Editorial: $1 million growth study out of line

Wednesday, Oct. 8, 1997 | 10:01 a.m.

YOU can't help but laugh at the news that a plan to study growth in Southern Nevada could cost more than $1 million.

You know the old line: Why spend a million bucks on somebody else when we'll tell you what your problems are for only, say, $100,000.

Actually, we won't charge anything. Here's our take: Clark County is growing too fast for governments to build enough schools, roads, sewage lines and so forth.

Politicians need to limit construction or raise more tax money. The problem is that the home builders and casino companies that fuel political campaigns don't want them to do either.

A third option is to spend wisely.

Which brings us to the $1 million study.

That large sum has an interesting history, dating back several months, when the Legislature approved a bill by Sen. Jon Porter, R-Boulder City.

The bill created a 21-member Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority in lieu of a measure to force warring politicians to coordinate growth.

Porter hates it when skeptics refer to the panel as a study committee, but that's what it is. The board will present recommendations to the 1999 Legislature.

The next plot twist occurred last month when it was revealed that taxpayers in six communities are forking over $365,000 to help pay for the study. The largest amount, $150,000, is coming from Clark County.

Now the shocker.

The board learned this week that the price could top $1 million.

Casinos and other businesses will contribute what's needed above $365,000.

A contract for a facilitator (from out of state) to guide the group might run as high as $800,000. Another $600,000 may go to an informal organization of local planning officials. Its work essentially overlaps the facilitator's.

How independent will these studies be if pro-growth businesses are footing a big chunk of the bill?

We thought politicians were elected to study and solve problems, along with planning staff whose salaries come out of taxpayers' pockets.

This is not the first study group to meet in recent months to ponder growth, but it certainly is the most expensive.

The planning authority needs to trim its sails and heed these simple guidelines.

One, don't spend more than the original $365,000. Two, stop studying the issue to death. Three, recommend a plan requiring those who benefit from growth to pay.

That advice was free of charge.