Limits on residential casinos opposed

Tuesday, May 15, 2001 | 10:49 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- A bill to make it tougher to build casinos near residential neighborhoods in Las Vegas ran into tough opposition in the Assembly Judiciary Committee Monday.

The current law requires a casino to get a three-fourths vote of those members present at a meeting of a county commission or a city council. Senate Bill 171 would require a three-fourths majority of the full county commission or a city council.

Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, D-Las Vegas, called the requirement of such a large majority a "draconian concept."

Committee Chairman Bernie Anderson, D-Sparks, also opposed that section of the bill, saying a single member could hold a project hostage.

If, for example, a member of a five-member board becomes sick and is absent the remaining four would have to vote unanimously for the project.

Harvey Whittemore, lobbyist for the Nevada Resort Association, said this provision "raises the bar so high you may never get a unanimous vote."

The bill is an outgrowth of a controversy regarding a casino in Spring Valley in Clark County. Three of the seven county commissioners abstained because of possible conflicts of interest.

The remainder of the commission voted 3-1 in favor of the project. That complied with the present law for a three-fourths vote of those present. Under this bill, the project would have failed, even if all four remaining commissioners had voted for it.

Anderson sent the bill to a subcommittee, which is headed by Assemblyman Mark Manendo, D-Las Vegas. The legislation would expand the distance between a proposed casino and a residential neighborhood from 500 to 1,500 feet and between the casino and a church or school from 1,500 to 2,500 feet.

That distance would be measured from the property line of any related parcel owned by the casino, not only from the gambling club itself. For instance, a casino may have a human resources center or a child care facility away from the casino property. But the distance requirement would apply to that structure.

Although casino representatives said they favored the concept of the bill, they did admit that some language needs to be changed.

Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, said this is a big issue for the neighborhoods where "anger has been generated by the encroachment of gaming." She said it is "most important" for a greater buffer zone between casinos and home developments.