Fremont attraction ban on peddling goes before judge

Monday, Feb. 23, 1998 | 10:08 a.m.

RENO -- An attorney for the city of Las Vegas told a federal judge there would be a "devastating" financial impact on the city if a preliminary injunction is issued permitting begging and the handing out of literature in the downtown Fremont Experience.

But a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union said it was only "conjecture" that millions of dollars would be lost if people were able to solicit money and distribute leaflets.

U.S. District Judge David Hagen heard arguments Friday on the petition by the ACLU for the injunction against a Las Vegas ordinance in a " free-speech" case and he said he will rule later.

The ACLU filed suit last year challenging the ordinance and have asked for a preliminary injunction to stop its enforcement pending a hearing.

Hagen aggressively questioned the attorneys for both sides but did not give any indication how he would rule. But at one point, he asked ACLU lawyer Mark Lopez what was the urgency in issuing an injunction now, since two years have gone by since the Fremont Street Experience opened.

Lopez replied, "Every day that goes by is a day my clients are deprives of their rights."

But William Henry, a deputy city attorney for Las Vegas, said an injunction would be a "hardship" on the city and its citizens. The city borrowed $50 million to help finance the project and the bond is being paid off from room taxes.

At present the city is taking in 120 percent of what it takes to pay off the bonds. But he suggested that allowing solicitation of money and handing out of pamphlets would drive tourists away.

If the city lost 20 percent in room taxes, that would mean there wouldn't be enough to pay off the bonds, he said.

In addition, he said, the loss would discourage a proposed $100 million addition and a $40 million Nevada State Bank building in Las Vegas.

But Lopez said there was no judicial precedent that the First Amendment rights of people can be suppressed to accommodate economic interests.

Lopez said the Fremont Experience can be considered a public forum, which consists of streets, sidewalks and parks. And he said the creation of a pedestrian mall "does not give the authority to cut off speech."

Lopez argued that lawyers for the Fremont Experience have conceded that it would be legal to have demonstrations, picketing and tables to gather signatures on petitions. "When the defendants conceded there could be other protests and activities, they shot themselves in the foot," he said.

But Todd Bice, attorney for the Fremont Experience, said this has to be operated like a commercial venture and not have people begging for money or handing out things.

He said he did not see the urgent need for an injunction because this project has operated since 1994. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo. But the ACLU, Bice said, is "trying to reverse the status quo."