Local opinion: Tucson's 'basics vs. ideology' debate is a false choice

Two recent guest columns in this paper argued that Tucson's city government has lost its way, trading safe parks, working buses, and clean streets for climate commissions, equity initiatives and "ideological projects." On the surface, it's a tidy argument. It's also backwards.

Start with transit, since both writers raise it. Fare-free public transit isn't a climate brand or a slogan. It's how a single mom gets to her job without choosing between rent and a bus fare. It's how a senior on a fixed income gets to medical appointments. It's how an unhoused veteran accesses the VA for critical services. It's how teenagers get to school. When Tucson made transit fare-free in 2020, it wasn't an ideological decision; it was a direct response to safety concerns from operators and riders who told us what they needed during a crisis. We made it stick because when ridership dropped nationwide, ours bounced back and has steadily risen since. Removing the barriers that made transit inaccessible has been a game changer, bringing locals and tourists alike to games, restaurants and other destinations in our urban core. The more people benefit from something they already pay for through sales taxes, the better, and we've secured new revenue sources, including RTA, Visit Tucson and the public utility tax, to offset transit's cost to the general fund.

On safety: Charging fares does not prevent transit crime. Cities with fare systems still deal with assaults, drug use and rider fear. What matters is whether the agency has a real strategy. Our recently adopted transit action plan identifies the actual interventions needed, including coordinated TPD/security deployment, hotspot mapping, CPTED improvements, outreach teams and operator protections, not fare collection as the core safety solution.

On June 9, the Mayor and Council voted 6-1 to adopt City Manager Tim Thomure's budget, and I was proud to support it. This year's process included monthly updates and public engagement beginning in the fall. Facing a deficit, the City Manager presented an iterative menu of options for the public and Council to weigh in on before anything was finalized. The adopted $2.5 billion budget makes strategic investments in public safety, neighborhood services, infrastructure, housing and environmental programs, including more than $18 million toward employee compensation and equity initiatives.

Davidson's column cites proposals to close two fire stations and eight recreation centers as evidence of misplaced priorities. What he doesn't mention is that these were never decisions. They were items on that menu of cuts under consideration, precisely so the public and Council could weigh in. We rejected them. The adopted budget keeps those recreation centers and fire stations open. This budget cycle, we also partnered with Pima County's health department, which is funding free swim classes at city pools, and made all city pools free to use. That's not a hierarchy that puts parks last. It's the opposite.

Both columns focus on crime and "productive citizenship" but leave out the root cause of these symptoms: pervasive poverty. That's why the City and County adopted the Prosperity Initiative, which I co-led with Bonnie Bazata and a team of experts, comprising thirteen evidence-based policies to reduce poverty in Tucson. The Office of Equity ensures city government understands how decisions land differently across neighborhoods underinvested in for generations. The Immigrant Relief Fund, which I helped launch with Mayor Romero during COVID, delivered over $1.25 million directly to families the federal government left out. None of this competes with "the basics." It's how a growing, diverse city takes care of its people.

Here's what these columns don't say: The City Council cannot fix the fentanyl crisis. We did not create the housing affordability crisis, and the Arizona Legislature has spent years limiting what cities can do about it, preempting rent stabilization, restricting zoning reform and capping our tools. One mayor and six council members did not create homelessness or addiction, and we cannot solve them alone. What we can do, and have done, is show up every budget cycle and use the tools we have.

Both writers say residents feel unheard, and frustration is real. But which residents? The Sun Tran rider who no longer worries about fare money or walking home in 100-degree heat. The family that received eviction prevention through Ward 1's Budget de la Gente. The immigrant families who got direct assistance when no one else came. We have been listening to people who often don't have the platform to write op-eds of their own.

I welcome disagreement; it's part of the job. But disagreement should be honest about the conditions we're actually working in. The choice isn't between order and chaos, or competence and ideology. It's about whether "the basics" include everyone, or just the people who were already doing fine. I know which Tucson I'm fighting for.