Homeless in Arizona

Arizona House Speaker David Gowan certainly sounds like an enemy of the people that needs to be booted out of office.

Arizona House Speaker David Gowan is the same *sshole who tried to prevent a reporter from covering news at the Arizona capital because the reporter exposed a scam where David Gowan tried to cheat the taxpayers out of thousands a dollars in bogus expenses.

When you read articles like this it makes you realize the main purpose of government is not to serve us, but to shake us down for money to give to the special interest groups that own the elected officials.

Source

House defeats bill to give developers 'ability to tax residents'

Mary Jo Pitzl, The Republic | azcentral.com 6:01 p.m. MST May 5, 2016

Republic reporter Alia Beard Rau talks with Yvonne Wingett-Sanchez about the Arizona state budget deal.

A controversial development bill came down to the wire for a final vote in the Arizona Legislature; it's a pet project of Speaker David Gowan.

The Arizona House of Representatives killed one of Speaker David Gowan's key bills in an agonizingly slow vote Thursday, with eight of his Republican colleagues joining Democrats to defeat it.

House Bill 2568 would have given developers the authority to levy property taxes on homeowners.

The bill had divided the homebuilder community and drawn heavy opposition from cities and towns, which argued it is not in the public's interest to give unelected boards dominated by developer interests the power to tax people who buy homes in the subdivisions they develop.

But Gowan, with support from a coalition of developers and investors, argued the bill would boost economic development, especially in southern Arizona, which he represents. The bill would allow developers to move faster by changing the way community-facilities districts are structured.

The bill died on a 28-32 vote after nearly an hour of voting. The "no" votes piled up quickly and were stuck at 29-31 for at least another half hour as Gowan held out for members to change their minds.

"I would ask two of you, from an old speaker going out, to vote 'aye,'" Gowan said in a bid to save the bill. Passage requires 31 votes.

The majority votes reflected arguments made in recent weeks by local governments and homebuilders.

The districts have been allowed by law for nearly 30 years, but have limited use. They allow developers and cities to work collaboratively to pay for infrastructure, such as water and sewer lines, that would serve new developments. Cities must approve a developer's application to create a community facilities district.

Gowan's bill would have given any developer who controls 600 acres or more the authority to establish such a district without city approval. Community-facilities district boards typically issue tax-exempt bonds to cover infrastructure costs, then levy a tax on properties within the district to pay off the debt.

That's because HB 2568 also would have created a governing board that would favor developers, with three of the five seats controlled by developer interests.“Ultimately, it's shifting the ability to tax residents to developers," said Brent Mattingly, chief financial officer for the city of Peoria.

Loss of local control

The loss of local-government control over the financial aspects of a district was the heart of the controversy over the bill, which was withheld from a final vote all week amid intense lobbying.

“The developer is not going to put in the same kind of protections as a city would," Mattingly said. "They want to pass the cost of these improvements on to the residents ... and they don’t have the same concerns as a city council would."

Mattingly said cities, with their elected representatives, are sensitive to tax rates, something he doesn't believe a developer-driven board would reflect.

“The developer is not going to put in the same kind of protections as a city would.” Brent Mattingly, chief financial officer for the city of Peoria

His concerns echoed those of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns and the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona. They argued the bill lacked accountability because the district board would be dominated by developer interests.

The shift to a developer-driven board levying taxes would usher in "an unprecedented experiment in public finance," the homebuilders' group wrote in a memo to lawmakers. It could take up to 30 years or more to retire the bond debt, they said, "in most cases long after the developers have exited these projects."

Although central Arizona homebuilders opposed the bill, the southern Arizona group was neutral on the measure.

Developers with deep pockets

There also was widespread concern that Gowan, R-Sierra Vista, was pushing the bill to benefit deep-pocketed developers who might aid his congressional race. Gowan is seeking the GOP nomination in Congressional District 1.

For example, Tucson developer Don Diamond, whose firm Diamond Ventures is lobbying for the bill, has contributed $2,700 to Gowan's congressional campaign, according to Gowan's Federal Elections Commission report. Joan Diamond, his wife, gave another $2,700. Diamond Ventures owns large tracts of land in northern Peoria.

Michael Ingram, founder and president of El Dorado Holdings Inc., contributed $1,000, the FEC report showed. El Dorado is working on a 12,000-acre development outside Benson in southeastern Arizona, which is in Gowan's legislative district.

The attention on campaign donations was a diversion from the merits of the bill, its proponents said.

The legislation was a way to streamline a process that's already in law and to speed up the pace of getting large developments underway, said Susie Stevens, a spokesperson for Land Owners for Arizona's Economic Development. That's the coalition of developers and investors behind HB2568.

The bill would have changed only the way a district oversees how infrastructure projects are financed, she said. Other local-government controls, such as zoning and land-use planning, would remain.

The coalition disputed that the legislation would have led to higher taxes for people who buy homes in a community-facilities district. Developers are sensitive to price because they have to market their projects to homebuilders, who in turn sell the houses they build, she said. Allowing high tax rates would crater those efforts, she said.

Concerns about tax levy

But critics countered that the bill, although establishing a cap on tax rates, would not have capped the tax levy, which could be higher in order to cover debt payments on the bonds.

Despite the opposition, the bill won lopsided favorable votes until Thursday. It got unanimous approval in the House, where Gowan determines whose bills get a hearing and whose don't.

It fared nearly as well in the Senate, passing on a 21-8 vote after it was amended earlier this week, with bipartisan backing. Because of the amendment, the bill needed a final vote in the House, where developer interests, as well as local-government lobbyists, pushed to make their arguments to individual members.

Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, urged support, saying it was a good way to get infrastructure built when public resources are lacking.

And Senate President Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, said the bill raises the question of who best should control private property in Arizona. In his view, better to let that control rest with the private sector, not government.

Thursday's vote may not be the final word on the proposal. At the last moment, Rep. Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa, switched his "yes" vote to a "no." That would enable him to bring the bill back for another vote, just as the Legislature is looking to close down its session.

Reach the reporter at maryjo.pitzl@arizonarepublic.com and follow her on Twitter @maryjpitzl.