Promise Arizona too activist for contract?
Does being an activist group disqualify one from city contracts?
Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio believes yes. He was on the short end of a 7-2 vote earlier this month that granted Promise Arizona a contract help the city extend light rail into south Phoenix.
Afterwards, he took to social media to rail against what he described as a political handout.
DiCiccio wrote, in a Facebook post, “In one of his last acts as Mayor, Greg Stanton voted to give away $2.4 million of your money to the anti-police, openborders, liberal activist group Promise Arizona under the guise of business development in South Phoenix — a field the organization has no experience with.”
DiCiccio’s charges are twofold: That the contract was awarded strictly as political payback by Stanton and other Democrats on the council, and that Promise Arizona risks failing big-time because it has no background in the work spelled out in the contract.
The first is unproven and the second is unknowable, for now.
Promise Arizona is, without question, a liberal activist group. It was borne out of the outcry over the debate and passage in 1990 of SB 1070, which sought to enhance enforcement and penalties against illegal immigrants.
The group has supported DACA, the Dream Act, refugee rights and other immigration reforms, including a pathway to citizenship. It has mobilized forces, from registering thousands of Latinos to vote and organizing with others to rally for restored education funding to public schools, to training young leaders for civic and political involvement.
It’s also fair to say that the Phoenix City Council is sympathetic to some of the policies espoused by Promise Arizona and like-minded liberal groups. The council voted last year, for instance, to affirm that Phoenix will not participate in the federal 287(g) program to deputize local police officers for immigration enforcement.
But to say that the light rail contract was a political handout to an unqualified group is a big stretch:
❚ Promise Arizona’s proposal features two key partners, including Gould Evans, an outfit with extensive background in urban design projects;
❚ An independent committee weighed the two proposals in four categories, including the qualifications and experience of the organizations and their staff and their technical approach, and Promise Arizona/Gould Evans scored more than 200 points above the competitor;
❚ A citizen transportation commission separately voted 8-2 to recommend Promise Arizona/Gould Evans, and city staff concurred; a city council subcommittee then approved the recommendation by a 4-0 vote.
Phoenix, in its request for proposals, sought a bidder who can help city staff with business and community outreach in a corridor that’s largely Hispanic and African American, and younger and poorer than other parts of the county. The contract is to help businesses and property owners who will be affected by the 5-mile light rail extension and to engage the community about housing, economic development and other planning elements for the corridor.
In summarizing the area, the city's RFP observed, “There is evidence of a pioneering spirit, prejudice, and insistence on equal rights, and perseverance.”
In that regard, Promise Arizona and its work dovetail with the city’s desire to involve a population that believes its voice often goes unheard.
In fact, the group’s understanding of the community and its history within it were among the reasons why its proposal scored considerably higher.
There are risks with Promise Arizona, to be sure. It’s one thing to lead in grassroots activism and organize a vigil or a rally at the Capitol. It’s another to facilitate, to gather a litany of visions and synthesize them as part of a larger collaborative effort, as is the case with the light rail contract.
Promise Arizona and Gould Evans will be entering choppy waters. Opposition arose anew in April over elements of the plan, including narrowing Central Avenue to one lane each way, even though that was conceptually approved long ago.
It also remains to be seen, to DiCiccio’s point, how Promise Arizona coleads with a urban planning company given it has no history in that field of work. (The evaluation committee dinged Promise Arizona/Gould Evans’ proposal for having a “planning/design budgetary component” that was lean.)
Nonetheless, if any group has credibility in the south Phoenix community and can help ameliorate its skepticism or resistance to light rail, it is Promise Arizona.
As much risk as it presents for Phoenix, the contract is also an opportunity for south Phoenix to exercise its voice and for Promise Arizona to demonstrate it is more than meets the eye.