City condemnation feud continues

Wednesday, July 12, 2000 | 11:33 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court has handed the Las Vegas Downtown Redevelopment Agency another setback in its continuing battle over the condemnation of land to make way for the Fremont Street Experience.

The court Tuesday refused to reconsider its prior ruling dismissing the redevelopment agency's appeal in the legal fight that has lasted seven years.

Former District Judge Don Chairez had ruled the redevelopment agency didn't have the power to condemn Pappas family property seized to make way for the Fremont Street Experience garage.

The agency appealed to the Supreme Court, but the court in March said the appeal was premature because there were counterclaims by the Pappas family still pending in District Court.

The redevelopment agency asked for a rehearing on the March decision, but on Tuesday the court responded, "These counterclaims remain pending and must be resolved prior to an appeal of the District Court's order dismissing appellant's (redevelopment agency) eminent domain complaint."

The Pappas family counterclaims seek an undisclosed amount of money.

Still pending before the Supreme Court is the issue of which judge in Southern Nevada will hear the counterclaims case.

District Judge Mark Denton disqualified himself, citing receipt of $3,000 in campaign contributions from four casinos that benefited from the downtown Fremont Street Experience.

He said he could be unbiased but bowed out because of an appearance of prejudice.

The redevelopment agency wants Denton to remain on the case. The Pappas family is backing Denton's decision to recuse himself.

Attorneys for the city and the redevelopment agency say the property was appraised at $500,000 and the agency offered the family four times that amount. But Carol Pappas and her two sons, John and Harry, in their countersuit claim the mother lost her source of income for seven years because the city took immediate occupancy of the property.

That case was argued in June and the court has not indicated when there would be a decision.