George Johnson turned down an interview request from PHOENIX magazine, but his side of the story is available on The Johnson Report, the blog he’s been keeping since 2006 (thejohnsonreport.com).
In thousands of words, he rails against Arizona’s “fabricated case” against him and claims he is being singled out.
He also believes his Johnson Report is a potent force and that it is scaring state officials into realizing “they made a grave mistake in starting this fight.”
Johnson maintains he did nothing wrong. For instance, when accused of destroying native plants, he writes, “The state is under the impression that every rancher and entity in Arizona asks permission to trim trees and clear brush on private land.”
When accused of blading over thousands of acres, he writes, “The state is still having trouble accepting the fact that clearing pastures is standard ranching practice.”
And when told that Arizona has 250 witnesses ready to testify against him, he chides that the state is looking for more “dirt” on him and wonders why they’d need more if they already had so much.
“Sounds like desperation to me,” he writes.
Johnson originally responded to the state lawsuits by countersuing Arizona. He demanded it drop the suits and sought $33 million in damages, claiming the charges were nothing but a “get George Johnson campaign.” His complaint stated: “The individual defendants have intentionally denied Mr. Johnson equal protection under the law by treating him as a class of one and subjecting him and his business entities to a punitive enforcement scheme not endured by other persons or entities in Arizona.”
The countersuit was ultimately dismissed in December as part of the settlement. So was a suit Johnson filed against Attorney General Terry Goddard and his wife Monica, claiming Goddard “defamed” him when he announced the lawsuit as “wanton destruction of Arizona’s heritage resources.”
Goddard claimed he had “absolute immunity” from such suits in carrying out the duties of his office. The Arizona Republic’s editorial page weighed in on Johnson’s counterattack, arguing the state’s top lawyer has “an absolute need to speak freely” about suits he files.
Johnson said in his blog that he has been mostly misunderstood. “I have lived in Arizona all my life,” he said in his first blog entry on July 1, 2006. “I love this state as my father before me loved this great state. I have been in business here all my life and have made many contributions to this state, some of which I am proud to say bear our family name.”
But he bemoans that the Arizona lawsuit has left nothing but a negative impression of him. “My business activities have come under scrutiny for a number of reasons, and the papers write about these events as if Atilla (sic) the Hun were let loose upon Arizona.”
Mention the La Osa Ranch story to anyone and you’ll find they’re speechless about the enormity of the destruction there. Some say they still can’t believe this could have happened – not in this day and age, not in broad daylight, not even in a state that has a sordid history of development.
For a long time, it seems Arizona developers didn’t much care how the state grew, just that it grew – that they could overcome an unforgiving desert and turn millions of acres of real estate into something of value.
The development boom came after air–conditioning was developed around World War II. Soldiers who had trained at air bases that once book-ended the Valley made good on their vows to return if war didn’t claim them. Construction became Arizona’s sixth “C” – joining the legendary five staples of Arizona’s economy (copper, cattle, cotton, climate and citrus) – and entire towns were built.
Phoenix went from a small town of 48,000 in the 1930s to the nation’s fifth-largest city today. Communities throughout the state grew and grew.
By the 1970s, Arizona scandalized the nation with sweeping incidents of land fraud. Thousands of “investors” found they hadn’t bought a piece of paradise but a chunk of raw desert without water, roads, power or the possibility of habitation. It was painfully obvious that this kind of rip-off reputation wasn’t good for business, and there was a growing outcry – both from outside the state and from within – that careless development was going to soil the sandbox for everyone.