Thursday, Sept. 14, 2000 | 10:51 a.m.
When Paul Moldon first began to fight the city's attempt to seize his property five years ago by eminent domain, he strode into court on two sturdy legs and with an air of confidence.
But on Wednesday, when the city of Las Vegas asked the Nevada Supreme Court to overturn a District Court ruling in his favor, Moldon tiredly pushed a wheeled walker and heaved a sigh when taking his seat.
The 60-year-old retired accountant suffers from multiple sclerosis and says the city's numerous requests for extensions to file an appeal have eroded his health.
"When this first happened, I walked in here by myself," Moldon said, pausing to take his medication from the hand of his wife, Laurel. "This has just worn me down."
The Moldons flew to Las Vegas on Tuesday night from Seattle in hopes that the three-justice panel that heard Wednesday's proceedings would be able to see the people behind the disputed half-acre parcel in the shadow of the Stratosphere tower. It's a case that could set a precedent for other landowners fighting the city's use of eminent domain.
"We lost our home," Moldon said. "We don't have the money to pay anybody."
Moldon had rented a small office at 1806 S. Main St. for about 20 years before purchasing it in 1986. He moved a short time later and rented the building to other office tenants.
In 1995 the Stratosphere made Moldon an offer for the property, which he rejected because he thought the offer was too low. Instead of a better offer, Moldon got a notice from the city saying it was using eminent domain to seize the "blighted" property and give it to Stratosphere for expansion plans.
Moldon sued and District Court Judge Joseph Pavlikowski ruled that the city Redevelopment Agency could not seize the property to give it to a casino. The city appealed, but in the ensuing years, the Stratosphere went bankrupt and changed ownership, adding more confusion and time to the case.
On Wednesday attorneys for the city asked the Supreme Court to overturn Pavlikowski's ruling by stating the city's 1986 redevelopment plan should have served as notice to Moldon that his property could be seized for a redevelopment project.
But attorneys for Moldon and for tenants at the building argued the city should have held a public hearing before vacating four streets and removing a park in the area.
"The redevelopment that they were trying to pull off here is not for public use," Moldon's attorney, Chuck Gardner, said.
Justices Nancy Becker and Bill Maupin asked questions seeming to suggest they disagreed in some way with the city's position.
"Because the 1986 plan was just the map, those people have no way of knowing," Becker said.
Harry Pappas, whose family is heading back to court after a failed settlement on a similar eminent domain case involving the city, said the Moldon case "is a hot potato" for the court.
"If they rule for him, well then, that's good for my case," Pappas said after watching Wednesday's proceedings. "If they rule against him, that doesn't bode well for my case."
archive
