Letters to the Editor: Peanut Gallery Can’t Pick A Narrative On Zubia

By Janice H.

The Arizona Progress Gazette has discovered a troubling new problem for Raoul Zubia: apparently he has gone silent.

There is just one small problem.

Someone should tell the Arizona Progress Gazette.

Its latest column claims Zubia has failed to offer voters “a competing version of his own” and has left an empty chair for his opponents to define him.

That is an interesting theory for a publication that has repeatedly published Zubia’s own words.

Just two weeks ago, APG published a guest editorial from Zubia responding directly to attacks involving Axon and Josh Isner.

On August 24, the site published another Zubia editorial laying out his position on Colorado River cuts, advanced water purification and Barry Graham’s water votes.

And only two days before declaring that Zubia somehow has not defined himself, APG awarded him its “Best imagery (to Date) of the 2026 Election Cycle” for a campaign message explaining why he is running and what he believes Scottsdale needs.

Apparently the definition disappeared sometime between Saturday and Monday.

The column also says Zubia has not answered the growth or short-term-rental questions. Yet his campaign platform explicitly calls for stronger enforcement of short-term-rental ordinances, more local control and development that respects surrounding neighborhoods, height and traffic impacts.

Criticizing those positions is fair.

Pretending they do not exist is something else.

The same applies to campaign contributions. Scottsdale REALTORS endorsed Zubia, along with Solange Whitehead and Ethan Knowlden, saying its selections were based on issues including property values and community character. Zubia’s relationship with donors is a legitimate subject for scrutiny, just as Graham’s and Ugenti-Rita’s relationships and records are.

But there is a difference between scrutinizing a candidate and repeatedly insisting he has not answered questions after publishing his answers.

APG’s writers are free to dislike those answers.

They are free to argue that voters should interpret them differently.

But “he hasn’t defined himself” is becoming a curious argument from a website that keeps publishing the definition.

Perhaps the problem is not that Zubia has been silent. Perhaps its that APG can’t decide on how its choosing to define him,