Here are arguments I’ve seen in favor of Park, and responses.

Here are arguments I’ve seen in favor of Park, and responses.

1. Growth has been slow, so don’t worry. We had rapid growth pre-recession and can’t know the future. Our ordinance to control growth doesn’t. It allows 2% per year and unused growth to be rolled over. We must evaluate what is proposed. If the Parks want to rely on low growth they should reduce their proposal to something that correlates with recent low growth, not past high growth.

2. We need more housing, to make it affordable. It won’t be. We’ve been building housing for decades and it has done nothing but get more expensive.

3. If we don’t use more groundwater we may lose it. Yes, Nevada is a use it or lose it state. But the 2012 USGS groundwater study on which the county relies evaluated what amount to three future scenarios: status quo (no growth, similar rate of pumping), buildout (over double our population, greatly increased pumping) and something in between.Even the status quo lowers groundwater levels. It is unlikely the state would “take” our water in this situation since we are, in fact, making full use of it. Approving more growth will make water table declines worse.

4. Traffic will improve with a “bypass” of 395. The county’s own FAQ about Park addresses traffic on 395 by essentially ignoring it, talking only about Muller Parkway’s ability to handle Park traffic. This tells us that, while Muller might handle Park traffic, 395 will likely be impacted adversely; any improvement from Muller’s completion being more than negated by the over 20,000 additional daily trips Park would bring, most to the 395 corridor.

5. Park just moves receiving area, it doesn’t add it. Receiving area in Topaz would likely never be used. Moving it to Carson Valley assures it will be used. But worse is that Park changes land that our plans designate for conservation to lands designated for development. This is a bad precedent, essentially “inverting” a major principle of our land use planning here.

6. Litigation will end. Not likely, unless the county simply rolls over. Much about Park is yet to be decided. Controversy will continue, not subside. The Parks have shown a tendency to sue when they don’t get their way.

There is no good argument in favor of Park. It should be rejected.

Terry Burnes

1209 Sierra Vista Dr.

Gardnerville, NV 89460