Page 7 - the NOISE March 2013

NEwSanalysis
In January, the Sedona Citizen’s Steering Committee for the New Community Plan published and distributed a newspaper-style tabloid to city residents entitled “What’s Our Common Vision for Sedona?” Upon first pe- rusal, the concepts presented appear inter- esting though a bit complex. But after more careful examination, it becomes apparent that the “scenarios” presented contain a great deal of contradiction and raise a number of
“possibilities” for Sedona that are grossly un- realistic. And the manner in which the sce- narios are presented calls into question the agenda behind them.
Sedona’s previous community plan ex- pired last year after ten years of guiding the city’s development with its principles. A new plan is scheduled to be adopted by the end of this year and then voted on by Sedona’s citizens in 2014. The 2002 plan expressed in its vision statement goals such as preserving
“existing lifestyles without exploiting the nat- ural beauty” and retaining Sedona’s “small- town character,” “pristine environment,” and
“sense of community.”
If these principles are still held dear in
Sedona, many of the proposed revisions will not cut the mustard. The plan is clearly a pro-business and pro-development even though it contains references to environ- mental ideals and community priorities.
Visions of Sugar Plums
The new “vision” for Sedona has been laid out by the Citizen’s Steering Community tab- loid in three sections – Environment, Tourism, and Community. The document encourages you to “project yourself into each of these three futures one at a time, look around, walk through your typical day, and feel what it’s like.” And so the fantasy begins.
In the introduction we are told that there were common themes expressed in com- ments received by the city since the commu- nity plan review began in 2010 – “For exam- ple, you want to protect our natural beauty, reduce traffic problems, and promote the arts.” There are no specific references and no documentation of how many comments were received.
The verbiage of the tabloid is eerily remi- niscent of the United States Forest Service’s presentation of options for revising the Red Rock Pass program, all of which were in vio- lation of federal law except the proposal to scrap the pass all together. It suggests that
a consensus has already been reached on items up for consideration.
In fact, the entire tabloid screams of something called the Delphi Technique. In an article by Albert V. Burns entitled “The Delphi Technique: Let’s Stop Being Manipu- lated!” this practice is described as follows:
“More and more, we are seeing citizens being invited to ‘participate’ in various forms of meet- ings, councils, or boards to ‘help determine’ pub- lic policy in one field or another. They are sup- posedly being included to get ‘input’ from the public to help officials make final decisions on taxes, education, community growth or what- ever the particular subject matter might be.
Sounds great, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, sur- face appearances are often deceiving.
You, Mr. or Mrs. Citizen, decide to take part in one of these meetings.
Generally, you will find that there is already someone designated to lead or ‘facilitate’ the meeting. Supposedly, the job of the facilitator is to be a neutral, non-directing helper to see that the meeting flows smoothly.
Actually, he or she is there for exactly the opposite reason: to see that the conclusions reached during the meeting are in accord with a plan already decided upon by those who called the meeting.”
Sound familiar? If you attended any of the RRP “planning” meetings in the last two years you experienced this first hand. And consider recent USFS meetings held to gather input from Sedona’s mountain biking community that in turn may result in restric- tions on the very people the meetings were supposed to support. Maybe restrictions are justified but the means to getting to them has been deceptive. It seems that the city has adopted a similar technique to per- suade us all to reach the conclusions already in mind for us. Is this education and public participation or just plain brainwashing?
Been There, Done That
The plan also contains a few ideas and proposals we have seen before. For example, the idea of a “creek walk” in Uptown was raised when the last community plan was developed. But it has been deemed imprac- tical because the proposed creek walk would be built in the flood plain. The first heavy monsoon or spring melt flood would turn it into a big waste of money. Any creek-side
parks in these areas would suffer the same short-comings.
Then there is the mention of creating “Gateway Centers” at the three highway en- try points into Sedona and providing public
shuttles from these centers. Didn’t the city try this to some extent with the Sedona Roadrunner? After a few years of seeing empty buses shuttle back and forth between Uptown and Hillside Plaza, the Roadrunner was discontinued in mid-2011. While the goals of reducing traffic congestion and pol- lution are desirable, the Roadrunner was an abysmal failure – and it was free!
The scenarios also mention medians on 89A to replace chicken lanes and pre- serving dark skies with low-level light- ing. The median proposal was essentially squashed when the city opted – in what some say was a backdoor power play – to install traffic circles instead.
And on the issue of dark sky preservation – it’s hard not to notice the 108 street lights
that have been installed along 89A since resi- dents decided not to take control over the road and left things up to ADOT. Along the main drag, the dark skies are essentially gone.
Bright Lights, Big City
All three scenarios include the idea of creating “Gateway Centers” at the three en- try points into Sedona to the west, north, and south. Each of these centers would be equipped with parking garages to give visi- tors a place to leave their vehicles and hop onto public transit for the remainder of their visit. There is also mention of “parking struc- tures” that “store cars in convenient locations.” And then there’s the idea to provide afford- able housing by adding apartments above shops for convenient “live-work” housing.
Additionally, the scenarios mention a con- vention center, a multi-use facility for sports and other events, and expansion of the medical center.
All of these ideas ring of things common- ly found in much more urban areas. Why move more toward urban planning ideas when Sedona has, in fact, become smaller not bigger? The 2010 Census reported an almost 2% decrease in Sedona’s popula- tion to 10,031 people.
Is Sedona ready to abandon its goal of maintaining a “small-town” atmosphere? Maybe the hiring of Kevin Snyder as Sedo- na’s new Community Development Director
is some indication. According to the city’s website, Mr. Snyder was the Planning and De- velopment Director for Auburn, Washington before coming to Sedona. Auburn’s popula- tion in the 2010 Census was over 70,000.
Parked Vehicles Must Display a Valid Pass
The coup de grace of the community plan proposal is the introduction of the “Sedona Pass,” described in the literature as a prepaid pass that “affords access to amenities such as parks, public transit, Native American pro- gramming, tickets for events, and shopping discounts.” As if the fiasco of the USFS’ Red Rock Pass isn’t bad enough, now we’ll need a Sedona Pass to go to the city park?
And what about the fact that the revised RRP system notably left USFS trailheads in the midst of Sedona neighborhoods, like Soldiers Pass and Sugarloaf, out of the fee system? Were these trails left out of the fed- eral system just so the city could develop its own recreation fees? It may be illegal for the USFS to charge residents and visitors to park their car and go for a hike, but that doesn’t make it so for the city.
The community plan also mentions lim- iting creek access and controlling path- ways leading directly to Oak Creek with permits. To whom do you think those permits will be issued? Tour companies? Tourists? Residents? The highest bidder?
No More Airport?
One promising aspect of the community plan is the idea under the Environment Sce- nario suggesting that the Sedona Airport be replaced by a regional airport – presumably outside the city limits although that detail is not included. Closing the airport would cer- tainly alleviate the city of the noise and envi- ronmental pollution it generates. But don’t get your hopes up too high. The airport re- ally isn’t under city control at all. In fact, it is on USFS land that is leased to Yavapai County under the condition that it stays an airport - forever. The City of Sedona doesn’t really have the power to close it down.
It’s not impossible though. The citizens of St. George, Utah had a situation almost identical to Sedona’s – an airport on a mesa in the middle of a town that had grown around it over the years. They were able to get their airport moved to a loca- tion outside of the city and have enjoyed cleaner air and quieter skies ever since.
Imaginary Sedona
Ten plus years ago, the community plan included the goals of preserving existing life- styles without exploiting the natural beauty of the area and supporting Sedona’s small- town atmosphere and pristine environment. It seems, however, that exploitation is ram- pant in Sedona and her “small-town” ambi- ence may already be fading.
As long as Sedona is heavily marketed as a travel destination for tourists, it will be im- possible not to exploit her natural beauty. As long as city managers keep looking toward this imaginary future for Sedona, they will continue to miss the things that need ad- dressing right now in the real world.
| Cindy J. Cole enjoys attending public meetings, if only for the tasty coffee and organic sugar cookies. cindycole@live.com
thenoise.us • the NOISE arts & news • MARCH 2013 • 7