Plentiful sunshine. High 99F. Winds W at 5 to 10 mph..
Clear skies. Low 72F. Winds N at 5 to 10 mph.
Updated: May 27, 2024 @ 1:23 pm
In Scottsdale, nearly half the “greenhouse gas” release comes from electricity, and another 40% from transportation. The city’s proposed “Sustainability Plan” aims for big cuts on emissions from residents and businesses.
Bob Pejman, who also spoke in person against the plan, and others flooded Scottsdale City Council with emails attacking a proposed “Sustainability Plan.” (City of Scottsdale)
Councilman Tom Durham attacked “keyboard warriors” who bashed the city’s proposed Sustainability Plan.
Sustainability Director Lisa McNeilly has received harsh criticism – but also great encouragement – in the nearly two years she has been at work on the city’s first “Sustainability Plan.”
With fiery-eyed residents staring them down, Scottsdale City Council members blinked.
At its May 21, meeting, City Council unanimously voted on the city’s first “Sustainability Plan” – but only to have more workshops and outreach, punting the actual vote on the plan to a date to be determined.
Mayor David Ortega and council members Betty Janik, Tom Durham and Tammy Caputi have terms expiring this year. With all but Janik running for re-election, the hotly debated Sustainability Plan now looms as a political landmine.
Councilman Tom Durham attacked “keyboard warriors” who bashed the city’s proposed Sustainability Plan.
At recent meetings, Durham and others were optimistic about moving the environmental plan to reality: “I want to get something done pretty quickly,” Durham said March 19.
Ortega added he felt the plan covered all the bases and he was eager “to see it in a final form so that we could take action.”
Two months later, faced with a barrage of criticism, Janik and Durham fired potshots at the plan’s attackers. An emotional Janik expressed exasperation after working on the plan for four years – decrying last-minute “cut-and-paste” emails.
Durham razzed “keyboard warriors” looking for “bogeymen in government.”
Stressing the “aspirational” nature of the plan, Caputi said, “I’m a little bit confused about why everyone’s coming back now and insisting it’s too specific … It’s easy to say what you don’t like, I’d like to see what people want to see in the plan.
“I’m just a little confused,” she repeated.
To summarize critics: How can you ask us to cut water and waste after all the developments you’re approving?
Underlining the latter point, just before the Sustainability Plan presentation, Council approved a multi-million dollar “Infrastructure Reimbursement Agreement” for a massive sewer line being built by the Optima McDowell Mountain Village development.
Optima is building 1,300 apartments at Scottsdale Road and the Loop 101.
Though Kathy Littlefield and Barry Graham have been wary of the Sustainability Plan, the majority of council members two months ago agreed on what they admitted were “aggressive” numbers.
The goals included asking residents to step up water conservation and reduce waste by a staggering 90%.
Capping a year of meetings and study sessions in which public comment was limited, the March 19 informal agreement on aspects of the plan seemed to have Scottsdale’s elected officials poised to approve the plan.
Then, following a May 19 Progress story on the Sustainability Plan being on the agenda, emails attacking the plan started hitting City Council inboxes.
A trickle quickly became a flood.
“There are so many residents emailing council about the sustainability plan that I can’t get to them all,” Graham complained in an email hours before the meeting.
“There are hundreds – more than the outrage against road diet – all opposed.”
Bob Pejman, who also spoke against the plan in person, was one of scores of emailers flooding City Council.
Bob Pejman, who also spoke in person against the plan, and others flooded Scottsdale City Council with emails attacking a proposed “Sustainability Plan.” (City of Scottsdale)
Pejman, an Old Town gallery owner who has also criticized Council’s approach to parking, said the culprit that has “worsened” air quality, water supply and waste is summarized by one word: overdevelopment.
“Knowing this, why did our council vote to approve 3,500-plus apartment units over the past three years, on top of the 10,000-plus units already in the pipeline?” Pejman demanded.
He sneered that, when new projects are approved, “residents are promised there’s enough water and power – with no adverse effects on the environment and current residents.”
But, he insisted, “to compensate for the adverse effects of 14,000 more apartments, the city has embarked on an aggressive utility-rationing agenda called the Sustainability Plan.”
And Pejman sees a hidden agenda: “raising fees and instituting surcharges are the only ways to achieve the plan’s aggressive goals.”
Bob Littlefield shares Pejman’s views. The former councilman and spouse of Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield sent out a newsletter bashing the “grossly-misnamed” plan.
He said the sustainability plan “will impose unnecessary higher costs and burdensome mandates on Scottsdale residents.”
“Scottsdale citizens have never needed a bunch of bureaucrats to tell them how to do right by the environment,” Bob Littlefield insisted.
After the email came his way, Jason Alexander also emailed the council –defending the plan and attacking the attacker.
“The fundamental premise of Littlefield’s position is wrong – that all fees for service and enforcement are bad no matter what they gain us in quality of life,” Alexander wrote.
The plan, he insisted, is built on “a balance between fiscal conservatism and necessary spending for health and wellness, avoiding free-rider impacts and negative externalities.”
Alexander was not surprised by the last-minute attack:
“Littlefield repeats a pattern of objection to major initiatives, by coming heavy at the midnight hour, rather than working collaboratively during the process to affect the changes he wants.”
In Scottsdale, nearly half the “greenhouse gas” release comes from electricity, and another 40% from transportation. The city’s proposed “Sustainability Plan” aims for big cuts on emissions from residents and businesses.
Plan bashing
As Sustainability Director Lisa McNeilly emphasized, what she co-authored – with the Scottsdale Environmental Advisory Commission providing input – carries a crucial caveat:
“This plan is an aspirational document and not a mandate, so there are no penalties if targets are not met.”
Critics were not buying that.
When the Council report on the May 21 Sustainability Plan agenda item was posted a week ago, it was 209 pages long – including the 110-page document and dozens of emails.
When the report was updated hours before the meeting, it doubled in length.
As Janik, Durham and others complained, many emattacks seemed to be nearly identical.
But others expressed original thoughts.
“If the sustainability plan was practical and based on common sense, I’d be all in favor of it,” wrote Dr. Bob Saeger, identifying himself as a 50-year Scottsdale resident.
“However, it is a dangerous ideology that will diminish residents’ quality of life, imposing draconian regulations and restrictions that could stifle economic growth, limit personal freedoms, and lead to increased costs of living.”
Ellen Laybourne’s emailed: “MAN cannot control the Climate. The entire purpose of this governmental nonsense is to control the population and make life ever more expensive without any actual benefit.”
Nancy Doty echoed others in linking the Sustainability Plan to another hot-button topic: “This goes right along with Road Diet Goal which citizens oppose.”
Another’s plea was echoed by many:
“Do not California my Arizona!”
Sustainability Director Lisa McNeilly has received harsh criticism – but also great encouragement – in the nearly two years she has been at work on the city’s first “Sustainability Plan.”
Not far enough?
While others praised the plan, some expressed displeasure that the plan doesn’t go far enough.
Kristin Heggli emailed McNeilly, noting it was “disappointing that Scottsdale still isn’t considering light rail.”
But, Heggli added, “It’s nice to see in the Transportation Action Plan that BRT is up for a feasibility study along Scottsdale Road.
“Adding some density along Scottsdale Road (which has already happened in some areas), would further aid the city’s sustainability goals,” she said.
James Sherrin also had questions about the plan:
“Why is there no mention of the Palo Verde nuclear facility as a way to reduce greenhouse gas and increase our energy supply? It already exists, functions and is non-polluting,” Sherrin insisted.
“I would also say the same about hydro-electric power generation – it too is proven, non-polluting and renewable.”
As far as setting guidelines for “green buildings,” Sherrin added a rhetorical question:
“Isn’t the greenest building the one that wasn’t built?”
And Isaac Dizon demanded more emphasis on recycled water: “Let’s make this a priority. Go big or go home!”
Contrary to the plan’s echoing Scottsdale Water encouraging residents to get rid of grass, Mary Ann Miller saw a glaring hole she summarized in two words: artificial turf.
“So many flips in south Scottsdale are using this plastic grass. In addition to the heat factor, at some point they will end up in the landfill.”
‘Aspirational goals’
In mid-April, McNeilly announced the latest version of the plan on the city’s website.
“Let us know what you think! There is a comment form on the website or you can send me feedback directly.”
Taking McNeilly up on her offer expressed at several public meetings, many Scottsdale residents seemed to take joy in redlining text, adding new text or deleting entire sections via an electronic portal.
Likely feeling battered from all sides, McNeilly surely took comfort in at least one electronic comment, from Kerry Olsson:
“Wow! Congratulations Lisa and the Scottsdale Environmental Advisory Commission. This is a PLAN!
“Love what you have done. So much improved over what we discussed last year.”
McNeilly likely also took heart from the likes of Nancy Stephens: “I understand that the plan is aspirational and that you cannot do everything immediately. I’m no expert so I cannot comment on specifics of the plan.
“It seems good.”
So, at least one resident granted the wishes of Janik, expressed at the end of the March 19 study session on the plan.
“I hope that the citizens embrace this,” Janik said, two months ago.
“We’re not forcing it on them.”
Since 2020, the city’s elected officials have been talking about Scottsdale joining Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa and other cities that have sustainability plans.
In 2022, Scottsdale City Council identified the creation and
implementation of a sustainability plan as a top priority.
Target timelines came and went – still no plan, but plenty of backseat writing from City Council members who tore into early drafts.
McNeilly went back to the drawing board and, with input from members of the Scottsdale Environmental Advisory Commission, came up with a plan with five “priority areas”: Energy, Water, Waste, Air Quality and Extreme Heat.
During study sessions, McNeilly often provided two recommendations – one from her city staff, the other from “SEAC,” shorthand for the Scottsdale Environmental Advisory Commission.
In most cases, the SEAC goals were much more aggressive than the city staff’s aims.
For instance, McNeilly noted Scottsdale residents and businesses pushed 3 metric tons of carbon dioxide, aka “greenhouse gas emissions,” into the air in 2022.
City staff asked council to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions (relative to 2022) by 45% by 2035 and 90% by 2050.”
SEAC agreed with the first part, but wanted the 90% reduction by 2040.
The council consensus went with the city staff, here.
But that was not always the case, as council gave consensus to the SEAC recommendation for increasing tree and shrub canopy to 20% by 2030 and 25% by 2040.
Never miss an issue. Sign up for free today.
Your browser is out of date and potentially vulnerable to security risks.
We recommend switching to one of the following browsers: