Re-imagining Surprise: The Evolution of a Twenty-First Century
Boomburb, 1938-2010
by
Carol S. Palmer
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy
Approved November 2012 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee:
Jannelle Warren-Findley, Chair Philip VanderMeer Gayle Gullett
Arizona State University
December 2012 ABSTRACT
At the turn of the twenty-first century, the population of Surprise Arizona exploded, increasing from 31,000 to 100,000 in just eight years. Developers filled acres of former cotton fields and citrus groves with walled neighborhoods of stucco and tile-roofed homes surrounded by palm trees and oleander bushes.
Priced for middle-class families and retirees, this planned and standardized landscape stood in stark contrast to that of the town’s first decades when dirt roads served migrant farm labor families living in makeshift homes with outdoor privies. This study explores how a community with an identity based on farm labor and networks of kinship and friendship evolved into an icon of the twenty- first century housing boom.
This analysis relies on evidence from multiple sources. A community history initiative, the Surprise History Project, produced photographs, documents, and oral histories. City records, newspaper accounts, county documents, and census reports offer further insight into the external and internal factors that shaped and reshaped the meaning of community in Surprise.
A socially and politically constructed concept, community identity evolves in response to the intricate interplay of contingencies, external forces, and the actions and decisions of civic leaders and residents. In the case of Surprise, this complex mix of factors also set the foundation for its emergence as a twenty-first century boomburb. The rapid expansion of the Phoenix metropolitan area, the emergence of age-restricted communities, and federal programs reset the social, economic, and political algorithms of the community. Internally, changing demographics, racial and ethnic diversity, and an ever-expanding population produced differing and continuously evolving ideas about community identity, a
i matter of intense importance to many. For seven decades, Surprise residents with competing ideas about place came into conflict. Concurrently, these individuals participated in official and vernacular events, activities, and celebrations. These gatherings, which evolved as the town grew and changed, also shaped community identity. While attending the Fourth of July festivities or debating city leaders’ decisions at town council meetings, Surprise residents defined and redefined their community.
ii
To my husband Craig, whose love and support made this possible
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Sherry Simmons Aguilar’s determination to record and publish the history of
Surprise made this dissertation possible. It precipitated a research effort that unearthed documents and photographs and preserved the memories of the town in oral histories. After she hired me to assist with the research and write the history, I became her accomplice in the effort to reclaim the story of the first years of the community. When I decided to use the material gathered during the
Surprise History Project for my dissertation, Aguilar supported my work in multiple ways. She tracked down city documents, responded to countless emails, offered her perspective, and provided encouragement.
The Surprise History Project and this dissertation would not have been possible without the participation of countless current and former residents of the community. Many sat through multiple oral history sessions. Some scoured photograph albums and attics to find artifacts of the town’s first years. Several helped locate other individuals who could add important information.
My committee has provided incredible support. I am a better historian and writer due to their guidance. Dr. Warren-Findley has stood by me throughout my journey as a public historian. Always available to talk, commiserate, laugh, and to cheer me on, she has been a steady source of encouragement. Even as sabbatical plans took her to three continents, she continued to provide feedback on my submissions and wrote the letter of recommendation that helped me attain a dissertation completion fellowship. Dr. Philip VanderMeer helped me choose this topic. He also endured countless questions, pointed out important secondary sources, and challenged my arguments and conclusions. His critique made this a better case study. Dr. Gayle Gullet’s thoughtful comments helped me rethink my
iv analysis and arguments. Her contributions made my introduction and conclusion clearer and stronger. She also identified important secondary sources.
Many others provided invaluable assistance. Dr. Elyssa Ford read and commented on each chapter. Dr. Christine Marin introduced me to the important sources in the Hayden Library Chicano Resource Collection. Nancy Dallett and
Dr. Noel Stowe recommended me to Sherry Simmons Aguilar and supported my work on the Surprise History Project in numerous ways.
ASU’s nationally recognized Public History Program introduced me to the importance of practicing history in public venues and to the multitude of opportunities available to those willing to embark on this career path. Thanks to the program’s faculty and staff, I have the experiences and connections needed to succeed in the field.
As I struggled through this process, my friends and family provided incredible encouragement. They listened and provided advice. Their confidence in my ability inspired me to keep kept me moving forward.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………….ix
LIST OF FIGURES...……………………………………………………………………x
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………1
The Literature…………………………………………………………..6
Methodology…………………………………………………………..17
Chapters……………………………………………………………….21
2 THE VALLEY OF THE SUN: ATTRACTIVE OPPORTUNITIES AND
DIFFICULT CHALLENGES…………………………………………25
Early Entrepreneurs………………………………………………….28
The War, Cold War, and Valley Growth.………………………….46
Conclusion…………………………………………………………….52
3 SURPRISE EMERGES: CREATING A RESIDENTIAL PLACE IN AN
EXTRACTIVE, SPECULATIVE PLACE……………………………54
Scholarship on Suburbia…………………………………………….55
Migrating West………………………………………………………..58
Moving North………………………………………………………….77
A Complex Social Hierarchy………………………………………...84
Conclusion…………………………………………………………….91
4 A RESIDENTIAL PLACE EVOLVES: EXTERNAL FACTORS
RESHAPE SURPRISE………………………………………………92
An Evolving Valley……………………………………………………92
Marinette Becomes Sun City………………………………………..97
vi
CHAPTER Page
4 The Annexation Attempt……………………………………………110
Incorporation………………………………………………………...116
Conclusion…………………………………………………………...119
5 FORGING A COMMUNITY IDENTITY: CONFLICT AND
CELEBRATIONS DEFINE SURPRISE…………………………..122
The Town……….……………………………………………………124
The Town Council……….………………………………………….127
The Surprise Women’s Club……………………………………….132
The Conflict………………………………………………...... 142
Conclusion…………………………………………………………...153
6 NEW LEADERSHIP, NEW CONFLICTS, AND NEW
CELEBRATIONS: REDEFINING PLACE………………………..155
Valley Growth Rolls On…………………………………………….155
Sun City Looms……………………………………………………..159
A Community in Flux………………………………………………..163
Out of Disarray, A New Leadership Coalition Emerges………...168
Resetting the Political Landscape………………………………...175
A New Community Identity for Surprise…………………………..179
Enabling Growth…………………………………………………….188
Conclusion…………………………………………………………...197
7 DISSENTING VOICES, ALTERNATIVE AGENDAS: CONFLICT
OVER COMMUNITY IDENTITY AND PRIORITIES…………….198
A Community in Need………………………………………………199
Federal Government Programs……………………… …………..205
vii
CHAPTER Page
7 Chicano Activism…………………………………………………....212
Local Activism……………………………………………………….217
Challenging the Status Quo in Surprise………………………….224
Conclusion…………………………………………………………...234
8 A TALE OF TWO TOWNS: CREATING A NEW SURPRISE…………..236
Valley Growth Continues ….....……………………………………237
Financing Growth...…………………………………………………239
Diverging Perspectives on Community…………………………...244
The Arrival of Transformational Developments………………….249
A Political Transition………………………………………………..253
Building a Professional Municipal Staff…………………………..263
The Boom Begins…………………………………………………...268
Creating a New Understanding of Surprise……………………...271
Conclusion…………………………………………………………...275
9 EPILOGUE…………………………………………………………………...277
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………..290
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Transition on Surprise Town Council, 1965-1966……………………………152
2. Transition on Surprise Town Council, 1966-1967…………………………...170
3. Population Data for Surprise…………………………………………………..201
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Chart of Population Growth in Surprise, 1960-2000…………………………...... 2
2. Map of Phoenix Metropolitan Area…………………………………………………6
3. Map of Surprise, White Tank Mountains, and Agua Fria and New Rivers……26
4. Photograph of the Construction of Lake Pleasant Dam, circa 1927…………..32
5. Photograph of the Digging of Beardsley Canal…...……………………………..34
6. Photograph of a Harvest at Marinette Ranch……………………………………35
7. Map of Selected Ranches Surrounding Surprise…………………………….....39
8. Plat of the First Neighborhood, Surprize…………………………………………43
9. Map of Surprise and North El Mirage…………………………………………….55
10. Photograph of the Simmons Family, circa 1953……………………………….73
11. Surprise Land Use Map, 1961…………………………………………………...86
12. Aerial View of Sun City, circa 1960…………………………………………….101
13. Photograph of a Surprise Home, 1964………………………………………..125
14. Photograph of the Surprise Town Hall/Saylor Family Root Beer Stand…...129
15. Photograph of the Surprise Women’s Club Members……………………….136
16. Map of the Locations of the Surprise Town Hall, 1961-1993…………….....179
17. Photograph of a Rodeo Event at a Founders’ Day Celebration…………….185
18. Photograph of Riders at the Parada del Amigos……………………………..186
19. Map of the 1978 Strip Annexation...…………………………………………...195
20. Map of New Developments in Surprise, mid-1980s………………………….249
21. Photograph of the Sun Village Lake and Golf Course……………………….252
22. Map of Some Developments in Surprise, late-1990s………………………..271
23. Photograph of the Courtyard at the Surprise City Hall, 1993-2009………...273
x
Figure Page
24. Map of Surprise Town/City Hall Locations, 1961 – 2009…...……………….274
25. Aerial View of Dysart Road, Bell Road, and Grand Avenue, circa 2010…..279
26. Photograph of Bell Road Sign Providing Directions to Developments…….281
27. Photograph of the Surprise City Hall, 2009…………………………………...283
28. Photograph of the Surprise Stadium………………………………………...... 284
xi
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
In 2008, resident number 100,000 moved into Surprise, Arizona. For over a decade, residential developers had promoted the area to middle-class homebuyers, filling acres of former cotton fields and citrus groves with walled neighborhoods of stucco and tile-roofed homes. Interspersed among these developments, upscale retirement communities enticed seniors seeking a resort lifestyle. In eight years, the community had added over 69,000 residents. These new inhabitants used carefully landscaped six-lane arterials to access new shopping complexes and office buildings. They enjoyed a large, centrally located activity and recreation campus that included a community park, an aquatics center, a library, and sports fields, all of which abutted a Major League Baseball spring training complex and an award-winning tennis facility.1 Appropriately,
Surprise’s welcome video featured a resident proclaiming, “it’s so clean, it’s so new, I can’t imagine raising my kids anywhere but Surprise.”2
In addition to being a model of suburbia, in 2008, Surprise also became what urban scholars Robert E. Lang and Jennifer L. LeFurgy term a “boomburb.”3
1 Lynn Truitt, interview by Carol Palmer, February 11, 2009, Surprise, Arizona audio recording, City of Surprise History Project Archive (henceforth abbreviated as COSHPA). Although the U.S. Bureau of the Census in its “Population Estimates, 2008” showed Surprise with 92,897 residents, the city’s leaders projected a number above 100,000. Given the 2010 census recorded 117,517 residents even as growth slowed substantially in the Phoenix metropolitan area between 2008 and 2010, I believe the city’s estimate was more accurate.
2 City of Surprise, “Welcome to Surprise, Arizona,” video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NzwdMXYyK8&feature=youtu.be (accessed, September 27, 2012).
1
This “new variation of American suburbanization” includes incorporated, non-core cities, in metropolitan statistical areas, with at least 100,000 residents, and double-digit growth since 1970.4 As a twenty-first century boomburb, Surprise joined North Las Vegas, Nevada, Gilbert, Arizona, and similar communities as ground-zero in the post-millennial housing boom and subsequent bust.5
Fig.1.1. Population growth in Surprise, 1960 – 2010. (Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, General Characteristics of Persons, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010 and Special Censuses, 1961)
This post-2000 version of Surprise as rapidly expanding idyllic suburb contrasted sharply with the city’s first decades when dirt roads served migrant
3 Robert E. Lang and Jennifer B. LeFurgy, Boomburbs: The Rise of America’s Accidental Cities (Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2007), 2. According to the authors, the concept of “boomburbs” emerged from a Fannie Mae Foundation project led by Lang and Patrick Simmons.
4 Lang and LeFurgy, Boomburbs, 3-7.
5 Ibid., 96. 2
farm labor families living in makeshift homes with outdoor privies. A 1961 county survey described a landscape of 500, often substandard, residences and several small businesses in which only eighty-three percent of homes received electricity and an even smaller percentage connected to water service. More than two decades after its founding in 1938, Surprise still lacked a sewer system, garbage service, a park, and a library. Minimal regulations left property owners free to define their piece of Surprise. Some burned their garbage. Many housed farm animals; Floyd Gaines kept his horse Cyclone in his back yard.6
How does a small community with an identity based on farm labor, individual resourcefulness, and family connections evolve into a model of hyper- growth twenty-first century suburbia? How do residents imagine and then re- imagine the place they live? Community identity, a socially constructed concept, evolves in response to the intricate interplay of contingencies, external forces, and the actions and decisions of civic leaders and residents. In the case of
Surprise, an exploration of this complex mix also reveals the factors that enabled hyper-growth.
External forces complicated and influenced the evolution of the meaning of community in Surprise. During World War II and the ensuing decades, business growth and population expansion reset the economic algorithm and cultural landscape of the Phoenix metropolitan area. In particular, the emergence and success of age-restricted communities significantly altered the Northwest
6 “A Planning Report for Surprise, Arizona,” prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Department, August 1961, 3, 6, 7, 13. Surprise Town Council Minutes (henceforth abbreviated as TCM), July 13, 1961, March 8, 1962, City of Surprise, City Clerk’s Archive (henceforth abbreviated as COSCCA). Rosetta Gaines and Connie Gibson, interview by Sherry Aguilar, March 4, 2009, Surprise, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. 3
Valley. In the midst of growth, federal initiatives, such as the War on Poverty and
President Nixon’s New Federalism, funneled resources and programs into local communities, resetting the social and political dynamics. Concurrently, social justice movements spurred local activism, further affecting the development of
Surprise.7
Internal factors played an equally important role in the development of community identity in Surprise. Changing demographics, racial and ethnic diversity, and an ever-expanding population produced differing and continuously evolving ideas about the meaning of Surprise, a matter of intense importance to many. As Matthew J. Lindstrom and Hugh Bartling argue, [t]he ways in which … material environments are constructed and defined are subject to political contestation because of their importance in our daily lives.”8 For seven decades,
Surprise residents with competing ideas about place came into conflict.
Concurrently, these individuals participated in official and vernacular events, activities, and celebrations. These gatherings, which evolved as the town grew and changed, also shaped community identity. While playing softball in the community park or debating city leaders’ decisions at town council meetings,
Surprise residents defined and redefined their place in the Northwest Valley.
7 Surprise is located in the Phoenix metropolitan area, also known as the Valley of the Sun, the Salt River Valley, or the Valley – terms I use interchangeably. For the purposes of this study, I define the Northwest Valley as that section of the metropolitan area west of the New River and north of Camelback Avenue. This includes Surprise, Youngtown, El Mirage, Wittman, Sun City, Sun City West, and portions of Peoria.
8 Matthew J. Lindstrom and Hugh Bartling, “Introduction” to “Culture and Society: Contested Visions Values” in Suburban Sprawl: Culture, Theory, and Politics, ed. Matthew J. Lindstrom and Hugh Bartling (Lanham: Rowan & Littlefield, 2003), 1.
4
Unraveling this dense knot of external and internal factors provides insight into how a migrant labor community became a boomburb. It reveals the multiple stages in this evolution. In each phase, a dominant coalition took steps to define the town. In response, other groups either challenged or supported this perspective on place. The interplay of community dynamics and external forces repeatedly produced a new understanding of Surprise.
A number of scholars argue for the importance of the suburb in shaping all aspects of the post-World War II American experience. Kevin M. Kruse and
Thomas J. Sugrue contend that the “transformation of the United States into a suburban nation has had significant consequences for every aspect of American life.”9 LeFurgy and Lang maintain that the emergence of boomburbs represents a sea change in the suburban form and the way Americans live. They point to the
“shock value” of statistics demonstrating that “Americans are building very different places than in the past.”10
Across the disciplines, these hyper-growth suburbs remain understudied.
While LeFurgy and Lang describe this trend and compare groups of similar boomburbs, the authors only briefly discuss their origins and development.
Additionally, the timeframe of their study places communities like Surprise, which emerged as boomburbs after 2000, outside of their scope. Their role in the housing boom and subsequent collapse of the economy in the first decade of this century makes them worth of additional study.
9 Kevin M. Kruse and Thomas J. Sugrue, “Introduction,” in The New Suburban History, ed. Kevin M. Kruse and Thomas J. Sugrue (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 1.
10 Lang and LeFurgy, Boomburbs, 5. 5
This analysis both expands on and complicates the scholarship on hyper- growth suburbs. Tracing the evolution of community identity exposes how that process was entangled in the actions and decisions that enabled expansion. It reveals how a local translation of the intricate interaction of a federal program and a regional social justice movement reset the community’s political landscape.
It demonstrates how the intersection of public and private interests, fueled by federal programs, can drive growth. These findings, and others, help explain how a farm labor outpost became a boomburb.
Fig.1.2. A map of the Phoenix metropolitan area, or Valley of the Sun, showing Surprise in relation to other communities. (Map by Vince Colburn)
The Literature
Works from multiple disciplines frame an examination of the external and internal factors that influenced the development of Surprise. First, literature from the field of urban studies probes metropolitan dynamics and forms, details the growth of
6
the urban West, and provides a history and an analysis of the suburban phenomenon. Second, scholars from a variety of fields explore the concept of place and its important role in creating individual and community identity. Last, sociology studies examine the distribution of power within a community and the tension that occurs between individuals and groups with conflicting perspectives.
A history of Surprise benefits from all three areas of scholarship because of the complex dynamics that drove change as the community evolved from a neighborhood of farm labor families to a middle-class suburb.
The evolution of the American suburb is the subject of multiple studies.
Contributors to The Suburb Reader provide a history of the subject. The first served as “havens for an emergent upper and middle class” seeking an escape from the ills of industrialization and urbanization in mid-eighteenth century
Britain.11 Early suburbs in the United States, such as Cambridge, Massachusetts and Brooklyn, New York, also attracted the elite. As Rosalyn Baxandall and
Elizabeth Ewen demonstrate in their examination of Long Island, technological advances coupled with the transition to a mass-production, mass-consumption society allowed more people to escape the core city, resulting in a more diverse suburban landscape. In the twentieth-century, middle-class and working-class suburbs emerged.12 Becky Nicolaides examines one of the latter in her study of the Los Angeles suburb of South Gate, a community first settled in the 1920s.
This work, in particular, provides a model for examining Surprise. Although
11 Becky M. Nicolaides and Andrew Wiese, “Introduction,” in The Suburb Reader, ed. Becky M. Nicolaides and Andrew Wiese (New York: Routledge, 2006), 2.
12 Kenneth T. Jackson, “Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States,” in The Suburb Reader, ed. Becky M. Nicolaides and Andrew Wiese (New York: Routledge, 2006), 27. Rosalyn Baxandall and Elizabeth Ewen, Picture Windows: How the Suburbs Happened (New York: Basic Books, 2000), 14-19. Nicolaides and Wiese, “Introduction,” in The Suburb Reader, 3, 4. 7
different in some aspects, these communities share similarities in terms of the economic status of the first residents and the challenges and opportunities they found in a suburban environment. While the literature on suburbs provides a framework for thinking about Surprise, none examines a similar community that boomed at the end of the twentieth-century.13
Scholars generally agree that suburbanization achieved a unique form and unparalleled footprint in the United States after World War II. In the 1940s, fifteen percent of the nation’s population lived in suburbs. This number grew rapidly after the war as federal housing and transportation programs and social, cultural, and economic factors spurred growth on the periphery; by the 1990s, fifty percent of Americans resided in suburbs.14 Focusing on the post-World War
II period in When America Became Suburban, Robert Beauregard argues that suburbanization during this era represented a “rupture in previous patterns of urbanization.”15 Historically, as the nation’s population increased, most urban areas experienced similar levels of growth. After the war and continuing into the mid-1970s, although the nation’s population boomed, many industrial cities in the
Northeast and upper Midwest experienced population declines as capital, workplaces, retail establishments, and people moved to suburbs and Sunbelt metropolises. Factors such as economic globalization, technological innovations, and government policies supported this trend.16 In his discussion of Sunbelt
13 Becky M. Nicolaides, My Blue Heaven: Life and Politics in the Working-Class Suburbs of Los Angeles, 1920-1965 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 2-4.
14 Nicolaides and Wiese, “Introduction,” in The Suburb Reader, 4. Robert A. Beauregard, When America Became Suburban (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006), 14, 33, 84-5, 125.
15 Beauregard, When America Became Suburban, 4.
8
metropolises, Beauregard highlights Phoenix’s “trajectory of growth [as] unchallenged by any contemporary city of comparable size.”17 The factors noted by Beauregard resonate with the narrative of development in Surprise.
Government programs and the mechanization and globalization of agriculture shaped the development of the community. Its location in the Sunbelt placed it in a region with increasing power and influence.18
Affirming many of Beauregard’s conclusions, urban historian Carl Abbot explores western metropolises in multiple publications. He argues that they
“organize the region’s vast spaces and connect them to the even larger sphere of the world economy” and their “growth since 1940 has constituted a distinct era in which Western cities have become national and even international pacesetters.”19 He provides a thoughtful analysis of how World War II and the
Cold War period “changed the growth curve for every Western sub region.”20
Abbot acknowledges the importance of “urban landscapes of leisure – specialized communities,” where retirees relocate, an important factor in the evolution of Surprise.21
One group of urban studies scholars examines the spatial development and political, social, and economic dynamics of urban areas. Postmodern theorists, such as Michael Dear, present “an alternative agenda” to the “’Chicago
16 Beauregard, When America Became Suburban, xiii, 19, 24, 28-9, 31.
17 Ibid., 29.
18 Ibid., 29-30.
19 Carl Abbott, The Metropolitan Frontier: Cities in the Modern American West (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1993), xxi.
20 Ibid., xviii.
21 Ibid., 68. 9
School’ of urban sociology.”22 The latter group contends that the “city lies at the center of, and provides the organizational logic for, a complex regional hinterland based on trade.”23 The analytical paradigm of the Chicago School is depicted by a concentric model with a core city surrounded by rings that represent a decreasing concentration of population and illustrate how the “center molds the urban periphery.”24 Scholars from the Chicago School use large east coast and
Midwest cities as models.
In contrast, postmodern urban theorists embrace a decentralized model of urban development. They argue for the complexity of core city/suburban dynamics and the influence of the latter on the metropolitan area. This group identifies globalization, pluralism, polarization, technology, immigration, and eclecticism as important factors in their evolution. In the Phoenix urban complex, the political and economic policies and decisions of Surprise officials affect the core city and other suburbs. When its civic leaders choose to construct a professional sports facility or provide economic incentives to land developers, the consequences of their decisions reverberate across the Valley. 25
22 Michael J. Dear, “Preface,” in From Chicago to L.A.: Making Sense of Urban Theory, ed. Michael J. Dear (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2002), vii.
23 Michael J. Dear and Steven Flusty, “The Resistible Rise of the L.A. School,” in From Chicago to L.A.: Making Sense of Urban Theory, ed. Michael J. Dear (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2002), 3.
24 Michael J. Dear and Steven Flusty, “Los Angeles as Postmodern Urbanism,” in From Chicago to L.A.: Making Sense of Urban Theory, ed. (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2002), 55.
25 Dear and Flusty, “The Resistible Rise,” 3, 11, 14. Dear and Flusty, “Los Angeles as Postmodern Urbanism,” 62. Dowell Myers, “Demographic Dynamism in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and Washington, DC,” in From Chicago to L.A.: Making Sense of Urban Theory, Michael J. Dear, ed. (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2002), 37, 22. 10
Consistent with postmodern urban theory, professionals and academics present varying interpretations of the dispersed urban landscape. In 1991, journalist Joel Garreau introduced a polycentric view. In Edge City: Life on the
New Frontier, he contends that “all our routines of working, playing, and living,” have created “new urban job centers in places that only thirty years before had been residential suburbs or even corn stubble.”26 Edge cities sit on the perimeter of metropolitan areas, often abutting freeways, are enabled by communication and transportation technology, and contain the functionality of traditional core cities.27
In Edgeless Cities: Exploring the Elusive Metropolis, social scientist
Robert E. Lang expands on Garreau’s work. Lang defines edgeless cities as
“free-form clusters of office space that have silently sprung up along highways and interchanges.”28 They exist between the edge city and the core area in what he terms a “post-polycentric urban form.”29 Contending that scholars overlooked these areas because they are scattered and possess no discernible boundaries,
Lang seeks to “reframe the current thinking on the metropolis.”30 While Surprise currently lacks the critical mass of business establishments necessary to fit either the edge or edgeless model, Garreau and Lang’s works highlight the complexity
26 Joel Garreau, Edge City: Life on the New Frontier (New York: Doubleday, 1991), xx.
27 Ibid., xxii, 4, 32.
28 Robert E. Lang, Edgeless Cities: Exploring the Elusive Metropolis (Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2003), ix.
29 Ibid., 3.
30 Ibid., 4. 11
of a metropolitan area and the need to understand how periphery communities such as Surprise evolved.
Lang, in collaboration with LeFurgy, presents another suburban growth model in Boomburbs. As of the 2000 census, fifty-four communities met the boomburb criteria and a larger cohort, with populations exceeding 50,000, qualified as what the authors term “baby boomburbs.”31 Exploring the roots of these communities, the authors note that many began as small, rural outposts that evolved into “essentially new places.”32 They attribute this transformation to revised mortgage rules, freeways, new construction practices, federal investment in defense, and housing policies.33
The authors contend that boomburbs merit analysis for multiple reasons.
First, they serve as home to one in nine suburban dwellers. Since 1990, over one-half of all growth in cities with a population between 100,000 and 400,000 occurred in boomburbs. In the 2000 census, fifteen of the one-hundred largest cities fit the definition and the West served as home to the most. With seven
(Gilbert, Chandler, Glendale, Peoria, Mesa, Scottsdale, and Tempe), Phoenix housed the nation’s highest percentage of boomburb residents.34
Arguing that “boomburbs are the new face of the American suburb,” Lang and LeFurgy examine their characteristics.35 Typically, these communities have more master-planned, gated communities. Most possess “sun, sprawl, and
31 Lang and LeFurgy, Boomburbs, 13, 7.
32 Ibid., 27.
33 Ibid., 22-3, 27, 32
34 Ibid., 19, 7-8, 43.
35 Ibid., 73. 12
skill[ed]” residents; immigrants and retirees play an important role in their population growth.36 All of these attributes apply to Surprise. Researching and writing as Surprise topped 50,000 and approached 100,000 residents, the authors observe that in Phoenix, “the big stories in the West Valley are Avondale,
Goodyear, Buckeye, and Surprise, all four of which are on track to pass the
100,000-population mark; the latter three may pass 300,000 by 2030.”37
The literature on place and its relationship to individual and civic identity provides a structure for analyzing the internal dynamics of a community in an urban complex, such as Surprise. Beauregard asserts that the connection between place and identity is “central to any investigation of urban culture.”38
Scholars from various disciplines agree on the importance of place and its critical relationship to memory and identity. As Beauregard argues, “[p]eople develop strong attachments to specific places. They think of themselves and describe themselves to others as residents” of specific places.39 Historian Joseph Amato describes the “innate human desire to be connected to a place.”40 Exploring the
“power of place – the power of ordinary urban landscapes to nurture citizens’ public memory, to encompass shared time in the form of shared territory,”
Dolores Hayden contends, “[i]dentity is intimately tied to memory,” and place shapes memory.41
36 Lang and LeFurgy, Boomburbs, 53, 18, 55-6.
37 Ibid., 170.
38 Beauregard, When America Became Suburban, xii.
39 Ibid., 184.
40 Joseph A. Amato, Rethinking Home: A Case for Writing Local History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), 4.
13
Scholars also characterize place as a complex concept, a social, political, and cultural construct.42 Natural and built landscapes contribute to our understanding of place; Mount Rainier and the Space Needle serve as symbols of Seattle. We interpret place on many levels. As Amato argues, it is a multisensory experience.43 Hayden agrees, noting, “[it] is place’s very same assault on all ways of knowing (sight, sound, smell, touch, and taste) that makes it powerful as a source of memory, as a weave where one strand ties in another.”44 Class, age, gender, and ethnicity influence one’s perception of and often “coalesce around place.”45 Additionally, place is multidimensional. Doreen
Massey argues, “space must be conceptualized integrally with time” and “not as some absolute independent dimension.”46
Most important for this study, scholars agree that place is not a static construction. Amato points out, “[e]verywhere, place is being superseded and reshaped.”47 Echoing Massey’s arguments relative to the relationship between place and time, David Glassberg uses a case study of a World War I memorial to demonstrate how changing values and perspectives can ascribe new meaning to places and can transform blighted areas into sacred spaces. He describes how
41 Dolores Hayden, The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1997), 9.
42 Doreen Massey, Space, Place and Gender (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994), 2.
43 Amato, Rethinking Home, 2.
44 Hayden, The Power of Place, 18.
45 Beauregard, When America Became Suburban, 184.
46 Massey, Space, Place and Gender, 2.
47 Amato, Rethinking Home, 2.
14
civic celebrations, such as San Francisco’s 1909 Portola Festival, can be tools for reframing the perception of a place.48 Chris Wilson discusses a purposeful reconceptualization of place in his examination of Santa Fe, New Mexico, chronicling civic leaders’ selective use of some elements of their culture and history, while suppressing others, to remake their city’s identity.49
The process of constructing place exposes contradictions, creates conflict, and reveals a community’s power structure. Through their studies of power in municipal governments, sociologists have developed several theoretical models. In Movers and Shakers: The Study of Community Power, Philip J.
Trounstine and Terry Christensen describe the elite theory, which locates control of local decision-making in a small group of business and civic leaders.50 Harvey
Molotch offers an economically based understanding of this model. He identifies
“place-based elites,” such as developers, bankers, landowners, realtors, and others, who influence the political and social direction of cities, using them as
“growth machines” to generate income.51 Arguing that “land, the basic stuff of place, is a market commodity providing wealth and power,” Molotch points to
48 David Glassberg, Sense of History: The Place of the Past in America. (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001), 25-57, 61-85.
49 Chris Wilson, The Myth of Santa Fe: Creating A Modern Regional Tradition (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1997) 3, 4, 7, 10.
50 Philip J. Trounstine and Terry Christensen, Movers and Shakers: The Study of Community Power (New York: St. Martins, 1982) 25-7.
51 John R. Logan and Harvey L. Molotch, Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 50. See William Fulton, The Reluctant Metropolis: The Politics of Urban Growth in Los Angeles (Point Arena: Solano Press Books, 1997) for an extensive analysis based on Molotch’s theory. Harvey Molotch, “The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place,” American Journal of Sociology 82, no.2 (September 1976): 309.
15
growth as the critical requirement for increasing its profit potential.52 Since a broad spectrum of actions by local governments relative to infrastructure, zoning, taxation, crime control, and other issues play a significant role in fostering expansion, growth coalitions attempt to influence the decisions of local governing bodies.53
Other scholars counter Molotch’s reductionist approach. In separate studies, Clarence Stone and Steve Elkins argue for a more nuanced explanation of municipal power structures, one that considers the complex interplay of the multitude of factors that influence local officials, the importance of other interest groups in the municipal decision-making process, and the differences between localities. While growth has dominated the post-war narrative of Surprise, the
Molotch model does not explain the full spectrum of decisions and actions that undergird the city’s evolution. It also marginalizes the influence and accomplishments of non-elites, civic organizations, and community activists. 54
Academics who reject an elitist model propose alternative paradigms. The pluralist theory of power identifies the elite as one of many groups that can possess power. Which group engages and/or prevails varies by issue. A second view, the synthesis model, describes a community power continuum ranging from
52 Molotch, “The City as a Growth Machine,” 309.
53 Logan and Molotch, Urban Fortunes, 32, 50-1, 58. Molotch, “The City as a Growth Machine,” 309, 310, 312, 314. Kee Warner and Harvey Molotch, Building Rules: How Local Controls Shape Community Environments and Economies, (Boulder: Westview, 2000), 17.
54 Clarence Stone, “The Study of the Politics of Urban Development” in The Politics of Urban Development, ed. Clarence N. Stone and Heywood T. Sanders (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1987), 4-6. 11-2, 17. Stephen L. Elkin, City and Regime in the American Republic, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 5-8. See also Jeffrey C. Bridger, “Local Elites and Growth Promotion,” in Research in Community Sociology, Volume 2, ed. Dan A. Chekki, (Greenwich: JAI Press, 1992). 16
elite to pluralist.55 Proponents contend “all communities may not have identical power structures,” noting that attributes, such as community size, diversity, political structure, and culture, can produce different power configurations.56 The latter resonates with the work of Stone and Elkin and proves a better framework for examining the power structure in Surprise.
In combination, this literature serves as a foundation for exploring the evolution of a suburb. It argues for an understanding of metropolitan areas as complex assemblages of political entities reacting to external forces and internal dynamics. Equally important, it negates a linear view of the development of the suburban phenomenon and demonstrates the multiplicity of its forms in terms of demographics, geography, economic foundations, and origins. The works on identity, place, and power detail the importance of considering these concepts in any analysis of the evolution of community identity in a suburban venue.
Methodology
This study builds on a public history project initiated by the City of Surprise in
2008. Citing the upcoming fiftieth anniversary of incorporation, City Clerk Sherry
Simmons Aguilar urged the town’s leaders to authorize funding to research and record the community’s history. Aguilar had a personal interest in the project.
Born and raised in Surprise, the great-granddaughter of one its first residents, she still lived in what locals refer to as the “original town site.” Aguilar remembered the sounds, smells, sights, and stories of a community built on farm labor and networks of kinship and friendship. In 1990, she became city employee
55 Trounstine and Christensen, Movers and Shakers, 25-7, 31, 38.
56 Ibid., 38, 40-2. 17
number sixty, working in clerical then administrative positions before becoming the city clerk. Watching the community change dramatically and confronted with new residents claiming, “Surprise is new, it does not have a history,” she began collecting documents and artifacts, trying to preserve an understanding of the community’s first decades. The 2010 anniversary provided her with the perfect opportunity to expand those efforts into a citywide initiative.57
The 2008-2010 Surprise History Project (SHP) is important to this study on multiple levels. It serves as the latest attempt to shape the community’s identity; hence, a discussion of this initiative is included in Chapter Nine. Second, because the city’s communications department used all forms of media to publicize the project and encourage residents to participate, the first phase of the
SHP unearthed an incredible number of documents, photographs, and other artifacts. Additionally, Aguilar personally contacted individuals, in particular, those with connections to the earliest residents and members of the African American and Mexicano communities. As a result, many people offered to record oral histories. These individuals also helped her contact others who could provide information about the town’s history.58
The research phase of the SHP produced fifty oral histories, which serve as an important source for this project. Interviewees included current and former city officials, farm owners, and original residents. Recognizing the important role played by the police and fire forces, Aguilar recruited twenty retired and active
57 This is based on my experience as the historian for the Surprise History Project (henceforth abbreviated as SHP), the incalculable number of conversations I had with Aguilar, and the four oral histories in which she was the interviewee.
58 Throughout this study, I use the terms Mexicano and ethnic Mexicans to refer to both Mexican Americans and Mexicans. 18
members of these departments to record their memories of the community. They had moved to Surprise at different points in time between 1970 and 2000 and as a result, they brought differing perspectives on the town’s development. Oral histories can provide invaluable insight and information. They also can point the researcher to other sources. Concurrently, they are problematic. Viewpoints, past and present, shape the way we understand and recall the past. Memories fade; details blur.59 As Matt Garcia observes, oral histories require a “healthy tolerance for ambiguity and complexity.”60
The problems inherent in oral histories accentuate the need for other evidence. In this study, a local newspaper, The Peoria Times, offers information about the community between 1955 and the mid-1980s. For many years, this small weekly published columns written by Surprise residents that provided incredible detail about the social landscape of the community. Potlucks, illnesses, and bridal showers received mention in these reports. Additionally, the Times printed church directories and announcements, provided coverage of school events, and reported on town politics. A reading of multiple years of the weekly reveals the daily and seasonal rhythms of Surprise. While incredibly informative,
59 The master list of the SHP oral histories used in the DVD and book, Surprise: A History in Progress, can be found in the City of Surprise History Project Archive in the Surprise City Clerk’s Office. Eight of the fifty recordings involve more than one person. Sixteen of the audio-recorded oral history interviewees participated in a second video- taped interview. The book and the DVD went into production thirteen months after the start of the research (a very short timeframe for a community history project). Several individuals learned of the project after publication. Their oral histories and documents were added to the history project archive. In addition to the oral histories gathered during the initial phase of the project, I have used some of those later interviews in this study.
60 Matt Garcia, A World of Its Own: Race, Labor, and Citrus in the Making of Greater Los Angeles, 1900-1970 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 9.
19
the Times also possesses limitations. A small weekly, its publishers embraced its role as a civic booster and focused less on objective reporting.
Records from the City of Surprise provide another important source of evidence. These include council meeting minutes, election results, budgets, ordinances, resolutions, and official communications. The quality of the council minutes, which comprise the majority of these documents, improved over time as the town added audio recording devices and word processing technology. The earliest versions, produced on a manual typewriter by a council member doubling as the clerk, mask as much as they reveal (and create a renewed appreciation for spell check functionality). Despite these flaws, the minutes provide an important accounting of the work of the town’s governing body.
An assortment of other records supports this analysis. Federal, state, and county documents provide important information. In particular, census reports detail the demographic evolution of the community. Second, the SHP unearthed documents hidden in attics, boxes, and other storage areas at institutions and in residences. In a community where, for decades, economic circumstances precluded investment in the cultural institutions that commonly house the documents and artifacts of the past, a few amateur collectors made significant contributions to the public history project and to this study.
Oral histories, official documents, personal records, newspaper accounts, and other evidence shed light on the evolution of community identity in Surprise and on the factors that enabled its emergence as a twenty-first century boomburb. This case study identifies and examines the four stages of that evolution and the often contentious transitions from one to the next. Common elements exist in each stage, for example, the rapid growth of the Valley of the
20
Sun during and in the decades after World War II. In each transition period, formal and informal organizations came together or into conflict over the meaning of Surprise. A close examination of these transitional moments reveals the forces, interactions, and elements that converged to redefine the community and to set the foundation for its later hyper-growth.
Chapters
The environment and the actions of those who preceded the first residents influenced the evolution of Surprise. Regional, national, and global factors also played an important role. Chapter Two explores the influence of a desert landscape, the development of transportation routes, the erection of a dam and a water distribution network, and the establishment of large and medium scale farm operations. These agricultural enterprises, in need of labor, attracted migrant farm workers from Mexico and the south-central region of the United States. In the community’s first decade, World War II and the post-war expansion of suburbs, transformed the Phoenix area and informed the development of
Surprise.
Chapter Three examines the three groups of farm-work families that settled in Surprise between 1938 and 1958. Euro-Americans and African
Americans from the south-central region of the country and ethnic Mexicans purchased lots in generally segregated neighborhoods. Each group brought the life-experiences of migration and farm work and the cultural traditions, religious beliefs, and values of their place of origin. Through chain migration, marriage, and church membership, they created networks of friendship and kinship. As they constructed homes, raised children, established churches, and created
21
social linkages, they “engaged in place-making activities,” imprinting Surprise with a farm-work based residential identity, the first stage in its evolution.61
Concurrently, external events and trends reshaped this identity. As mechanization reduced farm jobs, the creation of Sun City in 1959 created new employment opportunities. The retiree haven attracted middle-class,
Midwesterners seeking a resort lifestyle and determined to make “their slice of the planet, their community, an ordered and predictable place.”62 This understanding of community set Sun City citizens apart from their neighbors in
Surprise. Concurrently, an attempt by El Mirage to annex the Surprise neighborhoods brought residents together to fight the initiative and to incorporate, an act that changed the political calculus of the community. The convergence of these factors undergirded a new definition of Surprise, the subject of Chapter Four.
The second phase of community identity is the focus of Chapter Five.
After incorporation, two organizations emerged as community leaders: the town council and the Surprise Women’s Club. The former, a group of like-minded,
Euro-American small business proprietors, focused on fiscal stability, administrative competence, and a modest program of civic improvements. The women’s group initiated programs that brought residents together for celebrations, creating a new understanding of Surprise. Concurrently, the club supported the business coalition’s efforts to create a more orderly town. Often working in tandem, the council and the club re-imagined Surprise and laid the
61 Tim Cresswell, Place: A Short Introduction (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 5.
62 Kevin E. McHugh and Elizabeth M. Larson-Keagy, “These White Walls: The Dialectic of Retirement Communities,” Journal of Aging Studies 19 (2005): 250. 22
foundation for conflict between those desiring community improvements and those opposed to intrusive governance. This conflict precipitated another transition.
At the end of the 1960s, out of a very messy, conflictual series of elections and political maneuvers, a new group, the north-side coalition, took control of the town council. Chapter Six examines how this bloc, led by George
Cumbie and Floyd Gaines, redefined the role of the town council and reset the meaning of community in Surprise, the third stage in its evolution. Under their leadership, the council assumed control of town celebrations. They expanded the scope and size of these events and introduced a new festivity, the Founders’ Day
Parade and Rodeo. Using strip annexation, this group also expanded the town’s footprint by a factor of twenty-seven, setting the stage for hyper-growth.
Chapter Seven explores how a convergence of the Chicano movement and community-based federal programs produced local activists that challenged the north-side coalition. The state of the town played a central role in this conflict.
Despite two decades of incorporation, Surprise lacked basic amenities and infrastructure. The north-side coalition’s reliance on behind-the-scenes deal- making, cronyism, opacity, and casual accounting practices exacerbated community discontent. Led by John Rosales, Roy Villanueva, and others, activists gained seats on the council, created an alternative organization, the
Surprise Action Council, and prepared an alternative agenda. This represented a transition period that ushered in new leadership and the fourth stage in Surprise’s evolution.
By 1986, the residents of new retirement communities and single-family developments in the annexed areas began to assert their influence on town
23
politics. Coupled with the dissatisfaction of inhabitants in the original town site, their activism resulted in the demise of the north-side coalition. By 1990, new residents occupied a majority of the seats on the town council. Under Mayor Roy
Villanueva’s leadership, this group began efforts to professionalize the town’s staff, rectify infrastructure deficiencies, prepare for growth, and institute operational reforms on the council. They also took steps to rebrand Surprise as a
“new city,” rendering the community’s history irrelevant.
In 2008, Sherry Aguilar began her effort to reclaim that history. She faced the challenge of unearthing a past erased by the “onslaught of population.”63 With the support of city leaders and members of the community, she initiated the latest effort to redefine Surprise.
63 John M. Findlay, Magic Lands: Western Cityscapes and American Culture after 1940 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 20.
24
CHAPTER TWO
THE VALLEY OF THE SUN: ATTRACTIVE OPPORUNTITIES AND DIFFICULT
CHALLENGES
Prior to the emergence of Surprise in 1938 and during its first decade, entrepreneurial Arizonans responded to the opportunities and challenges presented by national and global events and the circumstances of their desert environment. Their actions, decisions, and choices shaped and reshaped the landscape of the Valley of the Sun as they dealt with droughts, floods, economic booms, financial crises, and global wars. Valley residents built roads and railroads to transport people and goods; they constructed dams and canals to store and move water; they bought, developed, and sold land for farms, ranches, and homes. Most often, residents sought prosperity through growth, leveraging natural resources as well as political and economic opportunities. These actions shaped Surprise’s founding years and influenced its evolution from rural enclave to twenty-first century boomburb.
The Valley’s natural environment serves as the starting point for any history of the area. As geographer Patricia Gober observes, “Phoenix is defined by its Sonoran Desert geographic setting.”64 Surprise, situated in the northwestern corner of the Sonoran, abuts the west bank of the Agua Fria River, a tributary of the Salt River; west of the city, the White Tank Mountains rise to a level of 4,000 feet. Over millions of years, the landscape of mountain ranges and
64 Patricia Gober, Metropolitan Phoenix: Place Making and Community Building in the Desert (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 5.
25
river basins that typify the Sonoran Desert and Surprise took shape as recurring geological cycles of mountain building and erosion filled basins with water-laden sediment.65
Fig 2.1. A map depicting Surprise in relation to the White Tank Mountains and the Agua Fria and New Rivers. (Map by Vince Colburn)
Situated in the northern section of the Sonoran Desert, the Salt River
Valley and its 12,700 square-mile watershed benefit from biannual rains. Winter precipitation from November through March comes from western storm systems that spread rain over a wide area. In the summer months, thunderstorms that originate in the southeast produce localized precipitation. These two rainy seasons set the Sonoran apart from other western desert regions, produce a
65 City of Surprise, “White Tank Mountains Regional Park,” http://www.surpriseaz.gov/index.aspx?nid=2039 (accessed June 15, 2011). Michael F. Logan, Desert Cities: The Environmental History of Phoenix and Tucson (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2006), 12-3. 26
large variety of plants and animals, and create the potential for agricultural and urban development. Although the Phoenix area only receives seven inches of rain per year, the mountains that feed the Salt River and its tributaries can experience several feet of annual precipitation. Historically, the flow of these waterways varies dramatically, creating periods of flood and drought. The
Sonoran Desert also provides a long growing season, averaging 304 frost-free days per year with moderate winters and extreme summer heat.66 This combination of positive and problematic attributes presented early residents of central Arizona with opportunities and challenges.
Although incredibly important, the environment did not predetermine the development trajectory of the Phoenix metropolitan area. From the outset, early
Valley residents, influenced by cultural, social, economic, and political considerations, made choices about how to deal with their natural surroundings.
In his history of Tucson and Phoenix, Michael Logan highlights the differences between two cities that share a similar environment but came to “different conclusions about their circumstances and strategies for development.”67 He notes, “nature set the parameters. What societies do with the parameters depends on their political, social, and cultural guidelines, as well as on their mechanical abilities.”68
66 Logan, Desert Cities, 12-3, 16, 19. Roger Dunbier, The Sonoran Desert: Its Geography, Economy, and People (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1968), 15, 18. Douglas E. Kupel, Fuel for Growth: Water and Arizona’s Urban Environment. (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2003), 4, 6.
67 Logan, Desert Cities, 2.
68 Ibid., 11. 27
Early Entrepreneurs
The first residents of the Valley of the Sun, the Hohokam, employed farming methods that allowed them to thrive and created a long-lasting imprint on the landscape. After living a nomadic lifestyle for several thousand years, small groups of Hohokam coalesced in the fifth-century in permanent communities. In a civilization that eventually covered 30,000 square miles, they built villages, grew an assortment of crops, and developed a wide-ranging trade network with communities to the south, east, and west. To support their villages, they constructed large irrigation networks. In the Salt River Valley, 500 canals delivered water to 70,000 acres. Communities of up to several thousand people sat at three-mile intervals along these waterways. For reasons that remain unclear, around 1450 the Hohokam people began abandoning their villages, leaving behind pottery, structures, and an extensive network of canals.69
In the 1860s, entrepreneurial Arizonans, seeking a profit from farming, recognized the value of the abandoned canals. In 1863, the same year the
United States Congress created a separate Arizona Territory, Henry Wickenburg discovered gold in the hills along the Hassayampa River and established Vulture
Mine. Concurrently, other prospectors found gold near Prescott, Rich Hill, and
Weaver’s Gulch. Within a brief time span, eighty mines operated in the area, but mine operators faced a challenge: securing provisions in sparsely populated
69 Paul R. Fish and Suzanne K. Fish, “The Hohokam Millennium” in The Hohokam Millennium, ed. Paul R. Fish and Suzanne K. Fish (Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research Press, 2007), 5. Douglas Schwartz, “Forward,” in The Hohokam: Ancient People of the Desert, ed. David Grant Noble (Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 1991), vii. David E. Doyel, “The Hohokam: Ancient Dwellers of the Arizona Desert,” in The Hohokam: Ancient People of the Desert, ed. David Grant Noble (Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 1991), 4, 8-12.
28
central Arizona. The mine operators’ dilemma presented enterprising Arizonans with an opportunity.70
Jack Swilling became one of the first to leverage this market opening. On his many trips to the Salt River Valley from his home in Wickenburg, Swilling took note of the abandoned canals. In late 1867, recognizing their potential, he formed the Swilling Irrigating and Canal Company. After raising the necessary funds, he led a contingent of workers back to the Valley. In 1868, this group restored some
Hohokam canals and began producing farm goods for sale to the mining camps and U.S. Army outposts.71
After the first harvest, eight-mule team freighters began hauling supplies from Salt River Valley farms to the mining communities on a route known as
Vulture Road. In 1868, a stagecoach line began operation on the trail. An 1896
Bureau of Land Management survey map shows the wagon trail cutting through what is now Surprise. Although the route was often relocated to bypass ruts, an easy task in desert terrain, it ultimately became Grand Avenue, a portion of State
Route 60. In the first six decades of the twentieth century, this highway served as
70 Logan, Desert Cities, 37. Albert “Al” F. Tudor, Along the Old Vulture Road: Cattle Tales and Trails from Wickenburg to Phoenix (Sun City: Cowhide Publications, 1998), 11. Leland Hanchett Jr., Catch the Stage to Phoenix (Phoenix: Pine Rim Publishing, 1998), 10.
71 Albert R. Bates, Jack Swilling: Arizona’s Most Lied about Pioneer (Tucson: Wheatmark, 2008), 50-3. A. E. Rogge, Melissa Keane, D. Lorne McWatters, and Richard P. Emanuel, Raising Arizona’s Dams: Daily Life, Danger, and Discrimination in the Dam Construction Camps of Central Arizona, 1890s-1940s (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1995), 3, 4. Arthur G. Horton, An Economic, Political and Social Survey of Phoenix and the Valley of the Sun (Tempe: Southside Progress, 1941), 14. Michael R. Wilson, Tragic Jack: The True Story of Arizona Pioneer John William Swilling (Las Vegas: Stagecoach Books, an imprint of RaMA Press, 2001), 11-2.
29
a major east-west corridor through central Arizona, and an important factor in the evolution of Surprise and the surrounding area.72
Railroads played an important role in the development of Arizona and the
Northwest Valley. In the 1880s, investors, looking to profit from the increasing demand for copper, explored the feasibility of building a railroad to connect the mining operations of central Arizona to markets in the east via the Atlantic and
Pacific Railroad (A&P) that extended across the northern part of the state. In
1886, Thomas Bullock, head of the Prescott and Arizona Central Railway, completed a line that connected Prescott to the A&P. When Bullock wanted to extend the railroad south to Phoenix along a route that bypassed many mining areas, another group of investors led by Frank Murphy argued for a more western course that could serve mines near the cities of Congress and
Wickenburg. Unable to reach a deal with Bullock to reuse the existing track,
Murphy decided to construct a new rail route that connected the A&P to Phoenix via Prescott and Wickenburg, a route that cut across the future site of Surprise.
Murphy incorporated the Santa Fe, Prescott, and Phoenix Railway (SFP&P) in
1891. Building began that year and the line opened to Phoenix on March 14,
1895. The importance of a major rail route to the development of the northwest section of the Valley cannot be overstated. It provided business owners, ranchers, and farmers access to regional and national markets. With stops in small communities such as Beardsley and Marinette (now Sun City), it offered
72 Hanchett, Catch the Stage, 63, 80. “Saga of the Vulture Road,” Arizona Highways, 50 no. 6 (June 1974): 28-9. Bureau of Land Management Survey Map of Township No. 3 North, Range No. 1 West, Gila And Salt River Meridian, Arizona, 1896. 30
residents of remote areas relatively fast and comfortable transportation to points within and beyond Arizona.73
The challenge of a fluctuating water supply prompted early Arizona residents to pursue large-scale projects, such as the construction of Roosevelt
Dam. In the Northwest Valley, it stimulated an undertaking equally important to that region. As historian Karen Smith observes, “[d]esert rivers, which seem at first the antidote to the region’s limited rainfall, complicate southwestern agriculture because they are not reliable sources of water. Their sometimes violent flood and drought cycles make water supply chaotic.”74 These seemingly endless drought-flood cycles demonstrated the need for water storage and control structures. In 1892, a small group of prominent Phoenicians signed a contract with William Beardsley to erect a storage dam on the upper Agua Fria
River and a canal to move water south to potential farmlands. Construction began in 1895; ten months later, floodwaters wiped out much of the partially built structure. In the ensuing years, financial and bureaucratic problems delayed re- initiation of the project. In 1920, Beardsley hired engineer Carl Pleasant to restart the endeavor and supervise construction. After receiving approval from oversight agencies in 1925, Beardsley organized the Maricopa County Municipal Water
Conservation District Number One. The New York investment firm of Brandon,
Gordon, and Waddell backed bonds for the project, and Donald W. Waddell came to the Valley to oversee the undertaking. Construction began in 1926,
73 John W. Sayre includes copies of a large volume of corporate documents in his detailed history of the SFP&P, The Santa Fe, Prescott and Phoenix Railway: The Scenic Line of Arizona (Boulder: Pruett Publishing Company, 1990), 1-42, 47.
74 Karen L. Smith, The Magnificent Experiment: Building the Salt River Reclamation Project 1890-1917 (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1986), 1.
31
completing in 1928. An important element of the project, the 33-mile-long
Beardsley Canal transported water from Lake Pleasant, the water storage facility behind the dam, to the Northwest Valley.75
Fig. 2.2. Constructing Lake Pleasant Dam, 1927. Courtesy of Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District Number One.
The dam and the canal radically changed the landscape of the Northwest
Valley as land speculation and development commenced. The August 18, 1927
Arizona Republican reported on the sale of over 39,000 acres of property owned by the Beardsley Land and Investment Company to Pacific Development
Company, a Los Angeles firm specializing in citrus properties.76 The paper
75 During the 1930s, the federal government modified and upgraded the dam. Initially called Lake Pleasant Dam, it was renamed Waddell Dam in 1965. In 1985, as part of the Central Arizona Project, the Federal Bureau of Reclamation funded the replacement of Waddell Dam. Completed in 1994, the new dam rises 300 feet above the streambed and has a storage capacity of 1,108,600 acre-feet of water. David Introcaso, “Waddell Dam” (Salt River Project Archives Pamphlet prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1987), 1-6. Rogge, Raising Arizona’s Dams, 47, 49.
32
termed it “the largest real estate deal on record in Arizona.”77 As part of their development effort, the California firm installed feeder canals and irrigation ditches to distribute water to the five-acre parcels in their Romola Arizona
Grapefruit Units, which they sold to investors for a small down payment and extended monthly payments. To ensure success, the firm launched a $750,000 national advertising campaign using lectures, movies, and print media. They sent their 600-person sales force to Arizona in special Pullman cars to view the new property. To assist in the marketing effort, the SFP&P railroad built a thirteen- mile branch line through the property along what is now Cotton Lane; Pacific
Development used the rail line to give prospective buyers a tour of their potential investment.78
76 “Sale And Development Of Beardsley Project Involves Enormous Sums: Transaction Is Greatest Deal Made In State,” The Arizona Republican, August 18, 1927.
77 Ibid.
78 “Sale And Development Of Beardsley Project,” August 18, 1927. “Beardsley Project Takes Definite Form! Open Letter To The Builders Of Lake Pleasant Dam, On The Agua Fria River,” The Arizona Republican, August 19, 1927. Robert Moore, interview by Carol Palmer, February 19, 2009, Surprise, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. 33
Fig. 2.3. Digging Beardsley Canal. Courtesy of Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District Number One.
As the landscape of the Northwest Valley changed, the population expanded. Dysart School, the only option for families living west of the Agua Fria
River and north of Avondale, struggled in the early 1920s to meet the state’s eight-student enrollment requirement. At the end of 1928, approximately 50 students attended the small rural institution. By 1932, the school required four teachers. The completion of the dam played a significant role in transitioning the
Northwest Valley from a transportation corridor, a place where people and goods moved through, to a site of investment opportunity and agricultural employment.79
79 Lawrence A. Dysart to Mrs. Clarence Mathis, October 12, 1969, COSHPA. Mrs. Worthy W. Ragsdale, “Reminiscences of Dysart School,” undated, COSHPA. 34
Even before the completion of Waddell Dam, agricultural interests began investing in the Northwest Valley. In the first decade of the twentieth-century,
Wisconsin businessman R. P. Davie purchased thousands of acres between the
Agua Fria and New River for sugar beet cultivation. To attract workers, Davie platted a town site he named Marinette after his home city in Wisconsin. Sugar beets failed to thrive due to high temperatures and adverse soil conditions. Davie sold the property in 1920 to Southwest Cotton Company (SWCC), which diversified the farm operations, introduced cotton production, and maintained
Marinette as a company town. In 1936, the J. G. Boswell Company purchased the property, continuing agricultural production, predominantly cotton, into the
1960s.80
80 “Saga of the Vulture Road,” 29. Tudor, Along the Old Vulture Road, 75. Nancy Hill, “The Imprint of Cotton Production on Arizona Landscapes” (PhD diss., Arizona State University, 2007), 165-6.
35
Fig. 2.4. A harvest at Marinette Ranch. Courtesy of the Sun Cities Area Historical Society Cotton reshaped the landscape of Arizona and the Northwest Valley. It debuted in the state in the 1890s, introduced by the United States Department of
Agriculture. The agency set up an Agricultural Experiment Station at Sacaton, mid-way between Phoenix and Tucson. In 1910, the Station’s research trials with a variety of species yielded a new strain of long staple cotton they called Pima.
Stronger, with larger bolls, and a more lustrous fiber, cotton mills testing Pima cotton declared it a superior product.81
Coincident with cotton’s emergence in the Valley, a trifecta of events ensured high demand for the product. First, Americans began their long love affair with the automobile. In 1895, there were three hundred autos in the country; by 1899, three hundred factories struggled to keep pace with orders for these vehicles. Demand spiked for products used in making and operating automobiles, such as steel, oil, glass, and cotton.82
Interested in leveraging this opportunity, the Goodyear Company hired
Paul W. Litchfield in 1900 to oversee tire-manufacturing operations. In 1903, the company introduced a tire made with a woven cotton mesh, which made the rubber stronger. In 1913, the company introduced cord tires, which required a sturdier fabric. The short staple cotton grown in many southern states did not meet the strength requirement. In a second bit of good fortune for Arizona farmers, the coastal regions of South Carolina and Georgia, the one area of the
81 Hill, “The Imprint of Cotton,” 41-2, 47, 49, 58-9.
82 Ibid, 64-6. 36
country that produced the stronger long staple cotton, experienced a devastating boll weevil infestation.83
A third event guaranteed the success of Arizona cotton: the onset of
World War I. For armies engaged in battle, horses proved no match for airplanes and motorized vehicles; these military assets needed tires, and each tire required five pounds of cotton. A British blockade of Egypt stopped access to this traditional source of long staple cotton. With production shortfalls in South
Carolina and Georgia, tire producers looked elsewhere and found Arizona.
Initially unable to entice Arizona farmers to risk large investments in cotton acreage, tire companies entered the cotton production business. In 1916, under the leadership of Paul Litchfield, Goodyear created a subsidiary, Southwest
Cotton Company (SWCC). After starting production in the Southeast Valley, the company then acquired acreage in the West Valley. The land slopes ten feet to the mile from the White Tanks to the banks of the Agua Fria River, making it a perfect location for crop irrigation. In 1917, SWCC began construction on a town and farm in the Litchfield area. In 1920, it added Marinette Ranch to its West
Valley holdings.84
Various factors including market fluctuations and overproduction made cotton farming a difficult proposition, especially for small growers. When demand for cotton soared during World War I, many people took advantage of the opportunity. When the war ended, the boom collapsed; in the next five years, the farm population of Arizona declined by 22% as cotton famers lost their land in foreclosures and bankruptcies. Farmers that survived the crisis diversified their
83 Hill, “The Imprint of Cotton,” 72-6.
84 Ibid., 71, 76-7, 135-8, 147-9, 165. 37
crops. By the mid-1920s, demand stabilized and growers returned some acreage to cotton, many planted the higher-yield short staple variety. Over the next four decades, these cycles recurred, but cotton continued to dominate the landscape of the Northwest Valley.85
While R.P. Davie initiated large-scale farming in the Northwest Valley and
SWCC introduced cotton to the area, other large and medium-sized agricultural operations emerged in subsequent decades. Donald Waddell, the New York financier who moved to Phoenix to oversee dam construction on the Agua Fria
River, acquired much of the Beardsley property after the 1929 financial crisis ended citrus property development plans. He established a large, diverse farming operation called Waddell Ranch. After World War II, Charles Wetzler, a Northern
Arizona ranch owner, and his partner, Rans Spurlock, built a cattle feedlot, Circle
One Ranch, on property they named Lizard Acres. Wetzler and Spurlock chose a location north of Bell Road on Grand Avenue due to its proximity to the railroad track, important for transporting cattle. The facility often housed as many as
25,000 head of cattle. In the early 1950s, Bob Moore purchased a section at
Cactus Avenue and Waddell Road, which he turned into a large cotton farm.
Over the years, by leasing additional property and investing in picking equipment,
Moore grew the business to 1,500 acres of planting and 3,000 acres of harvesting. Like Waddell, Wetzler, and Moore, other large farm operations leveraged the available opportunities in the Northwest Valley, producing roses, citrus, and vegetables. However, ownership and the types of crops planted rarely
85 Hill, “The Imprint of Cotton,” 130, 179-83, 195-6. Bradford Luckingham, Phoenix: The History of a Southwestern Metropolis (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1989), 74-6. Marsha L. Weisiger, Land of Plenty: Oklahomans in the Cotton Fields of Arizona, 1933-1942 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995), 37.
38
remained static. As market dynamics affected profits, corporate and family owners bought and sold land and changed or diversified their crops.86
Fig. 2.5. A map showing the locations of a few of the large and medium-sized farm operations that emerged in the Northwest Valley between 1920 and 1955. (Map by Vince Colburn)
Smaller family operations, interspersed among the large farm holdings, also altered the Northwest Valley landscape. The Justice family purchased 80 acres at the southwest corner of Bullard Road and Peoria Avenue in the late
1920s, eventually growing their ranch to 180 acres. Like many small farm owners, they leased additional land and farmed a variety of products including cattle, citrus, cantaloupe, and alfalfa. In 1947, John Truman bought 160 acres on the southwest corner of Cotton Lane and Waddell Road. The Truman family also produced a variety of products and leased land to expand their output. In addition to citrus, cotton, and vegetables, they operated a dairy. Other families ran farm
86 R. Moore, interview, February 19, 2009. George Garcia and Celia Garcia, interview by Carol Palmer, March 6, 2009, Wittman, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. Pit Wetzler Lucking, interview by Beverly Brown, February 9, 2007, Sun City, Arizona, audio recording, Sun Cities Area Historical Society. 39
operations similar to those of the Trumans and Justices. Beginning at the turn of the century and continuing into the post-World War II period, large and small corporate and family operations confronted the challenges of the desert environment and transformed 250 square miles of the Northwest Valley into an agricultural landscape of fields, pastures, farm buildings, cotton gins, and, critically important, housing for farm workers.87
Although producing different crops on differing scales, all Northwest
Valley farms needed laborers to do the hard work required to produce cattle, cotton, roses, fruits, and vegetables. Many operations maintained a year-round workforce, ranging in size from one to dozens of employees, to operate machinery, irrigate fields, and perform other ongoing chores. In addition, plantings, harvests, round-ups, and other tasks required seasonal workers. Local residents met some, but not all, of these needs. Over the decades, a variety of groups filled this labor vacuum. Native Americans and Mexicans dominated the seasonal labor force during the early years. The Depression produced a new labor pool: farm owners, tenant farmers, and sharecroppers and their families, displaced by conditions in south central states such as Texas and Oklahoma.
During World War II, when many farm workers entered the military or took jobs in defense plants, German and Italian military personnel housed at the Papago
Prisoner of War Camp in Phoenix filled the seasonal labor needs of Valley ranches and farms. Japanese and Japanese American internees at the Gila
River Relocation Camp also supported the war effort by volunteering to work in the fields. Additionally, farmers also took advantage of a federal bracero program
87 James Truman, interview by Paul Ferrante, March 23, 2009, Surprise, Arizona, video recording, COSHPA. Dewayne Justice, interview by Carol Palmer, February 19, 2009, Surprise, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. 40
that brought Mexican workers into the country on a temporary basis to harvest crops.88
In the vast expanse of Northwest Valley farmland, housing for workers varied in terms of quality and availability. Some year-round agricultural employees lived on-site in facilities provided by farm owners. Others maintained homes in periphery towns such as Peoria or Avondale. However, migrant workers coped with limited, predominately substandard, housing options. Some stayed in trailer parks or camped in farm fields or along roadsides. Some farm owners maintained camps for migrant families. In the Northwest Valley, facilities such as these existed in several locations including Beardsley, Buckeye, and
Waddell. The largest, Marinette, housed workers, first for Southwest Cotton
Company and, later, J. G. Boswell Company. Typically, migrant camps consisted of tents and one-room cabins where sanitation always proved problematic.
Communicable disease outbreaks, such as the 1938 small pox epidemic at a
Casa Grande camp, occurred regularly.89
In addition to substandard living conditions, Native American, African
American, and ethnic Mexican workers endured segregation and discrimination.
When Goodyear built company towns during World War I, it established separate housing compounds for Mexicano families. In the West Valley, separate camps existed for African Americans at Buckeye and Beardsley. When Rosetta Gaines’
88 Hill, “The Imprint of Cotton,” 201, 215-6, 220, 235-8, 241. R. Moore, interview, February 19, 2009. Weisiger, Land of Plenty, 7, 91. The first time non-English words are used in this paper, they will be italicized. They will appear in regular format throughout the rest of the paper.
89 Hill, “The Imprint of Cotton,” 227, 233. Weisiger, Land of Plenty, 66, 79, 132, 106. Justice, interview, February 19, 2009. R. Moore, interview, February 19, 2009. G. Garcia and C. Garcia, interview, March 6, 2009.
41
family, Euro-Americans, moved to Marinette in the 1940s, she recalls that they lived in the “white” camp. George Garcia remembers the cruel treatment meted out by teachers to students who failed to use English in the classroom or on the playground. Discriminatory practices such as these continued for decades, generating resentment and resistance, and providing an ongoing subtext for community conflict.90
In 1938, as the cultural landscape of the Northwest Valley evolved, Flora
Statler, a Glendale investor with two decades of experience in developing residential properties, purchased an unimproved parcel west of the Aqua Fria
River from the State of Arizona.91 Although she told her teenage daughter
Elizabeth that she “would be surprised if it ever, ever amounts to anything,”
Statler probably saw beyond the dusty expanse of mesquite and cacti.92 As a perceptive investor, she comprehended the economic potential of the railroad and state highway that crossed the northern boundary of her property and the hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland that surrounded her parcel, creating jobs for workers who needed housing. In addition to her business experience,
Statler previously raised cotton on a nearby acreage; hence, she was familiar
90 Hill, “The Imprint of Cotton,” 140, 156, 201, 233-4. Weisiger, Land of Plenty, 66. R. Gaines and C. Gibson, interview, March 4, 2009. G. Garcia and C. Garcia, interview, March 6, 2009.
91 Deed, State of Arizona, Number 19380003066, May 12, 1938, http://recorder.maricopa.gov/recdocdata/getrecdataselect2.aspx, (accessed, July 4, 2011). Elizabeth Statler Wusich Stoft, interview by Carol Palmer, May 26, 2009, Phoenix, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA.
92 City of Surprise, Communications Department, Surprise11 Special Programming, “History Book Release,” February 11, 2010, http://www.surpriseaz.gov/files/granicus/surprise11specialprogramming.html (accessed July 4, 2011). The accounts of Flora Statler’s reaction to her purchase of open desert land vary in detail, but everyone agrees that she professed that she would be ‘surprised’ if it became significant in terms of size.
42
with the dynamics of farm labor, the need for year-round and seasonal workers, and the lack of housing for both groups. She also understood the price point that could entice farm workers to buy her lots. In 1938, she subdivided and platted her parcel, naming it Surprize.93
Fig. 2.6. The plat map for the first neighborhood in Surprise, Arizona. Courtesy of the City of Surprise.
Before Statler made her land investment, the federal government enacted
New Deal programs that changed the nation’s algorithm of home financing and ownership, ensuring the eventual domination of the suburb. Historians of
93 E. Stoft, interview, May 26, 2009. Kirsten Ericksen and A.E. Rogge, URS Cultural Resource Report 2008-7 (Records Review of Historic-Age Properties within the Original Surprise Townsite, Maricopa County, Arizona, April 2008), 5. Why Statler chose to spell ‘Surprize’ with a ‘z’ remains a mystery. 43
suburbia generally agree that these initiatives created a “foundation for the suburban boom of the postwar era” and beyond.94 Kenneth Jackson contends that “[n]o agency of the United States has had a more pervasive and powerful impact on the American people over the past half-century than the Federal
Housing Administration,” (FHA) an organization created in 1934.95 In their examination of the model postmodern metropolis, scholars argue the “continued evolution of Los Angeles must be understood in the context of the New Deal legislation that rebuilt the U.S. banking system in the 1930s on the basis of two principles: market segmentation and government subsidies.”96 After the end of
World War II, provisions of the GI Bill further subsidized home purchases, pulling more families into the suburbs. Four and a half decades later, the Valley’s continuously expanding suburban footprint reached Surprise, bringing new ideas about community identity.
While New Deal programs made home ownership accessible to millions of American families, they also systematized the segregation of African
Americans and ethnic Mexicans. The Home Owners Loan Corporation established the practice of red lining, effectively forcing families seeking a loan to bypass neighborhoods with minority residents and excluding most minorities from home financing. In Phoenix, restrictive covenants combined with discriminatory real estate and financing practices excluded blacks and ethnic Mexicans from
94 Nicolaides and Wiese, “Introduction,” 4.
95 Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 203.
96 Gary A Dymski and John Vietch, “Financing the Future in Los Angeles: From Depression to 21st Century,” in Rethinking Los Angeles, ed. Michael J. Dear, H. Eric Schockman, and Greg Hise (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1996), 38.
44
many neighborhoods. Most African Americans lived in an area south of the city, a segregated neighborhood of substandard housing. As was true for blacks,
Mexicanos experienced institutionalized discrimination and segregated housing.97
In Surprise, the first buyers included African American and ethnic
Mexican families. However, Statler’s sales practices created segregated housing patterns. She did not adopt restrictions, as she had done in her Glendale subdivision, Floralcroft. Blacks and Mexicanos, locked out of most West Valley neighborhoods, could purchase lots. However, sales records and oral histories indicate race and ethnicity played a role in the sales transaction. As discussed more fully in Chapter Three, Statler offered Euro-Americans a broad choice of lots. Mexicanos received fewer options and African American families had a very narrow range of choices.98
97 Dolores Hayden, Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820- 2000 (New York: Vintage Books, 2003), 125. Thomas E. Sheridan, Arizona: A History (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1995), 282. Luckingham, Phoenix, 171,175. Matthew C. Whitaker, Race Work: The Rise of Civil Rights in the Urban West (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2005), 92, 101-108. x
98 Doug Kupel, “Floralcroft Historic District,” (National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, February 1, 2005), 8. Minnie Marshall Williams and Alice Marshall Groves, interview by Carol Palmer, December 15, 2008, Surprise, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. LeRoy Moore, telephone interview by Carol Palmer, November 3, 2011, Glendale Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. Carolyn Cumbie Adair, interview by Carol Palmer, November 7, 2008, Surprise, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. There are seventy-two sales records on file at the Maricopa Recorder website for Flora Staler in 1947. These include properties in Glendale, El Mirage, North El Mirage, and Surprise. All of the fourteen buyers with Hispanic surnames were sold lots in El Mirage or North El Mirage. This pattern is consistent with that in previous and subsequent years.
45
The War, Cold War, and Valley Growth
Nationally, in the post-World War II period, housing demand soared and homebuilders responded. Single-family home construction stood at 114,000 in
1944, rose to 937,000 in 1945, then surpassed 1.6 million by 1950, driving a complete restructuring of the housing industry. Large builders increased in number and size. Before World War II, these companies accounted for one-third of all home construction; by 1949, ten percent of homebuilders erected seventy percent of all new houses.99 An industry that was “highly fragmented ... and dominated by small and poorly organized house builders who had to subcontract much of the work” changed dramatically.100 Large construction firms implemented assembly-line production methods and standardized materials, increasing their productivity. In 1945, builders completed an average of five homes per year, by
1959 that number increased to twenty-two. Although the opportunity to increase output and contain costs motivated construction firms to adopt efficient processes, building standards established by the FHA also incented these changes.101 On a national level, one firm became the model for mass-produced housing: “Levitt and Sons transformed the housing industry from small scale to large scale, from an industry relying on craft methods to one that used the latest industrial techniques.”102
Changes in home financing practices and constructions processes affected the Valley in the post-war era and enabled Surprise’s transition from
99 Hayden, Building Suburbia, 132. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier, 233.
100 Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier, 233.
101 Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier, 233-9. Baxandall and Ewen, Picture Windows, 56.
102 Baxandall and Ewen, Picture Windows, 124. 46
rural fringe community to boomburb five decades later. In Phoenix, Walter
Bimson, the leader of the area’s dominant financial institution, Valley National
Bank, embraced FHA loan standards. Concurrently, the city of Phoenix, responding to FHA standards, adopted a building code in 1935. After the war,
Valley builders, such as John F. Long, Ralph Staggs, and John Hall entered the business using mass-production techniques. Their firms successfully leveraged the opportunities presented by the post-war housing demand. In 1959, these three builders constructed over 5,200 homes. Home construction became a prominent segment of the Valley’s economy, accounting for as much as ten percent of non-farm employment. However, this figure varied greatly due to significant fluctuations in demand. For example, although home construction grew from $66 million in 1950 to $1.2 billion in 1980, a mid-1960s market downturn reduced the number of builders from eighty to twenty. Overbuilding, speculative buying, and economic cycles contributed to this radical variation in demand, continuously plaguing the Valley’s construction industry and, in turn, affecting the development of Surprise.103
Statler began selling property in Surprise on the eve of World War II, an event that radically changed the economic, social, and cultural trajectory of the
Valley of the Sun and much of western part of the country. According to historian
Gerald Nash, “[i]n four short years the war brought a maturation to the West that in peacetime might have taken generations to accomplish.”104 He argues that it
103 Phillip VanderMeer, Desert Visions and the Making of Phoenix, 1860-2009 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2010), 81, 192-6, 198.
104 Gerald D. Nash, The American West Transformed: The Impact of the Second World War (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1985), vii.
47
“transformed a colonial economy ... into a diversified economy.”105 Urban historian Carl Abbott, while recognizing the importance of World War II, presents a more complex view of the extraordinary changes in the West during the latter half of the century, arguing for the importance of the Cold War and the resulting conflicts in Korea and Vietnam. To illustrate the magnitude of the transformation, he cites the change in western employment statistics as jobs in extractive industries declined from twenty-eight percent of the total in 1940 to six percent in
1980.106 Robert Beauregard offers another perspective. He labels the period between the end of the war and the mid-1970s, the “short American Century,” a period “when four momentous events collided: the decline of the industrial cities, the rise of the mass-produced suburbs and Sunbelt cities, unprecedented domestic prosperity, and a global dominance.”107 People migrated out of industrial cities in the Midwest and Northeast into Sunbelt cities and suburbs.108
Beauregard points to World War II with its “unique impact in these regions” as the catalyst for this change.109
As part of the western Sunbelt, Phoenix partook in this mid-century transformation. VanderMeer notes, “World War II divides the history of Phoenix and demarcates its Edenic, prewar vision from the postwar, high-tech suburban
105 Nash, The American West Transformed,” vii.
106 Carl Abbott, How Cities Won the West: Four Centuries of Urban Change in Western North America (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2008), 171. Abbott, The Metropolitan Frontier, xv, 57.
107 Beauregard, When America Became Suburban, ix, xiii.
108 Ibid, ix, xi.
109 Ibid., 28. 48
vision.”110 In the latter period, the city experienced a “dramatic increase in size and in its economy.”111 Matthew McCoy contends, “[t]he city did not merely grow
… it became, fundamentally, a different place.”112 Arizona, a rural state, economically dependent on mining, ranching, and farming at the start of the war, began a period of economic diversification, urbanization, and population growth with Phoenix leading the way. Initially, military requirements drove increased demand in the traditional industries of cotton, cattle, and copper. Phoenix benefitted from this but realized even more economic growth when the military selected sites for bases in the area. The Army established two facilities near
Phoenix, Camp Hyder and Camp Horn. Daily throughout the war, fifteen military trains pulled into town carrying soldiers who consumed the city’s goods and services and fueled growth in many economic sectors. In all, one million members of the military attended training in the state, many of them in preparation for airborne assignments. In 1940, the Army Air Corps began using
Glendale’s Thunderbird Field, and the military built Luke Field south of Surprise the following year. Also in 1941, Britain’s Royal Air Force started flying out of
Falcon Field in Mesa. Luke, in particular, became an economic engine for the
Northwest Valley and Surprise during the next seven decades.113
110 VanderMeer, Desert Visions, 94.
111 Ibid., 94.
112 Matthew Gann McCoy, “Desert Metropolis: Image Building and the Growth of Phoenix, 1940-1965, (PhD diss. Arizona State University, 2000), 6.
113 Sheridan, Arizona, 271-3. Luckingham, Phoenix, 139, 137. David R. Berman, Arizona Politics and Government: The Quest for Autonomy, Democracy, and Development (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998), 51. Gerald D. Nash, “Reshaping Arizona’s Economy: A Century of Change,” in Arizona at Seventy-Five: The Next Twenty-Five Years, ed. Beth Luey and Noel J.Stowe, (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1987), 138, 132. VanderMeer, Desert Visions, 98-100, 103. 49
Economically more important in the long term, businesses in the defense industry chose the Valley as the site for new facilities. Alcoa, AiResearch,
Goodyear, and other companies established manufacturing plants in the metropolitan area. Just as military bases precipitated an influx of residents, so did defense plants. As people came to Phoenix to work in these facilities, service industries and financial institutions boomed.114 Thomas E. Sheridan observes,
“[w]ith more than 12,000 defense jobs and thousands of soldiers and pilots passing through town, Phoenix was humming.”115
Phoenix continued to “hum” after war’s end. The military needs of the
Cold War and the various conflicts it spawned, increased military spending and fueled demand for the products of defense-related businesses. In the Northwest
Valley, the defense department, in response to the Korean crisis, reversed its post-war decision to close Luke Field, reopening it as Luke Air Force Base in early 1951. With a core defense industry in place, companies seeking sites for new plants found Arizona’s urban areas attractive.116 This post-war economic boom created the “most explosive decade of growth in Arizona history.”117
Hundreds of businesses, predominantly small enterprises, launched operations in Phoenix, as did large firms such as General Electric, Sperry Rand, and Kaiser
Aircraft and Electronics. One of the most important new businesses, Motorola,
114 Sheridan, Arizona, 271-3. Nash, “Reshaping Arizona’s Economy,” 132. VanderMeer, Desert Visions, 99.
115 Sheridan, Arizona, 273.
116 Sheridan, Arizona, 279. “Luke Field/AFB and 56th Fighter Wing Chronology, 1941-FY08,” 56th Fighter Wing History Office, 2009, 3. VanderMeer, Desert Visions, 105, 155.
117 Sheridan, Arizona, 279. 50
established a research and development center in Phoenix in 1948. By 1960, the company operated three plants with 5,000 employees in the area.118
In the post-war era, Phoenix civic and business leaders sought economic expansion and diversification and implemented strategies to attract new businesses. The city’s Chamber of Commerce grew from 500 to 2,000 members, focused on economic development, and hired a professional staff. Mindful of the expanding tourist industry, civic boosters sought clean industry. Hoping to attract firms in the technology sector, city leaders strove to create a positive business climate. They supported tax reductions, right-to-work laws, efficient city government, and other initiatives designed to make Phoenix a commerce-friendly city.119
As Phoenix’s economy grew so did its population. Job opportunities and good weather proved an attractive combination; Midwesterners flocked to the area seeking both. This migration differed from that of previous decades when
Southern states were the typical point of origin. Many new Phoenicians served in
World War II. Stationed in the Valley during the war, they returned to establish homes and raise families. They relied on air conditioning, which made desert summers tolerable and facilitated population growth. By the 1960s, central-air cooled twenty-five percent of Phoenix homes. Ensuring that new residents could buy homes, Valley National Bank, the area’s largest financial institution, focused on consumer loans. As new residents descended on the Valley of the Sun,
Maricopa County census data reveal the incredible pace of growth. A county
118 Sheridan, Arizona, 280. Luckingham, Phoenix, 156.
119 Luckingham, Phoenix, 154-9, 186-7. VanderMeer, Desert Visions, 157, 164. Philip VanderMeer, Phoenix Rising: The Making of a Desert Metropolis (Carlsbad: Heritage Media Corporation, Carlsbad California, 2002), 24.
51
population that numbered 186,000 in 1940, reached 332,000 by 1950, and stood at 1.5 million in 1980.120
Concurrently, the city of Phoenix grew from 65,000 in 1940 to 789,000 in
1980. To accommodate this growth, construction spending increased from $22 million in 1955 to $94 million in 1960. Schools, shopping centers, and government buildings sprung up as developers built bedroom communities such as Maryvale and Arcadia. More construction took place in Phoenix in 1959 than in the period 1914 to 1946 combined. This growing urban area did not resemble cities on the East Coast; Phoenix had a distinct Western look and feel. In planned communities and new suburbs, ranch style homes with carports and backyard pools, where families could enjoy the outdoors, became the standard.
The automobile served as the dominant form of transportation and shopping centers with spacious parking lots near suburban developments popped up to meet the needs of the local community.121
Conclusion
In its first nine decades, financial opportunism dominated the evolution of the
Northwest Valley. Initially a transportation route for those seeking to leverage the economic potential of Central Arizona’s mining communities, the area attracted investors such as William Beardsley who sought profit in land sales and large farm operations. Few of these entrepreneurs viewed the region as a place to create a home. Carl Pleasant resided in Phoenix when he oversaw the construction of the dam on the Agua Fria River. Charles Wetzler, owner of Lizard
120 VanderMeer, Desert Visions, 109, 112-3, 120. VanderMeer, Phoenix Rising, 26, 37. Berman, Arizona Politics, 8, 18, 51-2.
121 Sheridan, Arizona, 280-2. Luckingham, Phoenix, 160. 52
Acres, also lived in Phoenix, far from the smell of cattle manure. On one level,
Flora Statler, hoping to make a profit by exploiting a gap in the housing market, continued this trend of remote ownership and speculative investment. On another level, she set the stage for a break with past tradition. By subdividing her property into residential lots, she established a new understanding of place in one small section of the Northwest Valley. As new residents purchased these lots, global and national events transformed the economic and social algorithm of the Phoenix metropolitan area. World War II brought military facilities and defense industries to the Valley of the Sun. In the post-war years, national trends such as the exodus from urban areas to suburban and sunbelt locales precipitated population growth. The Cold War and the efforts of civic leaders attracted high technology and defense firms, which further fueled growth in the
Valley.122
122 Introcaso, “Waddell Dam,” 6. P. Lucking, interview, February 9, 2007. 53
CHAPTER THREE
SURPRISE EMERGES: CREATING A RESIDENTIAL PLACE IN AN
EXTRACTIVE, SPECULATIVE SPACE
Beginning in 1938, Flora Statler’s lots attracted a slow but steady stream of buyers, first in Surprise, and later, in her adjacent subdivision of North El Mirage.
Prior to her investment, the railroad, state highway, irrigation canals, and a vast acreage of ranches and farms defined the Northwest Valley as a place where investors extracted wealth and transported goods. The arrival of families, ready to purchase lots and construct homes in the midst of this agricultural landscape and transportation corridor, set the stage for a redefinition of one segment of this vast space. Statler’s home sites, advantageously located near farm work sites, appealed to those who could afford ten-dollars down and small monthly payments.123 Home ownership gave them an alternative to the limited, often substandard, housing options they typically found in the Northwest Valley. As new residents constructed homes, raised children, established churches, and created social networks, they “engaged in place-making activities,” refashioning a desert and agricultural space into a neighborhood place with a residential identity centered on family, church, and school, the first stage in the evolution of
Surprise.124
123 Memorandum by Harold Lundberg, “Surprise and El Mirage – Its Beginnings,” December 22, 1999, COSHPA. In an attempt to appease both sides of a dispute over who should receive credit for “founding” the town, Lundberg wrote several versions of this memorandum. I only use the information that is consistent in each version.
124 Cresswell, Place, 5.
54
Fig. 3.1. A map of the two neighborhoods that later became the original town site of Surprise (Map by Vince Colburn)
Scholarship on Suburbia
Several scholars explore the construction and evolution of lower-income communities in ways that are helpful in explaining the earliest years of Surprise.
Robert Slayton examines “how people in working-class areas responded to pressures and shaped their own version of community.”125 In Back of the Yards:
The Making of a Local Democracy, he makes extensive use of oral histories and
Progressive Era literature to explore the social and political dynamics of a
Chicago neighborhood of East European immigrants who worked in meatpacking
125 Robert A. Slayton, Back of the Yards: The Making of a Local Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 8. 55
plants during the first half of the twentieth century. Slayton describes how residents established “stability and order” in their community through churches, neighborhood councils, and networks of friends and families.126
A case study of the Los Angeles suburb of South Gate provides another perspective on a working-class community. In My Blue Heaven: Life and Politics in the Working-Class Suburbs of Los Angeles, 1920-1965, Becky Nicolaides demonstrates how Euro-American residents, “seeking family security in a hostile capitalist economy,” found home ownership to be “key to their status, their history, and their very identity.”127 Many migrated from the Midwest and south- central states and brought with them the “ideological baggage [of] ... independence, resourcefulness, frugality,” which helped them achieve their goals of home-ownership and family security at an economical price.128
Other studies explore the origins and evolution of ethnic Mexican agricultural communities. In How Cites Won the West: Four Centuries of Urban
Change in Western North America, Carl Abbott acknowledges the importance of the “labor camps and small company towns” surrounding Los Angeles, which
“housed farm workers who tended vegetables, harvested sugar beets, or maintained the citrus orchards.”129 During the early decades of the twentieth- century, many of these enclaves became permanent communities.130 In his analysis of these Southern California ethnic Mexican farm villages, Matt Garcia
126 Slayton, Back of the Yards, 9.
127 Nicolaides, My Blue Heaven, 1-2.
128 Ibid., 11, 2.
129 Abbott, How Cities Won the West, 97.
130 Ibid. 56
merges an “analysis of community formation with the study of Chicano cultural development by focusing on the cultural history of the segregated citrus-growing area of the San Gabriel Valley from 1900 to 1970.”131 He demonstrates how workers adapted and reinterpreted popular culture to create “a distinctive
Chicano culture in Southern California.”132
This literature provides a framework for analyzing the first decades of
Surprise. While the communities in question differ in several respects, all conform to a working-class model. Like the people in Slayton’s Chicago neighborhood, Surprise residents created and used institutions and social networks to organize and stabilize their neighborhoods. Similar to their counterparts in South Gate, they relied on their independence and resourcefulness to create economic security. In both locales, obtaining a family home proved central to individual and community identity. As in Garcia’s study, those that migrated to Surprise brought cultural traditions that influenced the evolution of their community.
However, the development of Surprise differs in some important ways.
First, ethnic and racial diversity typified the community from its inception and shaped its early years. Second, Surprise occupied a different position on the urban continuum. While Slayton and Nicolaides’ studies focus on urban venues and Garcia’s villages occupy a rural space, Surprise, located on the urban fringe, represented a hybrid. Buffeted by the social and economic changes emanating from a rapidly expanding metropolitan area and the effects of globalization and technological advances on the agricultural industry, its fringe location and
131 Garcia, A World of Its Own, 2.
132 Ibid., 7. 57
exposure to these diverse forces adds a new layer of understanding to the history of working-class communities.
Three groups comprised the first wave of Surprise residents. One large cohort consisted of Euro-American farm labor families driven west by the reordering of the economic infrastructure of south-central states such as Missouri and Arkansas. A related group of African American agricultural workers from this region also migrated west and created homes in Surprise. Finally, a complex set of political, economic, and social factors pushed and pulled members of the third large contingent from Mexico into Central Arizona. Many who settled in Surprise had lived and worked in the West Valley for several generations. These three groups brought with them life experiences associated with their farm-work livelihoods and their journey to the Northwest Valley. Additionally, they carried the cultural traditions and values of their places of origin. As they built homes and established the routines of daily living, they transformed their newly acquired land into a neighborhood place. Geographer Tim Cresswell argues, “places are performed on a daily basis through people living their everyday life.”133
Understanding the background of each group sheds light on how their values, ideologies, and experiences influenced their actions and shaped the community’s first phase of development and identity.
Migrating West
Popular renditions of people exiting south-central states in the twentieth century evoke images of poor and desperate Depression-era farm workers, displaced by
133 Cresswell, Place, 34.
58
drought and dust, moving west. Historians of this migration present a more complicated set of circumstances, a more diverse group of immigrants, and a protracted period of migration. James N. Gregory contends that this westward migration occurred in three phases, beginning in 1910 and continuing into the
1950s. Twenty-three percent of everyone born in Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, four million people, moved to other locations. In the first two decades, the number of farm workers in these four states decreased by 341,000.
In the next twenty years, another 800,000 of those who made their living in agriculture left the region. Each of the south-central states lost between forty- seven and fifty-five percent of their agricultural workers.134 In her study of the
Depression-era flow of people from Oklahoma to Arizona, Marsha L. Weisiger notes that 309,000 people left the former during the last half of the 1930s, an exodus she characterizes as an “epic migration.”135
The statistics describe a complex migration pattern. Not everyone who left south-central states worked in agriculture; seventeen percent occupied professional or white-collar positions. Of those farm workers who did leave, only a small percentage came from dustbowl areas. Likewise, not everyone exiting
Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, and Oklahoma fit the definition of poor or desperate.
However, most migrants shared several attributes. Sixty percent were adults thirty years of age or younger; ninety-five percent were Euro-Americans, and families dominated the migration. The majority relocated to western states with one-third settling in California. Many also chose Arizona; seventeen thousand
134 James N. Gregory, American Exodus: The Dust Bowl Migration and Okie Culture in California (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 6-7.
135 Weisiger, Land of Plenty, 7-8.
59
moved to the state from Oklahoma alone. Most migrants elected to live in urban areas across the west. A minority opted for rural locales, using their farm experience to obtain work. Some continued their annual routine, albeit further west, of following crop harvests, often moving from state to state.136
A reordering of the area’s economic structure propelled people out of
Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, and Missouri. First, a myriad of factors undermined the traditional agricultural model - one heavily reliant on cotton production and tenancy. The modernization of farming practices, including the transition from mules to tractors, reduced the need for the manual labor provided by tenant farmers and sharecroppers. Additionally, some landowners took advantage of the mechanization of wheat farming, replacing cotton with that crop and further reducing the need for tenant arrangements. Concurrently, a convergence of environmental setbacks and poor cotton-farming practices reduced harvest yields.137
New Deal programs further reduced the need for farm-workers. The
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 provided subsidies for not planting, decreasing cotton acreage by thirty percent in Oklahoma. The 1934 Bankhead
Act also decreased acreage by mandating limits and setting quotas. Cotton plantings in Oklahoma fell from four million acres in 1933 to under two million in
1941. The cumulative effect of technological advances, climatic problems, counterproductive farming methods, government intervention, and shrinking markets reordered the social landscape of south-central states.138
136 Gregory, American Exodus, 10, 15, 17, 19. Weisiger, Land of Plenty, 9, 10.
137 Gregory, American Exodus, 6, 11. Weisiger, Land of Plenty, 16-7, 20-3.
60
As their ability to make a living in Missouri, Texas, Arkansas, and
Oklahoma diminished, the opportunities offered by western states pulled families in that direction. The presence of friends and relatives who made the move west in prior decades increased the area’s attraction.139 Taking advantage of a “fully developed migration system,” at least fifty-percent of those leaving the south- central region participated in a chain migration, following friends and family.140
Moving, always a difficult choice, may have proved less daunting to tenant families accustomed to periodic relocations. Prior to the 1930s, over forty-percent of tenant arrangements lasted less than two years.141 For many, the “trip west was just one more in the long tradition of opportunity-seeking moves that these individuals and perhaps their parents and grandparents had become accustomed to making.”142
Large agricultural employment campaigns increased the allure of western states. Arizona’s Farm Labor Service (FLS), a cotton-industry group, began annual recruiting in Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, and Missouri when new federal policies restricted growers’ access to their traditional labor source: Mexico. The
FLS aggressively marketed cotton-harvesting positions using advertisements, handbills, and face-to face contacts, during which recruiters often touted the state’s moderate harvest-season climate. Farm families in the south-central
138 Gregory, American Exodus, 11-2. Weisiger, Land of Plenty, 23-6.
139 Gregory, American Exodus, 7, 17, 26-8. Weisiger, Land of Plenty, 61.
140 Gregory, American Exodus, 27-8.
141 Ibid., 30.
142 Ibid., 31. 61
region responded; in 1938, 25,000 pickers and their families arrived in central
Arizona.143
The forty-eight percent of south-central state migrants who chose farm work in western states experienced less success and encountered more difficulties than those who chose urban options. First, adverse weather conditions often impeded travel, disrupted harvesting, and stopped much-needed wages. In
1938, floods in California forced many migrants to stay in Arizona, where over
3,800 families had to rely on relief provided by social service agencies. Likewise, vehicle breakdowns, a common occurrence, often interrupted migration plans and delayed arrival at harvest sites. Housing also proved problematic. When farmers’ camps filled, laborers created squatter camps or lived in auto or trailer- courts. In some sites, unsanitary conditions led to disease outbreaks. In the winter of 1939, small pox and typhoid emerged in Valley camps. Additionally, substandard buildings created fire hazards. In November 1958, the Peoria Times reported on two labor camp fires that destroyed the belongings and housing of thirty families. Once on the job, farm workers experienced harsh working conditions and low wages. Families with one to two workers made eight to twelve dollars per week.144
People moving west from the south-central area also encountered the hostility of local residents and their elected officials. Many western locals assumed they worked as sharecroppers, which made them “white trash.” In school, migrant children encountered teasing due to their accents and poor
143 Weisiger, Land of Plenty, 5, 55-60.
144 Gregory, American Exodus, 34, 39, 52. Weisiger, Land of Plenty, 68-75, 77, 105. Peoria Times (henceforth abbreviated as PT), “Fires, Lack of Work Disasters Among Local Farm Workers,” November 21, 1958. 62
clothes. In Phoenix, police raided and closed ad hoc encampments, evicting migrant families. Trying to discourage indigent migrant relocations, in 1937, the
Arizona legislature passed a law requiring three years residency to establish state citizenship.145
In part, the cultural traditions of migrant families set them apart from locals. Their beliefs and traditions informed their actions as they established homes in their adopted communities and, in turn, reshaped the culture of their new neighborhoods. They embraced individualism and self-sufficiency, opposed unions, and believed in white supremacy. Protestant evangelicalism undergirded these values and beliefs. In 1936, ninety-one percent of Oklahomans identified as Protestant, and thirty-five percent as Baptist. After moving west, most joined
Southern Baptist, Pentecostal, or Nazarene congregations. Central to their world- view, the religious beliefs of south-central migrants permeated their everyday life.146 Historian Carl Abbott identifies “an Oklahoma–California cultural axis that
... found its most obvious expression in evangelical religion and country music.”147
As south-central states underwent an economic restructuring, African
Americans also migrated west. The black population of Maricopa, Pima, and
Pinal counties grew from less than 2,000 in 1920 to more than 10,000 in 1940.
Black migration continued during the war years and, by 1945, this group accounted for ten percent of those moving to Arizona. Like their Euro-American
145 Gregory, American Exodus, 104, 128. Weisiger, Land of Plenty, 49, 51.
146 Gregory, American Exodus, 141, 154, 192.
147 Abbott, The Metropolitan Frontier, 18.
63
counterparts, African Americans brought regional values and traditions with them, influencing the cultural milieu of western states. Black migrants experienced the same hardships as Euro-Americans while dealing with the additional burdens of discrimination, segregation, and racism. In Arizona, farm owners designated separate facilities for blacks and two West Valley camps at
Buckeye and Beardsley housed only African Americans.148
The stories of Euro-Americans and African Americans who relocated to
Surprise and North El Mirage between 1938 and 1950 resonate with the macro- narrative of westward migration out of the south-central region of the country.
Carolyn Cumbie Adair’s grandparents, Euro-American sharecroppers from
Arkansas, loaded eight of their ten children into their wood-panel truck and set out for California looking for work in the mid-1930s. They made it as far as the
Northwest Valley before their truck broke down. Surrounded by a landscape of cotton fields that offered them the opportunity to make a living, and, lacking the funds to repair the truck, they opted to stay.149
Not every migrant from the south-central region took such a direct route to Surprise. The Simmons family, Euro-Americans from Texas, left the state in the 1930s. For over a decade, they worked in fields in California and central
Arizona, occasionally returning to Texas for harvests, before purchasing property in North El Mirage in the early 1950s. At the onset of World War II, the Yinglings,
Euro-American farm workers from Arkansas, moved to Indiana to work in defense plants. When the war and their jobs ended, they moved to Surprise.
148 Eric V. Meeks, Border Citizens: The Making of Indians, Mexicans, and Anglos in Arizona (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2007), 119. Abbott, The Metropolitan Frontier, 19. Weisiger, Land of Plenty, 66.
149 C. Adair, interview, November 7, 2008. 64
Chester Marshall, an African American cotton contractor in Crockett, Texas, moved his family to New Mexico and then to Arizona in the late 1940s. The
Marshalls lived in a farm labor camp before purchasing property in North El
Mirage in 1951. Migration experiences similar to those of the Cumbies, Simmons,
Yinglings, and Marshalls dominate the histories of early Surprise and North El
Mirage families.150
The centrality of farm work to the identity of those who lived in Surprise and to the community-at-large cannot be overstated. During the area’s first two and a half decades, agriculture provided the economic foundation that both defined and enabled daily life. Some residents held unskilled, low-wage, temporary positions picking cotton, planting roses, or harvesting fruits and vegetables. After gaining field experience, some moved into higher paying, semi- skilled, permanent jobs, operating equipment and maintaining irrigation systems.
This experience sometimes led to supervisory positions, overseeing crews or farm operations. Another group made their living as independent cotton contractors, signing agreements with farm owners to hire workers and supervise harvesting. Carolyn Cumbie Adair and her four brothers worked for their father,
George Cumbie, who ran a large cotton crew; their mother ran the field lunch wagon. Similarly, Eddie Fulcher and his siblings worked for their father who drove his truck through North El Mirage each morning picking up workers and
150 Larry Simmons and Retha Simmons, interview by Sherry Aguilar, February 9, 2009, Surprise, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. Harold Yingling, interview by Sherry Aguilar, August 7, 2008, Surprise, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. M.Williams and A. Groves, interview, December 15, 2008. 65
transporting them to the fields. Chester Marshall, also a contractor, brought in workers from Michigan and Texas during the harvest season.151
Farm work shaped the lives of residents in multiple ways. From a financial perspective, it provided an unstable and uncertain income. When weather halted fieldwork, wages stopped; bad weather for a prolonged period meant personal economic crisis. One harvest season, rain stopped fieldwork for weeks leaving workers in “desperate straits, facing virtual starvation.”152 Reacting to the emergency, a state agency and the Salvation Army distributed supplies and funds to over 1,000 individuals in the Surprise and El Mirage area. When people did find fieldwork, they endured harsh conditions for low wages. Experienced cotton workers could pick 200 pounds per day, receiving three dollars for each hundred pounds. Picking cotton in the Valley meant enduring heat and cold, hauling heavy loads, and enduring cut fingers and hands. Those who worked the vegetable crops could make ten cents per dozen bunches of green onions and twenty cents for a carton of lettuce.153
To deal with the low wages and uncertainties of farm income, families developed financial strategies to supplement and even-out their income stream.
The Fulchers built small cabins on the back of their property and rented them to migrant laborers. Some women took in laundry or did other domestic chores.
151 C. Adair, interview, November 7, 2008. Roland Fulcher and Martha Fulcher, interview by Carol Palmer, January 21, 2009, Surprise, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. M. Williams and A. Groves, interview, December 15, 2008. Josephina Salas, interview by Lucia Haas, October 15, 2008, Surprise, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. D. Justice, interview, February 18, 2009. G. Garcia and C. Garcia, interview, March 6, 2009.
152 PT, “Rains Hurt Migrant Workers,” December 24, 1965.
153 “Rains Hurt Migrant Workers,” December 24, 1965. C. Adair, interview, November 7, 2008. Lundberg, “Surprise and El Mirage – Its Beginnings,” December 22, 1999. PT, “Farming Outlook in State Good,” May 16, 1958. 66
After dropping out of high school, Retha Simmons contributed to the family income by cleaning houses. George Cumbie worked on road crews during seasonal breaks. When work stopped in the cotton fields, men, women, and children picked citrus, onions, cantaloupe, and vegetables. During vegetable and fruit harvests in California, Oregon, and Washington, families traveled to those states to find jobs. In June 1961, Jack Phillips took his family to Oregon to work in the fields; in October of that year, Ed Morgan returned to Surprise after working in Eastern Washington.154
Families also employed a variety of methods to contain expenditures.
Some stocked their larder by hunting and fishing. Like many residents, Doyle
Moore maintained a large garden; others kept chickens in their yard. In general, families adopted a two-pronged approach to maintaining economic stability. First, they embraced all available opportunities to supplement their income and reduce their expenses. Second, every able member engaged in wage work.155
Farm work also influenced family decisions about education. Some children missed the first and last weeks of class every year because their families left the area to work harvests in other states. Many students, and their parents, assumed they would follow the family tradition of farm labor. As a result, they left school after completing the eighth grade; some dropped out even earlier. Eddie
154 R. Fulcher and M. Fulcher, interview, January 21, 2009. C. Adair, interview, November 7, 2008. Darlene Groves Parker, interview by Carol Palmer, June 3, 2009, Surprise, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. Emma Corbin, “Scouting Surprise,” Sun City-Youngtown News Sun (henceforth abbreviated as SCYNS), June 22, 1961, October 19, 1961, November 16, 1961. Larry Simmons and Retha Simmons, interview by Carol Palmer, October 13, 2011, Surprise, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. C. Adair, interview, November 7, 2008. Author unknown, hand-drawn advertisement in the Young Peoples Bulletin, of the First Baptist Church of Surprise, n.d., COSHPA.
155 Emma Corbin, “Scouting Surprise,” SCYNS, November 16, 1961, and July 6, 1961. Carolyn Moore, telephone interview by Carol Palmer, October 21, 2011, Glendale, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. 67
Fulcher went to work full time after his eighth grade graduation from Dysart
School. George Cumbie, who later served as mayor of Surprise for almost two decades, left school after the third grade. The 1970 census (the first to report discrete data for Surprise) reported the seventh grade as the median educational level for adults twenty-five years of age and older. This figure stood in sharp contrast to a county statistic of twelve years of education.156
While necessary for immediate financial reasons, the decision to leave school early affected families’ long-term earnings potential. By the mid-1960s, the mechanization of cotton harvesting, plus other factors, began to reduce the number of farm labor positions. Some people found other types of work, typically unskilled or semi-skilled positions. A lack of education precluded moving to higher paying positions. As a result, household incomes remained low. In a county where the 1970 census reported that over ninety percent of families lived above the poverty level, thirty-two percent of Surprise families subsisted on an income below the poverty line.157
While most residents derived wages from farm work, a small group earned income indirectly from agriculture. Several owned small businesses that served local families and travelers on Grand Avenue. The Butlers operated a
156 Joe Laborin, interview by Sherry Aguilar, May 28, 2009, Surprise, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. Justice, interview, February 18, 2009. L. Simmons and R. Simmons, interview, February 9, 2009. E. Fulcher and M. Fulcher, interview, January 21, 2009. Adair, interview, November 7, 2008. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1970, Census Tracts, Final Report, Phoenix SMSA (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), 22, 36. Dysart School District did not offer grades 9-12 until 1963. Dysart students took a bus to either Aqua Fria or Peoria High Schools. While no one mentioned this as a deterrent, it cannot be dismissed as a factor in the decision to not attend high school. Some Surprise and North El Mirage students went on to college. Typically, they did not return to Surprise because job opportunities were extremely limited.
157 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1970, Phoenix SMSA, 64, 78. 68
multi-purpose retail outlet that provided gasoline, groceries, and automobile services. The Saylor family owned a root beer stand and a series of other small businesses that catered to the community. The Hall family operated the Double
XX motel and opened a paint store in 1961. Bill Williams managed the family grocery store that served as the commercial heart of the community. Small retail and service enterprises served farm work families and provided income for the owners but few employment opportunities for local residents.158
A small number of people found non-farm work outside of the small business community. Don Blankenship worked as a deputy for the Maricopa
County Sheriff’s Office. Grover King and his brother-in-law Wesley Rogers drove buses for Dysart School. LeRoy Moore worked in the school’s maintenance department. Often, families supplemented their income from these positions or their small business enterprises with money earned from farm or ranch work. Joe
Butler worked the cantaloupe harvest each year. Blankenship raised and sold dogies he obtained from Circle One Feedlot. In sum, farm labor directly and indirectly provided the community’s economic foundation.159
Similar to the working-class community of South Gate, homeownership in
Surprise and North El Mirage served as a central element of personal and community identity. Obtaining a permanent home, an important milestone for migrant farm workers, increased a family’s social stability. The first step involved
158 Mike Butler, interview by Paul Ferrante, December 8, 2008, Peoria Arizona, video recording, COSHPA. Corbin, “Scouting Surprise,” SCYNS, August 3, 1961. PT, “The Surprise Snooper,” June 12, 1959. Margaret Espinoza, interview by Paul Ferrante, September 15, 2008, Surprise Arizona, video recording, COSHPA.
159 Don Blankenship, telephone interview by Carol Palmer, February 27, 2009, Kernville, Texas, audio recording, COSHPA. Corbin, “Scouting Surprise,” SCYNS, June 15, 1961. Carolyn Moore, email message to author, August 23, 2011. M. Butler, interview, December 8, 2008. Dogies are motherless calves. 69
purchasing a lot from Flora Statler. Unlike families in Phoenix neighborhoods who looked to developers like John Long and relied on financing from the FHA or the GI Bill, the working-class families of Surprise took a less sophisticated approach, one that reflected their limited means and tenuous employment situation. They bought lots for cash or on contract from Statler, her daughter
Elizabeth Wusich, or her business manager, Harold Lundberg. Initially, parcels sold for $250 to $300, with a $10 down payment and a monthly payment of $10 per month.160
Many families used, what was sometimes, their first chance at home ownership to improve the social and economic future of their children. When
George Cumbie went into the military during World War II, he sent his pay to his parents, who used the money to purchase lots for themselves and his siblings.
Other residents subdivided their large lots to create home sites for their offspring.
In the late 1940s, William Simmons bought five acres on Nash Street and divided it into eight lots, one for each of his adult children. Eddie Fulcher’s father did the same with the thirty acres he purchased. Chester Marshall also bought enough property to divide among his children. Residents maximized their opportunity to establish a home by helping their children achieve the same goal. Concurrently, they ensured a nearby family support network.161 Carolyn Cumbie Adair recalls,
“families all lived on the same street. Old people did not go someplace else [to retire]. Your grandmother was right next-door.”162
160 Lundberg, “Surprise and El Mirage – Its Beginnings,” December 22, 1999. R. Fulcher and M. Fulcher, interview, January 21, 2009.
161 C. Adair, interview, November 7, 2008. L. Simmons and R. Simmons, interview, February 9, 2009. R. Fulcher and M. Fulcher, interview, January 21, 2009. M. Williams and A. Groves, interview, December 15, 2008.
70
After finding the resources to purchase land, residents had to obtain housing while they built their new homes. Many relied on crude temporary housing during the construction process. The Fulchers lived in a makeshift shack with a roof of palm leaves. The Yingling’s occupied tents they upgraded with wooden floors. George Cumbie erected two one-room shacks for his wife and five children. After completing the main living area of their new home, the
Cumbies moved in while continuing to add rooms as time and resources allowed.163
Residents of Surprise and North El Mirage exhibited the resourcefulness identified by other scholars in their studies of working-class communities. Having experienced the financial hardships of the Great Depression while facing the shortages produced by World War II and the subsequent construction boom, residents used ingenious strategies to obtain building material. Russell Simmons bought a farmhouse on Indian School Road, removed the lumber and windows and used that material to construct a home. Simmons’ son, Larry, went to work for a home demolition business so he could collect the material his father needed to complete the structure. In the 1950s, their neighbor, Floyd Gaines, moved a two-room home from Marinette Ranch onto his home site. Surplus barracks or wood from used ammunition crates from Luke Field became the lumber of choice for many home construction projects. Eddie Fulcher’s father used rocks from the
Agua Fria riverbed to construct the exterior of his home. This creative reuse and recycling resulted in a community of unique homes that stood in stark contrast to
162 C. Adair, interview, November 7, 2008.
163 R. Fulcher and M. Fulcher, interview, January 21, 2009. H. Yingling, interview, August 7, 2008. C. Adair, interview, November 7, 2008. 71
the planned subdivisions of standardized homes springing up in the residential areas of nearby Phoenix.164
Other factors set the communities of Surprise and North El Mirage apart from typical post-World War II subdivisions. Utilities, taken for granted in most developments, proved more problematic in this undeveloped, unincorporated section of the Valley. The Cumbies hauled water to their property from a local farm well and did not have access to electricity until the early 1960s. Without a sewer system, everyone made do with outside privies or a septic tank. No green lawns or sidewalks interrupted a landscape of dirt roads and yards. Many residents kept farm animals. Floyd Gaines stabled his horse, Cyclone, in his backyard. Eddie Fulcher used his sister’s donkey to deliver newspapers. Smells from the surrounding fields of roses, citrus, and onions filled the air.
Unfortunately, when the wind blew from the north, it brought the odors generated by thousands of cattle at the Circle One Feedlot.165
As the first wave of migrants to the Surprise area found economic opportunities, their successes attracted friends and family to the area. Doyle and
Lois Moore moved to Surprise in the late 1930s. Her parents and siblings, the
Montgomery’s, followed shortly thereafter. Floyd Gaines’ father had friends living in the Northwest Valley, and, in 1945, he moved his family to the area. Two years later, Floyd and his wife Rosetta followed the senior Gaines. Chain migrations such as these continued for decades. Emma Corbin’s uncle, Wesley Young,
164 L. Simmons and R. Simmons, interview, February 9, 2009. R. Gaines and C. Gibson, interview, March 4, 2009. M. Williams and A. Groves, interview, December 15, 2008. R. Fulcher and M. Fulcher, interview, January 21, 2009.
165 C. Adair, interview, November 7, 2008. Maricopa County, “A Planning Report,” 6-7. R. Fulcher and M. Fulcher, interview, January 21, 2009. R.Gaines and C. Gibson, interview, March 4, 2009. February 27, 2009. E. Corbin, interview, August 28, 2008. 72
moved to Surprise in 1947. Ten years later, her parents moved their family to the area from Blue Field, Missouri.166
Fig. 3.2. The extended Simmons family, circa 1953. Courtesy of Sherry Simmons Aguilar.
Some relatives and friends of Surprise residents stayed in the south- central region and others opted to move to California, which resulted in personal connections and social travel patterns that extended from California, through
Arizona, to Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas. Emma Corbin’s “Scouting
Surprise” column, which appeared in the Sun City-Youngtown News-Sun during the early 1960s, provides evidence of the strong linkages between these locales.
In a November column, she reported on a sister hosting a brother visiting from
Texas and the Berk family traveling to California to visit relatives. These external
166 C. Moore, interview, October 21, 2011. R. Gaines and C. Gibson, interview, March 4, 2009. Emma Corbin, interview by Sherry Aguilar, August 28, 2008, Surprise, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. 73
connections comprised one element of a complex network that served as the social foundation of the community, linking people to family and friends to the west and east with similar values, beliefs, experiences, and origins.167
Within the community, the combination of chain-migration and marriages created complex, extended family associations. Charlie Robinson’s parents purchased a store in Surprise in the 1950s. He followed them to the area after he left the army at the end of the Korean War. In Surprise, Robinson met Christine
Parker who moved to Arizona from Oklahoma in 1941 with her parents and four brothers. Their marriage established a link between the Parker and Robinson families. Curtis Ashworth married Leroy Moore’s sister. Faye Montgomery,
Moore’s aunt, married Ross Hornsby. These marriages linked the Moore,
Ashworth, Montgomery, and Hornsby families.168 Again, Emma Corbin’s reports provide evidence of the centrality of family ties to the social fabric of the town. In one column, she described a “family night at the home of Mr. and Mrs. C.E.
Montgomery attended by the Moore and Hornsby families.”169
A third dimension of Surprise and North El Mirage’s intricate social network involved church affiliation. As noted by historian James N. Gregory, fundamentalist, evangelical sects dominated the south-central region and migrants from that area established churches that reflected their version of
Protestantism. Church listings and news articles in the Peoria Times about
Surprise and North El Mirage identify a Pentecostal congregation, a Church of
167 Corbin, “Scouting Surprise,” SCYNS, November 30, 1961.
168 Charlie Robinson and Christine Robinson, interview by Sherry Aguilar, September 18, 2008, Cordes Junction, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. C. Moore, interview, October 21, 2011.
169 Corbin, “Scouting Surprise,” SCYNS, July 16, 1961. 74
Christ, and three Baptist churches. One of the latter, the First Baptist, organized by local residents in 1944, became increasingly influential. By 1951, it boasted
101 members, over one-third of the town’s population. Its membership reflected the impact of chain migration and family connections created by marriage and included the names of men and women who would emerge as civic leaders in subsequent years.170
Churches played a pivotal role in the social life of residents. In addition to
Sunday worship, events and activities during the week and on Sunday evenings kept members engaged. Carolyn Moore remembers going to the First Baptist
Church three to four times a week and attending multiple bible schools each summer. Columns in area newspapers about Surprise and North El Mirage report on recreational, religious, administrative, and celebratory occasions sponsored by the community’s religious institutions. The First Baptist youth group held picnics, carnivals, pie suppers, and horseback rides. The Pentecostal Ladies Aid organization sponsored mid-week prayer meetings, potlucks, and fundraisers to support missionary work. Area churches celebrated religious holidays such as
Easter and secular ones such as Mother’s Day. The community’s churches embraced a similar fundamentalist theology and served residents with family connections in multiple congregations, a situation that facilitated joint endeavors.
In 1961, the Surprise and North El Mirage Euro-American churches co-
170 PT, “Church Directory,” July 20, 1956. PT, “Surprise Couple Wed at Pentecostal Church,” July 29, 1958. Maricopa County, “A Planning Report,” 8. Dorothy Smith, untitled minutes of organizational meeting of the First Baptist Church, October 9, 1944, COSHPA. Fern Rogers Farley, untitled memorandum, chronicling the history of the First Baptist Church, n.d., COSHPA. 75
sponsored a weeklong tent revival featuring twice-daily services and visiting pastors.171
A project initiated by one community member demonstrates the centrality of fundamentalist beliefs to Surprise residents and the strength of local connections to people in California and south-central states. On April 1, 1961,
Reverend Harold Morgan held a dedication ceremony in Surprise for a new
“Arizona Camp Meeting and Bible Conference Grounds,” under construction on five acres donated by the Morgan family. Using a combination of buildings transported from other locales and new construction, volunteers built a large tabernacle, a second facility for cooking and dining, and a space for tents, cabins, and trailers. The trustees of the facility included Morgan and Herbert M.
Shaw of Fresno, California. The first three-week long camp assembly occurred in
October of that year. During these annual gatherings, pastors and religious leaders from Arizona, California, and south-central states such as Oklahoma held multiple prayer services daily, staged musical presentations, and led group singing.172
A church also anchored the social life of the area’s small African
American community. Established in 1952, the Jerusalem Missionary Baptist
Church congregation met at the school originally used by the Dysart School
District as a separate facility for African American students. Founded by Chester
Marshall, the church hosted a variety of religious, educational, and social
171 C. Moore, interview, October 21, 2011. Corbin, “Scouting Surprise,” SCYNS, February 9.1961, March 16, 1961, September 7, 1961, September 14, 1961, March 30, 1961, May 25, 1961. Barbara Butler, “Surprise News,” PT, May 8, 1959.
172 PT, “Camp Meeting Grounds Started,” April 7, 1961. PT, “Tabernacle Rises in Surprise,” August 4, 1961. Emma Corbin, “Scouting Surprise,” SCYNS, September 22, 1961. “Camp Meeting at Surprise, Arizona,” flyer, undated, COSHPA. PT, “Surprise to Host Camping,” September 28, 1962. 76
activities.173 According to Marshall’s granddaughter, Darlene Groves Parker, “the community just centered around the church, because we always had something going on.”174 In addition to church services, prayer groups, and bible study, the pastor, Reverend J. P. Dunbar, arranged for outside entertainment, organized events for children, and brought families together for potlucks and holiday celebrations.175
Moving North
Another, initially smaller, group played a role in establishing a residential identity for Surprise and North El Mirage: ethnic Mexicans. Again, an examination of the circumstances of their migration, the challenges they faced, and the values and beliefs they brought with them, helps explain how these factors influenced their actions and choices as they created homes and neighborhoods and, in so doing, influenced Surprise’s emerging identity.
The story of Mexicans living in Arizona during its territorial period begins with a small enclave of approximately 1,000 living in the Tucson area, who established social and economic patterns that encompassed both sides of the border. During the latter years of the nineteenth-century, a combination of factors encouraged more Mexicans to move north and, by 1900, 103,000 resided in the
United States: eighty percent in Texas or Arizona. This northward migration
173 Parker, interview, June 3, 2009. Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church, “Church History,” n.d., COSHPA.
174 Parker, interview, June 3, 2009.
175 Ibid. 77
increased dramatically between 1900 and 1930, a period in which Mexico lost ten percent of its population.176
Multiple factors lured Mexicans north. In Arizona, the combination of federal immigration restrictions implemented between 1882 and 1924, which reduced the supply of cheap labor from Asia and Europe, coupled with increased economic activity, produced job opportunities in mines, on railroad construction projects, and in farm fields.177 In particular, the “boom in the Salt River valley
(spurred by the completion of the Roosevelt Dam) enticed more Mexicans into
Arizona than ever before.”178 Those migrating north could make ten to fifteen times the daily wage rate offered by Mexican employers.179
A complex set of circumstances also pushed Mexican residents north.
Government policies, implemented in the first decade of the twentieth century, constricted agricultural output, decreased wages, and increased the cost of living.180 These factors combined to bring the “rural masses of Mexico to the brink of starvation.”181 The 1910 revolution exacerbated this dire situation and brought violence to the nation. Concurrently, the arrival of the railroad complicated the
176 Meeks, Border Citizens, 18. George J. Sanchez, Becoming Mexican American: Ethnicity, Culture, and Identity in Chicano Los Angeles, 1900-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 18-9.
177 Sanchez, Becoming Mexican American,” 19.
178 Meeks, Border Citizens, 78.
179 Sanchez, Becoming Mexican American, 19.
180 Ibid, 20.
181 Ibid. 78
economic situation, helped destabilize the social structure, and provided a means for people to leave the country. 182
In response to this economic, political, and social turmoil, Mexicans crossed the border. This migration differed in several ways from the exodus out of south-central states. Those under the age of thirty-five made up a large portion of both movements.183 However, males dominated the Mexican migration as families decided to send a son or a father north “in hopes of improving their situation.”184 Unlike westward migrants, many Mexicans maintained their homes and left on a temporary basis or began a pattern of seasonal migrations north.185
Mexicans moving into Arizona on a temporary or permanent basis encountered demeaning conditions. During Arizona’s territorial years, Euro-
American residents seeking statehood, “struggled to project an image of themselves as progressive, educated, and fully American – which usually meant being fully white.”186 Many advocated laws to restrict immigration. In this hostile environment, which persisted long after statehood, Mexicans encountered discrimination and segregation, which “relegated [them] to a second-class status,”187 In various venues, using a variety of means, ethnic Mexicans resisted white hegemony.188
182 Meeks, Border Citizens, 76. Sanchez, Becoming Mexican American, 20.
183 Sanchez, Becoming Mexican American, 35.
184 Sanchez, Becoming Mexican American, 35-6.
185 Ibid., 6, 41.
186 Meeks, Border Citizens, 10.
187 Ibid., 11.
79
During periods of economic contraction, ethnic Mexicans became targets of those who feared they “would compete for jobs and degrade the economic, cultural, and racial status of the Anglo working class.”189 As the effects of the
Depression deepened, organizations such as the Arizona State Federation of
Labor (ASFL) advocated “restrictions on Mexican immigration to protect ‘white citizen-workers of Arizona.’”190 Arizona Senator Carl Hayden and other political leaders supported this position, as did organizations in other states.191 In response, in 1930, the federal government “stopped issuing visas to ‘common laborers’ from Mexico,” and initiated a program of repatriation.192 Cities, states, and businesses took steps to encourage or coerce Mexican Americans and
Mexicans to leave the United States. As a result, in Arizona, an estimated 18,000 exited the state.193
Like migrants from south-central states, ethnic Mexicans brought their cultural traditions and values to their temporary and permanent homes in the
Southwest. Historian George J. Sanchez describes a “vibrant, rather complicated amalgamation of rural and urban mores, developed in Mexican villages during half a century of changing cultural practices.”194 He characterizes Mexico at the
188 Oscar J. Martinez, “Hispanics in Arizona,” in Arizona at Seventy-Five: The Next Twenty-Five Years, Beth Luey and Noel J.Stowe, eds. (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1987), 112-4.
189 Meeks, Border Citizens, 113.
190 Ibid., 98.
191 Ibid., 114.
192 Ibid.
193 Ibid., 114-5.
194 Sanchez, Becoming Mexican American, 18. 80
turn of century as a “nation of villages,” where the “plaza acted as the community’s center.”195 In these villages, people relied on a strong network of family and friends. For those who ventured north, this proved critical in their “daily struggle to survive in an often times hostile environment.”196 For some seasonal workers, marriages created new family ties in the Southwest, resulting in a permanent relocation.197
The stories of those who moved to Arizona and found work in the
Northwest Valley reflect the macro themes of the Mexican migration. When he was five, Fidel Leon’s parents moved their family to Arizona to escape the economic turmoil and violence of the Mexican Revolution. Leon lived in Phoenix, moving to the West Valley as an adult to work in the fields. There, he met and married Ruth Garcia. His daughter Margaret Leon Espinoza remembers the family living in a West Valley farm camp until the early 1950s when her father purchased a lot in North El Mirage from Flora Statler.198
Similar to their Euro-American counterparts, farm work, family, and church provided the foundation of the daily lives of ethnic Mexicans in the
Northwest Valley. They, too, grappled with the financial challenges of farm work and pursued home ownership as a means to achieve economic security. Fidel
Leon’s home construction project took several years and the family lived in makeshift accommodations until completion. As his income allowed, he purchased additional adjacent property for his family. Like others in the
195 Sanchez, Becoming Mexican American, 25.
196 Ibid., 11.
197 Ibid.
198 M. Espinoza, interview, September 15, 2008. Margaret Espinoza, interview by Carol Palmer, October 20, 2008, Surprise, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. 81
community, Leon worked as a cotton contractor and his wife ran the lunch wagon. The Catholic Church in El Mirage dominated the Leon’s social lives.
Espinoza recalls attending fundraisers and family events such as baptisms and weddings.199
Another institution, important to Surprise families as they created a residential space, connected them to the owners, managers, and workers who lived in the surrounding farm area: Dysart School. Children from El Mirage and
Luke Air Force Base also attended this institution, which served an area covering
139 square miles. Opened in 1920 on land donated by ranch owner Nathaniel
Martin Dysart, in its first years, one teacher taught eight grades to a handful of students in a one-room schoolhouse with a pot-bellied stove. The school remained extremely small until the completion of Waddell Dam in 1928. By 1932, it employed four teachers who taught forty-nine students. With the arrival of residents in North El Mirage, Surprise, and adjacent El Mirage, Dysart School grew significantly; by 1952, enrollment exceeded 800.200
In spite of its limited resources and remote location, Dysart school officials offered students access to an array of events and experiences. The school sponsored groups such as Camp Fire Girls and Boy Scouts. It organized outings to events and destinations as diverse as an Arizona State College football game, the Heard Museum, the Shrine Circus, and the Arizona State Fair.
199 M. Espinoza, interview, September 15, 2008. M. Espinoza, interview, October 20, 2008.
200 Lawrence A. Dysart to Mrs. Clarence Mathis, October 12, 1969, COSHPA. 56th Fighter Wing History Office, Draft “Luke Field/AFB & 56th Fighter Wing Chronology, 1941-FY08,” 2009, 3, COSHPA. PT, “Dysart Voters OK High School issue,” March 22, 1962. Bob Lord, “Dysart Shows How Desegregation Can Work,” Phoenix Gazette, December 3, 1952.
82
Student access to extra-curricular and educational opportunities extended into weekends and summer months when the school arranged for camping trips, swimming lessons, and other activities. Although limited to elementary and middle school grades until 1963, Dysart offered students the opportunity to work on the school paper or participate in school plays. School leaders, knowing many students would not attend high school, created a meaningful graduation event that resembled a high school ceremony201
The school also served as a social center for the people in the surrounding communities. To fund student activities, school leaders, using community volunteers, held events to raise money. The Fall Fun Carnival featured food, entertainment, drawings, prizes, fireworks, and games. The annual steak fry raised funds for the March of Dimes and attracted hundreds of people each year. At Christmas, residents gathered at the school to prepare gift bags for the students and to enjoy refreshments and entertainment.202 When Dysart hosted events, one resident recalls, “everybody in Surprise and El Mirage would be there. There wasn’t much else to do and nobody could afford to go to
Phoenix.”203
201 PT, “Dysart Camp Fire Girls Receive Awards at Ceremony,” June 19, 1959. PT, “Scout Troop 164 Attends ASC Game,” September 30, 1955. PT, “Dysart Cub Scouts Visit Heard Museum,” March 2, 1956. PT, “Dysart Students Attend Fair,” November 11, 1955. PT, “Dysart Children See Shrine Circus,” May 16, 1958. PT, “49 Dysart Students Learned to Swim,” June 19, 1959. PT, “Dysart Scouts Go to Camp Geronimo,” July 17, 1959. PT, “Dysart School Paper Published This Week,” December 2, 1955. PT, “Two Plays Given at Dysart School,” March 13, 1959. D. Justice, interview, February 18, 2009.
202 D. Justice, interview, February 18, 2009. PT, “Dysart School Carnival Set Next Thursday,” October 7, 1955. PT, Dysart Party Sets New Record in Packaging Treats,” December 30, 1955. PT, “Dysart Turkey Dinner to Honor Those Who Help The Schools,” December 14, 1959. PT, “Large Crowd Attends Western Steak Fry,” February 6, 1959.
203 D. Justice, interview, February 18, 2009. 83
Prior to the arrival of residents in Surprise, the school served as the gravitational center of the social landscape of the far-flung Northwest Valley farm community. Members of that group served on the board, ran the parents’ organization, directed volunteer efforts, and attended the many events held at the small school. Even after school attendance from El Mirage, Luke AFB, and
Surprise exceeded that of the farm community, that cohort continued to control the school. This meant that as the residents of Surprise built a community based on their beliefs and values, they exerted little influence over an institution critically important in shaping the perspectives and values of their children, a situation that complicated the community’s ethnic and racial relations.204
A Complex Social Hierarchy
Although the specifics of their circumstances, beliefs, and values likely differed, at a macro-level, the people of Surprise and North El Mirage had much in common. They derived their income directly or indirectly from farm labor; facing economic instability, they employed strategies of resourcefulness and independence and pursued home ownership to mitigate financial uncertainty.
They valued their family ties and religious affiliations and sent their children to
204 PT, “Baker Runs for Dysart Board,” October 6, 1972. Chapter 7 discusses the events that broke the hold of the farm community on the Dysart School Board in 1972. Reports in the Peoria Times on events at the school overflow with the surnames of local farm owners and managers in terms of coordinating and organizing these activities. For example, in the February 15, 1957 edition, a report titled “Founders Day Tuesday At Dysart School,” identifies Mrs. M. D. Gemmill and Mrs. Kenneth McElhaney as chair and assistant to the chair for the program. Mark Gemmill managed Lizard Acres/Circle One Ranch. Kenneth McElhaney owned a ranch in the Dysart District and served as head of the school board in 1957 with John Truman, another ranch owner, and Sam Openshaw, who owned a general store on Cotton Lane. In that same year, Mrs. Lynn Anderson served as treasurer of the PTA. The Andersons also owned a ranch in the Dysart District. PT, “Dysart Christmas Fete Thurs,” December 13, 1957. PT, “Kenneth McElhaney Heads Dysart School Board,” January 11, 1957. 84
Dysart School. However, ethnic and racial differences divided the community in several respects.
Church affiliation reflected these divisions. For example, although Euro-
American, African American, and some ethnic Mexicans embraced the Baptist faith, they attended separate churches. The first group could choose among several congregations; African Americans belonged to Jerusalem Missionary
Baptist Church; ethnic Mexican families worshipped at El Buen Pastor in North El
Mirage.205
A pattern of segregated housing also characterized the community. While no deed restrictions excluded minorities from Surprise or North El Mirage, all
African American families lived on the east side of North El Mirage. Only Euro-
Americans lived in the Surprise subdivision until the latter part of the 1950s.
Euro-American and Mexicano families occupied the same neighborhoods in the balance of North El Mirage. Sales transactions and oral histories indicate that
Flora Statler steered ethnic Mexican and African American buyers to certain sections of her properties. The deed restrictions she adopted for her Floralcroft development in Glendale demonstrate her acceptance of racial segregation as the appropriate social order. The actions of Euro-American buyers ensured an unusually homogeneous neighborhood south of Grand Avenue. By purchasing large lots and dividing them into smaller parcels for family members, by encouraging friends and family to migrate to the area, and by creating tight social networks through church affiliation and marriage, they constructed a white
205 C. Moore, interview, October 21, 2011. Minnie Williams, interview by Paul Ferrante, June 2, 2009, Surprise, Arizona, video recording, COSHPA. Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church, “Church History,” undated, COSHPA. Author unknown, history of Iglesia de Valle Church, originally named El Buen Pastor, n.d., COSHPA.
85
enclave of like-minded individuals, an outcome consistent with their beliefs in white supremacy and racial segregation.206
This segregation economically benefitted some Euro-Americans living in
Surprise. Lots that bordered Grand Avenue offered easy access to car and truck traffic. Owners of these sites could establish small businesses that attracted truckers and travelers needing gasoline or other supplies, supplementing the proceeds from sales to local residents. In North El Mirage, the railroad and associated right-of-way separated lots from Grand Avenue. The rail bed, which rose over five feet above the ground, also created a visual barrier for drivers.
Both hindered the ability of potential businesses to attract traveling customers. A land use map prepared by the county in 1961 shows all Grand Avenue businesses located on the south side of the highway, property initially only accessible to Euro-American buyers.207
206 Kupel, “Floralcroft Historic District,” 8. M. Williams and A. Groves, interview, December 15, 2008. L. Moore, interview, November 3, 2011. C. Adair, interview, November 7, 2008. Kupel, “Floralcroft Historic District,” 8. There are seventy-two sales records on file at the Maricopa Recorder website for Flora Staler in 1947. These include properties in Glendale, El Mirage, North El Mirage, and Surprise. All of the fourteen buyers with Hispanic surnames were sold lots in El Mirage or North El Mirage. This pattern is consistent with that in previous and subsequent years.
207 “A Planning Report for Surprise, Arizona,” plate 3. 86
Fig. 3.3. A land use map of Surprise created by Maricopa County in 1961 Source: Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Department, “A Planning Report for Surprise, Arizona,” August 1961, plate 3.
An examination of other factors provides a more nuanced understanding of racial and ethnic stratification. In the larger Northwest Valley, Peoria and the farm community surrounding Surprise, the social hierarchy appears more complex. In his first supervisory positions on farm operations, George Garcia 87
experienced respectful dealings with one employer and demeaning treatment from another. During this same period, some Mexicanos and Asian Americans held elective office, led civic organizations, ran successful businesses, and owned large farms. Manuel Leyva, a prominent Peoria business owner, served on the town council for several years and as president of the Peoria Chamber of
Commerce in 1958. In 1959, he headed the area Red Cross Drive, overseeing area volunteer leaders in El Mirage, Surprise, Waddell, and Peoria. Edmund
Tang, another successful Peoria business owner, also served on the town council and led community projects. Northwest of Surprise, the Tamooka family owned a large farm. West of their property, Frank Garcia owned an equally large ranch. Ben Garcia owned and operated a thriving fuel business that served farms across the West Valley; he also served on the Dysart School Board for many years.208
An examination of Dysart School further complicates our understanding of racial and ethnic relations in Surprise and North El Mirage. Dysart’s history includes segregation. In 1909, Arizona’s territorial legislature passed a bill allowing school districts to segregate students based on race. The Dysart board chose this option. African American children attended a school in Marinette until after World War II, when the district obtained a barrack from Luke Field and established a school for African American children in North El Mirage. Divided down the middle, the building contained one classroom for grades one through
208 G. Garcia and C. Garcia, interview, March 6, 2009. Kathleen Gilbert, More Than a Century of Peoria People, Progress, & Pride (Phoenix: Heritage, 2004), 59. PT, “Manuel Leyva Elected New C of C President,” December 5, 1958. PT, “Local Red Cross Drive Now Underway,” March 27, 1959. PT, “Drive Short of Goal,” May 18, 1956. C. Adair, interview, November 7, 2008. D. Justice, interview, February 18, 2009. D. Blankenship, interview, February 27, 2009. 88
four and one for grades five through eight. A fire that destroyed the main school in 1951 created a financial crisis for the district. Forced to reduce operating expenses, the school board closed the African American school and moved the forty-two students and two African American teachers to the main facility. Dysart became a more diverse institution on multiple levels. After 1951, the student body, teaching cohort, and support staff included ethnic Mexicans, African
Americans, and Euro-Americans. Although they lived in a segregated environment, Surprise and North El Mirage children experienced integration and diversity on school days and at school activities, as did residents who worked or volunteered at Dysart.209
From a social perspective, articles in area newspapers indicate some
Euro-Americans accepted Mexican Americans and Asian Americans as friends and peers. In Surprise, the Leon and Young families went on picnics together at
Bartlett Lake. At her birthday party, Karen Openshaw, whose family operated a general store in Waddell, hosted children from farm families in the region including Frankie and Gabriel Garcia and Lee Tamooka. In 1957, students at
Peoria High School (which served as the high school for Surprise teenagers until
1963) selected Margaret Leon, Ray and Roy Tamooka, and Frank Garcia, among others, to serve as class officers. Others encountered social derision.
When Celia and George Garcia purchased a home in the white enclave south of
209 Matthew C. Whitaker, Race Work: The Rise of Civil Rights in the Urban West, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2005), 14. Bob Lord, “Dysart Shows How Desegregation Can Work,” Phoenix Gazette, December 3, 1952. L. Moore, interview, November 3, 2011. John Wayne Dunbar, interview by Tara Murtagh and Timothy Williams, 1998, Surprise, Arizona, video recording, COSHPA. G. Garcia and C. Garcia, interview, March 6, 2009. M. Espinoza, interview, September 15, 2008. 89
Grand Avenue in the late 1950s, one neighbor welcomed them while another made it clear they were unwanted.210
The story of one Euro-American resident demonstrates the intricate interplay of race, ethnicity, and class. Emma Corbin’s parents moved to Surprise in 1957 from Missouri. Corbin and her brothers, who had “never gone to school with anything but white people,” attended local schools. There they discovered
“the white kids didn’t want anything to do with us” because they were
“different.”211 Only ethnic Mexican and African American children befriended them. As noted previously, children from south-central states often encountered rejection “because of their strange accents and poor clothes,” and local residents viewed their families as “white trash.”212
Corbin’s story, oral histories, newspaper accounts, and other documents provide insight into the contradictory, complex, and intricate racial, ethnic, and class hierarchy in the Northwest Valley. The evidence indicates that the overwhelming majority of migrants from south-central states brought a belief in white superiority and the experience of living in a rigidly segregated environment.
We also know that African Americans experienced the most demeaning and restrictive forms of oppression. While some Euro-Americans accepted Asian
Americans and/or Mexican Americans as peers, others did not. Although
210 PT, “School Officers Named,” September 20, 1957. Corbin, “Scouting Surprise,” SCYNS, March 2, 1961, March 9, 1961. PT, “Miss Karen Openshaw Hostess at Party,” August 16, 1957.
211 E. Corbin, interview, August 28, 2008. Surprise and North El Mirage children attended schools that served a much larger area. Even though some of the Corbin’s classmates came from south-central states, the children of many farm families grew up in the area and the children of many Surprise families who migrated earlier had not experienced life in the south-central region.
212 Gregory, American Exodus, 128. 90
minorities experienced white elitism, many resisted this hegemony by exploiting openings in this complex racial, ethnic, and class milieu to achieve economic success and/or political influence. Chester Marshall, an African American, built a successful cotton contracting operation; Manuel Leyva and Edmund Tang established thriving businesses and became civic leaders in Peoria.
Conclusion
As they constructed homes, established churches, and created social networks,
Euro-American, African American, and ethnic Mexicans transformed a small section of a vast agricultural space in the Northwest Valley into a residential place, the first stage in the evolution of Surprise. They shared the experiences of farm work and migration, and believed in the centrality of family and the importance of economic security. They took advantage of the opportunity to own a home and used strategies of resourcefulness and independence to achieve the latter. Their social maps triangulated on their church, Dysart School, and a network of family and friends. A complex social hierarchy concurrently divided residents and brought them together.
By 1960, approximately 1,500 people lived in North El Mirage and
Surprise. As a new decade began, external and internal events converged to reshape the community’s identity. One ignited protests and led to the formation of a community coalition that ultimately led to incorporation. At the same time, a major developer initiated a project that transformed the Northwest Valley.
91
CHAPTER FOUR
A RESIDENTIAL PLACE EVOLVES: EXTERNAL FACTORS RESHAPE
SURPRISE
The first residents of Surprise and North El Mirage created a community centered on farm labor and social networks. Concurrently, external events and trends altered this foundation. Community identity is a “cumulative social construction,” rooted in similarity, which can “only be understood as process.”213 The process of change at a national, regional, and local level affected residents’ understanding of Surprise as a place and revised the community’s algorithm of commonality.
Population growth, suburbanization, annexation, Cold War conflicts, changing demographics, shifting demand for agricultural products, and technological advances redefined Surprise. In particular, two events, the arrival of Sun City and the expansion plans of neighboring El Mirage, transformed the community on multiple levels and proved foundational to its rise to boomburb status five decades later.
An Evolving Valley
After World War II, rapid population growth defined and redefined the Valley of the Sun. Anchored by Phoenix, multiple factors drove this expansion. First, the area continued to attract defense and technology-based enterprises, growing the economy and drawing new residents. Firms such as Honeywell, IBM, and
McDonnell-Douglas maintained operations in the Valley. A manufacturing work
213 Richard Jenkins, Social Identity (London: Routledge, 1996), 127, 4.
92
force of 49,300 in 1960 grew to 99,600 in 1975. One of the largest companies,
Motorola, established a research and development center in Phoenix in 1948. By
1960, the firm operated three plants with 5,000 employees, a number that grew to 18,000 by 1980. Additionally, area promoters, such as the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, marketed the region to tourists, which led to a growth in businesses that served visitors. As a result, the Valley’s revenue from tourism increased from $60 million in 1946 to $259 million in 1960. These factors and others drove Phoenix’s population from 65,414 in 1940 to 584,303 in 1970.214
Robert Beauregard argues that Phoenix’s “trajectory of growth was unchallenged by any contemporary city of comparable size.”215
Rapid population increases in Phoenix affected communities on the urban fringe; most experienced a similar expansion. Between 1960 and 1965, Peoria grew from 2,593 to 3,802 residents; El Mirage almost doubled in size from 1,721 to 3,258. Surprise and North El Mirage also grew; a population of 300 in 1950 increased to 1,574 by 1961, and to 2,189 by 1965. More importantly, as residents of Surprise and North El Mirage drove to Glendale for weekly shopping and to
Phoenix for events such as the state fair, they saw the landscape of the Valley change dramatically as subdivisions replaced desert terrain and farm acreage.
Within their community, new arrivals with differing perspectives and beliefs complicated the social fabric and eroded homogeneity.216
214 Sheridan, Arizona, 326. Luckingham, Phoenix, 156. VanderMeer, Phoenix Rising, 34. VanderMeer, Desert Visions, 106-9, 171, 191.
215 Beauregard, When America Became Suburban, 29.
216 “A Planning Report for Surprise, Arizona,” 3. PT, “Official Census Counts,” January 28, 1966. D. Parker, interview, June 3, 2009. C. Adair, interview, November 7, 2008. H. Yingling, interview, August 7, 2008.
93
Luke Air Force Base contributed to the growth of the Northwest Valley as
Cold War conflicts increased its importance and size. Constructed in 1941 to train pilots for the Army Air Corps, the base closed at the end of World War II after graduating more than 17,000 pilots. It reopened as an Air Force facility as the nation entered the Korean Conflict. In 1957, the military assigned supersonic jets to Luke, increasing its strategic importance. During the Cold War period, it also served as a training facility for pilots from Saudi Arabia, Israel, Pakistan,
Germany, Korea, Venezuela, and other nations. The re-opening and expansion of the base had consequences for the surrounding area. In the mid-1950s, the
Air Force initiated planning for the construction of an adjacent 795-unit housing development and allocated $600,000 to the Dysart School District to construct a school to serve the children of military families who were then attending Dysart’s only school. Luke Elementary opened in 1959 with a 525-student capacity; by
1961, the school served over 750 students. As it grew, the base also became increasingly important in the Northwest Valley’s social and economic fabric. Luke personnel participated in community events. When the Dysart District staged a groundbreaking ceremony for a new facility in El Mirage, jets from the base performed a fly over; the base choir performed at local functions. Luke families shopped at local stores and used services provided by Northwest Valley businesses; those with children became active in the school system.217
217 56th Fighter Wing History Office, “Luke Field/AFB,” 3, COSHPA. PT, “Dysart District May Get $600,000 Federal School Aid,” July 20, 1956. PT, “New El Mirage School Is Dedicated Tuesday” April 3, 1959. PT, “Luke Field School Ground Breaking Conducted by Youthful Participants,” September 26, 1958. Memorandum, Dysart School, “Students on Roll During School Year 1961-62,” circa, 1961, COSHPA. PT, “Luke Choir to Sing for Dysart PTA Meeting,” December 16, 1960. Mr. W. K. McElhaney to Senator Carl T. Hayden, April 27, 1956, Carl T. Hayden Papers, MSS 1, Box 180, folder 27, Hayden Library, Arizona State University. 94
Sustaining growth came to drive economic and political decision-making and activity by Valley communities. Many cities adopted annexation as a growth and defensive strategy. Attempting to combat the problems associated with sprawl in unincorporated areas and seeking to increase its political influence,
Phoenix embraced a number of tactics designed to expand its footprint. As a result, the city grew from under ten square miles in 1950 to over 187 by 1960.
Several suburbs, including Glendale and Scottsdale, also pursued annexation strategies. These actions became instructive models for communities on the urban fringe.218
In the Northwest Valley, growth drove change for the Dysart School
District. In 1957, in addition to authorizing the construction of a school at Luke
AFB, the board obtained voter approval for funds to construct a school in El
Mirage. In 1962, voters approved a measure to purchase twenty-three acres for a high school. Increased enrollment at Dysart came from multiple sources. As noted in the previous chapter, ongoing chain migration from south-central states brought new arrivals who shared many of the values and traditions of existing residents. It also brought people with other backgrounds and experiences.219
Growth also altered the agricultural landscape as investors saw the potential for larger profits from non-farm ventures. In 1956, Hargrove Farms sold
1,300 acres near Waddell to a group of Phoenix speculators who viewed the
218 VanderMeer, Desert Visions, 174-180.
219 PT, “School Enrollment Sets All-Time Record in Area,” September 13, 1957. Memorandum, “Students on Roll During School Year 1961-62.” PT, “Dysart School Bonds Approved,” February 15, 1957. PT, “Dysart and New Luke and El Mirage Schools Will Start New School Year September 8,” August 28, 1959. PT, “Dysart School Seeks $428,000 Bond Issue,” August 2, 1962. PT, “Dysart Voters OK High School Issue,” March 22, 1962.
95
property’s proximity to a Santa Fe rail spur as an asset for industrial development. Propinquity to US 60 and the main Santa Fe rail line attracted investors who purchased sites north of Surprise and North El Mirage. In 1958,
Bishop Oil and Refining sought a zoning change for 480 acres in that area for a processing facility.220 In that same year, Sperry Rand bought three thousand acres in the vicinity from the Arizona-Rochester Corporation, a development group that viewed establishing high-tech industries as the first step in developing
Churchill, the “world’s most perfect town.”221 Concurrently, agricultural enterprises, while expanding the footprint of some harvests, also introduced new crops. The Jackson-Perkins Company purchased two large parcels in the
Northwest Valley for rose cultivation in the mid-1950s and established a warehouse shipping operation in Peoria. Such purchases were the exception, however, as farm acreage decreased and the agricultural uses of other property changed, altering the economic framework of the Northwest Valley.222
Coincident with the reduction in farm acreage, many cotton operations shifted to mechanized pickers for the majority of their harvest. In their October
19, 1956 edition, the Peoria Times reported that picking equipment accounted for twenty-six percent of the harvest in the previous week. Three years later, the paper noted that Arizona cotton operations planned on using forty-eight percent fewer braceros than in the previous year and twenty-six percent fewer field workers overall. Farmers embraced the equipment because the machines
220 PT, “Waddell Property Sold for $500,000,” July 6, 1956. PT, “$19 Million Oil Refinery,” February 7, 1958.
221 PT, “Supervisors Decline Zoning Approval for Town of Churchill,” November 27, 1959. No evidence exists that Churchill evolved beyond the concept phase.
222 PT, “Rose Grower Buys Peoria Area Ranch for $700,000,” June 15, 1956. PT, “Jackson Perkins to Build Warehouse,” March 14, 1958. 96
accomplished in one hour what it took two people to do in one day. Some cotton contractors in Surprise, such a Fidel Leon, adapted by purchasing a picking machine and continuing to contract with local cotton operations. Other residents found fewer farm work opportunities.223
In sum, growth, suburbanization, national defense initiatives, and new technology refashioned the Northwest Valley on multiple levels. Economically, land values increased and farm acreage decreased. Changes brought new work opportunities while reducing farm work positions. From a social perspective, new arrivals brought values and traditions that differed from those of earlier migrants.
In 1959, the Valley’s growth juggernaut produced two events that accelerated this trajectory of change and radically altered the development of Surprise and
North El Mirage.
Marinette Becomes Sun City
On January 1, 1960, traffic backed up for over a mile on Grand Avenue as people queued up to buy their retirement dream in Del Webb’s Sun City. Where the investors that envisioned Churchill failed in their attempt to create the ideal planned community, Webb succeeded. His development reshaped Surprise on multiple levels and became a significant building block in the community’s later evolution to boomburb.224
223 PT, “Cotton 18% Harvested,” October 19, 1956. PT, “Cotton Harvesting Going at Slow Rate So Far: Last Minute Rush Seen,” November 13, 1959. M. Espinoza, interview, September 15, 2008.
224 Silver Anniversary Jubilee: A History of Sun City, Arizona, 1960-1985 (Phoenix: COL Press, 1984), 29-30. 97
The story of Sun City began six years earlier with the development of the country’s first retirement community, Youngtown, Arizona, which “played a groundbreaking role in the postwar growth of the American Sun Belt.”225 Ben
Schleifer conceptualized Youngtown as an alternative to the existing unattractive and uninteresting living options available to retirees. He envisioned a community with comfortable housing and an environment conducive to an independent lifestyle. After joining forces with Phoenix developer Clarence Suggs to form the
Youngtown Development Company, he purchased 320 acres southeast of
Surprise from Frances Greer. The company built affordable homes but undercapitalization precluded the construction of recreational amenities. In response, Youngtown residents created their own social infrastructure of events and organizations that defined their community.226
Youngtown’s novelty and modest success caught the attention of others.
In 1957, a segment of Dave Garroway’s “Wide, Wide World,” which appeared on the Today Show, featured Youngtown on its third anniversary. The publicity stimulated home sales; it also attracted the notice of a vice president at the Del
Webb Corporation who saw the potential for expanding on the Youngtown concept.227
225 Kevin E. McHugh and Ann M. Fletchall, “Memento Mori: The ‘Death’ of Youngtown,” The Professional Geographic 61, no. 1 (2009): 22.
226 Ibid.
227 McHugh and Fletchall, “Memento Mori,” 22-3. Melanie T. Sturgeon, “It’s a Paradise Town: The Marketing and Development of Sun City” (master’s thesis; Arizona State University, 1992), 76.
98
Del Webb’s company may have been the ideal organization to take
Schleifer’s innovative idea to another level, creating a large-scale model that would redefine the meaning of retirement living. Webb entered the construction business in Phoenix in the 1930s. Beginning with small projects, he transitioned to larger undertakings such as retail stores. In 1938, he constructed an addition to the State Capitol. During the war years, he won defense contracts to build
Luke and Williams Air Bases as well as Fort Huachuca. One project gave Webb the experience that would later prove invaluable: he built the Japanese internment camp in Parker, a self-contained community with public facilities, streets, and utilities as well as homes. After the war, using subcontractors and off-site, large-scale production techniques to reduce construction time and improve quality, he erected Pueblo Gardens in Tucson, a 1,500-acre development. In the 1950s, Webb became a national presence, building the
Flamingo Hotel in Las Vegas, the Union Oil Center in Los Angeles, and other structures.228
An element of the Webb company’s planning for an age-segregated community involved extensive market research. This process included interviewing retirees in Florida and Youngtown. They discovered that this group wanted more than a home; they valued a neighborhood that included convenient shopping and access to social and recreational activities. The Webb staff believed that providing a new paradigm for retirement, one that included the amenities that supported an active lifestyle, such as swimming pools, golf courses, and recreation centers, would appeal to many retirees. Undeterred by
228 Sturgeon, “It’s a Paradise Town,” 74-5.
99
experts who advised against investing in the project for various reasons, the company moved forward.229
The project commenced in 1959. Creating a partnership with James G.
Boswell, Webb formed a subsidiary company, DEVCO, and purchased Boswell’s
20,000 acre Marinette Ranch, which straddled Grand Avenue southeast of
Surprise. The development’s master design detailed multiple neighborhoods, each anchored by a recreation facility and a shopping center. Responding to information gleaned from their market research, the company completed the shopping complex and community facilities prior to initiating sales.230
These amenities and other factors attracted prospective buyers. At the grand opening, they discovered a golf course, pool, and community center with facilities for archery, croquet, shuffleboard, and horseshoes. They could tour model homes and those from out of town could stay at the recently opened motel. In its first three days, 100,000 prospective buyers visited Sun City.
Purchasers picked a lot, selected a model, and waited ninety days for the company to construct their new home. With five house plans, fifteen exteriors, and prices that ranged from $8,500 to $13,400, DEVCO offered buyers many options.231
229 Sturgeon, “It’s a Paradise Town,” 77-82, 84.
230 Ibid., 83-4, 87.
231 Ibid., 87, 119. 100
Fig. 4.1. The first homes in Sun City, surrounded by the fields of Marinette Ranch. The company town is in the right upper corner. Courtesy of the Sun Cities Area Historical Society.
Sales took off immediately. In its opening weekend, DEVCO sold 237 residences. By month’s end, 400 people owned homes under construction in Sun
City, a number that reached 1,301 by the end of 1960. After 1963, as demand slowed, DEVCO pursued a new strategy. Dealing with a customer segment more prosperous than anticipated in its original research and responding to this group’s preferences, the company decided to offer a more upscale product.232
DEVCO began marketing the idea of resort living and “[b]etween 1965 and 1968
232 Margaret Finnerty, Del Webb: A Man. A Company (Flagstaff: Heritage Publishers, 1991), 92. Sturgeon, “It’s a Paradise Town,” 89. John M. Findlay, Magic Lands: Western Cityscapes and American Culture after 1940 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 181-2. There are some discrepancies in the secondary sources relative to home sale statistics in Sun City. 101
a new Sun City began to emerge.”233 This strategy paid dividends. In 1968, the company sold 1,336 homes, a number that increased to 1,900 in 1969, and
2,300 in 1971.234 By 1969, the second phase of construction, on the north side of
Grand Avenue, featured “fancier more comfortable homes.”235 Buyers in this section found better facilities and an enhanced setting that included elements such as manmade lakes. Increased sales affirmed the correctness of DEVCO’s decision to offer a more upscale product. Over the next decade, the company continued to add amenities and increase options that appealed to wealthier buyers. DEVCO completed construction in 1977, at which point, 42,000 people lived in Sun City.236
In response to this influx of residents, businesses established operations in Sun City. As planned by DEVCO, Safeway opened a store two weeks after home sales commenced, offering residents a convenient shopping option. One week later, a service station opened its doors. Most businesses made their Sun
City debut a festive event complete with giveaways and special attractions. The opening of Baer’s Draperies and Carpets featured a local radio personality and
$325 in door prizes. The regional electric utility and Valley National Bank established their businesses in Sun City initially in pre-fabricated buildings while they constructed permanent facilities. In sum, by the end of 1960, the number of residents and businesses in Sun City reached a critical mass.237
233 Findlay, Magic Lands, 181.
234 Ibid., 190.
235 Ibid., 186.
236 Findlay, Magic Lands, 186-7, 189. Sturgeon, “It’s a Paradise Town,” 105.
102
Whereas the farm owners of the Northwest Valley and, later, the residents of Surprise and North El Mirage constructed a definition of community based on common experiences and values, new arrivals in Sun City purchased a place identity pre-packaged by the DEVCO marketing department. The concept of an age-restricted community featuring an active lifestyle permeated the company’s advertising, sales scripts, and public relations messaging.238 A Peoria
Times report on the opening of a Safeway grocery store took full advantage of a
DEVCO press release, noting the “feeling of an active way of life is conveyed in the [store’s] interior.”239
Sun City buyers embraced and adapted this corporate vision to fit their needs and preferences. In the process, they became sales agents who “could transplant to Sun City not just themselves but entire networks of friendship and kinship.”240 During the construction period, forty to seventy percent of sales came from internal referrals, creating an influx of people with connections to someone in the community. In 1969, Illinois served as the point of origin for fourteen percent of new residents. Colorado, Ohio, and Missouri each accounted for another ten percent of Sun City transplants. This chain migration created a high degree of homogeneity and a common understanding of community as a place of
237 PT, “Safeway to Open Soon In Sun City,” January 8, 1960. PT, “Union Oil Station Is Open in Sun City,” January 26, 1960. PT, “New TG&Y Grand Opening Successful,” March 11, 1960. PT, “Baer’s Draperies & Carpets Holding Grand Opening,” March 18, 1960. PT, “Public Service Opens Sun City Office,” July 8, 1960. PT, “Trailer Is Office for Valley Bank Branch,” December 22, 1960.
238 Findlay, Magic Lands, 173-4, 176, 178-9. Sturgeon, “It’s a Paradise Town,” 85.
239 PT, “Safeway to Open Soon,” January 8, 1960. The Peoria Times was a small weekly that embraced the information offered in press releases.
240 Findlay, Magic Lands, 194. 103
relatively affluent, predominately white retirees who embraced orderly neighborhoods, a leisure lifestyle, and resort amenities.241
The arrival of Sun City altered the economic and social foundations of
Surprise and North El Mirage on multiple levels in the short and long-term; ultimately, it redefined both communities. As one resident observed, “when Sun
City was built, it opened up all kinds of opportunity.”242 During the two-decade construction period, as Marinette Ranch transitioned from farm acreage to retirement community, agricultural positions decreased while non-farm employment opportunities emerged. Jobs in the construction, maintenance, retail, and service sectors attracted people from Surprise and North El Mirage.
Retha Simmons served patrons at Melody Lane Restaurant in Sun City; Eddie
Fulcher found employment on the golf course maintenance crew. The opening of
Walter O. Boswell Memorial Hospital in 1970 produced clerical, maintenance, and other unskilled and semi-skilled job opportunities. Several enterprising
Surprise residents leveraged new market possibilities created by the adjacent retirement community. Fidel Leon recognized the need for a recreational vehicle park to serve Sun City buyers waiting for their homes to be completed and for people traveling to the area in RVs to visit friends in the new community. He opened Leon’s Park West in 1975. These examples represent just a few ways in which Sun City reshaped the economic foundation of the Northwest Valley.243
241 Findlay, Magic Lands, 192, 194, 199, 201. Sturgeon, “It’s a Paradise Town,” 137. McHugh and Larson-Keagy, “These White Walls,” 245.
242 Sherry Aguilar, interview by Paul Ferrante, June 2, 2009, Surprise, Arizona, video recording, COSHPA.
104
The new retirement development also changed the buying habits of
Surprise and North El Mirage consumers. Prior to its arrival, Williams Market and other small establishments served the day-to-day needs of the community; most families travelled ten miles to Peoria or fifteen miles to Glendale for weekly shopping. Larry and Retha Simmons took their five children to Glendale every
Saturday to buy groceries and enjoy fish and chips at the Ranch House.244
Saturday shopping in Glendale was an all-day affair for the Groves’ family. As one daughter recalls, “a lot of it was just window-shopping, but it was our opportunity to leave Jerry Street and go somewhere.”245 As grocery stores, financial service businesses, medical offices, and other establishments opened for business in Sun City, they attracted customers from Surprise and North El
Mirage. While shopping for goods and services became more convenient, this change eroded Surprise residents’ claim to a rural identity.246
The retirement enclave also attracted people predisposed to volunteer.
As John M. Findlay notes, within Sun City, this spirit of serving helped residents
“shape the community as much as possible to their own tastes and needs.”247 As members of Sun City PRIDES (Proud Residents Independently Donating
243 Sturgeon, “It’s a Paradise Town,” 83. S. Aguilar, interview, June 2, 2009. E. Fulcher and M. Fulcher, interview, January 21, 2009. M. Espinoza, interview, September 15, 2008. PT, “Boswell Looking for Nurses Aides, Orderlies,” August 7, 1970.
244 L. Simmons and R. Simmons, interview, February 9, 2009. D. Parker, interview, June 3, 2009.
245 D. Parker, interview, June 3, 2009.
246 PT, “Now . . . the first bank in Sun City!” (advertisement), December 2, 1960.
247 Findlay, Magic Lands, 200. 105
Essential Services), they provided maintenance for common areas such as parks and medians.248
Living in a relatively isolated area, and armed with their Midwestern and middle-class values of hard work and community service, Sun City residents also looked for volunteer opportunities outside of their neighborhoods. In the nearby, comparatively deprived areas of Surprise, North El Mirage, and El Mirage, they found the perfect outlet for donating their time and services. Sun City denizens became the volunteer backbone of the Dysart Community Center. Organized as the Dysart Center Volunteers of Sun City, they helped 4-H members learn to crochet, knit, sew, and cook. By 1970, twenty-one leaders worked with ninety children.249 Christina Ramirez recalls the “strong presence from the Sun Cities coming to volunteer. All of us always had the adoptive grandma/grandpa, who would come and help us create crafts.”250 In addition to mentoring 4-H groups,
Sun City volunteers taught classes for English learners, supported a program that sponsored and outfitted children for summer camps, and raised funds to support center activities.251
DEVCO’s decision to build a wide range of facilities to support Sun City, coupled with the determination of its residents to create a community that met their needs, resulted in an infrastructure attractive to retirees and developers
248 Findlay, Magic Lands, 202.
249 PT, “Dysart Classes Swing into Action,” September 18, 1970. Findlay, Magic Lands, 210.
250 Christina Ramirez, interview by Paul Ferrante, April 23, 2009, Surprise, Arizona, video recording, COSHPA.
251 PT, “Dysart Classes Swing Into Action,” September 18, 1970. PT, “Volunteers Discuss Building Program at Dysart Center,” October 2, 1970. PT, “Dysart Center Holds New Building Opening,” January 29, 1971. 106
wanting to serve that market segment. Shopping centers attracted retail and service businesses. The Sun Bowl, an open-air amphitheater, filled a cultural void. Constructed by DEVCO in 1966 as a marketing tool, it proved to be the perfect venue for entertainment such as the Johnny Mann Singers, opera star
Robert Merrill, and New Orleans jazz musician Pete Fountain. The completion of the Sun Bowl reduced the need for thirty-minute drives to Phoenix to enjoy cultural events. Generous donations from Sun City residents and a land donation by DEVCO enabled another important addition to the Sun City infrastructure,
Walter O. Boswell Memorial Hospital, which debuted in 1970. The commercial centers, hospital, and amphitheater gave Northwest Valley retirees a complete package of easily accessed venues designed to meet a variety of their needs.
Developers took note of this pre-existing infrastructure.252
Taking advantage of this wide array of in-place amenities, construction firms built more age-restricted communities in the Northwest Valley. DEVCO began construction of Sun City West in 1978; two decades later, the company broke ground on Sun City Grand. As people from around the country travelled to this section of the Valley to purchase their retirement dream, other developers converged on the area, eager to serve these relatively well-off buyers by leveraging the existing amenities. Each offered a variation on the theme of an active retirement lifestyle and resort living. Sun Village, Happy Trails, Sun Ridge, and Sunflower RV Resort debuted in the 1980s. Today, these developments, and others, create a chain of retirement communities, extending west from El Mirage
252 Sturgeon, “It’s a Paradise Town,” 96-7. PT, “Johnny Mann Singers Attraction of Del Webb Sun Bowl Series,” February 12, 1971. PT, “Merrill Sun Bowl Star,” March 5, 1971. PT, “Pete Fountain, Clarinet Coming to Sun Bowl Sunday,” February 5, 1971. PT, Boswell Hospital to Be Dedicated,” November 6, 1970. 107
Road to the base of the White Tank Mountains, occupying much of the north side of Bell Road and defining a vast expanse of Surprise.253
As the construction of Sun City produced a new community, it destroyed
Marinette, the farm-labor town owned by the J.G. Boswell Company. Much like their neighbors in Surprise and North El Mirage, the lives of Marinette residents revolved around family, farm work, seasonal migration, and the challenges of supporting a household on a limited income. Many had family and friends either in the south-central region of the country or in Mexico. The razing of Marinette meant Surprise and North El Mirage lost a nearby community of residents with comparable life experiences who embraced similar values and traditions.254
It is almost impossible to overstate the differences between Marinette and its successor. Any portrayal of Sun City serves as a converse description of neighboring Surprise, El Mirage, North El Mirage, and the surrounding farm district. As Kevin E. McHugh and Elizabeth M. Larson-Keagy observe, Sun City residents represent a “narrow band of American society ... in terms of occupations, religion, race, political party affiliation, and membership in fraternal organizations.”255 In their middle and upper-middle class, white haven of predominately Midwesterners, residents “co-mingl[ed] with others of similar stripe” who also embraced the concept of an active retirement, a resort lifestyle,
253 Peter Iverson, Sun Village History: From Desert to Paradise, 25 years 1986 to 2011 (Sun Village Historical Society, 2009), iv. S. Aguilar, interview, June 2, 2009. The Lodge at Sun Ridge, http://www.lodgeatsunridge.com/, accessed August 11, 2012. Passport America, Sunflower RV Resort, http://www.passport- america.com/Campgrounds/CampgroundDetails.aspx?CampgroundId=1956, accessed August 12, 2012. Daniel Borough, Kevin McHugh, and Patricia Gober, “The Sun City Wars: Chapter 3,” Urban Geography, 23, no. 7 (2002): 635. Surprise Today, (henceforth abbreviated as ST) “Happy Trails Has Visitors,” December 1987.
254 R. Gaines and C. Gibson, interview, March 4, 2009.
255 McHugh and Larson-Keagy, “These White Walls,” 246. 108
and the importance of “making their slice of the planet, their community, an ordered and predictable place.”256 Their understanding of community set Sun City citizens apart from other Northwest Valley residents. The walls surrounding their retirement neighborhoods served as the physical manifestation of its separateness and isolation and as an exclamation point on its status as an exclusive enclave.257
Passionate about the attributes of their community and dedicated to preserving them, Sun City residents zealously challenged threats to their retirement refuge. In 1967, a large contingent of homeowners joined DEVCO in a suit against Spur Feeding Company, demanding that the operation stop “odors and flies from drifting over” their community.258 Although the cattle feedlot predated the emergence of Sun City, the retirees prevailed. This repudiation of a lifestyle and place identity created by local farmers and ranchers signaled the emergence of an ongoing debate about the definition of community in the
Northwest Valley, a discussion increasingly dominated by the residents of retirement developments. Other farm and ranch owners took notice of the court decision; some chose to exit their business. Over the next five decades, conflicts that pitted Sun City and its imitators against adjoining communities altered the meaning of place in the Northwest Valley and in Surprise.259
256 McHugh and Larson-Keagy, “These White Walls,” 242, 246, 250.
257 Ibid., 251. While walled communities now seem to dominate the Valley landscape, they were less common in the 1960s.
258 PT, “Del Webb Wins Law Suit Over Spur Cattle Odors,” September, 18, 1970.
259 Lucking, interview, February 9, 2007. Borough, McHugh, and Gober, "The Sun City Wars,” 633-648. 109
The Annexation Attempt
Coincident with the construction of Sun City, residents of North El Mirage and
Surprise learned of El Mirage’s intent to annex their communities, an action which ignited a firestorm of protest. A coalition of residents, offended by the initiative, came together to fight the takeover. The ensuing dispute reshaped the area’s political landscape; the resolution produced an outcome foundational to
Surprise’s much later emergence as a twenty-first century boomburb.
The fracas began in July 1959 when the El Mirage Town Council approved an annexation plan that included Surprise and North El Mirage.
Anxious to gain the support of residents in the targeted neighborhoods, town leaders touted the benefits of merging. They cited access to police patrols, fire services, and community facilities, as well as a direct return on locally-generated sales and gas tax revenues. One month later, the council reaffirmed its intentions to proceed with a municipal expansion.260
Most likely, several factors prompted El Mirage leaders to initiate an annexation program. First, the example set by Phoenix demonstrated the benefits of expanding municipal boundaries. In the 1950s, it successfully annexed vast areas, including Sunnyslope and South Phoenix. This created not only a larger, but also a politically stronger city. Additionally, El Mirage officials understood the implications of the Valley’s explosive growth, which was rapidly changing the metropolitan landscape. Each year, suburban developments marched ever closer to the town. Most likely, El Mirage officials viewed annexation as a means to control and benefit from population growth. Expanding
260 PT, “Town of El Mirage Takes Steps to Annex Surprise, North El Mirage and Agua Fria,” July 10, 1959. PT, “El Mirage Annexation Program Moves Ahead,” August 14, 1959. 110
the town’s footprint extended the town’s zoning and building regulations, which provided leaders with a means to regulate and embrace new developments.261
For multiple reasons, the town council may have anticipated little opposition to their expansion initiative. El Mirage and the surrounding neighborhoods possessed common attributes and important social and economic linkages. In terms of experiences and lifestyles, residents of El Mirage, much like those of Surprise and North El Mirage, understood the meaning of community in terms of farm labor, migration, and family ties. Several institutions created a common social network. Dysart School District served the entire area. Similarly,
Catholic residents from the neighborhoods came together for religious and social events at Santa Teresita Catholic Mission Church. Black residents of El Mirage attended Jerusalem Baptist Church in North El Mirage. Commerce, kinship, and friendship also linked the communities. The local Avon dealer, Lily Dragoo, lived in El Mirage, but her sales district included North El Mirage and Surprise. One of the Fulcher’s children in North El Mirage delivered newspapers in El Mirage.
Members of the large Yingling family lived in Surprise and El Mirage. Milestone events and celebrations, such as birthday parties, often included friends and family from all three communities. From the perspective of El Mirage civic leaders, these linkages, coupled with the benefits of annexation, probably made their expansion strategy seem unassailable and inevitable.262
261 VanderMeer, Desert Visions, 176-7, 178.
262 C. Ramirez, interview, April 23, 2009. M. Espinoza, interview, September 15, 2008. D. Parker, interview, June 3, 2009. H. Yingling, interview, August 7, 2008. PT, “The Surprise Snooper” June 19, 1959. The Bokelman Sisters, “Around El Mirage,” PT, October 15, 1965. 111
One group of Surprise and North El Mirage residents held a very different opinion and reacted quickly, prompting a Peoria Times headline: “Surprise
Surprises.” Approximately one-hundred people attended a public hearing on
November 19, 1959, where opponents rejected the arguments for annexation.
They noted that the county already provided many of the services touted by El
Mirage officials. They also expressed disdain for El Mirage’s business tax and lack of a building code. Many worried that their status as a “dry” community would evaporate with annexation. Although unsaid at the hearing, it is likely their ideas about race, ethnicity, and class informed the resistance of Surprise’s Euro-
American residents to a merger with El Mirage. They perceived the more racially and ethnically diverse El Mirage as inferior in many respects to their community, which they understood to be the enclave south of Grand Avenue. They found some like-minded allies in North El Mirage.263
Undaunted by opponents’ objections and believing this group represented a minority of residents, El Mirage officials moved forward, circulating annexation petitions. Their assumption about majority support proved partially correct. They gathered the required number of signatures in North El Mirage, but failed to do so in Surprise. At a January 1960 special session of the town council, members accepted the petitions, enacted an annexation ordinance, and reaffirmed plans to provide improvements and services to the annexed areas. 264 Interestingly, a
Peoria Times news article about this meeting noted that the “only real obstacle to
263 PT, “Surprise, Surprises,” November 27, 1959.
264 PT, “Surprise, Surprises,” November 27, 1959. PT, “El Mirage Firms Annexation Plans,” January 26, 1960. 112
completion of the program would be a legal action of some sort, but this is unlikely.”265
The Times reporter underestimated the resolve of Surprise and North El
Mirage residents opposed to the annexation of the latter. Using neighborhood children to alert residents, these opponents organized a community meeting at
Surprise’s First Baptist Church following the special session of the El Mirage
Town Council. At this gathering, they established a citizens’ committee chaired by market-owner Bill Williams; Nellie Saylor assumed the role of secretary.
Committee members included Doyle Moore, Ross Hornsby, Curtis Ashworth, and
C. E. Montgomery. All of the committee members lived in Surprise (as opposed to North El Mirage) and five belonged to the First Baptist congregation. Marriage linked four of the members. Moore and Hornsby were married to Montgomery sisters, and Ashworth was Moore’s son-in-law. These connections, coupled with life experiences that included migration, farm work, and links to south-central states, meant committee members exemplified the meaning of place in Surprise for the dominant Euro-American community.266
After successfully stopping El Mirage’s attempt to take control of their neighborhood, why did this closely-knit group lead the effort to block the annexation of North El Mirage? Residing in an unincorporated area, they possessed limited political power and the relatively small population of their community (approximately 600) exacerbated this predicament. Members of the citizens’ committee probably viewed El Mirage’s annexation of North El Mirage,
265 PT, “El Mirage Firms Annexation Plans,” January 26, 1960.
266 Nellie Saylor, “Surprise News,” PT, January 29, 1960. C. Moore, interview, October 21, 2011. Fern Rogers Farley, untitled history and membership list for the First Baptist Church, n.d., COSHPA. 113
which boxed in their neighborhood on two sides, as a threat to their ability to grow and control the future direction of their community. Although North El
Mirage was as racially and ethnically diverse as El Mirage, it seems likely
Surprise leaders felt they could “manage” the situation. Additionally, some
Surprise residents possessed an extremely negative opinion of El Mirage’s leaders. In letters to the editor of the Peoria Times, opponents discussed the actions and pronouncements of officials from that town in condescending, almost mocking, terms.267 One writer characterized an El Mirage official’s explanation of
El Mirage’s failure to annex Surprise as “completely ridiculous.”268
Over the next few months, the citizens’ committee utilized multiple tactics to reverse the annexation and prevent future attempts. Members continued to meet and added to their roster of concerned citizens. They kept up the public debate, using letters to the editor of the Peoria Times in which they continued to question the competency of El Mirage’s elected officials. Additionally, they gathered signatures from people wanting to remove their names from the original annexation petition and presented this list to El Mirage officials. Last, citizens’ committee member Don Blankenship, a resident of North El Mirage, hired an attorney and filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court asking that the annexation be nullified for several reasons, including the fact that North El Mirage and El Mirage were not contiguous.269
267 PT, “Surprise, Surprises,” November 27, 1959. Don Blankenship, Letter to the Editor, PT, January 29, 1960. “A Planning Report for Surprise, Arizona,” 8, 12.
268 Don Blankenship, Letter to the Editor, PT, January 29, 1960.
269 Nellie Saylor, “Surprise News,” PT, February 12, 1960. PT, “Protest Petitions Are Filed on Annexation,” February 19, 1960. PT, “Court Action Filed to Stop El Mirage Annexation,” March 4, 1960. Don Blankenship, Letter to the Editor, PT, February 12, 1960. D. Blankenship, interview, February 27, 2009. 114
Proponents of annexation reacted. El Mirage Mayor Lonnie A. Page countered opponents’ claims in letters published in the Peoria Times.270 He noted that Surprise “for a period of two decades ... has achieved no apparent expansion or progress,” in contrast to El Mirage, which has “thrived and expanded into N. El Mirage.”271 He cited civic amenities available in El Mirage and lacking in Surprise, such as street lighting, surfaced streets, and a city park.
He chastised the “unthinking residents of Surprise” for failing to understand how the unification of their communities could benefit everyone.272 Several North El
Mirage residents joined Page in support of annexation, also penning missives published in the Peoria Times.273
In the end, the opponents of merging the communities prevailed on several levels. The annexation battle coupled with other contentious issues eroded support for El Mirage’s elected officials. Town residents went to the polls in May 1960, and, in a move characterized by the Peoria Times as
“unprecedented,” voted out the mayor and the entire town council.274 In a continuation of the town hall purge, the new council and mayor fired the town’s manager and attorney. They hired a North El Mirage resident to replace the former, a position that also included the duties of magistrate and clerk. One month later, Judge Thurman of the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled in
270 Lonnie A. Page, Letter to the Editor, PT, February 5, 1960.
271 Lonnie A. Page, Sarge Reed, and Willard Yingling, Letter to the Editor, PT, February 19, 1960.
272 Ibid.
273 Sarge Reed, Letter to the Editor, PT, March 4, 1960.
274 PT, “All New Council in El Mirage,” May 27, 1960. 115
favor of those opposing annexation, nullifying the unification of El Mirage and
North El Mirage.275
Incorporation
The annexation attempt generated a reaction that altered the political landscape of Surprise and North El Mirage. It prompted residents interested in controlling the future direction of their neighborhoods to create a coalition of common- minded activists. As this group fought to overturn El Mirage’s takeover initiative, they discussed other alternatives for their communities. After the Superior Court nullified the annexation, they moved forward on what seemed a preferred option: incorporation. The committee circulated petitions in Surprise and North El
Mirage. While falling short of the two-thirds majority needed to achieve that end without an election, they exceeded the number required to precipitate a community vote.276
El Mirage’s new town council, not sitting idly by, publicly opposed incorporation and continued to tout the benefits of unification. Using the media and other forums to make their case, they argued against the “unnecessary duplication of many things also available in El Mirage and that a great deal of money would be spent that could otherwise be saved.”277 In August, as petitions circulated, the El Mirage Town Council presented a new appeal for annexation contending, “[p]olice protection, garbage and trash hauling, and administration of
275 PT, “El Mirage New Council Acts,” June 24, 1960. PT, “El Mirage Fails in Annexation,” June 3, 1960.
276 PT, “N. El Mirage and Surprise Contest Annexation Law,” February 5, 1960. PT, “Protest Petitions Are Filed on Annexation,” February 19, 1960. PT, “Incorporation Plans Continue in Surprise,” July 29, 1960.
277 PT, “Incorporation Try Looms,” August 19, 1960. 116
town business could be extended immediately with a small increase in personnel.”278 They also argued against a public vote on incorporation at a meeting of the Maricopa County Supervisors, noting that Surprise and North El
Mirage contained “few commercial establishments and obtain[ed] ... water from
El Mirage.”279 In spite of these objections, county supervisors honored the petition and set an election date of December 6, 1960, with voting to be held at
Williams Market.280
While the arguments of El Mirage leaders focused on the synergies that could be realized by joining the three communities, in particular the financial savings, the proponents of a separate incorporation focused on maintaining control over their community. Concurrently, they rejected the community identity presented by El Mirage. In flyers posted around town, they asked voters "CAN
YOU HONESTLY SEE ANY REAL ADVANCEMENT IN THE COMMUNITY OF
EL MIRAGE ... ANY THING THAT WOULD INDUCE YOU TO WANT TO BE A
PART OF THEIR TOWN?"281 They emphasized the importance of retaining local control to determine "WHAT WE WANT TO DO, WHEN WE WANT TO DO IT
AND HOW WE WANT THE TOWN RUN."282 The leaflet also countered the
278 PT, “Incorporation Try Looms,” August 19, 1960.
279 PT, “Supervisors OK Incorporation Vote,” November 25, 1960.
280 Ibid.
281 Committee for Incorporation, Residents of Surprise and North El Mirage, Flyer - "ATTENTION! STOP LOOK READ," n.d, COSHPA. Capitalization is from the original document.
282 Ibid.
117
meager financial projections of El Mirage officials, presenting higher revenues for the incorporated town.283
From its onset, the contest over control of Surprise and North El Mirage included intimidation, ridicule, and deception. Don Blankenship, an early, vocal opponent of annexation recalls a visit from the El Mirage Town Marshal who threatened retaliation if he continued to oppose unification. As noted earlier, letters to the editor of the Peoria Times from activists on both sides of the issue often characterized opponents in a condescending manner.284 In terms of misinformation, those against separate incorporation accused proponents of misleading voters by asserting "that only yes votes will be taken and that if you are against it, you let it be known by not voting."285 For their part, incorporation advocates, referring to El Mirage officials, warned voters to not be "MISLEAD BY
THEIR THREATS OF WHAT THEY CAN DO TO US THROUGH THE WATER
SYSTEM."286 If the alleged actions occurred, activists engaged in deception; if they are false, then presenting them as fact is equally deceptive.
Most likely, this nastiness and dirty politicking emerged from the intense emotions generated by the meaning of place and the need to defend against a perceived assault on this important element of personal identity. As Dolores
Hayden observes, "[i]t is place's very same assault on all ways of knowing … that
283 Committee for Incorporation, Residents of Surprise and North El Mirage, Flyer - "ATTENTION! STOP LOOK READ," n.d, COSHPA.
284 D. Blankenship, interview, February 27, 2009. Blankenship, Letter to the Editor, PT, January 29, 1960. Page, Reed, and Yingling, Letter to the Editor, PT, February 19, 1960.
285 Joe A. McQuiston, Letter to the Editor, PT, December 2, 1960.
286 Committee for Incorporation, Residents of Surprise and North El Mirage, Flyer - "ATTENTION! STOP LOOK READ," n.d, COSHPA.
118
makes it powerful."287 In their place, Surprise and North El Mirage, migrant labor families found the opportunity for home ownership, which gave them some control over their circumstances. They used this opening to create a community populated with friends, relatives, and institutions that reflected their values and beliefs. Ceding control to others, no matter the socio-economic commonalities or geographic proximity, may have seemed unthinkable. From the perspective of El
Mirage officials, incorporation of neighborhoods to its north and west meant losing the ability to expand, an assault on the future of their community.
In the end, Surprise and North El Mirage residents voted 113 to 40 in favor of merging and incorporating their neighborhoods. The Maricopa County
Board of Supervisors certified the election and declared December 12, 1960 the official day of incorporation. The board named William E. Williams, Harold
Morgan, Don Blankenship, Doyle S. Moore, and Richard “Ed” Ring as members of the town council. As 1960 came to a close, Surprise became a town.288
Conclusion
From its inception, external events and trends continuously reshaped Surprise.
As Joseph Amato notes, "Everywhere, place is being superceded, suppressed, and reshaped."289 In the Northwest Valley, population growth brought new residents, some of whom held different perspectives, values, and traditions. One
287 Hayden, The Power of Place, 18.
288 PT, "Surprise and Youngtown Vote to Incorporate," December 9, 1969. PT, "Supervisors Name First Councilmen," December 16, 1960.
289 Amato, Rethinking Home, 2.
119
segment of this growth emerged from heightened Cold War tensions, which led to an increase in the importance and size of Luke Air Force Base. The expansion of the Phoenix metropolitan area, from a commerce and population perspective, changed land values and reduced farm acreage, altering the economic foundation of Surprise and the surrounding agricultural area. Concurrently, the mechanization of cotton harvesting reduced farm-work opportunities. All of these changes affected the foundational elements of community identity in Surprise.
The arrival of Sun City reshaped the Northwest Valley on multiple levels.
In contrast to the adjoining communities, its residents created a counter-narrative in terms of the meaning of place. Firmly wedded to their vision of an active lifestyle in an orderly place, Sun Citians used their resources and experiences in the political and legal arenas to defend this vision, regardless of the consequences for neighboring communities. Economically, Sun City reduced farm jobs, while increasing the availability of non-farm employment and bringing retail and service businesses to the area. Most importantly, DEVCO and Sun City residents created a retiree-centric infrastructure in the Northwest Valley, which ensured that other developers of age-restricted communities would attract buyers, further increasing the influence of this segment of the population.
The battle with El Mirage over annexation schooled Surprise residents in political conflict, demonstrated the value of creating coalitions, and introduced them to the intricacies of municipal governance. All of these factors served as preparation for the business of managing a small town with limited financial resources and few civic amenities. Proponents of separate incorporation could not foresee the importance of their timing. A law enacted by the Arizona legislature in 1961 declared the three miles surrounding an established
120
municipality of less than 5,000 residents an urbanized zone where separate incorporation could not occur. Had activists delayed moving forward with creating a separate town (or, had the advocates of annexation delayed their action), most likely, El Mirage would have absorbed Surprise and North El Mirage.290
While the overwhelming majority of Surprise residents agreed upon, and demonstrated with their vote, what they did not want in terms of community identity, they now faced a more difficult task. With gaps in infrastructure, no basic services, and limited resources, the new town leaders faced difficult decisions.
Achieving community consensus on a future direction would prove difficult and, as discussed in the next chapter, lead to internal conflicts that would divide town residents with differing ideas about the meaning of community.
290 State of Arizona, Session Laws, 25th Legislature, First Regular Session, 1961, 237. 121
CHAPTER FIVE
FORGING A COMMUNITY IDENTITY: CONFLICT AND CELEBRATIONS
DEFINE SURPRISE
After Surprise’s incorporation, two organizations emerged as community leaders; both played a pivotal role in defining the town in its first decade. Three days before Christmas in 1960, the Surprise Town Council held its first meeting at
Harold Morgan’s lumberyard. The actions of the council in its first years revealed deep divisions in the town over the meaning of community, which led to public conflict and political upheaval. Exactly three months after the first council meeting, a second association conducted their inaugural meeting at the lumberyard: the Surprise Women’s Club (SWC). This group initiated programs that brought residents together for celebrations and charitable work.
Concurrently, the club pursued an agenda of community improvement, supporting and challenging the actions (or inactions) of the town council. Often working in tandem, occasionally at cross-purposes, the council and the club re- imagined Surprise, the second phase in its evolution.
Conflict, a critical element of the social processes that construct community identity, occurs because the “common good is not a fixed program to which all agree.”291 As Tim Cresswell notes, the meaning of place is “constantly struggled over and reimagined in practical ways” by groups with competing ideas
291 Clarence Stone, “The Study of the Politics of Urban Development,” in The Politics of Urban Development, eds. Clarence N. Stone and Heywood T. Sanders, (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1987), 11.
122
about community.292 Power scuffles emerge. In their history of Levittown,
Rosalyn Baxandall and Elizabeth Ewen document this phenomenon. They examine the “ongoing struggle between ideas about private versus public responsibility” as residents with “strong and sometimes clashing ideas about what sort of place they wanted to live in” competed for control of their community’s future.293 While the Long Island suburb and its imitators differ from
Surprise in multiple ways, the history of this iconic community demonstrates how disagreements over public good and individual rights can inform the evolution of place. Throughout Surprise’s municipal history, intense internal conflict erupted repeatedly. These disputes altered civic policies, generated political upheaval, and precipitated personnel changes. As in Levittown, the first clashes involved tension between ideas about community and individual rights.
Celebrations, charitable work, and other social interactions also shape the meaning of place. As sociologist Richard Jenkins notes, the “fact of a lot of breathing human bodies occupying a territory is not enough to constitute a collectivity.”294 Foundational to the creation of identity and meaning is “a sense of attachment.”295 Social rites and their associated symbols can “generate a sense of shared belonging.”296 The programs initiated by the SWC created the rituals,
292 Cresswell, Place, 39.
293 Baxandall and Ewen, Picture Windows, xxii, 157.
294 Jenkins, Social Identity, 127.
295 Cresswell, Place, 20.
296 Jenkins, Social Identity, 106.
123
symbols, and memories that generated personal attachments to place and a sense of being part of a larger community.
The Town
The state of Surprise in 1960 informed the actions of the council and the club. At incorporation, Surprise differed significantly from the typical post-World War II neighborhoods in nearby towns like Glendale and Peoria. On average, Surprise families had lower income and educational levels; some lived in substandard housing. Dirt streets lacked lights, street signs, and traffic controls. The town operated without a sewer system or garbage service. Of 509 dwellings, only 420 received electric service from Arizona Public Service Company and less than 400 homes connected to water service provided by El Mirage. Carolyn Cumbie Adair remembers her father and brothers hauling water several times a week from local farm wells to their home on the north side of Grand Avenue. In terms of municipal amenities, neither a park nor a library served town residents. Inadequate enforcement of minimal county regulations left property owners free to define their piece of Surprise. Some burned their garbage; others kept dilapidated outbuildings. Several residents kept farm animals on their property. The
Blankenships raised calves on their small acreage. This deficit, in terms of amenities, and the absence of regulations concerned a large group of residents who sought a more orderly community.297
297 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1970, Census Tracts, Final Report, Phoenix SMSA (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), P-64, P-78, P-22, P-36, H-1, H-15. Ten years after incorporation, in spite of increasing economic opportunities, the 1970 census revealed that 158 out of 491 Surprise families lived below the poverty level, almost one-third of the population. In contrast, less than 4% of Glendale families met this standard. In terms of education, the median completed grade level for Surprise residents was 7.1 years as compared to 12.2 124
Fig. 5.1. A 1964 photograph of a Surprise residence. Courtesy of the City of Surprise.
In addition to a lack of infrastructure and generally accepted municipal regulations, Surprise offered residents little in terms of diversions. Relatively remote, with few organizations, and a very small commercial sector, families had to create their own fun. Favorite pastimes included fishing trips to nearby lakes
in Glendale. With respect to housing, 123 of 551 or 22% of Surprise homes lacked some or all plumbing facilities. In Glendale, this number equaled less than 3%. “A Planning Report for Surprise, Arizona,” 6, 7, 13, 17. Town Council Minutes (henceforth abbreviated as TCM), August 10, 1961, September 28, 1961, March 8, 1962, July 13, 1961 City of Surprise, City clerk Archive (henceforth abbreviated as COSCCA). C. Adair, interview, November 7, 2008. D. Blankenship, interview, February 27, 2009. 125
and streams or swimming outings in local canals. Some took advantage of the programs offered by local churches or Dysart schools.298
In their oral histories, people who grew up in Surprise at mid-century describe the many ways they coped with the circumstances of their youth. Minnie
Marshall Williams and her siblings used old mattresses to create high jump pits for neighborhood track meets. Mike Butler remembers making forts out of tumbleweeds. Carolyn Cumbie Adair and her brothers used spare parts to make a bike. Most likely, some of the activities devised by the town’s teenagers created concern for parents, especially those who attended evangelical churches. Adair remembers groups of teens sneaking six packs of beer into the White Tanks
Park for weekend fun. Sherry Simmons Aguilar recalls unauthorized drag racing on an abandoned Luke AFB auxiliary field. This void in leisure time opportunities made the town fertile ground for any organization seeking to create community events that offered family-friendly social activities.299
An equally important characteristic of Surprise involved a lack of community cohesion. Prior to incorporation in 1960 and most likely for some period thereafter, residents lacked or, at best, held a splintered sense of place.
Those who lived south of Grand Avenue considered themselves residents of
Surprise. On the north side of the highway, families lived in North El Mirage, an identifier also used by the post office. In 1961, thirty-nine percent of the population lived in Surprise and the remainder in North El Mirage. Civic leaders
298 Carolyn Cumbie Adair, interview by Paul Ferrante, March 10, 2009, Surprise, Arizona, video recording, COSHPA. Corbin, “Scouting Surprise,” SCYNS, June 8, 1961.
299 M. Williams and A. Groves, interview, December 15, 2008. C. Adair, interview, March 10, 2009. S. Aguilar, interview, June 2, 2009. M. Butler, interview, October 20, 2008. 126
faced the challenge of bringing residents of the two neighborhoods together as members of one community.300
The Town Council
Incorporation blocked annexation by El Mirage and created a local governing body, which, depending on the perspective of the resident, presented either new opportunities or a fresh set of concerns. Those desiring civic improvements now possessed a means to pursue that end. For residents pleased with the status quo, the emergence of a town council portended not only community improvements, but also, controls and regulations. Not everyone accustomed to the personal freedoms available in a relatively remote unincorporated area embraced this prospect. The actions of the new council laid the foundation for conflict between those desiring a more “orderly” community and those opposed to intrusive governance.
After incorporation, a “business coalition,” predominately residents from the south side of Grand Avenue, controlled the town council. Unlike many inhabitants, most owned small businesses or held non-farm positions, making them relatively elite members of the community. The county board of supervisors appointed this interim council to serve for six months until the staging of a general election. The group included two members from the south side of Grand
Avenue. Bill Williams, elected by the others to serve as mayor, ran a neighborhood market; council member Doyle Moore, a Baptist pastor, also served as the first town clerk. The three members from the north side of Grand
300 "A Planning Report for Surprise, Arizona,” 12. Blankenship, interview, February 27, 2009. Don Blankenship, “Letter to the Editor,” PT, January 26, 1960. 127
Avenue also came from the business community. Ed Ring worked as a cabinetmaker; Don Blankenship owned a series of small enterprises; Harold
Morgan operated the lumberyard and a church revival camp. After the May 1961 election, Grover King, a bus driver for the Dysart School District, joined the council replacing Blankenship (who chose not to run for election) and increasing the representation from the southern neighborhood to three.301
The location of council meetings affirmed the locus of power in the community in the first years after incorporation. While the group held its first four sessions at Harold Morgan’s lumberyard in the North El Mirage neighborhood, it moved to the First Baptist Church south of Grand Avenue after receiving an offer to use that facility. One year later, the town rented a building in the same neighborhood. When forced to relocate in 1965, they again chose a site in the south section of town, leasing and refurbishing the Saylor family’s root beer stand. Although a majority of residents lived on the north side of Grand Avenue, this symbol of municipal authority remained in the original Surprise neighborhood until the early 1970s, when a new council built a community facility in the northern section of the town.302
301 PT, "Supervisors Name First Councilmen," December 16, 1960. TCM, December 22, 1960, COSCCA. D. Blankenship, interview, February 27, 2009. M. Espinoza, interview September 15, 2008. C. Moore, interview, October 21, 2011. L. and R. Simmons, interview, October 13, 2011. L. Moore, interview, November 3, 2011.
302 TCM, December 22, 1960, January 26, 1961, February 9, 1961, February 8, 1962, June 10, 1965, June 29, 1972, COSCCA. PT, “Hall Elected; Surprise Loses Town Hall,” May 21, 1965. "A Planning Report for Surprise, Arizona,” 12. 128
Fig. 5.2. In 1965, the Saylor family’s root beer stand became the new town hall. Courtesy of the City of Surprise.
During the town’s first years, the business coalition strengthened their base of support by appointing friends, relatives, and neighbors to serve on the town’s commissions and as municipal employees. For example, in 1961, they appointed LeRoy Moore, son of council member Doyle Moore, to serve on the planning commission, a body headed by Moore’s neighbor, business owner
Clarence Hall. Ross Hornsby, the brother-in law of council member Moore, served as the first town marshal. The wife of the first building inspector, Howard
Ahrenberg, worked at the market owned by Mayor Bill Williams’ family. Kinship and friendship appointments produced a core group of civic leaders with similar values and perspectives. Since the majority of council members lived in the original Surprise neighborhood, this meant the worldviews of Euro-American
129
migrants from south-central states with farm work backgrounds and evangelical beliefs shaped the decisions and actions of the town’s governing body.303
Oral histories and the actions of this group provide insight into their perspectives and beliefs. Like the overwhelming majority of community members, they valued networks of family and friends and respected hard work, self- reliance, and a fiscal conservatism that relied on creative resourcefulness.
Similar to many residents, these leaders also held beliefs, consistent with their evangelical faith, in what constituted a moral lifestyle and proper personal conduct. While attending church socials, sending children to Bible school, and hosting family potlucks fit the parameters of both, drinking alcoholic beverages, smoking, using profane language, and failing to properly supervise one’s children did not. The daughter of a member of this group recalls not being allowed to visit the homes of children whose parents frequented bars, smoked, or used profanity.
The antipathy of some residents to alcohol surfaced during the annexation dispute. The potential loss of their community’s “dry” status served as one of several reasons they opposed a merger with El Mirage. Even as the annexation debate played out, Doyle Moore rallied like-minded residents to fight another battle, the proposed opening of a liquor outlet in Surprise. In a community of approximately 1,500, he gathered ninety-five signatures on a petition objecting to the license.304
303 “A Planning Report for Surprise, Arizona,” the first inside page lists the six members of the Surprise Planning Commission, including Moore and Hall. C. Moore, interview, October 21, 2011. Emma Corbin, “Scouting Surprise,” SCYNS, August 3, 1961.
304 PT, “Liquor License Fight Looms in Surprise,” July 22, 1960. C. Moore, interview, October 21, 2011 130
Consistent with their values and perspectives, Surprise’s early civic leaders focused on fiscal stability, administrative competence, and a modest program of civic improvements. To accomplish these objectives, they faced a long list of tasks. The first involved finances. Since the state based its allocation of tax revenue to municipalities on population counts, the council needed to arrange and pay for a special census. Mayor Bill Williams and another resident,
John Galyan, loaned the town $300 to cover the cost of this service. Conducted in March of 1961 by the federal census bureau, the resident tally revealed a population of 1,574, a figure higher than anticipated. It meant the town received approximately $30,000 from the state for the fiscal year commencing in June of
1961.305
With limited resources, council members resorted to creative resourcefulness. They purchased surplus goods from Luke Air Force Base and bought used equipment from other municipalities. They also took advantage of established services in nearby towns, such as the El Mirage jail. Local businesses and residents provided assistance. The owner of Lizard Acres Ranch loaned equipment for road grading and other tasks. The local automobile repair shop donated the first police car. Others contributed money to the town treasury.
Ingenuity, community support, and the council’s frugal approach left the town with a $9,000 balance in the general fund at the end of its first fiscal year.306
305 TCM, February 9, 1961, February 23, 1961, March 9, 1961, and June 22, 1961. COSCCA. PT, "Stay Home Monday Asks Mayor," March 24, 1961. "A Planning Report for Surprise, Arizona,” 1.
306 TCM, February 23, 1961, March 23, 1961, April 13, 1961, May 11, 1961, and September 14, 1961, COSCCA. M. Butler, interview, December 8, 2008. SCYNS, “Curfew Ordinance Proposed for Surprise at Council Meet; Transmitter Purchased,” May 17, 1962. 131
In addition to finances, the council grappled with the basic issues of municipal governance. Building codes, zoning regulations, traffic codes, and similar items dominated their agendas in the first year. In some instances, the group copied the codes and regulations of other municipalities; they also looked to agencies at the state and county level for assistance and advice. As part of their civic education, council members trekked to Avondale, Buckeye, and other communities to glean information on the business of running a town. An element of these trips involved discerning best practices applicable to Surprise.
Importantly, the council also passed the resolutions and ordinances required to establish municipal elections.307
While addressing many infrastructure, security, and administrative issues, the town council did little to foster a community identity or to address the many and varied social needs of the town’s residents. Another group attempted to fill this void: the Surprise Women’s Club. Organizing just three months after incorporation, they pursued an ambitious agenda that contributed to the development of community cohesion and identity.
The Surprise Women’s Club
On March 22, 1961, Agnes Williams chaired the initial meeting of the Surprise
Women’s Club. Gathering at Morgan’s lumberyard, the twelve charter members elected officers, proposed by-laws, and discussed ways they could help their newly incorporated town. By 1963, the group had thirty-three members. During its first decade, the club pursued three objectives: charity, civic improvement, and
307 TCM, January 26, 1961, February 9, 1961, March 9, 1961, March 23, 1961, April 13, 1961, April 27, 1961, May 11, 1961, and May 19, 1961, COSCCA. 132
community-wide social events. Their work not only improved the lives of Surprise residents, it played a critical role in creating an identity for the newly incorporated town.308
The members of the SWC continued the long tradition of women working together to benefit their communities. Historian Ann Scott Firor argues that
“[s]ince the early days of the Republic women have organized to achieve goals that seemed to them important.”309 Their associations “have been prolific builders of vital community institutions.”310 For many women, this work evolved out of their Christian belief in duty to the community and to those less fortunate.
In the nineteenth century, some women added reform causes to their community improvement agendas, focusing on abolition, temperance, and women’s rights.
While women’s work in urban areas has attracted the most scholarship, women in rural areas and small towns also created organizations that supported the municipal housekeeping they deemed necessary to make their communities’ more livable.311
Although wives and mothers entered the workforce in increasing numbers after World War II, many women continued to join clubs to improve themselves and their communities. Often these groups operated as local chapters of national organizations such as the League of Women Voters or the General Federation of
Women’s Clubs. However, some associations remained independent. Through
308 Parthenia Rogers, “High Lights of thirty years, Surprise Women’s Club, March 22, 1961 to June 1, 1990,” COSHPA. P. Atwood Williams, “Home cookin’ Surprise Women Share Recipes,” SCYNS, June 19, 1990.
309 Anne Scott Firor, Natural Allies: Women’s Associations in American History (Urbana: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 2.
310 Ibid., 3.
311 Ibid., 12, 37, 144, 157. 133
these organizations, women raised money, lobbied officials, and donated time to help the indigent, improve education, build libraries, enhance public safety, and address the unmet social needs of their communities. Given the ubiquity of these clubs, it seems reasonable to assume Surprise women had experienced or observed how these associations could influence a community.312
In the neighboring town of Peoria, a very active, effective, and respected group with five decades of accomplishments provided a local example.
Established in 1916, the Peoria Women’s Club became a member of the Arizona
Federation of Women’s Clubs in 1917 and the national federation in 1918. In
1957, the club operated with a sophisticated organizational structure that included four standing committees and thirteen special committees. An affiliated organization, the Peoria Junior Women’s Club, established in 1937, possessed an equally complex administrative configuration. Both groups produced ambitious annual programs that included speakers, field trips, fund-raising events, and social gatherings. These efforts supported self-improvement and the organization’s commitment to programs focused on the community. During their many years of service, the Peoria Women’s Club initiated an annual Fourth of
July celebration, established a community library, organized neighborhood clean- up campaigns, and supported a school lunch program. The work of the Peoria group and others across the state served as models for the women of
Surprise.313
312 Paige Meltzer, “’The Pulse and Conscience of America:’ The General Federation and Women’s Citizenship, 1945-1960,” Frontiers 30, no.3 (2009): 52-6. Joanne Meyerowitz, “Women and Gender in Postwar America, 1945-1960,” in Not June Cleaver: Women and Gender in Postwar America, 1945-1960, ed. Joanne Meyerowitz (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994), 4-6.
134
The charter membership of the Surprise Women’s Club, like that of the first town councils, reflected the dominance of family networks and the influence of the First Baptist Church. Marriage connected Lois Moore and her mother Lydia
Montgomery to Faye and Beulah Hornsby. All four belonged to the First Baptist
Church, as did Agnes Williams and Mary Annice Galyan. Two women from the
North El Mirage neighborhood, Ruth Leon and Leona Morgan, also helped organize the club.314
Equally important, the club’s organizers and early leaders aligned on multiple levels with the civic leadership. President Agnes Williams was the mother of Mayor Bill Williams. Leona Morgan’s husband, Harold, served on the town council. Beulah Hornsby’s son and Faye Hornsby’s husband, Ross, functioned as the first town marshal. Mary Annice Galyan and her husband loaned money to the town to pay for the initial census. Lois Moore’s husband,
Doyle, served on the council and as the first town clerk and magistrate. Her son,
LeRoy Moore became a member of the town’s first zoning commission. These personal ties indicate the women possessed a significant interest in the success of their newly formed city and, most likely, had access to information about the issues confronting the town’s governing body. The state of their community and the challenges facing the first town councils may have prompted the founding of the Surprise Women’s Club.315
313 Gilbert, More Than A Century of Peoria,” 21-23. PT, “Peoria Women’s Club Starts Season,” September 27, 1957.
314 The front pages of a book compiled by the Surprise Women’s Club (most likely a cookbook) lists the charter members, n.d., COSHPA. C. Moore, interview, October 21, 2011. Emma Corbin, “Scouting Surprise,” SCYNS, April 20, 1961, June 6, 1961, August 3, 1961. Rogers, “High Lights of thirty years,” COSHPA. Farley, untitled memorandum, history of the First Baptist Church, n.d., COSHPA.
135
In addition to their personal interest and involvement in the city’s welfare, members of the Surprise Women’s Club viewed their club work as an expression of their religious values. The “Holy Bible, Lighted Candle” served as the group’s emblem, and they chose a scripture passage for the club. The columns written for local newspapers confirm that many of the founding members were active in their churches. In her history of the organization, Parthenia Rogers makes it clear that club members embraced community service as a personal responsibility.316
Upon receiving a Mayor’s Special Award for her volunteer work in 1998, Rogers said, “working for the Lord is my greatest accomplishment in life.”317
315 Rogers, “High Lights of thirty years,” COSHPA. TCM, December 22, 1960, February 23, 1961, March 28, 1963, October 13, 1966, COSCCA. “A Planning Report for Surprise, Arizona,” first inside page. Corbin, interview, September 5, 2008. C. Moore, interview, October 21, 2011.
316 Untitled book introduction, COSHPA. The bible verse is 1 Corinthians 13:8, which reads “Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.” Rogers, “High Lights of thirty years.” COSHPA. Corbin, “Scouting Surprise,” SCYSN, August 3, 1961. Corbin, “Scouting Surprise,” SCYSN, November 16, 1961.
317 Heidi Houghton, “Dedicated to her Community: Resident’s volunteer work is as diverse as the community she serves,” Surprise Independent (henceforth abbreviated as SI), April 29 – May 12, 1998. 136
Fig. 5.2. Surprise Women’s Club members wearing their bonnets and long skirts at a civic ceremony. Courtesy of the City of Surprise.
Proud of their organization and its accomplishments, members set themselves apart at civic events through their choice of clothing. Photographs depict them wearing long skirts and pioneer-style bonnets. In one photograph, members pose with the town magistrate at the dedication of the city’s first post office. In the second, they participate in a clean-up effort after a parade. These images reveal the club’s status and level of involvement in the community.318
The SWC’s bi-weekly meetings served as an important venue for planning and socializing. Members used these gatherings to share ideas, plot strategy, and have fun. They enjoyed refreshments provided by the designated host or brought dishes to share in a potluck. Activities such as grab bags or silent auctions provided both fun for the attendees and funds for the club. On occasion, the agenda included excursions to other sites such as theaters and museums.
Meetings often included time for the women to gather around a frame to work on
318 These photographs are part of the city’s history project collection. 137
a quilt. These became an important source of income when offered as raffle prizes or sold at fundraisers. In this portion of their get-togethers, Surprise women discussed the state of their community and formulated their strategies for improvement.319
As noted previously, the group embraced charitable work. They donated money and goods to families struck by accident or illness. In 1964, they raised
$634 to pay the hospital expenses of a town resident injured in a car crash.
When weather stopped farm work, they delivered food baskets to those needing assistance. In 1965, as part of their annual Christmas program, they held a community children’s party, giving each attendee a gift bag of toys, fruit, and candy; they also prepared a Christmas dinner for the town’s elderly widows.320
These efforts illustrated their commitment to the club’s theme, “helping hands.”321
Creative, seemingly non-stop, fundraising, served as an integral part of most of their celebratory events. This supported the club’s charitable work and brought the community together on a social level. The group’s rummage sales, auctions, bake sales, and bazaars peppered the town’s social calendar. An event staged in the fall of 1965, which involved a pet parade and a cakewalk, provides an example of the association’s acumen at engaging residents in fun and fundraising. The town council authorized closing the street in front of the post office for the event, which included prizes for children with the pets judged to be
319 Williams, “Home cookin,’” SCYNS, June 19, 1990. Susan Doerfler, “Club members find quilt making rewarding scholarship project,” Arizona Republic, December 4, 1983. Corbin, “Scouting Surprise,” SCYSN, August 3, 1961, October 19, 1961, October 26, 1961, November 16, 1961. Author’s notes, telephone interview with Fern Rogers Farley, March 23, 2010.
320 Rogers, “High Lights of thirty years,” COSHPA. Margaret Green, “Surprise Notes,” PT, December 3, 1965. PT, “Surprise Notes,” December 31, 1965.
321 Untitled book introduction, COSHPA. 138
the largest, smallest, cutest, homeliest, and so on. In conjunction with the parade, the group sponsored a bazaar where they sold coffee, cookies, hot dogs, and crafts. The club also hosted recurring social events that increased their ability to fund their work. In 1965, Sunday afternoon bingo parties, held at Nellie
Saylors’ Trading Post, provided a steady income stream.322
The celebratory initiatives of the Surprise Women’s Club helped create a more cohesive identity for neighborhoods separated by railroad tracks. The ambitious agenda of their October 1961 inaugural event included attractions that appealed to all segments of the community. They used the completion of a civic improvement project as the foundation for a town celebration where “Mayor Bill
Williams … threw the switch” on the community’s first streetlights.323 Members arranged for a Boy Scout honor guard, two pastors, a series of speakers, and two bands, one from Luke Air Force Base and one from Dysart School. Held in front of the town market, the program included an invocation, concert, parade, speeches, drawing, sing-along, dance, and booths selling food and crafts.
Dignitaries, in addition to local leaders, included a county commissioner, a state lawmaker, and an official from Arizona Public Service. In a town of just 1,500 people, 600 attended the impressive public debut of the Surprise Women’s
Club.324
322 Rogers, “High Lights of thirty years,” COSHPA. Margaret Green, “Surprise Notes,” PT, October 1, 1965, October 29, 1965, December 17, 1965.
323 PT, “Surprise Dedicates New Street Lights,” December 1, 1961.
324 Surprise Women’s Club Program “Lamp Lighting Dedication,” November 27, 1961, COSHPA. PT, “Surprise Dedicates New Street Lights,” December 1, 1961. PT, “Surprise to Celebrate,” November 24, 1961. Rogers, “High Lights of thirty years,” COSHPA.
139
Community-wide celebrations became an ongoing element of the SWC’s agenda. Some, like the street lighting event, recognized civic milestones such as the one-year anniversary of the town’s first post office. Others centered on holidays and evolved into annual traditions. These included the group’s
Halloween event, which featured a haunted house. As noted earlier, the group’s
Christmas festivities incorporated children’s events into a larger community program. The Easter celebration revolved around an egg hunt, which appealed to children and engaged adults. Carolyn Cumbie Adair recalls her mother boiling eggs and stacking them in the kitchen. In their oral histories, early Surprise residents share their many memories of these occasions.325 Sherry Simmons
Aguilar recalls how “everyone pitched in” to help color eggs for the Easter celebration, which she describes as a “great event” attended by everyone in the community.326 These celebratory rituals became part of the rhythm and fabric of the community: shared experiences creating a sense of belonging to a place.
During its first decade, civic betterment projects dominated the club’s agenda. Members worked with the Maricopa County Health Department to offer well-baby clinics. They arranged for cancer screening clinics for women and an
X-ray trailer to test for lung disease; they also sponsored first aid classes. When the town’s residents cast ballots, members worked as election officials. In 1966, club member Norma Blankenship served as the town clerk.327
325 Rogers, “High Lights of thirty years,” COSHPA. Corbin, interview, September 5, 2008. Adair, interview, March 10, 2009.
326 Sherry Simmons Aguilar, interview by Carol Palmer, January 27, 2009, Surprise Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA.
327 Rogers, “High Lights of thirty years,” COSHPA. A newspaper clipping with a handwritten date of April 1973 contains a photograph with a caption identifying the five 140
In their pursuit of a more orderly community, the Surprise Women’s Club both supported the town council and attempted to sway that group’s decision- making. The day after the Club organized, a representative donated $39.45 to the town to establish a fund for a community center. In October of 1963, the club began selling garbage cans to support city leaders’ decision to institute garbage service. In 1965, the SWC convinced the council to support a beautification effort, planting palm trees along Grand Avenue. When the council took an action that undermined the club’s goal of community improvement, the group voiced their disapproval. Throughout the 1960s and into the next decade, members of the Surprise Women’s Club attended council meetings to publicize their events, lobby for their initiatives, solicit council members’ support for their projects, and voice disapproval of the council actions they deemed counterproductive in terms of community betterment.328
The Surprise Women’s Club made a significant difference in the development of a small, relatively impoverished community. They filled a social service void by raising funds and establishing community services. In a relatively rural area with few community activities, the women’s club organized events to bring residents together, creating community traditions and building a community identity. Concurrently, the group initiated civic improvement projects and supported the council’s initiatives in this area. In short, the SWC helped shape the development and identity of Surprise.
members of the Surprise election board including three members of the SWC, Parthenia Rogers, Ruth Leon, and Agnes Williams, COSHPA. TCM, March 23, 1961, COSCCA.
328 TCM, March 23, 1961, October 10, 1963, October 28, 1965. COSCCA. PT, “Petition Backs Ahrenberg in Dispute in Surprise,” September 10, 1965. 141
While celebrations, fundraisers, and other events created a shared understanding of community and a sense of attachment to place, they did not eradicate residents’ divergent ideas about how the community should evolve. As
Jenkins argues,
Differences of opinion – and more: of world-view, cosmology, and other fundamentals – among and between members of the same community are normal, even inevitable. They are masked by the appearance of agreement and convergence generated by shared communal symbols, and participation in a common symbolic discourse of community membership. Richard Jenkins, Social Identity (London: Routledge, 1996) 108.
In Surprise, differing ideas led to conflicts, which, like celebrations, defined and redefined Surprise.
The Conflict
The agenda for the October 13, 1966 meeting of the Surprise Town Council included a vote on a petition request submitted by frustrated citizens three weeks earlier. Petitioners asked city leaders to replace the town’s marshal, deputy marshal, and magistrate with “more desirable, efficient, capable, and compatible personnel.”329 They complained of abusive behavior, dictatorial attitudes, and objectionable conduct. In response, another group of residents circulated petitions defending the performance of the community’s law enforcement team.
Opponents of the original petition presented their counter-petitions containing
385 signatures at the beginning of the October 13 meeting. When the council announced their decision to retain the marshal and deputy, but release the
329 TCM, September 22, 1966, COSCCA. 142
magistrate, a hair-pulling fight erupted between two women in the audience, one who supported the dismissal and one who opposed it.330
A convergence of factors precipitated this and other conflicts during
Surprise’s first decade. While, from a distance, 1960s Surprise appears homogeneous, economic, cultural, and social differences produced differing values, expectations, and needs. A diverse group of residents living in a community experiencing growth and economic change held divergent ideas about community and the rights of the individual. Some desired a more “orderly” town; others opposed what they perceived as restrictions on personal freedom.
Incorporation, coupled with the absence of basic municipal services, provided the foundation that exposed these conflicting perspectives. At stake was community identity: who defined Surprise.
During their first years, town council members heard from residents unhappy with conditions in their community. Some informally voiced their dissatisfaction; others spoke at town council meetings. They wanted to redefine
Surprise and voiced their objections to neighbors who dumped trash in the desert, blocked roads, or let their dogs run wild. The Surprise Women’s Club also lobbied the town’s leaders for civic improvements including a beautification initiative. Residents became adept at using petitions to gain the council’s attention on issues they perceived as critical. On July 13, 1961, they presented the council with a petition signed by twenty-one individuals, asking town officials to take action regarding an unsafe structure. One year later, those concerned with community order presented a petition with 182 signatures opposing the
330 TCM, September 29, 1966, October 13, 1966, COSCCA. PT, “Rev. Doyle Moore Succumbs after Bitter Council Meeting,” October 21, 1966. 143
issuance of a liquor license to a convenience store. The issues of dusty streets, poor drainage, unreliable water service from El Mirage, and the lack of streetlights repeatedly appeared on the council’s agendas.331
Council members, the business coalition, responded to the voices of discontent. At their second meeting, the group discussed the town’s problems and, over the next four years, they initiated improvements and adopted regulations. The council arranged for garbage service, street lighting, road grading, a park, and police service. The group adopted building codes, the county house-numbering system, and a curfew for minors. These efforts pleased those individuals seeking a more orderly community.332
The council’s actions in these first years fell into three categories. First, enabled by their resourcefulness, they initiated improvements that created no incremental fees or taxes, made the town more livable, and restricted no personal freedoms. Street lighting made neighborhood roads easier to navigate.
Road grading and small flood control projects alleviated driving challenges. Parks provided a place for children to play and families to gather. Endorsed by residents seeking civic order, these initiatives most likely also received support from individuals concerned with retaining a relatively unrestricted lifestyle.333
331 TCM, February 9, 1961, March 9, 1961, April 27, 1961, July 13, 1961, August 10, 1961, March 8, 1962, August 23, 1962, COSCCA. Rogers, “High Lights of thirty years,” COSHPA.
332 From December 1960 through August 1965, it is difficult to find council minutes that do not include a discussion or decision about town improvements. Topics include establishing a police force, grading streets, flood control measures, animal ordinances, street lighting, street signs, and so on. TCM, January 12, 1961, January 16, 1961, January 26, 1961, February 9, 1961, April 27, 1961, July 27, 1961, June 22, 1961, March 22, 1962, May 15, 1962, June 28, 1962, December 27, 1962, October 10, 1963, COSCCA.
144
The second category consisted of actions that targeted either a small number of residents, or more often, just one individual. Problematic outbuildings, garbage fires, and blocked alleyways all produced health and safety problems, and probably exceeded the generally accepted threshold of bad neighborliness.
Again, addressing these issues created no incremental taxes or fees and possibly increased some property values. These actions, though very limited in scope, may have created some concern among those wanting to avoid municipal intrusion. However, no public protest occurred.334
The last category of council initiatives included regulations that affected a majority of citizens and, in some cases, involved additional fees. Two ordinances in this category undergirded the discontent that later erupted into community protest. The first, adopted June 28, 1962, imposed a 9:00 p.m. curfew on minors.
The council had discussed this issue ten months earlier, reacting to repeated complaints about children and teenagers on the streets late at night. Council members debated this restriction in several meetings before adopting a curfew, signifying they understood how a few residents might view its implementation as an interference with parental rights. Their concerns seemed justified in that citizen complaints about curfew violations appeared in later council minutes, indicating some parents simply ignored the rule. Additionally, at the September
29, 1966 meeting, where council members heard testimony from residents
333 TCM, January 26, 1961, February 9, 1961, March 9, 1961, March 23, 1961, January 25, 1962, May 15, 1962, February 28, 1963, COSCCA. PT, “Surprise Buys Park Site,” April 16, 1965.
334 TCM, February 9, 1961, February 23, 1961, April 27, 1961, July 13,1961, March 8, 1962, COSCCA. 145
protesting police behavior, harassment of teenagers about curfew violations surfaced as a driver of discontent and protest.335
The methods used to enforce ordinances exacerbated this discontent.
The curfew regulation directed the marshal’s office to take offenders to the town hall and summon their parents. If the marshal deemed they “aided or encouraged” the violation, the parents faced a fine of as much as $300 and up to ninety days in jail.336 In carrying out his duties, the town magistrate followed a hard-line philosophy. Doyle Moore took pride in his reputation as a “hanging judge,” meting out stiff fines and jail sentences to offenders he believed to be unrepentant.337 He credited his hard-hitting tactics for reducing the town’s crime and traffic violations.
The adoption of an ordinance in 1963 that established mandatory city owned garbage collection, costing $1.00 per month per household, added another layer of regulation that further fueled discontent. The issue of sanitation first appeared in council minutes in January 1961; for the next five months, complaints from residents about trash disposal surfaced repeatedly. The council first discussed garbage service in June 1961. One year later, the topic appeared on several meeting agendas as the complaints continued. In mid-1963, the council moved forward. After exploring options and hearing proposals, they adopted two ordinances. One established a three-member Board of Health that
335 TCM, August 10, 1961, May 10, 1962, June 28, 1962, May 9, 1963, September 29, 1966, COSCCA.
336 “Curfew Law Enacted in Surprise,” circa July 1962, newspaper-clipping file, COSHPA.
337 “Tough Judge Cuts Traffic Offenses,” circa 1961, newspaper-clipping file, COSHPA.
146
included the town marshal, the mayor, and the town clerk. The second authorized the mayor to implement garbage service. After pick-ups began in
September, residents’ discontent emerged almost immediately in a passive form of protest. Some failed to use the service and others refused to pay the fees. As with the curfew, people protested by refusing to comply, sending a strong message to the council about their concern with individual rights.338
Although no public outcry surfaced immediately following the passage of the garbage and curfew ordinances, citizen dissatisfaction emerged at the polling place in the 1965 council election. Residents rejected the re-election bids of four incumbents, including Bill Williams, who had served as mayor since incorporation in December 1960. Grover King, the one re-elected council member, had split with the council majority on several occasions in his prior four years of service. In
1962, he cast the only vote against hiring Howard Ahrenberg as town marshal.
Later that year, his fellow council members rejected his candidate for a vacancy on that body by a vote of three to one. Possibly aware of brewing discontent among some in the community over the imposition of what they perceived as restrictions on individual rights, King used the election as an opportunity to run as part of a slate of candidates opposing his fellow incumbents.339 Describing themselves as “Businessmen and Property Owners of Surprise,” Clarence Hall,
Wade Malone, Curtis Ashworth, Harold Yingling, and King touted their support
338 TCM, January 26, 1961, February 9, 1961, June 22, 1961, March 8, 1962, June 28, 1962, July 11, 1963, July 25, 1963, August 2, 1963, August 8, 1963, August 22, 1963, November 29, 1963, April 9, 1964, COSCCA. The failure to comply with garbage service regulations persisted, and by April 1964, the council was considering audits and citations.
339 TCM, April 26, 1962, July 26, 1962, COSCCA. PT, Advertisement, April 9, 1965. PT, “Hall Elected; Surprise Loses Town Hall,” May 21, 1965, 147
“For Better Government” for Surprise in newspaper advertisements.340 Voters saw the need for new leadership and supported the challengers. During the primary vote, Hall, Malone, Ashworth, Yingling, and King all received a majority of the votes, eliminating the need for a general election run-off.341
Although the ouster of the former council had the appearance of a political regime change, the new cohort differed little from its predecessor. In general, members came from the small business community and lived on the south side of Grand Avenue. Most belonged to the network of like-minded friends, relatives, and neighbors appointed by previous councils to serve on commissions and as municipal employees. Several ran for council positions in previous years. These individuals may have viewed voter discontent as an opportunity to achieve a more influential position in the community. However, they represented a continuation of the business coalition.342
The new council, possibly not in touch with the concerns that drove some voters to the polls, did little, with one exception, to reduce regulations and the implementation of civic order. Electing Harold Yingling to serve as mayor, they continued the work of the previous council, retaining all employees, approving the proposed budget, considering garbage service violations, and approving raises for the town’s clerk and marshal.343
340 PT, Advertisement, April 9, 1965.
341 Election Log, COSCCA.
342 C. Moore, interview, October 21, 2011. “A Planning Report for Surprise, Arizona,” the first inside page. PT, “Ten Men to Run in Surprise Election,” March 10, 1961.
343 H. Yingling, interview, August 7, 2008. TCM, June 10, 1965, June 17, 1965, June 24, 1965, July 8, 1965, July 22, 1965, COSCCA. 148
An action by the new mayor resulted in a change that precipitated a civic uproar. Establishing a new organizational structure, Yingling assigned oversight of one area of government to each council member, designating Wade Malone as commissioner of police. Three months after taking office, Malone reduced police personnel and decreased their hours of operation. By eliminating a part time position and suspending police coverage between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.,
Malone ignited the first in a series of public protests.344
Responding to the change, the town marshal, Howard Ahrenberg, resigned and the advocates of community order, led by Surprise Women’s Club member Norma Blankenship, leapt into action.345 Circulating a petition objecting to intolerable “harassment and meddling by an inexperienced police commission” that “leaves the community inadequately protected,” Blankenship gathered 200 signatures.346 She and other protesters presented their petition to the council at their September 9 meeting. After some discussion, Mayor Yingling announced that the “council would not accept the petition ‘because it is a minority group.’”347
Members voted three to two to support Yingling’s position. Although there are references to a recall drive in the minutes, no election took place and the public debate over the town’s law enforcement team appeared to end at this point.348
Why had the town marshal’s office become the focal point in the battle over community identity in Surprise? The police force serves as a symbol of
344 PT, “Petition Backs Ahrenberg in Dispute at Surprise,” September 10, 1965. TCM, July 8, 1965, COSCCA.
345 PT, “Petition Backs Ahrenberg in Dispute at Surprise,” September 10, 1965.
346 Ibid.
347 Ibid.
348 TCM, September 9, 1965, COSCCA. 149
municipal control and order in any community. In Surprise, they also represented city leaders on multiple levels. The council selected the marshal and deputy and approved all other police hires. After each election, the new town council had the prerogative to replace the incumbent marshal and deputy. Additionally, the marshal attended council meetings, provided input to members, and, as that body passed ordinances, the law enforcement team became part of the implementation process, informing residents, handing out warnings, and issuing citations. As a result, residents viewed the marshal and deputy as extensions of the council.349
The police again became the focus of citizen protest in September 1966.
While advocates of community order led the 1965 demonstration of discontent, those concerned with individual rights spearheaded this petition campaign. As noted earlier, they complained of abusive behavior, dictatorial attitudes, and objectionable conduct and asked city leaders to replace the town’s marshal, deputy marshal, and magistrate with “more desirable, efficient, capable, and compatible personnel.”350 They referenced the unfair treatment of minors and the enforcement of unreasonable ordinances. Advocates of community order immediately responded with counter-petitions supporting the law enforcement team.351
349 TCM, July 13, 1961, January 25, 1962, April 26, 1962, September 27, 1962, June 13, 1963, August 2, 1963. COSCCA. The inclusion of the town marshal on the Board of Health in 1963 demonstrates the importance of the marshal position and the strong connection to the council.
350 TCM, September 22, 1966, COSCCA.
351 TCM, September 29, 1966, October 13, 1966, COSCCA. PT, “Rev. Doyle Moore Succumbs after Bitter Council Meeting,” October 21, 1966. 150
The council’s subsequent decision at their October 13 meeting to retain the marshal and deputy but dismiss the magistrate angered both groups. The death of Town Clerk and Town Magistrate Doyle Moore, who suffered a heart attack and died immediately following that meeting, further fueled the outrage of his supporters. As a public official and a private citizen, Moore supported civic improvements and led the effort to create a more orderly community as evidenced by his repeated efforts to derail liquor license requests and his vigorous enforcement of town ordinances while serving as its magistrate.
Discontent among advocates of community order, which most likely had simmered since the council’s rejection of their petition opposing a reduction in the police force one year earlier, erupted again. They gathered signatures on a petition recalling the three council members who voted to dismiss Moore.352
Those opposed to restrictions on personal freedoms reacted to the recall initiative by circulating their own petitions recalling the two council members who voted against the dismissal, arguing, “they are not qualified by temperament or training to serve.”353 In the December 20 election, Curtis Ashworth and Wade
Malone, two of the three council members who voted to fire the magistrate, lost their seats. LeRoy Moore, Doyle Moore’s son, won a position on the new council.354
352 PT, “Recall Action in Surprise,” November 25, 1966. PT, “Rev. Doyle Moore Succumbs after Bitter Council Meeting,” October 21, 1966.
353 “Two More in Recall,” PT, December 16, 1966.
354 PT, “Three Incumbents Return; Two Defeated,” December 23, 1966. Election Log, COSCCA. 151
Table 5.1 Transition of the Surprise Town Council Pre-Recall Post-Recall Dismissal Recall Council Council Vote Result (April 1965) (December 1966)
Yingling, H. Yes No Yingling, H.
Malone, W. Yes Yes Moore, L.
Ashworth, C. Yes Yes Longoria, S.
King, G. No No King, G.
Hall, C No No Hall, C.
Source: City of Surprise Election Log and October 13, 1966 Town Council Minutes
For the advocates of community order, this election represented a victory.
The two council members who supported Doyle Moore, Hall and King, retained their seats on the council and Moore’s son filled one of the vacancies. Ashworth and Malone lost their positions. Given their decisive victories eighteen months prior, this represented a significant reversal. Although both supported some civic improvement initiatives, quite possibly, the mayhem created by their vote to oust
Moore, a stalwart of the traditional Surprise leadership coalition, precipitated a backlash. When Ashworth attempted to retake his seat on the council in the May
1967 general election, he received only ten percent of the votes, further proof of residents’ disapproval.355
355 Election Log, COSCCA. 152
Conclusion
The transition to a more orderly, regulated, and cohesive community represented the second phase in the evolution of Surprise’s community identity. Two organizations played a critical role in this redefinition of place. The Surprise
Women’s Club filled a community void with charitable projects and civic improvement programs. The group also organized celebratory events that brought residents together, creating community traditions and personal attachments to place. Concurrently, encouraged by the women’s organization and other advocates of community order, the town council began implementing municipal services, regulations, and infrastructure in a community generally lacking all three. These efforts exposed deep divisions among residents over the concepts of community and individual rights. Advocates of civic improvements voiced their disapproval when the council’s actions seemed to undermine their agenda. When town leaders implemented services and regulations such as mandatory garbage pick-up and a curfew for minors, those opposed to what they perceived as restrictions on personal freedoms objected. The town’s police force, symbols of municipal order, became the focal point of the conflict between groups with competing views on how to define Surprise. During the course of the conflict, council members lost elections, voters recalled others, and city officials resigned. In spite of shifts in political leadership and personnel, the advocates of civic improvement prevailed. In the next decades, city leaders built on the work of the Surprise Women’s Club and the first town councils. Community events such as the Easter celebration, in addition to growing larger in scope and content, became city-sponsored. Minor civic improvement projects evolved into major construction programs and master municipal plans. The celebrations and
153
conflicts of the 1960s helped redefine Surprise and set the foundation for its evolution to a twenty-first century boomburb.
154
CHAPTER SIX
NEW LEADERSHIP, NEW CONFLICTS, AND NEW CELEBRATIONS:
REDEFINING PLACE
The rebuke of some elected officials by Surprise voters in the 1966 special election set the stage for the emergence of a new leadership coalition at the end of the decade and the third phase in the development of the community. The new coalition operated from a different governance paradigm. Looking beyond the conservative approach of their predecessors, they embraced an activist agenda, which included an emphasis on providing recreational opportunities, expanding civic celebrations, improving basic services, and taking preemptive steps to ensure future growth. This transition occurred within the context of a rapidly evolving local and regional environment. Growth in the Phoenix urban complex, especially, the expansion of Sun City, repeatedly reset the economic and social framework of Surprise. Internally, social changes and population growth reshaped the town’s demographic profile, altering its political algorithm.
Embedded in these dynamics one finds the threads that, when woven together with earlier and subsequent contingencies, events, decisions, and actions, became the fabric supporting the rise of a twenty-first century boomburb.
Valley Growth Rolls On
As one, albeit a very small, component of the Valley metropolis, Surprise experienced the effects of the region’s hyper-growth and witnessed the attempts of sister municipalities to claim their share of the growth bounty. As discussed in
155
Chapter One, several scholars present analytical models that describe the political dynamics of urban growth.
Harvey Moltoch locates municipal power in a network of private and public entities that operate as a growth machine. While Molotch’s model fails to account for the influence of non-economic factors, several elements prove useful for this study. He describes growth machines as multi-tiered entities comprised of cities, districts, and smaller components that may cooperate on regional or sub- regional initiatives even as they compete to optimize their share of the growth bounty. After mid-century, Phoenix and its larger more developed suburbs such as Glendale, Tempe, and Scottsdale, vied on multiple levels in a variety of venues to protect and expand their sphere of influence. Leaders in smaller suburbs on the periphery, such as Surprise, observed this maneuvering and learned lessons about the politics and economics of urban expansion.356
In particular, during the 1960s and 1970s, annexation served as the arena of conflict as towns and cities strove to increase their footprint to prevent being locked out of growth. Phoenix used annexation to prevent “strangulation by suburban incorporation.”357 Employing a variety of tactics, the town’s leaders pushed and pulled the residents of Sunnyslope and South Phoenix away from separate incorporation and into the city limits. Concurrently, city leaders absorbed adjacent undeveloped areas. On its eastern boundary, this conflicted with the annexation plans of Scottsdale and Tempe. Again, using multiple methods, including the courts, Phoenix generally prevailed. Undaunted,
Scottsdale shifted its focus to the north and, through annexation, grew its
356 Molotch, “The City as a Growth Machine,” 309-311.
357 VanderMeer, Desert Visions, 177. 156
footprint from less than four square miles in 1960 to eighty-eight square miles in
1980.358
As Phoenix and its suburbs expanded their geographic presence, the
Valley’s population continued to expand, extending the trend of the 1950s and
1960s. A county of 971,228 in 1970 grew to 1,509,175 by 1980. Nearer to
Surprise, Glendale increased from 36,228 to 96,988, and Peoria expanded from
4,792 to 12,251. Importantly for the construction industry, the Valley, like the nation, experienced a decrease in household size, which meant, on a percentage basis, the increase in living units surpassed that of the population. This demographic shift ensured buyers for the large suburban developments that emerged in the 1970s, such as Dobson Ranch in Mesa and Ahwatukee in the southern section of the Valley. Like McCormick Ranch in Scottsdale, a 3,100- acre community begun in 1972, these expansive residential landscapes set the pace for the local building industry.359
However, the Valley’s ardor for construction produced unintended consequences. Overbuilding coupled with population growth created market bubbles and busts. In the early 1960s, an oversupply of homes led to a seventy- five percent reduction in the number of builders. Between 1974 and 1976, construction employment fell by fifty percent when the supply of homes again outstripped demand. The construction industry rebounded in 1977, reaching a
358 VanderMeer, Desert Visions, 178, 222-3.
359 VanderMeer, Desert Visions, 191, 219. Patricia Gober, “How and Why Phoenix Households Changed: 1970-1980,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 76, no. 4 (Dec 1986): 536. Metropolitan area households increased by 80% and the population increased by 56% during this decade. 157
record high in terms of units. Demand again slipped at the end of the decade when interest rates and inflation increased.360
Fueling population growth, businesses continued to expand and establish facilities in the Valley. At the state level, the manufacturing work force grew from
49,300 in 1960 to 99,600 in 1975, rising to 182,000 in 1985. While Arizona had less than one percent of the nation’s manufacturing jobs, almost one-half were in the technology sector as compared to a national average of fifteen percent.
These good paying jobs meant this segment generated the largest payroll in the state, even though it ranked fourth in terms of number of employees. Firms such as Honeywell, IBM, and McDonnell-Douglas Helicopter established a presence in the state during this timeframe, joining Motorola and others. Several companies moved their headquarters to the area. By 1984, Arizona occupied third place out of eleven Western states in terms of electronics and aerospace manufacturing, with the Valley serving as the principal location for high technology firms.361
Business expansion, population growth, construction cycles, the emergence of large residential developments, and municipal annexation initiatives affected the residents of Surprise in numerous ways on multiple levels.
As the urban area crept ever closer, and nearby suburbs grew, employment opportunities increased. Some residents found work in the construction industry and experienced the layoffs associated with contraction in this sector. As developments such as Dobson Ranch took shape, local farm and ranch owners saw the potential for profit from their land holdings. For town leaders, the emergence of large developments such as McCormick Ranch and the
360 VanderMeer, Desert Visions, 195-6.
361 Sheridan, Arizona: A History, 326. 158
annexation initiatives of larger suburban municipalities provided a vision of how their own community might evolve and lessons on how to leverage the innate possibilities of that evolution.362
Sun City Looms
Three miles east of Surprise, the rapid expansion of Sun City continued. On the north side of Grand Avenue, the Del Webb Company opened the second phase of the development in 1968.363 Sales rose dramatically. In April of the following year, a corporate spokesperson reported that first quarter results “almost equaled sales for the entire first six months of record-setting 1968.”364 This growth meant that new businesses continued to open, including banks, service stations, and an animal clinic. The retirement community grew to 13,670 by 1970, reaching
40,664 in 1980. Acknowledging the success of the endeavor and the ongoing demand for retirement community homes, the Del Webb organization moved forward a decade prior to the completion of Sun City to secure a site for its second development. The company purchased Lizard Acres, a property adjacent to Surprise’s northern boundary, from Julius Wetzler, who continued to operate the feedlot on a leaseback basis for another decade. 365
As the numbers of Sun Citians increased, the group became a political force on issues they perceived to menace their vision of community. In particular,
362 C. Adair, interview, November 7, 2008.
363 Sturgeon, “It’s a Paradise Town,” 101.
364 PT, “Sun City Home Sales Shattering Record,” April 9, 1969.
365 Sturgeon, “It’s a Paradise Town,” 105. VanderMeer, Desert Visions, 191. PT, “Sun City Home Sales Shattering Record,” April 9, 1969. P. Lucking, interview, February 9, 2009. 159
they valued affordability, economic stability, livability, and order. Residents first targeted a financial threat: the bond measures of the Peoria School District
(PSD). Beginning in 1962 and continuing for twelve years, Sun City retirees became an almost insurmountable voting bloc on PSD ballot initiatives. In a
February 1969 election, only sixteen of 280 Peoria residents cast votes against a bond measure; however, Sun City voters opposed it by a margin of 1,142 to
598.366 Two months later, after “an overwhelming response from Peoria property owners,” the measure passed on a third attempt, 2,989 to 2,554.367
Residents of Surprise took notice of the clash between the voting blocs in
Sun City and Peoria. While the town’s students no longer attended Peoria High
School, the Webb company’s purchase of Lizard Acres meant a retiree haven would be built in the Dysart School District. As they challenged perceived threats to their ideas about community, the organization and commitment of Sun City residents seemed daunting.
Sun City retirees, concerned about taxation, organized the Sun City
Taxpayer Association (SCTA), a group that demanded consideration from office seekers and governing bodies. When an incumbent PSD board member seeking re-election chose not to attend an SCTA candidate meeting, the organization issued a statement saying it could “only assume that he is not interested in Sun
City or the support of the largest and potentially most influential segment of the district.”368
366 Borough, McHugh, and Gober, “The Sun City Wars,” 634. PT, “Sun City Sinks School Bonds Again,” February 21, 1969.
367 PT, “Bond Issue Passes,” April 11, 1969.
368 PT, “Sun City Taxpayers Lash Out at Incumbent School Board Member,” September 11, 1970. 160
The SCTA did not confine its activism to candidate fairs and voter education. On issues it deemed important, the group conducted its own research and published reports. In 1971, opposing the size of a proposed pay increase for
PSD teachers, the group prepared an analysis comparing its compensation package to that of other districts. In a report presented to district and board leaders and released to the media, the SCTA rejected the statistics put forward by district officials, concluded that the salary increase could not be justified, and questioned the legality of the board’s plan to proceed without a public vote. In sum, activists in Sun City aggressively pursued their agenda, unafraid to take on established institutions and seemingly unfazed by harsh criticism from the public and the media.369
Sun City residents also used the legal system to preserve their vision of place. Two-hundred of the enclave’s retirees sought $5 million in damages from the operator of a cattle feedlot adjacent to their community, Spur Industries. As they battled the Peoria School District, this suit moved forward, as did a companion legal action brought by Del Webb Company.370 In these court challenges, which began in 1967, the residents and the company characterized the Spur feedlot as “a public nuisance and a health hazard.”371 In the end, Webb and the Sun City residents prevailed, forcing the company to phase out its feeding operation. This conflict attracted the attention of ranch and farm owners
369 PT, “$1,000 Pay Hike Request Not Justified: Association,” March 19, 1971. Borough, McHugh and Gober, “The Sun City Wars,” 634-6.
370 PT, “Court Asks: Are Feed Lots Private or Public Nuisance,” February 20, 1970. PT, “Del Webb Wins Law Suit over Spur Cattle Odors,” September 18, 1970.
371 PT, “Del Webb Wins Law Suit Over Spur Cattle Odors,” September 18, 1970. 161
in the Northwest Valley and played a role in Julius Wetzler’s decision to sell
Lizard Acres, also a cattle feedlot operation.372
By 1968, Surprise residents possessed a significantly clearer understanding of the current and potential impact of Sun City on their community and the surrounding agricultural area. In 1959, when Del Webb began construction, most likely, the issues associated with earning a living, maintaining a household, raising children, and fending off annexation by El Mirage occupied residents’ attention. At that time, three miles, two communities, and the Agua Fria
River separated Surprise from the new retiree development. Having experienced the emergence of Youngtown, residents probably envisioned Sun City as just a larger version of that breed. By 1968, the new development was much closer, much larger, and far from a mere clone of Youngtown. Its population exceeded that of Surprise, El Mirage, and Youngtown combined. While Sun City produced jobs, volunteers, service businesses, and retail outlets, it also brought a group of homogeneous residents with similar ideas about the meaning of community who possessed the means and determination to use the political and legal systems to force pre-existing businesses and institutions to conform to their ideas about place. For Surprise residents, DEVCO’s purchase of Lizard Acres, an important source of jobs and town support, served as an exclamation point on the significant and growing influence of retirement developments in terms of defining their community.373
372 P. W. Lucking, interview, February 9, 2009. SCYNS, “HOA Pursues Odor Case, Fire District Hearing Set,” April 16, 1969. PT, “Del Webb Wins Law Suit over Spur Cattle Odors,” September 18, 1970. PT, “Spur Feed Lot Given 9 Day Reprieve by Judge Chatwin,” February 18, 1971.
162
A Community in Flux
As civic improvement advocates celebrated their victory at the polling place in the
1966 recall election, multiple dynamics were reshaping the community in a dramatic fashion. While the town’s residents remained relatively impoverished, farm work became a less important source of income. Concurrently, other changes significantly eroded the power base of the leadership coalition of Euro-
American small business owners from the south side of Grand Avenue. A combination of personal situations, out-migration, in-migration, and net growth weakened existing kinship and friendship networks and reordered the social structure of the community. These changes set the stage for a political regime change. This new leadership coalition adopted an aggressive agenda, resetting the meaning of place in Surprise.
While farm work remained a major income source for some, an increasing number of residents worked in non-farm positions or merely supplemented their income with fieldwork. In part, mechanization of cotton farming drove this change. By 1968, the United States Department of Agriculture could report that
Arizona cotton growers used machines to harvest 100 percent of their 1967-68 cotton crops. The availability of other employment options also contributed to this shift. LeRoy Moore and Larry Simmons worked in the cotton fields as young men but moved to other jobs when the opportunity arose. Both worked at a small factory in Beardsley, RET-Bar Manufacturing. Moore also worked at Saliba’s
Market in El Mirage and as a bus driver and maintenance worker at Dysart
School. According to the 1970 census, twenty-nine percent of employed Surprise
373 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Summary of Reports of Special Censuses Conducted by the Bureau of the Census between January 1 and December 31, 1965,” July 22, 1966, 3. Findlay, Magic Lands, 190. 163
residents over the age of sixteen made their living working on farms. Twenty-four percent held manufacturing jobs; ten percent worked for retail businesses and eight percent for service firms. Even as the economic foundation of the community shifted, many residents clung to the community’s farm work heritage.374 Marty Fulcher, who moved to the community in 1966, after the employment landscape shifted, proudly asserts, “This was a migrant working town. That’s what it was. This wasn’t a metropolis, it wasn’t Scottsdale. This was hard working people, got down, got their hands dirty.”375
In terms of social hierarchy, a convergence of factors unraveled the large social networks that undergirded Surprise’s first leadership cohort, the business coalition. In a few cases, the dissolution of a marriage split previously connected families. The divorce of Joanne and Curtis Ashworth severed the link between the Moore and Ashworth families. Likewise, Ross and Faye Hornsby’s divorce cut the connection between the Montgomery and the Hornsby families. Death by accidental and natural causes also weakened these networks. Family head
374 PT, “Cotton 100% Machine Picked,” June 28, 1968. L. Simmons and R. Simmons, interview, October 13, 2011. L. Moore, interview, November 3, 2011. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1970, Census Tracts, Final Report, Phoenix SMSA (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), P- 57. No discrete data exists for Surprise in the 1960 census. It is included in a tract that covers El Mirage, Beardsley, Youngtown, Marinette, and the surrounding farm community. Additionally, that census report does not identify farm work as a separate category. However, of the 2,318 employed men and women over the age of 14, 1,746 or 75% work in “other industries,” which most likely equates to farm work. Combining the 1970 census data for El Mirage and Surprise, there are 1,571 employed men and women over the age of 16. Forty percent or 613 are engaged in farm work. While this comparison with the 1960 census is flawed it seems to support anecdotal evidence of a numerical decline in farm positions. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1960, Census Tracts, Final Report, Phoenix (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), 59.
375 M. Fulcher and R. Fulcher, interview, January 21, 2009. 164
Clarence E. Montgomery died in an auto accident in 1968. Nine months later, the matriarch of the Scritchfield family died of an illness.376
Often precipitated by breaks in family ties, out-migration further diminished the strength of social networks. Divorce often led to relocation. When
Leroy and Nadine Moore separated, she moved to another part of the state.
Ross Hornsby left Surprise after his divorce. After the death of a family head, some adult children moved back to south-central states or joined other family members in California. Additionally, as teenagers reached young adulthood, they found limited options in Surprise. Many sought opportunities in other locales.
Mike Butler enlisted in the Army and, upon his return, found employment at the
Reynolds Aluminum facility in Phoenix. Carolyn Cumbie Adair married and moved to Glendale. The leadership changes at the First Baptist Church reflected this social instability. From 1964 to 1974, four different pastors served the congregation. In sum, the families that molded, defined, and led Surprise during the 1950s and early 1960s began to shrink in terms of size and influence.377
Concurrently, new families moved into the community and, notably, ethnic
Mexicans dominated this in-migration. By 1970, they comprised sixty-six percent of the town’s population. Moving into homes on both sides of Grand Avenue, some encountered hostility from neighbors in the predominately white enclave on the south side of the highway. This demographic shift mirrored a change at the state level where the ethnic Mexican population increased by seventy-one
376 C. Moore, interview, October 21, 2011. PT, Obituary, February 16, 1968. PT, Obituary, November 22, 1968.
377 C. Moore, interview, October 21, 2011. C. Adair, interview, November 7, 2008. M. Butler, interview, October 20, 2008. Farley, untitled memorandum, history of the First Baptist Church, n.d., COSHPA. 165
percent to become nineteen percent of the total population. During this same period, the Hispanic population of Maricopa County grew to fourteen percent.378
Reports in the Peoria Times on social and cultural happenings in Surprise reflected this shift. In the mid-1960s, separate columns on Surprise stopped appearing. However, Tony Fonseca often included items about the town in her reports on El Mirage. While her column continued to describe family visits to and from south-central states, they also now included accounts of family travels to and from Mexico. Just as Emma Corbin provided information on Surprise
Women’s Club meetings in her early 1960s columns for the Sun City Youngtown
News-Sun, Fonseca reported on the meetings of the La Sociedad Mutualista.
The news of church activities at Santa Terisita now outnumbered reports on events at the Baptist churches. Fonseca also publicized events of importance to the ethnic Mexican community, such as a church sponsored fiesta and the adult
English classes at the Dysart Community Center.379
In the second half of the 1960s, members of Surprise’s ethnic Mexican community became increasingly politically active on multiple levels in various venues. Samuel Longoria successfully ran for town council in the 1966 recall election. Others assumed leadership positions in local community programs.
378 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1970, Census Tracts, Final Report, Phoenix SMSA (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), P-22, P36. G. Garcia and C. Garcia, interview, March 6, 2009. Sheridan, Arizona, 285. Per Sheridan, experts generally agree that ethnic Mexicans were undercounted in the 1960 census, skewing the percent growth figure.
379 Toni Fonseca, “El Mirage News,” PT, March 7, 1969, December 31, 1969, October 10, 1969, November 5, 1971, May 14, 1971, and September 26, 1969. The church affiliation of the reporter influenced their reporting. The activities at the First Baptist church dominated Emma Corbin’s column because she attended that place of worship. Tony Fonseca, an active member at Santa Teresita, had knowledge of all of the parish’s activities. La Sociedad Mutualista was the El Mirage mutual aid society formed by ethnic Mexican workers. 166
These actions reflected and connected to ethnic Mexican activism at the state and national level. Groups such as the Mexican American Student Organization
(MASO) and the United Farm Workers (UFW) fought for social and economic justice in Arizona. The work of these groups and others informed Surprise activists, which, in turn, influenced the political landscape of Surprise. Chapter
Seven explores local and regional Chicano activism and its effect on Surprise in more depth.380
Surprise’s in-migration and births surpassed its outbound moves and deaths resulting in consistent double-digit population growth. The town expanded slightly from 2,189 in 1965 to 2,427 in 1970 and more significantly in 1980, reaching 3,723. The effects of growth became apparent in various ways. In early
1970, Surprise Town Clerk Norma Blankenship noted a sharp uptick in building.
The town issued twelve permits for home construction in December 1969 and another nine in January, including one for a laundromat. Dysart School District experienced expansion, receiving almost $49,000 in federal funding in 1968 to build four additional classrooms at the Luke School. At the district’s 1972 March of Dimes steak fry, organizers planned for 1,600 meals in contrast to the 686 served in 1959. Growth continued to define Surprise, continuously bringing more people, more homes, more classrooms, and more diversity in terms of ethnicity, perspectives, and life experiences.381
380 City of Surprise Election Log, COSCCA. G. Garcia and C. Garcia, interview, March 6, 2009. Martinez “Hispanics in Arizona,” 114. Berman, Arizona Politics and Government, 82. Alfredo Gutierrez, interview by Carol Palmer, October 3, 2006, Phoenix, Arizona, audio recording, Arizona State History and Archives, Phoenix, Arizona. Laborin, interview, May 28, 2009.
381 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1970, Census Tracts, Final Report, Phoenix SMSA (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), P-36. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Special Censuses, “Summary of Special 167
Out of Disarray, a New Leadership Coalition Emerges
Even as their base of support eroded, the business coalition extended its dominance through, depending on one’s perspective, clever maneuvering or political chicanery. In the 1967 primary election, held just four months after the recall vote discussed in Chapter Five, two members of this group won enough votes to avoid a run-off in the May general election: LeRoy Moore and Mayor
Grover King. Incumbent Harold Yingling, not a member of the coalition, also won, receiving the most votes. Of the seven candidates who vied for two open seats in the May general election, two winners lived on the north side: Floyd Gaines and
George Cumbie. Their wins left the business coalition with only two seats and facing the prospect of being in a minority position on the town’s governing body for the first time since incorporation.382
Concerned about this loss of power, several members of the business coalition developed a plan that successfully leveraged a seven-year technical oversight to retain control. At incorporation, county supervisors, believing
Surprise’s population to be less than 1,500, appointed five members to the initial council. Four months later, when the special census revealed a population in excess of that number, the town council, either content with the existing
Censuses Conducted by the Bureau of the Census Between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 1965,” June 1966, 3. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1980, Census Tracts, Final Report, Phoenix SMSA (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983), P-28. PT, “Building Up at Surprise,” February 13, 1970. PT, “Dysart Federal Funds Approved,” March 29, 1968. PT, “March of Dimes Steak Fry Jan. 30.” January 21, 1972. PT, “Large Crowd Attends Western Steak Fry,” February 6, 1959.
382 PT, “Ten Candidates Seek Five Seats,” March 24, 1967. PT, “Yingling Tops Balloting in Surprise Council Election,” April 21, 1967. PT, “Election Completes Surprise Council,” May 26, 1967. TCM, April 24, 1967, May 29, 1967, COSCCA. 168
configuration or unaware of the state law, chose not to take action to increase the council size to the authorized number of seven.383
This lapse gave the business coalition the opening it needed to subvert the outcome of the election. After the tally of the election results on May 29, but prior to seating the new council on June 8, coalition members gathered thirty-two signatures on a petition asking the council to expand its membership to seven positions. At the next council meeting, before swearing in the new members, they presented the petition to the outgoing cohort. Arguing that the small number of signatures failed to reflect the wishes of a majority of town residents, Harold
Yingling objected to its consideration. With their majority status, the business coalition prevailed in votes to accept the petition and add two seats to the council. They named business coalition members Edward Ring and Ernest
Scritchfield to fill these positions. The town clerk then swore in the two appointees and the five elected members of the new council.384
In what appeared to be a planned maneuver, Ed Ring resigned prior to the end of the meeting. In response, Leroy Moore moved to have Clarence Hall fill his vacancy. With their new majority, the coalition replaced Ring with Hall.
Thus, the original business coalition retained control of the council for another two years, probably leaving Surprise residents who voted in the town election feeling a bit hoodwinked. Clarence Hall and Ernest Scritchfield, both of whom
383 PT, "Supervisors Name First Councilmen," December 16, 1960. “A Planning Report for Surprise, Arizona,” 8. TCM, June 8, 1967, COSCCA.
384 TCM, April 24, 1967, May 29, 1967, and June 8, 1967, COSCCA.
169
failed to get enough votes in the primary or the general election, now sat on the council as members of the majority faction.385
Table 6.1 Transition of the Surprise Town Council 1966 Recall Council 1967 Elected Council 1967 Expanded Council
Harold Yingling Harold Yingling Harold Yingling
Grover King* Grover King* Grover King*
LeRoy Moore* LeRoy Moore* LeRoy Moore*
Clarence Hall* George Cumbie George Cumbie
Samuel Longoria Floyd Gaines Floyd Gaines
Ernest Scritchfield* Clarence Hall*
(replacing Ed Ring) Source: Surprise Town Council Minutes of June 8, 1967 and Election Log. Asterisk denotes business coalition member.
The business coalition’s successful move to retain power generated multiple reactions. Floyd Gaines, George Cumbie, and Harold Yingling, unexpectedly a minority on the council, tried unsuccessfully to get the judicial system to undo what they considered to be an illegal political maneuver.
Engaging Maricopa County Attorney Robert Corbin in their fight, they filed suit in
Superior Court, alleging the outgoing council “did not have the authority to raise the membership from five.”386 Secondly, in the following elections, with two exceptions, Surprise voters abandoned the business coalition. In 1969, they
385 TCM, June 8, 1967, COSCCA.
386 PT, “Town of Surprise Enters Legal Skirmish over Newly Appointed Seven- Man Council,” July 21, 1967. 170
elected Mayor Grover King to one more term on the council. In 1973, Ernest
Scritchfield won a two-year seat on that body.387
The next election ended a contentious transition period, ushering in a new political regime. What voters attempted to accomplish in 1967 finally came to fruition in 1969. A new cohort took control of the town council, directing that body for the next two decades. This group embraced the civic order agenda of their predecessors; they also re-imagined Surprise as place of recreation, western- style celebrations, and growth.388
In several respects, the new coalition had much in common with the previous one. Most had roots in south-central states. George Cumbie, one of ten children of Arkansas sharecroppers, moved west with his family during the
Depression when he was a teenager. Floyd Gaines migrated from Oklahoma during the 1940s, as did Charlie Robinson’s wife Christine. Farm work served as a core element of their life experiences. George Cumbie quit school after the third grade to work in the cotton fields. After his service in World War II, he returned to Surprise, establishing a cotton-contracting business and working for road construction firms. His friend Floyd Gaines also worked as a cotton- contractor. Like others in the community, members of this group had large family networks. Multiple generations of Cumbies lived on Central Street. The Gaines family, also multi-generational, connected to the Occhiline and Beardon families through marriage.389
387 PT, “Surprise Elects Four Councilmen,” April 25, 1969. Election Log, COSCCA.
388 PT, “Surprise Elects Four Councilmen,” April 25, 1969. PT, “Election Proves Upset,” May 30, 1969. Election Log, COSCCA.
171
This group differed from the preceding leadership coalition in several important ways. First, their links to evangelical congregations appear to be much weaker. While some may have attended one of those churches, their names rarely appear in reports on church activities; the roster for the First Baptist
Church, one of the most influential, only lists the Cumbies as members. Likewise, most members of this contingent lived on the north side of Grand Avenue.
George Cumbie and his wife raised five children on Cottonwood Street. Eugene
Wilcox lived on Nash Street. Last, fewer members of this group operated retail or service establishments. Wilcox worked at the Lizard Acres feedlot and, as noted,
Cumbie and Gaines ran cotton-contracting operations.390
Most importantly, this cadre of friends and political allies shared an interest in the “Old West” culture of rodeos, music, horseback riding, and western attire, which included wearing boots, cowboy hats, western shirts, and large silver belt buckles. Floyd Gaines lived across the street from Eugene Wilcox on
Nash Street. Both kept horses on their property and often rode through town together, decked out in their western attire. Charlie Robinson, Taylor Feltner, and other western-style musicians entertained at local gatherings. In 1974, Gene
Miles and George Cumbie joined with others in the community to form the
Surprise Sheriff’s Posse, a search and rescue organization. Members of this
389 C. Adair, interview, November 7, 2008. R. Gaines and C. Gibson, interview, March 4, 2009. C. Robinson and C. Robinson, interview, September 18, 2008. Jackson Beardon, interview by Sherry Aguilar, November 25, 2008, Surprise Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA.
390 C. Adair, interview, November 7, 2008. Farley, untitled memorandum, history of the First Baptist Church, n.d., COSHPA. Sherry Aguilar, interview by Carol Palmer, April 24, 2012, Surprise, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. 172
group also formed the core of the El Mirage-Surprise Kiwanis Club, which organized in 1972.391
George Cumbie dominated this “north-side coalition” for the next two decades. Several years after the town’s incorporation, Cumbie became active in community governance, serving on a subdivision committee, an ad hoc water group, and the zoning board. He ran for a council position once before winning election in 1967. Beginning in 1969, Cumbie served as mayor for twenty years.
Floyd Gaines operated as his closest ally. After his election in 1969, Gaines held a council position for ten years. His son Jerry, after his appointment to the council in 1981, ran for election and went on to serve multiple terms on that body. As had been the custom in town politics since incorporation, during election campaigns, members of the north-side coalition presented themselves to voters as a slate of candidates, demonstrating their alignment on issues.392
After his appointment as town manager in 1975, Harold Yingling played a crucial role in furthering the agenda of the north-side coalition and redefining
Surprise as a place of growth. However, his affiliation with this group seemed tenuous. The leadership coalition demonstrated their doubts about Yingling when they put him on six months probation, a condition not placed on the managers
391 S. Aguilar, interview, April 24, 2012. C. Robinson and C. Robinson, interview, September 18, 2008. PT, “Posse News from Surprise,” July 18, 1975. Tony Fonseca, “El Mirage News,” PT, November 8, 1974. According to James M. Gregory, the cowboy look and western events became part of the subculture of those from south-central states. Gregory, American Exodus, 237-8. Election Log, COSCCA. PT, “New El Mirage-Surprise Kiwanis Keep Busy,” June 8, 1973.
392 TCM, January 27, 1966, June 23, 1966, and November 25, 1966, August 13, 1981, COSCCA. Election Log, COSCCA. 173
who preceded or followed him. Yingling’s actions during the trial period garnered the support of the council and he held that position for thirteen years.393
Despite the emergence of a new political coalition, the political ethos of
Surprise remained unchanged. In a small town where everyone knew everybody else, personal conflicts arising out of business disputes, neighborhood quarrels, and other social disagreements continued to seep into the political process, often overflowing into town council meetings and elections. Conflicts over municipal issues, policies, and procedures frequently involved an element of personal hostility. As a result, council meetings could be contentious and election battles nasty.394
Unlike their predecessors, this coalition faced an opposition faction, one that became increasingly energized, organized, and active. Ethnic Mexican community leaders pursued a program often challenging, though at times, supporting, the agenda advocated by the north-side coalition. Their stance on many issues appealed not only to a large segment of the town’s Hispanic population but also to those living in relatively impoverished circumstances and to the volunteers and professionals serving that group. Although they held a minority position on the council, this group aggressively challenged the north-side coalition, shaping the policies and actions of that group. However, Surprise’s
393 TCM, June 10, 1965, December 22, 1966, July 18, 1974, August 7, 1975, June 11, 1987, June 25, 1987, COSCCA. H. Yingling, interview, August 7, 2008. Election Log, COSCCA.
394 The October 13, 1966 council meeting featured a hair-pulling incident. Two decades later, in the October 8, 1987 meeting, the council declares a member of the audience out of order and directs the police to remove him from the meeting. In the intervening years, council minutes are peppered with these sorts of incidents. 174
Mexicano community was not monolithic. A noteworthy segment supported
Cumbie and several ran for council seats as members of his coalition. 395
Resetting the Political Landscape
After assuming control, the north-side coalition took steps to establish their dominance and implement their agenda. Personnel changes and a new venue for the town hall served as symbols of their control. Their programs involved redefining Surprise as a place of western style entertainment that attracted visitors from around the Valley. They also embraced an expanded parks and recreation program. Finally, the cohort pursued a growth strategy, expanding the town’s footprint and increasing its potential for future expansion. These actions proved foundational to resetting the community’s identity and its later emergence as a boomburb.
As their first order of business, the new coalition asserted their control over the town government. They asked for the resignations of the appointees of the business coalition. Shortly after the council selected a new town marshal, the other members of the police force resigned. Rebounding from this setback, the council hired a new marshal and deputies.396 One-month later, disgruntled residents circulated petitions recalling Mayor Cumbie and five council members, arguing that they “supported hiring of … a Marshal whom we feel to be unqualified morally.”397 In a May election, all of the incumbents prevailed by large
395 S. Aguilar, interview, April 24, 2012.
396 PT, “Surprise Town Council Ousts Police Chief, Clerk,” August 1, 1969. PT, “Entire Surprise Police Force Quits,” February 27, 1970. PT, “Town of Surprise Hires Own Police Force,” March 20, 1970.
397 PT, “Surprise Recall Action Taken,” March 27, 1970. 175
margins, defeating candidates from the ousted business coalition. The north-side coalition’s ease in overcoming this challenge solidified their position of power.398
Symbolically more significant, the new leadership moved the town hall to the north side of Grand Avenue. After incorporation in 1961, except for the first four meetings held at Harold Morgan’s lumberyard, the council had met in locales on the south side of the highway. They had first used the meeting hall at the First
Baptist Church and then, in March 1962, they moved to a commercial building owned by Clarence Hall. To avoid a conflict of interest when Hall won election to the council in 1965, the council leased and remodeled the Saylors’ root beer stand. These sites, no more than a few blocks apart, proved convenient for people living in the south neighborhood. Residents on the north side, the majority of the population, had to cross the railroad tracks and the highway to conduct town business or attend council meetings.399
As Mark P. Leone convincingly demonstrates in his archaeological analysis of Annapolis, Maryland, cultural landscapes convey meaning in terms of power, social hierarchy, and civic order.400 Echoing Leone, James Delle explains how every element of the built environment is “culturally constructed and makes a political statement.”401 While 1970s Surprise shared little in common with
398 PT, “Surprise Recall Attempt Fails Here,” May 8, 1970.
399 TCM, December 22, 1960, January 12, 1961, January 16, 1961, January 26, 1961, February 9, 1961, March 8, 1962, and June 10, 1965, COSCCA. “A Planning Report for Surprise, Arizona,” 12. In 1961, 61% of the town’s residents lived north of Grand Avenue, a percentage that grew as the town’s population expanded into the available open space in that sector.
400 Mark P. Leone, The Archaeology of Liberty in an American Capital: Excavations in Annapolis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 7-13.
176
Annapolis, Maryland, the location of the community’s meeting hall, administrative center, and magistrate’s court served as a potent symbol of civic order and the locus of power. During the first half of the 1960s, when the south neighborhood and the council remained predominately Euro-American, the location of the town hall affirmed that social hierarchy. Official and unofficial town festivities and events took place in the spaces and roads around the building, reinforcing the centrality of south neighborhood residents in terms of shaping community identity.
From the outset, the north-side coalition made a determined effort to relocate the town hall. Understanding the council’s early deliberations and decisions on this matter is limited because the minutes of their meetings mysteriously stopped at the end of 1967 and did not reappear until January 1971.
The first evidence of their interest in relocating the town hall appeared in a legal notice in the Peoria Times. In April 1970, the council posted a request for proposals to construct an administrative building on town-owned property on the northwest corner of Santa Fe Drive and Hollyhock Street. This posting indicates the council previously had hired an architectural group to complete drawings and specifications; the firm completed this work prior to the issuance of bid requests.
In less than a year, the new council had made an investment in a building design and taken the first step in the construction process. Members clearly viewed relocation of the town hall as a top priority.402
401 James A. Delle, “What Atlases Are,” in Invisible America: Unearthing Our Hidden History, ed. Mark P. Leone and Neil Asher Silberman (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1995), 21.
402 PT, Legal Notice, April 4, 1970. We know that flood and fire, the usual culprits in the loss of government documents, did not play a role in this disappearance because records prior to 1968 remain available. This was a period of intense political conflict and it 177
Although financing became a problem and another less expensive option emerged, the council did not change course. After receiving bids, the group made no progress on the project. The cost of the facility and issues associated with funding stymied their plans. During 1971, the council took several steps to surmount these roadblocks.403 They revised their financing plan and altered the building design to include “less frills and more floor space.”404 These revisions fell short however, and the project remained stalled. In a September 1971 meeting,
Town Attorney Dale Head recommended tabling the project for six months. The issue re-emerged in April 1972 when Head suggested purchasing a doublewide trailer to serve as the town hall. Learning that this option qualified for federal funding, the council moved forward, posting a request for proposals. In response, multiple manufacturers submitted bids. Concurrently, recognizing the need to maintain an administrative building, the council renewed its lease on the Saylor property. In its June 26 meeting, a realtor representing the Saylors offered the council a less expensive option, purchasing the existing town hall and associated property on a contract. The terms included seven percent interest for twelve years and a payment of $154.60 per month. Three days later, the council rejected the Saylor proposal and authorized the purchase of a modular structure for the town-owned site. Despite a host of issues that created additional expenses, such as the need to install a septic tank and pave the parking lot, the council proceeded. They relocated to the new facility on November 24, 1972. is possible that this loss was an intentional act. However, because the years in question straddle a timeframe when different coalitions were in control, this seems unlikely. Given that the years are sequential and the dates of missing minutes align with the start and end of the calendar year, it is more probable that these records were stored together in a box that someone misplaced during a move.
403 TCM, January 28, 1971, March 25, 1971, May 13, 1971, COSCCA.
404 TCM, May 13, 1971, COSCCA. 178
Town leaders and residents celebrated this achievement at a dedication ceremony that included a Marine Corps color guard, a guest speaker, and an open house.405
Fig. 6.1 The locations of the Surprise Town Hall from 1961 to 1993. (Map by Vince Colburn)
A New Community Identity for Surprise
While establishing its dominance and moving forward on a new town hall, the leadership coalition also pursued a program of community celebrations. Unlike previous councils, which deferred to community members, churches, and the
Surprise Women’s Club on the matter of town festivities, this group embraced these activities as part of their governance model. Although the transition
405 TCM, September 9, 1971, April 13, 1972, May 11, 1972, May 25, 1972, June 8, 1972, June 26, 1972, June 29, 1972, September 21, 1972, COSCCA. Phoenix Gazette, “Surprise Has New City Hall,” March 30, 1973. PT, “Surprise Boasts New City Hall,” December 8, 1972, 179
occurred over a period of several years, the coalition eventually established the council as the overseer, designer, and sponsor of civic events. Even when working in partnership with other organizations, they retained control. Not content with the existing portfolio of celebrations, civic leaders also created a new tradition, unique to Surprise, a multi-event festival honoring the town’s founders.
In the process of redefining and expanding the town’s festivities, the north-side coalition reinforced their dominant position and reshaped the meaning of community in Surprise.
In his examination of nineteenth and twentieth century civic celebrations,
David Glassberg characterizes them as “public rituals of common citizenship, ” which allowed civic leaders to “make claims to local distinctiveness as well as tell stories about the past,” and to “announc[e] the city’s status to the outside world while offering a focus for civic identity.”406 Using San Francisco’s 1909
Portola Festival as a model, he demonstrates how community celebrations constructed and communicated a “common reality,” that masked discontent and conflict.407 Glassberg’s analysis provides a framework for examining Surprise’s civic events during this period.
As they considered adding a new celebration to the event agenda,
Surprise council members probably took notice of festivities in nearby suburbs such as Scottsdale. Started as the Sunshine Festival in 1951, Scottsdale’s premier event evolved into the Parada Del Sol in 1954 when the Jaycees assumed control. This group added a rodeo in 1956, and later, an Arabian horse
406 David Glassberg, Sense of History: The Place of the Past in American Life (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001), 67, 61.
407 Ibid., 62, 81. 180
show.408 In 1971, “the longest horse-drawn parade in the world,” consisting of 250 entries, included nationally known entertainer Dick Van Dyke, local television characters Wallace and Ladmo, Governor Jack Williams, a Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, Native American leaders, and bands from the Salt River
Community and the Air National Guard.409 An estimated 200,000 people enjoyed the parade and the ancillary activities. The success of the event attracted attention from around the Valley. The Peoria Times, a weekly that rarely strayed from local reporting, provided relatively extensive coverage of festival preparations. Scottsdale’s success invited imitation and Surprise's new leadership coalition obliged.410
The Surprise council used the tenth anniversary of incorporation
(December 12, 1970) as the basis for their new festival: Founders’ Day. Befitting a group that embraced cowboy traditions, they incorporated their affinity for all things western into its design. Like the Parada Del Sol, this celebration also included a healthy dose of patriotism. By using an important occasion in the community’s history as the basis for the celebration, the council made the town the focal point. Thus, like San Francisco’s turn-of-the-century Portola Festival,
Founders’ Day provided an opportunity to generate civic pride, celebrate a
408 City of Scottsdale, Scottsdale Roundup: History of the Parada del Sol Parade, video http://scottsdale.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=44&clip_id=4167 (accessed March 27, 2012). Elizabeth R. Rose, About.com Southwest US Travel, La Parada de Sol, Scottsdale, Arizona Parade, Rode and Western Fun, http://gosw.about.com/od/festivalsandevents/p/laparadadelsol.htm (accessed March 27, 2012)
409 PT, “Parada Del Sol Provides Western Entertainment,” February 5, 1971.
410 PT, “Parada Del Sol Provides Western Entertainment,” February 5, 1971. It is also possible that the Times editor, faced with a shortage of local news items, used the Parada’s press releases to fill in gaps. 181
common bond to place, and communicate the town’s success and growing importance to residents and to the rest of the Valley.411
Beginning small, the first Founders’ Day artfully integrated patriotism, civic pride, and an Old West tribute in a parade, official ceremony, carnival, community lunch, and music event. Everett Bowman of Wickenburg, a former All-
Around-World's Champion Cowboy served as Grand Marshall.412 Post-parade activities included a "western style bar-b-cue."413 The mayor predicted the "flavor of this beef will create nostalgia of the 'Old West.'”414 A Shetland pony race and a fiddling contest also resonated with the western theme.415
Honoring loyalty and service to one’s country became a standard feature of Founders’ Day. The first, and many subsequent festivals, featured
Congressional Medal of Honor recipient Nick Bacon, who grew up in Surprise.
He received the award in 1968 for his service in Vietnam. After the parade,
Bacon addressed the crowd during a special ceremony. Arizona politician Raul
Castro, the former U.S. ambassador to Latin America, paid tribute to Bacon in his remarks.416
411 PT, "Bacon Medal of Honor Winner Home For Surprise Anniversary," December 11, 1970. PT, "Surprise Hosts Centennial Celebration," December 4, 1970.
412 PT, "Surprise Hosts Centennial Celebration," December 4, 1970.
413 PT, "SSGT Bacon Honored in Home Town of Surprise During Anniversary," December 18, 1970.
414 PT, "Surprise Hosts Centennial Celebration," December 4, 1970.
415 Toni Fonseca, "El Mirage News: Special P.T.A. Christmas Party Set, PT, December 11, 1970.
416 PT, "SSGT Bacon Honored in Home Town of Surprise During Anniversary," December 18, 1970. Toni Fonseca, "El Mirage News: Special P.T.A. Christmas Party Set,” PT, December 11, 1970. In 1975, Castro became the first ethnic Mexican governor of Arizona. 182
Founders’ Day celebrations also included fun activities for children and adults. In the inaugural event, in addition to the parade and barbecue, residents enjoyed a street dance, greased pig race, bingo, carnival rides, and children's games. In their oral histories, people who lived in Surprise during the 1970s have vivid recollections of these celebrations. 417 Clint Mills recalls “really neat parades” on Founders’ Day and the “sense of community and pride” the event generated.418 Most residents remember eagerly anticipating the annual festival; many assisted in the preparations or participated in the parade.419
Later, the celebration grew in size and length. The 1972 Founders’ Day event took place over two days. A Saturday parade of thirty entries included the
Dysart High School Band and floats sponsored by businesses and organizations.
The parade honored two Congressional Medal of Honor recipients who served in
World War II, as well as Nick Bacon.420 Cumbie awarded "plaques to the three for their 'outstanding deeds to God, country, and man.’”421 In keeping with the western theme, Cumbie also presented an engraved rifle to Bacon. A "City of
Fun" carnival followed the parade and operated through Sunday.422
The 1973 event transformed Founders’ Day, establishing a model the council adopted for all subsequent celebrations. In addition to a parade and
417 Toni Fonseca, "El Mirage News: Special P.T.A. Christmas Party Set, PT, December 11, 1970.
418 Clint Mills, interviewed by Sherry Aguilar, November 6, 2008, Surprise, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA.
419 S. Aguilar, interview, January 27, 2009. C. Mills, interview, November 6, 2008.
420 PT, "Surprise Celebration Called 'Big Success,'" December 15, 1972.
421 Ibid.
422 Ibid. 183
carnival, a two-day amateur rodeo featured competitions for adults and children.
The following year, the town council, in conjunction with the Surprise Sheriff’s
Posse, constructed a rodeo grounds. The rodeo and the new arena boosted
Surprise’s profile and provided it with a facility available for use on other occasions. While people in other Phoenix-area communities may not have travelled to Surprise to see a small town parade, many came to view, some to participate in, a two-day rodeo featuring events such as bull-riding, calf-roping, barrel racing, and bareback riding.423
A 1974 addition to the celebration appealed to people outside of the town limits. The council incorporated a rodeo queen contest. In the first competition, the young woman who sold the most votes at ten cents each won the contest. By
1976, contestants were judged on the more traditional standards of poise and riding skills, which attracted entries from around the Valley. The 1976 court included young women from Scottsdale, Peoria, Wittman, and Surprise. By 1981, the parade attracted Valley television celebrities and required eight judges, a master of ceremonies, and four parade officials. Increased attendance meant local police required assistance from the county sheriff’s department and two nearby communities to provide traffic control and security.424
423 TCM, December 12, 1974, COSCCA. PT, Surprise to Hold Founder’s Day, December 7, 1973. PT, “Founder’s Day Events Scheduled at Surprise,” November 26, 1976.
424 Tony Fonseca, “El Mirage News,” PT, November 8, 1974. PT, “Founder’s Day Events Scheduled At Surprise,” November 26, 1976. PT, “Surprise Rodeo Queen Selected,” December 3, 1976. Flyer, “21st Annual Surprise Founders’ Day,” COSHPA. 184
Fig. 6.2. A rodeo event at the annual Founders’ Day Celebration. Town Clerk Lovena Luttrell is in the green shirt. Courtesy City of Surprise.
The rodeo grounds allowed Surprise to host additional events, adding to its cachet. The facility accommodated over one thousand spectators and contained all of the elements needed for a full slate of rodeo activities. The opportunity it presented to have fun and raise funds attracted other groups. In
1976, one-hundred people from around the Valley participated in six competitions at a jackpot rodeo sponsored by the town’s police department. The two-day event attracted 400 spectators each day.425
Members of the ethnic Mexican community used Founders’ Day and other Surprise celebrations as platforms to exhibit their cultural traditions; their participation redefined the events. By 1974, the parade bore the title of Parada
425 PT, “It’s Rodeo Time in Surprise,” August 20, 1976. PT, “100 Do Their Best at Surprise Rodeo,” September 3, 1976. 185
del Amigos.426 In 1976, it featured floats such as one entitled “Western
Settlement,” which depicted “the Mexican-American contribution to Arizona’s culture.”427 That year’s horseback entries included children dressed as vaqueros.
Members of the ethnic Mexican community led planning efforts and participated in the staging of this multi-cultural affair. As a result, Founders’ Day became emblematic of the evolving meaning of community in Surprise.428
Fig. 6.3. Riders in the Parada del Amigos. Courtesy City of Surprise
Founders’ Day and the rodeo grounds comprised two elements of the north-side coalition’s larger recreation agenda, one that revolved around family
426 PT, “Surprise Rodeo Dec. 7-8,” December 6, 1974.
427 PT, “Surprise Founder’s Day Parade a Success,” December 10, 1976.
428 PT, “Founder’s Day Events Scheduled at Surprise,” November 26, 1976. PT, “Surprise Founder’s Day Parade a Success,” December 10, 1976. Flyer, “21st Annual Surprise Founders’ Day,” COSHPA.
186
events and youth activities. In terms of other celebrations, the council assumed financial responsibility for the children’s Christmas party, which the Surprise
Women’s Club continued to operate for several years before the town took full control. The council also initiated funding and oversight of the Easter festivities.
Concurrently, this group turned the Fourth of July celebration into a major event.
In 1971, they expanded it to include a carnival and food booths. By 1975, the festivities lasted two days and featured a junior rodeo, fireworks, a jackpot rodeo, and a western music concert with dancing. Although willing to work in partnership with other organizations, the council made clear their intent to retain control of civic celebrations. When the Surprise Sheriff’s Posse attempted to plan the 1975
Founders’ Day parade, the council firmly and quickly asserted that body’s preeminent role in the planning of this important community festivity.429
The north-side coalition made a significant financial investment in the fourth element of their recreation and activity agenda: the town park and organized youth sports. Park upgrades included a water fountain, improvements to the grandstand, concession booths, a chain link fence, restrooms, a cement slab for basketball, and other amenities. Additionally, the town leaders provided seed funding for groups such as the Boy Scouts, Little League, and others.430
Demographics and the state of the community may have played a role in the council’s decision to pursue this agenda. According to the 1970 census, forty- five percent of the town’s residents were under the age of fifteen. This figure
429 TCM, December 19, 1971, November 16, 1972, May 23, 1972, April 8, 1971, May 11, 1972, June 6, 1974, June 5, 1975, September 19, 1975, COSCCA. PT, “Surprise 4th of July Celebration,” July 2, 1971. Rogers, “High Lights of thirty years, Surprise Women’s Club” COSHPA.
430 TCM, April 8, 1971, April 22, 1971, June 10, 1971, July 8, 1971, September 23, 1971, November 24, 1971, March 9, 1972, April 13, 1972, May 11, 1972, March 1, 1973, April 5, 1973, April 23, 1973, May 17, 1973, September 20, 1973, COSCCA. 187
contrasted with a county statistic of thirty percent.431 Although schools and churches provided activities for children and teenagers, most people who grew up in the town recall “very little to do.”432 Limited resources precluded some from travelling outside the community for recreational opportunities; churches and schools fell short in terms of meeting the demand for family and youth recreation.
Whereas the previous coalition used strict enforcement of community ordinances to prevent what some perceived as inappropriate behavior by young residents, this council took a very different approach by increasing recreational options.
Besides providing needed activities for young residents, the council’s investment in parks, recreation, and celebrations reshaped the community’s identity. A familial and religious social environment dominated by family gatherings, church socials, prayer meetings, and camp revivals in the 1950s and
1960s evolved into one centered on public and recreational activities such as fireworks, softball, and calf roping. As people from outside of the town began attending its events, residents developed a new perspective on their community and the meaning of place in Surprise.
Enabling Growth
The north-side coalition’s aggressive implementation of a recreation and celebration agenda stands in sharp contrast to its seeming inertia on more problematic issues. Although they possessed limited funds, the group understood that the gap in recreation and celebrations could be addressed with minimal
431 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1970, Census Tracts, Final Report, Phoenix SMSA (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), P-1, P-15.
432 C. Mills, interview, November 6, 2008. 188
funding if residents, including council members, contributed labor and materials.
Town leaders embraced the resourcefulness that enabled their families to build homes and allowed the first civic leaders to run the city on a very limited budget.
The council’s financial strategies revolved around concepts of reuse and do-it- yourself. Most members grew up in families where essential training for sons included car, tractor, and truck mechanics as well as basic construction skills.
Building a backstop for the baseball field, erecting bleachers for the rodeo grounds, or finishing the restrooms at the park presented no problems for this group, who also knew they could count on the assistance of others in the community.433
This do-it-ourselves strategy proved effective for some community problems. Dirt roads, a year-around source of either dust or muck plagued the town and served as a constant source of irritation for residents. Paving, an expensive option, seemed out of reach. The council turned this challenge into a self-help project. Mayor Cumbie borrowed or rented equipment from the construction firm where he worked. The town purchased the materials. On weekends, council members and residents chip sealed the streets, doing half of the town one year and the other half the next year.434
433 Town Council minutes from the 1970s overflow with examples of this do-it- ourselves and reuse resourcefulness. For example, in the February 21, 1974 minutes, a council member reported on difficulty finding a contractor at a reasonable price to plaster the walls of the restrooms at the park. Mayor Cumbie and resident Eugene Miles, who was attending the meeting, volunteered to help complete the project. M. Fulcher and R. Fulcher, interview, January 21, 2009.
434 This item appears in Town Council minutes repeatedly. At their April 3, 1975 council meeting, members began planning for that year’s paving project. Thelma Heatwole, “”Surprise Mayor Saves Tax Funds by Performing Town’s Road Work,” Arizona Republic, June 24, 1975. 189
When facing problems that presented a higher degree of complexity, the council seemed to stall. A hands-on group, accustomed to achieving relatively quick resolution on problems such as park upgrades, they struggled with larger issues related to infrastructure and future growth. Although they supported initiatives enabling municipal expansion and basic service improvements, they seemed unable to move forward. For example, the construction of a new town hall, an issue less problematic than those related to infrastructure and growth, stymied the council. The group took action only after the town attorney presented an option that met their requirements and fit within the budget. As the council confronted other, larger, and more difficult issues, two non-members played important roles in driving the group to resolution: Town Attorney Dale Head and
Town Manager Harold Yingling. The municipal water problem well illustrates how
Head could guide the council toward a productive outcome.
Endemic water issues dogged the community. In the 1950s, Northern
Water Company used several wells to serve El Mirage and Surprise. Problems with quality and reliability prompted El Mirage to purchase the system in 1960.
The town made upgrades but rapid growth and problematic equipment kept water service unreliable. Surprise lost water for twelve hours in the summer of
1960 and for two days nine months later. Residents’ complaints about water appeared in council minutes on multiple occasions in 1971. Limited storage capacity and high summer demand created shortages and pressure problems in
1973. In July 1976, sections of the town lost service for the second time in thirty days. The loss of water pressure meant evaporative coolers could not function.
Although water tankers from nearby communities met short- term needs, they
190
could not resolve the interruption to daily routines caused by a lack of tap water.435
During this period, as the council seemed to pivot between inaction and fiscally impossible options, Head kept pointing the group toward professional consultation and collaboration with El Mirage. Council members accepted the first recommendation, hiring an engineering firm to conduct multiple studies and make proposals. However, they resisted cooperation with El Mirage, hoping instead to buy Surprise’s section of the water infrastructure. This option not only required investment beyond the town’s funding capacity, it also severed the town’s access to a back-up water supply. Head outlined the benefits of a joint solution, including access to larger grants. Preferring outright control, the council pursued the purchase, threatening condemnation if El Mirage failed to acquiesce.
El Mirage resisted, bringing the pursuit of a solution to a standstill. The water situation reached a crisis point in the summer of 1976, when the Surprise council had to implement water restrictions and stop authorizing new businesses or subdivisions. With their backs to the wall, Head convinced the group to form an alliance with El Mirage, which had access to a $750,000 grant contingent on the
Surprise council’s endorsement via resolution of a cooperative solution. After several contentious sessions, the Surprise Council passed the resolution, and El
Mirage commenced a water improvement project.436
435 PT, “El Mirage Water Problems Discussed by Town Council, August 15, 1958. PT, “El Mirage Calls Meeting on Town Water System,” November 27, 1959. PT, “Water – Water – Water,” July 29, 1960. PT, “El Mirage Installs New Water Pumps,” February 3, 1961. Emma Corbin, “Scouting Surprise,” SCYNS, March 2, 1961. PT, “Water Supply Limited in El Mirage And Surprise,” July 6, 1973. PT, Surprise Dries, Without Water for 21 hours,” July 9, 1976. PT, “Surprise Dry Again,” July 30, 1976. TCM, March 11, 1971, March 25, 1971, COSCCA.
191
Resolving this problem proved important to the town on multiple levels.
First, it provided residents with a basic municipal service: reliable water. From a community identity perspective, water problems, long the source of insider jokes as well as irritation, affirmed the community’s rural status. As Surprise residents gained a dependable water supply, they lost one element of their claim to a country life-style. Denizens also understood their community to be a place of growth. Had the council purchased their own water system, growth would have stopped for a significant period as town leaders attempted to secure funding for a project made larger by the split from the El Mirage infrastructure. Finding a solution also proved critical to the town’s emergence as a boomburb thirty years later. A delayed water solution could have hindered progress on other initiatives critical to the town’s long-term growth.
Harold Yingling, town manager from 1975 through 1988, also played a crucial role in guiding the council to productive solutions. When he assumed the role in August 1975, he orchestrated more organized and effective council meetings, presenting lists of actions item, requests for priorities, and reports on works-in-progress. He improved communication with residents by initiating a town newsletter. Yingling also attended conferences sponsored by the Arizona
League of Towns and Cities and other intergovernmental meetings, such as those held by the Maricopa Association of Governments. At these encounters,
Yingling most likely heard his peers discuss their success in promoting growth
436 TCM, January 17, 1974, May 2, 1974, August 1, 1974, February 6, 1975, June 5, 1975, July 24, 1975, August 7, 1975, November 13, 1975, April 22, 1976, May 20, 1976, May 27, 1976, July 8, 1976, July 22, 1976, July 29, 1976, September 9, 1976, October 14, 1976, November 4, 1976, COSCCA. Thelma Heatwole, “Surprise Making Plans to Run Own Water System,” Arizona Republic, June 23, 1975. PT, “Surprise Looking to Buy Water System,” August 20, 1976. 192
and increasing their tax base through annexation as well as their frustrations with neighboring communities that preemptively used that tool to restrict their expansion.437
On the Surprise council, several members supported extending the town’s boundaries. According to Carolyn Cumbie Adair, Mayor Cumbie’s daughter, he predicted Surprise was “going to be a big city some day.”438 Cumbie and council members began discussing annexation in the early 1970s. Most likely, this discussion resulted from the decisions of several large lot owners within the town limits who chose to subdivide their properties during the first half of the decade. Their actions created 127 new home sites, filling up a large portion of the vacant space inside the town limits. While the council discussed the need to grow its boundaries to accommodate additional growth, they did nothing to expand the town’s footprint during this period.439
The actions of El Mirage and Peoria in the early part of the 1970s probably prompted Surprise town council members to think about the future of their community. In 1973, El Mirage annexed two parcels south of the existing community. More ominously, in 1976 El Mirage added over 800 acres to its town limits by annexing an area abutting Surprise. During this period, Peoria repeatedly added to its footprint on its east, south, and west boundaries. Surprise
437 TCM, August 21, 1975, September 4, 1975, September 19, 1975, January 22, 1976, February 10, 1976, December 9, 1976, June 23, 1977, and January 12, 1978, COSCCA.
438 C. Adair, interview, March 10, 2009.
439 Kirsten Erickson and A.E. Rogge, “Records Review of Historic-Age Properties within the Original Surprise Townsite, Maricopa County, Arizona,” URS Corporation, Phoenix Arizona, April 2008, 6, 7, 8, and Appendix A. PT, “Building Up At Surprise,” February 13, 1970. TCM, May 27, 1971, August 17, 1972, November 2, 1972, and January 4, 1973. COSCCA. 193
officials certainly took notice of the offensive moves of its closest municipal neighbors and understood the threat these actions posed in terms of future growth.440
In 1978, after several years of discussing annexation, the council moved forward under Yingling’s direction. Surprise and it’s surrounding farm lands, as a sub-unit of the Valley, could become a casualty of the inter-municipal skirmishes that determined which municipalities reaped the rewards of the growth. With construction progressing on the north side of the town limits at Sun City West, council members understood that their community was about to enter a transformational period. Commercial developers, eager to tap the expanding market of Northwest Valley seniors, would be buying property to build retail and service establishments. At the November 9 council meeting, Yingling proposed increasing the town’s footprint by a factor of twenty-seven, using a strip annexation ordinance that extended town limits to the south by four miles and to the west by approximately seven miles. The property inside the strip would remain in the county until landowners requested inclusion in the town.441 Even as some council members indicated concerns, Yingling pressed for immediate action to keep other towns from “jumping ahead of us.” The council responded by enacting the ordinance.442
In addition to the possibility of pre-emptive annexation attempts by neighboring communities, the long-range plans of the Del Webb Company
440 PT, “Public Notices,” February 2, 1973. PT, “El Mirage Annexes 807 Acres,” May 28, 1976. PT, “Public Notices,” July 21, 1972, September 29, 1972, December 1, 1972, January 26, 1973, December 7, 1973.
441 TCM, November 9, 1978, COSCCA.
442 Ibid. 194
(DEVCO) most likely drove Yingling to urge quick action by the council. Athough just beginning construction of Sun City West, the company was preparing to acquire property for its next retirement community in the Northwest Valley. At the next council meeting, Yingling updated members on his conversation with a Sun
City attorney who warned of DEVCO’s plans to take legal action to stop the annexation. By mid-December, he could report to the council that Webb’s company had filed suit against the town to block the strip annexation. In the end,
Judge Sandra Day O’Connor ruled in Surprise’s favor. DEVCO’s expansion plans would have to accommodate the town’s enlarged footprint.443
Fig. 6.4. The strip annexation map. Courtesy City of Surprise.
443 TCM, November 21, 1978, December 14, 1978, February 8, 1979, October 11, 1979, COSCCA. 195
Strip annexation transformed the future of Surprise. It reset the size of the town. It enabled growth. It stopped other communities from blocking future expansion. In his oral history, council member Roy Villanueva describes it as
“key in the growth of Surprise because that kept everybody else out.”444 In the shorter term, it provided local landowners with an understanding of the future direction of the town. One month after the ordinance passed, a landowner on the town’s eastern edge requested inclusion in the community. One year later, another property owner petitioned for annexation of land abutting the northeast corner of the town. Within the strip, landowners began to request inclusion in the town limits.445
On another level, the strip annexation changed the context for the town’s leaders. Council members viewed their community and their responsibilities in a new way. Now committed to growth, their decision-making required accounting for not only the needs of the original town site but also the issues associated with future development. With a limited budget, this would create difficult choices. In contrast, the strip annexation most likely did little to change residents’ understanding of their town in the short and mid-term because much of the annexed property remained farmland for another two decades. This disparity between town leaders and residents in terms of their perspectives on community identity would create tension. Town council decisions to invest in infrastructure for growth would invite criticism from residents still lacking many of the amenities
444 Roy Villanueva, interview by Paul Ferrante, May 5, 2009, Surprise Arizona, video recording, COSHPA.
445 TCM, December 14, 1978, January 24, 1980, and December 27, 1979, COSCCA. 196
taken for granted in most Valley towns, such as a sewer system, a library, sidewalks, and paved roadways.
Conclusion
A new leadership coalition that emerged in the late 1960s re-imagined Surprise in multiple ways. They adopted an agenda that included recreational opportunities for children, teenagers, and adults. This included enhancing existing celebrations and creating a new town festivity that centered on western and patriotic themes. Their construction of a rodeo grounds changed Surprise from a place people drove through on their way to or from California to a place where Valley residents came to enjoy western-style family fun. This new version of Surprise evolved within a rapidly changing local and regional context. Death, divorce, and out-migration weakened the kinship and friendship networks that supported the dominance of the Euro-American business coalition that led the town in its first years after incorporation. Concurrently, in-migration by ethnic
Mexicans reset the social landscape and redefined the community. The expansion of Sun City and growth in the Valley created a new economic and political context. Critical to the town’s evolution into a twenty-first century boomburb, the town’s leaders opted to expand town boundaries, a move that set the stage for hyper-growth at the turn of the century.
197
CHAPTER SEVEN
DISSENTING VOICES, ALTERNATIVE AGENDAS: CONFLICT OVER
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES AND IDENTITY
Although north-side coalition members held influential leadership positions in the
1970s and 1980s, the opinions and demands of community members shaped this group’s actions and decisions. Some residents proposed alternative agendas; others disagreed with the actions of the town’s governing body on policy and procedural issues. A few bypassed the council to achieve their objectives. While dissent and conflict characterized Surprise politics from the time of incorporation, discord escalated during this period. The source of this tension, as in previous years, involved the state of the community and its many deficiencies in terms of infrastructure, amenities, and services. The economic circumstances of many of the town’s families heightened the demand for these municipal essentials and exacerbated concerns about their absence. Town conditions and family circumstances also attracted new and revised federal programs, which funded community improvements and encouraged resident involvement. Concurrently, Chicano activism motivated more people to become involved in local decision-making processes. In Surprise, these activists sometimes led the criticism of the council. On other occasions, they worked directly or indirectly with the north-side coalition to achieve common goals.
During this period, council members’ decisions to pursue future growth led some to question their priorities and commitment to improving the condition of the original town site. Additionally, the council’s operational style under Mayor
George Cumbie’s leadership generated distrust and anger among some
198
residents. Cronyism, a lack of transparency, careless accounting, and deficient responses to questions about these practices generated the appearance of, at best, poor judgment or, at worst, malfeasance. As a result, a vocal group of critics emerged. The arrival of new government programs, the emergence of
Chicano activism, and growing discontent with local governance converged in multiple permutations, redefining Surprise.
A Community in Need
The state of the town in terms of infrastructure and services remained problematic. Although the council began chip sealing the streets in the 1970s and reached a long-term resolution on the water problem for the original town site in
1976, many gaps still existed. While residents welcomed these improvements and others, such as the street signs, stop signs, streetlights, and small flood control projects, most wanted the council to do more. Surprise families still depended on an underequipped, undertrained volunteer fire department. The town had no library. Residents lacked a sewer system. A document prepared in
1979 prioritizing funding requests for the Community Development Block Grant program sheds light on the substandard circumstances of the town. Council members and residents identified sidewalks, curbs, street gutters, street paving, railroad crossing controls, a community center, and park upgrades as important gaps needing funding.446 The “rehabilitation of homes scattered throughout the town” also made the list. Deficient structures caused many complaints. In a 1982 council meeting, residents asked members to do something about a man who
446 TCM, December 30, 1971, January 25, 1979, January 8, 1981, COSCCA. 199
lived in makeshift cars on his property and showered outside.447 The remnants of building fires, which dotted the town’s landscape, also produced concerns about safety and complaints to the council. The shabby state of many parts of the community prompted students from Maryvale High School to select it for a clean- up project in 1971. The economic circumstances of many residents undergirded these problems and increased the demand for local government services.448
In spite of a changing economic landscape, indigence continued to plague Surprise. The 1970 census revealed that 158 of 491 families lived below the poverty level, almost one-third of the population. One decade later, this figure increased slightly. In contrast, less than four percent of Glendale families met this standard in 1970. A decade later, only eight percent of families qualified for this status in nearby Peoria. The condition of many residents’ homes reflected their low-income levels. In 1980, only 672 of 944 households subscribed to telephone service; just nineteen percent had air conditioning.449
447 TCM, April 22, 1982, COSCCA.
448 TCM, February 11, 1981, January 25, 1979, September 19, 1975, COSCCA.
449 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1970, Census Tracts, Final Report, Phoenix SMSA (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), P-64, P-78. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1980, Census Tracts, Final Report, Phoenix SMSA (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983), P-213, P186, P-272, H-81. 200
Table: 7.1 Population Data for Surprise High School Families Below the Poverty Population Graduates Level
1970 2,247 10.6% 32.2%
1980 3,723 26.3% 33.5%
1990 5,039 42.9% 26.1%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1970, 1980, and 1990.
A complex mix of factors sustained Surprise’s status as a relatively impoverished community. First, the condition of the town kept home prices low; a large pool of affordable housing attracted low-income families. Additionally, during the 1970s, several residents with oversized lots converted their property into mobile home slots, providing yet another relatively inexpensive housing option. Some large property owners subdivided their land and took advantage of federal funding to create low-income housing projects.450
Sun City exacerbated Surprise’s economic malaise. The retirement haven created service and retail sector jobs where residents could wait tables, maintain golf courses, or service customers at local bank branches. One Surprise resident described his community as Sun City’s “servants’ quarters.”451 The retirement haven also filled thousands of acres east of Surprise with homes and resort amenities, effectively blocking out higher paying business enterprises.
Hal Rothman’s analysis of the economic structure of Sun Valley provides a model for analyzing the relationship between Surprise and Sun City. A 1979
450 TCM, January 2, 1975, August 2, 1973, June 14, 1979, August 27, 1981, COSCCA.
451 Laborin, interview, May 29, 2009.
201
survey of the retirement community’s denizens found forty percent left the area each year for a period ranging from one to six months. The tourist/residents of
Sun City might have stayed longer than those who visited Sun Valley, but both resort towns created a tourism-based economic structure. The fact of Sun City’s location on the outskirts of a major metropolitan area moderated some of the negative aspects of its economic framework. However, Rothman’s assertion that tourism in the west is “at its core colonial, grafting new sources of power and financing atop existing social structures,” aptly describes Sun City’s relationship with El Mirage and Surprise during this period.452 The retirement enclave’s voracious appetite for low-skilled jobs necessitated a nearby pool of low-wage workers.
Educational deficiencies also hindered many Surprise residents’ earning ability. In 1970, less than eleven percent of those over the age of twenty-five had high school diplomas. Although that figure increased to twenty-six percent in
1980, it still fell short of the county figure of seventy-five percent. After completing high school, many young Surprise residents relocated to other Valley communities where they found better living conditions and more employment options. All seven of the Garcia children left Surprise after graduation. Those who attended college, graduates in particular, sought positions elsewhere for similar reasons. As higher wages and other factors lured many away from Surprise, the
452 Hal Rothman, “Tourism as Colonial Economy: Power and Place in Western Tourism,” in Power and Place in the North American West, eds. Richard West and John M. Findlay (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1999) 178. Judith Ann Trolander, From Sun Cities to the Villages: A History of Active Adult, Age-Restricted Communities (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2011), 131. 202
community’s affordable housing and proximity to unskilled and low-skilled jobs attracted more low-income families.453
The difficult economic circumstances faced by many Surprise residents prompted several groups to launch assistance programs. In 1961, the
Mennonites established a mission to aid migrant farm work families. An international organization with similar outposts in Central America and the
Caribbean, this religious institution placed hundreds of volunteers in communities to assist residents with local projects and to run programs benefitting those in need. By 1969, five Surprise missionaries operated a kindergarten, sports programs, a teen outreach initiative, and youth groups. Early Surprise residents remember attending summer bible school and other programs at the Mennonite facility. In 1973, after working in the community for thirteen years, the religious group opened a church.454
Six years before the Mennonites arrived, a group of residents, predominately from local farm and ranch families, formed the Dysart Community
Council to address the issues of poverty in the Northwest Valley. In subsequent years, the leadership roster expanded to include representatives from local communities, such as Floyd Gaines and Ross Hornsby from Surprise. The organization’s leaders also reached out to other groups, agencies, and governing bodies to coordinate and maximize their services. The Arizona Migrant Ministry
453 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1970, P-36. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1980, P133, P-106. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1990, P-516. C. Adair, interview, November 7, 2008. M. Butler, interview, October 20, 2008.
454 PT, “Mennonite Worker Strives for ‘Love Not War,’” July 15, 1969. PT, “Mennonite Missionaries Sent to Surprise,” July 19, 1968. R. Gaines and C. Gibson, interview, March 4, 2009. C. Moore, interview, October 21, 2011. PT, “Surprise has VS,” October 6, 1972. PT, “Rice Joins Voluntary Mennonites,” September 25, 1970. PT, “Mennonite Church Now in Surprise,” February 2, 1973. 203
and its leader, Reverend H. B. Lundgren, played an important role on the council, in terms of interagency coordination. The council initially focused on health concerns, organizing community clean-up projects and sponsoring classes in personal hygiene. In 1962, they began construction on the Dysart Community
Center in El Mirage. At this point, Sun City residents became heavily involved on the council as fundraisers, organization leaders, and volunteers. By 1964, with a facility and a supply of unpaid workers, the Dysart Center offered day-care, a well-baby clinic, pre-natal care, and a library, as well as educational and vocational classes for adults. One year later, the council began a facility expansion project. In the next years, its program offerings increased to include distribution of clothing and food, additional adult education courses, 4-H groups, and some medical and dental services. In 1970, as growth continued and community needs persisted, the center’s board authorized another expansion of the facility.455
The steady demand for services offered at the mission and the community center demonstrated the extent of the need created by the low- income levels in Surprise and the surrounding area. Despite the efforts of the
Mennonites and the Dysart Council, some permanent and seasonal residents still lacked access to basic services and necessities and persistent poverty qualified
455 PT, “Dysart Health Council Organized,” December 2, 1955. Glen B. Sanberg, “Dysart Center Owes Much to Teacher’s Leadership,” Arizona Republic, February 20, 1980. PT, “Dysart Health Council Studies Dust Problem,” March 1, 1957. Nellie Saylor, “Dysart Community Council News,” PT, January 8, 1960. PT, “March Is ‘Clean-up Month for Dysart Area Residents,” February 12, 1960. PT, “Plans Discussed By Dysart Health Council,” January 27, 1961. PT, “Plans Outlined, Directors Named For Dysart Center,” June 21, 1962. PT, “Dysart Center Has Groundbreaking,” October 11, 1962. PT, “Health Center May Add Planned Parenthood Plan in Future, November 20, 1964. PT, “Dysart Center to Expand,” October 1, 1965. PT, “Dysart Center Gets New Look; Serves Community,” December 27, 1968. PT, “Volunteers Discuss Building Program at Dysart Center,” October 2, 1970. PT, “Dysart Center Board Approves L-Shaped Addition to Building,” December 11, 1970. 204
the community for new federal programs created by the Johnson and the Nixon administrations. These initiatives both altered and complemented the established charitable programs.
Federal Government Programs
Concurrent with the transition of political power in Surprise from the business to the north-side coalition, the federal government implemented the first of two major initiatives that influenced the evolution of many American communities. In
1964, President Johnson introduced his War on Poverty Program. Based on the assumption that the environment plays a dominant role in the creation of poverty, this initiative included multiple pieces of major legislation designed to help communities address the causes and consequences of indigence. These included the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the Older
Americans Act of 1965, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, and others. The latter included the Community Action Program (CAP), an initiative that financed projects devised by local organizations to meet community needs. The program’s designers specified that local CAP organizations maximize the involvement of residents. This generated conflicts between these groups and elected officials who saw it as diminution of their power. After several years of political skirmishing on many levels, Congress shifted the balance of power to representatives of public and private organizations, leaving community representatives involved but not in total control.456 In spite of this change,
456 Susan Abrams Beck, “The Limits of Presidential Activism: Lyndon Johnson and the Implementation of the Community Action Program,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 17, no.3 (Summer 1987): 542, 544-7, 549. Noel A. Cazenave, Impossible Democracy: The Unlikely Success of the War on Poverty Community Action Programs 205
sociologist Noel Cazenave argues, “the War on Poverty Community Action
Program … helped fuel significant changes both in local politics and in the movement for greater citizen participation in community decision making.”457
One decade after the passage of War on Poverty legislation, President
Nixon’s New Federalism program exerted an equally significant impact on the country’s municipalities. The revenue sharing element, a “’no strings’ federal aid to state and local governments,” boosted the revenue of Surprise and other municipalities.458 Another element, the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program, consolidated multiple federal entitlement programs into a formula-based block funding allocation, which provided the seed money for
“facilities and services otherwise unattainable” for many communities.459 The designers of this initiative sought to “create viable housing and living environments and to expand economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income.”460 Maricopa County received and then allocated the funding to municipalities in the county with less than fifty thousand residents, a group including Surprise, El Mirage, and twelve other towns. Recipients used the
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007), 150-1, 167. The Social Welfare History Project, “The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,” n.d., http://www.socialwelfarehistory.com/events/elementary-and-secondary-education-act-of- 1965/ accessed July 6, 2012. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Aging, “Older Americans Act,” n.d., http://www.aoa.gov/AoA_programs/OAA/index.aspx, accessed July 7, 2012.
457 Cazenave, Impossible Democracy, 1.
458 Timothy Conlan, From New Federalism to Devolution: Twenty-five Years of Intergovernmental Reform (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1998), 3.
459 Edward T. Jennings and Dale Krane, “A New Initiative for an Established Program,” in From Nation to States: The Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program, eds. Edward T. Jennings, Jr., Dale Krane, Alex N. Pattakos, and B. J. Reed (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986),1, 5. Quote from State of Arizona, “In the American Tradition: Arizona’s Community Development Block Grant Program,” n.d., preface.
460 Jennings and Dale Krane, “A New Initiative,” 1. 206
funding for community centers, water projects, housing rehabilitation, and other initiatives. Between 1975 and 1987, El Mirage received over four million dollars in
CDBG funding and Surprise received $817,000.461
In Surprise, War on Poverty programs affected multiple sectors of the community, reset the social service safety net, and created a new cadre of community activists. Low-income families, seasonal workers, the young and the elderly could access services ranging from meals-on-wheels to job training.
Mennonite and Dysart Center volunteers connected with the new assistance agencies, expanding the network of community services. The War on Poverty programs also provided residents with basic training in community activism.
Federal funding from multiple agencies and the Office of Economic
Opportunity supported the Migrant Opportunity Program (MOP). This enterprise, established by the Arizona Council of Churches, focused on Arizona’s 60,000 seasonal workers in ten locations across five counties. Its portfolio of services included day care, adult education, self-help housing projects, and job training.
The organization established a center in El Mirage to serve clients in that town and Surprise. To bolster staffing, MOP used members of the Volunteers in
Service to America (VISTA) and the Neighborhood Youth Corps (NYC), two CAP programs.462
MOP offered a wide array of services at its El Mirage location. Its job training and self-help housing program had the largest influence on Surprise. For the latter, it provided technical assistance and worked with families to obtain
461 State of Arizona, “In the American Tradition,” 3, 6, 7.
462 Mrs. John D. York to Senator Carl T. Hayden, April 17, 1967, Carl T. Hayden Papers, MSS 1, Box 348, folder 8, Hayden Library, Arizona State University. 207
Farmers Home Administration loans. Recipients provided some of the labor and assisted each other with construction. Additionally, a job-training program taught upholstery and furniture repair, skills participants could take into the job market and use to furnish their homes. The MOP center also taught print processing, aerospace factory techniques, and sewing skills. This training helped new homeowners secure more stable income sources. The first six self-help homes opened on the south side of Grand Avenue in August 1969. A dedication ceremony that included city and county officials, Governor Jack Williams, the
Luke Air Force Band, and an estimated 300 attendees marked the completion of what became just the first phase of MOP housing in the area. By 1971, forty families were constructing homes in this program, in addition to the dozens already completed.463
Surprise children benefitted from the educational elements of the War on
Poverty. In 1965, the Dysart School District implemented Head Start, a demonstration project created under Title II of the Economic Opportunity Act of
1964. Aimed at low-income families, Head Start debuted in the district as a seven-week summer session. A 1966 amendment to the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) provided the district with additional resources to address the needs of children of migrant workers. By 1973, 558 students from seasonal work families participated in a summer program that included counseling and instruction on language, arts, health, and nutrition.464
463 PT, “Surprise MOP Self Help Housing Hold Dream House Opening Today,” August 15, 1969. PT, “Governor, Citizens, Pay Tribute to Self Help Home Builders,” August 22, 1969. PT, “MOP Upholstery Students Remodel Old Furniture, Rebuild Futures,” September 25, 1970. PT, “MOP Developing Center Helps Train Migrants,” July 10, 1970. PT, “Housing Project Dedicated,” February 5, 1971.
208
The senior residents of Surprise and El Mirage also reaped the benefits of federal programs. Grant money channeled through the state and county from the
Older Americans Act of 1965 provided social services and meals for this segment of both communities. In 1974, El Mirage used federal revenue sharing funds to purchase, relocate, and refurbish a military barracks from Luke Air Force Base.
The building became the El Mirage Community Center, a multi-purpose facility that housed the senior center for both communities. In addition to serving meals on site, the senior program delivered meals-on-wheels and facilitated an activity program. At the center, older residents pursued interests such as handicrafts and baking. Their output became sales items at fundraising events that supported activities, such as field trips to Tucson, and programs for the less advantaged. By
1976, the center’s western music sessions, cakewalks, rummage sales, tamales, and other forms of family fun, attracted large crowds from the community. As discussed later in the chapter, this center served as a model for Surprise activists who saw the need for a similar facility in their community.465
464 The Social Welfare History Project, “The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,” n.d., http://www.socialwelfarehistory.com/events/elementary-and- secondary-education-act-of-1965/ accessed July 6, 2012. PT, “Registration Is Now Open,” May 14, 1965. PT, “Dysart School District – Accepting a Challenge,” July 6, 1973. Toni Fonseca, “El Mirage News,” PT, June 21, 1974. Toni Fonseca, “El Mirage-Surprise News,” PT, January 24, 1975. E-mail correspondence with Robert Aptekar, July 6, 2012, Aptekar served as the Director of Youth Services and Deputy Director of Community Development in the Office of Economic Opportunity Community Action Program from 1967 through 1969.
465 United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Aging, “Older Americans Act,” n.d., http://www.aoa.gov/AoA_programs/OAA/index.aspx, accessed July 7, 2012. Thelma Heatwole, “Elderly To Receive Recreation And Food In El Mirage Project,” PT, February 22, 1974. This article first appeared in the Arizona Republic and was reprinted in the “Letters to the Editor” section of the Peoria Times by the site manager for the program, who was appealing to the community for donations of equipment and money to establish the program. PT, “Nutrition Program for Elderly Started,” November 22, 1974. Toni Fonseca, “El Mirage-Surprise News,” PT, March 5, 1976. 209
The Community Action Program (CAP) office located in El Mirage, one of twelve operated by Maricopa County, served as the heart of the War on Poverty for El Mirage and Surprise. People such as Surprise residents Minnie Williams and George Garcia worked as CAP coordinators. Residents came to this facility for assistance with food stamps, social security, veteran’s benefits, and other federal, state, and local assistance programs. At the center, they could access legal aid and apply for MOP services such as day care and job training. Williams and other employees also took applications from teenagers for CAP job programs, such the Neighborhood Youth Corps and the summer call-a-teen project.466
The CAP staff built connections to other community service organizations, creating a more robust social service network for Surprise and El Mirage residents. The Mennonite missionaries supported the local CAP team in multiple ways, including volunteer work at the CAP office. The 1974 Christmas basket project involved area churches, CAP, the Dysart Center, local individuals, and the Salvation Army. Alliances between these groups sometimes involved social functions in the community, such as Santa Teresita’s New Year’s Eve Dance held at the MOP building in El Mirage. CAP employees also worked with local government leaders and business organizations. In 1971, the Mexican American
Chamber of Commerce of Phoenix, coordinating with the CAP staff, hosted a lunch and gifts for 300 El Mirage and Surprise children.467
466 PT, Margaret Wheaton To Resign,” August 10, 1973. PT, “Community Action Program to Survive,” January 24, 1975. PT, “Maricopa County CAP Services,” April 23, 1976. Toni Fonseca, “El Mirage News,” PT, September 14, 1973, November 15, 1974, April 4,1975. PT, “El Mirage Newsletter,” December 6, 1974. Joe Coulter, “Maricopa County CAP in El Mirage,” PT, September 5, 1975.
210
CAP and other War on Poverty programs stood apart from community service organizations like the Dysart Center in terms of service recipient involvement and training. The Economic Opportunity Act specified that CAP programs be “developed, conducted, and administered with the maximum feasible participation of residents of the areas and members of the groups served.”468 This strategy informed the design of other War on Poverty programs.
In the Dysart District, this meant a parent advisory committee reviewed and approved the curriculum, staffing, and goals of the district program for the children of migrant farm workers, which was funded by the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The Head Start program featured similar levels of parental involvement and oversight. In the community, residents participating in CAP neighborhood organizations identified and prioritized community needs, then designed and implemented projects to address those needs. As part of their participation in these programs, residents received training on community organizing and activism. War on Poverty programs served as a training ground for residents interested in driving change in their community.469
In sum, new government programs and pre-existing private agencies both affirmed and reshaped the meaning of community in Surprise. They confirmed its
467 PT, “Maricopa County CAP Services,” April 23, 1976. Toni Fonseca, “El Mirage News,” PT, November 27, 1974, December 31, 1971. Minnie Williams, “El Mirage CAP,” PT, January 30, 1976.
468 Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Public Law 88-452, United States Statutes at Large 78 (1965): 516.
469 Toni Fonseca, “El Mirage News,” PT, September 21, 1973, October 17, 1969. E-mail correspondence, Aptekar, July 6, 2012. PT, “Maricopa County CAP Services,” April 23, 1976. PT, “Surprise Orders 120 Park Trees,” August 29, 1969. G. Garcia and C. Garcia, interview, March 6, 2009. 211
status as a relatively impoverished area while establishing it as a place where families could find opportunities to improve their economic circumstances.
Chicano Activism
The Chicano movement, which gained momentum during the latter half of the
1960s, reset the political, economic, and social landscape of the Northwest
Valley. As Surprise residents replaced the business coalition with a new cohort of leaders, ethnic Mexican activists on a regional, state, and local level used a diverse array of tactics in a multitude of venues to end the second-class status of
Mexicanos.
Although their work garners much of the attention and credit for altering the social and economic status of ethnic Mexicans, the Chicano activists of the
1960s built on the efforts of groups that emerged earlier. For example, in the
1950s, the Alianza Hispano-Americana successfully challenged school segregation in lawsuits against the Tolleson and Glendale School Districts. In
1954, the group used the courts to force the city of Winslow to stop restricting
Mexican American access to the town pool. The work of labor unions also influenced the Arizona activists.470 As historian Nick Tapia notes, the “Arizona
Chicano Movement was rooted in the labor unions that developed within the mines.”471 Many of the leaders in the Valley’s Chicano organizations came from
Arizona’s mining towns where union activism began in the early 1900s. Ronnie
470 Oscar J. Martinez “Hispanics in Arizona,” in Arizona at Seventy-Five: The Next Twenty-Five Years, eds. Beth Luey and Noel J. Stowe (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1987), 112-3.
471 Nick Tapia, “Cactus in the Desert: The Chicano Movement in Maricopa County, Arizona, 1968-1978,” (master’s thesis, Arizona State University, 1999), 13.
212
Lopez, Alfredo Gutierrez, Christine Marin, and Geneva Duarte Escoveda learned from miners’ unions the tactics of picketing, boycotting, and negotiating.472
In the 1960s, Chicano activism in the Valley began in the farm fields then spread to the urban area. Introduced to Cesar Chavez and the strategies and tactics of the United Farm Workers (UFW) through their work in the local Migrant
Opportunity Program (MOP), Caroline Hernandez, Gustavo Gutierrez, and others began organizing Arizona farm workers in the mid-1960s through projects such as the Stanfield Farm Labor Organization. Union organizing in Arizona and resistance movements in other urban areas, such as the 1968 United Mexican
American Students boycott of East Los Angeles schools, inspired students to bring the Chicano movement to Arizona State University (ASU). In 1968, led by
Alfredo Gutierrez and F. Arturo Rosales, campus activists organized the Mexican
American Student Organization (MASO), a group later known as Movimiento
Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (MEChA).473
MASO pushed for a wide array of reforms using tactics such as marches, boycotts, picketing, and legal remedies. They first protested the wages and working conditions of employees of the Phoenix Linen and Towel Supply
Company, a contractor for ASU. They also pressed university officials to implement a Chicano studies program and to hire more Chicano instructors and administrators. Encountering resistance and delays, the group filed a civil rights complaint with the Department of Justice charging the university with discriminatory practices in recruiting, hiring, and promoting. Concurrently, MASO
472 Tapia, “Cactus in the Desert,” 14-5.
473 José A. Maldonado, “¡Si Se Puede! The Farm Worker Movement in Arizona, 1965-1979,” (master’s thesis, Arizona State University, 1995), 6-8. Tapia, “Cactus in the Desert,” 23-4, 26, 10, 28. Martinez “Hispanics in Arizona,” 114. 213
supported the work of the UFW, picketing a Mesa Safeway store as part of the grape boycott and participating in a march from Tolleson to the state capital on behalf of the Arizona chapter of the UFW.474
In late 1968, farm labor and campus activists successfully extended the fight for social and economic justice for ethnic Mexicans into Phoenix neighborhoods. A group that included Joe Eddie Lopez, Rosie Lopez, Alfredo
Gutierrez, and Gustavo Gutierrez formed Chicanos Por La Causa (CPLC), a multi-purposed, community-based organization. Under Joe Eddie Lopez’s leadership, the agency achieved early success by responding to the concerns of
Mexicanos about Phoenix Union High School. Parents objected to high dropout rates, safety lapses, an inadequate number of ethnic Mexican teachers, and the channeling of minority students into vocational rather than college preparatory courses. The CLPC brought the community together, orchestrated a successful boycott, and negotiated meaningful reforms at the high school.475
As urban confrontations over social and economic justice for Chicanos evolved, local UFW organizers, such as Gustavo Gutierrez, continued to focus on the rural areas surrounding Phoenix. In spite of the challenges presented by
Arizona’s right-to-work laws and the nature of migrant labor, they made progress, opening a UFW office in Tolleson in 1968 and successfully negotiating some contracts with local owners. In other cases, agreements reached with California-
474 Tapia, “Cactus in the Desert,” 28-31, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 42-3. A. Gutierrez, interview, October 3, 2006.
475 Tapia, “Cactus in the Desert,” 50-6. Gutierrez, interview, October 3, 2006. Luckingham, Phoenix, 216-8. VanderMeer, Desert Visions, 261. 214
based agri-business corporations brought the union wages and benefits of those companies to their Arizona operations and workers.476
Since thirty percent of its residents worked in agriculture, and the town sat in the midst of farms and ranches, the Surprise community experienced the effects of farm labor organizing. Joe Laborin remembers union activity at the farm where he worked. Some residents participated in union activities. Maria Montoya took part in strikes, boycotts, and picketing; she joined a protest march from El
Mirage to the state capitol in the late 1960s. Alejandra Lopez hosted union meetings at her home. Labor organizers worked at nearby farms and ranches, exposing residents who did not work in the fields to union activism. Sometimes confrontations turned violent, as occurred in 1972 at several Northwest Valley farms.477
The initial success of the UFW in Arizona farm fields prompted a legislative reaction that led to a highly publicized confrontation between Chicano activists and Arizona’s top executive. At the urging of agri-business interests,
Arizona lawmakers passed and Governor Williams signed legislation severely restricting the ability of the UFW to organize farm workers and conduct strikes.
The bill criminalized several generally accepted union practices.478 It “protected growers at every stage in the process” and guaranteed “uninterrupted production, packing, processing, transporting, and marketing” of agricultural products.479
476 Maldonado, “¡Si Se Puede!,” 7-8.
477 Adelita Villegas, “Oral History with Francisca Cavazos,” November 1992, MM- CHSM -389, Chicano Resource Collection, Hayden Library, Arizona State University. PT, “UFW Restrained in Picketing Grape Growers,” July 6, 1972. J. Laborin, interview, May 29, 2009.
478 Maldonado, “¡Si Se Puede!,” 10, 19, 22, 24, 25.
215
Chicano groups reacted quickly and forcefully. First, in a show of solidarity, Cesar Chavez came to Phoenix and staged a hunger strike, a move that brought national attention to the issue. Second, led by the UFW, twenty-nine organizations began a drive to recall the governor. By early 1973, they had collected enough signatures to force an election. However, the state’s attorney general disqualified one-third of the petition signees. Outraged, activists sought redress in the judicial system. A federal appeals court ruled in their favor, declaring the attorney general’s action unconstitutional. However, at this point,
William’s term in office had expired and the recall became a non-issue.480
Chicano activism altered the political dynamics in the Valley in other ways. In 1972, Alfredo Gutierrez, a veteran of MASO and one of the founders of the CPLC, ran for a seat in the state senate and won.481 Described by a legislative assistant as “brilliant … young … brash” and “very, very cagey,”
Gutierrez became a power broker as Senate majority leader from 1975 through
1978 and Senate minority leader from 1979 through 1986.482 Joe Eddie Lopez won a seat on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. In 1975, Raul Castro became the first Mexicano governor of the state. These electoral victories and
479 Maldonado, “¡Si Se Puede!,” 21.
480 Maldonado, “¡Si Se Puede!,” 10, 17, 18, 19, 20, 48. Berman, Arizona Politics and Government, 82.
481 Gutierrez, interview, October 3, 2006. VanderMeer, Desert Visions, 262. Berman, Arizona Politics and Government, 103-4
482 Karen Scates, interview by Carol Palmer, Phoenix, Arizona, January 23, 2007, audio recording, Arizona State History and Archives, Phoenix, Arizona.
216
others placed ethnic Mexicans in positions of power and influence in state and local government.483
Local Activism
In the latter half of the 1970s, El Mirage and, to a lesser extent, Surprise became a center of Chicano activism relative to labor organizing and services for farm workers. A number of UFW actions exposed a rift between Arizona activists and the union’s leadership. After attempting to resolve these differences, Gustavo
Gutierrez and Guadalupe Sanchez formed a separate entity to serve Arizona’s farm labor community - the Maricopa County Organizing Project (MCOP).
Located in El Mirage, this nonprofit human rights agency researched, documented, and reported civil rights violations and pursued issues relative to workplace safety such as pesticides and sanitation. While they could not engage in collective bargaining, the MCOP staff led several successful organizing campaigns, including a strike at Goldmar Farm east of Surprise in 1977. To solidify these gains and expand union organizing efforts, Gutierrez and Sanchez created the Arizona Farm Workers Union (AFW) in 1978.484
Based in El Mirage, the AFW achieved success in the Valley in terms of organizing and improving wages and working conditions of documented and undocumented farm laborers. At its height, the organization represented nearly
483 Berman, Arizona Politics and Government, 116. Gutierrez, interview, October 3, 2006. VanderMeer, Desert Visions, 262.
484 “Maricopa County Organizing Project: 1977-1987 Report,” Gustavo Gutierrez Papers, Accession 2002-02528, Box 6, Folder 11, Arizona State University Libraries, Chicano Research Collection, 3, 6-7. Maldonado, “¡Si Se Puede!, 66, 77, 82, 93-5, 97-8, 111. 217
fifteen thousand workers.485 According to a pamphlet issued by MCOP on the organization’s tenth anniversary, “AFW organizing and related labor actions over the ensuing years in fruit and vegetable crops clearly have had a significant impact on wages and working conditions.”486 The pamphlet cited a four-fold increase in citrus contract wages during the previous decade.487
MCOP also created two organizations to serve the many needs of migrant farm families. Beginning in 1978, Centro Adelante Campesino, located in
El Mirage, served as a resource agency for food, clothing, legal referrals, and other assistance. In 1980, the second offshoot of MCOP, Clinica Adelante, began offering medical services, such as twenty-four hour emergency service, a laboratory, pesticide screening, and mental health evaluations.488
For multiple reasons, MCOP leaders felt the need to establish assistance centers in spite of the presence of private organizations, such as the Dysart
Center, and government agencies, such as MOP. First, Gustavo Gutierrez and others worked for MOP before migrating to union organizing. Gutierrez left the organization because he believed it and other federal programs addressed the symptoms but not the root cause of poverty among migrant laborers: low wages.
485 Maldonado, “¡Si Se Puede!,” 119.
486 “Maricopa County Organizing Project: 1977-1987 Report,” Gutierrez Papers, 4.
487 Ibid.
488 Maldonado, “¡Si Se Puede!,” 119. Christina Ramirez, interview by Carol Palmer, March 25, 2009, Surprise, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. PT, “Medical Clinic Sought,” May 4, 1979. “Maricopa County Organizing Project: 1977-1987 Report,” Gutierrez Papers, 3. 218
In his view, restrictions on the use of government funding kept these agencies from doing the appropriate work: union organizing.489
Additionally, their previous experience working with volunteers and professionals prompted many Chicano activists to seek a different approach. An article in El Paisano: Para El Campesino, a newsletter published in the late
1960s by the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee of Arizona, provides insight. Jim Rutkowski Guadalupe reported on a meeting of the Arizona
Association for Health and Welfare, which he described as “just another of those conferences where ‘we the people up here are going to help all those poor people down there’ and where nothing was really accomplished except two days of pleasant, middle-class socializing.”490
Last, MCOP staff encountered problems when directing clients to private and government organizations. They cited “inadequacies in simply relying on referrals to existing agencies.”491 In spite of the good intentions of volunteers and staff, anyone seeking assistance from government programs would have encountered applications and screening procedures. These practices might have intimidated those without documentation or those unaccustomed to dealing with federal and state bureaucracies.492 At private agencies, secondary agendas and a lack of sensitivity to cultural differences may have been off-putting to MCOP staff and their clients. The Mennonites had a religious purpose; at Dysart Center,
489 Maldonado, “¡Si Se Puede!,” 6.
490 Jim Rutkowski Guadalupe, “Fat Cats Play,” in El Paisano: Para El Campesino, United Farm Workers Organizing Committee of Arizona, May, 1968, 11, CHSM904, Chicano Resource Collection, Hayden Library, Arizona State University.
491 “Maricopa County Organizing Project: 1977-1987 Report,” Gutierrez Papers, 3.
492 PT, “Registration Is Now Open,” May 14, 1965. 219
an undercurrent of Americanization permeated the programs. In a report in the
Peoria Times, a center volunteer noted the need for “a small piano for use in the assembly period in teaching patriotic songs.”493 For some seeking assistance, language and cultural issues might have thwarted service delivery. As a result of these and other factors, the towns of El Mirage and Surprise reaped the benefit of additional community service organizations.494
The convergence of government programs and Chicano activism provided a model for Surprise residents eager to affect change in their community and improve the condition of their town. MCOP’s successful strike of
Goldmar Farms, the changes at Phoenix Union High School driven by Joe Eddie
Lopez and Chicanos Por La Causa, the election of Alfredo Gutierrez to the state senate, and other achievements demonstrated the possibilities and difficulties inherent in challenging the status quo. CAP programs provided basic training in community involvement and an opportunity to exercise meaningful oversight of government programs.
In Surprise and El Mirage, the rapid increase in the number of ethnic
Mexican residents coupled with the pride generated by Chicano activism increased the visibility of Mexican heritage in the social and cultural milieu of both towns. In 1971, the dedication of a Dysart Center expansion featured the
Hermanos Ortiz Mariachi Band. As noted in the previous chapter, the Surprise
Founders’ Day Parade became the Parada del Amigos. At Dysart High School, the local chapter of MEChA staged a two-day Cinco de Mayo celebration in
1976. When the Dysart center’s adult English students and teachers held a
493 PT, “English, Child Care Started,” October 30, 1970.
494 PT, “Maricopa County CAP Services,” April 23, 1976. 220
special celebration, they featured Mexican crafts, music, textiles, songs, and dances. In 1970, El Mirage residents initiated an annual fiesta celebrating
Mexican independence. The initial event attracted 500 people who enjoyed food, music, and speeches.495
In terms of community activism, multiple individuals took leadership roles.
Toni Fonseca, an El Mirage resident who reported on events in Surprise and El
Mirage for the Peoria Times, became a model of citizen involvement. She served as the president of the Dysart Head Start Parent Advisory Committee and worked at Dysart School supervising an element of the ESEA migrant student program. Fonseca also held a variety of volunteer positions at El Mirage School,
Santa Teresita Church, and the El Mirage Fiesta organizing committee. She repeatedly used her column to exhort others to become involved in school committees and CAP programs.496
In Surprise, community involvement took several forms. George Garcia and Minnie Williams worked as CAP coordinators. For both, this represented a logical extension of their personal commitment to improving their community.
Francisca Cavazos organized field workers as an employee of the AFW, later serving as its executive director. John Rosales headed the local Cystic Fibrosis fundraising efforts, chaired the Parents Advisory Committee for the ESEA program at Surprise Elementary School, served on the Dysart School District
Advisory Board, and initiated a Surprise Cub Scout program. Marty Fulcher
495 PT, “Dysart Center Board Members Dedicate New Class Building,” February 12, 1971. Toni Fonseca, “El Mirage News,” PT, May 14, 1971. PT, “El Mirage Hosts Mexican Independence Fiesta,” September 18, 1970. Toni Fonseca, “El Mirage Surprise News,” PT, May 7 1976.
496 Toni Fonseca, “El Mirage News,” PT, March 5, 1971. Photograph Caption, September 18, 1970, PT. Toni Fonseca, “El Mirage Surprise News,” PT, June 16, 1975, July 15, 1975, January 16, 1976. 221
donated time and expertise at the senior center in El Mirage and worked tirelessly on multiple community service projects. For Garcia and Rosales, their interest in community improvement led them to positions on the Surprise Town
Council.497
Community activism sometimes involved confrontation and challenges to the traditional power structure. When Maricopa County officials chose a Sun City resident to head the local CAP office, residents of Surprise and El Mirage protested. They objected to the appointee’s unfamiliarity with the community and the issues of minority residents. Farm and ranch owner domination of the Dysart
School District Board collapsed in 1972 when activists successfully enlarged that body from three to five members.498 In the subsequent election, eleven candidates vied for three open seats. In what the Peoria Times characterized as the “most competitive election” in the district’s history, three El Mirage residents ran as a slate of candidates representing that community and Mexicanos.499 They contended that the “administration, teachers and the present board are insensitive” to the needs of Spanish speaking students.500
497 G. Garcia and C. Garcia, interview, March 6, 2009. M. Williams and A. Groves, interview, December 15, 2008. “Maricopa County Organizing Project: 1977-1987 Report,” Gutierrez Papers, 3. Villegas, “Oral History with Francisca Cavazos,” November 1992. Toni Fonseca, “El Mirage Surprise News,” PT, May 18, 1979, April 7, 1978, March 10, 1978, February 4, 1978, January 31, 1975, August 15, 1975, March 5, 1976. M. Fulcher and R. Fulcher, interview, January 21, 2009. Election Log, COSCCA.
498 PT, “Selection of El Mirage CAP Head Causes Uproar,” August 25, 1972. PT, “Baker Runs For Dysart Board,” October 6, 1972.
499 PT, “Top Vote-getters Take Board Seats,” November 10, 1972. PT, “Eleven Vie for Three Seat Board in Dysart,” November 3, 1972.
500 PT, “Eleven Vie for Three Seat Board in Dysart,” November 3, 1972. 222
Activism in neighboring El Mirage reset the town’s power structure, providing Surprise inhabitants with another example of successful community activism. An article in the Peoria Times reported that,
the political pot seems to be boiling the hardest in El Mirage. An estimated 300 new voters have been registered in anticipation of possible recall action. Town council meetings have been packed for the first time in memory. House meetings are being held to discuss the problems of the town. And a number of residents have expressed fears that the town is being polarized between Mexican American and anglo factions. Peoria Times, “Political Pot Boiling in El Mirage,” March 28, 1975.
The reporter cited scandals and turmoil in the police department, political rivalries, and “the increased political involvement of the Mexican American community” as factors in the escalating interest in town governance.501
Discontent with the status quo and disagreement over the proper course of action resulted in the formation of two citizen’s groups competing for signatures on recall petitions. Citing civil rights violations, discrimination against non-English speaking residents, and the failure to establish an affirmative action program, the El Mirage Citizen’s Committee sought the ouster of four non-
Mexicano council members. In response, Citizen’s For Progressive El Mirage circulated petitions recalling the three ethnic Mexican members of the council, declaring them unfit for office. It is important to note the ethnic and racial diversity of both committees. The first, although dominated by ethnic Mexicans, enjoyed the support of African Americans and some Euro-Americans. Likewise, some
Mexicanos supported the position of the second group. In the subsequent recall elections, the El Mirage Citizens Committee’s slate of candidates, V. Hardge,
Francisco Palmer, Billy W. White, and Criz Urquidez, prevailed. These
501 PT, “Political Pot Boiling In El Mirage,” March 28, 1975.
223
candidates joined Mayor Margarita Reese, Cayetano Acosta, and Sabino Rubio, all of whom defeated their recall opposition, on the El Mirage Town Council. This victory demonstrated the possibilities available for Surprise residents dissatisfied with the leadership of the north-side coalition.502
Challenging the Status Quo in Surprise
The actions of Surprise’s north-side coalition members left them vulnerable to criticism and suspicion. Favoritism, behind the scenes negotiations, and lax procedures relative to expenditures created questions and challenges from residents. Council members seemed unaware of how transparency, careful reporting, and clearly defined, open procedures could minimize mistrust and increase public support for council decisions.
Following in the footsteps of the business coalition, the north-side coalition built a political support network by allocating appointments and town business to friends and family. When a resignation created an opening on the council in 1972, the group filled the vacancy with a relative of council member
Taylor Feltner. In 1974, the council appointed the husband of the town clerk, Skip
Luttrell, a fellow member of the rodeo-cowboy clique, to the position of town marshal. Gene Miles lost his bid for re-election to the council in 1975 but retained a position of power in the community when his colleagues appointed him to the zoning board. Council members also directed town business to friends and
502 PT, “Political Pot Boiling In El Mirage,” March 28, 1975. PT, “Voters to Decide Fate of El Mirage Council,” August 15, 1975. PT, “New Council Members Seated in El Mirage, August 22, 1975. “Incumbents Survive El Mirage Recall Election,” October 10, 1975. 224
family. In 1981, the town paid Randy Cumbie, son of Mayor Cumbie, to provide livestock for the Founders’ Day Rodeo.503
Two organizations, the Surprise Sheriff’s Posse and the El Mirage-
Surprise Kiwanis Club, served as the nexus of the north-side coalition’s political support network. An analysis of council minutes in this period indicates these groups and their members received preferential treatment. In 1974, the council designated the posse as operators of the town’s concession stand at the community park. Although the group used the proceeds from this venture and other fund-raising efforts to support their search and rescue mission, minutes indicate council members did not offer use of the facility to other groups with equally benevolent programs. Posse members also received appointments to town boards and committees, such as the planning and zoning commission.
Kiwanis Club members also benefitted from their association with Surprise’s civic leaders. When the council needed to select a town manager, it appointed
Kiwanis member Nelson Payne. When Bill Gentry, also a Kiwanian, had a surplus mower, the council purchased it from him.504
The Surprise council’s course of action on the rodeo grounds project serves as an example of their failure to conduct town business in an open manner on a consistent basis. Council records reveal nothing about the planning or decision to proceed with the project until May 1974, when a report and a request for funding by a representative of the Surprise Sheriff’s Posse made it
503 TCM, July 22, 1971, September 9, 1971, January 13, 1972, July 11, 1974, August 7, 1975, and September 10, 1981, COSCCA. S. Aguilar, interview, April 24, 2012.
504 TCM, June 6, 1974, July 11, 1974, October 23, 1974, July 18, 1974, and January 22, 1976, COSCCA. PT, “El Mirage-Surprise Kiwanis Clubs Installs Officers,” October 12, 1973. PT, “El Mirage-Surprise Kiwanis Gain Three New Members,” February 1, 1974. 225
clear that construction was already in progress. At the May meeting, council members accepted the report, authorized funds, and encouraged the posse to proceed with construction. Apparently, the council and members of the posse (a dual role for some, such as Cumbie and Miles) concocted the plan outside of official town meetings. The posse, overseeing construction and obtaining donations of labor and materials, returned to the council on four occasions to request funds; the town’s contribution totaled $2,878.505
While the town clerk, Lovena Luttrell, might inadvertently have omitted the group’s discussion of the rodeo project, it seems unlikely. An Old West aficionado who participated in rodeo events, this topic would have caught her interest. Also, Luttrell used a very systematic approach to record council proceedings, often including details about confrontations, accusations, and the occasional cursing (in quotations, of course). Corrections to her minutes typically involved details, such as an incorrect number of days per week the ball field would be available, as opposed to major omissions. Additionally, oral histories and council minutes reveal other instances where private negotiations by the majority coalition caught the remaining members of the council by surprise. It seems safe to assume that outside of council gatherings, possibly at Kiwanis functions or posse gatherings, north-side coalition members discussed town business and constructed deals.506
505 TCM, May 16, 1974, July 11, 1974, August 1, 1974, August 15, 1974, September 5, 1974, October 17, 1974, November 21, 1974, COSCCA. PT, “Posse News from Surprise,” July 18, 1975.
506 Photograph of Luttrell competing in a calf-dressing event at the Founder’s Day Rodeo, December 1979, COSHPA. PT, “Surprise to Hold Founder’s Day,” December 7, 1973. TCM, January 22, 1981, April 10, 1980, June 11, 1987, COSCCA. Roy Villanueva, interview by Carol Palmer, Surprise, Arizona, July 12, 2011, audio recording, COSHPA. 226
The council’s purchasing procedures and accounting also invited scrutiny.
While occasionally obtaining bids, the group frequently acquired goods and services from friends, relatives, or council members without considering other options. When the town needed a new pickup, it bought member Taylor Feltner’s used vehicle. The council also reimbursed Feltner for material purchases and time spent constructing a council table for the new town hall, another acquisition not subject to open bids.507
Relative to expenditures, the line between personal benefit and town business became indistinct on many occasions. Mayor Cumbie’s telephone bill provides an example. At some point (not documented in the minutes), the council authorized the installation of telephone service in his residence. Thereafter, it approved payment of the bill in full each month. During a period when basic residential service, including taxes, cost between ten and twenty dollars per month, Cumbie’s bills typically exceeded eighty dollars. During the first five months of 1978, they averaged $100.65, an indication of significant long distance usage. In contrast, the bills submitted by another town official rarely surpassed thirty dollars. Some of Cumbie’s long distance charges may have involved town business; it is likely most did not. The mayor, employees, and council members also used the town’s gasoline for personal vehicles without detailed accounting.
They pointed to the work they did on behalf of the community to justify this usage.508
507 TCM, January 27, 1973, April 5, 1973, COSCCA.
508 TCM, January 26, 1978, February 23, 1978, March 9, 1978, March 23, 1978, April 27, 1978, May 25, 1978, July 15, 1978, September 14, 1978, COSCCA. Bacon Family Siblings, interview by Sherry Aguilar, Surprise, Arizona, January 28, 2012, audio recording, COSHPA. Analysis of telephone bill charges based on author’s experience as 227
No one on the Surprise council became rich using the town’s gasoline or supplying it with goods and services; at worst, these actions amounted to petty transgressions. However, their failure to use appropriate accounting or purchasing procedures created the appearance of unethical behavior. In a community where one-third of the families lived below the poverty level and personal conflicts often emerged in the political arena, these lapses qualified as obtuse and foolish. Coupled with the lack of transparency and unabashed cronyism, this governance behavior invited criticism, dissent, and conflict. All of which occurred.
Their success at the ballot box during their first eight years of control, even as they operated in this manner, probably gave north-side coalition members the confidence to continue governing in this manner. In the 1970 recall election, George Cumbie received more than double the number of votes obtained by the highest finishing opposition candidate. Cumbie’s closest ally,
Floyd Gaines, received an equally impressive voter endorsement. In the next two primary elections, residents provided the winners, generally incumbents, with enough votes to avoid a general election run-off. In the 1971 election, only ten candidates vied for seven seats. With minimal opposition and impressive voter support, north-side coalition members probably felt confident that their actions enjoyed the support of the town’s residents.509
After mid-decade, several factors, including growing community activism and discontent with the council’s inability to deal with major problems, undermined voter support, increased the number of challengers during elections, a customer service representative, initial training instructor, supervisor, and manager in a telecommunications firm during the 1970s.
509 Election Log, COSCCA. 228
boosted dissent among council members, and generated questions from residents. Concurrently, and possibly due in part to these shifts, some traditional members of the north-side coalition chose not to run for re-election. As a result, candidates with differing ideas about community identity began to take seats on that body.
In 1975, fifteen candidates vied for council seats, a list that included only two elected incumbents from the coalition – Gaines and Cumbie. Eugene Miles, an unsuccessful candidate in two previous elections, ran as an incumbent because north-side members appointed him to fill a vacancy in 1974. This group recruited four candidates to run as part of their slate. These included first-time candidates Eugene Wilcox, a friend of Cumbie and Gaines, and Abel
Dominquez; they also garnered the support of incumbents Reyes Aguilar and
Ernest Scritchfield. William Ross, a town marshal fired by the council in 1974, led the opposition slate of five candidates. At the ballot box, residents selected five members of the Cumbie slate, William Ross, and independent candidate
Norberto Allen. While this represented a continuation of the dominance of the north-side coalition, it involved a more difficult election, a larger cohort of opposition candidates, and the need to recruit three people outside of the coalition’s social-political support network.510
After the 1975 election, two events reduced the north-side coalition’s control of the council and increased the level of conflict. In April 1976, Ross resigned and the council appointed community activist John Rosales to fill his position. When Dominquez resigned five months later, the appointment of a
510 Election Log, COSCCA. TCM, May 16, 1974, July 11, 1974, COSCCA. S. Aguilar, interview, April 24, 2012. PT, “New El Mirage-Surprise Kiwanis Keep Busy,” June 8, 1973. PT, “Surprise Elections Generate Interest,” April 4, 1975. 229
successor generated dissent, a rarity on the council in the previous several years. Although council members sometimes disagreed on issues, appointments generally engendered little debate, possibly because of pre-meeting deal making.
John Rosales insisted the group select a replacement. Cumbie objected, maintaining that voters should decide at the next election. The balance of the council sided with Rosales. He nominated Roy Villanueva for the open seat and
Eugene Wilcox nominated his north-side coalition colleague and former council member, Taylor Feltner. In the subsequent vote, Rosales prevailed, providing him with a strong ally on the council.511
Over the next several years, Rosales repeatedly challenged Cumbie and questioned the governance procedures of the north-side coalition. He advocated transparency, citizen involvement, and fiscal accountability. Three examples of his challenges to the status quo demonstrate his relentless pursuit of reform and accountability. Beginning in 1979, Rosales constantly confronted Cumbie regarding the town paying for the mayor’s home telephone service. He objected to the amount of the bill and the fact that Cumbie did not submit an itemized statement. After two years of consistent objections by Rosales, Cumbie put the service in his name and assumed personal responsibility for the bill.512
On the questions of expenses and council procedures, Rosales received support from community residents and allies on the council. George Garcia, another community activist, frequently attended council meetings.513
511 TCM, June 12, 1975, March 11, 1976, April 22, 1976, September 9, 1976, September 23, 1976, October 14, 1976, October 27, 1976, COSCCA.
512 TCM, April 26, 1979, June 28, 1979, March 12, 1981, July 26, 1979, COSCCA.
513 TCM, June 28, 1979, COSCCA. 230
Characterizing some town expenditures as “not right,” he questioned council members on items such as the town manager’s attendance at an annual conference or the purchase of coffee service items for the town hall.514 In terms of council members, Rosales could generally count on his allies, Allan Yoder and
Roy Villanueva, to support his positions.515
The traditional procedures for appointing members to town boards and vacancies on the council also precipitated a challenge from Rosales. In June
1979, he asked that George Garcia be considered for a vacancy on the zoning board. At the next meeting, he nominated Garcia. Cumbie objected, citing the custom of the mayor making the appointments and the council concurring.
Rosales moved to change the process. Despite his minority position, he convinced a majority of the council to support his position.516
Rosales’s dissenting views and challenges to the traditional governance processes made council meetings more contentious and precipitated some important changes. The latter proved difficult given his minority position.
Typically, he only could count on three votes. The mayor’s vote broke any three- to-three ties. However, he found additional allies on some issues related to process, such as the distribution of the agenda, the format of the minutes, the posting of meeting times, soliciting citizen input on major decisions, the conduct of meetings, and appointments to town boards. His questioning of expenditures brought no formal changes but certainly made members aware of the scrutiny
514 C. Garcia and G. Garcia, interview, March 6, 2009. TCM, January 25, 1979, April 12, 1979, June 28, 1979, COSCCA.
515 TCM, June 28, 1979, COSCCA.
516 TCM, June 14, 1979, June 28, 1979, COSCCA. 231
their actions could attract. Although not evident at the time, Rosales’s successful nomination of Roy Villanueva to fill a council vacancy made a significant difference over the next two decades. As discussed in the next chapter,
Villanueva became an important community leader.517
Rosales made another substantial contribution. In 1976, discontent with the council and concern about the state of the community converged. Led by
Rosales, a diverse group of Surprise residents formed the Surprise Action
Council (SAC). This group held town meetings, surveyed residents, and prioritized community needs. Probably aware of the benefits garnered by El
Mirage residents from their community meeting facility, Surprise Action Council members chose the construction of a community center as their first priority.518
Following the lead of the Surprise Women’s Club, SAC opted for a grassroots fundraising approach. This included fashion shows, cakewalks, auctions, and other community events. SAC also enlisted the support of the town’s leaders. The council agreed to provide the property for the center, designating a site in the town park near the town hall. Additionally, working with residents and local businesses, SAC members solicited donations of labor and materials. However, after two years of fundraising, the group remained far short of the money needed to complete the center.519
Community Development Block Grant funding closed the gap. When the town council needed to respond to the county relative to federal grant
517 TCM, January 8, 1981, March 26, 1981, September 10, 1981, August 27, 1981, November 9, 1978, July 12, 1979, COSCCA.
518 TCM, October 27, 1976, COCCA. Thelma Heatwole, “Despite Scant Funds Surprise Residents Pitch in to Build Hall,” Arizona Republic, March 3, 1977.
519 Heatwole, “Despite Scant Funds.” Toni Fonseca, “El Mirage-Surprise News,” PT, May 27, 1977. 232
requirements, John Rosales recommended a community center as the top priority; other members provided alternative proposals and residents supplied input. In the end, the council agreed to place the community center at the top of the list. In April 1979, the county notified Surprise officials that they would receive a $120,000 grant to construct the facility.520
After it opened in May 1981, the community center became a prime locale for social interaction in Surprise. Residents went to the facility to receive diabetes testing, participate in Jazzercize, attend CPR training, and receive tax preparation assistance. Community groups used it for fundraising events, such as bingo and dances. In the summer months, the children of Surprise could participate in recreation programs. Even residents from Sun City West used the facility.521
In its first years, the Surprise Action Council also monitored the actions of the town council. Leaders of the group brought residents’ issues to council meetings. They then followed up with council members on the status of promised remedies. In many respects, the group acted as an alternative forum and a watchdog organization for residents who felt unheeded by their town leaders.522
On many levels, the formation of the Surprise Action Council represented a rebuke of the town council. First, the group represented a broad spectrum of the community. Although ethnic Mexicans provided the majority of the leadership,
SAC activists included Euro-Americans such as Wayne Beck and African
520 TCM, January 25, 1979, February 22, 1979, April 10, 1979, May 29, 1979, COSCCA.
521 TCM, April 23, 1981, July 24, 1981, August 13, 1981, September 10, 1981, November 12, 1981, January 28, 1982, October 14, 1982, COSCA.
522 TCM, August 25, 1977, COSCCA. 233
Americans such as Minnie Williams. Second, by creating an alternative agenda,
SAC challenged the decisions and direction set by the council. Due to the group’s size, diversity, and persistence, town leaders could not ignore their demands. Last, SAC’s constant monitoring of their actions highlighted the council’s failure to deal with issues important to a segment of the community.
While elected officials publicly welcomed this input, they probably resented the intrusion into what they believed to be their area of responsibility. Self-satisfied with their accomplishments, which included such things as construction of the rodeo grounds, expansion of the town’s footprint, and chip sealing the streets, they most likely begrudged SAC’s scrutiny. This irritation surfaced in council minutes after the completion of the community center when SAC’s finances drew the attention of council members, in particular, Mayor Cumbie.523
Conclusion
What did the work of community activists such as George Garcia, John Rosales, and the members of the Surprise Action Council mean for the evolution of community identity in Surprise? As elected leaders looked outward, attempting to raise the profile of the town and insert it into the Valley’s growth juggernaut, activists argued for an alternative, internal focus. They insisted on remedies for the gaps in community services. The resulting conflict reshaped the meaning of community. Just as the rodeo grounds symbolized the vision of elected officials, the erection of the community center, one block away, provided an equally
523 TCM, August 25, 1977, October 27, 1976, June 10, 1982, June 24, 1982, COSCCA. Heatwole, “Despite Scant Funds.” 234
important symbol of an alternative view of community. For residents, both structures defined Surprise.
235
CHAPTER EIGHT
A TALE OF TWO TOWNS: CREATING A NEW SURPRISE
By the early 1980s, the cumulative effects of two 1978 events, strip annexation and the onset of construction at Sun City West, began to reshape the meaning of community in Surprise. The seemingly insatiable demand for housing in age- restricted communities coupled with Surprise’s vast expanse of relatively inexpensive land drew the interest of developers. The influx of retirees at Sun
City West attracted commercial enterprises. As the Valley’s population continued to boom, Surprise’s open spaces also enticed developers of traditional single- family residential communities. In response, the business of the Surprise Town
Council shifted from rodeos, Easter egg hunts, and chip sealing streets to the complex and expensive task of creating the physical and governance infrastructure required to support growth. The existing neighborhoods became an afterthought as town leaders leveraged federal and state financial mechanisms and forged alliances with construction firms to turn the adjacent agricultural landscape into homes, shopping malls, golf courses, parks, and schools. As existing residents continued to define community in the town's original square mile, developers imagined, and the town council enabled, a new identity for
Surprise. New arrivals, largely middle and some upper-middle class, reset the town’s political equation and imprinted the cultural, social, and economic landscape with their expectations and perspectives about community identity. As the town transitioned into the new millennium, two contrasting versions of
Surprise emerged.
236
Valley Growth Continues
In the last twenty years of the century, the Valley of the Sun's population continued its post-World War II expansion. Each year, suburban developments snaked ever closer to Surprise, even as the economic structure of the Valley shifted. While the tourism, retail, and health care sectors expanded in the 1980s and 1990s, manufacturing began to contract in spite of the arrival of Intel in 1979.
For example, Motorola, a mainstay of the Valley’s high technology segment, shrank from 20,000 employees in the 1990s to less than 1,000 by 2007.
However, the metropolitan area continued to attract new residents, growing from
971,228 in 1970 to 2,122,101 in 1990 and reaching 3,072,149 in 2000. West
Valley suburbs accounted for a portion of this growth. Glendale’s population of
36,228 in 1970 jumped to 96,988 in 1980. Peoria boomed in the 1980s as it expanded from 12,251 to 50,618, more than doubling to 108,364 in 2000. As
Phoenix’s urban/suburban footprint pressed outward, the vast expanse of farmland west of Surprise enticed developers thinking about future options.524
An important part of Valley growth involved retirement communities.
Although Del Webb’s Sun City dwarfed most similar endeavors, multiple developers created an equally important collection of retiree enclaves in the East
Valley. By 1971, four thousand residents lived in Mesa’s Dreamland Villa. In that same year, Leisure World and Sun Lakes began offering housing options and amenities for those over fifty. When Sun City West opened for business in the late 1970s, it continued to attract buyers despite the many relatively nearby alternatives. A population of 3,741 in 1980 grew to 15,997 by 1990. The
524 VanderMeer, Desert Visions, 300-308, 191, 340. 237
seemingly unlimited market for age restricted housing arrangements spurred residential contracting firms to seek more opportunities to meet this demand.525
The immediate impact on Surprise involved the emergence of businesses on Bell Road, which divided it from Sun City West. Landowners and commercial developers first approached the council in 1979 with zoning change applications and development plans. One owner requested a commercial designation for his property on the southwest corner of El Mirage and Bell Roads. At a council meeting one month later, Town Manager Harold Yingling reported on his meeting with architects planning another commercial complex on the adjacent forty-acre parcel on Bell Road. In November, another business group requested a change from agricultural to commercial zoning for the triangle formed by Grand Avenue,
Litchfield Road, and Bell Road. Over the next fifteen years, these properties became the sites of grocery stores, restaurants, banks, a hotel, professional offices, and other retail and service enterprises. Surprise residents who previously travelled several miles for goods and services now found these options conveniently located in their town site, a change that eliminated one of the community’s claims to a rural identity.526
Two years after the onset of construction at Sun City West, developers began to create alternative retirement communities in Surprise. Interested in the prime location between Sun City and Sun City West, several business groups approached the town council with development plans and requests to annex
525 VanderMeer, Desert Visions, 211-214, 340.
526 TCM, February 8, 1979, March 8, 1979, November 8, 1979, February 21, 1980, March 13, 1986, COSCCA. Sun City Daily News-Sun (henceforth abbreviated as SCDNS), “New Seafood Eatery Opens,” June 10, 1989. Surprise Today (henceforth abbreviated as ST), “Thunderbird Bank Opens First Surprise Banking Facility,” November 1987. 238
property east of El Mirage Road. These initiatives included the Sunflower RV resort, a 1,200-space facility completed in 1983 and a large condominium complex that opened in 1987, the Lodge at Sun Ridge. With the arrival of these communities and Sun City West, Surprise residents lost much of the open space on the east and north sides of their town, which continued to erode their rural lifestyle and identity.527
Financing Growth
Municipal expansion requires significant investment in infrastructure. New residents need water, which entails facilities for pumping, treating, storing, and delivering, as well as the professional expertise to administer and monitor the service. New developments require arterials and access roads as well as infrastructure for treating wastewater. Police and fire departments must expand in terms of staff and locations. New residents need parks and community facilities. All of this requires professional planning, another expensive element of preparing for growth. Engaging in these activities can result in legal entanglements, a costly by-product of growth. On its own, Surprise lacked the financial resources to support growth. Financial partners and funding mechanisms proved critical to its evolution from a small rural, fringe community to a twenty-first century boomburb.
As new development opportunities emerged, the town council grappled with the financial challenges associated with the dual issues of creating the
527 TCM, April 10, 1980, January 26, 1984, May 14, 1987, July 9, 1987, COSCCA. The Lodge at Sun Ridge, http://www.lodgeatsunridge.com/, accessed August 11, 2012. Passport America, Sunflower RV Resort, http://www.passport- america.com/Campgrounds/CampgroundDetails.aspx?CampgroundId=1956, accessed August 12, 2012. 239
infrastructure associated with growth and addressing the problematic condition of the exiting town. On one level, town leaders took steps to increase locally generated revenues. In 1974, the council approved a one percent sales tax.
However, members remained mindful of how this might hinder growth. In 1987, when developers proposed a large automobile sales complex on Bell Road, the council placed a three-year moratorium on sales tax increases on new car sales.
In another effort to raise revenues, town leaders adopted a property tax in 1988.
Last, the council also began issuing general obligation bonds. In 1987, voters approved a $10 million bond measure to construct water and sewer facilities.528
The Surprise Town Council also welcomed the financial support of local businesses and organizations. In 1982, it accepted the Sun City Optimist Club's proposal to establish a library for the community. Six years later, it welcomed a large residential developer’s donation of a building to house the library. The
Sunflower Resort Interfaith Services group contributed four thousand dollars to the community for the purchase of a jaws of life. As the town struggled to complete a park on the east side of the community, the Lions Club, Thunderbird
Bank, and other organizations donated funds.529
Funding from traditional municipal revenue streams and donations could not finance all of the new infrastructure and upgrades in the original town site.
Surprise leaders found two financial partners: the national government and the state of Arizona. The first provided a steady stream of funding for small and large
528 TCM, August 15, 1974, November 21, 1974, February 26, 1987, March 24, 1988, COSCCA. Election Log, COSCCA.
529 TCM, June 24, 1982, December 3, 1987, December 17, 1987, August 4, 1988, COSCCA. ST, "Sunflower Interfaith Donates Funds," April 1989. 240
endeavors (in some cases using the county as a medium). Arizona offered an array of financing tools defined by state statutes as well as some direct funding.
The programs initiated by Presidents Johnson and Nixon continued to fund some of Surprise’s day-to-day operations and needed infrastructure upgrades. They also allowed town leaders to invest in growth. Annual revenue sharing funds, which continued until 1986, financed a town hall expansion, new patrol cars, a fire truck, and other purchases and projects. Town officials also continued their use of Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). In 1984, they received $190,000 to fund the third phase of planning for new water and sewer facilities. Two years later, the council applied for and received $165,000 to improve Nash Street in the original town site. Additionally, funding from the
Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) and the Neighborhood
Youth Corps (NYC) allowed the group to hire seasonal employees and establish new entry-level positions. Last, the council used Law Enforcement Assistance and Administration (LEAA) grants created by the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 to finance some crime control and prevention projects.530
In the early 1980s, the council took advantage of a 1977 program initiated by President Jimmy Carter: Urban Development Action Grants. This updated
530 TCM, January 14, 1973, February 24, 1978, June 22, 1978, July 13, 1978, May 22, 1980, June 25, 1981, July 22, 1982, February 9, 1984, February 13, 1986, COSCCA. Resolution Number 79-12, August 9, 1979, COSCCA. PT, Public Notices, “Town of Surprise: Tentative Budget for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1974,” July 13, 1973. Vincent L. Marando, “General Revenue Sharing: Termination and City Response,” State and Local Government Review 22 no. 3 (Autumn 1990): 98. SCDNS “Surprise to Spend Money on Improving Parks,” May 12, 1989. Wilson A. Carter and Mitchell F. Rice, “From CETA to JTPA: Administrative and Distributional Impacts of Federal Job Training Policy Changes in Ohio,” State and Local Government Review 20, no. 2 (Spring 1988): 79. Robert F. Diegelman, “Federal Financial Assistance for Crime Control: Lessons of the LEAA Experience,” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 73, no. 3 (Autumn, 1982): 996-998. 241
version of the urban renewal program sought to “stimulate private economic activity … in the nation’s most distressed urban areas.”531 Although dissimilar to the deteriorating inner city neighborhoods targeted by this legislation, Surprise qualified due to its location in an urban county and its metrics relative to income levels and substandard housing.532 UDAG funding regulations stipulated “a firm commitment of private resources.”533 With developers circling the town in pursuit of opportunities to leverage the availability cheap land and the success of age- restricted communities, this requirement presented no problems for the town council. Under the legislation’s provisions, a community had multiple options, including transferring the funds directly to the developer. In early 1983, the town applied for grants for four projects totaling $4.9 million. In May of that year, the town received and transferred $625,000 to the developers of Sunflower RV
Resort, who used the funding to finance infrastructure expansions by Mountain
Bell Telephone Company and Arizona Public Service. This represented the first of many UDAG funding allocations in Surprise.534
Arizona also served as an indirect and direct financial partner for Surprise in its effort to promote growth. Improvement districts, a state-defined funding vehicle, provided financing for infrastructure upgrades in newly annexed areas through taxation and assessments. In 1983, town leaders, following state guidelines, established an industrial development authority. Two years later, this body authorized the sale of $17.5 million in bonds to support the development of
531 TCM, May 12, 1983, COSCCA. Jerry A Webman, “UDAG: Targeting Urban Economic Development,” Political Science Quarterly, 96, no. 2 (Summer, 1981): 191.
532 Webman, “UDAG,” 189-191.
533 Ibid., 190.
534 Webman, “UDAG,” 191. TCM, February 10, 1983, May 12, 1983, COSCCA. 242
an apartment complex. In 1988, Surprise gained access to another local government funding apparatus: the Community Facilities District (CFD).
Developed in California in response to the financial constraints imposed by voters’ passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, the Mello-Roos Community Facilities
Act of 1982 granted these entities bonding and taxing authority to finance a wide array of public facilities. Following the lead of its western neighbor, Arizona enacted similar legislation six years later. At the request of property owners
(typically developers), municipalities could establish CFDs to finance schools, landscaping, lakes, parking, roads, police and fire facilities, and other forms of infrastructure. Since assessments and taxation only applied to those living within the district, towns like Surprise could encourage development without burdening existing residents with the costs of infrastructure.535
The state also provided direct funding to local governments. The 1981 legislature established the Local Transportation Assistance Fund. This authorized the Department of Transportation to dispense proceeds from the
Arizona State Lottery to municipal entities for road maintenance. The Surprise
Town Council repeatedly used these funds to upgrade and repair streets in the original town site.536
535 TCM, February 23, 1983, November 27, 1985, June 23, 1988, March 9, 1989, August 10, 1989, COSCCA. TOS Resolution 83-8, February 23, 1983, COSCCA. DPFG, “Comparison of Improvement Districts and Community Facilities Districts,” November 2, 2004,” http://www.dpfg.com/news/view_news.php?newsID=25 (accessed August 16, 2012). DPFG, “Arizona Community Facilities Act Overview,” September 6, 2004, http://www.dpfg.com/news/view_news.php?newsID=17 (accessed August 12, 2012). Anne C. Cowden, “A Public Sector Lexicon: California Style,” State and Local Government Review 21, no. 3 (Autumn, 1989): 116, 121. Prescott Valley, “Community Facilities Districts,” n.d., http://www.pvaz.net/index.aspx?page=180 (accessed August 5, 2012).
536 Resolution No. 86-12, April 26, 1984, COSCCA. TCM April 24, 1986, April 23, 1987, COSCCA. 243
Diverging Perspectives on Community
The 1978 strip annexation committed the town to expansion, altering council members’ understanding of Surprise and their role as its leaders. After 1981, preparing for growth, dealing with developers, and addressing the needs of new residents became the dominant business of the council. For existing residents, the annexation seemed irrelevant in the short and mid-term. The land on the west side of the community remained farmland for a decade or more. They understood Surprise in terms of the original town site and their continued frustrations with the problems associated with the condition of their community.
This disparity between town leaders and residents in terms of their definition of community created tension.
A comparison of council meeting minutes during these two decades reveals members’ shift in perspective on their community. For example, from
December 1974 through February 1975, the records reflect the council’s preoccupation with town celebrations and the rodeo grounds, two items members viewed as major areas of responsibility. The council discussed details relative to
Founders’ Day and the annual Christmas party. They agreed to requests by other groups to use the rodeo grounds for events such as a Mexican rodeo and they dealt with the need for rules and regulations relative to use of that facility. The council also addressed town needs, including new stop signs, a revised street lighting plan, basketball equipment for the park, insurance for the police, and supplies for the town hall.537
537 TCM, December 5, 1974, December 19, 1974, January 2, 1975, January 16, 1975, February 6, 1975, February 20, 1975, COSCCA. With regard to council meeting minutes, this group also conducted business in unofficial settings. 244
Eleven years later, the group’s minutes demonstrate that the size, scope, and complexity of the issues they considered had increased dramatically. In seven meetings from December 1985 through February 1986, the group never discussed town celebrations or the rodeo grounds. During this three-month interval, they debated and passed major ordinances and resolutions relative to the construction and operation of wastewater and water facilities. The council also annexed additional property and awarded a contract for the development of a master plan. Members dealt with requests for zoning changes, liquor licenses, and bingo permits by the developer of a new retirement community on the far western edge of the annexed territory. The council also addressed zoning issues, citizen complaints, zoning variances and other routine matters in the original neighborhoods, however, these items represented a relatively minor portion of their meeting agendas.538
An administrative element of council operations also provides insight into how the business of the council changed substantially in a relatively short period.
In 1965, Mayor Harold Yingling asked each council member to assume responsibility for one area of municipal operations – a small town version of the city commissioner system. His successors carried on this tradition. In 1979,
Mayor George Cumbie assigned members oversight of the rodeo grounds, volunteer fire department, parks and recreation, the community center, police, town hall, and public works. In 1989, as the challenges of growth overshadowed the need to micro-manage the rodeo grounds, the community center, or the town hall, new mayor Roy Villanueva designated police, administration, zoning, parks
538 TCM, December 12, 1985, December 23, 1985, January 9, 1986, January 23, 1986, February 13, 1986, and February 27, 1986, COSCCA.
245
and recreation, public works, sanitation, and police as council members’ assignments.539
In their plans for the 1987 Founders’ Day celebration, the council put an exclamation point on their new understanding of community. Seeking to change
“the image of Surprise as a small migrant farm worker labor camp,” town leaders embraced a “new thrust in the scope of Founders Day.”540 In partnership with a large home construction firm and a regional economic development organization, the council attempted to turn the annual celebration into a “major event in the
Valley.”541 In addition to the traditional rodeo, parade, and carnival, the group added a golf tournament and tours of the annexed areas and the new developments.542
Even as the council pursued a new identity for Surprise, the condition of the town continued to drive citizens to that body in search of improvements.
Fixated on financing, legal entanglements, developer deals, and other challenges, the council’s response to these request sometimes fell short. The group’s most egregious failure involved a proposed park in the African American section of town, what became Three Star Park.
The park and its proposed location held significance for the black community for multiple reasons. First, it served as the site of the African
American school until 1951 when the Dysart District adopted integration. Also, its development represented an attempt to upgrade a generally neglected section of
539 TCM, July 18, 1965, July 12, 1979, June 8, 1989, COSCCA.
540 ST, “Founders Day Observances Planned,” November 1987.
541 Ibid.
542 Ibid.
246
the town. Third, its name honored the athletic achievements of three grandsons of Chester Marshall, one of the original residents of Surprise, a founder of the
Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church, and a leader in the town’s African
American community. LaNorris “Cricket” Marshall, Tim Williams, and LaMonte
King excelled in track and field on a local and national level. As a Dysart High
School student, Marshall set a national record in the sixty-yard dash at the 1978
Muhammad Ali Games in Long Beach, California, rising to third place in world rankings. Later that year, he competed in the Junior Olympics in Moscow. Also in
1978, LaMonte King won the long jump at the AAU National Junior Track and
Field Championships. He also competed in the Moscow Junior Olympics. Tim
Williams won local and national contests in the long jump. All three planned to compete in the 1980 Olympics, a goal lost when President Carter decided to boycott the Moscow games.543
Although community activists repeatedly pressed for developing the park, the council allowed the issue to languish for eleven years. The site became available as part of a 1978 sale agreement between the property owner, the
Dysart School District, and the towns of El Mirage and Surprise. El Mirage used its portion of the parcel to upgrade water service. Surprise reserved its section for a park. One year later, council member John Rosales initiated planning for what was then called Jerry Street Park. In 1980, the town applied for a grant to
543 PT, “Marshall is First at Ali Track Meet,” January 13, 1978. PT, “Surprise Lauds ‘Cricket,’” April 28, 1978. PT, “LaMonte King AAU Nationals Long Jump Win,” June 30, 1978. PT, “Coach, Former Dysart Athletes Have Sights Set on Olympics,” January 5, 1979. Richard Hymans, “The History of the United States Olympic Trials – Track and Field,” 2008, http://www.usatf.org/statistics/champions/OlympicTrials/HistoryOfTheOlympicTrials.pdf (accessed September 8, 2012). USA Track and Field, “Golden West Invitational: Boys Year by Year Champions,” http://www.goldenwestinvitational.org/data/boysyearbyyearchamps.html, (accessed September 8, 2012). 247
implement those plans. In August 1981, Jerry Street resident Minnie Williams questioned the lack of progress on the site. In response, council member Jerry
Gaines, newly assigned to park oversight, initiated some improvements.544 At their November 12, 1981 meeting, the council accepted the recommendation of a citizens’ committee and adopted the name Three Star Park, honoring the three athletes. Residents then engaged the council in “a lengthy and heated discussion” about the lack of progress on the site.545
Despite the protests, the park remained unfinished for another eight years. Work reconvened in 1987 when Minnie Williams once again challenged the council’s lack of action on the project. In response, town leaders appointed
John Rosales to head a citizen’s task force on the issue. One month later,
Williams replaced Rosales. Under her leadership, the committee provided regular progress reports at council meetings and initiated a successful fund raising campaign, receiving contributions from organizations and companies such as the
Lions Club and Thunderbird Bank. In 1988, the council applied for and received
CDBG funding to complete the park. Construction began in 1989 and the park dedication took place that year.546
Three Star Park provides one example of how divergent perspectives on the meaning of community created tension between some residents of the original town site and the town council. While the former defined Surprise in
544 TCM, February 9, 1978, August 9, 1979, March 13, 1980, August 13, 1981, August 27, 1981, September 24, 1981, COSCCA.
545 TCM, November 12, 1981, COSCCA.
546 TCM, June 11, 1987, July 9, 1987, August 13, 1987, October 8, 1987, October 22, 1987, December 3, 1987, December 17, 1987, February 11, 1988, April 26, 1988, August 4, 1988, February 23, 1989, March 23, 1989, July 27, 1989, August 24, 1989, September 28, 1989, COSCCA. 248
terms of their neighborhoods and the persistent existing deficiencies, the council focused on the annexed area and the possibilities inherent in its development.
The Arrival of Transformational Developments
In the mid-1980s, developers began constructing three residential communities that significantly altered the identity of Surprise. Their locations portended the future shape, size, and gravitational center of the town. The demographics of the market segments targeted by the developers of these communities stood in sharp contrast to those of the residents of the original town site. Developers’ use of harmonized and standardized materials and designs set a new standard for
Surprise neighborhoods. The size of these new residential areas meant their presence exerted a significant influence on the existing community. In sum, the arrival of Happy Trails, Kingwood Parke, and Sun Village proved transformative.
Figure 8.1. A map depicting the location of the new developments in Surprise in the mid-1980s. (Map by Vince Colburn)
249
All three developments depended on a major infrastructure initiative: the
Bell Road Improvement Project (BRIP). While today’s Valley residents understand Bell Road as “the busiest surface street in Arizona,” until 1986, it was just a dirt road west of Grand Avenue.547 After investors approached the council about developing single-family and retirement communities northwest of the original town site, Town Manager Harold Yingling worked with developers, landowners, and governmental agencies to form the Bell Road Improvement
District. Surprise contributed $800,000 of the $8.5 million required to transform the dirt road into a six-lane arterial from Grand Avenue to Cotton Lane and a four-lane street west of that point. The project included streetlights, gutters, medians, and landscaping. The council reviewed the construction bids at a special meeting on May 16, 1985 and, by August 22, Yingling could report that the project was proceeding on schedule. Its completion signaled the start of development on the west side of Surprise.548
The significance of Happy Trails in terms of redefining Surprise centers primarily on its location at Cotton Lane and Bell Road. Located five miles west of the original town site, the development was an island in a landscape of cotton, citrus, vegetables, and open desert. It served as a marker for Surprise’s western boundary for over a decade. As one early resident of Sun Villages noted,
547 Dustin Gardiner, “Surprise mulls overpass for Bell Road, Grand Avenue intersection,” AzCentral, July 2, 2012, http://www.azcentral.com/community/surprise/articles/2012/06/28/20120628surprise- mulls-overpass-bell-road-grand-avenue-intersection.html (accessed July 4, 2012).
548 The second page of a newspaper report on economic development projects in the news clipping file, circa 1985, COSHPA. Yingling, interview, August 7, 2008. TCM, November 8, 1984, April 11, 1985, May 16, 1985, August 22, 1985 COSCCA. Resolution 85-1, January 24, 1985, COSCCA.
250
“[a]nyone west of Grand Avenue was considered a brave pioneer.”549 Opened in
January 1986, the resort consisted of mobile homes, manufactured homes, and recreational vehicle sites on 382 acres that also included resort amenities such as a golf course and clubhouse. As with many Valley developments, a Home
Owners Association (HOA) enforced design, use, and maintenance standards.
Its location on the north side of Bell Road foreshadowed the town’s northward expansion. With more than 500 residents, albeit mostly seasonal, Happy Trails possessed the necessary population mass to influence the evolution of
Surprise.550
East of Happy Trails, a large single-family development reset the town’s demographics. A middle-class, non-retiree community with green belts, commercial spaces, and community facilities, Kingswood Parke served as a forerunner for dozens of similarly planned developments that emerged in the area in the next two decades. With standard lot sizes, stucco exteriors, tile roofs, and walled lots, the community contrasted with the original town site where it was more likely to see chain link fences, varying lot sizes, differing materials, and unique designs. The presence of an HOA also set the community apart from the original neighborhoods. Kingswood Parke’s location north of Bell road, two miles west of the original town site affirmed the future growth pattern of Surprise.551
Sun Village’s arrival served as an exclamation point on the vision of
Surprise established by Happy Trails and Kingswood Park. Opened in 1986, the
549 Iverson, Sun Village History, 57.
550 Bruce Ellison, “Until We Meet Again: Seasonal Visitors Flock to Happy Trails,” ST, February 1997. ST, “Happy Trails Has Visitors,” December 1987.
551 Mary Dumond, “Developers Unveil Plans for 27-acre Subdivision near SCW,” SCDNS, June 10, 1987. ST, “Kingswood Parke: A Great Development,” November 1987.
251
adult community’s condominiums and detached homes surrounded a golf course and a large recreation center. The gated community featured standardized common areas that harmonized with the materials and designs used in the residences. An HOA enforced standards relative to changes and use of buildings and property. Situated north and one mile west of the original town site, Sun
Village also forecasted the direction of future expansion.552
Fig. 8.2. The Sun Village Golf Course and Lake. Courtesy the City of Surprise.
These new communities also shifted the social center of Surprise. A comparison of calendars published in the town newsletter in 1987 and 1989 demonstrate how new residents began to influence the town. In 1987, the majority of events occurred at traditional locations, such as the Surprise
Community Center and the Dysart Community Center. Only one event, a Lion’s
Club meeting, took place in the new developments. By 1989, the location of social happenings had shifted dramatically. Sun Village served as host for five events; nine occurred at the new retirement communities on the east side of town
552 Iverson, Sun Village History, 4, 155-160. 252
(Sun Flower, Sun Ridge, and Rose Garden), and nine took place at traditional locations. New residents, in particular retirees in new sections of town, had begun to reshape the social fabric of the community.553
A Political Transition
During the latter half of the 1980s, after two decades of dominance by the north- side coalition, the town’s leadership shifted once again. Voters’ frustration with the actions and, in some cases, inactions of the council, coupled with an influx of new residents, created an opening for critics of Mayor Cumbie and his allies. Led by Roy Villanueva, a diverse group of civic activists reshaped the operations of the council and the town’s staff. They adopted rules for council proceedings and embraced a more transparent and inclusive approach to conducting town business.
The dominance of the north-side coalition began to wane in the latter half of the 1980s. An earlier change to the election process may have helped the coalition retain control until 1989. In 1979, the council proposed and voters approved four-year staggered terms for its members. The shift from two-year terms created continuity and more stability on the council; it also made it more difficult for those displeased with the group’s actions to effect change. In particular, it helped Mayor Cumbie retain power for another decade. Fewer positions in play each election cycle reduced Cumbie’s task in terms of identifying and garnering support from potential allies. Additionally, although he
553 ST, “Regularly Scheduled Calendar of Events,” December 1987. ST, “Regularly Scheduled Calendar of Events,” March 1987. 253
drew a short straw in 1979 and had to run in 1981 and 1985, Cumbie avoided a
1987 election, one he might have lost.554
The mayor and his north-side allies used a variety of means to retain control of the council through the 1980s. In the 1981 election, they went outside of their traditional support network and formed an alliance with Reyes Aguilar and
Noberto Allen, assuring a majority position on the council. Three months after the election, coalition member Eugene Wilcox advised Cumbie of his intent to resign.
Anticipating a move by his opponents to use this opening to improve their position, Cumbie lined up votes for his choice of a successor, Jerry Gaines (son of north-side coalition ally and former council member Floyd Gaines), before
John Rosales and Roy Villanueva knew of the vacancy. At the council’s August
13, 1981 meeting, Cumbie announced the resignation and orchestrated the vote on a replacement before Villanueva and Rosales could find an alternative candidate.555
While the 1983 and 1985 contests produced majorities for the coalition, the results of the 1987 election indicated a growing displeasure among voters
554 Election Log, COSCCA. TCM, June 14, 1979, COSCCA. After the election, members drew straws to determine whose term would expire in 1981 and who would run in 1983.
555 Election Log, COSCCA. TCM, June 11, 1981, August 13, 1981, COSCCA. Although the composition of political alliances is rarely clear in the records, the vote for mayor after each election is a good predictor of how council members will align on most issues during their terms. In the June 11, 1981 council meeting, Cumbie’s nomination for mayor received the votes of Wilcox, Robinson, Allen, and Aguilar. Rosales received his vote and Villanueva’s. However, the town’s ever-changing political landscape makes proceeding with caution imperative when making assumptions about alliances. For example, in the 1987 election, Roy Villanueva, a staunch opponent of Mayor Cumbie, and Reyes Aguilar, a strong supporter, ran on the same slate. Because Aguilar lost the election and there is no record of his votes on contested issues, it is not clear if he had changed his allegiance from Cumbie to Villanueva. However, Villanueva won and continued to oppose Cumbie on many issues. SCDNS, “Voting in Surprise City Election Described as Slow but Steady,” May 19, 1987. 254
with north-side leaders. In the primary election, eleven candidates ran for four seats and only Samuel Longoria, not a member of the north-side coalition, achieved the necessary votes to avoid a general election run-off. In that contest, two long-time supporters of Cumbie, Reyes Aguilar and Charlie Robinson, lost their bids to return to the council. Cumbie managed to retain control because his ally Eugene Miles won re-election, and Cumbie successfully forged an alliance with two of the victors, Lupe Cisneros and Longoria.556
Cumbie’s actions after the election further eroded his support among residents. First, when members of the African American community approached the council on May 28, 1987 requesting use of the community center for a
Juneteenth celebration, Cumbie and Miles insisted that the group pay for security and post a housekeeping deposit. Council member Gaines persuasively argued that the town absorbed these costs for the Cinco de Mayo and Fourth of July festivities and should do the same for the independence celebration of black residents. A majority of the council agreed with Gaines. Displeased with the outcome, Miles and Cumbie restated their objections at the next council meeting.
The majority stood by their original decision. The celebration took place and, with an estimated 200 attendees, proved to be a big success. However, Cumbie and
Miles’ stance rankled many residents, some of whom were already dismayed by the council’s lack of action on Three Star Park. A discussion of the issue in four separate articles in the Sun City Daily News-Sun attests to the depth of some residents’ displeasure with their town leaders.557
556 Election Log, COSCCA. SCDNS, “Voting in Surprise City Election Described as Slow but Steady,” May 19, 1987. Mary Dumond, “Surprise Voters Unseat 2 Veteran Councilmen,” SCDNS, May 20, 1987. TCM, June 11, 1987, COSCCA.
255
Next, Cumbie orchestrated the dismissal of Town Manager Harold
Yingling, angering another group of Surprise residents. He gathered support for this action outside of official meetings. Correctly anticipating the objections of three council members, he chose not to inform them about his intentions. At their
June 11, 1987 session, after the swearing-in of new members, the council proceeded with its bi-annual task of re-appointing employees who reported directly to that body. Gene Miles moved to terminate the employment of Yingling, catching all but Cumbie and his allies by surprise.558 As expected, Villanueva and two others voted against the motion. Cumbie voted for dismissal, breaking a three-to-three tie. After the meeting, Villanueva stated that he wanted “to go on record as disagreeing with the handling of the termination.”559
After the June 11 meeting, Cumbie alienated another segment of the community. He removed Jerry Gaines as head of Parks and Recreation, a position Gaines had held for six years. During his tenure, Gaines introduced a T-
Ball program and generated financial support for numerous sports leagues and activities. These efforts and his work as a coach earned him the support of many parents. Two weeks prior to his ouster, 300 T-Ball competitors and their family members attended an honors banquet at the community center. This constituency immediately voiced their displeasure with Gaines’ removal. Some
557 Mary Dumond, “Gaines Fights Removal as Surprise Parks Boss,”SCDNS, June 20, 1987. Mary Dumond, “Surprise Celebrates Black Independence Day,”SCDNS, June 20, 1987. Mary Dumond, “Aguilar Gains Recount after Close Loss,” SCDNS, June 20, 1987. Mary Dumond, “Surprise Residents Direct Anger toward Town Council,” SCDNS, June 12, 1987. TCM, May 28, 1987, June 11, 1987, COSCCA.
558 Mary Dumond, “Surprise Council Fires Yingling: Aide Walks Out,” SCDNS, June 12, 1987. Mary Dumond, “Surprise Residents Direct Anger toward Town Council,” SCDNS, June 12, 1987. TCM, June 11, 1987, COSCCA.
559 Mary Dumond, “Surprise Council Fires Yingling: Aide Walks Out,” SCDNS, June 12, 1987. 256
viewed it as political retaliation for Gaines’ failure to support Cumbie on several key issues, including the Juneteenth decision and the dismissal of Yingling.560
As angry residents began to organize and vocalize their displeasure,
Cumbie moved quickly to install a new town manager. At the next council meeting, he nominated his longtime friend Nick Bacon for the position. While
Bacon lacked experience in town management, his resume included twenty-one years of service in the United States Army and administrative positions with the
Veteran’s Administration and Phoenix Baptist Hospital. Roy Villanueva argued for hiring someone with experience in town management and using the resources of the Arizona League of Towns and Cities in the search and hiring process.
Cumbie, dismissing Villanueva’s request, called for a motion on hiring Bacon and broke the three-to-three tie with his vote for his candidate.561
With a majority on the council and his long time friend in the town manager position, Cumbie took another step that incensed many residents; he severely restricted public questions and comments at council meetings. Bacon screened all requests for slots on the agenda and, at the majority of the council’s direction, answered all policy and administrative questions in writing. Citizens dissatisfied with council actions found themselves shut out of the official discussions.562
560 Mary Dumond, “Gaines Fights Removal as Surprise Parks Boss,” SCDNS, June 20, 1987. Mary Dumond, “Yingling successor reportedly found,” SCDNS, June 16, 1987.
561 Mary Dumond, “Ex-MedVet Official Seeks Surprise Job,” SCDNS, June 20, 1987. Mary Dumond, “Surprise Council Appoints New Town Manager,” SCDNS, June 26, 1987. TCM, June 25, 1987.
562 TCM, July 23, 1987, COSCCA. David Rosemiller, “Recall Effort Veers, Adds Town Manager as Target,” Phoenix Gazette, October 5, 1987. 257
The combination of the Juneteenth insult, the removal of Gaines, the firing of Yingling, the lack of progress on projects in the original town site, and the restrictions on public participation in council deliberations generated a fierce reaction. One resident formed a watchdog committee to observe and report on council actions.563 Annette Clendenen described the council majority as a group
“acting on personal conflicts instead of professional decisions.”564 She characterized Cumbie as a leader who “uses the government as his ‘political machine to serve his own interests.’”565 Displeased residents also began picketing council meetings and initiated a recall effort. They fell sixteen signatures short of the number required to force an election but continued to press for change and achieved a victory in the 1989 general election two years later.566
The 1989 election significantly altered the town’s political landscape. Six candidates, including Cumbie, vied for three council openings. Most importantly,
Clark Maxon became the first person residing outside of the original town site to run for and to win a council seat. Retired from a management position at a national corporation, Maxon possessed skills and experience atypical of traditional Surprise council candidates. In the 1989 election, four of his
563 Mary Dumond, “Surprise Residents Direct Anger toward Town Council,” SCDNS, June 12, 1987. SCDNS, “Music, Fireworks, Event Mark Surprise July 4 Celebration, June 16, 1987.
564 Mary Dumond, “Surprise Residents Direct Anger toward Town Council,” SCDNS, June 12, 1987.
565 Victoria Stevens, “Recall Bid in Surprise Has Failed,” Arizona Republic, October 1987.
566 David Rosemiller, “Recall Effort Veers, Adds Town Manager as Target,” Phoenix Gazette, October 5, 1987. Victoria Stevens, “Recall Bid in Surprise Has Failed,” Arizona Republic, October 1987. 258
opponents lacked a high school diploma. In his campaign, he argued for a more professional approach to municipal governance, an appeal that resonated with many voters; on Election Day, he garnered the most votes. Residents also selected local business owners Danny Arismendez and LeRoy George to serve on the council.567
Two outcomes of the 1989 election proved important to the town’s subsequent emergence as a twenty-first century boomburb. First, George
Cumbie, a leader who lacked the expertise and many of the skills required to deal with the complex issues associated with growth, lost his position as mayor.
In the 1980s, as the decisions facing the council became increasingly complicated, a close reading of the council minutes reveals a mayor more focused on the ceremonial and celebratory aspects of his position than the details of lawsuits, master plans, and infrastructure projects. In the prior decade, as noted in chapter six, Cumbie engaged in deliberations on relatively straightforward issues, but deferred to others on more challenging problems. An individual who served with Cumbie on the Dysart School Board during the 1970s recalls a similar lack of engagement by Cumbie on the thorny issues confronting that body.568
567 Paul Jutzi, “6 Compete for 3 Surprise Council Seats,” SCDNS, May 15, 1989. Paul Jutzi, “New look: Mayor Loses Re-election Bid in Surprise,” SCDNS, May 17, 1989. TCM, August 10, 1989, December 14, 1989, COSCCA.
568 TCM, July 10, 1986, October 26, 1988, November 10, 1988, COSCCA. At the October 26, 1988 meeting, the council reviewed and discussed water and sewer plans and a legal services agreement. Cumbie’s only contribution involved a report on his visit to Ellis Air Force Base and a parade at Happy Trails. At the November 11, 1988 meeting, the council discussed an important lawsuit involving Citizens Utility Company, annexation requests, and vehicle purchases. Cumbie announced an upcoming ribbon cutting at a new mall and his fifth place finish at the Westside Food Bank’s chili cook off. E-mail to author, from a former Dysart School Board member who served on that body with Cumbie in the 1970s, September 12, 2012. 259
While Cumbie excelled at behind-the-scenes political maneuvering, his contributions to the community during the 1980s appear anemic. His obsession with rewarding allies and thwarting opponents threatened progress on some initiatives. Town Attorney Robert McCoy and the town managers, first Harold
Yingling and then Nick Bacon, steered the council through the complex sets of options, decisions, and actions associated with infrastructure, financing, annexation, and developer agreements. Other council members took an active role on important projects. Roy Villanueva served as the council representative on the master plan citizen’s advisory board. As that work progressed, he monitored council decisions, alerting the group to potential conflicts with the final product. When the town needed a title company, Villanueva, Bacon, and McCoy reviewed the proposals and made the recommendation on the selection of a firm.
When Cumbie’s political moves threatened the viability of an important infrastructure project, McCoy and Villanueva intervened and drove passage of an important resolution. Cumbie’s firing of the town manager and hiring of a replacement with no experience in municipal management in the midst of legal entanglements, a general revenue bond measure, and multiple large initiatives created needless risk for the town.569 After his loss, Cumbie stated, “Heaven help the town of Surprise,” revealing his inflated understanding of his contributions to the community and his lack of understanding as to how his actions hindered progress on important issues.570
569 TCM, May 12, 1983, February 13, 1986, June 9, 1988, June 11, 1987, June 25, 1987, July 9, 1987, COSCCA. Election Log, COSCCA.
570 Paul Jutzi, “New look: Mayor Loses Re-election Bid in Surprise,” SCDNS, May 17, 1989. 260
After the 1989 election, the new council selected Roy Villanueva to serve as mayor, a move that reset the governance process in Surprise in multiple ways. First, he altered the conduct of council meetings. While Cumbie often seemed disengaged, Villanueva established a strong presence. Rather than deferring to the town manager or other members, he directed the group’s deliberations. Villanueva also seemed to value town business more than political gamesmanship. Whereas Cumbie often held his fellow council members in suspense as to assigned areas of responsibilities, Villanueva announced those appointments immediately. He also reduced the cronyism typically associated with appointments. Rather than rewarding an ally with the lead position on the influential Planning and Zoning Commission, Villanueva asked the members of that group to submit a recommendation to the council. Additionally, working with
Clark Maxon, Villanueva introduced ordinances that formalized previously undefined council practices. One established the commission system and delineated the authority and responsibilities of council members. Another defined the position of the town manager, detailing that person’s responsibilities and relationship with the council. In sum, Villanueva increased mayoral engagement, codified previously ad hoc practices, established expectations, clarified responsibilities and relationships, and reduced opacity.571 A town manager who worked with Villanueva for over a decade describes him as a “tremendous asset to the city.”572
571 TCM, August 11, 1983, June 8, 1989, June 29, 1989, July 6, 1989, August 10, 1989. August 24, 1989, COSCCA.
572 Richard McComb, interview by Carol Palmer, February 11, 2009, audio recording, Surprise Arizona, COSHPA. 261
In sharp contrast with his predecessor, Villanueva took steps to increase citizen participation in council proceedings. He successfully championed a resolution establishing a public comment period as a standing agenda item. He also took council sessions outside of the town hall into neighborhood locales. On
September 26, 1989, the council held a workshop at Sun Village where members and town staff answered questions and provided updates on issues such as water and sewer projects. Two months later, at a public hearing at Happy Trails, council members replied to queries about lights on Bell Road, potholes on Cotton
Lane, and progress on establishing a fire and police substation in the western section of the town.573
In spite of Villanueva’s calm and respectful approach, political turmoil continued on the council. Personal dislikes, different agendas, and old grievances undergirded this turbulence. While some meeting minutes reveal a group working constructively on town business, others expose petty bickering, personal attacks, vindictive retaliations, and nasty accusations unworthy of a bad soap opera. At numerous council meetings, some residents demanded and others pleaded with council members to set aside their personal differences and deal with the issues facing the community. One Kingswood Parke denizen observed, “the council should grow up.” Working outside of the governance process, Cumbie fueled some of this dissension. On the council, his allies, Gene
Miles in particular, often tried to obstruct new initiatives. It should be noted that this group, while assisted by an inadequate staff, most of whom lacked the expertise to deal with the complex issues of a growing community, faced very difficult fiscal constraints, increasing demands from new residents, and the
573 TCM, June 8, 1989, September 26, 1989, November 21, 1989, COSCCA. 262
problematic condition of the original town site. However, the council’s ongoing acrimony and discord culminated in another recall election.574
On October 30, 1990, voters again reshaped the political algorithm of
Surprise. Cumbie lost his bid to regain a seat on the council and his three incumbent allies lost their seats. Their replacements, William Bott, Joan Shafer, and Tom Broich, resided in the new developments, as did incumbent Clark
Maxon. For the first time, residents of the original town site did not control the council. This new coalition joined forces with Roy Villanueva who retained his position as mayor. This election signaled the beginning of the fourth stage in the evolution of Surprise.575
Building a Professional Municipal Staff
After three decades of using kinship and friendship networks as source pools for town positions, the council took significant steps to professionalize town operations. In particular, the hiring of Richard McComb as town manager proved foundational in terms of guiding the council and staff through the complexities of growth and, in the process, reshaping the definition of Surprise. Unlike his predecessors, McComb had no allegiance to the community identity built by the long-time residents of the original town site. This represented a sharp break with past tradition.
574 McComb, interview, February 11, 2009. In his oral history interview, McComb describes Villanueva as “highly respected throughout the state.” S. Aguilar, interview, April 24, 2012. Sherry Aguilar, interview by Carol Palmer, July 26, 2012, Surprise, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. TCM, June 8, 1989, September 26, 1989, January 25, 1990, February 22, 1990, May 24, 1990, COSCCA.
575 Election Log, COSCCA. S. Aguilar, interview, April 24, 2012. S. Aguilar, interview, July 26, 2012. 263
The council had taken some steps to modernize and professionalize city operations in the previous decade. In 1981, Town Manager Harold Yingling worked with the governor’s Office of Economic Planning and Development to revise ordinances and produce a master plan that included a development guide.
This effort included updating rules and regulations relative to zoning and subdivisions. It provided town leaders and developers with a roadmap for growth.576
Five years later, the council took a bigger step. For almost five decades, residents had relied on volunteers to fight fires. In 1967, Mayor Grover King integrated the volunteer group into town operations. This support enabled the volunteers to obtain some training and equipment. Recognizing the need to upgrade fire operations to meet the needs of growth, the council transitioned to a professional fire department in 1986. Three volunteer firefighters and Chief Gil
Balcome became city employees; volunteer reserves filled the balance of the positions. One year later, the town purchased its first new fire truck. Over the next two decades, the department expanded in terms of equipment, facilities, and staff. With growth came an emphasis on professional standards. Jesus Rivera and Renee Hamblin, both hired in 1998, remember having to pass a written exam, a physical agility test, and an oral interview.577
In 1990, two staff member departures created a significant opportunity to professionalize other town operations. After a short tenure filled with turmoil,
576 PT, “Surprise Aid Available,” April 24, 1981.
577 TCM, September 14, 1967, May 20, 1986, July 24, 1986, COSCCA. Clint Mills, “History of Surprise Fire,” 2009, COSHPA. Jesus Rivera, interview by Sherry Aguilar, December 22, 2008, audio recording, Surprise Arizona, COSHPA. Renee Hamblin, interview by Sherry Aguilar, December 8, 2008, audio recording, Surprise Arizona, COSHPA. 264
dissent, difficult challenges, and strident criticism, Town Manager Nick Bacon submitted his resignation. While Mayor Villanueva failed in his previous attempt to convince the council to use the resources of the Arizona League of Cities and
Towns in a search for a town executive, he succeeded on this occasion. As a result, that organization screened the town’s fifty-three applications. With a recall election looming, the council appointed an interim manager. Two weeks after voters went to the polls, the newly configured council selected a person with municipal management experience in Coolidge, El Mirage, and Gila Bend:
Richard McComb.578
According to Sherry Aguilar, McComb’s arrival meant “everything started happening.” 579 He quickly implemented changes that upgraded town operations.
For example, he hired a town attorney and streamlined the processes used by the Community Development Department.580 A high-energy “mover and shaker,” who arrived at town hall early and stayed late, McComb established high expectations for himself and his staff, resetting the work ethic at town hall.581
One of McComb’s first actions – hiring a replacement for Skip Luttrell - made a significant difference in terms of professionalizing town operations.
Stepping away from the tradition of appointing a crony, the council again used the services of an outside agency, the Arizona Association of Police Chiefs, to screen applications. McComb interviewed the top candidates, hiring Garvin
578 TCM, July 12, 1990, August 2, 1990, November 19, 1990, COSCCA. Richard McComb, interview by Paul Ferrante, March 16, 2009, Surprise, Arizona, video recording, COSHPA. McComb, interview, February 11, 2009.
579 S. Aguilar, interview, June 2, 2009.
580 Surprise City Info (henceforth abbreviated as SCI), “City’s Story May Catch Many by Surprise,” July 1997.
581 S. Aguilar, interview, January 27, 2009. 265
Arrell, who had retired as a captain from the Honolulu Police Department with twenty-five years of experience.582
Arrell’s actions improved police operations and prepared the organization for growth. He leveraged federal and state programs to purchase computers, bulletproof vests, motorcycles, and other equipment. Faced with contradictory rules, regulations, and general orders pieced together from departments in other cities, Arrell initiated a complete rewrite of all administrative manuals. He also convinced the town council to change the department’s designation from a marshal’s office to a police department, upgrading its standing with other law enforcement agencies. Recognizing the need to revamp operational procedures to deal with growth, he implemented patrol areas, revised dispatch processes, and upgraded other elements of the operation.583
Arrell also tackled the difficult issue of community relations. He arrived on the job to find residents picketing the department. After years of complaining about police favoritism, harassment, and misbehavior, disgruntled citizens had adopted a new form of protest. In response, Arrell implemented a series of community outreach programs designed to reduce the divide between the department and town residents. These included the Police Activities League in which department personnel organized and supervised outings for children and teenagers for roller skating, movies, and overnight trips to Disneyland. Officers worked with community members to raise funds for the program, further
582 TCM, August 2, 1990, COSCCA. Garvin Arrell, interview by Sherry Aguilar, September 9, 2009, Mesa, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA.
583 Arrell, interview, September 9, 2009. SI, “Surprise Police Chief Says Farewell,” circa 1991, news clipping file, COSHPA.
266
strengthening the department’s relations with residents. Arrell also introduced block watches, business security checks, a speakers’ bureau, and other initiatives that positioned the department as a partner, not merely an enforcer, in terms of crime suppression. Most importantly, he implemented the Citizens
Courtesy Patrol, a volunteer organization that brought residents inside the department to assist with administrative and patrol duties, such as vacation watches, traffic control, and perimeter patrol of crime scenes. When he retired in
2001, Arrell could boast about Surprise’s low crime rate relative to Arizona cities of similar size, a factor enhancing its appeal to investors interested in the
Northwest Valley.584
McComb also took actions that improved the town’s attractiveness to developers. One action stands out in terms of enabling growth and improving the condition of the original town site. While his predecessors struggled and fell short financially in their attempts to solve Surprise’s sewer problem, McComb succeeded. He leveraged their efforts, worked agreements with developers, and utilized loans and grants. On November 16, 1996, city officials dedicated the
800,000 gallon-per-day wastewater reclamation facility completed one year prior, broke ground on a two-and-a-half million gallon expansion of that operation, and announced the start of planning to increase its capacity to ten-million gallons.
584 Arrell, interview, September 9, 2009. SI, “Surprise police chief says farewell,” circa 2001, newspaper clipping file, COSHPA. Frank Caldwell, interview by Sherry Aguilar, December 10, 2008, Surprise, Arizona, audio recording, COSHPA. Surprise Police Department, “IACP/SAIC Outstanding Achievement in Law Enforcement Volunteer Programs Award Application,” circa 2009, COSHPA. Citizen dissatisfaction with the police surfaced in the October 13, 1966 town council meeting and, as discussed in Chapter Five, resulted in a political change. Dissatisfaction with police conduct emerges consistently in subsequent decades. The Town Council Minutes of October 16, 1980 and December 14, 1989 provide examples.
267
Concurrent with the construction of the facility, crews laid sewer lines, removed septic tanks, and installed connections to homes in the original town site.585
The Boom Begins
As McComb assumed control of town operations and a new cohort formed a majority on the council, an economic downturn reset the pace of growth in
Surprise. During the first half of the 1980s, an influx of builders in the Valley, the deregulation of the savings and loan industry, and other factors converged to produce a construction boom. As occurred previously, this created an oversupply of new homes and building slowed significantly in the latter part of the decade.
Concurrently, after years of risk-laden lending and investment practices, many savings and loan institutions began to fail, creating a financial crisis for many home-building enterprises. In Surprise, some speculators and developers lost their land-holdings or sold them for a fraction of their original cost. Estes Homes, the developer of Kingswood Parke and Sun Village, went bankrupt, creating an opportunity for another firm to assume control of the two unfinished projects.
Although Surprise’s population almost doubled between 1980 and 1990 (from
3,723 to 7,122), the construction slowdown retarded growth until the mid-
1990s.586
585 McComb, interview, February 11, 2009. Dick McComb, “White Hair and Wrinkles: City Moves Ahead with Sewers,” SCI, December 1966. SCI, “City Plans Open House at New Sewage Plant,” November 1966. SCI, “Sewer Project Nears Completion,” November 1995. The developers of Sun Village/Kingswood Parke and Happy Trails had built facilities to serve their residents.
586 VanderMeer, Desert Visions, 308-11, 340. McComb, interview, February 11, 2009. Iverson, Sun Village History, 59, 161. SCI, “City’s Story May Catch Many by Surprise,” July, 1997. In its February 1997 edition, the town’s newsletter reported that single-family building permits grew from 358 in 1995 to 1,162 in 1996. 268
While civic leaders may not have welcomed this slow-down, it provided an opportunity to prepare for the hyper-growth that seemed inevitable. These preparations included upgrades to operations, infrastructure projects, and a plan to alleviate the fiscal problems McComb inherited when he became manager.
From a governance perspective, the council proposed and voters approved the adoption of council districts, ensuring that residents of the original town site would retain some political influence.587
Most importantly, McComb and members of the council developed a growth strategy. While welcoming age-restricted communities, their vision for
Surprise involved a more demographically diverse population. McComb, often assisted by Mayor Villanueva and other council members, began courting developers of single-family residential communities.588 They often encountered skepticism about the town’s ability to evolve into something more than a retiree enclave and “had to work really hard” to win the attention of this group.589 Armed with a presentation outlining the town’s attributes, McComb took advantage of every available forum to present an alternative vision for Surprise.590
These efforts paid off when the housing market rebounded. In 1996, the town issued 1,162 housing permits as compared to 358 in 1995. In 1997, new single-family and retiree developments opened in Surprise. In the latter category,
587 McComb, interview, February 11, 2009. Jeff Owens, “Voters OK District Plan,” ST, April 1997.
588 McComb, interview, February 11, 2009. Jeff Owens, “Voters OK District Plan,” ST, April 1997. SCI, “City’s story may catch many by Surprise,” July 1997.
589 McComb, interview, February 11, 2009.
590 Ibid.
269
the 4,000 acre Sun City Grand sold its first of a projected 9,400 homes. More upscale than its predecessors in terms of amenities, the development’s offerings included homes at the high end of the market. In contrast with Sun City Grand,
Arizona Traditions offered only 250 home sites in a community with amenities and housing options that resembled Sun Village and Sun City West. Despite the opening of two retiree enclaves, traditional developments began to dominate
Surprise’s construction landscape. Hancock Homes unveiled its third single- family development in Surprise: Mountain Vista Ranch. A one-square mile development on the south side of Bell Road, it featured homes for middle-income families. East of Mountain Vista Ranch, developers of West Point Town Center began construction on 2,200 single-family homes, several large multi-family complexes, and 150 acres of retail and commercial space. Concurrently, builders began breaking ground on new single-family homes in Fox Hill Run and
Kingswood Parke. The boom had begun. By 2000, the town had quadrupled in size, increasing from 7,122 in 1990 to 30,848.591
591 ST, “New Residents Get Grand Welcome,” March 1997. “Surprise to Get 600 Acre Development,” newspaper clipping file, circa 1996, COSHPA. SCI, “City’s Story May Catch Many by Surprise,” July 1997. Mary L. Crider, “Builder Invests in West Valley, ST, April 1997. SCI, “City Issues More than 1,800 Permits in 1996,” February 1997. David R. Beck, “Surprise Adds 5th Stop to Golf Lineup,” ST, March 1997. SCI, “Road Work May Slow Traffic around City,” April 1997.
270
Fig. 8.3. This map depicts some of the major developments in Surprise in the late-1990s. (Map by Vince Colburn)
Creating a New Understanding of Surprise
By 1991, the majority of the council and the town’s top executives had no ties to the original town site, no reminiscences about Founders’ Day Rodeo, no shared memories of the aromas from Lizard Acres, no common experiences of chopping cotton, and no mutual stories about homes constructed from used ammunition crates. New council members lived in planned, coordinated, controlled neighborhoods of tile and stucco surrounded by harmonized landscapes of palm trees, oleander, and lantana. From their perspective, the original town site might have seemed an out-of-place, out-of-date collection of makeshift and generally shabby structures; it had “nothing to offer the city.”592 Shedding decades of
592 McComb, interview, February 11, 2009. 271
tradition and history, city leaders implemented changes that re-imagined Surprise as a new and “thriving” place of growth and opportunity.593
First, the council proposed altering Surprise’s political status from a town to a city; in a 1991 election, seventy-five percent of the voters concurred. From a legal perspective, Arizona towns follow rules and regulations established by the state while cities operate under charters approved by residents. Most importantly, this change projected a new image of the community. While the term town suggests small, simple, quiet, and rural, city connotes large, sophisticated, and urban.594 Longtime residents understood Surprise as the former, a place where
“everybody knew everyone else.”595 This action signaled an end to that version of
Surprise. For City Manager Dick McComb, it meant, “we have come of age”596
In 1993, McComb severed another link with the town’s history. Struggling with a growing body of employees and a very small city hall, he purchased a retail complex on Bell Road on the north edge of the original town site to house city staff and the council. It provided an ideal solution. As the leases of other tenants expired and the staff increased, the city moved more employees into the vacant space. For many residents in the original town site, the town hall, Gaines
Park, and the adjacent community center represented the political and social hub of their community. They had celebrated holidays, staged fundraisers, and played sports in this section of their community. Moving the city’s staff and
593 Richard McComb, “White Hairs and Wrinkles,” ST, March-April 1991.
594 Richard McComb, “White Hairs and Wrinkles,” ST, March-April 1991. Election Log, COSCCA. News Article
595 M. Fulcher and R. Fulcher, interview, January 21, 2009.
596 Richard McComb, “White Hairs and Wrinkles,” ST, March-April 1991. Parker Leavitt, “Amid growth, Gilbert Keeps ‘Town’ Label, Rustic Roots,” Arizona Republic, September 11, 2012. 272
leaders represented a break with tradition. It also made a statement about the dwindling importance of what had been focal point of community activity. Thirteen years later, the city demolished the old town hall, removing a piece of the town’s past.597
Fig. 8.3. The courtyard of the retail complex that became the new city hall facility in 1993. Courtesy City of Surprise.
In 1997, led by McComb, the council took steps to move city operations completely away from the original square mile into a section of the strip annexation. The City of Phoenix owned property it acquired from the Department of Defense in 1947 after the closure of Luke Field. South of Sun Village and adjacent to West Point Town Center, the vacant parcel, an abandoned auxiliary airstrip, sat in the heart of the new developments as a blot on the landscape.
597 McComb, interview, February 11, 2009. Sherry Aguilar, email message to author, September 24, 2012. 273
Surprise city leaders, coveting the site for its central location, condemned it. In the resulting lawsuit, Surprise prevailed, purchasing the site from Phoenix for $5 million. City leaders retained 115 acres and sold the balance to a commercial developer. Eight year later, the town broke ground on the first structure in what would become multi-building city complex. In 2009, the last group of city employees moved from the Bell Road location to the new city hall on Statler
Drive.598
Fig. 8.4. The locations of the Surprise Town/City Halls. (Map by Vince Colburn)
598 McComb, interview, February 11, 2009. Bruce Ellison, “City Moves to Take Condemned Land: Surprise Declares Area Slum, Negotiates Deal with Phoenix,” ST, July 1997. Resolution No.97-64, October 9, 1997, COSCCA. Surprise Progress (henceforth abbreviated as SP), “New Digs: The Downtown Develops,” September, 2005.Used as an auxiliary airstrip, the Air Force stopped operations at the facility at the end of World War II. When Phoenix attempted to sell the property to a developer several years prior to Surprise’s condemnation, the Air Force objected, arguing new homes might hamper flight operations. In the development agreement, Surprise restricted it to non-residential uses. 274
Conclusion
In the late 1990s, Communications Director David Reuter made a decision that further distanced the community from its past. Relatives of Homer Ludden presented their case for Ludden as the founder of Surprise. Born in Surprise,
Nebraska, he became a prominent businessperson, state senator, and civic leader in Glendale. He and Flora Statler’s father were business partners in insurance, real estate, and other enterprises. In the 1920s, Flora Statler joined their business. When questioned about her role, Ludden’s relatives insisted she merely served as his lackey, while he made the decisions and the deals. Reuter liked the story and adopted it for Surprise. Long time residents protested. They had not heard of Homer Ludden and they pointed to the streets named for Statler and her daughter, Elizabeth Wusich, by the early town councils. Reuter stuck with the Ludden story and it became the official accounting of the founding of
Surprise, appearing on the city’s website and in other media. A common understanding of the earliest years of the community evaporated and Surprise,
Nebraska became the namesake for Surprise, Arizona.599
As Surprise entered the twenty-first century, new residents with different perspectives and ideas about place overshadowed long-term residents understanding of community as networks of kinship and friendship. These new inhabitants reshaped the town’s political, social, and cultural landscape, redefining Surprise as a modern, growing, middle-class community. They abandoned traditions and created new ones. Long-term residents, although a
599 S. Aguilar, interview, April 24, 2012. Janice Tarleton, “City May Need to Rewrite Story,” ST, January 19, 1999. Janice Tarleton, “Wearing Many Hats” Would-be City Founder Had Whirlwind Life,” ST, January 29, 1999. Glendale News, “Funeral Rites Held Tuesday for Mrs. Flora May Ludden, October 9, 1953. To further complicate matters, Statler and Ludden married in 1950. 275
minority, held on to their understanding of the town’s history; the landscape of the original town site remained unchanged. By 2000, two versions of Surprise existed – a boomburb and the legacy of a migrant farm worker community.
276
CHAPTER NINE
EPILOGUE
On February 10, 2010, City Clerk Sherry Aguilar welcomed city officials and residents to the first event celebrating the city’s fiftieth year of incorporation.
Assembled in the multi-story atrium of the new Surprise City Hall, attendees anticipated the official unveiling of the culmination of the Surprise History Project: a book and a DVD. After years of hearing new residents declare that “Surprise is a new city; it does not have history,” Aguilar presented a counter-narrative that described a community with an evolving identity, one initially based on farm labor and networks of kinship and friendship. Following in the footsteps of groups such as the Surprise Women’s Club and the north-side coalition, Aguilar wanted to reshape the meaning of Surprise. While the former leveraged incorporation to create a more orderly version of the town and the latter used celebrations to redefine Surprise as a Western community, Aguilar sought to reclaim a past that seemed buried under miles of new developments and thousands of new residents.600
History plays an important role in the complex interplay of place and identity. David Glassberg argues that our understanding of history comes from our experiences and our exposure to stories about the past in private and public venues. He contends that, “A sense of history locates us in space, with knowledge that helps us gain a sense of where we are … A sense of history
600 City of Surprise, Communications Department, Surprise11 Special Programming, “History Book Release,” February 11, 2010, http://www.surpriseaz.gov/files/granicus/surprise11specialprogramming.html (accessed July 4, 2011). 277
locates us in time, with knowledge that helps us understand when we are … And a sense of history locates us in society, with knowledge that helps us gain a sense of with whom we belong.601 Even as they connect us to places and people, stories of the past can mask as well as reveal. As G. J. Ashworth and
Brian Graham argue, “The creation of any heritage actively or potentially disinherits or excludes those who do not subscribe to, or are embraced within, the terms of meaning attending that heritage.”602 Robert Hayashi provides an example of historical exclusion in his examination of ethnic minorities in the
West, where traditional narratives minimize or omit their stories.603
Surprise’s new developments attracted people who embraced an ahistorical understanding of their community. They chose to imagine it as a new place, rendering the stories of the original residents irrelevant. Memories of chopping cotton, constructing homes from wood salvaged from ammunition crates, and using backyard privies did not fit their version of or vision for their community. Certainly, ideas about race, class, and ethnicity played a role in shaping new residents perceptions of the original square mile and the value of its past. Additionally, historic uses and zoning rendered most of the residential areas in that section of Surprise invisible. Until the opening of West Point Town Center in the late 1990s, new developments sat apart from the traditional neighborhoods. In figure 9.1, an aerial view of Surprise demonstrates how
601 Glassberg, Sense of History, 7.
602 G. J. Ashworth and Brian Graham, “Senses of Place, Senses of Time and Heritage,” in Senses of Place: Senses of Time, ed. G. J. Ashworth and Brian Graham, (Burlington: Ashgate, 2005), 5.
603 Robert T. Hayashi, Haunted by Waters: A Journey through Race and Place in the American West (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2007), 29.
278
commercial and retail structures on Bell Road block the view of houses in the first neighborhoods. On Grand Avenue, the railroad, open spaces, and industrial and commercial buildings obstruct the line of sight to the residences in the oldest neighborhoods. In 1993, the move of the city hall to Bell Road eliminated any need for new residents to venture beyond the periphery of the original town site.
In sum, they failed to see the oldest section of Surprise on many levels.
Fig. 9.1. An aerial view of Bell Road, Dysart Road, and Grand Avenue. Source: Google Earth, http://www.google.com/earth/index.html
New residents also had a financial incentive to ignore the heritage of the old neighborhoods. Cheap land on the urban fringe allowed them access to the suburban dream. Protecting and increasing the value of their investment required growing the community with more middle-and upper middle-class developments that could draw homebuyers and businesses to the community. The history of the
279
original town site lacked the cachet needed to attract members of this market segment. The story of a growing new city where new arrivals had an opportunity to shape the meaning of community seemed better suited for this task. As
Ashworth and Graham argue, “we create the heritage that we require and manage it for a range of purposes defined by the needs and demands of our present societies.”604 For the residents of Kingswood Parke, Mountain Vista
Ranch, and other growing residential developments, the concept of a new city fit their requirements.605
As a new and growing city, Surprise attracted thousands of homebuyers.
Although housing starts came to a standstill in 2008, astonishing statistics tell the story of frenetic construction in the prior decade. Between July 2004 and June
2005, thirty-seven construction firms broke ground on 7,075 residences - nineteen per day. City officials estimated that the community added fifty-four new residents each day – more than two per hour. In late 2005, concerned about infrastructure capacity, the city’s Community Development Department began to limit the number of building permits in the busiest construction zones to 500 per month.606
604 Ashworth and Graham, “Senses of Place, Senses of Time and Heritage,” 5.
605 The idea of Surprise as “new” permeated official communications. In a report in the city’s quarterly magazine, Economic Development Director John Hagen urged residents to “Think of Surprise in terms of a new paradigm.” He urged them to not “think in terms of east or west valley anymore … This area is what I call the ‘New Valley.’” SP, “Growing Economy Makes Surprise Tops in USA in Job Growth,” September 2006.
606 SP, “Snapshot,” June 2005. SP, “The Road to Surprise’s Economic Future May Need a Few More Lanes,” September 2004. SP, “Getting a Grip on Growth, November 2005. C. Ramirez, interview, April 23, 2009. In its September 2008 report to the Surprise City Council, the ad hoc Surprise Property Advisory Committee reported a 424 percent increase in foreclosures in the first six months of 2008 as compared to the same period in 2007. With foreclosures flooding the market, developers ceased new construction. 280
Fig. 9.2. A sign on Bell Road directing prospective homebuyers to new developments. Courtesy of the City of Surprise.
Anxious to serve this growing community, businesses flocked to Surprise.
In 2006, the city’s economic development director could report on seven shopping complexes in some stage of development. Every issue of the city’s quarterly magazine devoted one large section to a listing of new businesses.
Eager to attract more high paying positions, the city formed a partnership with
Sun Health to create a bioscience development program. Additionally, civic officials and commercial developers collaborated on plans for industrial 281
expansion on the property adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line.607
The rapid expansion of the Dysart School District reflected the growth in single-family housing and served as a testament to the success of city officials in terms of attracting a mix of age-restricted and family developments. In early
2006, the district announced plans to open three elementary schools and one high school campus in Surprise over the next twelve months. These additions brought the district’s total of new facilities in Surprise to thirteen since 2000.608
As the population increased, the city expanded in terms of employees and services. A staff of seventy-five in 1990 grew to 554 by 2005, reaching 837 in 2008. On September 22, 2007, the fire department opened a new fire station in
Sun City Grand, made plans for another opening in October, and broke ground on yet another new facility. At the future site of the city hall complex, Surprise opened the 94,000 square foot Public Safety Building.609
As the city expanded so did the availability of amenities. Much of this occurred on the site of the abandoned Luke Air Force Base auxiliary field acquired by the city from Phoenix in 1997. On September 8, 2007, an award winning twenty-five court tennis complex opened for business. It included a 9,200 square foot clubhouse, racquetball courts, and a table tennis area. Adjacent to
607 SP, “Growing Economy Makes Surprise Tops in USA in Job Growth,” September 2006. This article reported that Money Magazine had identified Surprise as number one in the nation in terms of rate of job growth between 1990 and 1995 – very old news in a city that had grown by a factor of six in the interim period. SP, “Recently Opened Businesses,” Fall 2007.
608 SP, “Growth: Dysart Builds Four Schools in Surprise,” February 2006.
609 City of Surprise Personnel Figures Per Budget Year, updated June 2012, COSCCA. SP, “Fire Safety: A Top Priority for the City of Surprise,” and “City Services Work in Harmony: Fire, Police, Courts, Prosecutor Unite in Service,” Fall 2007. 282
the courts, construction continued on the new city hall, which featured space for a collaborative higher education initiative. Three community colleges, two universities, and a technical school planned to use the facility to offer classes and degree programs. On the same property, the Heard Museum West offered residents an opportunity to enjoy the art and artefacts of the indigenous communities of the Southwest.610
Fig. 9.3. Surprise City Hall. Courtesy of the City of Surprise.
The crown jewel in the city’s inventory of amenities arrived in 2002, the
Surprise Recreation Campus. Located on property adjacent to the proposed new
610 SP, “Making a Racquet: Surprise Ready for Big-time Tennis,” Fall 2007. Sherry Aguilar, e-mail message to author, forwarding information from Tara Combs, July 28, 2009. Lesley Wright, “Surprise’s Communiversity to combine 2-year, 4-year study,” May 28, 2009, http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/05/28/20090528gl- nwvcommuniversity0529.html. SP, “New Digs: The Downtown Develops,” September 2005. 283
city center complex, this project offered residents easy access to a wide array of activities and services. Arizona voters’ approval of Proposition 302 in the 2000 general election allowed the City of Surprise to access funding for a community park, aquatics center, library, and a Major League Baseball spring training facility. In 2003, the Kansas City Royals and the Texas Rangers held their inaugural spring training season in Surprise.611
Fig. 9.4. The Surprise Stadium and the adjacent practice fields. Courtesy of the City of Surprise.
The completion of the recreation complex offered city leaders an opportunity to reset Surprise’s event and celebration agenda. In 2003, they relocated the Fourth of July celebration from a park in the original town site to the new facility, a move that angered many residents of the old neighborhoods.
611 Sherry Aguilar, e-mail message to author, forwarding information from Mark Coronado, July 27, 2009. 284
Several years earlier, the city began holding the annual Easter egg hunt at multiple locales. The 1997 event took place at Bicentennial Park and Kingswood
Parke Elementary School. With the opening of the Recreation Campus, city officials consolidated the festivities into one event at that site.612
The city council also introduced a new event – The Surprise Party. Held in early December at the Recreation Campus, this gala filled the gap left by the discontinuance of the Founders’ Day Celebration a decade earlier. Logistical problems and competition from other communities for bands and parade entries, made that event increasingly difficult to organize and manage. A council dominated by new residents considered the options then decided to abandon the two-decade old tradition. With no connection to the town’s first years, this action probably caused minimal angst for members new to Surprise. It put an exclamation point on their disinterest in the original town site and its heritage.
The Surprise Party, a new event celebrating a new place, better fit their idea of a community identity for Surprise.613
The completion of the Recreation Campus and the start of spring training solidified the supremacy of the new Surprise. With miles and miles of new construction, a population approaching 50,000, and multiple new public and commercial facilities, Surprise’s identity as a new community seemed secure.
The original town site, now a very small section of a much larger and rapidly expanding city, could be viewed benevolently. With an appearance antithetical to the planned neighborhoods of stucco and tile-roofed homes, it now seemed odd
612 Aguilar, interview, July 26, 2012. SP, “Surprise Happenings,” Spring 2007. Dick McComb, “Prayers, Easter and growth,” SCI, April 1997.
613 Aguilar, interview, July 26, 2012. SP, “Join Us at the Surprise Recreation Campus for Our Inaugural Surprise Party,” Fall 2002. 285
or quaint. However, its working-class appearance no longer seemed to pose a threat to the city’s potential to attract middle- and upper middle-class buyers. The sheer mass of the new Surprise had rendered the old Surprise irrelevant.
Although its post-millennium growth seemed breathtaking in terms of volume and pace, the evolution of Surprise from farm labor community to new city began seven decades earlier. As this study has demonstrated, the new
Surprise rested on layers of ideas about the meaning of community. Constructed out of the actions, decisions, and interactions of an ever-changing population possessing differing life experiences, beliefs, and values, these layers hold the clues that explain the evolution of a community and the emergence of a hyper- growth suburb. This interplay occurred within the over-arching narrative of growth in the Valley of the Sun. Federal programs, social justice movements, the emergence of age-restricted communities, and other external factors complicated these dynamics. This intricate combination of factors fueled the evolution of community identity and concurrently produced the elements that precipitated
Surprise’s hyper-growth after the turn of the century.
As noted above, the 2010 anniversary of Surprise’s incorporation provided an opportunity to record and to publish the stories of the town’s first decades. While she could not refashion the overarching identity of Surprise as a new community, City Clerk Sherry Aguilar could insert memories of the town’s first years into the narrative. The stories of farm work, dirt roads, resourcefulness, and extended families would not be lost.
Altering community identity by reclaiming the past involves holding or having access to power. Members of the Surprise Women’s Club leveraged their connections to city leaders to refashion the identity of their community. The
286
north-side coalition used networks of friends and family to establish a base of support for their efforts to redefine Surprise as a Western town. Aguilar used her position as city clerk and her access to council members to obtain official backing for the history project. The council enthusiastically endorsed the effort, provided funding for the project, and directed other departments to assist as required.
Knowing she needed additional expertise in the areas of research and writing,
Aguilar hired a historian. Adding a professional to the project enhanced her stature as project leader, increased the credibility of the initiative, and helped her counter the claim that, “Surprise has no history.”614
Aguilar knew the founder’s story might precipitate controversy. The city’s official version credited Glendale civic leader Homer Ludden with purchasing, platting, and naming the first parcel. Long-time residents of the original town site, including Aguilar and her parents, Retha and Larry Simmons, believed Ludden’s business partner and, later, wife, Flora Statler, deserved the credit for this action.
Concerned that the former communications director, Dave Reuter, changed the founder’s story with little evidence to support that action, she hoped the historian would resolve this question.615
The research produced both a conundrum and an answer. In his oral history, Dan Lundberg, city employee and son of Harold Lundberg, Flora Statler and Homer Ludden’s business manager, insisted that Ludden was the founder and Statler merely assisted in the business operations. Lundberg had a copy of a letter written by his father in 1999, in which he credited Ludden with founding
614 S. Aguilar, interviews, June 2, 2009 and April 24, 2012.
615 Ibid. 287
Surprise and El Mirage but noted that Statler “was very much involved.” 616 This version of Surprise’s origins conflicted with information provided by documents at the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office, the oral history of Statler’s daughter, an interview done by Harold Lundberg in 1984, and Statler’s 1953 obituary. The county documents proved the most compelling. All of the property records confirmed that Flora Statler purchased, platted, and sold the lots in the first and subsequent subdivisions in Surprise. None identified Homer Ludden.617 A sales agreement dated March 8, 1951, after Ludden and Statler married, recorded the sale of multiple properties in Surprise and El Mirage to Northern Water Valley
Utility Company by “Flora M. Ludden, wife of Homer C. Ludden, formerly Flora M.
Statler, an unmarried woman, as her sole and separate property” (italics added for emphasis).618 As to naming the parcel, Elizabeth Stoft recalls her mother repeatedly asserting that she chose the name because “she would be surprised if the town ever amounted to much.” However, it is very possible that Statler shared this observation with Ludden. Born and raised in Surprise, Nebraska, he might have suggested it as an appropriate name for the site.619
616 Dan Lundberg, interview by Paul Ferrante, November 18, 2008, Surprise, Arizona, video recording, COSHPA. Memorandum by Harold Lundberg, “Surprise and El Mirage – Its Beginnings,” December 22, 1999, COSHPA.
617 Stoft, interview, May 26, 2009. Thelma Heatwole, “Surprise Tales: Town Founder Is Described as Visionary,” Arizona Republic, October 10, 1984. Glendale News, “Funeral Rites Held Tuesday for Mrs. Flora May Ludden, October 9, 1953.
618 Maricopa County Recorder, Warranty Deed, 19380016253, http://recorder.maricopa.gov/recdocdata/ (accessed October 8, 2012. Maricopa County Recorder, Agreement, 19510033306, http://recorder.maricopa.gov/recdocdata/ (accessed, October 8, 2012).
619 City of Surprise, Communications Department, Surprise11 Special Programming, “History Book Release,” February 11, 2010, http://www.surpriseaz.gov/files/granicus/surprise11specialprogramming.html (accessed July 4, 2011). Dan Lundberg’s reasons for crediting Ludden remain a matter of speculation. Ludden’s relatives continue to insist that he deserves the recognition, not 288
At the February 10, 2010 ceremony, after unveiling the book, Aguilar went to another pedestal holding an object covered with a dark cloth and revealed a picture of Flora Statler. She also announced Statler’s reinstatement as the official town founder. Later that day, Communications Director Ken Lynch removed the story of Ludden from the town website and replaced it with one about Flora
Statler.620
Statler. After the book launch, they approached Aguilar on two occasions, insisting that she change the founder’s story. Aguilar agreed to do so if they presented evidence. They had none.
620 City of Surprise, Communications Department, Surprise11 Special Programming, “History Book Release,” February 11, 2010, http://www.surpriseaz.gov/files/granicus/surprise11specialprogramming.html (accessed July 4, 2011).
289
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ARCHIVAL AND MANUSCRIPT COLLECTIONS
City of Surprise. Surprise History Project Archive. Surprise, Arizona.
City of Surprise. City Clerk Archive. Surprise, Arizona.
Chicano Resource Collection. Hayden Library. Arizona State University. Tempe, Arizona.
Gutierrez, Gustavo. Papers. Chicano Research Collection. Hayden Library. Arizona State University. Tempe, Arizona.
Hayden, Carl T. Papers. Hayden Library. Arizona State University. Tempe, Arizona.
ORAL HISTORIES, CITY OF SURPRISE HISTORY PROJECT
Adair, Carolyn Cumbie. Interview by Carol Palmer. November 7, 2008. Surprise, Arizona, Audio recording.
Adair, Carolyn Cumbie. Interview by Paul Ferrante. March 10, 2009, Surprise, Arizona. Video recording.
Aguilar, Sherry Simmons. Interview by Paul Ferrante. June 2, 2009. Surprise, Arizona. Video recording.
Aguilar, Sherry Simmons. Interview by Carol Palmer. January 27, 2009. Surprise, Arizona. Audio recording.
Aguilar, Sherry Simmons, Interview by Carol Palmer. April 24, 2012. Surprise, Arizona. Audio recording.
Aguilar, Sherry Simmons. Interview by Carol Palmer. July 26, 2012. Surprise, Arizona, Audio recording.
Arrell, Garvin. Interview by Sherry Aguilar. September 9, 2009. Mesa, Arizona. Audio recording.
Beardon, Jackson. Interview by Sherry Aguilar. November 25, 2008. Surprise Arizona. Audio recording.
Bacon Family Siblings. Interview by Sherry Aguilar. Surprise, Arizona. January 28, 2012. Audio recording.
Blankenship, Don. Telephone interview by Carol Palmer. February 27, 2009. Kernville, Texas. Audio recording.
290
Butler, Mike. Interview by Paul Ferrante. December 8, 2008. Peoria Arizona. Video recording.
Caldwell, Frank. Interview by Sherry Aguilar. December 10, 2008. Surprise, Arizona. Audio recording.
Corbin, Emma. Interview by Sherry Aguilar. August 28, 2008. Surprise, Arizona. Audio recording.
Dunbar, John Wayne. Interview by Tara Murtagh and Timothy Williams. 1998, Surprise, Arizona. Video recording.
Espinoza, Margaret. Interview by Paul Ferrante. September 15, 2008. Surprise, Arizona, Video recording.
Espinoza, Margaret. Interview by Carol Palmer. October 20, 2008. Surprise, Arizona. Audio recording.
Fulcher, Roland and Martha Fulcher. Interview by Carol Palmer. January 21, 2009. Surprise, Arizona. Audio recording.
Gaines, Rosetta and Connie Gibson. Interview by Sherry Aguilar. March 4, 2009. Surprise, Arizona. Audio recording.
Garcia, George and Celia Garcia. Interview by Carol Palmer. March 6, 2009. Wittman, Arizona. Audio recording.
Hamblin, Renee. Interview by Sherry Aguilar. December 8, 2008. Surprise, Arizona. Audio recording.
Justice, Dewayne. Interview by Carol Palmer. February 19, 2009. Surprise, Arizona, Audio recording.
Laborin, Joe. Interview by Sherry Aguilar. May 28, 2009. Surprise, Arizona. Audio recording.
McComb, Richard. Interview by Carol Palmer. February 11, 2009. Audio Recording.
Mills, Clint. Interview by Sherry Aguilar. November 6, 2008. Surprise, Arizona. Audio recording.
Moore, Carolyn. Telephone interview by Carol Palmer. October 21, 2011. Glendale, Arizona, Audio recording.
Moore, LeRoy. Telephone interview by Carol Palmer. November 3, 2011. Glendale, Arizona. Audio recording, COSHPA.
291
Moore, Robert. Interview by Carol Palmer. February 19, 2009. Surprise, Arizona. Audio recording.
Parker, Darlene Groves. Interview by Carol Palmer. June 3, 2009. Surprise, Arizona. Audio recording.
Ramirez, Christina. Interview by Paul Ferrante. April 23, 2009. Surprise, Arizona. Video recording.
Ramirez, Christina. Interview by Carol Palmer. March 25, 2009. Surprise, Arizona. Audio recording.
Rivera, Jesus. Interview by Sherry Aguilar. December 22, 2008. Surprise, Arizona. Audio recording.
Robinson, Charlie and Christine Robinson. Interview by Sherry Aguilar. September 18, 2008. Cordes Junction, Arizona. Audio recording.
Salas, Josephina. Interview by Lucia Haas. October 15, 2008. Surprise, Arizona. Audio recording.
Simmons, Larry and Retha Simmons. Interview by Sherry Aguilar. February 9, 2009. Surprise, Arizona. Audio recording.
Simmons, Larry and Retha Simmons. Interview by Carol Palmer. October 13, 2011. Surprise, Arizona. Audio recording.
Stoft, Elizabeth Statler Wusich. Interview by Carol Palmer. May 26, 2009. Phoenix, Arizona. Audio recording.
Truitt, Lynn. Interview by Carol Palmer. February 11, 2009. Surprise, Arizona. Audio recording.
Truman, James. Interview by Paul Ferrante. March 23, 2009. Surprise, Arizona. Video recording.
Villanueva, Roy. Interview by Paul Ferrante. May 5, 2009. Surprise Arizona, Video recording.
Villanueva, Roy. Interview by Carol Palmer. Surprise, Arizona. July 12, 2011. Audio recording.
Williams, Minnie Marshall and Alice Marshall Groves. Interview by Carol Palmer. December 15, 2008. Surprise, Arizona. Audio recording.
Williams, Minnie Marshall . Interview by Paul Ferrante. June 2, 2009. Surprise, Arizona. Video recording.
Yingling, Harold. Interview by Sherry Aguilar. August 7, 2008. Surprise, Arizona, Audio recording.
292
ORAL HISTORIES - OTHER SOURCES
Gutierrez, Alfredo. Interview by Carol Palmer. October 3, 2006. Phoenix, Arizona. Audio recording. Arizona State History and Archives. Phoenix, Arizona.
Lucking, Pit Wetzler. Interview by Beverly Brown. February 9, 2007. Sun City, Arizona. Audio recording. Sun Cities Area Historical Society. Sun City, Arizona.
Scates, Karen. Interview by Carol Palmer. Phoenix, Arizona. January 23, 2007. Audio recording. Arizona State History and Archives. Phoenix, Arizona.
NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS
Arizona Highways
Arizona Republican
Arizona Republic
AzCentral. http://www.azcentral.com/
Peoria Times
Phoenix Gazette
Sun City Daily News Sun
Sun City-Youngtown Daily News-Sun
Surprise City Info
Surprise Independent
Surprise Progress
Surprise Today
GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
City of Surprise. http://www.surpriseaz.gov/
Maricopa County Recorder. http://recorder.maricopa.gov/recdocdata/
Maricopa County, Planning and Zoning Department. “A Planning Report for Surprise, Arizona.” August 1961.
Prescott Valley. “Community Facilities Districts.” http://www.pvaz.net/index.aspx?page=180
293
State of Arizona. Arizona Legislative Records. Session Laws, 1961.
State of Arizona. “In the American Tradition: Arizona’s Community Development Block Grant Program.”
United States Air Force. “Luke Field/AFB and 56th Fighter Wing Chronology, 1941-FY08.” 56th Fighter Wing History Office. 2009.
United States Bureau of the Census. Census of Population and Housing. Census Tracts. Phoenix SMSA. 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010.
United States Department of Health and Human Services. Administration on Aging, “Older Americans Act.” http://www.aoa.gov/AoA_programs/OAA/index.aspx.
United States Statutes at Large 78 (1965). Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Public Law 88-452.
UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL
Erickson, Kirsten and A. E. Rogge. “URS Cultural Resource Report 2008-7(AZ).” Phoenix: URS Corporation, April 2008.
Hill, Nancy. “The Imprint of Cotton Production on Arizona Landscapes.” PhD diss., Arizona State University, 2007.
Hymans, Richard. “The History of the United States Olympic Trials – Track and Field.” 2008. http://www.usatf.org/statistics/champions/OlympicTrials/HistoryOfTheOly mpicTrials.pdf
Introcaso, David. “Waddell Dam.” Salt River Project Archives Pamphlet for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1987.
Kupel, Doug. “Floralcroft Historic District.” National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, February 1, 2005.
Maldonado, José A. “¡Si Se Puede! The Farm Worker Movement in Arizona, 1965-1979.” Master’s thesis, Arizona State University, 1995.
McCoy, Matthew Gann. “Desert Metropolis: Image Building and the Growth of Phoenix, 1940-1965.” PhD diss. Arizona State University, 2000.
The Social Welfare History Project. “The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.” http://www.socialwelfarehistory.com/events/elementary-and- secondary-education-act-of-1965/
294
Sturgeon, Melanie T. “It’s a Paradise Town: The Marketing and Development of Sun City.” Master’s thesis, Arizona State University, 1992.
Tapia, Nick. “Cactus in the Desert: The Chicano Movement in Maricopa County, Arizona, 1968-1978.” Master’s thesis, Arizona State University, 1999.
USA Track and Field. “Golden West Invitational: Boys Year by Year Champions.” http://www.goldenwestinvitational.org/data/boysyearbyyearchamps.html.
BOOKS AND ARTICLES
Abbott, Carl. How Cities Won the West: Four Centuries of Urban Change in Western North America. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2008.
______. The New Urban America: Growth and Politics in Sunbelt Cities. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981.
______. The Metropolitan Frontier: Cities in the Modern American West. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1993.
______. Urban America in the Modern Age: 1920 to the Present. Arlington Heights: Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1987.
Abrahamson, Mark. Urban Enclaves: Identity and Place in America. New York: St. Martin’s Place, 1996.
Aiken, Michael and Paul E. Mott, eds. The Structure of Community Power. New York: Random House, 1970.
Amato, Joseph A. Rethinking Home: A Case for Writing Local History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso, 1983
Archibald, Richard. The New Town Square: Museums and Communities in Transition. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press, 2004.
Ashworth, G.J., and Brian Graham, eds. Senses of Place: Senses of Time. Burlington: Ashgate, 2005.
Bartling, Hugh and Matthew J. Lindstrom, eds. Suburban Sprawl: Culture, Theory, and Politics. Boulder: Rowan and Littlefield, 2003.
Bates, Albert R. Jack Swilling: Arizona’s Most Lied about Pioneer. Tucson: Wheatmark, 2008. 295
Baxandall, Rosalyn and Elizabeth Ewen. Picture Windows: How the Suburbs Happened. New York: Basic Books, 2000.
Beauregard, Robert A. Voices of Decline: The Postwar Fate of US Cities. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1993.
______. When America Became Suburban. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006.
Beauregard, Robert A. and Sophie Body-Gendrot, eds. The Urban Moment: Cosmopolitan Essays on the Late-20th-Century City. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1999.
Beck, Susan Abrams. “The Limits of Presidential Activism: Lyndon Johnson and the Implementation of the Community Action Program,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 17, no.3 (Summer, 1987): 541-557.
Berman, David R. Arizona Politics and Government: The Quest for Autonomy, Democracy, and Development. Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1998.
Berube, Alan, Bruce Katz, and Robert E. Lang, Redefining Urban and Suburban America: Evidence from Census 2000, Vol 3. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2006.
Bodnar, John. Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.
Bogart, William T. Don’t Call It Sprawl: Metropolitan Structure in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Borough, Daniel, Kevin McHugh, and Patricia Gober. “The Sun City Wars: Chapter 3.” Urban Geography, 23, no. 7 (2002): 627-648.
Bruegmann, Robert. Sprawl: A Compact History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Brundage, W. Fitzhugh, ed. Where These Memories Grow: History, Memory, and Southern Identity. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000.
Carter, Wilson A. and Mitchell F. Rice. “From CETA to JTPA: Administrative and Distributional Impacts of Federal Job Training Policy Changes in Ohio.” State and Local Government Review 20, no. 2 (Spring 1988): 79-83.
Cazenave, Noel A. Impossible Democracy: The Unlikely Success of the War on Poverty Community Action Programs. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007. 296
Chekki, Dan A, ed. Research in Community Sociology. Vol. 2. Communities in Transition. Greenwich: JAI Press, 1992.
______. Research in Community Sociology. Vol. 8. American Community Issues and Patterns of Development. Greenwich: JAI Press, 1992.
Clegg, Stewart. Power, Rule and Domination: A Critical and Empirical Understanding of Power in Sociological Theory and Organizational Life. Boston: Routledge, 1975.
Collins, William S. The Emerging Metropolis: Phoenix, 1944-1973. Phoenix: Arizona State Parks Board, 2005.
Conlan, Timothy. From New Federalism to Devolution: Twenty-five Years of Intergovernmental Reform. (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1998.
Cowden, Ann C. “A Public Sector Lexicon: California Style.” State and Local Government Review 21, no. 3 (Autumn, 1989): 116-122.
Cresswell, Tim. Place: A Short Introduction. Malden:Blackwell, 2004.
Dear, Michael J. The Postmodern Urban Condition. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 2000.
______. ed. From Chicago to L.A.: Making Sense of Urban Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2002
Dear, Michael J., H. Eric Shockman, and Greg Hise, eds. Rethinking Los Angeles. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1996.
Deverell, William and Douglas Flaming. “Race, Rhetoric, and Regional Identity: Boosting Los Angeles, 1880-1930,” in Power and Place in the North American West, eds. Richard White and John M. Findlay: Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1999.
Diegelman, Robert F. “Federal Financial Assistance for Crime Control: Lessons of the LEAA Experience.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 73, no. 3 (Autumn, 1982): 994-1011.
Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press, 2000.
Dunbier, Roger. The Sonoran Desert; Its Geography, Economy, and People. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1968.
297
Elkin, Stephen L. City and Regime in the American Republic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Findlay, John M. Magic Lands: Western Cityscapes and American Culture after 1940. University of California Press, 1992.
Finnerty, Margaret. Del Webb: A Man. A Company. Flagstaff: Heritage Publishers, 1991.
Firor, Anne Scott. Natural Allies: Women’s Associations in American History. Urbana: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Fish, Paul R. and Suzanne K. Fish, eds. The Hohokam Millennium. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research Press, 2007.
Fishman, Robert. Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia. New York: Basic Books, 1987.
Fulton, William. The Reluctant Metropolis: The Politics of Urban Growth in Los Angeles. Point Arena: Solano Press Books, 1997.
Gammage Jr., Grady. Phoenix in Perspective: Reflections on Developing the Desert. Tempe: The Herberger Center for Design Excellence, College of Architecture and Environmental Design, Arizona State University, 1999.
Garcia, Matt. A World of Its Own: Race, Labor, and Citrus in the Making of Greater Los Angeles, 1900-1970. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001.
Garreau, Joel. Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
Gilbert, Kathleen. More Than a Century of Peoria People, Progress, & Pride Phoenix: Heritage, 2004.
Gillham, Oliver. The Limitless City: A Primer on the Urban Sprawl Debate. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2002.
Glassberg, David. American Historical Pageantry: The Uses of Tradition in the Early Twentieth Century. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990.
______. Sense of History: The Place of the Past in American Life. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001.
Gober, Patricia. Metropolitan Phoenix: Place Making and Community Building in the Desert. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006.
______. “How and Why Phoenix Households Changed: 1970-1980.” Annals of 298
the Association of American Geographers 76, no. 4 (December 1986): 536-549.
Gregory, James N. American Exodus: The Dust Bowl Migration and Okie Culture in California. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Hanchett, Jr. Leland. Catch the Stage to Phoenix. Phoenix: Pine Rim Publishing, 1998.
Hayashi, Robert T. Haunted by Waters: A Journey through Race and Place in the American West. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2007.
Hayden, Dolores. The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1997.
______. Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-2000. New York: Pantheon, 2003.
Hirschman, Alfred O. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970.
Hise, Greg. Magnetic Los Angeles: Planning the Twentieth-Century Metropolis. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1997.
Horton, Arthur G. An Economic, Political and Social Survey of Phoenix and the Valley of the Sun. Tempe: Southside Progress, 1941.
Hubbard, Phil. City: Key Ideas in Geography. New York: Routledge, 2006.
Iverson, Peter. Sun Village History: From Desert to Paradise, 25 years 1986 to 2011. Sun Village Historical Society, 2009.
Jackson, Kevin T. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Jenkins, Richard. Social Identity. London: Routledge, 1996.
Jennings, Jr., Edward T., Dale Krane, Alex N. Pattakos, and B. J. Reed, eds. From Nation to States: The Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986.
Karp, Ivan and Steven D. Lavine. Exhibiting Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991.
Kelly, Barbara M. Expanding the American Dream: Building and Rebuilding Levittown. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995.
Kenyon, Amy Maria. Dreaming Suburbia: Detroit and the Production of Postwar 299
Space and Culture. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2004.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara. Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums, and Heritage. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Kruse, Kevin M. and Thomas J. Sugrue, eds. The New Suburban History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.
Kuntsler, James Howard. The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America’s Man-Made Landscape. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993.
______. Home from Nowhere: Remaking Our Everyday World for the 21st Century. New York: Touchstone Books, 1996.
Kupel, Douglas E. Fuel for Growth: Water and Arizona’s Urban Environment. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2003.
Lang, Robert E. Edgeless Cities: Exploring the Elusive Metropolis. Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2003.
Lang, Robert E. and Jennifer B. LeFurgy. Boomburbs: The Rise of America’s Accidental Cities. Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2007.
Leone, Mark P. The Archaeology of Liberty in an American Capital: Excavations in Annapolis. Berkeley: University of California Press
Leone, Mark P. and Neil Asher Silberman, eds. Invisible America: Unearthing Our Hidden History. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1995.
Lewis, Robert, ed. Manufacturing Suburbs: Building Work and Home on the Metropolitan Fringe. Philadelphia: Temple University, 2004.
Lindstrom, Matthew J. and Hugh Bartling, eds. Suburban Sprawl: Culture, Theory, and Politics. Lanham: Rowan and Littlefield, 2003.
Lipsitz, George. Time Passages: Collective Memory and American Popular Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1990.
Logan, Michael F. Desert Cities: The Environmental History of Phoenix and Tucson. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2006.
Logan, John R. and Harvey L. Molotch. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.
Luckingham, Bradford. Phoenix: The History of a Southwestern Metropolis. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1989.
Luey, Beth, and Noel J Stowe, eds. Arizona at Seventy-Five: The Next Twenty- Five Years. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1987.
300
Marando, Vincent L. “General Revenue Sharing: Termination and City Response.” State and Local Government Review 22, no. 3 (Autumn 1990): 98-107
Massey, Doreen. Space, Place and Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994.
McHugh, Kevin E. and Elizabeth M. Larson-Keagy. “These White Walls: The Dialectic of Retirement Communities.” Journal of Aging Studies 19 (2005): 242-256.
McHugh, Kevin E. and Ann M. Fletchall. “Memento Mori: The ‘Death’ of Youngtown.” The Professional Geographic 61, no. 1 (2009): 22-35.
Meeks, Eric V. Border Citizens: The Making of Indians, Mexicans, and Anglos in Arizona. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2007.
Metzler, Paige. “’The Pulse and Conscience of America:’ The General Federation and Women’s Citizenship, 1945-1960,” Frontiers 30, no.3 (2009): 52-76.
Meyerowitz, Joanne, ed. Not June Cleaver: Women and Gender in Postwar America, 1945-1960. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994.
Miller, Gary J. Cities by Contract: The Politics of Municipal Incorporation. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1981.
Molotch, Harvey and Kee Warner. Building Rules: How Local Controls Shape Community Environments and Economies. Boulder: Westview, 2000.
Molotch, Harvey. “The City as a Growth Machine.” American Journal of Sociology 82, no. 2 (1976): 309-330.
Morley, Judy Mattivi. Historic Preservation and the Imagined West: Albuquerque, Denver, and Seattle. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006.
Morris, Douglas E. It’s a Sprawl World After All: The Human Cost of Unplanned Growth. Canada: New Society Publishers, 2005.
Nash, Gerald D. The American West Transformed: The Impact of the Second World War. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985.
Nicolaides, Becky M. My Blue Heaven: Life and Politics in the Working-Class Suburbs of Los Angeles, 1920-1965. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.
Nicolaides, Becky M. and Andrew Wiese, eds. The Suburb Reader. New York: Routledge, 2006.
Noble, David Grant, ed. The Hohokam: Ancient People of the Desert. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 1991.
301
Norkunas, Martha. Monuments and Memory: History and Representation in Lowell, Massachusetts. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2002.
Rogge, A. E., Melissa Keane, D. Lorne McWatters, and Richard P. Emanuel. Raising Arizona’s Dams: Daily Life, Danger, and Discrimination in the Dam Construction Camps of Central Arizona, 1890s-1940s. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1995.
Rothman, Hal. Neon Metropolis: How Las Vegas Started the Twenty-First Century. New York: Routledge, 2002.
______. “Tourism as Colonial Economy: Power and Place in Western Tourism.” in Power and Place in the North American West. ed. John M. Findlay and Richard White. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1999.
Sanchez, George J. Becoming Mexican American: Ethnicity, Culture, and Identity in Chicano Los Angeles, 1900-1945. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Sayre, John W. The Santa Fe, Prescott and Phoenix Railway: The Scenic Line of Arizona. Boulder: Pruett Publishing Company, 1990.
Shaffer, Marguerite S. See America First: Tourism and National Identity, 1880- 1940. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Books: 2001.
Sheridan, Thomas E. Arizona: A History. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1995.
Silver Anniversary Jubilee: A History of Sun City, Arizona, 1960 – 1985. Phoenix: COL Press, 1984.
Slayton, Robert A. Back of the Yards: The Making of a Local Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.
Smith, Karen L. The Magnificent Experiment: Building the Salt River Reclamation Project 1890-1917. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1986.
Sprawl Hits the Wall: Confronting the Realities of Metropolitan Los Angeles. Los Angeles: The Southern California Studies Center, 2001.
Stafford, Philip B. Elderburbia: Aging with a Sense of Place in America. Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2009
Stanton, Cathy. The Lowell Experiment: Public History in a Postindustrial City. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2006.
302
Stilgoe, John R. Borderland: Origins of the American Suburb, 1820-1939. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.
Stone, Clarence N. and Heywood T. Sanders, eds. The Politics of Urban Development. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1987.
Trolander, Judith Ann. From Sun Cities to the Villages: A History of Active Adult, Age-Restricted Communities. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2011.
Trounstine, Philip J. and Terry Christensen. Movers and Shakers: The Study of Community Power. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1982.
Tudor, Albert “Al” F. Along the Old Vulture Road: Cattle Tales and Trails from Wickenburg to Phoenix. Sun City: Cowhide Publications, 1998.
VanderMeer, Philip. Phoenix Rising: The Making of a Desert Metropolis. Carlsbad, California: Heritage Media Corporation, 2001.
______. Desert Visions and the Making of Phoenix, 1860-2009. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2010.
Webman, Jerry A. “UDAG: Targeting Urban Economic Development.” Political Science Quarterly, 96, no. 2 (Summer, 1981): 189-207.
Weisiger, Marsha L. Land of Plenty: Oklahomans in the Cotton Fields of Arizona, 1933-1942. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995.
Whitaker, Matthew C. Race Work: The Rise of Civil Rights in the Urban West. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2005.
Wilson, Chris. The Myth of Santa Fe: Creating A Modern Regional Tradition. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1997.
Wilson, Michael R. Tragic Jack: The True Story of Arizona Pioneer John William Swilling. Las Vegas: Stagecoach Books, an imprint of RaMA Press, 2001.
Wrobel, David M. and Patrick T. Long, eds. Seeing and Being Seen: Tourism in the American West. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas: 2001.
Yuhl, Stephanie E. “Sculpted Radicals: The Problems of Sacco and Vanzetti in Boston’s Public Memory.” The Public Historian 32, no. 2 (May 2010): 9-30
303
304