An NSA designation, but the right way

Readers' comments

#1 Thank you, Carl, for a thoughtful and balanced discussion of an important issue. At times the Sedona community seems unable to accept the possibility of disagreeing without being disagreeable. Your central point the way I took it was that we all agree on an ultimate objective- protection of our natural resource and its beauty- without necessarily agreeing on how this should be achieved. Alternatives each come with their own costs, be they economic development or what. It becomes a matter of balance, which may require compromise, another concept not easily understood it seems here in Sedona. How else to seek a win-win solution to a common concern? It will not come about by vilifying those you disagree with on means even though you could be partners on ends.

#2 Thank you, Carl. Well said!

#3 As a 24 year resident who treasures the scenic beauty of Sedona, I was concerned by the points you raised regarding fuzzy, unclear language affecting what we will and won't be able to do. NSA designation has been touted on the obvious - protection. Who doesn't support that? Yet, the devil is in the details, esp.language.

Why can't we believe in the people of Sedona and the existing Amendment 12 to continue to speak up and protect this land? I am deeply concerned about, as Councilwoman Scagnelli stated, unintended consequences. Thank you, Carl, for this article.

#4 Councilor Nancy Scagnelli made a motion that #1, she had a right to make, regardless of the Mayor's attempt to slam down his gavel and end all further discussion, and #2 was fair and reasonable in light of all that was heard that night and the motion required that all their changes and comments for any bill be forwarded to Congresswoman Kirkpatrick. What the heck is wrong with that? If you stand back and honestly look at all the surprises and quirks that were brought forward and exposed about unknown facts (13 acres at Slide Rock that Forest Service wants RID of, a requirement that the Catholic Church MUST buy 11 acres within 6 months!, stipulations on the local Fire District on fire fighting?, etc. etc.) you begin to see that just waving your hand and creating an NSA is not simple. And the actual back and forth adding, gutting, amending that occurred at the Council meeting for 3 hours is NOTHING compared to what lobbyists in Washington DC will do. I hope no one is so naive as to think it won't be otherwise. Folks, attorneys and lobbyists do this professionally all day long, 365 days a year back there. The Coconino Forest Plan has stopped land trades totally since adopted. Keep it and ONLY it. When it comes to Federal government, be careful what you wish for.

# 5 Thank goodness that Councilwoman Nancy Scagnelli has the courage of her convictions! There are way too many unknowns that could happen by the time Congress was finished with any legislation that may occur for this NSA designation. Let's not all lose sight of the fact that the Forest Management plan is functioning quite nicely under the auspices of a very responsible Ranger and staff of the Red Rock District. Good for you, Nancy!

#7 Carl,

Thank you for standing up for Councilwoman Scagnelli's right to make a motion to reject the NSA designation. Your words are always appreciated when our community seems to polarize itself on issues.

The concerns of the council are justified. If anyone wants to think that this offering by Rep. Kirkpatrick will remain what the Council amended, think again. Take a look at the healthcare bill submitted by the House to the Senate.

Thank you, Council, for not giving your stamp of approval to the document. The reality is that the NSA designation would bring about inflexibility within our community. Do we really need the federal government telling us how we govern ourselves?

Kathy Howe
Proud to include my name in my commentary. I just wish others would come out from behind the cloak of anonymity.

#8 A good ,balanced writeup!

Every year, Congress adds thousands of non-controversial riders to bills going through Congress with little or no debate. I think you are right in saying a simple straight-forward statement (current language of Coconino NF Plan) dealing with land exchange would be non-controversial and could easily be added as a rider to a non-related natural resource bill going through Congress. Representative Kirkpatrick could declare victory and say this has been FS policy for 15 years, it works well, and there is general agreement by the local people. We just want to put into law what has been FS policy for 15 years and is well supported.

The problem is that trying to accomplish this with a NSA is that it carries a lot of baggage. NSA's are always controversial because, in all other cases, it involves some degree of Federal control over the development of private land. Hence, in our case, we have to add so many provisions to say that it is not a typical NSA.

The only reason that I can see a need for a NSA is if it could be used as a marketing tool to get more people coming to Sedona and spending their money to boost our economy.

#9 Thank you for synthesizing the NSA issues into a single, concise statement. It has always been about protection from land trades. And thank you to Councilor Scagnelli for representing the people who elected her to make the tough calls. She obviously studied the issues, interviewed professional with expertise and experience, and articulated her position well, at least as I observed on the video. She's the leader Sedona now needs. She's not always campaigning to be well liked or stirring up support for her personal convictions. I'd like to call for Scagnelli for Mayor. The current mayor's lack of leadership skills on the council as well as continued verbalized disdain for fellow councilors has perpetuated the division in the community. A true leader listens to sides, all sides, assimilates that input with the data and enables the representatives on the dais to vote their conscience. And then--embraces the decision of the majority to move on. It's time to settle down in Sedona.

#10 For the most part, I agree with Carl’s opinions in his article. He does a service to the community by allowing true freedom of speech, and allowing both sides of the debate. However, the assumption that everyone is in favor of preventing land trades in Sedona is misguided, in my opinion.

Make no mistake about it; there are those commercial interests in the Sedona/Phoenix commercial corridor who would turn Sedona into Scottsdale North if they could. I am not making a moral judgment about their intentions—just stating an opinion. For them, the debate over “unintended consequences” of the NSA legislation is a strategic move to prevent the legislation from being drafted so that further trades can be implemented, and further development of the National Forest around Sedona can occur. This is a smart move strategically.

I was told by a reliable and responsible government official in good faith during a conversation about five years ago that, in their opinion, Soldier Wash would eventually be developed. The government official was simply trying to be candid and helpful at the time, and was stating an opinion. Obviously many things have changed since then, and the government official may have a completely different opinion at the time. However, the conversation back then underlies how vulnerable to land trades the Sedona area remains, and how unpredictable the issue truly is.

Let's start being completely honest about the issue and admit there are stakeholders who want land trades to occur, so that areas like Soldier Wash can be developed. Again, I am not making a moral judgement against those who would like to see land trades and further development. I am only asking for a completely honest debate.

In fact, if the City of Sedona were to a) develop a Master Plan based on a systems approach, that included meaningful and formalized public participation, and a rigorous environmental and social impact analysis; and b) the resulting Master Plan favored significant additional development and land trades for the long-term welfare of the community, I would support the action. But that approach is not happening.

Ron Vernesoni

#11 Come on, now. If anyone thinks Congress is going to "tinker" with the NSA bill, you're fooling yourself. This is an insignificant piece of legislation as far as the rest of the country is concerned. It's a local thing -- without a significant outlay of dollars. In those cases, Congress most assuredly will defer to the wishes of the local Representative.

Also, people are really getting way too worked up about the "unintended consequences." The federal NSA office is located in a back-room cubicle in a far-flung sector of the Department of Agriculture. The guy in charge doesn't have much to do. Believe me, this thing is as harmless as we want to make it.

#12 HERE IS SOMETHING TO CHEW ON:

No one is talking about the RUSKIN LAND TRADE. One of the largest land trades in the history of Arizona that greatly impacted the Verde Valley. THOUSANDS OF ACRES TRADED.

How did this happen? It came from Washington and totally bypassed the Verde Valley until watchful eyes screamed loud enough but by then it was too late. It had been brewing for many years.

How many other ideas like this are already "brewing" on someone's desk in Washington? We do not know.

So, if you are really worried about government taking control of what happens here - the only logical way to prevent it is to have a transparent NSA. Then "they" know they have to keep their fingers out of the pie.

The current Forest Service Plan can change at anytime - by the same people who brought us the RUSKIN LAND TRADE - no doubt about it. If you are naive enough to think we are really running the show about protecting our national forest without the NSA - remember the RUSKIN LAND TRADE - and if you don't know what it is - you might want to find out-----

Editor's addition: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1116yavapai.html

Christine K. Adams

#13 Comment in response to #12 above followed by Mayor Adams Response:

#12, your comment is exactly what my editorial is about: no land trades.

However, the language that was negotiated for 3 hours was about everything but "no land trades."

KSB, DORR etc. have been saying from the beginning that the NSA bill was about "no land trades."

Kirkpatrick's bill came out and there were no public forums to vet it.  Instead, it went right to city council for a 3 hour defacto "public forum" where the public heard about a host of concerns unrelated to "no land trades."

How did that happen?

Best,
Carl Jackson

From Mayor Adams:

After Ann Kirkpatrick requested input on the NSA legislation, the City sent out letters to over 15 stakeholders, including business owners, environmental groups, Forest Service representatives, utility companies and the school district. Staff met with many of these groups to vet the language in the bill prior to the Council meeting. The draft that was presented to Council on the 18th was the result of an extensive collaborative public effort to address the concerns of the various stakeholders in regards to the language and "unintended consequences" of the bill.

When we (the Councilmembers) reviewed the bill on Nov. 18th, a vast majority of the time was spent addressing the components of the bill that were superfluous to the issue of land trades. Frankly, I was surprised that after the vetting by the various groups,  issues like fire suppression, insect control and water issues were still in the bill. I thought the audience did a good job of pointing this out and Council responded by eliminating most of this unnecessary language. The result of the Council session was a vastly pared down bill that dealt almost exclusively with "no land trades."

It is important to remember that the original bill that was sent out by Kirkpatrick was quite simple as far as bills go. After the public process (which has been ongoing since August) and the final vetting by the stakeholders and Council, the bill was almost entirely focused on "no land trades". 

We need to remember that this will not be the final version of the bill. This is simply what Kirkpatrick asked for; our recommendations and input on an NSA bill. When she reviews this input along with all of the other input that she will receive, she will redraft the bill and submit it for additional review. 

We are acting like we (in Sedona) are the end all authority on what the final version of the bill will be. That is simply not the case. We are a part of an ongoing process and everyone is getting the opportunity to be heard. I believe that the end result will accomplish what we all desire; NO LAND TRADES, permanently.