Comments on the campaign trail...

I've had the opportunity to speak to many, many voters in Kingman for the upcoming election as a candidate for City Council. While the vast majority of those folks are supportive, I do get a few negative comments and I want to address what those comments are for the readers here at MOCO Real.

I've been told the reason that a person is not voting for me is because I favor tax give aways to any and all developers that wish to develop sub-divisions at will and build an inordinate amount of homes that will never be sold. Okay, the previous loaded sentence is an accumulation of the negative comments directed towards me either in person, at public meetings, or on the Internet. I'll expound.

First of all I admit that I am a Realtor, a real estate agent, and the method by which I generate revenue for my business is if I'm hired by either a buyer or seller of real property and perform a successful property transaction. I find no shame in those facts, and in fact am quite proud of the choice I have made when I decided to start my own business. My business will succeed or fail based on nothing else other than my will to succeed or fail.

COMMENT: Of course Todd is pro-growth because he needs more houses to sell in order to make a living.

No I don't. My business is not predicated on growth and growth alone. While the housing market locally is statistically as bad as I've ever experienced, it does not mean that I still can't carve out opportunities to succeed in my career choice. Even though I reported this month the lowest total sold units of single family homes in a calendar month since I've been tracking data... there were still opportunities for my business to succeed.

COMMENT: Todd will support all new developers at will.

Nope. I couldn't care less about the name of a developER, however I am interested in seeing what sensible and beneficial developMENT can offer the community. There is very little doubt that the city of Kingman is in no position to develop property or even begin to pay for many items listed in the Capital Improvements Plan. The city is simply not generating enough tax revenue to provide all the things on our very long 'wish list' of things most in the community would like to see.

The community is in no position to take on added risk on our own for needs of developER's at this time (for either the out of town or the in town variety of devlopER), and it is likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future. The community should only be considering adding risk for public services, such as emergency service improvements (and by that I don't mean shacking up brave Kingman Fire Department employees in a single wide on the other side of the tracks downtown like others have suggested in public).

It is apparent that developER's have needs, and guess what?? The community also has needs. Another reality is that developER's have financing, while the community does not have financing to provide for the needs of both developER's and the community. The next logical step is not to wait a year, or two, or longer with the hope that the current situation magically gets fixed, no the next logical step is to have the community and the developER sit down to see if a possible agreement can be reached that is both beneficial to the developER for developMENT and (most importantly) the community for needed developMENT.

I believe that in order to reach such and agreement between a developER and the community is for the developER to take on most, if not all, of the risk involved in producing a beneficial developMENT for all parties involved. This is the foundation of public/private partnerships and communities all over the country, state, and (even in) this county are having these conversations... yet right now in Kingman there are local interests and even candidates running for elected office that are simply not willing to have this kind of conversation for various self interested (instead of community interested) reasons.

The questions that should be asked by the community of the developER's about proposed developMENT's should be along these lines:

Is the developER willing to provide and produce infrastructure for the developMENT??

Will the developER's developMENT provide more opportunities and jobs for the residents of the community??

Will the developMENT create or fill community demand for high quality, and/or environmentally responsible, and/or affordable housing??

Would a new commercial developMENT increase revenues for the city of Kingman (via sales tax dollars) substantially enough to warrant reimbursing the developER for fronting the cost of a major public infrastructure project from the projected and realized net-add revenue increases?? Is the developER willing to take on that risk and enter into such an agreement?? (this last set of questions should be asked of out of town developER's as well as local developER's.)

Why are other candidates and local interests afraid to ask (and answer) these questions??

COMMENT: Todd is in favor of giving away our tax dollars

There are no tax dollars to give away, and there never will be. If Kingman is ever able to right its financial ship enough to find itself in a position with all bills paid and all community needs taken care of... and still comes out with a surplus... I'll be voting to lower the taxes in order to be revenue neutral. The last thing I want to see is any government collecting more money than it needs to provide for public services and public infrastructure.

COMMENT: The 'Paper' says that there is no difference between tax incentives and tax reimbursements as they both 'give' tax dollars away.

The word 'give' has an interesting set of definitions. Here is the definition from the Answers.com dictionary...

give (gĭv)

v., gave (gāv), giv·en (gĭv'ən), giv·ing, gives.

v.tr.

1. To make a present of: We gave her flowers for her birthday.
2. To place in the hands of; pass: Give me the scissors.
3.
1. To deliver in exchange or recompense; pay: gave five dollars for the book.
2. To let go for a price; sell: gave the used car away for two thousand dollars.
4.
1. To administer: give him some cough medicine.
2. To convey by a physical action: gave me a punch in the nose.
3. To inflict as punishment: gave the child a spanking; was given life imprisonment for the crime.
4. Law. To accord by verdict: A decision was given for the plaintiff.
5.
1. To bestow, especially officially; confer: The Bill of Rights gives us freedom of speech.
2. To accord or tender to another: Give him your confidence.
3. To put temporarily at the disposal of: gave them the cottage for a week.
4. To entrust to another, usually for a specified reason: gave me the keys for safekeeping.
5. To convey or offer for conveyance: Give him my best wishes.
6. Law. To execute and deliver. Used especially in the phrase give bond.
6.
1. To endure the loss of; sacrifice: gave her son to the war; gave her life for her country.
2. To devote or apply completely: gives herself to her work.
3. To furnish or contribute: gave their time to help others.
4. To offer in good faith; pledge: Give me your word.
7.
1. To allot as a portion or share.
2. To bestow (a name, for example).
3. To attribute (blame, for example) to someone; assign.
4. To award as due: gave us first prize.
8. To emit or utter: gave a groan; gave a muted response.
9. To submit for consideration, acceptance, or use: give an opinion; give an excuse.
10.
1. To proffer to another: gave the toddler my hand.
2. To consent to engage (oneself) in sexual intercourse with a man.
11.
1. To perform for an audience: give a recital.
2. To present to view: gave the sign to begin.
12.
1. To offer as entertainment: give a dinner party.
2. To propose as a toast.
13.
1. To be a source of; afford: His remark gave offense. Music gives her pleasure.
2. To cause to catch or be subject to (a disease or bodily condition): The draft gave me a cold.
3. To guide or direct, as by persuasion or behavior. Used with an infinitive phrase: You gave me to imagine you approved of my report.
14.
1. To yield or produce: Cows give milk.
2. To bring forth or bear: trees that give fruit.
3. To produce as a result of calculation: 5 × 12 gives 60.
15.
1. To manifest or show: gives promise of brilliance; gave evidence of tampering.
2. To carry out (a physical movement): give a wink; give a start.
16. To permit one to have or take: gave us an hour to finish.
17. To take an interest to the extent of: “My dear, I don't give a damn” (Margaret Mitchell).

v.intr.

1. To make gifts or donations: gives generously to charity.
2.
1. To yield to physical force.
2. To collapse from force or pressure: The roof gave under the weight of the snow.
3. To yield to change: Both sides will have to give on some issues.
3. To afford access or a view; open: The doors give onto a terrace.
4. Slang. To be in progress; happen: What gives?

n.

1. Capacity or inclination to yield under pressure.
2. The quality or condition of resilience; springiness: “Fruits that have some give … will have more juice than hard ones” (Elizabeth Schneider).

I intentionally placed in bold two of the examples above that probably best fit what the 'Paper' was trying to convey. If I am right, then I believe the 'Paper' needs to finish the story for their faithful readers that are hanging on every word.

The 'Paper' needs to explain why the city of Kingman is placing in the hands of or passing on the tax money to the receiver.

Or...

The 'Paper' needs to tell us what the city of Kingman is delivering in exchange or paying the receiver of the tax money for.

Of course this task will be difficult for the 'Paper' to do because there exists no proposed agreement for the city of Kingman to 'give' anything to anyone when it comes to either tax incentives or tax reimbursements. Further... in my opinion the 'Paper' and other local interests have spent some degree of effort trying to convince the community that we shouldn't even explore options such as tax incentives or tax reimbursement agreements.

As a tax payer myself, I'd at least like to know the full story... as in what would I be placing in the hands of or delivering in exchange for exactly?? Maybe I want one of those (whatever it is) and -- if the price is right -- consider making an agreement. I won't know the answer to that though until I know what is on the table... none of us will (and I doubt that anyone would have to sell their soul to reach such an agreement).

COMMENT: Mr. So-and-So is saying that you, Todd, are on the payroll of out of town developers... or you, Todd, your campaign is being financed by out of town developers.

I have been hearing those things said through the grapevine for many months now, and all the Mr. (and Mrs.) So-and-So's making those allegations are wrong and they can't prove that they are right.

However, if there is an out of town developer (or an in town developer) that would like to contribute to my campaign there is still time to do so. Political action committee reports are due by the end of the month for this time period. I'll accept campaign contributions from anyone that wants to see me elected to represent this community for the next four years.

Just remember, I mean it when I say 'Community First'... as you won't find 'Realtor first' or 'developer first' or 'Todd's business first' anywhere in my campaign.