The "bottom line" - with economic problems, rising unemployment, falling home prices, and a borderline recession, the people of Kingman don't want an irrational, anti-growth group like RAID holding back and limiting new business and jobs in this town.
Ken, I sent this letter to the editor last night. It will be interesting to see the comments and I will always respect your views.
to the editor
I believe Ken Herskind, who I know but respectfully disagree with, gives too much credit to RAID. Is it really RAID that has stopped growth, or is it a certain developer and a prior city council/mayor that were completely incompetent in presenting issues to the public. The credit should go to the voters who obviously can think and analyze issues for themselves.
Lets take several of the issues that have generated the most controversy. The issue of the rezoning of C1 to C2 by the Airway underpass. When the developer was asked by P&Z what the C2 was to be used for, they in essence said it was none of your business, just rezone the property, and the city went along with it. I knew at that time that if this issue came to a referendum , I would vote against it.
Kingman Crossing was a dead issue from day one. There was no information given by the city of any meaning to allow the voters to even begin to understand the issue. This one could not pass the smell test and the majority of voters saw this one coming. KC hopefully will take place and hopefully the new city council will be able to present it to the public in a way they can understand it and what they are being committed to.
The bond issue, again, dead from day one. Too many issues for one proposal, and max out the citys bonding capacity for many years.
In all of the above issues, I know I had made my mind up as to how I would vote before RAID got involved and I believe many voters felt the same way. So lets quit looking for something or someone to blame. Just get out the facts and if they are presented and explained right, and the taxpayers see where it well benefit them, as well as a developer, we just might start to grow.
Al Koffman
Mr Koffman,
You say some very interesting things. You imply that the city did not provide enough information to the public (I agree). You also mention that the voters 'made up their own minds' however what you do not say is that many of the voters rely on the Miner for the information with which to make a decision. During that time, prior to the vote, the Miner chose to print numerous articles about RAID, by RAID members, and in support of RAID's ideas. I can see that you, Mr Koffman, have the time and ability to research beyond what is 'reported', however, the average working individual does not and rely on the local paper for their information. Did RAID have that much of an impact? RAID just had a better platform with which they could disseminate information. (information from their perspective) Therefore, indeed RAID had an impact. I agree with Todd, the lesson for all concerned is that we as members of this community will have to work much harder to acquire true and accurate information with which to make a decision from and take that information and become more active in our community and indeed I believe that is exactly what we are seeing now....... I too thank the Miner for recently allowing more voices to be heard.
Ken & Al,
Taking responsibility for the CORRECT information that is exposed to the public is the issue I see that needs to be addressed.
A good example is the wind ordinance. RAID informed the commission of their concerns. These concerns were addressed by educated and experienced people in the areas of concern. It was discovered that more birds are killed each year by power lines and poles than wind turbines, for expample. When the ordinance was resubmitted, we were prepared with the correct data to address the concerns and we became a educational force of supportive correct information. Even those representing RAID became more educated and secure in the process.
Correcting misinformation takes more research and committment to clear the air than presenting incorrect information as fact, another example is the columnist that Todd's blog refers to. Those of us who are professionals in the matters of real estate and the market are continually having to address and correct the misinformation that this columnist generated to support her own political agenda, even months afterwards. When some of us presented the correct information to the 'Miner, the only responsiblity they would take for spreading this misinformation was that we as professionals could submit an additional opinion piece, no correction of data would be initiated by them.
Everyone wants to get on the bandwagon of "HORRAY for Ourside", but everyone who has a side needs to take adequate responsibility for how they express their concerns to the public. Anyone can manipulate the truth to a certain degree of perception, but as they say where I grew up, a sow's ear is still a sow's ear no matter how you try to pass it off as a silk purse. We all need to be more careful as to how we present the facts to the public. And the public needs to be more motivated into researching their own information and less suseptable to the mistakes or misinformation of others.
Al,
I am not sure you read my letter correctly. Where did I blame RAID for all of Kingman's problems? Please re-read my article.
I had two issues. 1) We don't need RAID, and 2) zonnig applicants should not hold private meetings with RAID for their approval.
-Ken
Al,
One point from your letter. I am very tire of hearing that kind of "smell test" comment from people.
People are making their views based on rumors and impressions.
Al, you came to my office the other, and I explained to you about the city's 168 acres and the millions of dollars this land could bring to the people of Kingman. You were not even aware of this fact....
So, you and others in Kingman are relying on the "smell test" to make your decisions before fully understand the depth and importance of your vote on this matters?
I hope that people in Kingman will take more time and effort than only sticking their nose in the wind.
With that said, I agree that our elected officials need to do a much better job of communicating with us. To Mayor Salem's credit, he has started a blog on the kdminer.com that is very informative.
As to the effectiveness of RAID or how much support RAID does or doesn't have, the actual finacial records and membership count of the pac would be my determining factor. Just how many members make up the pac and has membership or contributions increased or declined since November?
Anything other than that is just more rah-rah or more blah-blah. The 'Miner poll does reflect a change in public opinion, how that fits into the support or lack of in RAID's pac is yet to be determined.
A pac is an agendized alignment of influence, but it should never be presumed that any member of the public should have to meet the approval of any pac prior to being approved or denied by an appointed commission of their piers or the elected council of their representation.
Oh Goody . . . The R.A.I.D. bash-fest has found new life.
Where's my scissors? Oh darn, I loaned them to Todd and he returned them completely worn out from some R.A.I.D. project. Off to Don's to get a new pair. Hate those big box stores that ship Kingman money to the Cayman Islands have to shop "locally" as in "locally". Be right back folks . . . keep that thought.
Oh, how silly of me to say that!
Al... I don't think anyone publicly has stated that the RAID PAC is the sole reason for the growth slowdown. There are many factors that have led our economy to the place it is today. Many of those factors nobody here in Kingman can do anything about.
Yes... I'm in disagreement with some of the RAID PAC's issues.
I believe they used fuzzy logic as reasons to defeat the land use designation change for the property that I am part owner of, that all Kingman citizens are part owner of. Property that could be worth more potentially than it is right now if they hadn't gone through with the referendum. More is good when it comes to money and value, especially for a city crying poverty all the time.
Just one example the RAID PAC used to try and convince voters to vote their way was the use of the General Plan. I was at the P&Z and the city council meeting when two land use designations were up for possible change. The location of the two issues were in different parts of town.
RAID PAC members argued against one particular issue (the resident owned 168 acres) by saying that the General Plan was voted on by the people and that only a vote of the people should determine whether or not the designation should be changed.
Yet in the next issue, the RAID PAC supported a major amendment to the General Plan. No vote of the people needed, but same General Plan.
I've pointed out the inconsistencies of their positions many times and it's part of the main reason why I don't trust their position. I certainly do not feel they are being as honest as they could be on those issues. It leads me to think that the group is NIMBY and nothing more.
but hey... blame them for all that is not going well in Kingman?? Not me. Not Ken either.
Ken, when I talked to you in your office and you explained about the 168 acres, I had no problem understanding where you were coming from, however, that was after the fact. The problem is that the average voter, including myself can only go by "what is out there". And as you and everyone knows, the info is just not out there. As pointed out, I do have the time to try and understand and over the many years I have learned to kind of "read between the lines". For you I will change the "smell test" to the "sense test". (just kidding). When it came to KC I could just "sense" that because the feeling was there that they were hiding something. And as been said so many times, the facts, just the facts have to somehow got to get out.
Al
I sure screwed up the last sentence in my post, but I'm sure you know what I'm trying to say
Al
Al... again, I must agree with you. I've heard from many voters that voted against issues like the land use referendum and they had similar things to say as you have.
I'm not angry with anyone that voted 'no' on that issue. Truth of the matter, it is easier to get a 'no' vote in an issues election than it is for a 'yes' vote.
An organized campaign is needed for a 'yes' vote in most cases and there wasn't any organization from anyone in support of the issues on the ballot. I not familiar with the rules or laws about campaigning as the city is concerned, I'm not sure what they can and can't do leading up to an election.
The land use issue needed an organized effort and it never materialized.
If or when this issue comes back in front of the council again, hopefully some folks will be ready for it and will be allowed to present the facts in public and even in the media.
I yield that taken as a whole... the issues on the ballot last November were a mixed bag of not a lot of solid information. When in doubt... vote 'no'. I don't disparage any voter that did such a thing.
Al,
Please don't be put off by my last comments. I mostly blame the city for not communicating well with its citizens.
I expect this time around, the city will put together a detailed plan and publish it for all to read and ask questions about. And based on feedback and input from all concerned, I would even expect the "plan" to adjust moving foreward.
Then...it is up to the people of Kingman to take the time and learn about the facts as presented.
But in the end of the day, we have a developer (V&V) that wants to invest tens of millions in our community, help with a new interchange, add more shopping and services to our community, and also in the process, help to make the city's 168 acres worth tens of millions.
Sure sounds like an interesting idea that is worth consideration! These must be common ground here to find a "win-win" for all concerned.
Pro-growthers
On the mayor's KDM blog, I recently suggested that he invite ADOT to the next town hall to explore the possibility of switching the RW TI and the KC TI in the five year plan.
The mayor, at Monday's council meeting, stated that ADOT would at the next Town Hall on the 29th for a Q&A. It appears that he may have bought into my suggestion.
My rationale for proposing a switch is two-fold. First, ADOT's 70% participation is a huge chunk of any Kingman TI and we must secure that regardless of the location. While our 30% is a large chunk also, it beats 100% any day of the week.
Build a one-sider TI or give V&V a 10 to 15 year non-compete in exchange for their fronting the 30% or whatever that's just details to be agreed on.
The bottom line is that sequential TI development should be preferred over leap-frog infill problem-creating TI development.
Kingman's 160 acres would only escalate in value which could then be used as a bootstrap solution for other interchanges and other infrastructure improvements which may become more difficult to come by as time goes by.
Secondly, we all would like to know if there is anything more to a V&V proposal than smoke and mirrors and if in fact is there going to be any development until this global economic pendulum swings somewhere back to center.
If there isn't, then we can all just sit back and relax and the city can do what it has to do to make sure that RW doesn't fall through. If the city can't pull RW off with a 70% helper, there's probably no chance whatsoever of pulling off KC. Working both at once is optimistic insanity.
This is an EX-Raider's proposed solution that makes sense or does it come across as some EX-Raider's anti-growth scare tactic diatribe to you guys? Do you want to rally together and come up with solutions or do you just want to bash R.A.I.D. and ignore the hard work?
I'm listening . . .
Just as I thought . . . the silence is deafening.
Visions of R.A.I.D.-slaughter dance through my head.
Loyd...I am very impressed with both your "openess" and creative idea.
As for me (though my little opinion does not carry much weight), I like what you have to say.
However, I fear that the "good ole boys" that have worked so hard to get RW paid by everybody besides them (the state, the county, the city, etc...), they will not like your idea at all.
In fact, the main reason the "good ole boys" were against the recent bond was the fact that the city would use up their bonding capacity and not be able to help and pay for their pet project (RW).
One more thing, that has been my "solution" all along. The 168 acres pays for so much (interchanges, services, roads, police, etc..), but it needs an interchange in front of it and a new zoning classification to make that happen.
IF AND WHEN those two items happen, the people of Kingman stand to gain TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS from the sale of the 168 acres, or a constant income stream from decades and decades of land leases.
Loyd... due to recreational activity (softball game) and some other errands, and even some house-work after business hours last night, I just haven't been able to log in and respond.
First, I have no problem with your idea at all... but Ken beat me to it (although I won't say as for certain), I'm guessing that some other folks won't be all that hyped on your idea.
Certainly I think that progression is preferred and since I do favor the construction of both TI's, in my opinion the one at KC should be built out first.
I guess only ADOT can answer the question you pose (and have posed before here) about moving the funding from one project to the other (but I could swear that I heard it can't happen unless everything heads back to square one). At this point I wouldn't want to stop the clock on any project that could be helpful to the Kingman community.
That town hall meeting with ADOT should be very interesting.
Keep the ideas and possible solutions coming though. Thanks for contributing.
@ Ken - Please don't misinterpret me here. I will always support a local developer over an out-of-town developer any day of the week provided they are straight up and they don't pull stunts that are detrimental to this city. (Such as blading off huge tracts of ground and then just letting it sit subject to wind and rain erosion and the dust impacting everyone's health that's anywhere close to it.) I don't know where your works are so I don't know if that applies to you or not.
I have nothing against the property owners in the RW area and I applaud their investment foresight.
My position is strictly logistical from the city's point of view. I'm not trying to stop RW nor am I trying to wax the board for V&V. But, this issue is so critical for Kingman and unless it is executed with absolute precision everything will probably just stall and nothing will progress.
This global economy nut is going to be the toughest nut to crack because it is affecting everyone and is very, very far from any light at the end of the tunnel yet.
The commercial sub-prime mess hasn't even surfaced to any degree and frankly, I'll tell you, I never thought that in my lifetime I would see people lined up at a failed bank scared out of their minds about the safety of their money. Yet we're seeing it on the nightly news and the Fed, Treasury, Wall Street, everyone in an insane scramble to try and keep this whole artificial lead balloon afloat.
To me, it appears that what's coming will make '29 look like a Sunday Box Lunch Social. I hope I'm wrong. But, a wait and see attitude is a very prudent thing to do right now. V&V may be doing just that I don't know but I wouldn't blame them. It makes no sense to try and grab the brass ring right now when the whole damn merry-go-round may be going into a sinkhole does it?
You're correct in that there will be many that disagree with the TI switch, but it is the best thing for the City. If they disagree, then it's pretty clear that well, you know the old bread and butter clichι thing.
Up next, how a huge land-owner / politician damn-near wiped Kingman off the map.
The I-40 saga had a colorful and sordid birth, at least in this Kingman area segment. The original alignment proposal was a somewhat direct Needles to Prescott straighter as-the-crow-flies route that was miles shorter than the current route but through much rougher terrain that wiped out the "shorter route" savings.
Kingman got the wake-up call and the scurry to start the lobbying for a through-Kingman alignment brought out the "Big Gun" arm-twisters and the fray began.
Kingman's ace-in-the-hole was a highway commissioner (I think he was chairman) that came to the city's defense for the current alignment.
However, a state legislator who owned substantial real estate along the west foothills of the Hualapai Mtns. started a push that would have taken I-40 along the base of the mountains and around the end of the range and heading east along its current alignment.
A more gradual slope, easier terrain, less cost he definitely had ADOT's attention and for quite some time it looked like he would pull it off what with his connections in the legislature. The alignment had already been chosen for the big gas line project of the late 50's and the big power line. A freeway there also, made sense.
A final clamor and scare-tactic vocalization about the "Death of Kingman" and lost state revenue from a dying city finally persuaded state officials to adopt the current alignment. It took out my father's home, my print-shop and a bunch of homes, but we all knew it was, overall, the best thing for the city, and has hence proven to be so.
But, we did indeed come close to becoming another Hackberry or Valentine, by the skin of our teeth.
Phase 1 of Rattlesnake Wash still maintains its priority in the future devlopment of Kingman and to the continued rural development east off of I40. This would be even more apparent had we not delayed annexing the Kingman Industrial Airport or if the annexing of the area was not so contentuous. Phase 1 will promote needed industrial growth and provide alternative access for those who are or will be working in that industrial corridor. It is fundemental to our economic development.
The Kingman Crossing interchange is definitely a priority of neccessity, due to the rapid residential development of the area that now includes a hospital and junior high school. In a perfect world, the interchange would have come first and then the development, but alas, the development has demanded the need of the interchange.
Rattlesnake Wash has been delayed and postponed and reworked and redesigned and re-(just about everything) for one main reason only, we chose to wait on the state to contribute to its construction. Mainly, because we could not afford to do it ourselves and hence, we are paying the price, in time and now in additional funds. (30% ten years ago was alot less than 30% today.) While we have waited, there has been "fill-in" development, hence the demand for Kingman Crossing. The problem is that we are continuing to play catch up to development instead of actually pro-actively, PLANNING for it. (Again, RW was a plan from 20 years ago, KC has become a pressing need over the time we have waited)
The issues as always evovle around MONEY. The State has its budget and timeline, we have ours. This is why the State has tried to create legal venues for communities of rapid growth to utilize a private/public venture. Private companies can construct the same project that the State does with less cost. They also can complete the project quicker, thus saving additional cost from the average cost of living increases or inflation.
The problems I see with Loyd's scenario, is that it would literally take an act of Congress or at least Arizona's version of it to switch the two developments at this time. (TIME IS MONEY) Vestar could feasibly be able to construct the KC interchange for far less than what it would cost the State to do it, when they did it. (Less cost to them, less cost to us) Meanwhile, as soon as the KC interchange is completed and the Vestar/Vanderbilt project off of the ground, we will be collecting immediate revenue from the sales taxes generated and we will reduce our liablity to provide services to those people trying to access the hospital in an emergency or safely get their children to school.
When a private/public ventured is entered into, BOTH parties have something to gain. While V/V has proposed to loan us the money for our portion of KC to be completed, we, as in the city, and they as in their project,(and both as property holders) have something to benefit from with the completed interchange. The access to the interchange from the southside is as much a benefit to them as it is to us. What would be their benefit in loaning us funds to complete our portion of RW while keeping our southside access to KC undone?
What may be a better proposal is that we include an access route from the southside to the KC interchange. As for RW, if the private property landholders want the interchange completed in a more timely manner or are concerned that we, meaning the city, will not be able to meet our fund requirements by the proposed dates of ADOT, then maybe they should present a proposal similar to V/V proposal on KC, loan us the money on a private/public venture agreement that would insure our portions of the funds. They will benefit from the access to their properties (increased property value) just as we will benefit from the interchange (promoted economic development).
@ Donna It is difficult for me to see a direct city benefit (other than possible long term industrial) with RW. My perception is that the RW vicinity property owners seem content to sit back while the state dangles the 70% carrot hoping that will be sufficient enticement for the city to barge ahead alone.
There are rumors that they may step forward with some concessions on the laterals but that remains to be seen.
A CFD or some other vehicle that spares the local taxpayer the 30% cost would be the first choice. Worked OK for a good portion of the Airway underpass and given safety and other issues, the city backing a portion was also appropriate. A full 30% city paid RW TI portion just isn't justifiable in my opinion, given the huge profits that will be generated there.
As time draws closer for the city to pony up or drop the RW TI that's when the real poker strategy will begin in this little card game with the city. It's going to be fun to watch. The only ace the city has is the threat of abandoning the project and that card is already laying face up on the table from a recent city work session.
While I don't believe the city played it at the right time, it is a known factor now and will be significant in the final rounds. The RW people will be offering something, there is too much at stake for them not to. What it will be is unknown at this point, but they have some cards to play also like the value of the laterals right-of-way, etc.
Here again, everything will be hinging on the economy. No pie-in-the-sky has a snow-ball's chance if things get worse and they could.
Until the annexation of the Airport/Industrial Corridor is worked out, you are right, in that RW is more of an opportunity to the COUNTY than to the city. Which brings another player into this that to my knowledge has no intention of stepping up.
As Ken has stated several times, the public is participating 70% already in the project as we are the city, the county and the state. So who would benefit the most from the completion of Rattlesnake Wash? Monetarily, the obvious is the immediate land holders of the properties of the area. The property value Ken discussed with the KC interchange would raise in like value at RW.
Same problem though, without the interstate, the property is not worth what it would be afterwards. I have heard rumors of how the property owners would be willing to concede property to the city. This is a nice gesture and does reflect a willingness to work something out, but once the property is granted to us, we then would have to sell it in order to obtain the funds.
Again, the property does not have the value it would with the interchange and we would just be back to the same scenario we are in currently with KC. The city would have to agree/vote to sell it, we would need to petition the county to rezone it to condidtion it for sale....(any of this sound familiar?)
Seems it would benefit us more if the current property holders who are agreeing to conceed some property to us would go ahead and get the conditioning process done first, maybe actually SELL the property first and then just concede the proceeds to the city for the city's portion of RW.
I am not fond of the city bonding the issue, at least not for what was intially proposed. Alot of the property developed in the RW area is within the city limits, some of the undeveloped areas are, but alot isn't. Is it really the city's responsibility AT THIS TIME, to assume 30% cost? Will it benefit the city? Once completed,yes, but passively. Again the key to the city's benefit is ANNEXATION to secure sales tax revenues off of the anticipated projects, even if it is just a few truck stops at first.
A funny but true story - in the early 60's the feds came along and built an overpass at DW Ranch Rd. out in the middle of nowhere for a future interstate. It sat there for what seemed forever with no freeway in sight. Time passed until that overpass no longer met the new Interstate specs and had to be completely reworked to bring it up to snuff.
The only purpose it served was for us kids at the time to go out and park on and watch submarine races or watch for UFOs depending on how things were going.
Since I started looking at this whole TI controversy, I can't ignore the gut feeling that both of these things are just more than this small city is capable of biting off and chewing right now. I think the voters felt the same way last election.
Right now, even more so than last Nov., it is not the right time to go deeply into hock for anything, but the jury is still out on that one. I think everyone agrees that it is still going to be a long time for the shaking to stop.
It would help if V&V just made a statement to that effect and everyone could just drop the subject. We'll see, I guess. A couple of years may make quite a difference -- then again maybe not.
Todd-this post definitely openned up much opportunity for many issues. I want to clarify some of the ones RAID supposedly addressed to the P&Z Commission 10/07/07.
There were MANY retirees there that night who voiced many concerns, however, only one identified himself as being a member or spokesman for RAID. To call it a RAID victory is just alittle self-serving. I didn't witness any strong arming from any pac, just alot of uneducated people on the newer technologies that are now offered, myself included. Most of these issues have been addressed, hence the success of the initiation of a wind power ordinance for the Kingman city limits.
* visual impact: another recent 'Miner poll reflected that a good 87%(+/-) of the population would not object to a wind turbine in their neighbors back yard. Seems to be the consensus of most of the nation, since Arizona is last in the nation to support alternative energy programs for the private property owner. Asthetics were discussed at great legnth. Fact: more turbines lead to less power poles and lines, which most agree are unsightly.
* collapse hazzard: because of the engineering and design, an internationally approved system is engineered to withstand the most extreme conditions of ANY area in the world. Truth, wind turbines are less likely to fall than trees or street lamps, provided of course that they are installed properly. The ordinance does need to specify that only licensed or approved installers be used for installation, no do-it-yourselfers, and everyones property should remain out of danger.
* noise: Kingman currently has a noise ordinance that controls the decibel levels acceptable throughout different times of the day or night. Wind turbines fall far below these limitations and are the equivilant to an air cooling or heating unit, some are even less.
* threat to wildlife: Birds to be specific. Again, current power lines and power poles kill more birds than what fall victim to wind turbines. TV and Radio antena towers kill even more.
* general commercial nature: (this was the one issue I recall actually presented by a RAID member as a RAID member) Because of current ACC regulations, a residential user cannot sell the power generated to the grid. It would require an approved application for convenience and necessity to the ACC and a power purchase agreement with the power company. (big $$$ just to apply) These same requirements hold to anyone in the state of Arizona who wants to sell any kind of public untility, therefore, includes commercial properties. Since Kingman residents cannot sell the power back to Unisource or to Mohave Electric, it is no longer of a general commercial nature. It could only become one if the owner were to apply through process, become approved and procede to an accepted power purchase agreement with the power company. Even so, you are allowed to use 20% of any residence within the city of Kingman for commercial use, I think this w
(sorry)
I think this would definitely fall well within that 20%. Unisource does offer a "credit to billing" agreement to those who elect to shave some significant $$$ off of their current electric bills through alternative sources, either solar or wind.
Finally, I can only encourage anyone and everyone who has interest or concern in this issue to be at the workshop hosted sometime in August.
Loyd, you and I seem to be the only ones who have the time for this today, ah so it goes!
We have more to lose by not going through with the TI! And last I heard, V/V is still moving forward, they have too much invested in the project to just pack up and go home. The success of the Lake Havasu mall project and the traffic down in Bullhead from all of the Kingman folks going to Target, contradict your observations of our local economy or the cost effectiveness of completing the project.
If we continue to wait, then we are going to regress back to being a stop off of the highway like Hackberry and Valentine as you suggested in a previous post, while Bullhead and Havasu continue to flourish.
BTW, I don't look at it as "going deeply into hock", I see it as a sound investment into our future wealth, health and prosperity.
@ Donna -- Somebody needs to come forward with more than a "Meet and Greet"
I believe that is in the works.
Yeah, put some "mean on that bone"
PS Have not posted in about 15 min., so I was feeling lonely...HA!
"meat"
Donna, got a question maybe you can answer. I "heard" that Target was interested when the KC project was in progress. IF KC was to be built, say within a couple of years, would Target be interested? I vividly recall the spokeperson for Target saying they are looking for 100K population. I'm having trouble correlating all this.
Al
Meant to add to the previous post. I find yours and Loyd's "history lessons" facinating. I could listen to those stories all day. But I guess there are not many (maybe Loyd) that have to time to spend.
Al
Al -
Got 60+ years of good old Kingman history under my belt. Mostly good, some awful. Somewhere along that trail your name rings a bell, but this isn't the place to talk about it. Your trail of comments and letters puts us mostly on the same page -- at least from my side. Getting harder finding people who agree with me any more. Must be an age thing -- I haven't changed -- or have I?
Al,
To date,V/V has not commented on who has or is looking at leasing or buying space into the project. Legally, they can't. You cannot legally sell something that isn't there or lease something that isn't there.(and we can't earn sales tax revenues off of something that isn't there) You can offer letters of intent that suggest that certain parties would be willing to lease or buy if the building spaces were there and available. But intents are just that, (and we all know what good intentions can lead to.) So until they have something specifically up and available, we wont know.
Target did submit a letter of intent to purchase to the city of Kingman, (our property on the southside, not the V/V property on the northside) about 3-5 years ago. The city council at that time did not understand that they were offering to purchase our property to place a store here. That boat has definitely sailed,(looks like just a few miles south, literally, down to the river) but it doesn't mean that should V/V get their project off of the ground that Target wont give us another look. True, all box stores would like to see 100,000 population base, but not all communities of any population base have a major transnational throughfare running smack dab down the middle, even fewer have that with a NAFTA highway crisscrossing that throughfare.
V/V has stated that Target is one of the vendors who has utilized their buildings in other locales, so has Lowes, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club and Costco,Kohl's, Dillard's, Barns & Noble,etc. Since our BOD couldn't figure out how to split our own 11 acres by the library to accomodate their purchase offer on 9 acres...I would look for Lowes to definitely be interested in the KC project.
Here is what we DO know, the similar project in Lake Havasu City is expected to generate $3.5 million in sales tax revenue over the next 2 years. (And we are trying to figure out how we are going to pay for KC and RW?!) The Havasu out door mall includes a Wal-Mart, but also a Kohl's, Dillard's and other major vendors. (Hey, just the movie theater proposed should bring in something).
While we remain too leary to open at least one hand to possible opportunity, we are not going to be able to receive or catch ANY opportunity.
Here is something for all to consider while pondering how our current national economy is going to affect the immediate outcome of the V/V project and our growth in general.
Arizona is still the most desirable state for retirees. Why? WEATHER and the LOW COST OF LIVING comparable. No matter how high gas gets (or even disappears all together), Arizona will still be the number one state for retirees until some other state like Alabama, Arkansas, Texas (I personally believe New Mexico or Nevada)starts offering a lower cost of living maintenaince with more service ammenities. The majority of the poluation that has moved here in the past 40 years has been that of the retired population drawn by climate and how far their limited income dollar is going to stretch.
Will the conditions of the national economy affect us,certainly. But not as dramatically as it can other areas. Meanwhile, we have much to catch up to and get ahead of if we are going to continue to be a desirable place for anyone to live. This includes investing in economic developments that are going to increase our desirabilty, not to just one segment of the population, but to many.
And of course,water availability and alternative energy source availabiltiy.
Just a correction.
I misstated that the Havasu mall is expected to generate $3.5 mil over the next two years. The article I got that information from (Economic Journal for July) actually says that the mall is expected to generate $3.5 million in sales tax revenues PER YEAR at build out.
Sorry.
Commenting by HaloScan
