Letters We Get

Highballing Through The Train Trench

Editor, The Observer,

Nice Headline! I wish to give a big thanks for the coverage to the suit and the posting of the Complaint. The Nevada Observer is by far the most informative source for political issues in Nevada, and for those who care about such things, an incredible resource. I've been a fan from the very beginning and I know what a labor of love it is for those who have put it into the world. I particularly like the posting of documents.

The Headline at first alarmed me, because it doesn't reflect my intent perfectly clearly, but I like it because it is a definite attention grabber. People should become aware of Special Assessments because there is a very definite trend that will be visiting every property owner soon. Forewarned is forearmed. Surprisingly few people understand the difference between special assessments and taxes, and if you don't own property it isn't probably of much interest. When you get one levied on your property it gets your attention. Unfortunately, the statutes provide ways to avoid the vote of the affected property owners entirely, and that is the concern folks should have. There is also, apparently, plenty of room for abuse by the taxing authority, which should concern everybody.

Now, to correct two things in Johnny Gunn's article, (1) I'm not against the train trench, never have been, and (2) it was city council candidate, not mayoral. I ran for the seat Tony Harsh won, against Tom Herndon, and I was pleased she won. We met at the City Clerk's counter when we were registering. If I had known Tony beforehand, I'd have saved my registration fee and helped her, thank you anyway.

I've worked over 30 years in the rail industry, most of the time as an engineer, and anything that avoids accidents is good, very good, in my view. I've helped in various rail safety legislation, wrote a drivers education bill in Utah for grade crossing safety, and been before the Nevada PUC promoting rail safety, on several occasions. I don't think safety was the City's prime motivation with the trench. Redevelopment and air-rights were, but that's a whole other story. There is a very unsafe thing about the trench that I brought up at the PUC and with the City that‚s ignored. A derailment at 60 mph is usually pretty dramatic, cars flying through the air. The trench, at 54 feet wide, promises to jam up with derailed cars that average 74 feet long. If you've seen photos of high speed wrecks you don‚t need much imagination to see cars flying out the top of the trench. 30 mph would make a difference.

My suit is about the special assessment on my property, for $814.00. It is, in other words, about principal and honest government, and in outrage of the City's disenfranchisement of the citizens.

The suit speaks for itself, and, if won, won't stop the trench. The UPRR still owns the property (until completion), and will finish it, as their agreement provides. Who pays $15,000,000 is what my suit is about, and all the annual maintenance costs. It was an ill-conceived plan to put these costs on 596 parcels of land and not the real beneficiaries. I think it was unconstitutional, and some laws were broken. I've been saying that since 1998 with little public interest. March 2005, when the assessment roll was finalized, was when I became damaged, to bring a suit, and there we are. I have, since 1998, at every opportunity, tried to educate the City that their ordinance was void, to the extent I realized I was wasting my time.

There are interesting differences in legal rights regarding special assessments, as compared to taxes. May you be lucky and never need to understand it very much, but there are basic constitutional issues, and over the years that is how much of the abuse is successfully addressed in the courts. The Federal Courts have original jurisdiction in civil rights cases, which fairly removes the abuse into another forum. If there are real abuses by the City, of the special assessment laws, it will probably get straightened out.

Johnny Gunn, great article on Special Assessments, same edition. The list of small SADs popping up for streets must be harder to come by, but there are lots of them.

Guy Zewadski

____________________

(Ed. Note) --- Thank you for the update, Guy. In addition to the letter Zewadski sent The Nevada Observer, he also sent a letter to the members of the Assembly Government Affairs Committee meeting in Carson City. For more on Zewadski's federal civil suit, Click Here for Top Story.

Here is Mr. Zewadski's letter to the members of the Assembly Government Affairs Committee:

____________________ 

AB 74 Unconstitutional?

Dear Assemblymen and Senators

I live within the borders of a Special Assessment District in Reno, NV, which includes a "Transportation project" (ReTRAC) and have been finally assessed, secured by a lien. There is a pending Federal District Court case (Case No. CV-N-05-173) challenging the constitutionality of the SAD, including whether income of about $1,000,000.00 annually, from the lease of railroad property, should be reserved to "maintain, operate, improve, and repair" the project, under NRS 271.369.

AB 74 deletes NRS 271.369, eliminating the statutory source of funding to maintain "Transportation projects" and permits a new assessment district to be created for that purpose, which, not just takes funding away that NRS 271.369 provided, but guarantees another SAD to fill a need that was filled before.

I recommend you amend the Bill to either exclude residential properties, or treat all properties that are primarily residual use as "Commercial Revitalization projects" are treated, with an "opt out" option, for the new projects proposed, and the Maintenance districts.

In the case of ReTRAC, about half the overpasses are supposed to be RTC maintained, by a gas tax, which ReTRAC has shifted to a SAD.

The "Pedestrian overpass" will surely be used for a cover over the Train Trench 3 or 4 blocks long, probably very elaborate, and AB 74 would then mean residential condominiums like mine (high-rise, 194 units), two blocks away, will end up with 4 distinct assessment districts for the ReTRAC project, a "Transportation project" a "Pedestrian overpass" and 2 "Maintenance districts, one for each. Each assessment district can assess up to the value of the tract assessed, meaning a total of four times the value of the tract, in this situation.

If this is the intent of the Legislature, Nevada is doomed from over taxation. Wherever the future of Reno lies, to create debt like this in a process whereby voters have no say, bodes ill, and as I understand special assessments in the constitutional sense, guarantees a quagmire of lawsuits.

Thank you, Guy Zewadski

* * *