Oppose lands bill
Editor:
We are writing in opposition to the wilderness designation of approximately 188,000 acres in Lyon and Mineral counties. This letter is particularly directed to Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign. Their representatives were at a meeting in March in Wellington attended by 500 residents of these counties in unanimous opposition to this proposal. A member of the county commission was present and reminded the congressional reps that the commission rejected a wilderness bill in 2005. It was felt by many that the representatives did not really listen to the residents' concerns. Many residents spoke of the historic, economic and recreational facets of the area and how lifestyles enjoyed by generations would be eliminated and economies devastated or eliminated throughout Lyon and Mineral counties.
Resident spoke representing grazing, mining, geothermal, munitions depot, private property, forestry, and all forms of recreation, including equestrian, bird watching, four-wheeling, biking, hiking, hunting and fishing. It was felt what should take five years for this process is being crammed down our throats in five months.
Gov. Jim Gibbons sent a letter to the Congressional delegation voicing his opposition. He called local stewardship of any lands "imperative" and for the delegation not move forward with any lands bill (including wilderness, water issues or anything else) until Lyon and Mineral counties choose to support such an effort.
Barbara Neddenriep
David Neddenriep
Smith Valley
There is another shill among us
Editor:
There is a new shill amongst us and he is the new publisher of The Record-Courier. That's what I call a person that is new to the community that comes in and says the sky is not falling and everything is going to be OK at the airport. He made the point in his March 21 article that near his home at Vail is an active jet center, the Vail-Eagle Airport, and it doesn't bother the residents of Vail, regardless of the time of day or night. There is good reason for that as the airport is 30 miles east of Vail. The jets are at cruising altitude when they pass over Vail for landing or departure. The runway is oriented east-west and the prevailing winds are from the west. Most of the maneuvering and let downs are done to the east of Eagle and the jets never get close to Vail. It is a busy jetport that requires scheduling of arrival times because it gets so busy it can not handle all the traffic desiring to land there. The airport does not allow any glider traffic, takeoff or landing.
Having said all that, do you want the Minden-Tahoe Airport to follow this trend? Is the sky about to fall as we see Piñon Aero posturing to build 120 hangers capable of housing jets twice the weight that our runway can bear and our ordinance prohibits? Our county is sharing the construction costs for improving the access to the Piñon Aero lease after putting in a water line on Heybourne Road from Johnson Lane down to abeam the Pinion Aero lease. It sounds like the county is promoting growth to support jet airplanes from elsewhere to be hangared here. The majority of the residents of this county have passed an ordinance to forbid this from happening, back in 1984 and the county commissioners passed a resolution stating the direction for the airport, the residents sentiments have not changed but the county commissioners appear to have lost their direction.
The jet center will become a reality if everyone sits idly by and does not make their views known to the county commissioners and soon. Either call them, send them an e-mail, make an appointment to meet with them, appear before them at a county commissioner meeting or write a letter to the editor or all the above, but do something. If you want more information about the airport go to www.ourairport.org.
Jon Hannan
Minden
Proposed growth rule has flaws
Editor:
The Douglas County Building Permit Allocation and Growth Control Management Ordinance has not been finalized as yet and already the commissioners are working against the ordinance.
Proposed ordinance 2008-1246 is to provide an exemption from the building permit allocation requirements for clustered developments, and other properly related matters.
We have a county master plan which was proposed as providing direction and control of growth.
Due to all the variances allowed to developers, by the commissioners and their appointees (the planning commission), SGI was originated. The individuals initiating SGI had previously experienced the impact uncontrolled growth can have on the infrastructure and wanted growth controls established.
The majority of the voters approved the SGI, but it was opposed in the courts by the county and the Smart Growth people.
Currently I understand all parties are working on a Douglas County Building Permit Allocation and Growth Management Ordinance.
For those that do not understand clustering, it basically works like this: If I have 1,000 acres of land that (because of zoning is limited to a density of 1 unit per 20 acres), I could be allowed to build 50 units, one in each 20-acre parcel. By clustering, I could group the 50 units into a single parcel of, say, 50 acres. All the balance of the 1,000 acres could be used for crops, grazing, etc. In addition, since I have clustered my 50 units, I will be entitled to about an additional 25 units, having earned an increase in the number of units of about 50 percent.
If Ordinance 2008-1246 is allowed to pass, they may not have to worry about complying with all the provisions of the Douglas County Building Permit Allocation and Growth Management Ordinance once it is finalized.
Along with being contrary to what the majority has expressed, I also feel Ordinance 2008-1246 is discriminatory in nature as it gives an advantage to the large developer. He will not have to comply with any allotment requirement and the small developer will have to go through the allocation process.
I have a difficult time comprehending why any commissioner would propose, or vote for, this ordinance which in my mind so flagrantly violates the expressed desires of the majority of the voters.
I will have a very difficult time supporting any commissioner, or any candidate supported by him, in the upcoming elections.
Sanford E. Deyo
Minden
Support the
senior center
Editor:
Why should the seniors of Douglas County have to take the brunt of the county budget cuts when they are paying most of the county taxes? For example, the proposed county budget presented on March 18 and 19 calls for a 5.8 percent cut in senior services. This is a larger cut than any other county departments are being asked to bear. On top of that, the commissioners discussed making further cuts in senior transportation. It is not fair to ask the seniors to shoulder more than their share of the county deficit.
There were no proposals submitted with the budget with the goal of pulling Douglas County out of its current economic slump. One of the best ways to start a recovery would be to convince retirees and seniors to move to Douglas County and occupy some of our vacant housing. A majority of the Douglas County businesses, such as restaurants, casinos, Realtors, financial consultants, insurance agents, retailers, etc., are dependent upon doing business with the senior population. Yet the businessmen and women of Douglas County seem to support the county commissioners in their continuing conflict with county seniors.
We all recently read that the county's population is declining. The only element of the population which is increasing is seniors. This is not the result of new seniors moving here, but simply because the average age of county residents is increasing. Why should the county be spending funds to build a new jail, juvenile detention facility and courtrooms when the segments of the population which commit most of the criminal acts are on the decline? It would be much more advantageous to the county's economy to build a new senior center.
Our county commissioners don't seem to realize that many retirees and seniors who might be in the market to buy a retirement home are scared away from Douglas by the way we mistreat our seniors. They know that some day, like all of us, they will probably want or have to take advantage of the county senior services, which are becoming slowly non-existent in Douglas County. It's time for our county commissioners to restore the senior services budget for 2008-2009 and develop a plan to build a new senior center. Our senior services should at least be raised to a level equivalent to our surrounding counties.
Paul Lockwood
Minden
Compromise important on
public lands
Editor:
I would like to thank Jim Donald for his informative article "Compromise marks winter recreation plan" bringing us all up to date on the long-standing conflict involving cross-country skiers and snowmobilers in the eastern Alpine County area. We had not heard any news on this subject for a long time and are pleasantly surprised to learn that the issues have been resolved to the apparent satisfaction of most everyone involved.
Feelings were deep and emotional on both sides. Facts were voluminous supporting the claims of each side. It seemed that the quarreling would never end.
But apparently it has, and that is a good thing.
I would like to take (minor) issue with one statement Donald quoted Marnie Bonesteel of the Humboldt-Toiyabe national forest as having said, namely that "the forest service doesn't have the funds to fully implement the plan..." I believe that the national forest does have the funds; they simply choose other priorities in their budgeting process. It's a matter of choice and almost surely involves where the political pressure is coming from.
One final thought. If these groups can work together and with the Forest Service and others to resolve these deep-seated differences, I would like to hope that similar compromises can be reached among the various groups concerning forest management, including thinning and fuels reduction, before the entire east slope is consumed by catastrophic wildland fire. And that then the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest would make a priority of truly being responsible stewards of our forest.
Nancy Thornburg
Markleeville
