State trust lands are among the greatest public assets in Arizona’s portfolio. Set aside at statehood, the Arizona State Land Department manages more than 9 million acres of trust lands on behalf of 14 beneficiaries. The largest of which by far is Arizona Public Education K through 12.The mission of the Land Department is to maximize revenues from these trust lands. In FY 2005, state trust lands generated $115 million for all beneficiaries, of which $101 million was designated to support public K-12 schools.These amounts are increasing rapidly as more state trust land becomes attractive for development in Arizona’s urban areas.

The parcel discussed in this report, “Superstition Vistas,” stands out as the jewel among Arizona’s trust lands. Not only is it situated in the path of metro Phoenix growth, but it also borders thousands of acres of public land managed by the Tonto National Forest and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Estimates of its total value run well into the billions of dollars.

"The Treasure of the Superstitions" sets the stage for a continuing dialogue about the potential for Superstition Vistas, and indeed, all of Arizona’s trust lands. We look forward to listening to and working with our beneficiaries, citizens, counties, municipalities, real estate businesses, and other interested parties to make the most of Arizona’s “treasure.”

Four major statewide "tools" to help manage growth and preserve open space have been put to work in Arizona over the past five years. These include the Arizona Preserve Initiative and the closely-related Proposition 303, as well as the Growing Smarter Act and its "addendum," Growing Smarter Plus. All four tools are based in large part on a concept known as "smart growth," which is generally considered to be a set of growth management measures that attempt to strike a balance among issues of economics, environment, and quality of life. Taken together, these four growth management tools make significant changes in the way that (a) city and county governments plan and regulate their lands, (b) citizens play a role in land use issues, (c) state trust lands are managed, and (d) open space may be acquired and preserved. Many of these changes will have long-term effects for the state. This paper provides a brief overview of each of the four growth management/open space tools, a preliminary accounting of major activities each one has stimulated, and a perspective on what can be expected for the future as expressed by a selection of growth planners and other leaders of growth management in Arizona.

Arizona Ideas includes notions large and small, homegrown and borrowed, current and historical. From A-Z, every one -- whether originally born here or adapted from elsewhere-- contributes to the state’s competitive position. Arizona Ideas also explores the roots of Arizona’s tradition of self-criticism --some call it a sense of insecurity or inferiority in comparison to other places -- that often surfaces in discussions of public policy. This observation has provoked considerable debate, but few would deny that this perspective exists. It is time to debate this idiosyncrasy out in the open and find better ways of moving the state ahead.

States have always administered federal programs. But, states usually have had very little say in how they carried out programs. All states could generally do was follow the rules laid out by federal agencies. But now, devolution is giving states more power over programs. And, in general, Americans have said that they approve of the idea. A 1998 nationwide poll, funded by The W. K. Kellogg Foundation, showed that a majority of Americans perceive devolution to be a positive development for the country.

Arizonans have gained a reputation for their low opinion of government, despite -- or perhaps because of -- the major role played by all governmental levels in residents’ daily lives. This view was reflected in the responses to this segment of the survey, as panelists generally gave low ratings to the government services they were asked to judge. This was especially true of lower-income panelists. But the respondents’ low ratings might not always have been based upon personal experience: Few panelists said they had sought information from government or community agencies. This may be due to the increasing popularity of the Internet as a self-help source, but it could also mean that relatively few residents need the services or know they are available. In any case, more than half of those who did seek information said they were satisfied with the result. Panelists were not dismissive of all collective efforts at social betterment. They expressed high levels of agreement that good community-based programs can prevent many social problems, from drug and alcohol addiction to child abuse and juvenile delinquency. Asked how they themselves would distribute public funds for social problems, most respondents choose programs for children, affordable housing, and health insurance.