Or at the very least it is a naive perspective on what ails Scottsdale politics.
In an AZCentral article a few weeks ago after the city council primary election, Beth Duckett proposed that
A Nov. 4 runoff election in Scottsdale will pit three candidates who have defended downtown as a vibrant economic driver, against three candidates who have voiced concerns about excessive drinking and other disturbances.
This is only a slightly more nuanced version of the same old assertion, with “excessive drinking and other disturbances” being mere symptoms of poor city planning practices.
Today, Duckett doubled down with this partially-recycled lead:
Scottsdale voters made it clear in this week’s election there is support for two political camps that hold starkly different views about how the city should grow or not as well as manage its downtown.
As I was quick to comment on her article, the fracturing in Scottsdale is not about growth vs. no-growth. It’s about whether to
- Follow the rules for growth which have guided our economic success and sustainability since the 2001 General Plan was ratified by the voters as the organic law (along with the City Charter) of Scottsdale…Or to,
- Bend and break the rules for the benefit of political friends in the liquor/development cartel; for some illusory short-term boost in tax revenue; and for campaign contributions.
Read what Linda Milhaven said in Duckett’s article today. Every word about transportation distills down to two: “Light rail.” And as former mayor Mary Manross foolishly admitted in a moment of anger a few years ago,
Light rail isn’t about transportation. It’s about development.
If you don’t understand the purpose of planning and zoning (which is not to extract campaign contributions), then you should not write about these issues.