I disagree with Councilman Alan Magazine’s criticism of the state legislature (“My Opinion” column, 6/19/19) for limiting the ability of local officials, like him, to raise taxes without voter approval, burden new homebuyers with unfair and excessive development fees and pass local ordinances in matters of statewide and not local concern.

Having served nine years on local town councils, six in Fountain Hills, and 13 years in the state legislature, I am confident that Arizona has struck a fair balance between state versus local control and between voter-approved versus politician-approved tax increases.

Every part of Arizona’s state constitution was voter-approved, including the section that only allows a home value-based property tax to be adopted by the voters. It was the voters, not the legislature, who created that restriction. Councilman Magazine bemoans the fact that he cannot circumvent voter approval for such a property tax by calling it a value-based environmental fee. Sorry, Councilman Magazine, but I will always preempt you on that sleight of hand. Also, remember that the voters of Fountain Hills have repeatedly rejected property taxes, so adopting one by town council vote under the guise of a value-based environmental fee would be undemocratic.

Councilman Magazine next complained that the legislature limits towns in their ability to collect development fees on new construction. The legislature did pass the law permitting the collection of such fees so that new construction pays for the essential infrastructure needs it creates, such as police stations, parks and roads. However, some towns ripped off new homebuyers by overinflating the costs and billing for non-essential infrastructure, such as concert halls and even a proposed bathhouse! In response to such abuses, the legislature created more accountable cost estimating rules and a tighter definition of essential infrastructure. I supported that reform.

Councilman Magazine’s criticism of the state’s requirement that municipalities update their master plan once every decade as being burdensome is especially peculiar, coming from a Fountain Hills official. Fountain Hills has always prided itself in its high level of public participation in its town planning. Residents have donated thousands of volunteer hours through groups like SPAC to make our town reflective of our values. Is it too much to incorporate their input and get the required voter approval for the general plan once every 10 years?I think not.

I also found Councilman Magazine’s accusation that the legislature made it “…even more difficult to get an issue on the ballot,” hypocritical. In his column, Magazine complained that the state prevents him from passing a de facto property tax without the required voter approval. He then went on to complain that it is costly to update the town’s master plan, which also involves voter ratification every 10 years. Exactly who is thwarting the voters here?

In fact, the election bills passed this year were directed against election fraud, not participation. The bills require that voters present proper identification at the polls, that voters requesting emergency ballots attest that they are experiencing an actual emergency and that felons, election law violators and people convicted of fraud or forgery cannot become paid petition gatherers. Anti-voter fraud laws benefit legitimate voters because illegal votes can cancel out legal ones.

The temptation for elected officials to spend money – other peoples’ money – is great and there is even more pressure at the local level. The voters have erected safeguards to limit excessive and unauthorized taxation and spending at the local level. The legislature enacts laws to protect taxpayers against such excessive, unfair and unauthorized taxation and spending by local officials, like Councilman Magazine. I support those laws.