Where do you put them... wrote on April 03, 2008 02:12 PM: It's a nice thought Homeowner, however, you can't really do that. The apartments will always be next to someone. Planners try and use the various land uses as buffers (ie, apartments buffer commercial from starter homes; starter homes buffer higher end homes from apartments). The local ordinances provide additional buffers (ie, distance requirements between bars and chuchs, between schools and sexual-oriented businesses, etc.)

It really comes down to the management of the apartments. If the managment was as strict as our HOA CCR's maybe we wouldn't have this problem. I live near some nice apartments and have never had a problem. Of course the current ownership could sell their property and new management would be brought in. I imagine that things could turn south in a hurry in the "right" circumstances.

Are there any studies that conclusively find that crime rates are higher in and around apartments? I've lived in some really nice areas where crime and vandalism was a real problem with no apartments nearby. In the end, I suppose it comes down to personal accountability for individual actions.

Howeowner wrote on April 03, 2008 12:52 PM: I, like most people when they are young, have lived in apartments. I hated it. At least they were in apartment areas not infringing on property owners who pay taxes (renters do not). I have seen what happens when apartments are built next to nice housing communities. Cheyenne/Durango area has changed once those apartments went up. Lower class of people loitering behind Taco Bell, ruining the area landscape, being thugs, and shootings. I have since moved. Keep apartments with apartments and houses with houses. Reason why most renters don't care is because they can just up and leave. Harder to do when you own and care about what you own.

Previous Apartment Dweller wrote on April 03, 2008 12:22 PM: I believe the Eldorado Community as a whole is entitled for roughly 78 acres of multi-family uses. This based on the agreement that goes back to the late 80s. The parcels were then zoned accordingly. How can the residents be complaining at this point? Maybe they were mislead as to the adjacent land uses by unscrupulous realtors or builder reps trying to make a quick buck. But I’d be willing to bet that the residents signed a full disclosure document that indicates the zoning of adjacent parcels. So how is that the fault of the developer? Here’s a tip the next time you plan to spend $250,000 or more on a purchase: do a little homework.

Apartment dwellers are not inherently morally corrupt. Where you reside does not dictate your morals, no more than the color of you skin or your religious beliefs do. You can bet that virtually all of these residents lived in an apartment at some point. This “social classification” reeks of bigotry.

These residents should have focused their energy on trying to negotiate some mitigation measure with the developer instead of fighting a losing battle. Where did you guys get your legal advice? Who knows you may have gotten additional landscaping buffers, new park equipment, that All-Way stop you want on your kids walking route to school, traffic calming for your heavily traveled neighbor roads, or maybe even computers for the local school or library. Pardee would have kicked in something to avoid this type of confrontation even though they were entirely within their legal rights. Instead you tick off the developer creating an adversarial relationship. Good luck trying to negotiate with them in the future on that next apartment project.

foo wrote on April 03, 2008 11:55 AM: Hey, NLV city coucil: How about changing the zoning for the property then? Take a tip from some of your other local government colleagues. They do it whenever they see fit. Why can't you stand up for your constituency?

Hey property owners: You need to lean on your "representatives" and let them know what they need to do. The law is a wonderful thing to throw at people, so start practicing your pitch. You could always raise your well-regulated militia, too. Assert your rights as property owners and citizens.

J wrote on April 03, 2008 09:12 AM: Let's see: I was born in Las Vegas, and I lived in several apartment complexes before I could afford to buy a house. Now I own several houses.

The small percentage of "problem tenants" that rent apartments also rent houses in Las Vegas, as there are so many homes for rent in the valley.

Most renters are decent people who either by current circumstance or choice do not want to own. However, it is true that the percentage of problem tenants is probably a little among renters than owners.

That said, so many folks in Las Vegas carry so much social and financial insecurity that they try a little too hard to put down those who they perceive as being "below" them.

Why didn't these oh-so-proud homeowners check into the zoning of the various parcels in their neighborhood before buying? This isn't a case of a developer requesting a zoning variance, so get over it.

ET wrote on April 03, 2008 08:41 AM: The complex is a step forward for northtown ,its always left a lot to be desired,look it's at I215 ,hope they love the roar of jet engines from Nellis. North town is like Bagdad, boom,boom,boom,in the night.

shayne del cohen wrote on April 03, 2008 08:32 AM: As a conscious decision I chose to be an apartment dweller.
It was not an issue of economic necessity - it was an environmental choice. Apartment dweller consume less space and put less strain on the environment than do single family dwellers.
The attitudes of this gathering reflect the new kind of racism and classism that is infecting this community. The fact that many were "lied to" about the status of surrounding property points out the naivite/ignorance of the general public to say nothing their lack of interaction with their government until they perceive their castles under attack. Think of all the home owners around Clark County who now wish their commissioners had adopted building codes in the past!
If people think they have been hurt because a contract is honored, let them become knowledgeable about their elected officials and proud of the first time in a long time a body has honored its commitments.

CML wrote on April 03, 2008 08:15 AM: Karma has struck at last! Shari Buck opposed this project because her own home was at stake...I moved out of NLV in 1999 after she supported a similar apartment building proposal in the midst of single-family homes (at Clayton and Cheyenne) as a member of the city's planning board. I wonder how long she'll wait before putting a "for sale" sign in her front yard?

K wrote on April 03, 2008 08:12 AM: Paul - high five

paul wrote on April 03, 2008 07:31 AM: Oh and one more thing, this is in North Town, and we all know what kind of reputation North Town has. So I'd say going by your comments about gross people, this is exactly where apartments belong. I'm done.

Read All Comments