Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Commission’s refusal to act on Strip land is a shame

Wednesday, Sept. 9, 1998 | 11:07 a.m.

WHERE OH WHERE to begin?

Coming back from an entire month off from column-writing responsibilities is not as easy as it may seem. First, there were some incredible efforts made by those who guest-wrote in this space so that the normal contributors could take a little time off to recharge the creative batteries or, in my case, just take off. Trying to compete with Joe Williams, Tom Kaplan, Jerry Lewis, Irwin Molasky or any of the rest of those who took the time to share their thoughts is not a task I relish.

Second, as everyone who has lived on this planet for more than two weeks knows, there has been plenty going on in the world. There are so many areas of concern and so much to discuss that picking the right topic is a significant challenge. So, since I know that many are just waiting for me to discuss the president and his problems, I'll get to that subject ... another time.

Right now I'd like to talk about what I have always believed is a no-brainer for Las Vegas but, since the Clark County Commission refuses to act when called upon to do so, has taken on more of an impossible dream-like aura.

I refer to that small piece of land on the south end of the Strip that is up for grabs by three different groups just dying to grab what could be a lucrative piece of tomorrow. It is Bureau of Land Management-controlled land that the county folks want to sell, lease or give to a developer interested in providing recreational opportunities for local residents and others.

I have purposely stayed out of this matter until now because I have a very small financial interest in the outcome. But by staying silent, I have come to realize that I am almost just as guilty of nonfeasance as those charged with making public-interest decisions who can't seem to cast that common-sense vote. So, onward and upward, conflicts and all.

As I understand it, three companies have proposed golf courses to be built for the benefit of the public -- both by providing a relatively affordable golf experience and significant dollars returned to county coffers over the life of the agreement. One plan is being pushed by longtime mover, shaker and political heavyweight Sig Rogich. Another is being advanced by local golf course developer and political light heavyweight, Billy Walters, and the third is being promoted by the Gary Player Golf Corp. and the latest entry in its stable -- local, national and world tennis sensation Andre Agassi.

In short, each has good and sufficient reasons in the makeup of the applicants to garner sympathetic ears and hopeful votes for their particular enterprises. By failing to make a decision -- this is at least the second time the commission has punted -- the elected officials have been criticized for failing to act, mostly charged with trying to play favorites with too many favorites.

I understand commissioners wanting answers to many questions before they vote. But at some point they will have to pull that lever. By their latest decision not to decide -- postponing the proceedings for a month or so -- they may have made their work a little less controversial because one of the applicants, the Grand Prix, had some sort of a deadline. Barring some last-minute extension, the number of applicants becomes two and the decision becomes significantly easier to make.

That's a shame, and here comes my bias.

Contrary to what some might think, it is not one based on the very small economic interest I have in the golf course developer that is partnered with the Rogich group. It is a bias based on what I have always believed should be a slam-dunk kind of decision for a city that fancies itself as the entertainment capital of the world.

If we are, indeed, that mecca for tourists looking for what to do where it can't be done anywhere else, then we have a responsibility to our guests and ourselves to make sure we are always on the cutting edge.

For months all we have heard is the moaning and groaning of critics about a Las Vegas that may have outgrown its ability to attract tourists. In newspaper article after article the theme has been an overbuilt Las Vegas that will so outstrip demand that rooms will have to be given away for these showplaces to be able to compete.

So when a tourist-grabber such as the Grand Prix says it wants to come to Las Vegas and it wants to be held on the famous Las Vegas Strip, you'd think that we'd be smart enough to say "welcome" to the hundreds of thousands of Grand Prix groupies who would fill the town.

Is it not prudent to say that any credible event that threatens to fill up our city with people who otherwise might never show up is welcome to come here? Is it not also wise to say to developers who are willing to risk their tens of millions of dollars to bring us the opportunity to reach hundreds of millions of viewers around the world, "Come on in and be part of this desert miracle"?

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Instead we have a commission that so far has been unwilling to make that easy decision for fear of upsetting one hotel company that might not like the fallout from the engine noise -- even though that hotel will probably be full of people who have come to Las Vegas just to hear the noise. Or a commission that has refused to vote because too many "influential" friends and relatives are confusing them to the point of inertia.

My sense is that if prior commissions had paid heed to the opposition, we wouldn't have volcanoes because of the noise, pirate ships because of the crowds or roller coasters because of some other ridiculous reason that had nothing to do with bringing people to town and showing them a good time.

Unless I'm badly mistaken, that's what we do here.

archive