Home » City Council, Community » Sedona Eye Columnist Eddie S. Maddock Commentary

Sedona Eye Columnist Eddie S. Maddock Commentary

Eddie S. Maddock, SedonaEye.com Columnist comments on questions raised about ADOT and the City of Sedona AZ

Sedona AZ (February 18, 2011) – Considerable misinformation is flying around these days and J. Rick Normand’s educated opinion, as expressed in this and a different publication, is extremely forthright in qualifying that “Sedona MAY end up owning SR89A anyway.” (MAY being the operative word)  Also Normand very honestly admits that “While ADOT’s authority to do so has never been exercised under this statute, it’s on the books and there’s no plan to rescind it.”

Expounding on the dire financial straits of Arizona, which is shared by other states from coast to coast, was it an oversight to avoid mentioning that ADOT doesn’t rely solely on State revenue to perform its function to build roads? Why no reference to Federal funding?

Anyone driving AZ SR179 during the time it was being reconfigured, surely cannot deny that the business of highway construction provides many, many jobs which cannot be a bad thing for the economy, can it? Does anyone wonder why ADOT appears so eager to dump ownership of SR89A onto small town Sedona who has proven time and time again that scraping up enough money to maintain city dedicated roads, inherited from both counties, has been an ongoing problem?

Will the glint of promised wealth obscure clear vision of what’s really ahead? Does anyone know?

Of course even suggesting the outlandish proposition that ADOT, literally down the road, may resurrect plans for a bypass tends to throw folks into a tizzy! Oh right, no money. How did they manage funding for the 100+ lights that are, in reality, not needed?

Is it not interesting how different entities always seem to manage to scrape up financing for selective projects?

Having listened to the hellfire, damnation, doom and gloom that circulated during the push for Sedona to incorporate, suddenly that dilemma has again been stoked and it reminds me of the refrain “It seems to me I’ve heard that song before.”

The big scare back then was that if Sedona didn’t get a sewer, all of our properties would be condemned, or worse, implying we would relinquish body and soul to some horrible disease. Well, guess what? Homes in my area are over 30 years in age, and we are still not on the sewer line.

So far, to my knowledge, no one has “crossed over” because of the purported outcome. One good threat, in my opinion, was that if Sedona didn’t incorporate and provide wastewater treatment the “M” word would be implemented! Translated: MORATORIUM ON NEW BUILDING. Based on that alone, I voted against incorporation and, of course, was on the losing side.

What incorporation actually ended up facilitating was the opportunity for all the new development to get priority treatment by hooking up to the wastewater facility, instead of those areas who’d been told they would be first in line. And believe it, new development popped up in abundance posthaste. So in a way, proponents for incorporation were correct but in reverse because incorporation was what turned into hell and damnation for those who believed in what they were being told.

ADOT photoAnother half truth surfaced during a recent Planning & Zoning Commission meeting when it was brought to attention that without the ADOT right-of-way, non-profits, citing specifically the Humane Society, would have the opportunity to post appropriate signs in areas where they are presently banned by ADOT.

It might be well to acknowledge the strict enforcement policy of ADOT was relaxed during the SR179 construction and businesses were allowed to break rules for obvious reasons, like locating access to entries!

Let us go back to the subject at hand, the Humane Society sign, given as the example at the P & Z meeting.

However, as a factual example, how about reflecting on the occasion when the Sedona City Council approved a special privilege for L’Auberge to place a sign along SR89A at the top entrance by Little Lane? Obviously, neither the City Council nor the resort management were aware that the city didn’t possess that portion of the route; therefore the sign was never put in place.

However, are we now being judged naive enough to think that once the city ownership of SR89A extends to the western City Limits, the now existing ADOT right-of-way will only be relinquished to advertise non-profits?

In other words, will L’Auberge and similar off-the-main drag businesses not all be treated equally and be allowed signs, such as: No Tell Motel, turn left at the next traffic light (if it’s working); or Jake’s Beanery, two doors down from the gas station; or Free-For All Church Services, every Sunday for those who survive – turn right (or left as the case may be) into entry of Sedona Medical Center?

Why do you suppose that a clear cut and honest explanation of the ramifications of the relinquished ADOT right-of-way, and their strict sign regulations, was not disclosed?

Once a precedent is set, well, you know the rest of the story. The lid is off and the sky’s the limit. Them’s the facts, folks!

Cutting to the chase here, my message is that, on both sides, I’ve observed the implementation of scare tactics when, in fact, none of us have answers to whether or not ADOT will dump both State Routes on us without having predetermined plans for a bypass route, similar to what occurred in Cottonwood, which effectively laid Main Street to rest as was the obvious outcome.

For those who aren’t aware, plans for a bypass with SR179 intersecting with SR89A are someplace in the archives; and those who are naive enough to say it will never happen . . . may be right? May be wrong? Nobody but maybe “The Shadow” knows the answer to that.

Just beware that all too often wares are sold with only one purpose which is “to sell them.” Oft times foresight becomes muddled and original intent is easily distorted without objective insight insofar as (hate using the term) unintended consequences.

Just beware, also, that the many visions being offered about how wonderful SR89A will be once it’s owned by Sedona are reflective of the many promises held in store with the advent of incorporation. It’s an individual opportunity to determine whether or not that concept materialized; however, it didn’t take long for quite a few of those avid supporters to pull up stakes and relocate not long after they realized their dream of incorporation was, instead, unfolding as a nightmare before their very eyes.

 

12 Comments

  1. J. Rick Normand says:

    Hi Eddie,

    As usual, your commentary is singularly well conceived and well written. But, you missed something in my article. You asked…”Why no reference to Federal funding?” It’s clearly mentioned. Below is the fifth paragraph of the article. Also, when writing the article, I assumed that any reader who is passionately involved in this issue would know that ADOT get some of its funds from the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Those funds have always enjoyed assured allocation. As of January 27, that all changed. Congress removed the assured allocation. At this point, ADOT is guaranteed nothing! See the fifth paragraph from my article below:

    “On January 12, 2011, the Associated Press published a list of this country’s most economically distressed states. Arizona was fifth worst on the list. Anyone who’s casually read a statewide newspaper knows Arizona has a perilous budget problem resulting from an economy still on the down-slide. So, Draconian state budget cuts are assured, and it’s likely that state-owned highway and road maintenance budget cuts will be painfully deep. Worse yet, on January 27, the U.S. House of Representatives scrapped rules protecting transportation funds from being spent in other ways. There’s a direct relationship between these economic facts, the legal ramifications of A.R.S. 28-7209, and Sedona’s decision to take title to SR89A or leave it with ADOT.”

  2. E.S. Maddock says:

    Hey Rick, it’s a pleasure to hear from you. I apologize and stand corrected regarding my oversight.

    My years of residency in Sedona, both prior to and after incorporation, have taught me never to “assume” what or what not passionately involved people will know. All too often, and of course it’s only my opinion, I’ve witnessed what appears to be that they believe what it is they want to believe . . . and facts be damned in too many instances. Amazing, too, is how easily facts can be distorted to various interpretations. Our legal system is a prime example of that insofar as “here’s what it says but this is what it means.”

    Whether or not at some future date ADOT and other State Departments of Transportation will be restored to substantial Federal funding remains to be seen. By stating that nobody really knows whether or not the idea of a Sedona bypass is on the horizon, I thought I had made that point. There again, yet another example of a matter of interpretation?

    As you are aware, I respect you as a writer and certainly hope that was reflected in the words I wrote. I will again express my appreciation that you succinctly defined that Sedona “may” end up owning SR89A anyway which is a far cry from the arm flailing panicked “the sky is falling” reaction of many proponents for the SR89A turn-back. That, to me, is what’s so symbolic of the period of time leading up to Sedona being incorporated.

    Sincerely,
    Eddie

  3. J. Rick Normand says:

    Eddie,

    I’ve got to hand it to you…you have style.

    Rick

  4. Nancy Baer says:

    The reasons some of us opine that if the ADOT lights are chosen, there is the chance that once installed ADOT will give us notice that they plan to abandon the road is based on the following:

    Federal highway funds to AZ are in jeopardy because Phoenix continues to be out of compliance with the Clean Air act. ADOT has also, lagged behind in its efforts to conduct “route transfers” as directed by FWHA (see ADOT’s “Route Transfer and Level of Development Study” of 2003 http://www.azdot.gov/mpd/priority_programming/pdf/study/rtranstudy.pdf.

    In addition, if you consider the number of years that we have spent trying to negotiate with ADOT, the Transportation Board, the Governor, etc. it would be highly unusual for ADOT to want to continue their relationship with us.

    Lastly, we all should have learned by now since we elected an African American as President that the past should not necessarily predict the future.

  5. Jimmy says:

    What is so wrong about having signs from the Brewer round-about to Dry Creek Road? Really, wouldn’t that expanse from the main post office to Soldiers Pass Road be the absolute ideal place to re-introduce the once famous BurmaShave sign series? (check it out on Google) The view to the north is nothing but trees and red rocks and who anymore comes to Sedona to see trees and red rocks?

    Then on the opposite side maybe offer a contest for promoting new off-the-main-drag businesses which would qualify same as L’Auberge for special signs. Funny, L’Auberge was built before Sedona was a city and folks seemed to be able to find it back then. Oh well. New business suggestions:

    Snip & Clip, two doors west of the Humane Society; Fill Your Own Pot Hole Supplies, drive south on Shelby or Sunset Drive and pick your own location; Be Seen But Do Not Be Heard if You Object to the City Owning SR89A, take Southwest Drive to Fire Station, pick and choose your own location near City Hall. . . many vacancies available.

    This might prove quite lucrative for generating and promoting new businesses, all good for the economy and a positive spin for providing establishments offering both incentive and reason for locals to “Shop Sedona.”

  6. grumpy in west sedona says:

    tongue in cheek aside jimmy-this elected group of adams and cronies cannot function-for godssake take back the road-shut up-govern and do what you were elected to do-the people already spoke last spring-do you need lobotomies or what??????????-why are you still wasting time/money/effort to hear from a “we could care less than a rats ass” population-you’re elected- now do what they told you-and take back the road and get on with it-boring as hell politicians who are afraid of what they see in the mirror and cannot DO v TALK-like your style eddie maddock but you are singing to the choir-no one is listening worth salt

  7. Eddie Maddock says:

    Hey, Grumpy, I like your style, too, and I mean that sincerely . . . especially your comments about “boring as hell politicians” although, in my humble opinion, that statement applies far beyond the City Limits of Sedona.

    The most unfortunate part of this fiasco (again my opinion) is that the lighting issue became tied in with this SR89A turn-back because the 60% opposition to that option, as reflected by the results of the professional poll, clearly disconnects the popularity of the two matters..

    The newly elected city council members collectively pledged to reverse the previous city council’s approval from ADOT to have the lights installed, including taking vigorous legal action if needed. Therefore, kindly indulge me by retracting your erroneous statement that their campaign commitment was to “take back the road.”

    Would you also give some thought to asking the city council members to which you are directly referring why it is they abandoned their commitment to take legal action prior to the only option being reduced to taking back a State Highway which wasn’t part of their campaign promise . . . at least I was never aware of such a promise.

    I financially and whole-heartedly supported the election of the five recently seated members of the Sedona City Council. My support, however, would have gone elsewhere in a heart beat had I known this route turn-back would be considered the only alternative to the lights.

    Sorry, Grumpy. However, again you made my day because I thought no one out there in the choir was listening at all, whether or not they were worth salt.

    E. Maddock

  8. Tiger in Sedona says:

    I seriously knew about almost all of this, but having said that, I still thought it was beneficial to read. Very good job!

  9. N. Baer says:

    Residents should be aware that ADOT’s Board of Directors approved giving the City all of the upfront money which is $10.6 million.

  10. Eddie Maddock says:

    All of you are aware of my position on this matter. However, as an 11th hour entry it’s my right to confirm that information you’ve provided, although it might be pertinent at this time, has no substantiation that it will be applicable a few years from now.

    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

  11. still grumpy in west sedona says:

    jimmy my man let’ssee if this council has the guts to vote right & if one damn sign goes up near my street graffitti will be the city’s next problem & maddock like your style & how about the chamber getting off its overpaid with my tax dollars duff & ask vw to build a german style factory here in sedona better for us than another damn so called art gallery

  12. political gumbo mumbo says:

    Grumpy needs to take a happy pill. Looks like his side won. Who would’ve guessed the mayor and mcillroy bit the hand that fed them in the last election????

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2008-2017 · Sedona Eye · All Rights Reserved · Posts · Comments · Facebook · Twitter ·