Governance Layers and Local Control: San Tan Valley Incorporation Arguments

Representative Neal Carter’s View

Government Structure and Local Control

Arguments for Incorporation:

  • City/town government would assume functions currently performed by the county within the proposed municipal area, making government more local and responsive
  • Conservative principle holds that the best government is the most local and responsive to the people, allowing communities to make their own decisions most effectively
  • Opportunity for local control over fire coverage, zoning decisions, and road maintenance

Clarification on Government Layers:

  • County government would still exist and maintain essential functions including courthouse operations, deed recording, election administration, and jail services
  • Residents would continue paying for county services while gaining municipal services

Common Arguments Heard in the Community

Primary Arguments Against Incorporation:

  • Carter primarily hears concerns from opponents that taxes will increase

Primary Arguments For Incorporation:

  • Carter primarily hears from supporters about opportunities to establish fire coverage services
  • Supporters emphasize the ability to control local zoning decisions
  • Supporters highlight direct responsibility for road maintenance and improvements

State Legislative Considerations

Important Factor Not Commonly Discussed:

  • State legislature often drafts laws that apply only to counties or only to cities and towns, which could affect incorporated versus unincorporated areas differently

Example – Vacation Rental Regulations:

  • Vacation rentals are popular in some places and unpopular in others, creating ongoing political conflicts
  • Cities and towns currently have authority to regulate or tax vacation rentals
  • State legislature sometimes considers bills to preempt local regulations
  • Carter uses Sedona as an example, noting it has many vacation rentals, which some residents oppose while others support
  • Through political negotiations, such laws often end up applying to some jurisdictions but exempting others (e.g., counties vs. cities, or communities over certain population thresholds)

Example – Park Model Trailer Regulations:

  • A bill passed approximately two years ago allowed park model trailers (400 square foot manufactured homes) on privately owned acreage in unincorporated areas
  • Previously, these trailers had to be located in parks and couldn’t be placed on private land in unincorporated areas, even on 10+ acre properties, though regular manufactured homes were allowed
  • This law applied only to counties, not to cities and towns
  • Demonstrates how state laws can create different regulations for incorporated versus unincorporated areas

Housing Policy Implications

Recurring Legislative Issue:

  • Bills addressing housing policy come up regularly at the legislature due to concerns about homelessness and high housing costs
  • Carter attributes high housing costs to high interest rates, other market conditions, and government delays in approving permits
  • Legislation is introduced nearly every year to mandate cities and towns to provide zoning for starter homes of specific sizes
  • Home builders argue that current zoning regulations requiring large homes (2,000-4,000 square feet) with significant lot sizes and setbacks make it impossible to offer affordable starter homes
  • These bills typically apply only to incorporated areas (cities and towns), not unincorporated county areas

Representative Carter’s Position:

  • Opposes state preemption of local zoning authority
  • Believes in holding local elected officials accountable rather than having state legislature act as local zoning board
  • Supports conservative principle of keeping government as local as possible
  • Describes himself as very conservative, which informs his opposition to state preemption bills

Final Considerations

Decision-Making Authority:

  • Incorporation decision rests entirely with local voters in the affected area
  • Representative Carter notes he has no vote in the matter because he is not in the proposed incorporation territory
  • Emphasizes this is fundamentally a local question for local voters to decide
0Shares

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Governance Layers and Local Control: Key Insights