Keep Scottsdale Special

07/08/2024

Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield, Councilman Barry Graham and I are endorsing two new Council candidates, Jan Dubauskas and Adam Kwasman, in the upcoming city primary election. Here's why:

Scottsdale's special character and high quality of life are threatened by three bad trends coming out of City Hall: overdevelopment, overspending and over-taxation. If they are not halted these "three O's" will turn Scottsdale into just another dense, urban jungle in the not too distant future!

The only way to bring a halt to these bad trends is to elect a truly resident-friendly City Council majority. Every Council candidate claims to be resident-friendly while they are campaigning, but their voting records once they get in office (see chart below) often tell a different story.

As the chart shows the two worst offenders are current Councilmembers Durham and Caputi who voted against the residents 100% of the time! Fortunately, both are running for re-election, which gives voters an opportunity to vote them off the City Council and replace them with newcomers Jan Dubauskas and Adam Kwasman who are committed to protecting our city's special character and high quality of life from the "three O's." Voting for them in the upcoming primary election is literally an investment in Scottsdale's future!

Please pass this info on to your friends and neighbors who are Scottsdale voters.

05/31/2024

Politicians love to try to sneak bad ideas past the public by giving those ideas nice-sounding names, and our current Scottsdale City Council majority is no exception. On May 21st they considered approving a grossly-misnamed "Sustainability Plan" that, if implemented, would have imposed unnecessary higher costs and burdensome mandates on Scottsdale residents. This plan wasn't about true sustainability at all, it was about bureaucracy, ideology and increased government revenue.

Fortunately Scottsdale residents saw through the the shiny wrapping and, realizing this was a deeply flawed plan, proceeded to inundate the Councilmembers with literally hundreds of emails and public comments opposing it. The proponents feared (correctly) approving the plan would jeopardize the re-election prospects of the plan supporters running for re-election (Ortega, Caputi and Durham) so they kicked the can down the road and voted to "send the plan back to the drawing board for more public input."

But sustainability is important, so let's look at what a realistic, comprehensive, non-ideological sustainability plan for Scottsdale would contain.

The first criteria would be fiscal sustainability. You cannot survive as a government, business or family unless you are fiscally sustainable. Is Scottsdale city government fiscally sustainable? I would say no because, despite high revenues the City Council majority is asking you (once again) to increase your taxes. To add insult to injury they are claiming they need this increase because we have aging (some over 50 years old) parks that need maintenance. Ask yourself, why are we just getting around to this now? Maintenance costs for the Parks and the Preserve should have been coming out of the city’s operating budget all along, but we are now being told there is only “limited funding from the general fund.” Why is that? Are we overspending on other pet projects? Should not maintaining our parks and Preserve have always been a top priority for general fund spending?

To achieve true and permanent fiscal sustainability we should appoint a task force of citizens with financial expertise and no axe to grind and give them wide-ranging authority to examine the city's budget with a fine tooth comb and to make recommendations as to how to allocate the billions of your taxpayer dollars the city takes in every year.

The next criteria for true sustainability would be services sustainability - providing top-notch public safety, water and sewer and amenities such as parks and libraries. Scottsdale does a good job of this, except for the above-mentioned failure to keep pace with the maintenance and upkeep all of these amenities require. Again, this is an issue the citizen's budget task force should examine closely.

The last criteria for true sustainability would be environmental sustainability. While this was the area that the failed plan from May 21st was supposed to address, is is exactly the area where it tanked the worst! We live in a desert in the middle of a drought. The heat island effect from overbuilding has raised summer temperatures not just in Scottsdale but in our neighboring communities. Our traffic is a mess. And our air quality is deteriorating.

What is the solution to these problems? A good start would be to stop overdevelopment! It is hypocritical and counterproductive for the Council majority to claim to be concerned about environmental sustainability while they are busily approving literally thousands of new tall, dense, ugly, traffic-snarling, water-guzzling view-blocking apartment projects (see chart below).

Bottom line, you won't get true sustainability in Scottsdale until you elect a City Council majority whose priorities reflect the real needs of our residents. That means reforming the budget process and halting unsustainable overdevelopment. Remember that when you vote in the primary election on July 30th.

05/28/2024

Dear Friends:

Last week the Scottsdale City Council considered approving a grossly-misnamed "Sustainability Plan" that, if implemented, would have imposed unnecessary higher costs and burdensome mandates on Scottsdale residents. Five Councilmembers (Ortega, Whitehead, Caputi, Durham and Janik) were eager to approve this plan with Councilmembers Littlefield and Graham opposed. But instead of approving the plan the Council ended up voting to "send the plan back to the drawing board for more public input."

How did this happen? Scottsdale residents recognized immediately the hypocrisy of the Council majority claiming to be concerned about sustainability while they are busily approving literally thousands of new tall, dense, ugly, traffic-snarling, water-guzzling view-blocking apartment projects (see chart below). So they inundated the Councilmembers with literally hundreds of emails and public comments opposing the plan, and the proponents feared (correctly) approving the plan would jeopardize the re-election prospects of the plan supporters running for re-election (Ortega, Caputi and Durham)! So the plan supporters kicked the can down the road.

Bottom line, voters saw the supporters of this "Sustainability Plan" were exactly the same Councilmembers who are madly in love with approving more overdevelopment. And voters also saw these same development-loving Councilmembers were trying to use this plan to make Scottsdale residents pay for development they don't even want. Talk about adding insult to injury!

So last week Scottsdale residents won a small victory when this plan was continued. But make no mistake, if Ortega, Caputi and Durham are re-elected this bad plan will be back faster than greased lightning, probably even worse than before! Remember that when you vote in the primary election on July 30th.

Former Councilman Bob Littlefield

04/05/2024

This has been a busy week in Scottsdale politics. On Monday nine candidates filed paperwork to run for City Council and three candidates filed paperwork to run for Mayor. While there are rumors there may be some signature challenges it is almost certain we will have a city primary election this year. More about the candidates and their stands on the issues in next week's newsletter.

But the biggest news in Scottsdale politics this week is, on Tuesday the City Council majority voted to put a $1+ billion generational tax proposal on the November ballot. Only two Councilmembers, Kathy Littlefield and Barry Graham, voted against the tax. Here is what Councilmember Littlefield had to say about this proposal:

I have spent several days at my desk at home in deliberation of this meeting. After much thought, review, and consideration, I cannot support the motion to put a sales tax increase on the ballot to pay for these projects. And yes, it is an increase. While the proposed 0.15% sales tax is a lower rate than the current 0.20% sales tax it is higher than the 0% Scottsdale citizens would pay if the current tax were allowed to expire next year. Bottom line, Scottsdale citizens will pay more in sales tax if this proposal passes and trying to tell them otherwise is disingenuous at best. Not to mention our voters are smart enough to see through this dodge.

I do not have an issue with these projects; Nor do I believe they should not be done. However, the capital asset renewal and replacements should be funded by bonds – long-term debt - not a sales tax.

Another problem I have with this proposal is it lacks transparency. The uses of bond money are more tightly limited than the uses of sales tax money, which can be changed by a simple vote of the City Council. That gives the Council and staff too much flexibility to move sales tax money around to projects the citizens may not have intended or approve of. For instance, a big cut of this sales tax revenue will go to WestWorld, but that is not mentioned in the ballot language.

I don’t think there’s anyone more supportive of WestWorld than I am. I believe it adds a very unique venue to our city to display not only our Western heritage, and also offers the ability to host many other types of shows and displays for all to enjoy. So I don’t have an issue with improving the drainage there, or with paving the parking. But I do have an issue with paying for WestWorld improvements in this manner. These improvements should be bought and paid for out of the revenues from WestWorld itself and, if those are insufficient, then taken to the voters on a Bond Election and, if approved, financed with General Obligation bonds.

One of the justifications put forth for this project is that we have aging (some over 50 years old) parks that need maintenance. Ask yourself, why are we just getting around to this now? Maintenance costs for the Parks and the Preserve should come out of the city’s operating budget, but we are told there is only “limited funding from the general fund.” Why is that? Are we overspending on other pet projects? Should not maintaining our parks and Preserve have always been a top priority for general fund spending?

Bottom line, this proposal is funding good projects in a bad way, and I cannot support putting it on the ballot.

Councilmember Kathy Littlefield

04/11/2023

In the 30 years I have been involved in Scottsdale politics I have never seen the level of outrage on any issue that I am seeing on the issue of the city's plan to reduce the carrying capacity of our already clogged streets by applying "road diets" to many of them. Citizens are complaining to the City Council in droves, organizing neighborhoods in opposition, and even starting petition drives to put a stake through the heart of this bad idea.

There are two reasons "road diets" are a bad idea in Scottsdale:

Ever since I was first elected to the City Council over two decades ago the #1 complaint of Scottsdale citizens has been clogged traffic. Scottsdale residents don't want less traffic-carrying capacity, they want more!

The more than 10,000 apartments already approved by the previous City Council majority but yet to be built will make traffic in Scottsdale even worse over the next few years and will increase the need for more road capacity.

Most Scottsdale citizens believe city government should be spending our transit money to maintain and repair our deteriorating roads to improve traffic flow for our current residents, as well as, adding traffic lanes to accommodate the new residents who will occupy all of the new apartments that will soon be built. They see clearly that "road diets" are a plan driven by ideology, not by practicality, and are directly opposite of what the vast majority of Scottsdale residents want.

But there is another reason "road diets" have generated so much outrage among Scottsdale citizens - the distrust created by the lack of transparency on the part of city government on this issue. The 68th St Project Notification Process Failed to Follow Requirements in the Transportation Action Plan. And, contrary to comments by some Councilmembers, there are 18 Road Diets included in Scottsdale's Transportation Action Plan. This lack of transparency outrages citizens even more than the "road diet" plan itself. No surprise then that, in a recent survey the Scottsdale city government gets poor marks from residents for overall confidence, acting in city's best interest, being open/transparent, and informing residents of upcoming issues. Not to mention low marks for traffic flow, public parking and air quality.

If you agree road diets are a bad idea for Scottsdale, please contact the Mayor and Councilmembers at [email protected] to encourage them to put a stop to "road diets" and do what their constituents want, which is make it easier to drive around Scottsdale, not more difficult.

04/06/2023

Don't believe it when you are told road diets are not coming to your neighborhood:

There are 18 Road Diets included in Scottsdale's Transportation Action Plan. Contrary to comments by some Council members, this is Not a conspiracy.Sign up a...

03/16/2023

Dear Friends:

At their March 21st meeting the City Council will consider putting a one-mile stretch of 68th Street from Indian School Road to Thomas Road on a "road diet." The project would reduce the four-lane roadway to two lanes and add bike lanes. And while next Tuesday's item will only apply to 68th Street, it will, if approved, set a precedent for eliminating car-lanes and narrowing roads across all of Scottsdale.

There are two reasons "road diets" are a bad idea in Scottsdale:
1. Ever since I was first elected to the City Council over two decades ago the #1 complaint of Scottsdale citizens has been clogged traffic. Scottsdale residents don't want less traffic-carrying capacity, they want more!
2. The more than 10,000 apartments already approved by the previous City Council majority but yet to be built will make traffic in Scottsdale even worse over the next few years and will increase the need for more road capacity.
Bottom line, the City should be spending our transit money to maintain and repair our deteriorating roads to improve traffic flow for our current residents, as well as, adding traffic lanes to accommodate the new residents who will occupy all of the new apartments that will soon be built.

The proponents of "road diets" at City Hall are trying to sell this as a pro-bicycle and pedestrian plan, but in reality, it is an anti-automobile plan. It is purposefully designed to make driving in Scottsdale more difficult and unpleasant -- not as a side-effect but as a means of achieving their ultimate goal of forcing you out of your car. "Road diets" are a plan driven by ideology, not by practicality, and are directly opposite of what the vast majority of Scottsdale residents want.

If you agree road diets are a bad idea for Scottsdale, please contact the Mayor and Councilmembers at [email protected] to encourage them to put a stake through the heart of "road diets" and do what their constituents want, which is make it easier to drive around Scottsdale, not more difficult.

Bob Littlefield
Keep Scottsdale Special

Click on the video below for more details about "road diets" and how they would lower your quality of life: Road Diet For 68th Street.

The 68th St Road Diet & Bike Lane Project is on the City Council agenda on March 21st at City Hall

02/09/2023

2022 ended on some high notes for residents who care about preserving Scottsdale's special character and high quality of life; resident-friendly candidate Barry Graham was easily elected to join resident-friendly incumbent Kathy Littlefield on the City Council, the outrageous Mercado Courtyards (92nd Street and Shea) apartment proposal was defeated and, no doubt as a result of that defeat the equally outrageous 94 Hundred Shea apartment proposal was postponed indefinitely.

Unfortunately, the threats to our quality of life did not go away, they just took a break for the holidays and are already beginning to resurface. The developers of the tall, dense, traffic-clogging and water-guzzling apartment projects are already at work trying to figure out new and creative ways to get around citizen opposition in order to get their upzonings approved.

But the most immediate threat to our quality of life is a proposal by City staff to start putting Scottsdale streets on a "road diet!" Simply put, this idea would lower the number of lanes available to cars on our streets. Ever since I was first elected to the City Council over two decades ago the #1 complaint of Scottsdale citizens has been clogged traffic, and the thousands of traffic-clogging apartments approved over the last decade have made this problem even worse! Check out this video for more details:

Road Diets Will Be Coming to Scottsdale If WE don't stop them. To keep informed, sign up at: https://protectscottsdale.com

12/13/2022

Santa Came Early This Year for Scottsdale Residents!

Dear Friends:

If you live near or drive through the Shea corridor - or if you simply care about preserving Scottsdale's special character and high quality of life - you received an early holiday gift last week. That gift was the defeat of the Mercado Courtyards (92nd Street and Shea) apartment proposal and the indefinite postponement of the 94 Hundred Shea apartment proposal.

These projects were everything the voters said in the last several elections they wanted stopped - tall, dense, apartment complexes that would clog traffic on Shea Boulevard even more than it currently is, would grossly increase water usage at a time when the city is asking current residents to curtail their water use, and would generally lower the quality of life for Scottsdale residents.

Given that the current City Council majority has been approving tall, dense apartment complexes as fast as they can (there are currently almost 14,000 units approved and waiting to be built), how was Mercado Courtyards defeated 5-2 (Councilmembers Durham and Milhaven voted FOR the project)?

Well, I must admit it wasn't really Santa - it was all of you! It was the literally hundreds of Scottsdale citizens who wrote emails and made public comments opposing the project who turned the tide and encouraged wavering Councilmembers to vote against the project. Here is a video of some of the public comment at the City Council meeting opposing the project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DyRe7R6-dM.

Bottom line, Scottsdale citizens need to be actively engaged in their city government to protect Scottsdale's special character and high quality of life.

Bob Littlefield
Keep Scottsdale Special

Scottsdale Neighbors Organized & Defeated A Controversial Apartment project Mercado Courtyards that would have started the urbanization of the Shea corridor...

10/20/2022

A great explanation of why Barry Graham is the best qualified candidate for Scottsdale City Council:

Barry Graham for Scottsdale City Council

09/26/2022

If you want to protect the Shea corridor from toxic overdevelopment please vote for Barry Graham in the upcoming city election:

Scottsdale City Council Candidate Barry Graham has the experienced needed to protect the Shea corridor from Urbanization. The Shea residents are supporting B...

09/06/2022

Done in a humorous vein but sadly too true to really be funny:

Developers have played this tricks for years. Now you can find out how they do it.If you want to join the neighbors to fight the urbanization of Scottsdale, ...

08/24/2022

In the last city election Scottsdale voters sent a clear message - no more big apartment complexes! The top four vote getters in this election either had clear credible records of voting against these monstrosities (Littlefield and Graham) or promised to vote against them in the future (Carter and Whitehead). On the other hand, the three candidates who ran on the "build baby build" platform finished at the bottom of the pack, garnering less than 30% of the vote total. So, the voters said "no more apartments" by a margin of 70-30!

And yet, despite this mandate to bring a halt to overdevelopment, there are at least seven tall, dense, traffic-clogging and view-blocking apartment projects in the pipeline seeking City Council approval. It seems the developers hope to get their unpopular projects approved before the new Council takes office in January. If any member of the current Council forgets the message the voters just sent Scottsdale citizens need to be there to remind them.

The first opportunity to do this will be at an open house for the 92 Ironwood apartment proposal (new name Mercado Courtyard). This meeting will be held on Thursday, August 25th at 5:30 at St. Patrick's Church at 10815 N. 84th St. We need as many citizens as possible to show up, give our comments, and put a stake through the heart of this bad project, once and for all!

08/09/2022

Dear Friends:

Here are the latest Scottsdale vote totals. With the exception of a few outstanding provisional ballots (not nearly enough to affect the standings) these are the final results

A candidate needs 16.67% of the total votes cast to be elected outright in the primary. So, Kathy Littlefield and Solange Whitehead have been re-elected outright, Barry Graham will run against Pamela Carter in November for the third seat and Tim Stratton, Raoul Zubia and Daniel Ishac are out of the running.

Before I analyze these results, I want to say how proud I am of Kathy as a candidate and as a Councilmember. She has finished first (by a wide margin) in both of the last two city elections. Even more significant, over half of the voters who cast ballots in this election selected Kathy as one of their choices to be their Councilmember!

Besides giving Kathy a mandate to govern what other messages did Scottsdale voters send? Simple; no more big apartment complexes! The top four vote getters in this election either had clear credible records of voting against these monstrosities (Littlefield and Graham) or promised to vote against them in the future (Carter and Whitehead). On the other hand, the three candidates who ran on the "build baby build" platform finished at the bottom of the pack, garnering less than 30% of the vote total. So, the voters said "no more apartments" by a margin of 70-30! The entire City Council should remember that when more of these projects came before them seeking approval. If they forget I guarantee Scottsdale citizens will be there to remind them.

In the November election voters must choose between Barry Graham and Pamela Carter. While Kathy and I like Carter and hope she runs again in 2024 we believe Graham is the right choice in this election because of his extensive experience (10 years on the Planning Commission, Transportation Commission and Building Advisory Board of Appeals) and his proven record of voting against overdevelopment.

On a personal note, Kathy and I want to thank all of you for everything you did to make Kathy the top vote-getter and to keep her as your voice on Council!

08/04/2022

I am sure all of you are dying to know the results of Tuesday's city election - who is in, who is out and who will advance to the November general election. Unfortunately, the County Recorder's office (which conducts all elections in Maricopa County) is still counting ballots. In fact, they announced there are 64,000 ballots yet to be counted in Maricopa County (no idea how many of those are from Scottsdale).

Here are the Scottsdale vote totals as of 7:02 PM last night:

Candidate Votes %
Kathy Littlefield 31,632 21.81%
Solange Whitehead 27,310 18.83%
Barry Graham 22,897 15.79%
Pamela Carter 19,061 13.14%
Tim Stratton 16,129 11.12%
Raoul Zubia 15,018 10.36%
Daniel Ishac 12,981 8.95%
145,028 100.00%

There is a complicated formula for determining which candidates (if any) win election outright in the primary, but basically a candidate needs 16.67% of the vote for that to happen. So, if these percentages hold through the final vote count Kathy Littlefield and Solange Whitehead would be re-elected outright, Barry Graham would run against Pamela Carter in November for the third seat and Tim Stratton, Raoul Zubia and Daniel Ishac would be out of the running. As soon as I receive any updated numbers, I will get them to you ASAP.

On a personal note, Kathy and I want to thank all of you for everything you did to make Kathy the top vote-getter and to keep her as your voice on Council!

07/29/2022

Great summation of why we need to elect Kathy Littlefield and Barry Graham to the City Council: https://youtu.be/qsVvMUNoXtE

At the City Council Forum - Pro development Candidates Stratton, Ishac, and Zubia say they support the high density Greenbelt 88 project. Maybe they don't k...

07/26/2022

The pre-primary campaign finance reports are in and Kathy and the other resident-friendly candidates are at the bottom of the fundraising pile. No surprise, of course - there is so much money to be made exploiting Scottsdale's special character and high quality of life the special interests who want to do so can easily afford to heavily bankroll City Council candidates who will approve their tall, dense projects over the objections of the residents. One nice thing about this chart, it shows clearly which candidates are with the residents and which are not.

07/15/2022

From Kathy:

In the over 20 years Bob and I have been involved in Scottsdale issues we have seen many times where developers trying to convince the City Council to approve a bad project have tried to minimize citizen opposition. Their most common trick is to use the city's pathetically inadequate 750' notification limit to ensure affected residents are not informed of mandatory open houses.

But Monday night's open house for the 92nd Street apartment megaplex was probably the worst ever. Almost no affected residents received notification of the event - if not for neighborhood activist Sue Wood, who found about the event and spread the word, no resident would have known this “open house” was even happening!

But gaming the notification limit was not enough for this developer - they held the event outside (no restrooms), on a hot parking lot (115 degrees), at 5:30 in the afternoon, no chairs so attendees had to stand in the heat! All in an attempt to mute the resident opposition they know this project faces. This was definitely a slap in the face to the affected neighbors.

When Bob was on the City Council, he tried to get the 750’ limit increased. Unfortunately, the only Councilmember who supported him was Tony Nelssen who, sadly, passed away while he was running for re-election in 2010. Being an optimist, I am hopeful now the outrage generated by this “open house” will pave the way for some real positive change. When Council is back in session, I will be proposing ordinance changes to improve the notification process and I hope my Council colleagues will be motivated by this debacle to join me in this effort.

On a personal note, I want to thank all of you who rushed to my aid after I tripped on the protruding piece of loose pavement, and I really appreciate the outpouring of concern and assistance I received. It is wonderful to have so many good friends! Fortunately, I sustained no serious injuries (just cuts and bruises) and I am healing nicely.

07/06/2022

One of the most telling moments of the City Council campaign so far occurred in one of the candidate forums where candidate Barry Graham said there are 10,000 apartments in the pipeline already approved by City Council. What was really interesting was the reaction of the pro-development candidates in the forum. You would think that the candidates (all except Kathy Littlefield, Barry Graham and Pamela Carter) who claim Scottsdale needs even more apartments would be thrilled to hear at least 10K apartments are in the pipeline! Yet they reacted in exactly the opposite way; they ganged up on Graham, calling him a liar and accusing him of "fear-mongering."

Why this vicious negative reaction? They claim Scottsdale citizens want more tall, dense, traffic clogging apartments, but in their hearts, they know if citizens find out how many apartments past Councils have already approved those citizens will vote overwhelming for Council candidates who will put the brakes on overdevelopment. That is why they fear Graham's revelation.

One big question; is Graham's claim true? The answer is, there are even more than 10K apartments in the pipeline! You can see the actual numbers and find the documentation that backs them up in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-vMiIx2tqA

There are currently 14,000 apartment units in the development pipeline in Scottsdale. To see the complete list, visit the website at: https://protectscottsda...

06/27/2022

Our primary election will be held on August 2nd but the early ballots (which, despite all the controversies will probably be used by 80% of voters) will be mailed on July 6th. There are a few things you need to watch out for to ensure your vote is counted in the upcoming primary election.

If you are on the Active Early Voting List [AEVL] (formerly known as the Permanent Early Voting List) there are two potential problems. One is if you are going to be out of town when the ballots are mailed. Arizona law does not allow official election materials, such as ballots, to be forwarded by the Post Office. If you would like to have your ballot mailed to a temporary mailing address, make your request by calling the Elections Department at (602) 506-1511 or send an email to [email protected]. If emailing, please provide your Full Name, Residence Address, Temporary Mailing Address and Date of Birth for verification purposes.

Another potential problem: independent voters on the AEVL are not automatically sent an early ballot in the mail. They must choose a ballot type by going online at BeBallotReady.Vote where they can choose which ballot they want, either a party ballot or a local [Scottsdale] only ballot. The party ballot will include candidate races for Governor, State Legislature, etc. with candidates from that political party. It will also include candidates for Scottsdale City Council. The local only ballot will only include the Scottsdale City Council races.

Of course, you do not have to vote by early ballot. You can also vote in person at any early voting or Election Day voting location. You can find these locations at locations.maricopa.vote.

If you have questions about voting in the upcoming primary election you can always call our City Clerk, Ben Lane, at 480-312-2411. He is helpful and knowledgeable and will make sure you get the information and direction you need to ensure your vote counts in the upcoming primary election.