After collecting 26,000 signatures, Scottsdale voters may lose the right to vote on Axon's HQ campus
Axon CEO Patrick Smith speaks the Arizona Capitol on March 4, 2025, as part of the company's effort to back legislation that would stop a ballot referendum in Scottsdale brought by residents opposed to its plans to build a 74-acre campus near the Loop 101 and Hayden Road. Photo by Jerod MacDonald-Evoy | Arizona Mirror
After a GOP effort to make it impossible for Arizonans to let local voters challenge development projects at the ballot box failed to gain traction, lawmakers are instead attempting to strip that right away from just Scottsdale voters so Axon can build a massive new headquarters and housing project without opposition.
Earlier this month, Republican lawmakers, flanked by Axon executives and employees, launched a full-court press for a proposal that would have stripped voters across the Grand Canyon State of their right to mobilize to overturn zoning changes their city councils approve.
But the legislation faced an uphill battle, with opposition from both neighborhood advocates and other GOP lawmakers, and it soon became clear the effort wouldn't be successful.
So, on Wednesday, Axon's allies pivoted and reworked the legislation to apply only to Axon. The House International Trade Committee heard one bill approved a strike-everything amendment that would bar Scottsdale voters from heading to the polls to decide the fate of the Axon's sprawling 74-acre campus near Hayden Road and the Loop 101.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The Arizona Constitution gives residents the right to refer matters to the ballot.
Local activists, backed by a signature-gathering effort linked to a labor union, gathered signatures to send the rezoning decision made by a lame-duck city council — the votes for the project came from councilors who had been voted out of office — to the ballot in a voter referendum, which must happen by November 2026.
The measure that lawmakers advanced on Wednesday would cancel that election. It says that any municipality with between 200,000 and 500,000 residents — Scottsdale had 241,000 residents in the 2020 census — must 'allow hotel use and multifamily residential housing' for land zoned like the Axon parcel 'without requiring any type of application that will require a public hearing' if certain criteria is met.
It also would disallow the municipality from withholding a building permit and applies to companies that are building an 'international headquarters,' like Axon plans.
'My inspiration here is to support that commitment to these companies that are coming here to establish themselves,' Sen. Frank Carroll, R-Sun City, said. Carroll sponsored the underlying bill, and approved of the amendment, which was formally introduced by Rep. Tony Rivero, R-Peoria, the committee's chairman.
Rivero and other proponents of the bill said it wasn't really about Axon, but unnamed 'groups' who are using the referendum process to 'halt' economic development in the state.
Business groups like Greater Phoenix Leadership, which represents the largest business interests in the state, and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry came out in support of the bill. Even though the language is tailored to apply specifically to Axon, they denied the measure was about the company, which makes equipment for law enforcement.
'What other companies in Arizona would qualify for this?' Rep. Stacey Travers, D-Phoenix, asked Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry President and CEO Danny Seiden.
Seiden was unable to come up with a single other company that would also benefit from the bill, instead saying it would 'provide a vehicle' for other companies.
'So, basically, this just benefits Axon?' Travers asked.
Seiden said 'right now it does,' but said it would also aid future companies looking to build similar projects in Arizona.
Peoria Mayor Jason Beck, who also runs the ballistic vest company Tyr Tactical, said the bill is about making sure Arizona stays competitive as a state for business.
'I don't compete with other companies, I compete with other states,' Beck said, adding that he often meets with governors of other states to figure out how Arizona can stay competitive.
But local activists and current members of the Scottsdale City Council said the measure was horrible public policy.
This is a bill designed to obliterate Scottsdale residents' rights. This isn't about taking care of jobs and economic growth. This is about one man who wants to avoid an election.
– Michelle Ugenti-Rita, Taxpayers Against Awful Apartment Zoning Exemptions
'This is a bill designed to obliterate Scottsdale residents' rights,' former Republican lawmaker Michelle Ugenti-Rita told the committee. She was representing a Scottsdale group called Taxpayers Against Awful Apartment Zoning Exemptions, or TAAAZE for short.
That group gathered more than 26,000 signatures from Scottsdale residents in order to get a referendum on the 2026 ballot to ask Scottsdale voters if Axon can build its campus with the proposed 1,900 apartment units it was rezoned for.
'This isn't about taking care of jobs and economic growth. This is about one man who wants to avoid an election,' Ugenti-Rita said, referring to Axon CEO Patrick Smith. 'Now, we have a bill in the last committee hearing, a striker that is going to rig an election… If we want to have this fight, it should happen within the boundaries of Scottsdale.'
Ugenti-Rita told the committee that she and other opponents of the project are willing to negotiate with Axon on their proposal. But rather than do that, Axon has instead set out to change state law to protect its interests.
Smith acknowledged as much when he spoke before the committee.
'You gotta get this solved in this legislative session or you are directed to sell this land,' Smith said his board of directors told him, adding that they would make a profit off selling the land.
Scottsdale Councilman Barry Graham said the legislature had no business letting Axon avoid the will of the voters.
'They have told us overwhelmingly that they want to vote on this project,' Graham said of Scottsdale voters. 'This striker bill would deny them that right — a constitutional right.'
Both Vice-Mayor Jan Dubauskas and Graham said they support Axon as a company and do not want it to leave, but question why the company needs 1,900 apartment units in an area where city leaders have already approved 5,000 multi-family units.
'Why is the maker of Taser becoming an apartment complex developer?' Dubauskas asked. 'Why is the legislature even getting involved in all that?'
Smith told the committee that Axon wants to stay in Scottsdale, but 'we are just nowhere close' to getting a deal done. He has said the firm has no interest in going before voters and will leave Arizona before the election if the law isn't changed to protect the development project.
Smith sat next to the attorney for his development deal, Charles Huellmantel, during the hearing. Huellmantel has faced controversy and criticism in the past for his development deals. The room was also full of Axon employees in yellow and black shirts, the colors of Axon's premiere product, its 'non-lethal' taser.
'I'm not going to stand in the way of this and tell a company to get out,' Rep. Justin Wilmeth, R-Phoenix, told his colleagues.
The bill passed out of the committee unanimously and will head next to the full House for consideration. If it passes the chamber, it will return to the Senate for a final vote before going to Gov. Katie Hobbs.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
16 minutes ago
- Axios
Threats to Tesla's revenue are piling up
Tesla faces fresh risks to a big income stream: sales of regulatory credits to other automakers under vehicle emissions and efficiency rules. Why it matters: Tesla's credit sales were $595 million last quarter and totaled $3.36 billion in the five quarters through Q1 of 2025. The credits are awarded to companies like Tesla that exceed emissions standards. Producers of gas-powered vehicles buy them to help meet various CO2 and mileage standards. The latest: Republicans on the Senate's commerce committee late last week proposed ending civil penalties under the Transportation Department's fuel economy rules. It's part of the committee's portion of the budget "reconciliation" bill — the top GOP and White House legislative priority. The provision would "modestly" cut auto prices by ending penalties on automakers that now "design cars to conform to the wishes of DC bureaucrats rather than consumers," a GOP summary states. The intrigue:"This Senate action would effectively end the market for CAFE credits," Chris Harto, a senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports, tells Axios via email. Dan Becker, who heads the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity, noted: "Why buy credits if Trump gives you a get out of CAFE free card?" Driving the news: Separately, DOT on Friday issued an "interpretive rule" that bars consideration of EVs when it sets these mileage rules. It's a step toward crafting replacement standards, DOT said. This paves the way for less aggressive requirements — and less need for buying credits. State of play: Several buckets of credits benefit Tesla, the dominant U.S. EV seller. EPA emissions standards, Transportation Department fuel economy mandates, and California's ambitious clean cars program all provide opportunities. European emissions rules also generate credits. The big picture: The regulatory credit market was already facing risks before all the news late last week. EPA is planning to rescind Biden-era EPA carbon emissions rules for model years 2027 and onward. The House-passed reconciliation bill and the Senate GOP proposal would also nix them. And the House bill pulls back Biden-era DOT mileage rules. Both chambers have passed measures that end EPA's approval of California's auto emissions rules. Threat level: Potential loss of credit revenues comes at a perilous time for Tesla. Its sales have slumped in recent quarters, and CEO Elon Musk's rightward turn and alliance with Trump are among the reasons why, analysts say. The House plan ends $7,500 consumer purchase subsidies for EVs under the Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. By the numbers: Credit revenues exceeded Tesla's overall profit last quarter — in other words, it would have been in the red without them. Yes, Q1 was atypically weak for Tesla, but consider Q4 of 2024, when Tesla reported $2.13 billion in profits that were helped along by $692 million in credit sales. In Q3, those numbers were $2.17B and $739M, respectively. Friction point: More broadly, the meltdown of Tesla CEO Elon Musk's relationship with Trump also creates new and unpredictable risks for the billionaire entrepreneur's business empire.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Democrats Have an Authenticity Gap
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Since President Donald Trump's victory last fall, Democrats have been trying to reengage with male voters, find a 'Joe Rogan of the left,' and even fund a whole left-leaning 'manosphere.' Young men—Rogan's core audience—were among the voting blocs that definitively moved toward the GOP in 2024, as a comprehensive postmortem by the data firm Catalist recently illustrated. In response, many powerful liberal figures have obsessively returned to the same idea: If we can't compete with their influential manosphere, why not construct our own? One high-profile progressive group, the Speaking With American Men project, is embarking on a two-year, $20 million mission to build 'year-round engagement in online and offline spaces Democrats have long ignored—investing in creators, trusted messengers, and upstream cultural content,' though its leaders say they're not looking for a liberal Rogan. Another effort, AND Media (AND being an acronym for 'Achieve Narrative Dominance'), has raised $7 million and, according to The New York Times, is looking to amass many times that amount over the next four years to back voices that will break with 'the current didactic, hall monitor style of Democratic politics that turns off younger audiences.' But in recent conversations with people in all corners of Democratic politics—far-left Bernie bros, seasoned centrists of the D.C. establishment, and rising new voices in progressive media—I came away with the sense that Democrats don't have simply a podcast-dude issue, one that could be solved with fresh money, new YouTube channels, and a bunch of studio mics. The party has struggled to capitalize on Trump's second-term missteps. It has yet to settle on a unifying message or vision of the future. Given this absence, such a tactical, top-down fix as deputizing a liberal Rogan looks tempting. The big problem is: That fix is both improbable and illogical. [Read: Democrats have a man problem] The party's 'podcast problem' is a microcosm of a much larger likability issue. 'We are a little bit, you know, too front-of-the-classroom,' Jon Lovett, a former Obama speechwriter and a co-host of Pod Save America, told me. In a sense, the show's production company, Crooked Media, already tested the 'make your own media ecosystem' proposition: Five years after its independent founding in 2017, Crooked announced that it had received funding from an investment firm run by the Democratic megadonor George Soros. Lovett seemed less skeptical of the new initiatives than other Democrats I interviewed, but also acknowledged some limitations. 'We believe how important it is to invest in progressive media,' Lovett told me. 'But in the same way you can't strategize ways to be authentic, you can't buy organic support.' The limits of this approach have already become clear. 'If you're trying to identify and cultivate and create this idea of a 'liberal Joe Rogan,' by definition, you're manufacturing something that's not authentic,' Brendan McPhillips, who served as campaign manager during John Fetterman's successful Pennsylvania Senate bid in 2022, told me. 'This fucking insane goose chase that these elite donors want to pursue to create some liberal oasis of new media is just really harebrained and misguided.' Joe Rogan, Theo Von, and other prominent voices in the existing manosphere are not inherently political and, even when they do touch politics, don't adhere to GOP or conservative orthodoxy. Although Rogan and Von did attend Trump's second inauguration, both have also been enamored with Senator Bernie Sanders, of Vermont; and recently, Von delivered an emotional monologue about the destruction in Gaza, drawing ire from many of his listeners on the right. In short, these guys are guided not by ideology, but by their own curiosity and gut instinct. Fluidity in belief is central to their appeal, and helps explain their cross-party success. Their audiences also blossomed over time, not after the stroke of a donor's pen. Throughout my interviews, I heard constant lamentations over the inescapable 'D.C. speak' in both Democratic politics and the left-leaning press. 'Normal people aren't out here talking about and paying attention to the kind of things that tie senior Democratic strategists up in knots,' McPhillips, who lives in Philadelphia, told me. You can't read white papers and study what goes on in the states from afar, he argued; you have to be there at eye level, living among real people, talking like a real person. What politicians have been advised to do for decades—stick to short cable-news hits, repeat the same few points over and over—are habits that today's voters find, in the words of a senior official who worked both in the Joe Biden White House and on the Kamala Harris campaign, 'repulsive.' Although this person, who asked for anonymity in order to speak freely about party strategy, discounted the premise of finding a 'Rogan of the left' as a fool's errand, they did say that, from now through 2028, Democrats should try to infiltrate sports-focused podcasts, paying particular attention to YouTube. This operative has come to view the current moment less as center-left versus center-right, and more as a larger battle of institutionalists versus anti-institutionalists: 'The psyche of a liberal in this moment is institution defense.' Also: fear. Too many Democrats, they believe, approach every public conversation and media interview with a level of trepidation about what they're saying—not in fear of Trump, but in fear of the wrath of their own potential voters. During her 2024 campaign, Harris reportedly feared the potential blowback within her own team from sitting down with Rogan. 'There was a backlash with some of our progressive staff that didn't want her to be on' his show, Jennifer Palmieri, who advised the second gentleman Doug Emhoff, said a week after the election. (Palmieri later revised her comments.) This year, some progressives have found a way to break through. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who's proved capable of acing a hostile Fox News interview, has now grown facial scruff and has been popping up on the podcast circuit. Several Democrats I spoke with praised both Buttigieg's recent media tour—his appearance on the brash bro show Flagrant was singled out—and Sanders's ability to win over certain manosphere hosts. 'They're able to do that because they have the confidence and the skill to go on a program like that and just be themselves, and people believe what they say because they're being honest,' McPhillips told me. On the Fighting Oligarchy Tour, and in his frequent podcast appearances, Sanders has positioned himself as an accessible and righteously angry force. Faiz Shakir, Sanders's 2020 campaign manager and now an adviser to the senator, told me that Democrats 'are too far removed from organic and interesting conversations that people want to hear about, and have become too reliant on a one-way push at people about the things we want to tell them,' rather than actually listening to voters. Although he himself is a Harvard alumnus who lives and works in D.C., Shakir criticized the Democratic Party's perpetually buttoned-up ethos, the opposite of an unstructured podcast hang. He spoke about the power of anger—the defining emotion of the past political decade—as something that many Democrats don't know how to wield effectively. 'If you're angry, you're uncouth,' Shakir said. 'Calm down! That's not professional!' Unless Democrats stop worrying about politely conforming to pre-Trump communication mores, he believes the chasm with voters will continue to exist, hypothetical new-media ecosystem be damned. [John Hendrickson: Jake and Logan Paul hit the limits of the manosphere] Two things can be true at the same time: Many centrist Democrats may be too timid or genteel, and lack the moxie to speak with the anger that resonates with voters. But the cause of men's alienation from liberal politics cannot be distilled simply into perceptions of gentility. Nor is voicing rage a plausible way to hack the manosphere. When it comes to podcasts—the medium of the moment—a different emotion reigns: curiosity. Hosts such as Rogan and Von succeed across party lines not because they're indignant, but because they're inquisitive and, crucially, persuadable. Their talent is to seem real and relatable without trying. Throughout my conversations, I asked why liberals have not organically produced a figure of Rogan's magnitude and influence. No one really had an answer. But one thing became abundantly clear: No amount of strategic parsing will let Democrats fake their way through this moment. You can't buy authentic communication. Article originally published at The Atlantic
CNBC
28 minutes ago
- CNBC
Sen. Rick Scott on GOP reconciliation bill: We have to live within our means
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss the state of the budget battle in the Senate, fate of the Republican reconciliation package, finding wasteful spending, reforming Medicaid, immigration protests in L.A., and more.
