Open spaces should be a key part of city’s future
Bartering is one of the oldest forms of commerce. Early Westerners traded furs for flour so it is not strange that Carson City wants to trade land for land.
The goal in both cases is survival. Trappers sought food, the city seeks quality of life. And we support their efforts.
A quality of life for its residents that allows for management of the lands between the wild lands and town in a manner that protects water quality, minimizes fire risk and ensures access to public lands.
If you question the need for such efforts by the city and the cost in taxpayer funds you need only look to the north and south of Carson City for reasons of your own to support the city’s open space plans.
In Douglas County, access to U.S. Forest Service lands to the west are severely restricted. To the north, the large swaths of what 40 years ago was ranchland have disappeared. In their place are subdivisions and strip malls.
We’re not opposed to growth, private property ownership or development, but we are sad that little of that lifestyle of open land remains. We can remember the days when the first part of Reno one reached coming in from Carson was the coliseum, better known today as the Reno Sparks Convention Center – at the corner of South Virginia Street and Kietzke Lane.
So, as the Carson, Eagle, Dayton and Washoe valleys grow, we applaud the efforts to barter to protect our views and our open spaces. We applaud the work of Douglas County in securing rights on pasture lands. It shows they learned something from the loss of access in Genoa.
The attempts by Carson City and its open space program to trade 1,722 acres show we are a city with a vision for our future that includes quality of life.
• This editorial represents the views of the Nevada Appeal editorial board.