Morrison Institute for Public Policy Publications Archives

During the mid-part of the last decade, when the population growth rate was at its highest, the Phoenix area experienced rapid development and urban sprawl. The result has been an intensification of the Urban Heat Island effect. In this edition of Decades, author Sally Wittlinger discusses this uncomfortable consequence of urbanization.

Public finance—taxes and other revenues collected by government and the expenditure of those revenues—always has been somewhat controversial because of wide philosophical differences among residents regarding the role that government should play in providing public services and in collecting taxes and fees from its residents. Recently, public finance in Arizona has become a prominent public issue due to the need to resolve the deficits that afflict state government and most county and municipal governments in Arizona.

In a rapidly growing desert metropolis such as Phoenix, the question of which water conservation measures and factors actually save water and which do not is an obviously important one. The water-related decisions made today and in the years to come will have lasting impact on the future of this area, including upon its sustainability. Estimates from the City of Phoenix suggest that, in non-SRP-areas, water demand will exceed water supply by the year 2025--absent droughts or intervention.

This report documents and analyzes the results of a multivariate regression analysis designed to estimate the effects on residential, single-family water consumption of a host of factors, particularly water conservation policies.

In the fall of 1995, the City of Phoenix Police Department convened a special group of people known to be deeply involved with the social and personal aspects of domestic violence. This group, which came to be called the Phoenix Police Department's Joint Task Force on Domestic Violence, consisted of police and criminal justice personnel, social service and health care providers, and a number of interested community members. Task Force members soon began earnest discussions on how best to reduce the incidence of domestic violence-a crime that is, sadly, the number one call for police service in the City of Phoenix.

Arizona is emerging from one of the worst state budget crises in the nation. Entering 2003, its projected deficit, measured as a percentage of the general fund, was the fifth largest in the country.1 The state had slashed spending in 2002 in the face of a $900 million deficit, but still faced a $400 million shortfall for fiscal year 2003 and an estimated $1 billion deficit in fiscal 2004. Although improved revenues have reduced the anticipated gap, fundamental underlying problems remain concerning the ability of lawmakers to control the budget. Some observers consider this a revenue problem, others a spending problem. Our concern in this paper is whether state lawmakers have enough control over either revenue or spending.

Community policing — “a collaboration between the police and the community that identifies and solves community problems” — is not new to the City of Phoenix Police Department. They adopted this philosophy in the early 1990s. In 1995, they sought to expand community policing in Phoenix by applying for, and receiving, a $1.5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Justice to implement the Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP) — a project designed to implement community policing in an urban neighborhood and demonstrate its potential.

This briefing paper summarizes the measures used in the CCP evaluation and briefly examines whether
results answer the question: Is community policing effective? More specifically, it focuses on whether the Comprehensive Communities Program resulted in outcomes desired by neighborhood residents. That is—Did crime go down? Do residents feel more safe? Does a formal partnership between the police and a neighborhood make a difference?

No American metropolis has been more loved or hated than Los Angeles. Witness how for 25 years Phoenix’s mantra has been “We are not L.A.” Unfortunately, that mantra has not produced an agenda for making Phoenix a better place. “Are nots” and “don’t wants” never turn into action, even when there is agreement on what that action should be. “We Are L.A.?,” the second issue in Morrison Institute’s policy briefing series Forum 411: Engaging Arizona’s Leaders, looks at how smog, congestion, and density have defined the two places. The briefing provides an overview of the two metro regions and how they compare on several important measures. The report not only challenges the myth that Phoenix has become too much “like L.A.,” but also proposes a new way of thinking about what it means to be Phoenix. “We Are L.A,?” argues that metro Phoenix must come up its own homegrown identity more powerful than simply “not L.A.”