Turn Back the Clock...

I've heard from many that the Kingman Daily Miner is at it again this political season. I won't be giving my opinion as to what the 'it' is that the KDM is at 'it' again during this political season. Why?? Because while you will be risking being bored to death by what I am writing, I would most certainly be risking the all important endorsement of said publication (not much of a risk though with the way they are painting the profession of Realtor these days in the op/ed pages). I might have a few questions though along the way.

I simply thought it'd be fun to take a look back to see what has changed... if anything.

First up, the editorial board review of the three mayoral candidates from before the last primary election the city held.

Board sees good, bad in all 3 candidates

2/19/2006

We choose … more choices. After sitting down with the mayoral candidates in this year’s local election, the Miner Editorial Board could agree on only one thing: We wish others were running.

About a month ago, we asked Mayor Monica Gates, former Mayor Les Byram and candidate Terry Thompson to sit in front of our board and answer questions which we considered key in the upcoming mayoral race. We asked each the same questions and published their responses on Jan. 29, so readers could judge each on an even playing field.

Well one thing that pops out at me is that during the last week of January this year, the KDM was holding the Editorial Board reviews of the candidates. According the editorial from the editor on Sunday, KDM readers will not get to see the candidates responses until the latter part of next week... less than two weeks before the election. Also the Editorial Board will not make it's 'take' on the reviews known until the Sunday before the election. As you can see from above, the Editorial Board's 'take' was published two years ago yesterday, a little more than three weeks to go before the election.

Now... some of their 'take' from the last election...

While we were impressed with Gates’ knowledge of the issues facing Kingman, we were not satisfied that she truly wants to improve the quality of life for residents that currently call Kingman home. Her track record over the last two years must be considered, and while she has spearheaded beneficial changes in how the city functions, she has also alienated average citizens by allowing, even encouraging, massive housing developments that could seriously alter Kingman’s future … and not for the better.

I'm wondering what 'massive' housing developments were approved that were so bad for Kingman then and continue to be negatively altering Kingman's future.

Folks, new growth and construction are the mainstay's in our local economy. As we have seen for ourselves, all the hate against development has only led to job losses in the community and a decrease in revenues for the city. It is legal to subdivide, create sub-divisions and developments, and acquire permits for construction. It is legal to go through these steps and be subject to due process of the applicable laws and public input.

Now we should be reminded that developments, both residential and commercial, are subject to market forces. Markets are never wrong and always right. Most developers I know (including the ones running for office in Kingman on the ballot right now) happen to know this little factoid. And as a result, it is unlikely that any of those developers would build massive developments unless they thought they could sell their product in the market. Who takes the real risk in developing??

Then there’s the massive growth. Gates has shown that she is a developer’s best friend, throwing out the welcome mat for any big, out-of-town builder who wants to make millions of dollars off Kingman. As captain of the Kingman ship, amendments to the voter-approved General Plan have been the norm, not the exception. Thousands and thousands of homes have been OK’d with little consideration given to infrastructure and water constraints that even the most dim-witted Kingmanite knows must be taken into account before more people come to our area. Gates tells us to not worry about it. Well, we’re more than worried. We’re fed up!

How is that massive growth working out again?? How many new homes went up in Kingman the last two years?? 50,000?? 100,000?? 'Big' and 'out-of-town' are adjectives that are supposed to create fear and worry. We know that this passage is directed at a certain Las Vegas developer that has built zero homes in his grand master planned community that isn't even within the city limits of Kingman.

And ah yes, the General Plan thing again. Yep, voters approved it in 2004, well 10% less voters that voted on other issues on the same ballot did. They voted on a plan that CAN be legally amended. The General Plan is what it says it is... a plan... not marching orders. Plans alter based on change and change is constant.

If the Editorial Board was fed up in 2006, they must be pleased this time around as there was only one Major Amendment made to the General Plan in 2007... and the local activist group KDM covers the most, RAID, supported it.

Former Mayor Les Byram touted all the improvements made while he was at the helm of the city, and it’s impossible to dispute his commitment to this community. We are just not sure Byram would move Kingman forward, especially because he’s so focused on the past. He seems to want to turn back the clock to two years ago when he lost to Gates, and we fear that his attention will be on reversing many of her moves instead of creating ways to improve where we are at now.

Well... I'd say The Editorial Board may have got this one right, but I don't blame the mayor myself for the lack of forward movement since 2006.

Let’s face it, Gates inherited most of the problems she has been required to contend with the last two years. Traffic was bad then, roads were a mess, and there was no funding plan to improve either. Byram ran this city for the eight years prior, so it’s hard to believe that these infrastructure problems will be improved under his management. Neither he nor Gates has supplied us with a plan to improve traffic, especially on Stockton Hill Road, and Byram was the mayor when many of these businesses set up shop there. The Council was not thinking ahead then. How can we expect anything different if Byram returns to the hot seat?

Let's face it, traffic stinks now, roads are still roads (it is the road system that really needs improving), and thanks to some local interests and local activist groups there is no funding to help improve what was the Editorial Boards gripes two years ago.

Terry Thompson is a newcomer to politics and would bring a fresh approach to the Council … and he’s not a banker or developer, a good thing, since the current Council is loaded with them. We were excited to talk with him about his vision for Kingman’s future. We are still trying to figure out what that vision entails.

No... Mr. Thompson was not a banker or developer... he was/is a business owner in Kingman. I missed the memo I guess, what professions are on the list of acceptable pursuits in order to run for office in Kingman??

Thompson talked about building a consensus in the community. On paper, that’s a grand plan, however, in reality, it’s about impossible, especially in a city that has so many different types of people with different interests and desires. The Board feels that Thompson would take too long to get up to speed, and Kingman would suffer because of it. We would like to see Mr. Thompson run for a Council seat before taking on the top spot.

Building consensus is not an impossibility, at least in my opinion. It is something that the city leaders should be working on constantly. While it continues to appear to be a long-shot to do the consensus building, the effort is not being helped along by the most prominent and persuasive voice in the community... the one that buys ink by the barrel... the one that seems to imply that they are the voice of the community.

I feel compelled to ask, as the latter part I emphasized seems to indicate, if the current Editorial Board will use the same standard in any recommendation they may make this time around for candidates seeking that office?? Specifically does this still apply to a business owner that has never served the public before?? Should that type of candidate run for a 'minor league' position like City Council as the last Editorial Board seemed to imply??

If nothing has changed from the Editorial Board perspective, I think we are left to assume that once again the KDM won't be able to make a recommendation as to who they think would be a good fit for the office of Mayor. Our choices for mayor this time around are a business owner with no public leadership experience, a developer, and a former mayor. Sounds so two years ago... doesn't it??

I'll be posting some of the 'fair and balanced' op/ed pieces from two years ago shortly. After looking back, maybe we'll see if those op/eds had any influence on the last election.