Sedona, AZ — Next Door has become the complaint line about life. It’s a place for people to express everything they don’t like about the world they live in especially places like Sedona. In a recent discussion on next-door talking about Proposition 483, which is referred to as the “Safe Place to Park” there was a round-robin discussion about the issue of the city temporary zone to allow people who work in Sedona and are probably already sleeping in their cars to have a “safe place to park” overnight.
Such a discussion has brought some comments to the surface about the role of government, in this case, the city being proactive and invested in workforce housing solutions, and the general discussion of who “deserves” to live in Sedona. Some people who live in Sedona feel that they are entitled to special benefits, one of which is to not have to put up with residents who aren’t as affluent as they are. The following are the exact words from a recent Next-Door post and my rebuttal on such a perspective.
Next Door comment from a “resident”….
I understand that this may come across as blunt to some, but I have concerns about the idea of establishing a homeless car park or shelter in Sedona. Sedona is known for its beauty and peaceful atmosphere, and many of us have chosen to live here after leaving big cities or saving up for retirement.
Personally, I moved here to enjoy the tranquility and natural surroundings, not to witness homelessness issues such as public urination and panhandling. Sedona is an affluent city, and residency here is not a right but a privilege.
If someone cannot afford to live here, they may consider finding housing on the outskirts. It is not the responsibility of the community to provide homes or shelters for homeless individuals. In my experience in law enforcement, I have observed that homeless shelters and affordable housing options often attract a criminal element.
While I understand the desire to help those in need, I believe it is important to consider the consequences of these virtue-signaling initiatives on the community as a whole.
To me, a thoughtful response to this perspective might go like this:
“While it’s understandable to want to preserve the peaceful atmosphere of Sedona, it’s important to acknowledge that vibrant, healthy communities thrive when they are inclusive and supportive of all individuals, not just those who can afford high living costs. The idea that residency here is a “privilege” overlooks the reality that many of the people who contribute to Sedona’s quality of life—such as service workers, caregivers, and other essential employees—are often priced out of living in the city they support.
Rather than assuming that affordable housing or shelters attract crime, we should recognize that providing resources and stability can prevent individuals from becoming desperate and reduce criminal behavior. Moreover, homelessness is not just an urban issue—many people experiencing housing insecurity in Sedona are locals who have been affected by rising costs. Creating solutions like shelters or affordable housing doesn’t diminish the beauty or tranquility of the community but reinforces its values of compassion and care.
Instead of focusing on exclusion, we can ask how we, as a community, can create practical, humane solutions. Supporting those who are struggling ensures that Sedona remains not just a place of beauty but one that embodies the spirit of kindness and unity that makes it truly special.”
I Support Proposition 483 — I will vote YES on 483. It’s the right thing to do!
Steve Segner, Concerned Sedona Resident
1 Comment
This may come as a shock to some, but many people who work in Scottsdale Arizona don’t live in Scottsdale. The same could be said on many other desirable communities. Aspen, Martha’s Vineyard, Beverly Hills, etc.
When places become popular, demand increases and prices go up. If you bought real estate in Sedona twenty years ago you are happy that prices have gone up and your investment is secured. Our neighboring cities have also benefited from Sedona’s increase in real estate. Cottonwood, Clarkdale, Cornville have seen their values increased in part due to demand for housing from people working in Sedona.
Some resorts in Sedona have purchased employee housing in Cottonwood and provide daily shuttle transportation for employees. Dealing with the homeless situation is not just a simple matter of providing 40 overnight parking spaces. Lets come up with a better idea and direct our efforts there.
I will vote NO on proposition 483.It is an expensive waste of taxpayers money and does little or nothing to solve the homeless problem.