There was some interesting quotes from this article in todays edition of the KDM (Kingman Daily Miner). I want to share a few things from the article...
"From our standpoint, not much has changed," spokesman Stuart Goodman of Goodman-Schwartz Public Affairs said Tuesday. "From our perspective, Kingman Crossing is still the ideal location for a major retail project that can benefit the Kingman community and the region as a whole."
From my standpoint, I agree. The whole community could and will benefit. Better public access, increased public safety, more sales tax dollars generated, among the many benefits.
"The vote last week requires more creative thinking on the funding mechanisms," Goodman said, "but the fundamentals of the project still remain the same as they were when we first closed on the land back in January of 2007."
I think creative thinking has been needed since the project was first talked about. To me the election didn't have much to do with the project at all.
The Vanderbilt-Vestar partnership has dedicated most of the talk about funding to a sales tax reimbursement: Vanderbilt would front the entire cost of the interchange, then, over the course of several years, receive a 100-percent reimbursement from a portion of sales taxes collected from a mall that Vestar plans to build on the north side of I-40.
You mean... just like other municipalities have done throughout Arizona and California?? Say it ain't so. I'd still love someone to point out the flaw in at least attempting discussions in this manner when other communities are using this kind of agreement to improve their situations. Why not us??
Although the expectation was that the election would be the next major step for the project, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of room for progress right now, as Council's retreat is still a month away and there have been no discussions lately on the one thing Vanderbilt and Vestar need to move forward: an economic impact study that outlines the feasibility of entering into a sales tax reimbursement agreement. These studies are a prerequisite for any such sales tax sharing agreement.
I think the 'expectation' thingy was flawed. I still don't see how this election was tied to the future of this particular development when there is well known and well used options that have been staring at us all since the beginning. Plus the fact that a new interchange was never part of the roads improvement part of the bonds on the ballot that failed. These developers didn't expect us all to pay for it as an add on to our property taxes.
I certainly hope the current council or the new council will call for this 'feasibility' study to be considered. The cost is lower for one of these studies than what Kingman contributed to the package to bring Chrysler to Mohave County to replace Ford at the proving grounds in Yucca. The rewards would also likely be much higher in terms of returns as well.
E-mail records released from the city revealed that Vanderbilt had proposed a several year "freeze" on the city's land to eliminate commercial competition with Vestar's shopping center planned at Kingman Crossing North. Since the city's request for authorization to sell the Kingman Crossing South land, and since the denial of a major amendment to the General Plan for that same land, Vanderbilt essentially received what it indicated it wanted in the e-mails.
The above is so precious, so delicious. If you've been following along here then you will know why I say that.
I see the next decision for Kingman in regards to our community owned property to be either;
1) try for another major amendment to the general plan for the land use designation of the property... to once again go for conditioning the property for highest and best use. However, with no bonds in place to improve the resident owned property, it is likely that the city will have to look to the developer to enter into a development agreement (if it checks out through the feasibility study and an agreement between the city and the developer can be reached) that pays back the developer for fronting the costs to improve not only their property, but ours as well.
Or...
2) let the developer improve their property on their own dime with no expectation to pay back the city, but in return (since there is no free lunch) guarantee the developer that Kingman will not sell the resident owned land for commercial use for some period of time (maybe 20 years or more).
If you think about it rationally, option #1 gives Kingman more options to play with from the first day because there would little doubt that our property (the 168 acres) would be getting conditioned for a higher value if it was ever decided by the voters to sell some or all of it, while the other option limits what Kingman could do with our best land asset for an agreed to period of time.
Great article and I'm so pleased to see the developers speaking to the actual issues. Sure beats hearing the 'crooks and scoundrels' routine at city council meetings.
No comments:
Post a Comment