A report on the April 25 meeting on The Vintage At Kings Canyon

The project called The Vintage At Kings Canyon was presented by the managers in an open meeting at the Fritsch School on April 7th to a crowd estimated at 250-400 people.

On April 25 it was again the topic of another public meeting at the school. This time the meeting was called by the neighbors, and drew over 200 highly interested people, along with the mayor, two candidates for mayor, a supervisor, a candidate for supervisor, a reporter, a retired reporter, and other retired reporter also a candidate for supervisor.

In contrast with the April 7 meeting which evoked a lot of anger both at the project and at some missteps by the managers, the April 25 meeting was very friendly and civil -- the project managers declined to attend.

The main presenter and MC reviewed the project in some detail for the benefit of the small handful of people who were not at the April 7 meeting. (The details are on the web page https://vintage2016blog.wordpress.com/2016/04/18/2016-not-a-good-vintage/.) Of particular concern to me were the following points.

1. Energy efficiency. (This is the fad of our times, regardless of the fact that "green" energy is not practical or economical without massive subsidies from tax payers and rate payers.) The project managers on April 7 have actually indicated they will cover the roofs of all new construction with solar panels, and our MC seems to support similar measures.

2. Age restrictions vs. diverse population profile. On April 7 the project was presented as an upscale retirement community for people over 55. (However, that may be both illegal under the latest HUD and DOJ guidelines.) Our MC prefers a healthier mix of young and old families for the vitality of the community. The neighborhood at present is indeed a such a mix, not quite an exclusively retired community.

3. Carson City's resources for the retired. The city does have facilities for different levels of accommodation and care for the retired and elderly, as well as several recent and upcoming massive projects for new housing for a general population. (This point needs to be fleshed out more, because it goes to the heart of the question, is The Vintage At Kings Canyon even needed?)

4. Concern about higher than normal radon levels in zip code 89703. (We are doomed…)

5. Hand-picked CAB. The Vintage project managers are hand-picking people from the neighborhood to serve on a Citizens Advisory Committee. (We all know the game; A supposedly representative sample of the people -- can you guess? -- magically agree to everything the developer wants…)

6. Density vs. property values. The MC pointed out that high density and no open space inevitably lead to decreased property values.

Another organizer rose to explain the range of popular reaction to the project.

Option 1. Leave it as is, keep it open space. He explained that the plant mix on the property has declined over the years and will need a lot of work to bring it back to being an attractive area as open space.

Option 2. Keep the current Master Plan and zoning. The proposed project is simply too dense and therefore in violation. If we must build, respect current land use and lot size restrictions.

Option 3. Offer a better plan with for less drastic changes in zoning. Specific objections address the very high density mixed-use area on Mountain Street.

Option 4. The project is fine as proposed; full speed ahead. A total of TWO people supported this sentiment.

This organizer's position is that, as the last remaining open parcel on the west side, it is inevitable that it will be built on someday.

Most people seem to prefer to leave it as open space, and the MC recited some numbers to show the per-capita cost if we as a community decide to make an offer to buy the property. Aside from the task of convincing enough people to buy in and thereby keep the per-capita share low, the idea seemed to find a sympathetic reception both in the April 7th and the April 25th meeting.

After a dozen or more people rose to make their comments on the project, the MC came back to make additional points.

7. He reviewed traditional sources of money to buy land for public use or preservation. He said the most likely possibility is a grant for community parks, in which case this property could be transformed into something like Rancho San Rafael, with a number of amenities and attractions traditional for a city park. (We don't have anything like that in Carson City. Having grown up in such parks in Budapest, Paris, New York and San Francisco, I think it's a great idea.) Preserving it as a park would also let is be used as part of flood control.

8. There is a petition presented on the FaceBook page called FriendsOfAndersenRanch. (I have yet to see the text of that petition.) We have only two months, and based on most recent voting records we need 1275 valid signatures to get a petition on the ballot.

9. Studies show that open space makes a neighborhood safer; the crime rate goes down; and property values tend to rise.

As I said, a dozen or more people rose to make comments. In no particular order and without listing the names (to protect the guilty and also because I couldn't possibly remember),

• There are already assisted living facilities in operation and a new one is being build south of the old hospital on Mountain Street.
• No Zoning Change. This drew an applause.
• High density development is a "complete disaster." The speaker cited dire examples from his experience in Lyon county, and drew a huge applause. He favors option 3 (above).
• Again, a community with open space is a healthy community. More importantly,
• Realtors do NOT disclose to new buyers the fact that the Andersen property is for sale to a developer.
• A retire airline pilot and aircraft safety expert rose to say that we have to keep open space on the west side for emergency landings. The alternative is to crash into homes. He wants the city to buy the land, and move the Vintage project to the southeast part of town. Another big applause.
• One speaker raised the problem with HUD financing. On April 7 a manager did admit that one potential lender for this project does or has worked with HUD. (The problems are explained in https://vintage2016blog.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/6-hud-affh-bye-bye-to-l....)
• "It is criminal to have high density."
• Keep the Master Plan and the zoning as-is.
• We are still in a drought; where will we get enough water for the projected maximum Carson City population of 86 thousand?
• Raise the water and sewer hook-up rates back up to $5,000 like they were before, and reduce the water and sewer rates
• Preserve / bring back the old charm and character of Carson City -- build only custom homes, not high density track homes.
• It is easier to get financing for custom homes on larger lots.
• Again a call for option 1 -- keep the open space -- and again drew a huge applause.
• We don't need a "community within a community," as Vintage proposes.
• Don't outgrow the city's resources.
• Concerns about flood control, changing the ground level that would both spoil existing views and divert flood waters onto existing neighbors.
• The sale of the Andersen property has NOT been finalized yet -- and existing neighbors over a period of time were specifically told that "this day will never come."
• Several people pointed out that they too were explicitly promised (as was I when I bought a home and settled here), that "they" (whoever this vague "they" are) did explicitly promise to keep the property open space -- which is of course one major reason why we all bought here rather than somewhere else. (I have additional e-mails specifically mentioning this very point, but city officials or employees say otherwise.)

And finally people pointed out to huge applause that
(1) we need to heavily lobby the mayor and supervisors and
(2) tell all elected officials and candidates running for office that their election or re-election depends on where they stand on this issue.

The last presentation by a third organizer returned to the theme about the Vintage Citizens Advisory Board (see above). Of course we want to select the people who serve on that CAB.

Almost everyone who came to the two meetings has signed the attendance sheet. Of course the Vintage people kept the list from April 7. This time we kept the list. People signed up to be informed, to volunteer to collect signatures on the petition, to be part of the steering committee, to be on the Vintage Citizens Advisory Board -- and to buy No On Vintage yard signs…

Respectfully submitted,
Peter Hennessey