Comments on: City of Sedona Housing Commission Agenda

By: Warren

Warren — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:08:27 +0000

This is a perfect example of why everyone must vote NO on Prop. 420 (“Home Rule”). Voting NO will force Council to prioritize spending. No more fluff and nonsense like this “affordable housing” nonsense.

By: Cyn, Hillside

Cyn, Hillside — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:49:54 +0000

WHAT!!!!! THEY’RE THINKING ABOUT DOING WHAT!!!! DOZENS AND DOZENS of houses for sale and that’s not only in this neighborhood. two neighbors in foreclosure. sure we need more affordable housing. what a joke.

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:50:29 +0000

Go to Sedona Shadows. They are practically giving away its homes for less than $10.000. And that’s a furnished price. I know because I looked at them.

Nobody needs to be talking about affordable housing programs in Sedona. The federal government did the best job providing it and it only cost us our pensions and savings. I for one appreciate everything the government did to make my home affordable for the unemployed like me.

By: Jean Jenks

Jean Jenks — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:38:36 +0000

Can the City legally purchase land without putting it before the electorate for a vote? Instead of forking out good money for a decent attorney/decision, why not vote “NO” on the Home Rule Option and restrict City Hall’s wasteful decisions and expensive bad ideas?

As many are aware, “housing development areas” within the city limits are illegal in most of Sedona’s residential areas covered by active CC&Rs. This means neighborhoods without CC&Rs will bear the brunt of the resulting decrease in property values and quality of life.

Additionally, I would like to mention that there are currently 122 houses in Sedona and 92 homes in Cottonwood in foreclosure and that the number of people with mortgage problems in our area equates to more foreclosures coming down the pike. Given that housing prices in Sedona have fallen nearly 50% since the housing bubble burst, doesn’t this mean that there already is an abundance of affordable homes on the market? Likewise rentals at affordable prices?

When the supply of housing outpaces the demand in an area, prices go down. Increasing the supply means demand will be outpaced further, and housing prices will continue their downward slide. Inquiring minds want to know: Just where is the Housing Commissions proof of the need for more affordable housing, and where are the big bucks needed to go forward? City Hall currently has a little over $60 million in excise tax bond indebtedness, with an annual debt service obligation greater than $6 million.

The City spends more than it has and is now gouging Sedonans with various new fees to help fund its bad decisions, special interest agenda and unneeded projects. In my opinion, purchasing land ranks right up there with the most egregious ones (ten years worth of higher wastewater fees for birding wetlands and injection wells, redevelopment of West Sedona).

By: Eddie S. Maddock

Eddie S. Maddock — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:34:40 +0000

It would appear the Sedona Housing Commission feels pretty assured that the Home Rule option will be passed thus releasing the City of Sedona from Arizona State spending constraints. Why else would they be so aggressively pursuing this quest?

Wasn’t it just a couple of years ago or so when a raging battle went on over whether or not subdivisions zoned single family residential should be imposed upon to allow Auxilliary Dwelling Units (affordable housing)?

Strong opposition was displayed at every public meeting I attended. Didn’t matter because it was approved anyway with staff from Community Development admitting the conditional terms of the decision were essentially unenforceable.

And so it goes. The will of the people be damned. Oops . . . let me change that to the will of the “majority” of the people. Maybe this is the missing part of my three part series.