Column: Affirmation for Dayton's historic district

The Comstock Historic District Commission's recent reaffirmation of their determination to maintain Dayton's membership in the district is a positive indication there are better days ahead for the area's historic preservation efforts.

On Aug. 10, 1998, in the face of overwhelming resident support to do so, the commission resolved to keep the district intact. On Nov. 13, 2000, the commission rejected discussion on a petition to remove Dayton from the district and said, in no uncertain terms, it would not re-discuss the issue every time a few residents become irritated with district policies.

The Nevada State Legislature in 1969 formed the district to protect the historic integrity of the Comstock region. District policies and boundaries have often been the object of considerable attention and debate. With the exception of a few malcontents, however, a majority of that debate has not been to remove Dayton from the district, but over what many have perceived as an inconsistency in enforcement of district policies.

Residents simply want to be treated equally. The current membership of the governing board appears committed to that goal. If they follow through with this new resolve, high profile arguments and conflicts over signs, boundaries and regulations should be a thing of the past and energies can once again be directed to preserving and protecting what remains of this unique and treasured part of Nevada's history.

*Changes must be made and rules and regulations must be strengthened in relation to the monitoring of public activities at county facilities.

The recent brawl at the Dayton Community Center certainly brought the issue to the forefront; however, concerns with how to assure county property is protected while, at the same time, guaranteeing the public has fair and equal access to taxpayer supported buildings has been a concern of local officials for some time.

Our communities are growing. Requests for use of county facilities for private functions are increasing, and not just from local residents. Many groups wanting to use the Dayton Community Center are coming from Carson City, primarily because there is no county policy requiring outside security. This has made it a popular spot for youth oriented, alcohol-consuming celebrations.

I do not think it would be discriminatory to: (1) Charge increased fees for those living outside of Lyon County and (2) Require youth oriented groups to hire a private, county sanctioned security firm.

Rules become necessary when individuals, usually a small minority, disregard the rights and property of others. Through the years, the Dayton Community Center has been the site of many wonderful gatherings. Those renting the facility monitored their own activity and made sure no damage was done and, following the event, made sure the building was clean - all without a long list of rules and regulations to guide them.

While the great majority of users continue to treat the historic building with respect, a sizable cleaning deposit is now a prerequisite for use because more and more have left the site in disarray, dirty and damaged. Now, to some, even the $300 deposit is not a deterrent to obnoxious, destructive behavior.

It is a sad commentary on our society - that with growth, such practices become more common, even acceptable to some, making it necessary to impose upon everyone more restrictive rules and regulations.

County officials are addressing the situation and new policies should be ready in the near future.

*With a new road acceptance policy in place, the county has already added miles to their road maintenance system.

I am sure those living and traveling on these streets are quite pleased that the bumps, lumps and potholes will be improved and repaired on a regular basis. It is nice the county feels it can financially support adding them to the system.

The developers must feel very good about it, too. Particularly since county officials still show no inclination to change current county codes to place any greater burden on them to assume responsibility for the impacts on roads their developments incur.

It is apparently easier to increase the burden on the taxpayer than to face a group of angry developers. Heck, the taxpayers won't even realize it; after all, there is no visible tax increase. And nothing gets votes like a fulfilled promise of improved roads.

The sad thing is, with the new road acceptance policy in place and without changing current county codes, the number of roads the county will be adding to its system at taxpayer expense will endlessly perpetuate.

Remember this the next time the commissioners tell you there just isn't enough money to improve or build the needed additional parks.

Go form a special district and tax yourselves - it should not be the county's responsibility to pay for such things, they say.

Think about it.