Rampant methamphetamine use prompted the establishment of MATForce five years ago.

Since that time, the campaign slowed meth use only for new, trendy ways to pop up for children and adults to get high.

MATForce, Yavapai County’s substance abuse coalition, met Friday, Oct. 21, for its annual community meeting to reflect on the year’s successes and talk about the changing atmosphere of drug abuse and addiction.

Over the past five years, drugs of choice have shifted and users, particularly teenagers, aren’t looking for drugs cooked in shady meth labs.

Instead, they’re turning to their parents’ and grandparents’ medicine cabinets to get high. Prescription-grade painkillers are the main target.

A few weeks ago we asked in our People on the Street questions in Sedona and the Verde Valley which drug individuals remember being the biggest problem when they were in high school.

Depending on the generation, we received answers running the gamut of illegal drugs from marijuana and alcohol to LSD, heroine and cocaine.

Regardless of age, each person remembered one particular drug being a problem when he or she was young.

For me, growing up in a small town far removed from any cities, marijuana and alcohol seemed to be the most popular with LSD and psychedelic mushrooms making an appearance occasionally. Meth use began creeping in just after I graduated from high school.

Today’s teenagers would most likely name prescription drugs.

The misconception prescription drugs are safer because they are prescribed by a doctor leads many teens to try them. The problems occur when the drugs are combined with other substances — including alcohol, or an individual overdoses or experiences an allergic reaction to the medication.

While MATForce continues its fight to save young lives, this battle isn’t as cut and dry. To squash the problem, police officers aren’t looking for illegal drug production operations and often a “dealer” in the true meaning of the word doesn’t exist.

The best approach to this particular problem is educating not only the teens but their parents as well.

Dump the Drugs events encourage adults to get rid of unused medications rather than letting them sit around the house, and campaigns remind all of us to keep medications in a safe place and be aware of what we have in case something goes missing.

This fight will be difficult, just like those in the past, and the entire community must join together. Luckily, we have the guidance and support of MATForce.

It really is all about the money when it comes to your decision regarding the takeover of State Route 89A.

The city of Sedona taking ownership of the state highway in West Sedona would be a major financial mistake.

It’s impossible to project exactly how much it would cost the city to own a major state highway, and now isn’t the time to take financial risks.

On the verge of what some say could be a second dip into recession, biting off a multimillion-dollar project with no end in sight and more staff needed to manage the project would not be “fiscally responsible,” as candidates for Sedona City Council — including those currently seated — always claim is their goal.

Many of the roads the city currently owns need attention. This needs to happen before adding miles of highway to the equation should even be considered, not to mention other high-priority or absolutely necessary projects yet to be funded, such as fixing our drainage issues.

If the city can’t afford routine maintenance on Sedona’s side streets, how will it pay to maintain a roadway used not only by residents but by the thousands of tourists who visit Sedona each year?

Add to the equation a stripped-down staff and other expenses surface.

The city engineer currently also serves as the head of the public works department and oversees wastewater treatment operations for the city. Will he also be responsible for State Route 89A? Or, more likely, will he have to hire staff to help him? And who will do the actual work on the road? Will the city contract out all the work — filling potholes and cracks, resurfacing, maintaining sidewalks, clearing debris off the roadway including snow? Or would the city buy heavy machinery to do the jobs in-house? Either way, it’s going to be very expensive.

Now, we ask those in favor of taking over the road, how will the city pay for all of this? Over the past few years the city cut staff and programs because it collected less sales tax than in years past.

Eventually, the city will need lots of money if it takes ownership of State Route 89A. A higher sales tax won’t be the answer. With a combined city, county and state sales tax of over 10 percent in the city, raising the sales tax is out of the question. Do these road advocates also condone a city property tax to pay for their desires?

The bottom line is the city can’t afford the roadway, period. Even if it could, it would be the most financially irresponsible decision made since the incorporation of Sedona.

The city currently has over $60 million in bond debt that will not retire for 20 years. Add to that more than $25 million in critical infrastructure projects, which is just over half of the $40 million needed for all identified capital projects.

Which necessary projects will be pushed to the back burner? Who is going to tell the homeowners whose houses flood every time it rains that ownership of the highway is more important than fixing drainage problems?

It’s not about street lights vs. no streetlights anymore.

Proponents of taking ownership of the road claim Sedona will be able to do whatever it wishes with the roadway, which is not true. The report commissioned by the city and issued by CivTech clearly states the minimum recommended improvements are continuous raised medians, pedestrian barriers throughout the length of the medians and enhanced pedestrian crossing.

Anyone who votes to take ownership of the road can’t claim fiscal responsibility as one of their desires for the future of the city of Sedona. Committing to spending large, unknown sums of cash to prevent dark-sky-compliant lighting from saving lives is insane.

We encourage you to vote NO on 410!

Proposition 411 states: “A measure to amend the Sedona City Code to require that the Sedona City Council refer any offer by the state of Arizona for the transfer of a state route within the Sedona city limits to the qualified electors at a special or general election for approval and acceptance,” according to Yavapai County’s election website.

The proposition does not stop council from negotiating transfers of state highway property. The proposition only states the voters get the choice of whether or not to accept a transfer negotiated by the City Council.

In fact, any agreement would have to be negotiated prior to voter approval or voters wouldn’t know what their options were.

The only power taken away from council is the ability to sign and enter into the agreement without voter approval.

Council, with help from city staff, would outline a deal with the Arizona Department of Transportation prior to the election. The deal would include mileage of the route to be transferred, improvements to made prior, agreements for future services and the amount of money to exchange hands.

Then, voters would decide if they want the city to take ownership based on the deal offered.

The negotiations are actually a very important part of Proposition 411.

Without an idea of what is being offered, residents could not possibly make informed, knowledgeable decisions when it came time to vote.

Whether ADOT is willing to pay, for example, $30 million versus $15 million for indefinite takeover of a state highway is going to make a big difference when voters check their ballots.

Basically, the proposition forces council to listen to the majority of voters.

Unfortunately, democracy doesn’t often work as it should.

We elect representatives to carry out the will of the majority, and they fail to do so. Instead, they carry out their own will and that of their friends or financial backers.

Even in Sedona, we can’t always count on elected officials to listen to us, which is what Proposition 411 ensures. It forces council to pay attention and gives residents the right to protect the financial interests of their city.

An election, conducted by the county, is the most accurate way to determine the sentiment of the population.

Vote “yes” on Proposition 411 to protect the current and future interests of Sedona residents.

This is the official position of Larson Newspapers.

Over the past few years the Sedona Red Rock News has began strictly enforcing our guidelines when it comes to letters to the editor, and particularly the length requirement.

Letters are required to be 300 words or less, and if they’re longer, I send them back to the author and ask him or her to revise the letter.

Since we began enforcing the letter’s length requirement, we’ve received many requests for us to make an exception for certain letters or to use the letter as a guest perspective.

When it comes to letter length, we rarely, if ever, allow a letter over 300 words to slip through making sure we treat everyone equally. If I allow one letter to run at 400 words I have numerous other writers calling for the same favor.

We developed the length requirement to ensure any resident who wants to be heard can do so. Long letters take up more space and force us to print fewer of letters.

In same cases, however, more than 300 words is needed to express an opinion or point of view on a topic that is important to the community. In those instances, we consider allowing a reader to submit a guest perspective.

Guest perspectives must first be approved by editorial staff before they will be considered for publication.

A letter over 300 words doesn’t necessarily warrant it as guest perspective.

When considering guest perspectives for publication several factors are evaluated including, but not limited to:

  • The author’s expertise in the area. Is the author a current or former elected official? Does the author work in the field in question?
  • Original content. Guest perspectives must offer new information and not be repetition of a previous guest perspective, staff article or column. We also require the author does not submit the piece for publication in any other venue.
  • Importance to the community. The value the residents will find in obtaining the information will be considered. Guest perspectives are not meant to be thank you letters or give credit to groups or individuals. The purpose is to discuss an issue and give an opinion.
  • Factual information. Documents supporting any number or statistics must be provided.
  • Submission frequency. Has the author already written a guest perspective on this topic or any other topic within the last few weeks? We will not print multiple guest perspectives by a singe individual within a short period of time. Editorial staff will use its discretion in determining when a reasonable amount of time has passed or whether the guest perspective is vital to public knowledge.


Our letters to the editor guidelines can be found on our website at www.redrocknews.com under “Submissions.”

Thanks to video games and processed foods, today’s children face a problem many of us didn’t worry about until we were adults.

To me as a child, weight was something they calculated each year in gym class and not something talked about much otherwise.

Today, it’s on the minds of those who deal with youth as America’s obesity epidemic infiltrates the younger generation.

Watching your weight was once something people didn’t normally worry about until they were adults and daily activity became less common.

However, today’s kids don’t get the same exercise those who grew up before them did.

Ad campaigns encourage children to play — as in ride bicycles or run around, not log onto a computer — for 30 minutes to an hour each day or to walk to school rather than take a ride.

Not to sound like my parents always did, but when I was a kid they had to beg us to come inside at the end of the day, not urge us to go out.

I’m a product of a video game generation, but my parents didn’t allow us to own any game systems. We had a television, but it only transmitted a few channels, and my mom was in charge of what was on. So unless we wanted to watch soap operas or law shows, television wasn’t going to entertain us.

Instead, my dad built us a tree house in the front yard, we rode our bicycles all over the neighborhood, and we played games and make-believe. Even in the winter my sister and I would suit up in our snow gear and head outside to hitch up the sled and drag it around the yard carrying our dolls — we were pioneers roughing it in the wild West.

Now, as an adult, my sense of adventure and desire to be outside carries through and in turn also helps me stay at a healthy weight now.

Some of today’s children do live the active lifestyle I and so many others did growing up, but the problem is the majority of them don’t.

Between video games, social networking websites and television, kids spend about as much time sitting on their backside as adults do at work. My neighborhood is full of children, but I rarely see any of them outside playing. I jog or bike through the streets at least a couple of times a week, and it’s rare if I encounter any kids.

There is a group of middle-school boys who ride their bicycles and explore vacant land, but even they only make an occasional appearance. Something is wrong when adults in the neighborhood are playing more than the children.

Add to the cocktail of inactivity diets full of processed lunch meats, white bread, potato chips and store-bought cookies, and it’s no wonder young people today have weight issues. I didn’t want to eat Brussels sprouts or broccoli when I was a kid either, but I didn’t have much choice in the matter.

The only way kids have a chance to stay fit and avoid health-related issues associated with obesity is to play more and eat better. Most children aren’t going to take the lead on their own. They need their parents, schools and communities to show them how to live a healthy lifestyle and teach them why it’s important.

At my house we joke it’s a good thing we don’t have kids, because they would think we were the meanest parents ever. We would ban video games, get rid of our television and limit computer time.

Three years ago the Sedona Fire District found itself in the very same situation it faces today.

When I looked back through my files to find the editorial I wrote last time SFD was looking for a chief, the date on the document was Sept. 12, 2008.

After reading through my 2008 editorial, I came to the conclusion the SFD Governing Board found who it was looking for when it hired former SFD Fire Chief Nazih Hazime, which, in a way, is where the problem lies.

Boards often change every two years, and even when a member stays on, he or she can quickly change his or her mind. Board Clerk Charles Christensen was a member of the board that hired Hazime.

It’s not unimaginable to consider whomever the current board hires may not meet the expectations of the next board, or that friction could arise based on working styles.

It’s usually not a problem with the chief’s qualifications, as head of the new fire chief selection committee Joe Demme claimed was the case with Hazime. If Hazime wasn’t qualified to be a chief, our neighboring fire district would not have watched his performance over the last two years and snatched him up as quickly as possible when he resigned from SFD.

The most qualified person can have a hard time working with any other individual or a group, which is why one person, or even five, should not be solely responsible for determining criteria for selection of a new chief.

The new chief will serve every resident in the district, not just the board and Demme.

SFD needs to ask district residents which qualities and standards they deem desirable. Allow comments to be made online and for comment cards to be dropped off at fire stations. It doesn’t have to take long. Give residents a week.

This is the task Demme’s selection committee should be in charge of — collecting public input and feedback to present to the board so it can post a job description and application on its website. Instead, Demme cut off public comment at committee meetings because he didn’t like a resident’s opinion voiced at meetings and published in a letter to the editor.

Demme’s recent remarks make it seem as if he is in charge of selecting a new chief. It’s admirable of Demme to donate so many hours free of charge to SFD despite losing his bid for a board seat; however, the voters made it clear he is not the guy they want leading their district.

Ultimately it will, or should, be up to the board to hire a new chief. The selection committee is a good idea as along as its members don’t overstep their bounds and residents are allowed to participate in the process.

It’s understandable why SFD resists listening to the public in what’s become a toxic environment on nearly all levels. However, both sides need to swallow a little pride and understand if they don’t tone it down and attempt to work together the chances of them attracting a quality candidate quickly diminish. Nobody in his or her right mind would jump into the sea of sharks our district has become.

Trista Steers MacVittie

Managing Editor

If you line up 15 random Sedona residents and ask them which local issue is most important to them, you’re bound to get many different answers.

Some residents are entrenched in the fight over streetlights and ownership of State Route 89A in West Sedona. If you ask residents on either side of the debate, this is the most important decision facing Sedona with regard to the city’s future.

Others feel development of the new Sedona Community Plan trumps all other news at this time. The plan will serve as a guide for the city for at least 10 years.

Regarding city of Sedona business, many are rallying around the Sedona Fire District. From a recall effort to arguing over where to cut spending and taxes to whether to build an additional fire station in the Chapel area, this one agency sponsors a host of issues to upset and divide the people.

Then, when it rains, the people in the Little Elf neighborhood are rightfully upset as their properties flood and they again clean up their yards.

Each one of these groups feels their issue towers above all others and deserves the most coverage.

I receive phone calls daily from people telling us we need more coverage of SFD, streetlights or the community plan.

I also receive just as many phone calls from people saying they are sick of hearing about decisions made by the SFD Governing Board — many of which result in nothing — they’re sick and tired of the streetlight debate, or they think the community plan is boring.

Some people prefer to read Lu Stitt’s feature stories about the talented individuals who live in our communities rather than stories detailing the controversies dividing us.

The point is, whatever issue you think we aren’t covering enough, there is an equal opposition begging for us to stop plastering the same faces across the front page in what they say is “week after week.”

We try to find new angles to cover old issues to keep streetlight and SFD folks satisfied while also looking for new stories to engage others.

Reporter Patrick Whitehurst, who is often stuck writing all the repetitive hard-news stories, was excited for the chance to do something different this week and write about Banned Books Week. Books are what is important to Whitehurst. That’s what he would like to see us cover more often.

The same goes for our letters to the editor page. We try to give everyone a chance to voice their opinion.

However, we are a newspaper and not a newsletter, which means our letters page is only one small part of our product as a whole. And in that small component, we try not to let any one issue or one person dominate the page. This, too, is the source of angry phone calls and letters from people insisting their opinion about their chosen cause is worthy of exception and should not be required to follow rules and requirements.

We understand almost everything happening in Sedona is important, but it’s our job to juggle all issues and find a balance in our coverage.

So when you call to either complain we are ignoring you or demand we stop covering the other issues, remember we’ve most likely already received a stern talking to or email from your counterpart.

A media law conference at Harvard Law School last week refreshed my memory regarding traditional journalism rules and offered insight as to how online standards are taking shape.

Copyright, defamation and the First Amendment always make an appearance whenever law with regard to the Fourth Estate is discussed.

A balancing act occurs to ensure all three of these principles are maintained and respected during news gathering.

The law grants newspapers the right to print uncensored material; however, a newspaper cannot defame an individual by knowingly printing untruths.

Once a newspaper publishes a story, copyright laws protect it from being published in its entirety by anybody else — be it in print form or online.

Fair use, or the notion a person cannot “own” a fact, muddies the water a bit and causes the rules to blur to a shade of gray.

A person can take the facts from a news story and reuse them as long as they are repackaged and represented in a different manner.

A person cannot take a story, opinion, column or photo and reproduce it in the exact same format in a different venue.

So, you can’t cut an article out of the newspaper, scan it and post it on your website. Instead, a person can either read the story and comment on its contents or link to the story if it’s available on the newspaper’s website.

The nuts and bolts of laws governing our profession usually only concern the general public when it feels it has suffered defamation or a person receives a letter stating he or she is in violation of copyright laws.

However, the rights granted to the news media also apply to residents when it comes to access to information or places.

The average resident possesses the same rights as a reporter to view court files, zoning documents, police reports or any other public government document. The average resident is permitted to seek information in all the same venues as a reporter — government-owned public property.

Residents don’t normally exercise these rights because they aren’t sure how or they don’t have the time, which is why they rely on us, the journalists, to do it for them.

When it comes to laws and regulations governing online content and websites, the foundation is just being built.

Copyright laws apply as do fair use standards, the First Amendment and defamation.

A website is responsible for content it generates in the same way a newspaper is for the words it prints on a page.

Comments, or content generated by someone not employed by the news organization, however, are not the responsibility of the news organization, and it cannot be held accountable for content of comments.

While we now know we’re off the hook legally when it comes to comments, it doesn’t mean we plan to stop monitoring them for decency.

It seems most everything we do today is dictated by legislation, and it’s important to know which laws may apply to your activities. Many people get themselves into trouble not knowing such laws, particularly when it comes to untrained news gatherers.

Media law, however, cannot be confused with media ethics, also often ignored by the untrained. Law can be taught, ethics cannot.

Trista Steers MacVittie

Managing Editor

Online Poll

What is an appropriate number of multi-family units per acre?

Sedona Gas Prices

Lowest Gas Prices in Sedona
Sedona Gas Prices provided by GasBuddy.com
Sedona United States Partly Cloudy (day), 80 °F
Current Conditions
Sunrise: 6:34 am   |   Sunset: 5:50 pm
14%     7.0 mph     28.615 bar
Forecast
Tue Low: 39 °F High: 80 °F
Wed Low: 45 °F High: 79 °F
Thu Low: 46 °F High: 78 °F
Fri Low: 50 °F High: 73 °F
Sat Low: 44 °F High: 73 °F
Sun Low: 43 °F High: 76 °F
Mon Low: 48 °F High: 79 °F
Tue Low: 51 °F High: 78 °F
Wed Low: 43 °F High: 77 °F
Thu Low: 36 °F High: 72 °F