Scottsdale council goes too far in trying to mandate look of private property

Turning a deaf ear to the rightful criticism they received over demanding that the design of a downtown building be changed because it didn’t look “Western enough,” members of the Scottsdale City Council once again set themselves up for the same pratfall.

Avoiding it requires a thorough understanding of the federal and state constitutions’ definitions of limited government. Yet once again, a council majority has shown that they didn’t pay enough attention in class. The latest council overextension of its responsibilities under existing zoning laws was last week for a building just three blocks north on Scottsdale Road of the subject of last year’s controversy.

This was a case that had no business going further than the city Development Review Board, which unanimously approved of its design Aug. 23. Our reading of city documents about the proposal show that developers of the 4333 Building aren’t seeking a change in zoning, intend to keep its height at the city maximum of 36 feet and propose that it contain 18,194 square feet, less than what is allowed by law.

But just as it did with the 4020 Building last year, the council voted, 5-2, on Sept. 4 to hear an appeal of the board’s decision. The rationale is nothing other than details over what is an attractive building.

Councilwoman Betty Drake offered a list of changes she wants to see in the design that were so specific they can be defined in no way other than government meddling, from which no private property owner should feel safe. They’re all listed in the “marked agenda,” a city-prepared summary of the meeting: Drake noted that palm trees don’t provide enough sidewalk shade and that the building lacks enough to grab attention to it or to lead one to enter. She also thought there should be an architectural detail on the ground floor, some sort of “whimsy.”

Given that no public subsidies are sought, city government has no right to determine such things, as they are indisputably private-sector matters. No one is going to be more concerned about such considerations than the private owner of a building, whose tenants and customers he or she must please or face financial consequences.

With proper enforcement of zoning regulations, elected officials can guard against egregious intrusions by one private-property owner over others’ rights. But these situations certainly should involve broader considerations than palm trees as shade, what attracts attention or whether, for crying out loud, a building has enough whimsy.

The 4333 Building goes before the council Oct. 2. Council members should let stand the decision of the Development Review Board — if there’s any place where aesthetic considerations should be heard and dealt with it is there — and restrain themselves from taking up such intrusive appeals in the future.