Following
the hearing Becker’s attorney, Robert Stewart, said he will
file a motion seeking a stay on the ruling. Stewart also said
he believes Becker can appeal the ruling to Maricopa County
Superior Court, even though it was unclear if an appeal would
be permitted. According to Scottsdale Assistant City Attorney
Luis Santaella, who argued the city’s case against Becker,
the ruling is not appealable under state law.
Becker
contended that the exercise bicycle, candy‑cane‑like
poles, furniture and spherical and polygonal structures on
his property are “art pieces” and questioned how the city
could sit in judgment “over his heart” and items he paid to
have created.
“The
city is trying to enforce a nonexistent ordinance on art,”
said Becker. “It’s being unfair, unreasonable and underhanded.”
Testifying
for the city, Doug Flack, a Scottsdale code inspector, said
he is offended by what he sees on Becker’s property, that
the land has been “molested,” and that during the last several
years he has heard from hundreds of residents who agree with
him.
Raun
Keagy, Scottsdale’s neighborhood services director, testified
he, too, has received several
hundreds of phone complaints but not a single call in support
of Becker’s displays.
Becker
countered that he gets only kudos for his art objects, stating
that when he is on the property people drive by, blow their
horns and give him the thumbs‑up sign, encouraging him
not to let the city beat him down. He added that he put the
old exercise bicycle on the property as a tribute to the hundreds
of cyclists who travel up and down Pima Road on the weekends.
“One
of them saw me getting into my car the other day and told
me to ‘keep it up,’” he said.
The
candy‑cane poles on the property are to remind people
of a cooler time of the year, according
to Becker, who added that the colors of the stripes pay tribute
to the favorite professional football teams of his two children.
He said he’d like to add to the winter reminders by putting
up a “big snowball.”
A
60‑year‑old retired stock trader, Becker purchased
the parcel at a State Land Department auction a decade ago
and filed for a General Plan Amendment in 2005, which he later
withdrew. He wanted to build a resort, assisted living facility
and homes on the property. The land is currently zoned for
one home per every 5 acres, the lowest density in the city.
“No
one would buy 5 acres and build a home here because the traffic
noise is deafening,” said Becker. “Pima used to be a road,
but now it’s become a highway.”
In
disputing Becker’s claim that the city is violating his First
Amendment rights, Santaella emphasized that the items on Becker’s
property are “everyday objects with no message or cohesion.”
Becker again disagreed, stating that he has many of the same
objects displayed at his home and that art is a matter of
personal preference.
To
support his argument that the city’s abatement action was
discriminatory, Stewart introduced numerous photographs of
art pieces–some of them highly abstract in nature–displayed
in Scottsdale and in other places around the Valley. Santaella
pointed out that these objects were either in the Scottsdale
Art District, on developed properties, outside Scottsdale
or not on land designated Environmentally Sensitive Land,
as is Becker’s parcel.
“It’s
okay for the city to display a giant baseball in front of
Scottsdale Stadium, but it’s not okay for me to display art
on a piece of land I bought and paid for,” said Becker. “The
art on my property makes people think; it expands their knowledge.”
Becker
denied putting up the objects simply to tweak the city in
response to several run‑ins he’s had with Scottsdale
officials.
