Arizonans Growing Increasingly Restive About Unchecked Growth

PHOENIX — Monica Storry shakes her head in disgust as she compares the Phoenix of today to the quaint desert city she moved to in the spring of 1970, fresh out of college and ready for her first job as a paralegal.

A Wisconsin native, she was captivated by the towering saguaro cactus, palm trees, citrus groves and mountain vistas. From her apartment, it was a 10-minute drive to browse the art galleries in Scottsdale, then a small town just starting to come into its own as a resort destination.

Fast forward 28 years: The populations of Phoenix and Arizona have tripled, to 1.2 million and 4.7 million, respectively. Subdivisions filled with red-tile-roofed stucco homes have crowded out the orange and grapefruit groves. The drive from Storry’s old apartment to Scottsdale, now a city of 185,000, takes 30 minutes through streets choked with stop-and-go traffic.

“I still love Phoenix, but the air is dirty, the traffic is horrible and the sprawl just gets worse and worse,” she said. “Something has got to be done, or we’re going to become the next L.A.”

Alarmed by polluted air, snarled highways, endless suburbia and the disappearance of fragile desert lands, Arizonans are becoming increasingly worried that unchecked growth is spoiling their quality of life.

The state’s pro-growth stance, including tax breaks to lure businesses and limited restrictions on developers and zoning, is being questioned. Polls show voters overwhelmingly want some sort of curbs placed on growth.

“I think there’s a genuine concern for planning, that we can’t let growth go unrestrained,” said Bruce Merrill, a pollster and Arizona State University professor. “I’d call it a ‘responsible growth restriction mode’ that we’re in.”

Concerns about growth aren’t limited to Phoenix or Tucson. An influx of people drawn by Arizona’s climate, plentiful jobs, relatively low cost of living and retirement opportunities have created big-city problems for smaller cities like Prescott, Sedona, Flagstaff and Sierra Vista.

When Mary Charlesworth left California two years ago for Sun City, the retirement village northwest of Phoenix, there were few other homes near hers. But that’s not the case anymore.

“We’re just being surrounded by these huge developments and the houses are close together and the traffic is getting extreme,” she said. “I really had no idea it would have this sudden growth.”

Airconditioning and commercial airline travel paved the way for Arizona’s growth spurt after World War II. Airconditioning made the summer heat bearable, and Midwestern tourists decided that Arizona might be a good place to retire or even make a living.

For decades, politicians and the influential business lobby favored a hands-off approach toward growth, even as the brown cloud of pollution enveloping the Phoenix skyline worsened. Today, only Los Angeles has dirtier air than Phoenix.

But state officials were forced to address the issue last spring when environmental groups circulated petitions to place a referendum on the fall ballot calling for growth boundaries around any city with at least 2,500 residents. It also proposed other tough sprawl-reducing measures.

Developers and other business interests quickly drew up an alternative plan, called the Growing Smarter Act, which was backed by Gov. Jane Hull and hurriedly passed by legislators.

The citizens’ initiative called for developers to pay full impact fees for water, sewer and other government services. But the environmentalists couldn’t get enough petition signatures and folded their referendum drive, vowing to return in 2000 with a new growth restriction plan.

Under Growing Smarter, a state commission will be established to study planning and development issues and make recommendations to the Legislature. Local governments will be required to strengthen their growth plans, and developers will be required to pay “fair share” impact fees, although fair share isn’t defined.

Arizonans will decide in the Nov. 3 general election whether to approve Proposition 303, an offshoot of Growing Smarter. The ballot measure, backed by the governor, business interests and many conservation groups, would provide $20 million annually for 11 years in new state spending for open-space preservation, primarily in urban areas.

Thanks in large part to the strong economy, new residents continue to pour into the state--Maricopa County was the nation’s fastest-growing county from 1990 to 1997, adding 600,000 new residents. But there are signs that citizens want to put the brakes on runaway growth.

In Scottsdale, where voters a few years ago approved a sales tax to establish the Indian Bend Wash greenbelt and park system, two candidates who campaigned on a slow-growth platform won election to the City Council last spring.

In Gilbert, a sleepy farm town of 5,700 in 1980 that has exploded to 72,000 residents today, voters last year elected a new mayor and two Town Council members who promised to slow and control the boom.

In Pima County, where Tucson is located, voters last year approved a bond issue to raise $38 million to preserve open space, and the county’s Board of Supervisors recently passed ordinances that protect hillsides and washes from development.

From Flagstaff to Tucson, candidates are increasingly being asked their views on growth issues.

“People run for office down here and they’re fiscal conservatives, [favor] no new taxes, tough on crime--and controlling sprawl,” said Raul Grijalva, a member of the Pima County Board of Supervisors.

Not everyone, however, believes growth can be controlled or even managed particularly well.

The Roman Senate tried without success to control growth in the days of Julius Caesar, and modern-day politicians haven’t done much better, says Jay Butler, director of Arizona State University’s Real Estate Center.

“Growth in itself is not necessarily bad, it’s the impacts that are the issue,” Butler said. “You’re building streets and freeways and polluting the air and people don’t like that, especially if they moved here to get away from that.”