Sedona, Az — Dear Editor — I am writing in response to the front-page article dated October 2, 2024, regarding the unmarked signs that appeared in Sedona.
Red Rock News reporter Tim Perry’s assertion that these signs are merely political statements misrepresents the intention behind them.
As the designer and installer of the signs on Cooks Hill and Brewer Rd., I want to clarify that they are not political but expressions of free speech supporting the Sedona City Council’s vote on a crucial local zoning change.
These signs comply with state regulations, as is my right to express my views on issues affecting our community.
The focus on these two handmade signs seems disproportionate, and the article reads more like a distraction than a meaningful commentary on local governance. Mr. Perry notes that 91% of readers ignore such roadside signs, yet the Sedona Red Rock News has devoted significant space to discussing them. This contradiction raises questions about the priorities of local news reporting.
Is the story really about these signs, or is it an indication that local marketing funds are being diverted away from meaningful advertising in print? It would benefit the community more to explore deeper issues affecting Sedona, rather than focusing on such minor matters.
Thank you for considering my perspective.
Steve Segner
This is an advertisement
14 Comments
You have the right to express yourself freely. But political advertisements, be it a TV commercial, radio ad, or road signs have established rules that are to be followed. One of those rules is that the sign must have wording that states who sponsored the sign. (i.e. “paid for by…”) That gives the reader of the sign an indication of your politics and adds credibility to the message. Your sign is in violation of that rule. In designing your sign you were either ignorant of the rules, or desided the rules somehow don’t apply to you, making you a scofflaw. In my opinion the signs should be removed and you should be fined by the state of Arizona for violating election laws.
Actually there are no state statutes stipulating any such thing. Only says the “should be professionally produced”. No language on “paid for” or “endorsed by” labeling. Obviously you are opposed to Mr Segner’s opinion and signage but one can’t help but wonder what you’d complain about if you’d agreed with them?
Mr. Seger is entitled to his opinion as an individual . However, Mr. Seger has said, ““I also have a mailing coming out to every home in Sedona later this week,” I understand that is about 5000 mailers. In addition he has posted pictures of his sign on his facebook.com page on which he shows 2100 “friends”. Like the old expression says, “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.
This looks like a political action committee to me. Mr. Seger also stated he went directly to the Sedona City Attorney for advice on his signs. Really? I thought the city attorney represented the City of Sedona. If Mr. Seger wants legal advice he should check with his own attorney, not the city paid attorney..
“This looks like a political action committee to me. Mr. Seger also stated he went directly to the Sedona City Attorney for advice on his signs. Really? I thought the city attorney represented the City of Sedona”
No, this looks like Mr Segner went directly to the source regarding local laws and regulations regarding political signage to ensure he was within his legal rights to do as he has. Same as going directly to Sedona PD for advice on how to deal with unruly neighbors. Obviously you just wished you’d thought of it first from what the reader can gather from your anger filled rant about nothing of substance.
The city attorney is not the source of local laws. The city council is. The city attorney only renders a legal opinion to his client . The police department doesn’t make laws, it enforces laws. They can comment on the level of enforcement, but have no power to change or make laws. I am not angry at anyone. I will vote NO on this issue because simply it is a very expensive bad idea that does little or nothing to help the homeless problem.
The client of the city attorney is the city, and the city attorney is typically responsible to both the mayor and the city council. When the mayor and the city council disagree, or when city council members disagree among themselves, this can cause complexities,[6] such as the application and waiver of the attorney–client privilege.[7][8]
Seems some folks can’t read your clear and unmistakable legal reply
A Ballot Issue is covered under this statute
16-1019. AZ statutes, starting with section C:
C. Notwithstanding any other statute, ordinance or regulation, a city, town or county of this state shall not remove, alter, deface or cover any political sign if the following conditions are met:
1. The sign is placed in a public right-of-way that is owned or controlled by that jurisdiction.
2. The sign supports or opposes a candidate for public office or it supports or opposes a ballot measure, question or issue.
3. The sign is not placed in a location that is hazardous to public safety, obstructs clear vision in the area or interferes with the requirements of the Americans with disabilities act (42 United States Code sections 12101 through 12213 and 47 United States Code sections 225 and 611).
4. The sign has a maximum area of sixteen square feet, if the sign is located in an area zoned for residential use, or a maximum area of thirty-two square feet if the sign is located in any other area.
5. The sign contains the name and telephone number or website address of the candidate or campaign committee contact person.
MR.SEGNER’S SIGNS ARE ILLEGAL. He can fix the problem by putting his name “paid for by Steve Segner” and a phone number or web site anywhere on the sign, and the wording must be a certain size percentage dictated by the size of the sign. If this is not added they can be removed. Take a magic marker, whatever but make them legal or take them down.
On Mr. Segers’s mail piece he does have the proper “Paid for” designation.
Mr Shroeder you left something out of your post-
H. Subsection C of this section applies only during the period commencing seventy-one days before an election and ending fifteen days after the election, except that for a sign for a candidate in a primary election who advances to the general election, the period ends fifteen days after the general election. election and ending fifteen days after that election.
I. This section does not apply to state highways or routes, or overpasses over those state highways or routes.
Segner’s mail piece is a completely untrue and he should be embarrassed; fat chance of that happening.
“A yes vote stops the referendum and the effort to rebuild the bankrupt abandoned amphitheater”
What a load of crap!
Clearly the safe place to park doesn’t have the backing and rather than convince people that it’s a good thing for the homeless people of Sedona, he has to tell confusing lies to try and get it people to approve it.
Segner doesn’t live within city limits. He uses his business address.
What’s untrue about it exactly?
You cannot just say it is without any supporting facts to back your claims. Mr Segner is obviously doing something right if people are attacking him without presenting any evidence against him or by selectively only providing “half” evidence while conveniently ignoring the entirety of the facts.
Question for those who claim they don’t want the safe park because they feel the city should provide brick n mortar housing to it’s homeless employees while also claiming the park will be open to anyone and everyone. Question is, what do you think would change between the governance of the sage park and that of a brick n mortar facility?
Answer is, not a damned thing so stop making ridiculous excuses. Anything that can be done to help out homeless employees should be done. Why not experiment with a temporary facility as proposed versus spending more money to build something without knowing how it could work by trying the temporary safe park out first?
Here is the job description for the City Attorney’s office from the city website.
City Attorney’s Office functions
Scope of representation. The Sedona City Attorney’s Office only represents the city of Sedona government, on matters of public business, and cannot provide legal advice to residents, nor can it refer residents to private attorneys. The office reviews and consults on contracts regarding city services and provides legal opinions and counsel to elected officials and staff. It is the intention of the City Attorney’s Office to proactively address legal concerns confronting the city to enhance opportunities as well as to mitigate liability.
The city attorneys office violates the city standards if it provides legal advice to a private citizen.
It wasn’t legal advice on a personal matter it was advice on election procedures and police’s which ARE mandated and enforced by the City and also enforced by the State and Federal laws and government’s applicable.
It wasn’t a question like, hey Mr City Attorney can you tell me how to avoid paying taxes on my new mile long paved driveway! Not an ethics violation whatsoever!