The Nevada Appeal is accepting stories about moms, no more than 300 words, through May 5. Email stories and no more than two photos to editor@nevadaappeal.com, or fax them to 775-887-2420, or mail them to the Nevada Appeal, 580 Mallory Way, Carson City NV 89701. Stories will be printed on Mother’s Day, May 8.
Vintage project is wrong for Carson City
The Master Plan of the existing zoning regulations detailing minimum sizes of lots and number of homes allowed per acre of the west side Anderson Ranch must remain intact. This property is currently zoned single-family residential. The majority of residents living around the perimeter and adjacent to the Anderson Ranch have spoken against any changes to its zoning status.
The homeowners who purchased their home surrounding the Anderson Ranch did so to enjoy the beautiful valley and mountain views provided by this open space. We all realized the possibility that someday the property could be sold, but had hoped it would be preserved as open space. This seems to be no longer true as a developer has proposed a housing development plan that is unacceptable to the majority of the surrounding homeowners. Their proposal would place high density, multi-unit buildings that include apartments, cottages, businesses and commerce units all designed for elderly care and senior living.
The environmental impact of this project, called Vintage at Kings Canyon, would be detrimental and should not be presented as a benefit to our neighborhood. A substantial increase in the density of people, traffic congestion, water consumption, noise and light pollution and the loss of wildlife would greatly affect the quality of life for surrounding homeowners. A developer should not be allowed to change the dynamics of a neighborhood resulting in negative repercussions.
The Anderson Ranch is the wrong location for the proposed project. We are asking our officials to protect the structure and integrity of our neighborhood.
Paul LaFleur
Carson City
Vote ‘no’ on recreational marijuana
Nevada voters should brace against millions of dollars from out-of-state “Big Marijuana” interests supporting legalization of recreational pot, Question 2 on the November ballot. These corporate pot promoters will try to repeat what worked for them in legalizing recreational marijuana in Colorado in 2012. There, they financially overwhelmed opponents by 5 to 1, spending $3.4 million ( 90 percent from outside Colorado) in passing Amendment 64 (legalization).
The enormous financial advantage for the pro pot advertising in Colorado overcame opposition to marijuana legalization from most all public officials — across the entire political spectrum from liberal Democrats like Denver Mayor Michael Hancock and Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper to Republicans like then-Attorney General John Suthers and Tea Party favorite, Congressman Ken Buck. The two leading newspapers in Colorado, the editorially “liberal” Denver Post and the editorially “conservative” Colorado Springs Gazette, both opposed Amendment 64.
“Big Marijuana” is certain to repeat in Nevada its advertising falsehoods that worked for it in Colorado — that state regulation of marijuana means the end of a “black market” and that new marijuana taxes will be used for education. The Colorado Attorney General and the Governor’s “Weed Czar” are adamant that both claims are myths.
Jim Hartman
Genoa
