Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: City counsel ignored

Tuesday, April 11, 2000 | 10:22 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

IF YOU LISTEN to Sig Rogich tell the story, he was a victim of ambiguity.

If, however, you listen to some of Sig's oldest friends and longtime Nevadans as well, there was nothing ambiguous about what happened last week at the Las Vegas City Council meeting. The council voted 4-2 to give Sig a liquor license and, in doing so, made the investments and the quality of life of the soon-to-be tavern or topless bar's neighbors significantly less than what they were prior to the vote.

Like most Las Vegans, I knew only what I read in the newspaper about Sig's odyssey through the looking glass of City Hall. Depending upon who was doing the talking, he was either a victim of a few inches on an engineer's ruler or a businessman just trying to do right when everyone else wanted to do him wrong. What I didn't do is what the council and the lawyers should have done in the first place.

Just take a walk over to the neighborhood that may now house a topless bar and drinking establishment. No matter how much the law may be on Sig's side or just remain in the realm of ambiguousness, the fact of the matter is that adult entertainment does not belong where the City Council wants to put it.

This is not a Puritan argument. Heaven knows it is not a legal one. That seemed to be made quite eloquently by the man the city of Las Vegas hired to give it counsel in such matters. But when City Attorney Brad Jerbic told the council not to vote for the liquor license, because it violated the spirit of the city's code, four of our elected officials just plain old ignored him.

That's got to be close to a first in this day and age, when ignoring your legal counsel usually spells peril for elected officials, especially when personal liability could attach to those who don't pay attention. Advice of counsel is one of the top three cop-outs for elected officials, who look for any opportunity to take a duck on a controversial issue.

In any event, the council has acted and now it is up to the people in Sig's neighborhood to decide what they are going to do about the potential "hazard" that should come their way if Sig gets his wish and sells his building for a tidy profit.

Now before my buddy Rogich starts calling to complain, let me be clear. I don't blame Sig for trying to set the stage for a sale in the millions of dollars instead of a much lower price that an office building in that industrial area might otherwise have fetched. That is, after all, the American way.

The beef is with the City Council, which ignored its lawyer, ignored common sense and couldn't possibly have looked at the area in question. For if they had they would have seen a very nice and well-kept industrial area that has prided itself on keeping the neighborhood clean and inviting. Hundreds of people work in the area and hundreds more visit the workplaces on a daily basis. And while one or two might relish the thought of a topless club across the street, most of the businesses have deeper concerns.

Some plan, for example, to create a day-care center for employees who work nearby. Probably not anymore. Some have planned to increase efficiency and hire more people to work nighttime shifts. Probably not anymore. And some have just dreamed of turning over the reins of their business to the next generation -- businesses that are productive and provide pleasant work environments. Perhaps not anymore.

I remember years ago someone wanted to put a bar on a very busy street that was impossible to negotiate under the best of circumstances. The bar was going in next door to our newspaper building. I argued that not only would people be trying to drive onto an impossibly busy street while under some kind of alcoholic influence, but that our own workforce would find a closer and more convenient place to take their lunch and dinner breaks. The thought of some of them coming back tipsy while working with heavy and very dangerous machinery chilled my blood.

The argument worked and the liquor license was turned down.

I guess those kinds of quality of life and common sense arguments don't work as well when the No. 1 political consultant is on the other side. Or perhaps they weren't even made. I know Sig will never operate that bar or a potential adult business because that's not what makes him happy. But the person who pays top dollar for his building very well may do just that.

Then what are the business folks in the area supposed to do? Build the day-care centers? Invest more of their dollars into an area turning to seed? Encourage their children to work hard to take over the business and enjoy the quality of life for themselves and their employees that no longer may be available?

Sig Rogich is not the bad guy here, although his quest for dollars alone makes him appear a very willing and able accomplice.

The people who have done wrong this day are the council folks who ignored their lawyer, the planning council, the staff and common sense and voted their best political interests.

They made a mistake. They made it willingly. They owed their other constituents better.