suggest that if we all have empathy for both those in poverty, and those trying to run a business, that preventing the $2 bump in July would be a wise course of action.”
However, both Councilmembers Charlie Odegaard and Scott Overton expressed con- cerns that amending a citizen’s initiative may violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act, which requires amendments to citizen initiatives by the city to only be included if those amendments “further the purpose of the measure.”
Mr. McDaniel had previously threatened taking legal action against the city council at a public meeting, on the basis that amending a citizen initiative would violate the Voter Pro- tection Act.
“That’s just simply not true. Anything can be challenged, but whether there is basis for the challenge, and what the chances are that those litigations prevail depends,” Ms. Putzova stated in an interview, “Saying that ‘we’re going to sue you’ when you don’t even know what the amendments are, the first thing that the council will have to consider is what kind of amendments the council is willing to entertain, and the city attorney will advise the council on whether those amendments will further the intents of the initiative.”
Following the city council meeting, Mr. McDaniel later noted that he was upset about the special election being denied, but is looking ahead to see what sort of amendments may be made to the proposition, and if those amendments are indeed within the legal bounds of the Voter Protection Act.
As Mayor Coral Evans stated on the divisiveness and conflicts surrounding the issue: “It has actually been really saddening to me to see what has happened to our community be- cause of this issue,” saying that the community dialogue that has taken place in regards to the minimum wage raise is “anti-Flagstaff, at its heart.” Possible amendments to be made to Proposition 414 will be discussed at a later meeting, which will aim to create a rectifying compromise for the extremely divided opinions of Flagstaff residents.
About the council’s vote against a special election, said one local business owner who wished to remain anonymous for fear of repercussions: “This is what democracy should be about, both here and on a national level. If you have a question about a vote or a law, you take it in front of the people. And if there’s not a clear signal, you take it in front of them again. Everyone should be entitled to a revote; everyone who voted in this last election should be able to go back again, research the issue, know a little more about it, and then cast their vote again. And then we’ll have a real answer.”
Added another businessman: “And maybe you have a vote every 30 days until the issue is settled. I mean, how much does it cost, really, to Xerox 10,000 ballots, say, and mail ‘em out to everyone? Isn’t that the government’s job anyway, isn’t that it’s highest priority: to find out and fulfill the will of the people!”
“What this Council doesn’t realize is that this double-whammy wage increase puts the burden on the local business owner, especially in a retail environment. We’re here compet- ing with volume purchasing from the big chains, warehouse pricing on the internet, and towns and cities that surround us whose economies are a lot different than ours,” said an- other entrepreneur.
And one citizen, who has observed Flagstaff politics for the last 20 years, said: “You know, there were a lot of exemptions given to ‘big box’ corporations when they first moved in — water and sewer hookups, zoning accommodations, property tax abatements — all for the lure of a few hundred minimum wage jobs. I think this increase should be on the back of those companies — who don’t have corporate headquarters in Arizona, who aren’t dedicated to the community, and who, quite frankly, have already taxed this city’s infrastructure beyond its 1990s capacity. I say Council should consider an exemption to local businesses so we can all hurdle this bumpy ride together ... and maintain our independence!”
Proposition 414 has sparked much debate throughout the local Flagstaff community, and city residents are conflicted about what the most beneficial course of actions is fol- lowing the beginnings of more drastic minimum wage increases in Arizona.
With Proposition 414 passing in November 2016 with 54% of voters in favor, Flagstaff is at a nearly halfway split between those who believe the wage increase will improve living conditions, and those who believe the voter initiative will ultimately lead to adverse effects on the local economy.
As local Prop. 414 states, the minimum wage within Flagstaff city limits will increase an additional $2 this July, compounding on top of the statewide increase from $8.05 to $10 that took effect on January 1, 2017 after the passing of Arizona’s Proposition 206. However, a citizens’ initiative run by an organization by the name of Elevate Flagstaff is attempting to amend Proposition 414 to reduce the additional $2 to 50¢.
Many believe that the near-simultaneous Proposition 206 and 414 minimum wage in- creases are needed due to the high cost of living in Flagstaff. An organization that goes by the self-explanatory name Flagstaff Needs a Raise, stated in its mission that its goal is to “make a meaningful difference in lives of a significant portion of the Flagstaff population who work in the low-wage sectors.” It contends living in Flagstaff can be a financial hardship, especially within the larger demographics of workers and fulltime college students who often compete for (sometimes multiple) minimum wage jobs in order to afford the ever- increasing costs of living in the city.
However, the language inside Prop. 414 does not include exceptions to organizations that do not have the corporate level funding necessary to provide the required raises, creating concerns of job losses and negative effects by many local business owners and nonprofits. Nonprofits providing direct care to the disabled community in Flagstaff are especially wor- ried, as many fear they will be unable to pay the required wage due to cuts made to state budgets for such nonprofits during the mid-2000s recession. The citizen’s initiative run by El- evate Flagstaff, an organization supported by many local businesses as well as the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, aimed to get Prop. 414 back on the ballot for amendment in May 2017, and gained 8,800 signees.
In an interview with Flagstaff City Councilmember, Eva Putzova, on the various concerns Flagstaff residents have on the effects of Proposition 414, it was stated that “ultimately we will see after the fact, but when we look at evidence from other places that have raised wag- es similarly to Flagstaff, such as Santa Fe, the fears that people have are not substantiated. There’s no evidence from anywhere that minimum wage increases lead to job losses.”
Elevate Flagstaff also recently cited a public opinion poll which claimed that “76% of Flag- staff voters support a Special Election to amend wage hike,” however many concerns have been raised about the legitimacy of the methodology behind the survey, and the source itself.
Fred Solop, a professor at NAU with focuses in public opinion and research methodology, previously expressed on NAZ Today his concerns at the fact that there was no methodology statement attached to the survey results. However, in further analyzing the released statisti- cal data and speaking with Mr. Solop, the publicly accessible questions and results of the survey themselves show inaccuracies within the methodology of the survey, and by default the represented data.
“The goal of the survey, I’m sure, from Elevate Flagstaff’s point of view, is to get more information that supports their interests out to the media to speak to a wider audience, to build support, and to ultimately, I would imagine, influence the city council which is debat- ing this issue. People will read the headline, but they won’t probe into the article enough to understand the methodology that was used or be able to evaluate the number’s legitimacy,” stated Mr. Solop.
Flagstaff Needs A Raise spokesperson Joe Bader filed a lawsuit against Elevate Flagstaff in Coconino County Superior Court, claiming the petition submitted to the City contained invalid signatures, and was conducted in a manner that was misleading to signees. Mr. Bader requested an injunction with the ultimate goal being to block the petition for amendment of Prop. 414 from getting back on the ballot.
However, the Greater Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Director, Stuart McDaniel, stated that it was highly unlikely Mr. Bader would be successful in his en-
8 • March 2017 | the NOISE arts & news | www.thenoise.us