Voters said they wanted controls on growth

Since its passage in 2002, I've watched the Sustainable Growth Initiative move along at something approaching the viscosity of room-temperature glass Ð the world's slowest flowing substance. The movement is discernable after a century or so, when the bottom of the window pane becomes thicker than the top. But I'm beginning to think the panes of glass in my house may actually be moving faster than the enactment of this voter-approved and Nevada-Supreme-Court-affirmed initiative.

The opposition has employed half a dozen tactics in their attempt to denigrate SGI supporters, slow or block its passage, or neutralize its effects once it was passed. I'd like to look at each of those six tactics in this article.

1. Ignorant Voters

"The voters," the opposition insists, "were misled prior to the 2002 election. Scare tactics were employed to convince voters that the Valley would be 'paved over' unless they curtailed it."

Newsflash to SGI opposition: The outcome of this vote was self-inflicted.

Voters such as myself knew that Douglas County had a master plan that would not only manage where and what kind of growth occurred, but also how much growth occurred. But we watched the county commissioners routinely approve any and all deviations from the master plan, explaining that it was really just a template (read: expensive piece of paper subject to change at-will). Then, we realized that although the master plan contained a range of growth limits from 2 percent to 3.5 percent, those limits would never be implemented Ð conveniently dismissed as "recommendations" (after all, what could be better than having a "template" Ð it gives the appearance of having a plan, but the substance can be ignored or adhered to depending on the economics of the particular matter at hand). No, the county would never get around to adopting and adhering to meaningful growth limits in the master plan when they could instead treat it as so much Silly Putty. Finally, we watched the electorate wake up and recognize what was happening without fail each time a developer went to the table requesting a variance or change to the master plan Ð unlike a trip to the casino, they came home winners every time.

We were neither uninformed nor misled. We saw exactly what was happening because we had the county's track record: Money always trumped the master plan. So we said "enough is enough" at the polls and naively thought that was the end of the matter. We'd spoken, and the county would at last be forced to listen and respond accordingly.

So what did they do? Why, join with the developers/builders/Realtors and hire lawyers, of course. After all, why comply with the will of the electorate when you can sue? This is America. The land of "if you don't like the outcome, change the rules until you win."

2. Slowed Growth equals No Growth

SGI limits the number of building permits to 280 per year, but to listen to the hysterics of the opposition, you'd think SGI placed a total moratorium on all new construction. I'm wondering by what esoteric branch of mathematics SGI opponents were able to make 280 equal to zero?

3. Arbitrary and Capricious

Tactic No. 3 was to say that the number 280 was arbitrary and capricious Ð taken out of thin air. Never mind that the Master Plan itself called for growth limits of between 2 and 3.5 percent, and that 280 was deliberately chosen to coincide with the lower limit of 2 percent.

4. Anti-Capitalist

This tactic became apparent with a phone call I received about a year ago from a pollster. "Don't you think that free market supply and demand alone should govern the amount of growth in the Carson Valley?" Gee, I guess by answering "No" I've made myself out to be a socialist, right? And that pretty much sums up this fourth tactic: Suggest that SGI supporters are embracing a form of socialism that circumvents capitalism.

Controls and a free market economy are not mutually exclusive. We don't allow adult bookstores across the street from our schools. We don't allow the auto wrecking yard to go in where we zoned a community park, just because the local industrial park is already full. We don't allow guys like me to raise pigs on my quarter-acre lot in a residential neighborhood. All of these things are a form of growth control. So if a community democratically decides that it wants to limit its growth to a level it considers reasonable, why is this decision to limit how much growth any different philosophically from government dictating where growth can occur?

The answer according to the Nevada Supreme Court was clear. Communities do have the right to control their amount of growth. And they don't necessarily need to employ factors such as water supply or other physical infrastructure constraints to justify those growth limits. They can have limits simply because they want to preserve a rural character and corresponding quality of life.

5. LINOs (Limits In Name Only)

As the SGI opponents trudged home from their Supreme Court loss, they were forced to concede that after a four-year battle the voters were actually within their rights. So they regrouped and launched their new brainchild: enact limits that are so large as to be essentially non-limits Ð or what I like to call LINOs. The concept isn't hard to understand: choose percentages that when compounded over 10 or 20 years result in essentially the same growth as we'd have under a status quo "no limits" environment. Never mind that the U.S. national average rate of community growth is 1 percent and SGI supporters are enabling growth at twice the national average. Never mind that figures such as 3 percent and 3.5 percent compounded annually give obscene levels of growth that cannot preserve the rural character and quality of life we voted for. Perhaps the LINO crowd was hoping we wouldn't notice, or couldn't do the math, or we'd somehow be hypnotized by the PowerPoint slides. But we get it. And we're not falling for it.

6. Stall

Tactic No. 6 is as old as humanity. But in this postmodern age, we've dispensed with such crass nomenclature as "stall." No, today we have a far more sophisticated word: studies. These studies must not only be expensive, but more importantly, time-consuming. It is also extremely important that when conducting these studies, they be funded by an entity with a vested interest in the outcome. That way (according to research on the subject of funded studies), the results will be eight times more likely to favor the funding entity. Thus, when we're emphatically told from this next study that "growth pays for itself," the one thing we can be almost certain of is that "growth paid for this study."

All sarcasm aside, the studies on groundwater and the economics of growth Ð while interesting Ð are not particularly germane. So while the opposition reacts with predictable furor to this last sentence, let me remind everyone of what we voted for: Substantially reduced growth compared to "status quo," enabling us to sustain the rural character and quality of life we currently enjoy in the Carson Valley. Not "as much growth as our groundwater will allow" or "as much growth as our infrastructure will allow" or "as much growth as can pay for itself." And once again, in case the opposition missed the memo from the Nevada Supreme Court: SGI won.

But, as the tenacious opponents that they are, there will be more time-consuming but irrelevant studies if they are allowed to further drag their feet. It goes back to my earlier observation: they'll keep re-doing the rules until they achieve the desired outcome. And they'll be sure to do this slowly so that the status quo situation will persist as long as possible and building can continue unhindered.

Although I am not an active member of SGI Ð I was simply a voter Ð it's clear that SGI is running out of options. I am convinced they're the only ones acting in good faith as they sit at the table with people whose sole goal seems to now be enactment of LINOs. Negotiations are fast becoming an exercise in futility and merely one more way to deny Ð or endlessly delay Ð the Douglas County electorate the rightful result of their vote. While this may have started out as an issue about growth, it has long since transcended that. It is an issue about principle Ð the principle of honoring the democratic process even when you don't like the outcome. Republicans had to abide by this in our last national election, as did Democrats in 2004. I suggest the county and its like-minded SGI opponents now do likewise.

Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that's going to happen. As a result, the only thing left may well be for SGI to utter those sad but increasingly All-American words: "See you in court - again."

n Steve Sabin is a Gardnerville resident.