Heath: Outcry against Scottsdale Southbridge-II project is stranger than fiction

Scottsdale recently went through a similarly ugly petition process involving a planned municipal museum on the edge of the desert, and the contentions were outrageous”

Larry Heath, Scottsdale resident

What’s up with Bob Littlefield? Is there anything less appealing in Scottsdale politics than a former city council member who wants to undo the vote of elected officials who serve alongside his spouse?

Immediately upon approval of a world-class, mixed-use development in downtown Scottsdale called Southbridge-II, Littlefield and a few of his supporters ---who he would reportedly like to have elected to the City Council next year --- are attempting to undo the vote.

It’s an unadulterated power grab spearheaded by a group who appear to desire to commander the Scottsdale’s planning and development apparatus. Do you have any idea how much time, brain-damage and money it takes to run a development through a nine- to 12-month municipal approval process?

There are a lot of checks and balances intentionally designed into the system, including detailed analyses involving construction plans, power consumption and school attendance.

That’s especially true when it comes to a half-a-billion-dollar project pioneered by private development family with a reputation for excellence, who own the land (!) and went out of their way to accommodate the city during the process.

I understand that residents and officials wanted the developer to add more --- very expensive --- parking spaces to project to remedy a regional parking deficiency, and they provided it without question. Bear in mind, the nearby parking garage next to Nordstrom’s cost Scottsdale millions in subsidies.

What concerns me is precisely what arguments are the anti-redevelopment, petition-takers putting forward on the sidewalks of our municipal buildings?

Scottsdale recently went through a similarly ugly petition process involving a planned municipal museum on the edge of the desert, and the contentions were outrageous.

When it was all said and done, you’d think the volunteers supporting the museum desired to bulldoze down the McDowell Mountains. The museum, by-the-way, was designed to highlight and study of Arizona’s uniquely spectacular Sonoran Desert in partnership with Arizona State University.

Plans were first put forward roughly 25-years ago, and they were thwarted preemptively last year in an avalanche of false pretenses and ugly campaign signs.

As a result, a shadow government now reigns over Scottsdale’s McDowell Sonoran Preserve.

Buoyed by that “success,” Littlefield and his apostles appear to be back for another pound of flesh. To understand what drives the man, tidbits can be learned from his “Keep Scottsdale Special” website.

He seems to dislike change, tall buildings, and light rail (despite its regional success). He and his supporters also appear to openly despise real estate developers.

To that end, the most glaring item missing in Littlefield’s website is any mention of private property rights. I get the impression, if it were up to him, there would be nothing in Scottsdale but Saltillo tile and sunken living rooms.

Despite Littlefield’s anti-growth efforts, the market factors underlying the Southbridge development are sound. Perhaps the best reassuring statistic with this cycle vs. the one before the Great Recession, is our housing market couldn’t be more in sync.

Roughly 25,000 new homes will be permitted in metro Phoenix in 2019 (vs. 60,000 before the crash), and frankly, that’s not enough homes to accommodate the approximately 200 people a day who are moving here.

Nationally, there’s also been a 2% change in consumer sentiment towards living in apartments vs. buying houses. In a nation of roughly 330,000,000, that’s an enormous number of new apartment renters, and we can see a direct demonstration of this locally. Nearly every apartment community built the last four years in metro Phoenix are full and rents are rising. According to the economics of principal supply and demand, that’s a strong indicator that we need more.

Perhaps most exciting, instead of homes exclusively sprawling into the desert, mixed-use urban infill projects are popping up in walkable urban areas this cycle. You’d think Littlefield, who lives in north Scottsdale, would be at peace with that, because those projects are not impacting his sightlines. Vertical projects also more environmentally friendly.

Unfortunately, it seems everything must remain the same in Scottsdale for this man and his supporters to be happy. Except for Pinnacle Peak Patio and Greasewood Flats going away. I don’t remember an uproar about those iconic north Scottsdale restaurants being converted to homes. That’s because the neighbors didn’t like the noise. So, it’s selective.

However, when it comes to preserving rubber tomahawk shops in downtown Scottsdale, they’re all in.

Have you ever been to our city’s downtown on a Saturday or Sunday morning before 9 a.m.? There’s not a soul to be seen, other than Uber drivers taking people back to their cars.

Southbridge-II will go a long way to positively changing that. It will add more dinners, more shoppers, more jobs and more sales taxes, which the city desperately needs. That’s smart growth, and a voting-majority of City Council just ratified it.

The case should be closed. And, it would be, except one of the dissenting City Council member’s husbands now objects.

That’s outrageous, Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield. You and your husband should be ashamed.

Look no further than to California to the downside risk to similar anti-growth sentiment. California NIMBYs (which stand for not-in-my-back-yard) didn’t like the growth, didn’t like apartments, didn’t like traffic, and blah, blah, blah.

They threw every impediment they could think of into the way of developers, including petitions, new commissions and four-year zoning processes. They didn’t stop growth, but we can see two glaring side effects that metastasized from their efforts in the form or outrageously unaffordable housing prices and rent control.

Those are just a couple of downside risks, if we continue down a similar bath. More likely than not, we’re first going to continue to get outflanked by neighboring municipalities who are competing with us for sales taxes.

The bottom line is, be careful what you wish for. Signing the anti-Southbridge petition that is currently being championed at entrance to our city’s libraries is another way of saying you support having Scottsdale run by an angry group of unelected citizens with their finger on the trigger of nonstop outlandish petitions.

Editor’s note: Mr. Heath is a resident of Scottsdale