A shattered window on the 32nd floor at the Mandalay Bay is seen Monday, Oct. 2, 2017 were the shooter rain bullets on the Highway 91 concert . (Jeff Scheid/The Nevada Independent)
The pro/con format lives at NVIndy.
The online donation-funded news site today features columns by John L. Smith and Elizabeth Thompson taking differing stances on MGM’s decision to try to legally limit its liability for the Oct. 1 shooting that left 58 concert goers dead and hundreds more injured.
Smith makes a cogent argument that the legal maneuver — technically a suit against the victims — is tone deaf and damaging to the brand.
“The legal questions will be determined, but the fallout from the filing of the litigation against shooting victims still in various stages of physical and emotional recovery seems downright cruel,” Smith states. “It’s also terribly risky, and something more than money is at stake.”
Thompson argues that MGM should not be financially liable for the acts of a madman firing from the windows of his 32nd floor room in Mandalay Bay, any more than a convenience store should be liable if someone is shot on its property.
“It is easy to say MGM ‘should have’ noticed (Stephen) Paddock’s activities and prevented his crime,” she writes. “But it is not fair. An unfathomable act was perpetrated. None of us could initially believe it, even as it was happening. One cannot anticipate the unthinkable.”
Frankly, I think she missed a salient argument that MGM bears a fiduciary responsibility to its stockholders and employees to protect the bottom line from financial hemorrhaging.
Money is fungible. What goes to cover legal liabilities is not available to pay dividends or wage hikes.
But Smith is right. The damage to the brand can also be costly. Though MGM clearly bore far greater liability as a result of the 1980 fire that killed 85, Kirk Kerkorian’s rush to settlement may have been both good optics and sound fiduciary responsibility.
By the bye, both columns contained the obligatory disclaimers about MGM being a donor to the website.
City Council votes an abeyance of ordinance to jail developers
By Alexandra Cohen
De Oro Media Group
Las Vegas Tribune Exclusive
Tuesday the Las Vegas City Council Recommending Committee voted for an
abeyance on the controversial ordinance — Bill No. 2018-24 — sponsored
by City Councilman Steve Seroka, a councilman who is being sued in
Federal Court by developer Yohan Lowie for bias. This abeyance now
moves the bill to the September 4, 2018 Recommending Committee, then
to be heard by the full City Council on September 6.
The proposed bill will severally penalize developers with excessive
fines and jail time for not abiding by new standards. The bill is
opposed by the Commercial Real Estate Development Association (NAIOP),
The Latin Chamber of Commerce and Laborers Local 872, along with
others in the building and trades community. The bill NO.2018-24, also
known as the «Yohan Lowie bill,” is an ordinance to amend LVMC Title
19 (The Unified Development Code) to adopt additional standards and
requirements regarding the repurposing of certain golf courses and
The ordinance was met with strong position from those speaking at
today’s meeting. Tommy White, Secretary Treasurer of the Laborers
Local 872 said “this City Council is sending the wrong message to not
only the local building community, but to the entire nation. This is
simply government overreach.” Mr. White vowed to bring 600 of his
union members to the next meeting to protest the flawed ordinance.
Peter Guzman, President of the Latin Chamber of Commerce, stated, “I
have received numerous calls from my members opposed to this
ordinance. This ordinance is contrary to our group’s philology and
focus of promoting commerce and growth in our community.” Todd Davis,
General Council, EHB Companies pointed out to the Recommending
Committee that “the Agenda states ‘NO FISCAL IMPACT,’ when clearly
there is a fiscal impact to taxpayers ranging from substantial legal
fees to defend the ordinance, to hundreds of millions of dollars if
the ordinance is found to be a taking.”
Councilwoman Michele Fiore publically and vehemently objected to the
ordinance in the July 18 council meeting and at times verbally sparred
with the bill sponsor, Councilman Seroka, citing that the ordinance
started as a 5-page ordinance and FAILED in the Las Vegas Planning
Commission by a 5 to 1 vote. Now, behind the scenes, it has been
expanded to a 13-page document and is being considered for approval.
Developer Yohan Lowie, stated, “this is typical of the corruption and
disingenuous acts of certain members of the city of Las Vegas who have
demonstrated for the past three years, and one of the reasons why I am
in litigation with Councilman Seroka and Bob Coffin for the animus
they continue to display. They are enacting a law to create criminal
penalties for the property no longer being a golf course and no longer
being green. All property owners should be concerned.” This bill may
be as far-reaching as to affect individual homeowners living in a golf
SECTION 7 in the bill states: Whenever in this ordinance any act is
prohibited or is made or declared to be unlawful... the doing of such
prohibited act or the failure to do any such required act shall
constitute a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be
punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for a
term of not more than six months.
Mr. Lowie has hired famed criminal defense lawyer David Chesnoff to
represent his interests in possible forthcoming criminal offenses that
may arise from this bill. Additionally, along with attorney and Lt.
Governor Mark Hutchison the City has been put on notice through a
letter, which states the City will be in violation of the EX Post
Facto Clause and Equal Protection Clause and a Taking by Eminent
After the July 18 city council meeting, developer Yohan Lowie stated,
“If they want to put me in jail, they can. I will fight to my last
breath to prevent the City from EVER taking my property away. I will
continue to fight this matter all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to