Editorial: Eye growth from every perspective

Monday, March 1, 2004 | 8:43 a.m.

In preparing a conservation plan last year in response to more than four years of drought, the Southern Nevada Water Authority was aware that many people in the Las Vegas Valley were calling for a halt to growth. With 1.6 million people already in this desert valley and an annual, nation-leading growth rate of 5 percent, a fair number of people were favoring growth restrictions as opposed to water restrictions. They pointed to new golf courses and new master-planned communities and new shopping centers and said: That's the problem.

To better understand what would happen if a no-growth or slow-growth policy were adopted, the authority commissioned a report from Hobbs, Ong and Associates, a consulting company that specializes in analyzing public policies. The report was delivered to the water authority last week and it raised fears that we have previously expressed. The report examined what would happen if local governments adopted aggressive, moderate or even mild growth-management policies. In all nine of the scenarios the report studied, the valley would suffer, the report concluded.

Massive job losses, billions in economic losses ($209 billion in the worst-case scenario), higher property taxes, lower incomes, enormously increased demands for public services such as police and welfare -- all would come to pass over the next 14 years in the scenarios outlined by the study's authors. Construction, the valley's second-biggest industry after gaming, would be the hardest hit. The ripple effect would hurt everyone, and not just in Clark County. The authors warned that the whole state would be affected.

We have opposed artificially halting or slowing growth through government intervention for the very reasons cited in the Hobbs report. Nevertheless, we are disappointed that a companion study is not available taking a look at the potential advantages of so-called smart growth -- planning that has been adopted by many cities. Surely there are some advantages to policies that manage growth in relation to community and environmental resources. Public policy is best decided after careful consideration of all sides of an issue. Looking at only the negative aspects of growth management is like voting on a ballot question when only the "con" point of view is presented.

A panel to study growth has recently been created by Clark County. When its work is done at the end of this year, we hope it's balanced. The Hobbs report recommends that growth be allowed to continue unabated until it naturally tapers off over the next five or six years. That may be the best strategy, but what if it doesn't taper off? What then? We should be prepared to answer that question.