Stratosphere neighbors lose 7-year battle for land

Diana Sahagun

Friday, Nov. 16, 2001 | 9:39 a.m.

For seven years, two property owners near the Stratosphere have fought attempts by the city of Las Vegas to seize their property in the name of redevelopment.

On Thursday their luck ran out, and they now face eviction.

Paul and Laurel Moldon and James and Aileen Crockett have been fighting the city's plans to take their "blighted" property for seven years. After a brief victory in District Court in 1995 -- the court ruled that the city did not follow procedure when it tried to take their property -- the group has received the final blow.

The Nevada Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the District Court decision, ruling that the city was not required to amend its redevelopment plan before taking the properties. The city can now move forward with condemning the properties and, ultimately, turning them over to the Stratosphere.

The battle has left at least one of the members shattered, both financially and physically.

Paul Moldon, who has multiple sclerosis, says his condition has worsened since the legal battle began. As Moldon has waited for a final judgment, the issue has passed the through hands of two mayors -- former Mayor Jan Jones and Mayor Oscar Goodman -- and two owners of the Stratosphere.

Goodman said Thursday that he was grateful a final decision was made, giving the city closure in the case.

An adverse decision, Goodman said, would have required that the city's redevelopment plans be revised each time a project is proposed, slowing down the city's efforts.

In 1994, when the 1,149-foot Stratosphere tower was just a vision in Bob Stupak's mind, the company approached the city about its project, which required the redevelopment agency's acquisition and transfer of 17 parcels to the Stratosphere, including that of the Moldons and Crocketts.

The plan also required the city of Las Vegas to vacate portions of four streets and relocate a park.

In April 1995 the city filed an eminent domain complaint against the Moldon property at 1806 S. Main St., saying it was needed for "redevelopment purposes" and that the agency was unable to reach an agreement with the land owners to purchase the property. The agency filed a similar complaint against the Crocketts, seeking to condemn their 1811 S. Commerce St. property.

The Crocketts argued for the city's complaint to be dismissed, in part because the agency had not amended its redevelopment plan before proceeding with eminent domain. District Court Judge Joseph Pavlikowski dismissed the complaint, stating that the redevelopment plan must be amended and that a public hearing must be held before land can be taken.

Two months later, the Moldons, using the same arguments, filed a similar motion to dismiss. The motion was granted.

The city appealed the dismissals to the Nevada Supreme Court, which ruled Thursday that the redevelopment agency should not be required to amend its plan every time a new project is proposed.

The court's lone dissension came from Justice Bill Maupin, who said that because the redevelopment plans involve the "drastic" steps of condemning private property, "the scope of a redevelopment agency's discretion is critical to the protection of the due process rights of property owners."

Moldon's attorney, Chuck Gardner, said the decision sets a dangerous precedent by allowing the city to move forward with eminent domain without a public hearing. He said that without a formal amendment the neighbors were not told about plans to vacate streets, to move a park or to take people's properties.

"This decision says that if the city wants the building of a casino in your neighborhood, the ripping up of the streets, and the relocation of a park are minor details of a redevelopment plan," Gardner said.

"You need a full public hearing so people know what's happening -- so the City Council has to vote on the final plans."

Moldon said that because of years of uncertainly, his tenants have left, leaving his building vacant. Mounting legal bills, approaching $100,000, have left little money to fix the property.

Moldon is considering appealing the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but is not sure if his pocketbook or health will hold out.

"The added stress has caused my muscular dystrophy to get near the point where I can't walk," Moldon said. "I had some false hope."

Gardner said the case could set a precedent for other landowners fighting the city's use of eminent domain.

Harry Pappas is fighting a similar eminent domain case that involves the city's taking of 7,000 square-feet of his property to make way for the Fremont Street Experience parking garage.

"This kills the Pappas case," Gardner said. "I think (Harry Pappas) lost the big one."