Sept 15

The primary, thank stars, is behind us and it's time to move on. For those of you have never been involved in an election campaign allow me to note that if I had a choice between a three month campaign and a root canal a day every day for three months I'd take the root canals every time.

The hot button issue at the moment is the Park Cattle Co. Master Plan Amendment, and I need to weigh in on that. Any proposal brings both positive and negative aspects, and this one is no different. Admitedly, at first blush, the notion of 4500 more houses is scary, but let's look a little farther.

First, the positives. We get a huge permanent conservation easement on the west side of Hwy 395 and control of the attendant river corridor, not an inconsiderable plus. Also, we get property for needed public facilities, such as community and senior centers, expansion of the college and the potential to upgrade to a UNR campus. We also get the opportunity to plan the long term path of the growth that will occur here eventually. No matter how you look at growth, these are tempting carrots, and I haven't even gone all the way through the list.

There are also negatives. Near the top of this list is traffic. This project cannot mitigate, and we as taxpayers cannot fix, the traffic burden that this will create. Those of us who've been here any length of time know that waiting for the State to pick up the slack will be a long wait. What we're likely to end up with is Bay Area style traffic from south Gardnerville to Carson City. And we haven't even talked about the existing 4800 or so units that are already approved. By itself, the traffic issue is a deal-breaker.

However there's more, a deeper and potentially more threatening concern. The Master Plan allows for the creation of receiving area when there is an identifiable need. During the current downturn, which is very likely to last for a long time, home values in our area have dropped between 25-30%. This means that homeowners in Douglas County, not necessarily those in mortgage trouble, are largely frozen in place, as they are upside down in their home values. The housing business in this area is not merely in a depression, it is virtually extinct, since appraisals don't come anywhere near construction costs, to say nothing of the need to put a piece of land under the house.

So, is there a demonstrated need for additional receiving area, which can only have the effect of further depressing the value of housing currently in place? I think not. I'm more concerned about the existing homeowners that I am about those who will fill up this project.

Add on the liability posed by the creation of special assessment districts and the difficulty of creating workforce housing in our area and, to me, the negatives simply outweigh the positives.

Were I in a Commission seat, I would have to vote to deny this project.

July 31

So we're approaching game time here, and I have yet to hear my opponent address the issues. After listening at forum after forum about his financial experience ad nauseum, a picture has finally emerged. I've been listening to mid-level bureaucrat whose professional career shows no leadership experience whatsoever. He "prepared financial reports". That's the sort of stuff I expect staff to do. The buck never stopped at his desk.

The buck has stopped at my desk for the last 35 years, counting my time as a licensed contractor in California in the 70's. I've been running a successful and growing business in Douglas County for 23 years, employing several hundred people, keeping them working year-round, and providing my direct employees their health and dental insurance for the last 15 years. (One year I paid $48,000 in health insurance premiums and the company sent me a toothbrush.) 

Show me a tough decision Mr. Nelson. Or do I need to point out that the job of County Commissioner has absolutely nothing to do with "preparing financial reports"?

July 17

"Follow the Money" intones Stuart Posselt. It seems that the Sustainable Growth Committee has schemed up yet another ruse to discredit anyone who would dare oppose them. This scheme decrees that all candidates for Douglas County Commission post their contributors, and the amounts contributed, on their websites. Okay, let's follow some money. A glance at David Nelson's website reveals that he has received at least $17,500 from either SGC or their affiliates, Judy Sturgis, and the Malkmus's. Could it be that Mr. Nelson has accepted contributions from an interest group?

I was recently accosted by an SGC supporter who demanded to know why I have not posted my contributors on my website, and if I would in the future. The anwer is NO! Excuse me, HELL NO! Why, you ask. SGC is using their tried and true tactic of allowing the game to be played only by their rules. By redefining the rules, you see, any who do not comply are, obviously, cheating. And, it follows logically, that contributions made to candidates not endorsed by SGC is money of the dirtiest sort, obviously intended to buy a vote.

So why am I not posting my contributions? First, my campaign is almost entirely self-financed. I have refused contributions from any PAC or interest group. My contributions to date, all but two less than $100, amount to less than $1500. Mr. Nelson has taken $17,500 from SGC and we are to believe that they won't expect allegiance in return? Anyone who wants to look at the record can see it when it is made public by the Secretary of State's office, as per Nevada election law. I play by Nevada law, not by the rules imposed by the SGC.

What I'm seeing here is a brand new, and heightened, definition of hypocrisy. 

June 27

Is anybody out there paying any attention to the draft floodplain management ordinance, currently due for its second reading at the July 3 BOC meeting? If you aren't, and if you are a Douglas county property owner, I strongly suggest that you go to the Douglas County website, www.douglascountynv.gov, and take a look. Regrettably, the draft FEMA floodplain maps are not yet readily available and the clock is ticking on the 90 day review period. The County has recently come to an agreement with an outside engineering firm to review the maps for accuracy and provide comments to FEMA. If the maps are accepted and the draft ordinance is adopted in its current form, we are in REAL trouble.

 A little history: The County recently got a double whammy in the form of a non-compliance letter from FEMA and a court ruling rendering a key element of our current ordinance unconstitutional. In response, staff, with the support of certain commissioners, has overreacted with a draft ordinance that goes well beyond FEMA guidelines. Specifically, x-shaded flood zones, greatly expanded on the new FEMA maps, have been included in the "Special flood hazard area" category. Additionally, the draft aslo requires "zero adverse imapct", meaning a rise in water levels of zero inches, on neighboring properties, also  more stringent than FEMA guidelines.

The draft in its current form will greatly expand those properties in the County that will need both a CLOMAR (Certified Letter of Map Revision) from FEMA, or a hydraulics and hydrology study (think $$$$$$$) in order to do ANY development.

This proposed ordinance plays directly to the interests of every anti-growth element in the County, since the airport is now a special flood hazard area, as is the Muller Parkway right-of-way, along with large areas of both currently developed and undeveloped land in the County.

I'm all for a working ordinance, and for protecting our homes and infrastructure to the best of our ability. But we need to recognize that nothing we adopt will be bulletproof. We also need to identify and protect the established floodways in the Carson watershed. The river is a dynamic entity; it wanders all over the valley from flood to flood. If you were to look at an aerial photo of the valley from 1930 you would see that the river has migrated a long way to get to where it is now. You would also see that it still had an actual West Fork, instead of what we see now, with almost all of the west fork flows being conveyed down the Brockliss Slough.

Readers are urged to become familiar with this ordinance and contact your commissioners. Unless, of, course, you're content to provide a CLOMAR and a hydrology study for that workshop you always wanted in your back yard, or that mother-in-law unit or kitchen addition that you've planned for so long.

Should you talk to your comissioners, ask why we need to adopt an ordinance that is so far in excess of FEMA standards. 

June 8

Anybody read the Guest opinion in Friday's Record Courier? It seems that we have a new watchdog group, Citizens for Accountable Government, in our midst. According to CAG, everything is rotten in Douglas county. Staff is unresponsive and unhelpful (shucks, you can see that after living here for only a few months), secret deals are being cut in back rooms to benefit developers, the Master Plan is being trashed on a daily basis, blah blah, blah. Oh, and of course "most" people support CAG's goals.

What I see here is another vocal activist group whose real agenda is to get a seat at the decision-making table without going through the pain and agony of the electoral process. We elect our representatives for a reason. We count on them to be willing to do the homework, learn the institutional history, and develop a well-rounded understanding of County issues. Single issue advocacy groups rarely acquire this global perspective. In the case of CAG, you don't have to read too far to see that their real focus is, once again, growth, and preventing same. Will this pestilience ever go away?

May 31

Beware of buzz words

When you see or hear certain stock phrases that are being bandied about in this campaign, make sure you know what they mean. For example, statements like "maintain the current look and feel of the airport" or "keep local control of the airport" mean "No further development at the airport."

Such a stance is not only unrealistic, it's untenable, given FAA participation in airport improvements.

For more on this topic see the AIRPORT page.