Next of Kynn

So, earlier this week, the Tucson city council looked at the sorry state of the city’s coffers and decided that they couldn’t afford the $34,000 needed to put on a fireworks show.

They were blasted by the Old Pueblo’s rabid right-wingers, who are normally concerned about government spending on public spectacles, but in this case chose to attack the (fully Democratic) city council for their lack of “patriotism” instead of praising them for their fiscal conservancy.

Rob O’Dell, a political reporter for the Arizona Daily Star, helped fan the fuel through his reporting of the controversy; O’Dell, the Star’s editorial staff, and the conservative bloggers all make it clear that this is primarily about racial politics more than anything else (and secondarily about partisan politics).

Eventually, a small group of Tucson businesses and organizations — including, notably, the Tohono O’odham Nation and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe — donated enough money to pay the $34,000 for this year’s fireworks (and probably for next year’s too). So the fireworks are back on. But let’s look at the racism behind this controversy.

Before I give examples, first let’s start with the facts, from a sidebar to a Star article by Dell:

[Fireworks at A Mountain $34,000]
Downtown Parade of Lights $4,200
Fiesta Grande $13,450
Juneteenth Festival $14,320
Tucson Meet Yourself $6,500
Tucson-Pima Arts Council Studio Arts Tour $10,000
Rodeo Parade $70,000
Winterhaven Festival of Lights $60,300
Fort Lowell Soccer Shootout $10,410
Various Downtown Tucson Partnership Events $32,720
Music Under the Stars $22,000
El Tour de Tucson $22,820
Southern Arizona Regional Science and Engineering Fair $9,510
The following events share a contingency allocation of $36,670, but no specific amount set for each event: César Chávez Day, Martin Luther King Celebration, Veterans Day Parade, Waila Festival
Total: $312,900
[With fireworks included: $346,900]

And here it is displayed graphically:

I’ve coded most of them white and blue, and the fireworks in gray because it’s not city-funded. The two in red are the Juneteenth Festival and the contingency allotment — for César Chávez Day, for MLK Day, for the Waila Festival, and for Veteran’s Day. There’s not specific amounts budgeted out for each event, though.

Why in red? Those are the “red flags” for racists: Juneteenth is a holiday celebrating the end of slavery and is primarily observed by African Americans and their friends. César Chávez Day celebrates a Mexican-American hero, labor leader, and civil rights activist. Martin Luther King Jr Day, of course, marks the memory of the leading civil rights activist (celebration of MLK day was strongly opposed by right-wing Arizonans, BTW). The Waila Festival celebrates waila music and dance, created by the Tohono O’odham people — the original (and still here!) inhabitants of Tucson.

So, let’s look at how the fireworks cancellation is discussed and how it’s being painted as a “patriotic (white) Americans” against “special-interest people of color” issue. Watch carefully which events are mentioned and which are not.

Rob O’Dell’s article on the cancellation sets the tone for this particular racist frame in the first three paragraphs:

Tucson canceled July 4 fireworks over “A” Mountain on Wednesday, blaming the city’s dire fiscal situation for not celebrating the nation’s birthday for the first time in 25 years.

While contending the city can’t afford $34,000 for a fireworks display, top city officials acknowledged they still plan to give more than $300,000 to other events in the coming year — including the Juneteenth Festival, Fiesta Grande, the Downtown Parade of Lights, the César Chávez Day celebration and the Waila Festival.

Most City Council members defended the cancellation, saying Tucson just doesn’t have the money, while offering little explanation why taxpayers should foot the bill for a list of events that appeal to a limited segment of the population.

That bolded phrase is one huge racist dog whistle right there.

Imagine how the story would have read if the second paragraph looked like this?

While contending the city can’t afford $34,000 for a fireworks display, top city officials acknowledged they still plan to give more than $300,000 to other events in the coming year — including the Veterans Day Parade, the Rodeo Parade, the Winterhaven Festival of Lights, Music Under the Stars, and the Southern Arizona Regional Science and Engineering Fair.

Even though the parades, the festival of lights, the music, the science fair, all also “appeal to a limited segment of the population,” those aren’t discussed in the same terms, of course. Anything that appeals to white people is considered to have universal appeal, while those events which acknowledge people of color in Tucson? “Limited segments.”

Also, calling out the $4,200 for the Downtown Parade of Lights and the $13,450 for Fiesta Grande, a festival in Barrio Hollywood — total, $17,650 — and not mentioning the $60,300 Winterhaven Festival of Lights, nearly four times that amount? Also a dog-whistle. Neighborhood resentment is used to cloak racism and classism, even though people from all over Tucson (and beyond) attend these events.

Here is what conservative talk radio host “JonJustice” writes on his Facebook fan club — warning, wall of text, and he doesn’t seem to be particularly literate:

Juneteenth – $14,320; Fiesta Grande – $13,450; Arts Council Tour – $10,000; Festival of Lights – $60,300; Rodeo Parade – $70,000; Music Under the Stars – $22,000 & more to a total of $312,900. Not funding the 4th of July Fireworks – Priceless. Sorry I couldn’t resist. We spent entire morning on this topic so rather than revisit most of that discussion let me add a few things to it. (BTW you can listen to some of Thursdays show starting at 6am Saturday morning w/ the best of the Jon Justice Show). This City Council doesn’t care about making you mad. They care more about making some people mad, but not you. Cutting art funding or any celebration to a specific group or culture is the kind of controversy they don’t want. Getting the public at large upset over cutting an, in their mind, “generic” “American” holiday is Okay. Real leadership would have cut the other “politically sensitive” festivals and told anyone who did get upset that we have to have our priorities straight. But you see that’s where we have gone horribly off the path in this country. People won’t be willing to except that “American Traditions” should be put first. Remember we “Americans” are bad, arrogant and spoiled. Many cultures and even our own schools have classes where the students are told to throw off the title of “American-blank” and only embrace their country of origin. We have to start embracing that while we are country of many great people of many great cultures and from many different nations, with many different religious beliefs. We are all Americans in the end and to that end we should be most proud. The root of problem has been around for awhile perpetuated by the left and sadly is being promoted by our President. Obama fly’s around the globe apologizing to nation after nation because of we happen to actually be a strong nation. The United States of America will always be under appreciated by many other cultures simply because they don’t believe in our ideals or are jealous of our freedom. This is nothing we should ever be ashamed of. Our City Council has simply chosen to kneel at the feet of political correctness and chosen in their mind the path of least resistance. They are weak willed elected officials without a shred of honor or leadership. Shame on all of them. Shame on them for not funding our brave Tucson Police, shame on them for not cutting the budget they way they know they could and instead raising fees and taxes and shame on them for turning their collective backs on one of our most honored American Traditions Independence Day. I can’t wait for the day that most of them are gone and replaced with real leadership and people that actually care about Tucson not just their political standing.

He does mention Winterhaven (but not by name!) and the Rodeo Parade, but only in passing. The bulk of his rhetoric is aimed at “a specific group or culture” — in code, “people of color”, primarily blacks and Mexicans; it’s no surprise that he, like O’Dell, listed Juneteeth first.

Because the more interesting dialogue, if you’re a racist white Tucson, is to make this about “American traditions” versus “other cultures” (i.e “not REAL Americans”) rather than, say, Fourth of July vs. Veterans Day and the Rodeo Parade.

With coded language as well as blatant appeals to “American traditions”, “JonJustice” is simply a more refined (but no more literate) version of right-wing racist nativists like this blogger:

Thats right, Tucson is now in Mexico, no longer a part of Arizona or America.

Not enough money to have a 4th of July fireworks display in America, in celebration of OUR independence, because the FUNDS are needed in replacement for La Raza’s member’s request for Cesar Chevez Day in Tucson, Arizona.

I can see the fireworks and bombs bursting in air now…over this! Let me guess…Tucson ordinance says, “No Si Se Puede para personal fireworks?”

This is our new Amerika…..get used to it Obamanite fools! Can you say “Si Se Puede” to AMNESTY?? You better learn now…

On the more polite side of racism, the Arizona Daily Star, following the lead of their reporter O’Dell, apparently seem to agree, in their editorial, that this is about “American” values versus those people of color:

From the start, we didn’t give the city’s pleas of poverty much credence. Certainly, the city is going through a budget crunch due to the struggling economy, but this was more a case of misplaced priorities.

As they announced the fireworks cancellation, city officials also told O’Dell that they would continue to support other community events with more than $300,000 in contributions. Those events include festivals open to everyone but that specifically recognize African-American, Mexican-American or Native American communities.

We believe the city should sponsor July Fourth fireworks because it is an event that is quintessentially American — no hyphen needed. It’s probably the most inclusive annual event the city funds, so eliminating it simply didn’t make sense.

No mention of the Rodeo Parade, of the Winterhaven Festival of Lights, of the science fair — just more reinforcement of the idea that money that should have gone to loyal Americans to be spent on sky explosions instead got stolen by those African-American, Mexican-American or Native American communities.

And, of course, the title of the Star editorial is meant to be punny, but there are disturbing historical undercurrents to this kind of thing, too: “Leaders should feel burn from fireworks fiasco”. In an age when right-wing extremists are all too ready to commit violence on ideological grounds, the Arizona Daily Star’s call for Tucson’s city council to “burn” is almost literally playing with fire.

O’Dell’s article on the private donors repeats his “limited segments of the population” paragraph that he liked so well, along with his cherry-picked litany of funded events:

While contending the city couldn’t afford $34,000 for a fireworks display because of the dire financial condition it is in, top city officials acknowledged they still plan to give more than $300,000 to other events in the coming year. That includes the Juneteenth Festival, Fiesta Grande, the Downtown Parade of Lights, the César Chávez Day celebration and the Waila Festival.

Most involved in the decision defended the cancellation, saying Tucson doesn’t have the money, while offering little explanation why taxpayers should foot the bill for other events that appeal to more limited segments of the population.

One of those was [the mayor of Tucson, Republican Bob] Walkup, who said the city looked at the value of the fireworks and realized they only last for a couple minutes and it “all goes up at once.” Walkup also said the fireworks are 100 percent paid for by the city, while the other events have other funding sources.

Contrast the Star’s reporting with this article from KVOA television about the cancellation, which does not (in this quote or the rest of the article) frame the issue as “patriotic Americans” versus “special-interest minority cultures:”

TUCSON, AZ – When Tucsonans hear 4th of July, many think A Mountain. This year the 4th of July will lack it’s familiar bang, as the City of Tucson has decided to cancel the yearly fireworks show due to budget concerns.

Residents look back at past celebrations nostalgicly, where they would gather to watch in parking lots, backyards, and roofs surrounding the centrally-located mountain.

“It’s been beautiful. We had them shot right off of the parking lot up there and all the people here got a good view,” said Terry Mertins, who lives near A Mountain.

This year though, that parking lot will be empty, no launch pads, no fireworks.

“Given the budget constraints and the fiscal issues that are facing the city, the decision was made this past Monday to cancel the fireworks and July 4th celebration,” said Assistant City Manager, Richard Miranda.

It’s a decision that will save the city up to $55,000, a cut that’s breaking a lot of hearts, and stopping a long standing Tucson tradition.

And finally, the right-wing blog Arizona 8th steps up to accuse the city council of being terrorists and the private donors of supporting terrorists. Really. That is what “sleeper cell” refers to:

Enabling the Sleeper Cell City Council

On Thursday, the Daily Star announced that the City of Tucson was cancelling its Independence Day fireworks due to budgetary constraints. The “budgetary constraint” was that the City Council thought it was more important to fund several other events such as “Juneteenth”, “Fiesta Grande”, Tucson Arts tour, and other events than is was to fund fireworks on Independence Day. That was the constraint, because the city is spending $312,000 on other community events. The city prioritizes Juneteenth over Independence Day.

Today the paper reported that the fireworks are back on thanks to donations by the Tucson business community and some anonymous donors.

While the donors’ generosity is commendable and their hearts are in the right places, they are simply enabling the Tuscon City Council when they should have let them hang themselves on this decision. If anything, they should have donated to Marana so that Marana’s fireworks show would have been even bigger.

Given O’Dell’s racist framing of the issue as “Independence Day versus Juneteenth,” is it really a surprise that the right-wing nuts are following that lead and making it about Juneteenth (why the initial scare quotes? oh, wait, we know why) instead of about science fairs and Veterans Day?

In an amusing show of conservative ignorance and partisanship, Arizona 8th also predicts election doom for council member Karin Uhlich — Tucson’s out queer elected city official — even though, of course, Uhlich opposed the cancellation and wanted the city to fund the fireworks.

Don’t confuse us with the facts; we’re too busy hatin’.

I did some digging and I figured out at least one of the main reasons why the Arizona Multihousing Association opposes the 2% rent tax — beyond their supposed concern for the poor of Tucson. It’s about low income housing credits:

As part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Congress created the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program to promote the development of affordable rental housing for low-income individuals and families (Internal Revenue Code, Section 42). The Arizona Department of Housing (ADOH) is the statutorily designated federal housing credit agency and is responsible for allocating low income housing tax credits in Arizona. According to ADOH, affordable housing developers typically sell the tax credits and use the proceeds to provide financing for a portion of housing development costs. In return for the tax credits, federal law requires that these properties comply with long-term rent and tenant income restrictions for at least 15 years. Each unit is afforded a maximum permitted gross rent, which varies depending on a number of factors, including family size and income. Gross rent includes rent, utility allowance and nonoptional charges such as trash collection service.

According to the Arizona Multihousing Association, Arizona is one of two states that allows political subdivisions to impose a rent tax. ADOH recently inquired to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) whether a rent tax imposed by a city, town, county or special taxing district is included in the calculation of gross rent under Section 42 (g)(2)(B)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS concluded the rent tax should be included in the gross rent calculation.

If a city, town or special taxing district levies a transaction privilege tax on rent, property owners cannot require a tenant to pay the tax if the tenant’s monthly payment would exceed the maximum permitted gross rent. As a result, a property owner would be liable for the tax payment.

This is from a legislative summary of 2006’s Senate Bill 1137, which was designed to exempt the property owner for the rent taxes charged by Arizona cities. SB 1137 didn’t really get anywhere and became a bill about AHCCCS and elder care by virtue of a strike-all when it reached the House.

But the explanation is right there: the apartment owners don’t want to be stuck paying the taxes for Section 42 affordable housing, because that would cut into their profits.

So here’s one thing the city council is considering to avoid cutting crucial public services:

Letcher has proposed a number of “revenue enhancements,” as the politicians like to call ‘em these days. There’s a tricky new quasi-property tax on Tucson Water that’s supposed to raise $1.6 million, an increase in the hotel bed tax that’s supposed to generate $1.8 million and an advertising tax that’s supposed to raise $964,000.

But the money shot is charging landlords a 2 percent tax on their rent payments, which would bring in an estimated $12 million a year.

The rental tax is used in many other communities. Our sources tell us that it used to be charged in Tucson, but it was repealed as a sort of trade-off when state lawmakers started making landlords pay more in property taxes. Those lawmakers, a few years later, changed their minds and gave landlords a property-tax break, but the city never went back to charging landlords their 2 percent tax.

Even if it’s fairly standard tax, council members are still facing a major political fight. When the previous council toyed with this idea, the Arizona Multihousing Association dropped fliers all over town explaining that the council wanted to hike residents’ taxes. They offered box lunches and bus rides to City Hall for a cantankerous budget hearing that made it clear that supporting a rental tax would generate political headaches.

My apartment building has flyers on every gate warning us that “The Tucson City Council Wants to Raise YOUR Rent” and telling us, as this Craigslist posting does, that the scary tax is gonna get us!!

Problem is, though, the morons around here simply freak out at the word “tax” of any kind. The organizations behind this know full well that the same “Teabaggers” who were out in force on April 15 are the kind of people who consider any tax imposed by a democratically elected representative government to “taxation without representation” and in the middle of that gasoline they’re tossing around lit matches.

These are the groups who are, supposedly, looking out for the poor renters in Tucson:

Arizona Association of Manufactured Home and R.V. Owners
Arizona Multihousing Association
Arizona Rental Property Owners and Landlords Association
Arizona Real Estate Investors Association
Casa Maria Tucson
Manufactured Housing Communities of Arizona
Smart United Business Strategies, Inc
Tucson Association of REALTORS®

Uh, yeah. The folks who had nothing at all to do with any economic problems in the past coughhousingbubblecough and who have no ulterior motives at all save for their concern for impoverished renters.

Which is why the Arizona Multihousing Association is pushing their members to relax the rules on late fees and evictions, because they care about the welfare of renters in these trying times of economic downtu– oh, wait! They’re actually doing nothing of the sort!

Instead, some of the efforts of the Arizona Multihousing Association in recent years have included, oh, such charming notions as placing victims of domestic violence in further danger by fighting a state bill that would make it easier for them to break a lease:

State senators are being asked to weigh landlord profits against the lives of domestic-violence victims.

Without dissent, members of the Senate Committee on Public Safety and Human Services approved legislation Thursday to allow victims of domestic violence to break a lease without a financial penalty.

But SB 1227 still faces a challenge from the Arizona Multihousing Association. The group, which represents landlords, believes the measure would make it too easy for people to evade their obligations.

Their argument is not swaying Sen. Jim Waring, R-Phoenix. He said the association, while insisting it is willing to help victims, has been dragging its feet.

“I have to tell you, if it comes down to them losing a few bucks or potentially a woman losing her life … I wouldn’t want that on my conscience,” he said.

The problem, according to Chris Groinger, an advocate with the Coalition Against Domestic Violence, is women who have left abusive relationships sometimes are tracked down by the former spouse or boyfriend.
At that point, having used what resources they have, the women are in no position to abandon their apartments, losing their security deposit and forfeiting any other funds being held — money they would need to find a new place.

But don’t worry, Tucson renters, these folks have your best interests at heart! After all, just look at what they said back in 2006 about the wonderfully healthy state of renting in the metro Phoenix area:

The study of large apartments in 29 cities shows that Phoenix-area rents in the second quarter surged 7.4 percent compared with the same period the year before, according to Novato, Calif.-based RealFacts Inc. The average Valley apartment rent was $783. [...]

The survey showed that the Valley’s second-quarter vacancy rate was 5.1 percent, down from 7.5 percent a year ago. “Our apartment market has so much momentum right now,” said Pete TeKampe, a senior investment associate with Marcus & Millichap.

Now, apartment owners in desirable locations don’t have to resort to such freebies, although rental incentives haven’t disappeared entirely. “We’re turning to a more healthy market,” said Terry Feinberg, president of the Arizona Multihousing Association. “The rental market has improved because of the increased (price) in starter homes and the cost difference between buying and renting.”

How do these people define “a more healthy market”? Oh, yeah! A 7.4 annual increase in rents! That’s good momentum right there, says Pete TeKampe!

The same Pete TeKampe who, by the way, said something different in 2008:

Taking a landlord to court can be “too onerous and expensive” for renters, said Pete TeKampe, who is on the board of directors for the Arizona Multihousing Association, the trade association for the state’s apartment and rental housing industry.

The recent housing boom in Maricopa and Pinal counties created an “overheated, overhyped, overspeculated” market, with many buyers being out-of-state investors, said TeKampe, who is also the vice president of investments with the real-estate firm of Marcus & Millichap.

Amateur investors thought they would get rich quick by snapping up a cluster of properties to flip down the road, but when the housing bubble burst, they were caught off guard.

Now, the rental rates landlords are able to generate in the current reality-based market don’t mesh with the inflated values for which houses were originally purchased.

That disconnect is partly what has driven the continued wave of rental foreclosures.

“All boats ride with the tide,” TeKampe said, “and when the tide goes down, you see who’s swimming naked.”

But… gosh… wait. How could it be an “overheated, overhyped, overspeculated market” when he previously boasted about the “momentum” and his colleague at the Arizona Multihousing Association told us the economy was strong market was healthy?

Could it possibly be that the Arizona Multihousing Association — a trade association whose “members are developers, owners, and managers of apartments or other rental housing” — doesn’t really have the best interests of the renters at heart, but rather the apartment owners??

Of course, the real issue is whether low-income renters — the people who AMA say they care about, even though they really represent the companies who believe 7.4% rent increases per year are “healthy” — are going to benefit more from having $155 [*] in their pockets at the end of the year, or if they’re going to be better off with the city being able to maintain $12 million dollars in social services that will go to benefit a lot of low-income renters…and not very many landlords.

It won’t be presented that way, of course, because AMA knows it can just say “zomg rent taxes!” and the Chicken Littles will run around shrieking on cue.

[*] The AMA’s web site states that Tucson’s average rent is $648, so you’ve got to wonder why the “NO RENT TAX” site uses examples of $800 and $1200 rents. Well, okay, you don’t really have to wonder.

So I stumbled onto the blog of literary agent Nathan Bransford, who last week did this thing called Be an Agent For a Day for which he posted 50 sample queries of the type he receives, and asked the readers of his blog to decide which authors — up to 5 of them — they would ask for partial manuscripts. The others get rejected.

So I read through all 50 queries — well, some I read through, and some I could just scan briefly before making my decision to reject — and then read the comments, too, because those are really interesting as well.

My five picks were were:

• #9, IF IT AIN’T BROKE (YA)
• #19, TRANSFORMING FEMINISMS (non-fiction)
• #29, THE CAT (SCAN) IS OUT OF THE BAG (non-fiction)
• #38, BIRTHRIGHT (YA)
• #46, SHIFTER (YA)

Of course, my choices don’t count, because I discovered this a little too late, but that doesn’t matter. Oh, and on Monday, Bransford is going to reveal which of the queries (some of which may be fakes) actually were published.

What I did discover from reading the comments — and thus the “votes” and rejection/acceptance letters of the other people participating — will be of no surprise to anyone who’s ever worked a slush pile before:

• The vast majority of writers (judging from the agents-for-a-day) do not know how to compose a decent rejection letter or request for a partial. There were some absolutely horrible and unprofessional responses there, and not just the rude ones or the ones where the agent-for-a-day didn’t follow the directions. So many clueless attempts to respond “fairly” or “with understanding” that just look stupid.
• The vast majority of writers do not know how to follow simple directions. This is crucial in an industry in which submission guidelines are vital and must be followed to the letter. Bransford clearly wrote in the rules, 6. For the purposes of this contest you are looking for queries that demonstrate publishable potential, not necessarily your genres of interest. But I saw countless responses of the form “I’m sorry, I don’t handle this genre.” A total failure to follow simple directions. (Bransford discusses this in a followup post.)
• The vast majority of fiction writers freak the fuck out at the concept of non-fiction, which shuts down their fragile novelist brains. Time and time again, when confronted with non-fiction queries, the agents-for-a-day simply said nonsense such as “I never read non-fiction” and refused even touch those queries. What the heck is wrong with you if you want to be a writer and yet make the absurd claim that you never read non-fiction while recoiling like a vampire from a cross?

Just to add, I want to credit Nick Mamatas and Seth Cully for their insights in reading slush which definitely informed my own meager — but better than the average agent-for-a-day — skills at looking at queries. Any bad judgments on my part are, of course, not the fault of these worthy gentlemen but rather despite their wise counsel.

Update: Oh, and by the way, I have zero confidence that I picked any of the books that actually got published. But at least I followed the directions better than some people did!

Update 2: So here’s the form letters I’d use:

Subject: PASS: Some Book Title

Author, thanks, but it’s not for me.

And:

Subject: SEND PARTIAL: Some Book Title

Author, your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to read the first 50 pages.

And yes, I am once more stealing from Nick Mamatas there.

The Tucson Citizen — wow, they’re still publishing? — repeats the same the Daily Star did yesterday, when their headline proclaims:

Deputies on prowl for cross-dressing bank robber

A man dressed in drag who robbed a Northwest Side bank branch April 7 is being sought by Pima County sheriff’s detectives.

The man dressed as a woman walked up to a teller at Wells Fargo, 7080 N. Oracle Road, about 4:45 p.m., implied that he had a gun in his purse and demanded money, Deputy Dawn Barkman said.

Sigh.

The Tucson Citizen is the smaller (and possibly soon extinct) of Tucson’s two daily papers; the two newspapers share some common publishing infrastructure and it’s not at all unusual for a story from one of them to be picked up by the other.

David L. Teibel wrote the story for the Citizen; he can be emailed at dteibel@tucsoncitizen.com.

Update: KOLD-TV’s television broadcast (view the video) also says “police are looking for a cross-dressing bank robber”.

Sigh.