Sustainable growth is the majority position

In his guest opinion of July 11, Mr. Walsh seems to have overlooked some historical facts.

The Douglas County master plan was promoted as being for the benefit of all the citizens of Douglas County and was passed by a majority of the voters.

After the approval of the master plan it seemed any development project, regardless of its exceptions or request for variances, met with the approval of the planning commission and the county commissioners.

Through the initiative process the strategic/slow/sustainable growth issue was placed on the ballot and approved by a majority of the voters.

The county commissioners, their legal people, (with county funds) and the opposition to the initiative took the issue to court and lost. This has led to the Douglas County Building Permit Allocation and Growth Management Ordinance.

Mr. Walsh should note that while the majority of the voters were in favor of a more controlled growth, the planning commission and other county committees involved in the growth/allocation issues were dominated by people in opposition to the SGI. All were appointed by the county commissioners.

Per Mr. McTee, president of the Coalition for Smart Growth, opponents to the Sustainable Growth Committee, the coalition "is comprised of business people, bankers, citizens, ranchers and developers." I doubt it represents the majority of the voters.

Another issue is the revised airport weight ordinance of the mid 1990s, which had the blessing of the FAA at one of the hearings, and was passed by a majority of the voters.

Due to concerns about the apparent disregard for the ordinance by the airport administration, the Carson Valley Vanguard Coalition was formed. The primary concern of the CVVC was the disregard for the wishes of the majority of the voters.

Again Mr. Walsh, the members of the airport advisory committees, and the airport master plan committee were primarily opponents to the original weight ordinance. Again, all the members were appointed by the county commissioners.

And again the proponents for growth were primarily people tied to the Coalition for Smart Growth.

I strongly disagree with Mr. Walsh's comment that the candidates supported by SGC, the Good Government Group, and others "are obviously not concerned with the economic health of the county, to say nothing of their disdain for private property rights."

I, along with I believe the candidates, believe in a free enterprise economy in which a person or group may take risks in hope of making gains and are willing to accept the risks involved in failure. In the case of developers, I feel they should accept the costs of any capital improvements required for their project and any taxes generated by their development should go to the maintaining and replacement of those capital improvements.

I also am a strong believer in private property rights, but feel community rules and regulations take priority. I feel the value of property is highly dependent on the community's past contributions to the existing infrastructure and the demand side of supply and demand.

I feel the Republican Party of Douglas County has, through the control of the selection of candidates and their campaign funding, been controlled by a small special interest group within the party. It should be noted that the candidates supported by the Coalition for Smart Growth include a developer; an individual whose father is a realtor and whose father-in-law is a former Planning Commissioner and co-author of the master plan, and the third individual is in a business highly dependent on the housing development market.

I'm an independent voter believing past actions or deeds are more important than promises for the future, but I agree with Mr. Walsh ... all self-respecting Republicans should vote in the primary and hopefully restore the Douglas County Republican Party to the party of Abraham Lincoln and "a government of the people, by the people and for the people"...not a government for some special interest group.

n Sanford E. Deyo is a Minden resident.