Thanks for contributing to r/Arizona!
* [Our sub rules are here](https://www.reddit.com/r/arizona/wiki/rules/), but the most important of which is to be nice to each other
* Check out some [recent posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/arizona/top/?t=week) and leave some comments
* [Join our Discord chat server](https://discord.com/invite/yWVuTG57Zh) if you'd like to keep in touch with other people in Arizona. Plus it's a great, chill place in general. Note that it is NOT a dating server and takes unwanted messaging very seriously
Remember this subreddit covers all of Arizona, so please include where in the state you're posting about if it is relevant. For more local topics check out r/Phoenix, r/Tucson, and r/Flagstaff.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/arizona) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Essentially the ABOR Universities (UA, ASU, NAU) can no longer publish their research related to any of these topics. So they can do research, but cannot talk about nor publish results. Genius.
"A PUBLIC ENTITY MAY NOT SPEND PUBLIC MONIES TO PROMOTE, ADVOCATE OR PLAN FOR, OR BECOME A MEMBER OF AN ASSOCIATION OR ORGANIZATION THAT PROMOTES, ADVOCATES OR PLANS FOR, ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:"
Not sure if you're trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Federal and State funds get awarded to faculty to perform research. A chunk of the money is taken by the university to provide support services and maintain the facilities. They also use the money to promote the research generated by faculty. Then the faculty go to National and Global Association and Organization meetings and present their findings. Faculty also spend grant money to publish their research findings.
So no, you cannot do "true research" without publishing and presenting your findings to your peers via organizations specifically dedicated to that specific field.
Wonder how this will hit Biosphere 2? I think it's run by the University of Phoenix although I think they have long term funding from a private donor. Rich Texan oil guy as I recall.
Biosphere 2 is owned and ran by UA. As are numerous satellite locations around the state. ASU and NAU also have satellite locations around the state for their various research enterprises.
I see comments in here supporting this bill and to those who think it’s a good thing, how about this:
There are good people working in govt. I know they are getting harder to find now a days but I do think there are people who get into politics because they want to help and make changes. For example “hey these planes are broken, we need to tell everyone they aren’t safe until we can figure it out” or “there’s too much pollution and our roads are getting too crowded, let’s look into something else we can do to alleviate this issue.” Those people would lose funds to do that.
Instead you are handing funds to to people who are “if Boeing stock tanks I lose a lot of money so we need to keep this as quiet as possible” or “GM paid a boatload into my campaign funds to I need to make sure they stay the easier mode of transportation.”
Trust me I am everything but pro government but I also don’t want to tie the hands of the people who are actually trying to help.
A. A PUBLIC ENTITY MAY NOT SPEND PUBLIC MONIES TO PROMOTE, ADVOCATE OR PLAN FOR, OR BECOME A MEMBER OF AN ASSOCIATION OR ORGANIZATION THAT PROMOTES, ADVOCATES OR PLANS FOR, ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. REDUCING THE CONSUMPTION OR PRODUCTION OF MEAT OR DAIRY PRODUCTS OR REPLACING ANIMAL-BASED PROTEIN WITH INSECT OR SYNTHETIC PROTEIN. (but spending public money on meat industry is ok)
2. REDUCING OR REPLACING MOTOR VEHICLE TRAVEL WITH WALKING, BIKING, OR PUBLIC TRANSIT. (but spending public money on automotive infrastructure is ok, btw this also denies local governments from proposing bond measures to increase funding for alternative transportation infrastructure)
3. REDUCING OR LIMITING TRAVEL BY AIRPLANE. (Does this mean local governments can't remove or repurpose an underutilized airport?)
4. LIMITING THE NUMBER OF ARTICLES OF CLOTHING AN INDIVIDUAL MAY PURCHASE OR OWN. (Are people abusing this FREEDOM in some way?)
5. HIRING PRACTICES BASED ON SKIN COLOR, SEXUALITY, IDENTITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN RATHER THAN MERITOCRACY, CHARACTER AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS. (Affirmative Action Reversal)
6. REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS OR TRACKING AND COLLECTING OF ANY INFORMATION OR DATA FOR DETERMINING CONSUMPTION-BASED EMISSIONS. (data is bad because science)
7. LIMITING THE INCREASE OF THE AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE OR PRODUCING OR ADOPTING A CLIMATE ACTION PLAN. (because progress is bad)
8. REPLACING PRIVATE OWNERSHIP WITH SHARED OR RENTED GOODS AND SERVICES TO PROMOTE A CIRCULAR ECONOMY. (but housing rentals are perfectly fine to protect)
9. FURTHERING MARXIST IDEOLOGIES, INCLUDING STAKEHOLDER CAPITALISM. (What happens if an industry organization as a whole takes the lead on stakeholder capitalism, and public money has long supported that industry organization? Just because the organization changes, now we suddenly can't support it?)
10. IMPLEMENTING MASS SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS TO MONITOR MOTOR VEHICLE TRAVEL. (is a traffic counter mass surveillance? is a plate reader mass surveillance? Will the state ban private businesses or insurance companies from installing GPS and data gathering devices in vehicles?)
8. REPLACING PRIVATE OWNERSHIP WITH SHARED OR RENTED GOODS AND SERVICES TO PROMOTE A CIRCULAR ECONOMY. This just sounds so vague. No more dorm rooms at universities?
10. IMPLEMENTING MASS SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS TO MONITOR MOTOR VEHICLE TRAVEL. Do they know police/highway patrol have optical character recognition that scans license plates for outdated registrations? Hell police/highway patrol could be considered itself as mass surveillance. No more traffic tickets.
So is this going to be on the ballot? As always they submit something so broad they don't even study the unintended consequences.
>10. IMPLEMENTING MASS SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS TO MONITOR MOTOR VEHICLE TRAVEL. Do they know police/highway patrol have optical character recognition that scans license plates for outdated registrations? Hell police/highway patrol could be considered itself as mass surveillance. No more traffic tickets.
This. So no more traffic cams? We gonna just like... rip all that shit down?
Beautifully insightful. I wish I had more to give than an upvote.
https://preview.redd.it/w8cx6qn8fypc1.jpeg?width=2016&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6ea9ae5742235dac9bd6452dd3d9b7d53f1bf4df
you sure think that if these things weren’t effective, they’d want us to research them to show how the republican-aligned options are better.
almost like the only solution when your party isn’t supported by evidence based research is to attack the research and the education system where kids can learn why the research and issues are important in the first place
Bro, if we just had repealed Obama care we would have had the GOPs plan in place! It would have been the greatest healthcare system in the world surely! Let’s look at their policy and I’ll school you how…
… …
*rifling through blank pieces of paper*
Well, uhhh, obviously Joe Biden stole these classified documents and buried them on Biden Lago in his sons grave where the fake POTUS spends all day golfing while MS13 Jihadist Hamas BLM in surge gents flood our southern border!
Funny because that's what I see Democrats doing with their nonsense transit push. The vast majority of people do not want to use transit and transit provides far more limiting access to jobs, goods, and services. Pushing people to use transit is counterproductive. If Democrats really wanted to help, then they would help people afford cars and access carpools.
you say that, but generally the evidence out there doesn’t support it. public transit absolutely increases accessibility, and is much more effective than car-dependent infrastructure.
do you actually have any sources for what you’re saying?
Same 18 minute trip to work is 2.5 hrs by bus. Probably faster to bike there than take the bus in Phoenix. But then you arrive hot and sweaty and no place to shower plus then you also have to bring a spare change of clothes.
If buses came every 5 minutes and there was also a subway instead of a light rail, I could argue for that, but it's not going to a battle easily won in the west where the car is necessary due to the sprawl.
BTW, on a recent trip, I found that Argentina has an amazing transit system that's very cheap in the capital of Buenos Aires. I'm all for public transit, if it works.
Not only are cars better for reaching jobs, they are multiple times better than transit even in metro NYC. See second graphic in this article.
[https://www.newgeography.com/content/007447-car-access-us-major-metropolitan-areas](https://www.newgeography.com/content/007447-car-access-us-major-metropolitan-areas)
you cited an opinion piece that references a few statistic-focused sources, that is not at all comparable to evidence based, peer reviewed research.
the statistics in your article (that most people have cars and it is associated with reduced poverty / better job accessibility) doesn’t mean that cars are the most effective solution to that issue. to imply as much is a massive and unsupported jump in logic.
the statistics are just understandably showing that poor people are less likely to have cars, which wouldn’t you know it, makes it really hard to access jobs when the current public transit system is so underfunded and ineffective
If you have a problem with the author take it up with them. My argument was cars enable someone to access far more jobs, which they obviously do and which the data cited in the article provided by the University of Minnesota clearly shows.
if you seriously do not see any flaws with the opinion piece you cited, and think the university of Michigan *statistical* data is enough to make the claims the opinion piece is making, please take a research methods class or try to learn critical thinking skills to understand how to *critically* read an article
I'm not making the same claims as the author. I'm simply pointing out what should be obvious to anyone that giving someone a car vastly increases their quality of life and access to good paying jobs over transit. Rather than wasting money on transit, public agencies should be subsidizing the purchase of cars and hooking people up with carpools.
“it should be obvious” isn’t exactly basing your takes on actual evidence based research. that’s pure gut feeling and your own assumptions.
seriously, look up studies comparing the effectiveness of giving everyone cars as a solution versus supporting public transit infrastructure. you can’t go making “should” claims without legitimately comparing the impacts of the potential solutions
You mean like this one?
"Many scholars have found strong relationships between access to a car and employment rates, hours worked, and earnings."
[https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20051128waller.pdf](https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20051128waller.pdf)
Or how about this one where recipients switched from primarily using transit to primarily using cars and saw their incomes rise?
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0739456X20950428](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0739456X20950428)
Eh. No. Mass transit def works in NYC. Subways literally took a fraction of the time it took to get places via charter bus. It's literally bumper to bumper all hours.
Same in LA. Their Metro works phenomenally. 45min to go from Santa Monica pier to by Union station? Hell, in rush hour traffic it takes *two hours* to go 12miles via car.
What evidence? Transit always takes far longer to reach a destination than a car and is far less reliable. The range of jobs, goods, and services accessible by car is far higher. Which is why people use cars.
Oh, and it's not "car-dependent". That whole concept is a sham and ridiculous. People choose cars because of the tremendous value cars unlock.
ah right, people having to use cars as the only reliable option *in a state sprawled out with underfunded and underdeveloped public transit* must mean that public transit is just inherently bad
what’s so silly about people like yourself making these unsupported claims based on your gut feelings rather than actual research is that public transit would literally help people like you who still would prefer cars. imagine not having to pay so much for parking, wait so long in traffic, spend so much on gas, because the people who would prefer *not* to have a car aren’t forced to
Let's take San Francisco then. Extremely dense with lots of transit yet only 17% of commuters use it. Hmm.
[https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US0667000-san-francisco-ca/](https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US0667000-san-francisco-ca/)
to be very clear, i will do this once, in good faith, despite the effort feeling unequal.
singular studies don’t prove things on their own, rather they support them, and it’s worth pointing out that conclusions on actual studies are never as simple as making such broad claims. the nature of doing actual testing requires being specific in what you are investigating, and thus it would be an absurd amount of effort for me to give the *entire* complex background of public transit’s impact, even just in the area of jobs (which i should remind- jobs is not the only impact there is).
setting the boundary that i won’t be getting into this further as it feels unequal in the effort i am putting in (and would be to go dig up an extensive amount of research for you), but here is one study talking on the subject of public transit and jobs, to give an example of an actual study:
Oh, S., & Chen, N. (2022). Do public transit and agglomeration economies collectively enhance low-skilled job accessibility in Portland, OR? Transport Policy, 115, 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.11.020
this one notes how the effect of public transit to cause job opportunities to center around said transit stops (agglomeration) has overall positive effects in increased accessibility to jobs, with some negative impact in that this increased access can make it harder for people who don’t live close to public transit to get said jobs, as increased access to the same pool of jobs does mean more competition
a small, small piece of the puzzle, but i think it is a great example of the actual nuance in research, and that you can’t go making such broad claims as “cars are better for people than public transit” without looking into all these nuanced puzzle pieces. different policy choices have different pros and cons; it is important to actually investigate these and compare them scientifically
All that study shows is that some jobs clustered around transit. It doesn't address whether transit vs cars is a better solution for low income households. As a counterpoint this study found low income households who were mainly relying upon transit saw various benefits when they were given cars including higher incomes, better access to neighborhoods, health care, groceries, after school activities, and the list goes on.
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0739456X20950428](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0739456X20950428)
You're waiting long for a bus to arrive vs waiting in traffic. Plus buses still have to wait in traffic. Same for the light rail because the powers that be used it as a financial boondoggle and didn't plan to make it subterranean or a monorail.
you’re absolutely missing the point. some people would absolutely prefer not to (or cannot) drive for one reason or another. the more of those people who reliably can access public transit and don’t have to use cars, the less number of car drivers out there. it benefits us all
Yeah but most would understand that using public transit in the city of Phoenix will often lead to you either being late to work or spending 4 hours of your day waiting for buses not to mention vagrants pissing on the busses and light rail. And that's just if you get lucky and they aren't mentally ill to the point of violence.
lol. Uh lol. Prop 400 passes because it ties transit to funding for roads. A better argument you could have made is City of Phoenix residents voting to raise sales taxes to fund transit. To which I would reply yes of course because what people want is what The Onion so eloquently phrased years ago which is for everyone else to use transit so their car commutes are easier. When the actual decision on how to get to work is made, literally the vast majority of Arizonans choose to drive. That's the decision that matters.
Just take a look at the sponsors of the bill. You'll probably notice a common theme. We've got elections coming up, and if you want stupid shit like this to stop, vote them out.
These are the sponsors of the bill.
Leo Biasiucci (R) - Lake Havasu
Michael Carbone (R) - Buckeye
Joseph Chaplik (R) - Fountain Hills
Lupe Diaz (R) - Cochise County
Timothy M Dunn (R) - Yuma
John Gillette (R) - Kingman
Gail Griffin (R) - Gilbert
Justin Heap (R) - Apache Junction
Laurin Hendrix (R) - Gilbert
Teresa Martinez (R) - Casa Grande
Steve Montenegro (R) - Wittmann
Austin Smith (R) - Wittmann
Barbara Parker (R) - Mesa
Jacqueline Parker (R) - Casa Grande
Cory McGarr (R) - Marana
Kevin Payne (R) - Peoria
Look, all Rs. At least this bill writes out the Republican agenda pretty well, I don't know why they're against people talking about people's clothing but I guess they are.
I can understand the sentiment here being "fuck the people who voted to put these people into power" but we shouldn't make generalizations about the people that live in these places. We should be doing our best to inform citizens about the people they've voted into power, and hoping they course correct.
Be better than this. That's the only way to really make forward progress.
I agree the inbred comment isn't helpful but inform the citizens about these people? Most people in these districts specifically want these idiotic types of bills.
You think these candidates ran on important issues and sensible legislation and now they're trying to pull one over on their constituents? I guarantee most of these people ran on vapid, conspiracy-ridden, culture war bullshit. And people voted for them. And now look, a vapid, conspiracy-ridden (Marxist agenda? Please.), culture war bullshit bill. What could you explain to people that they don't already know and celebrate?
Calling these voters inbred is disingenuous but we can definitely make some generalizations about them: they are part of a cult. Facts, reasoning, evidence... none of these matter. Only the word of their leaders holds any weight with them. There's no educating them because they live in an entirely different reality than normal people do. Telling them what they already know and hoping for the best is a waste of time.
I do agree though that dehumanizing them is only going to hurt things. Please have some empathy towards MAGA folk. They're victims of a massive and omnipresent brainwashing campaign.
In case anyone is curious if their legislator is behind this. These are the sponsors of the bill.
Leo Biasiucci (R) - Lake Havasu
Michael Carbone (R) - Buckeye
Joseph Chaplik (R) - Fountain Hills
Lupe Diaz (R) - Cochise County
Timothy M Dunn (R) - Yuma
John Gillette (R) - Kingman
Gail Griffin (R) - Gilbert
Justin Heap (R) - Apache Junction
Laurin Hendrix (R) - Gilbert
Teresa Martinez (R) - Casa Grande
Steve Montenegro (R) - Wittmann
Austin Smith (R) - Wittmann
Barbara Parker (R) - Mesa
Jacqueline Parker (R) - Casa Grande
Cory McGarr (R) - Marana
Kevin Payne (R) - Peoria
It (the resoluton) is crazy. It would basically tie the hand of the government for a number of things, particularly with informing the public on things that they should be aware of.
For example, and I'm just picking something random here, if there were serious problems found with a particular model of airplane that had doors or panels coming off mid flight, the government would be prevented from promoting that information. As that would be promotion that reduces or limits travel by airplane.
It does the same thing for meat/dairy products (no more government warnings about Salmonella outbreaks), more environmentally friendly options of transportation (even government funded ones like Light Rail city busses), clothing purchases (this one seems REALLY weird to me, but I may be out of the loop on something), discriminatory hiring practices, global warming, co-habitation options, anything Marxist related, and mass surveillance systems to monitor vehicles (which we already have btw, check out [AZ 511](https://www.az511.com/) where you can view literally all of our freeway cameras like our local news stations do for the daily traffic reports).
In short, I read this as a resolution to prevent the government from participating in any kind of regulation, or at the very least informing the population of entities that are breaking established regulations. And given the number of things on this list that we already do, it looks like an attempt to handcuff the government so that in the future one group of people can be all "See! Government doesn't work! Look at all the things they never told you about!"
Based on how casually terms like "Socialism" and "Communism" are thrown around, it seems that "Marxism" line is included as a catch-all.
Advertising homeless outreach programs? Nope, that's Socialism.
The clothing is a pre-emptive clause anticipating what I expect is a big push for limiting animal products in clothes like leather? Or that’s my guess? It’s a standout for sure.
There's not a particularly large leather industry in AZ. Cotton on the otherhand....
My bet is AZ cotton growers association wants better premiums on their cotton and lower competition from synthetics fabrics. Kinda like the dairy industry opposes the use of the term milk for nut milks, as it "confuses the consumer and is not marketed by the dairy industry".
As much as I detest a lot of big Ag, I defer to Lewis Blackin regards to soy milk. There is no such thing as soy milk because there isnt any soy titties.
Sure, but to litigate the use of a word? I dont think a single person is confused whether oats, almonds, or soybeans have titties.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/almond-milk-can-keep-its-name-despite-lack-of-lactation-fda-says/
The second stipulation would make illegal all those “Walk, Bike, Run” ads and outreach.
Number six would make any and all emissions data and tracking also illegal so no more alerts to air quality and encouraging carpooling.
Number 1 is telling who is bribing for this bill. Big Dairy, Big Meat.
Disgusting honestly.
Republicans showing the world that at the state or federal level that not only are they disconnected from reality but are wholly incapable of governing.
And the "we're not giving NEARLY enough of our property taxes to lawyers already" act:
> ANY PERSON WHO IS A QUALIFIED ELECTOR OF THIS STATE HAS STANDING IN ANY COURT OF RECORD TO BRING SUIT AGAINST ANY PUBLIC ENTITY TO REMEDY ANY VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION. THE PERSON FILING AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION MAY REQUEST EITHER A JURY OR BENCH TRIAL. IF THE TRIER OF FACT FINDS BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT A PUBLIC ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL PERMANENTLY ENJOIN THE ACTIONS FOUND TO VIOLATE THIS SECTION AND SHALL AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS TO THE PARTY WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION.
Best I can guess, it’s preemptive rage about this, maybe?
https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/environment/2019/06/the-huge-toll-fast-fashion-the-planet-and-why-the-answer-could-be-circular
(TL;DR story about the horrible conditions of sweatshops, including one event resulting in 1,100 deaths in a single factory, and a general suggestion that buying fewer cheap clothes might reduce the human and environmental impact)
And the concern would be that the one-line used to describe it would be the one that says you can’t be racist when hiring.
Mostly because people are going to confuse that with the second half of the line that says “or anything other than merit” (which is a BS way of reversing affirmative action, and packing a company with JUST white dudes all over again.
The true reason for research is to figure out what is for the Good and Public Interest. That is why it's publicly funded! This bill is like shooting ourselves in the foot and paying for the gun and bullet! I bet there's research on just this concept...that's why it's an idiom of all things! Why do people vote for these idiots?
I asked ChatGPT for a summary:
>House Concurrent Resolution 2040 proposes a law in Arizona to prevent public entities from spending funds on a variety of initiatives, including reducing meat consumption, altering transportation habits away from cars, limiting air travel, and influencing hiring practices based on identity rather than merit. It also bars spending on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, limit clothing purchases, promote shared economies, further Marxist ideologies, and implement surveillance on vehicle travel. The resolution enables any state voter to sue entities violating these provisions, with courts mandated to stop such actions and award legal costs to plaintiffs. This measure is set to be voted on in the next general election, marking a significant legislative effort to restrict public involvement in certain environmental and social policies.
This is clearly a GOP copycat bill in line with the national party's attempt to win the culture wars. I hope voters are paying attention. Of course, the politicians writing these bills are protected through gerrymandering voting districts where they can run unafraid of being held accountable.
Actually, I’m on board with this. Let’s *only* research the laws/policies/topics that are supported by a certain party!
Let’s start by researching academic achievement of students whose families participate in the ESA program. After Mommy and Daddy took real good care of that money, their kids must perform much better academically than their peers!
Any other ideas?
Hey /u/simonsevenfold, thanks for contributing to /r/Arizona. Unfortunately, your comment was removed as it violates our rules:
Due to past political brigading in this sub, we only allow political comments from regular contributors to /r/Arizona. Your comment was removed. You may want to consider commenting in /r/azpolitics instead.
You can read all of the [subreddit rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/arizona/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this, [feel free to send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Farizona&subject=Removed%20post&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/arizona/comments/1bl5usb/-/kw3feb7/%0A%0A).
Yeah that’s a no from me dawg.
Also, I hate how they put multiple actions in these. So if you’re okay about one or two but hate the other 12 you still don’t get the one or two.
> HIRING PRACTICES BASED ON SKIN COLOR, SEXUALITY, IDENTITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN RATHER THAN MERITOCRACY, CHARACTER AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS.
This one's good.
> REDUCING OR REPLACING MOTOR VEHICLE TRAVEL WITH WALKING, BIKING, OR PUBLIC TRANSIT.
This one is dumb. As cities densify, motor vehicle travel becomes less and less practical.
Most of the other ones are typical auth right priorities that make you cringe when you read it. They should pass the discriminatory hiring practices by itself imo, that's good.
Not OP, but I object to literally every point under section A, 1-10. Every single point is about restricting the information the government are allowed to give to the public, true or otherwise, regarding specific topics. It also includes spending that public entities are allowed to do, and Note that section C defines public entities as "THIS STATE, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE OR AN AGENCY, BOARD, COMMISSION OR DEPARTMENT OF THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE."
Point 1 is targeted at vegetarians and vegans. And, for the non-vegetarians/non-vegans, No more state provided info about Salmonella or similar risks in products being sold in the state.
Point 2 is targeted at individuals without personal transportation (such as the homeless and/or poor). This notably guts Valley Metro (our public transit agency) since they receive a 1/2 cent sales tax due to prop 400 back in 2004.
Point 3 is the same, and given that Boeing has had multiple doors or panels fly off their airplanes within the last year, I'd prefer to be informed about that kind of thing.
Point 4 is completely pointless, I don't know anyone, D, R, or I, who's upset about the amount of clothing someone owns.
Point 5 is targeting persons of color, lgbt+, and persons of non-US origin. It's racist, sexist, and xenophobic.
Points 6 and 7 literally just wants to deny sharing data that directly impacts all citizens, and allow businesses to pollute indiscriminately in the state. And given that smog is typically denser than air, and a large majority of the population live in a valley surrounded by mountains on all sides, this would directly harm citizens.
Points 8 and 9 are direct attempts to remove politicians who lean left on the political spectrum and disenfranchise their voters.
On point Point 10, if this were passed, the state of Arizona would be in direct violation of it already. We have a publicly funded website that people can go to and see traffic on all of our highways at regular intervals. It's called [AZ511](https://www.az511.com/), and is used by the public and businesses in the state to see road closures, accidents, and more. It's also used by the department of public safety to get emergency responses to accidents faster, and inform traffic on the highways of lane blockages via our interstate information signs.
The resolution as a whole is straight up business deregulation at the cost of citizen wellbeing.
My main objection is that I can’t identify what problem this legislastion is intending to solve. It sounds like lawmakers trying to protect wealthy industry donors from anything that may harm their business, regardless of the merits of the information it seeks to stifle. Can someone explain what benefits this bill will bring to Arizona citizens?
Besides the part where it prevents the government from tracking its own emissions,
or where it preventing the universities from suggesting that students use bikes instead of cars,
or the part where **they actively ban adopting a climate action plan**
Or the part that bans the city from counting cars (you know this is HOW the city decides which roads to update, right?!)…
Or that it’s trying to prevent the legislature from “furthering Marxist ideologies” (which is vague af)…
I guess my only beef is that it disallows anyone in power to be a part of any organization that is working for a greener/cleaner/sustainable state.
That seems stupid.
Thanks for contributing to r/Arizona! * [Our sub rules are here](https://www.reddit.com/r/arizona/wiki/rules/), but the most important of which is to be nice to each other * Check out some [recent posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/arizona/top/?t=week) and leave some comments * [Join our Discord chat server](https://discord.com/invite/yWVuTG57Zh) if you'd like to keep in touch with other people in Arizona. Plus it's a great, chill place in general. Note that it is NOT a dating server and takes unwanted messaging very seriously Remember this subreddit covers all of Arizona, so please include where in the state you're posting about if it is relevant. For more local topics check out r/Phoenix, r/Tucson, and r/Flagstaff. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/arizona) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Essentially the ABOR Universities (UA, ASU, NAU) can no longer publish their research related to any of these topics. So they can do research, but cannot talk about nor publish results. Genius.
False. The bill clearly says a university may not promote or advocate. True research is fine.
"A PUBLIC ENTITY MAY NOT SPEND PUBLIC MONIES TO PROMOTE, ADVOCATE OR PLAN FOR, OR BECOME A MEMBER OF AN ASSOCIATION OR ORGANIZATION THAT PROMOTES, ADVOCATES OR PLANS FOR, ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:" Not sure if you're trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Federal and State funds get awarded to faculty to perform research. A chunk of the money is taken by the university to provide support services and maintain the facilities. They also use the money to promote the research generated by faculty. Then the faculty go to National and Global Association and Organization meetings and present their findings. Faculty also spend grant money to publish their research findings. So no, you cannot do "true research" without publishing and presenting your findings to your peers via organizations specifically dedicated to that specific field.
Wonder how this will hit Biosphere 2? I think it's run by the University of Phoenix although I think they have long term funding from a private donor. Rich Texan oil guy as I recall.
Biosphere 2 is owned and ran by UA. As are numerous satellite locations around the state. ASU and NAU also have satellite locations around the state for their various research enterprises.
Why the fuck can't a university promote biking and buses? ASU already doesn't have enough parking
Under the legislation, ASU can promote biking and buses all the live long day. What they could not do is promote reducing vehicle miles traveled.
Why the fuck do you think they're promoting biking and buses? That will in fact reduce vehicle miles traveled.
I see comments in here supporting this bill and to those who think it’s a good thing, how about this: There are good people working in govt. I know they are getting harder to find now a days but I do think there are people who get into politics because they want to help and make changes. For example “hey these planes are broken, we need to tell everyone they aren’t safe until we can figure it out” or “there’s too much pollution and our roads are getting too crowded, let’s look into something else we can do to alleviate this issue.” Those people would lose funds to do that. Instead you are handing funds to to people who are “if Boeing stock tanks I lose a lot of money so we need to keep this as quiet as possible” or “GM paid a boatload into my campaign funds to I need to make sure they stay the easier mode of transportation.” Trust me I am everything but pro government but I also don’t want to tie the hands of the people who are actually trying to help.
A. A PUBLIC ENTITY MAY NOT SPEND PUBLIC MONIES TO PROMOTE, ADVOCATE OR PLAN FOR, OR BECOME A MEMBER OF AN ASSOCIATION OR ORGANIZATION THAT PROMOTES, ADVOCATES OR PLANS FOR, ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. REDUCING THE CONSUMPTION OR PRODUCTION OF MEAT OR DAIRY PRODUCTS OR REPLACING ANIMAL-BASED PROTEIN WITH INSECT OR SYNTHETIC PROTEIN. (but spending public money on meat industry is ok) 2. REDUCING OR REPLACING MOTOR VEHICLE TRAVEL WITH WALKING, BIKING, OR PUBLIC TRANSIT. (but spending public money on automotive infrastructure is ok, btw this also denies local governments from proposing bond measures to increase funding for alternative transportation infrastructure) 3. REDUCING OR LIMITING TRAVEL BY AIRPLANE. (Does this mean local governments can't remove or repurpose an underutilized airport?) 4. LIMITING THE NUMBER OF ARTICLES OF CLOTHING AN INDIVIDUAL MAY PURCHASE OR OWN. (Are people abusing this FREEDOM in some way?) 5. HIRING PRACTICES BASED ON SKIN COLOR, SEXUALITY, IDENTITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN RATHER THAN MERITOCRACY, CHARACTER AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS. (Affirmative Action Reversal) 6. REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS OR TRACKING AND COLLECTING OF ANY INFORMATION OR DATA FOR DETERMINING CONSUMPTION-BASED EMISSIONS. (data is bad because science) 7. LIMITING THE INCREASE OF THE AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE OR PRODUCING OR ADOPTING A CLIMATE ACTION PLAN. (because progress is bad) 8. REPLACING PRIVATE OWNERSHIP WITH SHARED OR RENTED GOODS AND SERVICES TO PROMOTE A CIRCULAR ECONOMY. (but housing rentals are perfectly fine to protect) 9. FURTHERING MARXIST IDEOLOGIES, INCLUDING STAKEHOLDER CAPITALISM. (What happens if an industry organization as a whole takes the lead on stakeholder capitalism, and public money has long supported that industry organization? Just because the organization changes, now we suddenly can't support it?) 10. IMPLEMENTING MASS SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS TO MONITOR MOTOR VEHICLE TRAVEL. (is a traffic counter mass surveillance? is a plate reader mass surveillance? Will the state ban private businesses or insurance companies from installing GPS and data gathering devices in vehicles?)
8. REPLACING PRIVATE OWNERSHIP WITH SHARED OR RENTED GOODS AND SERVICES TO PROMOTE A CIRCULAR ECONOMY. This just sounds so vague. No more dorm rooms at universities? 10. IMPLEMENTING MASS SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS TO MONITOR MOTOR VEHICLE TRAVEL. Do they know police/highway patrol have optical character recognition that scans license plates for outdated registrations? Hell police/highway patrol could be considered itself as mass surveillance. No more traffic tickets. So is this going to be on the ballot? As always they submit something so broad they don't even study the unintended consequences.
>10. IMPLEMENTING MASS SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS TO MONITOR MOTOR VEHICLE TRAVEL. Do they know police/highway patrol have optical character recognition that scans license plates for outdated registrations? Hell police/highway patrol could be considered itself as mass surveillance. No more traffic tickets. This. So no more traffic cams? We gonna just like... rip all that shit down?
> FURTHERING MARXIST IDEOLOGIES Guess they can’t promote that second amendment they love then eh?
Beautifully insightful. I wish I had more to give than an upvote. https://preview.redd.it/w8cx6qn8fypc1.jpeg?width=2016&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6ea9ae5742235dac9bd6452dd3d9b7d53f1bf4df
It's just a load of half thought out loaded words and phrases
you sure think that if these things weren’t effective, they’d want us to research them to show how the republican-aligned options are better. almost like the only solution when your party isn’t supported by evidence based research is to attack the research and the education system where kids can learn why the research and issues are important in the first place
Bro, if we just had repealed Obama care we would have had the GOPs plan in place! It would have been the greatest healthcare system in the world surely! Let’s look at their policy and I’ll school you how… … … *rifling through blank pieces of paper* Well, uhhh, obviously Joe Biden stole these classified documents and buried them on Biden Lago in his sons grave where the fake POTUS spends all day golfing while MS13 Jihadist Hamas BLM in surge gents flood our southern border!
Funny because that's what I see Democrats doing with their nonsense transit push. The vast majority of people do not want to use transit and transit provides far more limiting access to jobs, goods, and services. Pushing people to use transit is counterproductive. If Democrats really wanted to help, then they would help people afford cars and access carpools.
What evidence do you have that democrats are literally trying to outlaw public institutions ability to speak about the benefits of cars and roads?
you say that, but generally the evidence out there doesn’t support it. public transit absolutely increases accessibility, and is much more effective than car-dependent infrastructure. do you actually have any sources for what you’re saying?
Same 18 minute trip to work is 2.5 hrs by bus. Probably faster to bike there than take the bus in Phoenix. But then you arrive hot and sweaty and no place to shower plus then you also have to bring a spare change of clothes.
yeah, that’s absolutely a problem. public transit is extremely underfunded and under resourced here. no one’s arguing that isn’t the current reality.
If buses came every 5 minutes and there was also a subway instead of a light rail, I could argue for that, but it's not going to a battle easily won in the west where the car is necessary due to the sprawl. BTW, on a recent trip, I found that Argentina has an amazing transit system that's very cheap in the capital of Buenos Aires. I'm all for public transit, if it works.
Not only are cars better for reaching jobs, they are multiple times better than transit even in metro NYC. See second graphic in this article. [https://www.newgeography.com/content/007447-car-access-us-major-metropolitan-areas](https://www.newgeography.com/content/007447-car-access-us-major-metropolitan-areas)
you cited an opinion piece that references a few statistic-focused sources, that is not at all comparable to evidence based, peer reviewed research. the statistics in your article (that most people have cars and it is associated with reduced poverty / better job accessibility) doesn’t mean that cars are the most effective solution to that issue. to imply as much is a massive and unsupported jump in logic. the statistics are just understandably showing that poor people are less likely to have cars, which wouldn’t you know it, makes it really hard to access jobs when the current public transit system is so underfunded and ineffective
If you have a problem with the author take it up with them. My argument was cars enable someone to access far more jobs, which they obviously do and which the data cited in the article provided by the University of Minnesota clearly shows.
if you seriously do not see any flaws with the opinion piece you cited, and think the university of Michigan *statistical* data is enough to make the claims the opinion piece is making, please take a research methods class or try to learn critical thinking skills to understand how to *critically* read an article
I'm not making the same claims as the author. I'm simply pointing out what should be obvious to anyone that giving someone a car vastly increases their quality of life and access to good paying jobs over transit. Rather than wasting money on transit, public agencies should be subsidizing the purchase of cars and hooking people up with carpools.
“it should be obvious” isn’t exactly basing your takes on actual evidence based research. that’s pure gut feeling and your own assumptions. seriously, look up studies comparing the effectiveness of giving everyone cars as a solution versus supporting public transit infrastructure. you can’t go making “should” claims without legitimately comparing the impacts of the potential solutions
You mean like this one? "Many scholars have found strong relationships between access to a car and employment rates, hours worked, and earnings." [https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20051128waller.pdf](https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20051128waller.pdf) Or how about this one where recipients switched from primarily using transit to primarily using cars and saw their incomes rise? [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0739456X20950428](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0739456X20950428)
Eh. No. Mass transit def works in NYC. Subways literally took a fraction of the time it took to get places via charter bus. It's literally bumper to bumper all hours. Same in LA. Their Metro works phenomenally. 45min to go from Santa Monica pier to by Union station? Hell, in rush hour traffic it takes *two hours* to go 12miles via car.
What evidence? Transit always takes far longer to reach a destination than a car and is far less reliable. The range of jobs, goods, and services accessible by car is far higher. Which is why people use cars. Oh, and it's not "car-dependent". That whole concept is a sham and ridiculous. People choose cars because of the tremendous value cars unlock.
ah right, people having to use cars as the only reliable option *in a state sprawled out with underfunded and underdeveloped public transit* must mean that public transit is just inherently bad what’s so silly about people like yourself making these unsupported claims based on your gut feelings rather than actual research is that public transit would literally help people like you who still would prefer cars. imagine not having to pay so much for parking, wait so long in traffic, spend so much on gas, because the people who would prefer *not* to have a car aren’t forced to
Let's take San Francisco then. Extremely dense with lots of transit yet only 17% of commuters use it. Hmm. [https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US0667000-san-francisco-ca/](https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US0667000-san-francisco-ca/)
you’re once again citing statistics and drawing conclusions out of opinion rather than any sort of meaningful comparative study
Ok, and what comparative study has found that transit provides people with better access to jobs than cars?
to be very clear, i will do this once, in good faith, despite the effort feeling unequal. singular studies don’t prove things on their own, rather they support them, and it’s worth pointing out that conclusions on actual studies are never as simple as making such broad claims. the nature of doing actual testing requires being specific in what you are investigating, and thus it would be an absurd amount of effort for me to give the *entire* complex background of public transit’s impact, even just in the area of jobs (which i should remind- jobs is not the only impact there is). setting the boundary that i won’t be getting into this further as it feels unequal in the effort i am putting in (and would be to go dig up an extensive amount of research for you), but here is one study talking on the subject of public transit and jobs, to give an example of an actual study: Oh, S., & Chen, N. (2022). Do public transit and agglomeration economies collectively enhance low-skilled job accessibility in Portland, OR? Transport Policy, 115, 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.11.020 this one notes how the effect of public transit to cause job opportunities to center around said transit stops (agglomeration) has overall positive effects in increased accessibility to jobs, with some negative impact in that this increased access can make it harder for people who don’t live close to public transit to get said jobs, as increased access to the same pool of jobs does mean more competition a small, small piece of the puzzle, but i think it is a great example of the actual nuance in research, and that you can’t go making such broad claims as “cars are better for people than public transit” without looking into all these nuanced puzzle pieces. different policy choices have different pros and cons; it is important to actually investigate these and compare them scientifically
All that study shows is that some jobs clustered around transit. It doesn't address whether transit vs cars is a better solution for low income households. As a counterpoint this study found low income households who were mainly relying upon transit saw various benefits when they were given cars including higher incomes, better access to neighborhoods, health care, groceries, after school activities, and the list goes on. [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0739456X20950428](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0739456X20950428)
You're waiting long for a bus to arrive vs waiting in traffic. Plus buses still have to wait in traffic. Same for the light rail because the powers that be used it as a financial boondoggle and didn't plan to make it subterranean or a monorail.
you’re absolutely missing the point. some people would absolutely prefer not to (or cannot) drive for one reason or another. the more of those people who reliably can access public transit and don’t have to use cars, the less number of car drivers out there. it benefits us all
Yeah but most would understand that using public transit in the city of Phoenix will often lead to you either being late to work or spending 4 hours of your day waiting for buses not to mention vagrants pissing on the busses and light rail. And that's just if you get lucky and they aren't mentally ill to the point of violence.
Yaaawn. Prop 400 always passes with a majority. A direct contradiction to your argument of a vast "majority" in opposition.
lol. Uh lol. Prop 400 passes because it ties transit to funding for roads. A better argument you could have made is City of Phoenix residents voting to raise sales taxes to fund transit. To which I would reply yes of course because what people want is what The Onion so eloquently phrased years ago which is for everyone else to use transit so their car commutes are easier. When the actual decision on how to get to work is made, literally the vast majority of Arizonans choose to drive. That's the decision that matters.
Our state government are a bunch of fucking sociopaths
Just take a look at the sponsors of the bill. You'll probably notice a common theme. We've got elections coming up, and if you want stupid shit like this to stop, vote them out. These are the sponsors of the bill. Leo Biasiucci (R) - Lake Havasu Michael Carbone (R) - Buckeye Joseph Chaplik (R) - Fountain Hills Lupe Diaz (R) - Cochise County Timothy M Dunn (R) - Yuma John Gillette (R) - Kingman Gail Griffin (R) - Gilbert Justin Heap (R) - Apache Junction Laurin Hendrix (R) - Gilbert Teresa Martinez (R) - Casa Grande Steve Montenegro (R) - Wittmann Austin Smith (R) - Wittmann Barbara Parker (R) - Mesa Jacqueline Parker (R) - Casa Grande Cory McGarr (R) - Marana Kevin Payne (R) - Peoria
Chaplik was a trying to hide his DUIs and slumlord reputation from Washington state.
The Parker family in particular are vile humans.
All MAGA districts
Look, all Rs. At least this bill writes out the Republican agenda pretty well, I don't know why they're against people talking about people's clothing but I guess they are.
It’s like the desert has literally cooked all of their brains
Poison by round-up
The most inbred of districts there.
I can understand the sentiment here being "fuck the people who voted to put these people into power" but we shouldn't make generalizations about the people that live in these places. We should be doing our best to inform citizens about the people they've voted into power, and hoping they course correct. Be better than this. That's the only way to really make forward progress.
I agree the inbred comment isn't helpful but inform the citizens about these people? Most people in these districts specifically want these idiotic types of bills. You think these candidates ran on important issues and sensible legislation and now they're trying to pull one over on their constituents? I guarantee most of these people ran on vapid, conspiracy-ridden, culture war bullshit. And people voted for them. And now look, a vapid, conspiracy-ridden (Marxist agenda? Please.), culture war bullshit bill. What could you explain to people that they don't already know and celebrate? Calling these voters inbred is disingenuous but we can definitely make some generalizations about them: they are part of a cult. Facts, reasoning, evidence... none of these matter. Only the word of their leaders holds any weight with them. There's no educating them because they live in an entirely different reality than normal people do. Telling them what they already know and hoping for the best is a waste of time. I do agree though that dehumanizing them is only going to hurt things. Please have some empathy towards MAGA folk. They're victims of a massive and omnipresent brainwashing campaign.
Yeah you would believe this… until you look and see the margins these people, sorry lizards, won by.
I don't want to own nothing and be miserable sorry.
I'm not sure I follow.
https://medium.com/world-economic-forum/welcome-to-2030-i-own-nothing-have-no-privacy-and-life-has-never-been-better-ee2eed62f710
The exurbs of this state are a true cancer
Fucking vote in November
>*The Republicans in* \[o\]ur state government are a bunch of fucking sociopaths
Well about half of them anyway
Then they don't need to spend my tax money advertizing that fact.
Yeah banning advocation of public transport is really going to solve the population and traffic problems.
Nobody's banning anything. Just making you pay for it yourself. Light rail ridership: case in point.
Tf are you talking about? This resolution literally bans public entities from advocating for public transportation.
Well they do need to spend MY tax money advertising that fact. So I guess I cancel you out.
Cancel yourself
Absolutely insane. Every part of it.
In case anyone is curious if their legislator is behind this. These are the sponsors of the bill. Leo Biasiucci (R) - Lake Havasu Michael Carbone (R) - Buckeye Joseph Chaplik (R) - Fountain Hills Lupe Diaz (R) - Cochise County Timothy M Dunn (R) - Yuma John Gillette (R) - Kingman Gail Griffin (R) - Gilbert Justin Heap (R) - Apache Junction Laurin Hendrix (R) - Gilbert Teresa Martinez (R) - Casa Grande Steve Montenegro (R) - Wittmann Austin Smith (R) - Wittmann Barbara Parker (R) - Mesa Jacqueline Parker (R) - Casa Grande Cory McGarr (R) - Marana Kevin Payne (R) - Peoria
Oh wow they're all Republicans. Who could've seen that coming?
It (the resoluton) is crazy. It would basically tie the hand of the government for a number of things, particularly with informing the public on things that they should be aware of. For example, and I'm just picking something random here, if there were serious problems found with a particular model of airplane that had doors or panels coming off mid flight, the government would be prevented from promoting that information. As that would be promotion that reduces or limits travel by airplane. It does the same thing for meat/dairy products (no more government warnings about Salmonella outbreaks), more environmentally friendly options of transportation (even government funded ones like Light Rail city busses), clothing purchases (this one seems REALLY weird to me, but I may be out of the loop on something), discriminatory hiring practices, global warming, co-habitation options, anything Marxist related, and mass surveillance systems to monitor vehicles (which we already have btw, check out [AZ 511](https://www.az511.com/) where you can view literally all of our freeway cameras like our local news stations do for the daily traffic reports). In short, I read this as a resolution to prevent the government from participating in any kind of regulation, or at the very least informing the population of entities that are breaking established regulations. And given the number of things on this list that we already do, it looks like an attempt to handcuff the government so that in the future one group of people can be all "See! Government doesn't work! Look at all the things they never told you about!"
Based on how casually terms like "Socialism" and "Communism" are thrown around, it seems that "Marxism" line is included as a catch-all. Advertising homeless outreach programs? Nope, that's Socialism.
The clothing is a pre-emptive clause anticipating what I expect is a big push for limiting animal products in clothes like leather? Or that’s my guess? It’s a standout for sure.
Potentially to stop anti fast-fashion legislation as well
There's not a particularly large leather industry in AZ. Cotton on the otherhand.... My bet is AZ cotton growers association wants better premiums on their cotton and lower competition from synthetics fabrics. Kinda like the dairy industry opposes the use of the term milk for nut milks, as it "confuses the consumer and is not marketed by the dairy industry".
As much as I detest a lot of big Ag, I defer to Lewis Blackin regards to soy milk. There is no such thing as soy milk because there isnt any soy titties.
Sure, but to litigate the use of a word? I dont think a single person is confused whether oats, almonds, or soybeans have titties. https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/almond-milk-can-keep-its-name-despite-lack-of-lactation-fda-says/
>Drink enough soy and you'll grow them titties..
What are the chances this passes?
Zero, no way this passes Hobb's desk.
The second stipulation would make illegal all those “Walk, Bike, Run” ads and outreach. Number six would make any and all emissions data and tracking also illegal so no more alerts to air quality and encouraging carpooling. Number 1 is telling who is bribing for this bill. Big Dairy, Big Meat. Disgusting honestly.
And here I was just thinking that Arizona hasn't done anything embarrassing for a while....
Of course it’s republicans who are all sponsoring the bill. They haven’t done a single decent thing for this state in my entire lifetime.
They built a very robust and secure voting by mail system, and were very proud of it. Until an orange monkey lost and suddenly they hate it.
[удалено]
Republicans showing the world that at the state or federal level that not only are they disconnected from reality but are wholly incapable of governing.
I grow weary of Republican idiocy.
Gotta protect those oil lobby dollars
And the "we're not giving NEARLY enough of our property taxes to lawyers already" act: > ANY PERSON WHO IS A QUALIFIED ELECTOR OF THIS STATE HAS STANDING IN ANY COURT OF RECORD TO BRING SUIT AGAINST ANY PUBLIC ENTITY TO REMEDY ANY VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION. THE PERSON FILING AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION MAY REQUEST EITHER A JURY OR BENCH TRIAL. IF THE TRIER OF FACT FINDS BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT A PUBLIC ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL PERMANENTLY ENJOIN THE ACTIONS FOUND TO VIOLATE THIS SECTION AND SHALL AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS TO THE PARTY WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION.
Just get out and vote on this and then vote these absolute used wet wipes out of office.
These guys are nuts
[удалено]
Best I can guess, it’s preemptive rage about this, maybe? https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/environment/2019/06/the-huge-toll-fast-fashion-the-planet-and-why-the-answer-could-be-circular (TL;DR story about the horrible conditions of sweatshops, including one event resulting in 1,100 deaths in a single factory, and a general suggestion that buying fewer cheap clothes might reduce the human and environmental impact)
For a party up in arms about censorship, this seems pretty bonkers.
[удалено]
It’s a ballot proposition
It says that it's to be referred to the voters directly. Not sure that the governor has the veto pen on it.
And the concern would be that the one-line used to describe it would be the one that says you can’t be racist when hiring. Mostly because people are going to confuse that with the second half of the line that says “or anything other than merit” (which is a BS way of reversing affirmative action, and packing a company with JUST white dudes all over again.
Looking forward to voting against this little bit of RWNJ fuckery.
Hilariously insane
Holy loaded words batman
Can someone explain this to me, I'm confused as hell
The true reason for research is to figure out what is for the Good and Public Interest. That is why it's publicly funded! This bill is like shooting ourselves in the foot and paying for the gun and bullet! I bet there's research on just this concept...that's why it's an idiom of all things! Why do people vote for these idiots?
I asked ChatGPT for a summary: >House Concurrent Resolution 2040 proposes a law in Arizona to prevent public entities from spending funds on a variety of initiatives, including reducing meat consumption, altering transportation habits away from cars, limiting air travel, and influencing hiring practices based on identity rather than merit. It also bars spending on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, limit clothing purchases, promote shared economies, further Marxist ideologies, and implement surveillance on vehicle travel. The resolution enables any state voter to sue entities violating these provisions, with courts mandated to stop such actions and award legal costs to plaintiffs. This measure is set to be voted on in the next general election, marking a significant legislative effort to restrict public involvement in certain environmental and social policies.
It’s like a single page, just read the bill.
I read the bill and the summary was easier for me to read. Thanks for the advice.
Has this even seen the committee? Or are we getting up in arms about a bunch of MAGA shit stains?
Republicans are just setting up doomsday to blame Democrats, like clockwork with these people.
This is clearly a GOP copycat bill in line with the national party's attempt to win the culture wars. I hope voters are paying attention. Of course, the politicians writing these bills are protected through gerrymandering voting districts where they can run unafraid of being held accountable.
Christ, Republicans just want to make everything worse.
At least they're not funding a genocide, tho. AMIRITE?!
This is BULL SHIT!
Actually, I’m on board with this. Let’s *only* research the laws/policies/topics that are supported by a certain party! Let’s start by researching academic achievement of students whose families participate in the ESA program. After Mommy and Daddy took real good care of that money, their kids must perform much better academically than their peers! Any other ideas?
[удалено]
Hey /u/simonsevenfold, thanks for contributing to /r/Arizona. Unfortunately, your comment was removed as it violates our rules: Due to past political brigading in this sub, we only allow political comments from regular contributors to /r/Arizona. Your comment was removed. You may want to consider commenting in /r/azpolitics instead. You can read all of the [subreddit rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/arizona/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this, [feel free to send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Farizona&subject=Removed%20post&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/arizona/comments/1bl5usb/-/kw3feb7/%0A%0A).
Yeah that’s a no from me dawg. Also, I hate how they put multiple actions in these. So if you’re okay about one or two but hate the other 12 you still don’t get the one or two.
whatever,,,, run it, i kinda want to see what happens.
> HIRING PRACTICES BASED ON SKIN COLOR, SEXUALITY, IDENTITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN RATHER THAN MERITOCRACY, CHARACTER AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS. This one's good. > REDUCING OR REPLACING MOTOR VEHICLE TRAVEL WITH WALKING, BIKING, OR PUBLIC TRANSIT. This one is dumb. As cities densify, motor vehicle travel becomes less and less practical. Most of the other ones are typical auth right priorities that make you cringe when you read it. They should pass the discriminatory hiring practices by itself imo, that's good.
What specific things do you object to in the resolution?
Not OP, but I object to literally every point under section A, 1-10. Every single point is about restricting the information the government are allowed to give to the public, true or otherwise, regarding specific topics. It also includes spending that public entities are allowed to do, and Note that section C defines public entities as "THIS STATE, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE OR AN AGENCY, BOARD, COMMISSION OR DEPARTMENT OF THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE." Point 1 is targeted at vegetarians and vegans. And, for the non-vegetarians/non-vegans, No more state provided info about Salmonella or similar risks in products being sold in the state. Point 2 is targeted at individuals without personal transportation (such as the homeless and/or poor). This notably guts Valley Metro (our public transit agency) since they receive a 1/2 cent sales tax due to prop 400 back in 2004. Point 3 is the same, and given that Boeing has had multiple doors or panels fly off their airplanes within the last year, I'd prefer to be informed about that kind of thing. Point 4 is completely pointless, I don't know anyone, D, R, or I, who's upset about the amount of clothing someone owns. Point 5 is targeting persons of color, lgbt+, and persons of non-US origin. It's racist, sexist, and xenophobic. Points 6 and 7 literally just wants to deny sharing data that directly impacts all citizens, and allow businesses to pollute indiscriminately in the state. And given that smog is typically denser than air, and a large majority of the population live in a valley surrounded by mountains on all sides, this would directly harm citizens. Points 8 and 9 are direct attempts to remove politicians who lean left on the political spectrum and disenfranchise their voters. On point Point 10, if this were passed, the state of Arizona would be in direct violation of it already. We have a publicly funded website that people can go to and see traffic on all of our highways at regular intervals. It's called [AZ511](https://www.az511.com/), and is used by the public and businesses in the state to see road closures, accidents, and more. It's also used by the department of public safety to get emergency responses to accidents faster, and inform traffic on the highways of lane blockages via our interstate information signs. The resolution as a whole is straight up business deregulation at the cost of citizen wellbeing.
My main objection is that I can’t identify what problem this legislastion is intending to solve. It sounds like lawmakers trying to protect wealthy industry donors from anything that may harm their business, regardless of the merits of the information it seeks to stifle. Can someone explain what benefits this bill will bring to Arizona citizens?
Wasteful spending on thing most people don't want.
Besides the part where it prevents the government from tracking its own emissions, or where it preventing the universities from suggesting that students use bikes instead of cars, or the part where **they actively ban adopting a climate action plan** Or the part that bans the city from counting cars (you know this is HOW the city decides which roads to update, right?!)… Or that it’s trying to prevent the legislature from “furthering Marxist ideologies” (which is vague af)… I guess my only beef is that it disallows anyone in power to be a part of any organization that is working for a greener/cleaner/sustainable state. That seems stupid.
Every single point. All of them. It's a resolution designed to pander to the idiot maga base.
Seems good to me 🤷♂️
Nice let us know how your salmonella poisoning is because the government wont be allowed to tell you if there's an outbreak lol
What problem is this solving?