Phoenix Park Ranger Carlos Sotomayor Sued

Source

Will Greg Stanton honor his pledge to ax food tax?

“The food tax needs to be repealed as soon as possible. If I was able to vote last week, I would have supported a repeal of the food tax two years early, and in a way that does not require termination or layoffs of sworn police officers and firefighters. We can do this as soon as April 2013 and save taxpayers $100 million while also protecting key city services.”

–Greg Stanton, Nov. 6, 2011, two days before the mayoral election

“The question for me is, ‘Can we repeal this emergency measure without gutting public safety and compromising the city’s fiscal health?’ That’s the bottom line.”

–Greg Stanton, State of the City speech, Feb. 28, 2013.

Stanton ran for mayor insisting that he didn’t suffer from city hall syndrome, a common malady in which our leaders identify more with the people inside city offices than outside. Of late, however, Stanton – the swing vote on the food tax — has shown distinct symptoms as we inch ever closer to April.

The Phoenix City Council enacted the five-year 2 percent tax on groceries in 2010 with no public input, warning that to do otherwise would result in criminals running amok and padlocks gracing the doors of libraries and senior centers. Then it basically used the proceeds of the tax to fund employee pay raises [And most of the Phoenix city employees are COPS or police officers].

Phoenix employeess’ pay has increased by an average of 4.8 percent every year since the food tax was imposed – far outstripping the temporary 3.2 percent cut to pay and benefits in 2010. (Half of that was restored last year, with the rest likely coming next year.)

Normally, I’d applaud an employer for finding a way to raise pay in tough times. But not when the raises were made possible by taxing the food of people who haven’t been so fortunate.

Repeal of the food tax fell one vote short in fall 2011, when then-candidate Stanton announced he would have voted for immediate repeal and then pledged to end the tax by April 2013.

Given that April is just 19 days away, I thought a little follow-up was in order.

Me: Are you going to keep your commitment to voters and end the tax in April?

Stanton: “During the campaign, we obviously thought that revenue would be better, that our budget situation would be better. I have a long-term commitment on protecting public safety and so I’m going to let the city manager present information so we have the full information in front of us.”

City Manager David Cavazos – the guy who scored a 33 percent, $78,000 pay raise last fall – will release two versions of a proposed budget for next year on March 26, with and without revenue from the food tax.

Any bets on what’ll be on the chopping block in the no-food-tax budget?

I’m guessing it won’t be the city’s 23 public information officers or any of the $3.6 million spent on lobbying and dues to groups like the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. I’m guessing it won’t be the golf courses that lose $2 million a year and it certainly won’t be any piece of next year’s pay raise, approved in last year’s labor contracts.

No, it’ll be a pick-ax to police and firefighters, cuts choreographed to stop this silly talk of ending the food tax early.

But if public safety really is the top priority, why has the city spent $106 million on employee pay since the food tax was enacted – coincidentally just about what the tax has generated? Why not hold off in order to avoid public safety cuts, knowing that Stanton’s vote would end the tax in April 2013?

Or, as it turns out, will it?

Stanton continues to dodge the question, talking instead about how revenue projections are off by $20 million and pension payments are $15 million higher than projected.

In other words, he’s about to renege on his pledge and he’ll use Cavazos’ doomsday budget as political cover.

“I, as the mayor, have an obligation to do what I believe is in the best interest of the people of this city,” Stanton told me repeatedly.

Funny how that view changes on this side of an election.