Thursday, Jan. 6, 2005 | 11:05 a.m.
Las Vegas City Councilwoman Janet Moncrief hoped the two main issues her detractors are using in her coming recall election would be settled in her favor by the time Ward 1 voters head to the polls on Jan. 25. But two developments Wednesday mean that won't happen.
Moncrief was on the losing side again of efforts to block a controversial Social Security office building from a neighborhood in her ward.
Also, the next court hearing on Moncrief's pending charges for allegedly filing false campaign finance reports was scheduled for Feb. 17.
Moncrief said she wasn't surprised by either turn of events, and added that she thinks neither of Wednesday's developments will impact the recall election because the issues and criticisms will not change.
"Everything stays the status quo," she said.
"They've been feeling the loss for a year," Moncrief said about neighbors upset with the council approval of the office building rising at the corner of Buffalo Drive and Del Ray Avenue. Neighbors have argued the building will greatly increase traffic in their neighborhood and create parking problems.
Moncrief also said it's unfortunate her criminal case won't be resolved by Jan. 25.
The Feb. 17 hearing will address allegations from Moncrief's attorney Richard Wright that the councilwoman is a victim of selective prosecution.
"But I know the people of Ward 1 know I didn't do anything purposely wrong on my campaign report," she said.
The council first approved the land-use and other matters related to the Social Security building in December 2003.
A group of neighbors sued to try to block the building, which is being built by prominent developer Irwin Molasky. And they were successful, at least in part, in that a judge sent the matter back to the council.
District Judge Kenneth Cory ruled that part of the original application for a change to the land-use plan was incomplete, and ordered the council to reconsider one of their votes on the matter. The opponents were hoping the council vote might turn out differently a second time around, but it didn't.
Neighbors' attorney Stan Parry argued the council should turn down the land-use change, and also said the project should go through the entire approval process, including returning to the city Planning Commission, again because the original application was not complete.
Molasky's attorney Chris Kaempfer said the council should not change its earlier decision. He said the council was only hearing the matter again because of a technicality, and added that some of the earlier concerns about the project have been alleviated.
The council approved the change to the land-use plan by a 4-3 vote more than a year ago, and on Wednesday the council voted 5-2 to approve the change now that a complete application was being considered. The Wednesday vote came after an eleventh-hour attempt by the neighbors to have Cory block the council from considering the matter on that day.
Mayor Oscar Goodman and Moncrief voted against the change both times. Councilman Gary Reese voted against the matter in December 2003, but voted in favor of the matter Wednesday after saying he felt that his ability to make a decision on the matter was taken from him when the neighbors went to court. Earlier in the day, Reese said the council already acted on the project and he would not vote to overturn the previous council action.
Also, Councilman Steve Wolfson, who was not on the council for the last vote, voted to approve the land-use change. He said it would be unfair to reverse the previous council decision.
Jorina Garetto, one of the neighbors who sued to block the building, said they will not go back to court to continue fighting the project.
"We've spent over $60,000 getting to this point," she said. "This is it."
Just before the council vote, Moncrief said Molasky is "doing great things for downtown," but said this project does not fit with the surrounding residential development.
She also said that while she has been criticized for being unable to sway enough of her fellow council members to vote against the project, Moncrief said she did all she could. Moncrief said state open meeting laws prohibit her from lobbying all her fellow council members.
Moncrief said she is OK with being on the losing end of this vote, which she said is one of only four important votes she's lost.
"I feel good on losing this one because I know I did the right thing," she said.
Moncrief, who faces two challengers in her recall election, also said this matter is the "major reason" for the recall election.
Former Clark County School Board member Lois Tarkanian and activist Vicki Quinn both formally filed as candidates for the election on Wednesday, as expected.
An hour or so before the council voted on the Molasky project, the Quinn campaign circulated a statement criticizing both Moncrief and Tarkanian.
The statement said the Wednesday vote sealing the fate of the Molasky project "could have been avoided if residents had a better advocate."
The Quinn campaign piece also said that Tarkanian received a $5,000 contribution from one of Molasky's companies for her ultimately unsuccessful race for the Clark County Commission in 2000.
Tarkanian said, "Yes, he did. Lots of people made donations to my campaign."
Tarkanian said she, too, would have sided with the neighbors in her Ward on the Molasky project, and added that she doesn't know if she or anyone else would have been able to defeat it.
Sun reporter Matt Pordum contributed to this story.
archive
