Below is a lengthy comment I submitted yesterday online at www.rgj.com in response to a growth article in the newspaper. I feel like a parrot repeating the same things over and over, which is why I've been laying low lately on grow issues (plus major burnout), but a comment posted before mine spurred me to write. I hope my comment might help others to understand some of this complex issue, which I tried to break down and explain clearly, though it may still be confusing. Below my comment is the link to the article, the actual article and to my myspace website. Please visit the www.rgj.com under Local News to read all of the comments (story entitled Who Foots the Bill on our New Roads?) and to post your own comments on this issue to encourage developers and officials to slow the growth rate for smarter planning in the Reno and Northern Nevada region. - HeatherMy comment: Heather
Joined: 12 Oct 2006Posts: 20Location: Lemmon Valley, Nevada
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:39 pm Post subject: If developers want to create sprawl, they should payIt's exhausting to raise the same issues over and over only to have them by-passed by developers and officials who do what they want anyway. In response to Oatworm's comments - thank you for caring enough to be involved in these issues. However, if the increased growth was sustained by those who occupied newly built outlying homes, then why is the entire area still suffering from the fallout of poorly planned rapid growth? Why were officials wanting to raise taxes at the last election? Why are roads being widened years after they need to be? Why has sheriff deputy response time for 911 calls been more than 20 minutes and more than six hours for non-emergency calls? The new residents in their new homes are not covering these critical services. The builders surely aren't - though they can afford to. These problems are a direct result of sprawl. What is sprawl?
Sprawl is: Low density development on the edge of cities and towns, poorly planned, land consumptive, auto-dependent, and designed without respect to its surroundings. Look around you.
Instead of rolling hills, you now having rolling rooftops and houses on hilltops as far as the eye can see - very soon it will be from horizon to horizon, broken by a few parks and ballfields .... pretty similar to Las Vegas.
It is truly sad that the poorly planned growth pattern that happened in Las Vegas didn't stay in Las Vegas like everything else does!Instead, local builders and some officials view the Las Vegas growth pattern as ideal, even though Las Vegas now faces more crime, corruption, budget shortfalls and countless other disasters than can be fixed in several decades. Furthermore, regarding affordable housing: if developers had incentives or mandates to build affordable houses before they were granted permits to build the more pricey ones, well, there would be affordable housing. And, there would still be wealthy developers with plenty more projects planned.
Well planned growth would not cause jobs to be lost. It would only narrow the profit-margin of builders who already make ten times the amount of money as their employees who actually do the physical labor. Smart growth advocates want to see infill development - meaning that areas closer to the city core become more dense in order to utilize existing infrastructure, in which cases, growth can wind up paying for itself because older infrastructure gets upgraded, which benefits new and old residents alike. And, keeps construction workers employed.
Sprawl, however, means infrastructure must be created from scratch solely to service the new homes from which the developers profit. When developer impact fees and property taxes don't cover all the new infrastructure cost, guess who pays? We all pay - either in cash or with a decreased quality of life! The tragic part is that while wealthier individuals may not feel the pinch as much, middle class and working poor residents are left in harship circumstances, where both parents are forced to work one or more jobs and are still barely able to pay their monthly bills.
In stark contrast, the majority of home builders/developers live in lavish houses, own one or more houses, numerous vehicles, and spend many months of each year relaxing on cruise ships or cavorting around Europe. Yes, they work hard and they DO deserve to spend their money as they wish, however, when it is money earned at the cost of other peoples' qualities of lives, that is wrong. Working poor and middle class residents will be forced to dig into their already tight budgets to cover sprawl fallout while those who are doing the building are reaping in more profit than they can spend on themselves and their families in a whole lifetime.
If developers want to create sprawl, they should be required to pay for the infrastructure that will be needed. Yet, why should the burden of new schools, roads, law enforcement, etc., fall SOLELY on developers when those new schools will be used by new residents well into the future?
ONE, because builders can afford to and will STILL reap huge profits. TWO, because the taxes squeezed out of new residents will be absorbed in the maintance and upkeep of those newly created services.There is also a lack of water, threatened and displaced wildlife, danger for children crossing or playing near rural roads as traffic increases, and many more ugly issues. It is not fun at all to beat up on or to bash developers as Oatworm says. It is frustrating, exhausting and tragic that good, hard-working citizens have to sacrifice family time, rest and recreation to battle people with a materialistic value system who have little conscience or choose to live in complete denial over the negative impact their chosen source of income is having and will have on the entire region for decades to come.
Builders are not mean, bad people. Many of them do care about the community and charitable causes. But, when they can afford to give more and take less, I can't understand why many of them still do what they do. I applaud them for giving money to needy causes but donating is easy when you have excess funds to give.
I truly admire and cherish those willing to sacrifice something to help other people, animals or the planet as a whole. Many people who have little, already give more than those who have plenty. Evelyn Mount, Joe Ferguson, Connie and Helen at WARF, Stephen Tchudi, Roland Beinert, Frank Schenk and the McGills are just a few examples of those who give beyond money - they give of themselves, time, sweat and energy to make up for what others don't or won't give. And, they don't do it to gain wealth or status. They give more than they can afford of themselves only because they care.
________________
Heather Singer, Citizens for Sensible Growth (CSG) "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead
Full RenoGazette article and comments: (look under Local News)
http://news.rgj.comMyspace:
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=20790642