FONT SIZE | RSS FEEDS EMAIL THIS PRINT THIS POST A COMMENT EMAIL ALERTS

Steve Sebelius is editor of CityLife, and a longtime resident of Las Vegas. He’s worked as a reporter for the Las Vegas Sun, a writer for CityLife, and as a political columnist for the Las Vegas Review-Journal. He was born and raised in Southern California, and returns regularly for fun in the sun where it’s not 116 degrees and where the “water feature” is named the “Pacific Ocean.” In addition to politics, he enjoys movies, fine wine, fine cigars, fine restaurants, television and books of all kinds. He blogs most every weekday.

View all blog entries
November 2006
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Oct   Dec »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  
Monthly archives
Closing the park

Las Vegas City Manager Doug Selby’s decision to close Huntridge Circle Park on Maryland Parkway will certainly be viewed by cynics as a response not to the Friday stabbing of a homeless man by another, but to a U.S. District Court’s order that the city’s Please-Don’t-Feed-The-Homeless ordinance was struck down.

Which is to say, that’s how we view it.

But the city, in a city statement released Monday night, maintains it was Friday’s homicide — and other violent crimes that have taken place in the park — that promoted Selby to use his authority to close the park.

"It breaks my heart that we have to close the park, but I have to make sure the people in the park are safe," said Councilman Gary Reese, in the statement. "We can’t take the chance that someone else gets hurt there. We’ll look at the issues and try to find a solution that works for everyone."

First, please. If Reese wanted the park open, it would be open. Because while the city may operate under a strong city manager form of government — in which Selby runs day-to-day operations — he has pretty much proven that "strong city manager" is nothing but a political theory in Las Vegas. If Reese or Mayor Oscar Goodman told him to keep the park open, he’d do it in a second.

Second, please, again. Plenty of places in town are the scenes of violent crime, and they have not been closed to the public. This is a radical overreaction to a problem, which cast against the backdrop of the city’s antipathy toward homeless people and those who help them, looks nothing if not monumentally petty.

Third, mega-please: Finding a solution that works for everyone has never been the city’s goal. Herding the homeless to a place whey they’re comfortably out of sight and out of mind has been the city’s goal. If the city is really committing to looking at the issues and finding a solution that works for everyone, that would represent a major change of policy. A welcome one, to be sure, but undeniably a new course.

No matter how much the city protests, we simply cannot see this as anything other than a drastic action taken in response to the fact that a blatantly unconstitutional city ordinance was struck down, as it should have been. But while lawyers argue in court, and the city posts guards at our city parks, the homeless problem remains unresolved. Whether that’s because of stubbornness, ignorance or the lack of serious leadership is immaterial.

Post a comment!
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. By publishing a comment here you agree to the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the Online staff.

Comments are closed.

CityPics
Community photo sharing
View reader photos and share your own at CityPics