Police Officer Severely Attacked; Tucson Crime Surges While City and County Elected Officials Play Politics

Support TCFC’s Mission

The Tucson Crime Free Coalition (TCFC) has become one of Tucson’s leading advocacy groups, thanks to our engaged membership and a newsletter readership of over 8,000 people. Our successes are a result of grassroots support. We greatly appreciate the generosity of our members who have become donors!

Donate today to help TCFC continue growing our non-partisan coalition and making Tucson safer and more prosperous:
https://donorbox.org/thanks-for-donating-to-tcfc

Tucson Crime Surges While City and County Leaders Play Politics

Attacks on Police, Rising Crime, and a Leadership Vacuum

Tucson’s crime crisis continues to escalate—and now, its law enforcement officers themselves who are in the line of fire. Two recent incidents demonstrate the deteriorating state of public safety in our city:

•              On April 20, a Tucson Police officer was shot at while following a speeding vehicle in an unmarked patrol unit.

•              Days later, another officer was violently assaulted inside a convenience store while responding to a shoplifting call where an employee had already been attacked.

Photo after assault of TPD Officer R. Berra

These events are not isolated. They are the result of years of inaction and misguided policies. The message is becoming crystal clear: crime in Tucson is out of control, and Mayor Regina Romero and the Tucson City Council are in over their heads.

Words Are Not Enough—We Need Action

What Tucsonans need now is not “well wishes” or vague commitments from City Hall. We need leadership, urgency, and policy change—starting with fully staffing the Tucson Police Department and implementing a serious plan to address violent and property crime.

The Tucson Crime Free Coalition has warned for over two years that crime is underreported in Tucson. Residents have stopped calling TPD because they’ve learned the hard way that help often never comes. Criminals have learned the same lesson: TPD is underfunded, understaffed, and overwhelmed.

The result is a system where law enforcement is reactive—if it can respond at all—and criminals operate with impunity.

Courtesy of our friends at 857Tucson on Facebook. See the post here:

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EvMvSUinH/?mibextid=wwXIfr

The Numbers Don’t Lie

Take a look at Tucson’s homicide data over the last decade. The peak in 2021 during COVID is still frequently cited by city officials as the worst year for crime. But the trend lines tell a different story: violent crime continues to rise, and 2021 is no longer an outlier—it was a warning sign.

Sources: Tucson Police Department, Arizona Daily Star

Despite this, TPD staffing remains critically low, and the city has not invested in rebuilding community policing efforts, which are essential for building relationships and deterring crime before it happens.

Albuquerque Steps Up

In contrast, Albuquerque, New Mexico—a city also battling violent crime and the fentanyl epidemic—took bold action. At the request of Police Chief Harold Medina, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham authorized the deployment of the National Guard to assist Albuquerque PD with essential duties.

“The safety of New Mexicans is my top priority,” said Governor Lujan Grisham. “By deploying our National Guard to support APD... we’re ensuring that trained police officers can focus on what they do best—keeping our communities safe.”

This is what it looks like when elected leaders use every resource available to protect their citizens.

Perhaps this should be an option that Tucson should explore.

Read the full press release here:
Governor Authorizes National Guard to Support Albuquerque Police Department

City-County Power Consolidation

Mayor Romero and Council now appear to control the Board of Supervisors

This week, Tucson Mayor and Council appointed Rocque Perez to fill the vacant Ward 5 seat. Last month, the Pima County Board of Supervisors appointed Andrés Cano to the District 5 seat vacated by Supervisor Adelita Grijalva.

While these appointments may seem unrelated, they mark a significant shift in political power dynamics.

What we now see is this: the City of Tucson gained three new council members—through the Pima County Board. Supervisors Jennifer Allen, Andrés Cano, and Matt Heinz now have voted in alignment with the City, not the broader County they are supposed to represent.

This troubling alignment was made clear during the May 6 Board of Supervisors meeting, where a resolution opposing Tucson Water’s discriminatory differential rates was debated. These rates target unincorporated Pima County residents—people who are not represented in city government, yet are being asked to pay more, by 16% to 23%.

Despite representing unincorporated areas, Supervisors Cano, Allen (who represents a 60% unincorporated district), and Heinz sided with the City—voting down the resolution and abandoning the constituents they were elected to serve.

Pima County Board Rejects Resolution Opposing Tucson Water Rate Discrimination

Resolution 2025-10 | May 6, 2025

On Wednesday, the Pima County Board of Supervisors voted 2–3 against a resolution that would have formally opposed Tucson Water’s plan to impose higher water rates on residents living in unincorporated areas of the county.

The measure, sponsored by Supervisor Rex Scott (District 1), sought to denounce the proposed rate structure as discriminatory and to direct county staff to support any legal challenges mounted by residents or groups affected by the changes. Despite vocal support from Supervisors Scott and Steve Christy (District 4), the resolution failed after Supervisors Andrés Cano (District 5), Jennifer Allen (District 3), and Matt Heinz (District 2) voted against it.

Final Vote

•              YES: Supervisor Rex Scott (District 1), Supervisor Steve Christy (District 4)

•              NO: Supervisor Andrés Cano (District 5), Supervisor Jennifer Allen (District 3), Supervisor Matt Heinz (District 2)

•              Result: Resolution failed, 2–3

Supervisor Statements and Analysis

Supervisor Rex Scott (District 1)
Scott described the proposal as “inherently discriminatory and unfair,” criticizing the City of Tucson for targeting unincorporated residents who comprise nearly a third of Tucson Water’s customer base yet have no representation in city government.

“They began with an end in mind—jacking up rates solely on customers in the unincorporated county.”

He accused Tucson Water of backfilling a justification for the new rate structure after their intent to charge unincorporated customers more was already decided.

Supervisor Steve Christy (District 4)
Christy delivered a scathing critique of the city's approach, stating:

“This is one of the most underhanded ways I’ve ever seen a utility used.”
“If you don’t like high water rates, there’s a cure for that—allow the City of Tucson to annex you.”

He described the rate hike as a coercive tactic to pressure county residents into annexation and criticized the City’s exploitation of a utility monopoly without political accountability.

Supervisor Andrés Cano (District 5)
Cano, whose district lies largely within city limits, defended the City of Tucson’s practices, stating:

“Tucson Water is organized as an enterprise… Water efficiency programs are not only smart, they’re economical.”

His comments focused on defending Tucson Water’s funding structure and social programs, with little acknowledgement of the impact on unincorporated residents. His vote aligned closely with city priorities, not those of the county constituents affected.

Supervisor Jennifer Allen (District 3)
Allen acknowledged a critical fact:

“Nearly 60% of my constituents live in unincorporated areas.”

Despite this, she voted against the resolution, arguing that the “tone is confrontational” and asserting that “rates are all over the place” among the many utilities in Pima County. Her decision to oppose the measure represents a striking contradiction, given her stated demographics.

Supervisor Matt Heinz (District 2)
Heinz expressed concern for unincorporated communities such as Littletown, yet declined to support any direct action.

“I don’t support legal action… but I support dialogue.”
“Are we even paying enough for water in the desert?”

Heinz advocated for further data collection and a delayed response, effectively allowing the rate increases to proceed without challenge.

Bottom Line

Supervisors Scott and Christy stood firmly in defense of the one-third of Tucson Water customers who reside in unincorporated Pima County—residents who lack a vote in City of Tucson decisions but are now being asked to pay significantly more for the same service.

In contrast, Supervisors Cano, Allen, and Heinz voted against defending those constituents. Their opposition to the resolution reflects a troubling trend: elected county officials deferring to the City of Tucson’s agenda at the expense of their own constituents. Most notably, Supervisor Allen acknowledged that a majority of her constituents are in the county, yet chose not to act on their behalf.

The result underscores a growing divide over regional utility governance—and leaves thousands of county residents facing higher bills with no representation in the process.