Eddie S. Maddock, Sedona Eye columnist
The Second in the Series, The Will of the People Be Damned, by Sedona Eye columnist Eddie S. Maddock looks at the incorporation of Sedona and subsequent efforts to manage its development.
The deciding election for whether or not Sedona was to incorporate occurred in the fall of 1987. When the final votes had been counted in early December, the decision to incorporate was deemed valid and Sedona began her journey as an official city in early 1988.
A previous attempt to incorporate in 1985 geographically included the entire area known as Greater Sedona, encompassing both school and fire districts. However, that election failed and incorporation was rejected. The second attempt which reduced the proposed city limits to their current boundaries was approved by a margin of 3-2.
After incorporation, some locals had become restless long before the time frame of the development proposals cited in Part One of this discourse.
Because of that, during the summer of 1993 a movement ensued by a small group of citizens. The end result was formation of what was coined an “alliance” to become an Arizona non-profit corporation known as The Responsible Residents of the Red Rocks aka 4R with the mission statement: “The Responsible Residents of the Red Rocks, Inc. are committed to preserve and improve the quality of life in Greater Sedona. We take responsibility as citizens and stewards for the present and the future that this unique place offers its residents. Our vision is a community where generations of people thrive in productive harmony with each other and with nature.”
In the first 4R newsletter dated January 1994 they already declared a membership as of December 20, 1993 of two hundred. By April 6, 1997 that number had grown to 479 which, in those days, easily rivaled support for both Keep Sedona Beautiful and the Chamber of Commerce.
Having progressively lost faith in City Officials’ commitment that the Community Plan coupled with area planning efforts, codes, and ordinances would serve well enough to manage growth, the 4R proceeded to legally succeed in placing Proposition 401, the Sustainable Growth Initiative, on the May 21, 1996 ballot. Their observance of the city’s trend to water down the Community Plan was the primary target, and the ultimate goal was simply to pump the brakes in order to allow sewer capacity and other infrastructure needs and related maintenance an opportunity to play catch up within presently existing areas.
The object of the ordinance was to slow the rate of construction in Sedona to preserve the environment and manage growth . . . not to stop development! That, however, very quickly became the convenient and erroneous determination of city planners, developers, and realtors in an attempt to avert tighter controls.
Upon voter approval of Proposition 401 on May 21, 1996, albeit by a small margin, opponents wasted no time in taking legal action against the Sustainable Growth Initiative. Real estate broker John D. Miller, president and founder of Sedona Private Property Owners Association (Service name: Citizens Police Academy) determined it to be a popular ordinance but not legal.
And who were these unnamed members of Sedona Private Property Owners Association who apparently failed to voice their objection by casting their votes on Election Day? Hmmm . . . could it be that they, as well as John D. Miller, were, in fact, not residents living within Sedona City Limits and thus weren’t registered voters? And yet, as it turned out, they prevailed and succeeded in overturning the will of legitimate residents who should have mattered because it was their city they were attempting to protect.
And so you see, the recent incident of the battle of ownership of West 89A wasn’t the first time the voices of Sedona residents had been ignored which resulted in a ballot measure. Will the decisive outcome of that effort also be subjected to a court challenge?
As development marched onward within Sedona City Limits, a similar troubling situation was brewing in 1998. A debate was under way as the “Growing Smarter” process was moving forward, the purpose of which was to combat “urban sprawl” in yet another attempt to curtail unbridled growth statewide.
Specifically in our immediate area Suncor, one of Arizona’s then most financially and politically powerful corporations, made its intentions clear that they desired to acquire a 300 acre parcel at “The Dells” for the purpose of developing a residential/commercial mixed use project which was substantially supported by at least two of our local developers, John D. Miller and Gary Hughes.
As comparisons were made using stretches of strip development between Dewey and Prescott, Show Low and Pinetop, Oracle and Tucson, was this what we wanted for our area? At least at that time the resounding will of the people was heard: “NO!” However, that was in 1998 and we are now embarking into the beginning of 2012 and another election for three members to the Sedona City Council is in our faces.
With the recent announcement that acquiring land and a partnership is part of the city’s affordable housing plan, could it be that once again expanding Sedona City Limits will be on the horizon? How is it the city can agree to partner in the purchase of real estate without approval of the voters? Is that even legal?
At any rate, if expanded City Limits becomes a reality, will the owners of the former Offield Horse Ranch appeal to the city to rezone that property for commercial use? Yavapai County, in their infinite wisdom when approached with such a proposition did, indeed, determine it was an offer they could refuse because that’s exactly what they did. Given the same opportunity would our own Planning and Zoning Department and City Council make the same determination?
Will the need for affordable housing be the prime selling point to tempt the city to expand City Limits? If that’s the case, will future development agreements be more specific and include that intent within the agreements themselves, unlike what occurred, for example, with Miller’s Nepenthe Patio Homes and the affordable rentals made part of the contingency when the original Fairfield Timeshares gained an amendment to the Community Plan for rezoning? Such alleged affordable housing obviously never came to pass.
Will the greed for buying up vacant land be the underlying reason to resurrect this questionable need for more housing while some existing properties are still undergoing foreclosure and real estate remains a buyer’s market? Who is to say “affordable” isn’t presently available due to decline in real estate values?
We cannot change the past. What are the chances of protecting the future? Based on promises time and time again that the Community Plan will serve as our savior and the stark reality that the document itself holds little credibility, are we destined to be denied forever the words spoken by Abraham Lincoln on November 19, 1863?
Will we ever be able to trust our elected officials to listen and apply the choices of the majority in lieu of opting for their own defining opinions and actions?
Or are backroom plans already in motion for implementations the moment the votes are counted and new members of the Sedona City Council are seated?
As perhaps only “The Shadow” knew the actual purpose of the 30,000 square foot “office park” realistically was intended as the future Sedona City Hall, maybe only “The Shadow” knows what’s in store for expanding “urban sprawl?” That being the case, will anyone be surprised if the bottom line turns out to be short term personal gain for a select few?
Watch for Eddie S. Maddock’s Part Three of the Will of the People be Damned exclusively on SedonaEye.com.
For the best in Sedona news and views, read SedonaEye.com daily! Reach 3000+ subscribers with your ads and articles!
Whether or not there’s a “Part Three” to this historical diatribe depends upon readers response.
Eddie
Interesting article as well as referenced related posts. Where might I find The Labyrinth Part One?
SedonaEye.com Editor: Thank you, Mindy, for your interest in the Labyrinth and Angel Valley series by Hollywood Jim Franckowiak. We believe the article that you may be looking for is found here: https://sedonaeye.com/angel-valley-remix-by-sedona-times-contributing-writer-jim-franckowiak. Eddie S. Maddock’s original series is a fascinating look at Sedona, past to present. Enjoy!
Lady you know too much! Great reminder of things that have gone on in the last 23 years.
The will of the people be damned? I say NO. Didn’t the will of the people just get taken care of last November with the vote on 410/411 that countered the current city council’s not listening to the will of us? What more really needs to be said?
Seems like a done deal. People were heard and majority won.
Thank you for your obvious devotion and knowledge of history in Sedona.
My question to you is why, after the will of the people was heard at the ballot box, are you going back through old history that can not be undone? What is your point and or goal?
I do look forward to your next – Part Three – as I await you bringing all the ends together so we may have a better idea of your desired results and concepts. Are we damned to hell or do we have hope?
Keep on writing Eddie….bring us all to fruition.
S.C.
Steve Crisp, you are 100% correct. The will of the people definitely was well served at the expense of a costly special election. One question, however, remains unanswered. Will the Initiative portion of that election, Prop. 411, be challenged in court? Some folks still maintain it’s unconstitutional.
If you are anticipating conclusions or predictions from me relating to the future of Sedona, it will not happen. There are those who pooh-pooh any notion that history will repeat itself. And when it does, some choose to remain in denial.
As has been said by others much smarter than I: “One person’s heaven is another person’s hell.” So no matter what, the will of ALL the people will never be served. Let us just hope it will be the majority who remain in control and for the good of all Sedona residents instead of misdirected decisions of the past which clearly favored special interests.
Cheers and thanks for your input.
Sincerely,
Eddie
When the new Community Plan is completed, will it once again favor development interests? Ed Nelson’s following Argument “Against,” published in the 2003 City of Sedona Voter Publicity Pamphlet, gives an idea of the travesty the 2002 Plan will leave behind:
“Drive through town and look around you. Do you like what you see — the congestion, and what bad development has done to your city? To keep this mess from getting worse, we need a Community Plan with provisions that defend our environment and life quality. This proposed plan just doesn’t do it!
Plan proscriptions should be meaningful and clear. This Plan is a massive, confusing jumble, repetitive, redundant, full of platitudes but devoid of teeth and easy to challenge, obfuscated by a mass of data and background better left in a companion volume.
Sedona has become timeshare capitol of the world, with more AAA hotels than Scottsdale; yet this Plan allows for still more of both. Rather than discouraging rezoning to higher density, this Plan focuses on “overall density,” allowing transfer of building rights, resulting in windfall developer profit and higher actual net growth. The housing element does nothing whatever but make excuses for still higher densities. The Plan pays only lip service to the idea of development impact fees, but maximum allowable fees should be the goal. Impact fees can, and in Sedona should, finance much; such as our sewer system, instead of mortgaging future tax receipts, and socking homeowners for thousands for a system they do not need. If you spend many hours, you can find many more deficiencies and hidden nasties, lurking in this word jungle.
Much pretense has been made about soliciting community input for this Plan. But it is obvious from results that development interests got the attention.
Let’s reject this thing. And give our new City Council the chance to do it right.”
Jean your idea is great as we vote for people to represent us (aka “the will of the people”), but voters need to look carefully at the interests that these candidates bring to the table.
Dynamite comment, Nancy. This election in particular. (my opinion)
Another point to ponder is that the Sedona City Council is subject to changing to at least some degree every two years which can be both good or bad depending on, obviously, “the interests that these candidates bring to the table” as you so aptly point out.
One question to consider is how much damage can be done within a two to four year time frame? Historically speaking, quite a bit from my own perspective as a voting Sedona resident since the inception of incorporation.
Eddie
How can you quantify “damage?” In some cases, damage can be limited in scope and duration, while in others’ the damage can have repercussion into the future and beyond.
Of course, Nancy, once again you are correct. Damage in the manner to which you refer, in either case, temporary or permanent, is subject to personal opinions, much like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Perhaps in Sedona certain developers might consider skyscrapers far more attractive than the red rocks. Others might agree and think the only damage occurs when such edifices are under construction. Then there are those who think the exact opposite, that our scenic views should prevail. Is either point of view either wrong or right?
My own opinion based on what was being promoted at the time is that the purpose for Sedona to incorporate in the first place was to preserve the natural beauty. I still maintain that using the Community Plan and unenforceable codes as tools has been a cop out since neither seem to have substantial teeth, so to speak, as has been illustrated by the number of deviations which have occurred over the years.
Having clearly defined “my own perspective” in my closing sentence, I believe that was the only portion in my comment that might be interpreted as “quantifying.”
Quite honestly I believe we are pretty much on the same page whether you choose to believe it or not. Just another example of differing opinions? If I’m mistaken it won’t be the first time.
The fate of Sedona was sealed with incorporation. The city is mired deep in debt and now of course they want to expand so more area can be pulled into this disaster. From the start it was clear the people elected served only their self interests, the big money and no one else. Government has only one purpose anymore and that is to expand and impose/control everyone else.
Hey Glenn Shannon, if you are so inclined check out my latest post relating to the Wish List of the current slate of candidates. Better have your blood pressure medicine handy.
My guess is maybe, just maybe the projection for the Oak Creek Preserve might be for a new City Hall location?
Eddie the old statement spend like there is no tomorrow may be right as the way things are going when it all hits there may be no tomorrow for many. As fuel prices go up many don’t understand that everything else will also as everything grown or made is dependent on fuel. I am in my 70s and hopefully will not be around to see this happen but with the speed that government is spending don’t think I can die fast enough.