Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Hundreds show up at the Clark County Government Center on Wednesday, Aug. 17, 2011, to protest a plan by Jim Rhodes to develop some 3,000 acres off Blue Diamond Road near the Red Rock National Conservation Area.
Published Wednesday, Aug. 17, 2011 | 10:05 a.m.
Updated Wednesday, Aug. 17, 2011 | 5:42 p.m.
Rhodes Development Approved
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
Rhodes development approved on Wednesday, Aug. 17, 2011.
Developer Jim Rhodes smiles on Blue Diamond Hill on Monday, May 5, 2003. Las Vegas can be seen in the background.
Sun archives
- County OKs settlement on Red Rock development (4-21-2010)
- County Commission urged to ‘save’ Red Rock with settlement (3-18-2010)
- County, potential Red Rock homes developer reach tentative agreement on legal cases (4-16-2010)
- County, Rhodes reach agreement on development near Red Rock Canyon (3-17-2010)
Hundreds of people showed up at the Clark County Government Center on Wednesday to protest a plan by Jim Rhodes to develop some 3,000 acres off Blue Diamond Road, near the Red Rock National Conservation Area.
The Clark County Commission began hearing Rhodes’ representatives and their plan for the development about 10 a.m., calling the project an “intelligent, healthy community.” It wasn't until late into the afternoon that they voted to allow the project to move forward after spirited debate.
Hundreds were on hand and many of them were seeking the opportunity to speak.
The plan is to build homes on Blue Diamond Hill, off State Route 159, the location of the non-operational Blue Diamond Gypsum Mine, a strip-mining operation for 40 to 50 years.
About 300 people live in the tiny community of Blue Diamond. Also located near the proposed development are the tiny hamlets of Calico Basin and Bonnie Springs.
A Rhodes representative described the development as a kind of Shangri-La, the perfect place to live, work and commune with nature and neighbors. A few in the standing-room audience snickered at some of the descriptions, which include:
• "An opportunity to go back" in time, to create a community like in the olden days, "communities that have stood the test of time."
• Creating a community so great that it would attract a world-class school; live-work residential housing; "places to meet neighbors."
• "A model for development and for dealing with future growth."
• Preservation of "the most sensitive areas for open space" -- development would occur largely on areas already decimated by strip mining.
• A business and research park.
Speaking on behalf of the project, Jeremy Aguero, principal with Applied Analysis, discussed the potential economic impact of the project. He said the total cost over 20 years to build-out is about $2.3 billion. And if $1.68 dollars in sales and consumption activity occurs from each dollar of investment -- the historical average -- the project would create $3.9 billion in sales and consumption.
In addition, he said construction of the project would generate 11,900 person-years (one person employed for a year) of employment. Indirectly, the project would create 9,300 jobs, he said.
After Aguero spoke, activist and consultant Lisa Mayo-Deriso criticized his analysis, saying it lacked a cost-benefit projections, including what kind of impact the project would have "next to a national treasure (Red Rock National Conservation Area)."
Another speaker directed his comments at Commission Chairwoman Susan Brager, who earlier pleaded with the audience not to applaud or boo comments. "We get it," Brager had told the crowd.
In response, a speaker said, "With all due respect, Mrs. Brager, we don't think you get it. Nobody in this room thinks you get it."
Many people laughed and applauded the remark, causing Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, a school teacher, to admonish the crowd to be respectful. "I taught my (school) kids to respect each other," she said. "Applauding, booing for those kind of comments is not respectful."
Attorney Chris Kaempfer, representing the development, reminded commissioners that they lost a legal fight over the property last year.
The county tried to expand a Red Rock protected area to include the gypsum mine area, but the courts said they didn't have that right. In turn, the county signed and agreement with the developer that Kaempfer said means the commissioners "cannot just deny this application. And if you do establish a density, it has to be something that would not be unreasonable."
The current density that the acreage is zoned for --one home per two acres -- isn't reasonable, Kaempfer said, since other major project in the valley average 5.5 homes per acre.
He urged the commission to approve Rhodes' plan for 2.9 homes per acre.
The county's real estate attorney reminded commissioners that what they are dealing with today is only a concept plan. "It's very vague, very general," said Deputy District Attorney Rob Warhola.
The next step would be a more specific plan, in which the county would identify issues and problems, then attach conditions to the plan.
The conceptual plan passed 5-2, with Commissioners Lawrence Weekly and Chris Giunchigliani voting against it.
Yeah, we really need more housing inventory in Clark County. Commissioners, you will expose yourselves as being completely corrupt and/or incompetent if you allow this to move forward.
This entire project is a joke - and not only because of the impact it would have on the land surrounding Red Rock. Have the developers even looked at all the empty homes and stalled development projects in the valley? They sound completely delusional and out-of-touch with reality.
Everything Rhodes does is a joke. Have you ever been inside some of the junk housing he built over off Durango in Rhodes Ranch. But preserving this area for the enjoyment of everyone is way more important than anything else. There should be no Housing developments up there. If this goes through lets make sure we remember this with our votes next time these people are up for election.
If it's his land he should be able to build on it. If you disagree you are welcome to offer him enough money to sell it, then you can leave it as is.
I think the people who live out there and are protesting are being hypocritical. Why is it okay for them to live there but nobody else?
Actually, I don't believe you are correct, Thomas Delahunty. Just because someone owns land, or a building, he or she cannot simply do whatever they want with it. If this was the case, there would be no zoning ordinaces, for example. If I wanted to build an addition to my house, I could not do so without a building permit. I couldn't run a zoo, or a brothel, or any other number of things out of my home, just because I own it and I love zebras and lions or whatever. I could go on and on, but your point is not a sound one.
Mr. Aguero's analysis is flawed like all of his analysis. He has been putting out statistics on how many jobs are created and how many apartments are needed for every new hotel room constructed and hasn't updated his model in 10 years. The guy is nothing but a hired gun.
As for Rhodes, I think he is still hoping a government agency will buy him out.
Not like this place has a ton of housing or anything... Nope.
Hope you didn't buy a used house, why buy used, when they keep pumping out the new houses. This will also reduce prices as there will be more inventory.
This town is clueless.
I agree with WtK2. There is such a thing as due diligence, and developers would save themselves time and headache if they would just follow the law and do it. Instead, they always take the same route that politically powerful people take: change and bend the law, compliance requirements and local ordinances to their will instead of following the existing ones. Our new "super congress" is an larger scale example of reshaping the American political system in a way designed to limit the input of our representatives and benefit the monitory rule (and by minority, I'm not talking about a political party, but the wealthiest .01% of Americans). But you know what we need almost as little as an unconstitutional 4th branch of government? Another tract home development and business park.
The mining operations used Arsenic and other chemicals as part of the operations and it has shown up in the water supply in Blue Diamond in the past. Does anyone remember the Love Canal? How can you safely build homes on an old mining site that most likely was never cleaned up? I don't believe Nevada requires mining operators to clean up after themselves, so whomever buys a home here will have a home on top of a toxic site.
When Rhodes bought the property, it was zoned rural. This means very low density housing, around 2 homes per acre. If the Commissioners approve this, it will up the density, and profitability, of the land enourmously. That just means tens of millions of dollars in Rhodes pocket without doing anything other than "swaying" the county commissioners. Easy money, if you can get it.
Red Rock is a resource for everybody in Clark County, and the country for that matter. It is one of the finest wilderness and recreation areas in the country. If we let it be damaged by development, it will show the whole country how short-sighted we are. Forget abouty bringing in green tech and other hi-tech firms. They locate where their employees have a good quality of life and their kids can get a good education.
I'am not a fan of Mr. Rhodes but its his private property and as the owner he should be able to build what he wants on it within reason as long as it does not poison the area! If the "Friends of Red Rock" feel that strongly then get together, raise the necessary money to buy the land, or convince Senator Reid to obtain the necessary funds to buy the property or pressure Clark County buy it! Individual property rights are one of the foundations of our country, like it or not!
It's the "within reason" part that it's up for dispute, mar100. As I posted earlier, I am a LV property owner, so should I assume you support my right/desire to operate a zoo or a brothel or a casino out of my home? As you say, "Individual property rights are one of the foundations of the country, like it or not!" What you seem to be forgetting, or conveniently ignoring, is that zoning ordinances and a host of other existing laws regulate ALL kinds of things that property owners in Vegas, and elsewhere, are able to do.
Yes! Finally! This is exactly what vegas needs! More development! There is a serious shortage of forclosures and empty homes. I wish you godspeed Mr. Rhodes, this is the single greatest idea I have ever heard, it's right up there with the new Kiss themed coffeehouse going up on the strip!
It's too bad you're not in gaming as well Mr Rhodes. You could also build a new strip resort/casino that could be imploded before it ever opens and/or have you whining the Chapter 11 blues within the first year.
I think there should be a Nobel prize for stupid.
Wtk2 is right. I don't necessarily have a problem if Mr. Rhodes wants to piss away money on a new development when new homes are simply not selling in this city...but he needs to abide by the zoning regulations, period. If it's 2 homes per acre, then that's what he can build. This idea that if you own property you are free to build anything you want..including a brothel, tells me there are people that need to be institutionalized with that type of thinking.
I wouldn't trust Jim Rhode to build a sandbox! The man left millions of dollars in construction defects at his other projects. I wouldn't trust his word, his work, or anything he says or does. Ask the Dept of Justice who are investigating all the crooks and crooked politicians his projects have created. DO NOT LET HIM BUILD THIS PROJECT!!!!
He will destroy RED ROCK CANYON! JUST SAY NO!!!!
The only jobs he would be creating wouldn't go to American Citizens anyway - and you KNOW IT. Look around at any new housing development (and yes, they ARE still building new) and see who's building these houses. That part of his 'argument' of creating all these jobs is really a moot point if the only ones working these jobs can't even speak English. (ok, the supervisor can speak a few words).
Creating jobs in this day and age is just an attempt to sway government officials. But, if Rhodes has not done a market survey, he should. There is no way that today's market will support such a project. This project will only be partially completed and will look like many of the developments in the Las Vegas area.
Having attended many commission meetings, I cannot believe the level of disrespect for citizens displayed by Commissioners Brager and Collins during today's Gypsum Resources hearing.
Commissioner Brager, how can you read our minds and "get it" before we have spoken? Are all citizens the same in your eyes? If you can "get" the environmental community before hearing us, can you do the same with the development community? Your rudeness set the tone for the rest of the hearing.
And Commissioner Collins, no one invited or appreciated you lecturing the citizens during OUR public comment period, in the bizare and ignorant way that is your style. The concept plan and the development are stupid and it was not impolite for folks to say so - so sorry if you were offended.
This commission seems intent on reinventing the ways of previous commissions, some of the members of whom ended up in prison.
Commissioners, is there no development you won't approve? The voters are watching - you can run, but not hide!
"I wouldn't trust Jim Rhode to build a sandbox! The man left millions of dollars in construction defects at his other projects. I wouldn't trust his word, his work, or anything he says or does"
CORRECT!!! I was privy to the multiple construction defect lawsuits against Rhodes Builders. THe man builds crap.
more new houses? really? i mean...REALLY?
Thank you Commissioners Giunchigliani and Weekly for your integrity and actually thinking about the good of the Valley as opposed to the good of developers. 7000+ more homes in a Valley full of foreclosed home is not needed, especially when it is leap-frog development next to a national natural treasure.
I attended the meeting. As is so often the case in Nevada politics, it was a done deal before the meeting ever started. It seemed almost obvious by the smug attitudes of those representing the developer and was clearly reinforced by Commissioners Brager and Collins who displayed plenty of bias in favor of the project. Their condescending attitude toward those who opposed the project bordered on disgusting.
This sleazy developer has a very bad track record that includes bankruptcy, admittedly illegal campaign contributions (including a past county commissioner) and paying huge sums of money to another former Clark County Commissioner for "consulting" after she pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges in a bribery case. Based on these facts, Rhodes has a history of at least attempting to influence the commission. It seems that crime pays and ethics mean nothing in Southern Nevada.
Once again, the Clark County Commission, with the notable exception of Commissioners Guinchigliani and Weekly (thank you both very much), have proven they are incapable of supporting the wishes of an overwhelming majority of citizens. Today was a pathetic display of greed, insensitivity and lack of respect for the people of Clark County.
They should make any approval contingent on Mr. Rhodes fulfilling his pledge to the Nevada Cancer Institute, and the full payment to everyone who was owed money in his many bankruptcies.
Chances are it will take awhile for this to get off the ground but it still sucks. Once they build this master planned community it will just get bigger and then Red Rock will be just another urban park one day. I'm not a tree hugger; just somebody who remembers how things were and would like to give the next generations the right to make the same mistakes.
How's that project in Golden Valley doing? I thought so.
How 'bout Tuscany, built on toxic waste and directly across from White Trash world?
This man could sell Preparation H to a convent. Just grease the right palms, called a "Collins" in this neck of the woods, and all goes smoothly. God, I imagine Glenda is busy swapping out her bumpers again.
The area is zoned for 2 homes per acre. Keep it that way!
Nobody wants this. We don't need it. The county commission didn't listen to the people and DOES NOT CARE. Collins and Brager are corrupt scumbags of the lowest order.
At least when it gets partially constructed and then abandoned when he goes bankrupt again, the grafitti "artists" will have a more appropriate canvas.
"An opportunity to go back" in time, to create a community like in the olden days, "communities that have stood the test of time."
Creating a community so great that it would attract a world-class school; live-work residential housing; "places to meet neighbors."
"A model for development and for dealing with future growth."
That's the same stuff spewed by every developer every time a new master-planned community is in the works. And what is the true product? Rows of cookie-cutter stucco homes and strip malls.
It'll be the same thing at Red Rock.
Oh, and "live-work" residential housing? Right. I'll believe it when I see it. These developers don't get it that the employees of "shops" can't afford 500k for a home. And the people who own the "shops" aren't going to live above them.
One of the toughest things a local elected official gets to do is protect private property rights and laws, in the face of a "mob" (NIMBY) audience. 100 people show-up and don't want something to happen. They focus on comments and arguments that make sense down at the bowling alley or out in the driveway, but don't hold water in court. They don't get their way and call the Commissioner's "corrupt scumbags." Ahhhhhhh... America's political system at it's finest.
'A done deal before it started' So no matter how many people come out to protest, its all just window dressing. Sad!
Who the hell is going to ever lend Jim Rhodes money for the project?
Behind the curtain Harry Reid is directing this farce of a proceeding.
"Jim Rhodes and two Rhodes Homes executives were fined a total of $159,000 by the Federal Election Commission for illegally funneling contributions to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Dario Herrera, a former Clark County, Nev., commissioner who was seeking a congressional seat in 2002."
http://gsting.blogspot.com/2006/05/12har...
Part 1 -
The Clark County Assessors Records show that the property at issue in this article is owned by Gypsum Resources, LLC and was purchased on March 13, 2003 for $50,494,348 and that the deed was re-recorded on 7/3/2008 to "correct an error in the legal description". The County Recorder's Office's online records do not readily produce any information about whether there is a deed of trust or mortgage on the property. Gypsum Resources, LLC has as its LLC manager Truckee Springs Holdings, Inc. of which James M. Rhodes is President, Treasurer and Secretary and John C. Rhodes of Las Vegas and David J. Lyon of Salt Lake City are Directors, along with James M. Rhodes.
From the U.S. District Court for Nevada (Las Vegas) PACER Docket, the "Settlement Agreement" between Gypsum Resources, LLC (the Rhodes entity) and defendants "County of Clark and David Roger, in is Official Capacity of the County of Clark" (the Defendants) is Document 89 in Case No. 2:05-cv-00583 filed with the court on 5/5/09. A court worder approving the Settlement Agreement was signed on 5/18/10.
In the Settlement Agreement page 2, lines 4-8 recites "This agreement is not a specific approval of any development plan and any such plan must be approved by the County's Board of Commissioners (BCC) through the normal Title 30 hearing process."
The "Recitals of Fact" at page 3 Paragraph G recites that on or about November 24, 2009 the Federal District Court issued its Order granting in full the motion made by Gypsum Resources LLC as to the State, thereby voiding the state law [relating to preservation of the Rhodes land]. That paragraph also recites that at the same time the Federal District Court granted the County's motion for summary judgment as (against Gypsum Resources) as to substantive due process grounds and denied in part the County's motion for summary judgment on equal protection grounds. The Settlement Agreement continues at Paragraph H "As a result of the Federal District Court's orders issued on March 27, 2008 and November 24, 2009, Gypsum's First Cause of Action, for Violation of Equal Protection, remains to be tried, and trial is scheduled on May 4, 2010." Paragraph I says "The parties wish to settle...on the terms set forth in this Agreement." Paragraph J provides that the County and Gypsum attended a Mandatory Settlement Conference before a different U.S. District Court Judge than the judge who would have heard the trial.
Paragraph M of the "Recitals of Fact" on page 4 of the Settlement Agreement provides "The County and Gypsum recognize that through this Agreement there are no guarantees, commitments or binding obligations by County to approve a Major Project application, or to approve any uses or increased densities proposed by Gypsum as part of any Major Project application and that the County retains discretion regarding any application submitted by Gypsum as a Result of this Agreement."
Part 2
Paragraph 2 of Settlement Agreement refers to County Ordinance CCO 2914 adding a new Section 30.48.312 to the Clark County Code (the "Amending Ordinance"). In that paragraph the County agreed that if the Amending Ordinance was not adopted by the Commissioners on April 21, 2010, the Settlement Agreement would be of no force or effect. In return for the Commissioners adopting that Amending Ordinance Gypsum Resources agreed to dismiss, with the ability to refile at a later date, Case No. 2:05-cv-00583. Gypsum Resources also agreed to dismiss and not refile a companion Nevada state court lawsuit. Gypsum signed a broad release of its claims against the Defendants arising prior to the Settlement Agreement.
Paragraph 5 of the Settlement Agreement is worth quoting in full: "The Parties acknowledge that, after adoption of the Amending Ordinance, and approval of this Agreement, Gypsum intends to submit a Major Project application for the development of a master planned community pursuant to Chapter 30.20 of the Clark County Code, and subject to generally applicable and currently adopted Codes (the "Major Project Application"). The County and Gypsum acknowledge that the Major Project Application may include adjustments, considerations and deviations to take into account the previous mining activities on the Property. The County agrees that it will process the Major Project Application under the Major Projects process in good faith. Gypsum understand that the County, by this Agreement, cannot and is not committing to approval of any particular Major Project and/or any particular densities or uses."
Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is lengthy, but in essence provides that ingress and egress from the Major Project is to be to the east (i.e. not into Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.)
Paragraph 7 of the Settlement Agreement states that Gypsum intends to "apply for land exchanges" so that the parts of Gypsum's land in the Red Rock National Canyon Conservation Area are exchanged for other land outside the conservation area. Paragraph 7 then recites: "If the County within its absolute and sole discretion is in favor of proposed land exchange(s) between Gypsum and the BLM for the Property inside the RRCNCA, then the County agrees to provide a letter in support of the exchange(s). In no event is the County making any representation or guarantee that the County will be in favor of such an exchange(s) or that such exchange(s) will be approved by the Bureau of Land Management.
The Settlement Agreement was signed on May 5, 2010 by Commissioner Susan Brager as Vice Chairman of the Commission and by Rory Reid as Chairman of the Commission. Robert T. Warhola signed the Settlement Agreement on behalf of David Roger as District Attorney in his capacity as the County's attorney.
Part 3 My observations:
(1) Based upon the express wording of the Settlement Agreement described above, the Commissioners did not HAVE TO approved the Major Project Application today. Instead, the Settlement Agreement said, again and again, that it was a discretionary decision on the part of the Commission. As a result, pro-labor Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani's statement to Channel 8 tonight, that she felt that the County had acted in good faith in reviewing the Major Project Application, and that she was not forced to vote for the Major Project Application and did not vote for it, is exactly on point. As a result, any political spin by the 5 Commissioners who DID vote for the Major Project Application claiming that they "had to" approve the Major Project Application because of the Settlement Agreement is absolutely not true. Either they affirmatively wanted to approve the Major Project Application based on its content, or they were afraid the County would be sued again by Gypsum Resources, LLC. Most public agencies don't like to publicly cave in, big time, in public, out of "fear of litigation" so I am betting that the former explanation is closer to reality.
(2) The sorts of lawsuits like this Federal case are filed by developers all the 9th Circuit, all the time, and big and small cities and counties win the lawsuits, either at trial or appeal. For example, in Ventura County, California planned community developers have repeatedly sued small cities, in Federal court, with little success, because the little cities hired "hot shot Federal trial land use lawyers". It would be interesting to know if the County was penny wise and pound foolish in the matter of defending the Blue Diamond Ridge case, or whether the County's attorneys have a history of beating developers in these sorts of cases and simply hit a patch of bad luck.
(3) In contrast, Gypsum Resources, LLC hired Manatt Phelps & Phillips, which has 9 offices throughout the United States, and on its website described its land use litigation practice as "The firm's Land Use practice is strengthened by the ties we maintain with regulators and key contacts in federal, state and local government. Many of our lawyers are former government attorneys, lobbyists, developers and/or members of local planning commissions. We understand the land use and development business from all sides of the table, and bring our experience to work in advising clients and advocating on their behalf. We have received frequent accolades for our sophisticated, results-driven counsel, including listings in Chambers USA, Best Lawyers in America and The Legal 500."
Part 4 My additional observations:
(4) It's important to note that despite loose talk to the contrary James M. Rhodes did NOT file bankruptcy. Instead Rhodes Homes and many of its sister and subsidiary companies filed a consolidated Chapter 11 case, and utilized Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones of Los Angeles as their bankruptcy lawyers. Richard Pachulski is widely known to be the most brilliant and creative debtors lawyer in Southern California. So "Jim" Rhodes knows how to find, hire and pay excellent lawyers.
(5) There's always a fear when law firms from outside of Las Vegas come into town and appear "pro hac vice" that the out-of-town lawyers will be "home towned" by Las Vegas own excellent private lawyers. Unfortunately, in the Blue Diamond Ridge case, the reverse was true, because Clark County did not hire outside counsel.
(6) At today's hearing, Gypsum Resources, LLC was represented by attorney Chris Kaempfer, who is widely considered to be one of Las Vegas' top two planning and zoning lawyers.
(7) The residents of Blue Diamond and other project opponents have to ask themselves if Clark County's Comprehensive Planning Department met with them repeatedly, listened to their concerns, and pressured Gypsum Resources LLC to make changes in the project shown in the Major Project Application. If the majority of the reasonable changes requested by the projecte opponents were made at the insistence of the County staff, then the project opponents got a fair shake, and they were simply out-gunned in terms of both lobbying and lawyering. If the project opponents were simply blown off by the Comprehensive Planning Department staff and the Commissioner for the Blue Diamond Area, during communications occurring before today's hearing, then the adverse conclusions by commenters on this board are probably warranted.
(8) There's nothing in the Settlement Agreement prohibiting the Blue Diamond Ridge Opponents from challenging today's decision by the Commissioners in court. However, unfortunately, Clark County's ordinances and Nevada's laws are generally pretty useless, compared with those in many other states, in terms of finding something technically, legally wrong with the Commissioners' decision. Sad but true.
Jeremy Aguero is a kept woman of the powers-that-be in this town. His phony figures about the return we would see in the economy and in taxes is BULLSH_T. The pie is NOT growing in Las Vegas -- it is a zero sum game, or even shrinking, for the foreseeable future. This is most so in housing.
Going forward, Aguero should never be sought out by the Sun for his analysis or opinion. Just because there might not be a ready and credible alternative to him does not mean that we have to settle for his cooked-up "analysis" and give him a forum.
How wonderful - more labor jobs for the illegals - don't believe me - just wait till these homes start being built - or better yet, check out some new homes that are currently being built - go see just exactly who is working.... and moreso, you'll see exactly who DID not get any of these jobs :(
Thank YOU, Cynical Observer, for the superb analysis! Your summation (with my adjustments): "Nevada laws USELESS Sad, but true."
One missing element I see here, and that is WATER, which speaks to the SUSTAINABILITY of this project in reality.
Sure, the zoning can be set at 2 homes per acre NOW, and just as HISTORY is here in Nevada, and Clark County, in a matter of years, the zoning will change, just look at the EAST side of Las Vegas around Sunrise Mountain area! That once was populated with horses and small ranches and breath-taking views. Now look at it! Let this lesson speak to you! Commissioners CHANGE ZONING after the fact up the road.
WATER for more housing is what bothers me. Until Clark County has that under control and answered, and it is SUSTAINABLE, there should be a moritorium on NEW CONSTRUCTION IN SOUTHERN NEVADA!
That means only new building can or should occur on previously built sites, or in other words, we are "RECYCLING OLD BUILDING SITES" and infrastructure, making improvements upon those until the WATER situation is sustainable.
Thank you.
One solution to fix the water: build a transcontinental channel using existing easements across the USA collect MIDWESTERN FLOOD/DISASTER WATERS and channeling them across land to the WEST. Along the way, water can be dispensed to drought plagued areas for relief as well.
Thank you.
For Noindex,
Are property owners rights unlimited?
There is one other place that is a GOLD MINE to build his dream village: LAUGHLIN!
Readers in the know, especially if they read the Las Vegas Sun, have already read articles about ENN, a Chinese Corporation, buying up land out near Laughlin, to build a SOLAR MANUFACTURING PLANT AND SOLAR POWER PLANT!
Link:http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/jun/30/solar-project-could-be-start-diversified-economy/#comments
Well, the Colorado River certainly runs arounds that neck of the desert woods, and it would seem prudent that if a little guy investor wanted to have a HOME and maybe a JOB, this certainly PROMISES more of a FUTURE! (wink-wink-nod-nod)
Some of you went to that meeting MAD and left MAD. Don't be MAD, get EVEN.
Peace =)
Illegals working on these developments? well grow a pair and have these people removed be that answer.
Water? that made-up issue based around the fact the real issue is cost and not supply? There is plenty of water, the trouble is these people do not want to pay the going rate for it. Instead they want it for what it cost in 1935. Better to pay existing residents cash to go rock, and steal their allocations for your new developments. No water no developments, get it?
Please tell Mr. Delahunty that Mr Rhodes absolutely has the right to develop the land he purchased but at the zoning it was at the time of purchase. He bought land zoned rural, which is one home per 2 acres or somewhere around 1000 homes. The uproar is that he wants to build 7500 homes, light industrial, offices, etc. This is not the zoning and should not be. He is in bankruptcy court for several projects and the cleanup bill is being paid by you and I, the taxpayer. I am all for individual rights, but not for bending over for dishonest businessmen.