This city council to date has focused entirely on the area of the State Highway between Airport and Dry Creek Roads, completely ignoring the acquisition encompasses far more. Not acknowledging the city’s future responsibility for improvements and maintenance from the City Limits (near the high school) and, especially, the upkeep of the Highway Interchange at the “Y” is a major disservice and extremely misleading to residents of Sedona who will ultimately become responsible for future expenses incurred, including but not limited to a traffic light at the Sedona Medical Center, snow and/or rock slide removal, traffic signal maintenance, and potential repairs and/or replacement to roundabouts in the event of accidental wipe-outs.

Last but not least is the results of your two polls, both of which clearly defined the will of the people as being that you do not accept the turn-back. Weak attempts have been made to discredit those poll results, but that’s all they amount to . . . weak attempts. It’s very likely the percentage against the turn-back would have been substantially higher if the threat of ADOT to turn the route over anyway had not been distorted, misleading, and, in fact, questionably truthful. For those who haven’t read the State Statute, it’s ARS 28-7209. Other legal opinions differ from the interpretation publicized by the City of Sedona.

The moment of truth is but a few heartbeats away. Will you uphold your commitment to the will of the majority of the people or continue the past practice of playing big brother, or even God if you will, and vote your own beliefs which is what the last city council did and why they weren’t re-elected. However, there’s one major difference here. Your blunder could well leave Sedona not only with owning a State Highway but also installation of lights since it’s doubtful any of you will be in a position to decide how that “promised” money is spent when the time comes. It’s true, Karma can be a bitch but in some situations the undeserving are forced to pay, too. How fair will that be?

Eddie Maddock

Let’s get back to the basics: safety, particularly vehicle versus pedestrian and vehicle versus bicycle safety.

1) Control where pedestrians cross the roads, and make the crosswalks close enough together that people will, for the most part, be willing to be controlled (use the crosswalks).

ADOT will not build crosswalks. They will not even allow us to get out there with 50 gallons of our own paint and mark crosswalks. It’s their road. We cannot do ANYTHING to it without their permission, and as often as this has been discussed, ADOT has refused.

2) Improve visibility at night. ADOT will do this, but only EVERYWHERE which encourages people to continue to jaywalk (cross anywhere they want to). It is not guaranteed that every person who has difficulty driving at night could avoid being surprised by a pedestrian cross midpoint between street lights.

3) Improve safety during the day. ADOT will not do this.

4) Get cyclists off the sidewalk! ADOT will stripe bike lanes. Then we need police enforcement of them. People, you can stop riding your bikes on the sidewalks right now!

5) “Like the lights on 179” – the survey asked if people wanted continuous roadway lighting like the lights on 179. If we own the road, we could do that. That is not the kind of lights ADOT has proposed. The ADOT lights will be more similar to freeway lights than to the short poles on 179 or in Uptown.

6) Medians – continuous medians – will make it difficult for businesses, deliveries and the fire department. Maybe. But continuous medians are NOT what the Civ Tech report suggested. It suggested putting medians at two locations where pedestrians consistently jaywalk.

This list could go on and on. I intend to talk to the city manager about the projected expenses of owning the road – with increases in costs – to see whether the $15+ million will cover it. It looks like it will, but I want to get still another opinion on the financial aspects.

Sedona is not a democracy. We have a representative form of government and the majority elected the current city council to vote, not to run a straw poll in which the blind are led by the uninformed.

I dare you to list the questions you’re afraid to find answers to. Because what I’m seeing right now is a game of chase with many intelligent, vocal people running because of their FEAR of running out of money if there is a turn back. Have you tracked the numbers? Can we really afford it? not afford it??

One more thing: the likelihood ADOT would force a transfer after installing lights is based only on a worst case scenario in which ADOT goes broke. Barring that, it is very unlikely they’d force the road on us. But aren’t the people who are saying this threat is over the top the same people who are saying we probably won’t get all of the money ADOT is promising because they will run out of money before they pay it all?

No, no, no. This is exactly and dangerously backwards. I don’t want any government “educating” anyone. That’s what used to be rightly called brainwashing and propagandizing. Sedona residents need to educate themselves.

As for the City taking over 89A, the City has repeatedly proved that it cannot be trusted to do anything right and should not be given more power or control over anything. 89A will be another capital black hole for the City which we will all pay for.

Additionally, the medians they have planned will ruin the functionality of that road. It’s amazing; they do not yet have control of the road but already have plans to mess it up!

My comments and final prediction, and that is all it was . . . a prediction . . . were directed toward future potentials. Isn’t it customary when analyzing proposals that at least an attempt to cover all case scenarios is taken into consideration, particularly when the effort at hand has been publicized and predicated by so doing? At least that most asssuredly was my impression by those who commenced with the undertaking of this alleged above-board endeavor. Did the research come with a stipulation excepting possibilities which might tend to taint their agenda? Is that the way it was meant to be?

As for those of us “on the other side of town” and where we shop, speaking only for myself, tax money I spend in Sedona except for an occasional trip to the grocery store is minimal. It’s much quicker for me to go to the Village of Oak Creek or Cottonwood via Beaver Head Flat Road where, even with the price of gas, it’s more economical in addition to a wider selection and availability of products. However, in the event the city runs out of money for improving “your side of town” guess maybe we’ll be more acceptable when we have the privilege of being taxed to help pay for your bills. Hey, here’s an idea, since you already made the geographical division, why not just form a Special Improvement District and ban anyone from the East side of Sedona from entering your territory?

Sorry , Kiddo, but I miss the point of your complaint since my prediction clearly identifies SR89A turn-back as the “winner” of this latest contest which ultimately appears to be serving to divide Sedona even more as exemplified with your territorial accusations.

I’m done with this and by next week the goose will be cooked and the bones ready for picking.

Amen & Hallelujah!
Eddie

It is no longer valid to point to the past as a predictor of the future. Past history never suggested the first African-American would have been elected in our last presidential election.

Something that’s being overlooked is the obvious. Who will be seated on the Sedona City Council at the time revisions reflecting their proposals come to the table for implementation? Who is to say that just next year (2012 I believe we’ll be approaching another Sedona City Election) the four people who will be facing term expirations will not be replaced by others with diverse perspectives?

Within less than six years it’s possible, and maybe even growing more likely, that the entire City Council will be of a different complexion.

What’s to prevent a change in the majority of the Sedona City Council to reverse the decision for no continuous lighting and go ahead with the plan anyhow? Except by then, of course, the city will own the highway and the money from ADOT will go for lights instead of the other improvements being suggested by the present Sedona City Council.

Although in concurrence continuous night lighting isn’t the solution for solving safety issues along that corridor, I absolutely do not agree with the ADOT turn-back. To suggest ADOT will turn it over to the city at some future date whether or not they accept the payoff is just that ~ a “suggestion” for which there is no proof or past history to jusify such a thing WILL happen. Unless offered proof that this is a fact, it should be regarded as nothing more than one of the scare tactics which the City Council is persistent in accusing those objecting to the turn-back of using. In this instance, is it OK for the pot to call the kettle black?

Further, how would it be possible for ADOT to single out just little Sedona to dump both SR89A and SR179 onto just because they can, without consideration of following suit to do the same with Cottonwood and Rte. 260 in addition to the same SR89A that runs through Sedona? The same would hold true for Clarkdale and Jerome, would it not? Would it not be discrimination if ADOT took such extreme measues on Sedona without imposing the same hardship on our three sister cities: Cottonwood, Clarkdale, and Jerome? Would our city leaders sit back and accept blatant discrimination as being acceptable should such an event occur?

No doubt in my mind ADOT would LIKE to unload every one of their State Routes running through incorporated areas onto the appropriate municipalities; however, how realistic is such a wish list? Well, maybe about as realistic as the ongoing never-ending Sedona wish lists that continue to grow on a daily basis.

My prediction for the outcome of this is that the City of Sedona will own both SR89A and SR179, and have continuous lighting as ADOT appropriated for a previous City Council. All it will take is a new set of seven faces seated behind that podium, but they will be unable to undo the take-back(s) from ADOT.

I think local control is preferable in which the City has input as opposed to remaining a thorn in ADOT’s side.

Reading the latest article in the Arizona Republic, Litchfield Park may hold off on its projects http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/02/10/20110210litchfield-park-city-projects-on-hold.html#ixzz1DkTB6MO6 gave me more confirmation that transferring SR 89A to the City of Sedona would be a VERY serious mistake.

As one reads the article we also see this statement, “Another fund called HURF, the Highway User Revenue Fund, is also projected to decline by 5 percent in fiscal 2012, and that is money the city uses for roads, Schoaf said.”

As we all know, the State of Arizona is in dire financial shape and is trying to divest itself of many of its projects by dumping them into the laps of cities with promises of funding. That funding will not be forthcoming and we, Sedona taxpayers, will be footing the bill.

As its residents, we need and expect far more from our City than owning asphalt. You have been entrusted by the majority of the voters in Sedona to lead us through troubled waters. We and the future generations in Sedona are counting on you to do the right thing and listen to the majority of the people: Take the lights now; they are paid for…the rest are mere empty promises, unless they are put into an escrow account!

Once again, as members of the silent majority and now the vocal majority, we urge all of you to do your due-diligence and be the conscience of the City Council as you deliberate in your decision.

Sincerely,
Abe Koniarsky
Sedona, AZ

I responded, attempting to explain that the only portion of SR89A which ADOT is negotiating as a turn-back lies within Sedona City Limits and that presently City of Sedona does not impose “City Property Taxes” and the tax bills we receive from the two respective counties, Yavapai and Coconino, in which we reside represent assessments for operating both the School and Fire Districts which expand to encompass the Village of Oak Creek and other areas outside City Limits in the Red Rock Loop vicinity.

The fact that this confusion exists indicates to me that the City of Sedona hasn’t done a very good job of educating Sedona residents.