The St. Augustine Record does a service for the community by refocusing our attention on the repeated attempts of the King's Grant developers to override the reasonable and responsible concerns of the community — for example, the South Anastasia Communities Association that is being sued by the King's Grant developers and the fair and balanced judgement of our county commissioners and the county Planning and Zoning Agency. The give-backs, the concessions that King's Grant is suggesting to the county and to the community to abate the developers' lawsuit are, essentially, old wine in new bottles: just keep suing and repackaging the same token "benefits" to the county and the community which were deemed insufficient in 2015 — and maybe they can slip-slide by this time.
No one needs to be reminded of the debacle at State Road 210 when developers overbuilt that community without adequate infrastructure planning and investment. The result: it took 45 minutes to drive a half mile from your new house in the new development to get on I-95 to go to work.
With the King's Grant development of almost 1,000 homes and hundreds of thousands of square feet of commercial space located in a rural area, the primary access to schools and existing retail establishments (grocery, restaurants, car dealerships, pharmacies, health care, hardware, home improvement, etc.) is on State Road 206 which is a two-lane road similar to S.R. 210. I think I read somewhere that the intersection of S.R. 206 and U.S. 1 is one of the more dangerous intersections in the county for motor vehicle collisions. That's without King's Grant.
You could go down the list of negative impacts on the community if the King's Grant development is approved. One of the first and most obvious impacts is Pedro Menendez High School. Nothing in the "benefits" the King's Grant developers are offering would ameliorate the increased enrollment at Pedro. It's the taxpayers of St. Johns County who will have to foot the bill for the King's Grant's real estate gambit on many fronts.
We've had a painful object lesson with the S.R. 210 adventure. Let's not make the same mistakes again, hoping for a different outcome this time in order to satisfy a developer's self-interest. Perhaps a brief email to your county commissioner on this issue would be appropriate under the circumstances.