But sometimes there are no underdogs.

The big Quail Canyon rezoning battle facing the Pima County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday is a dilemma.it’s a struggle between California based developer Some have Tucson roots, and neighbors in the affluent lower Catalina Foothills are trying to keep things as they are.

The facts of this case also present a dilemma. His 326-unit reclamation development on the old golf course will add needed housing, but in my mind there are serious questions, mainly about the loss of riverbank vacant land and road safety. is occurring.

Still, there is one factor that sticks in my mind and favors this project. This is a built-in advantage given to neighbors by state law and may deter land readjustments.

according to law If a minority of neighboring property owners protest, the rezoning can only be passed by a 4:1 or 5:0 supermajority vote. A 3-2 vote in favor of the project on Tuesday would still kill it.

Specifically, the criteria that require a supermajority vote are protests from property owners representing 20 percent of landowners within 300 feet and 20 percent of the area within 300 feet.

In this case, 16 out of 49 (33%) neighborhood property owners protested, and they occupy about 24 acres (44%) of the neighborhood’s land. Therefore, a majority vote is triggered.

The old golf course where the dispute ended, located near West Ludasil Road and North Oracle Road, closed about five years ago. Located far below residential to the east and businesses to the west, it sits in a basin lush with trees and traversed by Pima Wash.

The development plan will have 210 apartments in seven buildings in the northwestern part of the 58-acre site. In the south and east part of the site, 116 detached houses will be densely built across the washroom.

Existing neighbors don’t particularly like the density, and opposition to the plan could be the difference between a narrow vote and a win. It will also put additional pressure on Rex Scott, the supervisor representing the district where the project is taking place.

Scott is the Democrat who traditionally won the first Republican congressional seat in 2020 by just 730 votes. Like other managers, he’s slated for his re-election next year, and this vote could make a difference.

Supervisors often give some respect to the judgment of their colleagues in the district to which the project belongs, so that their votes can sway enough of the other votes to determine the outcome.

Mr. Scott told me that he hasn’t decided how he’s going to vote yet, as anyone who’s asked has said. But he said he met with his neighbors and said he took their concerns about factors such as traffic on Rudasil and other roads, impacts on the Pimawash region and flooding seriously.

But when I asked him about this as an infill housing project, Scott seemed enthusiastic.

“The argument for this being a good embedding project is pretty strong,” he says. “Adjacent to Oracle Road and close to quite a few commercial developments and hotels.”

“I don’t think this is a surprising change from what already exists.”

This is pretty much what project attorney Rory Juneman, head of Urbania Investment Partners, was trying to argue when he guided the proposal through neighborhood meetings, redesign, and approval by planning and zoning boards. close.

“Our core claim is that the project is responsible and sustainable development for the region. Infill is a big plus,” he told me. “This is a better option than scraping away native vegetation in the desert and building it on the outskirts of the county.”

Republican Steve Spainlost to Scott in 2020, but is already planning a rematch and sees this as a potential problem in the race.

The Spanish side said in an email that it “wanted to have a lower density and see proposals from local developers rather than California developers.” “But Mr. Scott has never seen a tax he didn’t want to spend, so he’s probably overjoyed at the income this brings.”

Luckily for Scott, the development districts are strongly Democratic. And anyway, he says, he doesn’t consider electoral implications in these kinds of decisions.

“Any time you worry about the outcome of an election or try to dabble in an issue, it’s not doing the right thing for voters. I would like to be able to explain the reasons for the decision of

Neighbor Leslie Page’s backyard overlooked the southern part of the development, which is lined with tightly packed single-family homes.

“You’ll be able to see what they’re having for dinner or watching TV,” she said.

but she says organized opposition to the project It’s not just a NIMBY or “not in my backyard” position.

“We’re called that, but it’s more a public safety concern than NIMBY,” she added.

“We want to develop, but we also want to protect riparian areas and reduce densities,” Page said. “The higher the density, the more people are at risk.”

She is particularly concerned about traffic on Rudasil Road, the entrance to all 210 proposed apartments. I got the point when we toured the area together on Friday morning. I don’t think it’s a safe road to accept more traffic. They also worry about flooding at new projects, and on land downstream if Quail Canyon is built.

However, the County Transportation Authority and the Regional Flood Control District blessed the project with a stipulation on how it would be constructed to alleviate these problems.

Page, who moved to the area from Kansas in 2020, said Scott and county officials met with her and other neighbors and felt their voices were being heard.

When I asked Scott about possible problems with NIMBY, he offered a surprising observation, given the high stakes decisions that had to be made.

“I have read various articles about how zoning issues across the country are likely to be impacted by people who are more likely to be politically connected, older, wealthier, and white. ‘, he said.

In other words, people like the people who have protested against this project.

Scott says people who benefit more from such housing developments are less likely to be heard or even vote.

Of course, this is also reflected in state laws that place great value on the opinions of a small number of neighbors. Juneman, the lawyer for the project, did some background research on this law for me, and he said it dates back to 1973.

I don’t know how I would vote if I was in Scott’s shoes. I like this new housing idea and think the current design at least minimally protects the washrooms and allows animal traffic to continue. But I’m skeptical of Rudasil’s transportation plans, and hate to see 58 acres of vacant land cut almost in half, with critters swarming its narrow passages.

Considering the current house price crisis, I would probably vote for it. This is not an affordable housing project, but new homes at all income levels are needed to stabilize the recent surge in housing prices.

And I really want to change the laws that give so much importance to the minority of people in the neighborhood.