Friday, Feb. 14, 2003 | 3:59 a.m.
IF WE HEARD him right last week, Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman still is pushing his dream of owning a nightclub in the heart of the downtown redevelopment area.
With a gleam in his eyes, Goodman told reporters that his good friend, actor Joe Pesci, may want to be a partner in "Oscar's Speakeasy."
Are we supposed to become as giddy as Goodman over this news?
Hardly.
Goodman's dream was a bad idea when he first suggested it, and it's still a bad idea with the involvement of a celebrity like Pesci.
Elected officials who have authority to spend millions of public redevelopment dollars aren't supposed to profit from that authority. It's a conflict of interest and against the law.
Goodman doesn't buy that, so he has directed city lobbyists to push a bill through the Legislature this year to change the law.
According to a copy of the bill draft, the change would allow any city official, even those who directly work for the city's redevelopment agency, to acquire property in the downtown redevelopment area as long as no redevelopment funds are earmarked for that property. All an official would have to do is publicly disclose the investment.
This would be a step backward for City Hall and raise an endless array of ethical questions.
Let's say a city staffer gets a tip that a developer is eyeing redevelopment land for a major shopping center. What would stop that staffer from taking advantage of the inside information and acquiring a neighboring parcel of land before the rest of the public gets a crack at it?
What if the official tips off his friends and relatives to other potentially lucrative parcels in the area? And what if the word quietly spreads to council members, and they started buying up neighboring property before they even vote to approve the shopping center?
All of this may look unfair and wrong to you.
But it would be perfectly legal in Las Vegas or anywhere else in the state where redevelopment funds come into play -- if Goodman is successful at changing the state law.
Goodman defends his dream of opening Oscar's Speakeasy by arguing that his investment would bolster redevelopment and show the public that he's willing to risk his own money downtown.
But how big a risk would Goodman, who controls the redevelopment purse strings, really be taking?
Let's say the mayor is allowed to buy a piece of land downtown and open the nightclub. And let's say it's in an area that hasn't been fully redeveloped. What if the area, by no small coincidence, is dramatically improved by the time Goodman leaves office in four years? What if Goodman's land is worth 10 times more than when he bought it?
The mayor legally would be able to sell the land at a handsome profit. Where's the risk there? Where's the fairness?
It's exactly what conflict of interest laws are designed to prevent.
Part-time City Council members already attract too much well-deserved criticism over their private business ventures. Why would we want to make it easier for them to blur the lines of political propriety?
Changing the redevelopment law won't change the public's perception that it's wrong for public officials to try to profit from the decisions they make.
All it would do is create enough uncomfortable situations to call into question the council's redevelopment motives.
Why would the council want to put itself in that position or, more importantly, put the city in that position?
We've seen enough bad ideas from the mayor.
If opening Oscar's Speakeasy downtown is so great, let Joe Pesci make the investment himself.
The mayor should be encouraging others, not himself, to invest in downtown.
archive
