Key Points:

• A citizen group has filed a challenge to a law allowing Axon to build its global headquarters

• The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the law

• Axon says the lawsuit could jeopardize 5,550 new jobs in the state

A group that opposes a new law that will allow Axon to build apartments at its global headquarters in north Scottsdale will file a lawsuit against the state to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation.

Taxpayers Against Awful Apartment Zoning Exemptions, or TAAAZE, announced that it would file the lawsuit on Sept. 25, a day before the law was set to take effect. The city of Scottsdale was also going to be named in the lawsuit, according to a TAAAZE press release.

TAAAZE opposes the law because the group says it was passed to specifically benefit one company and bypass a ballot measure that would’ve allowed voters to determine the fate of the project, located near Loop 101 and Hayden Road.

“This lawsuit is about two of our State Constitution’s most important principles. First, it’s about the right of Arizona voters to hold referenda and vote directly on legislation passed by their city councils but with which they disagree,” said Alexis Danneman, a partner at law firm Perkins Coie, LLP, and lead counsel for TAAAZE, in a statement. “Second, it’s about the Constitution’s ban on so-called ‘special laws,’ like the Axon Bill, that confer special privileges and benefits on a specific company or group. The Axon bill passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor is the very definition of special interest legislation and it is illegal in the state of Arizona.”

The new law will require cities with populations between 200,000 and 500,000 to allow hotels and multifamily residential housing to be built in areas zoned for light industrial use without needing an application that would require a public hearing.

Axon’s plans originally called for approximately 1,900 apartments and condominiums, a hotel, and retail integrated into the facility, sparking a debate between supporters and opponents of the project.

“It’s time to let this arrogant company know they can’t force Scottsdale to accept an unprecedented apartment complex without a public vote. And certainly not without a fight,” said TAAAZE Chairman Bob Littlefield in a statement.

TAAAZE decided to move forward with the lawsuit after the Scottsdale City Council withdrew an agenda item at a meeting earlier this month to authorize legal action, and voted a few days later to file a notice of claim, which would reserve the city’s right to challenge the law.

Some City Council members cited ongoing negotiations with the company as a reason not to approve a lawsuit.

A city spokeswoman declined to comment, saying it would be premature to discuss the matter until the city had seen the actual lawsuit.

Axon spokesman David Leibowitz referred to the lawsuit as Littlefield’s “latest tactic in a well-worn playbook to stall progress.”

In a statement, Leibowitz also highlighted what he claims is a conflict of interest: Littlefield’s wife, Kathy Littlefield, serves as a Scottsdale City Council member. Kathy Littlefield was the only member who voted against filing a notice of claim.

“The real losers here are Scottsdale and Arizona with Bob putting 5,550 new quality jobs and hundreds of millions in public revenue at risk,” Leibowitz said.

TAAAZE has opposed the project ever since the council initially approved zoning for the headquarters last November, although the majority of the current council members took office after the approval.

Once the zoning was approved, TAAAZE collected enough signatures to send the measure to the ballot, despite some residents expressing opposition to the project.

However, the law, introduced during the last legislative session as Senate Bill 1543, cleared the way for the project without requiring voter approval.

The group then filed a referendum application to send the legislation to the ballot after it was approved in April, but always kept open the possibility of a lawsuit.