EDITORIAL: 'Disingenuous' sounds about right - Opinion

PRINT THIS Popular

Nov. 23, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: 'Disingenuous' sounds about right

The Culinary plays games downtown

Members of the Culinary union have as much right as anyone to attend Las Vegas City Council meetings and make their opinions known.

And the project the union chose to protest at Wednesday's council meeting does deserve close, ongoing scrutiny.

Most Popular Stories

LETTERS: With economists like these, who needs enemies?

LETTERS: Brace yourself for coming tax hikes

LETTERS: Nuclear power could be the answer for Nevada

EDITORIAL: Firemen's pensions past due for reform

EDITORIAL: Education 'consultants'

EDITORIAL: Internet sales taxes

LETTERS: So now you're in favor of regulation, eh?

FROM OUR READERS: In the dark about the new light bulbs

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Letting the looters vote on who's for lunch

J.C. WATTS: Sonia Sotomayor and bootstraps

The plan is to spend $150 million -- $266 million, when financing costs are thrown in -- to renovate a defunct casino property near the corner of Main Street and Lewis Avenue, turning it into a new City Hall.

There's nothing wrong with the current City Hall. Instead, the theory is that vacating the current prime City Hall location could stimulate new private development at and around that site, near the old post office at Las Vegas Boulevard and Stewart Avenue.

The city's director of business development, Scott Adams, says he hopes tax revenues from those new developments will more than compensate the city for its costs in making this move.

But, "There's no guarantee that any of these projects will come," objected Chris Bohner, research director for the Culinary union, before he and his red-shirted delegation stood up and marched out of Wednesday's council meeting, chanting, "No new City Hall!"

Mayor Oscar Goodman conceded Wednesday that for the plan to work, the pieces have to fit together like "a jigsaw puzzle."

The biggest risk is that -- should no new private tenants show up for the current Stewart Avenue parcel in this era of tightened credit -- the "path of least resistance" would be to continue using that site as municipal office space, which would withdraw both parcels from the tax rolls.

Nonetheless, and despite the fact his own rhetoric can sometimes take wing, it was good to see the mayor -- along with Councilman Larry Brown -- standing up to the Culinary goon squad Wednesday in what became a shouting match, dismissing their arguments as "disingenuous."

Mr. Bohner criticized the city for pursuing the plan at a time when it's contemplating budget cuts elsewhere, including requests for concessions from its employee unions, which do not include the Culinary.

But the city proposes separate bonding to finance the City Hall project, leaving it up to private investors to decide whether they'll back the project.

Yes, those bonds would eventually be paid off through tax collections. But it's indeed "disingenuous" to imply this money would otherwise be available in the short term to pay meter maids, planning bureaucrats or whatever.

The mayor said Wednesday the presence of the Culinary contingent was intended to have the same intimidating effect as FBI agents standing in court with their arms folded during trial or sentencing for some of the mayor's clients, in his earlier days as a criminal defense attorney.

Indeed, it's not necessary to scratch too far beneath the surface to acquire a healthy suspicion that the Culinary's real problem with the city's current redevelopment plan hinges around tax incentives designed to facilitate the redevelopment of the Lady Luck Casino and surrounding property on Stewart Avenue by the California-based CIM Group.

Could it be the CIM Group has no current contract with the Culinary union?

Just how deep and heartfelt are the Culinary's objections to these current redevelopment plans? If the council were to guarantee the union's leadership that no new or renovated hotel-casino would be allowed to proceed downtown without a contract to the Culinary's liking (not that we're recommending any such thing, because that should be up to the private developers), it might be amazing to watch how quickly these red-shirted protesters would strike up the band, shouting "Hallelujah!" and singing the plan's praises -- and the mayor's -- in three-part harmony.

Union members have every right to speak out. In this case, some of their objections are worth a closer look. But when they disguise their true motives, others have just as clear a right to say, "Oh, please."

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	7 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. JANE THE ENTREPRENEUR wrote on November 23, 2008 07:30 PM: to gunowners4obama Your despicable attitude towards business owners is the very reason jobs go overseas. If you really think someone would want to hire you with that attitude then you are dreaming. Why should anyone risk their livlihood to give you and your ilk a job when you are plotting to take over or run them out of business. The union thugs have driven more business out of Nevada then you will ever know. As a tourist starting 30 years ago, I got a full taste of union bullies who spit at you if you dared enter the Horseshoe or some place they were picketing. I hope and pray that you are not representative of the left, although I believe you are. God help us. Leric Goodman wrote on November 23, 2008 06:01 PM: Let me get this straight -- someone is going to lend money for refurbishment/reconstruction of a downtown casino, when casinos on the Strip can't get loans??? I think the representation that that is going to happen is unlikely. And that someone is going to make a loan so that someone else can buy City Hall is pretty unlikely, too, at least for the foreseeable future. casinocon wrote on November 23, 2008 02:23 PM: Funny, but the ONLY people I EVER hear use the word DISINGENUOUS, are bottom feeding LAWYERS!!! Oh, right, that would be OSCAR. He is defensive because his pet project is questioned. I don't care if it is the Culinary or any other union or citizen -- a new city hall from an old casino? That makes perfect sense . . . NOT! Oscar seems to be tired on looking at the homeless in the park, and wants to distant himself from his failures of cleaning up his little corner of the Valley. The Lady Luck is a DEAD project -- if anyone in their right mind (I guess that would exclude Oscar) thinks CIM is going to make good on their plans, they are sorely mistaken. I commend the Culinary for having their sensible voice heard. Oscar can take his lawyerly ten dollar words and go drink a martini with a bunch of phonies who like to stick "Esquire" behind their names. gunowners4obama wrote on November 23, 2008 09:46 AM: The R-J criticizes every union because the R-J believes an employer should have every right to enslave its workers, because an employer is in the money/power position over its workers. It's that simple. To the R-J editorial board, might makes right. I didn't think I'd live to see the wall of privilege around the presidency come down. Will I live to see the R-J turn into a reasonable and decent daily newspaper? Jim Nance wrote on November 23, 2008 09:40 AM: I was puzzled on why a union that represents casino workers would opposed the new city hall project. It makes sense that they are doing this to turn the heat up on a company that does not have union contracts and is involved in the project. I am sure if CIM Group entered into dicussions that looked promising to sign a union contract then the union opposition to the project would quickly fade. lizzieb wrote on November 23, 2008 09:24 AM: and with unemployment at an all time high what is wrong with a government sponsored project that will employ many people???? If any one remembers The WPA was a solution in the 30's John F wrote on November 23, 2008 08:30 AM: RJ Editors "have every right to speak out. In this case, some of their objections are worth a closer look. But when they disguise their true motives, others have just as clear a right to say, "Oh, please." The editors never miss a chance to beat up on the Culinary Union, even when the Union agrees with the editors on an issue. It's not necessary to scratch too far beneath the surface to acquire a healthy suspicion of their motives here. Could it be that the editors oppose the Union because of the recent spike in Democratic registrations here in Clark County and the Union's success in getting their voters to the polls? Let's just take a look at the way the editors twist their own logic in their attempt to bash the Union. Can you imagine any other circumstance in which the editors would try to tell us that selling municipal bonds doesn't represent a tax increase? The editors say that the sale of the bonds is "leaving it up to private investors to decide whether they'll back the project." Talk about disingenuous. The bondholders won't be backing the project; they won't care one way or another whether the project itself is successful. Bondholders would only care that the city of Las Vegas is good for the money. That means the taxpayers, not the owners of any projects. Come on, editors. There are plenty of good reasons to criticize the Culinary Union. This editorial, however, undermines any legitimate criticism you may have. Twisting facts and lying doesn't do anything to advance your own credibility.