Letter: Why the fuss about reviving downtown LV?

I don't know which aggravates me more: Their massacre of the King's English or their attempts to convince us that resuscitation of downtown Las Vegas is an action that will benefit all of the citizens.

Las Vegas City Councilman Arnie Adamsen (functioning as mayor pro tem) is quoted on the city's decision to keep City Hall where it is. He says, "We are here, we're here to stay. And we're creating our own critical mass downtown."

Hyperbole? No, a completely mangled attempt to peddle their self-importance. Besides that, they're stuck; they have already spent too much subsidizing private interest downtown and forgot to save a little for themselves.

In the same article, Deputy City Manager Steven Houchens states, "We're really building on a 20-acre campus." If I could pretend I was on campus at City Hall, I could also pretend I was having an experience on Fremont Street. Do they all wear rose-colored glasses?

I don't understand the imperative to rejuvenate downtown. If free-market capitalism can't or won't save it, why should taxpayers do it? Beyond that, downtown died a slow, unattended death when its caretakers were busy with grandiose dreams in other parts of the city. It will resurrect when ready.

Downtown is dead, dead, dead. The citizens heard the death knell and they don't care. They'd settle for conscientious politicians and efficient bureaucrats first.

Susan Huff

archive