By Don Hadder
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, public
improvements, particularly streets, were made through the use of improvement
districts. A project scope would be identified and then it would be shopped to
engineering firms. The firms would be responsible for designing the project,
securing property owner support for it and providing construction financing.
This kept the management and capital costs minimal to the city.
Although this was effective, it began to stir
animosity across the community. The engineering firms in some cases used high
pressure sales techniques to secure the signatures required to form a district
and costs often escalated above the projected figures. Many owners felt “strong
armed” and in some cases multiple districts applied to their property, making
their property tax bills higher and hard to understand.
By 1964, the
City Council had decided to try another way to build public infrastructure.
Growth in Scottsdale was exploding and the county did not require development
to build infrastructure of any significance. Public facilities were falling
behind as the community almost overnight changed from a farming town to a major
suburban city.
There was a
good deal of public unease at the time, having only recently been the recipient
of freeway plans that would split the city into pieces, a Corps of Engineers
plan that would create a massive concrete-lined channel down the middle of the
city, explosive growth of schools and a lack of many key facilities such as
parks, libraries or even a City Hall.
A new
approach to build public facilities and infrastructure was chosen: the issuance
of municipal bonds. This approach would require the fledgling community to take
an active role in the design, financing and management of the construction
process. It also required that a majority of the voters in an election support
the issuance of the bonds, which are financed primarily through property taxes.
Given the
rumblings in the community, the council wisely chose to create citizen
committees to help determine what improvements were to be included in the bond
proposal and then to recruit support of voters across the community. The
collection of committees appointed for this effort were placed under the
overall title of the “Scottsdale Town Enrichment Program,” later commonly
referred to as the STEP Forums.
These
committees worked over several months to identify and prioritize public
improvements to be included in the upcoming bond election. Since this became
the basis of the council’s call for an election, the STEP committee members
became a strong force of support across the community. Ultimately, the bond
election was successful, and the new City Hall and Civic Center Library,
Eldorado Park, street improvements, the extension of sewer lines and many other
projects were able to move forward.
Most
notably, the selection of Bennie Gonzales as the architect/planner for the new
Civic Center was in large part due to the recommendations of the STEP
participants. He was not a traditional and well-established architect, but he
brought a sense of vision and of the Southwest that appealed to citizens.
In April
1966, the city in conjunction with Arizona Town Hall held a series of meetings
to establish goals for the community. This was one of the earliest Town Hall
programs in Arizona and laid a strong foundation for the future of the city.
The goals as presented were approved by the City Council in June of 1966.
These were
not per se a “General Plan,” but would shortly become incorporated into a new
General Plan. Adopted by resolution, they established formal and defined
directions for the future of Scottsdale. Underlying this effort was a strong
affinity to the desert Southwest, its special natural setting and its
particular native traditions and cultures.
The
recommendations were grouped under the categories of physical development, residential,
commercial, parks, streets and highways, economic and social-cultural. Many of them would significantly change the
appearance and function of the growth of Scottsdale, including landscaping in
parking areas, a range of park types and sizes, an economic emphasis on
tourism, a comprehensive Civic Center, medians in major streets, the Indian
Bend Wash Greenbelt, an emphasis on open spaces and no more “strip” commercial.
Once these
goals were approved, the city retained the services of Simon Eisner and
Associates to prepare a General Plan for Scottsdale. This firm had completed a
number of plans for communities in California and brought a sense of planning
beyond just land uses and streets.
Approved in July 1968, this “General Plan” was
likely the earliest “comprehensive” General Plan for any community in Arizona. It
embodied elements that, although modified over time, are still a part of the
community, such as an “Airpark” business center, major detention basins as part
of the Indian Bend Wash greenbelt flood control system and the “resort corridor.”
What is
interesting about this plan is that it was more of a tutorial of ideas to think
about, pursue and consider, and less about regulatory limitations.
Unfortunately, this became its Achilles’ heel in that it was not specific
enough to make decision making easy or predictable in hotly contested
development cases.
Through
1967, 1968 and 1969 the STEP Forum effort was directed toward neighborhoods and
how local areas could be made better with residents, business owners and
visitors working together in harmony.
Also during this time, STEP committees assisted in the recruitment and
concept for a junior college (Scottsdale Community College), enhanced design
review (a Beautification Committee was established), the initiation of a city
arts program and special studies into youth and senior services.
In the fall
of 1969, the STEP committees were reconvened to plan for the next decade of
growth and enhancement of Scottsdale. The final report of this effort was
titled “Scottsdale Town Enrichment Program – Long Range Goals & Plans.” The
committee reports were included under the headings of community development, community
affairs, economic development, community services and community improvements.
Some of the
ideas from this process includes historical and art museums, manpower
development, two redevelopment areas (Civic Center and Vista del Camino), a
major roadway connection along 64th Street, municipal golf courses,
creation of a municipal water system, expansion of fire service facilities, a
new police headquarters, fire and police training facilities and “brokered”
community services.
This did not
finish the STEP committee work. The planning firm of Wilsey Ham and the
Brookings Institute were retained to develop an updated General Plan. In the
process, the Brookings Institute conducted community surveys and organized a
number of forums. The initial report from this process was titled “Alternate
Futures for the City of Scottsdale.” It was organized under topics that
included growth, population and land use, economy and human resources, environment,
design of the city, housing, transportation, education, health and public safety,
recreation, cultural and entertainment activities, government and city financing.
This was a
summary of 10 seminars in which experts from across the nation spoke. Of note
is that in the community survey, the most universally accepted idea was
protection of the McDowell Mountains.
In September
1973, about a year after the previous report, a report of the STEP committee
focused on sign regulations, undergrounding power lines (up to 12kV), requiring
developments to dedicate school and park sites, requiring development to
provide municipal infrastructure facilities, and providing bike paths
and flood control systems.
The final
major report of the STEP committees was released in June of 1974 and focused
exclusively on transportation. It addressed all forms of transportation and
covered local and regional issues and coordination. This would be the last
major result of the original STEP Forum process.
In 1974, the
city approved updates to the land use transportation plans of the General
Plan. Unfortunately, these were later
discarded. From what little evidence
that has been detected, they were more detailed and regulatory than those
included in the 1967 General Plan, and they appear to have had relatively
little impact.
In 1981, the
STEP committee process was brought back for a report card and re-evaluation
process. The report at the end of this
effort included subcommittee headings such as city buildings, cultural affairs,
economic development, issues of the elderly, housing, long-range financing, neighborhood
revitalization, parks and open space, public safety, resource conservation, transportation
and issues of youth. For the most part,
this process substantiated the recommendations of the earlier committees.
Of general
note about these processes was an emphasis on the Southwestern culture
(particularly Native American), environment and lifestyles. The sense was that
Scottsdale was a leader in appreciating the unique setting of the Southwest.
In summary,
citizen participation and collaboration with city leadership through the STEP program
brought about significant changes and advancements for Scottsdale, including:
- Comprehensive general planning
- The Indian Bend Wash greenbelt
- A city-wide parks system
- A municipal water system
- Significant control of outdoor
signage
- Underground utilities
- Design review
- The Senior Centers
- Museums and the Center for the
Performing Arts
- The “Resort Corridor”
- Bikeways
- Emphasis on open space
- And many more attributes that make
Scottsdale a better place to live, work and play.
The
ingredients necessary for this to add lasting value to the community were:
- A group of citizens willing to commit time, energy and perspective; and who were prepared to reach consensus and develop collaborations. They also were prepared to learn about the past and the present as well as consider a wide range of possible futures. They had heated discussions at times and differed on how to achieve the goals, but they were willing to abide by the consensus reached by the group.
- City leadership willing to take risks and make decisions. The risks were not rash but well informed and taken after a wide range of options had been considered. They were also willing to accept failures but were prepared to learn from them and continue to press forward.
- The citizens and leadership were focused on vision and values, with the horizon being a long range ahead. Some of the goals and ideas brought up through the STEP program were not reached or achieved for 20 and even 40 years. There often were differences on how to achieve the consensus vision, but the vision was held in common.
- The greatest failure of the STEP process became a lack of passing the baton on to the next group of newcomers to Scottsdale as the community grew. Within 10 years of the program ending, very few people were aware of the program and most no longer understood or accepted the visions, values and priorities so many had worked to achieve. The forward thinking, “can do” attitudes and willingness to compromise and build consensus that characterized the STEP process became lost. Instead of a focus on community, control shifted to local interests, short-term thinking, fear of making decisions and the unwillingness to support actions that achieved city-wide benefit.
Don Hadder is a retired city planner, long-time resident of Scottsdale and a local historical resource.
