Next time you see a post on SE …..google the name and include Sedona and see if in fact they are real or just a “make believe” name trying to fabricate that more sedona residents are disgruntled…..

Most posters don’t exist and are the same 2-3 posters… do it.. you’ll see..
Right Margret coffey!!

Councilmember Thompson is spot on–removing cars from the highway should be more of a priority. Snidely Whiplash, however, says “traffic is our destiny.”

Been thinking about what Bacon wrote. Agree with much of his comment and disagree with it’s naiveté about the city and county.

The four groups above that Bacon mentions have dissimilar goals and incentives making cooperation slim to none even on basic services or agreements. Some are elected issues and some are bureaucratic issues bumping into each other but they’re issues.

Common ties that bind? Money and power. Don’t overlook their lust for FREE money; the city is a pig at the trough of state and federal dollars believing they are ENTITLED because the money exists and might go to some place else. They’ll wrap programs in false language need packages to get it known in the real world as lies. We see it in the Village, we see it in Uptown, we saw it with the 89A lights. Now we’re seeing it with this proposed roundabout lane. Won’t do a damn bit of good but this council doesn’t care cause they got the money! They love the power of it.

The impact on businesses be damned during construction AGAIN in this area. The impact on traffic be damned because they got the money.

City grabs land by eminent domain that shouldn’t be the city’s but then that’s how these Democrats roll. Yes it’s partisan. Republicans are creating jobs and getting the city back on its feet but the Democrats can’t stand not taxing every one rich or poor and taking their cut of the money. Republicans equal Robin Hood and Democrats equal the Kings. That’s the real world today.

The analysis should also include the impact of additional traffic generated by SIM 1, the Uptown Improvements, assuming those are pursued. The City’s traffic control personnel have done a good job moving traffic through Uptown to the “Y”. However, is it possible that those surges of additional traffic from Uptown are part of the reason the Cooks Hill backup has become progressively worse?

SIM 1 predicts a 64% improvement in southbound travel time through Uptown. This could result is an additional 600 vehicles/hr entering the “Y” roundabout from Uptown. (Transportation Master Plan p. 63-65). The current Level of Service (LOS) of this intersection is E-F and predicted to be F by 2025. (Transportation Master Plan Table 2.7, p. 37) What is the LOS when SIM 1 traffic impacts are included in the traffic modeling?

Currently, Brewer/Ranger Roads from SR89A to SR179 functions nearly the same as the proposed Southbound By-Pass Lane. Would it be equally effective to improve Brewer/Ranger Roads as the Southbound By-Pass Lane and not construct the one at the “Y”?

I also agree with Councilman Thompson that removing cars from the highway should be more of a priority for improving traffic congestion. The TMP (p. 120-121) predicts that Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) for Oak Creek Canyon/SR89A would reduce traffic by 16% and that DMS alerting travelers to conditions on SR179 would reduce traffic by an additional 26%. This is a combined traffic reduction of 42% through the Uptown/Gallery District corridor and at a fraction of the cost of SIM1 and SIM 4 highway improvements.

If the Forest Service and State Parks would limit access to Oak Creek Canyon campgrounds and trail heads by implementing a reservation system and ADOT restricts road side parking, traffic to and from the Canyon might be reduced an additional 10% or more.

We should be asking Council, the Forest Service, State Parks and ADOT to pursue these alternatives as aggressively as they are pursuing the highway construction alternatives.

Here’s from a real conservative, Alan Korwin:

Prop 126 — Vote YES — Ban Taxes on Services

This is one of the “backwards” props — You must vote YES to say NO new taxes. In general, almost anything that grows government is suspect, and likely should be defeated. If enacted, this expands government greatly, plus, it takes more money from us in a new tax, so clearly it’s a YES vote (YES, do NOT tax services).

Right now the state has power to tax sales on goods but not on services, and it sees a treasure chest if it can add a new sales tax on services, which is what this proposition will do if enacted. Service providers are things like gardeners, barbers, doctors, car washes, real-estate agents, accountants, even writers like me (though I would argue the “shall make no law” part of the First Amendment forbids taxing speech). Our bills for service will need a sales-tax line, and you’ll have to pay more. Right now we have freedom from this. “Officials” are salivating at the idea they could soak so much more money out of us.

The left does argue it is unfair for a person in business selling products to charge sales tax, but a person selling services does not. However, in the current system, tax is totally unfair all over the place, not just here, and needs repair. To help balance taxation for people who sell physical things, lower or reduce their taxes, don’t tax someone else “for fairness.” What a terrible idea. Government workers, leftists and socialists think that way. As you know, we’re having problems in this country with people like that. The bad argument being circulated that by stopping a new tax on half our retail economy, legislators will simply increase the existing sales tax is bogus. Future tax increase proposals (if, and when) are a separate battle unrelated to this vote.

Creating new taxes is rarely if ever a solution to societal ills, which are rarely if ever a problem for government to intervention. Don’t delegate new powers to an already bloated government and bureaucracy.