Home » City Council, Community » Eddie Maddock: Further Fodder for Fueling the Firestorm

Eddie Maddock: Further Fodder for Fueling the Firestorm

SedonaEye.com columnist Eddie S. Maddock takes another look at Sedona past and prophetic headlines.

Sedona AZ (August 28, 2017)Revisiting our catchy headline journey, let us begin with a guest column by Pat Pomphrey, Member, Sedona City Council, RRNews 11/07/90: 

And What Can We Expect Here in Sedona? City creates ‘Disaster Waiting to Happen’.

And it gets better with its insert —

Yes, we passed a balanced budget as required by law. But we budgeted our expenses to exceed our income! Now, how can that be? Those are conflicting statements.””

Moving on, to September 1993 and a lingering special topic, Red Rock Crossing:

The 9/21/93 Arizona Republic headlined Forget the Bridge”. I would be remiss not to include a portion of its quote from the inimitable and opinionated former Senator from Arizona Barry Goldwater:  “…To me, there is no earthly reason why any attempt should be made to put a bridge at Red Rock Crossing near Sedona. There isn’t even a good road anywhere near where they want to put that bridge, and its one of the most spectacular bits of scenery in the whole state.”

And 9/22/93 RRNews staff writer, Sondra Roberta, offered the headline editorial “RR Crossing Does Not Just Belong to Us

However, Wayne D. Iverson of Sedona offered his own suggestion to the editor of the Arizona Republic on 9/23/93: “What About Fate of Oak Creek Canyon/Red Rock?”  Requesting for the Forest Service to study revision of management practices in the forest plan for the Red Rock/Oak Creek area from within appropriated funds.

City of Sedona Council Chamber

The RRNews 10/28/94 “headline Council Decision Booed by Citizens” accurately reflected “vehement opposition to the portion of Article 4 in the draft land code that affords Community Development Director Tom Schafer the power to grant administration waivers.” Public concern was that granting administrative waiver to the planning staff might open the door to abuse.

What? Of course the council unanimously agreed and “amended the code to reflect the administrative waiver would remain intact with a one-year sunset clause.” And guess what? That one year sunset has yet to occur.

On Thursday, May 23, 1996, Sedona again made Arizona Republic headlines: “Sedona Votes to Restrict City’s Growth” followed the next day May 24, 1996, by RRNews First Anti-Growth Law Approved –captioned Anti-growth ballot issue passes by only 52 votes; Lawsuit says measure is unconstitutional

Not to worry, however, because Friday, March 28, 1997, RRNews “Growth Law Repealed by City Council

Yep, the voice of the people be damned even way back then.

However, not all City Councils’ rubber stamped new ideas.

On February 19, 1999, RRNews “Council Gives Policy Change Cool Reception”… Council tables ordinance giving city manager authority to settle claims for amounts up to $25,000.” Hum, wonder where that stands today?

Sedona Arizona in need of tourist advertising funds may raise city and bed taxes. (SedonaEye.com article photo and caption dated June 2010)

A dazzling Letter to the Editor of the Verde Independent, August 16, 2000:

SUSPEND MARKETING TO ADDRESS TRAFFIC IN SEDONA

“Editor: Reference traffic congestion in Sedona and Arizona 179 to the Village of Oak Creek, may I suggest postponement of Sedona’s extensive marketing campaign to lure more and more visitors and instead fall back on word-of-mouth and goodwill generated by the many merchants to bring visitors back? This action would hardly cause this market area to falter, but give some much needed time to address the serious traffic problems, such as solid traffic backup from the Village all the way into Sedona. – David Henry, Cornville”

Stunning. – And the date of that letter again? August 16, 2000.

A small flurry of articles popped up in June 2003 relating to guess what? Affordable Housing!

On June 11, 2003, a profound editorial appeared by Ryan Van Benthuysen, Managing Editor, RRNews …  “Enough is Enough: A Deal is A Deal

Benthuysen rightfully took the city of Sedona to task with the following words: “Under the guise of trying to help build affordable housing apartment units on Sombart Lane, Fairfield Resort in West Sedona is trying to get 64 apartments in a different location rezoned as timeshares. If the city allows the company to turn these apartments into timeshares, Fairfield says it will help fund the affordable housing apartments on Sombart Lane through Sombart Lane Development. The city needs to just say no.”

A companion article in that same edition offers… “Fairfield Seeks to Change Rules of the Game” further enhances how the scam of “affordable houses” has been used and abused over the years. (Remember Nepenthe?)

And, yet again on June 25, 2003, “Sombart Lane Proposal Dies –- Land owner backs away from housing proposal

However, the RRN headline on November 11, 2005, Modified Fairfield Plan OK’d” … but a follow-up quote by a Sedona city councilman summed up the outcome: “”No development agreement can make them build.” And they didn’’t. Bye, bye to affordable housing.”

The city of Sedona has chipped away and demolished many of its red rocks to build a tourist attraction. In a 2003 RRN letter to editor, former Sedona resident William Bliss wrote, “Sedona has finally passed the king of tawdriness, South Lake Tahoe…” adding, “H.L. Menchen once said, No one ever lost money underestimating the taste of the American public…”

As history sometimes repeats, the Land Development Code is now under consideration to be amended to allow increased density housing.

Sounds like an excellent plan for outside investors interested in the business of vacation rentals. No law against that now and enforcement of rental restrictions?

Well, let’s get real. Ain’’t gonna happen. Nepenthe? Where art thou?

How about reviewing another sweet little letter to the editor, this time the RRN 2/19/2003:

GREED, INSENSITIVITY CAUSE DEGRADATION

“My wife and I first started visiting Sedona in 1971 and immediately fell in love with this national treasure. We finally moved there in 1986. The town then started growing haphazardly, so in 1996, we moved to Carefree, Ariz.

Last week we returned for the first time and ‘”haphazardly”’ cannot describe what we saw there. Possibly the words gaudy, inconsiderate, cluttered and greed best describe the Sedona environment today.

Unfortunately, it appears that everyone is allowed to do their own thing in the commercial area in hope of attracting the tourist buck.

H.L. Mencken once said, ‘No one ever lost money underestimating the taste of the American public.’ Nothing better illustrates this quote than what’s happened to Sedona today. Is there no one in control in there any longer? Do you still have a City Council and a planning commission?

How about setbacks, height restrictions, architectural design reviews, sign ordinances, density restrictions, visual impacts, etc. And what has happened to taste? All the entrances to the town now project one thing to the first-time visitor, insensitivity to this red rock treasure in an attempt to open someone’s pocketbook. Sedona has finally passed the king of tawdriness, South Lake Tahoe.

And what is happening at the ‘Y’? The red rock hill is being torn down and a multitude of time share building is going up, screwing up the landscape in all directions.

This type of visible project is mostly unwelcome in sensitive places and its entire high-pressure sales pitch begs for a different kind of tourist.

Again, someone is in this only for a few bucks today. Shame on all of you who allow this degradation to continue. But, hey, isn’’t that what this once lovely national red rock treasure is now all about? – William W. Bliss, Carefree

Oh, Mr. Bliss, apparently you have no idea what has transpired here since penning your letter back in 2003.

Will conclude this session with two classics:

Arizona Republic–, July 22, 2006: “ PROTESTS DRIVE OUT TOURISTS IN OAXACA (Turista Go Home Oaxaca Antiacapitualista)”

Arizona Republic, May 13, 2017: “SORRY SEDONA, BISBEE NAMED ARIZONA’S PRETTIEST”.

 

Read www.SedonaEye.com for daily news and interactive views!

172 Comments

  1. How Sweet It Might Be says:

    If ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) happened to invade Sedona and do a little snooping. We might learn in a hurry who would really benefit from the proposed “work force housing.” Just a thought.

  2. Back at HA HA HA says:

    Not so once again. In the most recent years lodging is required to build and provide a certain amount of housing for their employees.

    What the heck does green cards have to do with this discussion?

  3. steve segner says:

    Good for JJ went to a city meeting and proved you are a NIMBY.
    P&Z voted you down….. more housing for Sedona , just the start

  4. @steve segner says:

    Of course P & Z approved more housing for Sedona. As will the city council. They are fools. Sedona never learned to run before it walked. One mistake after another. And the beat goes on. Revel in your glory and $$$$$.

    As for P & Z commissioners, you will all be long gone before the proof of non-enforcement on your most recent blunder goes full circle. Fools – all of you. But with Segner as your mouth-piece, who would expect more?

    BTW Segner, how was the traffic this AM on your morning drive into Sedona? Even Coconino County buys into your falsifying where you actually live. Check your own comment.

  5. JJ says:

    @SS You haven’t seen nothing yet!!!

  6. Steve segner says:

    Tell us JJ and EDdie, what exactly is the reason you don’t want some properties to have more density?
    Any new regulation on density would first have to be approved by PAnd Z then the city Council. What is wrong with bringing in some apartments if we have the land or duplexes if we can find the Lots, if the Dells for every developed we can put in small smaller houses on smaller lots or is it because you just don’t want those kind of people ? You never give any real facts you just either talk about past city councils the old days. You’ve both remind me of the time Sun City trying to pass a law that they didn’t have to pay school taxes because they don’t have any schools.

  7. Eddie Maddock says:

    For your information, Steve Segner, and speaking only for myself because I do not know the identity of a JJ, a major reason for Sedona’s incorporation was to preserve our scenic values by discouraging high density development and encourage maintaining open space. Reasoning at the time was obvious – to preserve our number one treasure – the views – thus the ensuing restrictions on building heights, density, design, color restraints and hillside development. I personally believe holding to those original concepts would maintain Sedona’s primary reasoning and uphold the integrity for becoming an incorporated city.

    As for the The Dells, although owned by City of Sedona that property is outside City Limits and any development there is subject to approval by the Red Rock/89A Corridor/Dry Creek Area of Yavapai County and NOT the City of Sedona. Since Mayor Sandy Moriarity has lived in Sedona even longer than I, it’s with the utmost respect I urge you to confirm the integrity of my statements with her.

    And I certainly hope, Mr. Segner, that out of respect I appropriately spelled your name accurately.

  8. steve segner says:

    That is just NIMBY talk, we need housing, what you are saying is the city council, now, or in the future should not have the right to look at density?
    You are saying the property around the medical center should not or can not be developed into smaller lots. At-12 lost per acre,just more million dollar houses, not Age in place housing?
    What wrong with small starter home? So what id the Dells is out side the city, the city owned it and it is available and it will be developed someday. Sedona is landlocked, we have our views…. Duplexes and small home on small lots will in no way block the views .

  9. @Eddie Moddock says:

    Eddie Eddie Eddie:

    I am shocked by your answer to Steve about the major reason for Sedonas incorporation. I would think that anyone with your purported knowledge of All Things Sedona would know that none of the reasons that you provided were “the major reasons”. They may have been a by-product but not major.

    It has been well documented over the years that the major reason that Sedona had to incorporate was that ADEQ required that a waste water treatment plant needed to be urgently built because so many individual septic tanks were leaching into the ground and contaminating the ground water. Because unincorporated Sedona sat between two counties, a REAL CITY HAD TO BE BORN to take on the project.

    so do any of these facts sound familiar to you?????

  10. Sad But True says:

    Yes, I too am one of the few survivors of the ongoing betrayal of reasons for Sedona having incorporated. Unfortunately what we are seeing now is a reversal of the reasons increased development density coupled with the great giveaway to the Chamber & Lodging enterprises remaining at the top of the list.

    In order to avoid that very thing, voters after the second ballot attempt approved what has turned into over development and undue abuse to our environmental assets. Along with the ongoing madness created by reckless decisions coming from City Hall is the breach of commitment to in perpetuity keep the Cultural Park property free from commercial development. Soon just the opposite will happen.

    Thank Goodness Red Rock Crossing area (including land at The Dells) as well as the Village of Creek and Oak Creek Canyon located within our Fire & School DISTRICTS (different from incorporated Sedona) refrained from being a party to this madness of greed, exploitation, and degradation of what once very well could have qualified as the most beautiful place on earth! No more thanks to infiltration by outsiders into our decision making process including but not limited to the farce of Citizens Engagement committees. They unfortunately replaced former Commissions which offered honorable transparency and the opportunity to sit in on public meetings and learn first hand the under-handed methods of the subversive few who continue to run amok.

    Back to square one. All that “incorporation” was to have averted is in the process of moving full steam ahead turning Sedona into exactly what was not wanted but apparently is now acceptable. What a farce. And oh yes hope our State Representatives continue to enjoy the Sedona City sponsored “town hall” the second of which apparently will be occurring in the near future. Great that our elected representation at State level has apparently jumped on the same bandwagon of the money grabbing cash hogs that are controlling Sedona. Ah yes just another opinion.

  11. Eddie Maddock says:

    Well, well – shocking is shocking @Eddie Maddock. What you write is most assuredly SHOCKING news to me and if it’s true then why is it the subdivision where I live remains unconnected to the sewer? One reason is because NEW construction was given priority.

    In our case, the developers of Mystic Hills prepaid for connection and then won a law suit against the city because there was NO CAPACITY for them to do so once the homes had been constructed. Then once capacity was increased connections for new development and resort expansion took priority. In fact, just a few years ago I retrieved the money I prepaid to the city for connecting to the sewer because chances of that ever happening over here are slim to none.

    And yes, of course, I heard that bill of sale you mention even to the extent our properties would be condemned if Sedona didn’t incorporate. NOT TRUE! The real reason for the scare tactics was because NEW CONSTRUCTION either was put on hold or there was a threat for that to happen unless Sedona had a wastewater treatment facility aka sewage plant. And for that matter, a sewer could have been provided whether or not Sedona became incorporated.

    And it seems you overlooked an important aspect of this situation. When Oak Creek was designated a protected water way those properties along the creek were highly scrutinized in relation to their proximity to the creek and contamination by sewage. Why did you neglect to mention that?

    More attempts to cover up the resulting disaster of incorporation makes you no better than the people that started the unfounded rumor in the first place. From day one of Sedona’s confirmed “incorporation” developers have been lined up at City Hall. And now the beat goes on by action proposed to increase density for multi-family housing with NO guarantee that in the future all such facilities won’t become more vacation rentals. Ask the developers of Nepenthe and Fairfield (now Wyndam) if they are still around.

    One last thing. Included in the huge redevelopment of the former Biddle property, the resort hotel is proposing a portion of the land for some sort of mixed-housing. With that enormous enterprise soon to be under way, wouldn’t it be common sense to consider some sort of feasibility study to ascertain the effectiveness of the results of that project prior to amending the Community Plan for even more increased density?

    Of course it was Councilman John Currivan that made the suggestion to incorporate the proposed redevelopment at the Schnebly Focus Area into the then extensive and expensive traffic evaluation study. But oh no – not even ONE other member on that city council, including the mayor, considered an actual sensible suggestion as being viable!

    Oh, oh – my bad! Shouldn’t have suggested using the “S” word aka in this instance “sense” when making suggestions relating to feasibility. “Shame, shame double shame, everybody knows my name.”

  12. PS from ES(M) says:

    Inadvertently omitted from my previous comment is the FACT that with routine maintenance my septic system continues to serve its purpose with efficiency.

    Another oversight was my reference to the comment from @Eddie Maddock which is officially corrected to reflect the exact reference as it appeared: @Eddie Moddock with an emphasis on the “O”. Another misrepresentation of actuality? Doubt it. Just another coward ashamed to use their own name is more likely.

    And as for the redirection of sewer connections from Broken Arrow to the Mystic Hills development, if that developer is still around (which is doubtful) I would send him an annual thank you note for having spared our subdivision from being victimized by enforced connection and ever increasing monthly fees that certainly do NOT function without incident. (ask the two property owners over on View Drive?)

    Oh yes – one final comment here. At first it was upsetting for Mystic Hills to have disrupted wild life corridors to Oak Creek where the TRUE inhabitants of Sedona once traveled. However, we have been blessed having the opportunity to welcome those natives to our own subdivision.

    Recently there were two city employees checking out a drainage situation on a Sunday afternoon following up on a bridge overflow from a monsoon storm. They stopped me as I was walking Poco Diablo. (note to rude person that reminded me about the death of my Harley McGuire – I have another furry friend). These two polite young gentlemen took time to very excitedly let me know there was a deer in the wash across from my home that connects with Oak Creek. I informed them that deer as other wildlife frequent this neighborhood because they are truly aware of positive energy, love, and welcoming that most of us will do what we can to protect them as well as our properties that assist in nurturing them as more and more development displaces their own natural habitat.

    Have our elected representatives and city planners inadvertently overlooked that aspect of increased development or do they simply no longer care?

  13. WSR says:

    @Eddie

    Omg
    Blah blah blah

    Give it a rest…..will ya please…
    Your pontificating is getting boring

  14. Joe & Peg @RRX-ing says:

    Keep your bullying in the City Limits @Steve Segner. We don’t want or need your advice out here. And guess what? You do NOT have the final say-so about what’s built at The Dells. What is it you do NOT seem to understand? Red Rock/89A Corridor/Dry Creek Area of Yavapai County will approve what is or isn’t developed on the property owned by city of Sedona – NOT YOU! And the same goes for a bridge at RR Crossing or anything else you try to impose on those of us outside your jurisdiction. In fact, don’t you, in fact, live in Oak Creek Segner as you wrote about driving into Sedona every morning and complained about traffic coming from Flagstaff? How about staying in YOUR OWN back yard?

  15. NERoscoe says:

    @WSR or Richard Collister Your continued bashing and no meaning responses are inept and extraordinarily stupid. Keep it up. We love to see you for the man or woman or men or women you are and aren’t. Just sayin’ & ESM keep it up because we love seeing you are a woman of class and tolerance. Have a good day fine lady. We think highly of you in this city.

  16. Richard D. says:

    @Steve Segner – Maybe if you read the above article you might learn something. Specifically and starting with,,, “A small flurry of articles popped up in June 2003 relating to guess what? Affordable Housing!”

    Be assured it isn’t only Joe & Peg @RR-xing that are fed up with your meddling. And when you become so out of control your comments don’t even make sense – shouldn’t be a good thing for your cause. In fact, it displays good reason to do the opposite of what you pontificate which borders on illiteracy…My opinion.

    Approval of development of city owned property at The Dells is NOT the jurisdiction of incorporated Sedona. Now THAT is a fact and your statements indicating otherwise are inaccurate and should be retracted. But of course Steve Segner needn’t play by the rules. Isn’t that how it’s done in Sedona these days? And look at the results. Pretty big mess. Wise up, Segner, City Council & Staff – please!

  17. Wsr says:

    I love you Eddie! You are the best!!!
    WSR

  18. Julianna says:

    @Wsr The most boring and mindless in all of Sedona is you WSR. Wsr, Richard collister et al.

    You really need to have your own website. I can help.

  19. @NERoscoe says:

    Ditto & Right On!

  20. West Sedona Resident says:

    I have way too much time on hand. Sorry Eddie I really have a big crush on you!!!! Love your articles and your posts!!!!
    Now I have to figure out how to get the 2,000 dollar fire district bill paid for. Living in a 4,300 sq ft home with a $$$$$6,700 property tax isn’t really rough
    But they are getting out of hand, the fire district. How can we dissolve the district? We need to go to a county fire district. Getting way out of control Fire Chief . You should be fired :)

  21. Simple Solution says:

    @West Sedona Resident (the one with the 4300 sq ft home)

    Simply have the chamber of commerce purchase your home with the money they get from the city. Call it product development – then either turn it into workforce housing or a halfway house for those that have gone astray. And that way it would probably be deferred from paying for the fire district – not that it would be your problem anymore.

    Easy- right?

  22. Wsr says:

    Ok let’s see

    I’m quite a hit cause my name is getting hijacked like crazy..
    What do they say: imitation is the best compliment

    I’ve been accused of being someone named Jennifer W…..a lady that was on the city council(you know the one with twinkles in her hair)…a member of the C of C.
    A sedona city worker…..a employee of the Sedona Fire Dept…someone on “the take” from Sedona city taxes…also been assused of being a communist……a bully…a deranged mental patient who may be violent…..as well as a half dozen other things….
    All this for for pointing out the crybaby complainers on Sedona Eye who take no action about anything but complain and finger point.

  23. @Simple Solution says:

    The best business, most profitable and well paid are those that get funded by the city taxpayers. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see they are playing on the taxpayers back cause they can’t do it on their own.

  24. JeanJ says:

    When will harebrained Steve Segner (my opinion) get it that JJ and I are not one and the same?

    And how can the City use the Community Plan to justify going forward with issue after issue and project after project? Wasn’t the Plan a failure? There were 6,495 Registered Voters at the time of the March 11, 2014 election. Total votes cast were 2,485 of which 1,530 were YES and 954 were NO. A mere 23.6 percent of the Registered Voters voted YES.

    RESOLUTION NO. 2014-04
    http://www.sedonaaz.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=22997

  25. steve Segner says:

    Approval of development of city owned property at The Dells is NOT the jurisdiction of incorporated Sedona. Now THAT is a fact and your statements indicating otherwise are inaccurate and should be retracted

    No the city owns it and will use county zoning, if the city sell some land to a developer, they will work with
    the county.
    No one seem to want to answer my question, what is wrong with smaller lots and smaller housing, ? What is wrong with some housing people just starting out in live can afford?

    One more question, Richard D. says: But of course Steve Segner need’t play by the rules please tell us all the rules I or the city is breaking? Talk is cheap when you don’t use a name. By the pay I pay over $13,000 to the fire dept. And Im for the tax .

  26. Joe & Peg @RRX-ing says:

    Thank you Steve Segner for finally admitting The Dells is OUTSIDE City Limits. Yavapai County believe it or not has been very cooperative in the past as far as what we in the Red Rock/89A Corridor/Dry Creek Area offer in our own land planning document. Take your little houses and plant them in your own back yard up Oak Creek Canyon, Segner. LEAVE US ALONE!

    BTW since you know everything maybe you can either confirm or deny that when City of Sedona sells off property they are need of voter approval. Yea or Nay?

  27. @JeanJ says:

    Come on Jean just admit that you are against any development or ANYTHING at all that the city does. You have spoken here and there for your 3 minutes and sound ridiculous and out of touch with reality every time. Case in point when you spoke out against allowing working people a simple place to live.

    Question for you Jean, other than YOUR OPINION, where did you ever read that the community plan vote was a failure?

    We can agree when you say “There were 6,495 Registered Voters at the time of the March 11, 2014 election. Total votes cast were 2,485 of which 1,530 were YES and 954 were NO. A mere 23.6 percent of the Registered Voters voted YES”.

    When something passes in Sedona by 23.6 percent, that is a big win in my book.

    JeanJ Way back when, Rob Adams won his first campaign for mayor by just a few votes BUT HE WON! While the win wasn’t big, IT WASN’T A FAILURE, Mayor Pud, failed to win and that would be considered a failure.

  28. Steve segner says:

    JJ please the community plan is a guide P &z in the city Council ultimately decide what they want to do regarding development, question Jean when someone doesn’t vote against something is it a vote for?

  29. West Sedona Resident says:

    Good job SFD your taking sedona to the highest cost of living with your 9% increase this year, is on top of 6% in 2016; 11% in 2015; 24% in 2014; 22% in 2013; and 10% in 2012! SFD taxes have increased 114% in the last five years.

  30. F.Y.I. says:

    The superabundance of vehicles that clog Sedona’s streets emit poisons such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulphur oxides, lead, ozone, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter. These emissions are bad for human health and the environment.

    Sedona doesn’t need more density or more housing. Unresolvable traffic problems are doing our City in. Furthermore, many people who moved here don’t want to live in a town that looks like a City.

  31. @Steve segner says:

    @Steve segner you say the community plan is just a guide which should be true. Too often P & Z Commissioners, City Council members and city staff will use it as Sedona’s Bible. They are presently doing it by pushing low cost housing or work force housing. They keep saying just because it’s in the community plan that justifies approving it. Overlooks the community plan also supports LOW density development and OPEN SPACE!! It’s all about accommodating one special interest group and providing what they should be doing for themselves!

  32. steve segner says:

    FYI
    says The superabundance of vehicles that clog Sedona’s streets emit poisons such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulphur oxides, lead, ozone, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter. These emissions are bad for human health and the environment.

    Please tell us why you moved ro a city on TWO state HWY”S ? A tourist town at that?

  33. Vicious Circle says:

    So far there’s still a missing link to this fiasco.

    Let’s say the city approves higher density development hoping it will provide more affordable rentals. Now as the sales tax is about to increase 1% and the fire district is asking for the voters to increase their property taxes to pay for an $18 million bond, how will that affect these fictional “affordable” rentals?

    Well of course, the rents will increase to cover the costs! Oh – sales tax for those who aren’t aware applies to commercial rentals! Yep – – $4,000/$5,000 monthly commercial rentals (low end) must pay sales tax on those amounts. How ya gonna like springing for yet another increase over and above the already exorbitant taxes we pay to the fire district?

    Steve Segner brags that he pays over $13,000 to the fire department and still supports the proposed bond. And yet he finagles a way for the city to provide housing to benefit the lodging industry which they should be providing for themselves.

    Any bets that in the very near future if these proposed new taxes come to fruition Sedona will see another onslaught of vacant store fronts and maybe even real estate sales will boom because we are all not wealthy like Segner and cannot scheme methods for taxpayers to pick up the increase in our daily cost of living.

  34. Norma says:

    heard those apartments are going to run 2,500 to 3,000 a month. Think about it the property taxes will be about half of that. How is that affordable???? You are ruining Sedona……

  35. @ F.Y.I. says:

    Just for the record, carbon dioxide is not a poison. It’s what you exhale. It’s what plants use for photosynthesis.

  36. Steve segner says:

    Vicious Circle says: please show me where I said if the city state or county is going to supply house.I have said I want to work on low and medium priced houses and to make that work we need density changed there’s nothing wrong with having medium priced houses, you people are just scared of people not like you coming to Sedona and by the way hotels do supply housing for their employees in many cases what other business does that .nobody’s asking the city for one red cent we are asking to be a city of diversity and Norma what you hear has no validity they’re looking at having apartments between $1200 and up normal there’s no property taxes when you rent is figured in the rental cost,do a model research before you talk

  37. Son of A Gun says:

    @@F.Y.I = “Just for the record, carbon dioxide is not a poison. It’s what you exhale. It’s what plants use for photosynthesis.” Hey one out of the lineup of baddies ain’t bad. Thx for the good catch – very astute.

    Now what about the rest of the toxins noted: nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulphur oxides, lead, ozone, volatile organic compounds and particulate matter.

    Does Sedona really need to compound an already increasing unhealthy environment by adding more dense development translating to more traffic? Like it or not, it will evolve with the ongoing big city projections.

    OMG only on Sedona Eye. Hate to admit it but it’s addictive.

  38. Jack Smith says:

    @stevesegner Define pls for the record your dollar range for low priced housing in Sedona AZ; Define pls for the record your dollar range for medium priced housing in Sedona AZ. Thank you.

  39. steve@elportalsedona.com says:

    First some apartments,then some small home at 300,000 or under .
    now please tell us , why having a range of home and apartment pricing is bad?

  40. F.Y.I. says:

    When I moved to Sedona the Chamber of Commerce hadn’t yet turned Sedona’s highways into traffic clogged messes. Instead of a 1 percent City sales tax increase, the Chamber should pay to fix the traffic problems they’ve created using the over $2 million they receive from the City annually.

  41. Paul M. says:

    The taxes are forever taking away any affordable living in the greater Sedona area. With the value of a modest home 1,600 sq ft you’re looking at 4,900 a year in taxes for yavapai. That is approximately 409 dollars a month. The higher the value the higher the cost. If the fire bond goes through then your up to 500 a month for a modest home. Enough people VOTE NO!
    As far as lodging – chamber is concerned YOU road that horse! You got into the tourist industry, it is not the taxpayers problem. Do like the grand canyon, employers pay their own way.

  42. Paul M. says:

    The taxes are forever taking away any affordable living in the greater Sedona area. With the value of a modest home 1,600 sq ft you’re looking at 4,900 a year in taxes for yavapai. That is approximately 409 dollars a month. The higher the value the higher the cost. If the fire bond goes through then your up to 500 a month for a modest home. Enough people VOTE NO!
    As far as lodging – chamber is concerned YOU road that horse! You got into the tourist industry, it is not the taxpayers problem. Do like the grand canyon, employers pay their own way.

  43. Joe & Peg @RRX-ing says:

    At least you admitted one thing about The Dells (Steve Segner): 9/14 you wrote: ” No the city owns it and will use county zoning. If the city sell some land to a developer, they will work with the county.”

    And so are you implying if the city sells some of that property for the explicit purpose of producing high density low cost housing (or Little Houses as you keep harping on) Yavapai County and the Red Rock/89A Corridor Dry Creek Area will just automatically says it’s OK? Or maybe you have plans to entertain the County Supervisors at a lavish event at your Estate in Oak Creek Canyon as you did the Sedona City Council (it was all over FaceBook). Hopefully our County Supervisors will uphold more ethical behavior than Sedona Council and even State Reps who appear to acquiesce to perceived paybacks due to appearances at Sedona Town Halls.. (Example: Bob Thorpe maintaining the right for Sedona to collect sewer fees on vacant lots. Remember that one?)

    And simply because people object to high density development doesn’t imply anything at all, whatsoever, against the type of people who will occupy them. Get a grip, Segner. Many of us are more concerned about maintaining open space than having strip development – be it residential or commercial – simply because of our scenic environment. You want big city life – go back to California! And one other thing as you make snide remarks about Sun City. Are you implying you’re not old enough to be accepted in that type of planned environment? Doubt that!

  44. Rich collister says:

    @paul M

    You know that’s a lie….I’m sure it nott your real name.

    My taxes are around 1800/year for everything and the house is around 1600 sq/ft.
    You don’t even live in town nor do you know what your taking about.

  45. Paul M. says:

    @Rich collister you must live in a trailer or outside the sedona fire district. Tax rates are public.Truth. Sorry you are living in a crappy place that has no value. If this is your primary residence then the value of your dwelling is only 185,402 which is less than trailers in town. Looks like you’re not telling the truth.

  46. Jim says:

    @Rich Hollister. You could never afford to live in Sedona. Flatlander. You have no voice. Move back to New York. Loser!

  47. Joyce M. says:

    Hey @Paul M. – Having just received our own property tax bill we know what you are saying is true. However give Rich Collister credit. He apparently knows first hand exactly what the term “low cost housing” means. Oh my – cannot believe some of the stuff on here but Paul M. there’s no doubt you speak the truth here. And once the FD bond is approved maybe even Collister’s house will surpass the low end classification. Just hope he can sell it for what it will be worth after increased taxes. Too funny – Too sad.

  48. Rich collister says:

    @paul M

    I think your the one fibbin there pal…
    4600/year…..don’t think so

    @Jim

    Have no idea what the hell your talking about

  49. Paul M. says:

    You need to get educated @Rich collister.

    Go ahead and post your parcel number and county and then we all see your fibbin. I ain’t no pal, don’t know nor want to know you. Just image what the businesses are paying Their properties are a fortune. No conflict here. If you rent people then your taxes are higher than primary residence. So Vote NO if you don’t want your rent to go up. We can thank the fire district for no affordable housing.

  50. Rich collister says:

    @Paul M(fake name)

    Ok you go first…..don’t need parcel number just give your address.
    You said your your house is 1600 square feet and to pay 4900/tax a year..
    I call BS

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2008-2017 · Sedona Eye · All Rights Reserved · Posts · Comments · Facebook · Twitter ·