SedonaEye.com columnist, Eddie S. Maddock

Sedona AZ (August 15, 2012) – Holy smokes!

Lately there are so many comments posted on Sedona Eye that, if one sneezes more than once, the entire lineup is likely to change within that short duration. Little wonder the SedonaEye.com web site has become so popular because there isn’t another news outlet in Sedona that will fairly make views from all sides of an issue available to readers.

Care to challenge that statement? Go ahead but be prepared for factual evidence supporting the pick and choose policies of other publications.

As frequently happens, comment submitters will enter into one-on-one dialog which, in turn, easily generates more interaction among other contributors — as opinions and tensions rally to verbal donnybrook elevations.

In fact, following these online altercations, it’s fascinating to discover how comments easily become extended far beyond the subject article offering the opportunity for comment in the first place.

Diane Laws Rodriquez photo of Sedona posted on Facebook

Then, there are unusual and interesting remarks made from near and afar that touch on real deals, provoking profound thinking.

Following is one such recent entry posted relating to the airplane crash at the Sedona Airport:

Libby and Phil Tregesserio says: July 30, 2012 at 6:47 am

We have read with interest this story and the comments, coming back often to see if new thoughts or opinions have been expressed. Tragedies involving children are never understood. Loss at such a young age is bitter.

When the lost art of conversation is rediscovered, it makes for interesting reading for these two Maricopa County (six years for six months annually) residents. A comment would be appropriate from former visitors to address the need for an airport and economy downside:

You may find it of interest that amongst our group of snowbird friends hailing from Wisconsin/Idaho/New York/Maine/Nebraska/Ottawa/Toronto/Oregon, we do not prefer additional trips to your fair city and no one ever goes to Mexico any longer. We say this not because of a bias but because it is an aid to hear. We enjoy Flagstaff for a cool summer outing about twice a year.

We visited Sedona in 2004 for a friend’s wedding weekend. In some areas it does offer spectacular scenery but it is a tourist town and one visit for us is enough. For us (and many friends and acquaintances), Grand Canyon NP and Zion NP and Bryce NP offer better scenery with retained simplicity.

We cannot speak to the airport but living near one would not be a preference because of noise and air pollution. We do understand that tourists might like the access if afforded and suggest an impact study in light of health and safety questions. Maybe one of your fine universities could take on the task? Thank you for your interest and time to share these comments.

Now did these people, Libby and Phil Tregresserio, offer a gift of information to the City of Sedona, specifically City Planners, City Council, Chamber of Commerce, Sedona Main Street Program or what?

Unsolicited words from tourists who speak not only for themselves but other associates from different parts of the country, all agreeing that Sedona has lost appeal. The campaign for too much – unwanted frills and unappreciated adornment — continues to choke the charm out of our natural environment. Their reasons for no longer coming to Sedona are stated simply and clearly: “We do not prefer additional trips to your fair city . . . In some areas it does offer spectacular scenery but it is a tourist town and one visit for us is enough.” Their comparison with National and State Parks is explicit: “Better scenery with retained simplicity.”

Food for thought Chamber of Commerce, Sedona Main Street Program and aggressive do-gooders who forever attempt to challenge Mother Nature, thinking they can improve her work with gaudy colors, garish signs, and ugly banners, all of which were classified as “taboo” at the onset of incorporation.

Whatever happened to the intention for Sedona to have a sign ordinance similar to the one in Carmel, California? It most assuredly was on the drawing board as a good example to accommodate wishes expressed in the original Community Plan, specifically “To be a city that is constantly vigilant over the preservation of its natural beauty, scenic vistas, pristine environment and cultural heritage.”

Does the increasing abundance of banners, flags, and ugly signage really represent “manmade improvements in strict harmony with nature?” Apparently that isn’t the case according to voices from Wisconsin, New York, Maine, Nebraska, Ottawa, Toronto, Oregon, and Alaska.

What went wrong? Has too much resulted in too little, proving that bigger is definitely not necessarily better? If other tourists have different opinions, why not share by submitting your comments to Sedona Eye?

Another fascinating comment was posted by “Dick” under “Quarterly Sedona Real Estate Report with Sean Baguley:”

Dick says:  August 7, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Sedona and the Village of Oakcreek are not the playground of the rich and famous but of the well heeled and retired.

There is a difference in longevity and plans to pay for the future with tax dollars.

LOCAL Government isn’t that necessary to Sedona and the VOC and the small cluster of folks that want more layers of government in the Village are out of touch with the majority and the economy. Yavapai County is fine and enough representation for the Village. Sedona would do well to dissolve city government and return to the county oversight.

Thank you for this.

And thank you, Dick, for interesting remarks and observations, subjective, of course, and possibly not all people will agree with your assessment.

However, likewise, not many people were aware there was a time when a short-term effort was afoot to have the Coconino County portion of Sedona removed from the City Limits.

Residents became discouraged because new construction, much of it high density timeshares and resort expansions, was being granted sewer privileges in favor of following the alleged master plan of connecting existing (pre-incorporation) subdivisions and businesses. It was obvious a breach of commitment had quickly taken command. Sewer priority was extended to the yet undeveloped Mystic Hills,  another slap in the face to those who lived in Sedona.

While still under jurisdiction of Coconino County, at least one proposed development (where the Hillside shopping center now exists) and attempts to increase the size of Poco Diablo had been denied. It became apparent that, prior to incorporation, Coconino County offered far more restricted and tasteful development in accordance with the desire to maintain the special scenic values Sedona hoped to protect.

Coconino County had, in fact, been acknowledging the unwritten desires of the now useless Sedona Community Plan. And, yes, it is worthless. Check historically the infractions including but not limited to;  amendments for rezoning, alternate standards, administrative waivers, manipulation of parking requirements, fluctuation and watering down of perceived tasteful signage, and the list seems to go on and on.

Based on the above, an 18-year Coconino County Supervisor, Dennis Wells, was contacted regarding a process whereby the section of incorporated Sedona which he served might secede from the incorporated city and return to county jurisdiction.

However, not far into investigating the process in 1995, Mr. Wells accepted employment in Cave Creek and terminated his post as Coconino County Supervisor which left concerned and discontented Sedona citizens high and dry. These citizens pretty much felt stuck, as victims, in the obvious con game of incorporation which clearly was meant to accommodate and serve developers and not those who live here.

To this day, 24 years later, older subdivisions still remain without service to the Waste Water Treatment Plant which, in itself, has become a source of mockery and jokes since the beginning of the incorporation of Sedona (the now commonly believed farce was and continues to be).

As evidenced by review of Geronimo Communications Backfire video footage at a meeting in the Village of Oak Creek at 7:00 PM the evening of June 19, 2000, a standing-room-only audience (approximately 300 people) crammed into the then-existing Big Park Clubhouse to listen to a presentation by then-VOC resident, Charles Aurand, who represented the Annexation & Incorporation Committee of 12 “unnamed disciples” except that three-quarters (9) of that twelve were VOC residents while one quarter (3) lived in the Sedona City Limits.

The idea, considering audience reaction, was soundly rejected. The idea was based on such things as becoming part of the (then alleged) eighty-million dollar sewer treatment plant debt as part of the estimated $10,000 per capita indebtedness at that time honoring residents of incorporated Sedona.

Why would VOC residents be willing to split that bill?

The obvious Big Park opposition to annexation and or incorporation, at least the evening of June 19, 2000, most assuredly echoed the sentiments expressed by “Dick” in his recent comment posted on Sedona Eye.

That the current City Council has now tabled important matters, such as addressing Smart Meters, and favors dedicating $4,020,000 to a Creek Walk (Ref. 07-31-12 Council Retreat Packet) without consideration to future maintenance, safety patrol, and liability is unfathomable while at the same time represents the ongoing “business as usual” policy.

Some things just never change.

“. . . and we’re POSSIBLY going to talk about smart meters and neighborhood identity and pride, Adams said.” (Sedona Red Rock News, 8/3/12, p. 5A)

Neighborhood identity and pride? 

OK, it’s time to wind this up with hopefully more to follow, primarily in the form of input from Sedona Eye readers. Amen and Hallelujah!

*Geronimo Communications Backfire video tape aired on June 20, 2000.

For the best Sedona Arizona News and Views? Subscribe to www.SedonaEye.com today.