HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Southwest


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3061  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2026, 9:24 PM
Centralworks Centralworks is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by KEVINphx View Post
Honestly THEY SHOULD - the institution has the resources and we've fucked over enough of the historical built environment in Phoenix.
Apparently over the Last 10+ years ASU has made multiple offers to buy the House from the Guy. ASU had even offered too purchase and then pay to move the house for him. Now I bet the cost to move that house has tripled if not quadrupled since then.
In my opinion he was holding out for a massive payday that will probably not happen now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3062  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2026, 12:22 PM
combusean's Avatar
combusean combusean is offline
Skyriser
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: CA/AZ Nomad
Posts: 7,429
That's not true at all. The most amount ASU offered for the house, $800k, didn't cover the land acquisition or moving costs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3063  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2026, 1:38 PM
Centralworks Centralworks is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 13
I'm not saying its True. I'm just going what I've heard from a few people. I did read in the New Times article that the Owner himself is quoted Saying ASU offered $999K not 800k, So I know that is true.
I'm not for knocking the place down. They should work around it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3064  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2026, 4:48 PM
downtownphxguy12 downtownphxguy12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 187
couple thoughts:

Most growing cities tear down their old neighborhoods to make way for downtown buildings. like, every city. Paris tore down blocks of their midievel buildings in the 1850s. new york tore down all their gilded age mansions. The reason you see cute old downtowns in europe and in us cities (newport rhode island, astoria oregon) is because they were economically depressed and weren't growing(not because of some altruistic sentiment)

one tiny old house in the middle of a super block doesn't add much to the downtown. move it to one of the many vacant lots in garfield. the house was move once already.

not a fan of eminent domain. but this seems like a reasonable use for it in this case.

the news makes it seem like asu is kicking out a 89 year old from his home. its a rental property.

he bought all these properties years ago and doesn't fix them up. i stopped counting at 10 on the assessors page. they are all pretty run down. he's so concerned about historic homes he should sell them and let some family buy them and fix them up. i have an old girlfiend that lived in one of his home in willo neigbhood. all the neighbor homes were fixed up. her's look like a crappy rental.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3065  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2026, 12:16 PM
exit2lef exit2lef is offline
reasonably smart guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownphxguy12 View Post

not a fan of eminent domain. but this seems like a reasonable use for it in this case.
I'm open to most of your arguments, but this is one is a stretch for me. Eminent domain is an abrogation of private property rights that should be reserved only for the most exceptional circumstances in which no viable alternative method exists to address an essential public need. Classic examples would be a bridge that must be placed at a particular place or an airport runway that has to be extended for safety reasons.

An academic building, on the other hand, could be built elsewhere or redesigned to work around the house and the city's silly open space requirement. What's interesting here is that preservationists are often seen as a threat to private property rights when they try to block demolitions, but in this case private property rights are being asserted to leave a building standing rather than tearing it down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3066  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2026, 8:01 PM
TllrSkyline-01 TllrSkyline-01 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2022
Posts: 109
A NIMBY article that I thought was interesting.

When Worker Power got organized, Valley projects paid a Price. PHOENIX BUSINESS JOURNAL by Greg Barr - June 18, 2026

https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news...enddate=2026-06-19&utm_term=ep1&empos=p1


Arizona has spent years cultivating a reputation as one of the most business-friendly states in the nation — becoming a magnet for semiconductor factories, data centers, advanced manufacturing and aerospace facilities, not to mention a surging population to fill thousands of newly created jobs.

But a growing wave of community opposition is testing that identity – with a particular focus on data centers – and raising questions about whether the state’s appetite for growth is beginning to outpace the general public's tolerance for it. Residents and organized groups – notaby a group known as Worker Power – in recent years have mobilized against some of the Valley’s most high-profile development projects, delivering setbacks to companies and developers that once expected smoother paths to approval in the business-friendly state.


While that not-in-my-back-yard opposition seems to be coalescing around data centers these days, other projects have also faced heat in recent years and into 2026.

Just this week, a controversial aluminum recycling project from Indiana-based Aluminum Dynamics Inc. that had been moving full steam ahead in Benson, southeast of Tucson, was abruptly canceled by Aluminum Dynamics' parent company after an uproar from environmentalists that led to area residents recalling three City Council members who had approved the project.


Here's a quick look back at a few high-profile cases around the Valley in the past few years when Worker Power began to flex its collective muscles in order to sway public sentiment:

Arizona Coyotes hockey arena
The Arizona Coyotes, the beleaguered pro hockey team that struggled for decades amid myriad ownership changes and questionable business decisions, put together a plan in 2022 that would completely reverse its fortunes. After getting buy-in from the city of Tempe, the team pursued a voter referendum in May 2023 to allow it to oversee construction of a $2.3 billion arena and entertainment complex on a 46-acre site on a former city landfill.


National Hockey League Commissioner Gary Bettman visited Tempe more than once in the run-up to the vote to express his optimism and support the efforts of majority team owner Alex Meruelo. What the team didn't see coming, though, was a well-organized group known as Worker Power that mounted a strong grass-roots campaign based on opposition to tax breaks associated with the project that ended up defeating the measures on the ballot.

Team officials were visibly stunned after showing up at what was supposed to be a victory party on the night of the referendum vote. After one more half-hearted attempt to work out a deal to build an arena in north Phoenix, Meruelo ended up taking his consolation prize – $1 billion – when Bettman ordered him to sell the team to a Utah businessman in 2024.

VAI Resort
The billion-dollar VAI Resort in Glendale was unveiled in 2019, but it saw almost-immediate ownership changes amid myriad lawsuits and had its own run-ins with Worker Power. The opposition first appeared in 2023 when Worker Power filed suit against the city of Glendale over incentives being offered to the developer, VAI Resort LLC. Worker Power later withdrew the suit when the city removed the incentives from the development agreement.

Worker Power wasn't quite finished. The group was able to get enough signatures to get a $20 minimum wage initiative for hotel and event workers on Glendale’s November 2024 ballot. Although the initiative failed at the ballot box, Worker Power poured a lot of money into another election in 2025 where voters ended up being split on measures related to rezoning and adoption of a revised development agreement.

Meanwhile, nearly four years after the massive project's first completion target date of December 2022, VAI Resort is still not open.

Axon headquarters
Axon Enterprise’s bid to build a mixed-use headquarters campus in Scottsdale has had innumerable twists, turns and roadblocks. The company, one of Arizona’s most prominent publicly traded firms, proposed 1,900 apartments as part of its corporate campus, only to face fierce community resistance. Scottsdale City Council initially approved the project in November 2024, but an initiative petition effort kicked off a chaotic 2025 marked by lawsuits, Council infighting and a new state law designed to clear the path forward for Axon's $1.3 billion headquarters complex.

Axon publicly blamed Worker Power for driving opposition that was spearheaded by Scottsdale resident Bob Littlefield, the head of a group known as Taxpayers Against Awful Apartment Zoning Exceptions (TAAAZE).

Read more in this special report: Amid pushback from cities and citizens, where does the data center industry go from here?

A compromise was reached in November 2025 between Axon and Scottsdale officials that reduced the number of housing units to be built on the campus to 1,200. A pair of lawsuits were filed by TAAAZE in the wake of that compromise. The first, filed last September against the state of Arizona and the city of Scottsdale, challenges the constitutionality of the Axon bill. TAAAZE's motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction was denied in May, though Scottsdale has also been enjoined from issuing any permits to Axon for the time being. TAAAZE filed a notice of appeal in early June.

The second suit from TAAAZE was filed against Axon and the city of Scottsdale, related to the November compromise. A status update was held on June 10, though the case has been stayed pending a ruling in the lawsuit challenging the Axon bill.

For its part, Worker Power has denied that its involvement in the Axon campaign was improper. The group's stated concerns center on equity and corporate accountability, but critics, including developers and business advocates, argue its efforts are more about expanding union influence than addressing zoning or environmental concerns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3067  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2026, 9:50 PM
exit2lef exit2lef is offline
reasonably smart guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by TllrSkyline-01 View Post

Axon publicly blamed Worker Power for driving opposition that was spearheaded by Scottsdale resident Bob Littlefield, the head of a group known as Taxpayers Against Awful Apartment Zoning Exceptions (TAAAZE).
This an interesting example of horseshoe politics. Worker Power sounds pretty far to the left, and Bob Littlefield is very conservative. NIMBYism can definitely be a bipartisan diseases.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3068  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2026, 1:17 PM
DesertRay DesertRay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by exit2lef View Post
I'm open to most of your arguments, but this is one is a stretch for me. Eminent domain is an abrogation of private property rights that should be reserved only for the most exceptional circumstances in which no viable alternative method exists to address an essential public need. Classic examples would be a bridge that must be placed at a particular place or an airport runway that has to be extended for safety reasons.

An academic building, on the other hand, could be built elsewhere or redesigned to work around the house and the city's silly open space requirement. What's interesting here is that preservationists are often seen as a threat to private property rights when they try to block demolitions, but in this case private property rights are being asserted to leave a building standing rather than tearing it down.
I'm curious as to why airports and bridges are exceptions to sacred property rights and building a medical school isn't. I'm not saying medical schools are sacred (or, frankly, that anything should be sacred). We can put schools, bridges and airports where we choose to, and property owners need to make decisions based on those larger community choices. If property owners (like me) inform ourselves about the goings on, then it's all about assuming risks. Arizona needs doctors and nurses badly, and ASU is filling a gap. If this guy wants to paint himself as some sort of hero, that's fine, but every citizen I see at zoning meetings railing against change also cast themselves as some sort of Holy David against an evil Goliath. That lazy storyline is part of how the US became unable to build enough housing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3069  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2026, 2:28 PM
exit2lef exit2lef is offline
reasonably smart guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRay View Post
I'm curious as to why airports and bridges are exceptions to sacred property rights and building a medical school isn't.
Because transportation infrastructure often has to be located in specific locations due to engineering or safety considerations. For example, a bridge may need to be situated at a specific place where a body of water is narrower or less deep. An academic building, on the other hand, can be located in a wider range of places.

If you support expanded housing availability, you should support private property rights. It is restrictions of property rights such as single family zoning, parking minimums, and mandated separation of uses that impede the development of more housing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3070  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2026, 2:39 PM
DesertRay DesertRay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 411
Agree to Disagree

Quote:
Originally Posted by exit2lef View Post
Because transportation infrastructure often has to be located in specific locations due to engineering or safety considerations. For example, a bridge may need to be situated at a specific place where a body of water is narrower or less deep. An academic building, on the other hand, can be located in a wider range of places.

If you support expanded housing availability, you should support private property rights. It is restrictions of property rights such as single family zoning, parking minimums, and mandated separation of uses that impede the development of more housing.
I do support housing availability, which is why I don't make private property rights sacred. Too much NIMBYism hides behind that. I also don't make government or organizational desires sacred. It's super easy to make the individual property owner the hero, but there are very few heroes I have met. Most folks buy property to live in it or make a buck. Fair enough, but we have other needs, and most of those needs have nothing do with whether or not there is an existing body of water that narrows, or a mountain pass. Honestly, we would never be able to build everything if we don't weigh needs and then make decisions. Sometimes that means the government loses, sometimes it's the corporation or the organization, and sometimes it's the property owner. L.A. decided to destroy an entire beach community when they expanded their tiny propeller plane airport to LAX. Did they HAVE to put it there? No. Did property owners get screwed? Yup. Was it the right thing for L.A.? Seems like it. I mean, ASU may lose this thing, but it shouldn't because somehow property owners should win until some sort of act of God, or natural feature makes their case hopeless. Hell, most of us live in Phoenix because in the past somebody's desire to stop change was overruled. But, I get it--your opinion is the one that mostly gets reflected in the quick news blurbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3071  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2026, 5:46 PM
exit2lef exit2lef is offline
reasonably smart guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRay View Post
I do support housing availability, which is why I don't make private property rights sacred. Too much NIMBYism hides behind that.
Most NIMBYism is the antithesis of private property rights. When people try to keep development out of their neighborhoods, they're usually telling other people what they can't do with their property. A true culture of property rights is one that acknowledges that your neighbor can build an ADU or a developer can build apartments, even if you think those actions might diminish the value of your own property.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3072  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2026, 10:57 PM
DesertRay DesertRay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by exit2lef View Post
Most NIMBYism is the antithesis of private property rights. When people try to keep development out of their neighborhoods, they're usually telling other people what they can't do with their property. A true culture of property rights is one that acknowledges that your neighbor can build an ADU or a developer can build apartments, even if you think those actions might diminish the value of your own property.
Fair enough. Most of the folks I've met at these zoning hearings protesting this think that their sovereignty emanates around them to cover everybody else's behavior and decisions, but I totally agree that it SHOULD allow owners to do what they want within the laws/ordinances. I suspect that we wouldn't agree about what should be up for negotiations in regards to eminent domain, but I can respect your perspective on this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Southwest
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:27 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.