Talk of the Town:  Prescott Valley can no longer rely on housing growth alone

By JEAN MOTTA, Special to the Courier

Originally published August 22, 2024

Does Lakeshore 650 (LS650) represent smart growth as Bruce Evans suggests in his recent Talk of the Town column, “Please think it through”?

Sandy Griffis, executive director of the Yavapai County Contractors Association, conveys support for housing growth in her Talk of the Town column, “Lakeshore 650 is growing into the future.”

Griffis and Evans are chair and vice chair, respectively, for the Prescott Valley Planning & Zoning Commission. Both of their columns focus on the same theme. Evans speaks about the “wisdom of new development” and, as Griffis puts it, “We must encourage and embrace growth in order to be better.”

In his column, Mr. Evans suggests that the 18 separate conditions imposed by the town on the LS650 annexation and zoning change were a result of the town’s “sensitivity to citizen concerns.” What Mr. Evans fails to point out is that citizens’ primary concern, from the beginning, has been the high density of this project. And yet, density is not addressed among the 18 conditions imposed by town staff.

Mr. Evans and town staff may be sensitive to citizens' concerns, but they fail to really listen and act upon them. In her column, Ms. Griffis simply disagrees with the concerns of the citizens.

She states that residential growth, like Lakeshore 650, is something Prescott Valley desperately needs to continue to be a vibrant community. Likewise, Mr. Evans seems to imply that improved amenities such as medical services, grocery stores, higher quality education and so on are dependent upon more high-density, master-planned communities, like Lakeshore 650.

Evans hints that citizens should think twice about initiating the referendum process to get this project on a ballot to be decided by the voters. He asks us to think about the tradeoffs and what we might lose.

The Board of the Prescott Valley Citizens Alliance did think it through and here are our thoughts:

1. Grocery stores: No one can guarantee a grocery store. Grocery stores, restaurants, and other popular retailers do not expand until their own market studies tell them that it’s a good business decision. Giving incentives to bring a grocery store to PV makes no business sense. Developers may take advantage of this by claiming that they brought a grocery store to the community when the grocery chain had already made the decision to expand. In the meantime, adding more homes and more shoppers will certainly make existing store aisles more crowded and the shelves emptier.

2. Expanded medical facilities: We already have too few physicians and many of them are overwhelmed with the existing patient-load. Adding more homes and more patients will not help.

3. Education: Better schools are a product of good teachers supported with proper resources. No project will improve the quality of education. Developers are "incentivized" to make a voluntary one-time donation per unit to the school district. A one-time donation to a district already lacking funds does not guarantee an improvement in the quality of education now and into the future.

4. More diverse housing options: We have a lot of diverse housing already, plus 3,700 units previously approved and not yet built. None of that helps anyone unless they are a.) affordable and b.) they fulfill people's wants and needs.

5. A binary choice for or against all development: Residents are not blindly saying “no” to all new projects or subdivisions. Citizens have repeatedly stated they are opposed to rezoning property for higher density. Residents want to maintain the rural character of Prescott Valley with land parcels developed as zoned. This vision for Prescott Valley is promised to the citizens in the General Plan 2035 (5.3.1 Growth Character Areas) which states: “Bounding the edge of the town character area is the “country” character area. This area includes activities and uses consistent with a rural lifestyle and low-intensity development, including ranching, equestrian, resort, rural residential, and open space.”

6. Water sustainability: The ongoing failure to achieve “safe yield” is being ignored.

From the minutes of the Oct. 12, 2023, Town Council Study Session, I understood Town Manager Gilbert Davidson to say Prescott Valley can no longer rely on housing growth but must invest in new and diverse industries. I believe a master-planned community like Lakeshore 650 does not achieve that objective, nor is it likely to improve the quality of life for existing residents. So who really benefits?

If Lakeshore 650 becomes a reality, only one thing is certain. It will change the landscape and character of Prescott Valley forever.

"The beauty of land is priceless; its destruction is permanent.” 

- Eben Fodor, Better, Not Bigger

Jean Motta is the communications director for the Prescott Valley Citizens Alliance, a 501(c)4 not-for-profit organization committed to raising public awareness and promoting good governance for Prescott Valley. PVCitizensAlliance.org

Source: The Daily Courier  | DCourier.com