Shorter Harry Reid
Okay, since everybody on the left says there’s nothing to the developing Harry Reid land deal story, here’s a Clif’s Notes version, assuming the truth of the CNN version of this story. You tell me in comments if you think this was all innocent.
1) An Arizona developer sought to procure a bunch of federal land on the outskirts of Las Vegas for development in the mid-90’s.
2) Harry Reid, who allegedly never spoke to the Arizona developer, pressured the Department of Interior to sell off the Federal lands to the developer over the course of two years.
3) During that time, a partner of the Arizona developer coughed up $18,000 into Reid’s campaign kitty.
4) Interior relented, and sold the land to the developer.
5) Reid and his lawyer buddy Brown, a casino attorney and lobbyist who is somewhat shady at best, then bought two adjacent parcels of land from the Arizona developer’s partner, for $400k. Cheap land, worth little unless the land was developed.
6) As the Arizona developer went on building his development, Reid sold the land to a new development corporation established by himself and Brown for $400k. Reid did not report the sale of the land to the corporation, and carried it on his disclosure forms each year as still being personally owned.
7) Brown asked the local township to rezone the land so that Brown and Reid’s corporation could develop it. They refused by a 4-1 vote – the rezoning wasn’t consistent with their development master plan.
Brown then went to the County and asked them to overrule the town, stating in open hearing that Senator Reid was his partner in the corporation, and that this was a good reason to rezone. The County agreed.
9) In 2004, Brown and Reid’s company sold the land to another development corporation, and because of the zoning it was worth a lot more money. Reid realized a profit of $700k on the sale.
10) Reid reported this as the sale of personally owned land, not mentioning the company in which he was in partnership with the casino attorney/lobbyist Brown.
Maybe nothing was improper here other than serial failures to disclose the status of the land, or the ownership stake in the corporation, and the nature of the sale; but Reid’s use of his position to influence federal actions on behalf of a developer who subsequently gave Reid a great business opportunity looks really questionable ethically, even if it is legal. The thing that makes it look really bad is Reid’s failure to disclose his business relationship with the sketchy lobbyist/attorney Brown, which makes it look like he didn’t want the Senate Ethics Committee to know about it. It could be innocent but for a guy who passes himself off as a tough, bright attorney, it’s hard to believe he could be so ignorant of the appearance of what he was doing. It looks like an attempt to hide something.
- Entries
