But why so angry, mean and disrespectful Eddie?

That’s just not nice.

BOCH

If you will please be specific in your charge of “outrageously misleading comments” made by me, I will be more than happy to address the issue(s).

BTW, do you think it was appropriate and acceptable for an elected member of the Sedona City Council to blatantly refer to LTPV in a May 22nd article, “Hey Sedona, We’ve Been Scammed” as an obvious attempt to discredit people, many of whom were constituents but perhaps disagreed with the slim majority of four who approved action for a lifetime commitment of owning a State Highway?

Or are your accusations biased as in what’s good for the goose isn’t necessarily good for the gander?

You are aware that my belief is the same as yours: Differing opinions when they lead to productive discussions serve to be beneficial, even if the end result is agreeing to disagree. As in this case, I believe voting “No” on 410 in November will be the better choice.

(That’s the reason we are still capable of communicating.)

You are welcome :-)

Eddie

– People can have differences of opinion, but that shouldn’t be an opening to name calling (“Beware of charlatans and quacks selling snake oil.”), nor outrageously misleading comments that You state in both of Your replies. Let’s all do our own research and be honest here.

For those that truly understand the need for Safety here on Our Sedona highway, and the need for Our Dark Skies, I ask that You Vote “Yes” on 410 in November.

Thank You,

Bettye
West Sedona Resident

The responsibility of elected officials SHOULD be to represent the will of the people and not by manipulating professional polls because the results do not reflect their personal agendas.

You mention that the Sedona Police Chief and the President of the Sedona Chamber of Commerce were participants on the Safety Advisory Panel. At any time was the option for Sedona to own a State Highway publicly made a consideration to your alleged pledge for safety? I don’t believe so; however, as I recall, and based in part in what you write, I do believe that the city council had made solid statements to take legal action against ADOT. Why did that never occur?

Did you happen to read the presentation made before the State Transportation Board in Flagstaff by former Sedona Police Chief Joe Vernier? Also, to my knowledge the Sedona Chamber of Commerce is adamantly opposed to city ownership of additional miles of 89A. You fail to mention the entire area under consideration for the trade, including the portion of SR 179 from the “Y” roundabout to Ranger Road.

At least, unlike Ms. LeFevre, you are realistic enough to acknowledge the State Route will continue to serve tourists and others driving through the State of Arizona insofar that is why it is there . . . to accommodate travelers from far and wide, including truckers, unlike our city neighborhood streets, purpose of which is to serve residents who live in a given area.

It should not be the financial obligation for a population of between ten and eleven thousand people to foot the bill for a State Functional Highway!

I see you reside in West Sedona and maybe a good suggestion would be for that section of Sedona to break from Coconino County side of town, form your own city, and you guys be responsible for constructing and maintaining State Highways as you see fit and leave the rest of us alone and financially solvent if such a thing is possible this day and age.

People, get a grip. Trip down from outer space and hopefully land on your feet which might jolt you back into the real world.

“The City MUST own West 89A.” How about trying to sell a refrigerator to an Eskimo?

Eddie Maddock
Sedona Resident