Thursday, July 3, 2003 | 11:16 a.m.
Clark County Commissioner Chip Maxfield cast a decisive vote Wednesday for a planned condominium development that his son's future father-in-law is a partner in, and which neighbors said will destroy the country feel of the county-designated rural preservation district where it will be built.
Some neighbors of the planned condominiums and a university ethics professor said Maxfield should have abstained on the matter, even though a county attorney told Maxfield there was no conflict for him.
Craig Walton, a professor of ethics and policy studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said he thinks Maxfield's vote violated state ethics laws because ultimately Maxfield's family will benefit from the commission's decision.
"His son's future father-in-law will be enriched by this. And when he passes, it will be part of the inheritance for his daughter, who his son is married to," Walton said. "So the Maxfield family will be enriched by this."
Maxfield said his son is engaged to Jay Bingham's daughter. Bingham is one of the principals in Juliet Properties, which plans to build a 196-unit condominium complex on 14.4 acres near the intersection of Eastern Avenue and Pebble Road, near the Las Vegas Beltway.
Maxfield said his son's personal ties to the developers did not affect his vote, which brought the commission to a 4-3 decision.
"I believe I'm an honest and ethical individual," Maxfield said. "I felt I went above and beyond by disclosing the relationship."
More than a dozen neighbors of the property spoke against the development during the Wednesday commission meeting. Most said the condominiums would dramatically change the character of their rural neighborhood, which is also home to a variety of wildlife including jackrabbits, hawks and other desert wildlife.
"Now it's a desert and it's open," neighbor Jody Menendez said. "But if you put up a block wall and condos I'm going to feel cramped."
Commissioner Bruce Woodbury, who voted against the project, said the condominiums will destroy the county-designated Rural Neighborhood Preservation district.
"Why can't we leave these special areas alone?" Woodbury asked his fellow commissioners.
But Maxfield, Commissioners Myrna Williams, Yvonne Atkinson Gates and Chairwoman Mary Kincaid-Chauncey agreed with the developer's representative, who argued the area has already lost its rural feel thanks to the construction of the beltway and commercial development along Eastern. Frank Schreck, the attorney for Juliet, also said the condominiums will cost $125,000 to $150,000 each and provide needed affordable housing for the area.
Commissioners Mark James and Rory Reid voted against the project with Woodbury. James argued a less dense housing development could serve as a better transition between the existing homes and the encroaching development around them.
Before weighing in on the matter, Maxfield disclosed his son's ties to Juliet and asked if he needed to abstain from the vote.
County attorney Rob Warhola said because Maxfield had no personal financial interest in the project or business ties to the developers, he did not have to abstain.
Mary Miller, county counsel, said even if Maxfield's son were already married to Bingham's daughter, the commissioner would not have had to abstain.
"Chip will be related to Jay's daughter but he will not be related to Jay."
But Walton said whether the couple is engaged, living together or married doesn't change his opinion.
Walton said that under the ethics laws, if a reasonable person could see the relationship as affecting Maxfield's ability to act independently, then he should have abstained.
"How can it be an independent judgment when his son's future inheritance is involved?" Walton asked. "This is in foggy country, and my notion is that when it's foggy you abstain."
Miller said Walton's assertion is "so speculative as to be unfair."
Miller added that once the two are married, Maxfield will have to disclose the relationship.
Neighbor Bruce Waggoner said legal opinions aside, Maxfield shouldn't have voted on the matter.
"It just doesn't seem right," Waggoner said. "Legal opinions are one thing, ethics are another."
Waggoner, who lives across the street from where the condominiums may be built, said he plans to fight the development in court. He already has filed two lawsuits against other developments for his neighborhood. One suit was settled and one is still active, he said.
He said if he can't stop the development, he will sell the home he and his wife raised their two sons in and move.
"Nobody who wants to live in this kind of neighborhood wants to live next to condos," Waggoner said.
His wife, Elizabeth, called their neighborhood a little wildlife haven.
"Despite all the development around us it still has a rural feel," she said.
Elizabeth Waggoner said they expected to nearby property would be developed, but they would rather see three homes per acre than condominiums.
Menendez, who also lives across the street from where the condominiums will be built, said she will begin looking for another home immediately.
"It's like you're in another world here," she said. "It's like a little piece of the country right in the city. It just won't feel the same."
archive
