Currently: 77° | Complete forecast | Log in
Published Friday, April 16, 2010 | 3:35 p.m.
Updated Friday, April 16, 2010 | 3:37 p.m.
If commissioners sign off next week, Jim Rhodes is free to apply for that major development near Red Rock. And then the real fun (it's juice time!) begins.
The proposed agreement is at right.
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
7 Comments
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Stand up to Deadbeat Rhodes. Tell him
ENNN
OHHH.
Red Rock is such a beautiful area. I hope that it can be protected for generations to come. Once it is developed, the pristine nature will be destroyed forever
This settlement agreement is a joke. It is clearly a document that mitigates much of the rik Jim Rhodes has in this very difficult project to develop. He asks for easements, letters of support and a host of things he should have to aquire on his own and through a public process. Bottom line is you have to first beleive Jim Rhodes, who is bankrupt, can muster the ability to overcome great obstacles like mine remediation, water, electricity, rights-of-way across BLM land, disposal boundry movements, EA or EIS studies, access, and a long list of other issues to build on this location. I say, call his bluff. Make him go to court. Let him bear the risk all by himself to build on this site. In the meantime pass better legislation that his lawyers from LA can't sue against. Red Rock will be saved because Jim Rhodes has neither the money or fortitude to tackle not only the mountian but the community that loves it.
If RoryBOY votes for the Rhodes position, it's just another nail in his political coffin.
We shall see. In the meantime, support Fred Conquest, the REAL Democrat for Governor.
No way Rhodes gets to build anything in Nevada if I have a say in it.
SAVE RED ROCK from Snakes in Suits.
Fred Conquest
Democratic Candidate for Governor.
www.fredconquest.com
He is trying to get an environmental group or the Feds to buy the land. Has Erin Kenny picked her homesite yet.
I ride my bike all the time out there and it will a damn shame when I see the mountains on one side and a Starbucks on the other. This guy should not be allowed to do this.
Construction of housing projects near RED ROCK CANYON national park) have been an issue for over 10 years. This is because the PEOPLE of Clark County do not want to impact the beauty of Red Rock Canyon area.
In the 1990's, there were agreed-to legal restrictions as to where and how close to Red Rock Canyon, home development would be allowed. Such restrictions were placed on Blue Diamond development too.
Well, it appears such legal restrictions have been circumvented, as usual, and real estate GREED has raised its ugly head again. The City of Las Vegas, and the County Commissioners, always seem to approve ANY develpment plans - no matter how questionable.
This pattern of approval for development seems to occur no matter what natural beauty is diminished, or how many homeowners are transplanted - all for the financial gain of developers, and satisfaction of Las Vegas power brokers.
Since 1994, such development has occurred for the questionable "betterment of Clark County," and to support (unrestricted) growth. As for visitors, they could care less what we build - until they experience the traffic jams we have - and the SMOG that we can't get rid of.
It should be noted that many States actually care about their history, natural recreation areas, and their citizen's rights - and thus, oppose development beyond a practical, financially risky, or undesirable limit.
Some cities have even "thrown out" industries and developers, by NOT GRANTING them a license to operate or build - because THE PEOPLE liked their town the way it was, and its available resources would not support further development.
And just maybe the people thought their nice little town was just fine the way it was. When has that happened in Clark County? I suggest, never.
Do you think the Water Department has ever thought of suggesting restrictions on growth - even for one second? Has often does anyone in government ask if the citizens want "more," or reject development plans that the people of Clark County DO NOT WANT?
An example that Clark County should follow occurs in Florida - the Sunshine State - where it is illegal to build a building that BLOCKS THE SUN and casts a SHADOW on another building's pool area. It is called "the Sunshine Law," and it is enforced. Clark County does not have such a law - as is evident along the Strip (which could now be called: "shadow canyon.".
It would be nice if Clark County would enact a law that would prohibits development near any State or National park, which might impair or limit its visual or physical beauty, or cause environmental concerns.
I still love this town. Let's not SCREW IT UP any further.