Four candidates say Home Rule may pass or fail. Their “whatever happens, happens” approach could put city services, local nonprofits, and Sedona’s ability to govern itself at risk.
Opinion by Bear Howard
Sedona, AZ — For nearly four decades, Sedona has operated under a simple reality: the city is largely funded by visitors, not residents.
Every year, millions of dollars flow into Sedona through sales taxes and bed tax paid by tourists, restaurant patrons, shoppers, and overnight guests. Those dollars support police protection, parks, road maintenance, transit services, tourism management, community programs, and dozens of quality-of-life improvements that residents enjoy every day.
The system is not perfect. No government ever is.
But it has worked.
Sedona has no city property tax. It maintains substantial financial reserves. It provides a level of service that many communities of our size can only dream about. Most importantly, it allows local elected officials to make decisions based on local needs rather than being constrained by a spending formula created by the State of Arizona nearly fifty years ago.
That is what Home Rule protects.
Yet a small but vocal group of residents seems willing to use Home Rule as a weapon.
Their argument is not really about fiscal responsibility. Residents contribute relatively little to city revenues compared with the enormous contribution made by visitors. Most residents pay only the city’s 3.5 percent sales tax on purchases made within Sedona. Nevertheless, some advocate withholding Home Rule as a way to punish the city for decisions they personally dislike.
That is not budgeting.
That is not governance.
That is political retaliation.
Underlying much of this movement is a growing belief that representative government itself cannot be trusted. Every issue becomes a referendum. Every disagreement becomes a demand for direct voter control. Every elected official becomes a suspect. The result is a form of government paralysis where long-term planning is replaced by constant political combat.
Sedona was never designed to operate that way.
We elect council members and a mayor to study issues, make difficult decisions, balance competing interests, and govern on behalf of the community. That is representative democracy. It is how cities function.
Voting “No” on Home Rule will not fix disagreements about housing, tourism, traffic, development, or any other issue. It will simply reduce the city’s ability to respond to those challenges.
This election presents voters with a remarkably clear choice.
Seven candidates are seeking seats on the Sedona City Council dais—one for Mayor and six for Council.
Three candidates have publicly and unequivocally stated their support for Home Rule in this election. They have also expressed support for pursuing a long-term solution that would eliminate the need for Sedona voters to revisit Home Rule every four years: a Permanent Base Adjustment, or PBA, which could be placed before voters in 2028.
The remaining four candidates—one running for Mayor and three running for City Council and running as a “slate”—have chosen a different position. Rather than publicly supporting Home Rule, they have repeatedly stated that they will simply “accept the will of the people” whether Home Rule succeeds or fails. At first glance, that may sound reasonable.
But leadership is not merely accepting outcomes after they occur. Leadership requires evaluating consequences before they occur and helping voters understand what is at stake.
If a candidate cannot determine whether preserving the city’s ability to fund police, parks, road maintenance, nonprofit partnerships, and essential municipal services is in Sedona’s best interest, voters are entitled to ask a simple question:
What exactly are they prepared to lead?
Public office requires judgment. Home Rule is not a theoretical issue. It is the financial foundation upon which modern Sedona operates. Candidates who decline to take a position on such a fundamental question raise legitimate concerns about their readiness to govern.
The iceberg ahead is not government spending.
The iceberg is the belief that weakening the city’s ability to govern will somehow make Sedona stronger.
It won’t.
It is unnecessary because Sedona already has the revenue it needs.
It is foolish because it creates risks without solving problems.
It is selfish because it prioritizes political grievances over community needs.
And it is radically unwise because it gambles with a system that has helped make Sedona one of the most successful small cities in Arizona. The USS Sedona does not need to hit the iceberg to prove it exists.
The smarter course is simply to steer around it.
Vote Yes on Home Rule. Support the three candidates who support the Home Rule, Proposition 400: Melissa Dunn, Brian Fultz, and Tony Hauserman.
Then, after the election, let’s work together to pursue a Permanent Base Adjustment in 2028 and make this year’s Home Rule election the last one Sedona ever needs to hold.