Local opinion: On RTA Next, an informed vote is a 'no' vote

The Regional Transportation Authority, our countywide special taxation district, was created by the state Legislature partly to overcome distrust in local government. Instead, the RTA's Boards perpetuated distrust by failing to deliver key projects, shunting its volunteer oversight and technical committees, failing to seek statutorily required plan amendments, and violating other legal mandates. Due to lack of oversight, the RTA and PAG collaborated to divert over $300 million of flexible-use regional funds to the RTA without voter approval and without even a public hearing. So much for trust.

We are now being asked to consider Propositions 418 and 419 (RTA Next) to substantially revise and complete the 2006 plan, approve a new plan, and self-impose 20 more years of 1/2-cent sales tax. Legal research indicates the propositions are improperly timed and clumsily combined. The major supporters of these propositions are businesses, contractors, consultants, home builders, and developers who will benefit greatly from your RTA sales tax dollars. Most of these deep-pocket advocates are 501(C)6 business entities whose primary mission, according to the IRS, is betterment of their members, not the public. One of the current RTA Board members is the highly paid executive director of an advocacy group that heavily influenced the final tweaks to the RTA Next plan.

In 2004, the Legislature first allowed the RTA to seek voter approval of a countywide sales tax to fund a multimodal transportation plan. Their action wasn't benevolence, it was a shirking of the Legislature's duty to responsibly increase the state gas tax, which they have not done since 1990. Unlike a user-based gas tax, the RTA's sales tax is regressive in nature, resulting in an imbalance between who benefits and who pays. This imbalance is consistent with the Federal Highway Administration’s observation that “in terms of revenue equity based on benefits received or costs imposed, a sales tax falls short.”

If voters reject the propositions, it does not mean that any of the projects or services are DOA, nor will the RTA itself disappear. It means the region will work collaboratively on a better, more equitable plan, and then either resubmit that plan to the voters or implement projects and services with innovative funding through PAG's existing federally approved and highly credible transportation planning process. The RTA Board surely knows that there are viable funding alternatives to RTA Next but fails to discuss these options openly and objectively. For the RTA, approval of the propositions is the easy path; for the region, rejection may well prove to be the better choice.

Many of us have lived in the region long enough to benefit from the RTA's successes and suffer from its failures. Others are newcomers or voters tuning in to this debate for the first time. Having been associated professionally with PAG since 1978 and the RTA since 2004, I offer the following insights on both sides of the argument to help you decide. You can visit FriendsOfTMR.com for more insights.

If approved, RTA Next will:

• Continue a dysfunctional form of governance for 20 more years.

• Underinvest in public transportation and urban transit.

• Shortchange the City of Tucson by disproportionately funding projects in outlying suburban areas.

• Encourage sprawl and provide expanded roadway capacity at taxpayer expense for an ever-increasing population.

• Underinvest in sorely needed road repair and routine maintenance.

• Invite potentially nullifying litigation due to the commingling and mistiming of the propositions. Something similar happened in 2022 when the Arizona Supreme Court invalidated Pinal County’s RTA sales tax in “VanGilder vs Arizona Department of Revenue.”

If RTA Next is rejected:

• The regional sales tax will decrease by 1/2% on July 1, 2026.

• Road projects and transit services contained in the RTA Next plan can be implemented through PAG, our metropolitan planning organization, using better-leveraged federal, state, local, and (importantly) developer funding.

• Encourage the preparation of a better plan with a more accountable form of governance.

• Allow time to improve or replace the outdated RTA legislation.

After deliberation, I’ll be voting against both propositions. I encourage you to study both sides of the debate, too. In this election, an informed voter will likely be a "no" voter.