Keith Ruben offered up a guest opinion article in the Feb. 9 edition. It set forth a proposal to urge the county commissioners to adopt a growth management ordinance that would be "flexible" in that the commissioners could change the growth rate every five years to meet variable conditions. But first he urges adoption of a 3 to 3.5 percent fixed growth rate until a fully funded capital improvement plan can be adopted.
My first reaction is that Mr. Ruben doesn't tell the public who he is. For those who do not closely follow this issue, he is the right-hand man of Rob Anderson of R.O. Anderson Engineering Inc. This outfit has a virtual monopoly in providing consulting services to mid-size and large developers, including professional testimony before both the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, advocating approval of an endless number of building projects. Not that there is anything wrong in Mr. Ruben expressing his opinion, but the public should know just who he is so that they can assay and weigh his opinion. Though undisclosed, it is also likely that he is speaking on behalf of or is emulating the position of the Coalition for Smart Growth.
It is laudable that Mr. Ruben now concedes that the rate of growth should be predicated on a fixed rate and not a compounding rate. The master plan text doesn't expressly authorize compounding rates nor does it state so as a matter of policy. His recommended growth rate, however, starts at the highest levels authorized by the master plan (3-3 1/2 percent) and, according to him, that rate will stay there until this elusive, fully funded capital improvement plan makes an appearance. Officials have been talking about that requirement for an eternity - well, at least since 1992. The problem is that Mr. Ruben has it backwards; a very low rate should be adopted until infrastructure catch-up has occurred to handle previous under-funded impacts of growth caused by continuous uncontrolled residential growth to date.
The basic premise used by Mr. Ruben is that residential growth does pay its own way but only if the growth rate is high enough. This is the thesis apparently adopted by the fiscal impact study conclusions drawn by Meridian Business Associates, paid for by the coalition. Former Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick recently explained that Nevada's "unique" tax structure makes this possible because tax revenues collected by the state, are redistributed to counties, cities, and towns based on their respective population increases. So the faster you grow the more money you get from the state. Let's use their illustration:
According to their report, if 280 units produces a county budget short fall of $123.6 million dollars at the end of 10 years, and a 21/2 percent growth rate produces a short fall of $90.8 million dollars at the end of 10 years, and a 31/2 percent growth rate still produces a $68.3 million dollar short fall at the end of 10 years, then it follows that an ever increasing residential growth rate far above 31/2 percent should eventually balance the county's budget. What's wrong with that picture?
According to most authorities, this will never happen because new residential growth has never paid its own way without increasing taxes or ignoring the impacts of excessive growth - like in our case, the sheriff's department's need for more deputies and equipment, need for a new senior center, road maintenance and new roads Ð to balance the budget.
Even Mr. Ruben's boss at one time conceded this point. In an R-C article dated April 13, 2002, Mr. Anderson acknowledged that SGI's position that growth doesn't pay for itself is true not just in Douglas County but all across the country. He further conceded that residential growth only pays 7-9 percent of the local infrastructure which he says is "a given" that "needs to be put aside." How do you feel about that, Mr. Taxpayer?
Of course, the budget shortfalls set forth in the coalition's fiscal impact study does not ever mention the question of whether such revenue shortfalls occur, at least in part, because of the failure of the county to impose "impact fees" upon developers. Impact fees are authorized by Nevada statute and can be used by the county, at its option, as a method to require developers to pay their "fair share" of infrastructure costs to the county. Instead, county relies on "negotiated" development agreements for such "fair share" contributions by the developer. Given present empirical evidence that uncontrolled growth has produced insufficient financing to pay for development's impacts, it is clear that "negotiated" fees are grossly under collected or the County is mismanaging its budget or both.
The result is that the county operates under a Las Vegas "ponzi-style" scheme of collecting fees from developers, intended to finance infrastructure for future growth, to pay for current growth's unfunded impacts. Eventually taxpayers will wind up holding the bag. If this kind of growth addiction can't be stopped, a lower growth rate - like a 2 percent fixed rate (280 based on the 2000 U.S. census) - should be adopted. The prior approved development agreements (called the "overhang") should be melded into this figure, with borrowing provisions to safeguard their legal status. This would mean true growth controls from the beginning rather than maybe 10 years from now.
My last observation: Why, some 5 plus years after passage of the Sustainable Growth Initiative, are developer spokespersons and their principals still in denial over the reality of the outcome of that vote and insist on resurrecting its vintage 2002 campaign of total opposition based on the same old arguments already rejected by the voters? The answer is that they see the current efforts to legislate a comprehensive growth control ordinance as a new opportunity to again pay lip service to the lovely master plan, while trying to defeat any realistic measure of controlled growth.
It is tragically apparent that issue of the growth rate, which was approved by the voters over five years ago, has now been overshadowed by the utter breach of the democratic process by the powerful. That fact alone is Exhibit A as to why any future decision about changing the residential growth rate should be within the sole province of the voters, most county commissioners being too vulnerable to over powering political pressure by the large developer group.
-- John H. Garvin is co-chair of the Sustainable Growth Initiative Committee and a Minden resident.
