Former Scottsdale councilman: Any city deal over Axon development would be 'a surrender'

The Scottsdale City Council this week once again declined to vote in favor of joining a lawsuit challenging a new state law. The measure essentially nullified a referendum in Scottsdale over a proposed development by Axon.

The Taser-maker wants to build a new headquarters in north Scottsdale, that would also include a hotel, restaurants — and most controversially — apartments. But residents collected enough signatures to refer the project, which had won City Council approval, to the ballot. State lawmakers and the governor then approved the new law, which precludes that referendum.

In response, a group called Taxpayers Against Awful Apartment Zoning Exemptions, or T.A.A.A.Z.E. filed a lawsuit against that law. Leaders are hoping to get the Scottsdale City Council on board with that suit, but so far, they’ve been unsuccessful.

Bob Littlefield is chairman of T.A.A.A.Z.E. and a former city councilman. He joined The Show to talk about what happened at this week’s council meeting, in which officials went behind closed doors to talk about this issue.

The Show also reached out to Scottsdale Mayor Lisa Borowsky for this story. Her office responded and asked for specifics, which we provided, but they did not respond to that by deadline.

Full conversation

BOB LITTLEFIELD: Well, it’s interesting. After the executive session, the council came out and voted an open session, which is what they have to do. They can’t vote in an executive session.

MARK BRODIE: Right.

LITTLEFIELD: So they came out and they voted basically to do what they’ve done, I think, what, three or four times before, which is nothing more than kick the can down the road on this for another two weeks. The city’s legal department has asked the judge in the case for a two-week extension on the filing deadline.

And I believe there’s really no obvious logical reason for that. I believe that they’re kicking the can down the road because they’re trying to find a way to cut a deal with Axon. And the reason for that is this: This apartment development is ridiculously unpopular. So the people on the council who are pro-Axon — and why would they be pro-Axon? Because Axon has more money than the U.S. government.

Well, actually, the U.S. government doesn’t have any money, so that’s probably a bad analogy. But they have a lot of money. And they made it clear during the last legislative session, during which they got their Axon bill passed, that they are not shy about spending that money on politicians for campaign contributions, surf and turf dinners, whatever it takes to get their way.

So I think what they’re going to try to do is they can’t keep delaying this forever, joining the lawsuit. The judge will probably not agree on a second extension. So sometime toward the end of November, they’re either going to have to join the lawsuit or they’re going to have to say, hey, we’re not joining it.

So I think that what they’re doing is they’re hoping that sometime in between they can come up with a deal with Axon to negate all this. But the problem with that is that isn’t really a compromise, it’s a surrender. Because the only way they’re going to make that work is to give a Axon everything they want.

And the other thing is, even if you were to accept the large number of apartments they’re proposing, this still leaves open the issue, the fact that Senate Bill 1549 — which is what we’re suing the state about — would still be left intact and would still be nullifying the right of referendum for Scottsdale citizens.

BRODIE: Well, why is it so important to you that the city itself join the lawsuit? Like, you have your arguments, you have a lawsuit that you’re going forward on. Why does it matter that the city joins as well?

LITTLEFIELD: Well, our lawsuit would be more powerful and more effective if the city were a party because — without revealing some of the strategy — there are issues on which the city has better standing than a private organization. Now, we believe that we can probably win this without the city, but it would make it more impactful if the city would join.

Plus, there’s another thing. What message are you sending to the residents if you’re on the Scottsdale City Council and you refuse to join the T.A.A.A.Z.E. lawsuit? That says to the, to the citizens, “Hey, we don’t care about you. We care more about Axon than we do about you, Mr. And Mrs. Scottsdale resident.”

BRODIE: Let’s say the council is trying to cut a deal with Axon. Is there any universe in which they might cut a deal that you would be happy with?

LITTLEFIELD: No. And I’ll tell you why. Because the whole point of this, getting the signatures, the 26,000 signatures, and doing it was to give the voters of Scottsdale the opportunity to weigh in on this. I mean, conceivably we could have the referendum and Axon could win. I don’t think that’s going to happen.

But there’s a principle here, and the principle is that we’ve been working for years to get a City Council, a city government that’s resident-friendly instead of developer-friendly, and having this referendum in which the citizens will be able to go down and say either, “Yeah, I approve of this gigantic building” or “I don’t.”

That’s really the principle that’s at stake here.

BRODIE: I’m curious what you make of sort of the relationship at this point between Axon and Scottsdale and concerns that some city officials and others have pointed out about maybe Axon’s gonna leave and take the jobs and the other development along with them. Is that something that concerns you?

LITTLEFIELD: No, for two reasons. First of all, having watched these Axon guys now it’s pretty clear to me that they are — there’s no other way to say it — very arrogant. And they’re not going to leave. I don’t think so. But even if they did, here’s the point: No private company is more important than the rules that Scottsdale has for development to try to keep Scottsdale special.

All right? There’s the principle involved here. These guys don’t get to say, “Well, the rules don’t apply to us. They apply to other people. They apply to Banner Health or whatever, but they don’t apply to us.”

BRODIE: And I guess at this point, what is your level of optimism that the City Council will vote to join the lawsuit?

LITTLEFIELD: Oh, it’s pretty low. You know, the mayor ... the only reason I pick on her is this: Everybody else on the council has been clear one way or the other how they’re going to vote. OK. The thing that annoys me about the mayor, she says over and over again, publicly, “I want to join the T.A.A.A.Z.E. lawsuit and fight Senate Bill 1549.”

But then every time she actually has an opportunity to do that, she votes no. So that tells me that she really doesn’t want to do this. So there’s at least four votes now to not do that and to not do it. So my level of optimism is low. We’re going to have to win this on our own without the City Council.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Bob Littlefield is married to current Scottsdale Councilmember Kathy Littlefield. Due to an editing error, this headline has been updated to correct that Bob Littlefield is a former Scottsdale councilman.