Judge to rule on Culinary challenge by Friday

An initial court decision in the fight between the city of Las Vegas and the Culinary union is expected Friday, setting the stage for an almost guaranteed appeal while an April 22 election deadline looms ever closer.

The union wants a judge to order Las Vegas to put two measures on the June 2 election ballot. City leaders voted not to do so, citing what they see as a number of legal, practical and constitutional problems with the measures.

Those issues were debated at length this afternoon in District Court, with lawyers for the city arguing that the measures have fatal flaws and the union’s attorney countering that the city is grasping at straws because it fears a public vote.

City Attorney Brad Jerbic actually touched on that concern, noting that Culinary’s size and political strength could mobilize support for the measures, while the city is prohibited from spending tax money to oppose them.

If put before voters, “this is probably going to pass,” he said. “This is probably going to pass without the people knowing what it does, and we’ll be cleaning up the mess the next day.”

One measure is a referendum asking voters to repeal the existing redevelopment plan, which defines blighted areas in and around downtown and provides for incentives to attract development there.

The other, an initiative, would require voter approval for any “lease-purchase” financing deals to build city buildings. That’s the financing method proposed for the controversial new city hall. It also would put voters in charge of adopting or amending any redevelopment plans.

Without the redevelopment plan in place, Jerbic warned that $80 million in existing bond commitments and promised incentives to developers would be in danger of going into default, since development in the plan’s area provides revenue to pay for those commitments.

Even if the measure is later thrown out by courts, the very fact that it makes it onto a ballot, or is approved by voters, would give the city a “black eye” and potentially hurt its bond rating.

“It will send a message to the bondholders that there is instability in the redevelopment agency in Las Vegas,” he said. “There will be consequences, quickly. There will be lawsuits, quickly.”

The city would not have enough money to make up those revenues from other sources, he added.

Richard McCracken, the attorney for Culinary Local 226, scoffed at Jerbic’s doomsday scenario in an exchange with District Judge David Barker.

“There is no risk here,” McCracken said.

“The sky is not falling?” asked the judge.

“The sky is not falling,” McCracken said.

He also said the city is throwing out every legal argument it can think of to see if something sticks.

“They threw the kitchen sink,” he said. “Was this a sincere, principled decision that these laws are so bad? Or was this a city council that didn’t like these measures ... and decided to knock them down?

“The role that the city has seized for itself in this case needs to be rejected.”

McCracken also argued that the referendum wouldn’t scrap redevelopment — it would only give voters more say over future projects.

“It doesn’t say what to put in the plan,” he said. “It does say we want to see what kind of plan you want.”

That misrepresents the measure’s effects, Jerbic insisted in his closing arguments.

“To stand up here and say, 'We meant it to be prospective’ — well, that’s going to do a lot of good in the market,” Jerbic said sarcastically. “If you wanted it to be prospective, you should’ve written it that way.”

Absentee ballots for the municipal election need to start being printed Wednesday, and whatever Barker’s decision is, it’s expected to be appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court immediately.

Mayor Oscar Goodman, who had harsh words for the Culinary union after listening to testimony Wednesday, did not attend today’s hearing. His spokesman said he had a scheduling conflict.

Contact reporter Alan Choate at achoate@reviewjournal.com or 702-229-6435.