Sedona AZ (October 5, 2012) – In a letter to the SedonaEye.com editor, Sedona Arizona resident, Henry Twombly, challenges the truthfulness of statements attributed to him by fellow Sedona resident, James Eaton:
I apologize to Jim Eaton if I upset him so much that he feels he has to come after me. I appreciate a healthy exchange of opinions, wherein there is no absolute truth, just different perspectives. But I prefer to be criticized for things I actually said or wrote.
To my knowledge I never wrote anything about “secret meetings.” His SRRN citation of this quote is incorrect. On August 31, 2012 only a guest perspective and no letters were published. In my “Public hearing will address amendment” I urged citizens to express their opinions about the proposed Sky Ranch amendment. So I’m not sure where he read about “secret meetings,” though he is correct thinking I believe much of the community plan has been drafted behind the scenes mainly as a pro-growth, pro-tourist agenda.
Jim correctly points out there has been plenty of opportunity for public feedback. Whether that input has been incorporated into the plan we’ll never know.
My conclusion is that much of Sedona politics happens this way. For instance, I understand money has already been budgeted for the purchase of land for a river walk.
I don’t remember a public discussion about using city money to buy creekside property from landowners, whose clients and/or friends would be the most proximate beneficiaries. Yes, there will be public access. But do we need to build a tourist attraction, when the city is $55 million in debt, and each of us is responsible for nearly $5,200, the sixth largest per capita rate in the state?
More and more I believe we are being governed by fiat, wherein the powers that be legislate their own agenda into policy. Through public forums, disguised as opportunities for input, we citizens are asked to rubber stamp their decisions. And no matter what the feedback, they do what they want.
No doubt, Jim. You will have a different opinion. But that’s the beauty of our democracy, the freedom of expression, wherein we can cordially agree to disagree.
Henry Twombly Sedona AZ
For the best Sedona Arizona News and Views? Subscribe to www.SedonaEye.com today.
Thank you, Mr. Twombly, for addressing the matter of the Creek Walk/Park issue.
In a recent e-mail exchange with Mayor Adams, he advised me that 70% of the folks submitting comments to the revision of the Community Plan support the idea.
Will not belabor the matter here, but what percentage of the community does that 70% “support” represent?
E-mails are public information and I will gladly make them available.
Thank You Henry.
Eddie, I would appreciate hearing Your feed back, as not one person I’ve spoken to wants a ‘River Walk’. In fact they are very against it. Good heavens, We have miles of creek to walk along already, and it’s already there.
Responding to Bettye and my e-mail communication with Mayor Rob Adams relating to the proposed Creek Walk & Public Park, you asked and are now receiving:
Eddie to Rob Adams:
This is just to let you know that at least one loyal (TV) viewer of council meetings was doing just that (getting a life.) I missed viewing the meeting because of a previous engagement. And no, I was not staying awake the three nights I was (away) thinking about “nonsense” issues by which to annoy you. Case in point: Creek Walk and Public Park which have already been rejected over the years due to the impracticality of such a venture.
Response from Rob Adams:
By the way, a creek walk or creek park was mentioned as a high community priority by over 70% of the attendees of the Community Plan update. A similar percentage desire a community performance venue in the Parks Plan. I am simply supporting the will of the people.
Eddie:
What percentage of Sedona registered voters have participated in the Community Plan update? The 70% approval you cite by no means justifies the two encumbrances to which you refer. Unless that 70% of a so far unidentified number would be willing to form a Special Improvement District in perpetuity in order to guarantee financial and liability requirements, then the most logical way to assess the factual acceptance of Sedona residents would be to allow Creek Walk/Park, etc. to appear as ballot measures.
Rob:
Regarding the percentages that participated in the Community Plan, I don’t know. I would ask, if a public official is elected and only 20% of the people vote, should the elected official be allowed to take office? If you don’t show up or respond to public participation opportunities, you will be subject to the will of the people that did bother to show up or vote.
Eddie:
There is a major discrepancy in your two case scenarios, that being a VOTE of the people is OFFICIAL. A tally of “opinions” from folks throwing in their two cents worth when opportunities arise, as in the case of revising the Community Plan, is NOT official . . . same as unofficial surveys or polls.
Again I can think of no better example of this than the misled decision made by the majority of city council members who voted for Sedona to take over ownership of W89A based on THEIR evaluation of serving their “perceived” will of the people. The numbers who really didn’t want the lights but thought owning the highway was “officially” reflected and decided by vote and would have stood regardless of the percentage of voters. IT WAS “OFFICIAL.”
Rob:
Again, we agree to disagree.
Ms Maddock:
I’m sorry did I miss something; how is having a creek walk or creek park in a flood zone a good sensible or responsible idea? Now, please don’t miss-understand me I would love to see one built and be able to take my little dog for walks there and would even donate my time to help keep it maintained but, after each big monsoon, we’d have to re-build it over and over again. On a side note, since this would be built by our City, how would such an area be ADA compliant?
I really must commend our Mayor for his dedication in his vision for something so unique for us.
Hi Ms. Thomas:
It seems we aren’t communicating. I do NOT think it’s a good idea to spend thousands of dollars for a dedicated public creek walk and related park.
For the same reason that you point out, after each monsoon there would be tons of maintenance costs. This has been an issue for years, studied for years, and the last time it went to council was deemed a bad idea for the reasons you mentioned.
It will open up, albeit it unintentionally, areas for poachers and uncontrolled camp fires, parties which might also become alcohol and drug related,, possibilities for small children to drown, and last but not least, ecoli such as exists at Slide Rock.
Is Sedona financially solvent to afford the maintenance and liability risks? Many acres of creekside access are presently available as was pointed out by Bettye.
If you don’t think it’s a good sensible or responsible idea, then why are you commending our mayor for his dedication to make it happen?
Sincerely,
Eddie Maddock
Ms. Maddock:
Thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding, at my age, these things tend to happen. I’m glad to find that we agree.
I commend the Mayor for at least trying to have a vision to try to make changes in our City. It would be nice for him to put the same effort into having Schnebly Hill Road paved so that the locals can use that to by pass the uptown traffic up to Rt 17. That would be a great project for him to put his name on.
I think the Mayor has a sense of humor but like all senses of humor the teller and the listener may disagree as to its smile quotient.
Shirley is a friend of mine and she thinks Will Rogers is awful but I think he was smart and funny. I still like Shirley but never tell her a joke. Mr. Mayor, you may want to pretend that everybody around you is Shirley.