Scottsdale Candidates Respond to July 29 Forum Questions

Posted By Les Conklin on Aug 30, 2014

Thank you for attending our forum. Thank you for your support and participation.

As you know, there was not enough time to have the candidates respond to all the questions that were submitted by the audience.

Following the meeting, I sent a list of the unanswered questions to all the candidates. Below, you will find the responses that I have received thus far. If additional responses are received, we will send them to you.

Although the Greater Pinnacle Peak Association – Friends of the Scenic Drive, as a nonprofit organization, does not support any candidate or party, we do organize forums like this as a community service. GPPA members, officers, and directors are free to express their opinions as individuals.

Again, thank you, Troon Village, and the candidates for supporting our forum.

Sincerely,

Bob Cappel
President

PS. WE ARE POSTING THIS INFORMATION ON OUR BLOG, WWW.GPPABLOG.ORG. AS ADDITIONAL RESPONSES ARE RECEIVED, THIS DOCUMENT WILL BE UPDATED. VISIT THE BLOG FOR INFORMATION ON EVENTS AND NEWS RELATED TO GPPA, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND QUALITY OF LIFE.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SENT TO CANDIDATES

MICHAEL AUERBACH

From: michael@auerbachforcitycouncil.com To: r-cappel1@msn.com Subject: RE: Questions from the GPPA City Council Candidate Forum Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 11:44:17 -0700

Robert,

Thank you for gathering the remaining questions. If you will indulge me, it is clear that these questions all have one basic theme to them, so I will reply in kind.

First, I respect that the area in which your members live is pristine, natural,and scenic. As I stated I am a huge supporter of the McDowell Sonoran Preserve, and have spoken out publicly at Scottsdale City Council meetings to that end.

I would caution your members to look closely at my opponents statements about “No Growth” and “No To Everything.” Scottsdale has a brand to protect, and I would ensure, as someone in the tourism industry, that special character. A vibrant entertainment area is good for the tax base, not so where your voters live. Growth must be balanced and respect the nature of the communities in which the growth is occurring.

I encourage you to visit my website for more details: www.auerbachforcitycouncil.com

Thanks,

Michael

_____________________________________________________________________

BILL CRAWFORD

From: VoteBillCrawford@aol.com Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 19:08:40 -0400 Subject: Bill Crawford To: r-cappel1@msn.com
Greetings Robert,

Here are the answers to my completed questionnaire.

Thank you,

Bill Crawford

Scottsdale City Council Candidate 2014

QUESTIONS FROM THE GPPA CITY COUNCIL FORUM

1. The current General Plan states that requests for a change in land use designation that comprises 10 or more contiguous acres, or proposes to change the use, density or intensity of the General Plan land use category definitions, requires the request to be Major General Plan Amendment. There have been 3 requests, The Reserve, Reata Ranch & Sereno Canyon, and one current rezoning request, Cavalliere Ranch, that clearly met these Major Amendmant requirements. However, three were passed and one is currently filed as only Minor General Plan Amendments. Should all of these been Major General Plan amendments? Why or why not?

Response. Yes, in my opinion they should have been classified as major General Plan Amendments. This is an area where covenants provided to residents in the General Plan should not be compromised. This is clearly defined in the plan. I believe the majority of the present council has no respect for the General Plan, the residents or the surrounding neighborhoods. Part of the problem is the massive campaign contributions that council members have received from the developers. An applicable quote from the General Plan defines the spirit of the law: “By making sure that changes in neighborhoods harmonize with the existing character, by enhancing neighborhoods’ defining features, and ensuring their long term attractiveness and economic integrity.”

2. The updated General Plan, required to be updated by State Law every 10 years, is titled General Plan 2035. What is the purpose of doing this instead of being titled General Plan 2025 and do you agree with it? Seems like another way to put something over on the voters.

Response. I am suspicious of the date change. By definition in the A.R.S. it is supposed to be every ten years. The discussion needs to be revived every ten years. The fact that the last General Plan was not followed and now they want to extend the date on the next plan is a signal to the residents that something is wrong. The key is to present a plan to the voters that is not a radical departure from the values and visions of the residents.

3. We seem to be moving toward an entertainment-focused downtown that often puts Scottsdale in the news for the wrong reasons. What is your position on this “culture shift“?

Response. As founder and president of the Association to Preserve Downtown Scottsdale’s Quality of Life, I have fought for several years to get the bar district under control. We have been the driving force behind compatibility and public safety issues in the bar district which has resulted in improved noise control, parking, multiple ordinances and additional law enforcement. If the mayor and council majority had acted in the best interest of Scottsdale, we would not have had to do this. I believe the mayor and council have betrayed the residents and the non-entertainment businesses in Scottsdale by selling out to the bar developers. I believe the change has damaged Scottsdale’s valuable brand and reputation. There continues to be public safety issues. People have died in the bar district. Conditional use permits are not being suspponsended or revoked when there are violations and we need to start enforcing the bar safety ordinance. Gangs are now present in the bar district. There is an increase in crime. There are problems with a weak noise ordinance, parking, litter and vandalism. We still need additional parking, lighting and law enforcement. I have proposed a special taxing district to underwrite the payment of expenses created by the bars. If we don’t draw a line downtown this will creep city wide.

4. How much of the increased costs of all the City support required for this “Entertainment District” are being paid in fees & sales taxes by these venues?

Response. The taxes and fees collected off of “reported” income from the bars (not Scottsdale’s high-end restaurants) doesn’t even come close to paying the increased costs of public safety. A recent treasurers’ report showed $400,000.00 in tax revenue from bars (not restaurants) and costs for public safety during the same period to be 1.2 million dollars. In addition there are collateral costs to the adjoining properties and residential neighborhoods. I wrote a “My Turn” column two years ago questioning the math on the amount of sales tax reported by the bars within the bar district. This infuriated the bar developers to the point where I was named in a defamation lawsuit designed to silence and intimidate me. It did not have the intended effect, I prevailed in the suit and I am running for Scottsdale City Council.

5. What % of your campaign contribution dollars have from the bar owners/managers in the “Entertainment District”?

Response. Zero.

6. By my count, over 15,000 new apartments have been approved to be built between Camelback Road and Thompson Peak Parkway. What does the City gain from all these apartments? Would you approve more apartments to be built in our north Scottsdale areas?

Obviously, there is an economic impact from the massive population influx provided by new residential buildings. But at what price? We gain additional residents, additional traffic and stress on public safety, infrastructure, public works and a critical departure from our image and reputation. Our low-slung easy western skyline is being destroyed. During the recession, funding was available for these developments. Scottsdale went way too far. This is a short sighted, short term strategy. Big apartment buildings do not stand the test of time well and they are a forecaster for urban blight down the road. I will vigorously fight to keep incompatible massive projects out of Scottsdale.

7. Scottsdale seems to be adding a lot of roundabouts, which seem to slow traffic & increase congestion. While the roundabout at Northsight & Hayden may have reduced congestion in this area, it seems to have increased congestion along Frank Lloyd Wright at the 101 off ramps, at Hayden and now at Northsight. What’s your position on roundabouts?

Response I lived and worked in Europe, I did not like roundabouts there, and I don’t like them here. I believe they are un-American. They are confusing to motorists, and cause traffic congestion and accidents.

8. Los Angeles recently times 4,500 traffic lights at the local speed limits which greatly reduced congestion & vehicle air pollution. While can’t Scottsdale simply time the traffic lights along Scottsdale Road at the speed limit so traffic doesn’t have to stop as often?

Response. Under the direction of the right council, the traffic engineers can be directed to do what is right. Our timing has need for great improvement.

9. Scottsdale & Paradise Valley have long been known as “Great” places to live with a western culture, great quality of life, fantastic views, quiet neighborhoods, and higher property values than other cities in the valley. While Scottsdale has added tall buildings, apartments & bars, Paradise Valley has not. Why did Scottsdale need to go in this direction and would you continue this trend if elected to the Council?

Response. Scottsdale did not need to go in this direction. I believe it was developer driven. There are many quality communities around the country that resisted these trends and are better off. We all moved to Scottsdale because it is Scottsdale. We pay more to live here and have our businesses here. Our brand is known the world over. I will protect our valuable brand with limited, as needed, responsible, manageable, compatible change that will enhance our quality of life and maintain our character that honors our Scottsdale heritage.

10. What is your position on the following:

a. Completing the Preserve?

Response. Complete the assemblage of the Preserve as the voters have approved five (5) times. This is what will be valued for generations to come and this is what people will come to see. I strongly believe the assemblage of the land while it is available is the absolute priority. It is the raw land that will be our timeless, priceless gift to future generations. The land will provide the outdoor experience attracting people to this unique treasure.

Rezoning future Preserve land to Commercial & higher density residential?

Response. Absolutely not.

Development, financing & location of the proposed Desert Discovery Center?

Response. I am not convinced this is a good idea. It will cost us 75 million dollars (50 million from private and 25 million from the city) and 6 million per year for overhead. There will be traffic and noise impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. We need to think this through.

_________________________________________________________________

CINDY HILL

Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 08:45:54 -0700 Subject: Re: Questions from the GPPA City Council Candidate Forum From: electcindyhill@gmail.com To: r-cappel1@msn.com CC: electcindyhill@gmail.com

Here are my responses. Thank you for sharing them. Cindy Hill

QUESTIONS FROM THE GPPA CITY COUNCIL FORUM

1. The current General Plan states that request for a change in land use designation that comprises 10 or more contiguous acres, or proposes to change the use, density or intensity of the General Plan land use category definitions, requires the request to be Major General Plan Amendment. There have been 3 requests, The Reserve, Reata Ranch & Sereno Canyon, and one current rezoning request, Cavalliere Ranch, that clearly met these Major Amendment requirements. However, three were passed and one is currently filed as only Minor General Plan Amendments. Should all of these been Major General Plan amendments? Why or why not?

Response. Considering the overall impact on those areas my feeling is yes they should have been Major Amendments. With current policies in Scottsdale we can’t do that right now. One of the things we neglect doing in Scottsdale is updating our policies and procedures to make sure they are addressing current issues. When the Legislature amends or creates new land use policies that should trigger a review and public hearings not just for the Planning Commission and Council, but boards and commissions (Environmental Quality Advisory Board, Neighborhood Advisory Commission, Transportation Commission, etc.) so that we can effectively address such changes. The current council majority has refused to take these steps at any level. The Planning Commission is the only hearing venue and then staff presents input from open houses that are not well organized and basically the Planning Commission votes on recommendations from Current Planning staff and not residents.

Response. Since the GP update process has changed from the way it started out with the Town Hall Visioning process and with information and misinformation about the work of the GP Task Force many folks are suspicious, angry and confused about the work being done.

Council did not help by dealing with those contentious issues in a highly political manner. From the comments made by the incumbents and others on Council it was clear that they don’t understand the process anymore than they understand the mandate from the Legislature to review and update the document.

The title “2035” was definitely picked to deceive the citizens and it goes directly to this council election. The most current incarnation of the General Plan, which good or bad was slated to go before the voters this December. However, in an effort to save the incumbents from having to defend the Developer friendly version that they would have ensured came before the voters, their cohorts on Council made excuses for pushing the general plan election into a future year. The flaw with that was that the Mayor and other developer friendly council members realized that they then might have to defend their version of a new general plan during their election, so they’ve placed the 2035 tag onto the general plan in an effort to kick the can down the road as far as possible and to continue operating under the 2001 General Plan, which is extremely developer friendly. When it was written we were not yet even close to build out in Scottsdale.

3. We seem to be moving toward an entertainment-focused downtown that often puts Scottsdale in the news for the wrong reasons. What is your position on this “culture shift”?

Response. First of all what we have a Downtown is not an “Entertainment District,” by any stretch of the imagination. It is a Bar District no matter what the incumbent candidates say. You can check all of the accepted planning language/documents, and what we have is a bar district.

Unfortunately, there’s very little true entertainment available in our downtown. However, there is an ample supply of bars and drunken criminal behavior that has placed Scottsdale’s good name in peril. In fact “Old Town Scottsdale” has now become synonymous with a drunken binge. The Bar District has drawn the worst that the valley has to offer into our city; murder, stabbings, drive-by shootings, aggravated assaults, sexual assaults, gang fight, etc. It’s time that the City Council acted in the best interests of the citizens instead of the bar owners and take back control of the Bar District and enact ordinances that can be enforced.

There are ordinances like the noise ordinance that are not enforceable and Council will not call for a review to amend that ordinance. Our Liquor License policies and procedures are over 10 years old and have not been reviewed and updated.

Law enforcement can’t do the job if we don’t give them the tools and the personnel.

We are having to move 12 police positions from northern Scottsdale to the south to cover what is taking place in the central and southern area as a result of the bar activities and the loss of police officers. (This is a very real issue and the Council majority refuses to take a serious proactive look at solution.)

4. How much of the increased costs of all of the City support required for this “Entertainment District” are being paid in fees & sales taxes by these venues?

Response. The short answer is NONE. The bars in the Bar District pay the same taxes as any other business. However, the other businesses in Scottsdale do not require an entire police district to be created around them. I know that there’s currently a dispute over how much the Bar District brings into the City through taxes and sales revenues and some of these numbers have been fantastical. There’s an old adage, “figures don’t lie but liars figure.” We’ve seen this played out over the years in Scottsdale in many forms and this carries over to the Bar District. It all depends on where the boundaries are set for including revenues and what expenses are included to produce the desired number. I can tell you that in police services the Bar District has created an upsurge in police overtime, through upstaffing and maintaining a paddy wagon. It’s also resulted in a redeployment of police officers that stripped 12 police positions from north Scottsdale to the south to make up for the increased calls for service.

5. What % of your campaign contribution dollars have from the bar owners/managers in the “Entertainment District”?

Response. Zero.

Response. I haven’t seen a clamoring for more apartments by anyone but the developers and the council members who take their money for their reelection campaigns. I don’t believe that we should continue to sell Scottsdale so cheaply by increasing height and density in any part of the city. People both north and south have moved to Scottsdale for tremendous views offered by keeping buildings low.

Response. I find roundabouts nothing but confusing and unnecessarily dangerous and was a way to take federal money to work on a project that we of course needed to find matching city tax funds.

Response. Scottsdale does time its traffic lights but roundabouts actually confuse the issue. If another city has found a way to do it better we should find out what they are doing and implement it.

Response. There’s a determined group that is following the “Which way Scottsdale?” report as a blueprint. These people consist of the Chamber of Commerce, Developers and the current council majority including the incumbents running for re-election to name a few. To find out who gains by this new direction for Scottsdale there’s no better way than to “follow the money.” If elected I would do my best to return Scottsdale to the Scottsdale that brought all our longtime residents here in the first place.

10. What is your position on the following:

a. Completing the Preserve?

Response. The voters have spoken and they want the Preserve completed and that’s what we should do as long as there is money to do so. If we run out of money, another vote may be needed in the future to determine if this is still the current feeling of our citizens. I will do whatever the voters decide they want to spend their tax dollars on.

b. Rezoning future Preserve land to Commercial & higher density residential?

Response. As a rule I am against rezoning Preserve land. Unfortunately, there appears to have been a previous promise made on certain land parcels with the state. In this instance I would keep the rezoning as low as possible while still living up to our word as a City.

c. Development, financing & location of the proposed Desert Discovery Center?

Response. We need a different approach and we need to seek out the public-private partnerships to finance the project. Tax payer dollars only is not an acceptable option especially when they are talking about running this and going into debt to do so.

Thank you for your questions.

Cindy Hill

Electcindyhill.com

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

KATHY LITTLEFIELD

From: kathy@kathylittlefield.com To: r-cappel1@msn.com Subject: Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 22:44:50 +0000

Dear Bob:

Here are my answers to the questions you collected from the GPPA audience.

Thank you for sending them. It was a great forum!

Kathy Littlefield

QUESTIONS FROM THE GPPA CITY COUNCIL FORUM

1. The current General Plan states that requests for a change in land use designation that comprises 10 or more contiguous acres, or proposes to change the use, density or intensity of the General Plan land use category definitions, requires the request to be Major General Plan Amendment. There have been 3 requests, The Reserve, Reata Ranch & Sereno Canyon, and one current rezoning request, Cavalliere Ranch that clearly met these Major Amendment requirements. However, three were passed and one is currently filed as only Minor General Plan Amendments. Should all of these been Major General Plan amendments? Why or why not?

Response. Yes. One big problem with having a “developer friendly” City Council majority is that they have communicated to our Planning staff the attitude that the developers are their constituents, rather than the citizens. So, the Planning staff believes their job is to make it easier for developers to get their applications approved, and thus gives the developers the benefit of the doubt when deciding if a proposal qualifies as a major or minor GP amendment.

Response. I agree. The current “developer friendly” City Council majority want desperately to get the voters to approve a General Plan update that will make it easier for the developers to exploit Scottsdale’s special character for their own short-term profit, to the detriment of Scottsdale residents. I believe the current Task Force members would like to put in place within the 2015 General Plan long-term objectives that once started, will take twenty or more years to complete. If such plans for higher density and heights could be approved by voters now, before the consequences are felt by those who would be negatively affected by them, the chances are better that the Plan would be approved and more easily continued into the foreseeable future without the stress of needing another questionable vote. In 2025 the vote could be taken to merely continue with the General Plan previously approved with no changes. It would be much easier to get passed by the voters.

3. We seem to be moving toward an entertainment-focused downtown that often puts Scottsdale in the news for the wrong reasons. What is your position on this “culture shift”?

Response. The “Bar District” degrades Scottsdale’s brand rather than enhancing it. It is a net loss to our city culturally and financially, plus it makes our residents less safe. Financially, the net cost to taxpayers is about $800,000 per year just for the day-to-day operation. When this was brought forward in the forums, the Mayor had a new financial report designed to negate this finding by shifting the parameters of the area studied. But changing the facts to fit with a pre-conceived desired outcome doesn’t make the truth less true. We are still losing money due to the increase in required police and fire protection (a large part of the overtime problem in the police budget), trash and street cleanup, and law suits resulting from injuries suffered due to lack of city enforcement of the CUPs and general unconcern for our downtown laws in general. We just lost a lawsuit resulting in a judgment of over $2 million which will be paid by an increase in your property taxes. Another lawsuit is currently filed against the City for $51 Million. These, too, are costs applicable to the Bar District and any settled amount will come from increases in property taxes. There are other lawsuits coming. But one of the worst and most damaging costs of the Bar District is the lowering of the quality of life in the older established neighborhoods near the District. This results in a cost to residents of a lower standard of living caused by increased crowding, traffic, crime, noise and trash. Scottsdale now has the reputation of having the largest concentration of bars in the entire Valley. It includes both crime and drugs, and a disregard and distain for the city’s laws and ordinances by the owners of these establishments. This is not a reputation to entice top dollar, high class tourists to visit.

4. How much of the increased costs of the City support required for this “Entertainment District” are being paid in fees & sales taxes by these venues?

Response. Not much. We do bring in about $400,000 per year. It does not nearly cover the out-of-pocket expenses of $1,200,000, not to mention all the other negatives mentioned above. And these numbers are several years old – I’m sure the expenses have gone up. Not to mention our legal fees to defend us against lawsuits continue to mount.

5.What % of your campaign contribution dollars have from the bar owners/managers in the “Entertainment District”?

Response. Absolutely none. Because of my stand against increasing the size and number of bars in the Entertainment District, the bar owners do not contribute to my campaign. Nor do the developers or their high-priced attorneys. In fact, they, along with the pro-Light Rail group, put up signs against me during this campaign! If you want to know which candidates ARE supported by the bar owners check out this newspaper story http://ow.ly/zTOLO and this video: http://ow.ly/zTOR5.

Response. I don’t see that the City gains anything – other than some one-time construction fees – by overbuilding apartments in Scottsdale. It adds a great deal of strain on our already aging and strained infrastructure. It will cause the City to need more water and sewer lines, more streets and sidewalks, more police and fire protection, etc. All of this increases the costs to existing taxpayers by having to increase their taxes to pay for it and maintain it. Also, again there is the non-monetary cost to current residents of a lower standard of living caused by increased crowding and noise, decrease of our Western, quiet relaxed living style, loss of views and more traffic and more congestion on our roads. I do not believe our residents desire the consequences of denser or higher developments in their neighborhoods. I do not see any benefit to Scottsdale’s residents for more apartments being built in the North (or the South, for that matter). Nor do I believe our residents want them. I would vote against more apartments. We already have too many coming to Scottsdale.

Response. I am not in favor of roundabouts. They cause traffic to move to non-roundabout streets, causing increased traffic there. Folks are not taught how to drive in the two-lane roundabouts and consequently are inconsistent in their driving patterns while within them. This causes confusion. I think they are merely an “in” fad with the transportation professionals. It is a fad which is dangerous to our citizens and may cause harm to the businesses that abut to it. Right now our Transportation Dept. is proposing to install another two-lane roundabout in front of Mustang Library. If I were on Council, I would vote against it. There are a few places where a single lane roundabout may help move traffic safely; however, I believe they are few and far between and not worth the cost of construction. The two lane roundabouts are merely accidents waiting to happen.

Response. It is certainly technically possible to time the traffic lights along Scottsdale Road at the speed limit so traffic doesn’t have to stop as often. As so often is the case around Scottsdale the problem lies in our policies. The greatest detriment to good signal progression in the city is irregular signal spacing, and over the years we have given developers so many exceptions to our policies about signal spacing that we cannot implement the signal timing that would keep traffic running smoothly along Scottsdale Road. Our Traffic Department does have sophisticated traffic signal timing, progression, and simulation programs for calculating the timing and progression offsets for our traffic signals. These programs, however, require massive amounts of data collection to produce reliable and realistic results. Even with detailed data, sophisticated computer programs cannot compensate for the detrimental effects of irregular signal spacing. Another problem is that in several areas in the city, policies have been adopted that favor pedestrian traffic over vehicular traffic, which can be detrimental to good vehicular traffic flow. Given that the vast majority of Scottsdale residents get around town by automobile I think this policy is a bad idea. If I am elected to the City Council I will work to reverse the policies that have made it difficult for our Traffic Department to implement the signal timing that would keep traffic running smoothly along Scottsdale Road.

Response. I will be blunt. Scottsdale did NOT need to go in this direction. We are going in that direction because the current Council Majority has skin in the game to do it. They get large campaign contributions from bar owners, developers and developer attorneys to help pay for their re-election (or election) to the Council. They all have close ties to the Chamber of Commerce which is not a real Chamber at all, but a vehicle through which to channel people, money and power to help developers and bar owners. Developers support the Chamber with large contributions which in turn funnels much of that money to “their” candidates. The developers expect to make millions of dollars on up-zoning properties and then either flip the property to another developer or build inappropriate developments at the expense of the residents. If the Council Majority’s approval of these kinds of development is not stopped quickly, it will cost Scottsdale its reputation and cachet and will eventually slow our tourism industry. At that point, expect your property taxes to rise dramatically and your quality of life to suffer.

10. What is your position on the following:

Completing the Preserve?

Response. I absolutely support completing the Preserve. That is why I testified against the proposal by Councilmember Korte to call for a “moratorium” on purchasing more land for the Preserve. Councilmembers Milhaven and Robbins supported this proposal until they backed down in the face of massive public outrage. The citizens said, in seven questions in five elections, “here’s the money, here’s the boundary, buy it.” We owe it to all the voters of Scottsdale to use our remaining funds to try to complete the Preserve. If we do not have enough money, we can go back to the citizens and ask for another – or an extension of our current — sales tax to raise the necessary funds. I’m not sure such a vote would pass again, but we should try. First and foremost, we need to purchase the remaining land on Pima. And, I believe we have the money to do that.

2. Rezoning future Preserve land to Commercial & higher density residential?

Response. No. Never. End of story. This is a PRESERVE, not a park. That is not what we did this for.

3. Development, financing & location of the proposed Desert Discovery Center?

Response. I have three problems with the proposed Desert Discovery Center (DDC). The first is the cost, which is estimated to be $60 million. Where will that money come from? I suspect Councilmember Korte’s proposed “moratorium” on further purchases of Preserve land was the first step toward diverting Preserve tax dollars to funding the DDC. I am absolutely opposed to spending Preserve tax dollars on anything other than acquiring Preserve land and building trailheads, in line with the wishes of the voters. I am certainly opposed to diverting Preserve tax dollars to funding the DDC! My second problem is with the proposed location. Even if the DDC can be funded with private money it should NOT be built on Preserve land. That is a violation of the purpose of the Preserve and an affront to the wishes of the voters. My third problem is with the whole idea of the Center. Why do we need it? Does a Discovery Center really have $60 million worth of additional value (plus the extra $12 million for reserves) over and above the Gateway itself, the Trail Heads, the stewards, and all the rest that make our Preserve so great? I don’t see it. Is there possible room for expansion of facilities at the tail heads? Maybe. Educational classes, lectures, more hikes. But rows of ramadas, restaurants and gift shops do not match with what the citizens said they wanted and what they’ve paid their hard-earned dollars to pay for. We don’t need another tacky tourist trap – we can go to the Bar District for that!

Kathy Littlefield

480-951-2549

kathylittlefield.com

kathy@kathylittlefield.com

___________________________________________________________________________

DAVID SMITH

To: r-cappel1@msn.com Subject: Re: Questions from the GPPA City Council Candidate Forum From: elect_davidnsmith@aol.com Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 16:25:11 -0400

Bob…

Attached are the questions and answers you sent last week.

David

QUESTIONS FROM THE GPPA CITY COUNCIL FORUM

1. The current General Plan states that requests for a change in land use designation that comprises 10 or more contiguous acres, or proposes to change the use, density or intensity of the General Plan land use category definitions, requires the request to be Major General Plan Amendment. There have been 3 requests, The Reserve, Reata Ranch & Sereno Canyon, and one current rezoning request, Cavalliere Ranch, that clearly met these Major Amendment requirements. However, three were passed and one is currently filed as only Minor General Plan Amendments. Should all of these been Major General Plan amendments? Why or why not?

Response. Any request that meets the definition of Major GP Amendment should be presented and voted on as such.

Response. I know of no purpose in naming the document GP 2035. It may be a “vision” twenty years into the future, but it should, more properly, be named according to the year of its creation and/or adoption by voters.

3. We seem to be moving toward an entertainment-focused downtown that often puts Scottsdale in the news for the wrong reasons. What is your position on this “culture shift”?

Response. I believe it represents the pursuit of “vision” that has never been the vision of citizens. It is problematic for several reasons: (1) it creates an economic burden on current citizens to provide extra public safety for the area; (2) it jeopardizes our appeal to traditional tourists who stay at hotels, shop and eat at our fine restaurants; (3) it undermines the quality of life of residents, particularly those who live near the area.

4. How much of the increased costs of all the City support required for this “Entertainment District” are being paid in fees & sales taxes by these venues?

Response. As City Treasurer, I prepared a report in 2011 that disclosed the Class 6 Liquor License holders (bars) in the Entertainment District pay $400,000 in taxes, fees and licenses to the General Fund for city services. The extra public safety expenses (over and above normal) dedicated to this area were $1.2 million. Since the total General Fund revenues were substantially less than the extra public safety expenses, there was obviously no revenue contribution for libraries, parks, traditional public safety, etc. that taxes and fees are normally intended to support.

5. What % of your campaign contribution dollars have from the bar owners/managers in the “Entertainment District”?

Response. Less than 0.5%: I received $100 from Mr. Don Carson, owner/operator of “Don & Charlie’s,” located at 7501 East Camelback Road, on the northern border of the disctrict.

Response. The proliferation of new apartments represents the pursuit of another “vision” which is not the vision of citizens. Such developments often shift economic burdens of government to current Scottsdale residents; done poorly, they undermine the standards of livability that many citizens moved here to enjoy; and they threaten to diminish our attraction as a tourist destination.

Response. Personally, I find them confusing to navigate, but I am professionally not qualified to second-guess the recommendations of traffic engineers related to traffic flows and safety.

Response. Traffic signal-light timing is one of the least expensive, short-term solutions to our traffic congestion. Many of the city’s traffic signals have not been recalibrated since the Loop 101 was completed twenty years ago. Some of this recalibration was awaiting the installation of new traffic signal controllers at the 300+ intersections in the city, a project on the recently defeated bond election.

Response. I know of no reason why Scottsdale had to go in this direction. None of these projects added revenues to help the city weather the economic recession. I will demand each project proposal identify the benefits (if any) to current Scottsdale citizens. I will expect new projects demonstrate no negative impact on tourism or traffic congestion. I will expect new projects to pay their full share of costs.

10. What is your position on the following:

Completing the Preserve?
Rezoning future Preserve land to Commercial & higher density residential?
Development, financing & location of the proposed Desert Discovery Center?

Response. (a) Citizens have said repeatedly they want to complete the preserve. Every effort must be made to meet that citizen request. If it becomes apparent more tax revenues will be required, citizens should be given the opportunity to authorize additional taxes to “finish the job!”

(b) Rezoning preserve lands to some higher use will inevitably increase the value of the lands and make it more difficult to successfully purchase these lands for preservation. If this reflects some “deal” that was made with the State Land Department (as staff reported) then I would want to review the written agreement and, if possible, negotiate some compromise before rezoning any preserve lands.

(c) I favor the development of a research, educational and learning center, financially self-sustaining and synergistic with our most distinctive asset…the McDowell Sonoran Preserve. Done right, it would be an important addition to our tourism appeal and add to the livability of our community. The currently discussed DDC project does not yet meet the criteria.

____________________________________________________________

8/10/2014 END OF RESONSES RECEIVED THUS FAR. WHEN ADDITIONAL RESPONSES ARE RECEIVED THIS DOCUMENT THIS POST ON WWW.GPPAAZBLOG.ORG WILL BE UPDATED.