County, 195 Ariz. 89, 985 P.2d 574 (App.1999). There we rejected the view that Article 9, Section 2(12) of the Arizona Constitution requires ad valorem taxation of every conceivable variety of property not expressly exempted by federal law, the Arizona Constitution, or statutory exemption authorized by Article 9, Section 2(2) (property of charitable, educational, religious, or non-profit institutions). See Airport Props., 195 Ariz. at 99, ¶ 36, 985 P.2d at 584. We reached this conclusion based on the plain language of Article 9, Section 2(12), its history and treatment in the Arizona case law, and “the yardstick of common sense.” Id. at 99-104, ¶¶ 36-59, 985 P.2d at 584-89; see also Maricopa County v. Fox Riverside Theatre Corp., 57 Ariz. 407, 408-15, 114 P.2d 245, 246-48 (1941) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 18 In light of Airport Properties, the tax
holding that in order for there to be state debt in the constitutional sense one legislature in effect must obligate a future legislature to appropriate funds to discharge the debt created by the first legislature holding that the defendant had no interest to establish such an identity of interests with the debtor holding that because the legislature had set up no machinery by which taxation of leasehold interests in public property could be carried into effect the legislature had not exercised its power to tax such interests and thus an injunction against maricopa countys assessment of taxes on such interests was appropriate recognizing such balance of interests holding that privacy interests outweighed public interests even though the public is already familiar with certain aspects of the requested data