Desert Visions and the Making of Phoenix, 1860-2009

8 Political Change and Changing Policies in the 1960s and 1970s

232 Part III but with a dynamic of its own. The timing and nature of the city’s growth, its stage of development, created patterns a bit different than those of older and (initially) larger cities. In addition, the success of the Charter Government movement fostered another type of context for both politics and services. The forces of Charter Government controlled city government nearly to the end of these two decades, seeking to maintain policies that would sustain theirgoalsofeffectiveleadership,responsiblepolitics,efficientadministration, and economical services. This approach fit its political strategy of controlling thepoliticalcenter—tackingrighttocounterconservativeswhoopposedtaxes and favored the most limited type of government, and moving left to blunt liberal criticisms. Thus, it pursued a nonideological politics of growth and the efficient delivery of basic services, but this approach proved increasingly difficult to continue during these two decades. One challenge came from those groups left out of the original vision, for during the 1960s racial minorities, the poor, and their allies disputed the narrow, service-oriented notion of city government and attempted to have it address larger social problems. Beyond the major differences over policy, this conflict involved a struggle over power as well as publicly recognizing groups whose presence in the city had been largely ignored for decades. The city’s continuing growth posed further difficulties. Besides maintaining and improving services for the established neighborhoods, the city also had to provide them for new neighborhoods. Financing this expanding government required hard choices, particularly in terms of federal funds. Ultimately, Charter Government’s approach to city governance and politics fell victim to the success of its growth policies and to changing political attitudes and mobilization. By the 1970s, Phoenix politics involved a different blend of actors and conflicting perspectives on who should serve in government, what government should do, and how best to develop the city. Emerging from an increasingly constrictive political structure and a narrow definition of city services, Phoenix politics broadened to become more open and inclusive, a politics of people, not just administrative policies. charter government and politics of the center Politics remained central to the city’s continued growth efforts after 1960. Leaders worked for consensus on the best policies to continue economic development, to address new social issues, and to sustain an open political style and an efficient city administration that residents supported. Their political efforts and postwar vision of growth were, thus, much broader than Political Change and Changing Policies in the 1960s and 1970s 233 a narrow “growth machine” interest in land and property development, but over the next two decades the city’s expansion created competition and conflict among existing groups, and the emergence of new interests brought further political complexity.2 Into the 1970s, political control of Phoenix city government remained exclusively in the hands of Charter Government— with the sizable Charter Government Committee (CGC) and subcommittees appearing biennially, and with the direct control of the elected Charter Government slates of mayors and council members—but their uninterrupted electoral success suggests a degree of power and dominance that it did not possess. Charter Government retained office because of the committee ’s effective organization and hard work, but also because CGC and its nominees altered their strategies to meet different challenges and to defeat significantly different political opponents. The CGC’s core value was “selfless” civic participation; they touted the benefits generated by individuals allegedly seeking the general good. Council members were expected not only to reject the validity of interest-group politics, but, as Mayor Samuel Mardian explained to city council members, they would at times “be compelled by virtue of the public interest to render decisions which are not in accord with our personal viewpoints.” As model forms of civic participation, they pointed to the activities of existing volunteer and business service organizations, but also to the special volunteer groups like the Valley Beautiful Committee created in 1963. Even more significant in terms of city governance were the sizeable groups appointed every five or seven years to evaluate city policy, programs, and spending priorities— and their recommendations were mostly followed. Three such groups were formed from 1957 to 1969, each time involving hundreds of citizens. During the 1970s a number of groups were organized to evaluate problems related to urban growth and recommend policies.3 In the 1960s and 1970s Charter Government resolutely championed the election of council members in citywide elections as the best way to promote its ideals...