Editorial: Leave intact annexation guidelines

There is a renewed debate about the so-called "county islands," the pockets of unincorporated land sprinkled throughout the cities in Southern Nevada. As the Sun's Scott Reeder reported Sunday, North Las Vegas is advocating that the Legislature pass a law so that a city could annex land without having to get the approval of at least 50 percent of the people who live in that area.

City officials believe that the existing situation is untenable, allowing the residents who live in unincorporated areas to take advantage of nearby city services without having to pay for them. In addition, since Clark County and the local cities don't always coordinate zoning, you can have incompatible land uses bumping up against each other, creating a nightmare for government planners.

Residents of the county islands assert that in many instances they have been there for years and that it is only the encroachment of the cities' expansions that have made this an issue. Many moved to the undeveloped part of the county because of lower taxes and zoning that allows for more rural uses.

This is one of those contentious issues where both sides make legitimate arguments. The municipalities are right that the existing situation allows people who live in the county islands to unfairly take advantage of city services without having to pay for them (which is also an excellent argument for the consolidation of government services).

Yet homeowners moved to the county islands looking to get away from the city. Too often in the valley people move to a neighborhood only to find out the zoning has changed. In a similar vein, those who bought homes in these county islands say they did so expecting not to be part of the city.

At some point it probably is inevitable these county islands will be annexed by the cities, but there doesn't appear to be an immediate need for the Legislature to intervene on what is a local issue. This is exactly the type of problem, though, the Southern Nevada Regional Coalition should address and try to see if any common ground can be forged.

Plus, it is much better to work with these residents than force them into the city. Such a move will only create enmity when a more positive approach would be gentle persuasion, trying to convince residents what benefits there are to living in the city.

archive