A Tale of Two Cities – East Valley Version – Florence and Queen Creek and San Tan Valley, Oh, MY!
Once upon a time in the East Valley……..

There was a place called San Tan Valley. It’s a place that has garnered a lot of press lately, considering it is an unincorporated area between Queen Creek and Florence. This really is the Littlest Big Town That Could. It could be so many things - if only the neighboring communities would step back and let the 70,000 plus people who live there decide for themselves.

It’s the Littlest Big Town That Could because while the population is heavyweight (9th Largest in Arizona!) the influence is bantamweight. Trying for years to become independent, San Tan Valley has been hampered by the 6 Mile Veto – a law that demands any area wishing to incorporate to secure “resolutions” from all neighboring incorporated areas. For the folks in San Tan Valley, this means courting Queen Creek, Mesa, Gilbert and Florence.

Which brings us to the present – where the same presented data, by the same group (The Citizens for San Tan Valley Incorporation), and the same venue of a Mayor and a town council both bring 7-0 votes…..but while Queen Creek chose the 7-0 Attaboy, Florence chose the 7-0 Smackdown. Two cities – one to the north and one to the south – one with vision, the other blinded.

As a mental health professional, this is extremely study-worthy. What went wrong in Florence -and the converse – what went right in Queen Creek?

The mindset of Florence was one of protectionism and fear.  The council members each took time to explain why they were going to vote no on the resolution to allow San Tan Valley to take the issue to the ballot box. Their reasons included some of the following: the timing was not/is not right, the city budget will suffer due to decreased State Shared Revenues, the council would protect their citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic, that it was strictly a business decision. And the coup de grace, which is the Mayor saying she did not want 80,000 bad people as neighbors.

From a mental health standpoint, you could make the diagnostic leap that fear and protectionism trumped everything else in the minds of the Florence council and Mayor. What was resoundingly set aside was the pleas of the Citizens for San Tan Valley to allow that most basic of American rights to go forward unhampered –which is the right to vote. My understanding is that the waters became muddied in Florence and instead of the council voting on the only true issue before them – the right of a populace to vote – they instead turned their vote into a referendum on ancillary matters.

Sometimes, when people feel threatened, they use a defense mechanism called rationalization. Rationalization allows a person to “justify” a basically unjustifiable decision or action. Florence tried to mask the fear of revenue-loss with the more lofty sounding rationalization of “thinking of 187,000 thousand others” whose budgets will necessarily decrease as money paid INTO the fund by San Tan Valley residents would now come to them as a new city.  The disconnect of taking this stance is that if you are a “protector” who is only willing to protect some and not others amounts to hypocrisy. The disconnect is that there are no “others” when you think regionally.

The Town of Queen Creek, on the other hand, heard the same arguments and came to a very different conclusion. This city has a very different mental vibe than Florence. Where Florence seems stuck in time, Queen Creek seems to be thinking and living FOR and IN the future.

Where Florence saw only drawbacks, Queen Creek positive possibilities. First, the overriding mindset in Queen Creek took the following form: they did not want to stand in the way of progress – and they understand that incorporation is progress. The TOQC did not take a stand on the appropriateness or timeliness of incorporation, nor would they vote based on things like proposed budgets….it was strictly an issue of “boundaries.” Not boundaries like you see on a map; rather the CONCEPT of boundaries in a psychological sense.

In my practice, boundary issues are right up there in terms of frequency (near money issues and sexual issues). In psychological terms, violating a boundary means, plainly, getting up in someone’s grill – not respecting their space. Queen Creek respected themselves enough to respect San Tan Valley. They understood that – no matter what the current law – it should not be up to them to decide whether an entity like STV should be able to vote or not. The TOQC felt – rightly so – that they would do best by stepping aside and letting STV choose. T

he council members made it resoundingly clear that if sample budgets are off, or if rosy-colored thinking is going on, it is not their place to hamper, nor to squash the ability to vote. Internal matters like budgets are the province of the governing body of STV. Queen Creek took the mentally healthy stance of honoring boundaries.

What will happen now? It’s anyone’s guess. My hope would be that the good folks of STV use their time wisely…..get educated about pros and cons and lay the groundwork for legislative change regarding the 6 Mile Veto.  If that change can be accomplished, a whole new set of psychological concepts comes into play. Will STV have the will to move forward? Will STV leadership be wise? Will the numbers come together and make sense for this community to vote on? These are exciting times to be living in the East Valley.

One thing I do know from years in psychology is that big-picture thinking is rare…..last night Queen Creek showed by one vote the underpinnings of a city that is progressive and welcoming. And it is a city that can serve as a successful model for San Tan Valley to emulate.

In this East Valley Tale of Two Cities – one helped, and one hurt and now one City-Wannabe must decide what road to take.

Lynn Hurley, MA, NCC
National Certified Counselor
Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor (IL)