Home Subscribe
Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo
.
Member Center

Recent Editions
FSSuMTWTh
>> Complete Archive
>> Search the site
.
.
.
.
OPINION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Dec. 02, 2006
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal


EDITORIAL: More on Walters land deal

Developer makes allegation against attorney general

It is uncontroversial to say Bill Walters got a sweetheart deal in his negotiations with the city of Las Vegas over the Royal Links Golf Club. City officials -- elected and otherwise -- just can't seem to help themselves from trying to make Mr. Walters happy and prosperous.

The question is whether the kinds of favorable arrangements Mr. Walters has enjoyed -- including the provision of related information to him during a supposedly sealed bidding process -- constitute crimes.

Advertisement



Earlier in the year, Mr. Walters proposed to pay the city $7.2 million for permission to build 1,200 houses adjoining the city's sewage plant -- on land he originally acquired with a provision that it only be used as a golf course.

Attorney General George Chanos launched a probe. At that point, the city backed away from the deal.

The investigation commissioned by the attorney general found wrongdoing, but Mr. Chanos concluded none fell within the statute of limitations.

But Bill Walters was not happy. Now, in an interview with KLAS-TV, Channel 8 television which aired Thursday, Mr. Walters charges Mr. Chanos launched his probe "to get even with me" because Mr. Walters didn't sell the Royal Links to one of Mr. Chanos' former clients.

On Thursday, the attorney general angrily denied any such motivation, calling Mr. Walters' assertion an "absolute fantasy." And he did something more. The attorney general went to the FBI and asked them to take over the ongoing investigation, additionally probing this new assertion that Mr. Chanos conducted himself improperly.

Some now express concern that this sets a bad precedent. In future, will any prominent figure under investigation by a Nevada attorney general be able to "take the AG out of play" simply by asserting some conflict of interest?

On balance, though, the attorney general did the right thing. A lame duck, he has only a month left in office. In essence, he has now seen and raised Mr. Walters.

In the end, what the taxpayers need is not a cat fight, but a clear determination whether the public trust was betrayed. And they don't much care who gets it done.


Advertisement