| CURRENT WEATHER: Clear, 48° |
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
December 29, 2004
Mistakes from the past haunt Pahrump's future
I say hopefully because year in and year out, for more than 16 years now, the Pahrump Valley has appeared ready to shake off the failed experiences of the past, learn from its mistakes, and move on. Then, as if by design, someone with no experience or past to reflect upon will dredge up an issue long since put into its grave and advance it as a possible new beginning. Thus distracted from solving the issues at hand, our elected leaders charge off on another wild crusade, wasting time, money and energy on issues doomed to failure from the outset. Self-rule is one of the many topics of discussion without resolution, continually distracting the people of Pahrump. Whether by dividing the county in two, moving the county seat or some other means of placing the regulatory power in the hand of local people, self-rule has been discussed every year without fail. Almost every time someone who never researches the issue first brings it up. They especially refuse to allow simple logistics to dissuade them. What you need to know is our state is made up of 17 counties, 12 of which require state assistance to continue existence. Does anyone really believe the Legislature will create another one just for us? The power brokers living on the north shore of Lake Tahoe failed, and their capacity for success was good. As for moving the county seat, you need to ask whether the supporter believes the Legislature is really interested in creating a dead zone from Las Vegas to Fallon. Anyone who has not driven Highway 95 is probably not aware the only thing keeping Tonopah from becoming Goldfield (county seat of Esmeralda County, pop. 90) is the existence of federal, state and county jobs. Take those away, and there would be no reason, or ability, for Tonopah to exist. On the issue of hospital construction, whether you like RHMC or not, it appears they have finally started to build in earnest so let them be. The trap you must not allow yourself to fall into is thinking this facility will ever be the only one needed in what we all believe to be a very rapidly growing community. In order to prevent others wishing to build here, we must relentlessly continue the fight to remove the certificate of need requirement for our valley. It is simply not fair to stymie our growth and cause medical roulette by statute. The fire and rescue service issue will again be one of the most contentious, and solely because the county will most likely refuse to admit its mistake in offering the ambulance service to the town and the town's stupid decision to think it could fund an operation of this magnitude. With only 23-cents per $100 in tax revenue, the only way to fund this white elephant is to close down everything else, fire all other employees and even then, there will be a shortage in revenue. Once the hospital is opened, perhaps savings in operation costs will occur short term, but long haul there is simply not enough money to keep this as a town function. This may be one of those issues not resolved. Another is the call once again for incorporation of now just a portion of the town. In speaking with a couple of the proponents, the story is they want to "explore the idea" because they want more control over how their money is spent and the development of our valley. Sounds good doesn't it? Sadly, they forget that once you create a level of government to establish local control, you give up all control to that new form of government. For those not here when the town was first requested to support the creation of the building department, we were assured this new entity would never become a cash cow, and would only react to local needs and requirements for building safety. This portrayal doesn't exactly resemble what we are faced with today by a planning department that has tripled in size in just 5 years. Of course, it could also be argued that the planning department was inadequately staffed for many years prior to the expansion. As for the idea of exploring the idea, I asked both proponents if they were aware of the law regarding revenue sharing between newly created cities and counties had been altered dramatically. Back in 1996, the town of Laughlin was making noise about incorporating. Clark County was adamantly not in favor, and the Legislature was lobbied to remove the portion of the law defining specific revenue guidelines. Prior to 1997, the split was based upon population, private land area, assessed valuation and total miles of paved roads. Under these now gone parameters, Pahrump could have incorporated with plenty of revenue continually enhanced by an ever-growing community. A new city today would have to negotiate with the county on every aspect of revenue, without any assurance they would be successful. Without a positive resolution of this negotiation, the outcome could be disastrous. Property taxes to the limit, new fees for everything under the sun, special and limited improvement districts, and of course, more rules and regulations than you can shake a stick at. The responsibility of government has been and always will be to promote the general welfare and protect private property ownership. Anything and everything else they may choose to do is simply for their benefit, and not of those that elected them. Little writes from Pahrump. His column, "The Other Side," appears here on Wednesdays. |
