Chad Lundquist/Nevada Appeal
I don’t belong to the “any and all development is good development” school of city planning. And that’s why I’m against the proposed Vintage at Kings Canyon project, which would change the bucolic nature of the west side of Carson City forever.
Vintage developers want to build 160 senior housing units, 39 detached cottages, 175 single-family homes and a clubhouse on Andersen Ranch property along Mountain Street. This development is far from Kings Canyon, where I live; it should be called the Vintage on Mountain Street.
Initial reaction to the proposed development has been strongly negative, and for good reason. First, it would be built in a quiet residential area of single-family homes. It would also add 2,400 vehicle trips per day to Mountain and other streets in this peaceful, historic area of our city. And finally, it would destroy one of the last sizeable parcels of open space on the west side.
The announcement of this project created an immediate firestorm of opposition from nearby residents and others — including your favorite Appeal columnist — who live in the area. An informational meeting organized by the developer attracted more than 300 local residents and a followup meeting organized by west side neighbors revealed concerns about property values, the availability of water, possible flooding, greatly increased traffic along Mountain Street, and the way the project clashes with single-family housing in the area and the city’s Master Plan.
Neighborhood organizers Jason Kuchiniki and Peter Hennessy, who have established a Friends of the Andersen Ranch Facebook page, encouraged citizens to speak out about the Vintage project. Kuchiniki said the optimal outcome would be to turn the open space parcel into a public park, and I agree.
Edward McMahon of the Urban Land Institute endorsed that idea. “While change is inevitable, the destruction of a community’s unique character and identity is not,” he wrote. “Communities can grow without destroying the things people love.”
Appeal guest columnist James Pincock last Wednesday urged the city to acquire the Andersen Ranch property to preserve it as open space. “I certainly recognize the Andersen family’s right to sell their property to whomever they see fit,” he wrote. “But if funds . . . are available (a big “if”), I would hope the family would consider selling the property to another buyer (who) wouldn’t develop the land. . . . Regardless of what profit-driven developers want us to believe, Carson City doesn’t need another ill-conceived high density housing development.” Amen!
Although a representative of Lumos & Associates, the developer, assured nearby residents “the property would be developed without any impact to its neighbors,” I’m highly skeptical of such a far-fetched claim. That’s sort of like saying Donald Trump will become “presidential” between now and November. Not gonna happen.
I think Mayor Bob Crowell, the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission need to step up to the plate on this project sooner rather than later. I’d like to see some leadership from our city officials on the issue of west side development. It would be refreshing to see our elected representatives say “No” to real estate developers for a change. Because, as we know, there are some cozy relationships between city officials and developers, to be nice about it.
That’s why I won’t vote for any office-holder or candidate who would approve this misguided, unpopular project. There will plenty of opportunties for candidates to let us know their feelings toward this project between now and the primary. To borrow words from the late Nancy Reagan, let’s just say “No” to the Vintage at Kings Canyon.
Guy W. Farmer has been a Carson City resident since 1962.
