Sedona, AZ — Three and a half years ago, I was honored to be elected Mayor of Sedona. That victory underscored how deeply this community cares about its future, and it has been a privilege to serve you.
From the outset, I worked to ensure that the mayor’s office was more than just ceremonial. I believed many of the issues affecting our city’s quality of life stemmed from the State taking liberties and stripping local control from cities and towns.
I spoke out on issues that mattered to our residents: the unchecked growth of short-term rentals, which turned hundreds of homes into hotels; the rapid expansion of the off-road vehicle industry, disrupting our streets and neighborhood peace and quiet; and broader concerns for public safety. I believed Sedona needed a strong voice at the state level, and I tried to provide it.
When I came into office, I felt I had both a mandate and an obligation to be proactive. Over time, however, I came to see that many in the community—and I at times—interpreted the role of mayor as carrying greater authority than the City’s system of government intends. In reality Sedona’s city manager form of government places day-to-day management in the hands of a professional administrator.
My background—31 years in law enforcement, 8 years on the City Council, 3 years as your Mayor, 3 years on the Planning and Zoning Commission, and 4 years on the Sedona Oak Creek Fire District board—taught me to be decisive and direct. That approach sometimes pressed against the boundaries of the city manager system, but my focus was always on putting residents first.
I am proud of what we have accomplished together and grateful for the trust you placed in me. Yet I believe it is time for new voices to lead. Our city is in capable hands, with dedicated people working to improve the quality of life in Sedona.
For the good of our city and its residents, I have stepped aside. Therefore, effective September 30, I will resign as mayor of Sedona.
I leave office on a high note—proud of my service and confident in Sedona’s future. I will remain an active citizen and a strong advocate for the community I love.
Sincerely,
Scott Jablow
Mayor of Sedona
4 Comments
I am so sorry to see you leave Mayor Jablow. You accomplished more in your time in office than any previous Mayor I knew. I found you always to be quickly, kindly, and personally responsive. I think it is very sad for Sedona to lose your decisive leadership. I trusted your intent, your character, your experience and your dedication. You have been my favorite mayor in the 27 years I have been in Sedona. I hope your legacy remembers your good, Mayor Jablow. I do.
DITTO ON ALL LAURA LIZAK WROTE ABOVE AND I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT FOR A BIT LONGER AND THOUGHT YOU , SCOTT, DID AN EXCELLENT JOB FOR THE RESIDENTS RE: ALL OUR CURRENT TOPICS MORESO THAN OTHER MAYORS HAD DIFFERENTLY ON THEIR “PLATES”. YOU RESEARCHED ALTERNATIVES AND PURSUED THE STATE ON OUR ISSUES. LIKE A BADGER, YOU HELD ON. YOU HELPED ME AND MY
NEIGHBORHOOD, “THE CHAPEL” AND BACK O’BEYOND, ON MANY SHORT TERM RENTAL ISSUES WITH
IMMEDIATE ATTENTION LIKE NO OTHER. BIG THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR SERVICE AND CONCERNS.
HAVE A BLESSED TIME TO ENJOY SEDONA DIFFERENTLY NOW. : )
I am sorry to see this vitriol develop in our Sedona government. As a 30 year resident, with a credentialed professional background in Urban and Regional Planning, I am further saddened to see what has happened to the relationship between the Council and RESIDENTS of Sedona. I see a painful (apparent) reduction in the communication between the council and the residents, reduction in community feedback/input/Public-Comment opportunities and what appears to be an increasing direction to make decisions without appropriate community input/comment. Often decisions at least “appear” to be prioritizing tourism over residents (just my singular/personal opinion – I speak/post for none other than myself). I realize this is not directly speaking to this posted letter, but – in my opinion – this letter/post does provide an opportunity to speak to the issue(s) between the council decisions and the residents.
The dual-use pathways are being pushed thru with minimal (if any) “real” opportunities for community feedback and they are disrupting our neighborhoods and quality of life (again, just my opinion – I do realize some residents like them). The City demands Temporary Construction Easements (TCEs) from homeowners to change driveways, but the City seems unwilling to inform the homeowners of their rights under TCEs (residents are ENTITLED to ALL of the DETAILS like dimensions, materials, etc. – some driveways get widened and others narrowed, also with no input from the homeowners – and there is more to this too). If a homeowner does not KNOW their rights, the City seems to expect the homeowners to sign TCEs in blank (which is like saying “yes, I am signing permission for the City to change my property and surprise me with what the City changes/builds”); this, in my opinion, is grossly inappropriate. The entire process of adding these shared-use pathways should be a series of Public Hearings, with ample opportunity for homeowner Public Comment and input. Homeowners should not be pressured/”forced(?)” into accepting changes to their property without such comprehensive input and Public Comment – on EACH and EVERY section of shared-use pathway to be constructed (if I read documents correctly 89 segments are planned all around the city). Personally, I question if these shared-use pathways are really for the residents, or if they may somehow be ultimately intended for tourists and turning our residential neighborhoods/houses into a tourist attraction (but that is “my” singular opinion and not any form of accusation).
Flock cameras were likewise “decided” with no Public Hearings and no opportunity for Public Comment; fortunately the residents spoke out and decision reversed – but there ultimately is a very low crime rate in Sedona and has been so for the 3 decades I have lived here (“crime” being the ultimate justification for the cameras). In my opinion, there is no excuse for these (or anything like such) to advance without comprehensive Public Hearings and ample opportunity for Public Input/Comment (not 2 minutes limit – at least 4 or 5 minutes – as people need fair opportunity to express any concerns BEFORE “decisions” are made and finalized).
No need to further belabor, I think the above exemplifies my point (although there are other examples). City Council are RESIDENTS, I think most (if not all) of senior level City Staff are also RESIDENTS, and all of these “supposedly” “represent” the RESIDENTS. The above examples (and others) leave me wondering if the residents ARE being appropriately represented and prioritized (first and foremost); yes, budget considerations are always a primary consideration (along with other impacting economic considerations), but should never be at the expense of suppressing residents’ opportunities for effective input/public-comment and representation.
“Flock ‘cannot live up to its commitment,’ Wyden says ” in this article (dated Oct 16, 2025)
https://lookouteugene-springfield.com/story/politics/2025/10/16/flock-cannot-live-up-to-its-commitment-wyden-says/?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAqEAgAKgcICjCE69oLMIiH8gMwypLKBA&utm_content=rundown