I enjoy this substack for the information it provides about local news. However, I don't enjoy the snark which seems to be almost exclusively aimed at conservatives and Republicans. If snark and ridicule are part of the product, surely there is material on both sides to work with. I understand in the world of journalists there are not many conservative voices, but if you want to appeal to a broader audience, perhaps engage someone with a wider point of view to point out when you wander too far from being an objective observer. I end each edition questioning the wisdom of continuing my subscription, but persevere for now.
Hey Mike, thanks for the note. We try to aim our snark and (light) ridicule at people on both sides, though we'll never say it must be equally. Some people deserve it more than others. But point taken -- thanks for the feedback. I'm wondering if you have examples where you think we were unfairly kind or harsh based on someone's party rather than actions? This isn't a challenge -- just if you have examples I'd love to hear them. You can email, too -- hank@arizonaagenda.com
Hank, could you do an "explainer" about Prop 400--why it needs legislative approval & why GOP legislators "hate" (phrasing I've read elsewhere) light rail? I guess this is a controversy that goes years back?
But I still think there's something interesting to be written about the second part -- why are Republican lawmakers so opposed to light rail funding? Like is that really what the opposition is all about, or is light rail just a shiny thing to dislike? I honestly don't know but I'll start asking folks. I put in a records request to Valley Metro a while ago for all the comments about the Capitol Extension because I thought that might be a fun starting point for something like that but I still haven't received the records.
That makes sense. I moved to Tucson five years ago, and I’m still trying to figure the craziness of AZ politics. And, of course, we Tucsonans pretty much ignore anything to the north of us, a disdain that I understand is returned in spades by the Phoenicians.
Thanks, Hank. That’s the question that I just don’t understand. Is it because it’s “green” and they want to own the libs? Is it because economically it doesn’t help (trucks won’t benefit)? Just a worship of car culture? I’m stretching for reasons!
A lot of their districts don't have or want or need light rail but their voters are still paying for it with the tax, so I get that. I guess that's why it surprised me they didn't jump at the deal Hobbs proposed to cut out new rail funding and just keep a small portion for maintenance. But if you're just trying to make a statement about road diets and how nobody even likes light rail, putting up two questions maybe makes more sense.
I enjoy this substack for the information it provides about local news. However, I don't enjoy the snark which seems to be almost exclusively aimed at conservatives and Republicans. If snark and ridicule are part of the product, surely there is material on both sides to work with. I understand in the world of journalists there are not many conservative voices, but if you want to appeal to a broader audience, perhaps engage someone with a wider point of view to point out when you wander too far from being an objective observer. I end each edition questioning the wisdom of continuing my subscription, but persevere for now.
Hey Mike, thanks for the note. We try to aim our snark and (light) ridicule at people on both sides, though we'll never say it must be equally. Some people deserve it more than others. But point taken -- thanks for the feedback. I'm wondering if you have examples where you think we were unfairly kind or harsh based on someone's party rather than actions? This isn't a challenge -- just if you have examples I'd love to hear them. You can email, too -- hank@arizonaagenda.com
Hank, could you do an "explainer" about Prop 400--why it needs legislative approval & why GOP legislators "hate" (phrasing I've read elsewhere) light rail? I guess this is a controversy that goes years back?
Hey Jim, I was thinking about doing that recently. But Mary Jo Pitzl has done such a good job explaining the origins of Prop 400 that I didn't want to just repeat her work. We've linked to in Other News at some point. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/legislature/2023/05/03/prop-400-why-maricopa-county-needs-legislature-approval-transit-tax/70137144007/
But I still think there's something interesting to be written about the second part -- why are Republican lawmakers so opposed to light rail funding? Like is that really what the opposition is all about, or is light rail just a shiny thing to dislike? I honestly don't know but I'll start asking folks. I put in a records request to Valley Metro a while ago for all the comments about the Capitol Extension because I thought that might be a fun starting point for something like that but I still haven't received the records.
That makes sense. I moved to Tucson five years ago, and I’m still trying to figure the craziness of AZ politics. And, of course, we Tucsonans pretty much ignore anything to the north of us, a disdain that I understand is returned in spades by the Phoenicians.
Thanks, Hank. That’s the question that I just don’t understand. Is it because it’s “green” and they want to own the libs? Is it because economically it doesn’t help (trucks won’t benefit)? Just a worship of car culture? I’m stretching for reasons!
A lot of their districts don't have or want or need light rail but their voters are still paying for it with the tax, so I get that. I guess that's why it surprised me they didn't jump at the deal Hobbs proposed to cut out new rail funding and just keep a small portion for maintenance. But if you're just trying to make a statement about road diets and how nobody even likes light rail, putting up two questions maybe makes more sense.