The other traffic interchange...

I was going to post this yesterday but I didn't have time.

There was an article from Monday's paper that talked about perhaps a private investor moving the Rattlesnake Wash TI project along much quicker than it is currently (allegedly) scheduled for construction... some time in 2014.

See the article here.

I want to make some points and I use the copy from the article.

It sounded Friday like the city possibly had a new player in the construction of the Rattlesnake Wash interchange and retail district at Interstate 40, but due to Kingman's political climate and some unresolved issues surrounding the project, talks have been put on hold.

Yes, the political climate is a mess right now... and the longer it plays out the longer it is going to be before any developer or other interested party moves either TI project forward. Meaning more traffic snarls on Stockton Hill for longer periods of time.

"They were considering funding some kind of mechanism to fast-forward the Rattlesnake Wash (project)," said Travin Pennington, who has been facilitating talks with landowners at Rattlesnake Wash and investment companies interested in the area. For now, he said, the company is going to wait until some of the details are ironed out, such as making sure Rattlesnake is on the five-year Arizona Department of Transportation plan, and until the political turmoil in Kingman cools.

Emphasis mine.

Again here is where I have a disconnect with the anti-growth group in Kingman known as RAID. They have consistently stated that the Rattlesnake Wash TI is the preferred TI for their group because it keeps traffic on the sacred street of Seneca to a minimum, among other things. They have shown rudimentary developer plans for retail in the area of the proposed TI... but to this point the TI is not official (although I expect it to be -- in about seven long years).

Despite Rattlesnake Wash having been in the works far longer, the city has been pushing Kingman Crossing, another interchange and retail district off I-40. Kingman Crossing has seen more progress in recent years because a developer recently purchased more than 200 acres on the north side of the highway and is interested in developing.

These developers that bought the property want to see a TI to make the most of their investment. Yes, there is political strife at the city and many think these developers are a little too comfortable with the embroiled City Manager and others at the city.

There is an example of the anxiety in a recent letter to the editor in the paper. One that said that the city shouldn't be signing the agreement that will give a 40 year tax incentive to these developers. This agreement simply doesn't exist, but I wouldn't be surprised that SOME in this community are intentionally misleading people into thinking the worst.

A group of citizens belonging to Residents Against Irresponsible Development are currently gathering signatures for a referendum petition against City Council's recent decision to change the land use of its 168 acres on the south side of I-40.

If enough signatures are gathered, the Council's vote to change the land use from open space to commercial will go to voters, pushing the issue back to November.

And depending on who shows up to the voting booths, the city could be overturned, leaving the land on the south side of Kingman Crossing designated as parks and open space.

Simply, a compromise is needed here... by all groups including the city, RAID, developers, and others.

I don't care about the referendum vote one way or the other. But the election pushes improving the city back at least a year and I don't think any of us can afford it.

It is time for all to be honest. What is it that we really want. Is it the shopping?? Is it protecting a sacred street?? Is it improved infrastructure and access routes??

If we are going to have to go back to the drawing board, we need to do it right away... like today. Not next year, not the year following that.

Right now I believe the compromise would be to remove the current city manager from his position and forcing the city to be more transparent in any involvement with construction of either or both TI's. I would hope that this compromise would lead to others and that they would be a bit easier.

Bottom line is that the community needs to hear from all sides. The developers need to speak up with more details on their intentions. The city needs to be more transparent in the negotiations. RAID needs to support growth in this city and that would include the TI at Kingman Crossing.

Until there is a more unified message... what you are experiencing in Kingman right now will continue... and that would go for the current state of the housing market as well. We should be wanting to bring investment into the area instead we are sending very mixed messages.