County had little choice but to OK Rhodes project

An overflow crowd of area residents showed up before the Clark County Commission last Wednesday, most of them there to protest developer Jim Rhodes’ plans to build 4,700 houses and a business park on the old gypsum-mine butte that overlooks the Red Rock Canyon scenic drive just west of Las Vegas.

The commission voted 5-2 to approve the plans — just as they should have.

Mr. Rhodes owns the land. His proposed use is in general keeping with established planning and zoning for the area. (That is to say, while final housing density issues have yet to be resolved, he doesn’t propose erecting an oil refinery or a steel mill.)

The county — abetted by then-state Sen. Dina Titus — tried in the past to enact laws aimed specifically at blocking Mr. Rhodes’ plans. The developer went to court, where he won.

Neighbors who object to the fact they may be able to see the houses Mr. Rhodes may or may not ever build along the western ridge line have one recourse, in a nation that respects the rights of a property owner: Raise enough dough to make Mr. Rhodes a handsome offer, and then buy his land.

Of course, as P.J. O’Rourke points out in the final chapter of his book “Parliament of Whores” — though in that case the example was local townsfolk objecting to the development of a New England golf course — once the protesters owned the land they might quickly realize they have to make some use of that land in order to keep up with local property taxes and other assessments. And because the chances they could break even running a burro preserve are slim, that means the new owners might discover they have few options but to … um, develop the land.

County attorneys made it clear that any outright refusal to let Mr. Rhodes develop his property would likely land the commissioners in court, where they’d be likely to lose.

Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani opined that the plan “doesn’t make sense” — that Mr. Rhodes has failed to show how he can sell thousands of homes in a depressed market that already enjoys a glut of unoccupied homes.

But surely that’s the land owner’s concern. Or does the commissioner now propose to block approval of new grocery stores and hamburger stands, on the premise that we already have enough?

It’s not up to government to limit competition for consumer dollars. In fact, America has prospered, while “planned” economies have tanked, precisely because someone with a better idea is always free to give it a try — at his own risk, of course.