Guests - Betsy Smith, Jay Tolkoff
Betsy Brantner-Smith: Tucson’s Fourth Avenue Is Becoming a Test of Local Leadership
Betsy Brantner-Smith of the National Police Association joined Kathleen Winn with the election approaching and Tucson’s downtown problems becoming harder for local leaders to dismiss.
The immediate focus was Fourth Avenue, where Chef Maria Mazon of Boca Tacos recently asked a simple question publicly: why are people no longer coming?
For Smith, the answer cannot be reduced to one factor.
Parking is difficult. Some meters are broken or hard to read. Visitors worry about crime. Homelessness and open drug use have become highly visible. Panhandling can be aggressive. Businesses are dealing with conditions that make customers think twice before spending an evening downtown.
Smith said Mazon has reported that weekend sales have fallen dramatically and that she no longer allows staff members to walk to their cars alone because of safety concerns.
That, Smith argued, should immediately get the attention of city government.
Instead, when Fourth Avenue business owners approached Tucson officials seeking help, Smith said the response was essentially that the businesses should organize and work on the problem themselves.
For Winn and Smith, that misses the point.
A restaurant owner’s job is to run a restaurant.
“I don’t have time to be an activist,” Smith paraphrased Mazon’s frustration. “I’m trying to run a business.”
Crime, Homelessness and the Customer Experience
Smith described taking out-of-town guests through downtown Tucson and pointing out the deterioration she sees.
Instead of showcasing only the restaurants, nightlife and historic character of the area, she said visitors increasingly notice people apparently under the influence of drugs, unsafe transportation areas, public disorder and the remnants of a homelessness crisis local government has failed to solve.
The conversation also returned to violent incidents around downtown transportation areas and the broader concern that free transit has not necessarily translated into safer transit.
Smith argued that the problem becomes especially obvious when people arrive on Fourth Avenue expecting an enjoyable evening but encounter broken parking equipment, public drug use or aggressive behavior before they ever reach a restaurant.
That affects every business in the corridor.
The question is not simply whether Tucson has social problems. Every major city does.
The question is whether local government is creating an environment where businesses can operate and customers feel safe enough to return.
Boca Tacos and the Cost of Being Openly Political
Smith added another uncomfortable factor.
Some Fourth Avenue businesses openly display political messages that insult or alienate a substantial portion of the potential customer base.
Signs attacking ICE, Donald Trump or Republicans may reflect the beliefs of the owner, but Smith argued that business owners should understand the commercial consequences.
She invoked Michael Jordan’s famous observation that Republicans buy sneakers too.
“Republicans spend their money at your businesses too,” Smith said.
If customers are told that people with their political beliefs are unwelcome, she argued, some of them will simply spend their money elsewhere.
Winn said the issue is larger than partisan messaging because it reflects a governing culture that has made ideological activism more important than basic municipal responsibilities.
Tucson residents should be able to disagree politically and still expect safe streets, functioning infrastructure and competent city services.
Smith Says Business Experience Is Missing From Local Government
Smith argued that part of the problem is the background of many Tucson and Pima County elected officials.
She described a political class dominated by activists, government employees and people who have spent much of their careers inside public institutions rather than running businesses.
That matters because a private business cannot simply raise taxes when expenses go up.
It has to attract customers, make payroll, control costs and provide something people voluntarily purchase.
Smith contrasted that with Pima County Supervisor Steve Christie, whom she described as unusual on the board because of his long private-sector business experience.
Business owners on Fourth Avenue, she argued, need government officials who understand what happens when foot traffic drops, employees feel unsafe and operating costs continue climbing.
A city cannot tell a restaurant to hire private security, solve homelessness around its storefront, organize neighboring merchants and absorb falling sales while continuing to pay taxes and fees.
Tucson Police Staffing Becomes Part of the Equation
Smith tied the Fourth Avenue crisis directly to Tucson Police Department staffing.
She argued that TPD remains dramatically understaffed relative to the city’s growth and said staffing levels are comparable to what Tucson had decades ago.
That makes sustained police presence difficult.
Winn contrasted the shortage of officers with other city spending priorities and argued that public safety should be one of the most basic functions government performs.
If residents and visitors do not feel safe, the damage spreads.
Restaurants lose customers.
Retailers lose foot traffic.
Employers become reluctant to invest.
People who can spend their money elsewhere do so.
“The reason that TPD is not around on Fourth Avenue is because not only are they underfunded, they are wildly short-staffed,” Smith said.
For her, that is not an abstract budget question. It is part of what Fourth Avenue businesses are experiencing every day.
District 5 and Andres Cano
The discussion expanded from Tucson city government to Pima County Supervisor District 5.
Smith sharply criticized Supervisor Andres Cano, who was appointed to the seat rather than initially elected to it.
She characterized Cano as an activist whose record does not demonstrate the business or public-safety experience she believes the district needs.
Smith instead argued that voters should consider Republican challenger Jeff Rhodes, whom she described as someone with experience in business and an understanding of law, government and financial responsibility.
Her larger argument was that District 5 voters should not simply default to the political machine that has controlled the area for years.
Winn similarly criticized the culture surrounding the Board of Supervisors, including symbolic priorities such as land acknowledgments while roads, public safety and homelessness remain unresolved.
Both women argued that symbolism becomes a problem when it replaces basic governance.
Smith Questions Pima County’s Relationship With Nonprofits
Smith also criticized comments from Cano celebrating Pima County’s ability to financially support nonprofit organizations.
The objection was not that nonprofits are inherently bad.
It was that taxpayers should ask why government is continuously collecting more money and redistributing it through nongovernmental organizations while many core public problems remain unsolved.
Winn connected that concern to Proposition 425, which she has repeatedly described as a request for significantly greater spending authority.
Their position was straightforward: before county leaders receive more financial flexibility, voters should examine what they have done with the resources they already control.
If roads remain poor, homelessness persists, crime remains a concern and taxpayers continue seeing higher bills, more spending authority should not be automatic.
Downtown Tucson Is a Countywide Problem
Smith rejected the idea that people who live outside downtown Tucson should ignore Fourth Avenue.
She lives outside the city center but considers downtown part of the broader Tucson experience.
People in Oro Valley, Marana, Green Valley and unincorporated Pima County still eat downtown, attend events, bring visitors into Tucson and care about the economic health of the region.
“We’re losing this wonderful city and wonderful county,” Smith said, blaming drugs, crime and local policy.
The decline of a downtown commercial district eventually affects the entire region.
A healthy downtown attracts visitors and investment.
A deteriorating downtown becomes a warning to both.
LD20, Congressional District 7 and the Politics of Responsibility
Smith later clarified that the Fourth Avenue area falls within Legislative District 20 and Congressional District 7.
Both are heavily Democratic.
That matters, she argued, because local leaders cannot constantly blame national Republicans for conditions produced under years of local Democratic control.
If residents dislike the condition of the streets, the shortage of police, the response to homelessness or the business climate, Smith believes they should examine the officials who actually govern those areas.
Winn and Smith also discussed the distinction between traditional Democrats and the socialist wing of the party.
Winn said she increasingly encounters longtime Democrats who believe the party has moved away from their values, particularly on family, religion and public safety.
Smith agreed that national political branding can obscure what is happening locally.
A voter may dislike Donald Trump and still conclude that Tucson needs different leadership.
Those are separate questions.
Schools, Socialism and a Generation That Never Lived Through Communism
The conversation moved from local politics to ideology.
Winn recounted meeting a man from a communist country who told her Americans are failing to explain communism to younger generations.
Smith agreed and argued that schools increasingly present socialism sympathetically without fully teaching its historical consequences.
For both women, the concern is generational.
Many younger voters never experienced the Cold War.
They did not grow up under the constant awareness of the Soviet Union.
Communism can therefore sound theoretical rather than historical.
Winn argued that the political divide is increasingly no longer simply Republican versus Democrat but free-market constitutional government versus a growing socialist worldview.
Smith said conservatives need to make that case clearly rather than assuming younger Americans already understand it.
Ruben Gallego’s Leadership PAC Comes Under Scrutiny
The discussion then turned to U.S. Sen. Ruben Gallego.
Smith said the Justice Department had subpoenaed records associated with a leadership PAC connected to Gallego as part of an investigation into the personal use of campaign funds.
The allegations discussed included travel, entertainment expenses and child-care reimbursements.
Smith emphasized reports involving a political committee created with Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, jokingly referring to it as the “Swalago Victory Fund.”
Among the expenses discussed were trips involving family members, Super Bowl tickets and more than $18,000 in child-care reimbursements over several years, including a payment to Gallego’s mother-in-law.
Winn and Smith treated those expenditures as serious questions about whether political money had been used for legitimate campaign purposes.
The investigation itself, however, remains an investigation. Allegations and subpoenas are not convictions, and the pair acknowledged that the legal process takes time.
Their broader argument was that campaign-finance rules should apply regardless of party.
Gallego, Swalwell and the Politics of Personal Spending
Smith argued that the controversy illustrates why voters should scrutinize political committees that operate outside the most visible campaign accounts.
Leadership PACs can raise and spend money for political purposes, but those purposes still must comply with campaign-finance rules.
The pair questioned whether family travel, child care and entertainment expenses were legitimately connected to political activity.
They also mocked the close political relationship between Gallego and Swalwell, two Democrats they described as having once held greater national ambitions.
For Winn, the underlying issue was not the personalities.
It was accountability.
If campaign money is used improperly, politicians should not receive a pass because they are prominent members of one party or another.
California’s Governor Race and the Question of Competence
The Gallego discussion briefly expanded to California politics.
Smith contrasted Republican Steve Hilton with Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, arguing that Hilton was focusing on policy and solutions while Becerra was leaning heavily on anti-Trump messaging.
She also criticized California’s Democratic leadership and suggested that the state’s political direction may be less secure than national observers assume.
The broader theme remained consistent: voters should evaluate results rather than party branding.
If a state or city is experiencing worsening public safety, high costs and declining confidence in government, repeating the same political choices should not be automatic.
The Marana ICE Facility and the Fight Over Immigration Enforcement
Smith also explained the controversy surrounding a detention facility in Marana.
She said a private company, MTC, operates a former state-prison facility that is being used as a temporary holding location for people detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Smith emphasized that immigration cases involve different legal processes depending on the detainee’s status and claims.
Someone pursuing asylum may go through a different process from someone facing a standard removal case.
That requires facilities where detainees can be held while those cases proceed.
Smith argued that the Marana facility is designed to serve that function rather than placing immigration detainees in county jails or conventional prisons.
She also claimed that many of the most vocal protesters at Marana Town Council meetings are outside activists rather than local residents.
Her advice to residents was simple: attend the meetings and see the process firsthand.
Arizona Football, Voter Registration and the Election Countdown
Before Jay Tolkoff joined the conversation, Winn briefly turned to University of Arizona football and celebrated the Wildcats’ dominant win over Cincinnati.
Arizona accumulated more than 500 total yards, controlled the ball for more than 35 minutes and won 34-7.
Winn praised quarterback Noah Fifita not only as an athlete but as a person she believes represents the university well.
The football enthusiasm quickly gave way to the election calendar.
October 5 was the final day to register for the upcoming election.
Winn urged anyone uncertain about registration to verify it immediately through the appropriate voter-registration system or complete a paper form and deliver it to the recorder’s office.
Ballots were scheduled to begin going out within days.
Her message was that registration advantages are meaningless without turnout.
“Too big to rig” only works, she argued, if people actually vote.
Jay Tolkoff: Tucson Water Raises Rates While Reporting a Large Financial Gain
Jay Tolkoff joined Winn after digging into Tucson’s finances.
His first target was Tucson Water.
The department operates as an enterprise fund, meaning its finances are separated from the city’s ordinary governmental operations.
Tolkoff said he examined Tucson’s audited annual financial reports and found that Tucson Water reported revenues exceeding expenses by more than $72 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025.
He then pointed to approximately $42 million in depreciation.
Depreciation is a non-cash accounting expense that recognizes the declining value of long-lived assets over time.
Because it does not necessarily represent cash leaving the organization in that year, Tolkoff argued that the department’s underlying cash position was substantially stronger than the simple operating gain suggested.
His calculation put the figure at roughly $115 million.
“And we just received a rate increase,” Tolkoff said.
Winn noted that Tucson Water rates were scheduled to rise approximately 3.5 percent annually through 2030.
That created the obvious question: if the water utility is generating substantial positive cash flow, why are customers being charged more?
Tolkoff Says Tucson Water Is Among the Most Expensive in Arizona
Tolkoff said he also compared Tucson’s water rates with other Arizona communities and found Tucson near the high end.
He believed Flagstaff may be higher, but his larger concern was the combination of rising rates and healthy financial results.
Supporters of the increases can argue that the money is needed for infrastructure, future capital costs and system maintenance.
Tolkoff did not deny that water systems require long-term investment.
His complaint was transparency.
If taxpayers are being asked to pay more, they should be able to clearly understand why.
He also criticized the complexity of newer city financial reports, saying the 2025 document was far more difficult to follow than earlier reports despite his own experience reading financial statements.
For Tolkoff, that makes accountability harder.
County Customers Pay More
Winn highlighted another longstanding Tucson Water controversy: differential pricing between customers inside the city and those in unincorporated Pima County.
Tolkoff argued that when Tucson consolidated smaller water systems, customers were originally led to believe they would not eventually be charged differently simply because they lived outside city limits.
That promise, he said, did not hold.
Winn lives in the county and described the higher rates as punishment for her address.
The discussion reinforced their larger theme: government agencies repeatedly ask residents to trust them, then change the terms later.
Proposition 421 and the TEP Franchise Agreement
The next financial issue was Proposition 421, involving Tucson Electric Power’s franchise agreement with the City of Tucson.
Both Winn and Tolkoff made an important distinction.
They generally like TEP.
Their objection is not to the company providing electricity or to having a franchise agreement.
The concern is an additional approximately $2 million connected to city environmental and sustainability programs.
Winn called it money “baked into the cake.”
Tolkoff called it the equivalent of political pork.
In his view, the city is using renewal of a necessary utility agreement to extract funding for unrelated priorities.
“In the private sector we would call this extortion,” Tolkoff said.
Winn was less interested in the label than the consequence.
That $2 million has to come from somewhere.
Eventually, customers pay.
What Happens If Proposition 421 Fails?
Tolkoff initially worried that rejecting the proposition could leave Tucson without a workable franchise agreement.
Winn challenged that assumption and cited information from a listener indicating the current TEP franchise agreement remains in place through April 2027.
Under that scenario, Proposition 421 could fail and the city would still have time to negotiate a cleaner agreement and potentially return to voters with another proposal.
Tolkoff said that if the information was accurate, it would significantly affect his view.
That exchange was important because neither wanted voters to treat the issue as simply pro-TEP or anti-TEP.
The real question is whether Tucson should approve a 25-year franchise arrangement containing the additional $2 million component or insist on a new deal.
Winn described the current proposition as “half-baked lasagna.”
It might work.
But voters should ask whether Tucson can do better.
City Climate Spending and the Cost of Green Mandates
Tolkoff questioned why Tucson needs additional money for environmental programs when the city already reported spending approximately $161 million on climate-related initiatives.
He also cited a recent study he attributed to a former economic adviser from the Obama administration, saying the analysis concluded renewable-energy mandates had increased utility costs by approximately 17 percent.
Tolkoff supports renewable energy in principle.
His objection is forcing technology into widespread use before it is economically mature.
“I’m all in favor of renewable resources,” he said. “It’s just one big problem. Technology has not gotten to the point where it’s viable yet.”
He believes that will change.
Solar, wind, storage and other technologies will continue improving.
But public policy should account for current costs rather than assuming every environmentally attractive idea is economically efficient today.
Three Points and the Solar-Farm Debate
Tolkoff cited a proposed solar development near Three Points as an example.
He described a project encompassing roughly nine square miles of open land that would produce power for sale to TEP.
Residents, he said, are concerned about the loss of desert landscape and open range.
That creates a conflict frequently ignored in discussions of renewable energy.
Solar power reduces some environmental impacts while creating others.
Large projects require enormous amounts of land.
Transmission infrastructure follows.
Local communities carry much of the physical burden.
Tolkoff’s point was not that renewable energy should be rejected.
It was that every policy creates tradeoffs.
“Unintended Consequences” Often Mean Nobody Thought It Through
Tolkoff offered one of his broader business principles.
Government frequently excuses bad outcomes as “unintended consequences.”
In business, he said, that phrase often means somebody failed to think the proposal through.
A transportation policy encouraging bicycles sounds appealing until people consider plumbers, repair technicians, freight deliveries and workers who must cross an entire metro area.
If travel time doubles, labor costs rise.
Those costs eventually reach consumers.
“A good idea isn’t necessarily a good idea depending on what the consequences are,” Tolkoff said.
Winn agreed that not every consequence can be predicted, but argued that competent leadership should at least build contingencies and listen to people who understand implementation.
Ward 6 Spending, Koozies and Political Messaging
Tolkoff then raised a smaller expenditure that he believes reveals a larger problem.
He said Ward 6 Council Member Miranda Schubert’s office spent more than $1,400 on beverage koozies bearing her name or political branding.
Winn questioned whether taxpayer-funded discretionary money should be used for something resembling political promotion.
Tolkoff broadened the concern.
He said elected officials have repeatedly used discretionary accounts to support causes closely aligned with their personal politics.
As another example, he pointed to a gallery operating from the Ward 6 office that displays protest signs, including material associated with “No Kings” demonstrations.
“That’s a political statement,” Tolkoff said. “That’s not a gallery.”
He recalled neighborhood groups previously being told they could not host candidate forums in public ward facilities because government property could not be used for political purposes.
If that standard applies to candidates, he argued, it should also apply to political displays favored by the officeholder.
Winn and Tolkoff raised similar questions about other public political displays, including the use of government funds for ideological banners.
Their complaint was consistency.
Government cannot invoke neutrality when restricting one political activity and then finance another.
School Bonds and the Pressure on Property Taxpayers
With ballots about to arrive, Winn and Tolkoff began looking at the number of local bond and spending questions voters will face.
Different school districts and special districts will have different propositions depending on where a voter lives.
Tanque Verde, Vail, Northwest Fire and other jurisdictions were among those discussed.
Winn worried about the cumulative burden.
Each request may sound modest in isolation.
Combined with higher assessed property values, water increases, utility costs and county spending proposals, the total becomes significant.
A homeowner may support schools, roads, fire protection and public safety while still reaching a point where the household budget cannot absorb another increase.
Tolkoff argued that government too often presents more money as the answer before proving existing money is being used efficiently.
TUSD Enrollment: The Demographic Problem Nobody Can Tax Away
Tolkoff returned to his work on a Tucson Unified School District school-closure advisory committee.
His conclusion is that TUSD’s problem is fundamentally demographic.
There simply are not as many children as there once were.
He said the number of school-age children living within district boundaries has fallen dramatically compared with the era when TUSD enrollment exceeded 60,000.
That makes consolidation inevitable.
Schools have fixed costs whether they are full or half-empty.
Buildings still require maintenance.
Utilities still must be paid.
Administrative structures remain.
At some point, maintaining too many campuses for too few students becomes financially impossible.
Tolkoff pushed back against claims that Empowerment Scholarship Accounts are the primary reason for TUSD’s enrollment decline.
“People just aren’t having children,” he said.
School choice may affect where some students attend, but demographics are the larger force.
TUSD Spending Versus Academic Results
Tolkoff also compared per-student spending among several local districts.
He cautioned that some of the figures he found came through artificial-intelligence-assisted research and therefore deserved verification, but the pattern concerned him.
His rough figures placed TUSD spending near $17,000 per student, while Catalina Foothills was closer to $10,000 per student and produced stronger academic results.
Amphitheater and Tanque Verde were also cited as examples of districts spending less while achieving better outcomes on some measures.
Tolkoff acknowledged that the comparison is not perfectly apples-to-apples.
TUSD serves larger numbers of high-needs students, including children requiring special education and students who have struggled elsewhere.
Those realities cost money.
But he rejected the claim that poor results can always be solved by increasing funding.
“More money is not necessarily the answer,” he said.
Gospel Rescue Mission as a Different Model
Tolkoff used homelessness to make the same point.
He praised Gospel Rescue Mission for helping thousands of people move off the streets and into stable housing without relying on government money.
Meanwhile, he argued, Tucson has spent tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on homelessness without producing comparable visible improvement.
The programs are not directly equivalent, but for Tolkoff they illustrate a philosophical divide.
Government measures success by money allocated.
Private organizations are more likely to be judged by outcomes.
He wants public agencies held to the same standard.
Proposition 425: Tolkoff Says Pima County Wants a Blank Check
The discussion ultimately returned to Proposition 425.
Tolkoff is actively leading the campaign against it.
His website is NoOnProp425.org, and he is seeking donations ranging from small contributions to larger checks from property owners who believe the measure could significantly raise their future tax burden.
Tolkoff characterized the proposition as giving Pima County substantially greater spending authority—roughly $610 million by the figure discussed during the show.
Winn called it a “blank check.”
Both rejected the argument that the proposition should be evaluated only by whether it immediately changes a tax rate.
Spending authority eventually has to be financed.
If county government commits itself to larger recurring expenditures, taxpayers ultimately bear those costs through property taxes, fees or other revenue.
The $122,000 Question
Tolkoff used a Board of Supervisors discussion to illustrate the attitude he finds troubling.
He recalled Supervisor Matt Heinz reacting to debate over a roughly $122,000 outside-agency contract by questioning why the board was spending so much time discussing that amount when the county spends tens of millions elsewhere.
For Tolkoff, that is exactly backward.
“It’s $122,000,” he said.
A public official should care precisely because it is taxpayer money.
The fact that government spends billions does not make $122,000 meaningless.
Winn called it desensitization.
Once elected officials stop treating smaller expenditures as real money, the culture of government changes.
Rising Property Values Do Not Mean Homeowners Have More Cash
Tolkoff noted that rising property values are incorporated into property-tax calculations.
Winn pushed back against the idea that a higher home value automatically makes the owner richer in a practical sense.
A house is worth more on paper.
That does not put money in the homeowner’s checking account unless the property is sold or borrowed against.
Meanwhile, the tax bill arrives every year.
For retirees, fixed-income households and families who intend to remain in their homes, rising values can therefore feel less like wealth and more like a larger annual obligation.
Winn said she had just received her own property-tax bill and it had gone up.
Tolkoff said his had increased dramatically as well.
That makes every ballot proposition involving money more consequential.
City Fees, the Rainy Day Fund and the Cost of Government
Tolkoff closed by criticizing Tucson’s broader fiscal approach.
He said the city relied heavily on approximately $62 million from its rainy-day fund while describing the budget as balanced.
At the same time, residents have faced increases in garbage fees, water rates, parking costs and other charges.
For Tolkoff, those are taxes by another name from the perspective of the household paying them.
Government can say it did not raise a particular tax rate.
The family budget still feels the increase.
Winn’s final argument was that voters need to look beyond campaign language and study every proposition individually.
There is a great deal of money on the ballot.
Some proposals may deserve support.
Others may not.
But none should receive a yes vote simply because government says it needs more.
The question is what taxpayers are getting in return.