We have heard plenty of reasons to oppose the Spring Creek Ranch rezoning.
Some of the neighbors in Cornville want to oppose this and keep the area zoned rural residential even though they will not be able to access the area via any road other than State Route 89A and it’s far enough north that it will be out of sight.
A small number of people who have hiked in the area want the creek to remain preserved. Granted, the creek’s headwaters actually start in Spring Creek Ranch and people who have hiked there have technically been trespassing on private land, but whatever.
Keep Sedona Beautiful’s leadership is pushing people who have never heard of Spring Creek Ranch and will never see it to oppose it because KSB’s leadership wants to keep their own home values high and would oppose building a shed in a cave in the middle of 1,000 acres.
True “affordable” housing has to be built at a loss, otherwise the builder would have to impose higher rents or sale prices to recoup the costs of construction. Government subsidies generally offset these costs, allowing a builder to construct a development and offer units, parcels or built homes and lower costs.
Yet unless county, state or federal officials decide to invest in affordable or workforce housing in the Sedona area, there will be no large government grants to offset the costs of affordable or workforce construction. Given Sedona’s demographics, median income and general affluence, this is a statistical improbability. Other areas of the county and the Verde Valley simply need such housing more and can build them cheaper.
Thus, any affordable or workforce housing in the Sedona area will have to be built by private developers.
When private developers buy a parcel, their thoughts are not “How can I benefit the community even if I go bankrupt?”
No, their question is, “how can I build something and make money?” So they build hotels, resorts, timeshares, shopping plazas, commercial buildings or housing developments with rows of McMansions.
Low-cost housing is a rarity because the profit margin is so narrow.
However, developing a parcel is not as easy as dividing land and selling it. Developers must build roads, sewer lines, power lines, fiber optic cables, wells, water lines, street lights, retaining ponds for rainwater and drainage ditches in addition to any supplemental buildings clubhouses or community facilities they choose to build for residents, all up to local building codes — all the stuff incoming residents expect to exist before they build their dream home or move into a pre-built house.
The Spring Creek Ranch developers are choosing to build workforce housing, which requires higher density to be profitable and worth the effort.
They could throw in the towel and build what the land is currently zoned for, around 100 homes, which will be costly giant mansions, then fencing off the land into a gated community like Oak Creek Valley to the south, and prohibiting anyone else from ever setting foot on the land.
Spring Creek Ranch is denser than surrounding parcels because that’s the trade off to build affordable housing. Frankly, this is the best we are going to get in that area. Verde Valley land is at a premium and in order to get workforce housing for our residents, we will have to accept concessions such as higher density.
To the opponents of Spring Creek Ranch, most who have never set foot in the area: If they choose to oppose this project calling it too dense, that’s fine. That’s their prerogative.
But they cannot ever again claim that they want “affordable” housing or “workforce” housing.
Because they don’t.
Not really.
Claiming to support reasonable, low-cost housing while simultaneously opposing each and every such private development to come along is ludicrous and needs to be called out for the hypocrisy it is.
Christopher Fox Graham
Managing Editor
