Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000286 201

Image

File
Download upr000286-201.tif (image/tiff; 23.4 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000286-201
Details

Rights

This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

Digital Provenance

Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

Publisher

University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

Los Angeles - May 7, 1945 cos Mr* Leo A* MoNamee Mr. Frank Strong You have a copy of Mr* Strong’s letter his file 1-7334, in connection with application of Robert B. Griffith. I note in Mr. Smith’s letter to Mr. MoNamee of March 3rd, h© states that it might be for the best in­terests of all concerned if the Water Company could furnish Griffith water for his subdivision development, possibly at wholesale rates. It had always been my understanding that Griffith was not having a subdivision but had built a ranch house and intended to develop his property from an agricul­tural standpoint * I do think it advisable that we give consideration to Mr. Smith’s suggestion and the question arises as to just what is the nature of Mr. Griffith’s proposed development. If it is merely a ranch house with agricultural development for his own use, I see no reason why the Water Company could not sell him water wholesale, if the water is available, which is a matter which you and Mr. Strong would have to determine. If, on the other hand, Mr. Griffith is proposing a home subdivision development and the Water Company desires to serve such development on that side of the track, it would seem that consideration should be given to handling this particular suggestion as we have handled real estate subdivisions here­tofore, namely under Rule 9(a). Whether such a rule would be applicable to a subdivision of five acre semi-farm tracts, which Griffith may have in mind is something which would have to be discussed with Mr. S&ith or Mr. Shamberger. I suggest you stnd Mr. MoNamee discuss this matter with Mr. Taylor and Mr. Griffith and develop any information as to the nature of Mr* Griffith’s proposed development. I understand that Mr. Strong will be in Las Vegas the 9th or 10th of this month* It may be that you will have an oppor­tunity. to discuss the matter with him also. Apparently it will be necessary to withdraw our protest to Mr. Griffith s application for water, in view of the language in Mr* Smith s letter of March 3rd to the Water Company as it is obvious that Mr. Griffith’s application will be granted and then I presume in spite of his protest the application of the Rail­road Company for Well No* 11 would be granted* Mr. w.R. Bracken; H i " i to ms of May 5th,