Casino news source: Las Vegas Sun - http://www.lasvegassun.com
Judge dismisses lawsuit over controversial Sparks casino
RENO, Nev. (AP) - A judge has dismissed a lawsuit seeking to block a controversial settlement that allowed a neighborhood casino backed by developer Harvey Whittemore to move forward in Sparks.
Washoe County District Judge Jerome Polaha ruled Friday in favor of Peppermill Casinos and Whittemore's Red Hawk Land Co., which plan to build the Lazy 8 resort along the Pyramid Highway in Spanish Springs Valley.
The ruling went against John Ascuaga's Nugget hotel-casino and a group of citizens. They maintain the settlement allowed the city of Sparks and developers to circumvent zoning regulations.
"This is a complete vindication of our position all along," said Lazy 8 spokesman Carlos Vasquez. `It's a shame that the Whittemore family had to go through this. We are glad the right thing finally happened. We are excited about bringing this exciting project to the citizens of Sparks."
Stephen Peek, a lawyer for the Nugget and citizens, criticized the ruling.
"The process was manipulated to induce procedural technicalities and deny the citizens of Sparks a legal remedy," he told the Reno Gazette-Journal. "We continue to maintain that proper public process is paramount."
Roy Adams, a citizen who joined the lawsuit, said he was discouraged that the judge did not hear arguments of the case.
"We just want a legal review of this thing," he said. "That's all we've ever wanted. Obviously, the land is not zoned for nonrestricted gaming. Someone has to take a look at this."
The Sparks City Council voted against the Lazy 8 last August, leading developers to sue the city for $100 million. The city settled the lawsuit a week later by allowing Whittemore and Peppermill to continue with the project.
The settlement - first approved in a secret meeting and later during a public vote - essentially reversed the council vote.
The lawsuit by the Nugget and citizens says the developers' suit was "trumped up," and the City Council members didn't fully consider their legal options. The agreement also circumvented a required master plan amendment, the complaint says.
Plaintiffs sought an independent judicial review of the settlement, and wanted to reinstate the council's 3-2 vote against the casino.
"The city and city attorney could have handled the matter differently and saved a lot of concern and aggravation, but what they did they had a right to do," Polaha wrote in his ruling.
Polaha said he was concerned that hearing the case would "fly in the face" of an earlier settlement between Red Hawk and the city that was signed by another judge.
The project still needs minor design approvals from the city, and probably won't break ground this year, Vasquez said. |
|
