To the editor:
In response to the Feb. 3 article on the proposed Alzheimer’s facility in Henderson, and the Feb. 5 article on the Henderson City Council’s subsequent proposal rejection, the neighborhood in which this facility would have been located has been adamantly opposed to it.
I don’t think anyone can argue that caring for the elderly, especially those with Alzheimer’s, is a noble cause. However, the developer, Daniel Boucher, proposed this facility in the middle of a very special area that the city of Henderson zoned as rural preservation overlay. It is one of only two areas within the city slated to preserve a horse-friendly, rural lifestyle. All the homes are custom on one-acre-plus lots. There are no sidewalks, curbs, gutters or street lights, and the zoning is RS-1a, meaning one house per acre. It’s like living in the country.
This proposed facility aimed to bring a commercial business to the neighborhood and, by Mr. Boucher’s own admission, is his first endeavor at starting a franchising system of these facilities. The neighborhood was concerned that the proposal would set precedent for other such facilities to come in. The neighborhood was also concerned with increased traffic, light pollution and the possibility of decreased property values.
What added to the concern is the new, huge, medical-focused campus that Nevada State College is building just 1½ miles east of the neighborhood. Part of the project includes the Nathan Adelson Adult Day Care, which is now open and allows families caring for the elderly at home to bring them in during the day if supervision is needed. The city has recommended that Mr. Boucher look at that area for his Alzheimer’s facility, to no avail. The city has also recommended he look at other locations around the downtown redevelopment area, also to no avail. Mr. Boucher chose to appeal the Planning commission’s denial.
The bottom line is Mr. Boucher knew the neighborhood did not want commercial development, but he kept trying to force it on us. We all bought in the area because it is out of the hustle-and-bustle of more populated areas. We all love the rural lifestyle, and we don’t want commercial development to destroy that.
The writer is president of the Mission Hills/Paradise Rural Alliance.
To the editor:
Driving under the influence is a growing problem, yet now many are saying that the public is overwhelmingly in favor of adding marijuana clinics. How much tax revenue will cover Wednesday’s two innocent lives lost (“Alcohol possible factor in fatal Summerlin Parkway collision,” Thursday Review-Journal)?
Are people crazy? Let’s repeal all this nonsense. The state senator spearheading the stupid idea can go to Colorado and smoke his fix there.
To the editor:
In reference to the article, “Obama prepared to circumvent Congress” (Jan. 27 Review-Journal), there is a cornerstone reflected in our republic’s Constitution. It is called the system of checks and balances. It is there specifically to prevent any one of our three branches of government from acting in a manner beyond its authority.
Congress not taking legislative activity on President Barack Obama’s preferred policies shouldn’t give him the right to enact executive orders, which are meant to clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Perhaps President Obama feels that it is easier to apologize after the act has been committed than to negotiate for permission from Congress.