I own a second home in Sedona I have never rented, but am considering it when I am not there. I will obey the law & rent for 30 days at a time. It will be the renters choice whether they stay there the entire time or not. Understand, not being able to rent reduces property values. The tourist industry of course, does not want the competition.

This is just another case of corporate greed destroying our way of life. The ONLY reason this ever became law was due to the influence of these hotel chains who don't want ANYONE but themselves to make money on short-term visitors. To me it is an infringement of a basic right. Of course, money talks and the politicians walk.

Doctorj17171717 - all excellent points and I am thankful for the thought you put into expressing them. I can't agree with you more. 
 
We own a home in Sedona a live here full-time now. We do not own a rental. But 3 years ago we did not live here, we were in California, and we relied heavily on vacation rental homes for our visits to Sedona. We enjoyed them very much, were able to bring our little dog, we felt like we could "try out what it would be like to live here" before making our real estate purchase. But, like most vactioners, we could only take a week-long vacation at a time, not month-long ones. If back then we could only rent for a month or longer, we would not have been able to come here unless we stayed in a hotel or B&B. Because of this, I think it's the hotels and B&Bs that are mostly behind this new tighter mindset and renewed interest in Article 6. It's in their best interests & benefit. 
 
Also, the homeowners or residents who believe this is the endall solution to "unruly" guests in their neighboring rentals, well, I have news for you, people who stay for an entire month can be pretty unruly too! Even more so, they might feel more entitled to do things, like let garbarge pile up, park cars everywhere or have bigger parties, than a shorter term renter would. If the new longer-term tenant has to pay so much more for the stay they might need to rent the home along with other people, to be able to afford the higher rental amount and longer term...which means you will have even more people in the property next to you at a time.  
 
Personally, now that I am a full-time resident here, I'd rather have a short-term tenant next to me, incase they were a bad apple, I knew they'd be out quickly. Instead of knowing I had 29 more days of them. 
 
Another downside to this is that many people here who own rentals now won't be able to afford to keep them anymore, without as many tenants coming and going. So, these homes will need to be sold quickly, adding to the surplus of homes on the market and the lower home prices.  
 
Sedona's livlihood and life blood is tourism. It is shocking that the city would want to make it more difficult for a tourist to stay here.  
 
I've seen a few posts on TripAdvisor.com and other tourist message boards from potential visitors who are now put-off by this ban on short-term rentals and wonder why they are being punished when they are good, quiet, decent people, like most of us are, who just want to rent a home here, like they can in most tourist-friendly locales.  
 
What is going to happen now is that the people who own the rentals properties who do not want to sell, will simply rent to a person for a week and then leave the home vacant for the other 3 weeks. Not many rental owners can afford to do this, but that is what they will be forced to do. So, you will STILL get a short-term tenant next to you regardless!

I would LOVE to see the other side to this story. We had vacation rentals here in Sedona for years--our homes were the nicest in the neighborhood, the tenants were great (and wouldn't have come to Sedona without this accomodation option--look at the internet to see just how pervasive this vacation option is around the world), and we thoroughly enjoyed sharing this wonderful place with others. Contrary to the very backward and ill informed opinion of the mayor and some council members, these aren't all rented by money hungry "outsiders." In fact, we lost money annually on the properties, but counted on the appreciation of the properties that we improved every year until we sold them. 
 
Like it or not, this is a tourist destination, and Sedona's stance (including that of your newspaper)on tourism will result long term in a lower living standard for everyone who lives here. We should be competing for tourism dollars, not retreating from them. An intelligent, fact-based approach is needed, and I would like to hope that those in the news industry would attempt to look at all sides of this story and the consequences of "sensationalist" views on the issue. Friends of mine from other states who have followed this consistently coment on how "backward" the thinking is, and how Red Rock News has drummed up an issue (beginning with the elections last year), that will ultimately drag the economy down.  
 
Finally, how ironic that your online poll shows overwhelming support for short term vacation rentals, but your reporting has all but ignored this "silent majority." Please consider stepping up your reporting a notch or two and look at the issue in depth and with more insight. Your readers would benefit greatly by a more thoughtful approach. 
 
Thanks.