This opinion column by Arizona şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř of Commerce & Industry President and CEO Danny Seiden originally in The Arizona Capitol Times. 

In their memoir , Milton and Rose Friedman wrote that property rights “are the most basic of human rights and an essential foundation for other human rights.”

That’s a good framing to consider the state of property rights in Arizona and how leaders like Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell are doing in upholding this “essential foundation.”

Here are a few points on why I believe Mitchell deserves high marks on her private property scorecard:

Organized retail theft

Shoplifting, or shrinkage in retail industry parlance, has always been a source of worry for retailers.

But today’s thieves are cannier than ever, often part of sophisticated organized retail crime rings that steal merchandise to be resold.

Since early in her term as county attorney, Mitchell has made cracking down on organized retail crime a top priority. She has assembled a task force that includes private sector members, launched a safe shopping campaign during the holiday season, and hasn’t gone soft on pursuing tough sentences for convicted thieves.

Not everyone in her position has adopted a similar strategy.

After San Francisco Mayor London Breed help from her city’s board of supervisors in combating a soaring property crime rate, District Attorney Chesa Boudin downplayed the progressive policies that contributed to rising crime, casting blame toward the reforms he supported was “misguided” and that we instead should examine the “root causes of crime,” ticking off areas where the social safety net has too many holes.

Voters weren’t having it. They him from office in June 2022.

Mitchell’s crackdown on organized retail crime rings sends a powerful message, and the right one – justice will be served, and criminals will be held accountable for their actions. You won’t find San Francisco-style criminal justice policies in Maricopa County.

The dinnertime burglars

In January, the Scottsdale Police Department announced that in a less-than-three-month span it had received more than 20 calls about burglaries that had occurred during the dinner hour, especially at homes that abut golf courses or greenbelts. Jewelry was often the target of break-ins.

Phoenix police in February arrested three suspects. The investigation has revealed that this was hardly a group of small time bandits. The thieves had ties to a South American crime ring, had been connected to more than 100 burglaries in the Valley, and had been responsible for the theft of more than $3 million in goods. They were all from Chile but were carrying fake Spanish IDs.

The bad guys weren’t just slipping in through an unlocked door. They had high-tech equipment to jam alarm systems, and tools to cleanly punch through windows and pick locks.

Mitchell gave the case the attention it deserved. Working with Scottsdale and Phoenix PDs, the investigation expanded to six suspects being charged, one of whom has been involved in similar burglaries in Nevada and California. They’ve all been charged with a series of felonies and are being held on cash-only bonds.

So, why does the business community care about how and whether the county attorney pursues prosecutions for property crimes?

Beyond retailers wanting to protect their inventories or businesses wanting to protect their premises, the ability to own, use, and dispose of property as one sees fit is essential for innovation, investment, and societal progress. Without strong protections for property owners, we risk stifling entrepreneurship and discouraging individuals from investing in their communities.

Don’t buy the argument from Mitchell’s critics that stringent property laws disproportionately affect marginalized communities. Strong property rights benefit everyone, regardless of socio-economic status. They provide individuals with a sense of security and empowerment, enabling them to build wealth and achieve upward mobility.

When prosecutors look the other way on property crime, it just encourages more crime and of increasing severity, including squatting, which is its own magnet for drug use and other illicit behavior.

Like we saw in San Francisco, policymakers will find out that a lackadaisical approach to protecting private property will have political consequences. Voters in Arizona will decide in November whether property owners should be able to recoup at least a portion of any expenses that result from a city’s failure to control a public nuisance that infringes on their property rights.

Ultimately, the strength of a society is measured by its respect for individual rights and the rule of law. By safeguarding private property rights and holding criminals accountable, Rachel Mitchell is not only protecting our homes and businesses but is also preserving the principles upon which our nation was founded.

Danny Seiden is president and CEO of the Arizona şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř of Commerce & Industry.

The post Maricopa County attorney makes property rights a priority appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř.

This opinion column by Arizona şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř of Commerce & Industry President and CEO Danny Seiden originally in The Phoenix Business Journal. 

As an Arizona sports fan, I can’t help but lament that in , we’ve lost our place among the handful of markets that could claim a franchise in the highest levels of football, baseball, basketball, and hockey. There was a sense of civic pride – at least for those of us who care about sports – for being part of such an exclusive club.  

As the leader of a business organization, I’m disappointed about the loss of a prominent business. We don’t often think of our sports franchises when we think of leading job creators, but we should.  

Not only do our teams employ well-compensated athletes and front office staff, but they’re also the enterprises behind stadium and arena workers’ jobs. They add to concessionaire and restaurateurs’ bottom line. They move merchandise for our retailers. Maybe most of all, they’re an integral part of the state’s brand beyond our borders. 

When your team is on national TV – like the , or the Suns in the playoffs – it’s publicity that even the best tourism marketing campaign can’t buy. 

Few markets have as much to offer as Phoenix and all of Arizona.  

We have outstanding MLB, NFL, and NBA franchises that are contributing to the Valley and state’s economic health. Consider the new multimillion-dollar Suns practice facility and the Mercury’s new , also home to the teams’ new offices.  

We’ve rightly earned a sterling reputation for hosting mega events like Super Bowls, college football bowl games, World Baseball Classics, All-Star games, two NASCAR weekends and, as we proved earlier this month, . The Footprint Center will host the women’s edition in 2026. This summer, Phoenix is home to the WNBA All-Star Game, and will host the NBA All-Star Game in 2027.  

All of that’s on top of our annual Cactus League that welcomes fans from all over the country to 10 modern stadiums all within a 45-minute drive of one another, and signature PGA Tour and PGA Champions Tour events like the WM Phoenix Open and the Charles Schwab Cup Championship.  

It all adds up to hundreds of millions of dollars in positive economic impact and created by sports and sports tourism. 

Arizona has been on the receiving end of teams that relocated. Now we’re the ones saying goodbye. Some markets have gotten a team back. The NHL returned to Winnipeg, for example, after shipping the Jets to Phoenix in 1996, but another market – Atlanta – lost a team for that to happen. Other markets haven’t been so lucky, just ask fans of the Hartford Whalers or Quebec Nordiques. Does anyone think the NFL will return to St. Louis?  

Don’t let the D-backs slip away

To ensure we don’t find ourselves in this predicament again, there are a few things that we as a business community need to commit to doing: 

It’s not a guarantee, but I’m going to assume that the hockey ownership group will win the auction in June for the land where it wants to put a new arena. Once that’s done, the cooperation from the city of Phoenix must be seamless. We can’t afford to slow-walk permits or bog the project down with needless studies and analyses. Where there’s red tape, it has to be cut. 

Take nothing for granted. We’ve lost a franchise. Don’t think it can’t happen again. Just ask Oakland and San Diego what happens when teams start looking for the exit. It’s demoralizing and leagues get skittish about placing another team in a soft market.

With that in mind, let’s get serious about finding a solution for the Diamondbacks, whose . Whether it’s a modernization of the downtown ballpark or a new home, we can’t let them leave. Let’s not delude ourselves into thinking Salt Lake couldn’t pick our pocket again.

The D-backs are the type of corporate citizens other communities would welcome with open arms. Who wouldn’t want a business responsible for contributing more than $85 million to charitable partners and whose most recent post-season success generated more than $100 million in positive economic activity?  

Maricopa County voters in 2000 passed Proposition 302, which established the mechanism that allowed State Farm Stadium to get built and maintained. We should at least consider the best model for a stadium solution for the Diamondbacks. 

Lawmakers and the governor should commit to recapitalizing the mega events fund, the account that helps host committees put together the bid packages to lure big events like Super Bowls and college championships.  

Our sports franchises are important members of the Arizona business community and an immense point of pride. Let’s resolve to secure another NHL club and ensure that our current teams know they’re welcome and valued.

Danny Seiden is president and CEO of the Arizona şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř of Commerce & Industry.

Photo Picasa

The post Arizona, let’s ensure we don’t lose another pro sports team appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř.

In an by the Phoenix-based law firm Snell & Wilmer, the State of Arizona has been trying to advance a novel and troubling concept through a recent “test case”: holding corporate leaders personally liable when their company violates the law, even if they did not participate, know about, or approve of the underlying actions. This idea, known as the “responsible corporate officer doctrine,” is a judge-made theory of liability similar to piercing the corporate veil. Adopting this doctrine would upend traditional legal protections and create uncertainty for business leaders across the state.  

In State v. Tombstone Gold & Silver, Inc., the State of Arizona sued a mining company and three of its individual officers for violating a consent order. In its complaint, the State sought liability and damages against the officers under the responsible corporate officer doctrine even though the State had no evidence that the officers directed—or knew about—environmental law violations. In fact, the officers were not even parties to the consent order that the State accused them of violating. In other words, the State sought to establish a form of strict liability, where officers of the company were automatically personally liable for a company’s actions. 

Fortunately, the court quickly rejected the State’s argument, recognizing the State was trying to vastly expand liability for corporate officers. It noted that no published Arizona case has ever adopted the responsible corporate officer doctrine and declined to take the State’s invitation to expand officer liability beyond what the environmental law statutes already provide. It dismissed the officers from the case and invited a petition for their attorney fees and costs.  

The court was right to do so. The responsible corporate officer doctrine would not only erode the corporate structure’s safeguards but also deter investment and innovation in Arizona.   

Business leaders already make difficult decisions every day to manage risk, meet client needs, and deliver returns to shareholders. These tasks are difficult enough without having to worry about things outside their control resulting in personal liability. Introducing a blanket liability standard for actions beyond their control would only add unnecessary burdens and hinder economic growth. 

Arizona has worked hard to develop a reputation as a business-friendly state. Threatening corporate officers with personal liability for actions the officers did not direct risks this reputation. Further, it signals that Arizona may not be the predictable, stable, and reasonable policy environment to which businesses have grown accustomed.  

For now, corporate officers remain safe from the State’s attempts to erode the corporate form. Hopefully, Arizona’s courts keep it that way. 

Nate Curtisi is chief counsel for the Arizona şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř of Commerce & Industry.

The post Court rejects State of Arizona’s novel legal theory that creates uncertainty for businesses appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř.

SRP has provided water and power to the Valley for more than 100 years, and that experience continues to serve our customers well.

SRP and our 5,000 employees have long been recognized as one of the top utilities in the nation and we are at the forefront of driving extraordinary changes to the power grid, our watershed and the greater Phoenix community while always doing right by our customers.

This means ensuring reliable, affordable and sustainable power and water now and for generations to come.

Reliability and Affordability 

As a not-for-profit, community-based utility, SRP has among the lowest electricity rates in the southwestern United States and the lowest rates of any major utility in the state. This can be attributed to careful planning by the company and our publicly elected Board of Directors, and our customers have made it clear that we must continue to prioritize affordability and reliability even as we substantially grow our electric system.

SRP has among the best reliability rankings in the nation, and we continue to invest in equipment and technology to improve our grid.

David Rousseau, president of the SRP board of directors

Responsible Decarbonization 

SRP is taking significant, industry-leading steps to decarbonize the power it generates for one of the fastest-growing service territories in the country. In the last year alone, we’ve doubled the amount of utility-scale solar energy on the grid and are proud of the fact that our customers are benefiting from enough clean energy to power nearly 500,000 homes. Five additional solar facilities are currently under development. When they are operational by the end of 2027, nearly half of our generation will be carbon free.

And we aren’t close to being done. Our Board recently approved more ambitious sustainability goals including net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. To help reach this goal and meet the projected 56% increase in energy needed to serve our customers over the next 10 years while also retiring most of our coal generation, SRP will double the size of our current electrical system. We’ll do this by adding new carbon-free generation and new storage resources by 2035.

To maintain a balanced, low-cost grid and to meet the unique challenges of our Valley, new fast-ramping natural gas units will also be part of SRP’s future generation mix. This technology allows SRP to meet our customers’ energy needs and better integrate intermittent renewables, which are critical to maintaining our industry-leading reliability that helps keep our customers safe, especially during Arizona’s hot summer days (and nights).

SRP will also continue to support our growing number of customers who choose to add rooftop solar and batteries to their homes. We offer a variety of ways to help evaluate potential projects and avoid scams, including a rooftop solar calculator and a list of preferred solar installers.

Jim Pratt, SRP general manager and CEO.

Water Resiliency 

SRP was created when a group of Phoenix-area landowners pledged their land as collateral for a federal loan to build Theodore Roosevelt Dam, establishing a regular flow of water to the Valley and ensuring our long-term growth.

SRP now supplies water to almost half of the Phoenix region. Even though our water comes from a watershed that is expected to be less impacted by climate change than the Colorado River, we continue to collaborate with state agencies, cities and tribes to develop programs and infrastructure that will help maximize the Valley’s future water supply.

These include increasing storage capacity on the Verde River and the SRP Central Arizona Project Canal Interconnection, allowing water to be moved to communities that need it. We are also seeking approval to extend the amount of time SRP can hold water in a portion of the Flood Control Space at Roosevelt Dam to put more of it to use, particularly during times of heavy precipitation like we experienced last winter.

SRP and our partners will continue to plan for future growth and variable climate conditions to help ensure reliable and well-managed surface water and groundwater supplies.

While we’ve experienced incredible change over the last 100 years, one thing has remained constant: We are driven to always make decisions in the best interests of our customers and the communities we serve. This commitment is ongoing and will become even more important to ensure reliable, affordable and sustainable power and water as we address critical challenges facing our company and our state.

David Rousseau is president of the SRP board of directors. Jim Pratt is SRP general manager and CEO.

The post SRP Ensuring Reliable, Affordable and Sustainable Power and Water appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř.

This column originally appeared in the .

Voters in Salt River Project’s service territory will play a significant role in determining the future of a large portion of Arizona’s energy and water policies when they cast their ballots on April 2. They should choose wisely. Their votes will determine whether SRP maintains its steady, environmentally and economically responsible trajectory, or whether it adopts a dramatic and expensive change of course. 

Opponents of the current SRP board and council occupy an extreme wing of the environmental movement. They’re calling for reforms so sweeping that they’ll cause customers’ power bills to spike to untenable levels. 

SRP’s contribution to the state’s economic success is too important to pursue change motivated by a rigid ideological agenda. Some changes might be beneficial, but voters and SRP’s elected leaders should prioritize stability, reliability, and the interests of all stakeholders, including businesses and homeowners.

Danny Seiden, president and CEO of the Arizona şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř of Commerce & Industry

Salt River Project plays a vital role as the nation’s largest public power company, supplying electricity and water to a significant portion of Arizona. Its governance should strike a balance between innovation and proven strategies that ensure affordable and reliable services for its commercial and residential customers.

SRP has smartly integrated renewable energy sources into its system. Critics say it’s been too slow. But the transition to clean energy must be managed responsibly to avoid disruptions and new costs that would be borne by ratepayers. We can embrace renewable energy while safeguarding the affordability and reliability of our energy supply.

Water management is another critical aspect of SRP’s responsibilities. With Arizona facing water challenges, including drought conditions, SRP’s role as a major water supplier underscores the need for informed and strategic decision-making. Collaborative efforts between SRP, stakeholders, and policymakers are essential to ensuring sustainable water practices that support economic growth and environmental stewardship.

As for SRP’s governance, the current structure has served the community well for decades. While improvements can always be considered, any changes should be carefully evaluated to uphold fairness, representation, and accountability.

Neil Giuliano, president and CEO of Greater Phoenix Leadership.

To ensure a vibrant and prosperous future for Arizona, SRP voters should support candidates who understand the complexities of energy and water management, prioritize economic growth, and promote policies that benefit businesses and residents alike.

If you’re in SRP’s territory, exercise your . You’ll help determine the direction of SRP’s policies and initiatives and the state’s economic development prospects. 

The next generation of SRP leaders should commit to build a sustainable, resilient, and business-friendly energy and water infrastructure for generations to come.

SRP has served Arizona since before statehood, setting the standard for public utilities nationwide. It’s a reputation worth preserving. 

Danny Seiden is president and CEO of the Arizona şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř of Commerce & Industry; Neil Giuliano is president and CEO of Greater Phoenix Leadership.

The post SRP election a chance to ensure vibrant, prosperous future for Arizona appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř.

The following column by Arizona şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř of Commerce & Industry President and CEO Danny Seiden originally appeared on .

In the latest edition of “Rich States, Poor States,” an annual report assessing state economic performance across several categories, nationally for economic performance.  

The lofty ranking can in part be attributed to Arizona policymakers’ commitment to marketplace competition and a lighter regulatory burden on job creators.  

That commitment has resulted not only in more jobs but also has benefited Arizonans with more choices and lower prices.  

Perhaps no sector of our economy is as competitive as the grocery industry.

No longer limited to traditional grocery stores, concepts like supercenters, membership clubs and online grocers have entered the field to compete for a spot in consumers’ household budgets.   

The competition is fierce. Grocers need to be innovative to survive. Some, like Kroger and Albertsons, which own Fry’s and Safeway, respectively, want to team up. 

A Kroger-Albertsons merger makes sense. 

Consider that Walmart is the largest grocer in the world and in the United States, where the company’s 30% national share is more than double a combined Kroger and Albertsons.

The same goes for Arizona, where, just like nationally, Walmart has a bigger market share than even a combined Kroger and Albertsons would.  

Amazon, Costco, Target, and Aldi have all grown their offerings in Arizona as well.

So, with all this competition that delivers Arizona shoppers wide selections at various price points, why is Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes by relying on a law intended to stop monopolies?  

Mayes, the FTC and other state attorneys general allege in their complaint seeking to block the merger that a combined Kroger and Albertsons will eliminate competition and raise grocery prices. They say they’re looking out for consumers and workers, but they’re doing more harm than good.

After all, if Kroger and Albertsons can’t keep pace in their current form, then stores will close, leaving shoppers with fewer choices and workers out of a job – both here in Arizona and across the country.

But under a merger, Kroger and Albertsons have committed to not close stores.

To meet competition requirements, they are , which already operates a national network supplying more than 7,500 independent grocery stores. It also owns the Piggly Wiggly and Grand Union grocery brands.  

Various stores in Arizona are part of the sale, meaning more choices for consumers and saved jobs, including union jobs. C&S said it will continue to recognize the union workforce and maintain all collective bargaining agreements. 

Claims of price hikes don’t add up, either. 

Kroger has lowered prices following other acquisitions. , Kroger has reduced its gross profit margin significantly to , as CEO Rodney McMullen testified to Congress in November 2022.

As part of the merger with Albertsons, Kroger has committed an additional $500 million to continue lowering prices after the transaction is completed. 

Mayes and opponents say they’re responding to consumers’ concerns and worries. But their rhetoric around the proposed merger contradicts the public commitments Kroger has made since the merger was announced.

And that only contributes to the consumer anxiety opponents cite as justification for seeking to block the deal. 

Kroger and Albertsons have made strong commitments to preserve jobs and shopper choice. We would expect the attorney general and opponents to hold them accountable for keeping their end of the bargain. 

Two grocery companies have assessed the market conditions and have concluded that a merger makes the most sense for their continued survival.  

Let the market determine whether they’ve made the right calculation.

Danny Seiden is president and CEO of the Arizona şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř of Commerce & Industry

The post Don’t block the Kroger-Albertsons merger appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř.

The Arizona Corporation Commission’s decision to approve Arizona Public Service’s rate case last month was the right one. It was not only justified on the facts but also crucial for the continued economic prosperity and development of our state. 

Wise energy policy has been and continues to be central to the state’s economic development strategy. Arizona has flourished in part due to our commitment to energy choice, offering reliable and affordable electricity, natural gas, and renewable sources like solar. This commitment has set us apart from other states, and the Commission’s work to navigate the complexities of Arizona’s rate-setting process is reflective of its dedication to the important task of balancing the state’s energy needs with economic growth and sustainability. 

The battle to attract new jobs isn’t just a national one – it’s global – and energy rates play a significant role. Companies considering locating in Arizona carefully assess their operational costs, including energy expenses. The Commission’s decision in this case ensures that our state remains competitive when companies add up their projected spending, providing assurance to businesses that they will have access to reliable and affordable energy, enhancing our attractiveness as a destination for investment and job creation. 

Last summer’s record-breaking temperatures underscore the importance of a robust and resilient power grid. While other states experienced rolling blackouts and power outages, Arizona businesses and residents could count on our grid thanks to the investments and strategic planning of our utilities, and to the Commission for its support of these efforts. This reliability is not just a convenience but a fundamental necessity for industries like manufacturing to maintain 24/7 uptime. 

The substantial annual investments of approximately $1.5 billion by APS in grid maintenance demonstrate the utility’s commitment to reliability and resilience. These investments benefit businesses of all sizes and industries across its service territory, providing them with the stability and consistency necessary for success.

The diligence and foresight of the Commission in cases like this ensure APS and all Arizona utilities can keep pace with our rapid growth and continue investing in modern, less carbon-intensive infrastructure, essential for meeting the demands of today’s economy and securing Arizona’s position as a hub for future jobs. 

The members of the Corporation Commission have a tough job. They have to find that sweet spot that gives utilities the resources to ensure the state’s energy infrastructure remains reliable and modern, but without driving up rates to a level that causes Arizona to lose out on new jobs. 

A report from the real estate firm Newmark says metro Phoenix is the nation’s hottest manufacturing market thanks in part to our energy rates. If commissioners miss on a rate case decision, though, we fall from those lofty rankings and our economic outlook gets a little less rosy.

The decision in this rate case ensures Arizona job creators will have continued access to the reliable and affordable energy that is essential for our state’s economic prosperity. Credit to the commissioners for embracing their role as essential contributors to Arizona’s continued success as a leader in energy innovation and business development.

The post Corporation Commission got it right on recent rate case appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř.

This column originally appeared in .

The guessing game in Arizona and national politics of “will she or won’t she” is over. Sen. (I-Ariz.) she’s not running for reelection this fall. 

Pundits at home and inside the Beltway will now likely ruminate on her political legacy. Any critical analysis will find Sinema to have been a serious, substantive and consequential U.S. senator.

No wonder she found herself out of step with today’s politics.

She proved herself an asset to an institution that many Americans have come to view as sclerotic and ineffectual, and not without justification. But Sinema set out to make her six-year term one defined by legislative accomplishments, proving that the world’s greatest deliberative body can still accomplish big things.

When touts his proudest accomplishments, he should be thanking Sinema. Without her, there’s no CHIPS and Science Act, no bipartisan infrastructure law. Had Sinema caved on the Build Back Better bill and gone along with it in its original form, it would today be an albatross around his neck. Instead, she rescued him from his party’s own worst instincts.

While some of her colleagues are giving speeches to an empty chamber or looking for a press gaggle, she is brokering meetings with members from both parties, understanding where their positions are flexible, where they’re firm, and where there’s common ground.

It was no surprise, then, that amid a crisis of migrants overwhelming the southern border, Sinema was a leader in crafting an immigration deal that the Wall Street Journal opinion page “the most restrictive migrant legislation in decades.” She saw a problem and got to work on the solution.

She’s good at the job, not willing to settle for the status quo when bipartisan solutions are within reach. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) rightly praised her as a “.” If only more senators could be described as such.

Since her arrival in the Senate, she has confounded her critics and won over new admirers, McConnell among them.

She preserved the filibuster, the parliamentary norm that forces bipartisan agreement. She understands that if you’re willing to change the rules to run roughshod over your opponents, then soon enough you’ll be the one getting run over.

Her election was as a Democrat, but over the years it became clear she was uncomfortable with and unwilling to acquiesce to a party apparatus that would subject her to a progressive purity test at every turn.

So, she became an independent, a tag far more fitting of her brand of politics than the strictures that come with a party label.

It’s a move that was quintessentially Arizona, a state that over the decades has produced nonconforming leaders like Sen. John McCain (R), Rep. Mo Udall (D) and Sen. Barry Goldwater (R), who, for having the temerity to endorse a Democrat over a carpetbagger, once prompted Republican activists to for the removal of his name from state party headquarters.

But despite practicing the bipartisanship Americans say they want and expect from their leaders, Democrats determined that Sinema wasn’t sufficiently progressive and ran her out of the party. Republicans, after she served up a border security bill that they claimed was a necessity, determined, apparently, that the urgency had diminished.

Like McConnell, Sinema understands politics. And so, she’s made the decision not to seek reelection, leaving the Senate, and our politics, worse off.

The previous occupant of the seat that Sinema will leave also chose to exit the Senate after only one term, of the political environment of the time, that the “fever will someday break.”

It’s been nearly six years, and the fever still rages. Partisanship is a hell of a drug, but it’s no cure for what ails us.

Danny Seiden is the president and CEO of the Arizona şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř of Commerce and Industry.

Photo Gage Skidmore

The post Sinema’s retirement is a sign of the dismal state of politics appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř.

While the 2023 legislative session did little to solve Arizona’s ongoing housing supply crisis, this year’s gathering of 90 elected legislators has offered some hope that relief is coming. 

The state faces a housing deficit of more than 270,000 homes, according to analysis by the Arizona Department of Housing. Lawmakers studied the issue in 2022, including holding stakeholder meetings and listening sessions in all corners of the state. The last legislative session saw ambitious proposals, but at the end of the session, no real solutions made their way through the process and onto the governor for signature. 

There’s reason to hope that 2024 will be different. 

The Arizona Multihousing Association, the leading advocate for rental property owners and managers, is backing several bills that remain alive, have all garnered bipartisan support and now are on their way to the Senate. 

First, Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, sponsored HB2518 to have cities and towns with a population above 30,000 perform a housing needs assessment. Each community understanding its housing shortfalls and true needs will lead to better policies to fix the problems. To streamline the development process and minimize administrative delays, the bill would require cities to make a rezoning decision within 180 days of receiving an application. The intent is to alleviate the cumbersome delays that impede developers from promptly introducing new homes and apartments to the market, thereby reducing costs for both developers and prospective homebuyers. 

House Majority Leader Leo Biasiucci, alongside a bipartisan group of lawmakers, introduced HB2297, a groundbreaking proposal that empowers developers to transform underutilized or vacant commercial developments into new housing options, with a mandatory inclusion of low- and or moderate-income options. The bill streamlines the conversion process for developers, enabling them to repurpose vacant shopping centers and office buildings for housing without going through a protracted rezoning process. Conversions allow developers to capitalize on existing infrastructure, leading to enhanced property values and increased tax revenue. 

LeVinus 

HB2734, sponsored by Democrat Rep. Analise Ortiz, mandates that municipalities in Arizona hold a maximum of two public hearings on residential zoning ordinances, aiming to streamline zoning cases while ensuring adequate public involvement and feedback. Currently, some cities such as Tucson, Phoenix, and Scottsdale conduct more than three public hearings, leading to significant delays in project entitlement. By limiting public hearings to two, unnecessary time delays for both the Council and developers can be avoided, while still allowing for local input. The measure also seeks to simplify approval processes and encourage collaboration between municipalities and developers, ultimately expediting project approvals while upholding local authority. 

All three bills have received bipartisan support in House committee hearings as well as the floor vote. The AMA is hoping to get enough support to propel all three bills to the governor’s desk for her signature. 

At the same time as we are supporting these legislative efforts, the AMA is also encouraging cities to take steps to alleviate the housing crisis. Cities need to loosen regulations on casitas – accessory dwelling units – to allow for more options to house family members or to offer them for rent. And expedited timelines to approve rezoning cases or building permits allow developers to bring new homes to market faster. 

It’s long past time that the state and local communities address the significant housing shortfall. The Legislature and governor can take the first steps this session to give the thousands of people who move to Arizona every year more options.

Courtney Gilstrap LeVinus is the president and CEO of the Arizona Multihousing Association.

The post 2024 legislative session offers hope for housing supply advocates appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř.

This column by Arizona şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř of Commerce & Industry President and CEO Danny Seiden originally appeared on . 

The Arizona Legislature is considering a bill that could make our regulatory environment more cumbersome, complicated and expensive, tying up private businesses in red tape and sticking taxpayers with the bill.

If it passes, Arizona’s reputation as a business-friendly state will be at risk.

The proponents of argue that private companies are discriminating against potential customers based on gun politics and thus shouldn’t be allowed to do business with the state and local governments.

They also believe that the best way to prevent such discrimination is to prohibit private entities from entering into certain contractual agreements, unless the entity’s contract includes written assurances that there will be no discrimination against any firearm entity or firearm trade association.

Private businesses of all sizes make tough decisions every day to manage risk, meet client needs and deliver returns for shareholders. All that’s hard enough to do without inserting a political agenda into the mix. 

However, the proposed remedy is far worse than the perceived problem.  

This bill is a bad deal for Arizona, replacing a market defined by supply and demand with one where politicians decide who can do business with whom.  

Other states have adopted similar blacklist policies and paid a stiff price.  

In Texas, taxpayers have been forced to shoulder  in additional municipal borrowing costs after lawmakers there pushed out a handful of bond underwriters.

Local officials in Stillwater, Okla., had to put a series of infrastructure projects on hold after borrowing costs spiked because the lender found itself on that state’s blacklist.  

It’s a predictable consequence.

After all, fewer businesses eligible to contract with state and local governments leads to fewer choices from which the government can select for projects, which leads to higher costs for taxpayers. 

State and local governments can’t print money. When costs go up in one area, it means there are fewer resources to invest in things like public safety, sanitation and other core government responsibilities.

It’s no wonder the Arizona Association of Counties has expressed concern that bringing a blacklist law to our state would cause small, rural communities to suffer due to reduced banking services and higher costs, which will ultimately affect local taxpayers.  

Arizona’s pro-business reputation has been cultivated in part by assuring job creators that our policymaking environment is predictable and stable, and that our laws and regulations are intended to encourage job growth, not stifle it. 

But SCR 1007 signals that Arizona’s business environment can shift at any moment.

What was once an acceptable business practice could suddenly fall out of favor with whoever’s in power, jeopardizing a company’s ability to operate here.

Arizona has worked hard to cultivate a business environment where businesses can succeed or fail in a free market.

The policies proposed in SCR 1007 would make government the arbiter of who wins and who loses. Lawmakers should reject it.

Danny Seiden is president and CEO of the Arizona şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř of Commerce & Industry.

Photo Andreas Metz

The post Blacklisting companies for their gun policies will backfire on Arizona appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř.