Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000267 223

Image

File
Download upr000267-223.tif (image/tiff; 26.72 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000267-223
Details

Rights

This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

Digital Provenance

Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

Publisher

University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL PUBL l SHE D 9-^ 15—49 McNamee Tells \ Of Errors lii Water Parley Leo A. McNamee today denied be had any authority to speak for the Las Vegas Land & Water company on the subject of sale of their distribution facility here to the city of Las Vegas when the matter was discussed at a jueeting with the city commis­sion. last week. c ' “ At the conference in qraes - tion,” McNamee states, “ some­one asked the question: Why doesn’t the city buy the Land; and Water company?’ ” "I, as an individual, asked the general question as to whether or not the city was interested to (discussing the matter, and ex­pressly stated that I had no au-1 ihortty to speak for the water! company. “ One of the commissioners present stated'that the city would pe interested if the price was right. I remarked that I had read in a paper some months ago that one of the' Land and Water company officials had made some kind of a statement •relative to selling the waleT com-! patsy, and one of the commis­sioners remarked that the offi-i cial’s statement was only a gen­eral one and that no details^ had ever beien expressed, submitted or discussd. “ Someone then questioned as to the valuation of the Las Vegas Land & Water company, and someone else present, not I; stated that he had seen to a book­let where the Land and Water company was assessed at around $1,200,000. The book value of the company was not mentioned by anyone. i "There was no plan of any ! discussion of a plan to name a special committee for the pur-j pose of making an investigation j o f the feasibility of the project I of buying the Land & Water com­pany, nor was there any state­ment that the company was pre- I pared to send representatives for I the purpose of exploring or dis-. | cussing .the matter. I ? “ Since June; 1946, I have not I represented the Las Vegas Land | & Water company, except on one I special occasion- which had no J connection with the sale of its business.” "Commissioner B o b e r t T. ! Moore said this morning that a : committee probably would be ap­pointed Wednesday from among I the newly named citizen’s ad- I visory board to study the pro-j posed purchase of the water com- I pahy’s holdings here and that I he felt it was a step in the right I direction. “ Under the provisions of the | city charter and. the franchise I held by the utility, the property may,.,not be sold without the ciy of Las Vegas first being-given | an opportunity to purchase.