James Pincock guest col: City should purchase Andersen Ranch property

I read with interest the letter to the editor by Paul LeFleur published on April 27 regarding the proposed housing development on the historic Andersen Ranch property, Vintage at King’s Canyon. He clearly enumerates some of the problems with this project, the sum total of which not only precipitate huge decreases in property values for those of us living in the area of the development, but also cause the loss of the less tangible, but equally important, value of this land as open space. I made some of the following comments at the meeting of concerned home owners on April 25.

Carson City west side residents were only recently informed of plans for this development. Some of us were shocked to hear this news. This important parcel is landmark, iconic property and in many ways defines the character of the west side. It’s more than just a pasture, and its value as open space can’t be overstated. It’s a pastoral island of tranquility near the heart of the city.

Those of us living adjacent to the property are the most directly affected, and are obligated to seek remedies for what we see as an ill-advised project. What can be done? Well, there needs to be some recognition by our current civic leaders development isn’t always a good thing, and for reasons too numerous and seemingly too obvious to list, open space is critical to the vitality and identity of our community. The most apparent benefits of open space are intangible improvements in “quality of life.” While hard to define, these benefits are easily understood. In a community with deep historic, rural, and agricultural roots such as ours, preservation of open space, especially this open space, would seem important.

In 1996 Carson City voters passed Question 18, a ballot measure called the Quality of Life Initiative. This was designed to fund projects to do just that — improve the quality of life. The initiative provided for a quarter-of-a-cent increase in sales tax, and stipulated 40 percent of those funds be directed to Carson City parks, and 40 percent be used for the acquisition and maintenance of open space. I’m unsure how many millions of tax dollars may have been collected over the last 20 years as a result of this tax increase, exactly how much may have been spent on other projects, or how much may still remain available. But I do know between the monies the city should already have earmarked for the acquisition of open space, funds available from concerned citizens and potentially from third party non-profit land conservancy groups this parcel could be purchased and remain undeveloped open space in perpetuity. As such, it would remain a permanent community asset.

I certainly recognize the Andersen family’s right to sell their property to whomever they see fit. But if funds equivalent to what the developer of this project is paying for the land are available from sources other than the developer, I would hope the family would at least consider selling the parcel to another buyer — one that would not develop the land. In this way they wouldn’t only receive the financial benefit of the sale, but also serve the greater good of the community. In doing so they would leave a legacy to be appreciated for generations to come.

Regardless of what profit driven developers want to make us believe, Carson City doesn’t need another ill-conceived high density housing development. What we do need is to take appropriate steps to preserve our heritage and those characteristics of our city that make it both livable and lovable. High on that list of characteristics is open space, especially historic open space. Loss of the Andersen Ranch property as open space would be a travesty, and a loss not just for neighboring residents, but for all of Carson City. It’s my hope that reason prevails and the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors recognize the value of this tract of land is far too great to allow its sacrifice on the alter of development. I urge them to simply do the right thing for the community they represent, and deny the approval of the Vintage at King’s Canyon development in its current, or any other amended form.

James Pincock lives on Carson City’s west side.