Final Supreme Court brief filed in city hall case

Monday, May 18, 2009 | 3:31 p.m.

Las Vegas files petition in city hall dispute (5-11-2009)
Court speeds up city hall case (5-6-2009)
Opponents of city hall file Supreme Court brief (5-4-2009)
LV to Supreme Court: Take your time on city hall decision (4-30-2009)
Opponents of downtown city hall file court brief over election (4-28-2009)
Supreme Court asked to expedite Las Vegas city hall case (4-24-2009)
Appeal notice filed in city hall fight (4-23-2009)
Culinary-city case crawls way to state high court (4-23-2009)
Judge rules against Culinary Union over ballot questions (4-17-2009)
Goodman makes his (public) entrance (4-16-2009)
City, Culinary make final arguments; Friday ruling likely (4-16-2009)
Theatrics ahead in city’s legal battle with Culinary (4-16-2009)
City, Culinary bring redevelopment fight to District Court (4-15-2009)

CARSON CITY – The Las Vegas City Council is worried that its “development at all costs” strategy will be rejected by voters if the city hall construction question is put on the municipal election ballot, according to attorneys representing groups opposed to the project.

The Las Vegas Taxpayer Accountability Committee and the Las Vegas Redevelopment Reform Committee have filed their final brief in their Nevada Supreme Court appeal to place the issue on the June 2 ballot.

The brief, signed by attorney Paul More, said there is still time for the court to put the initiative petition and referendum signed by 14,000 voters on the city election ballot. Or the court could extend the deadline for voting.

The groups, backed by the Culinary Union, say the council is using “illegitimate and undemocratic grounds” to interfere with the constitutional rights of people to vote on this city hall project, says the brief submitted Monday.

The court can back the ruling of District Judge David Barker that the initiative petition and referendum are legally defective and they should not be placed on the ballot. It could also decide to put the issue before voters on the municipal election ballot or possibility schedule a special election.

The supporters of the city hall project in the downtown area say it would cost $150 million but opponents put the cost at $267 million.

The city council approved plans for the project and opponents want a chance to put the issue before the voters.

More says, “The council’s opposition to these measures boils down to politics. The council does not want to hear from its own constituents on these important issues.”

There is only one election race on the city election ballot and city officials say it would cost an additional $450,000 to include the question before the voters.

More says the city council is not worried about the added cost because it “has likely spent more than those additional costs by hiring prominent lawyers to argue its case.”

If the initiative and the referendum were unconstitutional, the council could file suit after the results of the election to have them stopped, said the opponents of the city hall.

More says the initiative sets up a policy for voter approval of all appropriations over $2 million on lease-purchase agreements to construct or remodel city buildings.

More said the city council sees itself as “the guardian of the ballot box.” The council assumes it has the authority to block measures from public vote that are contrary to their actions, he said.

“This usurpation of the judiciary is a recipe for election chaos, as this case demonstrates,” said the brief. “It should be forcefully rejected.”

Discussion: 1 comment so far…

By sheckyvegas

5/18/09 at 4:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

More and the Culinary are right. It's irresponsible to fund an obvious blight of a project. The current City Hall functions perfectly well. A restructuring of filing procedures and better background checks on hired staff would eliminate a lot of problems there. If Goodman and the council want to blow their wad on something that would benefit the construction unions and the Culinary, put the funds to building affordable housing near Fremont Street. And NOT one of those goddamn 40-story million-dollar condo monstrosities. Just basic one- to two-story family housing. Clean up streets, yards, sewer systems, electrical housing,... hell, people might think the local government is doing something worthwhile for a change.