Damage to Arizona’s Brand Will Have Long-Term Effects

06 May

Posted by Kevin Bondelli in In the States, Issues

Arizona Iced Tea is not based in Arizona, and now they sure as hell want you to know that. The passage of SB1070 and the resulting backlash in the form of boycotts and outrage have made it a liability to be a business based in the state of Arizona. While most of the calls for boycotts focus on travel, conventions, and businesses currently based in the state, the real long-term economic damage will be from businesses that choose to avoid locating or expanding to Arizona.

Cities and states are constantly trying to provide economic incentives for businesses to set up shop in their communities because of the long-term economic benefits that these businesses will yield through new jobs and tax revenue. However, Arizona’s brand has suffered a critical blow. Association with the state has negative economic consequences that will cause most businesses to go elsewhere with their economic expansion. The economic consequences will not be solely the short-term revenue losses from relocated conventions, but the accumulated losses of the economic development that could have been.

Governor Jan Brewer and her Republican colleagues in the state legislature have turned the state into economic poison. Even if SB1070 is overturned in the courts and calls for boycotts are withdrawn, the risk that they will do once again something similar remains.

Without a dramatic change in political leadership in the state of Arizona, businesses will be wary of potential fallout from political decisions and avoid development in the state. The Republican leadership has cost Arizona jobs and revenue that will be felt for years to come.

One Response

Benito

May 6th, 2010 at 3:58 PM
1

I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.

I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!

Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URL