Bo the Builder on growth and Douglas' future

My friend, Bo the Builder, met me again to exchange thoughts on recent builders association attempts to make it seem Douglas County can't exist without growth.

"Did you read the letter in the Nevada Appeal from UNR seeming to endorse unlimited growth as essential to the local economy?" Bo asked.

"Oh, that endorsement letter bought and paid for by the builders association?"

"That one," said Bo.

I continued: "It's an expert composition of mealy-mouthed wording that needs to be read carefully to see what it truly endorses and what it omits. Ironically, it does not conclude whether Douglas County government will be fiscally better or worse off with Sustainable Growth Initiative's limit of 280 residences a year or less, compared to the 572 unit average of the last 10 years."

"What?" asked Bo unbelievingly. "How do you figure that?"

I responded: "I questioned UNR on that and got this reply in writing: 'The report was targeted towards the impact of new residential construction, not how Douglas County spends their surplus revenue." and 'We are not endorsing growth, we are not anti-SGI, and we are not endorsing how Douglas County spends their revenue.' The letter clearly states UNR only contributed information about residential construction costs in Douglas County and the revenue from permit fees to the National Association of Home Builders study. NAHB did the rest in a computer model. UNR just regurgitates NAHB conclusions. Then they gratuitously add what Meridian Business Advisors concluded in their badly flawed 10-year projections, but confirmed to me they did no review whatsoever, just accepted its conclusions."

"What did you mean by mealy-mouthed?" asked Bo.

I replied "At the end it concludes only that limiting housing permits will decrease tax revenues and negatively impact local government budgets."

"I get it," beamed Bo, "slower growth and fewer people reduce government revenue which affects government budgets. What a revelation. Does the study also show that county government is able to reduce their manpower costs to deal with slower growth?"

"Are you kidding?" I answered. "Ask a government to reduce costs to equate with revenue? Prioritize manpower? Reduce wage increases to the level of the private sector? Just because of slower growth? Do you know any commissioners who comprehend that costs are within their control?"

"Well, maybe one or two," Bo said thoughtfully.

"I e-mailed and phoned NAHB's Dr. Eisenberg," I continued, "who did the study, to find out just what county expenses his study contains. The study does not predict the future but compares current tax and fee revenue with county expenses submitted in 2002 by county management to the U.S. Census Bureau, upgraded to 2006 economics. It allocated expenses to residential, commercial, industrial, etc. The NAHB report figures historical expense per home around 40 percent of revenue, thus leaving a big surplus."

Bo interrupted.

"Then where are the surpluses?"

"NAHB didn't consider what county commissioners did with the money, like the $14 million spent by redevelopment, the $24 million redevelopment pledged to Riverwood Redevelopment, the utilities and roads benefiting developers, etc. It definitely doesn't predict future growth will pay for a new community/senior center, new libraries, re-routing highway 395, etc. It doesn't even include employee compensation increases rising from 75 percent to more than 83 percent of total general fund expenses."

"So" said Bo, "I should deduce that county management could have accumulated big surpluses to service the community, but somehow or other frittered it all away?"

"Precisely", I replied."And neither does it promise they won't fritter it away in future either."

"It seems growth benefits everybody except taxpayers," Bo concluded.

"That's the subject of another get-together." I suggested.

-- Jack Van Dien is a Gardnerville resident. This is an excerpt of his upcoming production "Bo the Builder Learns About Growth."