Eddie S. Maddock, Sedona Eye columnist

Sedona AZ (April 4, 2012) – With the dust pretty well settled after the most recent City Council election and the snow now melted after much needed precipitation, what next will be in store for Sedona?

Of course the highly contentious recall election of three members of the Fire District Board is still brewing, but after that decision is made, will we all settle down and live in peace and harmony? If history repeats, chances for that to happen are slim to none.

However, considering the update of the Community Plan is well under way, suppose we review for a moment ”The City of Sedona Vision Statement and Community Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions” as follows:

“The vision that the citizens have for the future of their City is . . .

• To be a city that is constantly vigilant over the preservation of its natural beauty, scenic vistas, pristine environment and cultural heritage.
• To be a city that retains its small-town character and creates its man made improvements in strict harmony with nature.
• To be a city that is animated by the arts, and lives with a spirit of volunteerism to help achieve our common goals.
• To be a city that offers equal opportunities for all and fosters a sense of community.
• To be a city that welcomes and accommodates all of its visitors and future residents with a spirit of fellowship.
• To be a city that retains and enhances a strong and vital economy which preserves existing lifestyles without exploiting the natural beauty.

And finally,

• To be a city that lives up to the challenge of proper stewardship of one of the earth’s great treasures.”

Why has this become so difficult to harmoniously achieve? Could it be because of the differences of opinions relating to just what does it take to accomplish all of this?

It’s the ever increasing varieties of interpretation that obviously create many problems. Examples during the last City Council election expressed by different candidates indicated their own “visions” included but were not limited to:

• Investing more money in marketing.
• Investing in capital projects such as more parking.
• Shuttle service to trail heads.
• Increase funding to non-profits.
• Increasing funding to Chamber of Commerce from $600,000 to about $1.5 million.
• Look for opportunities for other revenue sources.
• A city-owned outdoor event venue “perhaps on the city-owned land by the Wastewater Reclamation Plant.”
• A boutique convention center. (Defunct Cultural Park property purchase?)
• Expansion of Yavapai College and the Sedona campus of the Verde Valley Medical Center.
• Creating an Uptown City Center with more outdoor dining, drinking and music.
• A “string of pearls” in West Sedona with community gathering centers and small parks.
• The city should diversify through new programs in art and music therapy, health care services, the wine industry, and technology.
• The city should develop the land known as the Preserve at Oak Creek north of the Sedona Arts Center into public space.
• The city should buy up “cheap” lots and houses to provide “affordable” housing for those in need.

More insignificantly thrown in among the mix was a solution for storm drainage.

Alleviating uptown traffic was also mentioned in addition to resurrection of a Creek Walk. After years of research, that concept finally – within the last three years – was deemed to be an extremely bad idea since any such project would necessitate what could potentially be a complete waste of money due to the fact a Creek Walk would exist in the midst of a flood plane. This, too, would be the case if consideration for a Creek Side park is ever taken seriously.

Really, how many of these big government concepts include “vigilance over preservation of natural beauty, etc.” let alone positively address retaining a small-town character? How could such radical proposals possibly preserve our “existing lifestyles” without exploiting the “natural beauty” and last, but not least, what will be the source of funding for such ambitious and lofty projections? From where have all of these big city ideas arisen as an alleged means to sustain a “small town” atmosphere?

The last official census reflected a population decrease of 1.6% over the past ten years which means those who opted to exit this magnificent space on the universe did their part to contribute to maintaining a “small town.” Why can’t city planners and elected officials do the same short of relocating themselves?

If they are unable to do so, then maybe a complete revision of the “Vision Statement, Goals, etc.” is needed?  At the very least it appears obvious that a long over-due meeting of the minds is in order to get a consensus of exactly what the majority’s concept is pertaining to a “small town.”

Are the people who still live here expected to jump for joy at the ongoing push to become “educated” which brings up a “vision” of a different sort? Has anyone stopped to think of the image conveyed to visitors when they learn that people living here are in perceived need of unsolicited “education” on matters of which they are already acutely attuned?

A not so fine line frequently exists between the term “education” and “brainwashing.” Jim Jones and David Koresh were experts on the subject.

At any rate, if these newly elected council members, together with those already seated, are serious about bringing an end to city divisiveness, they clearly have their work cut out for them. Short of sending all major issues to the voters in the form of Referendums, or establishing new laws, codes,  or ordinances as is offered by the Initiative process, is it not way past due for concise, cohesive thinking – and realistic communication with an expanded outreach to all who live here in order to make a meaningful difference with substantial substance?

Mere lip service hasn’t seemed to work too well in the past. Is it possible that Sedona residents aren’t as “uneducated” as those in control would prefer to believe?

For the best Sedona Arizona News and Views? Subscribe now to SedonaEye.com!