I was copied on this message which was sent by Councilman Guy Phillips as a reply to a Bill Crawford supporter. I share with Phillips’s permission, in an effort to clear up any misunderstanding about why Phillips is not supporting Crawford and Smith. Phillips’s views are essentially the same as I expressed in my endorsement article ten days ago, but with more detail.
I commend Councilman Phillips for sticking by his guns in the face of vitriol from the Crawford camp, and from the COGS PC members.
As you probably know, I was the founding chairman of the COGS organization. I do not believe the COGS ‘political committee’ (a separate legal entity) endorsements reflect the feelings of most (let along all) of the COGS membership. It annoys me greatly that in spite of my counsel and previously well-known positions on these issues and candidates, the PC endorsed David Smith and Bill Crawford over Cindy Hill. It is even more aggravating that they’ve been attempting to pressure me (and Guy and others) into “going along” with their endorsements.
There is more to this than meets the eye. To be blunt I DON’T believe Bill is now against light rail or height and density, because his actions over the last few years speak louder than his words over the last few months.
Where was Bill when I opened a PAC to defeat the General Plan? He didn’t help contribute monetarily or physically and said it wasn’t his issue.
Where was Bill when Kathy ran the PAC to defeat the bonds? Did he speak out? No! Did he contribute? No! Did he help in any way? No!
When I ran the first time Bill opposed me. When I ran the second time Bill opposed me. Both times he was for height and density (remember when he spoke before Council about how great Blue Sky was?) and light rail. Now suddenly he has a change of heart? Where’s the evidence that he really means it?
Bill has run numerous times already and has never made the primary. This is what’s known as “unelectable.” Yet he continues. Why? All he is doing is taking votes away from candidates who could have won. Remember Chris Schaffner and Copper Phillips? If Bill hadn’t run one of them might be on the council today.
What is Bills past record? Has he ever stood up for anything other than the bars?
As for Smith, not only did he support the entire bond-property-tax-increase package last fall, he has publicly stated the city should be spending $100 million per year on capital improvements. Imagine the property tax increases that would be required to make that happen! Not to mention all of the special interests that would benefit from that (flood control for developers?).
Smith has also said publicly that Bob, Kathy, John and I were irresponsible for opposing the bonds. And look at his campaign supporters, Jim Bruner, Carolyn Allen, Judy Frost. Do you really believe that crowd opposes height and density and light rail?
Bob and I said from the very beginning to just run two candidates. Three has never worked and in fact two has never worked. So we both endorsed Cindy Hill from the start. No one called me to ask why Cindy. In fact, Bill never called to ask for a meeting or endorsement from me. So it should be no shock to him when I gave my opinion to those who asked me for it.
I would have been more than happy to meet with COGS. I asked Sonnie Kirtley since I was first elected if I could address the COGS board. After asking her three times in the last two years, she told me COGS doesn’t really meet anymore. Imagine my surprise to find out that they not only meet but have endorsed three candidates who are worlds’ apart in their thinking of what Scottsdale should be.
I have nothing against Bill personally, but do not believe he is right for City Hall. If you do, then vote for him.
There is also been talk that my position might hurt Bill’s chances and that I should have gone-along-to-get-along. Well if Bill hadn’t jumped in at the last minute, Cindy’s chances would have been better too, so who really hurt who? COGS’ endorsement of Bill and Smith could do the exact same thing to Cindy.
Had Bill and COGS went along with Bob and me, and Kathy and Cindy got on the council, then all we would need is two seats next time. That’s real teamwork.
I sorry it came to this but if we had all worked together there would have been a better outcome.
In my newsletter I said why I believe Kathy and Cindy are the best Candidates and as such I had to say why I thought the others weren’t, including Robbins, Milhaven, and Auerbach. No one seems to mind my comments on the last three.
In the end it is just my opinion and anyone can vote however they please. If you think my opinion matters then someone should have spoken with me a long time ago. If it doesn’t matter then no harm done. I will continue to fight for the residents as I promised and as my record shows.
Thank you for listening.