Politics are afoot when it comes to Scottsdale’s sustainability plan, according to Scottsdale Environmental Advisory Commission Vice Chair Andrew Scheck.
The council voted unanimously on May 21 to hold off on approving the plan that took more than two years of work to complete after a group of residents said they did not want it.
The goal of the delay for most councilmembers was to hold off until the plan could better be explained to residents and gain wider support.
But for other councilmembers, like Kathy Littlefield, the goal of the delay was to kill the plan outright, calling it the first step toward turning Scottsdale into a “police state.”
But Scheck said the opposition to the plan was manufactured by councilmember Barry Graham and Littlefield’s husband, former councilmember Bob Littlefield.
Scheck noted that Kathy Littlefield, who frequently reads her speeches from the dais, raised no concern about the plan during the council’s March 19 meeting.
“We’re all working together, we’re all going in the same direction,” Kathy Littlefield said at that meeting. “Let’s keep that up. That’s how we are going to achieve what we want to achieve.”
That message changed at the May 21 meeting.
“It’s one thing to offer options to our citizens to reduce negative environmental impacts and I believe that would be accepted by at least most to consider,” she said. “Scottsdale is a very eco-friendly city and has been for many, many years. However, it is quite another thing to introduce involuntary, hardlined demands, monitored and enforced by the city until we look more and more like a police state. This is that first step and I don’t want to take it.”
That’s because her husband told her what to say at the May 21 meeting, Scheck claimed.
“I’m a big fan of Kathy, we have a good relationship,” Scheck said. “(In March), councilwoman Kathy Littlefield was the one speaking. This month, it seems the person I didn’t vote for, councilman Bob Littlefield seems to have joined the city council and I didn’t know he was voted in.”
In fact, Bob Littlfield circulated a newsletter on May 28 saying the sustainability plan “would have imposed unnecessary higher costs and burdensome mandates on Scottsdale residents.”
Kathy Littlefield denied she was parroting her husband. She acknowledged that her husband does not support the plan, but denied her objections to it have anything to do with him. She added that they don’t always see eye to eye on issues, but he has never asked her to change her vote.
“I have very much the ability to stand on my own two feet and say, ‘No, this is what I think,’” she said. “He has come up point-blank in these words and said ‘Well, you’re the council woman, you’re the one who needs to make the decision.’”
The reason she changed her mind from April was because she was waiting for staff to “fix” certain things in the plan and be clearer and quantitative about the goals, but that didn’t materialize by the May meeting, she said.
“They didn’t fix a thing,” she said.
On top of that, all the emails she has received opposing the plan have moved her to support having no sustainability plan rather than the one being considered.
Furthermore, Scheck said the email campaign opposing the plan was generated by Graham. He points to an email responding to a message from Graham’s personal email account warning people the plan would cost residents money and calling on residents to email their concerns to the council. For instance, it notes the plan calls for a reduction of waste in the city by 90% in 15 years, but the city’s solid waste director has told the council that could not be done without raising rates.
Graham called the Scheck’s claim “wild speculation.”
“He doesn’t know that,” Graham said. “He’s getting into people’s heads on why they emailed the council … I think that’s just reckless speculation.”
And City Council Member Solange Whitehead said the notion that the council members were inundated with hundreds of resident emails at the last minute opposed to plan is highly exaggerated. Whitehead said she received 69 emails.
“Council is on strict timelines for many of our decisions,” Whitehead wrote in an email to the Daily Independent. “Not the case with the sustainability plan, there is no downside for adding another public meeting or two. While council received only a handful of emails opposing the sustainability plan, those residents definitely deserve accurate information. Rather than ‘costing’ residents money, the plan is designed to protect our health, our wallets, and our ability to continue to thrive in our beautiful Sonoran Desert.”
And Councilmember Betty Janik noted at the May 21 meeting that most of the emails she received from residents opposing the plan looked to have been cut and pasted from a single, ubiquitous email.
Graham’s email to residents called the plan part of a culture war.
“The plan wades into culture wars, framing goals as social justice, with at least 12 references to equity,” Graham’s email said.
Scheck did agree with Graham on a culture war taking place in Scottsdale.
“It’s become a cultural war with the same group of people who are saying road diets are taking our cars,” Scheck said.
The plan itself is made up of five goals related to energy, water, waste, air quality and extreme heat. The plan is then broken down to 15 strategies to address those goals and 93 specific actions.
“The solutions in the plan will improve our natural environment and result in other positive outcomes (like) cost savings, health and safety improvements, economic vitality,” Scottsdale Lisa McNeilly said at the May 21 meeting. “This plan is structured to ensure the investments we make maximize the benefits to our residents. It doesn’t focus on just one segment of the community, it starts with action by the city and asks others in the community to contribute as well. At the same time it’s resident and market driven.
“There are numerous examples where important work is already being done, so we know actions can be cost effective.
“Finally, this plan is an aspirational document and not a mandate,” she continued. “There are no penalties if targets are not met. Let me repeat that, since some have interpreted this plan differently, there are no mandates. It also does not require future mandates which would be up to this or future city councils. The focus is on education about options, opportunities and cost effective solutions.”
Original article can be found here.
JOIN/RENEW/DONATE