June 16's paper has an article that reads "The Big Picture." Nothing could be further from the truth. It's not even a glimpse of what is in store if the plans for Kingman Crossing go forward as presented.
First of all, the public was misled when the mayor and the city manager said they were going for a change of designation of the city property at Kingman Crossing. Now they want to rezone said property.
So what's the big deal? Plenty. First of all, when the property changes to commercial (zone) the city is responsible for sewer and water to the property line. That alone costs more than the (projected) sale of the property.
The infrastructure costs would be $24 million. To break even, the city would have to get $160,000/acre for the 150 acres. Raw land won't sell for more than $2,500/acre if you could find a buyer.
Then there's the cost of the interchange. Another $24 million. Past proposals from Vestar said they would front the money but take 50-60 percent of the sales tax money at Kingman Crossing. Why should we fund an interchange that benefits Vestar and not the city? The city operates on sales tax.
Secondly, to sell the property before the I-11 corridor is completed would be losing a deal. All the investors would do is sit on the property (with city improvements) and sell it years from now for six to eight to 10 times what they paid. There is no guarantee Vestar is going to build anything. They've been sitting on the north side property for eight plus years already.
The third point is the Municipal Utilities Commission report that there isn't sufficient sewer hook-ups available for the infrastructure at Kingman Crossing.
The Council should be looking out for the citizens of Kingman and not special interest groups. In the May 5 meeting at the Board of Supervisors chambers, a stacked audience of contractors and realtors cheered the Major Amendment to the General Plan 2030, thinking of their own pockets.
Truth be known, investor groups like Vestar use their own people and not locals. Sure they may throw them a bone, but that's not how large corporations work. They keep the money in the company.
With all the controversy over this subject, the proper thing to do is put it on the ballot for the people to decide, not five members of the Council. There is no demonstrated urgency to go forward with this plan.