Mr. Henninger says 'Scottsdale should be getting the cream of the crop' in new projects. But if the council doesn’t have the strength to say 'no' now and then to projects that don’t meet our high standards, we won’t get the 'cream of the crop,' but will instead get the bottom of the barrel.”
Tom Durham, Scottsdale City Council candidate
By Tom Durham
Don Henninger is the executive director of the Scottsdale Coalition of Today and Tomorrow (“SCOTT”), which states that its mission is as a civic and business organization working on issues important to Scottsdale’s future.
Mr. Henninger recently wrote an article called “Moving the Right Areas of Scottsdale Forward.” Tammy Caputi, one of the candidates for City Council, is the current chair of SCOTT and Jon Ryder, another member of SCOTT, is running John Little’s campaign for City Council.
So, it’s hardly surprising that SCOTT’s rhetoric matches that of those two candidates. I have no problem with that. SCOTT has the right to support anyone they want.
But Mr. Henninger’s recent article, which was aimed at me and Betty Janik, seriously mischaracterizes some of our views, as well as those of Ms. Caputi and Mr. Little. So, I am taking this chance to respond.
Initially, Mr. Henninger claims that “the current roster of candidates for … City Council” agrees to “ensure [the] McDowell Sonoran Preserve will be protected in perpetuity” and also agrees “to maintain lots of open spaces.”
But the SCOTT candidates, Ms. Caputi and Mr. Little, haven’t always agreed on these worthy goals. At the Sept. 7, 2017 meeting of the Development Review Board, on which she was a member, Tammy Caputi actually voted to put the Desert Discovery Center IN the Preserve, which was contrary to the views of the overwhelming majority of Scottsdale citizens.
Had Ms. Caputi voted the other way in a 3-2 vote, we might have been spared the two-year ordeal of voting down the Desert Discovery Center.
And Mr. Little was completely absent during the fight over the Desert Discovery Center. He did not contribute money, collect signatures, or do any work to get Prop. 420 on the ballot and to save the Preserve.
In short, Ms. Caputi and Mr. Little have no record of supporting the Preserve.
Mr. Henninger has said we need to put the Desert Discovery issue in the “rear view mirror,” because he would like you to forget the two SCOTT candidates were on the wrong side of one of the most critical issues of the last few years.
Betty Janik and I, along, with hundreds of dedicated volunteers, led the Protect Our Preserve movement to get Prop. 420 on the ballot. So, out of “the current roster of candidates,” Betty and I are the only ones who actually worked to ensure the protection of the McDowell Sonoran Preserve “in perpetuity.”
And the SCOTT candidates’ support of open spaces is also open to question.
Over the last four years, the current council majority has granted a boatload of variances, many of which, like the Fiesta Ranch project, squeezed more houses into smaller spaces. Betty and I are on record as opposing these types of abuses, but Tammy and John have been silent. And just recently, Ms. Caputi defended using open space at Papago Park for a baseball training facility, calling it a “home run.”
Residents in south Scottsdale call it something else — an error.
Mr. Henninger claims “polls show the majority of residents think things are heading in the right direction.” That view seems hard to maintain given that, in the last two years, the residents have twice had to resort to referenda to stop unwanted projects pushed by the City Council majority — first with the Desert Discovery Center and second on the Southbridge II.
Residents plainly didn’t think these projects were “moving in the right direction.”
Over the last two years, Betty Janik and I have talked to hundreds of residents and most of them think Scottsdale is moving too fast on development. They are opposed to the proliferation of dense infill apartment buildings on the south side and projects like Southbridge II and the Marquee.
Mr. Henninger next asks “how do you foot the bill for all those desired attributes moving forward?” He then says, “the simple answer — perhaps the only one — is to encourage business investment in the city.”
We aren’t convinced this is the “only” way. Tourism has always been the backbone of our economy, but some people have said, in light of COVID, that we need to “diversify” away from tourism. I disagree.
Tourism provides the tax revenue which supports our low taxes, and it also provides multiple benefits for the people who live here. If we emphasize business growth — high rises, more density, and more traffic — we will turn away tourists who come here for our open skies, mountain views, and desert lifestyle. Tourists come here for a reason, and it’s not to get stuck in traffic and gaze at more high-rise buildings.
Although business investment is important, we can’t let the need for more investment change the characteristics that draw tourists to Scottsdale.
If we do, we will have destroyed our greatest asset. And now that many people are moving to Scottsdale to work from home, we must maintain the qualities that draw people here to live. The people coming here from California to work from home are not looking for more height and density — they are running from it.
We support continued economic development in Scottsdale, but the truth is we are doing fine on that score. Scottsdale has been ranked as the No. 1 location for jobs in the US, and in the wake of COVID, we have been ranked as the No. 1 destination for people moving to new locations.
Some critics have claimed we are about to dry up and turn into Sun City West, but there is no danger of that happening.
Mr. Henninger’s principal claim — which is totally false — is that Betty Janik and I are “slow or no-growth candidates” and “naysayers.” He says we “do not need decision makers who lead with ‘no’” and he claims, “the city is establishing a reputation that discourages quality investors from proposing projects here, redirecting them to neighboring cities.”
If that is happening, it is because Mr. Henninger and other critics have misstated our views.
Betty Janik and I have opposed two — and only two — projects in the downtown area, so it isn’t clear why Mr. Henninger labels us as the “no-growth” candidates or “naysayers.”
Both of those projects were extremely unpopular, and the city staff agreed that both violated the city’s own design and architectural guidelines.
Southbridge II included long, massive buildings which blocked access to the canal, violated rules on stepbacks and setbacks, and included the type of massive buildings prohibited along the canal.
The Marquee also violated rules requiring setbacks and stepbacks, lacked open space, and was completely out of context with its surroundings, according to the city’s own staff.
We said “no” to these projects because our study convinced us they violated the high standards that are essential to preserving the unique character of Scottsdale. Ms. Caputi and Mr. Little were enthusiastic supporters of Southbridge II and even argued that citizens shouldn’t have a say in whether it was built.
We don’t want “naysayers” on City Council, but we also don’t want “yes” men and women who rubber stamp every project that comes before them, as the current City Council majority has done. We need people open to compromise, who will ask hard questions and demand straight answers in order to get the best result for Scottsdale.
That is what I will do if elected to the City Council.
Mr. Henninger says “Scottsdale should be getting the cream of the crop” in new projects. But if the council doesn’t have the strength to say “no” now and then to projects that don’t meet our high standards, we won’t get the “cream of the crop,” but will instead get the bottom of the barrel.
If the City Council had imposed higher standards on the Marquee and Southbridge II, a workable compromise might have been within reach. But the City Council couldn’t bring itself to say “no” when needed.
This week I had the opportunity to walk the section of Scottsdale Road where the Marquee building has been approved for construction. I gazed up at the space it will absorb and was appalled.
Right now, construction is on hold because, due to COVID, many people don’t want to work in high rise towers. If it is ever built, it will loom over Old Town like a cruise ship parked on Scottsdale Road, and I predict, will cause outrage among residents and tourists.
It will stand for decades as a monument to what happens when our leaders are afraid to say “no” to bad projects.
Editor’s Note: Tom Durham is a candidate for Scottsdale City Council in the 2020 general election.
