Open Space Land For Park Or Turned To Concrete?

Eminent Domain Laws Challenged -- Washoe Park Now At Risk

by Johnny Gunn

Is it an outrageous and abusive use of eminent domain, as some have said, or is it a maybe last opportunity to create a wildland park for future generations? Washoe County wants to use eminent domain to acquire the old Ballardini Ranch in south Reno, but the company that bought the ranch land at the base of the Sierra Nevada wants to turn parts of the property into homes and streets. Both sides were working toward a possible compromise when a Las Vegas legislator jumped into the fray with a bill to change eminent domain law in Nevada.

Washoe County says they have been following a 1951 Supreme Court ruling that allows political entities to acquire property by way of eminent domain for such things as public parks. Originally, Evans Creek, LLC, owners of the Ballardini Ranch talked about building 2,000 homes on the property, but just recently has reduced that figure to less than 200 homes.

Washoe County Manager Katy Singlaub says that could open the door to possible compromise, but legislation offered by Senator Terry Care (D-Las Vegas) will change that possibility. Care introduced SB 326, which according to experts takes away eminent domain authority for just one piece of ground. Care's proposal would prevent a government authority from using eminent domain to get property for open space use, or for "protecting, conserving, or preserving wildlife habitat." In essence, the bill is directed specifically at stopping Washoe County from acquiring the Ballardini Ranch.

Coupled to the Ballardini question is the acquisition of land years ago by the city of Las Vegas to develop the Fremont Experience. According to those who have studied the bill, there is a section that would be retroactive, and whether it would affect the downtown Las Vegas project or not, it definitely would stop the Ballardini project.

Andrew Barbano in his web based "Barbwire" said "The effect of the bill will be to pave over Washoe County's last chance to have a Central Park." The Ballardini Ranch is 1,000 acres in size and features rolling hills, existing trails, forest areas, and adjoins national forest land. Washoe County residents voted overwhelmingly in favor of the acquisition and park.

Barbano says, "This is bald-faced special interest legislation." Barbano believes that representatives of the ranch's owners helped Senator Care write the legislation. Care was quoted on KRNV, Channel 4 in Reno that Care's purpose in the legislation is to scuttle Washoe County's acquisition of the ranch.

Speaking with vigor, Barbano says, "In other words, more parking garages will still be cool if you file the right paperwork, but bears, birds, and bunnies be damned." In 2000, voters approved $4 million for acquisition of the ranch. There had been plans for about $16.5 million in federal money to help with preservation of the ranch land but they fell through.

Steve Walther, a Reno based attorney representing Protect Our Washoe (www.protectourwashoe.org) has written, "It (the ranch) is a pristine piece of our natural heritage that must not be lost." Since the ranch butts up to the Toiyabe National Forest and opens up vast tracts of wildland, Walther says, "Its wildlife refuge characteristics and access to federal land offer community assets that we can't afford to squander."

A nearby property owner, Steve Mestre says most of the valley has been paved over already, and this is a last chance to save something good. "We're down to the last," he says. "They have literally developed the whole valley."

Despite the overwhelming support by Washoe County voters, not everyone is in favor of the project. The Nevada Policy Research Institute (NPRI) has not been in favor of governments taking land for projects that aren't in the public's best interest. They are supporting a bill offered by Assemblyman William Horne (D-Las Vegas).

Called AB 143, the bill seems to answer some of the Fremont Street questions but without the ban on acquisition of open space. According the Horne, the bill is targeted at redevelopment projects, not parks, opens space, and wildlife.

While Senator Care is the limited and primary sponsor of SB 326, Assemblyman Horne has 30 Assembly members and 12 Senators as co sponsors of AB 143. This leaves the possibility that Senator Care might withdraw his proposal in favor of Assemblyman Horne's.

None of the proposals actually answer the base question of eminent domain. Is it fair? Is it a right that government should really have? When tied to a special assessment district, is it just another way of foisting a new tax on citizens and property owners? Using the Ballardini Ranch as an example, when Evans Creek, LLC purchased the ranch from the Ballardini family, and they paid more than $8 million, didn't they expect to develop the property in order to make a profit? Isn't that what free enterprise is all about in the first place?

The answer to that has to be yes, and from a pure business point of view, that should be their right. Washoe County on the other hand offered Evans Creek $20 million for the ranch. That is well over twice what they paid and would seem to be a nice little profit. How does it stack up against their original plan to build more than 2,000 homes?

Even with their new plans for slightly less than 200 high-end homes, the profit margin offered by the county is just a bit slim in today's volatile real estate market.

Despite the legislation offered by Senator Care and Assemblyman Horne, the question of eminent domain is something that is already before the courts. Washoe County is using a ruling from half a century ago, and Evans Creek wants the court to address the question again.

Many that we talked with are under the impression the question of eminent domain should be answered in the court not in knee jerk legislation. For further reading on land acquisition in Nevada, this edition of The Nevada Observer has an article on some Clark County acquisitions that are being investigated at the local, state, and federal level.

•••