The loss of local control and the ascendance of centralized control is a frequent issue in local politics, as state level leaders like to flex their muscles and exercise a greater degree of power while municipalities push back in order to better reflect the needs and desires of their constituents. It’s a struggle as old as time, and one that Scottsdale is no stranger to.
Perhaps the most prominent of these struggles has been the battle over unmitigated short-term rentals, where the state government (after extensive lobbying from the STR industry) took away Arizona’s city’s ability to restrict the industry. It looks as though round two of the battle between state and city pertaining to housing is about to begin now though, this time in the form of casitas.
As part of a comprehensive housing bill that passed the Arizona legislature, “accessory dwelling units” (often colloquially known as “casitas”) were legalized through the state. In a response to the relative lack of housing in the state as well as soaring prices, the legislature did a reasonable thing: decrease regulations, allow for additional options, and increase supply.
Reasonable to most people, but not for the city of Scottsdale. In its efforts to come into compliance with the new law, the city also exempted most of the city from the casita law, meaning that casitas are not allowed within a massive chunk of the city; within ten miles of either Sky Harbor or Scottsdale airports, to be precise.
Perhaps the most interesting and telling aspect is how those 10-mile diameters are drawn up. While the one pertaining to Sky Harbor is a standard square, the one tied to Scottsdale Airport is rotated 45 degrees to cover as much of the populated parts of the city as possible. The intent couldn’t be more obvious: they don’t want casitas in the city.
Why is this the case? We could speculate but it would be nothing more than speculation. That said, it’s not a small matter: non-compliance with this state law could result in a loss of significant funding from the state. The lead sponsor of the bill is not pleased, so this snubbing of the law is unlikely to be overlooked.
That said, with a new year comes new possibilities. A Republican mayor and a new city councilmember that served in the legislature may help bridge the divide much more effectively than an oft-combative and cantankerous Mayor Ortega. One can hope, at least.