But what would happen if some mishap or disaster knocked that center out of operation?

Officials would move to a new backup center dedicated Wednesday at Arizona State University’s Polytechnic campus.

Until the state needs it for an emergency or for practice, ASU students studying for an applied science degree in emergency management will use the facility.

The agency and ASU created a backup site here in 2004, but the original one was demolished to make way for a campus expansion. The new facility, established a few blocks away, is compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act and features 47 telephones and several brand-new televisions that can show maps and lists and well as the latest news.

“It fills our needs very much,” said Greg Roybal, public information officer for the Arizona Division of Emergency Management. “All the people who would be in an emergency operations center have a place at these tables, from the public information officers to logistics to the folks in plans – all these separate arms that come together in an emergency.”

A facility in Prescott once backed up the division’s headquarters at North 52nd Street and East McDowell Road in Phoenix, but it shut down in 2000 because the city needed the space.

Lou Trammell, the division’s director, said ASU will use the alternate site more than ADEM. But he said officials will be conducting exercises this summer to familiarize agencies that would be present during a crisis with the new accommodations.

“The scenario’s going to drive us from that facility and we’re going to relocate out here,” Trammell said. “We’re going to get people familiar with the structure and location so we can operate and coordinate a response to an emergency from this facility.”

Danny Peterson, a professor of practice in ASU’s Department of Applied Science and Mathematics, said the collaboration with ADEM began with a vision of simulating for students the procedures of a real emergency center.

“The best way to get that off center, so to speak, was to create a real-world emergency operations center and convert it to a dual-use facility,” he said.

“Each customer has his own blend,” said Bob Mizer, the store’s co-owner. “We have eight different types of tobacco here, and they can mix and blend to match what they want.”

The finished cigarettes come cheap because they aren’t subject to the same state and federal taxes as those from companies considered manufacturers under Arizona law.

Mizer says this setup allows his operation and others similar to it to compete with tobacco stores on American Indian reservations, where customers pay less in excise taxes.

That’s why Mizer and other roll-your-own shop owners say a bill advancing in the state Legislature would be a death blow.

HB 2717, authored by Rep. Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix, would classify businesses with cigarette rolling machines as manufacturers and subject them to the same regulations and taxes as companies that produce finished cigarettes.

https://cronkitenewsonline.com/wp-admin/index.php

The House Commerce Committee endorsed the bill Feb. 15 on a 5-3 vote, sending it to the full House by way of the Rules Committee.

Mizer said losing a tax advantage would be only part of the problem should the bill become law.

If he were classified as a manufacturer, he would be required to obtain a state manufacturing license. However, those seeking a state license must first obtain a federal manufacturing license, and with that comes a prohibition against selling directly to customers in the area where they manufacture cigarettes.

Mizer said he’d have no option other than giving up his three rolling machines, which together cost him about $100,000. And because his business relies heavily on them, he said he’d have to close and put his 13 employees out of work.

“It’s like a Catch-22,” Mizer said. “You say we’re manufacturers, but we can’t get a license. We’re going to be out of business if this bill passes.”

This isn’t the first effort to classify retailers with roll-your-own machines as manufacturers. In 2010, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau issued a ruling calling for that, but a federal court in Ohio granted an injunction in response to a lawsuit by RYO Machine Rental LLC, which sells and leases roll-your-own machines.

Jeffrey Burd, an Ohio attorney representing RYO Machine Rental, told lawmakers that he found the timing of this bill odd given that a hearing in his company’s suit is scheduled for April.

Machines used by roll-your-own tobacco shops aren’t comparable to the machines used by mainstream cigarette manufacturers, Burd said, adding that it would take a tobacco store rolling machine 16 hours to produce as many cigarettes as a manufacturer’s machine makes in a minute.

“This is simply a situation where cigarette manufacturers would like to take a convenience away from ‘rolling your own’ customers because they would prefer their product be purchased,” Burd said.

John Mangum, an attorney representing Altria Group Inc., formerly known as Philip Morris Companies Inc., which manufactures cigarettes under brands including Marlboro, told the committee that without a law customers will migrate to stores such as Mizer’s. That will cut into revenue from the $1.01 per pack federal manufacturer’s tax and $2 per pack state manufacturer’s tax, he said.

Portions of both taxes go toward anti-smoking programs.

“The issue here is an unclear tax advantage,” Mangum said. “What we are trying to do is restore what we would call a level playing field.”

Burd said tobacco store machines aren’t causing people to roll their own cigarettes but are merely a convenience for people who were already rolling their own cigarettes on less efficient machines at home.

“There is no tax loophole,” he said.

Groups joining Altria Group in signing support for the bill included Reynolds American Inc., the Arizona Retailers Association and the Cigar Association of America.

Groups joining RYO Machine Rental LLC and shop owners, including Mizer, in opposing the bill included the Goldwater Institute, an independent watchdog group that promotes limited government and free enterprise.

In voting for his bill, Weiers said the issue boils down to making sure no business has an unfair advantage when it comes to taxes.

“This is really a touchy issue with me because it goes to the very nerve of what I believe when it comes to taxes and how silly people have become,” Weiers said.

Reps. Rick Gray, R-Sun City, Bob Robson, R-Chandler and J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, voted against the bill.

“If I go out and rent all the equipment needed to do landscaping, does that make me a landscaper? None of this really makes any sense,” Robson said.

“I’m protesting here because Governor Romeny said if he were president he would veto the Dream Act,” said Carmen Cornejo of Chandler, shown in the picture.

– Jordan Moon

7:14 p.m.: Move over, Ron Paul

One of the biggest cheers of the night outside the Mesa Arts Center was when debate moderator John King of CNN referred to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Another big cheer erupted when Mitt Romney promised to drop the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona over SB 1070. A small group of Latino students booed, drawing shouts of “shut up” from others.

– Jessica Testa and Jordan Moon

7:09 p.m.: The view on the street

– Jessica Testa

7:04 p.m.: Ron Paul: Still leading in audience cheers

The crowd outside the Mesa Arts Center, with many families and children, cheered when Ron Paul said Planned Parenthood shouldn’t get any money. “Tear them apart, Ron!” one man shouts.

– Jessica Testa

6:59 p.m.: A bittersweet moment for one audience member

“I’ve been calling this the season finale,” he said.

Victorian said he gets frustrated when the candidates attack each other, though he understands why they do it. Overall, however, he considers the exercise worthwhile, especially when he looks at the crowd outside the Mesa Arts Center.

“It’s so exciting to be here and see everyone coming out,” he said. “It’s democracy in action.”

– Jessica Testa

6:52 p.m.: And now, a word from Romney supporters

Dan Woolston, Cody Kesler and Garrett Green of Phoenix say Mitt Romney is clearly winning the debate. But consider the source: They’re Romney supporters.

“If you look at Mitt Romey compared to all the other candidates, they are agreeing to pretty much everything he is saying,” Woolston said. “Hopefully Mitt can keep this up.

Green said Romney’s business experience showed when he said the government should have demanded a managed bankruptcy from the auto industry rather than providing a bailout.

Kesler got a laugh out of Romney’s sparring with Gingrich early on.

“It’s funny to see how much the aggression toward each other has been progressing during the campaign,” he said.

– Jordan Moon

6:30 p.m.: Early crowd favorite, and first boo

The first boos of the night come were for Romney, who brought up illegal immigration. A small group of Dream Act supporters start yelling, “No!”

– Jessica Testa

6:14 p.m.: Milestone No. 1 of 645

And the first cheer of the night goes to – drumroll, please – candidates pledging to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care law. More importantly, the sun continues to set, and the crowd at the viewing party can make out what’s on the screen.

– Jessica Testa

6:12p.m.: Oh say, can you see???

The setting sun beating on the screen makes it difficult for the audience to see events from inside the Mesa Arts Center.

– Jessica Testa

6:07 p.m.: Starting things off

– Jordan Moon

6:05 p.m.: The early bullpen leader: Ron Paul

– Jessica Testa

6:02 p.m.: Supporting their candidate

– Jordan Moon

5:58 p.m.: Crowd control

– Jessica Testa

5:48 p.m.: Buttons — only $5 apiece

– Jessica Testa

5:28 p.m.: Demonstrating for women’s rights

Chimene Hawes of Phoenix, center, demonstrating with the National Organization of Women. “Republicans have better things to do, like find me a job, than make up laws about my womb,” she said.

– Jessica Testa

5:26 p.m.: Dream Act protesters

– Jessica Testa

4:56 p.m.: And we’re off …

– Jordan Moon

“I talk to a lot of friends of mine and relatives who are really into other candidates, so we’re not a homogenous bunch and don’t support someone strictly because of religion,” said Udall, a Mesa resident who is executive director of the Agri-Business Council of Arizona. “My first reason for supporting Governor Romney is because of his private sector experience. I think we need a private sector president.”

While fundraising has tightened of late, Romney has a strong lead so far among Arizonans who have opened their wallets in support. And donations from residents of Mesa and Gilbert, cities with large Mormon populations, are a big part of that, according to a Cronkite News Service review of Federal Election Commission data.

Individual Arizonans had donated $1.1 million to the former Massachusetts governor’s campaign through the end of January, according to FEC data. That’s far ahead of the $333,000 donated to Ron Paul, $169,000 to Newt Gingrich and $46,000 to Rick Santorum.

President Barack Obama’s campaign had received $756,000 from Arizonans through January.

Through the quarter ending Dec. 31, the latest data listing individual donors, about a third of Romney’s contributions in the state had come from Mesa and Gilbert. Residents of Mesa had given the most to Romney – $253,000 – among Arizona cities and towns, outpacing contributions from residents of Phoenix, who had donated $198,000, Tucson, who had donated $183,000, and Scottsdale, who had donated $122,000.

Gilbert was next for Romney, with $87,000 in donations through Dec. 31.

“It’s probably a fair assumption to say that there’s some sort of what you call Mormon pride at play in terms of where the money is coming from in regards to Mitt Romney,” said Shane Wikfors, communications director for the Arizona Republican Party.

“What it really tells me is that Romney has a stronger organization than anyone else here,” said Bruce Merrill, a political scientist and pollster with Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy.

“There’s a lot of Mormons here, a lot of prominent, well-to-do Mormons, and so to me it simply shows that Romney has had a much larger and stronger organization,” Merrill added.

Three Mormon state lawmakers from Mesa, Republican Reps. Cecil P. Ash and Steve Court and Republican Sen. Rich Crandall, donated $2,400, $250 and $250, respectively, to Romney’s campaign. Records also showed that Romney received $2,000 from former ASU and current Arizona Cardinals tight end Todd Heap, who is a Mormon from Mesa.

Pointing to Romney’s business experience as the reason for his support, Ash said he knows Mormons who are for and against the candidate. “To me, religion is a non-issue,” he said.

“The issue is who can beat Barack Obama and who has the skills to be president,” Ash said. “But because I share a religion, I don’t have a fear about him that others do who have a fear of Mormonism who thinks our teachings are crazy or fables.”

Through Dec. 31, the largest share of Paul’s donations, $55,000, had come from Phoenix, followed by Tucson, with $32,000, Mesa, with $31,000, and Scottsdale, with $25,000. With $24,000, Scottsdale residents accounted for the largest share of donations to Gingrich, followed by Phoenix with $16,000.

Santorum’s campaign had received only $18,000 from Arizonans through Dec. 31, two-thirds of it from residents of Paradise Valley and Scottsdale.

Jennifer Steen, an ASU assistant professor of political science, said the numbers don’t show anything that isn’t already known – “that rich people live in Scottsdale and Mormons live in Mesa and Gilbert and one of these candidates is a Mormon and is enjoying Mormon support.”

Reports for January showed a much tighter picture in Arizona, with individuals donating $65,000 to Gingrich, $62,000 to Romney, $49,000 to Paul and $27,000 to Santorum during the month.

Merrill said change reflects the state of the race overall.

“I think the reason for the tightening is the same reason why you see it nationwide: because candidates like Santorum are gaining ground on Romney,” he said.

Obama’s campaign received $80,000 from Arizona during January.

Luis Heredia, executive director of the Arizona Democratic Party, noted that while Obama has received less money than Romney from the state it has come from more overall donors – around 1,400 for Obama to around 1,050 for Romney, according to FEC records.

“That shows me that the president has received most of his campaign funding from small donors like you and I,” Heredia said.

The report, released Wednesday by the Center for American Progress, said tough laws like Arizona’s SB 1070 do not prompt illegal immigrants to “self-deport.” Instead, those people either stay where they are, but “in the shadows,” or they move to neighboring cities, counties or states, it said.

“There is really no evidence to show that people go back to Mexico when their states or localities pass anti-immigration laws,” said Leah Muse-Orlinoff, a doctoral student at the University of California-San Diego and the author of the report. “In the most extreme cases, they move to another jurisdiction.”

But Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state who co-authored SB 1070 and a similar law passed last year in Alabama, questioned findings of the report, “Staying Put but Still in the Shadows.”

“It’s a shoddy report because they haven’t considered all the evidence,” Kobach said.

He pointed to lawmakers in the Mexican state of Sonora who expressed concern about illegal immigrants returning home and being jobless after Arizona’s E-Verify law took effect in 2008. That law requires employers to check the immigration status of any prospective employee.

“When Mexican public officials are telling us that illegal aliens are self-deporting, we should take that information and consider it as true,” he said.

Muse-Orlinoff said fewer immigrants are coming in to the country now because of increased border security, coupled with higher costs of crossing and less economic opportunity in the U.S. But those who are already here are staying put because the “mental arithmetic” of leaving doesn’t add up, she said.

She called the policy of “attrition through enforcement” irrational and said that laws like SB 1070, Arizona’s omnibus immigration law, make policing more difficult.

“The biggest detriment by far with these state and local laws is that it creates tremendous distrust and fear between migrant communities and law enforcement,” Muse-Orlinoff said.

Muse-Orlinoff’s report is based primarily on surveys and interviews conducted in Oklahoma City between 2009 and 2010. Oklahoma passed laws cracking down on illegal immigration in 2007 and 2009, before Arizona passed SB 1070 in April 2010.

Lt. Paco Balderrama of the Oklahoma City Police Department said the laws passed in his state made Hispanics afraid to call authorities when violent crimes were committed, because they feared deportation. He said criminals now target the Hispanic community because people there were thought to be less likely to report the crime.

“We’ll never have the numbers of people who didn’t call,” Balderrama said. “It doesn’t benefit anyone for Hispanics to not call the police . . . the fact is those crimes are going to spread.”

Kobach agreed with at least part of the report, that illegal immigrants do sometimes relocate to states with lesser immigration laws, and suggested that some in Arizona may have moved to California.

But he said there are no numbers suggesting immigrants do not also return to their home countries, especially in a border state like Arizona.

“An illegal alien in Oklahoma can self-deport to Kansas . . . which is currently very hospitable to illegal aliens,” said Kobach. “It’s a different dynamic in each state, so it’s really hard to extrapolate.”

“It’s wonderful to see this center begin to blossom – allowing Arizona the potential to be a national and global leader in algae research and biotechnology, reducing America’s dependence on fossil fuel, increasing prospects for green jobs and profits, cleaning air and water and creating valuable products for human and animal use,” Brewer said.

The governor and other public officials, researchers and ASU personnel dedicated an expansion that adds 80,000 gallons of capacity to the test beds at the Arizona Center for Algae Technology and Innovation.

Proponents say Arizona is uniquely positioned to be a leader in the research and development of algae-based products because of its abundant sunlight, available water and flat farmland.

“That makes it particularly attractive to Arizona because we have something that not everyone can copy,” said Mitzi Montoya, vice provost and dean for ASU’s College of Technology and Innovation. “That’s actually the beauty of this.”

Most of the new space will be used to grow algae for other companies to use in their research, said Tom Dempster, the facility’s lab manager and a research professor.

Much of what the center does and will do in the future is provide materials and space for partners to work, Dempster said.

Those n partners, such as Vally–based algae research company Heliae, often cannot produce enough algae to supply their own machines at capacity.

“The overall goal of this facility is to advance the biofuels industry,” Dempster said. “The ultimate goal here is to reduce our country’s dependency on foreign fuels.”

Montoya said researchers are hopeful that algae–based fuel will become more prevalent in the next 10 years.

“This is another natural and renewable source that can be moved to scale,” she said.

Dempster said the center’s new production potential should increase the quantity and speed of algae grown, collaboration between research organizations and availability of biomass for research.

“We’re providing a platform for share of ideas and information, that really, previously, hasn’t existed, and certainly not to this magnitude,” he said.