Editorial: Both sides share in wall fiasco

Monday, March 4, 2002 | 9:07 a.m.

Let's hope the residents of Bonanza Village in West Las Vegas have not run into the proverbial brick wall in their negotiations with the city of Las Vegas. An April 19 public hearing offers the last chance for a compromise before the city begins mailing the bills -- $5,000 per property owner -- as its final act in the great wall controversy that has been going on since 1998. That was the year a majority of Bonanza Village's 168 homeowners petitioned for a Special Improvement District so they could pay the city to build a security wall along Martin Luther King Boulevard and Washington, Owens and Tonopah avenues. By enclosing their properties within an 8-foot protective wall, they hoped for a greater sense of security and a substantial increase in property values. When construction of the wall finally was finished three months ago, after legal battles that reached the state Supreme Court, residents were sickened by the sight.

There's something really wrong when a neighborhood and the city Public Works Department cannot build a simple wall without finger pointing, acrimonious public hearings and legal battles. The finished product went way over its originally estimated budget, was badly designed and looks awful. There's enough blame on both sides to go around.

Bonanza Village residents had trouble organizing themselves and consequently the city found itself dealing with a group that residents now say had no business making decisions for the whole community. That group authorized the city to build the cheapest wall possible, out of plain cinder block. Even that wall was more than double the price that had been estimated on the original petition for a Special Improvement District. Residents charge that the city never told them what the final wall would look like and that the city waited until a month before construction to inform them of the new price estimate of nearly $5,000 per homeowner. Construction was halted in 2000 when a resident sued the city, saying a majority of residents didn't want the wall after all. Eight months went by before the case was dismissed by the Nevada Supreme Court, but the delay forced the city to absorb thousands of dollars in cost overruns.

When construction resumed, contractors had to use cinder blocks that didn't match the earlier work because the city had sold the original inventory. The city failed to achieve a clear understanding about how the wall was to be built and used public right-of-way, instead of homeowners' property, thereby leaving no room for sidewalks or bus stops. The design around power poles is flawed as it leaves gaps for trash to accumulate and provides hiding places for muggers.

Bonanza Village erred in not speaking with one voice, resulting in a request to the city that was flawed from the start. The city erred in accepting a plan that did not meet urban design guidelines. We don't want to see the $1.17 million wall torn down but we don't want the residents to have to live with this ugliness. How about the residents agreeing to fix the aesthetics and the city agreeing to fix the design flaws? Let the final chapter in this unfortunate situation -- one we hope is never repeated -- be one of compromise.