Editorial: Consensus best solution for growth

Wednesday, Oct. 16, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.

DOUGLAS County's legal fight with developers over impact fees can serve as a warning to Clark County on how not to solve growth problems.

The rural county south of Carson City has been crippled by the cost of building schools for new residents. Since voters there are reluctant to pass bond issues, officials decided to impose a $2,400 impact fee on new subdivision homes over the objections of developers. The resultant court case is being closely watched by Clark County builders for obvious reasons. Impact fees have been suggested as a way to pay for Clark County's growth problems, an issue which will probably end up in the next Legislature.

Other jurisdictions also are probably following the case, which is before the state Supreme Court. Douglas County won the first round in District Court, but faces a troubling precedent.

The arguments center on how the money is spent. North Las Vegas lost a similar case when it used impact fees for general expenses. Douglas County may have committed a similar error by not building schools in the subdivisions where the fees were collected. It also assesses equal fees on family and adult-only subdivisions.

An adverse ruling could place Clark County schools in a similar predicament on impact fees. Limiting school construction to specific subdivisions would hamper planning and increase the number of students being bused.

As much as we appreciate Douglas County's predicament, the better course is to first reach a consensus on taxes with all elements of a community. That approach is reportedly under way in Clark County where businesspeople, developers and ordinary taxpayers may be asked to share the burden. Nevadans have traditionally bit the bullet when a tax or fee was equitably imposed and for a good cause.

Singling out one segment of the community invites trouble and may not solve the problem. That's a painful lesson for all Nevadans.