County won’t pursue casino

Monday, March 20, 2000 | 11:11 a.m.

County Commission Chairman Bruce Woodbury said he does not want the county to appeal a state panel's denial of a casino planned for the Spring Valley area.

While that decision is up to the district attorney's office, Woodbury said the district attorney will likely seek the commission's approval for any appeal.

Attorneys for Triple Five Nevada Development Corp., the company that applied to build the Spring Valley casino, and Boyd Gaming Corp., the company that wants to buy the proposed casino, promised an appeal to state or federal courts.

But they should do so without the county's backing, Woodbury said.

The state review panel on Friday dealt a solid blow to the casino backers, rejecting the proposal 5-0.

The decision makes further casinos outside of established gaming districts unlikely in the unincorporated area. Commissioners Woodbury and Yvonne Atkinson Gates also have proposed an ordinance that would make it very difficult to develop casinos outside those districts.

Commissioners Lance Malone and Dario Herrera also back the proposed ordinance.

The Friday decision closed the latest chapter on the issue in the first-ever test of a state law, Senate Bill 208, which was designed to limit the spread of casinos away from established gaming districts in the Las Vegas Valley.

The Clark County Commission in January approved the casino, proposed in the heart of a 100-acre shopping center at Grand Canyon Drive and Flamingo Road. The approval sparked an organized citizens movement to stop the project, threats of tougher state laws to stop neighborhood gaming and the Woodbury-Atkinson Gates proposal to make it even tougher to build new "neighborhood" casinos.

"I feel good. I feel that the process has worked," said Charles Richardson, a Spring Valley resident who would live just a few blocks from the proposed casino and 300-room, eight-story hotel. "It shows that democracy still works in Las Vegas, regardless of who is the big guy.

"The law's intent was really upheld," he said. "David can still slay Goliath. It shows what citizens banding together can accomplish."

All five panel members agreed that the casino backers failed to meet two critical tests within the 1997 law -- that a new casino not unduly affect the quality of life or the "health, safety and general welfare" of the surrounding community.

Panel members, including Chairman Brian Sandoval, noted that the law -- and courts up to the U.S. Supreme Court -- has failed to define "quality of life."

But on the health, safety and welfare of the community, Sandoval said the reports by consultants hired by Triple Five during the original application process did not meet the high burden of "clear and convincing" evidence that the casino would not affect the surrounding community.

Garry Hayes, attorney for Citizens of Spring Valley, said an appeal based on the vagueness of "quality of life" might have had a chance. But the health, safety and general welfare section of the decision "seals it," he said.

Triple Five and Boyd Gaming will have to prove that the panel acted in an "arbitrary and capricious manner" to throw the decision out, Hayes said, a tough job in state District Court. The casino backers could also appeal in federal court on property-rights grounds, he said.

Mark Fiorentino, attorney for Triple Five, said his side is almost certain to appeal. A decision on which court to bring the issue to will wait until the panel issues a written decision, he said.

Boyd Gaming President Don Snyder, who attended the hearing, said the panel's interpretation of the "quality of life" provision in SB208 could halt virtually all development of new casinos outside gaming districts included in the law.

The law "is not meant to be a prohibition to gaming," Snyder said. The panel's interpretation could mean that one person could hold veto power over any proposed casino, he said.

The panel decision will set a strong precedent, said Dr. Dayananda Prabhu Rachakonda, a member of the review panel.

"From now on, no one will actually think of establishing a new casino without resolving all the issues," he said.

Fiorentino disagreed. He said the precedent will have to be set by the courts.