Tuesday, Sept. 14, 2004 | 11:14 a.m.
Some prominent Las Vegans who have been considered potential rivals to Las Vegas City Councilwoman Janet Moncrief have been drawn out of her ward in the current redistricting proposal that the council will consider for the first time Wednesday.
"Many suggested that this proposed realignment ... has 'political overtones,' " wrote lawyer John Moran Jr. in a letter to Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman and members of the council.
John Moran's wife, Marilyn Moran, has been considered a potential candidate for the Ward 1 council seat.
Marilyn Moran, a former planning commissioner, said this morning that "I'm not (a candidate). What I want to do is work for my ward. I've been in this ward 50 years and I don't want this ward sectioned out."
The neighborhoods to be shifted from Ward 1 are just below U.S. 95, which is the current boundary between Wards 1 and 5, from about Rancho Drive to about Rainbow Boulevard.
Some residents in those neighborhoods have been seen as critics and potential political opponents.
Former Clark County School Board member Lois Tarkanian, another resident who has been mentioned as a potential candidate for the seat, said that the proposed boundary didn't make sense to her.
"It is really strange that every person whose name has come up (has been redistricted)," Tarkanian said. She mentioned herself, Steve Quinn and Moran, "and then there's some talk of (former Councilman Michael) McDonald coming back."
It was unclear this morning whether the proposed redistricting would put McDonald's residence outside Ward 1.
The city is considering redistricting after Councilman Michael Mack pointed out that his fast-growing Ward 6 had tens of thousands more residents than the mature, Wards 1, 3 and 5.
A map proposal is to be introduced at Wednesday's council meeting and likely is to be voted upon two weeks following.
Moncrief, who is facing a recall effort launched partly because residents along Buffalo Drive were angry at her failure to stop a commercial rezoning, said that she did not purposely draw anyone out of the district.
"(They say) I wasn't powerful enough to stop the Social Security building, but they think me alone was strong enough to draw (specific people) out of my ward?" she said. "That doesn't make sense."
She said that other residents are bound to be unhappy, and it wouldn't be fair if the council bent to the will of a few vocal redistricting opponents.
"I hope that if any constituents don't want to leave their ward, they (council members) listen to those constituents as much as they do to Mr. Moran," Moncrief said. "People don't want to leave the ward they're in. But it has to be that way when you're trying to make them equal (in population)."
The wards were redrawn so they all will contain about 93,000 people. They now have between 80,000 and 116,000. City rules mandate redistricting following the census if the wards are more than 5 percent apart in population; redistricting is allowed, but not required, when the populations vary more than 5 percent.
Moran, who clashed with Moncrief last summer when she opposed deeding to him a strip of alley owned by the city, wrote in his letter that the neighborhoods that are to be shifted to Ward 5 are close-knit and longstanding, "many for in excess of 50 years per family."
"They have worked together on various city projects and do not wish to be relocated into wards that they are unfamiliar with and do not have a prior historical interaction," he wrote. He was not available for comment this morning.
In his letter, Moran said the redistricting looked particularly politically motived in Rancho Bel Air Estates, Rancho Circle, and the Historic District established in Ward 1 in the Alta/Rancho Estates area.
Tarkanian also noted the history in the area.
"It's cutting up a neighborhood that's been together four decades," she said.
She also questioned the politics of the matter.
Tarkanian said that neighborhoods have specific needs, and splitting what has been one unit for 50 years is a bad civic idea.
"You shouldn't arbitrarily put lines (to achieve population balance)," she said. "You should consider the needs of neighborhoods. In some neighborhoods it's maintaining what we have now, and in some it's developing a bigger urban presence. So the needs of neighborhoods vary and I think doing this dilutes our strength as constituents."
archive
