Comments on: Sedona – ADOT Route Transfer of SR 89A

By: Don in Sedona

Don in Sedona — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 23:50:46 +0000

DORR RE-STARTS ITS MONTHLY BREAKFASTS WITH A VERY SPECIAL MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 15TH!!

Two members of the Sedona City Council who supported the transfer, Barbara Litrell and Cliff Hamilton, will explain their decisions and why this is still relevant now. We are hoping members of the opposition to the transfer will also make their case. More details soon! There will be time for lots of questions.
Doors open at 8:00am at the Olde Sedona Bar and Grill, 1407 W. SR89A.
Cost is $11 which includes breakfast.
Reservations are encouraged; call 203-5858 or email breakfast@democratsoftheredrocks.org

Everyone is welcome; bring a friend! Bring a contribution to the Sedona Food Bank

By: E.S. Maddock

E.S. Maddock — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 18:55:14 +0000

OPINION: Considering the minimal attendance at the recent City Council Meeting relating to the turn-back of SR 89A, could it be that the residents of Sedona no longer care about this issue? Or, quite possibly, is that silence an indication of the calm before the next storm?
As the term “ultimatum” has been associated with ADOT’S current tactics, is that any different from blackmail, which indicates a hostage situation . . . in this instance implying an entire city is being held captive?
Is the deafening silence an indication that maybe at least some folks object to the proposed turn-back and consider the end result even more offensive than the lighting?
Is it a fact and all along has it been that ADOT sees this lighting issue as the perfect opportunity to dump a state highway on the shoulders of Sedona government?
If this City Council approves the assumption of this responsibility, in spite of the city’s obvious inability to maintain the city streets they inherited from both counties after incorporation, how long will it be before ADOT slams the city with the responsibility of also taking over SR 179 within city limits?
Since it appears ADOT has quite an “in” with the State Transportation Board in order to even have received funding for the unnecessary expenditure for the lighting, just suppose that down the line they convince the powers that exist to allocate not only the funds ADOT will be saving by ridding themselves of these two State Highways, but up-the-ante in order to relocate both routes entirely around the City of Sedona? This has been discussed in the past. How would that affect business? Sure, Sedona will always be an attraction for tourists; however, the convenience of two direct entries is a distinct advantage. Remember what happened with the old Route 66?
Since it appears after all this expert testimony ADOT cannot justify their insistence for their ultimatum, why isn’t the city considering seeing them in court? Will acquiescing to the demands and potential hidden agenda of ADOT result in a grave injustice not only to the people who live here but the millions of visitors who have helped sustain the economy for many, many years.
There’s still much to think about here, and many questions are left unanswered. I just hope I’m not still around when the sleeping giant awakens, reality sets in, and the citizens of Sedona are slapped with a hefty property tax as a result of catering to the whims of ADOT.

By: Yip

Yip — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 09:20:46 +0000

There is always a compromise. Find it. That’s what the democratic process is about. We’ve been inundated with rhetoric by writers and citizens who love to hear themselves speak. We elected a council to do the job. Get it done.

By: Jerry Reynolds

Jerry Reynolds — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 22:47:57 +0000

Sir:

Questions 2 and 6 were not answered honestly.

Why was ADOT contacted and by whom to complain that Sedona has an ‘accident problem’ on west 89A? Over the 27 years I’ve lived here I’ve heard of only 2 people killed crossing west 89A at night and I believe those two were supposedly drunk.

Does this justify a panicky response to open Pandora’s box to ADOT? Was this person so stupid as to not assume ADOT’s response would be to light up the highway to daylight standards to avoid the liability they might be subject to if another person died and a ‘hired liar’ were employed to sue the State?

Of course ADOT want’s to rid itself of this potential liability. And, of course, our brilliant city governors are accommodating them. Isn’t it about time we get some people into government and on our newspaper who are at least as interested in the residents of this town as they are in the tourists?

Tell ADOT NO!! to the proposed transfer. Let them light it up at their expense, if that’s what will make them happy. We want no additional expense for it’s maintenance and upkeep…matter of fact, INSIST that they resurface 89A as is their obligation… as it has become a crummy road to travel.

Be smart, people. If we did take over 89A in Sedona you think our insurance company wouldn’t insist we put those same lights along the whole stretch to reduce the liability we would be assuming ?

Why aren’t these arguments ever discussed pubically?? Follow the money!