Tuesday, May 06, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

COLUMN: Steve Sebelius

Rhodes' rage

Now this is getting ridiculous.

Developer Jim Rhodes is cementing his reputation for aggressiveness with a series of television and newspaper ads aimed at "educating" the public about his proposal to develop a subdivision atop a hill in Red Rock Canyon.

The proposal isn't before the Clark County Commission, mind you. It's not even ready to go before the county's Planning Commission.

But Rhodes is spending huge sums anyway, all in an effort to stymie two laws that would keep the current zoning on the 2,600 acres atop Blue Diamond Hill to one house on every two acres.

In the television ads, Rhodes personally stands atop the hill -- which has been used for decades as a gypsum mine -- and decries the devastation that mining has wrought on the land. Left unsaid is the fact that Rhodes has allowed that mining to continue since he bought the property two months ago, and has even hinted through spokesmen that the mining operation could expand.

That is, unless Rhodes can turn it into a fancy subdivision.

The newspaper ad is even better. Pretty pictures of Red Rock are interspersed with ugly mine snapshots. "Neighboring Red Rock: From pit mine to master plan," reads a subheading. The message is clear: Wouldn't it be better for soccer moms in SUVs to be driving up the hill than multi-ton trucks carrying minerals blasted from the Earth?

"Despite what some people have been led to believe, Jim Rhodes' proposed community is not in Red Rock Canyon; rather, it is completely outside of the conservation area's boundary," the ad says. But despite what Rhodes would like to lead you to believe, his proposed community is within Red Rock Canyon, although it does lie outside the conservation area. (It's possible to be in Red Rock Canyon and still not be within the conservation area. If the land had been included in the conservation area when it was created in 1994, development would have been prohibited.)

But the most outrageous part of the ad has to be the suggestion that Rhodes is being victimized by the big, powerful state of Nevada, which proposes to "confiscate" his property rights. The nerve of state Sen. Dina Titus, who authored Senate Bill 358, the bill that would codify the current zoning. (Of course, Titus requested the bill in September, months before Rhodes bought the property.) It's a darn good thing Rhodes has made millions developing land elsewhere in the valley, or he may not have had the means to respond to this vicious assault!

"With the introduction of SB358, the Nevada Legislature could be on the verge of undermining the authority of local regulators -- a move that also could set an unhealthy, radical precedent for other counties throughout the state," the ad says. And given all the time and money Rhodes has spent buying up local regulators, that move in and of itself could be considered a taking under the Fifth Amendment.

"By yielding to exaggerations and misinformation about the proposed community -- and ignoring the real facts associated with the proposal -- legislators from Battle Mountain, Ely, Eureka, Winnemucca, Elko, Reno and other towns and cities far from Clark County, could wrest the decision-making process away from Clark County officials and determine how private land owners can build on their property," the ad says. "In short, SB358 would amount to a confiscation of private property rights by the state -- an outrage in a state that so strongly values local control."

The real outrage is the way Rhodes has turned the facts to benefit his cause. But consider this:

• Rhodes could apply for building permits today for his land so long as he limited his building to one home per two acres, and nobody could do a thing to stop him. His rights to develop his land are therefore not "confiscated."

• Rhodes has no guarantee that the county will grant him a zoning change in the future. He bought the property knowing full well what the zoning was, and unless he had some reason to suspect that the County Commission would be amenable to allowing him to build more homes on the hill (where could he have gotten that idea, after all?), Titus' bill shouldn't be a problem. Should it?

• Rhodes himself has hired firms that are either owned by or employ three county commissioners -- Chip Maxfield, Bruce Woodbury and Rory Reid. Moreover, he sued Commissioner Mark James after James indicated that he would oppose any zone changes on the land, contending that since the commissioner previously represented him as a lawyer, he had a conflict. The lawsuit, which sought to silence James on the matter entirely, came only after James announced his opposition. Before that -- when James seemed amenable to a zone change, if Blue Diamond residents would go along -- the same conflict existed, but was apparently benign. So who is it really who is trying to "wrest the decision-making process away from Clark County officials"?

But the ad campaign does give new urgency to a plan by U.S. Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign for the federal government, through the county, to buy the land and place it inside the conservation area. Unless you count Titus, Reid and Ensign, it's hard to find heroes on that scarred Red Rock hill.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist. His column runs Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. Reach him at 383-0283 or by e-mail at ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.