Columnist Jon Ralston: Examining the timeline leading to the city’s rushed land vote

Friday, Nov. 11, 2005 | 1:52 a.m.

Jon Ralston hosts the news discussion program Face to Face with Jon Ralston on Las Vegas ONE and also publishes the daily e-mail newsletter RalstonFlash.com. His column for the Las Vegas Sun appears Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Ralston can be reached at 870-7997 or through e-mail at ralston@vegas.com.

What is that smell coming from downtown Las Vegas?

It is so familiar. I can't quite place it. Ah, yes, the fragrance of juice.

Waltersgate Nugget No. 1: As time goes by, the timeline on Waltersgate looks worse and worse for a Las Vegas City Council that now appears to have rushed to vote last week without fully informing the public of all it knew.

Despite the sealed lips last week when they voted to lift a deed restriction on land valued at as much as $56 million for a $7.2 million price tag, the council folks were aware of allegations of criminal misconduct that occurred when Billy Walters was first given the land in 1999.

That's according to Manager Doug Selby, who learned of the police charges from Undersheriff Doug Gillespie two weeks before the vote and says he informed the council. But no one said anything at the meeting.

A fuller timeline only gives rise to more suspicions ...

Early July: Deputy City Attorney John Redlein briefs council members about the questionable handling of the original sale to Walters by Public Works boss Dick Goecke, who is involved in the latest deal. The city was forced to republish an RFP and rescind at least one action because of perceived favorable treatment by Goecke to Walters.

July 7: Council postpones actions because of what Mayor Oscar Goodman calls "inflammatory" information presented to the council, a clear reference to Redlein's briefings. The council was being asked to lift the deed restriction without any regard to the consequences or the value of the land.

July 12: Councilwoman Lois Tarkanian asks Selby in a memo for an outside engineering report and an outside appraisal, which, stunningly, had not been done.

July 21: The council postpones the vote again.

July 22: Redlein writes the memo that later was turned over to Metro in which he outlines all of Goecke's questionable dealings with Walters -- some of which Metro will later allege were potentially criminal.

Week of Oct. 17: Gillespie meets with city officials, informs them that no crime has been uncovered with regard to a redacted engineering report but that potential crimes were uncovered in the late 1990s. Selby says he later briefs the council -- strangely, at least two members -- Goodman and Larry Brown -- say they never heard of criminal allegations.

Nov. 2: With no mention of any of this, the council votes 6-1, with only Tarkanian opposed, to lift the deed restriction and allow Walters to build homes.

Nov. 3 -- Metro report released; city refuses to release key memos turned over to Metro.

Nov. 7 -- Under pressure, city releases memos.

Nov. 9 -- With media frenzy occurring, City Councilman Steve Wolfson asks to reconsider the lifting of the restriction. Anyone else suspicious?

What's ironic here is that even if you were to argue, as Goodman does, that what happened in 1999 need not affect what happens in 2005 -- that is, it is irrelevant to lifting the deed restriction -- how can anyone assert that should not have been made public before the vote?

Waltersgate Nugget No. 2: One of the more interesting questions surrounding this is why the city used the bizarre valuation method to arrive at the $7.2 million. City officials have said they took the original purchase price and then increased it by 6 percent annually because that is what the government could have made had it invested the money. But that has nothing to do with the value of the land, and why do appraisals then?

Goodman said Thursday that he voted for the deal "because of the understanding of how the price is supposed to be reached ... we rely on our staff, we were told that was the appropriate price." But why?

"That is my understanding," His Honor repeated. Adding that while Tarkanian asked for a valuation, he believed there was "no need" for an appraisal. Goodman also said he was told that the city agreed to such a method in 1999 when the deal was first made with Walters. So where is that in writing?

"I have not seen it in writing," he replied. "I have asked for it." Can't wait to see if that's true -- that Walters actually is so lucky that the city agreed to such a favorable potential valuation scheme six years ago. Can't wait to see that piece of paper.

My guess is it is somewhere near the document that declares juice dead in Las Vegas.