They can fight city hall

      Harry Pappas doesn't look or act much like a student of constitutional law.
      The 43-year-old Las Vegas native drives a Ford Bronco, spends his spare time target shooting in rural Nevada, and complains angrily about women who talk about their toenails.
      But the past three years, studying law -- specifically the area of law governing private property rights -- has been Pappas' obsession.
      Pappas hit the books in 1993, when the city of Las Vegas used eminent domain power to seize a 7,000-square-foot plot of downtown land his family had owned for more than a half-century.
      His land was used to build a $23 million, 1,500-space parking garage for the Fremont Street Experience, the massive neon canopy connecting downtown casino-hotels. The city has since agreed to turn over the garage to the casinos.
      Now, Pappas and his mother, Carol, are suing City Hall to get back their land. And so far, they're winning.
      A Clark County judge last summer agreed with Pappas that the manner in which the city seized his family's property violated numerous state and federal statutes.
      The case is on appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. People on both sides of the lawsuit agree the outcome could determine the fate of downtown Las Vegas and scores of small-property owners who occupy it.
      One might call the case a private property battle royal. The city has spent about $700,000 on outside law firms to prove they acted legally in taking Pappas' and two other downtown landowners' property, including former U.S. Sen. Chic Hecht's. That's in addition to the city's own batch of attorneys it has working on the case.
      Downtown casinos also have brought in their legal army, hiring what's widely regarded as the state's most prestigious firm, Lionel Sawyer & Collins, to take on Pappas and the two constitutional lawyers he's employed on a contingency basis.
      "This is the case for redevelopment," Las Vegas Mayor Jan Jones said.
      The Pappas lawsuit is crucial to Jones' master plan for downtown Las Vegas. She envisions a neatly landscaped urban core full of high-rise office buildings for lawyers, bankers and accountants.
      Tourists turned off by the plethora of cheap motels and pawn shops, Jones predicts, will flock to the revitalized area's entertainment center: the Fremont Street Experience. And thousands of jobs will be created for low-income downtown residents, she hopes.
      If the city is successful fending off Pappas, it would make achieving her vision much easier, Jones said.
      A favorable ruling "really is crucial to the future of downtown," she said. "If we lose, downtown redevelopment will be in serious trouble. And that means more problems for an area that was in danger of dying, and thanks to redevelopment, is starting to make a comeback."
      Critics take a different view of the case. They say a City Hall victory at the Nevada Supreme Court would embolden officials to use eminent domain in the same arbitrary way that Clark County District Court Judge Don Chairez said they did with Pappas, Hecht and Ida Ray, whose property also was taken for the garage.
      "If the city wins, it would open the floodgates for them to abuse eminent domain with no restrictions," said Chuck Gardner, an attorney who successfully challenged the city in another redevelopment case involving the Aztec Inn in June 1995. Chairez rejected the city's Downtown Redevelopment Agency in its attempt to take a parking lot from the Aztec Inn, a small hotel and casino on Las Vegas Boulevard South.
      Claiming eminent domain, the agency had planned to transfer the lot to the Stratosphere next door to the Aztec Inn.
      The city's 9-year-old redevelopment agency had used eminent domain powers on at least 49 previous occasions to obtain property or easements for developers -- and no judge had disapproved.
      Conversely, "if the city loses, it doesn't stop redevelopment," Gardner added. "All it does is say they have to start following the law and treating people fairly."
      Chairez's 65-page ruling said the city broke several state and federal redevelopment statutes. He accused officials of taking Pappas' property without just cause and then handing it over to casinos.
      Chairez said the city never attempted to bargain in good faith with Pappas, or to include his family in plans to improve their building, which was leased to several bail bonds and jewelry shops.
      Eminent domain was used as a first rather than last resort, Chairez added, noting the casinos never made Pappas an offer for his land.
      Jones took issue with Chairez's findings, saying the parking garage clearly is in the public's benefit, a key precondition to using eminent domain.
      "I don't believe the ruling had any legal basis," she said, adding she's confident it will be overturned by the Nevada Supreme Court. "It was bad law."
      Jones said the city didn't break any laws, but added that officials could have handled the Pappas and Hecht cases more sensitively.
      "A lot of this probably could have been avoided if the city had dealt with Mr. Hecht and Mrs. Pappas with more care and respect and a more realistic appraisal of their property value, beyond just the value of their land," Jones said. "I wish I'd been more involved."
      The city originally offered $380,000 for Pappas' property, which was later increased to $480,000.
      Now, Pappas wants at least $7 million for his land near the corner of Las Vegas Boulevard and Fremont Street, which is zoned for unlimited gaming.
      "If they don't want to give us $7 million, we'll just keep the property," he said.
      Jones said that's asking way too much, noting that it's taxpayer money that ultimately will be used to settle with Pappas.
      The Nevada Supreme Court likely will decide the case sometime this year. In the meantime, Pappas, who owns other property throughout Las Vegas, continues his research against the city.
      "This is a very serious deal," he said, sidestepping piles of newspaper clippings and legal documents scattered throughout his westside Las Vegas apartment. "If the Supreme Court rules against me, no one's property is safe."