There are 27 days remaining until the general election on Tuesday, Nov. 5, and supporters and opponents of Sedona Proposition 483 alike have been making their respective cases to voters with signs, mailers, ads and contending ballot arguments in the meantime.

Proposition 483 was filed by the Save the Cultural Park Committee to challenge the Sedona City Council’s March 12 decision to rezone part of the Sedona Cultural Park for use as a car camp for homeless workers.

A “yes” vote on the proposition will approve the council’s zone change and allow the construction of the car camp to continue after staff began work on it prior to council authorization, while a “no” vote will support the referendum and overturn the zone change and preserve the park’s existing planned development zoning.

The publicity pamphlet for the proposition, currently being distributed to Sedona households by mail and available online at the county website, includes one voter-submitted argument urging a “yes” vote on the proposition — approval of the car camp — and four voter-submitted arguments urging a “no” vote on the proposition — rejection of the car camp.

Support for ‘Yes’

The argument in favor of a “yes” vote was submitted by Linda Martinez, former Mayor Sandy Moriarty, Al Comello, Steve Segner, Mary Garland, Sean Smith, Irwin Sheer, Luke Sefton and five representatives of local churches: Deacon Ronald Martinez, of St. John Vianney Catholic Church; Rev. Anthony Johnson, of the Sedona Unitarian Universalist Fellowship; Rev. Lynn Perkins and Bishop Kirk Smith of St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church; and Rev. Elizabeth LeMaster, of Sedona Methodist Church.

“The temporary parking will provide safety and sanitation to a vulnerable workforce population who serve our daily needs in Sedona businesses,” they wrote. “Do we believe that our wait staff is dangerous or that our grocery cashier is a drug addict or criminal? Do we believe that this program would be a bugle call for unhoused people? Safe Place to Park will not alter how we eventually use this space, whether it be mixed use, housing, recreation center, music venue or a combination. It will take two years to decide how to use the WGCP [Western Gateway Cultural Park, a term the group coined to refer the Sedona Cultural Park], at which time the Safe Place to Park will be closed.”

Support for ‘No’

“The falsely-named ‘Safe Place to Park’ is an unsafe place that will put people in danger and only worsen homelessness in Sedona,” Dr. William Noonan wrote on behalf of the Save the Cultural Park Committee. “The city has deceptively claimed that the car park is only for workers, yet the city website says ‘disabled’ people can stay there. Such disabilities include psychosis and drug addiction, and it is cruel, inhumane and dangerous to put sick people in a parking lot.”

“The car park is a staggering waste of money that could better be spent helping workers find actual housing,” Noonan added. “The Sedona housing manager who proposed the homeless car park was terminated by the city because of her abusive behavior toward residents. Voters should also terminate this misbegotten car park by voting no on Proposition 483.”

“Spending money on homelessness makes it worse, as illustrated by California,” Suzanne Strauss wrote. “Most people who live in homeless sites are not interested in living indoors and refuse all services because they prefer a life free of responsibility. Cities from Portland to Phoenix have begun to close their failed publicly-funded homeless camps and are outsourcing their homeless problems to smaller towns and cities … Do not let the city of Sedona perpetrate this dangerous fraud on the people who live here.”

“As a business owner and employer in Sedona, I urge you to join me in voting no on Proposition 483,” Jennifer May wrote. “The Cultural Park is a vital part of our city’s charm and reputation. Converting it into a homeless car park could pose serious safety risks for those living there and impact the overall image of Sedona … Instead of a homeless car park, we can explore better uses for the Cultural Park that could generate summer jobs, help keep existing businesses busy during slower seasons and also aids employees in finding stable housing.”

“The Cultural Park and amphitheater is a cornerstone of our community, with the potential to become a hub for cultural enrichment and engagement. Placing a homeless car park near the entrance of this historic venue would undermine efforts to revitalize and maintain its significance as a vibrant music and arts destination,” John Bradshaw and Chris Ford wrote on behalf of Sedona Cultural Park 2.0, a nonprofit seeking to reopen the park as a music and arts center. Bradshaw is a former Sedona vice mayor. “Allowing a homeless car park in this picturesque area is not a viable solution for affordable housing. Let’s honor the original master plan for the amphitheater and arts village, preserving it as a dedicated space for community gatherings and cultural events. Vote no on Proposition 483 to save the Cultural Park and ensure it remains a treasured asset for future generations.”

Political Signs and Mailers

Advocates and opponents of the car camp have also been active in producing more political signage in the Sedona area.

Segner has installed large “Yes on 483” signs that argue that building a homeless camp will reduce traffic and will “save Sedona,” but how that may apply to the car camp is not specified on the signs.

Segner also funded a mailer to Sedona households during the first week of October. “We don’t want more noise, traffic and crowds,” the mailer stated. “Stop the movement to bring back the 5,000-seat theatre … The real agenda is to push the city to rebuild the theatre. A yes vote stops the referendum and the effort to rebuild the bankrupt abandoned amphitheater.”

“It’s not about an amphitheater,” the Save the Cultural Park committee wrote in its mailer the same week, and added in a print advertisement, “Prop 483 only asks residents if they want to open the homeless park in the Cultural Park.”

The language of the ballot question makes no mention of the amphitheater, which is on a different parcel than the car camp. SCP 2.0, the nonprofit advocating for the amphitheater’s reopening, has proposed operating the park under a public-private partnership with the city that would require no city funding or management.

“In a March 13, 2024 email to Shannon Boone, Mr. Segner summarized a common attitude at City Hall: ‘[We] can’t let government shift from elected officials and professional staff to bullies,’” Noonan stated in an email on Oct. 3. “By ‘bullies’ he meant residents of Sedona. Many such residents across the political spectrum disagree with that authoritarian approach to government. The city council voted in favor of the car park, at the behest of city staff, in spite of the strenuous objections of many residents. I hope a ‘no’ vote on Prop 483 puts the city council on notice that it should represent the people who live here and not just city staff or special interests.”