Good for Douglas, bad for petitions

District Judge Michael Gibbons' ruling this week on a voter-approved growth cap probably was as good for Douglas County and the surrounding region as it was bad for initiative petitions in general.

Gibbons struck down the so-called Sustainable Growth Initiative, which would have limited residential building permits to 280 a year, because it conflicts with various elements of the county's master plan.

The judge is correct in that assessment. The initiative has flaws which make it onerous to certain segments of the Douglas County population -- particularly the ones in real estate and construction.

Its main flaw is that it is a hard cap. At 280 residential permits a year, the limit actually becomes regressive the longer it is in place. Now corresponding to roughly 2 percent a year, the differential would slowly erode to 1.9 percent and 1.8 percent and so on.

That's apparently exactly what supporters wanted. But unlike Carson City's 3 percent cap (which can be changed from year to year, if supervisors so decide), the Douglas limit eventually becomes a no-growth measure instead of a slow-growth measure.

Equally important is the effect a Douglas hard cap would have on the surrounding region.

By limiting the number, the value of each individual permit in Douglas increases. As a result, developers will be unlikely to spend the available permits on apartments. Affordable housing, already rare in Douglas County, will become even more scarce. That puts more pressure on places like Lyon County to meet the needs of young, lower-income families.

Even though Gibbons' ruling preserves the years-long effort that went into Douglas County's master plan, it also appears to raise an unreasonably high hurdle for initiative petitioners to cross.

Should the initiative have attempted to rewrite the entire master plan? Should the petitioners simply have put the plan itself on the ballot, asking Douglas County voters if they approve it?

Had the initiative attempted to resolve every issue in the county's master plan, we fear it would have been tossed out in court by its very attempt to determine administrative procedures. The result, again, is no guidance to initiative petitioners and a general discouragement of Nevada residents to even attempt to overturn local government's policies.

Growth vs. slow-growth has long been the main issue in Douglas County, costing more than a few politicians their offices. We can sympathize with those who put in long hours, days and months to create a master plan out of public hearings, expert analysis and plenty of compromise. We wouldn't want to see it all upset on one Election Day, either.

But supporters of the Sustainable Growth Initiative put in plenty of hard work too -- and won at the ballot box -- only to be overruled one day in court.

And still no one can tell Nevadans how to craft an initative petition that will stand up.