OPINION

Send your opinions to opinions@scottsdale.org

Scottsdale.org l @ScottsdaleProgress /ScottsdaleProgress

Council asleep at the wheel on district system

BY SUSAN KLAPP

Progress Guest Writer

Scottsdale City Council decided 5-2 for no further discussion on a possible change to voting districts in Scottsdale.

Nearly two decades ago, the issue of voting districts was discussed at length by a citizens’ task force, appointed by Council, charged to �ind agreement on a possible districts system and to make a recommendation to Council. I was a task force member, and everyone appointed took the job very seriously. We mistakenly thought that the Council wanted carefully researched and vetted information and an independent decision. We found out that many council members felt threatened and gave lip service to the issue. Incumbent of�icials elected at large rarely call for a more representative system. As we began the months-long study process, we were in�luenced by certain council members and city staff who did not want a district system. They spread fear and misinformation and when about 90% of task force members recommended a change to voting districts, one council member orchestrated a minority opinion to be inserted into the �inal report. An in�luential voting block of residents in north Scottsdale conducted a successful email campaign a few weeks before the election to mislead voters about district voting. The northern group’s opposition was about losing power over a number of council members and protecting the status quo. Predictably, some of the same people who were against the idea in 2003-2004 are speaking out again with some of the same unfounded talking points they used before. Have we learned nothing in all these years? Over the two decades, a number of people who opposed districts when it appeared on the ballot now admit they were wrong. They now understand why the federal government, state government, county government and cities have moved to district systems to ensure equitable representation.

Scottsdale is one of the largest cities in the country without district representation. The status quo of an at-large block voting system is outdated and ready for reform. Running for of�ice city-wide in Scottsdale is too expensive, takes too much time away from candidates’ lives, and results in the higher income and/ or retired resident or one with already established name ID as the most likely person to actually decide to run for of�ice. The low or moderate-income or unknown candidate cannot compete for a council seat under the current rules. For 19 years, I have never wavered in my support for a true district system in Scottsdale – the mayor elected throughout the city and the rest of the council members elected in geographical districts. An attempt was made to add the district question to City Charter in 2010, but the majority of the council at the time did not support the change. More recently an idea was �loated at the Council level for a hybrid voting district system – four at-large members including the mayor and three district members. This idea made the district council members the minority, and I can’t think of anyone who would want to be a district council member under these conditions. There is not one hybrid system in the country that relegates the district members to the minority, centering the power among the at-large members.

Council is asleep at the wheel and the majority does not understand that because they rejected any further discussion on the issue, the citizens could rise up, write their own ballot language, and collect signatures to place a question on the ballot. Perhaps Council members have already forgotten about the huge success of the Preserve citizens’ initiative in 2018 and the unsuccessful campaign from some Council members to get voters to reject the ballot question.

Suzanne Klapp is a former three-term Scottsdale City Council member.

Letters

Council ignores water shortage with big projects’ OK

Does it really make sense to continue to permit, rezone, and give the go ahead for continuing large and larger new residential developments, as we are warned of the water shortage/crisis facing us? We are told of these shortages and potential rationing coming soon. Is the stance of the majority of our City Council doing the right thing? Is their pro large development stance responsible governmental action? Are they planning ahead for our children and our children's children?

Arizona’s now facing a water crisis that could dry up rural areas all over the state and confront the Valley with a crippling water shortage in the coming decades, according to a recently completed study by the Center for Colorado River Studies. Alan Dulaney, a retired city of Peoria administrator with three decades of experience in Arizona water policy. "predicted that if the Colorado River levels prompt a Tier 2 shortage, cities across Arizona will likely limit how many people are using water stations dedicated for their taxpayers." As the demand for development in the Arizona desert intensi�ies, and the climate gets hotter and drier, there's less water for everybody. And almost nobody knows how much water is left in the aquifer beneath the Rio Verde Foothills, which sits in hard mountain rock formations. That aquifer does not retain water in the ground as easily as more sponge-like rock formations in other communities across Maricopa County. I ask Councilwoman Janik, does reducing the number of apartments from 238 to 228, which is 4% really make a difference in the grand scheme of considerations for approval? Does Councilman Durham have greater insight into the critical water issue than the "water experts," as he stated, "We are not in danger of running out of water in the near future" Maybe the word "near" is the operative word here. 3. Each of these above-mentioned Council people were elected very much based on their pledge of lower and responsible development, Are we seeing that with their voting record so far? 4. Councilwoman Caputi feels the city's water supply could absorb the extra residents. Again, maybe the operative word here is "could" and I would add: what is her insight into that? It seemingly contradicts the long-term view of "water experts." Where and when does it stop? 5. If the General Plan lists high density at 25 units per acre, why and how does the Council approve 34 units per acre for this project? Should they not be held accountable in seemingly defying the GP, which they heavily endorsed? Might this be the �irst of more votes in de�iance of the General Plan they campaigned for? 6. Props to Councilwoman Little�ield and Mayor Ortega for being the sole dissenting votes, the former citing water as her major reason for dissenting, in addition to density and increased traf�ic, and the latter because of a water shortage, and it "exceeds the density limit that we should live by.” 7. As citizens of this city, and voters in council elections, we must express our thoughts, our preferences, our outrage at not being heard, via the ballot box. We thought we had done just that in 2020, but seemingly many voters were deceived. In nine months, we will have our next opportunity to be heard, hopefully we will do a better job of that in November.

-Jim Bloch