The letter, which I have obtained [...], is to be sent to Hilary Lopez, who is in charge of federal programs with the state. McDonald and his "consultant" Frank Hawkins need the state tax credits to make the deal work that was approved by the council in April with a gift of $4 million to get them started. McDonald has failed before at a similar project and defaulted on it.
In the missive that McDonald is asking council members to sign, he is essentially asking for a personal endorsement, something I'd guess City Attorney Brad Jerbic will not be too likely to advise them to do. The letter says McDonald's company "and its development team is (sic) the correct choice to see it to completion." And this: "It would be a tragedy to the area to allow this development to fall through." A tragedy! I'd say a tragedy beyond words. And this bizarre final line that the council folks are supposed to endorse: "Finally, I fully support this project and the choice of (McDonald's company) to complete this development and ask that they (sic) be allowed to compete for the available tax credits without the incursion of politics."
I am sure Ms. Lopez will be thrilled to read that last line.
Forget the arrogance of a "developer" asking an elected official to sign a letter you have written for them — although that is hard to forget. There is simply no way all the members sign that letter as is. Just a guess.
Yep. This is not the kind of headline news that Nevada Republicans want to make.
However, they really should have known this was coming. After all, even the "tea party" cheerleaders at NPRI called out Michael McDonald for his love of corporate welfare. And really, isn't today's Nevada Republican Party supposed to embody those "tea party" principles of limited government and personal responsibility?
No wonder why the Nevada Republican Party is such a train wreck now. One leads by example. And yes, Michael McDonald is setting quite the example for his "tea party" fans to follow.
Where's the limited government? Where's the personal responsibility? And for that matter, where are the ethics? Oh, what a fool believes.