Free Press v. Free News

Today, anyone with bandwidth can be a publisher; and anyone with a word processor can pen an “article” and get it published. In this example, the writer intentionally misinformed the public to further a special interest agenda.

My article with the other side of the story is filed and awaiting publication.

One problem our industry faces is that people don’t seem to recognize the hours, thought and effort we put in to our work so that they don’t have to attend all those stimulating government meetings, read all those riveting technical documents, and put the hard questions to the talking heads.

Yes, it’s the public’s right to know. But, professional journalists deserve reasonable and timely compensation for bringing it to them.

So who’s going to pay for it?

For a long time now, advertisers have subsidized news. People complain that advertisers have too much control over content, but seem to overlook that advertisers and publishers often respond to what is popularly read.

Are nonprofit business models the answer? I don’t know. Initial support and sustainable funding seem to be the main obstacles.

Spot.us has an interesting nonprofit model. I pitch a story idea and the public decides whether it gets reported. Or, the public posts a tip, and a journalist turns it into a pitch. No one can fund more than 20 percent of a given project, which is supposed to ensure objectivity, although I have some doubts.

Most important, I think, is that our industry must re-establish trust with our audience. And our audience must find value in our work and be willing to buy it, however that looks.

Professional journalists across the country are talking about this. I say it’s time the general public weighs in and tells us what they will support and how.
Read more!

Reporter’s notebook: Meth

As a youth, I was always fascinated by the mind and how it works. I thought about careers in criminal law or criminal psychology, but life took me in a different direction. Still, I never lost the curiosity about the mysteries of human behavior.

Another interest – music – kept me in close proximity to the drug culture even though I didn’t get involved myself. I have a knack for getting people to talk, which fed my curiosity.

While researching for this article, I recalled a few incidents where I’d seen people using meth.

In 1998, I worked with a young girl named Amy who was sucked in to meth addiction before she was 21 years old. To make a long story short, she had reached out for help, but lacked the self-will to take it. Her parents, who lived in Wisconsin, asked me to get her to the airport so they could get Amy into rehab.

The night before her early-morning flight, Amy stayed at my house to save time the next morning. She ‘borrowed’ my car at about 4 p.m. and didn’t come back. Coincidentally, a tornado hit Salt Lake that day. My concern for my friend was compounded by worry about my only transportation.
I had an idea where Amy might be and set out to bring her back. I found Amy at about midnight. The house was a converted apartment building in a seedy part of Salt Lake City. Sure enough, my car was parked nearby. I literally stepped over drugged-out bodies on the porch and knocked on the door. Amy let me in with a whispered warning that I shouldn’t have come there – it was a dangerous situation.

Amy took me into the kitchen where two women and a young man were alternately smoking meth and shooting heroin. When the man passed me the pipe, I bluntly said, “Thanks but I’m trying to cut back.” I didn’t want them to think I was such an outsider, which might escalate the situation.

I was amazed by the conversation. Amy’s ‘friends’ were trying to turn her out – get her into prostitution. She was young, pretty and vulnerable. The two women who coached her looked old, haggard and spent. One woman stuck a needle in her own vein as she told Amy how good life as a prostitute could be. As the drug entered her blood, her words trailed off and the woman’s head bobbled and fell to her chest, the needle still dangling from her arm. Fifteen minutes later, she awoke with a jerk and continued talking as if she never stopped.

“Is this what you want?” I silently pleaded with Amy. We finally left after 4 a.m. and I successfully got her to board the plane. I never heard from her again and can only hope she got the help she needed.

I moved to Sedona shortly afterward. Several years later I went home to visit family and old friends. I ran into a guy I used to shoot pool with who invited me to a house party. It turned out to be a small group – about five people – gathered in an old auto shop.

My acquaintance introduced me to the strangers as an old friend. “She used to be a cop,” he announced. I was never a cop, but I did work in law enforcement for nearly 10 years. One guy who seemed to be the leader of this group looked at me narrowly. He was shirtless and his chest was caved in, I presumed, from years of drug abuse. “Psychiatric discharge,” I lied, which seemed enough to keep me out of trouble.

I sipped on beer while those people smoked meth from tiny glass pipes for two hours. Both pipes eventually broke, having been dropped on the cement floor several times. I watched wide-eyed as the man with the sunken chest took the filament out of a light bulb and deftly poked a little carb hole in the delicate glass. That night I learned what lengths addicts will go to get a fix.

In 2004, I interviewed two Sedona children who had lost both parents to meth-related deaths in less than a year. The girl, then about 12, showed no emotion as she described finding her dead mother. “Dad, mom’s dead,” she said flatly, recounting how she broke the news to her father who was passed out on the couch.

In 2006, I interviewed several female inmates at the Yavapai County Jail in Prescott. Of about 40 women in the cell block, about 90 percent were meth users, whether that was directly the reason for their incarceration or not. Most said they used meth because they couldn’t afford pain medication for various injuries or ailments.

“Oh, it takes toothaches away like that,” Nick said, snapping his fingers when I asked if this was true. “It’s a straight-up pain killer.” He joked about the serious side-effect that some people loose teeth to meth abuse. “Hey, if you lose your teeth there’s no more pain.”

One inmate, Britney Bessler, is now serving a prison sentence for her part in a shooting death during a drug deal gone wrong. As she flipped through crime scene photos in her court papers, Bessler cried. “He was my best friend,” she said of the victim.

These memories were crystal clear (pun intended) as I talked to several meth users for this article. I imagined them in that dark space where the fix is the only thing that matters – above their jobs, their lovers and their children. I still don’t know why they start using. I don’t understand it. But, I feel compassion because each one is shrouded in a dark sadness and almost tangibly reaching out for help.

I sense a disconnection between these lost souls and the machine that purports to save them.

The women at Prescott’s jail said the system is designed to keep them down, once they are in it. Fines are set so high that people must choose between paying them or buying food, medicine and paying rent, they said. Court-ordered counseling is a farce, they said, a sham that keeps people employed but does little more than go through the motions with little real benefit for the users.

Real treatment is too expensive, they said. As Nick put it, many can’t afford $12,000 for private treatment and, in his perception, the alternative is to get arrested and be put into less effective court-ordered treatment.

A MATForce report stated there are ample funded sources for treatment in the Verde Valley but addicts don’t often seek treatment. They are usually forced into it by family or the legal system.

As I reported the story, I sadly realized how both sides are so close, yet miles apart. Sedona City Councilman Rob Adams acknowledged that people like Nick – those who don’t qualify for state help, but don’t have the money to get treatment on their own – may be falling through the cracks.

I don’t have the answer. I can only hope that by telling the story from the other side, the public can discern truth and misconceptions on both sides and work toward a real solution.
Read more!

Reader Feedback

Here's some email feedback on my recent public transit article :

Thank you, Cyndy, for writing such informative articles about our City government. You cover things beautifully, providing helpful background information. I get info in SedonaBiz that we can not find in the Red Rock News. Keep up the great work!

Carol Wirkus
Sedona resident


Cyndy:

I wanted you to know that your article was one of the most factually accurate I have ever seen. In my experience reporters often get even simple stories wrong. Your story covered 4 plus years of history and got everything right. This is refreshing and appreciated.

Thanks!

Jeff
Jeff Meilbeck
NAIPTA General Manager Read more!

Dead Nazis and Broken Noses: Sedona rejects vacation rentals

by Cyndy Hardy
Appears in the March issue of The Noise. Available for reprints.

SEDONA, Feb. 19 – A random stranger recently told me that if he lived in Germany during WWII and a couple of SS soldiers showed up at his house asking if he was hiding Jews in his basement, “I’d have two dead Nazis on my porch and Jews in my basement.”

The violent image shocked me. This wasn’t about Jews and Nazis. We were talking about how people pick and choose what laws they abide, specifically people who operate more than 400 illegal short-term vacation rentals in Sedona. His point was that government has absolutely no right to dictate what a person does with private property and that a person is justified to use any means – legal or not – to fight government interference.

While my new friend and I talked coffeehouse politics, an old saying kept running through my mind like a tune that won’t go away: “Your right to punch me in the nose ends where my nose begins.” Given his passionate stance against government interference, how far should full-time residents go to protect their own property rights and neighborhoods?

There’s a feud brewing between neighbors in Sedona that will inevitably end up in court – potentially diverting taxpayer dollars from road and sewer projects; pedestrian safety and nonprofit subsidies – to fight a classic battle: city zoning versus private property rights.

The city is caught in the crossfire: those who illegally operate vacation rentals say the zoning amounts to an unlawful “taking” of their property; some full-time residents say by not enforcing its zoning, the city diminishes their property right. The city is further pinned down by an old law it couldn’t enforce; a new law meant to fix that; and a generalized public image that government is always the bad guy.

Illegal vacation rentals became a hot issue at City Hall in 2007. While they may be cozy and homey for the tourists, some full-time residents say these rentals are a nuisance: increased traffic, overcrowding, loud music and generally unsettling to people who find security in knowing their neighbors.

Vacation renters do not behave and take care of a property the way full-time residents do, according to resident Bob Cleland.

Short-term vacation rentals are homes that tourists rent for less than 30 days instead of staying in hotel rooms. Vacation rentals in Sedona are usually upscale single-family homes in residential neighborhoods, but can include condominiums, duplexes, and multifamily homes.

City code limits lodging uses to specific zones and short-term rentals in residential zones have specifically been illegal in Sedona since about 1995.

People on vacation often like to party, according to resident Helen Knoll, an attorney who lives near illegal vacation rentals. Sometimes there are four or five cars per household, she said. The government has a right to put reasonable controls on property rights, and she supports the city’s ban on residential short-term rentals. “It’s hard to party for 30 days; not so hard to party for seven nights,” Ms. Knoll said.

“I understand that the ordinance is on the books. That doesn’t make it right,” Stephen Schwartz, an attorney and part-time Sedona resident who has counseled local short-term rental operators, said at the Sedona City Council’s Jan. 22 meeting.

Mr. Schwartz invoked Magna Carta, saying that renting one’s home is a fundamental property right and they city has no legitimate government interest in banning it.

“If that were true,” Sedona City Attorney Mike Goimarac said, “then every homeowner could rent for less than 30 days,” There are more than 6,000 homes in Sedona. “The question is do you still have a residential neighborhood?” he asked. Neighborhood complaints were the driving force behind recent attention to short-term rental violations, according to Goimarac.

Ann Schwartz, a short-term rental advocate, said complaints have been minimal. I talked to Sedona Code Enforcement Officers Jim Windham and John Egan a few days after the meeting. They agreed with Ms. Schwartz, saying the city has received less than 10 complaints in the past eight months, which is typical for any given year. They also said complaints are recorded by residence, not necessarily by occurance, and that most of the complaints come from a small number of rentals.

Paul Kanter and his wife, Sue Meyer, have a Seattle, Wash. address and own five properties in the Sedona area, according to Yavapai and Coconino County records. Ms. Meyer is president of Sedona Vacation Rental Solutions Association, an organization of vacation rental operators spearheading opposition to the city’s short-term rental laws.

I asked if flagrantly breaking the law was the best way to get what they wanted. Mr. Kanter said many people “did what they did” after researching the market and talking with city officials. “They were told, ‘yes it’s on the books but we don’t enforce it,’” he said.

Mr. Windham denied Mr. Kanter’s claim. In a typical scenario, Mr. Windham said, after receiving complaints from neighbors he would knock on the door of a suspected illegal vacation rental only to be told the occupants were friends or family of the owner. There’s no law against letting your family stay in your second (third, or fifth) home. By the time any given case could be investigated, the tourists were long gone and not likely to come back to be witnesses in a prosecution.

Even if the city could execute a prosecution, the existing law only allows a $250 fine, which operators could easily write off as a cost of doing business. It’s easier to prove they are operating vacation rentals by finding the ads than it is to prove a tenant isn’t a friend, Mr. Goimarac said. He drafted an ordinance to ban advertisements on illegal rentals and the City Council was set to pass it in November 2007.

No longer under the radar, SVRSA members came to the table with their own draft ordinance to legalize and regulate short-term rentals between seven and 30 days where not prohibited by homeowners associations. The draft ordinance proposed permits, regulated the number of people allowed per room and required operators to pay bed taxes.

The city also received a warning shot in the form of a letter from Florida civil attorney Richard G. Rumrell, who represents Steve Milo in a current short-term rental lawsuit against Venice, Fla. The letter warned the city that its ban is unconstitutional and asked the City Council to defer its decision until he could brief the city.

The city retained its own outside counsel, Perkins Coie, Brown & Bain and, “after receiving more public input in subsequent work sessions the Council, opted to stick with our current ban on short-term rentals,” Mr. Goimarac said, essentially saying ‘no thanks’ to SVRSA’s bid for amnesty.

The Sedona City Council passed the ordinance at its Jan. 22 meeting making it illegal to advertise short-term rentals. Violators face a class 1 misdemeanor with fines up to $2,500, up to six months in jail and possible civil penalties. Each day a violation continues constitutes a separate offense. The law was set to take effect on Feb 22.

Publicly, council members and city staff said “it’s about the integrity of neighborhoods” and “the city’s right to enforce its zoning.” Illegal vacation rental operators cried foul, saying the law would hurt out-of-state owners who rent out their Sedona homes to pay the mortgage with the dream of someday moving here for good.

Something doesn’t add up. On the surface, just below the platitudes, it seems the City Council may have snubbed SVRSA for minor trespasses: the numerous emails from short-term rental supporters – so many that one city official called them a nuisance; the threatening letter from Mr. Rumrell, who reportedly wouldn’t say who he represented.

Deeper down, the City Council may have reacted to pressure from various homeowners associations that “didn’t have the huevos,” according to Vice Mayor Jerry Frey, to enforce their bylaws, putting the burden of enforcing and defending zoning back on the city. “They made the city the bad guy on this,” Mr. Frey said.

Since Jan. 22, “We have happily observed that many entities have already voluntarily modified their internet advertisements to delete references to daily or weekly rates,” Mr. Goimarac said.

But, what has the city really stopped? Web sites that once blatantly advertised daily and weekly rates now simply advertise a monthly rate – some as high as $18,000 – or direct the customer to contact the owner or agent for pricing. Even if the operators charge a monthly rate, how can the city stop them from refunding three weeks of the fee?

One way might be to catch them before they finish updating their Web sites. Foothills Property Management’s site lists a vacation home called Serene Phalet in Uptown. There are no daily or weekly rates listed, but when you check availability the calendar highlights a one-week minimum stay.

Probably, Mr. Goimarac now has two laws to enforce – the code banning short-term rentals and the new law that criminalizes advertisements for them – and seemingly no better tools to do it than he started with. Sedona does not levy residential property tax, does not require business licensing and does not enforce its business registration ordinance.

Outside tools haven’t changed, either. The city gets its sales tax information from the Arizona Department of Revenue. Yavapai and Coconino Counties tax rental properties differently than owner-occupied properties, but they don’t often audit occupancy use, Mr. Frey said. Anyone doing business in Arizona, including vacation rental owners, must register with the Arizona Corporations Commission, according to Public Information Officer Rebecca Wilder.

Anyone who – for profit – solicits, arranges or accepts reservations or money for occupancies of thirty-one or fewer days in a dwelling on behalf of another must have an Arizona real estate license, according to Tom Adams, assistant commissioner of investigations for the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

“If a Web site advertises available property and says ‘contact us,’ they need a license. If the information says to contact the owner, they don’t,” Mr. Adams said.

Perhaps another consequence is lost revenue. For a city government often accused of being “in bed” with business interests, the Sedona City Council did not opt to compromise with short-term operators. Odd, since city revenues are leveling off as development nears build-out and the city is currently brainstorming how to avoid a deficit. Mr. Frey said the potential tax revenue was never really discussed.

There are about 2,410 legal lodging units in Sedona, including 1,530 hotel, motel, resort and bed & breakfast units; 796 timeshare units; and 84 lockouts, according to the city’s 2007 Land Use and Population Report. There are about 448 advertised illegal vacation rentals, according to Mr. Goimarac’s investigations.

Legal Sedona lodging businesses pay a three percent hotel bed tax; timeshares pay an “in lieu” fee. Lumped together in the budget, bed tax is the city’s second largest revenue source, generating an estimated $1,527,727 for Fiscal Year 2007/2008.

Short-term rental operators do not pay bed tax. “We can’t tax them for something that is illegal,” Mr. Goimarac said. They would have paid taxes if SVRSA’s proposed ordinance had been accepted, according to Mr. Schwartz. “They wanted to,” Mr. Schwartz said.
Other communities have found ways to – pardon the pun – accommodate short-term rentals.

“Aspen is highly dependent on short term accommodations’ rentals for our economic existence. It’s part of what defines a resort economy,” said Larry Thoreson, sales tax administrator for the city of Aspen, where all short term rentals are subject to a combined sales and lodging tax rate of 9.6%.

Technically, short-term rentals are not allowed in residential zones in Aspen. “We know who they are, they must report and pay sales and lodging taxes, and they are occasionally audited by the state or city to keep them honest,” Mr. Thoreson said. “Any attempts on the city’s part to enforce our zoning would merely end such rentals and the attendant tax revenues.”

Complaints are rare in Aspen, according to Mr. Thoreson. “If you could afford a multi-million dollar property, would you be interested in the possibility of members of the lower classes occupying your abode, even if only briefly?” he asked. The average property value is about $6.5 million, and most rentals are handled by property managers who collect and remit the appropriate taxes, he said.

Short-term rentals are allowed in Telluride residential zones, according to the town planning department’s Mike Davenport. “There is a 2% excise tax on these units that is applied to the financial guarantee provided to airlines serving Telluride,” he said.

Telluride codes limit short-term use through deed restrictions to 30 consecutive days or
60 days per year. Units must be registered and submit a semi-annual report to the
Planning Director, Mr. Davenport said.

Flagstaff basically ignores illegal vacation rentals, according to Community Code Administrator Roger Eastman – who lives in Sedona and was the city’s senior long range planner before his position with Flagstaff. “Logic suggests that residential uses are for more than 30 days, but this is not specifically stated, which makes it hard to enforce. And as this is such a non-issue; we don't get more than one or two complaints a year, so we do not worry about them,” he said.

Mr. Frey said the city did not really look at how other cities handled residential short-term rentals, although he said he asked staff for the information. So, enforcement it is.

SVRSA members who talked to me after the Jan. 22 City Council meeting refused further interviews. “I spoke with our attorney and he advised me not to discuss the issue at this time. Once our lawsuit is filed, it will become self evident what actions we are taking going forward,” Ms. Meyer said.

The coffee is cold. As I pour the last of it into a planter, I wonder who will win the upcoming battle. Dead Nazis and broken noses, I think, and move on to the next article.
Read more!

Private road on USFS land is imminent, condemnation is not

by Cyndy Hardy
Appears in the March issue of The Noise. Available for reprint.

SEDONA, Feb. 12 – The Sedona City Council backed off a possible eminent domain action amid high cost estimates and doubts a condemnation could pass legal muster. As a result, U.S. Forest Service land may be razed in an area southeast of Airport Mesa and west of Hwy. 179 for a private 400-foot bridge over Oak Creek and ¾-mile road to a new gated subdivision.

Since about 1992, Sedona residents Bruce Tobias and Robert and Carol Flynn have sought access to their three undeveloped parcels, totaling about 27 acres, which are landlocked by USFS and private land, including that owned by residents of the Oak Creek Cliffs subdivision.

The city of Sedona owns part of Oak Creek Cliffs Drive, from Hwy. 179 to the city’s wastewater lift station. The rest, including a low-water crossing on Oak Creek, belongs to the neighborhood homeowners association. The road terminates east of the Tobias/Flynn site with a small strip of USFS land in between.

“The USFS required us to exhaust all other options before they would consider an easement,” Mr. Tobias said. Two major options were an agreement with Oak Creek Cliffs residents and suing the USFS.

Oak Creek Cliffs residents will not allow Tobias/Flynn access through their neighborhood. Its residents do not want the added traffic likely if the landlocked property is fully developed. Oak Creek Cliffs has about 20 homes; Tobias/Flynn is zoned for minimum 35,000-square-foot lots, meaning its owners could build up to 33 homes. Mr. Tobias and Mr. Flynn have said they intend to build their own homes and a few others.

Roderick Rawlins has been an Oak Creek Cliffs Homeowners Association board member since 1986. “We know so little about this project, you couldn’t get an intelligent question to ask the board,” he said at the Feb. 12 City Council meeting.

Moving on with their options, Tobias/Flynn successfully sued the forest service in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in September 2002; the court ordered the USFS to grant access. Not much has happened in nearly six years. “That’s why I want more government control over my forest,” Vice Mayor Jerry Frey said, sarcastically.

Use of forest service land requires a National Environmental Policy Act study to compare a proposed route to other options. The NEPA study did not begin until 2007. “Ours is a small project that continued not to be heard,” unless they paid USFS a fee to expedite the matter, Mr. Tobias said.

The preferred route being studied lies within city limits. The proposed bridge would be about 70-feet high on one side and about 30-feet high on the other. Part of the proposed road would parallel Hwy. 179.

As part of the study, the USFS sought comment from the city. In April 2007 the City Council brought up concerns about environmental impact of a new road through virgin forest land when a more suitable route was available through Oak Creek Cliffs. The city estimates a lower profile 460-foot bridge could be built that would be 12-feet high on one side and 16-feet high on the other. The road would be about 0.25 miles, a third as long as the road proposed by USFS.

The City Council, aware of its role as joint custodian of public land, considered condemnation to force access through Oak Creek Cliffs. If the council acted quickly, its preferred route could be included in the current NEPA study. Otherwise, USFS would require a new study for the small strip between the private parties’ property.

Condemnation presented several problems, though. The proposed USFS route will cost about $7.5 million, according to city estimates. The city’s proposed bridge and road would cost about $6.6 million for condemnation, construction and legal fees, not including the costs if homes were condemned. Mr. Tobias said he would contribute to the city’s costs, up to what he would pay for the USFS route, which is unclear.

Also, condemnation would surely result in legal action from Oak Creek Cliffs residents, driving up the city’s costs and potentially delaying the project during negotiations, litigation and appeals.

The council discussed public safety as a justification for condemnation. When Oak Creek floods residents and emergency vehicles cannot cross the low-water bridge. The bridge was impassable for several days during the Dec. 30, 2004 flood. Some Oak Creek Cliffs residents asked the city to improve the road, but the city does not own the part that needs fixing.

“[The Oak Creek Cliffs route] is better environmentally and it makes better sense, but if the residents are happy with a low-water crossing, they don’t see it that way,” said Councilwoman Nancy Scagnelli. Deciding that condemnation did not “rise to the benchmarks” for condemnation, the City Council ended its deliberations without action.

Residents said the USFS has a duty to find a suitable route. Paul Loef lives in Oak Creek Cliffs and opposes an easement through his neighborhood to Tobias/Flynn.

“If you wanted to proposed route that raised ire you could hardly do a better job,” Mr. Loef said.
Read more!

Sedona’s Desert Wetlands: A waste(water) of time and money?

Story and photo by Cyndy Hardy
Available for reprint

Something smells at the Sedona Wastewater Treatment Plant – and it isn’t just the sludge. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s 2002 mandate to Sedona to remove mass amounts of trees and foliage in the city’s three reclaimed water reservoirs went ignored. In August 2007, ADEQ Inspector Craig Brown discovered that not a shovel had been lifted. Now the dams are cracked and treated sewage may be leaking.

Today the main reservoir, which is supposed to be bare, looks like a full-blown riparian area. Ducks skit across the stunning blue pond and the Western slope looks like a nice place for a summer picnic. All that’s missing is a boat dock and some bikinis.

“We regularly see deer and wild cats in the mornings,” said Wastewater Director Pat Livingstone. She would like to catch illegal hunters who prey on the immigrant wildlife in the mornings, she said, pointing out horse tracks in the dirt road atop the dam that were not left by city staff. She was less concerned about the occasional groups of birdwatchers who visit the plant.

The animals are either unaware – or unconcerned – that the water they’re drinking and swimming in recently came from Sedona’s toilets. So, why should humans be concerned, aside from the nasty visuals?

First, the city doesn’t have many answers for why it did not take care of the vegetation five years ago before one of the dams cracked. Jim Johnson was director of wastewater in 2002 when ADEQ mandated the repairs. Mr. Johnson retired in 2006, replaced by Ms. Livingston.

When asked who was responsible for supervising Mr. Johnson and how he managed to evade compliance for four years, City Manager Eric Levitt referred to the chain of command.

In 2002 Mr. Johnson was under the supervision of then-assistant city manager Carol Johnson, who had served in the past as Assistant Public Works Director and City Engineer. Ms. Johnson has not worked for the city since at least April 2004. Wastewater was put under the direction of Public Works Director Charles Mosley.

Mr. Mosley was unavailable for comment because of a death in the family.

Second, how much revenue might the city have saved if Mr. Johnson had taken care of the problem five years ago? Construction costs have increased about 28 percent since 2004, according to the U.S. Department of Labor Statistic’s producer price index.

On Dec. 11, the Sedona City Council approved a $94,810 contract with Phoenix-based URS Corporation to prepare a plan and oversee the removal of the vegetation; develop construction cost estimates to repair the berms; write an operation and maintenance plan; and construct an access way to the valving in Reservoir #3. About $325,000 is budgeted for berm maintenance in Sedona’s 2007/2008 budget. The city expects much of that money will be carried over into the next fiscal year and plans to ask for an additional $275,000, according to city documents.

Third, if treated effluent is leaking, why aren’t the grassroots groups mobilized? Sedona’s wastewater plant is no Snowbowl, but treated effluent is treated effluent.

ADEQ found longitudinal cracks – one approximately 50 feet long and two feet deep – and possible transverse cracks. While ADEQ’s Aug. 24, 2007 report did not mention leaks, a Dec. 11 Sedona staff report to the City Council did: “Groundwater level monitoring indicates the dams may be leaking.”

Ms. Livingston said staff “put as much in [the City Council report] as possible to convince the public it needs to be done.”

The City Council unanimously approved the URS contract without comment.
Read more!

Blog: Small talk about a small town

Three years ago tonight, a couple hundred people jammed into a tiny neighborhood bar in West Sedona to say goodbye to nearly 40 years of tradition and culture.

The Laughing Coyote bar, which had maintained its culture under several names and owners, closed its doors for the last time at 2 a.m. on Feb. 4, 2005. People came who hadn’t been there for years. There were tears, laughter, dancing, arguments, hugs, phone-number exchanges and even a notebook that was passed around like a yearbook to capture people’s feelings about the place. Locals still get teary-eyed over the loss; The Coyote was more than just a bar – it was a family and an icon to an eroding small-town spirit.

Last weekend, I spent the day with a group of people who spent 15 hours trying to figure out how to define that spirit, how to preserve it and how to make it grow – the Sedona Verde Valley Forum. I am not reporting publicly on that meeting because I worked as a recorder – therefore I had a hand in what went into the final report. I’m posting this more as a blog piece for the publishers who visit Sedona Stringer.
Sedona may physically be a small town.

About 100 north of Phoenix., it’s made up of about 19 square miles, 49 percent of which belong to the Coconino National Forest. The population is less than 12,000 including about 900 part-time residents, according to city statistics. The city is about 80-percent built out, which means it will still grow some but most has already been done. Surrounded by forest land and breathtaking red cliffs, there’s not much chance for sprawl within the city limits.

But Sedona is no typical small town.

Our population is largely composed of transplants from other parts of the country. The city only incorporated in 1988 and it inherited dysfunctional zoning, architecture, roads and public utilities from Coconino and Yavapai Counties.

Our community is larger than the defined city boundaries. It’s better defined by the areas covered by the Sedona Fire District and the Sedona Oak Creek Unified School District. In other words, the greater community includes the Village of Oak Creek, the Loop Road area and residents in Oak Creek Canyon – the latter two of which were not invited to participate in the Forum. No one said why.

All of these communities have “Sedona” zip codes because that’s just the way it was set up by the post office before incorporation.

Anyway, we’re not a typical small town. Until last year – at least for the 8-plus years I’ve lived here – there was only one community party – the annual St. Patrick’s Day Parade. Most community events price out lower wager earners, like Jazz on the Rocks, the Sedona International Film Festival & Workshops, and various charitable events.

But the parade was the only event that tried to bring all segments of the community together for a celebration. Last year, we had our first Memorial Day celebration, which didn’t draw much of a crowd because it was pretty windy and cold that day. We also had our first Western Americana Day. More folks showed for that celebration, but the mood was literally dampened by the monsoon. Both events show promise for the future. There are other events, like the annual arts show and the Walk for Life, but they don’t seem to capture the interest of the community as a whole.

Sedona has no “town square” or other main gathering place, which has been a topic of discussion for some time.

Old-timers talk about the good old days when community events were held at Posse Grounds Park. There were rodeos, public picnics, musical events and other festivals. Yavapai College used to be there, as well as the Sedona Humane Society. I’d have to dig deeper for the details, but my understanding is that certain political issues moved those entities out of the park. Soon after, the park was pretty much abandoned as far as community events go.

Today, the park has baseball and basketball courts, the Sedona Teen Center, a skate park and a new dog park. A partially-built and soon-to-be-finished pavilion will bring music back to the park. Will it become the gathering place it once was? Who knows? Neighbors are probably going to complain about the noise from the pavilion. They already complain about the presence of children. There’s not a lot of parking available for larger events. There’s no shade to speak of.

Speaking of children, here’s another example of why Sedona is no typical small town. I haven’t reported on this, but I’m told there was quite a fight involved in getting Sedona Red Rock High School built about 10 years ago. I get the impression that a significant segment of the older residents resent children and do as little as they can to provide a quality of life for them. Sure, we have the Teen Center and the skate park. Look at the history, though. The motivation behind the skate park was because one man’s son wanted a state-of-the-art facility. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but there were a lot of politics behind the center and the skate park that had little to do with providing for the kids.

I was shocked in 2005 when I attended a public hearing about an ordinance to ban motorized scooters. Proponents openly talked about how they just didn’t want to see the kids in their neighborhoods. The police department found that noise from these scooters was less than a motorcycle, a lawn mower and the average leaf blower. Both the police and the fire district said they could not find a single case of a scooter-versus vehicle accident.

“We’d be remiss if we waited for someone to get hurt?” several attendees said. (Funny, they don’t feel the same responsibility to make Hwy. 89A safer for pedestrians in West Sedona, even though five people have died in the last seven years and many more have been injured crossing five lanes of 40-mph traffic because the crosswalks are a half mile apart.)

There’s no public transportation for these children, some of whom live in the Uptown area which is about three miles from the Teen Center, including the steep 1.2-mile Cook’s Hill on Hwy. 89A that is the only road into West Sedona. Under the ordinance, these kids can’t ride their scooters up the hill on the sidewalks or on the street.

Sedona has little industry that offers its youth an opportunity or incentive to stay in their hometown. So, as the older generations pass away, and more transplants move in, Sedona will probably never have a sense of roots that are typical of “small town.”

This is what gets me about the community’s apathy towards affordable housing. The Sedona Housing Commission can’t sell the community on affordable housing without wordsmithing the message with terms like “workforce housing” and “essential employees.” They concentrate on a 30-percent minority of the workforce – like teachers, police and firefighters – because that’s easier to sell to people who think a dishwasher or waitress would be a worse neighbor.

Politicos have smugly told me over the years that just because someone wants to live here doesn’t mean they get to. If “small town” is the value, I say just because you can maximize every dollar of profit from your development or business doesn’t mean you ought to. Give up some of that profit voluntarily to pay better wages and provide affordable homes to the people doing your grunt work.

If it weren’t for those undesirables, those smug elitists would be paying property tax. People live where they work in a typical small town. Almost 70 percent of our workforce is in the service industry and commutes from nearby towns. Sedona survives because of its tourist industry. City officials are scrambling to find new revenue sources for the future because once the city is built out – and we’re about 80 percent there – tourism revenue will be capped by the tangible and intangible boundaries we’ve set today.

Certainly, we need teachers, police and firefighters to live in the community. It’s ridiculous that most – if not all – of our detectives live 30 minutes away from any given investigation in Sedona. It’s ridiculous that, as one Forum participant put it – Sedona’s teachers tend to be single or couples with no children because they can’t afford a family-sized home. It’s ridiculous that employers by choice or necessity offer “market” wages that don’t match the local cost of living.

It’s also ridiculous to talk of preserving some idealistic “small town” character when that talk focuses on physical aesthetics more than the people.

The Sedona Chamber of Commerce, city officials and business leaders talk about attracting “the right kind of visitor.” They mean those visitors who are affluent enough to spend more than two nights and about $300 per day in retail and restaurant purchases.

Similarly, those who regularly engage in city politics want the “right kind of resident.” Places like the Laughing Coyote and the people who went there did not fit the desired mold. They were mostly poor (although they had regular benefits that paid for medical bills, utilities and rent for some of their own); not always pretty or well-dressed (although you’d often bump elbows with millionaires and celebrities who went there for its neighborhood flavor); sometimes alcoholics and drug addicts (the kind you get on the street – not from the doctor); and not very cultured (unless you consider retired rock musicians, visual artists and the guy who built your custom staircase cultured).

Early in my journalism career I met Susan Solomon, a woman I have high regard for who was on the city council and served as vice mayor and mayor. When I told her I lived in a trailer behind the Laughing Coyote she was shocked. “Isn’t that a pretty rough place?” she asked.

“You mean you’ve never been there? Don’t you represent them, too?” I chided.

I talked Susan into spending a few minutes there with me that night. I introduced her as a friend, not a public official. My friends didn’t bat an eye that Susan was dressed to the nines and obviously from a different social circle. They didn’t care. They never cared. They were interested in who she was as a person – not where she came from or how much money she made. Susan stayed for almost two hours and went back with me three times; including the night the bar closed its doors for the last time.

Susan and I stood in a shoulder-to-shoulder crowd that bounced and bopped to the rock-n-roll. “Hey! I know that guy,” Susan said, amazed to see someone who didn’t fit her idea of a Laughing Coyote patron. She knew a lot of people there who seem to have a foot in both worlds; people from diverse backgrounds who were part of something much bigger than just a neighborhood bar – they were part of a community..

“This is ‘small town,’” I told her. I stood on the stage after sitting in with the band for “Mustang Sally” and spoke my piece to the crowd:

“Just remember that the Laughing Coyote did not make us who we are. We made the Laughing Coyote what it is. Take that spirit with you, wherever you end up. Don’t forget who we are.”

Sadly, most of the regulars have moved away, unable to afford to live in Sedona and lacking a venue like the Coyote to bring them together.

During last weekend’s Forum, I thought about those people and that place; and a broken promise in the Sedona Community Plan’s mission statement to “preserve existing lifestyles.” If we were honest, we’d have written, “preserve existing lifestyles that suit us.”

Maybe the Forum should have shot for defining “the right kind of small town.” We’re losing what’s left of our typical small-town character. Sedona is not typical and will certainly define a character that suits its ego.

I’m not sure I want to know what that’s going to look like.
Read more!

One injured in Sedona collision

Story and photos by Cyndy Hardy


SEDONA, Jan. 17 – A lunch hour two-vehicle collision on Hwy. 89A in West Sedona sent one woman to the hospital and shook up four others. The accident happened at about 12:26 p.m. in front of Hotel Rouge in West Sedona.

Sedona Police Department Sgt. Kevin Ahern said a newer-model Jeep Compass was eastbound on Hwy. 89A, attempting a left turn into the hotel parking lot. A westbound 2007 Honda Accord was in the right-hand turn lane approaching Rodeo Road.

Two westbound vehicles had stopped to let the Compass through, Ahern said. Because of the angle, the 28-year-old Honda driver did not see the other vehicle coming until it was too late.

“I couldn’t stop in time,” the Honda driver said at the scene.


The impact knocked the Compass over on its side. Sedona Fire District crews rescued the driver and three passengers, including a 70-year-old woman who was placed on a backboard and transported by ambulance with non-life-threatening injuries.

No one else appeared injured; all were wearing seat belts and the vehicles’ airbags had deployed, Ahern said. Initial investigation indicated the driver of the Compass was at fault, he said.

Names were not immediately available, although police said the Honda driver lives in Sedona and the Compass was a rental vehicle from California.

Westbound traffic was reduced to one lane until both vehicles were towed from the scene.

Cutlines:
962-89A-1-17b
A 70-YEAR-OLD Sedona tourist escaped serious injury in a two-vehicle collision on Hwy. 89A Thursday afternoon. Sedona Fire District crews stabilized the overturned Jeep Compass with wood blocks while assisting four from the wreckage.

962-89A-1-17c
THREE SHAKEN occupants of an overturned Jeep Compass barely escaped serious injury after a lunch-hour collision that sent a fourth companion to the hospital Thursday with non-life-threatening injuries.

Read more!

They fought the law, but the LAWA won

1,646 words. Available for reprint.
Story and photo by Cyndy Hardy

Photo: ELPIDIO SOTO crossed the desert and the Arizona border to wash dishes for $7 per hour.

SEDONA, Dec. 30 – Come Jan. 1, a new sheriff will ride a pale horse into town; and its name is Legal Arizona Workers Act. LAWA aims to take up where the federal government left off, ridding the state of unauthorized workers. Trouble is, some of the townsfolk think the sheriff wears a black hat. It’s no secret that the law targets illegal Mexicans.

“The economy is failing. The mortgage industry has crashed. The real estate market has crashed. Now the government will further kill us by taking away our opportunity to hire good employees,” said restaurateur Lauren Levinson, owner of Savannah’s.

LAWA allows county attorneys to bring civil action against employers who knowingly or intentionally hire non-citizens that cannot legally work in the U.S. An employer can lose his business license for 10 days on a first offense; permanently for another violation within three years.

Restaurants and lodging businesses employ about 19.6 percent of Sedona’s workforce, according to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2000. Construction businesses employ about 8.7 percent of the workforce. Hispanics or Latinos hold about nine percent of all Sedona jobs. The census does not break down the workforce by nationality.

Employers interviewed for this article said they strictly comply with federal employment eligibility laws.

“All I know is everyone who works for me is legal. They aren’t going to come out and say they’re illegal. They have proper papers and that’s all that matters to me,” Ms. Levinson said.

However, the number of employees these employers expect to lose is staggering and much higher than the census estimates.

Lucian Daniels legally emigrated to the U.S. from Romania in 1998. He became a U.S. citizen in August 2007. Daniels, who sold Olde Sedona Bar & Grill on Dec. 22, estimates between 40 and 50 percent of Sedona’s restaurant industry employees may be illegal.

Sedona Center recently terminated about 40 percent of its approximately 220 employees, according to Vice President Ramon Gomez, who is also a Sedona city councilman. That is about 88 employees, although he declined to give an exact number. Internal Form I-9 audits uncovered “mistakes” and many employees could not reproduce legal documents, he said.

“Frankly, some said they don’t have them. A couple of guys just said ‘we’re done,’” Mr. Gomez said. The company owns Amara Creekside Resort, Canyon Portal, Sinagua Plaza, Canyon Breeze, Vista Cantina, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory and Canyon Climb.

Philippe Thelier, a chef at Shugrue’s Hillside Sedona, said LAWA affects about 75 percent of the restaurant’s employees. Owner Mark Shugrue also owns the Javelina Cantina in Sedona; and several restaurants in Lake Havasu City.

If these employers’ estimates are accurate, Sedona’s restaurant and lodging industries are in serious trouble. The apparent “don’t ask, don’t tell” mentality in Sedona may come to an abrupt end. Like most Wild West lawmen in American lore, ‘Sheriff LAWA’ comes with a sidekick: E-Verify, a voluntary federal computer program. Arizona’s new law makes it mandatory.

E-Verify checks the information employees provide on their Form I-9, including a photograph and Social Security number, against both Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration databases to verify whether newly hired employees are authorized to work in the United States.

It is already a federal crime to “knowingly” and “intentionally” employ an unauthorized worker. Federal law states that “knowing” can include actual knowledge and constructive knowledge, which through notice of certain facts and circumstances would reasonably lead a person to know about something, according to Coconino County Deputy Attorney Dave Rozema in an email interview on Dec. 27.

Some Sedona businesses think their current staff is safe because employers may not use E-Verify to check the legal status of existing employees. That depends on how the courts interpret the law, according to Mr. Rozema.

“The law is ambiguous enough such that it may be interpreted to apply to ‘continuing to employ’ as well as new hires,” Mr. Rozema said.

Many Arizona county attorneys won’t initiate investigations, according to Mr. Rozema. They also will not accept anonymous complaints. Anyone who wants to posse-up must sign a sworn complaint.

Like elsewhere in Arizona, some illegal workers are not waiting around. Some have already left town.

“Some are going back to Mexico. Some are moving on to other states like California and Oklahoma; where they can continue to work,” said Alexandro Lopez, a line cook who admitted he works illegally in a Sedona restaurant.

Four years ago, Mr. Lopez walked across the desert for five days with his wife and 1-year old baby. They crossed the border near Tucson, he said. His first child is now 5; he also has a 3-year-old.

Pedro Nunez, 21, is an illegal immigrant whose parents brought him to Arizona when he was nine months old. Mr. Nunez works construction in Sedona and Flagstaff. “I am not a U.S. citizen,” he said.

Nunez was educated in public schools. “Everyone knew we were not legal,” he said. His parents divorced when Mr. Nunez was 15. They went back to Mexico. Mr. Nunez wanted to stay.

He quit school because he had to work to support himself, he said.

Until recently, Mr. Nunez had a steady job. “The boss said he had to fire me on Jan. 1,” he said. Mr. Nunez quit and found a job that would pay him under the table.

When asked why he doesn’t go to the government to get legal status, Mr. Nunez said he doesn’t believe he’d find help. Four months ago, two of his friends tried to get help from the government to become legal. They were immediately deported, Mr. Nunez said.

“I don’t know what to do,” Mr. Nunez said.

Immigration has closed its doors, according to Juan Rodriguez, who owns a Sedona Mexican restaurant. Mr. Rodriquez legally came to the U.S. about 22 years ago because he had a dream to own his own business, he said. He is now a U.S. citizen. Mr. Rodriguez looked into sponsoring some of his employees, but his lawyers in Phoenix told him that he “can’t do anything,” he said. “They don’t want anyone here,” he said.

“There is a lot of fear in both the front and back of the house. People I thought were secure – some with 15 years – are getting the boot,” said Joy Keeber, a territory manager for a restaurant supply company.

Mr. Shugrue has employees who have worked for him for 15 to 20 years. “These are good solid people. They’ve raised their kids here. The kids don’t want to go to Mexico. They don’t even speak Mexican,” he said.

Others, like Elpidio Soto, don’t speak English. Soto walked across the Sonoran desert for two days and one night to cross the border. He came to the U.S. to pay rent for the home in Mexico where his wife and 6-year-old son live. Mr. Soto’s 18-year-old son works as a landscaper in Washington. Mr. Soto has been in the U.S. for two years and plans to stay for three more years.

Mr. Soto works as a dishwasher for $7 per hour – often seven days per week and sometimes double shifts. He has fake documents, Mr. Soto said in Spanish. Mr. Lopez interpreted.

“In Mexico he would make about $6 a day,” Mr. Lopez said.

Employers said they hire Mexicans because they are better qualified.

“There are not a lot of qualified Americans sitting around [in Sedona] without jobs. I can’t find them,” Mr. Daniels said.

Ms. Levinson said she can hire a chef right out of school, but they can’t cook as well as the Mexicans. “They have no work ethic. They want a lot of money but they have no passion; and they can’t cook as well as the Mexicans,” she said.

Mr. Rodriguez said he tries to give unskilled employees a chance to move ahead, for example, training a dishwasher to be a prep cook and then a line cook. “It takes two years to train a good cook to where I can leave him alone in the kitchen,” he said.

Employers said they also hire illegal workers because there are not enough legal workers to fill the jobs. “Bring in legal people and we’ll hire them,” Mr. Rodriguez said.

So far, those legal workers are not coming to Sedona. They can’t earn enough to live here.

The city has the highest median asking price for homes in the state; half cost more than $586,000, according to Buyers Brokers Realty of Sedona. Sedona employees would have to make $84.50 per hour to buy a home without significant financial burden, according to a report distributed at the Governor’s Housing Forum in September 2007.

Half of Sedona renters pay more than $1,200 per month– a 40 percent increase between 2000 and 2006, according to the Sedona Housing Commission.

Median household incomes increased 13 percent – from $43,466 to $49,225, but 42 percent of household incomes included Social Security income and 22.8 percent included retirement income, according to the census.

The average worker only earns about $31,350, according to the census. Sedona’s unemployment rate is about 3.7 percent, according to the Arizona Department of Commerce.

Sedona Center management realized that it had focused on containing costs instead of trying to get the best employees, Mr. Gomez said. The company “bumped” wages by 20 to 30 percent and upped its employee-referral bonus. “Now we’re going for the best,” Mr. Gomez said.

Other employers said they are waiting to see what happens. Winter is a slow season for Sedona; they don’t need as many workers right now. Some Mexicans leave to visit family for a few weeks and come back when tourism picks up again in March, according to Ms. Keeber.

This time they might not come back. Meanwhile, Sedona’s economy lies tied to the railroad track, waiting for a hero – or a cavalry of legal workers – to save her.

“This law is the kiss of death,” Mr. Daniels said.

©2007 CyndyHardy. Reprints by permission.
Read more!

Sedona’s Housing Crisis: Too Little, Too Late?

2,493 words. Available for reprint.
Story and photo by Cyndy Hardy

Appears in the January edition of The Noise.

Photo: HAWKEYE RV Park, slated for condo development, looks like a ghost town today.

Mike Horner is dubious about the city’s intentions to do something – anything – about affordable housing in Sedona. To him, it’s empty talk about doing what’s best for the community by people who cater more to the rich than to “regular people.”

“They have a lot to say but it doesn’t seem to do any good. It’s like they have their own agenda and a deaf ear. I haven’t seen them put up any low-income housing. I don’t think they’ve done anything,” Mr. Horner said.

Over the past 17 years, Mr. Horner has downsized from a 3-bedroom home in West Sedona to a trailer in Oak Creek Mobile Lodge on Hwy. 179. His 16-year-old son, Brooks, lives with him. His 18-year-old daughter, Esme, is moving in soon from Flagstaff. Mr. Horner works as a cashier at a mom-and-pop convenience store in Sedona.

When he first moved to Sedona, Mr. Horner could rent the three-bedroom house for about $675. When he re-entered the rental market after his divorce, rents were about $1,000 for a two-bedroom house. He moved into Oak Creek Mobile Lodge because it was a good deal, he said.

Now, Mr. Horner believes his days as a Sedona resident are numbered. Oak Creek Mobile Lodge is on the chopping block. The property owner, Don Campbell, plans to remove the park’s 59 trailers and build about 50 condominiums.

He did not know that two days earlier, on Dec. 11, the Sedona City Council passed a Housing Policy to encourage the construction and retention of affordable housing after talking about the housing problem since at least 1992.

“Oh? I’m not sure what you’re talking about,” Mr. Horner said, unimpressed, as he bagged a customer’s cigarettes and six-pack. “Have a good night, George,” he said. Mr. Horner knows a lot of his customers by name.

Mr. Horner will move to Cornville, where he owns a piece of land with a run-down mobile home. “If [Mr. Campbell] says we have to go, I’ll make my Cornville property livable,” he said. So far, he plans to continue working at the convenience store in Sedona.

About 64% of the city’s workforce lives outside of Sedona. Eighty percent of Flagstaff’s workforce lives in Flagstaff, according to the 2007 Housing and Community Sustainability Nexus Study. No information about commuters in neighboring cities was available at press time.

Rhonda Ross, a former Sedona resident who now lives in the Village of Oak Creek, appears in an informational video created by the Sedona Housing Commission.
“Living in Sedona is definitely a very important part of being here. I really would not want to be working all my jobs just to be living here; just to be having the majority of my income going to rent, bills and food,” Ms. Ross said.

Sedona has the highest affordability gap in the state, according to a report distributed at the Governor’s Housing Forum in September 2007. A 2007 citizen survey report for Sedona, prepared by the National Research Center in Boulder, Colo., ranks Sedona in the bottom 4 percentile for access to affordable housing out of all the cities in its database with populations below 40,000.

Housing Commission member Nate Oskar said the crisis goes beyond the lowest wager earners most people associate with affordable housing. Sedona, as a community, finds it hard to attract teachers, police officers, nurses, managers and other professionals because the salaries don’t match the incomes required to buy or rent in Sedona.

Median home prices in Sedona increased 77 % between 2000 and 2006, according to the Housing Commission. Rents increased 40%. In comparison, Sedona median household incomes only increased 13%, from $43,466 to $49,225.
The current median asking price of a single-family home in Sedona is about $586,000, according to Buyers Brokers Realty of Sedona. Townhomes and condominiums fetch about $390,000.

Sedona employees would have to make $84.50 per hour to afford a median-priced home, the governor’s report stated. A Sedona renter would have to earn $23 per hour. That is $30 more per hour than the Arizona community with the next highest housing costs – Flagstaff, where workers need to make $54.14 per hour to buy a median priced home.

With an unemployment rate less than two percent, those who live and work in Sedona usually have two or more jobs, according to Sedona Economic Planner Jodie Filardo.

Sedona’s new housing policy gives the city some leverage to negotiate affordable housing with developers seeking zone change approval. The catch is that compliance is voluntary. State law does not allow the city to require affordable housing, according to Housing Planner Jessica Williamson.

Developers commonly choose from a number of community benefits to win a favorable zone-change decision. Affordable housing does not cost any less to build; and the nature of affordability affects the developer’s potential profits. While the policy strengthens the city’s position, there is no guarantee a developer will choose this benefit in its negotiations.

The policy asks for 6-12% of a new development to include affordable housing provisions for eligible households whose income falls between 80 and 150% of area median income.

Total rents or cost of homeownership must not exceed 35% of a household’s gross monthly income. Affordability must be fixed for about 50 years.

Developers can choose to pay into a dedicated housing fund instead of constructing affordable units. The fund will directly support the creation and maintenance of affordable housing through activities such as land acquisition, down-payment assistance and low-interest loans.

As incentives, the city offers to waive or defer all applicable impact fees, development review fees and building permit and inspection fees for the affordable units. The city may also waive or defer fees for the non-affordable units in a project that includes affordable units.

Projects with affordability provisions would get priority attention to expedite the review and permit process. On a case-by-case basis, the city may bend its land development codes to accommodate the affordable units; including lot coverage, building heights, lot area, lot dimensions, and yard setbacks.

Mr. Horner is not alone in believing the city has “a deaf ear.” The Sedona Verde Valley Association of Realtors launched a last minute attempt to stop the City Council from adopting the housing policy at the council’s Dec. 11 meeting.
“[Housing Commission members] came to us in September. We gave them some strong questions and we never heard anything else,” said SVVAR member Ron Volkman. He said the policy had not been given proper public process.

SVVAR President Holly Mabery called it a “feel good policy with no net results.” The policy lacks consistency, oversight and does not address costs and liabilities, she said.

“How can staff possibly implement this?” Ms. Mabery asked.

The attack seemed condescending to the Housing Commission’s expertise and its three-year efforts to get an affordable housing policy on the books. That the objections came from Realtors seemed to imply their alignment with developers to retain the highest possible profits for housing projects.

Council members and Housing Commission members reacted suspiciously to SVVAR’s tactic of waiting until the policy was agendized for council approval, instead of bringing up the organization’s concerns during the three years the Housing Commission had worked on the policy.

“We just got these questions now,” City Councilman Rob Adams fired back, referring to a letter Mr. Volkman distributed to the council and city staff minutes before the meeting. The letter was not read into the public record.

“Why are you requiring a delay at the eleventh hour, fifty-ninth minute? Who from [SVVAR] is responsible to monitor this?” he asked.

“Myself, in Sedona,” Mr. Volkman said.

“So, it would be you,” Mr. Adams said, bluntly.

“You’re faulting me for coming forward at this point?” Mr. Volkman asked. He shot the council an incredulous look and sat down without waiting for – or receiving – a reply.

What wasn’t said in those tense moments hung in the air like a verdict: the Realtors had the same opportunities as anyone else in the community to involve themselves in the process.

The Housing Commission meets twice per month. Its agendas and minutes are publicly posted, including on the city’s Web site.

Commission members have met with businesses, resorts, the Sedona Oak Creek Unified School District, the Verde Valley Medical Center, and five major Sedona employers to determine how the lack of affordable housing affects their business.

The commission has circulated two informational brochures. It has hosted focus groups and presentations on density and how community participation can help blend affordable housing into the community.
The commission prepared the 2006 Baseline Housing Report to determine the city’s affordable housing needs. It recommended an ordinance for residential over commercial uses, which the City Council passed in July 2005.

“I know the Housing Commission achieved public process, and at a great expense of time and money to the community,” Councilman Adams said. The SVVAR did not bring its concerns forward until Dec. 10 and its members offered no compelling argument against the policy, he said.

“Developers are getting a benefit for a benefit given,” said Mr. Adams.

Maybe the Realtors just never thought the City Council would actually approve the policy, especially with a 6-0 vote (Vice Mayor Jerry Frey was excused). Some Housing Commission members were surprised it passed.

The Housing Policy is flawed. It’s about 80% “right,” according to Linda Martinez, housing commission chairwoman, and changes will have to be made. But, it’s a start and the city can’t afford to “study it to death,” as Councilman Harvey Stern put it.
“Small solutions got away while we’ve been looking for a big solution,” said Diane Smith, Housing Commission vice chairperson.

Affordable housing, including rental trailers, is disappearing faster than the Housing Commission can do anything about. The commission did not even exist until 2003. Its tools were basically the Sedona Community Plan, the Land Development Code and Arizona Revised Statutes concerning zoning. It took about three years before the Housing Commission had a snapshot of the affordability gap.

The Housing Report found that rents between 2000 and 2006 increased 40% while median income increased 10%. The city needs to secure between 116 and 269 affordable housing units to fill the gap, according to the report.

In 2000, all but four of 12 trailers were removed from the former Laughing Coyote bar in West Sedona. The rest were removed when the bar sold in 2004. Those affordable units have not been replaced.

About 80 residents of Hawkeye RV Park in Uptown were evicted almost two years ago to make way for about 150 condominiums and 12 affordable off-site units, all of which have yet to be built. Windsong Trailer Park in West Sedona has sold and is planned for development.

The Sedona Community Plan states that if existing mobile home parks are redeveloped, “the existing housing densities should be retained regardless of housing type” and that the units should remain affordable.

The Sedona Planning and Zoning Commission recently thought otherwise. During conceptual reviews, several commission members advised Mr. Campbell to reduce the density of his condominium project. He is expected to return with five fewer units, including two affordable units. If approved, the city will lose another 53 units of affordable housing without comment from Planning and Zoning about how to replace them.

Sedona lags far behind the state when it comes to the types of housing available to its residents that are commonly associated with ‘affordable.’ Apartments make up 23% of Arizona’s overall housing stock, but only 4.6% of Sedona’s stock.

Sedona also lags behind other resort communities. About 20% of Aspen’s land use is zoned for multifamily units and 13% in Durango, compared to about 4% in Sedona.

About 1,139 of Telluride’s 1,776 housing units are duplex and multi-family, according to the 2000 Decennial Census and American Community Survey. Telluride’s Land Use Code requires new developments to include affordable housing provisions.

Sedona cannot require affordable housing because Arizona law does not provide for inclusionary zoning, according to Ms. Williamson. The Housing Commission has to look outside the box for solutions. It has made some progress.

Even before the housing policy passed, the city negotiated affordable components into four development agreements, netting about 13 affordable housing units and about $186,984 towards a dedicated housing fund.

“[The Housing Policy] is just one strategy. It is voluntary and it only applies to rezoning,” said Audree Juhlin, assistant to the director of community development.
Other commission initiatives include application for Community Development Block Grants to replace existing mobile homes with new mobile homes, proposing an ordinance to allow guest homes to be legally rented, establishing the dedicated housing fund, working with neighboring communities towards a regional housing strategy, and investigating the viability of a community land trust.

In the meantime, the clock is ticking and some residents wait while rents continue to rise and development projects are built without affordable housing.

Ronald Pauley has a good business repairing restaurant equipment. He is concerned enough about the future of his own “affordable” housing. Mr. Pauley has rented a two-bedroom apartment in Uptown for about six years.

“My landlord started raising the rent after reading about higher average rent prices in the newspaper,” Mr. Pauley said. Last year his rent rose three times in one week. Starting at $600 per month, his rent increased to $625, then to $650, then to $700.

Mr. Pauley said his 8-unit apartment building was built by its current owner in 1972. The construction is not up to code. There are gaps between the original wood siding and the newer brick façade. The PVC pipes rattle inside the walls and methane gas vents into the attic, not outside the dwelling.

“I’ve got a working smoke detector and an exit strategy,” Mr. Pauley said with a grin. He repairs things in his and other tenants’ apartments without telling his landlord, who he said does as little repair as he can get away with.

The view from Mr. Pauley’s affordable apartment used to be the jagged red hills below Wilson Mountain. Now, his view is the back of a new three-story timeshare condominium built about 30 feet from his window. “I know they are timeshares because I see the people who come and go,” he said.

Mr. Pauley can’t see the mountains at all, now. “How did they get three stories?” he asked, perplexed.

Both Mr. Pauley and Mr. Horner asked that their names be changed for this article. They fear losing their homes.

The irony is as clear – and as cold – as the thin strip of crisp blue December sky visible above the condos through Mr. Pauley’s window. Sedona is losing its existing affordable housing stock. The people who need it can’t do anything about it. It’s up to the city to make the policy and up to the developers to make the necessary profit concessions.

Otherwise, the workforce – the popular ones such as police, teachers and nurses; and the not-so-popular ones such as the cashiers, janitors and repair men – may look for greener pastures.

©2007 CyndyHardy. Reprints by permission.
Read more!