"McCarran officials accused of misleading statements"

Monday, June 16, 2003 

McCarran officials accused of misleading statements
By Richard N. Velotta 
THE LAS VEGAS (NV) SUN


An attorney for a Clark County property owner who won a $13 million judgment
against McCarran International Airport purchased two full-page
advertisements in newspapers in Las Vegas and Reno accusing airport
officials of trying to influence Nevada Supreme Court justices when they
rule on McCarran's appeal.

The ads ran in the joint edition of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Las
Vegas Sun on Sunday and in the Reno Gazette-Journal June 8.

In the ads, Las Vegas attorney Kermitt Waters accused airport executives of
"planting" a story in the May 28 edition of the Las Vegas Sun that made
"false and misleading statements" regarding an eminent domain case involving
property owner Tien Fu Hsu.

Hsu owns 38 acres on Tropicana Avenue on the north end of McCarran's
parallel north-south runways but was restricted from developing buildings
higher than 35 feet because of a height-restriction ordinance adopted by the
Clark County Commission.

Hsu took the county to court and won the $13 million judgment, but the
county appealed. That appeal is scheduled to be heard in Carson City on June
25.

Randy Walker, Clark County's director of aviation, said the judgment on the
Hsu case and another to a second property owner, Steve Sisolak, who was
awarded a $6.5 million judgment in March, was alarming enough to notify
airlines of a potential impact on fees at McCarran.

A Southwest Airlines executive told Walker in a letter that if fees are
raised dramatically to pay court-awarded damages, Southwest said "service
disruptions" could result at McCarran.

Bob Montgomery, vice president of property and facilities for Southwest and
the chairman of an airline committee at McCarran, recommended that the
airport appeal the judgments and fight other similar pending lawsuits.

The advertisement that appeared in Sunday's edition of the Review-Journal
and the Sun explained Hsu's case from his perspective and was paid for by
Waters' office, the ad said.

"On May 28, 2003, Clark County and McCarran International Airport planted a
newspaper article in the Las Vegas Sun which made blatantly false and
misleading statements regarding an eminent domain case brought by the law
offices of Kermitt L. Waters on behalf of landowner Tien Fu Hsu," the ad
said. "The intent of this full-page ad is to present the truth regarding Mr.
Tsu's case and rebut the misrepresentations found in the article planted by
the Clark County Airport Authority."

The ad listed two primary concerns with McCarran's position. It said
McCarran officials believe Hsu's claim is baseless because it is the first
of its kind and that a favorable decision to Hsu would economically
devastate the airport.

The ad said 10 other states have adopted rules similar to those in Nevada
and some have had rulings similar to those reached in court in the Hsu case.

The ad also said the airport's estimate that the economic impact of a
decision favorable to Tsu would cost nearly $2 billion are exaggerated.

When the Sun published the May 28 story, Waters' office was contacted for a
comment but calls were not returned. Attorneys representing other similarly
affected landowners commented and Sisolak, a member of the state Board of
Regents, was interviewed.

Las Vegas attorney Laura FitzSimmons, who represented Hsu in his original
case, Sisolak, and two properties with similar height-restriction concerns
-- Vacation Village and Alexis Park -- said McCarran rejected settlement
proposals from her clients.

She questioned the timing of McCarran's disclosure of the impact the
judgments would have on the airport's finances, but Walker said it was
brought up after Southwest Airlines expressed its concern over the
possibility of the airport increasing fees.

Walker, contacted after the Waters ad appeared in the Reno newspaper last
week, said he has enough faith in the legal system that the Nevada Supreme
Court would rule on the appeal based on the law, not on comments reported in
the media or in ads from an attorney.

"The claim that we planted this article is baseless," Walker said. "If I was
that smart, I would have planted it in January. Oral arguments on the appeal
were supposed to occur in February, but they were delayed."

Walker said he felt Waters placed the advertisements in an effort to protect
what he stands to make in the case. He added that the judgment in the Hsu
case isn't what worries him -- it's the precedent that is a concern.

"If it becomes the law of the land, that could hurt us," Walker said. 


 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dc/dcboard.php

*****************************************