Log in

Opinion

Littlefield: Three lies told about Scottsdale development

Posted

The good news for Scottsdale citizens is the Lane-Korte-Milhaven-Klapp regime, which saddled Scottsdale residents with so much bad development over the last eight years, is gone.

The even better news is they have been replaced by a council majority whose highest priority is the welfare of Scottsdale residents and businesses.

The bad news is the special interests who kept the previous council majority in power have not just folded their tents and left town. There is too much money (literally hundreds of millions of dollars) to be made exploiting Scottsdale’s special character and high quality of life for them to easily give up control of Scottsdale’s development process.

For years they were able to win elections with hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign contributions.

That stopped working after they overreached by trying to stick commercial development in the Preserve and the bloated Southbridge 2 development in downtown.

These mistakes opened the eyes of a lot of citizens to what was really going on down at City Hall. Those citizens then banded together to organize and pass (overwhelmingly) Prop. 420 to curtail commercial development in the Preserve and to successfully refer Southbridge 2 to the voters.

That same activism helped propel resident-friendly City Council candidates Kathy Littlefield, Betty Janik, Tom Durham and Solange Whitehead to victory, despite their being the most frugal election spenders. While swimming in special-interest campaign contributions still helps (think Tammy Caputi here), it no longer guarantees victory in City Council campaigns.

So, to keep their stranglehold on Scottsdale’s development process, these special interests are conducting a PR campaign to sell to the public three big lies about why you should love unbridled over-development.

Lie No. 1 is Littlefield, Janik, Durham, Whitehead and their allies are “against all growth and development.” The truth is most development that happens in Scottsdale is fine and is routinely approved without fanfare or controversy.

Why? Because good developers know that developing within the standards that have made Scottsdale such a great place to live and do business is the best long-term strategy for everyone involved, residents and developers alike.

It is only the bloated, dense, tall, character-destroying projects which were so beloved by the previous City Council majority that create news and controversy. Opposing these bad projects is exactly what citizens elected Littlefield, Janik, Durham and Whitehead to do.

Lie No. 2 is the claim over-development contributes to Scottsdale’s economic health. The truth is overdevelopment doesn’t pay; it costs. These bad projects not only lower residents’ quality of life via increased traffic congestion, blocked views, stressed infrastructure and lack of parking. They also are hurting Scottsdale taxpayers in their pocketbooks.

How do we know this? In 2019 city staff told the City Council that Scottsdale had over $800 million of “unfunded” infrastructure projects; some observers believe the amount is actually much higher. Staff asked the City Council to put a bond issue before the voters to fund these projects. The City Council concluded the voters would never approve such a large amount and opted for a smaller $319 million package.

Which brings up the question: how did an affluent city like Scottsdale find itself hundreds of millions of dollars in the hole? The answer is simple: over-development doesn’t pay; it costs.

Over-development hurts Scottsdale’s treasury in two ways. First, every time a tall, dense project is built it adds costs we current taxpayers have to pay — costs for increasing police and fire services, water and sewer, road improvements and other infrastructure needs.

Current Scottsdale taxpayers end up paying these costs because Scottsdale does not make developers of these projects pay their own way. Bottom line, Scottsdale taxpayers are literally being forced to subsidize development we don’t want.

Over-development also hurts us by making Scottsdale’s character less unique and special, which makes our city less desirable as a tourist destination. This is a problem because even with COVID, tourism is (and will continue to be in the future) the most significant driver of Scottsdale’s economy.

Tourists will not want to come here (and spend money) if we make Scottsdale look like a bland copy of Anytown USA.

Lie No. 3 is “if you don’t approve this bloated, hideous project you will get something worse.” Here’s a thought: how about if the City Council rejects all “less bad” projects and approves only good projects, which are positively good for Scottsdale. Which is exactly what the new City Council majority has committed to do.

So, the next time you read some pundit whine that Littlefield, Janik, Durham and Whitehead are “against all growth and development” or “don’t care about economic development for Scottsdale” know one thing for sure — that commenter does not have the best interests of Scottsdale residents and taxpayers at heart.

Editor’s Note: Bob Littlefield is a former Scottsdale City Councilman and mayoral candidate. He is the husband of Scottsdale Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield.