There's a developer that's trying to put in a high density housing development that's bordered on three sides by the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. Specifically on Blue Diamond Hill.

The developer wants to ignore the 2 acre per unit limit that was in place at the time of purchase and put in high density housing, like up to 5,500 homes.

Climbers are banding together to protest any development. Email the County Commissioners before the 15th

If you're in the area go to the County meeting on the 17th.

sign the petition. http://saveredrock.com/

http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum ... evelopment

http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthr ... ost1029458

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/red-ro ... _107118856



""
BLM Southern Nevada District Office:
Mary Jo Rugwell, District Manager,
4701 North Torrey Pines Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89130
Phone: 702-515-5000
Fax: 702-515-5023
Email: lvfoweb@blm.gov

Clark county commissioners:
All commissioners can be reached at: (702) 455-3500
All commissioners can receive faxes at: (702) 455-3271
Clark County Commissioners, 500 S. Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89155
Steve Sisolak, District A, ccdista@ClarkCountyNV.gov
Tom Collins, District B, ccdistb@ClarkCountyNV.gov
Larry Brown, District C, ccdistc@ClarkCountyNV.gov
Lawrence Weekly, District D, ccdistd@ClarkCountyNV.gov
Chris Giunchigliani, District E, ccdiste@ClarkCountyNV.gov
Susan Brager, District F, ccdistf@ClarkCountyNV.gov
Mary Beth Scow, District G, ccdistg@ClarkCountyNV.gov

US Senators and Representatives for NV: (and yes, even if you don't live in NV, it doesn't mean you shouldn't contact them)
Senator Harry Reid (D- NV), 202-224-3542, reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Senator Dean Heller (R- NV), 202-224-6244, heller.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm
Representative Shelley Berkley (D-01), 202-225-5965, shelley.berkley@mail.house.gov
Representative Joe Heck (R-03), 202-225-3252, https://heck.house.gov/contact-me/email-me

I'm not trying to troll, but is this about blocking any development at all or just blocking development for the unwashed masses so that a few rich people can enjoy their views? Your post seems to suggest that the latter is acceptable; I would prefer the former if I had to vote at all.

Without specifics to this case, I do not think, generally it's a good idea for developers to go to planning commisions and be able to change the zoning. I would bet those zoning laws of 1 unit per 2 acres has been in place for a long time. It should stay that way. I know they get them changed all the time BUT USUALLY THE BENEFIT IS TO THE DEVELOPER NOT THE PUBLIC.

Fewer homes on larger lots will be less intrusive, less harmful to the environment, and more aesthetically pleasing than a larger number of homes on smaller lots. Will it not? That's generally why those zoning laws exist.

Quite shocked about the fuss really. I suppose a few local Vegas citizens and climbing tourists think Red Rock Conservation area is considered backcountry. Perhaps they have never been to Africa, South America, Alaska, Canadian Rockies or for that matter Canyonlands National Park near Moab? I can't say. But for me, a guy who lives nearby in Southern Utah half the year and who has climbed over 300 multi pitch trad routes at Red Rock, visiting all the rock faces and summits the park has to offer....whether I am staring at the Vegas skyline or immense lights at night, or the mine currently at the proposed development, or the town of Blue Diamond or more houses built on top of a hill, or cell phone towers poorly made to look like fake palm trees, or traffic on the loop rode, or the sound of yuppies racing their Japanese bikes on the road surrounding this mound....etc, etc....it just does not matter. I go to Red Rock to climb, I sure do not expect any remote backcountry experience. What I can say for sure is....that Clark County would kiss his ass if they really thought this beleaguered local developer had the money to pull this off right now. They would much rather have the revenue from residential housing units than whatever measly income they derive from the mine which itself is quite the eyesore really. It is private land. If the developer is willing to convert an ugly mine into a neighborhood....they will be all over it. The real issue is how many enemies this particular dude has made in town and who owes who certain political favors. It will be developed in time, that I guarantee. Just who will be the beneficiary is the only question. The rest is a mute point.

The devil is in the details. This particular developer has a habit of not keeping his promises, but making large donations to local politicians. The original plan was to have all the traffic come off the east face of the hill, so as not to impede traffic on the red rock loop. The current plan has construction vehicles using routes off the west side for up to 20 years. Think about sharing that road with dump trucks and graders.

Buckaroo wrote:The developer wants to ignore the 2 acre per unit limit that was in place at the time of purchase and put in high density housing, like up to 5,500 homes.

As someone who owns a property in a community zoned "minimum 5 acres, horse-friendly," we had a developer immediately to our east pull this same stunt. This developer/politician pulled off a deal with county commissioner/sleazeballs to build on 2-2.5 acre lots. And, for the record, it was the "rich people on small lots" vs. "laid-back everybodies on horse lots," not the other way around. For the time being, all that's saved our bacon is that the developer went bankrupt and the 2,500 acre property sits undeveloped and bank-owned.

What I'm getting at here is: I feel sympathy for the folks impacted by this "the community rules don't apply to ME" developer because I have been on the downslope of such initiatives.

Alpinist wrote:Fewer homes on larger lots will be less intrusive, less harmful to the environment, and more aesthetically pleasing than a larger number of homes on smaller lots. Will it not? That's generally why those zoning laws exist.

I hate to be a contrarian, but I think this is backwards thinking, although it's common in the US. To me, high-density housing is great, whereas 2-acre minimums are a prescription for endless urban sprawl. Just imagine what Europe would be like if they'd had the US approach to zoning and had insisted that new houses be sprinked across the landscape on big lots. There wouldn't be a speck of farmland or open space left over there. Fortunately, they were more open to the concept of concentrating development on the smallest possible footprint. We should take a lesson from them as our population grows.

Lionel wrote:My gut tells me something else is going on here. The development company is "gypsum resources" which hardly sounds like a home builder. Is it possible that the company wants to sell of this investment property that they bought hoping to flip for big bucks in the last 5 years? Maybe they want to put pressure on some organization to purchase it?


I found this article about the land condition. Seems it has an extensive mining history, among other issues. Rhodes bought the land in 2002, so it is possible he was hoping to build during the boom and wasn't able to. Then again, I'm just speculating.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/it-s-plain-to-see-why-developers-lust-for-blue-diamond-hill-108897274.html

Many people feel that he is just trying to make the land look attractive, either to sell, to swap with BLM, or to force the gubmint to buy the land. He bought 160 acres on top of Mummy Mountain, at 11000-11500', totally undevelopable, almost certainly to force the gubmint to pay him more. However, since he was not granted access rights, he's stuck and has to recoup somewhere.

The development on Blue Diamond Hill would require exceptional efforts to get water, sewer services, and so forth up on the hill. Developers in Vegas put in as little as possible, then expect the gubmint to pick up the rest of the bill -- turning sleepy two-lanes into raging arteries, and so forth. This particular developer has an amazingly bad record. He breaks promise after promise, and the county commission knuckles under. For example, he has initially claimed a development was for +55 y.o. residents, so he shouldn't be required to set aside land for schools. Then he opened the land to all ages of buyers. The county sued for the school land; kids got bussed for 10 years; and finally he settled, giving up just 40% of the required land.

When public perception of his image was at an all-time low, he announced with great fanfare that he was giving millions to charity. He held big self-aggrandizing events to show he was a great guy. Then he reneged on his promised donation.

Read between the lines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Kenny
This developer hired a convicted former county commissioner as a "consultant" at over $200k/year. It appears that what she did for this salary was mainly: keep quiet about her former deals with the developer. No matter how rosy the settlement looks, this is one developer who will take great pride in breaking his promises.

Developer (Rhodes) received initial approval....
http://www.lvrj.com/news/commissioners-approve-rhodes-plan-for-mining-site-near-red-rock-127972443.html

Humans keep fornicating and expanding. It is bound to happen.

Glad I did all my climbing at RR's back in the 80's and early 90's when it was a real authentic BC adventure. Hell, we even had a tent (six total) city established at the mouth of Black Velvet Cnyn for over an entire month in May of '94 and saw not another soul for the entire time.

Now those were the days.


Besides, what I have been hearing coming from that area sounds like the place has turned into a major circus. And I am not talking about the real estate expansions/developments either.