by admin | Jan 12, 2018 | News and Updates
Over $175 Million has already been put back into the pockets of AZ taxpayers, with more to come…
Now that the dust has settled and Congress has completed the most comprehensive overhaul of the US tax code since 1986, many Arizona taxpayers and business owners are nervously awaiting to see how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) will affect them.
This is understandable—the tax code is extremely complicated and fraught with uncertainty, making it easy to believe even the most provable lies about the tax plan. The media could have done a better job separating fact from fiction, but they seemed more interested in being cheerleaders for the opposition than challenging the absurd claims being made from the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.
The good news is that benefits of the TCJA will be determined not by hyperbole but by results, and Arizona taxpayers are already winning big.
Tax Cuts for Hardworking Families
One of the biggest lies told about the GOP tax reform package was that it would result in tax increases for middle income families. This fable was repeated endlessly, despite the fact that even left leaning think tanks acknowledged that over 80 percent of US taxpayers would receive a tax cut.
In Arizona, the number will be even higher. With a combination of rate cuts, an increase in the standard deduction, the rollback of the State and Local Deduction (that primarily benefited wealthy individuals in high tax states) and the expansion of the child tax credit, the number of people receiving a cut will likely exceed 90 percent.
And the reductions will be substantial. According to the Tax Foundation, the average tax cut for a middle-income family in Arizona will be $2,500. In fact, when calculating different scenarios under TCJA it is difficult to find examples of households making less than $100,000 paying more. A family of 4 with a household income of $70,000 will see their tax bill slashed by approximately $1,900. A single person with one child making $50,000 will see a reduction of $500. A married couple with no kids making $90,000 would get a cut around $1,000.
Bonuses, Pay Raises, Additional Benefits and Utility Rate Cuts
One of the most pleasant surprises following the passage of TCJA has been the flood of announcements by Arizona employers providing bonuses, pay raises and other benefits as a result of tax reform. As of January 11th, an estimated 80,000 Arizona employees have received bonuses, new benefits and utility rate reductions as a result of the GOP tax cuts, totaling $175 Million Dollars. Here are some of the companies that have rewarded their Arizona employees and customers due to the GOP tax plan:
- American and Southwest Airlines announced $1,000 bonuses for their nearly 15,000 employees in celebration of the GOP tax plan.
- CEO Bob Parsons handed out $1.3 million in bonuses to his 725 employees at YAM Worldwide.
- AT&T and Comcast provided $1,000 bonuses to hundreds of Arizonans in their workforce.
- Bank of America will be giving $1,000 bonuses to their 10,000 Arizona employees that earn up to $150,000 in total compensation.
- Boeing has committed to $300 million to charitable investments, workforce training and infrastructure improvements.
- Nationwide announced $1,000 bonuses and an increase of their 401(k)-matching contribution for their 1,800 Arizona employees.
- Wells Fargo, with over 15,000 Arizona employees, announced the establishment of a $15 minimum wage, $400 million in charitable donations and $100 million in additional capital investment.
- Wal-Mart has committed to providing their 35,000 Arizona employees a guaranteed minimum wage of $11/hour and bonuses up to $1,000.
- APS announced that they intend to slash $119 Million from their utility rates, which would save the average homeowner $56 each year.
These are not indirect benefits, this is cash going directly into the pockets of hardworking taxpayers and workers who need it most. Combined with the anticipated individual income tax rate reductions being calculated into paychecks beginning next month, the direct financial benefit for Arizona workers due to tax reform will be close to a billion dollars in 2018.
Expect the winning from tax reform to continue. Thanks to the corporate rate cuts, full expensing and repatriation, Arizona will experience billions more in new investment and job creation in the coming years.
So as the good news from TCJA continues to roll in, it will be interesting to watch opponents to tax reform try to explain to business owners and hardworking taxpayers why more jobs and money in their wallet is bad for them. Their efforts up to this point haven’t been too convincing.
by admin | Jan 9, 2018 | News and Updates
Last month, the Free Enterprise Club chronicled the sad story of the Irwin Family, whose backyard swim school was shut down by an unfair and punitive regulatory process in Pinal County.
Following the publishing of the Club’s article, Pinal County has decided to circle the wagons and push a new version of events in order to defend their actions. Specifically, they are making several allegations that are misleading, factually wrong and designed to avoid responsibility for their conduct.
To ensure the true victims in this story are not wronged further by denying the facts of their case, the following is a response to the new claims being made by Pinal County, all of which are corroborated by email correspondence, public records and the minutes taken at the Irwin’s planning and zoning commission meeting (case SUP-007-14).
- Pinal County staff is claiming that the enforcement action was due to “numerous complaints from adjacent residents due to traffic, parking, outdoor storage and noise.” This is factually wrong. In their 10 years of operating a swim school not a single complaint was ever filed against the Irwin’s with the County.
The County’s interest in the case began when a code enforcement officer visited the Irwin’s home on May 10th, 2013 with an advertisement from a Queen Creek summer camp paper. The officer made no reference to complaints filed by neighbors, only that they needed a home occupation permit.
Additionally, the code enforcement officer sent an email to the Irwin’s on June 11th reminding them to “kindly take your (home-based business) application into the Florence office as soon as possible, we can process this and close the case.” The fact that the County never mentions any complaints and was so willing to close the case in a manner favorable to the Irwin’s (following the submission of their application) undermines their new version of events.
- Pinal County is now claiming that, “after their investigation based on neighbor complaints, the Irwin’s were operating a business that would require a Special Use Permit (SUP).” This is factually wrong. According to County staff, this new requirement for the Irwin’s to apply for a SUP was based upon a review of the Irwin’s website, NOT as a result of any nuisance complaints by the neighbors.
This is known to be true because the code enforcement officer sent the following email to the Irwin’s notifying them that the planning manager decided to require that they file for a SUP.
“Suzy—
I’m very sorry, but my manager looked at your website, and decided based on the description you have given on the web, your business is a lot more than what a home occupation would allow. In order for you to continue to run your fitness/swimming business out of your home, you will need to apply for a special use permit.
I tried to make the home occupation work, but upon looking at what you are advertising, we decided that your business would much better be suited to a special use permit. I am enclosing a concept review application. You will need to schedule this with the planning department and there is a $200 fee.”
After receiving this email, the Irwin’s decided to pay a $200 SUP applicant fee and participate in a “concept review” meeting on August 20th, 2013 in order to keep their swim school open. After the concept review meeting and paying an additional $500 fee, the Irwin’s received permission from County staff to move forward with the SUP. Not once at the pre-app meeting were any complaints brought up, nor did staff ever mention any issues or concerns related to obtaining the SUP.
- Pinal County is claiming that an ordinance change in 2010 resulted in the decision to deny the SUP by the County. What is omitted by staff is that this concern was never mentioned until the actual P&Z hearing and exposes how unfairly the Irwin’s were treated. According to all correspondence and the minutes from the hearing, County staff personally guided the Irwin’s through the zoning requirements and told them they were eligible for the SUP.
County Planner Ashley MacDonald presented her case at the hearing and stated, “As you know, and as was discussed with the last case, neighborhood commercial up to 20 acres is allowed within this designation.” She further explained the layout of the Irwin’s property and told the commission “that there is sufficient parking according to the zoning regulations.” As for community support for the SUP, the commissioners received 46 letters from neighbors in support of the Irwin’s and 3 letters in opposition.
So, if County staff was on board with the SUP and community support was overwhelming, why didn’t they receive approval? The demise of the Irwin swim school occurred when the County’s legal counsel, Mark Langlitz, declared at the hearing “This is a, using a special use permit as a vehicle to really create a situation of spot zoning. I don’t believe the County has the authority to permit a commercial activity on this site. I think it’s illegal.”
When Sean Irwin challenged Mr. Langlitz on what constitutes a commercial use and thus would result in “spot zoning”, he responded, “commercial use is an activity done for profit for a business, and (inaudible) were going to be teaching swimming or fitness and gaining revenue, that’s a commercial business.” In other words, according the Mr. Langlitz any for profit business that earns revenue at a home is likely illegal.
Recognizing the glaring problems with Mr. Langlitz’ legal opinion, Sean Irwin later inquired, “if I am no longer making a profit and that money is going to drowning preventions, or actually we just don’t charge our people that are coming for the swim lessons – Now would that be no longer commercial, if we’re not making a profit?”
Mr. Langlitz initially responds by conceding if they are not conducting commercial activities, then they don’t need a SUP and states they can withdraw their application (page 155). However, later clarifies, “I think I did mention that one of the factors in looking at if it’s a commercial activity is whether it’s a profit. Nonprofits would also conducting commercial businesses; so it’s – the key is not whether or not it’s for a profit, I just wanted to clarify that (page 160).” We think it’s safe to say, this string of legal reasoning is far from clarifying.
In conclusion, the Irwin’s swim school was shut down by Pinal County as a result of a questionable legal opinion that wasn’t shared with the Irwin’s until the day of the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing. No complaints were ever filed against the swim school with the County, staff recommended approval of the Irwin’s SUP at the pre-application meeting, and supporters of the school at the P&Z hearing outnumbered opponents 15-1.
The Irwin’s didn’t deserve this treatment, and it is unfortunate the County is not using this case as an opportunity to review their internal policies and procedures to avoid harming more businesses, families and neighborhoods in the future. Instead, they are actively working to obscure their conduct and even blame the victims.
Given Pinal County’s unsavory reaction, it is safe to say they have no intention of changing their ways. Ensuring an environment that allows no-impact home-based businesses to operate and thrive is too important of an issue to rely on the self-discipline of cities and counties. Instead, the State Legislature should step up to provide all the state’s home-based businesses more predictability, protections, and an opportunity to prosper.
by admin | Dec 21, 2017 | News and Updates
The criminal justice system is a complex area of policy development, where the Left and the Right often find themselves standing on surprisingly common ground. Considering public safety is generally the most expensive line item in government, (Maricopa County spends 53 percent of its $2.49 billion budget on criminal justice and public safety,) small improvements to the system could have large social and fiscal returns.
There are three general areas of public policy that affect the system: prevention, intervention, and redemption.
The main prerogative of redemption policies is reentry into society after an offender has served their sentence and paid their restitution. In other words – reducing the risk of recidivism. A major part of this equation is legal and gainful employment.
After all, it’s often claimed that a job, is the best alternative to a life of crime.
Ex-offenders face many obstacles to legitimate employment: meager skills, reticent employers, and regulatory burdens that present high costs and high barriers to entry, just to name a few.
Teach Them to be Something Other Than a Criminal
When evaluating recidivism rates, it is clear that the first three years after a convict is released are critical. That is why offering robust job training programs during and after their sentence is crucial to successful reentry.
This should be more than punching license plates. Teaching a convict new tools and more sophisticated skills give him opportunities to earn a better living than what a life of crime provides. Exposure to new thought processes and higher education is also more transformative to the individual and has better long-term prospects than simple existence and survival.
Over the last couple of years, Arizona has been making strides at working with the private sector to implement job training programs at our correctional facilities to give convicts nearing release an opportunity to train and acquire a job. Lawmakers need to take a closer look at the efficacy of these programs and explore ways to accelerate their adoption throughout the state.
Remove Regulatory Barriers to Job Opportunities
Though developing vocational programs and opportunities for convicts is important, their effectiveness will be limited without the removal of regulatory barriers preventing entry into the job market after release.
Occupational licensing restrictions is one area that is in need of reform. A year ago, ASU economist Stephen Slivinski wrote a comprehensive study on the correlations between occupational licensing and recidivism. In his study, Turning Shackles into Bootstraps, he found states with “the heaviest occupational licensing burdens saw an average increase in the three-year, new-crime recidivism rate of over 9 percent.”
One reason is that the licensing fees and costly time requirements simply price many job opportunities out of reach for most ex-felons. Complicating matters further is that occupational licenses are overseen by boards and commissions that have crafted overly broad “good moral character” requirements that effectively prohibit ex-felons from working in dozens of fields. Policymakers should take a closer look at the costs and unnecessary license restrictions that are preventing convicts from getting a job.
Another regulatory obstacle preventing convicts from finding work is their inability to obtain a driver’s license due to court ordered fines and penalties. Though intended to coerce payment of the fines, the practical effect is that convicts are prohibited from driving until all fines are paid, yet they need to drive in order to work. It is a catch-22 that must be fixed.
If it isn’t a Life Sentence, it Shouldn’t be a Life Sentence
For good reason, many employers feel uneasy about hiring a person with a record. Often when there are two qualified applicants for a position side-by-side, if one has a record and the other does not, the employer will opt for the applicant who based upon the available evidence poses lesser liability for the business.
One idea being proposed to address this issue is a concept called “ban the box,” which would limit an employer’s ability to inquire about past felony convictions on an application and typically delays it until after the in-person interview. Currently more than a dozen states have adopted this approach, nine of which directly prohibit private employers from asking about prior felonies on job applications. Additionally, Governor Ducey recently enacted a similar program for hiring state employees.
Though well-intentioned and potentially a good idea for state government, “ban the box” would result in unintended consequences if deployed in the private sector. Not only is it a clunky mechanism to try to engineer a certain outcome, some studies have shown it actually harms minorities without a criminal background. It is very likely that businesses would simply make other assumptions and implement alternative hiring tactics to sidestep the prohibition in the vacuum of information.
A possible alternative to ‘ban the box’ that is less intrusive and could accomplish the same goal would be to provide a narrow segment of ex-offenders (that meet certain criteria) an opportunity to seal their records. For example, if non-violent offenders comply with all court ordered sentencing, treatment, and do not recidivate over a substantial period of time (five to seven years), they could be allowed the opportunity to seal their records.
If a main premise of our justice system is the punishment should fit the crime, then once a person has served their sentence, their payment to society is complete. Select sealing of records strikes a balance between preserving public safety, allowing for employer discretion, while giving a low-risk population of ex-offenders a second chance at a clean slate.
Arizona, like every other state, is faced with complex and costly policy decisions when it comes to criminal justice. The time has passed culturally when it was acceptable to simply punish people and hope for the best. As a society we have recognized that we can do more. That everyone is better served by a compassionate system that holds individuals accountable while addressing root problems holistically.
Focused and strategic efforts to bring persons with a record into the workforce is significant. After all, honest work is more than a job; it’s self-sufficiency, it’s a source of pride, and it’s a future.
by admin | Dec 12, 2017 | News and Updates
The Free Enterprise Club and The Goldwater Institute have been investigating cases around Arizona of home-based businesses (HBB) being harassed or shut down by local government.
But this isn’t a new issue. In fact, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), an organization comprised of member-cities in Maricopa County, issued a comprehensive study on the home-based business landscape.
Their conclusion? Home-based business regulatory reform is long overdue.
According to the MAG Study issued in 2003, almost every city in Maricopa County has overly burdensome ordinances that unnecessarily restrict home-based employment. The study urged cities to reconsider their regulatory regime in order to “create a positive environment that assures their [home based businesses] future operation and place within the community.”
A major factor in MAGs conclusion in relaxing home-based business regulations was their observation of evolving work trends in the US, finding that over 3.4 million workers (and growing) worked from home, of which over half being self-employed home-based business owners.
Most notable from that figure is that only 19% of these home-based businesses were in the production, operations or fabrication sectors. Most HBBs were in the managerial or professional (41.6%), technical, sales and admin support (24.6%), and service occupations (14.9%). In other words, most home-based businesses in today’s economy are service occupations that can operate without any disruption in a residential neighborhood. Businesses that create a great deal of noise and exhaust are no longer the typical home-based business.
Yet the zoning ordinances governing HBBs remain stuck in the post-industrial economy of the 1950s. One area highlighted by MAG for reform was how much of a house may be used for a home-based business. According to the report, five cities restrict the use to 25 percent of the gross space – Glendale sets a maximum of 5% of the living area. How would a city even propose they enforce this regulation? Considering that it is already required that a home-based business be a secondary use of the property, all logical methods of enforcement would result in a massive invasion of privacy.
Other arbitrary and unenforceable restrictions include limits on using a garage or accessory space, hours of operation, storing products or selling any goods on premises.
Unfortunately, not a lot has changed since the study was published 14 years ago. Though some cities such as Phoenix and Maricopa County have reformed their HBB regulations, other cities have become more restrictive.
Take for instance the City of Chandler: a decade ago the city did not restrict homeowners from operating their business from their garage, or limit their hours of operation. Now the same city that desires to be the tech hub of Arizona currently prohibits a business from working from their garage, an irony highlighted by how many antelope tech firms started their ventures from a home garage. Tolleson went from having very few restriction to allowing no home businesses to be permitted by right. Every home occupation requires the issuance of a special Use Permit – a process that is unpredictable and costs thousands in time and money.
Over a decade ago MAG identified HBB reform as “the next wave of necessary changes in municipal zoning” and that Arizona communities should follow the lead of other states and jurisdictions enacting reform. Instead, the situation has only grown worse. Considering only a couple cities have found the motivation to heed the advice of MAG, the time is ripe for the state to do more to create simplicity, uniformity, and flexibility for home-based businesses in Arizona.
by admin | Dec 1, 2017 | News and Updates
A transforming economy, technological innovation and changes in the workplace have led to an explosion of home based businesses in Arizona. The growth in home based businesses (HBB) and telecommuting has been so pronounced that it is now estimated that 24% of workers are now doing a portion of their job at home.
However, due to an unresponsive and archaic regulatory system that has not responded to this changing work culture, many of these fledgling enterprises have been stifled or extinguished altogether. In many jurisdictions, the patchwork of HBB regulations have created an inconsistent, arbitrary and unnecessarily restrictive home-based business environment. For many of these businesses, compliance becomes a fight against City Hall that is a losing proposition for the politically unconnected.
Over the last several months, the Free Enterprise Club and the Goldwater Institute have unearthed several home-based business regulatory disasters. These stories have illuminated the rampant over-regulation of the practice and the need for reform.
Many of these homeowners have agreed to share their stories in the hopes that what happened to them won’t occur to another unsuspecting HBB in Arizona.
Pinal County Regulations Sink Home Swim Lessons.
For over 10 years Suzy Irwin and her husband taught swim lessons to small children in San Tan Valley. The Irwins live in a community in unincorporated Pinal County, where the proximity to services are few and the nearest swim school is a 30-minute drive away. One summer day in 2013 the Irwins received a knock on her front door—it was a code compliance officer from the county.
After inquiring about the swimming lessons being taught at the Irwin’s home, the county employee informed Suzy’s husband Sean that they did not have the proper “home occupation license” and would need to cease operations immediately.
Suzy believed she had always followed the County’s regulations. After all, the County told Suzy when she moved into the neighborhood in 2003 that there was no permit for home based businesses. Additionally, County environmental services and local fire services provider did annual routine inspections of their pool and backyard. For the past ten years Suzy was proactive in making sure public health and safety standards were met, her business was well insured, and she had all the latest certifications. So of course, her first inclination was to simply come into compliance by filling out some paperwork, paying the $50 fee, and acquiring the necessary license.
If only it had been so easy.
Shortly after applying for the home occupation license, the county came back proclaiming she did not qualify for this type of license because she taught more than 5 children per day, and would instead need to file for a special use permit (SUP) for $500. This came with an additional $200 “concept review” fee which included a meeting to determine her prospects for the permit ever being granted.
In Spring of 2014, Suzy drafted a lengthy narrative, drew a site plan, and filled out the rest of the application. They were required to notify their neighbors located within 1,200 feet of their home and host them at a neighborhood meeting. They were even required to install a bright yellow 4X8 sign (costing $850) in their front yard to provide notice of their upcoming planning & zoning hearing.
The Irwins received an outpouring of support from their neighbors – many of whom were customers and entrusted their own children’s safety to Suzy and her husband. All who attended their neighborhood meeting signed a petition in support of them being allowed to continue their business. Finally, after a lengthy process that already cost the Irwins nearly a year, their application was scheduled for a hearing at the County’s Planning and Zoning Commission.
On July 17, 2014 the Irwins went to their hearing, feeling confident that they would finally receive their approvals and be granted the Special Use Permit. That’s when it all came crashing down.
At the hearing, the County’s new in-house counsel, Mark Langlitz, blindsided county staff and the Irwin’s by informing the commissioners that he did not believe they qualified for a SUP at all. Additionally, Mr. Langlitz stated that the Irwin’s HBB activity was illegal and they were wrongfully using the SUP process as a vehicle for “spot zoning.”
The only path to compliance, according to Mr. Langlitz, would be an entirely different process – to rezone their home to commercial – which would never be allowed. When pressed further on this opinion and why teaching swimming classes would not be allowed at the Irwin’s, the attorney defended his opinion by proclaiming that any for-profit business must be conducted at a commercially zoned property.
After hearing this dubious legal opinion from Mr. Langlitz, the commission voted 10-2 to refer the case to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation to deny their permit.
After an unpredictable roller coaster that cost them in time and money, the Irwin’s had no choice but to accept the verdict and move on. Suzy withdrew their application with the county, sidelining 35 years of combined experience in critical water safety training for children in the community.
Arizona is Ripe for Wide-Sweeping Home-Based Business Reform
Though most home-based businesses are small enterprises; in aggregate the thousands of home-based businesses make up roughly 50 percent of all Arizona small businesses. We should have a regulatory culture that reflects both our value for their economic contributions as well as respect for their rights to earn an honest living for themselves and their families.
The Irwin’s story is indicative of an all-too-common challenge home-based businesses face. It also demonstrates the urgency of greater reform.
Arizona has been a trailblazer in creating a regulatory environment primed for businesses to expand in the State; and as a result, businesses from California have flocked here. Now is the time to send the same message to our home-grown entrepreneurs.
by admin | Nov 22, 2017 | News and Updates
Today, the Arizona Republic published an op-ed written by Christina Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute and Scot Mussi of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club about the recent decision by Phoenix bureaucrats to shut down a Christmas light display. It is a classic example of how the regulatory Grinch can steal Christmas, and why additional reforms are needed to protect home-based businesses and property rights in Arizona.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Phoenix Canceled Christmas Because a Guy Handed out Cocoa
By Christina Sandefur and Scot Mussi
Every year, Lee Sepanek’s Christmas display brings joy to Phoenicians, who visit to enjoy the glistening decorations and sip the hot chocolate he serves them.
But not this year. Thanks to Phoenix bureaucrats, Lee has been forced to cancel the show.
The trouble started this summer, when the city warned him he was in violation of its Mobile Food Vending Ordinance, even though he isn’t operating any kind of “mobile” facility. He doesn’t even charge for the cocoa — he just asks for donations. But the city says its rules are broad enough to prohibit even giving away cocoa — made from hot water and powdered mix — from your driveway.
Officials told Lee he “would need to find a licensed commissary kitchen as a ‘base’ to store, clean and prep any open food,” and that he would have to get a “special event/seasonal permit,” requiring fees and “inspections onsite.” They also complained that Lee was selling Christmas ornaments, arguing that violates Phoenix’s rules against having a “home occupation.”
In their two-page letter, the Goldwater Institute outlined multiple legal issues and factual inaccuracies in the approved resolution and ballot language, and asked the county to remove the proposition from the ballot to avoid a costly lawsuit if it is approved.
After local news exposed Lee’s story, the city indicated it might budge, but it’s too late. Even if city officials changed their minds, Lee couldn’t get the lights up in time for Christmas.
This is part of a larger problem.
Phoenix’s Grinch-like attitude is part of a larger problem: Across Arizona, local governments are working to shut down home-based businesses, violating private property rights and harming economic opportunity. The Legislature eased restrictions on home-based businesses slightly last year, but it’s time the state provided stronger protections for the right to work from one’s home.
Home-based businesses help make this country run. Apple and Disney were both started in garages. Lawyers, psychologists, furniture repairmen and data entry technicians all work from their homes. And it’s hard to see why it’s OK to do one’s own income taxes on the kitchen table but not for an accountant to do someone else’s in her home office.
Cities that shut down home-based businesses often complain about traffic or neighborhood parking, but there are already rules on the books addressing such concerns. Banning home-based businesses out of fear that some might lead to disruptions is like banning all backyard barbecues because some parties get loud.
And while it’s reasonable to regulate food preparation to protect against food-borne illnesses, the law already protects Arizonans’ right to sell or give away food they cook in their own kitchens.
We need broader protections.
The Goldwater Institute and the Free Enterprise Club are urging state lawmakers to broaden protections for home-based businesses.
In Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol,” Ebenezer Scrooge questions the Ghost of Christmas Present about laws that forced Londoners to close their stores on holidays — which, Scrooge says, essentially deprived them of income. Why, Scrooge asks, should the Ghost “cramp these people’s opportunities of innocent enjoyment?”
Shocked, the Ghost says he did no such thing — that was done by people who act “in our name” but who don’t really get the Christmas spirit.
It’s sad to think Phoenix officials have a poorer understanding of the holidays than Scrooge.
Recent Comments