A Tale of Neglect, Fines, and a County's Last Stand

In Clark County, where the air is hot, the land is dry, and the rent is always too high, a curious phenomenon took hold: landlords discovered that it was far more convenient to let their buildings rot into the ground than to lift so much as a finger to repair them.

This week, county officials made the arduous trek to the statehouse, where they regaled lawmakers with tales of substandard living conditions so harrowing that even the most indifferent property owner might feel a twinge of shame—if, of course, shame were still in stock at the general store.

The trouble, it seems, is that the law allows landlords to pay a fine instead of making repairs, which is like giving a burglar the option of paying a small toll rather than ceasing his trade. Assembly Bill 211, now under consideration, proposes a novel approach: instead of shutting down the buildings and sending hundreds of tenants into the desert to find shelter under sagebrush and discarded mattresses, a third party could step in and force the repairs.

Assemblymember Venicia Considine, the bill’s sponsor, painted a picture that would tug at even the hardest of hearts. There were seniors trapped in their homes due to months-long elevator failures, apartment complexes crawling with health code violations, and, in one particularly grisly case, a pool so neglected that it became the final resting place for untold numbers of unfortunate feral cats.

Clark County Chair Tick Segerblom described the maddening process of trying to persuade a landlord—presumably through pleading, cajoling, and sternly worded letters—to fix a 200-unit building, only to be met with the landlord’s steadfast refusal. “I have 200 people in a building that actually can be fixed,” he lamented, “and the landlord refuses to fix it and refuses to do anything.”

Opposition to the bill, naturally, came from the Nevada State Apartment Association, whose representatives cautioned that property owners must have “due process” and a “reasonable opportunity” to correct violations. One might suppose that multiple notices, months of inaction, and desperate pleas from tenants qualify as “reasonable opportunity,” but the reason is often a scarce commodity in the landlord trade.

For now, the committee has taken no action, leaving the fate of AB 211—and the residents of these crumbling tenements—in limbo. Whether the law will shift in favor of human decency or continue to bend toward the comfort of absentee landlords remains to be seen.