The city’s challenge was not an attack on voters, but a responsible effort to determine whether the initiative was a backdoor zoning measure with consequences beyond Sedona.
By Steve Segner, Sedona Resident for 26 years
The first useful distinction is this: questioning whether an initiative is legally eligible for the ballot is not the same thing as opposing the public’s right to vote. The city’s case turned on Arizona’s long-running rule against using initiatives to bypass zoning procedures.
Yes. The city’s court action looks reasonable and responsible, not anti-voter, because Proposition 403 was not merely an advisory “let the people speak” question. It was an initiative that would amend city law and restrict land use on the 41-acre Western Gateway/Cultural Park property, including prohibiting residential development. The city’s legal concern was that this could function as zoning by initiative, which Arizona courts have long treated as legally suspect because zoning normally requires notice, hearings, due process, and planning review. The city stated exactly that when it filed suit on March 31, saying it sought clarity on whether the measure could legally appear on the ballot.
The strongest point for the city is this: Arizona already has a legal rule against using the initiative process to bypass zoning law. In City of Scottsdale v. Superior Court, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the initiative process is not available to amend a comprehensive zoning plan because zoning changes require statutory notice and public hearings. The court specifically warned that property owners cannot use an initiative to bypass zoning procedures.
So the city was not inventing a technicality. It was asking a legitimate legal question: Is Prop 403 really a preservation measure, or is it a backdoor zoning measure? That question matters beyond Sedona. If a local group can use a ballot initiative to lock in land-use rules for one specific parcel, other cities could face the same tactic whenever a controversial property is involved. That would weaken the planning process and replace hearings, staff analysis, public notice, and council accountability with campaign-style ballot law.
The court ruled against the city on May 6. Judge John Napper found that Prop 403 was not unconstitutional zoning by initiative because, in his view, it did not change the property’s current zoning but codified existing uses; he ordered the measure onto the July 21 ballot. That ruling means Prop 403 gets to go to voters. It does not prove the city acted in bad faith. It means the judge accepted the argument that this particular measure was legally eligible for the ballot at this stage.
The “city tried to silence the people” argument is politically effective but legally shallow. A city government has a duty to protect the integrity of its laws, its planning process, and its residents from measures that may be unconstitutional or legally defective. Asking a court to decide ballot eligibility is not the same as blocking democracy. It is part of democracy when the ballot measure itself may exceed what the initiative process is allowed to do.
The city also behaved responsibly after losing. The council voted unanimously, 6-0, not to appeal, allowing the measure to proceed to voters. That undercuts the claim that the city was simply trying to crush the initiative. If that had been the real goal, the city likely would have continued the legal fight.
The clearest way to frame it is this:
The city did not go to court to stop residents from voting. The city went to court because Prop 403 raised a serious legal question: whether a ballot initiative can be used to make land-use law for a specific city property without going through Arizona’s required zoning and planning process. The court decided the measure could go forward, and the city accepted that ruling. But the original concern was legitimate, responsible, and still important for Sedona and every Arizona city.
If Proposition 403 passes, the ultimate constitutionality of this initiative will still be an open question.
Paid for by Steve Segner
3 Comments
More facts over fiction! Love it!
As usual, Segner is interpreting the law the way he sees fit as a non-lawyer and an ultra liberal partisan. Bottom line – the people of Sedona wanted a say on an important local issue and the City and its now departed low talent City Attorney didn’t want to be challenged.
The Council was really trying to keep the Initiative off the ballot by taking them to Court. You can say what you wish, but it doesn’t make it so. In a Facebook conversation, Bill Noonan answered Pete Furman with: “When the case got before a judge, he summarily threw it out of court and said the city’s case was “dancing on the head of a pin” (which is a legalistic nicety that means full of hot air).” The quote is from the Judge. Now the City will not only be paying for legal costs, but will now have to pay the legal fees of the defendents. It was just another poor decision by the current City Council.