Beltway land often yields big payoffs

Adrienne Packer

Wednesday, July 11, 2001 | 10:55 a.m.

As the Las Vegas Beltway has progressed around the valley, Clark County officials have, with relative ease, taken needed property -- mostly belonging to major developers and the federal government -- using eminent domain.

But as construction of the arterial has swung north, the county has encountered a different breed: private residents far less willing to sacrifice their land for the government's offer, an amount the county claims to be the appraised value.

Linda Carson provides the most recent example. The Las Vegas woman was offered $623,000 for six acres at Jones Boulevard and what eventually will be the beltway. She took the county to District Court and walked away with $2.5 million for her vacant desert parcel.

"The county tried to argue that her property wasn't damaged and it had identical value," said Carson's attorney, Jim Leavitt. "They say there's not a whole lot you can do about it. That's what they tell everyone."

Leavitt argued otherwise. He said when the county took Carson's six acres it stripped her of all access to Centennial Parkway and half her access to Jones Boulevard. The action left her with 34 acres -- which once fronted two major thoroughfares and made it ideal for commercial development -- in a wasteland.

The eight-member jury's June decision on the value of Carson's land isn't the greatest discrepancy between county appraisers' reports and those obtained by attorneys.

In a November 2000 case, according to documents provided by Leavitt, who specializes in eminent domain, the county was ordered to pay a property owner with land adjacent to the beltway 25 times the original amount it had offered. His $48,000 offer turned into about $1.2 million.

Bobby Shelton, spokesman for the Clark County Public Works Department, said the county hires an appraiser to ensure it always offers fair market value.

"If a person wants to take us to court and they come up with the best defense, sometimes we win and sometimes we lose," Shelton said.

That is the strategy that Leavitt, partner Kermit Waters and attorney Laura Fitzsimmons claim is typical in the county's land acquisition process.

The attorneys, who have handled the bulk of eminent domain cases related to the beltway, estimate only a small percentage of private land owners have challenged the county's appraised values in court. Many land owners, who live out of state and purchased the land years ago, likely believe the government's offer is generous, the attorneys said.

"Most people don't want to fight the government," Fitzsimmons said. "Most people expect the government to treat them fairly."

Leavitt said that even though the county is being dragged into court and ordered to pay millions more than it initially offered landowners, it still benefits financially.

"If they get hit real hard when we take them to trial it doesn't matter because they've low-balled everyone else," said Leavitt, who listed seven cases this year in which his clients have received, either by jury trial or settlement, significantly more than what was initially offered by the county.

The eminent domain attorneys also question whether the manner in which the county is grabbing land for the 52-mile highway that will circle most of the valley is constitutional. To protect land needed for the roadway from development, the county years ago froze permits and applications on property within 1,100 feet of the beltway alignment.

Property values depreciated over the years because there was no development in the area, Leavitt said. In addition to the decreasing value the county appraised the land as residential, worth as much as seven times less than commercial property.

County officials have argued the land can't be developed as commercial property because there aren't enough homes in the surrounding areas to support businesses.

Deputy District Attorney Stephanie Barker, who handles acquisition cases, did not return phone calls. The district attorneys office was also unable to provide information related to how much the government has been ordered to pay landowners during the past year.

"No one was developing because of the denials; land values decreased because they depressed everything in that area," Leavitt said. "It's blatantly unconstitutional to depress property values in an area and come in later to argue the land isn't worth that much money."

The county's 1996 environmental impact study conducted on the beltway emphasizes the need to keep property values low so the cost of the project won't escalate.

"Because of the rapid development of the study area, the opportunities for corridor designation are diminishing," the report says. "As build-out continues, acquisition costs will rise, conflicts with development will increase and the potential to minimize conflicts will decrease substantially."

Critics of the county's process realize when a government is planning a major highway in a fast-growing area the land must be preserved to make way for the road. Problem is, the county held onto the land for too long, consequently hurting the property owners, Fitzsimmons said.

"They're saying we're going to freeze it, reserve it and pay less; they drove the values," Fitzsimmons said. "The problem is it took too long. We all agree (a beltway footprint) is needed. Why aren't they being straight forward about it?"