Ashley Harder is a Phoenix business owner, community leader, and historic preservation advocate whose 20 years of work revitalizing neighborhoods, supporting small businesses, and expanding housing opportunities have delivered lasting results throughout the city. She is a candidate for Phoenix City Council District 4.
Our city is growing, and that’s a good thing. But two questions will determine whether that growth remains sustainable: Can the next generation of homeowners afford to stay here, and will we have the water necessary to support them? Too often, I feel these challenges are discussed in silos as if they are two different issues. They shouldn’t be.
Young people make up the majority of District 4—right now, their future looks uncertain when it comes to housing affordability and water security. After nearly 20 years working in housing, development, and the neighborhoods of District 4, I’ve learned that responsible growth requires us to solve both affordability and water availability at the same time.
District 4 residents are stressed about rising costs, particularly for homeownership. What was once a staple of the American dream is now out of reach for many. A generation of Phoenicians are pouring money into apartments and building no equity. At the same time, recent surveys of voters across our state found there is significant concern about shrinking water supplies and strong support for government action. Phoenix residents are right to consider both. Housing affordability means little if we build without securing the infrastructure and water necessary to sustain our growth. With new impact fees and recent state legislation dictating local control, we have to ensure growth pays for itself. The reality is that those added costs can also make affordable housing more expensive to build, which raises an important concern: can we offset or cover those fees on specific projects in exchange for developers delivering meaningful affordability? This has to be considered.
As founder of Harder Development and Vice Chair of Phoenix Community Alliance’s Planning and Development Committee, I have worked at the intersection of these issues. I have helped turn vacant and underutilized properties into housing and neighborhood-serving businesses, advocated for adding underused City-owned land to our affordable housing pipeline, and participated in public engagement around water impact fees. That experience has convinced me that Phoenix does not have to choose between building housing and protecting our water future. We can do both.
Thoughtful infill and adaptive reuse can add housing in areas already served by infrastructure. At the same time, Phoenix must continue investing in advanced water purification, infrastructure, conservation, and new supplies. The city is already building its first advanced water purification facility, which will turn recycled water into a local, renewable drinking-water supply.
The question isn’t whether Phoenix should grow. It’s whether we will grow intelligently enough to remain both affordable and sustainable. The next City Council will need to make sure the answer to that question is yes.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
True leadership is defined by advocacy and action, not simply holding a seat on a board. While Ashley Harder claims a track record of leadership, those of us who have spent years working alongside genuine advocates in the Historic Preservation community know a different story. She has never led an initiative to protect our local neighborhoods. In fact, her record shows the opposite: working on behalf of the development community to support out-of-context projects that historic preservationists actively fought to revise.
It is contradictory to claim an interest in solving our affordability crisis while remaining backed by the very network driving it—developers, realtors, house flippers, and zoning attorneys whose primary objective is maximizing real estate profit. It is difficult to see how the industry that created this housing crisis is equipped to solve it.
Furthermore, Ms. Harder’s campaign is entirely detached from the community. She is self-funding her run with a $150,000 personal loan—far outpacing what other candidates have raised through traditional, grassroots door-to-door fundraising. This heavy reliance on personal wealth raises serious red flags about the influence of big money in local politics. It also begs the question: why invest $150,000 of your own money into a part-time role that pays $77,000? This exact dynamic—wealthy candidates and corporate interests dominating the political landscape—is why many Arizona voters are losing faith in the system, drawing unfortunate parallels to the irreparable damage done by figures like Kyrsten Sinema.
Her disconnect extends directly to the constituency. Our district is 62% Hispanic and Latino, a demographic that remains deeply underrepresented in City Hall. Yet, watching Ms. Harder in public forums, it is clear she lacks a fundamental understanding of the core issues facing this community. A viable candidate must be able to clearly identify a problem, outline actionable solutions, and deliver that message coherently. Ms. Harder has consistently failed to do so.
Her lack of perspective is evident even in her daily habits. At a recent community forum held just two blocks from her residence, she chose to drive. If a candidate cannot walk two blocks to meet her neighbors, how can she truly empathize with the daily realities of residents who rely on public transportation, walking, or biking?
Finally, the vast majority of that $150,000 loan is being funneled to a political consulting firm based in New York City. A team of consultants in New York cannot possibly understand the unique needs of our Arizona community. This is not a grassroots movement, nor is it a campaign built on local trust. Our community deserves a representative who is genuinely connected to our neighborhoods, not one financed by personal wealth and advised by out-of-state strategists.
Hello, 911, I’d like to report a murder…
This article is fluffy and insults the reader.
TL:DR version – “there are problems that need solutions” but no solutions are included in the article.
It’s like a kids book report “Treasure Island is a book about treasure on an island and is a book”.