Tucson has a weird system of ward voting, and there is a movement in Scottsdale to adopt something similar.

The City of Tucson has a weird election system in which voters in wards select candidates for the city council in a primary election, but then all voters in the city, regardless of the ward they reside in, can vote for any candidate in the general election. 

Critics of the system, especially Republicans, say that it is one of the reasons for the city having a de facto one-party city government for decades.  It is almost impossible, they claim, for a candidate from the GOP to win a city council general election.  As such, in what is probably a quixotic effort, they are trying to get a measure passed to revamp the system

My belief is that a one-party city government is a prescription for dysfunction and hubris, regardless of which party has been in control for decades.  That’s certainly true for Tucson.

Now, amazingly, the mayor of Scottsdale and other influencers in that city wants to adopt a ward system for council elections.  Since there is no ballot measure yet, it’s unclear if the system would mirror Tucson’s system or would allow winning candidates from newly established wards to be elected without having to win a city-wide vote.  Either way, the proponents of a ward system for Scottsdale are trying to fix a system that isn’t broken and that has worked very well.

Scottsdale has nonpartisan, city-wide elections, and council candidates have to win over voters from the entire city, a city of 241,361 people.

My opinion is that Scottsdale is one of the best-run cities in America, an opinion that was formed from the seven years that I covered the city and the rest of the Northeast Valley of metro Phoenix as a community columnist for the Arizona Republic.  It’s an opinion backed up by demographic facts.

However, because Scottsdale is a long but narrow city, with the southern half being the oldest and least wealthy, some residents in the southern half don’t agree with that assessment.  They have claimed for a long time that they get shortchanged in attention and money from City Hall, especially because the majority of council members live in the northern half.

My past research showed that the claim of being shortchanged was poppycock, and I came to that conclusion as a longtime resident of the southern half.  The city has spent huge sums on beautification and redevelopment in the southern half, including the Sky Song center at Scottsdale and McDowell roads, the beautification of Indian Bend Rd., the code enforcement and property maintenance enforcement that stopped a south side neighborhood from becoming slum-like, the corresponding extra policing on the south side, the events and amenities at the Civic Center Plaza, and the redevelopment and revitalization of parts of downtown and Old Town, including the beautiful Waterfront development next to Fashion Square Mall.

In addition, the south side benefits the most from the beautiful Indian Bend Wash and its string of parks, athletic fields, golf courses, fishing lakes, and immaculately maintained walking and biking paths.  The wash runs south from Shea Blvd. to the city limit of Tempe, and from there, it continues to Tempe Town Lake, where the walk/bike path merges into a walk/bike path that runs east and west along the Salt River.

Incidentally, the Indian Bend Wash is an example of Scottsdale’s tradition of visionary government.  Many years ago, the Army Corps of Engineers had wanted to control flooding by cementing over the wash and turning it into a permanent eyesore. The city prevailed in transforming it into what it is today:  a green belt of parks and other attractions used by not only Scottsdale residents but residents of other municipalities.

Tucson hasn’t fared as well as Scottsdale.  That’s an opinion that I formed from living in metro Tucson for the last six years and from studying key demographics for the city and surrounding county.

Don’t take my word for it.  Take the word of Area Vibes, which is an organization and website (areavibes.com) that compares cities on several variables.  Below are the grades that it gives Tucson and Scottsdale on what I consider to be the factors that best reflect the differences in how the two cities have been governed over the last half-century.

	Tucson	Scottsdale
Crime	F	B-
Employment	D	A+
Schools	D+	A-
Amenities	B	A+

Tucson would get another “F” and Scottsdale would get another “A+” if upkeep, code enforcement, the condition of streets, and the cost and responsiveness of city government were considered.

Many in the Tucson establishment rationalize Tucson’s lower grades by the fact that it isn’t as wealthy as Scottsdale.  They have a point, given that Scottsdale’s median household income of approximately $91,000 is nearly two times greater than Tucson’s median household income.  That puts Scottsdale’s income at about the same level as the suburban area of metro Tucson known as the Foothills, which is in unincorporated Pima County.

But Scottsdale’s higher income didn’t happen by chance or an act of God.  It was the result of its nonpartisan election/political system and its visionary city leaders, especially former Mayor Herb Drinkwater.

Moreover, Scottsdale isn’t very wealthy compared to truly wealthy locales, although its first-class amenities and appearance suggest otherwise.  For example, the St. Louis suburb of Ladue has a median household income that is 2.7 times greater than Scottsdale’s.  In a similar vein, income is 1.7 times greater in Mountain View, California; 2.3 times greater in Chevy Chase, Maryland; and 2.2 times greater in Paradise Valley, Arizona, a town next door to Scottsdale.

In conclusion, it’s hard to see what Scottsdale would gain by emulating Tucson.