First, here’s a video from the PBS program NOVA scienceNOW that is quickly becoming appropriate:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z82B1zsvyZU

The wisdom of the crowds. In modern society, there are those things that some will see as necessary while there are things that some see as wasteful. And, according to the theory presented in the video, the whole of society will make the best decision. So, I have my visions for what will make Phoenix great, or at least continually improve it until it is significantly better than what it is now. And there are a lot of people who are striving for this change.

There’s a great grassroots community on social media -- blogs, Twitter, Facebook -- that discusses how to make Phoenix and its surrounding area better. But a common theme that emerges is that those in government are working against our grassroots movement.  We know the value of locally-owned businesses to a local economy but our leaders tout projects that will bring in outside entities.  We know the value of having a strong downtown core but our leaders want to decentralize.  We know the value of having a strong regional mass transportation system but our leaders are still stuck in the 1950′s mentality of having a predominantly automobile-based transportation system.  We know the value of good public schools but our leaders are sabotaging their budgets.

So rather than all of us working together, it’s we the people against those who supposedly represent us. Wasn’t this an impetus for one of the American Revolution’s most famous rallying cries?

~ ~ ~

I’m afraid that my justification for staying here in Phoenix will be because I’m too comfortable here rather than because I believe in this city and its resilience.  I know that Phoenix -- and Arizona -- will bounce back from its present afflictions and horrible governance, but am I patient enough to allow it to happen and am I willing to be an even more vocal proponent of that in which I believe?

-Edward Jensen

Something that seems appropriate to do when evaluating a question like that is to take a survey of my beliefs, evaluate the priorities I think are important for the state to embrace, and compare them against what is being done.

On Facebook, there’s a space where one can put one’s political views. Some describe where they fall on the political spectrum (from conservative to liberal), some put with what political party they associate (e.g. Republicans, Democrats, Labour), and others do none of the above. I’m one of those people. I describe my political ideologies as progressive simplicity, or the idea that government should be simple. Government should have a consistent set of ideals – here in the US, we call that the Constitution – and the Government should respect the dignity of every human. None are “more equal” than others.

As a means to this end, what should government provide?  I believe that government should provide three things: public safety (including police, fire), education (from pre-K through University-level), and access to/maintenance of the commons (things like water, clean air, natural resources).

So, how does Arizona rank in these areas? If one were to judge by the performance of our state legislators, the report card would be dismal. Public safety? Privatizing our prison system does not work. Education? Cutting millions from education – in the last-ranked state for per-pupil education funding – is extremely stupid. Keeping the commons enjoyable for generations to come? Closing state parks and cutting back investments in the arts is most definitely not the answer. Three things that our government has to do and it’s not doing so well in these areas.

This all hearkens back to my opening case study in yesterday’s post: we, in Arizona, focus on institutions that will bring people here instead of keeping Phonecians and Arizonans happy here. The main reason is because the former is rather sexy: stadia are sexy, economic development is sexy. There’s political points for bringing a stadium to a city or opening a new high-rise tower in the midst of an economic downturn. But the things that keep people here don’t generate political points.

Even though they’re the most basic and necessary services needed.

~ ~ ~

You have read my beliefs. You know what our elected leaders have done to Arizona. So I guess all that’s left to say is this: What’s worth fighting for?

Hmm. More tomorrow.

-Edward Jensen

I have some feeling that this is going to be a difficult series of blog posts to write. You see, to many people, I’m known as “Mr. Phoenix.” It’s not a title I really wanted to have nor is it a title I can say I’m particularly proud of. The idea is that I know a lot about this city and a lot of the historical institutions – in the governance sense of the word – that guide this city. Like most everything, I don’t agree with them all of the time, but I am reminded that “discourse, dissent, and disagreement are the cornerstones of democracy.”

Rewind a couple of weeks: dear friend and colleague Sam Richard wrote an honest appraisal of people leaving Phoenix over for the Downtown Phoenix Journal, and that sparked off quite a debate in the comments. In conversations I had with Sam while at work, we decided that Phoenix focuses too much on bringing people here and not worrying about keeping them here. It’s like recruitment without retention. We seem to focus too much on things like office towers and sports stadia (read: growth) because they are politically sexy. Schools, hospitals, public safety, and human infrastructure (read: sustaining)? Not so much.

Also back a couple of weeks was the topping-off ceremony for the first tower of Cityscape, the supposed new crown jewel for Downtown Phoenix. Leaders – including Mayor Gordon and Governor Brewer – touted the project as a destination for Downtown Phoenix for shopping, dining, and office space. A high-value address for Phoenix and the Southwest, if you will. But I ask: is our memory so short term that we have forgotten what’s already here? For shopping, have we already forgotten about the Arizona Center or Roosevelt Row? For dining, what about the unique restaurants already here?

And for office space, with office vacancy rates as high as they are, why build new buildings? Why focus on creating new things when existing infrastructure – in this case office space – is already there and waiting? Another building that’s just about to finish construction – One Central Park East – is hinging on having no tenants by the time it opens later this year. And what about other buildings in Downtown Phoenix? Or along the light rail?

I bring all that up as one in a series of arguments that Phoenix focuses on creating new things at the expense of that which is already here. Growing, not sustaining. And we’ve seen what happens when we put all our economic eggs into the growth basket.

~ ~ ~

The guiding question behind this series of posts will be this: Is Phoenix a place that is suitable to raise – and sustain – a family? As I’ve explored in brief above and will explore in detail in later posts to this series, Phoenix seems to be the nation’s suburb: focusing on institutions that will bring people here and not keep them here. It seems to figure that it will always draw new blood to replace those whom it disenfranchises. But the problem to this is that employers look at institutions that will keep people here – the human services infrastructure, if you will – in their decision-making processes on if they want to move here.

All food for thought. And a pretty good preface to this complex series.

See you tomorrow.

-Edward Jensen