Responding to one of the comments...

I'm moving part of the discussion from a comment made in one of the Prop 301 posts. To the commenter person that goes by the name of Dan... this is not to belittle you at all, it is just easier for me to respond to your lengthy (and appreciated) comments.

Here goes...

Here are some of my issue w/ Prop 301 Todd:

1. No legitimate actual appraisal by a licensed commercial real estate appraiser has been done, so we're simply guessing at this purported incredible value.

I am NOT an appraiser, nor do I play one on TV. However it doesn't take a licensed commercial real estate appraiser to tell folks that 168 acres of property along the side of an Interstate with a land use designation for commercial is more valuable than a land use for parks and open space.

Again, this is THE issue and why I'm supporting Prop 301 because it alone makes MY property more valuable.

2. There is a big hole in the property, which means to fill it, money will have to be expended, most likely a lot of money, which will decrease the profits of the land.

I've been told by folks in the development business that many creative things can be done with varying elevations, and it is thought that the entire hole would NOT have to be filled back in for some of these creations. But... I'm not in that business so I'd let the buyers sort that out.

Besides... why are we talking about profit on the sale of the land?? Prop 301 has nothing to do with the sale of the land. It is a simple land use designation change, where it goes from there is not my guess.

3. There is no access to the property now. If we gain access via the Crossing I/C, that means that we have to partner up w/ known felons (Wolfswinkel) and pay the ENTIRE PORTION of the I/C, thus AGAIN decreasing the profits.

What is with these assumptions?? Or have I missed the part where the City of Kingman has agreed to do whatever the developers on the north side of the Interstate want?? I've been to many, many city council meetings this year and haven't seen that resolution or ordinance passed. I've even watched the meetings on-line that I've missed and nope, haven't seen such a thing passed there either.

Of course I also would want to question your negotiation skills if you believe that the city HAS to pay for the entire traffic interchange. Unless someone can prove otherwise, no negotiations have taken place at this point with those north side developers. It is a clean slate and I believe that the city has more to bargain with than the developers do.

4. Don't forget the latest and greatest that neither your Council nor Staff have talked much about, but if KC I/C is a go, I-40 will have to be widened, which the City will be obligated to pay for the entire amount between Rattlesnake and KC, AGAIN decreasing profits.

Again with the profits. It is not profit, it is proceeds, and I fully expect them to spend all the proceeds once they are attained at some point in the future (again Prop 301 does not address the authorization for selling the property). For example expanding the Interstate sooner than later is probably a good thing and it would most certainly cost less to do today than it would 20 years from now. I don't know how much the city paid for that property but whatever that amount was, whatever the selling price may be one day you will want to take that figure and minus the cost Kingman paid for the property to get your profit calculation. I bet the citizens of Kingman do rather well for themselves when all is said and done.

And actually, many shrewd property owners (which we all are) often sell a property to improve other conditions... whether it is to buy more property, pay off debts, or to increase the quality of life. It is called asset management.

Bottom line--if this goes through, the City will come out in the red---that pit in those 168 acres will be a literal money pit. And trust me, you'll see--even if you do move by then, I'm confident you'll hear about it.

So you are saying that if Prop 301 is approved by the voters that the city will be in the red?? That is ridiculous.

It is becoming obvious that those against the land use designation change will do their very best to spread a misinformation campaign to confuse the issue. Advantage to those seeking a 'no' vote.

Dan, maybe you are a property owner and if so, would you want your property to be worth more or less in value if by chance someone came to you on the off chance that you might sell the property?? That is simply what this issue is about at this time.