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.

Since statehood in 1912, Arizona has been among the nation’s leaders in using the initiative process to either adopt a statute or amend the state constitution by placing a measure on the ballot. But such efforts are anything but easy. In fact, organizers have found it to be an expensive, time-consuming and exhausting process – and one that is unlikely to end successfully.

The author writes about Arizona's longstanding belief in direct democracy via referendum, initiative and recall. The Legislature continues to grapple with election reform and strike a balance of how much binding authority should remain in the hands of voters in terms of initiative, referendum and recall, but Arizona’s penchant for people power has been demonstrated since before statehood. In the midst of his campaign for Congress in 1911, for example, Arizona’s Carl Hayden noted that everywhere he went he found voters eager to take control. "The people want their own kind of government,” Hayden told reporters. “They want to be the dictators.”

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.

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?

This paper, drawing upon historical data and information from surveys and interviews with more than 50 legislators, lobbyists, and knowledgeable observers, finds that the term limits reform adopted by the Arizona voters in 1992 has caused legislators to make some painful adjustments. Because of term limits many legislators have decided to run for another office prior to the expiration of their terms. This has often meant trying to move from the one legislative house to another, most commonly from the House to the Senate. On the plus side, the report finds that term limits have encouraged greater competition for legislative and other seats and have given voters a greater choice among candidates. To some extent, limits have been a force toward a more inclusive governing process. At the same time, they have generally reduced the power of legislative leaders and generally increased the influence of lobbyists and staff, though not all lobbyists and staff have gained equally. Recent newcomers to the Arizona Legislature are probably not any less knowledgeable than previous classes of newcomers, but under term limits there are more newcomers and members have less time to learn their jobs. For many, the limit to four two-year terms (eight years total) provides too little time to learn how to do the job and do it well.

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.”