Many folks say that I am anti-RAID or that if RAID says the sun rises in the east I retort that the sun rises in the west. It isn't so. In fact RAID has done some good things in the overall scheme of current events.
However, I have taken great pleasure in offering rebuttals to some of the columns that certain members of RAID write in the Kingman Daily Miner. It takes guts to write a column in the media for all to see either in the newspaper or online, and I respect those guts.
Today I am going to fisk another column that appears in the paper, no not a column from a member of RAID -- but a column written by what I'm guessing is a spouse of a member. No hard feelings here, just plain old rebuttal.
Here is the column for all to see.
Fisking here, my emphasis if needed...
First, in the current economy, and with the doubts the citizens have about their leadership, why would any investor want to buy a section of land unless he could "steal it" or was already assured by the City Council that he could rezone it however he wanted.
The land in question here is the State Trust lands that were not bid on last week. As I understand it the land included 640 acres (a full section) with 26 acres earmarked for a high school and another 30 acres or so to be designated by the city to be for a community park. So really it was for 584 acres that was up for bid... actually less when you take into account the easements that would be required for streets and other public services... but we will use that number for this exercise.
Since when is $27,397 an acre a steal for that much property around here?? Who pays that kind of money for land in this market with the idea of NOT capitalizing on it at some point?? The opening bid had a minimum placed on the land at $16 million, do the math. Oh it would be a 'steal' if a person was buying one acre or even 10 acres... maybe. As I understand it, a developer in Golden Valley bought the land for his development for much less per acre (please correct me if I am wrong)... and he doesn't even have those crazy impact fees to worry about like a developer in the city limits would have.
Do we really need more commercial development? Drive around and notice how many vacant commercial buildings are for lease all over town. Are you considering these local property owners who can't lease their buildings?
So are you saying that if the city artificially limits growth that all will be well in Kingman?? That by limiting growth we'll save the economy?? Opportunity brings opportunity. Don't forget about the sales tax dollars that are NOT collected here in Kingman at this time, but yet are being collected in other locations such as Bullhead City and even in Las Vegas when residents of Kingman shop and entertain themselves there... two places where there is opportunity and plenty of commercial development ongoing to this very moment. Keep in mind that both locations continue to also see residential development a key component in the success they are having... even in this softer economy that they are feeling just like we are.
Are you considering the 1,000-plus homes for sale (some for more than two years) when the City Council approves more subdivisions? Some of these people really need to sell their homes but can't! What about them?
Yes they can sell their homes. The market is always right and never wrong. I've not been in the real estate business long enough to experience sellers bringing money to the closing table myself, but many respected brokers and agents that have been in this business for a much greater time have told me about just such markets in the past. Kingman needs to get people excited about moving to the area again to help the market swing back to something more normal (by normal I don't mean the 30% gain in value we saw in average price from '04 to '05 or the 17.5% gain from '05 to '06). Otherwise we should all expect to see this softer housing market continue. Do you want to be part of the solution or not?? Saying no to growth will only hurt the current property owners even more. We are in a bad part of a cycle and it will take more time to get things back in balance, especially if growth is halted.
I understand from a reliable source that there are more than 1,000 homes around the city going into foreclosure!
Foreclosure rates are up ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. Kingman is not a country unto itself here. There are many factors that are affecting folks that bought homes in the past. Some of it even has to do with the fact that some prominent businesses in Kingman are closing shop and fine folks are being let go from jobs.
I ask you, is limiting growth the best medicine for those most affected??
People bought their homes three years ago when the market was inflated and now they are worth $50,000-$150,000 less in today's market!
I don't know who your 'reliable' source is, but I know a guy who tracks housing data locally on a blog somewhere and the average priced sale in May 2007 was $64,881 higher than in May of 2004. I'll try to find the link for you when I get a chance. Will property values head south?? Well after 3 to 5 years of double digit gains (which is abnormal) I would wager that a correction of some sort could take hold.
Again I have to ask is limiting growth the best prescription to what is ailing the current market??
I have also heard that there are less than 30 escrows being closed a month! And we have 500 Realtors in the area!
So 30 a month eh??
55, 51, 31, 42, 40, 64... no these are not the winning Powerball numbers... they represent closed escrows from the last six months of single family homes in the city limits of Kingman, SFR's in Chaparal Mesa and in Valle Vista (which I believe are outside the city limits)... they do not include modular home sales... SFR sales in the north Stockton Hill area, Golden Valley, or anywhere else... they also do not include land sales... nor non REALTOR represented transactions.
Even still, the numbers are not impressive I realize and they are down considerably. But I'm wondering how limiting growth will turn those numbers around??
There is more to the column, but that is all I have to comment on... oh except for this...
By the way, I am NOT a member of RAID.
Obviously... RAID is NOT anti-growth, right??
.
No comments:
Post a Comment