Tucson Public Safety Initiative, Proposition 200 (2009)

This local ballot measure article needs significant improvements to meet Ballotpedia's standards.

---

The Tucson Safety First Initiative, Proposition 200 was on the November 3, 2009 ballot in Pima County for voters in Tucson. Also known as the "Public Safety First Initiative," a proposed City Charter amendment, it called for increasing the staffing levels of city fire and police departments.

The measure would have called for 350 additional police officers. Tucson city officials estimated the additional positions would cost the city an additional $50 million per year. In June, city council officials said the council would impose property or sales tax increases in order to pay for the additional expenses if the measure had passed. Specifically the initiative would have required that in five years there are 2.4 police officers per 1,000 residents. Additionally, the initiative would have required that in four years the fire department's response times not exceed the 2004 levels set by the National Fire Protection Association.

Election result

The proposition was defeated.

Tucson Public Safety Initiative, Proposition 200
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		45122	70.23%
Yes		19129	29.77%
Total votes		64251	100.00%
Voter turnout		26.89%

Support

Public Safety First advertisement

Supporters of Proposition 200 include:

• Tucson Association of Realtors
• Tucson Police Officers Association
• International Association of Firefighters
• Southern Arizona Home Builders Association
• Former council candidate Lori Oien.
• Tucson Police Command Association
• Tucson Firefighters Association
• Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Arguments in favor

Proponents in the October 26 debate gave their arguments for the proposition as keeping the city residents more safe and trying to hold the city council accountable. Supporters said that Proposition 200 would make city council members more accountable to the citizens.

Opponents

Website banner of the "No on 200" campaign

On September 21, the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce stated publicly that it opposed this initiative. The chamber argued that it would put a strain on the already limited city resources, adding more stress to the city's budget. The Arizona Multihousing Association also opposed the initiative.

Arguments against

Arguments against Proposition 200 included:

• More police officers would not solve the policing problems in Tucson's more crime-ridden neighborhoods.
• Although it was marketed by its supporters as pro-police, it would actually "just mandate more government spending with no strings attached."
• Chuck Huckelberry, Pima County Administrator, says that "If Proposition 200 passes, property taxes will increase by at least 8-10%."
• Mike Letcher, Tucson City Manager, said, "The passage of Proposition 200 would be catastrophic for the City of Tucson."
• Goldwater State, an Arizona blog, stated that adding more police officers just to fill the numbers needed would add officers not up to the standards of the Tucson police force and lower the overall effectiveness that the police force has.

List of those opposed

A partial list of those opposing Proposition 200 includes:

• SEIU.
• Arizona Multihousing Association
• AFSCME
• League of United Latin American Citizens
• Pima Association of Taxpayers
• Full list of opponents

External links

• City of Tucson's Prop 200 page
• Text of Prop 200 in English
• Text of Prop 200 in Spanish
• Don't Handcuff Tucson, opposition website
• Keep Tucson Safe, website of those who support Prop 200
• Arizona Daily Star, "Proposition 200 a lot more involved than it may seem," October 11,2009 (dead link)
• Arizona Daily Star, "At least 42.4 percent of police, firefighters live outside Tucson ," October 31, 2009