Public safety is council’s top priority

I was disappointed to see that the city’s attempt to provide extra funding to battle crime has been dubbed a “political dispute” (Wednesday Review-Journal). As a city councilman and a retired Metro police captain, public safety is my top priority. It is also the top priority of my colleagues on the council.

On May 21, Sheriff Joe Lombardo asked that the city and county provide an extra $1.1 million to battle the spike in crime. On June 1, the City Council approved the city’s share of the amount requested to the tune of $440,000.

But on July 5, the County Commission responded that the city and county should kick in more funding. Fine. But now the county is saying it won’t contribute its $1 million until the city contributes $574,803. This after the city has already submitted its budget to the state, as required by law.

The city has made it clear it will kick in the additional $134,803 when we can augment the budget again in December. Apparently that’s not good enough.

If the goal is to provide Metro the extra money it needs to fight the spike in crime, the city is in. But if this is nothing more than a financial shell game where the ask keeps changing, then shame on those putting the public at risk.

Stavros Anthony

Las Vegas

The writer represents Ward 4 on the Las Vegas City Council.

Ad wars

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Catherine Cortez Masto put her special-interest allies ahead of hardworking Nevadans when, as state attorney general, she drove Uber — along with nearly 1,000 jobs — out of the state. That’s what our television ad claims, and that’s exactly what Ms. Cortez Masto did.

But in his July 2 column, Steve Sebelius argued that holding Ms. Cortez Masto accountable for her actions isn’t fair. Why? He claims her donations from the taxi industry are irrelevant and that Ms. Cortez Masto was just doing her job.

First, the donations. Mr. Sebelius doesn’t dispute that Ms. Cortez Masto’s campaign accepted more than $70,000 from the taxi industry. What’s remarkable is that he actually claims the campaign contributions aren’t relevant because she accepted them before Uber started operating in Nevada. But that’s exactly the point.

The taxi industry gave tens of thousands of dollars to Ms. Cortez Masto’s political campaigns and, when they needed her, she put their interests ahead of jobs and competition for Nevada.

Second, the idea that Ms. Cortez Masto had no choice but to shut Uber down is false. The attorney general has full discretion over what cases to pursue and how to pursue them. In a 2010 letter to the governor refusing to join a lawsuit against Obamacare, Ms. Cortez Masto explained, “I also have the responsibility to decide how and when litigation is conducted.”

Furthermore, just two months earlier, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, also a Democrat, reached an agreement with Uber that allowed it to continue operating until the state legislature weighed in.

But Ms. Cortez Masto was never interested in a path forward that would allow Uber to operate. She pursued restraining orders in not one, not two, but three different courts until she got the ruling she wanted.

At the end of the day, the Legislature codified what Nevadans already knew — that Uber was operating in absence of regulations, not in violation of them.

But that didn’t stop Ms. Cortez Masto and the taxi industry from doing whatever they could to shut Uber down.

Bill Riggs

Arlington, Va.

The writer is a spokesman for Freedom Partners Action Fund.