Letters to the Editor

Eldorado Valley development will affect quality of life

We are concerned about the Boulder Highlands Development to be built in Eldorado Valley. Also, we have heard that a shopping center, manufacturing plant, truck stop and other construction is to be developed in Eldorado Valley and near the Railroad Pass casino.

We believe that all of this development in the Eldorado Valley and near Railroad Pass will dramatically impact the quality of life in Boulder City.

These new developments will also affect our Boulder City budget if any money is used for sewer and water lines, electrical lines, telephone and computer lines, new roads, sidewalks, etc. If these developments are in the city of Boulder City, we will need more policeman, fireman, etc.

Hopefully, the developers will pay for all of the additional costs of the aforementioned services and infrastructure.

The new businesses will probably take business from the existing businesses in Boulder City.

We are voting no on Ballot (Question) No. 1 and yes on Ballot (Question) No 2.

Edward Denaut and Lois Denaut

Question 1 creates developer diversity, sensible growth

Once voters approve land for sale, our growth-control ordinance restricts the number of homes that can be built on that land to 30 per development in a given year. Arbitrary restraints like these are counterproductive. They scare developers away. Remember, we’re talking about land that we want to sell — land that we’ve directed the city to sell for our benefit and profit. And yet we turn around and hamstring the city’s ability to sell it with irrational provisions like this.

The 30 per development rule has resulted in a one-developer town over the last decade or more. No offense, Mr. (Randy) Schams, but a single-developer town isn’t good for anybody. Just like a single grocery store isn’t good. Imagine if we only had one hotel or one restaurant. Nobody benefits when there’s just one of anything.

With only one developer bidding on the Bristlecone parcel or any other land that the voters mandate should be sold, we get severely limited product offerings in terms of home designs, price ranges and amenities. And that means extremely limited consumer choices and absolutely no affordable housing.

You would think that we would have learned our lesson by now. It’s said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Please, let’s stop the craziness. Vote yes on Question No. 1 to remove the 30 per development restraint. Doing so will help us attract a variety of developers and diversify our product offerings and price ranges while still keeping total growth under the maximum 120 per year cap. Yes on 1 is the sensible solution.

Glen Leavitt

Voting yes on question will benefit city, future residents

I have spent my entire professional career working with numbers, but it doesn’t take an expert to see that the recently proposed land sale is a bad deal for Boulder City.

I will caveat my remarks with the disclaimer that I hold no ill will toward StoryBook Homes. In fact, when we were in the market to acquire rental real estate a few years back I remember StoryBook Homes making a very favorable impression.

The problem isn’t StoryBook Homes; the problem is our nonsensical limit of 30 homes per builder per year. This puts a restriction on the ability of StoryBook or any other builder to efficiently build on the land. How does the builder mitigate the extra cost and risk associated with such a restriction? They make an offer which freezes the price of the land for three years but only requires them to purchase one-third up front.

After we give the builder a price freeze and interest-free loan on the remaining two-thirds of the land, they then have the option of purchasing another one-third next year and so on …

The only loser here is Boulder City. I know there is a temptation to link Ballot Question No. 1 to larger growth versus no growth arguments within the city, but I hope for the sake of our city we can come together and make this common sense change.

Voting yes to Ballot Question No. 1 will not change our limit of 120 building permits per year or the fact that voters need to approve all city land sales over 1 acre. Voting yes will allow the city to negotiate a good deal for the land sales voters have already approved for the purpose of paying down city debt. Please join me in voting yes to Ballot Question No. 1.

Kimberly S. Bailey, CPA

Ordinance twisted to allow virtually no growth in city

U.S. Census records show that Boulder City’s population grew by only 57 people during the decade that spanned the years 2000-2010, an annual growth rate that’s effectively zero. The city’s records further reveal that an average of only 11.7 new residential allotments were issued annually during the 10 years from 2006-2015.

In addition, Clark County School District’s demographics records disclose that Boulder City’s public schools have lost, on average, more than 50 students per year since 2005. If that downward trend continues, Boulder City High School will drop below 500 students by 2023, a scary trend given that our high school students are already in jeopardy of losing their dean and one of their two counselors for dipping below 590. Art, science, health, French, orchestra — these are just a few of the classes that we’ve been forced to cut in recent years, not to mention some of the best teachers in the valley.

So what’s next on the chopping block?

As many may remember, my father, Bill, was an outspoken advocate for slow and, some might have said, no growth. We love our slow-growth ordinance as he did. It’s why many of us moved to Boulder City.

But over the years, its old and new layers have been twisted into a vicious cycle of no growth. One of those layers is the 30 (home) restraint, which caps the number of new homes in any single development at 30 per year. Its original intentions were good, but it has contributed to downward-spiraling no-growth trends. Our children and grandchildren deserve better.

Dad’s been gone a few years now, but we had conversations that would have confirmed him as an advocate for “controlled, reasonable growth.”

Voting yes on Question No. 1 will eliminate the 30 (home) restraint and help to reverse these trends. Please join me in voting yes on Question No. 1 for the future of those we care about most.

Will Ferrence