The more things change, the more they stay the same...

A 'quick hit' post on goings-on in Scottsdale...

For those of you who thought that the ouster of Mary Manross as mayor in favor of Jim Lane would change the way that the City deals with developers (aka - rubber stamp everything), read on...

From the AZ Republic (emphasis mine) -

Scottsdale Planning Commission will meet March 11 to discuss the proposed Palmeraie project that could bring five-story buildings to the southwestern corner of Indian Bend and Scottsdale roads.

Some area residents are worried about incompatible density and preserving views of Camelback Mountain, and they raised their concerns at a Coalition of Greater Scottsdale meeting late this week at which representatives of Five Star Development met with community activists.

{snip}

The rezoning request in Scottsdale has hit technical hurdles that still must be addressed, however.

Current Scottsdale ordinance requires that any parcel seeking zoning as a planned regional center (PRC) be at least 25 acres in size. The lot going before the Planning Commission is only 20 acres.

20 acres is smaller than 25, so 'no go', right?

Not so fast.

Connie Padian, a City Zoning Administrator, has issued a "Zoning Interpretation Record."

It says that since the parcel in question abuts another parcel owned by the same developer in Paradise Valley, and that the combined size totals approximately 120 acres...well, you can see where this is going.

From Sonnie Kirtley, chair of the Coalition of Greater Scottsdale (COGS), via email -

...You need to get your appeals and comments in the city file prior to that date. So far, there are NO public comments (or staff communications) in that file. Case numbers are 17-AB-2008, 13 ZN 2008 and 13 TA 2008. If the staff "interpretation" is legal, then the developer won't be asking for the 13-TA-2008 text amendment to change ALL properties in the city with 20 acres to be permitted the PRC upzoning. They will just ask that their current Resort Zoning (35 ft max height) be improved to the PRC on their parcel.

Apparently, the wave of change that swept over the country last November missed our quaintly pretentious over-botoxed little desert hamlet, because nothing has changed -

The City genuflected before deep-pocketed developers last year, and they are genuflecting before deep-pocketed developers this year.

About the only this that has changed is Jim Lane's brilliant proclamation to promote tourism in Scottsdale - "Western on Wednesday." He has asked Scottsdale residents to wear "boots, jeans, and other Western attire on Wednesdays" to celebrate the Parada del Sol this month.

I suppose it's better than Pink Taco debacles, but it doesn't really seem like the kind of proactive leadership the city needs to navigate its way through these tough economic times.

Later...

Ooops, I spoke too soon...

A couple of days ago, I posted on some political developments in Scottsdale. In that post, I opined that we probably wouldn't see a move in the lege to adjust nomination signature requirements in municipal elections. The problem with the current sig threshold (5% of voters voting in the prior election) is that a number of cities, Scottsdale among them, are now required to hold their elections in the fall on the same schedule as county and state governments.

That has resulted in a greatly increased turnout (> 3 times in Scottsdale) with a corresponding increase in sig requirements for the 2010 elections ( to approximately 5800 in Scottsdale).

To put that number into a little perspective, seven of the eight winning candidates in AZ's Congressional races last fall found their ways to the ballot with far fewer sigs than would be required in Scottsdale (the exception was Gabrielle Giffords in CD8, who turned in almost 12,000 sigs).

Well, it turns out that I spoke too soon.

HB2048 has been introduced in the AZ lege to deal with exactly this situation.

If passed into law, it would amend current law (ARS 16-322, A.8) thusly -

, EXCEPT THAT A CITY THAT CHOOSES TO HOLD NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS MAY BY ORDINANCE PROVIDE THAT THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR THE CANDIDATE BE ONE THOUSAND SIGNATURES OR FIVE PER CENT OF THE VOTE IN THE CITY, WHICHEVER IS LESS, BUT NOT MORE THAN TEN PER CENT OF THE VOTE IN THE CITY.

The bill is sponsored by state reps Michelle Reagan (R-LD8), Ed Ableser (D-LD17), and Ray Barnes (R-LD7) and State Senators Carolyn Allen (R-LD8), Meg Burton Cahill (D-LD17) and Jay Tibshraeny (R-LD21) (co-sponsor). It's probably not a coincidence that all of those legislators with the exception of Tibrshraeny represent part of Scottsdale.

And he spent 16 years as a councilmember or mayor in Chandler, so it's a safe bet that he understands the impact of the new sig requirements.

Of course, even if the bill is enacted into law, there's no guarantee that a Jim Lane-led majority on the Scottsdale City Council will pass an ordinance allowed by the revised state statute.

I can't make any predictions about the likelihood of passage through the lege yet, but it may make it through committee - Tibshraeny is the chair of the Senate's Government Institutions Committee, the committee that is likely to hear the bill.

The LD17 Democrats are meeting tomorrow night; I'll try to find a moment to ask Sen. Burton Cahill about the bill's chances.

Later!

Jim Lane starts consolidating power in Scottsdale

Among the signs of regime change in Scottsdale (and there have been many of them already)...

...Lane has hired Tim LaSota as his chief of staff. LaSota is the son of former AZ Attorney General Jack LaSota and has spent the last few years with the Maricopa County Attorney's Office as Andrew Thomas' coatholder taxpayer-funded lobbyist special assistant deputy county attorney.

LaSota has a rep as an ideologue (as if working closely with Andrew Thomas doesn't prove that already! :) ) with his association with the far-right Federalist Society.

Anybody want to start a pool on Scottsdale City Attorney Deborah Robberson's separation date? She is definitely viewed as one of outgoing Mayor Mary Manross' allies and is likely gone before too long (spring???). At first blush, it seems that LaSota is in a prime position to assume the office once Robberson is forced out/moves on.

Besides that expected change in a City Charter Officer spot, the City Manager's job is filled on an interim basis by John Little (though he seems to be well-positioned to win the job on a permanent basis...well, as permanent as any of these jobs can be. Three, maybe four years; probably not much more than that.) Also, the City Auditor's and City Treasurer's jobs are open already (like the City Manager's job, these are also currently filled on an interim basis).

Lane could put his imprint on City Staff very quickly if these jobs are filled by "his" people.

BTW - only time will tell if LaSota's move is one of him seeking a promotion (from "special assistant" to "chief of staff" and maybe higher) or one of rats deserting a sinking Thomas ship. Or both. :))

Also, only time will tell is LaSota was hired for his professional qualifications or his partisan connections.

...On the electoral politics side, Lane is looking to change a previous vote (4-3, of course) that directed the City's govermental relations staff ("lobbyists" to us normal folks) to support legislative repeal of a 2006 law that required cities of a certain size to move their municipal elections to the fall. Many people, including me, believe that this change led to an increased turnout of Republicans, giving a close victory to Republican Lane in heavily Republican Scottsdale.

It seems that Scottsdale's Republicans value the benefits that fall elections have for them, even though the municipal races get lost in the clutter of the lengthy partisan ballots. A tendency which led to the next item...

...Also on the electoral politics side, over in the state lege, north Scottsdale/Fountain Hills State Representative John Kavanagh (R-LD8) has introduced HB2033, a bill that would remove undervotes from calculations of the number of votes cast for an office. This is significant because in September's primary election, Lane led Manross when all the votes were counted, but wasn't the declared the winner because there were enough undervotes that Lane didn't gain a majority.

I can't say that I'm opposed to this one - only the number of votes cast for an office *should* be what determines what constitutes a "majority" of votes for that office, but something tells me that Kavanagh's motivation for this one isn't anything as pure as simple idealism.

...One move not seen yet, and based on the policy initiatives proposed thus far, I'll guess that it's not likely to be seen, is support for changing the number of signatures needed on nomination petitions. Because of the move to fall elections, candidates in 2010 and 2012 will need roughly three times as many signatures (5813) to make it on to the Scottsdale ballot as were needed this year (1652). In a municipal election, numbers like that shut out all but the best-funded candidates, thus making it easier for incumbents to retain their seats.

Anyway, look for more moves, both in the areas of personnel and in legislation/policies, as Lane settles into his new role.

Note - The AZ Republic's report on the farewell reception for Manross and outgoing councilmember Betty Drake is here; Lane, returning councilmember Ron McCullagh and new members Lisa Borowsky and Suzanne Klapp will be sworn in this Tuesday, with a reception starting at 4 p.m. and the swearing-in ceremony taking place at 4:30 p.m.

Later!

Manross concedes; Jim Lane becomes Mayor of Scottsdale

From AZCentral.com -

Two-term Mayor Mary Manross threw in the towel Wednesday, conceding the drawn-out mayor's race to Councilman Jim Lane more than two weeks after the last ballot was cast.

"Jim Lane will be the next mayor," Manross said in a statement Wednesday morning. "I wish him the very best and also wish the new council success in leading our community."

Lane is maintaining a lead of more than 500 votes more than two weeks after the election. In a development that was a bit surprising to many observers, including me, he built on his 367-vote victory margin in September's primary. Most expectations were that while the Republican primary in CD5 would elevate Rep turnout in September, favoring the Republican Lane, the demographics of the general election, with the elevated number of Democratic voters turning out to support Barack Obama and Harry Mitchell, would favor Democrat Mary Manross.

Turns out that "many observers, including me" were wrong.

One new development during the rancorous campaign, and one that doesn't bode well for Scottsdale's long-term well-being, was the partisan nature of some of the attacks. One third party committee, "Republicans For A Bright New Day In Scottsdale", was formed on August 1st for the purpose of opposing Manross' candidacy. Through mid-October, the committee had expended over $23K to oppose Manross or support Lane.

The major contributors to the committee were Henry Becker ($5K), a long-time Manross foe from north Scottsdale, and Michael Fernandez (over $27K), who lists his profession as "sales" and his employer as "Paradise Distributing." In the committee's organizational paperwork, Fernandez lists his address as that of his employer.

According to Corporation Commission records, he is actually the president of Paradise Distributing Company, Inc., which sort of explains how a salesman at a pottery store could afford to give nearly $30K to the defeat of a candidate. :)

Anyway, back to the point - the city's Republicans turned a non-partisan race into one of pure partisan ideology, and with their nearly 2-1 registration advantage, can be expected to do so again in the future.

Especially since the tactic worked.

However, since as the record of the Bush administration demonstrates so clearly, hardcore Republican ideology is totally unsuited for practical governing. If Lane governs as if he owes the ideologues a debt for his successful election, Scottsdale is in trouble.

As a possible indicator of which way Lane's politics run, he was a strong supporter of then-Congressman JD Hayworth (R-Blowhard) in 2006.

Let me be clear - there are a number of Republicans (even here in Arizona) who approach the responsibilities of governing seriously and professionally and who don't let blind ideology gain sway over reality when it comes time to make decisions.

For the sake of Scottsdale and its residents, let us all hope that Jim Lane is one of them.


Note: The reason that Lane's September victory wasn't enough is that it wasn't large enough - because of write-ins and undervotes, he didn't receive more than 50% of the votes, which necessitated the November runoff.

My vote in the Scottsdale election...

I wasn't going to weigh in on the races in Scottsdale, but since it seems that everyone else with an online outlet for their opinions is doing so (Scottsdale Republic endorsements here, Jim McAlister, an AZ Rep blogger, lists his votes here, and the EV Tribune has coverage of a number of different endorsements here), here's how I voted...sort of (more on that later)...

The candidates for Council basically fall into two camps (yup, I know that I'm simplifying their positions, probably far more than any candidate would ever want, but) -

- The continued unfettered growth/"whatever is good for developers is good for Scottsdale" crowd (supported by the Chamber of Commerce) - incumbents Ron McCullagh and Betty Drake, as well as candidate Suzanne Klapp. Candidates Liza Borowsky and Oren Davis seem to fall into this category (to be fair though, with Davis it's hard to tell because he's been dealing with some family medical issues and hasn't been able to focus on campaigning in an effective way. Could be an interesting candidate if he chooses to run again in two years.)

- The No Growth/"we like Scottsdale the way it is and won't let anything change no matter what" crowd - Nan Nesvig and Tom Giller.

As you might be able to tell from the way that I've simplified (perhaps oversimplified), I don't exactly subscribe to either school of thought. Mostly, I think that both schools of thought are shortsighted. The first ignores the needs and desires of most of Scottsdale's residents who just want *homes*, not a cover story in Architectural Digest. The second ignores the fact that change happens whether you want it to or not; trying to totally prevent rather than to control and guide change only leads to uncontrolled change.

Joel Bramoweth, the eighth candidate for council, doesn't really belong to either grouping. Therefore, I voted for him.

OK, not really. I *did* vote for him, but because he has nuanced, well-thought out positions and because he has worked hard for the last couple of years to learn about Scottsdale's government from the boards and commissions on up, not just at City Council meetings.

He does tend to ramble a bit when speaking in public (ok - he rambles a *lot*), but he's an educated, intelligent, and decent human being who will be an asset to the Council and to the City (even if occasionally annoying to listen to :) ).

While I'm sure that we are going to disagree on some positions and votes, I firmly believe that when we differ, his positions will be chosen because he truly believes that those particular positions are the right ones, not because he is in someone's pocket or because he wants to appease some local reactionaries.

In other words, he'll be wrong, but he'll be honest and reasoned about it (God knows when we disagree, it won't happen because *I'm* wrong, right?? LOL).

I did cast votes for Mayor and the other two seats on the Council, but those were all exercises in "trying to find the least bad candidates" rather than "voting for good candidates." I won't name who I voted for but will say that my votes for Council were split between the two camps.

Anyway, have a good week; don't expect any more posts at least until Friday from Denver.

Later!

John Washington, candidate for mayor of Scottsdale, withdraws from race

Community activist John Washington has announced that he is ending his write-in candidacy for the office of Mayor of Scottsdale.

From his press release -

It is with great respect and appreciation for my supporters and our citizens of Scottsdale that I hereby withdraw from the September 2, 2008 General Election race for Mayor.

My goal in running for mayor was to drive a higher level of conversation about the issues that are important to the citizens of Scottsdale. I am pleased the other candidates have embraced these issues, among them:

· Openness and honesty in creating public policy.
· Respect for, and value of citizen input.
· Financial responsibility, and good stewardship of taxpayers’ money.
· Traffic, growth, building height, population density.
· Value of Scottsdale’s history, identity, and community character.
· The importance of Scottsdale’s character to tourism and to our quality of life.

These issues have also become central themes during Council candidate forums and discussions. Our citizens have applauded these discussions with renewed interest in their government. I am proud to have accomplished this important goal. I also realize, though, that important work lies ahead during the last weeks before the election.

Our citizens better understand the issues facing the next Council. However, there are many Council candidates, and few opportunities for one-on-one conversation with them. Therefore, I want to focus my energy on expanding dialogue between the candidates and our citizens, encouraging our citizens to vote, and encouraging them to vote based on candidates’ track records rather than on campaign promises.

I am pleased to endorse Tom Giller (www.TomGiller.com) and Nan Nesvig(www.NanNesvig.com) for Scottsdale City Council. Tom and Nan have stood alongside our citizens, defending our neighborhoods and our quality of life. Through their efforts and personal sacrifice they have demonstrated their passion for, and their commitment to Scottsdale and her residents. I look forward to working with Tom and Nan during the next four years.

I encourage you to get to know Tom and Nan, and to give them your support and your vote on September 2. As I have learned, it is a lot of work for a candidate to get his or her message out to our citizens to help them make informed decisions. Please help Tom and Nan get on Council so they can look after our interests.

Your questions are welcome, and I will maintain www.ScottsdaleCitizen.com as a portal for information on the election.

Thank you for your support!

John Washington
480.229.1831
john[at]ReactionResearch.com

I'll concede that this isn't much of a surprise as he didn't have a snowball's chance of winning, but as an observer/writer, I'm going to miss his presence in the race. He changed the dynamic of the race and could have forced it to go to a November run-off election.

With his withdrawal, the two remaining candidates, incumbent Mayor Mary Manross and Councilman Jim Lane, will only have to plan their campaign expenditures for a sprint to September 2 rather than a possible marathon to November.

BTW - that sprint starts tomorrow when mail ballots for the September election go out.

BTW2 - It's interesting, but also not much of a surprise, that Mr. Washington didn't endorse either of the other two candidates. He entered the race in the first place because he isn't particularly impressed with either one.

Look for him to stay active in Scottsdale community goings-on, with an eye toward a run for Council in two years (no inside info there, just a guess on my part. :) )

Candidate Forum For Scottsdale Mayoral And Council Candidates

Back to boring (i.e. - content that's only relevent locally)...

Thursday evening, all three of Scottsdale's mayoral candidates (incumbent Mary Manross and challengers Jim Lane and John Washington) and 7 of the candidates for Scottsdale City Council (incumbents Betty Drake and Ron McCullagh and challengers Nan Nesvig, Tom Giller, Lisa Borowsky, Joel Bramoweth, and Suzanne Klapp) gathered for the candidate forum sponsored by the Coalition of Pinnacle Peak (COPP).

None of the candidates did a bad job there, though the one who didn't participate, council candidate Oren Davis, didn't do his candidacy any favors by not showing up.

While there were some differences in their positions, all of the candidates showed a grasp of the main issues facing Scottsdale.

Their positions, shown by their responses to a COPP candidate survey, can be found on this page.

Impressions -

Of the candidates who did participate, Lisa Borowsky had the weakest night - she was all but drowned out by the gaggle of candidates on dais. It's not entirely her fault (COPP should have split the forum based on office sought - 10 on the stage was just too many). In addition, after the first couple of questions that had been prepared by COPP, a series of audience questions were presented to the candidates, but in a move that was unique compared to the other candidate forums that I've attended over the last few years, those questions were directed at specific candidates, not the entire panel. The 'free-form' format of the debate might have worked with a smaller panel, but not here.

On the other hand, the other candidates faced the same conditions, too. If she wants to run for office, Borowsky needs to learn to adapt her presentation style on the fly.

The strongest presentation was from council candidate Nan Nesvig. She was prepared, spoke clearly, definitively and intelligently on a variety of issues. The only flaw in her presentation that I could find (and it's a technical one!) was that she spent a little too much time reading from her prepared notes.

Joel Bramoweth, as has been noted here before, tended to go on a little too long and sometimes made his answers more of a project than was necessary. However, he also was the funniest of the candidates, frequently connecting with the audience poking fun at his own speaking style. Overall, he probably helped himself a little.

Tom Giller (council) and John Washington (write-in candidate for mayor) did a good job of delineating their differences with the status quo, and did so strongly but without being strident.

Incumbent council members Drake and McCullagh stressed the need for a return to civility in Scottsdale politics (Drake) and that they were running to represent the entire city, not just one neighborhood or single section of the city (McCullagh).

In addition, all of the incumbents, including Mayor Manross, pointed out that the city is in decent shape (and to be fair, while there *are* problems here, as in any other city, Scottsdale really *is* in good shape overall).

On the other hand, most of the challengers, including current council member Lane, cited distrust between the City government and the citizens of Scottsdale as one of the big problems facing the city, and used that to call for a change in city goverment.

Anyway, the forum went fairly smoothly, other than some of the format issues cited above. It was not recorded on video, so anyone who couldn't make Thursday's event should plan to attend the EV Tribune Mayoral forum on Tuesday, July 22 in the City Hall Kiva from 6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. It will be broadcast live on CityCable11 and repeated at various times.

Later!