Thursday, May 08, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Mercury

Quick and Dirty: A notebook of news and politics

Show Rhodes the money

Those expressing dismay that developer Jim Rhodes will profit from a plan to buy his Blue Diamond Hill property from him and make it part of the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area should take a deep breath. Protecting the 2,478 acres from development is worth Rhodes earning a reasonable level of profit on his $54 million investment. Evan Blythin, chairman of the Red Rock Citizens Advisory Council, said it best last week in a Las Vegas Sun story: "He is a businessman and he slipped in there while the feds were snoring. He bought the property. He makes whatever he can make, and if he is a robber baron, then he is a robber baron. I think he should make a profit. He's worked his fanny off weaseling his way in there. ... We can fear and loathe Jim Rhodes, which I think a lot of people do, but I don't think he is any different from any other businessman."

It's probably true that the federal Bureau of Land Management, if it had not been "snoring," could have acquired Blue Diamond Hill a few years ago for less than it will have to pay Rhodes. But that's ancient history. Protecting the hill from development is the paramount concern, and if Rhodes makes a buck on the deal, future generations that will enjoy the beauty and serenity of Red Rock Canyon won't mind.--GS

Rhodes II: Accuracy alert

Speaking of Jim Rhodes, the developer recently produced a television ad in an attempt to clarify his position regarding Blue Diamond Hill. Calling the mining-scarred hill a "scene of devastation," a fair assessment of the mined area of the property, Rhodes promises to beautify it with houses and shopping venues, which is debatable. More troubling is Rhodes' insistence that people have been told, presumably by the news media, that Blue Diamond Hill is in the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. Who ever said that? Without exception, the local press has described the hill as "near" Red Rock, or "next to" Red Rock." It's a Where's Waldo-style challenge to find a single media reference to it being "in" the conservation area. It just hasn't happened.

Rhodes' media blitz also included a three-page, full-color insert in the Review-Journal that elaborates on his position. Rhodes insists that a "small special-interest group" is responsible for opposition to his development (yeah, it's called the good people of Clark County). And obviously setting the stage for a possible lawsuit, Rhodes describes state Sen. Dina Titus' bill to limit development on Blue Diamond Hill as a "confiscation of private property rights." Nowhere within the three-page screed does Rhodes ponder the well-publicized intention of Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign and the Clark County Commission to purchase the property using federal funds and spend several million more to reclaim the mining-scarred area and make it part of the Red Rock conservation area. That, of course, wouldn't help Rhodes' cause.--GS

Rhodes III: What ordinance?

Developer Jim Rhodes, so accustomed to getting his way with local politicians, must be miffed that Clark County won't play along when it comes to his plans for Blue Diamond Hill. Last week, Rhodes submitted applications and paperwork to the county to start the approval process for his massive development. But rather than submitting the 2,478-acre development as a "major project," as required by ordinance, Rhodes tried to submit it as several smaller projects, thereby circumventing the more demanding requirements of a major project review. County planners weren't buying it, sending Rhodes a letter Friday that laid out the detailed procedure he must follow for any project of more than 700 acres. Rhodes was trying to speed up the approval process, but the major project review will take at least a year. By that time, one hopes, a state law will be in place severely limiting development on Blue Diamond Hill, and Nevada senators will have made progress in their bid to purchase the property from Rhodes.--GS

Bugsy in flight

Since the Mercury is as susceptible as any newspaper to the typo bug, we don't often point out minor miscues in other publications. But we could not resist the laughable error we found in the April 28 issue of the Las Vegas Business Press. A profile of local businessman Milton Schwartz leads off by explaining that Schwartz has been in Las Vegas a long time--since 1946 when he worked as a refrigeration mechanic on the Flamingo Hotel being built by "Bugsy Seagull." What? At first we figured it must be a one-time mistake, a fleeting brain cramp. But upon further reading we discovered the same misspelling two more times.

While errors occur in all publications, this kind of unsettling mistake is increasingly found in the rapidly deteriorating Business Press. Don't they have Internet access over there?--GS

And another thing...

Damn, the Marijuana Policy Project people are on a rampage. Still trying to persuade the Nevada attorney general's office to go after drug czar John Walters for violating state campaign finance laws when he stumped against Question 9 last year, the MPP says it continues to dig up Supreme Court case after Supreme Court case supporting its position that Walters broke the rules. The latest from the library, courtesy of MPP director of government relations Steve Fox: 1920's Johnson vs. State of Maryland, which holds that federal employees--in this case, a Sunday-driving postal worker--aren't completely immune to state laws. Gee, sounds like someone's hitting the books for an upcoming court battle.--AK

Anti-taxman cometh to court

Who knew anti-tax activist Irwin Schiff had so many friends? In the wake of Senior U.S. District Judge Lloyd George issuing a temporary restraining order in March against Schiff distributing his book, The Federal Mafia: How the Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes, a fistful of national organizations has joined him and the ACLU of Nevada to fend off the banning of his book. It must feel like a vindication for Schiff, a tireless gadly who's often written off as a crackpot.

Last week, the Association of American Publishers, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the Freedom to Read Foundation of the American Library Association and the PEN American Center joined the ACLU in filing a friend-of-the-court brief that seeks to stop the book ban. The group has until Monday to file a second brief of counterarguments.

"The government is attempting to ban this book because they don't like what it says," says ACLU attorney Allen Lichtenstein, who points out the case has nothing to do with the merit of Schiff's income tax theories. "This is the most serious form of censorship, prior restraint, because it's an attempt to keep information from people. It's a symbol of the government saying, 'Watch out. We can stop you if we want.'"--AK

Clarification

Clark County public communications director Erik Pappa called a University Medical Center public input campaign "expansive," not "expensive," in a May 1 Mercury article. Sorry about that, Erik.