By Alexander Lomax
Photo Credit: Arizona PBS
Sometimes the measure of leadership isn’t found in what you approve, but in what you have the courage to oppose. The contrast between Chandler Mayor Kevin Hartke’s decisive rejection of an unpopular AI data center and Scottsdale Mayor Lisa Borowsky’s handling of the unpopular Axon development reveals two fundamentally different approaches to serving constituents when corporate interests and citizen concerns collide.
This week, Mayor Hartke appeared on CNBC following Chandler’s unanimous 7-0 vote against a $2.5 billion AI data center, a project that faced overwhelming opposition with 256 emails and web forms against it and just 10 in favor. Despite intense lobbying from former Senator Kyrsten Sinema and warnings about federal intervention from the Trump administration, Hartke stood firm, noting that the city’s voter-approved general plan reserves the Price Road corridor for high-value companies that create more jobs. When the 7-0 vote was announced, cheers went up in the packed council chamber. Hartke later called the meeting “actually fun,” referencing the passionate public testimony; the language of a leader genuinely proud to represent his constituents.
The Axon saga in Scottsdale tells a different story. Mayor Borowsky campaigned on opposition to high-density apartments, which she identified as “the No. 1 issue” during her campaign. Nearly 27,000 Scottsdale residents signed a referendum petition to challenge the development, and polls showed 70% of Scottsdale voters favoring defeat of the project. Yet when push came to shove, Borowsky cast the tie-breaking vote to approve a compromise allowing 1,200 housing units, 600 apartments and 600 condos, after Axon’s president publicly called out “misinformation” from the mayor during negotiations. A compromise that still serves as a massive dump of overdevelopment and traffic in an area that vehemently did not want it.
The optics are striking. While Hartke led a unanimous council in defying corporate pressure and even potential federal threats, Borowsky became the swing vote that approved a project her own constituents overwhelmingly opposed. She acknowledged feeling troubled that “voters in Scottsdale are going to have their voices smothered” by state legislation that nullified the referendum, yet she voted to move forward anyway.
To be fair, the situations aren’t identical. Axon is a hometown company with Scottsdale roots, while the Chandler data center was a New York developer’s speculative project. The economic stakes differ. But both mayors faced the same fundamental question: when corporate interests clash with overwhelming community opposition, whom do you serve?
Hartke chose his constituents. Despite the data center offering $10.2 million annually in tax revenue and nearly $1 billion in economic impact over ten years, he recognized that the city is “looking for high manufacturing jobs in this site” and that data centers offer “lower fiscal returns compared to other potential projects”. He understood that good governance means more than just maximizing revenue; it means honoring community priorities and the comprehensive plans voters approved.
Borowsky repeatedly stated she wanted to keep Axon in Scottsdale and sought compromise. But when 70% of your constituents oppose something, compromise begins to look like capitulation. Leadership sometimes requires saying no; even when it’s hard, even when threats are made, even when it costs jobs or revenue.
Chandler got a profile in courage. Scottsdale got a profile in cowardice.