Mayor Adams,
|
This letter is not about this writer’s personal politics, nor yours. It’s about Sedona’s fate. National and Arizona polls are showing, consistently, that between 64% and 70% of Americans support Arizona’s SB1070 while the great majority of the people in Sedona who just voted for you support the new law as well. By allowing the Surber’s to import 70% of the anti-SB1070 demonstrators from outside Sedona on May 1, and by allowing Spanish-speaking public forum speakers to denigrate, ad hominem, our Governor and the nation’s most respected Sheriff at last night’s Council meeting, and by allowing Councilor Surber to commandeer the City’s Council Chambers tonight to conduct another “perceived-as-orchestrated” demonstration inside City Hall, you are causing a groundswell of anger to rise amongst the general populace of our town just when you’ve been given the opportunity to become Sedona’s most effective, and possibly, most respected Mayor.
I have, while trying to reason with him privately to no avail, sent pictures to Councilor Surber of California high school students in the process of taking down their school’s U.S. flag and replacing it with a Mexican national flag while re-appending the US flag below the Mexican flag upside down. People across the U.S. have seen these pictures on the Internet. Do you think that the students of Sedona Red Rock High School haven’t seen these pictures (as well as their parents)? I have sent to Councilor Surber, privately, pictures of Arizona anti-SB1070 demonstrators carrying picket signs promising to “kill Arizona police officers” until their demands are met. These pictures have been posted on various police fraternal organization websites around the country and in Arizona. Do you actually believe your own City police officers haven’t seen these pictures and aren’t wondering what you’re doing supporting the anti-SB1070 demonstrators and Councilor Surber? Worse yet, however, have you given any serious thought, whatsoever, to the huge number of the national and Arizona supporters of SB1070 who are tourists and potential Sedona second-home buyers who will boycott Sedona once this City joins litigation against the state. Even our two highly popular Senators are publicly supporting the new law. The only reason Tucson is supporting litigation against the state is that it does get a great many Mexican national tourists, but Sedona does not. Flagstaff succumbed to its collegiate community while Sedona has no such influential community. Otherwise, no other Mayor in Arizona, including Phil Gordon of Phoenix, after he saw the handwriting on the wall, is willing to join this absurd proposed lawsuit. If you, in Sedona’s behalf, pursue this course of joining those two cities in litigation against the state, you will hang Sedona out to dry all by itself! You are about to cause a catastrophic hit to Sedona’s all-ready seriously ailing tourism and real estate industries if you continue to pursue your current course of action. Meanwhile, you will be responsible for further dividing this small town just when it doesn’t need further division. This is a no-win, loss-only probability, scenario for Sedona. What can Sedona possibly hope to accomplish by joining in this lawsuit? Doing so only presents this town with a downside. There is no upside…period! Why are you putting your newly elected Council in this tenuous situation? What are you thinking? This is a battle to which Sedona must stay on the sidelines. Your tack should be to explain to the public that you personally, the new Council, and Staff cannot involve our City in this litigation because of the risk to its tourism and real estate industries. Neither your personal feelings on this issue, nor anyone else’s, should enter into your personal decision making process. Please reconsider your current chosen course of action. J. Rick Normand |
Dear Mr. Surber,
The Arizona law is only 21 pages. It’ll fit on your web browser. You do not need to hire a lawyer to read the law. It’s perfectly understandable. Why have you not read it? Dan, you need to wake up a bit. Maybe this will help:
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html
CBS affiliate news sotries, from GEORGIA about OUR situation in AZ and how it is affecting our national security. Get with the program Dan. You either obey our laws or not. It is not “selective choice”. If the majority of the country who approves this law comes to AZ, they will not be going to places like LA or San Francisco, and that’s OK.
Mike Schroeder
Thanks, Rick Normand, for making sense. Why little Sedona needs to become involved in yet another devisive issue which ultimately will be decided outside the confines of City Limits is beyond me. Then, to think the decision to propose taking a position on this special agenda item was made by only three out of a council of seven people is even more perplexing. At a time when many of us are hoping for intervention from the Governor of Arizona to convince ADOT that a “river of lights” on West SR89A isn’t in the best interest of this, one of the State’s major scenic attractions, will the act of opposing the State Legislation achieve the lighting reversal that out newly elected City Council vowed to uphold?
Let us all pray. . .
Mr. Normand,
I personally disagree with your point of view. I feel striking out at Mayor Rob Adams, who was not in attendance at this city council meeting as well as Councilor DiNunzio and Vice Mayor Cliff Hamilton who were also not in the council chambers but at another meeting, is unjustified.
The community was given a forum to express their opinions about SB1070 as is the function of a democratic society. The quorum at the city council meeting consisting of Councilors Scagnelli, Surber, Frey and Colquitt listened respectfully to all points of view and should be personally commended for their concern and civility to each speaker.
The final conclusion of the city council meeting was that no action was taken on SB1070 except to make a recommendation to the incoming council although the council had a quorum and could have done so.
Our city is the better for encouraging a civil dialogue on issues that are important to its citizens and the future of our economy.
The next city council can choose to revisit this issue. At that time, Mr. Normand, I encourage you to express yourself before the new council so that all are aware of your position.
Respectfully,
Rita Livingston
Sedona AZ
Rita,
As usual, you\’re extraordinarily confused. My Open Letter to the Mayor has nothing whatsoever to do with the vote on the Resolution you referenced or striking out at Rob Adams or Cliff Hamilton, who are friends, or anyone else on Council. I have sent a personal communication to Mayor Adams assuring him that I believe and want him to become Sedona\’s most effective Mayor ever, but that taking any stance on this contentious issue is political suicide.
Please re-read my letter which is merely a plea to Mayor Adams NOT to explore the possibility of involving Sedona in a lawsuit against the state of Arizona regarding the constitutionality of SB1070. Why? Because the polls are favoring support of SB1070 across Arizona and the entire nation. Ten states are now lining up to legislate a very similar law. The L.A. Times has just released a poll of Angelenos that showed that over 93% of their respondents felt that Arizona was justified in taking the legislative action it did. So, we in Sedona have no way of knowing how many potential tourists and second-home buyers are on the side favoring that law. If we litigate against SB1070, which will receive a lot of publicity, we run of the risk of alienating a great percentage of those who favor this law. In other words, Sedona has no upside in this debate but risks immense downside. Sedona is struggling to retain every tourist dollar and investor it still has. For this reason alone, Sedona cannot afford the risk of forfeiting a potentially large number of tourists and investors whom it may not publicly agree.
By the way Rita, are you beginning to have difficulty reading and interpreting print now?
J. Rick Normand
Hi Rita –
I do not know Mr. Normand only by the letter’s he sends, his public letters and statements at city council meetings.
In the below email to my husband Mr. Normand questions if I used Yuma Michaels name and made reference to someone posting your name to the above comment without your permission.
I do not know Yuma, have not had any conversations with her and have made a point of signing my full name to any comments, letters or posting that I send.
Rita – We do know each other and I do not believe for a second that you believe I signed your name on the above comment. If you did not write the above comment as Mr. Normand has stated then why has it not been taken off the website?
Thank you,
Bobbie
From: J Rick Normand [jrn45biz@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:24 PM
To: Dan Surber
Subject: Since You Say You Don’t Know Yuma Michaels…What About Bobbi?
Surber,
If you really don’t know Yuma Michaels as you claim, then I must ask…is it possible your wife wrote this article (below) in the Sedona Times using her (Yuma’s) name as a pseudonym ? What about the comment to my Open Letter to the Mayor by a person claiming to be Rita Livingston when Rita did not write the comment to me that bears her name? Again, you haven’t answered my legitimate questions…Why does whoever wrote this article know so many intimates details of the demonstration on Saturday night, May 1? How could you possibly NOT KNOW one of the most famous professional La Raza agitators in the country when she was apparently standing near you? You said to me that you had no problem with the truth…a typical politicians reply. So, deal with it…answer these questions. Stop hiding Surber. What’s your problem?
J. Rick Normand
(see article below written purportedly by Yuma Michaels)
P.S. Maybe I’ll ask you Monday night the 24th at the Celebration of Sedona 2010 Event, if you show.