SedonaCityCouncil@SedonaAZ.gov

In addition, the prospect of building medians along 89A may become ” the straw that broke the camel’s back” for the struggling business community situated on that route.

It is crucial that our city fathers listen to ALL of the residents of Sedona, specially the business community that’s bringing a generous amount of revenue in the form of precious sales tax. It is this sales tax generated by our businesses that is the source of the majority of the revenue that provides the citizens of Sedona with all of the essential services they are accustomed to and enjoy.

Are we willing to gamble all of that to enjoy the beauty of dark skies?

Abe Koniarsky
Sedona, AZ

The Sedona City Council invites residents to give their opinion on the SR 89A Route Transfer issue via an online opinion survey starting Monday, January 24, 2011.

Visit the City’s website using the featured article found on this website. For the survey to be counted, you must be a resident of the City of Sedona, include your name and address, and only submit one per person. The survey will be available online until Monday, February 7, 2011 at noon. The short survey asks residents to choose one of two options: 1) Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) keeps SR 89A and installs lights; or 2) Transfer SR 89A to City and install proposed safety improvements.

While the results of the survey will not be scientifically valid, this opinion poll will be provided to City Council as part of their consideration of this issue.
Future opportunities for input include a Council Work Session on Wednesday, February 9 at 5:00 p.m. and a regular meeting on Tuesday, February 22 at 4:30 p.m. Interested community members are invited to attend. Contact the City Manager’s office at 204-7127 with questions.

More public meetings have been scheduledA quick reminder and overview of finalized 89a public information schedule: January Public Meetings

01/19 11 :00 VEARDE VALLEY REPUBLICAN WOMEN LOS ABRIGADOS
01/19 6:00 PM DEMOCRATS OF THE RED ROCKS ST. ANDREWS EPISCOPAL CHURCH
01/19 6:30 PM NEIGHBORHOOD LISTENING SESSION W. SEDONA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
01/20 7:30 PM SEDONA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BEST WESTERN ARROYO ROBLE
01/20 8:30 AM SEDONA-VERDE VALLEY ASSOC. OF REALTORS at ELKS LODGE
01/20 10:30 AM KEEP SEDONA BEAUTIFUL PUSHMATAHA

PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS from consultant are in progress:

A business survey has already been mailed. (Be sure to return yours!)
A scientific sampling survey of residents via landline telephone numbers is in
progress.
CITY WEBSITE SURVEY {similar to the recent survey for art in the round-abouts/information available on this web site)
– Further email notices will be emailed when this survey will becomes available.

I stand corrected..

Yes, you’re right. The RRN wasn’t one of the plaintiffs…but they may as well have been. They protected city’s shenanigans by way of avoiding the printing of letters responding to the many suggestions to look closer at their decisions/actions such as made by made by Sheri, you and many others.

Yes, now I remember the ‘tree farm’ trade was with the USFS and not the state. The Forest Service had no dog in this fight. They wanted the tree farm land and the city wanted their 200 acres. So the city bought the tree farm and traded with them for the 200 acres. Not really the point I was making but then that was a while back and was one of the many “questionable” actions taken by the city which seemed to add to the wealth of some people who were on the “inside”…actions such as the city hall building purchase.

As you have stated Eddie, that your comments are just your “opinion”, such is the case with my comments…just my “opinion”.

It’s interesting to note, however, that many back then shared our “opinions” but apparently the RRN saw fit not to investigate and print such “opinions” nor to comment via their editorials as to the importance of seeing that there was total ‘transparency’ concerning the actions of our city council,the city staff and especially the city manager.

If “Sedona Q” is the Carl I think he is (see above), Carl, you were a pussy 20 years ago and it appears nothing has changed. If you are not the Carl I refer to, my apologies. (You’ll know if you are).

Carl

Not my intention here to hog space, but I feel the need to set the record straight on at least one reference in your recent post.

Yes, I am aware of the TV program. Backfire it was called. As the co-host of that program, I was among those who had the dubious honor of being named in that million dollar slander law suit. I must correct your inference that the Red Rock News was a plaintiff in the actual law suit. Their performance, however, served to deny those of us, the defendants, equal opportunity insofar as printing supportive letters submitted to that publication. That I can prove.

I must also correct that the owner of Geronimo Communications, Channel 17, did not file for bankruptcy. The intent after vacating the studio in the Village of Oak Creek was to resume broadcasting from another location on the Red Rock Loop Road. However, the City of Sedona, having a franchise agreement with the cable television service, prevented cable connection to that site.

At one time I had proof of that allegation in the form of the franchise contract, but after so many years I must protect myself here and clearly qualify that it remains my “opinion” that it was the City of Sedona who prevented our resuming the Backfire programs.

As for your other comments, I’ve no reason to dispute them. However, I do believe the land exchange for the acreage at the Dell’s had to do with a land trade with the USFS and not the State. One cannot be too careful and I speak from experience.

FYI, it was not my choice to be vacated from the law suit. I wanted to run the gamut for a jury trial and my attorney was up for it. However, my insurance company covering my legal expenses opted for a settlement agreement offered by the plaintiffs to release me from the law suit with which I simply was forced to sign.

Thanks, Jerry, for the trip down memory lane which is a reminder that unless our present city leaders aren’t astute they might well be unleashing even more wild beasts. (Again, just my opinion.)

E. Maddock