Comments on: Eye on Sedona City Council Busy Days

By: Jim, VOC

Jim, VOC — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:22:11 +0000

Want to know why we avoid going up to Sedona? Difficult for me to drive at night. Those damn lights up now don’t help see people or cars with their glare. It’s easier to drive on 179 going through the desert than to drive up there. The city chose the wrong lights for oldsters to navigate says my eye doctor. For the record I like the rounds for traffic movements. I read your news every day and wouldn’t miss it for the fodder it gives our mens discussions at the Ridge.

By: SR 89A Lighting Pole Replacement

SR 89A Lighting Pole Replacement — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 21:29:03 +0000

On Wednesday, April 3, 2013, Siemens Industry, Inc., contractor for the City of Sedona, will replace a damaged 30-foot light pole on State Route 89A.

A lane closure for west bound traffic between the Hyatt Pinon Point entrance and the Sedona Post Office is scheduled to begin at 9 p.m. and last approximately two to four hours. All work will be completed before 7 a.m.

Drivers are asked to please slow down in the work zone and observe all traffic control devices during this scheduled pole replacement.

Any questions regarding this project can be directed to Victor Estrada, Traffic Aide, at 928-204-7800.

By: Warren

Warren — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 19:36:49 +0000

Thanks, Jean. I wrote something too which got wide distribution. Unfortunately, at the rate Council wastes money, I am quite sure we have not seen the end of fee and tax increases.

By: Jean

Jean — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:53:44 +0000

At the end of its March 26th meeting, the City Council PULLED the matter of the planned increase in bed and sales taxes. Apparently, my e-mailed research was forwarded to the extent it went viral, an extremely important factor in this amazing turn of events. I wish to sincerely thank everyone who helped.

By: E.S. Maddock

E.S. Maddock — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:08:25 +0000

Re J. Rick Normand.

Guess what? It appears the “unnamed” are reaping the benefits of anonymity.

Case in point: Last night’s city council meeting (3/26) a council member asked city employee Rachel Murdock if the recent $100,000 Parks & Recreation Master Plan study revealed how many local residents avail themselves use of our existing parks.

Answer: NO.

Conclusion: Millions of $$$$ continue to be spent to assuage demands being made by an unknown number of unnamed people.

By: J. Rick Normand

J. Rick Normand — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:30:03 +0000

Re: New Kids on the Block
Never, ever, trust anyone who hasn’t the courage to put their name on a public comment!

By: N. Baer

N. Baer — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:48:26 +0000

@NewKidsontheBlock – The big deal about; the creek walk is that two former councils rejected the idea due to the engineering and flash flood challenges, public park – for a small city (10,033 residents) we have many public parks Posse Grounds, Sunset, Jordan and more. Most importantly,, the City does not have the funds needed to complete the flood project according to councilors Ward and Martinez. So, it’s really a matter of priorities and sticking to what the City needs and not what it wants.

By: Eddie Maddock

Eddie Maddock — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 01:31:17 +0000

Initially the comment from “New Kids” alarmed me. However, giving thought to the overall lax voter participation in the recent election which failed to place reasonable controls on City spending by denying the “Home Rule” ballot measure, the result clearly indicated that “The Kids” are most likely accurate in their assessment.

Hopefully the maybe 1,000 or so “voices” being heard out of a population of 10,000 will be willing to subsidize the city budget to pay for their walkway and park by the creek. (As if they don’t have miles and miles of access to walk, picnic, meditate, whatever without the financial burden they are obviously making demands to put on the backs of Sedona residents in general . . . not to mention the flooding liability to lives and property.)

By: New Kids on the Block

New Kids on the Block — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:27:24 +0000

And so what’s the big deal about a creek walk, public park and public parking? We’ve only been Sedona residents for the past couple years after having planned a long time ago to relocate here. Certainly city decision makers wouldn’t be so intent on moving forward with this unless they had substantial support from the residents, would they? In fact, we’ve yet to see many arguments opposing it.

By: E.S. Maddock

E.S. Maddock — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:48:10 +0000

Well, Folks, it’s happening. As City Council continues to ignore massive under-funding to correct drainage/storm run-off problems, they intend to plod forward on land acquisitions. Read on:

TENTATIVE AGENDA for both SPECIAL and REGULAR City Council Meetings slated for Tuesday, March 26 (3:00 and 4:30 PM)

“3. Regular Business: d. AB 1560 presentation of POTENTIAL PROPERTIES TO PURCHASE FOR PUBLIC USES IN THREE CATEGORIES: CREEKSIDE ACCESS, PUBLIC/PEDESTRIAN PARK, AND PUBLIC PARKING.”

Now then, as was specifically stated at the “Special Meeting” on Thursday, March 7th, the conclusions of both previous parking studies indicated “both studies reflected that it’s quite possible Sedona does have adequate parking.” Also, until other recommendations as were approved at that meeting were implemented, adding additional parking would be deferred to a later time.

What? Two weeks later the City will pursue property to purchase for public parking? And for future consideration “parking structure (garage) with a proposed price tag of $8.5 million dollars and/or $30,000 to $40,000 per space” . . . maybe less if uncovered spaces are up for grabs.

Then let us not forget to revisit the questionable credibility of the ongoing pursuit for creekside city owned land for any purpose.

A City Council vote in May of 2007 reflected that then council member Rob Adams was among those who wisely said “no” to accepting a “gift” of a 7.8 acre parcel of land on the east side of Oak Creek. What has now changed his mind now? Oh, maybe the property being looked at is located on the “west” side of the creek instead of the “east” side? And so that side of the creek will not be subjected to future flooding?

Maybe a solution to this would be for the city to simply buy up all the private residential property (and commercial such as Tlaquepaque) and retain it for their “waterfront” visions since without proper attention it will continue to fit that description on an annual basis.