by Matthew Holloway | Nov 9, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Scottsdale City Council voted Monday to authorize Interim City Attorney Luis Santaella to ready counterclaims and other filings in its escalating court fight with Taxpayers Against Awful Apartment Zoning Exemptions (TAAAZE), the residents’ group challenging the state’s controversial “Axon Bill,” SB1543.
The authorization was granted in the event that the court upheld its original November 7th filing deadline in the case. However, the court subsequently granted an extension motion, according to Holly Peralta, Public Affairs Supervisor for the City of Scottsdale. Under the extended deadline of November 21st, the city council “will consider whether to bring forth such claims at its next regular meeting on Monday, Nov. 17.”
Former Scottsdale City Councilmember Bob Littlefield posted about the meeting on Monday morning, writing in part, “One of the items on tonight’s City Council agenda is the issue of whether or not the City will join my TAAAZE lawsuit against the ‘Axon Bill’ which cancels the right of referendum for Scottsdale citizens.”
Littlefield was critical of Mayor Lisa Borowsky, alleging that while supporting the suit, she has chosen not to take action.
He wrote, “This same question has been on the City Council agenda several times over the last few months, and the outcome has always been the same; Councilmembers Littlefield, Graham and Dubaskas have supported the idea while Councilmembers Whitehead, Kwasman and McAllen oppose it. That always leaves Mayor Borowsky as the swing vote. Lisa has repeatedly expressed support for the city joining the TAAAZE lawsuit against the Axon bill, yet every time it comes to a vote, she either votes against it or delays the vote, so no action is taken!”
Littlefield told AZFamily on Monday, “She wants to appear resident-friendly by saying she supports the lawsuit, but when it comes to push and shove, she votes in Axon’s interest by saying no.”
Borowsky responded, telling the outlet that she would prefer Axon keep its headquarters in Scottsdale. “Unlike former City Councilman Bob Littlefield, I want Axon to stay in Scottsdale,” she said. “Had Mr. Littlefield and his supporters not delayed the election until November 2026, Axon would not have gone to the Arizona Legislature, and we would not be in the legal predicament we are in today.”
She added, “Mr. Littlefield’s referendum was funded by an out-of-state labor union, which paid for 25,000 of the 27,000 signatures gathered. The 1,900 apartments at the Axon campus were hastily approved by the Lame Duck City Council on their way out the door. Let me be clear, I don’t support 1,900 apartments on that site. It is an outrage the Arizona Legislature passed a law to circumvent our control over zoning.”
As previously reported by AZ Free News, the Mayor held a town hall meeting in an open Q&A format to address citizens’ concerns in the ongoing controversy surrounding Axon’s headquarters expansion. During the town hall, the Mayor similarly called out former Councilmember Littlefield, saying, “I would have preferred to have this election much earlier, like May 2025 … the reason I pushed so hard to have an earlier election is because I believe the people should speak on this.”
Littlefield was unmoved, however, and told the Daily Independent, “For months, she’s told residents she backs our effort, but when it matters most, she blocks it. Her go to excuse? ‘Questions about the bill.’”
“Lisa, the bill passed six months ago,” he continued. “You’re a lawyer. You’ve had ample time to read it and get answers.”
Governor Katie Hobbs signed SB 1543 into law in April, severely curtailing municipalities’ ability to refer zoning matters to a public ballot. The law retroactively nullified the TAAAZE referendum and earned a sharp rebuke from Borowsky and the council, who told the Governor the law “undermines the principles of local control that are foundational to Scottsdale’s governance” and “sets a dangerous precedent.”
As of this report, the council is expected to vote on whether to take legal action in the case during its Monday, November 17th meeting.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Oct 10, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The ongoing disagreement between the City of Scottsdale and Axon Enterprise, Inc. has taken on a new dimension after the city issued a clarification of its position on last week. Regardless of whether the controversial “Axon Bill,” SB 1543, remains in effect, the city stated that Scottsdale City Code Section 2-5 requires a referendum to be placed on the ballot at the next general election, scheduled for Nov. 3, 2026.
In a statement issued October 3rd, the city stated that the timetable for a referendum could be shortened, noting, “The city could, if directed by the City Council, place that referendum question on a city election ballot before Nov. 3, 2026, by calling a Spring 2026 Special Election or placing the item on the Aug. 4, 2026, primary election ballot.”
Responding to the enactment of SB 1543 in April, the City Council voted to authorize filing a notice of claim/notice of unconstitutionality in a special meeting on September 12th. The claim filed on September 15th serves as formal notice to the State of Arizona that potential legal action from the city may follow. As reported by AZ Free News at the time, SB 1543 strips residents in cities of certain sizes, including Scottsdale, of their ability to challenge zoning decisions through ballot initiatives. The law applies retroactively and nullified a referendum effort by nearly 27,000 Scottsdale residents who had petitioned to challenge a city council-approved expansion of Axon’s Scottsdale headquarters, which included almost 2,000 multifamily residential units, over 400 hotel rooms, and approximately 47,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space.
City leaders pleaded with Governor Katie Hobbs to veto the bill, citing local concerns over increased traffic and infrastructure strain. They wrote in their plea, “These are not abstract issues—they impact the daily lives of our residents.”
Scottsdale Mayor Lisa Borowsky and the City Council warned that SB 1543 “undermines the principles of local control that are foundational to Scottsdale’s governance,” adding that it “sets a dangerous precedent.”
Borowsky told KTAR 92.3 host Mike Broomhead last week that, before “going to the state legislature,” Axon was negotiating with the city, and the 2000-apartment plan could have been reduced to 750. She added, “Let me be clear, I’m opposed to that high density of housing units,” referring to the initial 2,000 unit plan, but added there are three members of the council who are “vehemently” opposed to negotiation.
Public Affairs Supervisor Holly Peralta wrote, “The City Council’s vote did not authorize litigation, but that step could be taken by a separate Council action in the future.” She further added that a political action committee filed suit against the state and the city regarding Senate Bill 1543.
The lawsuit filed by Taxpayers Against Awful Apartment Zoning Exemptions, or TAAAZE, claims that SB1543 violates both the “special laws” ban in the Arizona Constitution, as well as the right of referendum enshrined there.
Alexis Danneman, a Perkins Coie, LLP, partner and lead counsel for TAAAZE, said in a statement. “This lawsuit is about two of our State Constitution’s most important principles. First, it’s about the right of Arizona voters to hold referenda and vote directly on legislation passed by their city councils but with which they disagree. Second, it’s about the Constitution’s ban on so-called ‘special laws,’ like the Axon Bill, that confer special privileges and benefits on a specific company or group. The Axon bill passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor is the very definition of special interest legislation and it is illegal in the state of Arizona.”
As a separate matter, the city is “evaluating that lawsuit,” according to Peralta.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Oct 2, 2025 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Freedom-loving, car-driving residents of Arizona have long been fighting the constricting “road diets” local government officials, city planners, and corrupt bureaucrats have pushed for years. Proponents of these diets claim that by tearing out perfectly good vehicle lanes, everyone will somehow be safer, healthier, and probably save the planet too.
For those of us who live under the blazing Arizona sun, we recognize this as foolishness. Road diets have not been successful accomplishing any of the goals their proponents claim they will. Instead, the result is that the streets become more congested, you’re spending more time on the road, emergency vehicles have a harder time getting around, and everyone is mad.
Luckily the U.S. Department of Transportation under the leadership of President Trump has promised to stop funding this nonsense. After all, if local city councils are dumb enough to waste money ripping up perfectly good roads, they shouldn’t be able to use everyone else’s tax money to do it.
Of course, unsurprisingly, the residents of those very cities often don’t want their own tax money to go to ripping up the roads they rely upon. One such city is the tiny town of Page, Arizona, where in 2022, the city council approved the “Page Downtown Streetscape Master Plan” which calls for removing vehicle lanes along a 1.4 mile stretch of Lake Powell Boulevard in the heart of the downtown area. In the small northern town, residents stood up against these restrictive, dumb transportation ideas. Page is a community known for its tourism, with visitors bringing boats and heavy gear to explore Lake Powell. For locals, these roads are lifelines for tourism, commerce, and daily living, and Page residents aren’t willing to surrender any more of their precious infrastructure.
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Jonathan Eberle | Aug 15, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
Scottsdale residents attending Monday’s City Council work study session will encounter a new layer of security at City Hall, the first council meeting since the summer recess.
The changes, implemented in July, require all visitors to pass through walk-through metal detectors or handheld screening devices, and have their bags checked at designated entry points. Signage directs guests to approved entrances and exits, where security personnel are stationed to assist and conduct screenings.
The security upgrades mirror measures rolled out earlier at Scottsdale’s One Civic Center, part of an effort city officials say is designed to enhance safety for employees, residents, and other visitors.
Under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 13-3102 A), weapons are prohibited inside City Hall. A secure lockbox is available at the entrance for the temporary storage of legal weapons.
City officials chose the summer for the rollout to coincide with a typically lighter meeting schedule, giving visitors and staff time to adjust before busier months ahead. Monday’s meeting will focus on WestWorld-related matters, but for those planning to attend, the city advises arriving early to allow extra time for the new security process.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Jun 27, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
As the City of Scottsdale stands poised to enact a staggering $2.2 billion budget, city leaders must now contend with a new lawsuit from the Goldwater Institute challenging the city’s controversial sales tax increase.
As of the council’s June 10th meeting, the city has reportedly agreed to spend up to $90,000 in taxpayer dollars on the outside law firm Osborne Maledon to defend it.
In June 2024, the Goldwater Institute challenged the newly approved 0.15% sales tax, which was pitched to voters as a “replacement tax,” for an unrelated, expired 0.2% Land Acquisition Tax.
Goldwater won that legal battle, “forcing the city to admit that it was raising, rather than lowering taxes,” according to a press release.
Under the Arizona Constitution, such a tax hike must be approved by at least 60 percent of voters, a threshold the city did not meet in the 2024 election. Scottsdale leaders, however, have enacted the tax.
On Friday, June 3rd, the Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit against the city, panning the tax as “unconstitutional.” It stated that, “Supermajority rules help protect minority voices, prevent special-interest-driven decisions, and force governments to clean up their budgets before reaching for more of your money. Just like any responsible household, city, county, and state officials should look at how they’re spending first—not just always demand more, regardless of what the law and economic commonsense demand.”
Scott Day Freeman, writing for Goldwater added, “Scottsdale is ignoring the state’s constitutional mandate—requiring us to go to court yet again.”
City Attorney Sherry Scott’s summary to the city council stated, “The budget implications of not defending this case are $25 million per year for the next 30 years.” The law firm, earning approximately $912 per hour at the taxpayer’s expense, is fighting the Goldwater Institute’s efforts to seek an injunction that would stop the tax from taking effect on July 1st, along with a declaratory judgment that the tax is unenforceable.
Freeman said, “Our clients seek only a declaration that the tax is unlawful and an injunction to stop it being enforced. Our clients do not seek a refund or damages.”
Scottsdale spokesman Kelly Corsette stated, “The city is confident its ballot item and election result comply with the Arizona Constitution and all applicable election laws.” He claimed that “the 60% tax approval threshold does not apply to local ballot measures: it is in a section of the constitution that regulates statewide initiatives and referendums, not in the separate section of the constitution applicable to city initiatives and referendums.”
In its press release, the Goldwater Institute maintained that, “In 2022, Arizonans strengthened those protections by amending the Constitution to require any tax passed through a citizen initiative or referendum receive at least 60 percent approval to become law—a requirement that applies not just to statewide, but also to local ballot initiatives.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
