How much do you like to walk in 110-degree heat? If you’re a resident of the city of Phoenix, you may need to start getting used to it if the city council gets its way.
A proposed ordinance in Phoenix is looking to significantly reduce the minimum number of parking spaces it requires for apartments. Currently, Phoenix requires a minimum of 150 parking spaces for every 100 one or two-bedroom apartments. Under the proposed ordinance, that number would decrease to 125 spaces. But that’s not the end of it. For new affordable apartment complexes near light rail stations, the requirement for most would be reduced to zero! Yes. Zero parking spaces at an apartment complex. Have you caught on to their agenda yet?
If you’ve been keeping score, you already know that—in just this year—climate change zealots have been seeking to prohibit gas stoves; put limits on things like lawn and garden equipment, motorized boating, and water heaters; and ban the internal combustion engine. Now, this latest attempt to reduce parking spaces makes it clear. They want to force you out of your air-conditioned car to walk in 110-degree heat with your reward being to wait for a bus or light rail—all the while hoping that you don’t develop heat stroke. Then, once you’re riding on whatever form of public transit you’ve been forced to use, you get to hope that you won’t be assaulted or victimized on a system of transportation that’s seeing an increase in crime. Finally, you’ll get off said public transit and be rewarded with yet another long walk in 110-degree heat. (But at least it’s on Phoenix’s “cool” pavement. Oh wait. It turns out, that’s making people feel even hotter.)
Remember when they said, “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy”? They’re certainly doing everything they can to make the first part a reality. But there isn’t a soul in Phoenix who would be happy walking around the city during an afternoon in July.
All this nonsense is aimed at their agenda to turn Phoenix into a 15-minute city, and they’re not even trying to hide it anymore. Case in point, meet Phoenix’s Vice Mayor Yassamin Ansari who recently took to Twitter to hype the proposed ordinance and the 15-minute city concept—where cars will be phased out and everything you need will supposedly be available by foot, bike, or public transit. Of course, if Ms. Ansari is so passionate about Phoenix becoming a 15-minute city, perhaps she’d be willing to lead by example. Why doesn’t she give up her car, walk to the bus stop every day in 110-degree heat, and ride the public transit that she believes is so safe?
But she won’t. And none of the liberal elites pushing this plan will either. They will continue to use their own car and park in their premium parking spots while all of us regular folks are left to deal with these outrageous policies.
They hate how we live and how we get around, and now they want to make us miserable until we surrender to their climate change agenda. But with the proposed parking plan up for a vote sometime in September, there’s still time to fight back. Stay informed. Build a passionate argument based on facts. And make your voice heard. Tucson residents recently defeated a similar attempt to create a 15-minute city by voting down Prop 412. Now, Phoenix should follow their lead.
Help Protect Freedom in Arizona by Joining Our Grassroots Network
Arizona needs to have a unified voice promoting economic freedom and prosperity, and the Free Enterprise Club is committed to making that happen. But we can’t do it alone. We need YOU!
Join our FREE Grassroots Action List to stay up to date on the latest battles against big government and how YOU can help influence crucial bills at the Arizona State Legislature.
It looks like we struck a nerve at one of the largest universities in the United States. Last week, the Free Enterprise Club published an article on Arizona State University’s (ASU) failure to uphold free speech. The article came in the aftermath of an event held by the T.W. Lewis Center for personal development—a center of the Barrett Honors College—that featured prominent conservative speakers like Robert Kiyosaki, Dennis Prager, and Charlie Kirk.
While the event was allowed to proceed, it faced a campaign from 39 of the 47 faculty from the honors college who tried to shut it down. Then, in the months following the event, the center was not only dissolved, but two staff members lost their jobs. Now, ASU has offered a “fact check” of our article in a desperate attempt to save face. And as you might expect, it’s another swing and miss.
It begins by referencing our organization as the Free Enterprise “Club.” Yes. That’s right. It put “Club” in scare quotes for whatever reason, as if that may not be part of the name of our organization. But it has inspired us to consider recognizing ASU as Arizona State “University” moving forward. After all, universities are supposed to be institutions of higher education, and ASU appears to be trending away from that mission to fulfill its desired woke agenda.
Speaking of agendas, ASU also accuses the Club of being “a non-profit, political organization with a political agenda which utilizes what have now become standard political techniques of making brash, attention-getting statements and accusations in a well-orchestrated campaign to secure more social media engagement, more media hits and more donations.”
We’re certainly glad our article got the attention of ASU and others. That is, after all, what an article is supposed to do. And it’s in line with our mission. Since 2005, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club has been the leading organization in the state dedicated to advancing a pro-growth, limited government agenda in Arizona. And through active lobbying, litigation, and our extensive grassroots network, the Club has secured numerous policy victories in the state, including historic income tax cuts, expanded school choice, and protection of free speech. So, yes, when we see violations of free speech, we call them out. We want to get the attention of the people of Arizona, so they know about it and can speak up. And once again, this strategy proved to be a success as the state legislature holds a hearing today about free expression at Arizona’s public universities.
But what about the content of the article itself? What did ASU specifically refute or identify as factually incorrect? We would like to call out a few particular highlights from their alleged “fact check”:
This is how ASU responded to this particular sentence. No talking points. No arguments. Just a link to the “About” page on its website that says nothing about its commitment to free speech.
Some ASU faculty members disagreed? We’re talking about more than 75 percent of the Barrett Honors College faculty signing on to a letter condemning the event and calling the speakers “purveyors of hate.” That’s certainly more than “some.” And ASU’s claim that it is “unaware that students were ‘recruited’ by faculty to oppose [the event],” is laughable when we know at least one faculty member emailed the condemnation letter to her students.
This is just another carefully worded response. ASU’s fact check says that “employees” are not forced to sign diversity statements. But our article doesn’t mention employees. It references “job applicants,” and according to a report from the Goldwater Institute, as of the Fall of 2022, more than 81 percent of job postings at ASU mandated a diversity statement from applicants.
ASU’s “fact check” claims that Lin Blake left for reasons having nothing to do with the Lewis Center event, which certainly makes it sound like she left of her own accord. But then it goes on to say it would be glad to provide more information about her leaving. That makes no sense. Just like it makes no sense to fire someone who was referred to as a “rockstar” within months of pulling off a successful event amid controversy while dealing with staffing shortages due to the Super Bowl occurring the same week.
While ASU has certainly hosted conservative events, our article didn’t say that the school cancels every single conservative event that comes its way. That would’ve thrown up red flags years ago. But it can’t deny that it did cancel a conservative fundraiser in January 2022 with conflicting explanations. And it did cancel the events featuring Brett Weinstein and Katie Pavlich after faculty opposed them in a survey until President Michael Crow felt pressure and restored the events.
Finally, ASU claims that no centers were closed or personnel were fired as a result of the event. Their stance is that the donor to the Lewis Center simply withdrew his gift. But once again, ASU isn’t disclosing the entire story. T.W. Lewis says that he pulled his funding because of ASU’s hostility to conservative thinkers. And Ann Atkinson—the executive director of the T.W. Lewis Center who was fired—says that she offered a diversified group of donors to offset the funding, but that Barrett Honors College Dean Tara Williams wasn’t interested.
Perhaps, instead of spending so much time fact-checking, ASU should simply stop giving in to the leftist faculty mob and follow through on its supposed commitment to free speech. It’s not enough to just allow speakers to speak. Everyone should be able to freely participate in the marketplace of ideas without fear of government censorship or retribution. That’s the heart of the First Amendment. And if ASU won’t commit to it, Arizona lawmakers should do it for them.
Help Protect Freedom in Arizona by Joining Our Grassroots Network
Arizona needs to have a unified voice promoting economic freedom and prosperity, and the Free Enterprise Club is committed to making that happen. But we can’t do it alone. We need YOU!
Join our FREE Grassroots Action List to stay up to date on the latest battles against big government and how YOU can help influence crucial bills at the Arizona State Legislature.
Bad ideas never seem to go away. And in politics, they often get recycled every 10 years because consultants need to make money. That’s why it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that we’re seeing another push for jungle primaries in the state of Arizona.
If you’re not familiar with a jungle primary (or open primary), it is an election in which all candidates run in the same primary regardless of their political party. The top two candidates who receive the most votes then advance to the general election.
Several years ago, California adopted this “solution” under the guise that it would result in more moderate policies and candidates being elected there. Go ahead and read that again. When you think of California, do you think of a state with moderate policies and candidates? That should tell you all you need to know about jungle primaries. And yet, now we have groups like Save Democracy telling us that we need to act more like California to improve Arizona. No thank you!
Of course, Arizona voters already said as much back in 2012 when they overwhelmingly rejected this absurd form of voting. But despite this, Save Democracy has decided to pursue a ballot measure to institute jungle primaries after it realized that its work to bring ranked-choice voting (RCV) to Arizona was a disorganized mess.
No! (You may want to get your popcorn ready for this one.) While Save Democracy has given up on RCV, a group called Voter Choice Arizona (VCA) has not. Clearly upset with Save Democracy stabbing them in the back and pulling their support, VCA is now openly feuding with its former ally in Save Democracy after it was forced to clarify that they are 100% committed to putting a ranked-choice voting measure on the 2024 ballot.
On top of all this, the Republican-led legislature already voted to send a measure to the 2024 ballot that would give Arizona voters a chance to further protect our primary election system from ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries. So, if you’re keeping score at home, that means we could have three potential ballot initiatives in 2024 dealing with ranked-choice voting or jungle primaries.
This may all seem confusing, but no less confusing than ranked-choice voting where:
Candidates are listed on the ballot, and voters rank each candidate in order of preference.
If a candidate wins 50% or more of the first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner.
If no one wins in the first round, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated.
In the next round, voters who selected the eliminated candidate as their first choice then have their vote counted for their second preference.
The process continues until one candidate eventually wins the majority of the adjusted votes.
Jungle primaries will cause many of the same problems—leaving Arizona voters confused and potentially resulting in candidates from the same party being on the ballot in the general election. And that doesn’t even get into the impact all this could have on our voting machines that have had enough trouble under the current system.
The reality is that we’ve already seen significant issues with ranked-choice voting in Alaska. And jungle primaries in California have resulted in fewer candidate choices and even more far left radical politics. We can’t let that happen here. Arizona voters already rejected jungle primaries once. Now, they should shoot them down again.
Help Protect Freedom in Arizona by Joining Our Grassroots Network
Arizona needs to have a unified voice promoting economic freedom and prosperity, and the Free Enterprise Club is committed to making that happen. But we can’t do it alone. We need YOU!
Join our FREE Grassroots Action List to stay up to date on the latest battles against big government and how YOU can help influence crucial bills at the Arizona State Legislature.
Universities are supposed to be the “marketplace of ideas.” With a “green light” rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), you would think that Arizona State University (ASU) would understand this. But apparently, the school would rather be just another woke university that shuts down free speech. Now, the T.W. Lewis Center for Personal Development—a center of the Barrett Honors College—and its executive director Ann Atkinson have found out the hard way.
Back in February, Atkinson organized an event on “Health, Wealth, and Happiness” as part of a series from the Lewis Center focused on connecting students with professionals who can offer career and life advice. Speakers for the event included Rich Dad, Poor Dad author Robert Kiyosaki, radio talk show host and founder of Prager U Dennis Prager, founder and president of Turning Point USA Charlie Kirk, and heart-transplant cardiologist Radha Gopalan. For a university that offers classes on subjects like witchcraft and critical theories of sexuality, this event felt pretty tame by comparison. But the mere mention of these conservative speakers caused more than 75 percent of the Barrett Honors College faculty to have a meltdown. (Looks like ASU’s commitment to force job applicants to sign diversity statements is paying off.)
Along with sending a letter to Barrett Honors College Dean Tara Williams condemning the event and calling the speakers “purveyors of hate,” some faculty spent time in class denouncing it while others actually recruited students to oppose the program. On top of that, on-campus marketing of the event was removed with fliers torn down and all digital advertising scrubbed. Atkinson was also told by the dean that she couldn’t send an email promoting the event all while ASU continued to promote a counter-event. And she was warned that if the speakers made any political statements, it wouldn’t be in the “best interests” of the Lewis Center.
Atkinson ignored all the threats, and the event proved to be a great success with 1,500 attendees in person, more than 24,000 attendees online, and zero disturbances or traumatized students.
So, how did ASU respond to this success?
Lin Blake, the event operations manager at ASU Gammage Theater (where the event was held), was fired despite initially being labeled a “rockstar” for how she handled the event. And as of June 30, ASU dismantled the Lewis Center and terminated Atkinson’s position.
Of course, this isn’t the first time ASU has shown disdain for conservative events. In January 2022, the university offered conflicting explanations for canceling a fundraiser that was set to feature Arizona Congressman Andy Biggs and former Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz. And in March 2022, the school initially canceled two other conservative events that included speakers Bret Weinstein and Katie Pavlich. The March events were eventually restored with a follow-up email that stated, “Under the leadership of President Michael Crow, Arizona State University is committed to intellectual diversity.”
For President Crow and ASU, it now appears that “intellectual diversity” and free speech are simply limited to allowing speakers to speak. But if those speakers even dare to hold ideas that are counter to the prevailing orthodoxy on campus, there will be retribution. Positions will be terminated. Centers will be closed. And students will suffer because of it. After all, many undergraduates skipped out on the “Health, Wealth, and Happiness” event because they were worried that their attendance could hurt them academically. That very real possibility should serve as a “red light” to any parent who’s considering paying to send their child to ASU. And it should inspire lawmakers to find ways to ensure that free speech is protected at our state’s taxpayer-funded universities.
Help Protect Freedom in Arizona by Joining Our Grassroots Network
Arizona needs to have a unified voice promoting economic freedom and prosperity, and the Free Enterprise Club is committed to making that happen. But we can’t do it alone. We need YOU!
Join our FREE Grassroots Action List to stay up to date on the latest battles against big government and how YOU can help influence crucial bills at the Arizona State Legislature.
Recent Comments