Residents of a 3-year-old neighborhood nestled at the base of South Mountain were stunned to learn their homes may be destroyed in the next few years to make room for the proposed southwestern leg of the Loop 202 freeway.

The Foothills Reserve community is just one of the developments that have sprung up in the footprint of a freeway whose alignment was first proposed 20 years ago.

And while Phoenix officials say that state law renders them powerless to stop such developments even though they may have to be torn down, other Valley cities have preserved their rights-of-way through creative zoning and a commitment to avoiding the neighborhood strife now facing Phoenix.

"You pick out a spot and you start developing all these dreams of, 'Oh, this is a great place where I can raise my kids.' Now that's all gone to hell," said Ty RamotarSingh, whose Foothills Reserve home sits in the proposed freeway's path. He and his wife were married in their back yard in April 2004, one month after moving in.

According to a report released last week by the Arizona Department of Transportation, the preliminary route for the $1.1 billion proposed Loop 202 would plow through hundreds of homes and businesses in the Valley. The freeway would link Interstate 10 in the west and south, bypassing downtown Phoenix.

Acquisition costs

ADOT has not estimated acquisition costs, spokesman Matt Burdick said. Current prices for homes shown within the freeway's outline indicate that it could cost the state tens of millions of dollars in Ahwatukee alone to acquire more than 100 homes built since the freeway was first proposed in 1985. Houses on the market in the Foothills Reserve, where the first homes were finished in 2002,right now range from $385,000 to $825,000.

Residents said they were never told that their homes could be demolished.

The developer says he didn't know, either.

"I don't think we knew that there was a possibility that the homes would be taken," said Norm Schrock, president of the Arizona division of Woodside Homes. He said he did not know the freeway could affect the community until contacted about it by an Arizona Republic reporter this week.

A single line in the public report given to potential home buyers in Foothills Reserve indicates that the proposed South Mountain Freeway is planned nearby, but it does not mention where.

Though residents admitted they did not research the freeway's path before moving in, they said they were baffled by the decision to place a new development in what could soon be concrete.

"Why would anyone build on that land if there's potential for it becoming a highway?" said Pam RamotarSingh. "If we'd known ahead of time, we would have thought twice about buying and building out there."

None of the land along Pecos Road in Ahwatukee was developed when the freeway was first designed in 1985. ADOT did not have money to buy right-of-way at the time, spokesman Matt Burdick said.

A possible alternative

The only alternative route for the southern portion would be on land owned by the Gila River Indian Community, which has been opposed to the idea.

However, some Gila River residents said this week they may reconsider to avoid harm to South Mountain Park, part of which lies in the proposed alignment. ADOT has another year or two to consider other alignments, Burdick said.

Phoenix officials say property rights protected in the state's constitution forbid the city from blocking development on private land to accommodate a planned freeway.

"You can't prevent someone from developing and doing what they want with their property," said Sal DiCiccio, who was District 6 councilman from 1994 to 2000 and now works as a real estate developer.

When a developer wants to build homes near the proposed route, the city and developer contact ADOT, which can offer to buy the land or suggest ways that the neighborhood could be built to minimize disruption when the freeway goes through. ADOT's records do not show any such correspondence with the Foothills Reserve, Burdick said.

In Ahwatukee, land that ADOT didn't buy for lack of money later became neighborhoods and a church.

"We frequently . . . have said, 'I wish we didn't have to develop this, we're probably going to have to buy it later,' " said Jack Tevlin, a former deputy Phoenix city manager who oversaw transportation issues for 12 years before retiring in 2003.

Councilman Greg Stanton, who represents Ahwatukee, had just joined the council when approval for Foothills Reserve came up. The council can't vote against a developer's plan unless there is something wrong with the design itself, Stanton said.

"I actually hate voting on it for this reason," Stanton said. The development's proximity to the potential freeway route "was not an issue I could consider when I approved that."

Holding off development

Other Valley cities managed to hold off development on future freeway land.

When the Santan Freeway was planned in the mid-1980s, Chandler did its own study to estimate the freeway's exact route and used that map as a basis for zoning decisions to prevent building there, said Hank Pluster, the city's former long range planning manager.

Before developers could get zoning approval for projects along the route, Chandler required them to set aside land for the future freeway or leave the land vacant for storm water retention basins. They also worked with developers to shift density away from the planned road.

"Our councils have been forward-thinking," Pluster said. "They recognized the freeway was coming and they didn't want to deal with future problems."

Mesa worked out similar arrangements with developers along the Red Mountain Freeway, said Jeff Martin, assistant development services manager. In a few cases, developers agreed to donate land along the right-of-way in exchange for density changes.

Not all of those solutions would have worked in Phoenix, said David Richert, the city's growth, land use and state land manager.

Factors from the hilly terrain of Ahwatukee to the uncertainty surrounding the Pecos Road alignment kept the city from making such deals, he said.

"You can't force (developers) to do that, and neither can those other communities," Richert said. "I applaud them for their efforts if they can keep structures out of (the footprint), but sometimes it's not possible."