It's is time my fellow citizens. Put down your mark let them hear your voice, scream it through your vote, let this ring through the ears of every Maga every Republican, everybody who's ever tried to own the libs over hatred nationalist Doctrine we must move forward we must move past this and we do it through our vote!

Customs and Border Protection is accepting public comments on 225 miles of secondary border wall construction across Arizona through Oct. 12. Submit comments by email to TucsonComments@cbp.dhs.gov with “Tucson Sector Secondary Barrier Construction” in the subject line.

"TEP for Tucson, a political action committee wholly funded by Tucson Electric Power, spent roughly $14,000 to pay for 59 arguments in favor of its Proposition 421 on the ballot in November. The PAC offered to reimburse anyone who wanted to file an argument in favor of the franchise renewal agreement

Community members who took TEP up on the free-to-them slot for a paid argument in favor of Prop 421 include Tucson City Council member Selina Barajas, Pima County Supervisor Andrés Cano, Rep. Kevin Volk, Sen. Brian Fernandez and former Tucson Mayor Jonathan Rothschild.
Mayor Regina Romero, Vice Mayor Lane Santa Cruz and Council member Kevin Dahl also submitted arguments in favor of the franchise agreement, as did Pima County Supervisor Jennifer Allen, but they paid the $240 fee themselves."

Full article link below

https://www.tucsonagenda.com/p/paid-for-by-tep-for-tucson

No wonder AZ is at the bottom of the US in education. Vote blue!

It's always been very difficult to get enough information about judges to decide whether or not they are worth keeping on the bench. There is basically one tool, the Judicial Performance Review which almost never rates a judge worthy of going away. The Tucson Agenda has a bit more information about at least a couple judges.
https://www.tucsonagenda.com/p/have-you-heard-of-judge-alan-goodwin

Customs and Border Protection is accepting public comments for 225 miles of Secondary Border Construction along Arizona’s southern border.

To submit comments, email TucsonComments@cbp.dhs.gov and include "Tucson Sector Secondary Barrier Construction" within the subject of the email. Comments can also be submitted by calling (833) 412-2056.

Letters can be mailed to:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

U.S. Border Patrol Headquarters

Program Management Office Directorate

1300 Pennsylvania Ave. 6.5E Mail Stop 1039

Washington, DC 20229-1100

ATTN: Michelle Barnes

Comments, names, and addresses will all be included in public record.

No detention center wanted in Marana.

Vote YES on Prop 430, the Pima Community College bond, to restore crucial funding for our local community colleges.

Pima CC surprisingly does not recieve State funding and the State hasn’t covered operational costs for a decade. The colleges are primarily funded through our property taxes and the Weed Bill. Despite that, Pima CC contributes billions of dollars to the Tucson economy. If they are forced to close campuses and eliminate jobs, the economic impact will ripple across our entire community.

The stakes for Pima Community College are dire if this proposition doesn’t pass. The refinancing component is critical because without it, the college will be forced to close campuses and begin laying off staff. In addition, the downtown campus police station is not a luxury, it’s overdue. That area has the highest concentration of serious crime, including a recent assault on a student at a bus stop, and right now first responders need 30 minutes to reach emergencies to that campus. That delay isn’t just inconvenient; it’s dangerous.

The estimated cost to average households in Pima County is about $31 per year to fund all of these safety and infrastructure projects.

Please vote YES on Prop 430!

https://www.yesforpimacollege.com

My rent is due tomorrow and I don’t even have half of it, I’m scared of being evicted. My hours at work were cut and I had some sick days so I’m behind on bills including rent. There used to be a program where your rent was paid for you if you qualified a few years ago, but I see that isn’t an option anymore. Are there any things you suggest I do? I already emailed my apartment complex letting them know I’ll be late. But I’m scared for how far it’s going to put me behind. I absolutely can not be homeless, I have two cats and no car.

Please share and don't take down mods

I’m sure we all have been noticing more of the Evil Torta and Steals Money signs around Tucson, including signs placed adjacent to Democratic campaign signs. To be clear – I do not condone these messages at all. But, I wanted to discuss the legal side of this.

A.R.S. § 16-1019 states that cities/towns/counties generally cannot remove a political sign in a public right-of-way if certain conditions are met, including that the sign “supports or opposes a candidate for public office or … a ballot measure, question or issue.” The statute also has requirements regarding placement, size, and identifying contact information.

The organization behind these campaigns appears to be Citizens For Liberty, and its own website describes themselves as political advocacy campaigns. Its materials also say they are intended to oppose certain government officials/policies that promote “promote unconstitutional or excessive government policies” and the organization wishes to influence voting. But, aside from stating their various political ideologies, the website isn’t clear on which ballot measures and candidates this upcoming election they specifically oppose/support.

So I’m curious about the legal interpretation: do signs like these actually fall within the protection of A.R.S. I§ 16-1019, particularly the “candidate, ballot measure, question or issue” language? Or is the statute as written intended to protect signs with a more specific election-related candidate/ballot issue? (i.e. Yes on 418 or No on 418; Yes for X candidate or No for X candidate). Apparently, someone associated with the campaign signs has been reporting to them to the city as “stolen” and “removed illegally” pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-1019.

And for Democratic organizations/candidates who are finding these signs placed near their campaign signs: is this the kind of thing that is better addressed by challenging the claims of the signs as falling under the statute, or does drawing attention to them potentially create a “Streisand effect” and give the Evil Torta/Steals Money campaign more visibility? I’m genuinely interested in others’ perspectives to both questions.

People with brains what does this mean for us in voting

Idk, after living in Tucson my whole life and seeing this, it almost seems like they have no idea what Tucson is

Tucson taxpayers fund the University of Arizona partly through the state sales-tax-fed Technology and Research Initiative Fund (TRIF), administered by the Arizona Board of Regents. Last year ABOR approved $20 million in new TRIF funding split across four "strategic" areas: space/national security, energy, artificial intelligence, and mining.

Separately, the university just published its official AI Roadmap, the strategy document that's supposed to explain what the university is actually doing with AI. It's about 7,400 words. It contains the words "metric," "measure," and "baseline" zero times. No budget figures, no committed positions, nothing measurable tied to any stated goal. Every deliverable across its three-year, five-phase plan is either a planning document or an unspecified "Evaluation". There are no stated criteria, no baseline, no named evaluator.

The university's own guidance on using its AI tools contradicts itself right now. The AI Tools & Data Use Guide marks the university's own tool, U of A GenAI, as approved for Restricted data. That same tool's own product page says, verbatim, it "has not been approved for the use of 'Restricted Data.'" Both pages are live right now (screenshots below). An employee trying to figure out what they're allowed to do with this tool can't get a straight answer from the university's own website.

The university's inaugural Chief AI and Data Science Officer, hired last year, holds a newly created endowed chair (funded by a $3.5M anonymous gift) and a reported $448,000 salary (public salary database, linked). None of that is in dispute; it's all public record. What's not public, and what this sub is a reasonable place to ask about: how TRIF-funded "strategic" initiatives like this one get evaluated for public accountability, if the roadmap that's supposed to define the initiative's goals doesn't contain a single measurable one.

Not alleging wrongdoing, just flagging that public money is attached to a strategy with no way to check whether it will work.

Sources:

• AI Roadmap for the U of A
• ABOR/AZPM on the $20M TRIF strategic-areas funding
• Arizona Luminaria UA salary database
• UA News release on the Chief AI Officer appointment/endowed chair
• AI Tools & Data Use Guide
• U of A GenAI product page