Arizona

Bill aiming to keep Axon from leaving Arizona advances as battle lines are drawn

Published

9 months ago

March 27, 2025

Press Room

Bill aiming to keep Axon from leaving Arizona advances as battle lines are drawn

Taser company Axon wants to build a new headquarters in Scottsdale, Arizona, but plans for apartments are causing controversy.
Opponents argue Scottsdale has enough apartments and want Axon to build without housing, while the company says it’s essential for attracting employees.
The Arizona House is considering a bill that would override local zoning laws and allow the project to proceed, despite a referendum challenging the development.

A bill that would pave the way for Taser maker Axon to build its campus in north Scottsdale cleared its first hurdle, but the company’s desire to build apartments remains the crux of a controversy in which neither side is willing to budge.

Opponents to the bill, which would loosen zoning laws to allow apartments and hotels to be built as ancillary developments to corporate global headquarters, contend that Scottsdale has thousands of apartments in the development pipeline, and has no need for more.

Supporters of the bill claim the company headquarters is not viable without the apartments, which will include units reserved for Axon employees. Axon, which posted revenues of $2.1 billion in 2024, says it will employ 5,500 people at the new headquarters, if it gets built.

Axon’s proposal includes an expanded global headquarters for the law enforcement technology company, along with a hotel and about 1,900 multifamily housing units, including both for-sale and for-rent units.

The proposal has been subject to intense controversy after a group opposing the project, called Taxpayers Awful Apartment Zoning Exemptions (TAAAZE) gathered enough signatures to force an election over the Scottsdale City Council’s late 2024 approval of the project.

The bill would effectively nullify any outcome of the referendum election, because if passed, the project would be allowed to be built with the site’s existing zoning without the change that has been challenged.

The Arizona House of Representatives’ International Trade committee voted unanimously March 26 to advance the bill, with two members absent from voting.

The bill is still in the hearing process and requires approval from both the legislature and the governor before it could be enacted into law.

Apartments ‘100%’ the source of the Axon HQ controversy

At the committee hearing, all three speakers who spoke in opposition to the bill said without the apartments, they would embrace Axon. Two Scottsdale councilmembers, Vice Mayor Jan Dubauskas and Councilman Barry Graham, spoke in opposition to the bill, along with former Arizona legislator Michelle Ugenti-Rita, who spoke on behalf of TAAAZE.

When questioned by legislators on the committee, Ugenti-Rita said apartments were “100%” the reason behind her group’s opposition, but said the bill’s subversion of the referendum process denies Scottsdale residents their right to vote on the issue.

“This isn’t about taking care of jobs or economic growth,” she said in the hearing, which was standing room only, full of Axon employees wearing matching yellow shirts. “This is about one man who wants to avoid an election.”

Ugenti-Rita said the issue should be decided by Scottsdale residents and leadership, not at the state level.

If the proposal was so strong, she said, Axon executives would be in Scottsdale working to gain support, not trying to avoid a potential loss at the election.

TAAAZE members who have led the charge opposing Axon have said they are prepared to sue the state over the bill if it is passed into law.

“Axon can expect a tooth-and-nail fight in court if its bill survives,” Bob Littlefield, former Scottsdale Councilman and leader of TAAAZE, said in an email. “In addition, TAAAZE is prepared to challenge this legislation via referendum at the ballot box, assuming Axon doesn’t convince the legislature to take away more voting rights.”

Both Dubauskas and Graham echoed that their opposition only hinged on the apartments.

“Residents would look me in the eye and say, ‘Can you stop the apartments?’” Dubauskas said of her time campaigning for City Council.

Scottsdale is proud to have Axon in the community, she said, adding there is no opposition over the hotel and restaurant uses proposed on the site.

Graham was on the city’s Planning Commission when Axon brought forward the first version of the plan, which involved only the company’s global headquarters. He said at the time he supported the proposal, which did not include apartments.

However, Graham said he hoped his opposition to the apartments did not drive Axon away from the city.

“They purchased their property with the zoning, and we hope they use it to its fullest extent,” he said.

Scottsdale’s ‘anti-development’ stance criticized

However, lawmakers on the committee said they felt frustrated with the opposition to the development without effort to compromise, and said they felt there was an overall anti-development sentiment from Scottsdale.

Graham said he disagreed with the notion that Scottsdale is anti-development and said there are many new developments in the pipeline that were approved by the city.

House Majority Leader Michael Carbone, a Republican from Buckeye, said Scottsdale has not supported statewide legislation that promotes housing or attempts to make homeownership more affordable. They city, he said, has done little to make housing accessible for essential workers.

Justin Wilmeth, a Republican from north Phoenix, pointed to the Arizona Coyotes’ attempt to develop a site in Phoenix that bordered Scottsdale. While the site was in Phoenix, then-Scottsdale Mayor David Ortega voiced opposition for the project because of its proximity to Scottsdale.

“The Arizona Coyotes should be on (that site) and you guys helped mess that up,” Wilmeth said of the Scottsdale City Council.

Consuelo Hernandez, a Democrat from Tucson, said the opposition to the apartments “screams ‘not in my backyard.’”

The three speakers who addressed the committee opposing the bill said they would be willing to meet with Axon to negotiate, but did not provide specific points that would lead to a consensus.

Bill supporters: Keeping a global headquarters in Arizona is essential

Without the bill, the Axon proposed development is scheduled to go before Scottsdale voters in November 2026. However, company executives have repeatedly said there is no willingness to wait that long for a decision on the future headquarters location.

Axon CEO Rick Smith said the company’s board of directors has given him a deadline of the end of the legislative session to decide.

Supporters of the bill who spoke at the hearing were Peoria Mayor Jason Beck, Greater Phoenix Leadership CEO Neil Giuliano and Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry CEO Danny Seiden.

Guiliano said having a company’s global headquarters in Arizona can drive further economic development, and said a campus like the one Axon is proposing is a sustainable approach that allows people to live near their jobs if they choose.

Having housing options in a city for workers who work there is important, Seiden said.

New businesses, new jobs and company relocations to Arizona are things that any city would want and celebrate, he said.

“To say we don’t want workers to be able to afford to live in the same city, that’s just not right,” he said.

When asked by Rep. Stacey Travers, a Democrat from Phoenix, if there were any other businesses that would also be able to use the proposed benefits in the legislation, Seiden said he did not know of any others, but that the bill would set the stage for others to consider Arizona as a corporate headquarters location.

Beck, mayor of Peoria and CEO of Tyr Tactical, a manufacturer of law enforcement safety equipment, said the consequences of not finding a way to secure Axon in Arizona would be “catastrophic to economic development.”

“I’d take this opportunity in a heartbeat, and I would beg for it,” Beck told the committee.

Legislators request negotiation between Axon, Scottsdale

Several members of the committee said they voted in favor of moving the bill forward, but would prefer to see a productive dialogue between the city and Axon.

While they could not require the two groups to meet, legislators said they hoped there could be a solution worked out between parties.

After the hearing, Scottsdale Mayor Lisa Borowksy said in a statement she would like to work with the company on a compromise.

“I stand ready to work with Axon to achieve reasonable goals with their leadership while protecting our city and our residents’ interests,” she said in a statement. “I am a strong believer in ‘the art of the possible’ and I am confident we can achieve a workable solution, if all in good faith. I hope I can count on Rick Smith and his team to do the same.”

Like this story? Get more East Valley news straight into your email inbox by signing up for our free weekly East Valley Newsletter, which comes out on Wednesdays.

Corina Vanek covers development for The Arizona Republic. Reach her at cvanek@arizonarepublic.com. Follow her on X @CorinaVanek.

Source link

Click to comment

Arizona

Arizona State men’s basketball cruises past NAU for 8th win

Published

21 hours ago

December 10, 2025

Press Room

Arizona State men’s basketball cruises past NAU for 8th win

The Arizona State Sun Devils were looking to improve on the win they chalked up three days ago against Oklahoma. They did, sort of.

ASU added a 73-48 win over visiting Northern Arizona on Dec. 9 at Desert Financial Arena for its fifth win in the last six outings.

Defense has been the team’s focus in the last two weeks, and that showed as the Sun Devils (8-2) held their opponent to a season-low point total. Coach Bobby Hurley said the team’s goal was to hold the Lumberjacks (4-5) to under 49 points. Mission accomplished there.

ASU shot 50% 26-for-52) for the game, with an even split, 15-for-30 in the first and 11-for-22 in the second half. NAU shot 33.3% (17-for-51), which included a 5-for-26 from long distance.

What went right

Got scoring punch from the bench: ASU is 8-0 when getting more points from its bench than the opponent, and 0-2 when it does not. In this one, it wasn’t even close as the Sun Devils had a significant advantage here, 33-3. Allen Mukeba had 10, Anthony “Pig” Johnson nine, and Marcus Adams 8.

Rebounded better: This is an area where the Sun Devils have made noticeable strides in the last two games, and this was an opponent ASU should have bested on the board because it was one of the few where they have had a size advantage. The Sun Devils won the battle 41-15, with a 10-4 edge on the offensive glass and a 31-21 advantage on the defensive boards. Santiago Trout had eight, with Mukeba, Andrija Grbovic, and Massamba Diop each collecting six.

Used inside presence: The 7-0 freshman Diop had a career-high 19 points on an 8-for-10 showing from the field. Hurley said his team didn’t go to him enough

What went wrong

A few too many turnovers: ASU had 13, which is too many against a .500 foe. NAU had 10 steals, and it wasn’t exactly pressuring the ball. It was the area in which Hurley was most disappointed. Diop had four. The Sun Devils were fortunate NAU only manufactured 12 points off those turnovers. NAU also had 13 turnovers, and ASU scored 23 points off those.

A bit sluggish in the first half: ASU ended the first half up 35-26. It was up 11-2, then faltered a bit, and the Lumberjacks actually went ahead 14-13 with 10:40 left in the half.

Personnel notes

ASU has used the same starting lineup for all 10 games this season. A total of 10 athletes entered the game and all of them scored. The last person to score was Moe Odum, who came in averaging 18.9 points per game. His only two points came at the line with 30 seconds left.

Up next

The Sun Devils are back on the road for another neutral site game, the fifth of the season. ASU will square off with Santa Clara (8-2) in the Jack Jones Hoop Hall Classic at 5 p.m. on Dec. 13 at Lee’s Family Forum in Henderson, Nevada. ASU is 3-1 in neutral-site games while the Broncos are 1-1.

The teams played last season with ASU prevailing 81-74.

Source link

Arizona

Arizona Diamondbacks hire rival exec to help revamp pitching pipeline

Published

1 day ago

December 9, 2025

Press Room

Arizona Diamondbacks hire rival exec to help revamp pitching pipeline

The Arizona Diamondbacks have hired Jeremy Bleich from the Pittsburgh Pirates as their new assistant general manager.
Bleich will be responsible for overseeing the organization’s pitching development.

The Diamondbacks have hired executive Jeremy Bleich away from the Pittsburgh Pirates in an assistant general manager role, sources said this week. Bleich will oversee the organization’s pitching development.

It is the latest change the Diamondbacks have made in hopes of revamping their pitching infrastructure, which has lagged behind the industry for years.

General manager Mike Hazen said last month the club was likely to push its pitchers harder from a strength and conditioning standpoint in hopes of generating more big-league-caliber arms.

Bleich had been the Pirates’ director of pitching development. That organization has done well developing pitching — both starters and relievers — in recent years. This past season, the Pirates posted the third-best ERA (3.76) in the National League with a staff that included several homegrown arms.

Bleich, 38, pitched parts of 11 seasons in professional baseball. He was drafted 44th overall out of Stanford by the New York Yankees in 2008. He made two appearances in the majors with the Oakland Athletics in 2018.

Bleich is the first high-ranking external addition the Diamondbacks have made to their front office in years.

Source link

Arizona

Thin Blue Warning: How Arizona law enforcement can use warning shots despite Shannon’s Law

Published

2 days ago

December 9, 2025

Press Room

Thin Blue Warning: How Arizona law enforcement can use warning shots despite Shannon’s Law

PHOENIX – Arizona law enforcement agencies have the option to fire warning shots, but it’s a rare and controversial tactic.

Until November, the Sedona Police Department allowed the practice under specific circumstances. But policing experts argue that firing a gun into the air to deter a threat conflicts with state law.

What they’re saying:

In the responses from more than 40 law enforcement agencies, a majority gave a resounding “no” on a questionable tactic. We discovered some departments allow warning shots — raising serious concerns about legality, accountability and public safety.

We can confirm that the Sedona Police Department’s policy no longer allows officers to use warning shots. Ex-Deputy Chief Ryan Kwitkin says it’s about time.

“It’s unsafe to fire warning shots. This isn’t the Wild West,” Kwitkin said.

Kwitkin is the plaintiff in an ongoing lawsuit against the city. Kwitkin is suing the city of Sedona and some of its top officials, including the police chief. The city has denied the allegations and cannot comment on pending litigation.

Former Sedona Deputy Police Chief Ryan Kwitkin

Kwitkin was fired in August 2024, months after being placed on paid administrative leave.

His attorney claims his termination was unlawful and that Kwitkin faced retaliation from Chief Stephanie Foley for raising policy concerns — like the ability to fire warning shots.

“I went to Chief Foley and explained that under no circumstance should we allow warning shots,” Kwitkin said.

When asked what the chief’s response was, Kwitkin said: “That we’re not changing the policy. That it’s only under certain circumstances.”

When the Sedona Police Department was asked if there have been any documented incidents involving warning shots since 2020, records show none were fired in the last five years.

Joe Clure, executive director for the Arizona Police Officers Association

“Why would they leave it in their policy for so long until just recently?” we asked Joe Clure, executive director for the Arizona Police Officers Association. “Frankly it’s clear they have some leadership challenges at the Sedona Police Department.”

Clure has publicly questioned the Sedona PD’s leadership and the previous warning shot policy.

Here’s what Sedona’s policy used to say: “Warning shots or shots fired for the purpose of summoning aid are discouraged and may not be discharged unless the member reasonably believes that they appear necessary, effective, and reasonably safe.”

FOX 10 obtained the modified policy, which says, “Firing a firearm in a manner commonly referred to as a ‘warning shot’ is expressly prohibited in all circumstances.”

“But a lot of the concerns that I brought up were for the best interests of the citizens of Sedona, the police department, and just moving the department into the 21st century of best police practices,” Kwitkin said.

Clure said, “I think by anybody’s standard risk management should be screaming about that because it is a huge liability, I believe, and very dangerous for the community to have that even as a possibility.”

Dig deeper:

FOX 10 Investigates reached out to dozens of law enforcement agencies across Arizona to ask if their policies allow warning shots.

We received more than 40 responses from major agencies like Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe, along with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. Nearly all of them said warning shots are prohibited.

Here are some of the reasons:

Mesa PD’s policy says: “… they may prompt a suspect to return fire and may endanger innocent bystanders.”

Pinal County Sheriff’s Office replied by saying: “Like firing a deadly weapon as a warning? That is not allowed.”

Flagstaff PD’s policy says: “Warning shots are rarely effective and pose a danger to the officer and the community if used in lieu of deadly force on a suspect.”

Forty out of 44 agencies that responded say no to warning shots. That’s 90%.

The four agencies on the opposite end:

Tolleson Police say warning shots are “generally” discouraged unless the officer believes it’s necessary, effective and safe.
Lake Havasu City PD and the Greenlee County Sheriff’s Office have the same language in their policies.
Paradise Valley PD says, “Officers will not generally, fire warning shots” — but use-of-force decisions are discretionary and must be “objectively reasonable” based on the circumstances.

Big picture view:

“We created a law for just that reason, to prevent those types of rounds being fired so that they don’t to prevent them from inadvertently striking another innocent person,” Clure said.

The law is called Shannon’s Law. It is named after 14-year-old Shannon Smith, who was in the backyard of her Phoenix home when she was killed by a stray bullet in June 1999.

“When we met with the police, they told us that this is something that goes on all the time. That this is something we have to live with. We said ‘oh no, this is something that the community does not have to live with.’ Something that can be stopped,” said Lory Smith, Shannon’s mother, in a 2007 news report.

In 2000, Shannon’s parents worked hard to pass Shannon’s Law, making it a Class 6 felony to negligently fire a gun into the air within the limits of any Arizona municipality.

But the statute lists some exceptions, like a special permit of the chief of police of the municipality.

Benjamin Taylor, attorney at Taylor & Gomez Law

“What they have is what you call governmental immunity. So, a lot of times a law enforcement officer can be immune or exempt from Shannon’s Law if they’re using it in a reasonable manner. That’s where they can fire in the air. And Shannon’s Law wouldn’t apply to law,” said Benjamin Taylor, attorney at Taylor & Gomez Law.

But the risk, he says, is obvious. For law enforcement agencies, the approach to policy is “to each their own.”

“A simple fix and solution would be to change your policy. Don’t train your officers in the academy that they’re allowed to shoot a warning shot,” Taylor said.

AZPOST is the state’s Peace Officers Standards and Training Board. Its executive director tells FOX 10 that AZPOST doesn’t have the authority to direct internal policies of law enforcement agencies on warning shots.

Clure says it’s common sense for chiefs and sheriffs to ban it for good.

“Just because it’s the police officer firing that round doesn’t mean that that bullet’s any less dangerous or any more apt to go strike an unintended victim,” Clure said.

Policies are changing

The Round Valley Police Department is changing its policy after being asked if officers could fire warning shots. This department was recently investigated by the Department of Public Safety for misconduct issues.

Interim Chief Jeff Sharp said Round Valley’s original policy says it’s generally discouraged to fire warning shots unless deemed necessary and reasonably safe. But immediately following our questions about the policy, he amended it to say, “Warning shots are not authorized,” which shows it’s up to the respective agency’s chief or sheriff to decide.