Is desert sign an eyesore or exercise of owner’s rights?

By Joe Schoenmann

Published Saturday, June 11, 2011 | 2 a.m.

Updated Saturday, June 11, 2011 | 8:46 a.m.

A test of Nevada’s claim as the libertarian seat of the United States is emblazoned on the Black Hills, just south of Boulder City.

In gigantic white letters, painted into the hardscrabble brown of the Mojave Desert, are the words: PRO GUN CLUB/OPEN TO PUBLIC/7 DAYS. Then a phone number for Desert Hills Shooting Club.

To some, the sign is unsightly. Others say it’s the right of any property owner to do what he or she wants with that property.

Clark County Commissioner Steve Sisolak has to decide who is right because the club is in his commission district.

“I don’t know what to do right now,” Sisolak said.

Records with the secretary of state’s office list two entities as managing the shooting range. One is Blakely Island Holdings LLC, which is managed by the Rogich Family Trust. The other is Golden Hills LLC, which is managed by Aristotle and Anthony Eliades.

Neither longtime Nevada political consultant Sig Rogich nor the Eliadeses could be reached for comment.

Signs and advertising have been raised to high art in Las Vegas. They roll on the back of trucks down the Strip, on the sides of buses or the monorail and taxis. Giant signs have always been associated with casinos.

When a 500-foot Ferris wheel is completed next year on the Strip, 49,000 square feet of electronic signage will cover most of the spokes on each side of the wheel. A Walgreens on the Strip will feature five signs that together total 28,000 square feet.

In both cases, Sisolak supported the megaliths. Of course, that’s on the Strip, where everything is bigger than real life.

He notes, though, that giant letters decorate hillsides all over the country, such as the “B” on the eastern side of Henderson for Basic High School. Sure the “B” connotes a measure of civic pride, not a lure to potential customers.

But does that matter in the debate? Sisolak said he’s fielded 20 calls and emails so far, with about 14 against and six for the shooting range sign.

“The vast majority say it’s an eyesore, visual blight and pollution,” he says. “Then I get other people who say it’s private property and you shouldn’t be able to tell someone what they can paint on their own property.”

Ramon Collins comes down on the “eyesore” side. Even compared with the massive concrete batch plant near the shooting range, Collins sees the giant lettering as uglier.

“The quarry scar is disgusting but a little more understandable,” Collins said via email. He has lived in the area 21 years. “There’s something extremely repulsive about a commercial advertisement that’s plastered on the landscape.”

Sisolak has directed staff to research state and county codes to see if lawyers or lawmakers have ever dealt with something like this before.

“When someone first told me about it, I thought it was a simple billboard,” Sisolak said. “Then I get this picture sent to me and, holy cow, I had no idea.”