PHOENIX — The Arizona Senate has given a big victory to the maker of Taser stun guns and police body cameras, but it may not be the quick win Axon Enterprises was banking on.

The measure now sitting on Gov. Katie Hobbs’ desk would cancel an election forced by residents in Scottsdale who oppose Axon’s plan to build a new headquarters complex that will include nearly 2,000 apartments and a hotel. 

The apartments are the big issue.

But it also shows the Legislature is willing to again overrule local control anywhere in the state if they consider the stakes or issue to be important enough. This particular effort might run afoul of a state constitutional ban on “special legislation” crafted to affect just one business, leading to a possible legal challenge that could hold up the whole project.

Hobbs signaled after the Senate gave final approval to the measure on a 17-12 vote Tuesday that she backs Axon. The bill was prompted by the homegrown company’s threats to leave the state if its new campus is blocked and by its flirtations with officials in Florida and Texas about a new home for the $43 billion firm.

“They want to stay here. They are creating jobs,” Hobbs said in response to a question from Capitol Media Services about the bill, which had been approved by the state House last week. “And not only that: They are now helping to address the affordable housing crisis by using the state land that they bought to build housing to house their workforce.”

If Hobbs signs the bill into law, the win may be a hollow one — or at least not the quick victory Axon and its supporters are seeking.

“I don’t want to tip our hand too much, but everything’s on the table,” said former Scottsdale Councilman Bob Littlefield, who opposes Axon’s development.

Littlefield is the chairman of the opposition group dubbed TAAAZE — short for Taxpayers Against Awful Apartment Zoning Exemptions.

The group blocked the development by collecting enough signatures to refer the city council approval of the plan to the ballot in Scottsdale. That would have delayed any action until voters got the last word, something that could not happen before November 2026.

That delay led Patrick Smith, the company CEO, to lobby lawmakers for the legislation, which would effectively nullify the local referendum.

But as it turns out, there may still be a referendum, albeit on a larger scale.
The new bill did not get the required two-thirds vote in the Senate, a margin that would allow it to take effect on the governor’s signature. Because of that, it would become effective 90 days after the end of the current legislative session.

Any legislation enacted without an emergency clause can be blocked until the next general election — November 2026 — if opponents gather at least 128,000 signatures in that 90-day window.

That’s exactly the delay Smith sought to avoid when he convinced lawmakers to undermine the successful local referendum.

If the new bill is blocked from taking effect and voters get to reject his project in 2026, Smith could follow through with his threat to leave Arizona.

That’s what Axon’s allies in the Legislature fear.

As one of the state’s largest companies, losing Axon would be a huge hit. If voters in one city can block a major development, they worry other companies will reconsider Arizona as a place to expand, dealing a blow to the economy.

“This is really a reflection totally about the state of Arizona and whether we welcome business, whether we welcome housing, whether we welcome more schools, more infrastructure,” said Sen. Frank Carroll, R-Sun City West. “This is talking about the future here, and to fail to pass this bill is going to send that signal, and it’s going to have a negative impact on the state of Arizona.”

Sen. Vince Leach, R-Tucson, made similar arguments, noting Axon wasn’t asking for subsidies or other handouts.

“They just want to stay here, and we’re pushing them to the very, very brink,” he said. “Let’s keep them here. Let’s keep their jobs.”

Leach warned of the economic hit if Axon loses and the damage to Arizona’s reputation as a business-friendly state.

“If they leave, I guarantee you, it would be very difficult to start building back that reputation,” Leach said.

Opponents of Axon’s plan aren’t willing to take the loss at the hands of lawmakers sitting still.

TAAAZE is considering multiple ways to stop the legislation Axon got lawmakers to OK, according to Littlefield.

The group is consulting with attorneys about challenging the legislation’s constitutionality. The key is that constitutional prohibition against special interest legislation.

The measure is crafted so it only affects the Axon headquarters campus.
It says a city must allow apartments and hotels on land zoned for light industrial and that is being developed as a headquarters for an international company. And it only applies to cities with populations between 200,000 and 500,000.

Although technically four cities meet the criteria, only one has a proposed international headquarters: Scottsdale.

The bill also applies only to land owned by a single company, that the headquarters will employ more than 1,000 full-time workers, and that average annual compensation will be more than 125% of the Maricopa County median wage, a figure that translates to more than $106,000.

“The thing is so ridiculously outrageous,” Littlefield said.

“It’s a special interest bill which is supposed to be unacceptable,” he said.

“It takes away people’s right to vote for it,” Littlefield continued, referring to the already-called Scottsdale election. “Our legal team is pretty confident because that they can get this thing beat in court because there’s so much wrong with it.”

Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, warned the quick-fix backers were seeking was a pipe dream.

“Now, if this bill passes, there is a group that says they will refer it to the ballot, and they may very well do that,” Kavanagh said as he voted against the measure. “Scottsdale will certainly be suing over special legislation, which means that this whole issue is going to be tied up for probably at least a year.”

And he said passing the bill would cut off any hope of avoiding all that through negotiations between Axon and Scottsdale officials.

“I can’t in good conscience support this,” Sen. Lauren Kuby, D-Tempe, whose district includes part of Scottsdale and is a former Tempe council member, said during the vote.

Her main concern was the bill’s cancellation of the Scottsdale election, but she also fretted about its legality.

“It seems unconstitutional on its face,” Kuby said. “There will be much litigation. We know that never goes well for our city and for our taxpayers.”
The issue is not the headquarters but instead the new apartments.

Axon officials says the company wants to put up some of its workers there and the bill requires a portion of them to be used by the company or by teachers, firefighters, police or others who work nearby.

And 5% must be offered at prices that are affordable for low- or middle-income families for a decade.

Littlefield said Scottsdale doesn’t need Axon’s apartments, since about 10,000 approved units are already in the pipeline.

After the council approved the plan, voters turned the majority out of office.
“The previous council were filled with people who over-approved apartments, so there’s no shortage of housing or apartments in Scottsdale,” Littlefield said. “If this guy at Axon, really, really, really needed apartments, there’s several thousand apartments already approved within a mile of his campus.”

For some senators who supported the bill, the issue boiled down to the “not-in-my-backyard” attitude of many opponents. Sen. Catherine Miranda D-Laveen, said it comes down to NIMBY-ism, “not in my neighborhood.”

“I think one part of our Valley is experiencing that right now,” she said.

Even worse, Miranda said, were comments made by one person from Scottsdale during a committee hearing, saying they “don’t want those kind of people in their community.”

“What kind of people?” Miranda said. “Because I think we’re all in the same situation right now, all levels of income have to worry about what’s affordable. It’s not just ‘those kind of people,’”