Comments (22) | Add a comment
Steve Sebelius
F Street re-opened
Las Vegas Councilman Bob Coffin didn't make any friends last week when he cast the lone vote against re-opening F Street, the only direct link from historic West Las Vegas into the gleaming new downtown.
The vote -- and Coffin's advocacy against spending $8.5 million in city funds to re-open the street -- was all the more confusing because of the fact that he'd voted as a state senator in 2009 to require the city to re-open the street.
Another politician flip-flopping? No, there's much more to this story than that.
After West Las Vegas residents objected to closing F Street in 2008, blame ricocheted from City Hall to Carson City. Nevada Department of Transportation Director Susan Martinovich told the 2009 Legislature the city had requested the closure as part of the Interstate 15 widening project. (Closing the street would save the cost of building a bridge.)
But Las Vegas Councilman Ricki Barlow -- then an aide to former Councilman Lawrence Weekly -- said he'd not known about plans to close the street until it was done. And West Las Vegas residents didn't know either; notices referred to the overall I-15 widening project without highlighting the permanent street closure.
That's when state Sen. Steven Horsford stepped in, offering an amendment to a bill Coffin had co-sponsored, an amendment that required the city and the state to work together to re-open F Street. Coffin agreed to the amendment, in part because Horsford asserted that notice given to nearby residents wasn't adequate, and didn't comply with Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act.
(Martinovich, in testimony on the amendment on May 8, 2009, said her department had published notices, but "she said NDOT could have done a better job of notifying residents. The federal requirements were followed." Clearly, Horsford disagreed.)
The bill passed, with Coffin's support, but was vetoed by then-Gov. Jim Gibbons, who argued that adequate notice had been given. In remarks on the Senate floor, Horsford pointed out that a pending lawsuit could leave the city and the state liable to open the road, anyway. He noted the "emotional" costs of the closure, saying it "recalls an era when West Las Vegas was intentionally isolated for purposes of segregation."
Coffin voted for the veto override, and the bill became law.
But now, nearly three years later, Councilman Coffin looked at the issue anew. Now, he says, he believes notice was adequate, and that Horsford was wrong. "I apologized to the whole council [for the 2009 votes]," Coffin said. "I said I was fooled once, and I will not be fooled again.
"They lied to me," Coffin added. "I don't think an injustice was done."
Horsford has not changed his stance: He says residents didn't realize what would be done to F Street, and that a federal lawsuit over Title 6 could easily be re-initiated, a lawsuit he thinks the city and state would lose.
As for lying to his former colleague, Horsford says, "It did not happen."
In Coffin's defense, this isn't a case where a politician is trying to get out of a jam. In fact, Coffin jumped into a jam by opposing the re-opening (angering West Las Vegas residents) and accusing his former colleague Horsford, now running for Congress. If Coffin doesn't really believe what he's saying, his actions make no sense.
(On Wednesday, the council voted 5-1, with Coffin dissenting, to re-open the street.)
But there's also no separating this issue from the troubled racial past of the area. In any other neighborhood, closing a street might be an inconvenience. But physically separating Las Vegas' traditionally black neighborhood -- which has seen far too little help from the city's vaunted redevelopment efforts -- from the vitality of the new downtown? That's an insult atop decades of injuries.
Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal 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 use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Harry: I don't expect Clark County gov't to solve all the problems. But, to block off the problem and ignoring it will not serve this city. There is an old saying"It takes a village to raise a child" Our gov't is a part of that village. I expect our gov't to find ways to help teach to fish; not to give a fish. Or in this case, not to even know people are starving. To teach to fish(changing consciousness and attitudes) is harder than ignoring the problem. The easy way out will only make things worse in this city. If the gov't would work with churches, businesses, and people in that community to help find ways to teach to fish; most of the problems you have listed would disappear on their own. I don't know what or how to solve the problems of the west area. If I knew that; I might be rich. But, I do know blocking it off is not going to solve the problem. It will only make life worse in the future for all of us. There has to be a better way.
Lily white & Mormon owned Las Vegas pays 20 million dollars to lily white & Mormon owned Las Vegas paving all in the name of helping the black man..................................lol
Since the matter has now been voted on, Council members need do nothing but ignore the protests. From their standpoint, it is a done deal. Next Issue?
Back in 2009, the projections for this bridge was $70 Million (who knows what it will really be, just due to the increase in gas prices), so is the $8 Million just the citys share of the cost? Talk about bridges to nowhere for no dam(n) reason. This is just a blantant example of Horsford laundering tax dollars to line his buddies pockets.
its all about the votes common since has nothing to do with it that's how the democrats re elected them self's, city council has to go. you have to take away how is done term limits its one way.
i for one as a voter will vote for what benefits me .we have to take away the incentive of the elected officials but nobody is talking about terms
This is what happens when we don't pay attention to what our politicians are doing. To spend such a great amount of money with no compelling benefit to our infrastructure defies logic. It's a purely political move to placate people who are more vocal than the rest us. Everyone should let their Councilperson and the Mayor know how much we object to this waste and expect better use of our tax dollars. You can send a message here:
http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/government/council.htm
the main reason F street was closed was to keep those ghetto bums from causing more crime. if those people can't be less violent and more human, then F street (F for failure) should remain closed.
When F St. closed many blacks starved to death. They just could not find a way out of their hood.
Had the City Councilman for Ward One intervened at the outset, the closure would never have occurred in the first place.
Linda since when does the city have to "solve people's problems?" Perhaps if a certain community would start to value education, quit having children that can't afford out of wedlock, demand the fathers of these children stick around and actually raise the children, then "these people" could start solving their own problems. If you expect the government to solve your problems you are in trouble. But we have created a country where the majority can no longer think for themselves so that's why BO will be re-elected.