The majority continues to support change

Lynn Hettrick's Aug. 20 guest opinion, "Setting the record straight" warrants a response. I'm not sure his interpretation of the recent primary election is supported by the facts.

Mr. Hettrick implies that the election is over so it's time for him to draw conclusions. Actually, unless I missed something, all three county commission seats in play this election cycle are still being contested. Unless candidates drop out, results won't be final until the general election in November.

Two of those general election contests present clear choices between the status quo and change and from my perspective the change candidates have good shots at winning both. Doug Johnson certainly has to be the favorite in District 3. And if you look at the numbers in District 5 you can see how the dynamics of a general election could work in Nancy Epstein's favor.

(And my hope in District 1 is that Greg Lynn, who appears to have that seat wrapped up, proves to be the maverick he seems to be and actively questions business as usual here.)

Mr. Hettrick says two-thirds of the candidates endorsed by the "ultra slow-growth group," presumably meaning the Sustainable Growth Initiative Committee, were defeated.

Actually, SGIC endorsed four candidates. Two won (Doug Johnson and Nancy Epstein) and two were defeated (Dave Nelson and Stuart Posselt).

While we're at it, let's look at that "ultra slow-growth" label Mr. Hettrick pins on his opponents, whose basic position on growth has been to support the growth limit approved by voters in 2002 and then the growth limit ultimately adopted by the county commission instead, which will be on the November ballot for an advisory vote.

In 2006 the Nevada State demographer published growth projections for Douglas County for the next 20 years, based on standard demographic techniques. The demographer projects growth here during that period to range between 1 percent and 1.5 percent per year.

How can a growth limit of 2 percent per year be characterized as "ultra slow growth" when it exceeds the official projected natural rate of growth here?

The only thing the ordinance is likely to limit is the "ultra speculative growth" that Mr. Hettrick's crew pushed through earlier this decade and which has now gone bust, leaving us with a mess.

And his hackneyed claim that growth pays its way is simply laughable. If that's true, why has the county been in perpetual fiscal crisis despite virtually unfettered growth here for over a decade?

Mr. Hettrick claims the mantle of moderation for himself and those he supports, yet I suspect all the candidates in the recent primary would agree with his definition of that: "controlled, reasonable growth, a stable economy, a stable tax base ..." and a "strong and vibrant community."

But what does his version of moderation actually translate to on the ground? Well, as he says in his column: support for Park Land Company's proposal to build almost 5,000 units where our master plan allows at most 600. What's moderate about that?

Yet Mr. Hettrick's worst transgression is to imply majority support here for his point of view. He notes that his opponents have often claimed to be carrying out the "will of the people" but says that argument is now dead based on the results of the primary election, the implication being that the will of the people is now on his side.

To address that requires that I categorize the candidates a bit, which is probably unfair to them, but I'm going to do it anyway. I'll just say that in my opinion there were clear change candidates in each of the four primaries.

By change I mean simply a desire to see the citizenry restored to power here. In that category I would place Nelson, Johnson, Posselt and Epstein, the candidates supported by SGIC. According to the RC, those four garnered 10,117 votes to their opponents' 8,407.

Why the difference between my conclusion and Hettrick's? Well, he ignores a third of the voters here, our Democratic neighbors, when he says SGIC candidates lost two of three races. Understandable, since he is a strong Republican partisan. But even if we look at just the Republican votes we have 8,642 votes for "change" candidates vs. 8,041 for their opponents.

The vote in District 5, the only one with both Republican and Democratic primaries, shows the two change candidates getting a total of 3,985 votes to their opponents' 3,343, 54% for change.

And the biggest Republican vote getter was Doug Johnson. Put his vote together with top Democrat Nancy Epstein's and you have 4,986 votes out of the 8,299 total ballots the RC says were cast in Douglas County. That's 60% for change.

So, while it is true that candidates presumably supported by Hettrick won two of the three Republican primaries, they won only two of four total primaries and far from a majority of votes cast by all voters in the primary.

In the end I think a fair characterization of the primary is a dead heat rather than a victory for Mr. Hettrick's forces as he claims.

And thanks to all those who voted we have a final opportunity in November to set a new course for governance in Douglas County. Let's put aside our partisan labels, Republican and Democrat alike, and simply do what's best for our community.

I hope you will join me and the majority of your neighbors who want change here by voting for Doug Johnson and Nancy Epstein for county commissioner.

And by voting to support our growth limit, which will easily accommodate the natural and, yes, sustainable, rate of growth here, but will prevent the sort of speculative excess of the past that has, in the end, caused us nothing but grief.

Because there is a lot at stake here: the future of our County. Will it be governed in the general public interest or in the interest of Mr. Hettrick and his friends?

Terry Burnes is a Gardnerville resident.