What We Have... & What We Will No Longer Be Denied

(So we're still waiting for the federal district court to issue an injunction barring any further enforcement of the Question 2 marriage ban. Once that happens, marriage equality will finally be a reality here in Nevada. However that day may come sooner than originally thought, as Ninth Circuit Judge Steven Reinhardt ordered a prompt issuance demanding the lower court issue that injunction ASAP. And Clark County will begin issuing marriage licenses at 2:00 PM today!

Here at Nevada Progressive, we've been waiting just over 5 years for this joyous occasion. To celebrate, we took to our archives and pulled out this gem from 2009. Oh, yes. That's right. We're going all the way back to the beginning of SB 283, and of this blog.

This not only explains what we've had for the past 5 years, but also why a few brave people decided to sue for full equality. And now, we're here. Hallelujah, the wait is finally over!)



Probably one of the biggest Nevada stories of 2009 was SB 283 becoming law. Sure, it's not marriage... But it's something so new for Nevada. For once, we've become somewhat of a leader on LGBTQ equality. On May 31, 2009, "Luv-Guv" Gibbons' veto was overrode and Nevada became the first Mountain West state to recognize LGBTQ relationships and offer "marriage-like rights".



OK, so those "marriage-like rights" still don't ensure health care benefits for everyone and they still do nothing at the federal level. That's the problem, but hopefully one day this will change and these "marriage-like rights" will actually become full civil marriage equality. But in the mean time, let's reflect on SB 283 with this piece I wrote here back in August.

.... As we've been talking about for some time, SB 283 will officially become law on October 1. This will bring about some major changes in the law, mostly helping us. However, there are some things that we need to remember. Secretary of State Ross Miller hasn't yet updated the Nevada SoS site to include a domestic partnership page (as California's SoS does).

First off, David Parks wasn't joking when he said that this is NOT marriage. While SB 283 provides for domestic partnerships (DPs) that are supposed to treat "domestic partnered" couples just like married spouses, let's remember that this theory doesn't always work out in practice. So while we celebrate the first major advance in civil rights in Nevada in decades, let's keep working toward the final goal of true civil marriage equality. Probably the most significant reminder of the challenges LGBT families face in this state is the section of SB 283 considering workplace health care benefits. Simply put, employers are NOT required under Nevada law to provide health care benefits to domestic partners of employees as they do to other employees' married spouses.

Fortunately it is at least optional, so you'll continue to receive DP benefits at work if your employer already provides them. And if your employer doesn't yet provide DP benefits, you can still try to convince them to do so. Just don't expect the State of Nevada to make them do so... At least until we can improve the DP law.

Nonetheless, SB 283 will change Nevada law for the better for our families. One major example of this will be in family law. Specifically, child custody laws will be improved to make it easier for gay & lesbian couples looking to have children to do so. And considering the current headaches LGBT families with children have, this is quite a welcome development. And in many other matters, our families will receive more legal protections. Hospital visitation (should the partner become ill) will be easier. Community property laws will apply to domestic partners. State tax benefits currently afforded to married spouses will also be extended to domestic partners.

But again, we must stress that DPs under SB 283 are not marriage and will not be treated by the federal government as such. Even if you and your partner file for a DP this fall, you will still not be able to file a joint federal tax return. You won't be able to receive any spousal benefits from the military or the VA. You won't be able to sponsor your partner for US citizenship or permanent residency if he/she is a foreign national. Unfortunately, DOMA still applies here as it does across the nation. This is why it's crucial that not only Nevada law change to give our families full equality, but that federal law change as well.


I hope this helps answer some of the questions you may have about SB 283 and its imminent implementation. I'll keep the Stonewall site updated with any new information from the Secretary of State, as well as new legal opinions on what will and will not be covered by SB 283.

Not. So. Fast.

Now, it's getting really interesting. Last night, we heard some more about the big move Switch is making in Carson City during the special session of the Nevada Legislature that Tesla initially thought it had all to itself.

Whoops. Apparently, a few legislators may actually be taking Steve Sebelius' advice to heart. Might this be music to Switch's ears?



Not so fast. SB 1 finally dropped last night, and the long awaited Senate bill requires at least $3.5 billion investment in this state before the state government starts offering tax incentives. The bill also requires at least 50% of the workers hired under this program to be Nevada residents. And the bill requires a $22 average hourly wage and health insurance benefits for factory workers.

So that leaves Switch up in the air for now. However, that also leaves the Nevada AFL-CIO as a possible "fly in the ointment". Nevada AFL-CIO Executive Director Danny Thompson has already said he also wants guarantees of fair wages for construction workers alongside guarantees that Tesla will hire local construction workers. We'll have to see how the Legislature assuages AFL's concerns.

But at least for now, it looks like a number of legislators are at least taking some time to digest this. And yes, they're looking at related issues like Switch, the best interest of Nevada workers, the film industry tax credits (that Governor Brian Sandoval [R] wants slashed by over 80%), and public education funding. Isn't this what so many of us were asking them to do? Isn't this even what a certain media pundit was asking for on the eve of #Teslamania?

So why is that media pundit now attacking certain legislators over taking their time to consider this proposal? The State of Nevada may actually end up with a $120 million deficit by the end of the year... And that doesn't even count the overcrowding and under-staffing issues plaguing Clark County School District (CCSD). Can we now afford to hurry up and pass something that pokes yet another hole into the budget while making a big bet on a company that demanded all these tax breaks to build a factory in Northern Nevada?



Not. So. Fast. Those are the three words Nevada legislators need to keep in mind today. While we understand the urge to hurry up, resume fundraising, and bask in the glow of #Teslamania, there are too many important questions that shouldn't be ignored just because one company wants an enormous sweetheart deal. Is this truly a fair deal? Is this a good deal for Nevada workers? Is this a good deal for Nevada schools? And will this deal break Nevada's budget?

Not. So. Fast. As we've said before, there are plenty of merits to Tesla's big move to Nevada. But must we break our bank in order to subsidize their business expenditures?

Maybe It Truly Does Get Better?

Long Beach is the seventh most populous city in California. It's a city that's near & dear to us because it's adjacent to our original homeland "Behind the Orange Curtain". And pretty soon, Long Beach will have a new Mayor.

His name is Robert Garcia. He came to America with his parents from Peru when he was five. He's an adjunct professor at USC, and he's already been serving as Vice Mayor on the Long Beach City Council.

Robert Garcia will be Long Beach's youngest Mayor. He will be Long Beach's first Latin@ Mayor. Oh, and he will also be Long Beach's first openly gay Mayor.



Once upon a time, prominent and proud LGBTQ elected leaders were unimaginable. Now, they're all across the nation. And yes, that even includes Nevada. Assembly Member Andrew Martin (D-Enterprise) is running for Nevada State Controller. Assembly Member James Healey (D-Enterprise) is running for reelection. And State Senators David Parks (D-Paradise), Pat Spearman (D-North Las Vegas), and Kelvin Atkinson (D-North Las Vegas) will be returning to the Nevada Legislature (as they were all elected in 2012).

Once upon a time, the closet was the only acceptable place for LGBTQ Americans. Marriage equality was "radical". "The Gay Plague" was "just punishment". And pride parades were revolutionary acts.



Oh, how times have changed. Now, high school principals come out to their students. Out soccer, football, and basketball players are welcomed into the league. And Time Magazine is beginning to show our entire community the respect we deserve.

And of course, Long Beach will soon have an out Mayor. And Nevada will likely have several out legislators in Carson City next year. Maybe we'll even soon have our first out statewide elected official?

As we documented earlier this week, there are still more challenges ahead of us. We don't yet have full equality. We still have further to go.

But at least now, we're on our way. At least now, we know that it truly does get better. And that's something we can all celebrate with pride this month.

The Journey Continues.

Yesterday, we saw history made. Even though the US Supreme Court did not "go full throttle" to endorse nationwide LGBTQ equality, civil rights did advance in a big way with the scrapping of DOMA Section 3 and invalidation of California's Prop 8 marriage ban. And even though the rulings don't directly (legally) affect most Nevada families, Southern Nevada's LGBTQ community nonetheless found reason to celebrate the historic occasion at The Center.





And there were a number of special guests stopping by to celebrate with the community. Several Nevada legislators spoke, including State Senator Justin Jones (D-Enterprise). He came with his brother-in-law, and reminded the audience of the many reasons why today's rulings and the ongoing effort for SJR 13 matter.



And that wasn't all. Several other legislators spoke, including the sole Assembly Republican to cross the aisle to support SJR 13. And not only that, but Assembly Member Michele Fiore (R-Las Vegas) took to the stage with her mother! Now that's what I call real family values.



We saw many poignant moments at The Center yesterday. It was particularly moving to see longtime community advocates take the stage to take in what had just occurred. After all, they remember the (not so) long ago days when queer folk had to fight like hell just for the right to exist.





Long before Assembly Member James Healey (D-Enterprise) and State Senator David Parks (D-Paradise) were elected to serve in Carson City, they were fighting for equality. Obviously, they've never stopped doing so. And they certainly had something to say about it yesterday.





And so did Senator Pat Spearman (D-North Las Vegas), as she's also been working on this for some time.



As we discussed yesterday, this was a long time coming. Yet with that being said, we still have a long way to go to reach full equality in Nevada and nationwide.

There were many reasons to celebrate yesterday. Overall, the nation inched ever so closer in the direction of full equality. And for LGBTQ families in California, the long and harrowing nightmare of Prop 8 finally began coming to a close.

I should know. After Prop 8 first passed, I fell into incredibly deep depression. It took days for me to leave the house again. But ultimately, I had to pick myself up and realize what needed to be done next.

In many ways, what happened yesterday felt like closure to me. Finally, that horrifying nightmare was over. Finally, I felt more human again. Finally, I felt more equal again.

However, this journey is still far from over. There's still more to be done here in Nevada, and all the speakers at The Center yesterday reinforced that message. Relief and jubilation were quite palpable in that very hot parking lot, but so was the drive to continue the journey to full equality.

Some on that stage yesterday had to fight a number of political obstacles to advance LGBTQ civil rights in Carson City. Many in the crowd have had to overcome intense bigotry and discrimination to reach The Center and its very hot parking lot. There's been plenty of progress over the years, and yesterday marked another promising milestone of progress. Yet today, the journey continues. This story isn't finished just yet for us.

SJR 13 Introduced to Repeal Question 2 Marriage Ban

As of late, we've mainly been discussing how marriage equality may come to Nevada soon via a favorable result in the Sevcik v. Sandoval law suit now pending in the Ninth Circuit (Federal) Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Perhaps we won't even have to wait that long. Depending on how the US Supreme Court resolves Perry v. Hollingsworth (the California Prop 8 law suit), marriage equality may come to Nevada as soon as this summer.

Yet even as we await final verdicts on the Perry and Sevcik cases, some in Carson City are not. Rather, they're bringing forward SJR 13, a constitutional amendment to repeal the Question 2 marriage ban. This process will take a while, but it's another possible route to equality that's ready just in case "The Supremes" issue a Perry ruling that doesn't knock out the Question 2 marriage ban this year.

SJR13 was introduced Monday by Democratic Sen. Tick Segerblom of Las Vegas.

In 2000 and 2002. Nevada voters approved the “Protection of Marriage Act” defining marriage as between a man and woman. But some recent polls show sentiment in Nevada for same sex marriage has changed, with many voters supporting it.

The resolution introduced Monday would have to be approved by lawmakers this year and again in 2015 before going to voters in 2016 for ratification.

If the provision is repealed, lawmakers could then legalize same sex marriage through statute in 2017.

So SJR 13 must be passed by the Nevada Legislature this session, then again during the 78th session in 2015. Then if passed both times, voters will weigh in 2016. Then if voters pass it, #NVLeg can then pass marriage equality by simple statute in the 79th session in 2017. So this is a multi-step process that spans 3 #NVLeg session and 2 elections, 1 of which may very well have this on the ballot, but ultimately it leads to popular approval of marriage equality.

Tick Segerblom has been hinting at this since last May, and it's now finally here. Out LGBTQ Senators David Parks (D-Paradise) and Pat Spearman (D-North Las Vegas) are co-sponsoring SJR 13, along with allies (Senate Majority Leader) Mo Denis (D-North Las Vegas), Ruben Kihuen (D-Las Vegas), Joyce Woodhouse (D-Henderson), and Mark Manendo (D-Paradise). Meanwhile, Eliot Anderson (D-Paradise) is leading the charge for SJR 13 in the Assembly along with out LGBTQ Assembly Members James Healey (D-Enterprise) & Andrew Martin (D-Enterprise), as well as allies James Ohrenschall (D-Sunrise Manor), Paul Aizley (D-Paradise), Joe Hogan (D-Las Vegas), and Heidi Swank (D-Paradise).

Wait, do you notice something above? Interesting. All the SJR 13 sponsors have (D) next to their names. Where are the Republicans? They must be "coming out" soon... But I guess it will take some effort to make this bill bipartisan. After all, this is the perfect opportunity for #NVLeg Republicans to highlight their "moderation".

And SJR 13 provides a new opportunity for Nevada to undo the damage of Question 2. We know our economy stands to benefit from full civil marriage equality. And the LGBTQ families of Nevada have certainly been waiting some time for full legal equality. The time has come. It's now just a matter of how and when it arrives.

My SB 139 Testimony

Shortly after my earlier report on SB 139, I testified here at Grant Sawyer. My full prepared remarks are below.

---

Hate crimes are on the rise again nationally. In 2011, we saw the highest level of hate crimes against LGBTQ Americans in 14 years. This was confirmed in last December's FBI report.

And that doesn't tell the whole story. In fact, the FBI will only begin collecting data on hate crimes against transgender Americans this year.

From what we have seen in recent years, transgender people are especially vulnerable. At least 15 transgender people are killed every day in America. And these are not just statistics. These are real people. And for many of us, these people are our loved ones.

We can not let this continue. This is why Nevada needs SB 139. We can't afford any more of this senseless violence. And we certainly should not overlook this violence just because of who these victims are.

SB 139 doesn't grant any "special privileges" to any one. Rather, this bill levels the playing field so transgender Nevadans can finally access the justice they deserve. Law enforcement agencies have had problems handling crimes against transgender victims. And perpetrators of these violent crimes have often sought leniency from the courts by using excuses like "gay panic defense". This must end.

I'm heartened to see such strong support for SB 139 now, and I hope this means you will finally pass it this year. Thank you.

Behind the Scenes (& Behind the Curtain) in Carson City

It's one thing to read Jon Ralston's musings on what's happening behind the scenes in Carson City, and it's something else to read Anjeanette Damon's reports on what may actually be on the legislative agenda. However, there's really no substitute for actually being there in person and seeing first-hand the negotiations and political games being played behind the scenes.

I was actually on The Senate floor right after they had "committee of the whole" to discuss the budget. I could sense the relief of Sandoval's new plan to restore a bit of the funding he wanted cut, but there seems to be broad agreement that it's still not enough, and that the only real solution is to ditch Sandoval's gimmicks and look at actual revenue solutions.

I actually talked with a Republican legislator who admitted all this (and more!) to me. This legislator said that Sandoval's proposal is a non-starter, that the 2009 tax deal will likely have to be extended, and that there's a possibility of further taxes being agreed upon... If they are satisfied with union concessions.

There really is an intriguing game of political chess happening in Carson City right now. Democratic leadership is figuring out where to find the votes to pass an actual balanced budget, and Republican leadership is trying to find "cover" so they can provide enough votes for a budget that won't anger "we the people" too much.

I had a chance to talk with three of my favorite legislators this week on what's happening up north. My Senator, Shirley Breeden (D-Henderson) (the first photo on top is of me with her and Parks), is busy doing her "homework", studying the numbers, and pressing for a final budget that keeps kids in school and keeps our hope for a better economy alive. David Parks (D-Paradise) is working hard on a number of LGBTQ equality bills (that you will be hearing more from me on soon!) and hopes for agreement on these as well as the budget. And as part of the new wave of Latin@ legislators providing some much needed representation in Carson, Ruben Kihuen is already off to an amazing start in The Senate... He even expressed some hope that his fellow legislators, especially on The Senate side, can work together this session.

Interestingly enough, there may actually be some opportunities for just that. That Republican legislator I spoke with was willing to keep an open mind on AB 211, the transgender inclusive workplace non-discrimination bill. Another Republican legislator apparently expressed concern over Sandoval's proposed budget cuts this week, and signaled support for the LGBTQ equality bills. And even though GOP leadership are playing "hard to get" right now in demanding some of the same union busting run amok in Wisconsin and Michigan, they may also be realizing that they can only ask for so much, and that it may not be too smart to antagonize working Nevadans when they've already sacrificed plenty and are ready to share in even more sacrifice this year.

Hopefully, what I saw behind the scenes in Carson City this week are real signs of hope that our Legislature will be working on actual solutions that will make Nevada an even better state. The "sausage making process" may be messy, but let's keep pushing them to ensure the final product is safe for human consumption.

(By the way, I just want to thank Senators Breeden, Kihuen, and Parks for the warm welcome, as well as those GOP legislators who are willing to do their "homework" and put the people of Nevada first. Oh, and PLAN lobbyist and legislative whiz Jan Gilbert is awesome... Go follow her on Twitter @jangilbert1. NOW!) ;-)

The Henderson Democratic Club Clark County Commission District G Debate: Part 2

(Continued from Part 1, also at Stonewall)

So where was I? Oh yes, we were talking about the SNWA Water Grab when we had to leave yesterday. Let's pick it up from there.

The final question was for each candidate to describe how he or she is different from the others and what his or her priorities will be when on the Commission. David Parks got to answer first, and he went into detail on his past local and state government experience, experience that ranges from handling the Las Vegas city budget to working on RTC transportation plans to serving in the Nevada Legislature. He then said his priority will be to make Clark County a model (in a good way!) government for America and improve the overall Southern Nevada quality of life.

Greg Esposito was next, and he described how he has a different set of skills. He came here in 1991 on a Greyhound bus, then went from kitchen handyamn to plumber and pipefitter to Clark County Commission candidate. He said his priorities will be economic recovery, doing what he can on the local level to address the foreclosure crisis, bringing new industries to Southern Nevada, address crime, and take on the UMC challenge.

Ron Newell then answered, admitting that he's a novice to politics and that he was inspired to run by a Shermie column in The R-J. (Huh?) He also said he has common sense that he'll be using when on the board.

He was followed by Mary Beth Scow, who said that she's the only candidate who has already served on a large government board. She talked about her six years of service on the Clark County School District Board of Trustees (and chairing it for three of those years). Scow then said she's already "dealth with thorny issues", "been getting her fingernails dirty", and has a "heart to help the community". Scow then said he priorities are creating new jobs, fixing Southern Nevada's economy, improving education, preventing blight, and keeping more families in their homes.

And then, what we were all waiting for... We were finally at closing statements! Greg Esposito started and kept it concise. Ron Newell, however, did not... Let's just say he went on for a little over the 30 second time limit. (The moderator had to stop him at about a minute.) Mary Beth Scow then delivered a bit of a surprise with her closing statement, using it to declare false the rumors that have been spreading about her being anti-union and "not a real Democrat". She declared she's been a life-long Democrat, has never had a problematic relationship with the unions, and is a proven "consensus builder". David Parks was last, and he again stressed his experience and that he's ready to do the job.

And after some club business and a few intros to some other local candidates, the meeting was adjourned.

So what do I think? To be fair, I personally won't endorse any candidate at this time (and Stonewall as a club will not make a primary endorsement) and I'll check my biases at the door to deliver as honest an assessment as possible.

To a certain extent, Jon Ralston is right that we didn't hear enough specifics on enough issues. There was plenty of talk of "studies" (especially on UMC and the home rule issue) and plenty of generalities thrown around. However, the debate was still far from the throwaway that Ralston seemed to marginalize it as. We were still treated to some interesting policy revelations.

David Parks and Mary Beth Scow did have their shining moments when they brought forward their past experience and demonstrated some real know-how on how county government works. And for the "newcomer", Greg Esposito was able to go toe-to-toe with Parks and Scow on offering up some innovative ideas (especially on sustainable development!) that may just work. And while Ron Newell did have some odd moments at times, he also added something worthwhile to the conversation.

So who won last Wednesday? Well, I'll let you read my notes and decide for yourself. :-)

The Long Awaited Henderson Democratic Club Clark County Commission District G Debate!

(Also at Stonewall)

OK, I know I've been keeping you waiting for almost a week now. Sorry about that. As you can tell, I've been super busy! Yes, yes, and I took Thursday off.

Again, sorry about that. But hey, now we get to talk about the Clark County Commission! Many thanks to the Henderson Democratic Club for hosting this event last week and giving us a chance to get to know David Parks, Greg Esposito, Mary Beth Scow, and Ron Newell.

So what happened? If you follow Stonewall's Twitter page, you know. And if you couldn't, then let me recap it for you right here, without that pesky 140 character limit. ;-)

So let's start with who showed up. We had all four above mentioned Democratic candidates, plus the Chair of the local branch of the League of Women Voters to moderate. Oh yes, and a certain Las Vegas Sun columnist also dropped by to take it all in.

And while I can understand Mr. Ralston's frustration over the lack of specifics on some issues, I also have to give the candidates some credit for offering some ideas on some of the issues we really care about. So where did the drama begin?

Let's start with the first question on how Clark County government will survive with less revenue. County Planning Commission member Ron Newell answered by expressing his view that the county should "be run like a business" and that more county worker layoffs are absolutely necessary. Clark County School Board Trustee Mary Beth Scow, on the other hand, focused more on bringing in new revenue. While she did suggest streamlining county government, she also talked about raising more money for the county by bringing in new jobs in fashion, furniture, senior care, and putting in more and better requests for more federal stimulus dollars. State Senator David Parks also beat the drums for more economic diversification and local government consolidation. And finally, former Plumbers & Pipefitters (Union) Local 525 chief Greg Esposito also mentioned finding new ways to bring in new revenue as well as focusing more on community empowerment and letting neighborhoods take on their own problems (like graffiti).

The next question was about future population growth in Southern Nevada and how to handle it better (than these last 20 years of epic growth followed by epic meltdown). Mary Beth Scow reiterated the importance of enticing more senior citizens to move to Clark County to provide new opportunities for economic diversification. (I guess this means we'll soon need more doctors, nurses, and home health care workers.) She stated that just gaming & mining can't take care of us any more, so diversification is necessary. Now David Parks, on the other hand, addressed the continuing need for us to update our infrastructure, as well as completing infill development to fix "leap frog development" (aka places like Rhodes Ranch). Parks specifically addressed the need for better roads, more mass transit, more high-tech jobs, and more businessed relocating from the "poor business climate" of California (sorry, Cali). Now Greg Esposito expressed a little relief that growth is no longer too rapid and "now we have a chance to breathe". He stressed the importance of improving neighborhood parks, curbing excessive water usage, and encouraging more green building and overall more sustainable development including smarter transit options & closer employment centers. Ron Newell, meanwhile, showed support for slower growth, better planning, better infill plans, and getting long-planned public works projects up and running ASAP.

After that, the sparks really began to fly! Why, you ask? Oh, we got the question that's always on our minds: HOME RULE. David Parks was first to answer, and he expressed full support for Clark County home rule. He explained the precedent set by NV governed by Missouri's "Dillon's Rule", explaining that Clark County can do whatever state of Nevada says we can do... So if the state lets the county take more control of our tax dollars and chart our own course, it's completely legal and totally doable. Parks stated that home rule would be good for us because "government which is closest to the people is best for the people".

But interestingly, Parks turned out to be the only candidate to fully endorse home rule. Greg Esposito countered that we need to be careful what we wish for, as this needs to be studied first so the county can be aware of possible negative "unintended consequences". He even said that if done wrong, home rule can become our "Prop 13". (California's now infamous property tax initiative that has all but crippled the state.) Ron Newell and Mary Beth Scow both echoed Esposito's concern, but then veered in different directions. Newell focused on Clark County and again stressed consolidating local government, while Scow was a little more open to home rule (even if not endorsing it just yet) citing her experience with CCSD enduring many state "unfunded mandates", constant micromanaging, and state raids of CCSD funds (like this year's budget fiasco).

The next question moved onto the perpetually troubled UMC hospital and what the county should do about it. All candidates expressed praise for Rory Reid, former University of Nevada chief (and current KVBC-3 TV station owner) Jim Rogers, and Rogers' plan to make UMC a teaching hospital. And since all four essentially said the same thing, I'll leave it there. (On this issue, sadly, Jon Ralston was right that no one really had anything new to offer.)

After that, the following question was on transportation on what the county should do on road improvement and RTC transit expansion. Greg Newell started the response train by showing support for a possible ACE ("light rail like" rapid bus) line connecting Downtown and The Strip to Henderson. (Henderson still has no rapid transit yet, but RTC has talked recently about possibly bringing an ACE Line here like the new Downtown/Strip ACE Line and North Las Vegas' MAX Line.) Scow echoed his support, but also stated she'd like an actual light rail line running on the existing Union Pacific railway (something Newell said he opposes) and said this would be a smart way to snatch more federal stimulus funds for mass transit, along with developing a plan for improving the (long neglected) 95 Freeway on the East Side from Downtown to Henderson. Parks then explained how his past experience dealing with local transit issues with Clark County (like his work on developing the original CAT system in 1992!) shows he's ready for today's transit problems. He also showed support for a possible light rail line to Henderson, as well as a high-speed rail line to California (he hinted he leans more toward Maglev over DesertXpress, but overall contrasted with Newell expressing doubt that we'd ever get any new train to Cali). Greg Esposito then countered with his own experience growing up in New York City (where they have real mass transit!), then coming here in the early '90s and discovering just how much Las Vegans love their cars. He then said that if RTC can succeed in finally building the 215 Beltway around the valley, that they can be more creative in following through on their transit plans and giving more workers more viable alternatives to their long car commutes.

Now once this was done, the sparks started flying again! This time, the other big question on SNWA's long planned "Water Grab" to build a pipeline from Northern Nevada's (and Utah's!) Snake Valley to pump their water down south for our use. Now all four candidates (likely much to the chagrin of PLAN and most Northerners) endorsed the Water Grab, but to various degrees. Scow was first and most supportive of this, as she flat out stated that "Clark County carries the state, so the rurals can't cut us off at knees!" However, she did also say that SNWA needs to be more sensitive to rural needs and move forward in the most environmentally sensitive way possible. Parks echoed this, but also said that the county should consider other possible plans since "Lake Mead's third straw" won't be enough and the state Supreme Court ruled against SNWA. Newell said that water conservation will be key to our survival, but that all new water options must be on the table, including getting California to build more desalinization plants along its coast to free up more Colorado River water for Nevada (again, sorry Cali!). Esposito agreed with Newell on conservation, while also agreeing with Scow that we need to tread carefully in pursuing SNWA's Snake Valley plan.

Now there was a little more in the debate that I'll get to later today, along with more of my honest assessments of the candidates and the District G race. But without a doubt, last Wednesday wasn't really a snoozefest to those of us crazed policy wonks. (Sorry, Mr. Ralston.) ;-)

David Parks for County Commission? The R-J Says It's Happening.

Well, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.

State Sen. David Parks, D-Las Vegas, said today he is taking a run at the Clark County Commission seat that Rory Reid is vacating.

Parks, 65, said he hopes to use his four decades of government experience to tackle the county’s pressing budget problems.


Parks is the third to declare candidacy for the District G seat. Former Clark County School Board member Mary Beth Scow and Greg Esposito, a planning commissioner, entered the race last month.

Reid is running for governor.

This has been the rumor going around town for some time, so it isn't really shocking. I just wonder why he'd give up his gig in Carson City just when he was getting started. After all, doesn't it still feel like SB 283 happened just yesterday?

Still, I'm sure he knows how to get Clark County moving again... So maybe we need someone as effective as he on the Commission? I guess we'll see.