<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Eye on Sedona Council Priorities with Mayor Moriarty	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://sedonaeye.com/eye-on-sedona-council-priorities-with-mayor-moriarty/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://sedonaeye.com/eye-on-sedona-council-priorities-with-mayor-moriarty/</link>
	<description>Local News From All Points of View</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2016 23:37:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Steve segner		</title>
		<link>https://sedonaeye.com/eye-on-sedona-council-priorities-with-mayor-moriarty/comment-page-1/#comment-125300</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve segner]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2016 23:37:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://sedonaeye.com/?p=52324#comment-125300</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Jean , in your bashing of the mayor and and her commitment to working on traffic you forgot to mention the new traffic study contract?
 $200,000+ is a start.
Jean, there are over 1000 undeveloped lots in Sedona and the surrounding area. Each will bring two to three cars and two to five people, Jean do the numbers.
Seems like a good idea to look at all sources of traffic: hotels, residents and future growth and yes179 and 89A day trippers! Even day trippers have a right to get out of Phoenix and enjoy Sedona. 
 So Jean now you can start bashing the mayor and city for spending &quot; Your&quot; tax dollars on another traffic study, Jean once Again you are just wrong, Sandy is doing something.

Ss]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jean , in your bashing of the mayor and and her commitment to working on traffic you forgot to mention the new traffic study contract?<br />
 $200,000+ is a start.<br />
Jean, there are over 1000 undeveloped lots in Sedona and the surrounding area. Each will bring two to three cars and two to five people, Jean do the numbers.<br />
Seems like a good idea to look at all sources of traffic: hotels, residents and future growth and yes179 and 89A day trippers! Even day trippers have a right to get out of Phoenix and enjoy Sedona.<br />
 So Jean now you can start bashing the mayor and city for spending &#8221; Your&#8221; tax dollars on another traffic study, Jean once Again you are just wrong, Sandy is doing something.</p>
<p>Ss</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: JeanJ		</title>
		<link>https://sedonaeye.com/eye-on-sedona-council-priorities-with-mayor-moriarty/comment-page-1/#comment-125232</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JeanJ]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:30:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://sedonaeye.com/?p=52324#comment-125232</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The statement that &quot;traffic remains a top priority&quot; is totally laughable. I suppose next we are going to be told that the 13 CFAs, with several hundred more lodging units authorized to date, won&#039;t greatly exacerbate our huge traffic problems? The Mayor states &quot;We are currently working on four, with nine more to follow.&quot; Weren&#039;t all 13 CFAs rejected by the 2002 City Council when they were labelled transitional zoning areas?

By the way, meetings of &quot;The several [Citizen Engagement Program] work groups formed to address many priorities&quot; are held in secret and do not come under the Arizona Open Meeting law. No locations, agendas or minutes. So much for transparency.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The statement that &#8220;traffic remains a top priority&#8221; is totally laughable. I suppose next we are going to be told that the 13 CFAs, with several hundred more lodging units authorized to date, won&#8217;t greatly exacerbate our huge traffic problems? The Mayor states &#8220;We are currently working on four, with nine more to follow.&#8221; Weren&#8217;t all 13 CFAs rejected by the 2002 City Council when they were labelled transitional zoning areas?</p>
<p>By the way, meetings of &#8220;The several [Citizen Engagement Program] work groups formed to address many priorities&#8221; are held in secret and do not come under the Arizona Open Meeting law. No locations, agendas or minutes. So much for transparency.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: J Ross		</title>
		<link>https://sedonaeye.com/eye-on-sedona-council-priorities-with-mayor-moriarty/comment-page-1/#comment-125215</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[J Ross]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2016 06:31:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://sedonaeye.com/?p=52324#comment-125215</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot;narcoleptic snails&quot; great for snails very bad for a community that that has huge traffic problems!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;narcoleptic snails&#8221; great for snails very bad for a community that that has huge traffic problems!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Carol N.		</title>
		<link>https://sedonaeye.com/eye-on-sedona-council-priorities-with-mayor-moriarty/comment-page-1/#comment-123873</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Carol N.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2016 18:43:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://sedonaeye.com/?p=52324#comment-123873</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Thx J Rick Normand &#038; &quot;What am I missing?&quot; for your observations. I agree.  This looks like another desperate attempt to divert Eye readers from more pertinent comments relating to Sedona government rip-offs. That list grows on a daily basis. Don&#039;t be fooled by this amateurish but obvious attempt to distract from the endless dirty deeds. The plate is overflowing and we know it!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thx J Rick Normand &amp; &#8220;What am I missing?&#8221; for your observations. I agree.  This looks like another desperate attempt to divert Eye readers from more pertinent comments relating to Sedona government rip-offs. That list grows on a daily basis. Don&#8217;t be fooled by this amateurish but obvious attempt to distract from the endless dirty deeds. The plate is overflowing and we know it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: What am I missing?		</title>
		<link>https://sedonaeye.com/eye-on-sedona-council-priorities-with-mayor-moriarty/comment-page-1/#comment-123850</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[What am I missing?]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 22:27:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://sedonaeye.com/?p=52324#comment-123850</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Excuse me but what the heck do any of the above 7 comments have to do with the content of the article? Isn&#039;t it about Sedona? Where did all this Clinton/Sanders chitchat come from? A convenient diversion from the real subject at hand?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excuse me but what the heck do any of the above 7 comments have to do with the content of the article? Isn&#8217;t it about Sedona? Where did all this Clinton/Sanders chitchat come from? A convenient diversion from the real subject at hand?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: J. Rick Normand		</title>
		<link>https://sedonaeye.com/eye-on-sedona-council-priorities-with-mayor-moriarty/comment-page-1/#comment-123844</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[J. Rick Normand]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 17:06:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://sedonaeye.com/?p=52324#comment-123844</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[@blog comments

Whoa! Is this the Democrats of the Red Rocks blog site or is it still The Eye? It appeared to me Mayor Moriarty was writing about City priorities, not about the Bernie vs. Hillary conflict.

Uh, oh! Now I&#039;ve done it! My comments are bound to attract our favorite troll LE, aka West Sedona Resident.

JRN]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@blog comments</p>
<p>Whoa! Is this the Democrats of the Red Rocks blog site or is it still The Eye? It appeared to me Mayor Moriarty was writing about City priorities, not about the Bernie vs. Hillary conflict.</p>
<p>Uh, oh! Now I&#8217;ve done it! My comments are bound to attract our favorite troll LE, aka West Sedona Resident.</p>
<p>JRN</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: More Honesty 4U People		</title>
		<link>https://sedonaeye.com/eye-on-sedona-council-priorities-with-mayor-moriarty/comment-page-1/#comment-123830</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[More Honesty 4U People]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 10:12:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://sedonaeye.com/?p=52324#comment-123830</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Open secrets.org fact check says more ... SANDERS: &quot;Almost all new income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent.&quot;

THE FACTS: This has been a common mantra by Sanders but it relies on outdated numbers. In the first five years of the economic recovery, 2009-2014, the richest 1 percent captured 58 percent of income growth, according to Emmanuel Saez, a University of California economist whose research Sanders uses.

That&#039;s a hefty share, but far short of &quot;almost all.&quot; In the first three years of the recovery, 2009-2012, the richest 1 percent did capture 91 percent of the growth in income. But part of that gain reflected an accounting maneuver as the wealthiest pulled income forward to 2012 in advance of tax increases that took effect in 2013 on the biggest earners.

Many companies paid out greater bonuses to their highest-paid employees in 2012 before the higher tax rates took effect. Those bonuses then fell back in 2013. And in 2014, the bottom 99 percent finally saw incomes rise 3.3 percent, the biggest gain in 15 years. Average wages also showed signs of picking up last year as the unemployment rate fell, suggesting the bottom 99 percent may have also seen gains in 2015....]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Open secrets.org fact check says more &#8230; SANDERS: &#8220;Almost all new income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent.&#8221;</p>
<p>THE FACTS: This has been a common mantra by Sanders but it relies on outdated numbers. In the first five years of the economic recovery, 2009-2014, the richest 1 percent captured 58 percent of income growth, according to Emmanuel Saez, a University of California economist whose research Sanders uses.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s a hefty share, but far short of &#8220;almost all.&#8221; In the first three years of the recovery, 2009-2012, the richest 1 percent did capture 91 percent of the growth in income. But part of that gain reflected an accounting maneuver as the wealthiest pulled income forward to 2012 in advance of tax increases that took effect in 2013 on the biggest earners.</p>
<p>Many companies paid out greater bonuses to their highest-paid employees in 2012 before the higher tax rates took effect. Those bonuses then fell back in 2013. And in 2014, the bottom 99 percent finally saw incomes rise 3.3 percent, the biggest gain in 15 years. Average wages also showed signs of picking up last year as the unemployment rate fell, suggesting the bottom 99 percent may have also seen gains in 2015&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Honest TPP &#38;Clinton and Sanders		</title>
		<link>https://sedonaeye.com/eye-on-sedona-council-priorities-with-mayor-moriarty/comment-page-1/#comment-123833</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Honest TPP &#38;Clinton and Sanders]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 09:01:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://sedonaeye.com/?p=52324#comment-123833</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Open secrets says --CLINTON on Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal: &quot;I said that I was holding out that hope that it would be the kind of trade agreement that I was looking for. I waited until it had actually been negotiated because I did want to give the benefit of the doubt to the administration. Once I saw what the outcome was, I opposed it.&quot;

THE FACTS: As Obama&#039;s secretary of state, Clinton was far more enthusiastic about the Pacific trade deal taking shape than she became once she was running for president and trying to appeal to the liberal wing of her party. As secretary she had given speeches around the world in support of the deal under negotiation, saying in Australia in 2012 that it &quot;sets the gold standard in trade agreements,&quot; a cheerleading sentiment she echoed elsewhere.

She&#039;s stated since that the final agreement didn&#039;t address her concerns. But the final version actually had been modified to drop certain provisions that liberal activist groups had opposed.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Open secrets says &#8211;CLINTON on Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal: &#8220;I said that I was holding out that hope that it would be the kind of trade agreement that I was looking for. I waited until it had actually been negotiated because I did want to give the benefit of the doubt to the administration. Once I saw what the outcome was, I opposed it.&#8221;</p>
<p>THE FACTS: As Obama&#8217;s secretary of state, Clinton was far more enthusiastic about the Pacific trade deal taking shape than she became once she was running for president and trying to appeal to the liberal wing of her party. As secretary she had given speeches around the world in support of the deal under negotiation, saying in Australia in 2012 that it &#8220;sets the gold standard in trade agreements,&#8221; a cheerleading sentiment she echoed elsewhere.</p>
<p>She&#8217;s stated since that the final agreement didn&#8217;t address her concerns. But the final version actually had been modified to drop certain provisions that liberal activist groups had opposed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Open secrets Facts checked		</title>
		<link>https://sedonaeye.com/eye-on-sedona-council-priorities-with-mayor-moriarty/comment-page-1/#comment-123835</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Open secrets Facts checked]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 06:10:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://sedonaeye.com/?p=52324#comment-123835</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[AP FACT CHECK: Dems in New Hampshire By CALVIN WOODWARD and CHRISTOPER S. RUGABER

Now you know.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>AP FACT CHECK: Dems in New Hampshire By CALVIN WOODWARD and CHRISTOPER S. RUGABER</p>
<p>Now you know.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Can you hear more truth		</title>
		<link>https://sedonaeye.com/eye-on-sedona-council-priorities-with-mayor-moriarty/comment-page-1/#comment-123832</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Can you hear more truth]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 05:57:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://sedonaeye.com/?p=52324#comment-123832</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Open secrets says ...SANDERS: &quot;You have three out of the four largest banks in America today, bigger than they were, significantly bigger than when we bailed them out because they were too big to fail.&quot;

THE FACTS: Sanders is right that JPMorgan, Bank of America and Wells Fargo are larger than they were in mid-2008, before they received bailout money. But those gains largely reflect mergers and acquisitions that occurred, frequently at the government&#039;s behest, during the financial crisis. JPMorgan bulked up by purchasing Bear Stearns, in a deal facilitated by the Federal Reserve. Bank of America ballooned when it acquired Merrill Lynch and Wells Fargo roughly doubled in size when it bought a floundering Wachovia Bank.

But the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul bill, passed in 2010, has forced banks to hold more capital as a cushion against risk and to make future bailouts less likely. That requirement and others has caused several banks, including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Citi, to shed assets to avoid growing larger and triggering further oversight.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Open secrets says &#8230;SANDERS: &#8220;You have three out of the four largest banks in America today, bigger than they were, significantly bigger than when we bailed them out because they were too big to fail.&#8221;</p>
<p>THE FACTS: Sanders is right that JPMorgan, Bank of America and Wells Fargo are larger than they were in mid-2008, before they received bailout money. But those gains largely reflect mergers and acquisitions that occurred, frequently at the government&#8217;s behest, during the financial crisis. JPMorgan bulked up by purchasing Bear Stearns, in a deal facilitated by the Federal Reserve. Bank of America ballooned when it acquired Merrill Lynch and Wells Fargo roughly doubled in size when it bought a floundering Wachovia Bank.</p>
<p>But the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul bill, passed in 2010, has forced banks to hold more capital as a cushion against risk and to make future bailouts less likely. That requirement and others has caused several banks, including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Citi, to shed assets to avoid growing larger and triggering further oversight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
