Tuesday, June 7, 2005 | 9:03 a.m.
Floyd Lamb State Park in northwest Las Vegas, reached by heading east on Durango Drive from U.S. 95, features ponds, wetlands, water fowl, lots of trees and picnic tables, open spaces and historic buildings once used by the rich and famous while they earned enough residency time in Nevada to qualify for a quickie divorce. It's a quiet place the state has reserved for "passive uses," such as strolling, lunching, fishing, dog walking and snoozing. Threatening this unique getaway is the city of Las Vegas' plan to take control of the park through a transfer from the state.
In April the City Council approved an initial plan for a transfer, one that would leave the park's 60-acre core reserved for passive uses, but leave the park's other 620 acres vulnerable to intensive uses such as ball fields. The state, however, has the power to stipulate in the transfer agreement that the whole park must remain reserved for passive use. This would be a good protection, but, unfortunately, the state and city will soon schedule a meeting to attach a specific definition to "passive use." This concerns us. In our view, Floyd Lamb has been demonstrating the meaning of the term for decades. A new meaning, one subject to interpretation later on, could result in a radical change of the park's character.
The transfer into city hands of a perfectly fine state park, at a time when the city cannot even properly fund the parks it already controls, is one of those deals that smacks of an ulterior purpose. Already the city has seriously considered one proposal to build a zoo at Floyd Lamb. If a transfer is completed, and passive use is redefined, what new proposal will be contemplated?
Floyd Lamb should remain as it is and under state control.
archive
