Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

COLUMN: John L. Smith

Moncrief's political education might include back alley showdown

It's safe to say Janet Moncrief's political education has begun.

After dispatching with incumbent Michael McDonald in June, the rookie Ward One city councilwoman's honeymoon was the briefest in recent history. Since then, Moncrief has been sniped at relentlessly by former supporters and has been accused of ethics lapses and campaign improprieties. She's even been rousted by the cops on a flatly refuted public intoxication beef.

Now she's creating a potent enemy by taking on John Moran Jr., arguably the city's most active lobbying lawyer.

Moran has operated out of a law office at 630 S. Fourth St. for decades. Although he bristles at the description, he's known as a juice attorney with more connections at City Hall than Sprint.

And he's made an enemy of Moncrief. The councilwoman is pursuing an issue at Wednesday's City Council meeting that's sure to prove that point.

It looks innocuous enough on the council agenda: a clarification over the vacation of a three-foot-wide strip of city-owned alley running behind Moran's law office. But Moncrief thinks the city already has given the attorney a better deal than it should.

Until this spring, city property behind Moran's office was slated for a high-rise parking garage. That project eliminated the need for the alley, and Moran asked to take possession of the land to improve office access and create a buffer zone between his property and the city project.

Although some skeptics might wonder why the city didn't sell Moran the land, the arrangement between property owners made sense. Except that the city's garage plans changed. They were scrapped in April, but Moran still wants the alley.

They alley will go nicely with the formerly city-owned land at 628 S. Fourth St. that Moran bought in May 2002 for $100,000 -- $230,000 under its arguably inflated appraised value. The cheap land came with a catch: It had to be used for surface parking and could be reacquired by the city for $230,000 under appraised value at any time.

It looked like a safe decision by the city, which years earlier had swiped some of Moran's available parking space in the area. But as those who watch City Hall know, safe decisions are often written in pencil.

In April 2003, about the time the city was scrapping its parking garage plan, a modification was made to the Moran agreement giving the attorney full possession of the 628 property for the $100,000, but with no incumbrances. That meant he officially received the land for $230,000 under its appraised value, which is a nice deal if you can get it.

How many of you would like that deal the next time you drop by City Hall?

Yeah, me too.

It should be noted that Moran did nothing under the table. Those transactions were completed by daylight with full council approval.

With the exception of Michael McDonald, most of the council that gave Moran the thumbs up will be sitting before him on Wednesday.

So what are the chances those officials will see things Moncrief's way as she questions giving the alley to Moran?

Not good, I'll wager.

Meanwhile, Moncrief is sure to be stung for taking on Moran, a McDonald supporter who wrote an endorsement letter on the incumbent's behalf. In an interview Monday, Moran seemed to suspect the councilwoman might be playing politics.

"How does she have time for this stuff with all the stuff she's got going?" Moran asks without a hint of irony or anger.

He scoffs at the thought the alley is somehow controversial.

"Nobody's getting something for nothing," the attorney says.

In fact, he notes that council members came by the property to see for themselves, and that no one has said anything negative about it in two years.

No one, except that pesky new city councilwoman.

"I can't imagine that anybody would cause this much consternation over a legitimate business that's been in that location over 30 years because of three feet of property," Moran says.

But he obviously knows one person who is doing just that.

"Every piece of property in the city has a value," Moncrief responds. "Why would we want to give half of the alley away and lose access to it?

"What's wrong is wrong. It's wrong, and I'm not going to vote for it."

Tune in Wednesday, when the political education of Janet Moncrief continues.

John L. Smith's column appears Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. E-mail him at Smith@reviewjournal.com or call 383-0295.