Scottsdale Southbridge saga tramples into technical legal proceedings

Developer, PAC and residents at odds

By Melissa Rosequist
Twitter: @mrosequist_

Punches continue to be thrown in the fight to save Southbridge Two as litigation and campaign finance complaints fly in the face of the proposed Scottsdale development.

Southbridge Two, planned for the Fifth Avenue area in Old Town Scottsdale, has hit two more hurdles in its quest to see the light of day as a new campaign finance complaint against Spring Creek Development President Carter Unger has been filed at the City Clerk’s office --- and a lawsuit over referendum petition signatures kicks off.

Earlier this month, Mr. Unger and his political action committee, “Protecting Scottsdale’s Future,” filed suit against:

• Scottsdale City Clerk Carolyn Jagger;
• Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes; and
• Political Action Committee For the Preservation of Old Town Scottsdale.

The lawsuit was anticipated as Mr. Unger previously vowed to seek legal action after Preservation of Old Town Scottsdale successfully gathered signatures for a referendum petition to force the project to a public vote in the November election. On Jan. 31, Ms. Jagger confirmed the sufficiency of the petition, including verification and certification by both the clerk’s office and the Maricopa County Recorder.

At the time, Mr. Unger said the verification of signatures was not a surprise in any way, and planned to take the fight to a judge.

Mr. Unger seeks to prove the petition campaign included misinformation and “outright lies,” he said at that time.

A civil case was officially filed with the Maricopa County Superior Court on Feb. 5.

An order to show case was scheduled for Feb. 13, and two evidentiary hearings are scheduled for March 11 and 12, a court docket calendar shows.

Mr. Unger has not responded to requests for comment on this matter.

Also on Feb. 5, Phoenix attorney Timothy A. La Sota filed a campaign finance complaint with the Scottsdale City Clerk’s office.

Mr. La Sota alleges a flyer distributed by individuals believed to be associated with Mr. Unger and efforts to convince people not to sign the Southbridge Two referendum petition does not include any information on who paid for the flyer.

“Under A.R.S. §16-925, if these flyers were produced by Protecting Scottsdale’s Future, as we believe they were, it must be disclosed that this entity paid for the flyers,” Mr. La Sota writes in his complaint.

“If Protecting Scottsdale’s Future did not pay for them, then it is possible that the entity that did was required to register with your office but did not.”

The complaint outlines that Arizona revised statutes stipulates an entity that is formed for the primary purpose of supporting or opposing an election, including a referendum election, but register as a political committee.

Mr. La Sota also believes there is nothing in Protecting Scottsdale’s Future campaign finance report that would pertain to the flyers, “so they may need to amend their report also,” he says.

“It is important that the citizens of Scottsdale know who is preparing campaign literature, and they are entitled to know this under the law,” he says.
Protecting Scottsdale’s Future has until Tuesday, Feb. 25, to respond to the complaint, Ms. Jagger says.

“After that, I will review the complaint and response, if any, and make a determination of whether there is reasonable cause to believe there has been a violation,” Mr. Jagger said.