In Our View: Growth Plan Good to Go

In last week’s decision by the Clark County council to adopt a 20-year growth management plan, a couple items stand out from the elongated deliberations.

One is that a majority of the council opted to act in what they think is the best fashion for a majority of Clark County residents. Another is that councilors — most notably Julie Olson — have expressed a desire to balance this public good with the needs of rural landowners. In the end, the board forged a reasonable decision from the wreckage created by years of contentious negotiations.

Most important is that the council, through a series of 3-2 votes with David Madore and Tom Mielke consistently in opposition, adopted a plan born of a vision for a quickly growing county. There are provisions for a gentle alteration of the county’s rural areas, allowing for some smaller lot sizes and for an expansion of urban growth boundaries for some cities. Increased population will call for increased density throughout the county in order to ease the housing crunch that already is in evidence.

This approach belies the demagoguery demonstrated by Madore. In an effort to cater to rural landowners who desire to subdivide their parcels, the councilor unilaterally developed an alternative plan that would have led to rural subdivisions while providing scant attention to the need for infrastructure in those areas. The council, along with the county planning commission, wisely rejected Madore’s ill-conceived plan while recognizing that all citizens are stakeholders in the issue and should not be beholden to the desires of one small homogeneous group.

Throughout a seven-hour meeting Tuesday that resulted in the final adoption of the plan, Madore persisted with a childish harangue and said, “What this plan does is it unnecessarily imposes burdensome restrictions on the citizens. It adds extra regulation, extra red tape. It strips citizens of the private property rights they thought they had.”

In truth, it sets reasonable management policies for Clark County’s rural areas. It reminds residents that if they bought a farm, they own a farm, not 20 5-acre parcels. It acknowledges that allowing for the division of large properties also would require infrastructure such as additional roads, water service, sewers, and other amenities of civilization. When a property owner divides their property for the construction of new homes, that construction does not happen in a vacuum; it alters the nature of their neighbors’ properties, as well.

Meanwhile, the council also recognized the needs of rural landowners. Since the county adopted a 1994 plan under the state’s Growth Management Act, many residents have complained that their property rights have been diminished. Olson pledged to revisit rural zoning issues, suggested the creation of a rural lands task force, and recommended greater flexibility for those who have owned property since before 1994. “This isn’t going to be the end of conversations as it relates to rural landowners,” she said.

Of course, conversations are not the same as actions. County government should, indeed, pay attention to the desires of those who have been longtime landowners and have seen their options limited. But in considering additional options, the importance is in catering to the needs of all residents and recognizing that growth affects the entire county.

The Clark County council was wise to adopt a reasoned, well-thought-out land-use plan and wise to reject what would have amounted to an extension of urban sprawl.