Despite all of the spending reductions, fund transfers, and other techniques used to balance the budget in the preceding few years, Arizona’s general fund faces a massive deficit. This issue of Policy Points poses an important question: Are you content with the historically low expenditures being made from the general fund and satisfied that the current low level of public services will be permanent?

In February of 1998, the Pima County Board of Supervisors launched what has evolved into the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP) -- a comprehensive effort to protect the Sonoran Desert, guide growth and rationalize land development in the metropolitan Tucson region. Proponents of this planning process maintained that the project would reconcile conflicts between human activities and conservation, providing benefits for both wildlife and economic development. Critics, however, have increasingly alleged that implementing such an initiative will adversely affect land and housing markets, increase taxes and create problems of housing affordability. Over time a pressing need has consequently grown for objective information about the possible fiscal and economic impacts of the conservation programs being assembled by Pima County. This report addresses that need. It is a tool in the form of an impartial framework for assessment that government officials, environmentalists, business people and the general public can use for debate and decision-making.

A series of 51 individual “stakeholder” interviews and two focus groups conducted with members of the Pima County business community in fall, 2001, documented significantly divided opinion about the likely economic impacts of the county’s Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP). The results of the stakeholder inquiries were striking. Only one major finding reflected consensus, while several others revealed sharp differences of opinion in the business community about the potential economic impacts of the SDCP and associated initiatives.

Believing that voters might support transit if they felt like an integral part of the transit proposal decision-making process, the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce's Valleywide Transit Task Force set out in early 1995 to initiate a bottom-up process which would enable people to say, "here's what we want." The Task Force agreed that the first step in the process was to initiate a new dialogue. the Morrison Institute for Public Policy was asked to write a briefing paper, which would re-invigorate the transit debate. The resulting report, "Transit in the Valley: Where Do We Go From Here?" painted a bleak picture of the Valley's existing transit system and challenged many long-held conventional wisdoms. The dialogue had begun. The report was then presented to the citizens of 17 Valley cities and towns for their consideration in 16 public meetings sponsored by cities and their local Chambers of Commerce. In community forums conducted between October 1996 and February 1997, more than 500 Valley residents discussed the Valley's transit future. This document summarizes the questionnaire responses by 501 people who attended the forums.

St. Luke's Health Initiatives and the Flinn Foundation strive to make Arizona a better place to live for all of its residents. Despite our state's assets, Arizona has many issues to address, with health and poverty among the most important. Our organizations have been pleased to sponsor the state capacity research that provided the background and impetus for "More Promises to Keep: Sustaining Arizona's Capacity for Welfare and Health Reform." St. Luke's Health Initiatives and the Flinn Foundation view the information and analysis provided in this report as a good way to stimulate discussion of health and welfare policy options and community actions. Research and dialogue are essential steps in the process of constructive change, as is communication with the public. We urge readers to consider the ideas presented in this paper and to continue to work together to improve the health and welfare of all Arizonans.