I sent this as an open letter to the members of Scottsdale’s General Plan Task Force
In reading expanded coverage of the recent implosion in today’s Arizona Republic, I am want to say, “I told you so” to staff, the City Council, and the bully-in-chief mayor Jim Lane.
I also find it ironic that Lane’s published quotes essentially mirror my prescience. The difference, however, is that Lane was in a position to do something about it in advance, but instead chose inaction.
Similarly, your remaining co-chair remained silent on the incivility that has characterized your recent conversations. A ScottsdaleTrails reader reminded me, and I remind you that at the beginning of your deliberations she and you formerly adopted the principles of civil dialog promulgated by Scottsdale Leadership.
Springborn’s inaction alone is grounds for removal. Her primary task as chair is to run a civil meeting. However, Springborn has added insult to injury (and insulted your intelligence in the process) by her arrogant, petty, and dishonest remarks to the Republic about those who resigned.
As I said in a recent ScottsdaleTrails article, this is yet another example of the lie that is “civil dialog” in Scottsdale. I believe Scottsdale Leadership was well-intentioned in their effort. However, when they chose to sit on the sidelines while Loren Molever and Joe Galli labeled Guy Phillips a Communist because they (Scottsdale Leadership) didn’t or don’t believe “civil dialog” applies to political campaigns, well…if you can pick and choose when it applies, then it doesn’t really mean much. It essentially only applies when I’m talking to them, but not when they are talking to me. Maybe we should rename it “civil monolog.”
I hope our incumbent Council candidates have some good excuses ready for the campaign trail. Dennis Robbins has always been quick to cite “civil dialog” when he feels he’s been insulted, and Linda Milhaven is always the first to cry foul when her feelings get hurt. Why have they not spoken out against Loren Molever’s tantrum? If it had been one of the four who resigned, Milhaven would have been all over it like a squawking chicken chasing a June bug.
We’ll remember their inaction come September. And keep in mind that Virginia Korte was in that meeting, too, and congratulated Molever for his misbehavior.
Meanwhile, if you sit on the sidelines, then you are allowing yourselves to be used. You are being used to fill the squares in advancing this process toward a pre-determined goal that has nothing to do with facts, reason, or the long-term health of our community.
While the no-rules development caucus has managed to pit resident-against-resident on the task force, they are quietly undermining all your efforts via a steady stream of “text amendments” to the zoning code/ Those will supersede any provisions of the General Plan, new or old.
When new projects come up for approval and there is conflict between the zoning code and the General Plan (whether or not we wind up with a new one), which do you think will prevail? Under the provisions of the 2006 Arizona Proposition 207 (“Private Property Rights”), entitlements conveyed via the zoning code CANNOT be legally denied without compensation.
Do you remember when citizens encouraged you to ask staff and the council whether—if approved—your update to the General Plan was going to have any teeth? Now you know.
I encourage you to read my recent articles and commentary on ScottsdaleTrails…and to leave an empty chair between you and Loren Molever.