Much of what has been in the letters and Guest Opinion column in recent days is replete with half truths and mistakes.
One writer states, "There is ample evidence in the United States that growth now makes us poorer..." Please cite one piece of evidence showing growth makes us poorer or, better yet, one piece of evidence showing that, under Nevada tax law, growth makes us poorer.
We have evidence, which is specific to Douglas County, that shows that a cap of 280 could cost you and me as much as $124 million in new taxes over the next decade. Our evidence also shows that growth rates near our historical average will reduce the need for more taxes. Under Nevada law, growth does not make us poorer.
Another writer says that Gov. Guinn raised taxes because growth does not pay. That is simply wrong. Gov. Guinn raised taxes because the big gamers wanted the tax base spread to you and me. The entire tax increase went to expand services - not to pay for existing services. And Nevada's growth, growth that supposedly doesn't pay for itself, generated a $600 million surplus the following biennium. Do you remember the rebate checks? We have a $500 million surplus again this biennium. The state has had a budget surplus every biennium since 1991 and, for the last decade, every county in Nevada that has any growth at all has averaged annual budget increases greater than the average Nevadan's pay increases. And we are to believe that under Nevada tax law growth doesn't pay for itself?
The letter writers exhibit selective memory when it comes to the master plan. They cite the master plan saying "new development should pay its own way and should not be a burden to existing residents."
They choose to ignore the fact that the state budget, the county budget and our study all continue to show that growth pays more than its own way. They cite the phrase, "the county should control the rate at which growth occurs." They ignore the fact that the master plan calls for the commissioners to establish a percentage growth rate and review the rate annually - the master plan does not say the commissioners cannot adjust the rate in the future. The master plan calls for reasonable growth and flexibility. It would allow the commissioners to protect our economic viability as well as our quality of life.
Some like to criticize Meridian Business Advisors. If you think they are wrong, please obtain your own study from the analyst of your choice. Meridian started with the Douglas County budget and applied well accepted financial criteria to model the next decade. Their results were reviewed multiple times to assure that the report was as accurate as possible. I'm certain that someone will pour over the thousands of items in the study, find a minor anomaly and proclaim that the entire study is wrong. But they can't argue with the real conclusion of the study, reasonable growth will reduce the need for you to pay more taxes over the next 10 years.
Impact fees are also mentioned as a source of revenue. Under Nevada law, impact fees can be used to pay specific costs: Such as flood control, drainage, parks or streets - the same things the county requires developers to do today. And impact fees cannot be used for general operating expenses. No matter how much the county might charge for impact fees, it will have no effect on the need for additional taxes over the next 10 years. Of course, to collect impact fees we have to build houses. You can't have it both ways.
The statement that the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of SGI is incorrect. If the court had ruled for SGI, a cap of 280 would already be in place. The Supreme Court did not rule for either side, it remanded the case back to the local court of hearings.
And one writer wants "no stinking studies" of any kind. The courts have frequently overturned growth caps that cannot cite a demonstrated public welfare need. A growth cap that cannot cite one of those "stinking studies" is a guarantee that we will waste even more taxpayer money on lawsuits,
I want to address the attempt to portray people who do not support SGI as greedy villains who are trying to subvert the will of the people. The people on both sides of this issue are good, well meaning folks with differing opinions-that is the very heart and soul of this great country. In a recent Guest Opinion, the writer referenced the national election victory by the republicans in 2004 and by the democrats in 2006. His point was that the country must abide by the election results-I agree. But after the 2004 elections, the people who disagreed with the outcome were not denied that right to free speech, the right to have a different opinion or the right to campaign for a change. Indeed, the exercise of those rights is why the 2006 election had a different result. Fighting for what you believe in does not mean you are trying to subvert the will of the people.
The future of Douglas County is a work in progress. We are more apt to get it right if we stick to facts, respect each others right to an opinion and work together to find an equitable solution. The economic study is available at www.smartgrowthdouglas.com
-- Lynn Hettrick is a Gardnerville resident and spokesman for The Coalition for Smart Growth.
