City of Scottsdale to Pay Toll Brothers $81.9 million for Preserve Land

This turn of events shines light on a lopsided political system with the city of Scottsdale. As a current resident of Scottsdale and an urban planner who follows these issues, Scottsdale has grossly abused its power by attempting to stop development and allow self-serving and motivated citizens to call the shots. In 2004, Scottsdale used what could been an iconic asset such as preserving mountain slopes and open spaces and greedily taking land from the developers in an effort to control lands at a cheaper price. Although I respect the need to have open space so our hillsides do not resemble the butchered Mummy and Camelback Mountains, development is a necessity to keeping the wheels spinning in our city.

What disturbs me the most is the quantity of lands Scottsdale is placing stakes into, forbidding development or forcing owners out of their properties for raw and dirty prices. Yes, we are hearing an angry developer roar because the city waged war and took his land via eminent domain, but what about the smaller land owners whose land was taken? You don’t hear about the people who owned smaller 5-acre parcels which were taken by eminent domain, because they were swept under the rug. From 1999 forward, Scottsdale has seized lands for their own personal benefit. True, their exclusion from auctions is unfair, but otherwise, city government would have more power and abuse it to the fullest. In the Toll Brothers defense, I am glad someone has shown it is not right to keep taking land at dirt cheap prices to save a few pennies.

Let’s evaluate the Toll Brother’s situation –

Scottsdale wanted almost half of its land two years after purchase. In those two years, market value of the property increased, and the Toll Brothers were paying taxes on the property. In Scottsdale’s defense, I’m sure the developers set a high price tag on the property and likely did not budge from the $107 million figure, which is outrageous. However, Scottsdale out of left field offers $34 million (half of their auction price) for the lands abutting the McDowell Mountains, which ultimately are of more value than the land westward the Toll Brothers owned. Do I think the Toll Brothers should have been awarded the $107 million they were asking? Absolutely not. It was a far cry from $34 million though. Had Scottsdale say offered $60 million, Toll Brothers would have likely sued, but it would have shown an effort by Scottsdale to be fair and account for market increases and taxes paid on the land. Scottsdale failed here, which is why they are likely paying an excessive $9 million more than the Toll Brothers’ initial request.

The problem on Scottsdale’s end is they have the right idea behind the preserve, but they are going about it the wrong way. As you cited earlier, the lands taken were mostly flat. Instead of hassling developers, why didn’t Scottsdale use their powers for good and stipulate Toll Brothers dedicate a portion of the development be dedicated to creating a trailhead equipped with utilities and parking for hikers open to the public? Had the city urged planning staff to advocate for promotion of one of Scottsdale’s great natural assets, I am sure Toll Brother would have sacrificed 20 or even 40 acres to be dedicated to the preserve in favor of their master plan being approved. 20-50 homes is a small sacrifice for developers which would have benefited both parties. Instead, Scottsdale alienated Toll Brothers and they resulted to a lawsuit to justify the damages done.

Your point is valid about Silverleaf at DC Ranch and McDowell Mountain Ranch bordering the land is a valid concern. Had another development been built over most of the land, the design in land use would have been consistent, which is what the town’s General Plan aspires for. Instead, onlookers drive down Thompson Peak Parkway and see a great hole which would have been suitable for development. It is located in an area which can easily access infrastructure and utilities, and developers would have been responsible for building Thompson Peak Parkway. However, I am sure the council, as well as the city of Scottsdale’s preservation group, will argue DC Ranch and McDowell Mountain Ranch were good land uses in the 1990’s but not today. The preservation group is fueled by shielding most of Scottsdale’s lands from development, but where is the limit? Their 1995 proposal for 16,000 acres was well warranted and prevented infrastructural nightmares of developing on steep hillsides and scalping the mountainsides. However, Scottsdale plans on preserving 35,000 acres, which is extremely excessive. Furthermore, the council is so consumed with pleasing self-serving citizens it is forgetting about what would benefit the city as a whole.

Toll Brothers could have easily built a development which would have avoided altering the desert character of the region. They would have had to adhere to the Environmentally Sentitive Lands Orndinance (ESLO), which is a policy document regulating development around washes and natural features. The ESLO guidelines are an effective policy document which has scultped and guided developments east of the CAP Canal. Instead, adjacent neighbors take a stance that any new developement is “intruding” on their view and their way of life. What they need to realize is they were once an intruding development on the natural environment. In a self-centered notion, they are saying what we commonly as planners refer to as NIMBY (Not in my Backyard!). In general, I am calling foul on Scottsdale’s manner which they handle allowing citizens to blockade development, as well as the city’s handling of the Toll Brothers’ situation.

One might argue I am pro-development, but I support responsible development that benefits the community as a whole, not what one indivual community desires and screams. Here are three prime examples which I feel residents and the city interfered in the wrong:

1. The 96th Street extention into the Salt River Reservation — Many might have forgotten 10 years ago, the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Reservation proposed an extension of 96th Street south of Via Linda to connect to Indian Bend Road. The reservation would have benefited from connectivity to their adjacent jurisdiction, and the extension would have alleviated traffic issues during the construction of Loop 101 and created inter-community connectivity. However, “concerned” citizens of McCormick and Scottsdale Ranch communities lobbied to the council to blockade this effort and future proposals to extend 96th street. The council favored the citizens’ side and blocked 96th Street, ultimately putting the city at odds with the reservation. In my perspective this was wrong for the following reasons: A. 96th Street would have made a wonderful connector for the reservation’s economic base of proposed commercial and office buildings. It would have alleviated traffic from Pima Road, which suffered severe traffic pre and post-101 days. B. Scottsdale intruded on the reservations’ land when Loop 101 was built. Of course, negotiations compensated the reservation, but they did Scottsdale an immense favor by allowing this alignment to cut through their land. Had Scottsdale allowed 96th Street to continue, this would have been a small compensation to the reservation to say thank you for Loop 101. Instead, Scottsdale practically insulted the reservation by blockading their proposal. C. The opposing citizens were Scottsdale Residents who were outraged someone else was going to build next door to their quiet home. These homeowners did not take into consideration that their homes lay near 96th Street, which falls on a grid section line, traditionally what is used for arterials and larger roads in our region. Had these homeowners researched their properties better, they would have realized a major roadway was planned on 96th Street and should have moved elsewhere if this was such an issue. Instead, selfish homeowners, whom neglectfully bought these homes, cried foul because they didn’t like the thought of a major roadway connecting to the reservation so close to their home. The council took the side of a handful of homeowners over the greater good of a community and region, which is grossly unjust. I will forever remember this scenario being what motivated me to become a planner!

2. The Via Linda-Fountain Hills Connector — One year after the council empowered a handful of homeowners to dictate how the city develops, Via Linda was proposed to connect to Fountain Hills, and once again a group of “concerned” citizens opposed this proposal and pressured the council to blockade the effort to expand Via Linda. Ultimately, the council sided with the community and ordered the General Plan be amended to remove the connection to Fountain Hills. I was appalled at this situation for the following reasons: A. The “concerned” citizens consisted of residents living in homes abutting Via Linda, which evolved into a major thoroughfare on a four-lane divided major collector. These citizens, mostly consisting of homeowners who neglectfully purchased properties abutting a major roadway, did not want more traffic passing near their homes. While I understand their point of view, they made the mistake of buiding homes near what developed into a major roadway. These property owners felt their own properties were more important than the community as a whole and felt blocking a connection to Fountain Hills preserved their way of life. As early as I remember, Via Linda has been built as wide as it currently is as far back as the mid-late 80’s. Had I been purchasing a home at this time and seen a road built this wide, I would have selected a home more inland away from the road. The people who bought homes abutting Via Linda did so either out of naiveness or under the pretense of knowing and deciding to buy the cheaper home and eventually trying to change the course of the plans for the region. Why should the community as a whole suffer because these homeowners decided to neglect common sense and not buy a home abutting a major road? Once again, a small community affected the region as a whole to preserve their small corner of the community. B: The General Plan called for Via Linda to connect to Fountain Hills for years as a secondary mode for travelers to travel to and from Fountain Hills. Should an accident cause a closure to Shea Boulevard to the south, travelers would have a secondary mode of travel to and from Fountain Hills. With national security and evacuation issues still prevalent, Via Linda connecting to Fountain Hills was necessary and practical. Likely, the planners of Scottsdale saw this as a prevalent issue, which is why they previously called for Via Linda to connect to Fountain Hills. C: The council once again lopsidedly allowed private homeowners to dictate what is developed and what is not. Citizen input is crucial and vital, but it is not what dictates and governs how a city should be planned. There are proffesionals called Planners, whom have studied land use and sustainability issues, hired by the city of Scottsdale. This case demonstrated the council has little regard for what the planners see in favor of what a few residents say, likely out of fear for council members being threatened of losing their position of power if those angry citizens vote them out. If citizens know more about how to plan a city than Planners, why would municipalities hire Planners to regulate the city?

3. The Pima Road realignment north of 101 — Once again, “concerned” citizens attempted to blockade the realignment of Pima Road, which was for decades spelled out in Scottsdale’s General Plan. Ultimately, Scottsdale opted to evaluate what benefited the city as a whole and went through with realigning Pima Road from loop 101 to Hualapai Drive. Here is why this was right: A. The group of citizens who disapproved of this realignment wanted to keep the Ironwood Village development isolated from traffic. As a homeowner, I can understand their point of view, but they wanted Ironwood Village to remain a giant cul-de-sac. Once again, buyers irresponsibly bought homes abutting the realignment of Pima Road in the late 80’s and early 90’s, disregarding the fact that a major roadway was planned. As I mentioned earlier, buyers either bought out of naiveness or out of the notion of obtaining a cheaper property. I have no sympathy for their neglect to researching what was planned for their community. B. The realignment was spelled out in the General Plan years earlier, and citizens cried foul because they did not want traffic near their home. Never mind that the previous alignment of Pima Road bottlenecked traffic and created potential safety hazards. This group felt a small community’s needs was far higher priority than the community as a whole, which includes commuters. C. It appears Scottsdale finally acknowledged that the community’s needs as a whole were priority recently and went through with Pima Road improvements. As a compromise, a sound buffer wall and traffic control modification helped Ironwood Village’s issues. Perhaps this is a sign that Scottsdale is ready to take some control back from selfish citizens who are affecting our whole town in favor of their own corner of the city’s issues.

In a nutshell, this case is unfortunate, and Scottsdale will suffer if they have to pay the $82 million. However, this damage has been looming over the last decade due to a select few abusing their powers in favor of what a few vocal citizens have to say. Developers should not be allowed to run amok unregulated, but Scottsdale needs to acknowledge development will happen, regardless if one small group attempts to stop it. Our Sonoran Preserve has much potential and value, but do we really need 35,000 acres, which consists of flatlands which would be ideal for a moderate portion of development? Scottsdale better wake up, because more developers like Toll Brothers will fight back if they pull an unfair stunt like this in the future.

I agree with we need to set aside areas for parks and natural preserve areas it is an important part of a city growth. It’s kinda your legacy to the city. We need to be better stewards to America. Imagine if we had sold our National Park areas which we have come to treasure and value its space. When living in a community there are always concessions made by homeowners that they feel is imposing but later come to understand. I think it’s best to hire the city planner that has the same vision that the populus wants and start from there than fight legal battles with builders.