Negative editorial on Kingman Crossing interchange

More fun in the sun (well at least the partly cloudy sky where the sun is doing its best to shine). A local columnist says that the proposed Kingman Crossing interchange is bad for our community.

See the op/ed here.

Here is my retort to the author in case it does not get published.

In other words... let them (the citizens of Kingman) eat cake... I mean let them congest Stockton Hill Road even more.

I mean who doesn't love their half hour a day (or more) wasted on Stockton Hill right now?? Smell that?? That is sarcasm. (The traffic on SH is only going to get worse without the proposed interchange)

The development planned for the Kingman Crossing area will bring jobs to the area and then bring sales tax revenue. That helps the city coffers so the mayor doesn't have to cry poverty every chance he gets.

Rattlesnake Wash needs an interchange AS WELL. Expansion to the east is the most logical progression for our growing community. For now though the development connects closer to the Kingman Crossing area, and while it may be inevitable about Rattlesnake Wash the timetable is further out and it won't address congestion problems on Stockton Hill the way an interchange at Kingman Crossing can.

Oh and here is a little secret, the new interchange(s) will mean demand for residential property in those area's. Unlike you, apparently, most people like access to faster roads to get to and from where ever they are going. The highway system in emerging cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix was very good to the equity positions of the folks that lived in homes in those areas. Those, like you, that don't like the proximity to shopping and the Interstate will likely be even more able to sell their home and move out of that area and into a neighborhood more to your liking without such amenities. It is a win-win situation for all of us.

I had a nice conversation with one of the editors of the Daily Miner this morning. I think the media is more accepting of the idea to listen to other voices rather than just the anti-growth groups. The problem has been that the pro-growth groups are not voicing their side of the story enough. I can't say if that is totally true or not, but I got the impression that if our local Realtor Association wanted a say on these matters that the paper would give us space in an article to do so.

I also agreed with the editor on the fact that the city government is not doing enough to inform the public on the entire project. The city seems to have a 'we can't talk about this now' problem and that is unfortunately all too true from where I stand. Something to keep in mind for the next round of city elections.

The editor also had one other concern. I think he heard through the grape vine that the Association was going to call for a boycott of ads in their paper. For the record this in not true, nor will it ever be true. The reason that some of us advertise our listings in the paper is to aid the sale of property on behalf of our clients and I can't see our Association ever putting our own agenda in front of our clients needs. I'd file a complaint against the Association if they ever even talked about organizing such a boycott. I am still a voting Member of the Board of Directors and this alleged boycott has never been spoken about or has even been an agenda item at any one of our meetings.