Home Subscribe Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Opinion


LETTERS: GROWTH MIGHT BECOME SELF-REGULATING

To the editor:

Geoff Schumacher has written columns for the past two Sundays arguing strongly for water conservation in Las Vegas. This past Sunday, he quoted a number of reader opinions that the proper way to address the present water shortage was by controlling growth. In either case, the strong implication in Mr. Schumacher's columns is that government intervention is required to address Las Vegas' water problems.

What Mr. Schumacher fails to see is that the enforced conservation vs. controlled growth argument becomes moot if the price Las Vegas residents pay for water fairly reflects the cost to deliver it to their taps. For a given price of water, all residents will weigh the cost of maintaining a lawn against the pleasure they receive by having one or the pleasure of shooting a round of golf compared to how much they pay for greens fees. As the cost of water increases, more and more residents and businesses will remove their lawns to save money.

However, if a given resident is sufficiently well off that they can afford to maintain an expanse of grass or a "water feature," should they not -- as a citizen in a free society -- be allowed to spend their money as they see fit?


Most Popular Stories
  • EDITORIAL: Ignoring the court
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: 'You've a gun on your T-shirt'
  • LETTERS: An incredible imbalance in salaries
  • ERIN NEFF: Gibbons and the sweetheart deal
  • LETTERS: Blame the doctor, not the messenger
  • LETTERS: No free lunch with green solutions
  • EDITORIAL: The death of common sense
  • FROM OUR READERS: Is it too late to make a deal?
  • LETTERS: Give up your car and ride a bike
  • EDITORIAL: It's satire, ladies and gentlemen



  • On the other hand, as the price of water and, consequently, the cost of living in Las Vegas increases, the city becomes less attractive to new residents and growth becomes self-regulating. Adam Smith understood and wrote about these relatively simple principles more than 200 years ago. It's perhaps unfortunate that Mr. Schumacher and our local government officials still don't get it.

    JIM HODGE

    HENDERSON

    Sierra Club

    To the editor:

    In response to the Tuesday letter from Robert Opp on the Sierra Club and the lawsuit that delayed the expansion of U.S. Highway 95:

    There may also be many Californians who would like a piece of the Sierra Club. During the recent fires in that state, several comments were made as to the "dead wood" that could not be removed because of Sierra Club lawsuits. This "dead wood" became fuel for the fires. It would be interesting if some attorney made the representation that the damage would have been substantially less if the "dead wood" fuel had been removed, thereby making the Sierra Club responsible, in part, for the damages suffered by the homeowners.

    It seems we have a plethora of attorneys representing every extreme viewpoint. Can we get some attorneys to represent those of us who pay the bills for those extreme points of view?

    Douglas Manookian

    LAS VEGAS

    Valuable counties

    To the editor:

    I find myself compelled to respond to Sherman Frederick's Nov. 11 column, "It's time for a new state song."

    In addition to discussing the Nevada's state song, Mr. Frederick poses the question, "Isn't it time we did something about Nevada counties that by most meaningful measures have ceased to exist? Take Esmeralda County, for example." What Mr. Frederick fails to acknowledge is that although Esmeralda County's most populous days have likely passed, it has in no way lost its vitality nor its importance in Nevada.

    Mr. Frederick is quick to offer conjecture and hyperbole with regard to the residents of Goldfield, but the fact is that Esmeralda County is home to many miners as well as their families, not to mention retirees and those who sought out a simpler way of life. Esmeralda County and the town of Goldfield provide a warm, small-town atmosphere that should be envied by those who are so quick to find fault with the exponential growth we have here in Clark County.

    My only solace with regard to Mr. Frederick's comments is that the Nevada Constitution prohibits the abolishment of any county without the approval of a majority of qualified voters of the county in question.

    With regard to Mr. Frederick's comments about Nye County, I surmise that he is proposing that the Legislature redraw the county lines, or that we move the county seat to the more populous "Las Vegas bedroom community" of Pahrump. Or perhaps Mr. Frederick is suggesting that Nye and Esmeralda counties find the same fate as that of Roop County, which was absorbed by Washoe County shortly after Nevada became a state.

    Is Mr. Frederick suggesting that the worth of a county can be equated to the number of its inhabitants? If so, I beg to differ. Perhaps the "meaningful measures" Mr. Frederick refers to should be calculated by the solvency of its government, the honesty and integrity of its officials, and the sense of community pride found within its residents.

    Is Mr. Frederick aware that Nye County is the largest county in square miles in the state and one of the largest in the country? Perhaps that is irrelevant to someone attempting to trivialize its importance. I suppose equally irrelevant to Mr. Frederick is the fact that gaming is not the only thriving industry in Nevada. Nevada is the top gold producer in this nation and one of the top five gold producers in the world. That fact is largely attributable to the more rural counties of this great state, including Nye and Esmeralda, yet I find no mention of that in Mr. Frederick's commentary.

    My son is the third generation born in Las Vegas. I was raised and educated (prior to college) in Tonopah. My sister and brother-in-law lived in Goldfield and raised two children there prior to my brother-in-law's job relocating them to Fallon a few years ago.

    My father still lives and works in Smoky Valley (for a mine), my other sister lives and works in Pahrump (for Nye County) and although I live in Las Vegas, my family and I have had businesses in both Round Mountain and Tonopah (businesses largely patronized by hard-working miners and their families). Any attempt to marginalize the very important contributions and the significance of any small Nevada county only serves to debase the value and worth that these counties add to the very rich and varied landscape that defines Nevada.

    Kathy Crawford

    LAS VEGAS

    Apathy to dependent

    To the editor:

    A story in Tuesday's Review Journal noted that Gov. Jim Gibbons was being criticized for advocating spending cuts to bring the budget into balance. "No cuts, spend more," his critics touted -- just as they do at the federal level.

    We need to take a lesson from Alexander Tytler, a Scottish history professor from centuries ago. He said, "Over 2,000 years ago the Athenian Republic, a pillar of democracy, fell when the voters discovered they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public coffers."

    How long do we have? If the majority continues to vote for the candidate who promises them the most, how long will it be before our democracy collapses due to irresponsible fiscal policy?

    There is a formula the world's greatest civilizations go through. It is: bondage to spiritual faith, faith to great courage, courage to liberty, liberty to abundance, abundance to complacency, complacency to apathy, apathy to dependence and finally dependence back into bondage. Some of the world's most notorious dictators rose to power when this cycle completed itself. Bondage to dictatorship.

    We can castigate Gov. Gibbons all we want. But if he can reduce the era of dependency, he is in fact ensuring our democracy. Those in Washington should take heed, for their salvation and ours hinge on it.

    I guess we are between "complacency and apathy."

    Louis Frederick

    NORTH LAS VEGAS



    Leave Your Comment 7 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    douglas wrote on November 18, 2007 01:38 AM: the water issue may sort itself out if the true cost of making water available is "metered"/meted out to those who consume it.

    if that means some assessment because of a new pipeline, desal plant, lawn buy-out, so be it.

    from my experience in the city, my water bill for a new home in summerlin was about $10-$11/month. some months it was a bit less. when i had visitors, it might have crept up to $12. that included significant landscaping plant material on drip irrigation. if that bill would have doubled up, i wouldn't have been overly concerned, particularly if that higher charge was for some infrastructure to expand future water availability. so what's the rub ?


    DJ2 wrote on November 17, 2007 11:06 AM: The problem I have with charging more for water (profiteering) to encourage (strong-arm) water conservation is that those methods unfairly target (slam) those on fixed incomes and those who're surviving from check to check.



    Many of those who moved to Las Vegas before there was a water problem put in lawns. As time passed and families who were financially able to upgraded to newer neighborhoods with the new water-efficient yards, those who did not fare so well financially remained in their aging neighborhoods with their lawns.



    Despite the water districts' incentive to convert lawn to desert landscaping, the up-front costs involved are far beyond the budgets of many. That situation leaves the struggling homeowner with the choice of either letting the lawn and all of it's landscaping wither, or to keep sacrificing more of the grocery money to maintain the lawn. Higher water costs only increase the already crushing pressurs of trying to meet all of the ever increasing bills.



    In older neighborhoods, there are yard after yard of bare dirt accompanied with the stark tall remains of dead mature trees. It not only hurts neighborhood morale, but it drastically reduces real estate values.



    The financially struggling water consumer is hit disproportionately hard by punative water increases whose only purpose is to "encourage" conservation.



    Ultimately, water and all of the enrichments it brings to life will eventually end up as just another of the luxuries of the powerful and the rich.


    FrankS wrote on November 17, 2007 09:16 AM: Dear Jim,

    Do you ever see a situation when government would be allowed to limit to each household the same number of gallons of water?

    Just think what those with lower consumption could charge for their surplus on the open market!


    Randy wrote on November 17, 2007 09:16 AM: Jim, if it comes to a choice of my having affordable water to sustain my home (xeroscaped), and your golf course,fountain, or other water feature: guess which choice I am going to make.

    I would prefer that choice be made by voluntary conservation. But "let them eat cake" does not fly any better now than it did in 1789.

    I applaud Steve Winn. The water for his 'water features' and uses other than drinking is non-potable. Winn resorts recycle their water and/or obtain it from water sources under their resorts that are not suitable for drinking.

    How much of my drinking water are you wasting?


    Joe wrote on November 17, 2007 08:08 AM: Douglas, I hear that Dean will be looking for a job shortley. Mabe he will champion the people.
    Joe


    Mark wrote on November 17, 2007 06:10 AM: Americans were traitors to the ideals the country was founded upon and demanded a welfare state, and they are getting the consequences of a welfare state, good and hard.


    grumpy wrote on November 17, 2007 05:56 AM: I'd like to add a comment regarding Mr. Louis Frederick's letter: Sir, if you consider the looming surge in the number of social security recipients, we are likely to well exceed having half of our society dependent on some form of government entitlement or largesse. Thus,I might argue we are closer to dependency than you think! This makes the case for cutting spending all the more important. No society ever taxed itself into prosperity.