By Steve Segner
Sedona, AZ — Last week, I received an email urging Sedona residents to apply for three open Planning and Zoning Commission seats. While encouraging citizen involvement in city governance is generally a positive move, the context of this request raises some concerns. The potential risk of ‘stacking planning and zoning ‘, which could lead to an imbalance in decision-making power, is not in Sedona’s best interest.
The email read:
“Hello, Wonderful Residents. The City has just posted a request for Planning and Zoning Commissioner applications. Three positions are becoming vacant because the current members’ terms are expiring. We need residents to apply for these positions, as your decisions will directly impact the balance between tourism/business and resident quality of life in our community.”
At first glance, it is commendable to encourage community members to participate in city government. However, the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission is of utmost importance. It is this body, established by the city council, that includes individuals with relevant expertise in building or engineering. The commission’s primary responsibilities involve recommending updates to the Community Plan, Land Development Code amendments, property zone changes, and subdivision applications to the city council. It also makes final decisions on conditional use permits and development review applications, ensuring that our city’s development is guided by expert advice.
The commission’s role is to objectively examine projects presented by community development and ensure they comply with the City’s zoning regulations. This is not a platform for personal views but a critical advisory function supporting the city council’s decision-making process.
Sedona Residents Unite advocates for a more insular approach to governance, implying that direct citizen involvement is desirable and necessary for the City’s development decisions. This stance suggests a preference for a shadow government, bypassing the established democratic processes in favor of a more unilateral approach. Sedona just had its bi-annual election, where residents chose their representatives, yet Sedona Residents Unite appears to challenge the legitimacy of these elected officials.
It is essential to recognize that the Planning and Zoning Commission’s purpose is not to subvert democratic processes but to ensure that development adheres to established codes and guidelines. The commission balances community, business, and tourism needs, without imposing personal biases, such as favoritism towards certain businesses or personal preferences for specific types of development.
Sedona Residents Unite’s approach, which aims to influence development through a carefully selected commission rather than through elected representatives, risks undermining our democratic system. Instead of seeking to replace or undermine existing governance structures, it is vital to work within them, ensuring that all voices, including those of Sedona Residents Unite, are heard and considered in the decision-making process. A balanced approach is key to ensuring that all concerns are addressed.
The Planning and Zoning Commission upholds local codes and city planning guidelines, ensuring that development benefits the community. As such, it is imperative to support a balanced approach that respects democratic processes and the commission’s expert advisory role.
In conclusion, while community involvement is crucial, it must be balanced with respect for democratic institutions and processes. Encouraging informed participation is beneficial, but we must guard against efforts that undermine the fundamental principles of our governance. It is not an institution that political activists should easily influence. Upholding and respecting democratic processes is essential to protecting the rights and voices of all Sedona residents.
This is an advertisement
20 Comments
Could be the city is just trying to find qualified people who already reside here rather than hiring more people who will have to live in the boonies in a car or tent?
Who ever is selected I hope they give some consideration to establishing a food truck hub or two where people can enjoy non monopolized restaurant ownership, variety and help food truck owners from around our two counties. Oregon has several of these facilities and they are pretty exciting to attend. An example-http://www.commonfieldscorvallis.com/
food trucks and owners do not have roots and flesh in the game in the community. they undercut the investment established restaurateurs have put into the community also creating jobs, and food trucks are an extended health hazard. here today, gone tomorrow, little accountability on food poisoning. they also create a traffic hazard for flow in/out and parking that has not been reviewed fully by city planning. further, they offer no better value to customers on costs, and are unsightly – they fit better at the county fair.
So you think some billionaire who owns 6,7,8 restaurants and lives most of the year in their CA McMansion and part time in their Sedona Castle has roots in the community?
The food truck owners are locals not national wanderers and the industry is highly regulated probably more so than restaurants are. A food truck hub provides fixed parking for multiple trucks around an existing building that acts as the hub for the trucks PARKED around it. They are not traveling around nor do they create any more traffic impediments than a brick and mortar restaurant. And their food is usually fresher, hotter and served faster than traditional restaurants and don’t require large staff to serve multiple tables at the same time as traditional restaurants have too.
If the only food truck you have eaten from was the fried butter trucks at the fairs you don’t know what a true food truck is and you’re missing out!
So what was your point exactly?
You’ve obviously never been to a food truck hub.
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/11/00269-24.htm
I’d say that according to AZ food truck laws that they are well regulated and not any less accountable for food poisoning than any brick and mortar restaurant is.
TJ, that is not P&Z does. People, Architects, builders, and corporations come to P&Z and see what it takes and cost to do what they want. P&Z reinforces the rules that are in place.
I cant believe its a none paid position! They deserve as much as council gets!
They spend time at home looking at drawings, listening to what Sedonas engineers say, read studies, traffic, and impacts on the area.
They can only see what is in front of them, make sure it follows the many rules and regulations that are in place. Nothing about zoning, just give council their opinion how well it works.
Mr Dave,
Gotcha. Well hopefully we still see a hub or two because quite frankly I’m tired of having to line the same billionaires pockets every time I eat in one of their numerous monopolized restaurants. MoMo’s Korean food truck which has awesome fresh Korean dishes has been forced from their longtime location uptown and I’ve seen others show up in town or down in front of the RV Park in Cottonwood but they either get run off or cannot afford to be the only truck renting a space. Hubs allow for joint ventures and mutual stabilization while providing good eats and sometimes entertainment.
TJ I agree with you on the establishment of a food truck park! I would love that! But, I have to say I don’t know of any billionaire restaurant owners anywhere in Sedona or the Verde Valley.
If you own 6-7 major restaurants and live in a castle in Jacks Canyon or elsewhere I think it is safe to assume we are talking about billionaires if not multi millionaires. And only a smal small handful of them have the monopoly on the bigger more expensive restaurants in town. Not fair to the mom and pop/single owner places who struggle to get established here. That’s why I would like to see a food truck hub or two.
https://www.mansionglobal.com/buy/united-states/arizona/sedona
If you live in one of these homes part time and own several others like them in other states and own multiple large high end restaurants in the same town I’d say you are likely a billionaire wouldn’t you?
A current member of the City Council, usually the Mayor, would be involved in interviewing any candidate for P&Z and recommending qualified candidates to the full Council for approval. A majority of Council must then vote to approve each recommended candidate. So it’s highly unlikely that P&Z could be “stacked” with commissioners who were unqualified or operating as a shadow government in opposition to the will of the citizens who elected the City Council. Anyone who believes in the vision of the Sedona Community Plan, has an interest in and understanding of the Sedona Land Development Code, and is willing to interpret them judiciously and impartially should be encouraged to apply. P&Z is a great way to serve our community.
Steve,
Glad you see the need for balance on P&Z!. It’s clear the email call to action by SRU is seeking balance, certainly not a stacking. Until all subjective statements are removed from LDC and CFA rules, having a balance of pro-development and pro-resident members prevents nobody-gets-sued-for-approving bias when considering subjective rules. But your letter here appears to be trying to maintain an status quo that is impaired, the history of P&Z reversals showing that impairment.
PnZ members must be residents of Sedona. It is an unpaid appointment by our elected officials. P&Z only ensures conformity with the rules. Application* says: “Applicants … should have an interest, experience or knowledge in land use, or related fields, including but not limited to architecture, construction, landscaping and planning”.
* https://www.sedonaaz.gov/Home/Components/News/News/6248/473
So interest + knowledge qualifies, as Jon Thompson indicates in his reply here (Thanks Jon!). P&Z Commission members should NEVER vote on personal views. That is how cities get sued. Having experts is a good thing. But experts should be balanced with those who can reason well to ensure conformity with the rules, have enough interest (incl. interest to learn) and knowledge in the pertinent fields, and MAINTAIN A PERSPECTIVE OF THE RESIDENTS WHEN INTERPRETING SUBJECTIVE DEFINITIONS OF THE RULES- all to arrive at fair interpretations of both the objective and subjective elements in the rules.
Look at the Saddlerock project- P&Z made a subjective interpretation that there was sufficient community benefit to recommend the requested zoning change. The council disagreed. The democratic process worked perfectly!
You make a lot of sweeping statements with no substantiation, all of which borders on slander. Can you back up your opinions about? So many curious statements in your piece: “attempt to stack”; “attempt to influence development”; “insular approach to governance”; “preference for a shadow government” (what the heck does that even mean?); “bypassing the established democratic processes in favor of a more unilateral approach” (how is striving for less appeals a bypass? Unilateral what-the-heck?); “challenge the legitimacy of these elected officials.”; “subvert democratic processes” (how is a balanced P&Z a subversion?). What is the basis for these statements?
It’s clear the seeking by SRU is for balance. Again, glad to see you see the importance of balance in decision-making power. Two or more Commission members who more greatly weigh residents concerns could be the balance we both seek.
Ugh, We all know YOU are SRU Sean. Nothing you say has any credibility. How is that lawsuit going?
You are massively misinformed. I hope you do your own research before forming your opinions. Especially of others. What is the basis of your feelings about me?
Many on here are misinformed and parrot MAGA talking points and agendas ad nauseam. They cannot think for themselves and rely on non accredited news parody Alt Right Russian backed media platforms for “real news”, all other sources that are accredited are “fake news”. In their tiny little brainwashed minds and their pro Putin/Dump bullshit are un American somehow. That’s the result of being blasted by Faux News since 1996 and more recently Info Wars, OAN, Truth Social, X, News Max etc.
You are associated with DORR and SRU in their minds that makes you illegitimate no matter how factual you are.
Hey, it’s from Segner. What do expect
I totally agree. What Segner writes about SRU is truly about how others see him. In essence, he wrote a opinion hit piece about himself. They all are in bed with one another and now are at each other’s throats vying to be in control for their own benefit. Amusing to watch, and couldn’t happen to a better crazy crew of malcontents.
Sounds more like the MAGGOT party to me where people are “the best” “finest” “smartest” until ill Douche says they are not. Then they become RINO’s and targets of Dump sycophants willing to do his bidding since he himself is the COWARDly Lion, Heartless Tin Man and Brainless Scared of Crows all in one while also being the grand illusionist the lying deceptive Oz pulling all of the levers behind the curtain.
Now, this is amusing as many in SRU are in bed with Segner with DORR and HAG with other Sedona issues. They all deserve one another. Segner only gets involved in a local issue if he can benefit off it. SRU must have him worried , or maybe it’s as simple as he is doing the Mayor’s dirty work in voicing this opinion. Then, there is Sean Smith jumping in defending SRU against Segner’s “opinion”. Smith is also another mouth for the mayor graveling for crumbs to be a big fish in a small pond.
Supreme Court rejects GOP push to block 41K Arizona voters https://www.azfamily.com/2024/08/22/supreme-court-rejects-gop-push-block-41k-arizona-voters/
Good news- Bad News
Good news is the SCOTUS blocked most of this insane illegal effort to disenfranchise valid votes and voters especially military voters based overseas as the MAGGOTS are attempting to do in all of the purple states especially AZ and GA. What are they afraid of? Democracy and the longstanding rule of law?
At least 4 MAGGOT SCOTUSi have proven themselves biased liars who have agendas they financially profit from! Time to impeach these grifting liars who lied outright to Congress regarding their stance on cases of long standing precedent such as Roe V Wade. They should have been up for impeachment the moment they illegally and irresponsibly overturned it for personal financial profit over law and ethics!