County fire inspectors are professionals

To the editor:

Your April 3 editorial alleges that a Clark County fire inspector knew about the inadequate fire sprinkler coverage in the six suites at the Paris Hotel in 2001, and approved them for “a free slice of quiche and an evening with Irma La Douce.” This is absolutely false, and unfairly besmirches the professionalism of our fire inspectors.

Your editorial neglected to mention several critical facts that would give the public more insight into this situation.

First, information about the remodeling that occurred in the suites came to light because Harrah’s Entertainment self-reported the matter to the county. The company’s disclosure prompted the Fire Department to immediately send fire inspectors to examine the suites. During the inspection, the fire inspectors determined that the sprinkler coverage in these rooms was inadequate.

The Fire Department closed the rooms as a precaution, pending a review of approved plans for the rooms.

The Fire Department is working to correct the inadequate sprinkler coverage in the suites at the Paris with Harrah’s. Once a determination is made on how the suite’s inadequate sprinkler coverage occurred, we will address the findings.

Steven Smith



Bobble heads

To the editor:

This is just too marvelous. Our beloved mayor wants to build a new Legacy Hall on First Street. And a unanimous City Council won’t tell him he shouldn’t. So next week they will all nod and genuflect when Oscar wants to approve a $2 million appropriation for initial planning.

My councilman, Steve Ross, will nod because, among other things, it will mean lots of jobs for his friends at the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council. You remember them, they are the folks who pay Mr. Ross to be their secretary/treasurer.

Councilmen Ricki Barlow and Gary Reese will nod too, in spite of the budget cuts for seniors in their wards.

Councilman Larry Brown, a distinguished representative on the City Council, facing a term limit in the near future, will nod along with Mayor Goodman in order to join in on his legacy building adventure.

I think someone must have gotten to Councilwoman Lois Tarkanian, who initially saw the folly of all this but has since changed her mind, saying, “I am now viewing this issue somewhat differently.”

Finally, Councilman Steve Wolfson at least had the wisdom to ask about the worst-case scenario, but, in the end, he nodded like all of Oscars other bobble heads.

What a marvelous sight it must have been.

Dick Laird


Downtown plan

To the editor:

Perhaps I am too suspicious of anything going on in Las Vegas which involves the exchange of large amounts of money, land or real estate. With the announcement by the mayor of a proposed new City Hall and casino in downtown Las Vegas, I am again suspicious.

Las Vegas needs a new casino downtown about as much as I need a third nostril. Like the Fremont Street Experience, nothing is going to change the atmosphere of our downtown. It is what it is, and sooner or later our city government is going to have to accept reality.

Another casino will only dilute the inconsequential gaming and hotel traffic which now infrequently visits the downtown area. And it certainly does not need a new City Hall, which will eventually cost the taxpayer more money, despite the mayor’s reference to “private funding.”

Nothing involving big money goes on in Las Vegas without a substantial quid pro quo. I have no idea what is being exchanged or who is being substantially benefited. Personally, I don’t care one iota whose “private” ox is being enhanced or gored. However, I can make this general statement: There will be, in the long run, absolutely no benefit for the Las Vegas taxpayer.

We don’t need another monorail, and that is exactly what we are going to get with a new downtown City Hall.

Jack L. Kane


Payment plan

To the editor:

When a house goes into foreclosure, whoever holds the mortgage note receives no money.

Isn’t that just dumb?

The house sits vacant with no money changing hands for perhaps months before someone buys it.

The answer?

If the mortgage payment is too high, say $2,000, and the house might go into foreclosure, it shouldn’t be so difficult for the bank to accept maybe $1,500 instead of nothing.

Are our housing laws so rigid and stupid that it’s better to let the house sit vacant?

No, everyone won’t try to get their payment lowered.

James Altemara


News Headlines
Add Event
Home Front Page Footer Listing
You May Like

You May Like