By Steve Segner
The up coming November election on Proposition 483 and its implications for the future of Sedona’s housing and public spaces. Proposition 483 “stop the zoning” The referendum appears to be a backdoor effort to push through the redevelopment of an outdoor amphitheater under the guise of canceling the city’s simple zoning change for Sedona workers to park their cars overnight. The reality that there are dozens of Sedona-employed workers already sleeping in vehicles in the forest or other clandestine locations was ignored by the proponents of the referendum, now known as Proposition 483.
Let’s examine the facts: the zoning change in question allows for the temporary use (two years) of land sitting idle at the bottom of a hill on the 40-acre “Western Gateway/Cultural Park” property owned by the city. While initially acquired to address critical housing issues, there seems to be a sudden push to resurrect the failed event complex without proper discussion or transparency.
Proposition 843 seeks to override this decision made by our elected officials and pave the way for private enterprises to purchase or lease city property for their own interests, potentially transforming it into a 5,000-seat tourist attraction for West Sedona. This move undermines the democratic process and prioritizes commercial ventures over the needs of the community.
At the heart of this issue lies the proposal to revive a decades-old outdoor event center, which proponents argue could be done without taxpayer money. However, this assumption is dubious at best. Moreover, if housing or apartments were to be built adjacent to the amphitheater, city noise and parking ordinances would likely prevent outdoor events, rendering the reconstruction project futile.
The referendum’s persistence is troubling, especially considering the primary purpose of the city’s acquisition of the property was to address pressing housing concerns. Instead, it is being used as a platform to promote the reconstruction of the amphitheater and the creation of extensive parking facilities, diverting attention and resources away from the real issue at hand.
In conclusion, I urge voters to carefully consider the implications of Proposition 483 on Novemember’s election, and its potential impact on Sedona’s future. We must prioritize affordable housing and responsible development over private interests and vanity projects disguised as public initiatives.
This is an advertisement
6 Comments
Same people who want to revamp the amphitheater are the very ones who bitch and whine about tourism traffic. Gee wonder how opening this venue would impact traffic flow?
Who’s going to play the amphitheater that isn’t already booked uptown? How frequently would it be used in a manner that generates revenues? Who will operate it and its concessions? Who will maintain it and with that monies? These questions need answers!
We cannot maintain a workforce to operate our current businesses so how anyone thinks this is somehow going to work is fooling themselves and everyone they talk with about their senseless plan being utilized as cover for their simple hatred of the un housed who would end up being the ones operating the venue!
Vote no to stop this $23,000,000 car park nonsense. Lots of rules, oversight and ongoing expense for it to work, and grants only postpone the inevitable. The fact that the city spent $23 million in taxpayer money, without the vote of the three new members tells you all you need to know about this council.
All the crocodile tears about people living in their cars. Want to change that? A good start would be taking a small chunk out if the Dells 5 minutes out of town and park cars. Duh.
But council has a long list of why that level piece of dirt could not support this program. Oh no, we got to play the big money card for $23 million, which property tax on that piece now gets to paid bu the residents. But council don’t care. Another pet project. “We have to buy it before we know what to do with it”. That’s a council member quote. And why not, IT’S NOT THEIR MONEY.
One expensive screw up after the next. Just dropped $4 million uptown to shift the choke point on 89A notth a couple hundred yards. Fixed nothing.
Forest road, paper said initial budget was $1.7 million, now approaching $17 million? Guess somebody doesn’t know “Dick” about engineering or eminent domain acquisition. Who was the stellar city attorney on that one?
The list goes on, and now with more zoning, and codes all that is happening is more delays of anything meaningful. Including our soon ro be our $3k toilet and sink at the new Taj Mahal parking garage. You know when San Francisco can build a garage for less per space than us…..we got huge staff probelem and no council oversight.
Better start paying attention Sedona.
VOTE NO on this over the top council Cultural Park boondoggle, before they drop another $100 grand or more on another “study”.
Of course, this author, Segner, could pay his employees a living wage and put them up in his own parking lot at his hotel instead of asking locals to foot the bill on his behalf. It is up to employers to pay these costs, not taxpayers.
Interesting…Jablow and his buddy Segnar drop a hit piece on the good residents of Sedona on the same day.
Joetta – that’s no coincidence. They have been joined at the hip for years, even though Jablow said he has disassociated himself from Segner. As quoted in Forrest Gump, they are just like peas and carrots. Segner is a special interest, is a member of the housing advisory group, and is Jablow’s dutiful lackey. Segner only involves himself in projects that benefit him. This is just another hit piece where Segner is using his pathetic “gorilla tactics”. Yes, he actually used that term spelled exactly that way. In fact, he is well known for his poor writing skills, grammar, and spelling, so it begs to question who really wrote this for him. Perhaps it was by a company where one of his cohorts is a CEO that is involved in competitive intelligence engagements.
Mr. Segner argues that Prop 483 seeks to override the decision made by our elected officials, as if decisions made by our elected officials are sanctimonious. The referendum that is Prop 483 is a voter initiative. That is a right under state law. Voters have a right to have a say in how their government operates. I can only imagine from his arguments that Mr. Sanger prefers an autocracy over our democracy. I understand that is a trendy concept these days both domestically as well as globally; however, I find it most distasteful!