The other day, I found something I had written in May 1967. I didn’t believe my eyes. Fifty years ago I wrote that I wanted to do exactly what I am doing today.
I wasn’t writing about retirement or living in Nevada. I wrote about how I wanted to live my life and what I could do for my community. While grandiose ventures requiring large amounts of cash never materialized, I have no idea what exceptional work has been or will be done by the countless number of students, friends, acquaintances and even strangers I may have touched in some way.
Influencing people one at a time works. Ask the ad agencies. There was a time when I felt I had to persuade hundreds of people immediately to see things my way, support my cause or vote for my candidate. The older I get, the more I see that individual, face-to-face conversations with people are the best, most lasting way to go.
I believe strongly in many issues, and I don’t hide that fact. I have the opportunity now to share with you my position on Ballot Question No. 1. Here is the question: Shall the Boulder City Code be amended to entirely eliminate Subsection D of Section 11-41-11 which currently limits the award of allotments to not more than 30 dwellings for a single development in a construction year; and to amend Subsection E of Section 11-41-11 accordingly; and to provide a new Section 11-41-15 for the reservation of 20 allotments for small developments, while keeping the total number of allotments available in any given construction year to no more than 120 allotments?
I will vote no on question No. 1 for a number of reasons. Size, whether it is big, small or in between, matters. If you live here because you enjoy small town life, it is crucial to keep the regulations in place to control that size. Taking a path toward increased size will change Boulder City. Once protections are removed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to go back. You know what you have. You don’t know for certain what you will get.
The city is not in decline. The city budget is healthy. The city needs to examine a variety of methods to implement technology in order to cut costs and increase productivity, not look to increased residential growth as a “solution” to issues which, I believe, do not exist.
Is school enrollment a problem in Boulder City? Whether it is or not certainly warrants a discussion, but where students attend school is a parent’s responsibility. Rules governing school attendance are put in place by the school district. Want changes? Demand the legislature properly fund public education with your taxes. Attend school organizational team meetings. Make public education priority No. 1.
I am voting no on Question 1 because growth costs money. If we can’t fund more services now, and city employees are stretched thin, adding more residents only increases demand. Are funds from new residents going to be used to pay for what we need now? If so, we are back to square one: city employees stretched thin. Growth isn’t going to pay for additional services.
The safeguards in the ordinance were put in place for a good reason. Residents wanted Boulder City to remain small and have measures of control. Just because the city receives no bids or one bid on a parcel of land is not a sufficient reason to change the ordinance.
The ordinance was not adopted to benefit developers. It was put in place by the citizens for the citizens. Whether a developer can “make money” on a project is not a reason to change the ordinance. To facilitate a developer(s) is not a reason to change the ordinance.
Change always happens. More homes will be built in the years to come, but under controlled circumstances if we vote no on question 1.
The most important thing for all of us to do is get out and vote. If you can’t get out to vote, vote by mail/absentee ballot. Here are directions: http://bit.ly/2r7ntCb. There’s no reason to skip voting.
Rose Ann Miele is a journalist and was public information officer for Boulder City for nine years. She can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org or at 702-339-9082.