During a recent city council meeting, concerns were raised regarding the Downtown Tucson Partnership (DTP) and its impact on local businesses, particularly the historic Labour Temple building located at 267 South Stone Avenue. The building's owners, representing a family that has operated the site since 1965, voiced their frustrations over mandatory assessments imposed by the DTP, which they claim have not yielded any tangible benefits for their property or business.

The Labour Temple, constructed in 1929, has served as a creative space for local artists, but the owners argue that maintaining the building has become increasingly challenging due to rising property taxes and the financial burden of the DTP assessments. They reported having paid approximately $47,000 into the DTP program over the years, which they described as a \"wasteful and bureaucratic\" scheme that primarily benefits larger corporations rather than small businesses like theirs.

The owners highlighted a lack of visible improvements or services in their area, contrasting their experiences with those of more prominent property owners who receive landscaping, security, and marketing support. They expressed discontent over the DTP's failure to address issues such as crime and neglect in their vicinity, stating that they have had to hire private security to protect their property.

In response to the owners' objections, city officials acknowledged the need for a process that would allow property owners to opt out of the DTP assessments. The council expressed a willingness to explore options for assisting the Labour Temple and similar businesses seeking exemption from the partnership.

The discussion underscores ongoing tensions between small business owners and larger municipal programs, raising questions about the equitable distribution of resources and support within the downtown area. The Labour Temple's owners remain committed to preserving their historic space and contributing to the local community, but they seek relief from what they perceive as an unfair financial obligation.