by BoB Conrad
Called out On Friday, Dec. 27, The nonprofit newsroom the Center for Public Integrity released a story by reporter Sarah Kleiner and data editor Chris Zubak-Skees regarding an investigation into the charity Law Enforcement Officers Relief Fund based out of Sarasota, Florida. Many people across the country, including here in Nevada, have likely heard from telemarketers soliciting donations for the fund—but according to the CPI investigation, the money of those who’ve given to the fund has mostly been used to pay for more telemarketers. According to story, “the fund is one of several organizations related to the International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO, itself a nonprofit based in Sarasota, Florida, that represents local chapters of police unions across the country. IUPA is one of about 70 affiliates of the national AFL-CIO and touts itself as ‘the only union for law enforcement officers.’” Reporters who investigated the union and relief fund found that between 2011 and March 2018, the organizations had spent about $106.3 million dollars but that “about $82.3 million of that amount—77 percent— paid for fundraising services.” Also according the report, the International Union of Police Associations has a “D-minus” rating from the Better Business Bureau “for failing to respond to 15 complaints against it.” The reporters also discovered that the police union and relief fund have ties to companies in Nevada. Both have contracted with “Courtesy Call, Donor Relations and a handful of other companies owned by Las Vegas telemarketer Richard Zeitlin.” Another telemarketing company the union and fund contract with is Outreach Calling, based in New Jersey and owned by a man named Mark Gelvan. CPI has done extensive investigations on both Zeitlin and Gelvan, as have government regulators. According to the CPI report, “the Federal Trade Commission was investigating whether Zeitlin’s Courtesy Call and Donor Relations companies were ‘engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices,’ but the agency dropped the matter in the fall of 2018, citing an ongoing grand jury investigation in Florida involving the two companies. In 2004, state officials in New York banned Gelvan from fundraising in the state, in part because his solicitors impersonated police officers when they asked for donations.”
Bad pot The Nevada Department of Taxation recently issued an advisory about marijuana that failed state testing. Officials believe the marijuana—in the form of prerolled joints and flower—was sold mostly at locations in southern Nevada between Oct. 5 and Dec. 27, though some was sold at Rise, a dispensary located in Carson City at 135 Clearview Drive. In total, four batches of marijuana failed the testing: Island OG #2 failed yeast and mold testing, Lemon Meringue also failed yeast and mold testing, THC Bomb failed testing for the pathogenic fungus aspergillus flavus, and Zombie Kush failed testing for bile-tolerant gram-negative bacteria and total coliforms. As of press time, there have been no reports of illnesses connected to the marijuana, but state regulators are advising people—especially those with suppressed immune systems—not to use the products.
—Jeri Davis
6 | RN&R | 01.02.20
This empty lot may one day be the site of a 20-story luxury hotel. PHOTO/JERI DAVIS
Down by the river Luxury hotel project raises concerns over removing public input Critics of a luxury hotel project slated to be constructed on the Truckee River said that the Reno City Council’s removal of a shading ordinance removes the public from at least one part of the process for the high-rise to get approved. The shading ordinance was modified in December by the council. The ordinance previously read: “Structures, which exceed 35 feet in height, shall not cast a shadow on residentially zoned property between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. on December 21.” The reason: to discourage large, blank building facades, according to city documents. Prior to the recent ordinance change, the high-rise project would have had to get a special use permit, which would have to be approved by the city’s planning commission. It could then be appealed to the Reno City Council. The public could provide input during that process. Unsurprisingly, council approval to remove the public from the special use
permit process was met with criticism. More than 200 spoke and wrote against the ordinance change. Few were in favor. Councilmembers Naomi Duerr and Jenny Brekhus voted against the change, while other councilmembers said the project is strongly aligned with the region’s need for housing. The ordinance was unnecessary red tape, they said. The project, which boasts to be a oneof-a-kind, 20-story luxury hotel across from Wingfield Park, was opposed by the Trinity Episcopal Cathedral Church on Island Avenue. The high-rise, on a 1.3-acre lot next door to the church, will be one of the tallest built in Reno since the 1990s. The church opposed the tower because of traffic and parking impacts as well as the shade the building would throw over the church’s building. The timing of the ordinance change was also repeatedly noted as being curious: The ordinance change, one of many getting reviewed by the city, was supported by the developer. Attorney Garrett Gordon argued in
favor of the ordinance change on behalf of his client, CAI Investments. “We have to raise that capital, and deploy that capital, by the end of this year,” he told the council in December. “It’s a federal … IRS regulation.” Moreover: “[The ordinance] is for parks and plazas, it’s not for churches,” Gordon explained. “Let’s do a narrow amendment to allow for the density of development in downtown.” City planner Angela Fuss denied that the ordinance change was for this specific project. “There is no specific project that has been submitted to the City of Reno,” Fuss told the City Council. “The impetus for this, among other reasons, was the desire for more housing, the desire for more infill-type development and not sprawl.” However, the project was submitted to the city to be part of the mayor’s “1,000 Homes in 120 Days” campaign. The city’s campaign grants fee deferrals for qualified residential developments. Public commenters cried foul. How could a luxury hotel qualify for fee deferments granted by the “1,000 Homes” campaign? The reason: CAI Investments proposed 46 residential units in the tower. Only those units will be granted fee deferments, according city spokesperson Jon Humbert. “Any permit deferrals would only apply for the housing units, not the retail or hotel components,” he said.
a diffiCult deCision Former Councilmember Dave Aiazzi commented online that he was in favor of the new tower. “This project is already zoned correctly [and the zoning] required no Council oversight,” he said. “The only exception was the shadow ordinance, which I am torn about. Getting rid of the ordinance (which would apply to MANY future projects) allows the developers to change their design, which I hope it won’t do. Every project does not have to directly ‘help the homeless.’ Any project helps people with jobs.” Aiazzi added, however, that he was conflicted about the change in the process. “I will contend that if going through the [special use permit] process is a hindrance to development, it is probably
