Alexander: The contradictions in Janik and Durham’s populism

My councilperson needs to do more than offer futile challenges to campaign finance laws, and marginalize the investors in our community.”

Jason Alexander, Scottsdale resident and community advocate

Betty Janik and Tom Durham wrote two long articles recently, banging a populist drum of reforming campaign finance. Their ideas show that an anti-growth belief permeates their campaign platform.

Durham and Janik claim that campaign finance donations are gifts, and should be a conflict of interest in the city’s ethics code. While charging alone down this bizarre trail, the two populists miss key details.

Campaign donations are highly restricted for how they can be used, fully documented, completely transparent, with huge penalties for violations. The candidate is not enriched by 50 more road signs --- it’s not a gift, like paying a candidate’s medical bills.

Campaign contributions are constitutionally protected and Scottsdale cannot, contrary to federal and state law, regulate them. The city attorney and city clerk unequivocally rejected the Janik\Durham theory in throwing out an ethics complaint filed on June 15. Their complaint didn’t survive a single business day.

City Council candidate John Little expressed his objection well in saying: “Stop purposely trying to create misdirection by conflating secret gifts with legally disclosed campaign contributions. We should be informing voters not confusing them.”

The populism of “cleaning up City Hall” rings hollow when Janik\Durham don’t even mention that their teammate Guy Phillips accepted anonymous cash gifts while in office. Phillips may have simply been grievously foolish for a two-term Councilman, but an objective person would still criticize him, not defend him.

Durham and Janik are anti-growth, and it shows clearly in their slanted approach to development. Most of the projects that go through the city’s entitlement process get approved with broad support, or rejected for good reason. The few projects that make it before council are significant, and must navigate financial, spatial and zoning limitations in order to be viable.

Development works best when residents, investors and leaders can add value with compromise. Not all projects should be approved, but they can all be improved.

Janik and Durham’s model for Southbridge was to hold rigidly to the no-growth standard throughout the process, and to wait until the very end to provide a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. Same with Marquee, same with Fiesta Ranch.

This is not collaborative, it doesn’t improve a project, it is the antithesis of good development and the exemplar of “no growth.”

Councilpersons should regularly have conversations with investors in our city, so they can steer the projects with constant dialogue. Just as councilpeople should talk often to neighborhood and community groups, the Conservancy, faith and charity groups, and the Chamber of Commerce.

Tom Durham poked fun at Shawn Yari’s outreach efforts around The Collective. Members of the local press and Coalition of Greater Scottsdale were at the outreach meetings listening. I didn’t see Durham and Janik.

Instead of Durham\Janik suggesting Yari is buying votes with legal campaign donations, let’s flip around the perspective. No investor will donate a dime to a candidate who adopts a “no negotiation” position, because that unwillingness to collaborate breaks the development process.

Durham and Janik’s brag of receiving only 1% and 4% of their donations from the development community doesn’t show them to be “for the residents,” it shows them to be anathema to the business community.

The pair are not objective. They’ve said many times in many different channels how Lane, Korte, Klapp and Milhaven vote in lockstep, and are anti-resident. Durham and Janik constantly question their motivations, while they jointly campaign with Bob Littlefield and his “us vs them” refrain.

Suzanne Klapp said: “The overwhelming majority of real estate development projects in Scottsdale are noncontroversial, provide sound economic development opportunities, create thousands of jobs, generate millions of dollars in tax revenue, provide new and exciting amenities, and contribute to the overall high quality of life enjoyed by Scottsdale residents.”

This is a positive, forward-thinking vision for Scottsdale. If Janik and Durham want a bedroom community, talk about the benefits of a bedroom community, not smear candidates as working for “their masters” like Durham did yesterday.

The bloc of Janik, Durham, Phillips and the two Littlefields would vote in lockstep opposing economic vitality, future jobs, and attainable housing. 47% of our budget comes from retail sales taxes. The Littlefield Party will be forced to either cut services or raise property taxes. Only 10% of our budget comes from property taxes, because we curate a vibrant economy.

Scottsdale is a diverse community of ages and relationships and properties. Durham\Janik try to own the definition of residents. Their “hypothetical” resident is just like them: lives in a single-family home on a large suburban lot, wants quiet streets, and no tall buildings downtown.

Real Scottsdale residents are among 18,000 business owners employing 200,000 people, 30,000 medical professionals, 60,000 hospitality personnel, and 30,000 kids in schools.

Development is a positive word when we talk about developing our minds, our bodies, our careers, our relationships. It should be positive when talking about our city. We must ensure projects provide public benefits and adhere to the vision of the General Plan.

My councilperson needs to do more than offer futile challenges to campaign finance laws, and marginalize the investors in our community. We need councilpeople who care about jobs, diversified economy, schools, public safety, social justice, kindness, economic vitality and the future of Scottsdale.

Editor’s Note: Jason Alexander is a citizen advocate and editor of Scottsdale Together Facebook fan page.