[Clarkcty]

^^^^You've been proven wrong, admit it!!

[dvd7000]

Originally Posted by tijlover

A moratorium on new housing construction, which should have been done 5-10 years ago? And just think what the value of our houses would be worth today if that had happened, with a diminished supply!!!

This is my main concern about buying land in Henderson now, and then not being able to build on it in 5 - 10 years down the road when I retire.

[tijlover]

If we would have had crazy California-style, anti-development, let's-put-this-or-that-building-on-the National History Register Nimby's here from the gitgo, we'd have no water shortage problem here and we'd all be enjoying our grassy lawns, man-made lakes and sky-high housing prices and rents!

From the gitgo:

"Oh no, no! There's too many pretty rocks out there, over our dead bodies will we allow a master-planned community in Summerlin or Anthem!"

"Heavens no! There's an endangered species out there in the NW area of the Valley, a unique, rare scorpion, can't build out there!"

"Never-ever! There's some 100 year old Joshua trees out that way, they need to be protected!"

"No way, Jose! Doesn't that developer know about our height restrictions? Those of us who live in Winchester and Paradise Valley ain't gonna stand for it, it would block our views of the Spring Mountains and our property values would fall!"

And all our older casino hotels would all be sitting on the National Historic Register, and a bargain room would fetch $300 a night!

Population of Las Vegas Valley: 500,000! Population of Pahrump: 1,000,000!

Yeah, yeah, yeah! That would be quite the commute from Pahrump everyday, for those who found the Las Vegas Valley housing prices untouchable!

[Willy702]

Development restrictions don't work. If a place is desirable people find ways to move there.

The answer to water problems is always the same thing: urbanization. Cut back on farming the southwest and you save a ton of water. Soil is nice and fertile, but its rather bizarre to grow crops with irrigation in places like the Sonoran desert or the Imperial Valley. If the Colorado River was just supporting water smart cities there would never be a shortage of water.

[tijlover]

Originally Posted by Willy702

Development restrictions don't work. If a place is desirable people find ways to move there.

Development restrictions work exceedingly well along the entire California coast. Malibu, for example, has 25 miles of coastline closely guarded by 25,000+ residents. Santa Monicans are in a fury over some developer wanting to build the first high-rise condo there (21 stories) since 1970. Enough screams, shouts, threats, it will never happen!

Yup! There's a number of homeless living there as well as development-restrictive San Francisco/Santa Barbra/Monterey area. And yes, if a place is desirable, people will find ways to move/live there!

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by dvd7000

This is my main concern about buying land in Henderson now, and then not being able to build on it in 5 - 10 years down the road when I retire.

Nothing happens in five or ten years. Perhaps in 25. And it will almost certainly be a water issue that limits growth. Note that growth is, in fact, limited by BLM. A long way to go though before that becomes confining.

[kttam186290]

Originally Posted by bayview6

The Utah Gov is making the right decision. Las Vegas valley has plenty of water and there is no need for the valley to keep growing. Who is behind this growth mantra are the realtors and developers and the chamber of commerce.

The plain fact of the matter is that there is plenty of water in the Colorado River for southern Nevada. What is needed is a serious control program on the Colorado River for the invasive imported Tamarisk tree which sucks up millions of acre feet of water a year from the river.

Building the pipeline to Snake river basin would be a costly mistake.

Exactly!

[kttam186290]

I said in another post that while I love Las Vegas, and always will, there is no excuse for 2 million people to be crammed into a desert valley, anywhere. It's just not natural. I feel the same about Phoenix, for the record.

Las Vegas did just fine when it was smaller and had a population of around 1 million. The libertarian mindset in Nevada of buying land and building houses for profit has dire consequences in the long term. Once you've used all of your resources and you start looking at what your neighbor, Utah, has...that neighbor has every right to tell you to go pound sand.

Las Vegas needs to find another model to thrive on besides growth, for its own good.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by kttam186290

I said in another post that while I love Las Vegas, and always will, there is no excuse for 2 million people to be crammed into a desert valley, anywhere. It's just not natural. I feel the same about Phoenix, for the record.

Las Vegas did just fine when it was smaller and had a population of around 1 million. The libertarian mindset in Nevada of buying land and building houses for profit has dire consequences in the long term. Once you've used all of your resources and you start looking at what your neighbor, Utah, has...that neighbor has every right to tell you to go pound sand.

Las Vegas needs to find another model to thrive on besides growth, for its own good.

Sorry but you are making arbitrary decisions on limits. The entire SW is filled with cities with artificial, man made water systems. Las Vegas could naturally support a population of about 250,000. Above that you are into manipulated water supplies.

As far as I can tell Las Vegas is doing fine now. Got whacked good a couple of years back but is recovering. It had also been whacked in the past when it was much smaller. It happens.

This is not about taking resource from Utah. It is about how to manage a shared resource. The Utah action will simply open it up to a long and difficult battle that may end up damaging the aquifer.

[kttam186290]

Originally Posted by lvoc

Sorry but you are making arbitrary decisions on limits. The entire SW is filled with cities with artificial, man made water systems.

Which is akin to arguing that since a lot of people around you are drug addicts, it's OK for you to be one too...

Originally Posted by lvoc

Las Vegas could naturally support a population of about 250,000. Above that you are into manipulated water supplies.

Doesn't that negate your pro-growth stance?

Originally Posted by lvoc

As far as I can tell Las Vegas is doing fine now. Got whacked good a couple of years back but is recovering. It had also been whacked in the past when it was much smaller. It happens.

Yeah, but the point is to learn from those "whacks", not to set yourself up for more "whacks" in the future!

Originally Posted by lvoc

This is not about taking resource from Utah. It is about how to manage a shared resource. The Utah action will simply open it up to a long and difficult battle that may end up damaging the aquifer.

I see it ending up in federal court.