I would rather live in Nimby Town than the Anything Goes Capital of the World.
I am all for reasonable limits, but when the past city council turns down a business in an area zoned industrial because the neighbors didn't like it, and current council continues that attitude, then decisions are no longer made based on zoning or fair laws, but on personal whims, one loud neighbor, or council members attitude of NIMBY! Too often it seems in today's world people don't want facts, they listen to people who play on their fears. The "pet hotel" mentioned in the quote below in the article was a state of the art plan by a Cal Poly Animal Science graduate who wanted to offer a service people in Kingman wanted. Kingman doesn't have to grow with "anything goes" but it certainly could grow better.
(Councilman Kerry Deering recalled that Council previously voted down a pet hotel that, while he felt had been perfectly suited to its location, had simply been unpopular with the neighbors. This situation, he felt, was of a similar character - a good idea and a worthy cause, but one that Council was obliged to vote against due to its placement.)
The residents of an established neighborhood have rights. While not written in stone, (they should be) common decency and courtesy should govern along with reason and compromise.
That logical progression played out recently on Eastern Ave. – this after decades of city rubber stamping of virtually every commercial scheme that came along.
The city has always had a vested interest in approving all the commercial enterprise that it can because it translates into cash in the till for them. There is no motive for the city to protect the rights of the individual or his/her neighborhood.
Only after R.A.I.D. established that ignoring public input could prove very costly did the city council come to a consensus that due diligence and compromise could better serve both the city and its residents.
I, for one, am pleased. While probably a little more cumbersome for a developer, the end result of "Looking out for the best interests of ALL concerned" appears to be more clearly focused now for the present city council.
All of us have played on an unbalanced teeter-totter as a child. If you were the light-weight, you remember the beating you took. Balanced is better.
Excellent comment Sandy. Much appreciated.
Loyd... what 'rights' do established neighborhood's have??
Do they trump private property rights??
C'mon Todd -
Do you think my investment in my home is chopped liver? I used to be the last house out of town going East and I even expected there would be some gyration in the development on the vacant ground nearby.
I lucked out. What grew up around me was one of the best low crime middle-of-the-road average Joe family-raising neighborhoods with one of Kingman's finest grammar schools in the whole of Kingman.
Does that trump property rights? Absolutely not! Does it mean we residents have a say? -- you better believe it!
Todd, if you're coming across with the notion that neighborhoods don't have property rights after being developed -- you are in for a big surprise. If you don't think so -- try putting up a prop-job generator at your house and let's just see.
I'm real curious whether your CC&R's will persist over the city's "blanket" approval or where the "trump" card really is when and if the city adopts the wind generator thing.
Loyd... you are not making a case for 'protecting' your investment.
You've been against practically everything that could lead to increased demand for property in the Kingman area.
No demand... no increased value.
Things like infrastructure improvements, shopping and entertainment choices, and convenience have been leading indicators for demand for well over 20 years since I've been paying attention and living in growth regions.
I don't believe you when you talk about your home as an investment. Besides... your residence is only an asset when you sell it (and that is even a risk these days).
Commenting by HaloScan
