Editor:
The article in The Record-Courier (Feb. 8 edition), pertaining to the rehearing pertaining to Valley Christian Fellowship's special use permit for building a large facility in a residentially zoned area does not do the Douglas County commissioner's justice.
Yes there was a rehearing, but from the onset the outcome appeared predetermined, in favor of Valley Christian Fellowship.
It was obvious from the bearing and interest level (yawning, rolling eyes, smirking, etc.) while the neighborhood presented their arguments ... some main points: that the traffic study used by Douglas County was not reflective of the use, i.e., 186 parking spots are planned, for the current congregation appears adequate " if they leave the majority of them will exit on Drayton Boulevard, as Centerville (as proposed by the church) will have restricted right only (note the facility has the expansion capability, by design, to accommodate 800 people - per R.O. Anderson, which did not appear to be an issue with the commissioners). So where do they all park - as the church will expand (on the residential side streets?) and I guess there will be no traffic problems when they leave; privacy, for the existing residences.
Yes there will be a fence (in time), with a 6-foot berm built up on the facility side so if you live adjacent to this anyone (at anytime) can walk to the top and look in your yard or home, lots in the area were purchased as view lots, and the residence had a reasonable expectation that with existing zoning that single family homes would be built there.
But we were informed that effectively buyer beware " unless you bought theses undeveloped lots there were no guarantees of what could be built and you do not own the view.
Douglas County does tax these properties accordingly; does this mean a re-appraisal can be requested to down grade the property values due to loss of the view; yes the neighbors brought in an expert appraiser to explain and provide in writing, the risk in property value loss and yet this was discounted by hear-say from a commissioner who had an informal conversation with an unidentified local assessor from the area.
So commissioners what is next, there are two remaining adjacent parcels, zoned residential are these reserved for the church's expansion, it seems that if the letter of the law is met what will check the expansion, in this residentially zoned area?
It is highly unlikely that single family homes will be built on these parcels with this large facility present.
As stated repeatedly, in all hearings on this issue, this is not the best location for a facility of this size and with its perspective for expansion; the church has been steadfast in their need in developing this property, primarily, due to the reasonable cost, as verbally stated by church's pastor; business is business.
Ronald Day
Gardnerville
Editor:
I attended the Douglas County commissioners hearing Feb. 5 and was disappointed in their decision (3-2) to grant the special use permit to Valley Christian Fellowship. The location selected is poor for a number of reasons. The planning commission denied this permit in November. Many neighbors worked hours preparing a presentation for the commissioners. I believe the county staff report was flawed with respect to traffic safety, home values and loss of privacy issues.
The driveway for said project is at an "S" curve on Drayton. Turning left from Silveranch is already a problem because of limited visibility. The large influx of cars will exacerbate the residents' problem. We like to walk, as do many neighbors. There are no sidewalks on Drayton and we have to watch for cars coming around the curve. The numbers will increase dramatically; our safety may be in jeopardy.
It is common sense to realize that home values will depreciate with a facility and parking lot over one's back fence. It is common sense to realize the privacy of homes backing up to this project will be enormously affected. I can't understand how intelligent, informed commissioners failed to appreciate these facts. My husband and I have bought five homes during our 48-year marriage. We would not want to buy a home backing up to a large project.
I have a question for commissioners Johnson, McDermid and Olsen. Would you want to live in a home that backed up to other homes, or would you want a home backing up to a parking lot and large building?
The neighbors are hoping and praying Pastor Leo and his elders reconsider going forward with building in Silveranch. One of the speakers referred to "location, location, location" when talking about the proposal. This location is completely wrong for the proposed use.
Beverly Batdorf
Gardnerville
Editor:
The two letters from J. Joseph and G. Worms published Feb. 6 gave opinions over repeated letters about a new senior center. I agree that the subject is some-what wearisome. Never the less I must respond.
In this country we collectively pay for many of our needs and the needs of others with our taxes. We pay for fire protection, police protection, health care, educating our youth, care for abandoned and abused children, the unemployed, library services, museums, parks, et al.
Because a resident does not, will not or as of yet has not availed themselves of these services does not excuse them from paying their share of the taxes to support them. Contrary to Mr. Joseph's letter, refurbishing, remodeling or rebuilding the senior center is not going to cause our taxes to be raised every five minutes or cause Douglas County to become a socialistic haven. Further, I am Mr. Joseph's senior and he does not speak for me or most "old" people.
In our current economic situation raising taxes could have dire consequences. Raising taxes should be a last resort to support only our most essential services. Every effort must be made to balance our county budget by lowering our expenses which, inevitably, causes us to prioritize our needs. Unfortunately and in agreement with Mr. Worms, this places the senior center low on the list and somewhere in the future.
The last time the center reached our ballots it was tied to a revenue source that was also for a large number of other specific projects and projects that were yet to be decided. The voter was being asked to accept all projects including a slush fund for unknown projects or nothing. This was not a vote for or against the center but a boondoggle.
When it does reach our ballots again let us hope the senior center stands alone as a single issue and the wearisome matter can finally be put to rest.
Remember, the purpose of a senior center is for some of the senior residents in our community. The need for the center is not negated because some seniors do not currently use or need the facilities. A senior center is not for attracting new residents. While no one is owed a senior center, it is a telling indication of the social conscience in Douglas County.
Ben Justus
Gardnerville
Editor:
It is not government's duty to create jobs. The function of government is to create the atmosphere conducive to permitting economic growth and job creation.
Adding more regulations on industry, be it auto, oil or whatever, will only raise prices adding fuel to the economic disaster.
The $819 billion stimulus plan the House passed will do more damage to the economy by creating a humongous national debt, raising interest rates and obligating our souls and that of our great-great grandchildren and China.
The press is in love with Obama who, in their eyes, can do no wrong. When the Republicans increased the national debt the press was outraged. When Bush spent $42 million on his inauguration, the press was extremely critical. When Obama spends over three times that " $172 million " the obviously very biased press is silent.
The Democrats blame Bush for the economic collapse when it started with Clinton and the Democrats requiring banks to grant mortgages to those who had no ability to pay for same. Early on (almost three years ago) the Republicans tried to correct the situation, but the Democrats refused to recognize any problems. Have the Democrats forgotten their own history?
And now the Democrats want the Republicans to help them with their dirty laundry? Where were the Democrats when the Republicans asked them to help fix the impending sub-prime mortgage disaster?
Stuart L. Posselt
Minden
Editor:
The proposed stimulus bill is full of government handouts that I fail to see as stimulating anything except larger government and increased government spending while simultaneously shrinking taxpayers wallets. Where in the U.S. Constitution does it even allude to giving people coupons to pay for television converter boxes?
The stimulus bill specifically earmarks $650 million for this handout. The coupons are worth $40 each and a person may request up to two. Check out eBay. There are numerous converter boxes being offered for less than $40 with free shipping and stores sell them from $45-$80. If one can afford to buy a television then one should be able to pay the electric bill for watching it and to purchase a converter box if desired. I wonder how many people requesting these coupons spend more than $40 over the life of their television for DVDs, movies, etc.
And, don't even get me started on the handout to Hollywood.
Over $240 million in tax breaks (handouts) to producers to buy motion picture film. This is an industry that charges exorbitant prices to view films in theaters, pays enormous salaries to actors, and obviously reaps great profits (or they wouldn't be in the business). Again, where in the U.S. Constitution is it mandated that we subsidize Hollywood?
A true stimulus for me would be to have no federal taxes withheld from my paycheck for 2009. Let's hope Washington comes to its senses and votes no on this "stimulus" bill.
Vicki Hargrove
Gardnerville
