| CURRENT WEATHER: Clear, 45° |
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
January 26, 2005
Manufactured homes behind incorporation
First we have the town board stepping up to defend its turf, followed almost immediately by the Nye County Board of Commissioners. And, as usual, both misconstrue the move on the part of a few to incorporate a portion of the town as well as the best way to address the issue. Perhaps if they were to listen to the true concerns of the people afflicted they might be better prepared to address the issue. Many of those who believe incorporation would be in their best interest believe the new city could quickly implement a zoning ordinance to better address the biggest issue on their agenda - manufactured homes and where they belong. As one individual put it, they will grandfather all existing mobile homes but new placements will not be allowed in the city limits. They would have to be set up in the unincorporated parts of the Pahrump Valley instead. I can only wonder why no one at the town or county level, and especially those who are promoting incorporation have not told them what they propose is illegal. One of the greatest recent failings of Nye County in the last six years was the failure to adopt the provisions of Nevada Revised Statute 278.02095. I use the actual chapter and section so those who don't know about this law can see for themselves. Basically the law says: "In an ordinance relating to the zoning of land adopted or amended by a governing body, the definition of 'single-family residence' must include a manufactured home." The law goes on to state the governing body, right now the county, shall adopt standards for the placement of such homes including a requirement the home "have exterior siding and roofing which is similar in color, material and appearance to the exterior siding and roofing primarily used on other single-family residential dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the manufactured home." These provisions do not apply within the boundaries of a historic district and "recorded restrictive covenants" filed prior to initial sale of the property could also be a limiting factor. But no governing entity can adopt any standard that prohibits their installation as the Legislature has deemed them appropriate for affordable housing in all jurisdictions. Had the county adopted this in 1999 when it first became law, a great many people might have been able to sleep better at night. But rather than adopt it, even in a modified form, the county used a population limitation, meant to allow less restrictive standards, to choose no standard at all. This shortsighted move has resulted in more than just a few altercations and legal actions on the part of owners of both conventional and manufactured homes. Animosity has grown in recent times to the point some have lost all sense of reality and choose to ignore it to serve their own purposes. And, it seems those wishing to push the concept of incorporation are willing accomplices. A poll of those residing in the area proposed to become Sunrise City may include a question regarding how homeowners feel about the issue of CC&Rs and their viability. Whatever the question, it will, by its very nature, be ambiguous at best and dishonest at worst, because the only area covered by "recorded" covenants is Comstock Park. To ask a question to support any issue based upon a false premise can only result in a false result to the poll. As most people are aware in this modern era, polls are very similar to statistical analysis that prove any point or position simply by framing the problem or question in a certain way. It appears this may be the tactic of the incorporation committee. At this point, they have provided nothing positive as a reason to incorporate with the exception of some vague home rule argument. They have provided the Henderson city charter as an example of what they propose, but have yet to provide any specifics as to how they propose to pay for anything they are promising. It has been said they have preliminary numbers for revenue from the Department of Taxation but these are privileged to the members of the task force. This attitude indicates a developing bureaucracy mentality from the beginning. Is this only the beginning? One of the primary requirements for any group wanting to incorporate under general law is "a statement of the committee's plans for providing police and fire protection, maintaining streets, providing water and sewer services, collecting the garbage and providing administrative services in the proposed city, with an estimate of the costs and sources of revenue (included)." If the committee can, but will not provide such information, it may prove to be creating something no better than that they wish to replace. Just more expensive. Little writes from Pahrump. His column, "The Other Side," appears here on Wednesdays. |
