Editorial misses forest for trees

The Yuma Sun's editorial on Nov. 17 ("Critical question in development OK is MCAS' view") appears to be a classic example of not "seeing the forest for the trees."

To annex the area for the proposed Estancia planned community into the city of Yuma, it was necessary to find property immediately adjacent to the Goldwater Bombing Range with a common boundary of 300 feet or more. If you look at the map of this annexation, you will find a meandering connection of properties, not a compact area for a planned community.

Not mentioned in the editorial is the concern of the Yuma Planning and Zoning Commission about the possible cost of the utility infrastructure required to be put in place prior to the city of Yuma issuing the first building permit. That cost has been suggested to be $100 million, which is equivalent to the total cost of the proposed arena rejected by the qualified electors of the city of Yuma, equates to an up-front cost to each of the 50,000 new residents.

Could this area have been developed outside the city under the existing county planning and zoning regulations? Probably. Why then do these landowners come to the city of Yuma to request annexation where there are citywide impact fees for capital expenditures? The answer is simple: subsidization by the taxpayers and user fees of the citizens of Yuma!

Remember, when state bonding authority was used for building the new water and wastewater plants on the mesa, it was accompanied by the doubling of existing water and sewer user rates to provide a direct subsidy to developers.

Arizona Revised Statutes 9-471 requires the city of Yuma to have an approved 10-year plan for providing infrastructure and services to the area to be annexed prior to the actual annexation. A 10-year plan would lay out and itemize the infrastructure to be provided: water, sewer, wastewater treatment, fire, police, solid waste collection and disposal, parks and recreation, arts and culture, administration, etc. Was the Yuma City Council given a 10-year plan with costs and funding or just more "smoke and mirrors"?

Does Estancia LLC have any assets? The only information available from the Arizona Corporation Commission is a two-page list of names.

The problem with the city of Yuma does not lie with base closure or retention; that is a matter subject to the signature on a sheet of paper in Washington.

The principal issue before the citizens of Yuma is not base closure. The overriding issue is do you trust the Yuma city officials, elected and appointed, to tell the truth and act only to protect the interests of the citizens they work for?

JACK KRETZER, Yuma