Trending Today ...
Railroad tank car explosion remembered 53 years later

KINGMAN, Ariz. – July 5th will mark the

Mohave County students graduate from Pacific, Shenandoah

MOHAVE COUNTY — Two students from Mohave County

dog with owner
Animal shelter will be adopting pets out on

KINGMAN, Ariz. – The Mohave County Animal Shelter

fireworks
Kingman’s Annual 4th of July Fireworks Show

KINGMAN, Ariz. – The City of Kingman is

VFW Post 10386 in Kingman celebrating America’s 250th

KINGMAN, Ariz. – Join the VFW Post 10386

Norman William Tooker, III

Norman William Tooker, III passed away in Kingman,

Thank you for reading The Standard newspaper online!

MC Planning and Zoning Committee rejects proposal to build foster care home near Havasu

MOHAVE COUNTY — The Mohave County Planning and Zoning Committee rejected a plan to build a foster care home near Havasu Heights, located north of Lake Havasu City. Representatives from Impact 928 believe that the group home serves a critical need, but most of the feedback voiced at the meeting from local residents was negative. 

Impact 928 was seeking a special permit to build a facility that would house up to 12 residents who would range in age from 12 to 17. The building would be a commercial-style facility with four community bathrooms. The land is presently zoned as Residential-Agricultural. 

A spokesperson for Impact 928 described a recent town hall meeting on May 7 at the Aquatic Center, where approximately 30 residents asked questions about the project, and which she claimed ended with applause.

Most of the residents who spoke at the planning and zoning meeting, however, raised several concerns. Some of these concerns related to the mysterious nature of the project itself. The project’s mailing address, for example, was listed as Calvary Baptist Church, which would present an issue if true because government funding rules are different when a church is involved. The Impact 928 spokesperson denied this, saying that they now have a P.O. Box. 

Another resident pointed out that the project was initially announced back in December as a “transformative, equine-based residential treatment center,” and was only later described as a foster home. 

However, the biggest objection raised seemed to be with the well-being of the potential teenagers the group home is intended to help.

One resident identified herself as a school counselor with 25 years of experience working with boys and girls from group homes. She argued that none of the people involved with Impact 928 have the experience necessary to run a group home. She claimed that the real driving force behind the group home was a tightening deadline on the use of ARPA funds that had to be used or they would be lost. Little regard was being given to the situation Impact 928 was creating for these future children, she argued.

“Even worse is the negative impact on these young girls’ lives,” the resident said. “They want to place in a home out 45 minutes from the city where everything is located for them. No real support or plans for their educational, social, mental, and emotional needs.”

Another Impact 928 board member responded to these concerns by sharing her own personal motivation for starting the group home. She said that she was once saved from an unsafe home by being placed in a group home herself. She argued that there are presently no homes for teenagers in Mohave County, and that she merely wants to make a difference. 

“Right now, they’re all sent away out of their communities, and we just want to make a difference. I understand that they’re saying things like not in their backyard, they don’t want it in their community. But if we don’t do it, who will?”

There was little discussion from the committee members, but the words of Rex Ruse seemed to speak for all of them.

“I think it’s ill-concieved as to the location,” he said. “And looking at the floorplan…it doesn’t look like a home that will fit in this neighborhood. This looks indeed like a commercial facility. So based on that, I would make a recommendation for denial.”

This was the second time this project appeared before the Planning and Zoning Committee, and the board voted unanimously to reject the proposal.