Regional Plan Comments Needed!


I need your HELP in determining the future vision of our city. Your comments are needed NOW on the next section of the regional plan, environment & conservation. Please have comments to me by September 8th on this section. Last night proved how important your comments are.

At last nights meeting I presented dozens of suggestions for amendments to the draft regional plan. These are suggestions I have received from dozens of flagstaff residents over the past two weeks.

Your opinion matters and for those who have felt shut out of the 4 year regional plan process, now is your opportunity to be a part of it. At last nights meeting YOUR suggestions and comments were heard, but it wasn’t easy.

I was shocked last night when it was suggested that comments and amendments should be made in writing rather than during the public meeting. Inclusive, I think not.

It was even suggested that staff would determine which of these suggestions would then be debated to which I reminded them that Council sets policy, not staff. This idea would completely defeat the concept that this is “our plan” and that this is a “broad process”. It was also suggested by staff that we limit council comments to 15 minutes. It was also implied comments I made were mine alone and not those of Flagstaff residents, when in fact the vast majority of the comments I made were from constituents just like you. Keep them coming!

My argument was simple, if this is “our plan” we must include a broad spectrum of comments and ideas and by doing so we are not disrespecting the process, as was suggested by a board member of Friends of Flagstaff’s Future, but honoring it.

I appreciate Council-members Brewster, Woodson and Mayor Nabours supporting an open and inclusive process, just as it should be.

I ask that you email me your thoughts on the next section which will be discussed Tuesday September 10th. I also ask that you share your thoughts with Council, especially since it was implied that the comments I made were not representing the community. Let Council know your thoughts on this plan and that you want your comments to be included in the plan. You can do this by emailing Council and showing up at the meetings. If you don’t, you will have a plan that may not be yours but someone else’s plan for you.

Every week I will bring your comments and suggestions to Council. Every week I will fight to make the regional plan “our plan” and not the plan of a small select group. Please join with me!


8 thoughts on “Regional Plan Comments Needed!

  1. Thank you for your hard work Jeff. I am extremely frustrated that the suggestions I submitted for the plan during the public comment period were completely ignored. I am angry that I was promised by Roger Eastman and others that the Property Maintenance Ordinance would not be included in this recent draft and yet there it is on page 191. They say the plan is our plan and that we had an opportunity to provide feedback. What they don’t say is that they IGNORED our feedback. And now they’re trying to ignore our feedback again. This is NOT my plan. This is the plan of a few special interest groups who are trying to force their plan on me.

  2. First I see the word “grow” right off the bat as I start reading this regional plan. My question is when is enough growth enough. Growth in business is stated as a primary goal of this plan. I imagine many share my feelings that Flagstaff is “too big for me”. I like small high quality towns not expanding, industrial cross road cities with their hollow corporatism and an educational climate that propagates homeschooling. So, If another large shopping corporation like Kmart lets say wanted to come into Flagstaff, would the City Council say “no we have enough” or would they welcome the “jobs” etc. If another gas station chain or hotel proposed they would create a draw and tourism would you welcome the “growth” or would you say we have enough. How about another golf course, mining on the peaks, would these be considered financial good ideas, or would the negatives even be identified/ looked at seriously. Would the $$$/growth be all you need to hear to seal the deal? Well I can give you many reasons why these things are killing Flagstaff, and we do have enough as well as 70,000 reasons why Flagstaff deserves better than this. Growth for the sake of growth is the motivations of parasites and cancer. We need to think of the current residents and have growth due only to a desirable life here, not corporate job transfers from abroad to man the new Flagstaff location. I think the concerns of this city council, the priorities, the actions, should reflect the priorities of the citizens such as, property rights, road repair, safety, liberty and not, definitely should not be, the “image/fantasy” pictured in the heads of these city council members. Lastly you talk about sustainability yet your planning and zoning department wants nothing to do with sustainable building, composting toilets, grey water, etc. They will say “we have no experience in that.” I have a friend who had to hire an engineer to just put in a large greenhouse!!! As I read this plan I see lots of statistics and far too many ideas. I do not see clear statements like “we will not build on another riparian area as we have in the past”. I see so many items addressed in this “plan” I feel something is being slid past the people (PMO perhaps?). Dissemble this, break it down so each change can be addressed by the people. This “plan” being approached as it really is, “a process” may work to improve the level of trust in the city council.
    Neil Wilson,

  3. Jeff, just a quick comment on what little I know about the regional plan. The plan is calling for more open space, green belts, floodways, view sheds, etc. I would like to know just how much open space is enough. As I understand it Flagstaff has a people or human density of 3 people to each acre of land controlled by the city. Which is one of the lowest ratios of people per acre in the United States. Furthermore I don’t look inward for recreation in open spaces, but outward in the thousands of miles of Forest Service land surrounding Flagstaff. I think these people are foolish and lazy if they want a modern, energy efficient home with all utilities on a paved road with sidewalks in the middle of town and have undisturbed open spaces surrounding them. I believe people who advocate this are selfish and self centered as well. Another thing that bothers me is the number of keywords in this plan that are found in most of the agenda 21 documents and plans. If this city wants a better quality of life for it’s citizens, the powers that be need to focus on recruiting companies who provide jobs outside of the service industry (bars, hotels and restaurants). The city needs to find more employers like WL Gore, Joy Cone, Walgreens Distribution Center, and Purina. Companies that offer a living wage with benefits so the citizens don’t have to work two or three jobs just to make ends meet. Now if the goal is to make Flagstaff a mecca for old hippies, trustafarians and earth people, then pass this plan.

    1. The plan definitely needs a good editor–there’s more extraneous foofarah than a college freshman term paper. The introduction alone could be summed up in about two sentences once you remove the redundancies and flourishes used to say the same thing (nothing really) about fifty times. Is the equivocation meant to wear down the opposition or did the framers have an incredible amount of time to waste? I echo Neil’s comment, simplify and make direct. The public shouldn’t have to spend hours reading a document that could say relatively the same thing in a few pages.

  4. The plan definitely needs a good editor–there’s more extraneous foofarah than a college freshman term paper. The introduction alone could be summed up in about two sentences once you remove the redundancies and flourishes used to say the same thing (nothing really) about fifty times. Is the equivocation meant to wear down the opposition or did the framers have an incredible amount of time to waste? I echo Neil’s comment, simplify and make direct–too much is left open to interpretation. The public shouldn’t have to spend hours reading a document that could say relatively the same thing in a few pages.

  5. While I appreciate your effort to garner additional community input, I’m sorry that you feel it necessary to belittle the process and minimize the many hundreds of citizens who have contributed to the document. Organizations and individuals of every political stripe have helped to craft this document. To say that it is representative of “a small select group” is not only wrong, but seems designed to incite. Please Mr. Oravits, let’s find those things about which we can agree to work together to achieve for the future of our great community.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s