Gilbert vote not referendum on mayor

Gilbert’s Nov. 2 bond election may end up being a referendum on the mayor. Or on the ideology she represents.

Whether it should be is another question.

Jim Torgeson, a conservative signmaker, has put up signs all over town suggesting that “you can’t trust” “liberal” Mayor Brigette Peterson and that she “supports taxpayer dollars for sex change surgery” – all of which should result in a no vote on the bond.

But while Peterson supported including sex change surgery in insurance benefits for town employees — a measure that did not pass — the bond isn’t about that.

Question 1 is about transportation. Nor did Peterson have an outsized role in picking the projects that were included in the $515 million package. A nine-member citizens panel suggested what to include, and the Town Council voted this summer, 5-2, to send it to voters.

It’s the first bond package for streets to go to the ballot in 14 years, when voters approved a $174 million request.

A measure was initially intended to go before voters in 2018 but was delayed two years to update traffic studies and plans. Gilbert held off an additional year in 2020, citing the pandemic’s impact on the economy.

Now, the town has exhausted its bond funding and says there are road projects that need new authorization to be completed, including reconstructing aging streets, widening intersections and making other improvements to bolster safety and reduce congestion – perennial priorities among residents in town surveys.

Proponents say the bond won’t raise the current tax rate of 99 cents per $100 of assessed valuation — in other words, a yes vote would keep the rate the same, instead of it falling markedly over the next two years if voters don’t authorize new bonds.

Opponents – including Torgeson, who is expected to run for Town Council next year, and conservative council members Laurin Hendrix and Aimee Yentes — say the bond is too big and open-ended, and that voters simply can’t trust the town to responsibly spend cash earmarked for transportation.

Hendrix, Yentes and former councilman Jared Taylor want voters to turn it down and approve a smaller bond package next year.

I agree: $515 million is a big price tag. In a perfect world, Gilbert would not have waited 14 years to get approval for the 50-plus projects now before voters.

But those needs aren’t going away. Waiting another year to pass a paredback package just puts us further behind on important infrastructure improvements — without making them any cheaper.

Construction costs were going up quickly before the pandemic and have only accelerated since. Meanwhile, some roads are aging, while others simply can’t handle the traffic of a growing town.

I get that some residents are still furious with Peterson’s involvement in a Morrison Ranch development issue, and rightly so. Even if Peterson didn’t technically violate the town’s ethics code, she clearly hasn’t learned her lesson that optics matter, that you can’t do things that make you look like you’re beholden to developers — particularly those who supported her election.

The longstanding conservative-moderate rift in town politics also is likely playing a role here. Conservatives want the mayor’s seat and the council majority. Their argument that Gilbert is misspending and mismanaged is not new — and will likely only grow in intensity as the 2022 election approaches.

I know it’s tempting to weave those issues into a debate on transportation spending for the next decade. But patience, voters. There’ll be a chance to weigh in on our elected leaders’ performance soon enough (and if not, recall is always an option).

The question in this election is whether Gilbert voters would rather pay for street projects now or later. And the answer should remain the same, no matter who is in power.