Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Michael Herrod has upheld the Arizona law that will enable Axon Enterprise’s construction of a new $1.3B corporate headquarters campus near Hayden Road and Loop 101 in north Scottsdale.
AZBEX has led coverage of the Axon project and its controversies. Our reporting is available here.
After the project won approval from the Scottsdale City Council, an opposition political action committee called Taxpayers Against Awful Apartment Zoning Exemptions collected signatures to put the matter before voters in a referendum. The group was particularly opposed to the project’s inclusion of nearly 2,000 multifamily units.
The newly installed Mayor and Council did not decide on a timeline for the election, and the Arizona Legislature passed a law that effectively carved out the development. The law was signed by Gov. Katie Hobbs.
TAAAZE filed a lawsuit seeking to have the legislation deemed unconstitutional, alleging it was specifically crafted to benefit Axon and deprive Scottsdale voters of their right to a referendum.
Judge Herrod’s 15-page ruling disagreed. While Axon was the only immediate beneficiary at the time the so-called “Axon Law” was enacted, the legislation’s provisions apply to any city with a population of between 200,000 and 500,000 and to any potential corporate headquarters development in those jurisdictions.
He also ruled that TAAAZE had the opportunity to challenge the law via a state referendum but never pursued it.
TAAAZE leader Bob Littlefield, a former Scottsdale City Council member who recently announced he will run for the position again, said he is considering an appeal.
The Axon Law litigation is not TAAAZE’s only court effort to derail the project.
After extensive negotiations, Axon and City leadership reached a compromise on the campus’ residential component. When the project was originally rezoned and approved by the prior Council, approximately 1,900 multifamily units were part of the project plan.
The company and the City agreed to cut that portion down to 600 condominiums and 600 apartments. Council narrowly voted to rescind the original ordinance to accommodate the change, which negated the item upon which TAAAZE had based its referendum.
The PAC filed a separate lawsuit, alleging Scottsdale’s action failed to follow set procedures, such as public hearings and comment periods. It also claims the City’s categorization of the action as an administrative, rather than legislative, action is incorrect and deprives the citizenry of an opportunity to mount and vote in a referendum.
Administrative decisions are not subject to referenda under Arizona law. TAAAZE argues Council should have enacted a new zoning ordinance, which would be a legislative matter.
That case has yet to be determined.
Herrod’s ruling in the original case established a roughly one-month window for TAAAZE to decide if it will file an appeal. During the pause, the City may not issue any permits or process applications for the Axon development. (Source)