Agenda - Council - 10/14/2025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ARCADIA OSBORN, et al. v. CLEAR CHANNEL, et al. Opinion of the Court or general concerns regarding aesthetics in the area without a particularized palpable injury to the plaintiff are typically not sufficient to confer standing." Ctr. Bay Gardens, 214 Ariz. at 358-59, ¶ 20. ¶12 The Individual Plaintiffs assert harms related to traffic safety and loss of aesthetic value in the area. Their allegations of individualized harm focus on the frequency with which they use the intersection adjacent to the Property. But it is not enough that a plaintiff has suffered the same kind of harm or interference as the general public but to a greater extent or degree. Hopi Tribe v. Ariz. Snowbowl Resort Limited Partnership, 245 Ariz. 397, 401, ¶ 13 (2018). Accordingly, because the Individual Plaintiffs have not alleged particularized harm causing palpable injuries, their allegations are insufficient to confer standing. ¶13 Myers alleges that she works in a building within view of the Property, but she does not claim that she can see the proposed billboards from her office. Instead, she claims that she may be distracted by them if she chooses to work in other public areas of the building or in a nearby cafe. These claims also fail to show a particularized harm that is not shared by others who regularly travel through and frequent businesses located at a busy intersection in midtown Phoenix. See Sears, 192 Ariz. at 69-70, ¶1f 17- 19 (finding plaintiffs' allegations of increased traffic, crowding, and stress did not establish standing "under nuisance or zoning law"). ¶14 In addition, Myers now claims she is entitled to standing as "a taxpayer who owns or leases ... a property within three hundred feet" of the Property. A.R.S. § 9-462.06(K). But Myers did not assert taxpayer standing before the superior court and, thus, waived this claim on appeal. See Conti Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utias., LLC, 227 Ariz. 382, 386, ¶ 12 (App. 2011) ("If the argument is not raised below so as to allow the trial court ... an opportunity [to address it], it is waived on appeal."). B. Scenic Arizona ¶15 Appellants claim that our decision in Scenic Arizona created a new, broader category of standing whenever the case involves a challenge to a billboard. This is not so. ¶16 In Scenic Arizona, we recognized that "deciding whether a person is aggrieved necessarily involves examining the legal basis of the claimed injury." 228 Ariz. at 423, ¶ 11. In that case, Scenic Arizona claimed that a proposed electronic billboard adjacent to Interstate 17 would violate the Arizona Highway Beautification Act, A.R.S. § 28-7901, et seq. ("AHBA"). 5