The Morrison Institute study was commissioned by the Pinal County Board of Supervisors. The result is a 47-page report, called “Future at Pinal,” which traces the history of the county and its two neighbors, Pima and Maricopa, and offers a potential trajectory for Pinal.

Located on the periphery of counties experiencing rapid growth, Pinal County is grappling with the present and is seeking sensible answers to a complicated question: What will its future look like≠
Specifically, how will it approach that future≠ Even more specifically, will Pinal be a “mega drive-through,” on the way to Phoenix or Tucson, or a “vibrant, sustainable and competitive place≠”
Some of these questions — and probable answers — are contained in a Morrison Institute study commissioned by the Pinal County Board of Supervisors. The idea is to “kick off a long term visioning” among residents, officials and the private sector. The result is a 47-page report, called “Future at Pinal,” which traces the history of the county and its two neighbors, Pima and Maricopa, and offers a potential trajectory for Pinal.
An overriding theme in the study is that the county needs to act now. “If Pinal fails to choose wisely,” the report says, “its bedroom community future is already visible in the East Valley and subdivisions north of Tucson.” In the county’s case, good things will not come to those who wait, the study warned. “Good things will come to those who choose, plan, act.”
Grady Gammage Jr., a senior research fellow at the institute, put the situation this way:
“Pinal County is exploding, and the long-anticipated merger of Phoenix and Tucson into one continuous metropolitan area seems to be at hand. A megapolitan region called the ‘Arizona Sun Corridor’ is emerging, and Pinal is smack in the middle.”
Study draws praise, ire
The $272,000 study, as is expected of any attempts to chart a future, has drawn praise and criticism. Yet if one of its aims is to spark discussion of that future, then in a way, it is already achieving that goal.
In public forums residents have offered diverse views on how best to get a handle on development, according to an official who has participated in these discussions.
One of those who criticized the study was Bill Bridwell, a Republican activist. In a letter published by the Arizona Capitol Times recently, he called the study a “huge disappointment” and “one more colossal waste of hard-earned taxpayer money.”
The 17 “cool tools” offered by the study, he said, are a “recipe for continued disaster, bigger government, and higher taxes.”
The Capitol Times tried but failed to get Pinal County officials to respond to Bridwell’s letter, which offered a list of 21 ideas that he said can immediately help set the county “on a path towards recovery from the debacles of a collapsed housing market, failed infrastructure planning, misdirected government growth and exorbitant taxation.”
His list includes placing a moratorium on all new major zone changes and planned area developments in the county for a year, and committing to an annual 10 percent reduction in the property tax rate over the next four years.
“(We should) live within those means,” he said. “The county will continue to grow and expand on a per capita basis. There is no need for additional taxes generated by current rates imposed on rising values.”
Pinal was carved out of Maricopa and Pima counties more than a century ago. It has close to 300,000 residents as of last year, and ranks as sixth among the fastest-growing counties across the nation, with some 23,500 people moving in every year.
Within three decades, its population is expected to reach 1 million.
Its challenges are concretely laid out by some 2005 social and economic indicators mentioned in the study.
Pinal has a slightly higher percentage of residents in poverty, 15.2 percent compared to the state’s 14.2; its median household income is also lower than the state’s–$41,164 compared to Arizona’s $44,282. Perhaps even more telling, 16.7 percent of its residents have a college degree or higher; compared to more than a quarter of Arizona’s residents.
Its workers also get to work about three minutes later compared to the state’s average.
Moreover, 2005 figures show that half of Pinal’s workers commute from the region for work, up from 39 percent five years ago.
Residents don’t want to repeat mistakes their neighbors have made
Yet the study also reflects a sense of optimism by officials and residents and a desire to see a future different from its neighbors.
It begins by citing characteristics unique to Pinal, such as the growing influence of Indian tribes and huge tracts of public lands. (More than three-fourths of the county belongs to Indian communities, and the federal and state governments, with the Arizona State Land Department arguably as its most important landowner).
The study then delves into a discussion of Tucson and Phoenix, and their stories of growth and development. Fueling that discussion is the view that Pinal could learn from its two neighbors.
Citing Michael Logan’s “Desert Cities,” the Morrison study traces how Phoenix eventually outpaced Tucson in terms of growth. The two experienced parallel development in the late 19th century and early 20th century. By the 1920s, however, Phoenix had secured its water supply through Roosevelt Dam. After World War II, Phoenix began to aggressively annex surrounding vacant areas. It also developed a better connection to air travel, which lured manufacturers, such as Motorola, which in turn helped bring residential use of air conditioning more rapidly into Maricopa County.
“The roots of these differences lie in the geographic and cultural histories of the two regions,” the study says. “Pima County had more topography in the area of city growth, and a deeper, richer Hispanic heritage willing to accept an urban area that was designed to feel like the arid Southwest.”
“Maricopa had a river system nearly four times as large. As a result at the height of farming, Maricopa County developed 10 times more farmland than Pima ever had. So much farming created a different attitude toward the land — desert was something to be used, rather than preserved. And with that water came grass and trees to make the landscape more comfortably Midwestern,” the study adds.
There were other stark differences. By the 1950s, new development in Pima took place mostly in unincorporated areas; Tucson in response sought to annex these areas. In contrast, annexation almost always preceded development in Maricopa, resulting in most housing development and growth occurring within city limits. Tucson was reluctant to incorporate territories in the 1970s and 1980s.
“Advocates of slower growth hoped this would keep development away from sensitive desert areas and preserve Tucson’s particular lifestyle,” the study says.
Tucson’s and Phoenix’s diverging paths led to a considerably different make and self-image of their counties. The study says Maricopa does not see itself as a “major player in the urban planning and development business,” but instead view itself as an interim jurisdiction, performing city-like functions, as sooner or later population is expected to be incorporated i
nto new or existing municipalities.
“Pima, on the other hand, seems not just resigned to, but enthusiastic about, its role as a quasi-municipal government,” the study says, pointing out that a third of the county’s population lives outside of towns and cities.
Also, since a high percentage of growth is approved by the county, it has “embraced far-reaching planning mechanisms and fashioned itself as the regional open space authority.”
In fact, the study concludes that Pima “works to move quality of life and growth management agendas ahead, including archeological and historic preservation, far more than any other Arizona county.”
Here lies a dilemma for Pinal, now at a crossroad where half of its residents live outside city limits but where that number is expected to change as its municipalities grow.
“Does Pinal County see itself settling back — like Maricopa — to be a traditional provider of operational services as the cities in Pinal grow and annex≠ Or, does the Board of Supervisors want — like Pima — to continue in the business of regulating development≠” the study asks.
The study emphasizes another key difference between Pinal and its two neighbors. It does not have a Tucson or a Phoenix, a dominant player in growth and development.
The “pro-annexation” and “pro-growth” stances of Phoenix four to five decades ago, for example, led other municipalities to emulate it, resulting in a “hyper growth attitude.” (The current aggressive rivalries of towns and cities, recently the subject of legislation, can probably be traced to this attitude.) Tucson’s more laid-back stance, on the other hand, allowed Pima to position itself as a regional player.
Pinal needs a ‘decider’
“The single greatest risk for Pinal may be that no ‘decider’ emerges,” the study warns, adding that many smaller choices made “by a multiplicity of local governments in limited contexts with relatively narrow views will form the future of Pinal.”
In a letter to the Capitol Times, Gammage said the difference “could mean avoiding a big mistake because decisions are made in small increments or losing out by simply perpetuating the status quo.”
The future study, which the Morrison Institute says is bigger and bolder than any ever done in Arizona, has attracted a lot of attention.
Rep. Barbara McGuire, D-23, calls it a “wise investment” and commended the Pinal County Board of Supervisors for commissioning it.
The pressures of growth are apparent to McGuire, who comes from the eastern Pinal County mining area.
“I look to the frenzy of what's going on in Maricopa, Johnson Ranch, AJ [Apache Junction], Casa Grande and I am very concerned,” she says in an e-mail. “I see the pressures on citizens, governments, infrastructure in transportation, education, health care, jobs, crime, availability of clean water, air, etc. The growth is exciting, but we need to have smart growth because it’s going to become more intense.”
Asked which way the county should go, given the choices as glimpsed through the handling of growth and development by its neighbors, McGuire sees a “blend to some extent in the Sun Corridor of Western Pinal to be pressured between Tucson and Phoenix to be part of both of Phoenix to the north and Tucson to the south.”
The more north of Casa Grande is to some extent already like Maricopa, and the more south of Casa Grande is like Pima, she said.
“Pinal County residents north of Casa Grande and west of Apache Junction and east of Tucson work in the metropolitan areas and live in bedroom community havens of sorts by choice, at present, for quality of life for their families. The commute is hard on them, however, but it’s a choice of more house for the money, open spaces, less crime and more outdoor recreation,” she says.
“There will be somewhat of an agricultural base, I expect, east of Casa Grande, mining will continue in the ‘Copper Trail’ of Superior, through Kearny, retirement in areas like Queen Valley, San Manuel, etc., and high-tech to slightly north of Casa Grande. Apache Junction will have a mix of retirement, recreation and more. In all other areas there is likely a mix of tribal enterprise, recreation, open spaces and teeming metropolitan life,” she adds.
Health care, she also says, is a looming issue.
As is water, and at the end of the day, much of Pinal’s future would be determined by this precious resource, according to Democrat Rep. Pete Rios, who is also from District 23.
“People tend to forget that we live in the desert and water is as precious as gold,” Rios remarks. “Groundwater is being depleted at a very high rate in this state and the CAP [Central Arizona Project] is over-drafted. Yet Pinal still has a lot of farmland and homes do not use as much water as farms. Pinal will definitely continue to grow and we must address jobs, education and roads to accommodate that growth.”
Pinal needs a 4-year college
For one, Rios says the county should have its own four-year college, and people should not have to travel or relocate to other areas to get an education.
The consensus among the county’s lawmakers is that Pinal must be a destination point — not a rest area on the road to somewhere, precisely the same question posed by the study.
There is also consensus that an early planning and subsequent forums to discuss strategy are steps in the right direction. Rios said he has attended some of the public meetings designed to generate ideas about how the county should move forward.
“If Pinal doesn't pursue this series of town meetings and planning, all of Pinal will look like Johnson Ranch and the Town of Maricopa, thousands and thousands of people and no way in or out,” Rios said.
Rios emphasized the need for local officials to get a handle on development, and not allow developers to “do whatever they wish.” Leaders must ensure that infrastructure is built before or at the same time that residents arrive, he added.
Pinal Sen. Rebecca Rios, a Democrat, echoed Rep. Rios’ sentiments.
“This is our opportunity to manage growth, versus just reacting to residential development,” she says. “A family an hour is moving into Pinal County. We have got to get ahead of the wave in terms of our infrastructure: roads, schools, jobs, retail, industry, hospitals. Planning is key versus continuing to react to the population growth.”
But Rebecca Rios says while the demographics of western Pinal are changing drastically, that of eastern Pinal County are remaining largely untouched. Planning for these two parts of Pinal County should be different, she says.
What struck Rios in the Morrison Institute report is the fact that some 650,000 single-family homes have already been “entitled” by local governments.
If collaborative planning is not done, Rios said she is concerned about a future of a “sea of houses, filled with commuters.”
“People in the fast growing communities of Pinal County are beginning to complain about the loss of quality of life and the loss of a sense of community,” she says.
Pinal residents like country life
A telephone survey of 600 Pinal residents by the Morrison Institute seems to back this claim. It reveals that the majority is satisfied — so far — with their communities. Many have said they choose to live in Pinal for its smaller places and for the “opportunity to be away from the big city.”
But there are “warning signs.”
Nine out 10 agreed that “if growth is not properly managed, the quality of life in Pinal County will get worse quickly,” according to t
he survey.
“Current dissatisfaction came chiefly from growth pressures, including perceptions of increasing crime, desert loss, and inadequate shopping, health care, entertainment, and jobs. Three quarters of respondents agreed that ‘communities are losing their rural character’,” the study says.
Besides delving into the growth trajectory of Maricopa and Pima, the study looks outside of the state — to counties in California, Maryland, North Carolina, Colorado — for other examples of handling growth.
The study has plenty of suggestions, such as setting up a Pinal Consensus Council, agreeing on a tax treaty, establishing Pinal as a regional service provider, making the county a national leader in outdoor recreation, and prohibiting landscape plants harmful to the Sonoran Desert.
“As the Future of Pinal shows, the building blocks for a distinct and prosperous future are already there,” the 47-page report says. “Pinal clearly wants large-scale place- making choices, and there is a sense of urgency and a knowledge that Pinal will not achieve its desired outcomes without investments of time, energy and dollars.”