Andanh.com

The request was an abomination, an outrage.

Why, the very idea, to suggest that citizens should be given the right to decide what their city will look like.

It was enough to bring Rick Kidder, the head of the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce to Tuesday's meeting of the City Council, to warn of the suspicious stench of politics in play.

“Scottsdale's City Council and city staff and resources,” he sniffed, “can better serve the people if needless petitions are not constantly brought forth for political reasons.”

So says Kidder to our leaders – three of whom recently sought his group's endorsement for the coming election and got it.

So can you guess what happened?

You likely know the back story. The city -- basking in the glow of the Waterfront -- has been updating its blueprint for downtown. City staff had all the usual citizen outreach, as they always do before they do whatever it was they were going to do anyway. Imagine the surprise of citizens who attended the outreach sessions, to suddenly see a suggestion for 10- and 12-story buildings in some sections of the city.

“The citizens that were at those meetings didn't want 10-and 12-story buildings,” said Darlene Peterson, a longtime activist.

That was the beginning of a movement by citizens who keep watch on city hall, a suggestion that – horror of horrors – voters be allowed to decide whether they want downtown Scottsdale to stand tall.

And so Tom Giller, a longtime resident and candidate for City Council, filed a petition as the city's charter allows him to do, asking the council Tuesday to put the issue of greater height and density to a public vote.

What happened from there was fairly predictable…

… A couple of citizens stood up to support the idea. Said John Nichols: “I get the impression … that developers in this community are holding sway over the city staff and the City Council. The public be damned.”

…The chamber opposed it. Said Kidder: “Our research shows very different results (than what Giller suggests) regarding the community's appetite for additional height within specified context.”

… Three council members – Bob Littlefield, Tony Nelssen and Jim Lane – asked that the staff draft a proposal to put on the November ballot. Said Littlefield: “People should have the opportunity to vote on this because this is a big deal. We're changing the character of downtown.”

…And the rest of the council – including chamber endorsees Mary Manross, Betty Drake and Ron McCullagh -- rejected the idea.

Because it's premature to do anything until the Downtown Plan is ready this fall. (Manross, McCullagh, Wayne Ecton)

Because it bypasses city processes. (Manross, Drake)

Because it smacks of politics. (McCullagh)

The best excuse came from Drake, who works for developers and evidently feels that the sky will fall if this issue is put to a public vote. “If you have a property anywhere in the city and you wanted to add a second story to your house, if you wanted to expand your shop, if you wanted to do something consistent with the general plan, maybe go up a little higher, that would have to be approved by the voters before you could get your building permit,” she warned.

All this from a modest proposal asking voters if they want high rises downtown?

In the end, Giller's request was predictably rejected 4-3, with Drake and McCullagh assuring citizens that they can put the issue to a public vote after the Downtown Plan is approved. “If people aren't happy with the decision,” Drake said, “they can have it referred.”

Sure they can, just like they could have referred the Waterfront -- oh, except that our leaders did a unanimous end run around citizens by declaring an emergency when it approved the project in 2003, making a referendum impossible.

I have no idea whether voters would have rejected the Waterfront, with its towers more than twice the city's height limit. I have no idea whether Kidder is correct when he says there's a community “appetite” for bigger, denser buildings.

What I do know is that Nelssen got it right Tuesday. “This issue,” he said, “is not just about height and density. It's about trust.”

It is about trust. And why, when it comes to voters, the City Council has so little of it.

(Column published July 10, 2008, Scottsdale Republic)