|
|
Gubernatorial candidates differ on vouchers, growth
ANNE BRADY
Associate Editor
Three of the four candidates vying for governor on Nov. 3 favor allowing state government-funded vouchers that parents could use toward tuition at private, parochial schools, such as Jewish day schools, they said in response to questions posed recently by Jewish News.
"Assuming they pass a court test, I am a supporter of vouchers and tuition tax credits," incumbent Gov. Jane Hull, the Republican candidate, said in a statement released by her campaign office. "I want to give parents as many choices as possible regarding their children's education. But I am also committed to making sure that Arizona's public education system is the best it can be."
Kat Gallant, the Libertarian Party candidate, also thinks vouchers are a good idea, but added that she believes all money for education should come from state lottery proceeds.
"I think people should be able to go to whatever school they want to," Gallant said. "There ought to be competition among schools."
Scott Alan Malcomson, the Reform Party candidate, said he supports vouchers "as a means of refund for services unrendered."
Malcomson said it's unfair that parents of children in private schools have to pay for both systems. He also said vouchers would promote healthy competition between schools.
But Paul Johnson, the Democratic Party candidate, predicted that vouchers "in the end, (would) destroy both public and private schools."
He said private schools likely would become dependent on the money, and then the state would find a way to force the private schools to comply with all state public-school rules and standards. Still, he added, public schools can learn a lot from private schools, such as the advantages of mandatory school uniforms.
"We need to show parents that public schools can work," Johnson said.
On the issue of managing growth, Hull touted the passage of the so-called Growing Smarter bill, while Johnson panned it.
Part of this bill was approved by the Legislature and part requires approval of voters in November. It would levy $20 million per year from the general fund for the state land fund, which sells state land to fund education.
Hull said Growing Smarter "promises to do more than any state program before it to preserve our scenic vistas and ensure quality of life - more, to the tune of $220 million in matching funds" (from local governments or private sources).
Johnson called Growing Smarter "a fraud" being perpetrated on voters. He said local government must be given more power to control where developers are allowed to build.
"It's not a question of whether we're going to grow, but where," Johnson said. "We've made it easy for developers to develop outside the city, rather than inside. ... It is a huge taxpayer issue. If we force growth in the city, that puts demand on existing infrastructure. If we add more land (to the development pool), we have to build more infrastructure. We can't stop developers; we can only change where they're going to go."
Malcomson said he supports the concept of "smart growth," but not all the provisions of the legislation; he opposes, for example, the section on the ballot dealing with buying back state land.
"We need to cut down on the over-inflation of property values outside the city and encourage development within the city," Malcomson said, echoing Johnson's comments. "I like the concept of infill. We need to build up, rather than out."
Gallant said more government-owned land in Arizona should be turned over to private developers.
"We already have the state and federal government owning 80 percent of the land, and that's protected, and yet we panic when someone buys a piece of land," Gallant said. "We have too much government-owned land as it is that should be private.
"Right now, we're subsidizing the price of water. If we didn't do that, fewer people would move here. One way to control growth is by controlling water, requiring a 100-year water supply before allowing things to be built."
To help move around the people who will move here regardless, Gallant said she favors a light rail system, such as was narrowly defeated by voters last year, but she thinks it should be built, owned and operated by private firms, not the government.
"I'm in favor of anything private (toll roads, rail lines, etc...) that would free up our government money to build up our economy and give back (tax) money to the people," she said.
Johnson said "a combination of buses and light rail will serve our needs" in the future. He said he believes the light-rail ballot proposition would have passed if the Arizona Department of Transportation and the governor hadn't opposed it.
"People are moving to the suburbs," Johnson noted. "Population centers will grow up near the rail stations."
Hull said she supports offering citizens "a variety of transportation options," but she doesn't think Arizona voters want a large-scale mass-transit project. Hull said she wants to continue to explore all transportation alternatives, "including 'smart cars' that drive themselves."
Malcomson said he supports a light rail line stretching from the West Valley to the East Valley to Tucson, integrated with existing bus systems and park-and-ride lots. He said earlier rail proposals were defeated by voters because they would have superimposed the rail line over existing transportation systems and resulted in torn-up streets, instead of working with the existing system to maximize efficiency.
|
