Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 | 11:07 a.m.
About 200 previously hopeful people wearing stickers with a red slash through the words "Spot Zoning" left Las Vegas City Council chambers disappointed and angry Wednesday night.
None were more emotional than Ward 1 Councilwoman Janet Moncrief, who hurried out of Council Chambers and into City Hall immediately after the meeting.
Surrounded by Ward 1 residents who had sought to stop a rezoning that would allow powerful developer Irwin Molasky to build a Social Security building in their neighborhood, Moncrief, visibly frustrated with tears in her eyes, did not stop to speak with reporters. However, her demeanor, and the few choice words that could be heard, spoke volumes.
She said that she had been blindsided.
"Isn't it funny that (Ward 6 Councilman) Michael Mack knew to make the motion?" she said as she entered City Hall. She did not explain the comment, and could not be reached for comment later.
Mack, who made the motion to approve the rezoning of the parcel at the northeast corner of Buffalo Drive and Del Rey Avenue after Moncrief's move to reject it failed, said he understood her passion for the issue, if not her comment.
"She knows our procedure. Her motion failed, I looked down the dais and I didn't see anyone leaning toward the microphone, and that's when I stepped forward. There was nothing pre-planned," Mack said. "I hope the councilwoman doesn't take this personally. She shouldn't.
"It was a very emotional issue, a tough decision, and I can see how she would feel the way she does. I still feel it was the right decision."
The motion passed 4-3, with Mack, Ward 4 Councilman Larry Brown, Ward 5 Councilman Lawrence Weekly, and Ward 2 Councilwoman Lynette Boggs McDonald in favor.
"It's a quality project with a quality developer," said Brown.
Weekly said that the issue was "about what's best for the entire population and the entire city, so I will support this."
Moncrief was joined in opposition by Ward 3 Councilman Gary Reese and Mayor Oscar Goodman.
Moncrief was first to speak, challenging council members to explain why they favored the project. "This is obviously spot zoning," she said.
After the rest of the council members spoke, it was clear that the rezoning application had the four votes needed for it to pass. Goodman was the last to speak.
The easy way, he said, "would be to throw in and join (the majority)." While he said he was happy for his friend, Molasky, "the wrong decision is being made here."
Molasky, a developer in Las Vegas for about 50 years, is an influential figure who has contributed to multiple political campaigns. Some residents thought that influence would, at least in part, factor into the decision.
They sought to counter that with a show of strength, packing Council Chambers and lining up to speak in opposition to the plan.
Residents questioned everything from whether the building would be in a suitable place to handle traffic to security to the deal itself.
"Everyone knows it's cheaper to get property zoned residential, and then change it -- that's what this is about," said Dave Bergstrom, a neighbor.
Mark Fiorentino, Molasky's lawyer, said price was no doubt a factor in Molasky being able to win the bid from the General Services Administration, the federal agency that handles procurement. "But it's unfair to accuse Mr. Molasky of profiteering," he said. Everyone pays taxes, and it makes sense for the government to be efficient.
The building would have about 85 employees and handle about 300 people a day, Fiorentino said. It would be designed so people in the single-story building could not see neighbors, and residents could not see the clients, Fiorentino said.
Fiorentino started the meeting with a lengthy presentation describing the project, and asserting, point by point, why the project would not overload the residents with traffic, reduce property values, or blind them at night with lights from the parking lot.
After, residents lined up to dispute his assertions.
For example, Fiorentino compared the project's potential impact to that of All-American Park, across the street, where youth football leagues play.
Resident Mary Green said it was an unfair comparison.
"We welcome the noise ... the sounds of children at play," said Green.
The residents' major contention -- supported by Goodman -- was that the stretch of Buffalo from Charleston to the proposed site is residential, and allowing an office on the site would set a precedent that will lead to commercialization of the neighborhood's border.
Fiorentino called the site a "buffer" -- a relatively low-impact use between a neighborhood and what is called a more intense use, like a shopping center -- separating residents from the street and the park across the street. But residents said that was ridiculous, noting that either side of the site is residential.
After the meeting, a furious Larry Anspach said the buffer had just turned into a self-fulfilling argument. "They just made Buffalo a commercial corridor. Nobody will build homes next to (the Social Security building)," he said. "We need to get a lawyer. It's not over."
archive
