Hush money and ethics for developers
To the editor:
In her Saturday column, Jane Ann Morrison describes Arizona’s law governing permits needed by sewage and water companies for home building developments. That law includes a requirement that the applicant’s moral character be “fit and proper.” We have no such law. But we have some moral sense as to what kind of character is fit and proper, and which actions hurt our community.
In his essay “On Liberty,” John Stuart Mill is most famous for asserting a liberty to make one’s own life plan and the choices to carry that out. Less famous is his adding that if someone is seen to have shamed or harmed persons or his community through his choices, we have the liberty and the need to express our anger and shame for what he has done.
Home builder Jim Rhodes has not broken any Nevada law by paying former Clark County Commissioner Erin Kenny large amounts of corruption-advice money, or hush money, from January 2003 until last Wednesday. No criminal violation has been found. But he has told all of us that large payments to a corrupt public official are his idea of a proper expense for his company. And it looks as if the money used to pay these corruption-advisory fees comes from the home mortgage payments of many Nevadans who are buying homes from him. His way of giving something back?
So, no, he cannot be arrested or indicted. He’s free to do as he chooses. But we are free to tell him that his policy of richly rewarding corruption sets a bad business example and is seen by us as bad for our community. We are free to say he shames us all, and that we do not approve of his way of acting among us to reward corruption. We don’t see that as good business or good character.
Craig Walton
LAS VEGAS
THE WRITER, AN EMERITUS PROFESSOR AT UNLV, WRITES ON BEHALF OF THE NEVADA CENTER FOR PUBLIC ETHICS (WWW.NEVADA-ETHICS.ORG).
Poll ratings
To the editor:
So Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada says George W. Bush is the worst president ever? My question to our esteemed senator is: Since the president’s job performance ratings are higher than the good senator’s, what does that say about our majority leader?
Isn’t it a fair question?
R.A. Salter
HENDERSON
Homeowner fight
To the editor:
In response to the July 18 letter by Leonie Mowat about my lawsuit against the Rancho Bel Air homeowner association:
Ms. Mowat seams to have completely missed the point in this whole dispute. She says her board follows all the documents and laws. I applaud them for that. The problem here in Rancho Bel Air is that our board did not follow our CC&Rs and they violated state laws. So said the arbitrator in this case.
It is very clear what the state statutes say about funding a reserve. Contrary to Ms. Mowat’s statement, the law calls for reserves to be “adequately” funded, not fully funded. There is a big difference.
Further, I had read the CC&Rs prior to purchasing my home and have read them many times thereafter. I know very well what they say. That’s a lot more than I can say for some of the board members here.
We had a special assessment here two years ago — $2,500 per home — to repave all our streets. I was the first one to pay my share. In addition, the board then spent an additional $70,000 from our reserve account without approval from homeowners for additional improvements.
Special interests tried last legislative session to pass a bill taking homeowner rights away. Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, chairman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, held public hearings and saw the shortcomings. He made sweeping changes to the bill that had passed in the Senate. This bill then went to a joint conference committee, where it died.
Thereafter, in the middle of the night, an amendment was tacked onto an otherwise good Assembly bill.
It passed — with no one realizing what had been added and that the rights of hundreds of thousands of homeowners would be trampled on.
Fortunately, Gov. Jim Gibbons vetoed the bill.
When it comes to the Rancho Bel Air reserve account, the board here acted recklessly and with total disregard for the law and our CC&Rs. Further, Ms. Mowat is totally incorrect in stating that “Nevada law supersedes” our CC&Rs. It does not, and the arbitrator ruled on that issue.
In addition, I would like to inform Ms. Mowat that most association governing documents have a cap on how much the yearly assessment can be. Fortunately, they cannot be tripled, as she states. The reserves cannot be used to fund attorneys fees. That account is for major repairs and replacement items of the association’s infrastructure.
This fight was not over “getting out of paying” an additional $20 a month. It was to protect our rights as signatories to a contract, which is known as the CC&Rs.
Jonathan Friedrich
LAS VEGAS
