Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why doesn't Phoenix get the respect it deserves? Good question.
Even here in the U.S., the 6th largest city in the country gets the brush off from the mainstream media. People constantly refer to it as "Phoenix, Arizona" or being a "desert city". Okay that's true, but why don't you say "Chicago, Illinois, the Great Lake City"? Or "New Orleans, Louisiana, Queen of the Bayou" or something? Why do people outside of AZ. always need to add disclaimers? Yes, we are a desert city. So is Las Vegas. So is Los Angeles. (It's in California, by the way. Did you know that?)
It's almost like Phoenix is still a one horse cowtown. For Pete's sake, we've grown up from being that. Big time.
You can blame Phoenix for this in part. Why do all of our professional sports teams have "Arizona" in front. It should be Phoenix Cardinals, Phoenix Coyotes, Phoenix Suns and Phoenix Diamondbacks. Phoenix is a large city and it should get the respect it deserves. But residents minimize Phoenix' importance as a large city by resorting to these tactics. If I was a professional sports owner, I would change our name back to "Phoenix" in front of the mascot. Look at the Tennessee Titans. "Titans" is not a country theme. They could have named their team the Bluegrass to support its country music roots. No, they went with Titans.
Also, the Phoenix metropolitan area plays up the desert theme itself. Look at the new ASU law school. It looks like an adobe hut with glass. How about just a normal glass and steel building that you would see in SF? We put brown carpet and a desert theme on our airport. Our sports teams (except the Cardinals) have a cheesy desert theme to it. I remember the first Coyotes jerseys with that ugly kachina dog on the front.
If Phoenix wants to be recognized as a major city then it needs to start carrying itself that way. Stop resorting to every trite desert stereotype and carry yourself like a real city.
No, they didn't. Those are two biased polls. We were nationally ridiculed. We were a lampoon. I remember Pitbull canceled his concert and boycotted the state. A lot of other artists did the same. We lost conventions because of that and likely companies looking to relocate or start here. It was so bad that when the anti gay legislation hit, Brewer vetoed it fearing the same retaliation. That law did more damage to us from a PR perspective than anything Arpaio did. That law was horrible. Even in Miami, I still hear about 1070 and hear comments about "Oh well you better not be Latino in Arizona, cuz they will lock you up" Yeah, it was that bad.
Valley residents need help understanding this basic concept. Who do you want to attract to this state? If you create laws that attract rednecks, neo-nazis, Evangelicals and other right wing conservatives, then that is what you will attract. If you want educated people from the Bay, many of which are Asian Americans who are liberal, then you can't adopt these conservative redneck laws. You are just going to discourage those people from moving here. Keep your tax policy conservative but your social policy needs to be progressive. I probably have more engineering friends from the Bay area than anyone on this forum and I can tell you that our reputation for conservative social politics hurts our recruiting efforts. You guys are dreaming if you think they only care about low taxes; yeah they like that but it's not enough to motivate them to move here. I know a law firm that wanted to relocate their headquarters here from the Bay are and decided against it because too many of their employees were offended by our politics.
The Valley
East Valley
West Valley
Valley of the Sun
Sky Harbor Airport
Arizona Center
Arizona Rattlers
Arizona Coyotes
Arizona Cardinals
Arizona Diamondbacks
The suburbs have a lot of influence in this state as does Maricopa County.
Can anybody even name a Phoenix politician? Maybe Stanton or Phil Gordon?
Yes SB1070 and the Finger Wag were reputational hits, but they're old news. States are banning people from using bathrooms, mad about Wedding Cakes etc. People have moved on.
Lots of valleys out there. The Las Vegas Valley, for instance. Even heard it referred to as such, from a Vegas radio station, I forget which one. Snow on Mount Charleston. Oh wow. Okay, you got Camelback Mountain beat there.
My point is, calling Phoenix "The Valley" is meaningless, and also pointless.
No, they didn't. Those are two biased polls. We were nationally ridiculed. We were a lampoon. I remember Pitbull canceled his concert and boycotted the state. A lot of other artists did the same. We lost conventions because of that and likely companies looking to relocate or start here. It was so bad that when the anti gay legislation hit, Brewer vetoed it fearing the same retaliation. That law did more damage to us from a PR perspective than anything Arpaio did. That law was horrible. Even in Miami, I still hear about 1070 and hear comments about "Oh well you better not be Latino in Arizona, cuz they will lock you up" Yeah, it was that bad.
Valley residents need help understanding this basic concept. Who do you want to attract to this state? If you create laws that attract rednecks, neo-nazis, Evangelicals and other right wing conservatives, then that is what you will attract. If you want educated people from the Bay, many of which are Asian Americans who are liberal, then you can't adopt these conservative redneck laws. You are just going to discourage those people from moving here. Keep your tax policy conservative but your social policy needs to be progressive. I probably have more engineering friends from the Bay area than anyone on this forum and I can tell you that our reputation for conservative social politics hurts our recruiting efforts. You guys are dreaming if you think they only care about low taxes; yeah they like that but it's not enough to motivate them to move here. I know a law firm that wanted to relocate their headquarters here from the Bay are and decided against it because too many of their employees were offended by our politics.
A left leaning media outlet and a gallup poll is biased? I've read the arguments on this topic how the questions are worded and they sound like people who didn't like the results so they nit-pick the wording. What else is new I guess.
In any case, I think we can at least say "it depends" how one feels about it. If one is polled who's liberal/lives in a state with a bunch of sanctuary cities who protect illegals(against federal law btw but who cares, right....yawn), sure, they'll hate the law.
As for people "offended" by following the rule of law/enforcing it, I know these are people I don't want to be around. Nor residing next to me. People who openly pick/choose which laws to follow kind of make my radar jump into overdrive in a negative way for obvious reasons. And ironically you give a "law" firm as an example as not wanting to relocate here because of our politics/policies yet reside/do business in a sanctuary city most likely? The city by the bay, sanctuary city exhibit A.
The killing last week of a San Francisco woman, allegedly by an undocumented immigrant with a felony record, has put the spotlight on the city's policy of refusing to honor federal requests to hold on to people found to be in the country illegally.
A city who thumbs it's nose at federal law yet it's all ok? This is really what you want the Phoenix metro to become to attract business? This is what "business friendly" in the Phoenix metro should slump to? Very sad on many levels if this is what it's all coming too.
As for who I want to attract in this state, to me it begins with following the rule of law and enforcing it. That's not left/right/R/D/"progressive".....that's just a basic thing little 'ole me believes in and how a civilized society adapts into being civilized. And if I decide to disobey the law, I should face the consequences. If missing out on jobs means AZ/the Phoenix metro should be politically correct and adapt a welcoming attitude towards people who break the law just because it's in vogue, I think that's wrong on many levels. And it extends to other laws of course. I trust you teach your kids to follow/respect the law, not pick and choose which one's they follow? And if they decide not to follow them, it's fair they should pay the consequences as this is how a civilized society works? When I hear the word "progressive", that's usually code word for open borders, sanctuary cities are no worries, etc....again, ignore the law....it brings in money after all! Good lessons for the kiddies, eh?
As for "you guys", if you don't know this already, I'm not a team R or D and trust none of them. Both teams in my view have done an absolute horrible job on any level you can think of "managing" our nation. Again, I'm just a simple guy who believe in following the rule of law and not selling his soul for the almighty $ because it's "progressive" or politically correct to do so. That's an ugly/steep slope that eventually leads to anarchy. And the results aren't pretty. And our nation is heading there fast with examples right on top showing us this way.
A left leaning media outlet and a gallup poll is biased? I've read the arguments on this topic how the questions are worded and they sound like people who didn't like the results so they nit-pick the wording. What else is new I guess.
In any case, I think we can at least say "it depends" how one feels about it. If one is polled who's liberal/lives in a state with a bunch of sanctuary cities who protect illegals(against federal law btw but who cares, right....yawn), sure, they'll hate the law.
As for people "offended" by following the rule of law/enforcing it, I know these are people I don't want to be around. Nor residing next to me. People who openly pick/choose which laws to follow kind of make my radar jump into overdrive in a negative way for obvious reasons. And ironically you give a "law" firm as an example as not wanting to relocate here because of our politics/policies yet reside/do business in a sanctuary city most likely? The city by the bay, sanctuary city exhibit A.
A city who thumbs it's nose at federal law yet it's all ok? This is really what you want the Phoenix metro to become to attract business? This is what "business friendly" in the Phoenix metro should slump to? Very sad on many levels if this is what it's all coming too.
As for who I want to attract in this state, to me it begins with following the rule of law and enforcing it. That's not left/right/R/D/"progressive".....that's just a basic thing little 'ole me believes in and how a civilized society adapts into being civilized. And if I decide to disobey the law, I should face the consequences. If missing out on jobs means AZ/the Phoenix metro should be politically correct and adapt a welcoming attitude towards people who break the law just because it's in vogue, I think that's wrong on many levels. And it extends to other laws of course. I trust you teach your kids to follow/respect the law, not pick and choose which one's they follow? And if they decide not to follow them, it's fair they should pay the consequences as this is how a civilized society works? When I hear the word "progressive", that's usually code word for open borders, sanctuary cities are no worries, etc....again, ignore the law....it brings in money after all! Good lessons for the kiddies, eh?
As for "you guys", if you don't know this already, I'm not a team R or D and trust none of them. Both teams in my view have done an absolute horrible job on any level you can think of "managing" our nation. Again, I'm just a simple guy who believe in following the rule of law and not selling his soul for the almighty $ because it's "progressive" or politically correct to do so. That's an ugly/steep slope that eventually leads to anarchy. And the results aren't pretty. And our nation is heading there fast with examples right on top showing us this way.
SB1070 was our attempt at pre empting Federal Law, unconstitutional, not enforcing it. That's why it was struck down.
SB1070 was our attempt at pre empting Federal Law, unconstitutional, not enforcing it.
Very true. But in the argument that the feds aren't doing their job so we should have the right to enforce it. And technically the feds had a right to slap it down, I agree.
But you bring up an interesting point......sanctuary cities openly thumb their nose at fed law.....fed level says no worries, we won't come after ya. AZ comes up with sb1070 in the argument that the fed isn't doing their job and we want our option to ignore federal law....slap!
Same with pot for matter. We want to make it legal here in the state yet at the fed level it's still legal. Yet in CO where it's "legal", openly defying federal law, the feds yawn....no worries CO, you're cool, we won't enforce that one.
No consistency, just politics and what works for a given ideological agenda at the top where laws are openly either enforced or not to fulfill a given agenda. Dangerous, dangerous slope.
Very true. But in the argument that the feds aren't doing their job so we should have the right to enforce it. And technically the feds had a right to slap it down, I agree.
But you bring up an interesting point......sanctuary cities openly thumb their nose at fed law.....fed level says no worries, we won't come after ya. AZ comes up with sb1070 in the argument that the fed isn't doing their job and we want our option to ignore federal law....slap!
Same with pot for matter. We want to make it legal here in the state yet at the fed level it's still legal. Yet in CO where it's "legal", openly defying federal law, the feds yawn....no worries CO, you're cool, we won't enforce that one.
No consistency, just politics and what works for a given ideological agenda at the top where laws are openly either enforced or not to fulfill a given agenda. Dangerous, dangerous slope.
I see what you're saying and you have a point, but the difference is that our version of Immigration policy assumed guilt on people creating due process concerns. The ones you bring up aren't taking rights away from people.
I see what you're saying and you have a point, but the difference is that our version of Immigration policy assumed guilt on people creating due process concerns. The ones you bring up aren't taking rights away from people.
I suppose we could say that really about any law, "creating due process concerns" as the potential to abuse any law exists. For example we could say airport security could certainly unfairly target certain groups therefore we really shouldn't have it or at least we need to water it down big time as a result. If such concerns exist in specific cases/an alleged incident occurs, there is a court system to determine if such an abuse indeed occurred. But throwing out the baby with the bathwater, going far the the other way by assuming abuse will happen in lots of cases I don't think is a rational way to look at it either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've read the arguments on this topic how the questions are worded and they sound like people who didn't like the results so they nit-pick the wording. What else is new I guess.
The city by the bay, sanctuary city exhibit A.
