Blinded by the light

The Council’s failure to approve the 89A Safety Committee’s recommendations as recommended and without change at its prior June 10 meeting, left the door open for those on the council who want ADOT’s original plan to place 76 street lights on 89A realized.

Had the council approved the compromise without amending it on June 10, the faction wanting the 76 lights would have been left without recourse.

Now, the tide has turned.

From the get go at the June 24 meeting it was obvious Sedona’s city manager was about to deliver dire news on ADOT’s intentions.

He reported ADOT did “not feel comfortable” making a comment on their position prior to the council’s vote to reconsider.

He insinuated ADOT was quite unhappy the council did not approve the safety committee’s package in total and stated ADOT might very well take all decision-making rights from the city and go ahead with its original plan for the 76 lights or even worse, if they choose to do so.

That statement alone seemingly scared the “Bejeepers” out of council members who voted at the June 10 meeting to accept the amended-safety committee plan.

The realization ADOT could do anything it wants (according to the city manager), without council approval or input, quickly sobered those who thought the scepter of 76 lights was behind them.

Focusing on the issues of timeline, funding, safety and liability, the city manager painted a dark picture of what could or might happen because of the council’s prior vote. With each point raised one could see the impact reflect across the faces of those on the council who hoped to avoid 76 lights on 89A.

The writing on the wall was illuminated.

When opposing-council factions collide on a contentious issue, there is always something going on under the radar few can see or understand. Strategies and agendas are in place where even the slightest advantage one side gains over the other is a major battle won.
Such it is with this council and the lights for 89A.

There are two factions here: those who want the 76 lights for 89A and those who don’t.
Those who want the 76 lights scored a major victory by opening the door for further discussion and the possibility of revisiting 76 lights on 89A.

The Pro-76 lights faction’s strategy will be to denigrate the experience, wisdom and preparedness of the new council members through inference, direct statements and pressure through established-local media editorials.

By doing so the new members will be made to feel they made a major mistake and now need to rethink their decision.

It is vital for the Pro-76 lights faction to be sure they have ADOT solidly behind them for the 76 lights and the city manager in line as well.

The Pro-76 lights faction will also try to dismantle the actual safety committee package by focusing on any apparent weakness they can, such as the impact medians and pedestrian barriers will have on businesses. They will try to dispute the validity of data presented. They may even call for a new safety committee.

They will need to bring as many members from the business community to the council to express opposition and they need to have the Chamber of Commerce on board as well.
Anything they can do to sway the council from approving the safety package exactly as presented and supported by ADOT, will remove ADOT’s support and pave the way for the department’s original plan for 76 lights to be revisited. It’s a perfect Catch-22 situation.
It is a brilliant strategy because the Anti-76 lights faction will find it difficult to approve the package without community input on the impact of medians and pedestrian barriers -- input that in turn throws the time line back, threatens the availability of funding as state coffers dry up, creates opportunity for perceived-increased liability and provides an excuse for ADOT to dump the safety committee’s recommendations and proceed with Plan A.

The Anti-76 lights faction needs to stand behind the veracity of the safety committee’s report; make it public knowledge that the only two council members who attended safety committee meetings were those against the 76 lights; point out that the $1.8 million originally budgeted for the 76 lights has been off the table since the council’s initial vote to explore options to the 76 lights; that ADOT has to go back to the Feds anyway for any 89A-related funding whatsoever; that many of the fatalities were alcohol related ; that 24-hour safety is the issue; that any one can sue the city for anything; that the city has followed due diligence and that is the defense; and increased enforcement/implementation of short-term options will keep accidents down.

They need to bring the full contingency of community members who oppose the 76 lights to the July 21 special-council meeting. They must also make sure they get their message out to the public through the community’s other media outlets.

What is essential for the Anti-76 lights faction to succeed is to convince the majority of council members to back the original 89A safety committee plan 100 percent with no changes, no matter what, or else ADOT puts in the 76 lights. That is, of course, if ADOT has not already made its decision.

This contest is not just about 76 lights for 89A or contractors getting or not getting $1.8 million. It’s about NSA. It’s about an alternate route through Red Rock Crossing. It is about who controls the council from here on – the Old Guard or The New.
We shall see.

Related articles:

Objection: Leading the readers

Sedona ‘lights’ politicking running out of time

From light back to dark on 89A

Sedona City Council may reconsider ‘lights’ vote

Shedding more light on 89A

Sedona City Council to consider 89A safety recommendations

89A street light proposal for Sedona condensed but not curbed

89A Pedestrian Safety Advisory Panel makes draft recommendations for highway safety in Sedona

Lights out in Sedona

Community rejects ADOT 89A pedestrian lighting plan

[Home Page] [News Home Page] [Back to Community Page]