Todd, it is obvious that Mr. Kielsmeier and so many others is Kingman do not understand the meaning of demographics. Do you?
I read your blog quite often and find much useful info, just don't understand why so many do not seem to realize that big box stores and larger business's will come when the demographics say it is time.
Al
Al,
You bring up an interesting point. Once the demograhics and population size is right, then larger business will come in which need those criteria to support their sales. I agree with you...
However, I was just talking about this very topic with my wife this week, and I think there maybe an "exeption to the rule" that you have pointed out.
Take Chilis for example. In the "real world", the food is just OK, but here in Kingman, the place is always packed and extremely popular.
Why? Lack of competition.
In towns with the right demographics and population, these kind of companies have a lot of other competitors that also set up shop. So, they need a large population as a result.
Here in Kingman, a Chilis can come in and do very well, because there is no other RoadHouse Grill, Applebees, or other similar type of place.
In conclusion, I think our market here in Kingman WILL SUPPORT some major names now. The people of Kingman are dying for more options now.
A good sports bar, a higher end retailer, one big bog store, etc...
"big box store" that is....
-Ken
Al... I agree, the 'big box' type of businesses will be here on their terms (whenever that may be).
In the meantime though... don't you think a city that is struggling could be doing something about improving the chances to bring in more jobs and opportunity??
The demographics are better in other parts of Mohave County, I realize... but there has been interest from 'big box' and other opportunities (serious interest) for over 3 years now. Yet at every turn... something stands in the way.
Maybe it was a bad city manager at one time, maybe it then shifted to political maneuvering to stop a certain project, add in a group that only supports 'responsible' development -- yet never defines their idea of responsible.
To me... all of the above could have had negative impacts on the progress in Kingman... while at the same time we saw significant commercial development happen in other parts of the county that ended up serving those communities with the conveniences they were demanding.
Kingman knew it had a lack of a funding source such as a property tax to fall back on. Kingman had to have known that it needed to attract more revenue potential from commercial developments and it certainly could have made better use of a major Interstate that cuts through this town.
Bottom line... sitting around and waiting is what got Kingman in this situation in the first place. Now there is no economic development department at the city and it doesn't appear that there is any real ongoing effort to bring more convenience to Kingman (unless it can be squeezed onto Stockton Hill somehow). Everything else is being fought by someone with some other interest.
It has not been uncommon for this Council to request information of the business that normally would come later in process as Ms. Raner suggested. Applying for a rezone is not the same as applying for a building permit, which comes later.
I could better understand the Council's position if this were an actual building permit application issue and not a rezone. What guarrantees do Council have that once the rezone is approved that she will procede with a supper club? Once she owns the property, she is free to apply for any building permit allowable for that particular zone.
I wouldn't think that her intent with the property should be as much an issue at this time as to what the rezone would allow her to place on her property once the rezone is granted and what the neighboring property owners feel about that. I think that is why we have 'due process' for issues such as these in the first place.
Why focus on the impact of a 'supper club' when there is no building permit application for one,has she filed a liquor license application yet? Who knows she could change her mind once the rezone is done and apply for a building permit for another Dollar Store, car wash or one of those dreaded tattoo parlors. Uh, she can't apply for a building permit period until the rezone is done and we wont know her true intent until that application is made so...she doesn't have the answers at this time to give Council on these questions.
Ken & Todd
I agree with your comments and they are indeed "food for thought". In answer to Ken's "In conclusion, I think our market here in Kingman WILL SUPPORT ---". Obviously the "big boys" have not reached that conclusion yet.
Todd, you are so right about the lack of funding in the city. I am in my late 70's yet I voted for the property tax. Why? believe it or not, I am for growth, just want to see it done right. I answered Mr Kielsmeier letter some time back when he coined KRAP which I suggested he change to CRAP. I and the over 60% of voters (we all can recognize crap when we see it) against the bonds and sale of city property was not a vote against growth, it was a vote to want to see "it" done right.
I do not understand the "we need to bring jobs". I look at the help wanted ads in the miner and there seems to be many jobs available, every thing from entry level labor to white collar professional. Yes, the wages here are deplorable, but as you know, business will only pay what they have to, we cannot dictate to them what they should have to pay.
I moved to Kingman exactly 19 years ago, you should of seen it then.
Al
I see your point Al.
My main issue back in November was not the bonds... I did vote FOR them however but like I said I'm cool with the reasoning that you voted against them.
Now as far as your growth being 'done right' goes... I ask you kindly to define growth done right. What is your conception of that??
Yes there are jobs available in Kingman right now... what is lacking though is a positive direction that leads to more opportunity and perhaps therefore better paying jobs. Why aren't we attracting better paying jobs??
It has always seemed to me that Kingman had half of the things it needs to continue healthy and prosperous growth... but Kingman also had about half the things working against it as well.
I'm speaking up, and others are too, because I'm hoping that we can all come together and improve on the half that isn't working so well.
Al,
Regarding a Big Box Store, if one wanted to come, where exactly would it go? What are the options for a company coming to Kingman for such a retail effort.
I happen to know that we have been looked at seriously for such stores, but there has been no place to put them.
Are you open to the Kingman Crossing Interchange? Are you open to the City of Kingman making TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars by 1) rezoning its land south of the proposed interchange, and 2) selling it to a developer for large scale retail?
These large retailers are not stupid. They see the opportunity in Kingman, but the need a proper location for such a business.
Lets see if I can get my thoughts straight. Growth should not come at the expense of the city (aka taxpayers). By this I mean no incentives of any kind, especially sales tax rebate. Vestar is used to doing business in the valley area where they play cities against each other. There is no where else to play us against so lets not fall for that. If Vestar was to build their glorified strip mall then the city should bring water and sewer to their boundry, and that is it. I do not believe that Kingman has ever given any incentives to any business to locate here and I do not think we should start now. As far as impact fees for commercial, I do not know if they are too high, I'm sure they should be re-evaluated. Havasu's and Bullheads large stores have come because they see a sufficient return on investment. They will come to Kingman at their expense when they see that same potential here. As far as Kingman Crossing interchange, let the developers pay for it, no taxpayer money.
This is my idea of doing it right, I'm sure not all will agree with it.
You ask "why aren't we attracting better paying jobs?" I would have to say that business's that pay better do not see a better work force available. I know MCC is always ready to assist in training people for better jobs, but as you point out, there doesn't seem to be any effort on the city's part to get anything going. We can just hope the new council will be more aggressive. There may be four "lame ducks" on the council now, but you would think that they at least could be trying to do something right.
Al
Al,
In general, I agree with you. I don't like cities that pay out money to businesses. Hell...I did not get any "incentive" from Kigman for my multimillion dollar project.
However in this specific case, I think it is in the citizens best interest to assist in some way for a very simple reason.
We (the people of Kingman) own 168 acres directly south of this proposed interchange, and access to I-40 will SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE the value of this land. I have spoken to knowledgable commercial realtors that say these 168 acres could be worth $50 to $75 million with the acess to I-40 and commercial zoning.
So, I think that it is in the best interest of the people of Kingman to find a "win-win" partnership with Vestar to make this happen. Plus...this does not include all the additional sales tax revenue that we will enjoy from these developments.
So, Al, you must look at the entire aspect of this interchange...not just the cost. You must see that our land will more than pay for any sharred cost, and the sales tax revenue will be great too. Hell...with Kingman back on a steady growth path, maybe even your home value will tick up again?
All these things have substancial value to you and our community. What do you think?
Sorry Ken, but I still do not agree. First of all, I do not believe Kingman, or any public entity, should ever be in any commercial activity. Period. If that city land is worth $50-75 mil providing that it is zoned commercial and there is an interchange then how about this: Those "knowedgeable commercial realtors" put together a group of developers/investors and approach the city to have it appraised as commercial without an interchange and sold to the highest bidder. I believe it would then have to be voted on and if it was presented right, I think it would pass. The land can then go up for bid and the bidders can put in the interchange on their dime, so that should bring in $25-50 mil for the city. Just think of all the infastructure we could build with that money.
And I would never agree to sharing sales tax. If the developers know that there will not be any sharing of taxes, then they can figure it out themselves. If there is profit to be made then it will get done. Practically all the sales tax brought in will be from local people. I don't think you will see many from Havasu or Bullhead coming here to shop our "Glorified strip Mall", considering what they already have there.
That my story and I'm sticking to it
Al
Al,
I respect your viewpoint, and in fact, I assume that people in Kingman share the same.
However, there are numerous cities in AZ and around the United States working along side business to accomplish things that otherwise would not be done. Especially for projects like this which have direct finanical benefits for both sides.
In one area, I do completely agree with you. The millions of dollars that would come to the City of Kingman by selling this land could do so much good for the city. New roads, more services, etc... ALL WITHOUT RAISING OUR TAXES A DIME!
One final point that I would like to make (though I know your mind is already made up on this) is a little word called "RISK". If the city were to enter into an agreement to sale a PORTION of the sales tax revenue to compensate a private developer for the CITY'S SHARE of the improvements, all the risk falls on the shoulders of the developer!
For some reason if things go south, the people of Kingman get a new interchange and lots of infrastructure, and the developer goes under.
Al... regarding you latest post... developers did actually approach the city inquiring to buy 110 acres of the 168 that we residents own back in 2005 with the intention of putting in an interchange on their 'dime' as you say.
The city manager at the time told this group to take a hike.
Then the owners on the north side (the private land owners side) sold 200 acres to the current land owners (Vanderbilt Farms) and they hired a developer (Vestar).
Since the south side land is owned by us residents... and we've established that 'we' don't want to sell that land (last November election)... choices and solutions are a bit more limited for the north side owners.
The north side owners see the value of attracting traffic off the Interstate to their land (commercial development) and have intimated that they would build an interchange that connects the north side of Kingman to the south side at Kingman Crossing. However... they won't be doing this full build out for free (shocking I know).
Now the north side owners have told city council that they have federal approval to build an access interchange that would bring traffic to their property... and if they chose to develop this... they would be doing so on their own 'dime'. But that means that the interchange would NOT connect both sides of Kingman at Kingman Crossing. Meaning that when the time comes and citizens of Kingman (that live on the south side) are demanding access through Kingman Crossing... taxes will be used to pay for the improvement.
So one way or another... if an interchange is built... residents of Kingman will be paying for it.
Todd & Ken, I can see the points you both are making and some of it makes sense. I'm beginning to realize that some of my thoughts are based on a lack of information or incorrect information, thanks to a past city manager and just plain incompetence on the part of the city in the way they went about the whole effort. It will be a tough sell for the new council to sell what you are saying and I would like to think that there will be changes for the better when the new council is installed. I sure don't know how to accomplish such an effort. What needs to be accomplished is a detailed plan which spells out step by step on how to accomplish this and it would have to be presented as a complete plan. When bits and pieces of such an effort start to dribble out, people will be against it. It would have to be presented to the people when complete and be able to be defended and explained.
Al
Al,
I have been involved in many blog discussions here, and I can honestly say that you are extremely reaonsable.
Most discussion resolt to either 1) name calling, or 2) not caring about the facts and people just sticking their heads in the sand.
With that said, I am here to say that I don't have all the answers to very complexe issues, but I do have some information that helps sheds light upon it all.
In the end, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU regarding your last two points.
1) The previous leaders of Kingmand did a horrible job of communicating, and only pieces were put out there for the people.
2) Moving forward, there needs to be a complete and transparent plan that the people of Kingman can review and vote upon. However, this also requires voters such as yourself to get involved and take time to learn more about the issuses. Honestly, this blog is a great spot for that!
My final comment (and blame) goes to the people in Kingman that are against growth for various reasons (does not support their pet project, does not like growth for any reason, etc...
There has been an extremely effective mis-communication campaign that goes around. People tend to read a quick comment or headline in the paper for example, and then their minds are made up. Even if that information is completely wrong!
THEREFORE, I STRONGLY URGE THE PEOPLE OF KINGMAN TO INVESTIGATE, TALK ABOUT, AND RESEARCH THESE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT GROWTH ISSUES FROM VARIOUS SOURCES BEFORE MAKING UP YOUR MINDS. PROPERLY INFORMED AND EDUCATED VOTERS ARE BEST FOR KINGMAN AND OUR COUNTRY.
Tough sell, Al?? I can agree.
The stinker though... is that the deal doesn't get any better for Kingman than the deal it had on the table. I'm not just talking about the deal I allude to from 2005 either.
Due to the referendum on the resident owned 168 acres that passed back in November... the voters basically shut the door on improving the chances at greater value for our best asset.
Back in 2005, those developers thought they could build out the interchange for $6 million dollars. The city (with the former city manager at the helm) later proposed a plan that had a price tag north of $20 million dollars to build the infrastructure. There may have been a time when the north side developers would have ponied up some or maybe even half the cost. We don't know for sure because there was an all out effort to stall progress (and those behind the effort accomplished their mission).
The more Kingman tries to play hardball, the more the citizens are going to be on the hook for needed improvements... in my opinion. The risks involved with developing high dollar infrastructure are much higher right now in this economy than they were just a short time ago.
The funny AND ironic thing is that there is this other proposed interchange in the works (Rattlesnake Wash). Guess who would ultimately pay for the entire cost of the infrastructure?? Tax payers. The interests that stand to gain the most are fully expecting us all to pony up ourselves for the entire cost... while at the same time adding to the effort to halt development of a different project (Kingman Crossing).
What is wrong with letting a development pay for the infrastructure it needs for success up front, then receiving reimbursement out of sales tax receipts from the very same development?? If the agreement is formed properly... the risk is squarely on the developer... not the tax payer.
I'll say this again... the deal for new infrastructure doesn't get any sweeter than what it might be right now as compared to what it will be the next time there is such a proposal. The costs will be higher next year than they are today. The percentage of tax payer money will be higher. The risk will end up being on the community.
Time keeps on ticking...
Commenting by HaloScan
