DAILY MEMO: DEVELOPMENT:

When housing boomed, so did park-building.

Not anymore Mountain’s Edge residents’ angst over plans for regional park may spur change

Steve Marcus

Mountain’s Edge homeowners listen to Mark Fiorentino, senior vice president of government affairs for Focus Property Group, during a meeting at Sierra Vista High School. Residents are upset that Focus wants to scale back original designs for parks and other amenities.

By Joe Schoenmann (contact)

Friday, July 3, 2009 | 2 a.m.

Mountain's Edge

You need to upgrade your Flash Player

Sam Morris

Trails were being built up a hillside in 2005, as Exploration Peak Park took shape in the Mountain's Edge community.

More stories on business and the economy

The recession has taught Las Vegas some lessons: Home prices don’t always go up. Having financing in place before you start building a multibillion-dollar resort is a good idea — to name two.

It’s also offering lessons to those responsible for the civic infrastructure — the look and walkability of neighborhoods, as well as parks and other amenities that Southern Nevada officials have worked to make a part of residential development here.

For many years those amenities were ignored by developers who didn’t want to surrender acreage for parks that they could use to build more homes. Part of the solution was the master-planned community — massive developments that incorporated parks, paths and other conveniences. Local governments require developers to fund and build the amenities as a condition of approval for projects.

The success of Summerlin and Green Valley showed the approach worked during the valley’s boom.

But officials are giving the approach a second look in light of controversy surrounding the Mountain’s Edge development in the southwest valley and what it might foreshadow about a slower-growing Las Vegas Valley.

Almost before the first homes were up, developers of Mountain’s Edge had built the $8 million Exploration Peak Park, which features an Old West town, play structures, water towers and mountain trails. When John Ritter, CEO of developer Focus Property Group, built the park, he had $4 million from homebuilders that had put money into a parks fund for each home built. His company contributed $4 million.

But this week Ritter faced 500 irate residents who wanted him to explain why additional park plans — plans they were shown when they bought their homes in Mountain’s Edge — are being scaled back.

His answer was, in short, the money isn’t there.

Few homes are being built in the master-planned community, so the parks fund isn’t growing. Public park money from anticipated Bureau of Land Management property sales is gone, too, because federal land auctions have ceased because of the economy.

County Commissioner Susan Brager, who represents the area, said the situation may force officials to rethink their bench marks for triggering park construction in light of the valley’s slower growth.

At Mountain’s Edge, the county allowed 3,200 units to be constructed before the first park had to be built. A bigger, regional park, funded largely by the proceeds of the sale of federal land, was to come after 7,000 of the development’s projected 13,500 units were built.

With shellshocked developers expected to build more judiciously in the future — perhaps 200 or 300 acres at a time, instead of the 3,500 acres of a Mountain’s Edge — the county should reexamine the timetables for developers to build parks, Brager said. “The time it now takes to reach 7,000 homes is way too long.”

At the same time, the county needs to discuss its role in future park construction, she said. “I think grants, joint ventures and naming rights could be helpful in being able to construct parks,” she said.

In early September, Brager and other members of the County Commission are expected to take up Focus Property Group’s request to scale back its park plans.

Ritter said the redesigned park plan will allow for future add-ons, but they won’t be paid for by his company.

“I don’t like to be sitting here saying this,” he says. “I didn’t like to sit there and tell those people that” at the meeting with Mountain’s Edge residents.

But the lesson to Ritter is clear.

“The days of the gold-plated park are over,” he said.

Discussion: 8 comments so far…

By Future

7/3/09 at 5:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

But the lesson to Ritter is clear.

"The days of the gold-plated park are over," he said.

The residents are only asking for the deal that they were sold. Those park plan were never "gold plated"

Ritter took the money and used it to buy more BLM land for the next development, anticipating that a return on another investment would allow him to build the Mountains Edge parks.

The Clark County/ developer master plan agreement should have required the Mountains Edge money be escowed only for Mountains Edge roads, parks and promised amenities.

The County failed to ensure the monies would be used only for the master plan that was the monies were collected from.
By Launce

7/3/09 at 6:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

The developer made a commitment to the county and the residents of the southwest valley. The developer reneges, and gets a pass from the county. The residents were cheated.
Note that Ritter is well-connected, continuing to serve on SNWA Czarina Pat Mulroy's "kitchen cabinet" of developers: http://www.snwa.com/html/cons_wcc_exec.h...
By CynicalObserver

7/3/09 at 8:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

I know Nevadans hate it when former Californians point out circumstances where California law is better, but in this case it is.

First, under California's Subdivided Lands Act, not even House #1 can be sold until the developer posts a surety bond, letter of credit or cash with a licensed escrow. The dollar amount posted has to equal 1.5 times the cost of completing all common area improvements.

Second, a developer cannot advertise improvements which are not bonded. As a result, if there is to be a big park in "Phase 5" of a project, it cannot be advertised without a blunt disclosure that it may never be built.

Third, under California's Subdivision Map Act, all subdivision improvements MUST be covered by surety bonds, cash or letters of credit, insuring that they will be built. The map dividing the property into lots cannot be recorded until those bonds are posted with the city or county. The developer cannot get the bonds back until the improvements are built, and until an 18 month warranty period expires. That way, money for storm drains, community landscaping and park fees doesn't just disappear.

Fourth, developers are required by local laws to build road networks wide enough to accommodate all the traffic the project generates. In many cases the developers are required to oversize roads, sewers, storm drains and the like to accommodate the future growth the development will generate.

All of these tools of consumer protection are well known to anyone who gets a city planning degree anywhere in the United States. As a result, the blame for Southern Nevada not having these consumer protections for projects not in city limits falls squarely at the feet of Nevada's Legislature and the Clark County Commission members past and present. Similar failures exist in Henderson, thanks to past and present City Council Members. The same is true, as to incomplete improvements in Summerlin at the fault of the Las Vegas City Council.
By CynicalObserver

7/3/09 at 9:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

The Clark County Commission's decision not to require the building of a regional park in Mountain's Edge until 7000 homes had been built was profoundly stupid and politically corrupt, because each of them knew, from practical experience, that the future park would be touted. That decision sits squarely in the hands of each and every Clark County Commissioner who was in office when the project was approved, including St. Bruce of Woodbury. The money to build the park not being escrowed again is the fault of the Clark County Commissioners. The same "future regional park and golf course scam" was foisted on residents of Rhodes Ranch and Nevada Trails, with respect to land around Sierra Vista High School.

Obviously, Nevada developers with prior experience building in California, like Ward Ritter, are culpable as well, because they know what consumers expect and they know how to provide it by following California style consumer safeguards. They just chose not to do it in Nevada, and to pocket the savings.

Equally culpable in the web of dishonesty are sales employees of the major homebuilders who worked at Mountains Edge and other developments with vaporizing community improvements. The sales representatives know that the contract documents say, in essence "Nothing your salesman told you is true, and you agree you are not relying on anything he said". While that sort of language in a home sale document might not be allowed in California, under its fairness standards for such documents, Nevada's Real Estate Division makes no effort to regulate sales documentation for new homes.

It's unfortunate for people who move to Nevada from states with good consumer protection statutes. They are naive, and do not understand that they are moving into a Banana Republic run by politicians who are lazy and bribed into inaction through campaign contributions. They do not understand that Nevada's corporate homebuilding community is operated on the principles of high pressure sales tactics, fraudulent manipulation and outright dishonesty.
By CynicalObserver

7/3/09 at 9:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

The homebuilding industry in California was profoundly corrupt through the 1960's, but public anger ultimately boiled over into the California Legislature adopting a scheme of home and condo builder regulation by the early 1970's which has withstood the test of time, in terms of homebuyers getting what they were promised, in terms of project content. The results are messy when a homebuilder in California defaults and files bankruptcy, but those required bonds are still there even in bankruptcy, and they are ultimately used to pay for promised improvements. The same is simply not true in Nevada, because our elected officials are simply too stupid or corrupt to require park fees and bonding of major improvements like the Mountain's Edge Park.

There are four remedies angry homebuyer/taxpayers can take against government officials as a result of the circumstances in Mountain's Edge and other failed "new communities": (1) Always vote against incumbents as a matter of principle; (2) Always speak badly about Nevada and its elected officials to friends and members of the press outside Nevada, so that Nevada gets a national black eye and its homebuilding industry never recovers; (3) publicly blame current County Commissioners, whether they are culpable or not, when those Commissioners seek higher offices such as Governorships; and (4) Aggressively demand Federal prosecution of corporate land developers and national corporate homebuilders and their former sales people under Federal mail and wire fraud statutes, with concomitant prosecutions of former elected officials and senior County employees not already jailed under the "failure to deliver honest services" statute already used to prosecute Erin Kenney and two other County Commissioners.

These problems with fundamentally dishonest County Commissioners are continuing, even with new Commissioners who were not around when the stupid and dishonest decision concerning delaying the park at Mountain's Edge was made. Just two months ago, I attended a public forum in Anthem, where a County Commissioner spoke, bemoaning his and his compatriots lack of power to solve a problem with a Federal agency the Anthem residents were complaining about. His comments were an outright lie, because I knew from experience in California exactly how California elected officials sued to stop a virtually identical Federal abuse of a suburban community. Just look at the profound, continuing failures of the County to properly inspect and red tag construction defects at new casinos on the strip as an example of the corruption of the County Commissioners and their employees. Being deferential to elected officials and development-related public employees gets the taxpayer nowhere but scrued.
By CynicalObserver

7/3/09 at 9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Residents of Clark County have to stand up and start calling elected officials liars and manipulators to their faces, in public. That's the only way you can keep public officials in line, and force them to do the right thing for the average taxpayer/homeowner...as opposed to elected officials ONLY doing the right thing for the business owners of this state. Embarass them, catch them in their incompetence and dishonesty, and repeatedly shame and chastise them in public for it.

Nevada is full of former residents of New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California who know how to insult, heckle and embarass elected officials. Take the lead folks, and show our polite Midwesterner neighbors how it's done.
By tttnow

7/3/09 at 11:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

ALERT! Each Southern Nevada homeowner who lives in an unfinished Master Planned Community should be on-guard and should get enaged in letting the County Commission know that allowing Focus to renegotiate their CONTRACT with you, the taxpayer, to avoid breach of contract could be setting a precident that severely jeaopardizes your community. CynicalObserver had some very good points, and as a community we should consider adoption of many of these protective measures for Nevada. If you live in Moutain's Edge and you are against this proposal, you must email or write ALL seven of the Clark County Commissioners. If you live in another Focus Development and you to live under a Master Plan Development agreement and you want to protect it and all its' promises, you should also write your Clark County Commissioner and ask them to not support a renegotiation. At the meeting this week, Focus representatives did not rule out bankruptcy; they were very unclear also on the costs of the new parks and what monies might be available. One position might be, what guarantees do Mountain's Edge homeowners have that Focus can complete these new "renegotiated" and much less amenity filled parks? What if they have to sell Mountain's Edge? You have now allowed for the renegotiation for much less that you were promised; by both the County and Focus. Is it worth the risk or better to enforce the current contract?